national

Australia to take Japan to int'l court over whaling

528 Comments

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

© Wire reports

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

528 Comments
Login to comment

At last some action instead of just threatening to do it. Oh wait, there's an election coming up in Aus now isn't there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good. I hope they win.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Antarctic Ocean is not Australia's territorial waters and the Japanese are hunting Minke whale which by all means is a very large and sustainable population.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

NihonRyu, japanee cannot ban Aussie products by law. japanse may boycott after media and government propaganda instructs thm to, and the sheep will obey as ever against the beastly foreigners.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mrsynik, indeed there is an election. Fulfilling their promise from the last one looks like a populist play by the Aussie Labor party. I think they are almost certain to lose the case, but losing it and destroying the anti-whaling movement is probably regarded by them as "worth it" if it will help them get re-elected for another term. I think they know that deep down, no one really cares about a little whaling.

NihonRyu, we have nothing to worry about. Japan will smash Australia in court, and finally the western anti-whaling drones who have been fed full of anti-whaling propaganda for the last 30 years will have the facts laid bare to them. No need to ban Aussie beef - just don't eat the stinky, rotting filth (that's what I do).

The Antarctic Ocean is not Australia's territorial waters and the Japanese are hunting Minke whale which by all means is a very large and sustainable population.

... and in accordance with Article VIII of the ICRW, a convention to which Australia too is adhered and should therefore accept and abide by.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

david -- Your comment that "they know deep down, no one really cares about a little whaling" is patently absurd. In fact, as you well know, the people in many countries do care, hence the ban on commercial whaling, which Japan is trying to skirt. Or did you forget about the ban?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well...if Aussies are doing that I will start to boycott all Aussie products from now on. I don't care who is right or wrong about some whales, I care that it is in Japan where I earn mine and my family's livelihood, and I will support them by every means...that's that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

herefornow - people care about species getting driven to extinction.

Whaling does not cause extinction. Over-exploitation causes extinction.

No one cares about a little exploitation. Australia catches "critically endangered" (IUCN Red List category) fish for export to Japan for profits, and they love it. So they obviously don't have a problem with a little whaling, deep down. Only on the shallow shallow surface.

The "ban" (temporary moratorium) came about because enough people were fooled into thinking that extinctions were going to occur.

These days everyone knows that there are heaps of Antarctic minke whales and a little whaling isn't going to change that.

It's 2010. Not 1970. Let's get with the programme.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo, as usual whrn the argument is lost you refer to making posts in poor taste, yawn...

roughneck, so as long as you are making money, pronciples come second, haha.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

stevecpfc: It is called loyalty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

roughneck, if in your world money equals loyalty, then you do not know the meaning of the world. I pity people who beacom upset about this for their small mindness. japan is prosecuting a SS member, but where NZ people coming here saying "boycott Japanese products" the regular right wing extremists would be up in arms.

I am loyal to my home country roughneck, but will not support them or any other nation because it benefits my socially.

Looks like money talks for our regular whale eating Japanophiles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This action technically undermines the Antarctica charter since for the Australians to make any claim that Japan is violating international treaties them must first claim their sovereign rights over the disputed region as their EEZ.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

stevecpfc at 10:48 AM JST - 28th May NihonRyu, japanee cannot ban Aussie products by law. japanse may boycott >after media and government propaganda instructs thm to, and the sheep >will obey as ever against the beastly foreigners.

Sure they can. They can cut imports from any country they choose to just like they did with North Korea. But in the case of Austalia they won't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All of you threatening to boycott Australian products in Japan, please go ahead. You are only hurting yourselves. Australia produces 200% of it's needs and there are plenty of other countries ready to take up the slack. People seem to be missing the point of this application. It is purely to stop Japan pissing in the face of the rest of the world by hunting whales for food uner the guise of research. And, because Japan has failed miserably to provide any relevant data to support their 'research' in twenty years of doing so they have effectively shot themselves in the foot. Shut the liars down!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Patrick Smash: Yeah, but this is not research whaling, and everyone knows it. Aus can win the case quite easily by proving Japan's program has nothing to do with research.

Anyone with google and a few seconds to spare can find examples of Australia doing research fishing, using the same methodology, for the same ends. Certainly enough to knock that argument out of the water.

case in point (one of thousands) http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/8092/

The fact that Japan is following the IWC charter will make it even harder for Australia to use that argument.

Australia's going to have a very hard time with this one. Getting a body to hear the case will be difficult enough, given that Australia is attempting to bypass an existing dispute mechanisim at the IWC.

Looking forward to more detail on the case, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree that this action by the Rudd government is politically motivated aimed at their elections. Intersting that they declared "by November" and pulled this in May. Not that it matters since Australia does not have a good case at all since Japan's defense is going to be the fact that they are abiding completely by the IWC regulations, and organization to which Australia is a member. I also believe that is their effort to establish juriusdiction over the AAT they are going to predjudice their own claim. Finally, it will be a losing action that will take years to conclude, during which time the IWC will undoubtedly have voted in new regulations making this action pointless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is great news!!! Thanks Autralia for taking Japan to the Int'l court over this. Shame on Japan for insisting on killing these beautiful creatures and shame on all who are supporting these killers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Might be a chance that the ICJ tells Australia to sort it out within the IWC, as they are the legal authority in this matter.

As was said the AAT is only recognised by 5 countries(3 are commonwealth countries and one is a whaling nation themselves). So there is not much legal ground to proof their claim that the area is theirs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Patrick Smash at 11:50 AM JST - 28th May Yeah, but this is not research whaling, and everyone knows it. Aus can >win the case quite easily by proving Japan's program has nothing to do >with research.

I disagree completely, It would be foolish for Australia to try and win on those grounds because the Japanese are abiding completely with the IWC Article VIII rules regarding Scientific Permits, including consuming the whales as required.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

****I quess it is just a matter of coincidence that there is an election comming up......lol polititions....they are just like diapers....they are always full of it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sustainability is the key. I don't mind Japan whaling as long as it's sustainable and humane. And it doesn't stop at whales.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Western nation used to kill thousand of these whales for their oil.. Japan only kill hundreds for their meat and Western nation cry like a small baby..Who care if they will go extinct! Its not like we can see them everyday.. Even if they go extinct, life will go on as usual.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KSB1978.

Fully agree.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noirgaijin: If Japan were to begin breeding Whales or dolphins soley for consumption, I can imagine the uproar by the Aussies. lol... So are you suggesting that we set-up huge pens in the open waters off our coast and breed dolphins and whales just for consumption? Is that really more humane than taking small populations from sustainable populations in the wild?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"If Japan were to begin breeding Whales or dolphins soley for consumption, I can imagine the uproar by the Aussies. lol... "

This is where you're wrong. If Japan attempted farming these animals, it would be lot harder to complain, protest. When they are taking it from the wild, it's same as they are killing the creatures we want to preserve, and that is the biggest issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo, you seem to have contradicted yourself yet again! You state that no one cares about whaling, but also state that the Aus gov is only doing this because of an election? First off I believe they are just following through with a promise made before the last election, which they won. Secondly why would they risk taking a trading partner to court before an election if no one cares? In fact I remember reading an Australian article during the last whaling season stating from a poll taken that 98% of Australians opposed whaling, esp in Antarctic waters.

OssanAmerica, if it truely was about research then why did Japan refuse to join a research program funded by Aus, NZ, & Sth American countries, & approved by the IWC,(unlike Japanese hunts), in the Antarctic that is non-lethal. If we are so interested in research surely we would have loved to be part of such a project?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i have no problem with killing whales for eating them. The point is if what Japan is doing is legal or not. It seems to be legal.

You need to change the laws if you don't like what they are doing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

True. They are whaling for scientific purposes. But are they doing scientific research on the hundreds of whales they catch? Highly unlikely. Maybe a few and then the remaining hits the market for consumption. Perhaps monitoring human cunsumption of whale meat is considered "scientific research" and that`s how they get away with it. Hope Australia is successful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ksb1978 - sustainabilty is the point. After twenty years of Japan's "cough" research they have failed to provide any conclusive data showing the sustainabilty of hunting whales as a sustainable food source. Hence, Australia's application to stop this farce.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I like the fact that it will be a court case rather than a popularity contest, whereby Japan has bribed countries to vote with it.

One reason the USA, Australia, NZ, UK...etc (most of the world) have not counter-bribed countries to vote for their opinion is because in a court of law this will be significant. I can just see Japan arguing "but the IWC voted..." and the Judge saying "but only because you bribed them... how dodgy is that!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The usual suspects repeat their usual refrain of 'It's all legal and above board, legitimate scientific research as authorized by the IWC, bleat bleat bleat.'

Other (and in some cases the same) usual suspects point out that 'the Japanese are hunting Minke whale which by all means is a very large and sustainable population'.

Those two arguments clearly contradict each other. Whether the population is large and sustainable is not an argument in favour of the present 'scientific research', and if the population is 'by all means' large and sustainable then there is no need to conduct any further research to determine the size of the population.

Either way the purpose of the present hunt is demonstrably not 'research' but hunting for the table, and as such goes against the IWC rules about Scientific Permits. (Thus much was acknowledged on yesterday's Super Morning TV programme, when the presenters and panel all agreed it would be better if Japan could hunt whales どうどうと (which roughly translates as 'unashamedly', 'fair and square', 'in a dignified manner', and suggests that the present hunt is shameful, dishonourable and undignified) instead of having to use the pretense of scientific research, since everyone knows the whales are taken for the primary purpose of putting them on plates.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The Japanese are ... pretending their motivation is scientific research, which it obviously is not"

It is.

You can't proove that it isn't. "Obviously" isn't a proof. "I know that, you know that, everyone knows that" is also not a proof (that's a big lie too!)

If the court agrees, the scientific research guise will be blown.

Yeah... but the court case will exist in reality, not in your imagination. In reality, the court will consider relevant stuff, like the reports from the Scientific Committee commending Japan's research, and so on.

At which point your case is screwed,

Then what?

That's a question you should be asking yourself.

Japan leaves the IWC perhaps and resumes commercial whaling?

That might be about to happen anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia has a strong case simply because Japan has failed to provide the data to match their research. However, if Australia does win the case it will only result in Japan dropping out of the IWC and resuming commercial whaling regardless. Obviously, this is why the Japanese Gov are not concerned by this action. This will give them the opportunity they want. To get out of the IWC and hunt whales freely. I hope they do cos it will mean the end of this farce and the beginning of a whole new brand of whale wars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Right or wrong killing whales to eat aside even the pro whalers and Japanese know there is no science in Japanese whaling it is 99% for the meat to eat. This is the key point nothing more nothing less.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In a joint statement issued by Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, Environment Minister Peter Garrett and Attorney-General Robert McClelland, the government said it will lodge a formal application at the International Court of Justice in The Hague early next week.

Yes, Garrett, McClleland and Smith will razzle-dazzle the Australian 'greens' with this one.... It is an election year after all.

The conservative folks and people-who-don't-care just have to bear with 'em :|

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo; "The Japanese are ... pretending their motivation is scientific research, which it obviously is not"

It is."

Then why did we not join other Southern hemisphere nations, Aus, NZ, & Sth American countries in the recent IWC approved non-lethal scientific study in Antarctic waters? Because as you say it is all about 'research', would this not have been a great opportunity to do some legitimate research, with the support of the IWC, & other nations, & in doing so get them onside by showing we are interested in research, not just food culture?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Would love to see you lot in a pub with this in deep discussion.... I would referee and pour beers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man am I having dejavu or do i see this headline like every few months but nothing happens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Odd that this article leaves out information that is in the AP article over on MSNBC.com

For example: "A panel of lawyers and conservationists reported to the Australian and New Zealand governments last year that Japanese whaling in the Antarctic could be stopped if Japan were held accountable for dumping waste and for undertaking hazardous refueling at sea. The Canberra Panel said that activity violates the 46-member Antarctic Treaty System, to which Japan belongs."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37389790/ns/technology_and_science-science/#storyContinued

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wonder what is Norway's stance on this, as they got a stake in this too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo, well OK, but the Labor party is only doing this because they said they would. To not do so now (especially before the next election!) will make it evident that they were engaging in cheap, shallow politics.

So now they are going through with this loser of a court case to save their image (before the next election! and the polls show a tight race!!)

Also, a poll of young Australians the other day (by an anti-whaling NGO) showed that only 34% even cared about the issue at all.

Secondly why would they risk taking a trading partner to court before an election if no one cares?

They know the Japanese government isn't going to do anything nasty to them - Japan is a civilised nation after all. Japan will fight in court and win, so what? What matters to the Aussie Labor party is fulfilling their election promise so that the voters who voted for them last time because of their tough nationalistic talk won't feel like they were stupid for doing so.

a poll taken that 98% of Australians opposed whaling, esp in Antarctic waters.

Yeah but that doesn't mean people care. It's a small issue that doesn't have an impact on Australian livelihoods. Which Australian has suffered over the past 20 years because Japan conducts a research whaling operation there in accordance with the whaling convention?

pointofview,

are they doing scientific research on the hundreds of whales they catch? Highly unlikely.

They collect biological data from each and every one of the whales caught. The biological data is then used in Japanese studies and studies by IWC scientists.

Maybe a few and then the remaining hits the market for consumption.

Well after the biological data is collected from each whale, the meat from the whales does go to the market, in accordance with the whaling convention's provisions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Disillusioned,

they have failed to provide any conclusive data showing the sustainabilty of hunting whales as a sustainable food source.

The IWC Scientific Committee has already shown that, with it's Revised Management Procedure, safe catch limits for commercial whaling of baleen whale stocks.

Japan's programmes, amongst other things, have the potential to improve management through the RMP - this is a statement made by the IWC's Scientific Committee.

So now it's time to actually start using the RMP, and the utility of the data collected by Japan can be realised.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kevin and co should take better care and provide a safe work environment for roof insulation installers. Or you wan to distract from Pink Batts, ETS and Super Profits Tax? Hug your own people, Kevie!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Patrick Smash, it is research. Read the whaling convention. If you have read the whaling convention, and Article VIII, there is no way you can seriously suggest that Japan isn't doing exactly what is written.

You cannot predict the outcome of the court case any more than I can my friend.

Read the whaling convention. The outcome of the court case is written already.

If the court agrees with the Aus stance, the research guise will be blown.

Yeah, but that's not going to happen. That's my point. Read the convention.

Disillusioned,

Wrong, Japan has provided biological data. The data is in use by IWC scientists. How can Australia expect to prove in court that those IWC scientists are not using Japan's data obtained through the research?

It's very easy to prove that it is research (because it is), but it's very hard to prove that it isn't (because it is).

However, if Australia does win the case

Not likely to happen! So you can put your imagination to work on something else.

it will only result in Japan dropping out of the IWC and resuming commercial whaling regardless.

Which may be about to happen anyway.... Japan has been saying that it will quit the IWC possibly, unless the IWC sets catch limits again as it is supposed to.

Obviously, this is why the Japanese Gov are not concerned by this action.

Not to mention the fact that they are legally in the right.

the beginning of a whole new brand of whale wars.

LOL, the meltdown in court will spell the end of the propaganda driven anti-whaling movement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gogogo -

it is 99% for the meat to eat

It's primarily for research, the meat must be used because the IWC won't stand for whale resources being wasted since it was established to manage those resources on an optimal basis. You don't chop a whale up for research then not use the rest.

The court will recognise this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo ,

Then why did we not join other Southern hemisphere nations, Aus, NZ, & Sth American countries in the

Japan already has been contributing to non-lethal research through it's own JARPA programmes, as well as the IWC's SOWER programme. Japan has been the nation generously providing research vessels to the IWC Scientific Committee for this purpose for the past 3 decades.

Why should Japan join Australia's politically motivated "research" when established research programmes already exist?

with the support of the IWC, & other nations,

IWC/SOWER programme has always had the support of the IWC and other nations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

‘‘Our whaling for scientific research is allowed (under Article 8 of the International Whaling Commission),’’ he said, adding that Japan will continue to explain this fact to gain understanding of its whaling activities.

Except that it is not really about research, now is it?

How can Japanese be so schizophrenic? On one side they ALL admit that the scientific research is just a lie, yet to the outside world they keep using it as a valid excuse. Do they think we don't know?? Do they really think we can't tell? Is it that they really think that "foreigners" do not understand "honne" and "tatemae", or what is it??

WE KNOW YOU ARE TELLING LIES JAPAN. WE KNOW IT. Stop behaving like a child.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

loserville, interesting, but that's just a petty filibustering legal option. Japan could just use any such complaints as an excuse to pay for an upgrade of the Nisshin Maru so that whaling is even more environmentally friendly.

Then the anti-whalers will have to put up with more whaling for another 3 decades.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan could just use any such complaints as an excuse to pay

Japan has been in an economical crisis since several years, and it does not look like it will stop in the near future. CAN JAPAN REALLY PAY? Can it really afford to waste money on this crap?

for an upgrade of the Nisshin Maru so that whaling is even more environmentally friendly.

Moving a fleet to the other side of the world is never going to be "environmentally friendly". Even more if its goal is to kill wild animals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's very easy to prove that it is research (because it is), but it's very hard to prove that it isn't (because it is).

Yes, it is research, but on the level of a kid throwing stones through windows in order to count them. Millions of yens are spend on this, and what is the result? Papers in journals with minor impact, which are never cited even by people in the field. Whoo, what GREAT research! NOT!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan voluntarily accepted the moratorium, and switch to research whaling, remember? If it wanted to keep commercially whaling, it could have done so, and they'd be killing loads more whales.

But no, Japan said OK we disagree with the silly moratorium, but if you insist that there is insufficient scientific knowledge then we'll switch to research whaling and fill those gaps.

And indeed... the scientific committee confirms that Japan's research has the potential to improve management of whale stocks.

But if you consider that the W in IWC is for WHALING, you will surely agree that permitting research whaling but not closing the loophole that would allow for whale meat to be wasted would have been a big mistake.

It's a WHALING organization, not an anti-whaling organization.

People need to remember this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123 at 02:35 PM JST - 28th May

CAN JAPAN REALLY PAY? Can it really afford to waste money on this crap?

They have been talking about it for a while because the NM2 is too small, and if they are legally required to have a more environmentally friendly boat, then it would provide a good opportunity.

Moving a fleet to the other side of the world is never going to be "environmentally friendly". Even more if its goal is to kill wild animals.

Yeah, but sustainable use is environmentally friendly by definition.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan will fight in court and win, so what?

Yes, it will "win" international attention and criticism. No more and no less than that. And for what?? In order to hunt an animal they started eating about 60 years ago...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which Australian has suffered over the past 20 years because Japan conducts a research whaling operation there in accordance with the whaling convention?

Which Japanese has suffered over the past 20 years because of a lack of whale meat? None. Oh, except those who used to do the whaling for commercial purposes, of course. They now have to write "research" on their whaling ship.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, it will "win" international attention and criticism.

They already have. Even in countries far from this discussion (that I happen to visit last month) I was hearing how a developed country like Japan still killing dolphins and whales and insisting that rest of the world opinions does not matter. When Japan comes to mind, the words samurai, ninja, and electronics and cars are also accompanied by killing whales and dolphins, stubborn ignorance of world opinion. Just like North Korea in nuclear issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the BBC's Sydney correspondent Nick Bryant says that the Australian Greens have said it is essentially a political move from a prime minister who has been slipping in the polls to make good on a election promise made three years ago. " -- BBC

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan voluntarily accepted the moratorium, and switch to research whaling, remember? If it wanted to keep commercially whaling, it could have done so, and they'd be killing loads more whales.

Uh, no. What Japan actually realizes is that there is no demand for whale meat in Japan. So, commercial whaling would not be profitable anymore. So, they created "scientific whaling", using the exact same personnel and the exact same ships as they were using for commercial whaling, and started pumping money into it to keep it alive. It goes like this: some politician tells the whaling town he will support them if they vote him in. He gets elected and starts pumping money. Meanwhile, together they start telling all Japanese that whaling (the minor habit) is in fact Oh-So-Important-Japanese-Culture, yet that the Bad Bad White People try to force Japan to stop whaling. Japanese love this kind of story and happily believe every word of it. So, more and more money gets pumped into this useless "research". In fact so much that without some "result" (no matter how fake it is), there might come some criticism from within Japan. That is where those unread, and un-cited, papers come in. "See", says the politician and the whalers-turned-researchers: "we ARE doing research! Now give us more money and we will vote for you again!".

But no, Japan said OK we disagree with the silly moratorium, but if you insist that there is insufficient scientific knowledge then we'll switch to research whaling and fill those gaps.

Nope, Japan said OK because it can now play the victim role. Japan plays the victim role, the politician gets elected, and the small whaling town gets its money. It is a perfect deal in the Japanese mind. Never mind the international criticism, Oh-So-Great-Japanese-Culture, the job of the local politician, and the jobs of the whalers-turned-researchers are at stake!

And indeed... as you ignore... the scientific committee confirms that Japan's research has the potential to improve management of whale stocks.

No, the committee recognizes that Japan is basically a 12yo with too much money on this subject. They just let it play and spend bribes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, but sustainable use is environmentally friendly by definition.

There's nothing about killing godly creatures that can be environmentally friendly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NihonRyu: "Japanese consumers should retaliate and ban Aussie beef and food products for a while."

It would hurt Japanese business more than anything. What are you going to suggest, Miyazaki beef? I'm sure they'd LOVE that in their dinners. Or how about American beef? Nah... banned. Instead perhaps they should pay more for the meat from other nations?

And what's the rationale? spite? Not a good reason to screw your own nation's restaurants and have all the toothless old codgers complaining about the demise of more beef-bowl chains. Australia, on the other hand, has a perfectly valid reason to bring this to international court, which is not spite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not great timing for Pete Bethune.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smith said he does not believe the action will negatively affect Australia’s relationship with Japan, the country’s largest export market.

Dream on! I talked to few of my colleagues who are Japanese and they are pretty angry about the Aussies! The funny thing is how the Aussie guy in the office reacted...he said sorry to almost all the Japanese guys!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

davidattokyo;"Japan has been the nation generously providing research vessels to the IWC Scientific Committee for this purpose for the past 3 decades."

Are you talking about the research program in the Antarctic which the IWC has condemned & asked Japan to cease, because it offers no valuable scientific research?

"Why should Japan join Australia's politically motivated "research" when established research programes already exist?"

Then what is Japans research if not politically motivated?

& thank you for explaining Japans new foreign policy; that if we do not get what we want then we will simply thumb our noses at the world, leave the IWC, & storm off doing whatever we wish, just like a spoilt child. But I guess we have already shown the world this recently with CITIES vote on Bluefin Tuna with our government stating even if it went through we would simply ignore it! Just the same with the IWC you state now, if they do not give into us & our bullying & corruption we will simply leave & ignore them. Sounds very intelligent & a great way to be respected as part of the modern world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

davidattokyo;"Japan has been the nation generously providing research vessels to the IWC Scientific Committee for this purpose for the past 3 decades."

Are you talking about the research program in the Antarctic which the IWC has condemned & asked Japan to cease, because it offers no valuable scientific research?

No, I'm talking about the SOWER programme.

Do you know what the SOWER programme is?

As for the JARPA programme, the IWC politicians have abused the organization and criticised Japan's research despite the fact that the data has been commended by the IWC's own scientific committee. Reality and propaganda are different things, you see.

Then what is Japans research if not politically motivated?

It's to aid the purpose of the IWC, which is to make for the optimal utilisation of whale resources based on scientific data. Read the whaling convention, and then you will understand. It's a very easy-to-read convention, you'll benefit greatly if you read it once.

if we do not get what we want then we will simply thumb our noses at the world

Uh?

The IWC is a whaling organization. If it isn't working properly then there's no point in remaining a member.

recently with CITIES vote

It's CITES, not CITIES.

And Australia voted against the ban proposal too, with Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who care if they will go extinct! Its not like we can see them everyday.. Even if they go extinct, life will go on as usual.

This attitude is exactly the reason that whaling should not be allowed. Judging by its blithe indifference towards the plight of tuna and other species, could we expect Japan to manage its whaling responsibly? I doubt it. This is a country whose government spokesman once referred to minke whales as "cockroaches of the sea".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo; ohh the scientific committee of the IWC, you mean the committee headed by a Japanese member? You are right about reality & propaganda being to totally different things with all the propaganda you throw around, as it is so far from the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

& the SOWER programme, do you mean the Shonan Maru 2 in the hunt area, during the hunt season, acting as a spotter boat for the harpoon boats? Very convenient that!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i hope the Aussie will win.

but most of all i hope the Japanese government will stop supporting this useless propaganda war and going nowhere research for cultural food outside of its own cultural zone. i hope they direct the support taxes money to other area where it can really help tax payer in a more constrictive matter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i love Nihon.. i was born there.. i spent most of mai life there.. but whaling needed to be stopped many many years ago. Whaling has always been a matter of money and work and tradition.. and i was taught to have deep respect for all of those things, but i humbly submit that whaling needs to be ended.. and some traditions were never good to begin with. The 'scientific' killing of whales is nothing but a farce and it has NEVER been seen as more than a legal loophole that allowed Nihon to seemingly agree to political pressure from other nations, in exchange for trade agreements and favored status.. while STILL whaling, just under a flag of science instead of commerce. i do not really care if the political move will help some foreign man's career, there will always be someone hoping to personally profit from other people's problems.. regardless of the politics.. whaling in Nihon is still wrong.. and it needs to end.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a country whose government spokesman once referred to minke whales as "cockroaches of the sea".

And the head of Japan fisheries agency has said that the only way Japan would cease their whaling operation is when all whales are endangered.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I applaud this. This is the proper venue to settle it.

The IWC should close its research loophole, or other parties should acknowledge the IWC loophole, or Japan should quit the IWC. The situation as it stands is ambiguous enough that everyone can argue that they're in the right. If you want to ban whaling because non-threatened whales are cuter than the endangered fish that Australia exports to Japan, then Australia should be making that argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Japan wins this case, what will happen to the anti-whaling camp then?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With the money spend on this stupid habit Japan could employ hundreds of REAL researchers working on more important problems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo, the Scientific Committee isn't headed by a Japanese member, so far as I recall? I think it's a lady from the US right now, actually. Can't remember the last time a Japanese member was the Scientific Committee chair.

SOWER programme, do you mean the Shonan Maru 2 in the hunt area, during the hunt season, acting as a spotter boat for the harpoon boats? Very convenient that!

No, the SOWER programme had nothing to do with harpooning whales. The Shonan Maru 2 was one of the boats that the Japanese government provided to the IWC over the many years of the non-lethal research conducted as part of the SOWER programme.

The SOWER programme was for many year been led by New Zealander, P. Ensor. That's right - a New Zealander doing non-lethal whale research on board a board generously provided by the Japanese government, with scientists from other nations as well.

Damien15,

And the head of Japan fisheries agency has said that the only way Japan would cease their whaling operation is when all whales are endangered.

I think that comment was to say "we wouldn't hunt whales if they were all endangered".

But they aren't.

Nessie,

The IWC should close its research loophole, or other parties should acknowledge the IWC loophole, or Japan should quit the IWC.

It's not a loophole. It's an article of the convention itself. Not something no one ever thought about. They put it in there deliberately.

Other parties should accept the purpose of the IWC for what it is, or quit.

If Japan is forced to do so instead it's because of the abuse of the organization by those against it's purpose, like Australia.

If Australia wants to ban whaling they should leave the whaling commission. (Common sense, no? Not in this world, it seems!)

smartacus,

If Japan wins this case, what will happen to the anti-whaling camp then?

They will just say that Japan corrupted the court with it's economic or samurai / ninja powers or something, just like they always do. See how they describe Article VIII of the convention itself as a "loophole" for a good historical example of this behaviour.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

pssh! Japan does not really care about any foreign courts, rules or laws....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what I find interesting is this action by Australia or any other country wud have never happened 10 or more yrs ago because they wud fear Jpn wud react by hurting other economic ties.

The fact that Australia openly talks about this is more evidence of Jpns decline, look for other countries to negotiate harder with J-companies for various organic & inorganic commodities, Jpns power is heading south folks

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let us hope that they have more luck with whaling than the global community had with European Tuna. Japan talked, bought and invested its way out of that decision. We shall see if they can muster the resources to shut down Australia.

Cheers for Australia for taking the high ground. Win or lose, the more attention this issue gets, the more pressure on Japan to change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think that comment was to say "we wouldn't hunt whales if they were all endangered". But they aren't.

In fact, according to david, none of the whales are endangered, not even that endangered one that was in the news recently. The one found in the US restaurant. Do you remember, david? :P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Many members of the IWC Scientific Committee recognize the importance of the research, and value highly their results. However, during the past several years, the IWC anti-whaling majority has repeatedly passed resolutions calling on Japan to reconsider the current research catch and insisting that research should be limited to non-lethal methods.

Yeah, the scientific community recognize the Japanese "research" so much that they have to struggle to get their papers published in even low impact journals. Nobody reads them, and none of them get cited ever. :P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anti-whaling proponents have tried to label the research catch as commercial whaling in disguise,

... and most Japanese agree with that opinion. :P

but this is a tactic to discredit the research effort.

The effort is nearly non-existing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the research program, the vessels are run on a predesigned track formulated by scientists,

scientists who were working as commercial whalers a few decades ago.

and conduct surveys and collects specimens such as earplug and ovaries.

Then they divide the number of earplugs by 2 in order to calculate the number of specimens they have killed, and add that to their mortality rate data :P

After scientific examination and removal of tissue and organ samples,

Read: after removal of anything that cannot be eaten.

the remains of the whales are frozen and marketed in compliance with the provisions of the Convention, which forbid any part of the carcass to be wasted.

Read: most of it is frozen and stored, because nobody really wants to eat this. Carcasses are frozen until schools are found that allow their students to eat it, because it is cheap.

However, as the cost of research is expensive, the proceeds from sales of whale meat and parts alone cannot cover the costs. The Government of Japan pays the remainder of the costs.

Read: there is no market for whale meat, as the eating of whale meat was never really popular in Japan anyway. So, the government has to pump money into it in order to keep the local happy. In return, the locals produce fake research papers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The research is carried out by the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), a semi-governmental organization of the Japan Fisheries Agency, established in 1987.

... previously known as the Japanese commercial whaling organisation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is need to carry out the research every year as the number of samples collected and the area surveyed by one cruise per year is very limited, particularly given the size of the Antarctic Ocean.

... and particularly given the low number of specimens available, many of which are endangered.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123. Good points.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 - what planet are you on?

hope that they have more luck with whaling than the global community had with European Tuna.

The global community by and large voted against the CITES "ban" proposal because it was a bad, wrong, crap proposal. That includes anti-whaling nations such as Australia. So get over it already? The tuna problem should be resolved by governments involved at ICCAT. If they can save the tuna, it's through ICCAT that they are going to do it. A "ban" would have been a big fat failure.

We shall see if they can muster the resources to shut down Australia.

Australia's case is crap, it's politically motivated, so I think Japan could pay me 5 bucks and even I could defend them successfully.

Win or lose, the more attention this issue gets, the more pressure on Japan to change.

Lose, and the pressure on Japan to change is gone, and will be heaped on Australia and other nations with stubborn anti-whaling policies that belong in the 1970's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Killing millions of Whales in the name of so-called Research certainly sabbotages the natural environment at huge level,attributing to Global warming disaster.

<BR> When highly developed countries like japan do against eco-friendly environment without considering the consequences,it shows their irresponsibility and they can't expect other developing countries(China,India,Brazil and Russia etc.) to put their actions forward to curb emissions and other non eco-friendly measures.

<BR><BR> After all,crashing Anti-whaling vessel in the mid ocean is a 100% terrorist act.Japan should be punished for that.

God saves mother nature.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The data necessary for the management of the whale resources must show changes in trends over time. Continuous sampling is indispensable to enhance the accuracy of the research.

Read: if we don't collect samples every year we won't have data on how many samples we killed!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are two broad types of research which are conducted into whales. Non-lethal and lethal. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with both lethal and non-lethal methods.

For example: the disadvantage of non-lethal methods is that the sample can not be eaten afterwards.

For example, non-lethal methods are inadequate for population research of whales, as well as other marine life, but is suitable for examining whale behaviour in slow-swimming species.

... this is because we in Japan have never heard of small sonars that could mark specimens already counted. Japan is really lagging behind in the field of electronics, you see.

A large range of information is needed for the management and conservation of whales, such as population, age structure, growth rates, age of maturity, reproductive rates, feeding, nutrition and levels of contaminants. This type of important information cannot be obtained through small DNA samples or analysis of organochlorine, but only through lethal research.

... or at least, it cannot be done by us, Japanese, but it can be done by others apparently. However, Japan has no culture of eating only DNA samples. We have a culture of eating whale meat. At least, that is what we want others to think.

The Japanese whale research program has obtained valuable information on whales by using non-lethal and lethal research.

Yes, so valuable that no good journal wants to publish them.

It has also enabled us to calculate the amount of fish consumed by whales - which is approximately between 280 million tonnes and 500 million tonnes per year. In contrast, humans harvest around 90 million tonnes of fish each year.

That is why the seas around Japan are basically deserts. Every year these whales come from the South pole and eat all our maguro. We have to kill more whales, or all fish will be endagered soon!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From my understanding there are enough whales to allow a few to be "researched".

Yes we should try protect whales, but we should also use our money and resources to feed our own homeless and disadvantaged people in our own countries.

Why there is so much media, money and hatred built up in this topic is beyond me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Really, I recommend everyone to have a look at these FAQs on these "researchers" website: http://www.whaling.jp/english/qa.html

They are incredible. How any sound person can believe a single word of that is beyond me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The IWC was established in 1948 under the ICRW concluded in 1946. Initially it started with 15 whaling nations but began to give a stronger emphasis to conservation of whales since the 1960s when the Netherlands and the United Kingdom stopped whaling after their whaling industry was no longer profitable because of over-exploitation of whales.

Those Bad bad bad foreigners!

From the latter half of the 1970s, new members seeking solely to ban whaling joined the commission, resulting in the passage of a commercial whaling moratorium in 1982 by their majority vote.

Yet we Japanese fought back and paid lots of money to some African and Asian countries to support us! Now suddenly countries that have never whaled in their history are suddenly die hard whaling fans! Isn't that a coincidence!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, in order to research whale natural mortality rates, Japan started killing whales for research. :P

So, david, can you explain to us how lethal research is going to help us understand these natural mortality rates? Or am I really going to be the first to read one of these "research" papers? :P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The present IWC membership is 88 nations. Among them, the number of countries supporting whaling tends to increase in these days.

But it cost us Japanese quite a lot of money :P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Japan could pay me 5 bucks and even I could defend them successfully.

lol If you defended them in court as ineffectually as you defend them here, they'd be lucky to get their 5 bucks' worth. Maybe 4.95 for effort.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's about time the Australian government grew a pair.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

plus: why is that information not presented in English too? Don't they want to share their Oh-So-Great-Japanese-Culture with the entire world? :P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The case between the two is not going to be an easy win. They both have their arguments, unfortunately, Japan's whaling is covered...they are toe-ing the line with regard to the legality of what they are doing. Yes, they are indeed doing research. Yes, it is published on the IWC website. And yes it is legal; they are following the guidelines. Of course we all know the real reason for their "research", especially if you read their research, it is pretty easy to tell it is very superficial; just enough to keep their butts covered.

Australia taking them to court over somewhere Aus has no jurisdiction and over something that Japan is doing legally (I don't agree with whaling but as I said, they made sure to cover their butts) isn't going to stop what they are doing. But hopefully this sort of thing will spur the IWC to take another look at its guidelines and revamp them. Make it mandatory to do non-lethal research! Allow only traditional whaling in local waters. Traditional whaling would at least keep things sustainable because catching an overly large number would be impossible. If countries won't accept traditional whaling methods, fair enough, but make it mandatory to whale only locally. Those countries who whale their shores to depletion will just have to suffer the consequences and deal with not having any whale. If whale meat really is something folks want that badly, they will be very into sustainable whaling real quick.

I would really like to see the end of whaling altogether but I don't have a leg to stand on in arguing against a certain type of meat. I am an omnivore and always will be...I don't have the right to tell another culture what to eat and what not to eat. I do have a right though about arguing the sustainability and greed of with which they go about procuring that meat without a thought or care of shred of responsibility to the generations who come after them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also, I wonder why it is necessary for the Japanese FAQ of the JWA to have information on restaurants serving whale meat, how to prepare it, etc...

I kid you not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm...part of the regulations on the "research" whaling is that the whale not go to waste, it must be consumed. Lovely little loophole they created there. The IWC needs to buck up and change its regulations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

part of the regulations on the "research" whaling is that the whale not go to waste, it must be consumed.

Of course, I know. But killing an animal and freeze its carcass for forever does seem like a waste to me...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia doesn't carry enough clout to make any real difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123 said: So, david, can you explain to us how lethal research is going to help us understand these natural mortality rates? Or am I really going to be the first to read one of these "research" papers? :P

Its because age can be ascertained by examining a dead whale, but there are no effective ways to measure that while they are alive. Sorry, but this would seem to be a fact from what I understand. But I am still not in favor of it. Reasons: If they have not got a clear picture of it with all the whales they have killed already, what is their excuse? Another reason is that we don't really need to know that badly. The best way to ensure whale numbers are sufficient is to just not hunt them. Besides, demand is way down because its an inferior product, so no pressing demand to measure what sustainable hunting is either. Whalers just need to find new jobs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123 -

So, david, can you explain to us how lethal research is going to help us understand these natural mortality rates?

Well, natural mortality rates for fish and whales are estimated using techniques such as statiscal analysis of catch-at-age data, or virtual population analysis (VPA).

These are big words for people who have no real interest in fisheries management, which I presume includes yourself.

Catch-at-age data requires... lethal methods. If it were possible to age a whale without killing it, then the same work could be done with non-lethal methods, but to date the anti-whaling camp has failed to produce a method that both works, and is feasible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its because age can be ascertained by examining a dead whale, but there are no effective ways to measure that while they are alive.

Of course I have heard this explanation (or "excuse") many times. However, I have never heard of similar excuses from studies on other animals. Why is it necessary to kill whales to get this data, yet not for other species?

Or, at least, why do the Japanese want us to believe so? :P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder why it is necessary for the Japanese FAQ of the JWA to have information on restaurants serving whale meat, how to prepare it, etc...

That's because the whaling association wants to promote consumption of whale. Imagine a whaling association that didn't have any information at all about it's products on it's website!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's because the whaling association wants to promote consumption of whale. Imagine a whaling association that didn't have any information at all about it's products on it's website!

Yet the information is not presented in English...??? Seems like they are focussing on a very small target population for their "wares" then! :P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reasons: If they have not got a clear picture of it with all the whales they have killed already, what is their excuse?

It's not enough to get data one year.

The idea is to sustainably utilise whales from now into the future.

There's a need to constantly update the information for that purpose.

Why this is strange with whales is because normally for fish, we can catch fish commercially. Thus the data comes from the commercial catch.

But with whales, there is a moratorium and thus no commercial catch from which to get the data. Thus the data is being obtained from research whaling. And that thus needs to continue until such a time as the required data can be obtained through other means, be it commercial catches or non-lethal methods of research.

Another reason is that we don't really need to know that badly.

We do if we want to eat whales.

The best way to ensure whale numbers are sufficient is to just not hunt them.

That precludes the consumption of whales, and therefore isn't a "best way" at all.

Besides, demand is way down because its an inferior product,

Supply is way down because there is a moratorium which has limited supply. Iceland meanwhile catches whales commercially now, and recently started shipping whale meat to Japan (despite the lack of demand?)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, natural mortality rates for fish and whales are estimated using techniques such as statiscal analysis of catch-at-age data, or virtual population analysis (VPA).

These are big words for people who have no real interest in fisheries management, which I presume includes yourself.

Don't worry about me, my dear, worry about your explanation.

Catch-at-age data requires... lethal methods.

Yet it is not called "killed-at-age", is it? "catching" it would seem to be enough to do e "CATCH-at-age" study.

If it were possible to age a whale without killing it, then the same work could be done with non-lethal methods,

... yet that would lead to a reduction in "finished product", right? :P

but to date the anti-whaling camp has failed to produce a method that both works, and is feasible.

Or, to put it the other way: these very smart researchers who have been doing research for 30 years now have not even devoted 1 second to thinking about an alternative way to do this study, in a non-lethal way, right?

No, because thinking like that might lead to real research, and not... well, "finished product", right?

I see, david, I see :P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iceland meanwhile catches whales commercially now, and recently started shipping whale meat to Japan (despite the lack of demand?)

Or because the politician gave the village some money to buy a bigger freezer?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not enough to get data one year.

No, because they will not rest because they know the age of each whale, and its address and telephone number.

There's a need to constantly update the information for that purpose.

Yes, and this is not possible with non-lethal purposes. You see: if you don't kill an animal, you might count it twice!! So, we have to kill, count, kill again, count, kill, count. This is the way governments count the population of their country too.

Thus the data is being obtained from research whaling. And that thus needs to continue until such a time as the required data can be obtained through other means, be it commercial catches or non-lethal methods of research.

But as david points out, non-lethal methods are not being considered. 30 years of "research"...

We do if we want to eat whales.

IF. Even Japanese don't want to eat it. Just hang it in the freezers.

That precludes the consumption of whales, and therefore isn't a "best way" at all.

Yet, consumption does not seem to be the goal, as the meat has to be given to schools or put into freezers... The goal seems to be: keep the local politician elected, and keep him pump money into the small village.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So david, can you show me any paper by the Japanese "researchers" investigating a non-lethal way of doing the research?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yet it is not called "killed-at-age", is it? "catching" it would seem to be enough to do e "CATCH-at-age" study.

Hey man - I didn't name these methods, so stop your petty whinging about it huh?

... yet that would lead to a reduction in "finished product", right? :P

Sure. You did know that Japan uses non-lethal methods of research, where appropriate, didn't you?

Or, to put it the other way: these very smart researchers who have been doing research for 30 years now have not even devoted 1 second to thinking about an alternative way to do this study, in a non-lethal way, right?

Why? The idea of fisheries is to take fish / whales etc. Why go to the bother of developing a non-lethal method when you can get the data from the specimens that are caught anyway?

Your problem stems from your default view of the world that (contrary to the international agreements) has whales as "not food".

That's your problem, not Japan's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey man - I didn't name these methods, so stop your petty whinging about it huh?

Bwahaha, first trial and immediately down! I can hear you are an expert. So, come on, why the need to kill in catch-at-age research?

Sure. You did know that Japan uses non-lethal methods of research, where appropriate, didn't you?

"where appropriate" meaning, when the species cannot be eaten?

Why go to the bother of developing a non-lethal method when you can get the data from the specimens that are caught anyway?

But but but, you wrote as if they had no other choice but to kill the animal! Yet now you write they have no interest in not killing it...

Does not compute, david, does not compute.

Your problem stems from your default view of the world that (contrary to the international agreements) has whales as "not food".

And your problem stems from the fact that you try to defend something that is filled with lies and inconsistencies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Come on david, I know they have published papers on a new harpoon they developed. So how about a paper about comparing a non-lethal way to replace the lethal methods, or the development of some device for tracing animals so that they do not have to be killed in order to count them, etc?

Come on, show us how big an expert you are, and show us the papers!! I want to see some REAL research!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So how about a paper about comparing a non-lethal way to replace the lethal methods

A better harpoon method has clear benefits in the context of whaling operations.

In the context of whaling operations, developing a non-lethal way of gathering data which can be obtained from the catch is pointless.

If a BETTER method of determining age can be developed then that would be great. But as it stands there aren't any really promising methods available.

the development of some device for tracing animals

They are developing such tracking devices and have recently deployed them successfully for some species of whale.

so that they do not have to be killed in order to count them, etc?

They aren't killing them to count them...

I want to see some REAL research!!

It's all available on the web. Loads and loads of scientific committee documents are on the IWC webpage right now, available for reading, if you are really interested....

.... but instead you're here, asking me for them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A better harpoon method has clear benefits in the context of whaling operations.

And a tracing devide would have benefits in population studies. So, WHERE IS THE PAPER, david, WHERE IS IT??

In the context of whaling operations, developing a non-lethal way of gathering data which can be obtained from the catch is pointless.

So, next time you use the "well, we have to catch them to know their age" excuse, you know what I will ask you, right?

Does not compute, david, does not compute. Your story is inconsistent.

If a BETTER method of determining age can be developed then that would be great. But as it stands there aren't any really promising methods available.

Read: they are not really looking for any. If not, SHOW ME THE PAPER, my dear.

They are developing such tracking devices and have recently deployed them successfully for some species of whale.

The papers, david, SHOW THEM. You can say whatever lies that suit you, I WANT TO SEE THE PROOF. 30 years of research, NOT 1 SUCH PAPER??

They aren't killing them to count them...

Yet you wrote they "have no choice but to kill them" to do the research, my dear. Then why are they killing them?

It's all available on the web. Loads and loads of scientific committee documents are on the IWC webpage right now, available for reading, if you are really interested....

I could not find any paper on development of such non-lethal methods, dear. Will you show them to me? Or will you admit they do not work on such methods, and have in fact no intention NOT to kill?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Auh argument for the sake of arguing. How quaint. Well as I posted earlier Australia first needs to provide evidence that Japan is whaling within their EEZ, meaning they'll have to come up with a solution that will circumvent the Antarctic Charter. This will no doubt spark conflict against Chile, Argentina and probably dozen other nation placing claim to the south continent. Without it their protest will be thrown out before it is given consideration for challenge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Didn't rate a mention on the 7:00 NHK news this evening.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

best way to ensure whale numbers are sufficient is to just not hunt them

It sure worked for the crested ibis, so why not for the whale, eh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123,

And a tracing devide would have benefits in population studies. So, WHERE IS THE PAPER, david, WHERE IS IT??

I don't know if a "paper" eventuated from that particular experiment or not, perhaps you could read through the ICR webpage and related material then tell me about it. I did read a bit about it in a report, and they were hoping that the information would be useful for stock definition studies (let me know if you need a brief intro to that subject unless you are capable of using Google for yourself!)

So, next time you use the "well, we have to catch them to know their age" excuse, you know what I will ask you, right?

Huh? Because of the moratorium, they do have to catch them to know their age. If there was no moratorium, they would be able to access the commercial catch data, like is done for other fisheries.

Your story is inconsistent.

No it isn't, the problem is that you don't see the moratorium as being abnormal, which it is. What other fishery in the world has had a moratorium for the past 25 years and catch-at-age data or equivalent obtained despite it?

Read: they are not really looking for any. If not, SHOW ME THE PAPER, my dear.

You need an idea before you have a paper. If you are such a genius then please, tell us how to age a whale without counting the rings from it's ear plug.

They aren't killing them to count them...

Yet you wrote they "have no choice but to kill them" to do the research, my dear. Then why are they killing them?

Counting them is not the only research they do. "How many whales are there" may be the extent of your scientific curiosity, but when it comes to optimum sustainable use, more information than that is required.

will you admit they do not work on such methods

They are working on methods such as I mentioned, if you read the IWC annual report about the JARPN programme for the past couple of years you can probably find reference to it there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The guys at www.rant-a-day.com did a decent report on this I think.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Patrick Smash at 12:30 PM JST - 28th May Ossan, no, I don't think so. This is a court case. The Japanese are >crapping all over the agreements by pretending their motivation is >scientific research, which it obviously is not. I know that, you know >that, everyone knows that.

You got it right that it's a court case. What you don't seem to get is that if Japan can prove, and I assure you it can, that it has been complying with Article VIII of the IWC regulations from submitting research data to the IWC scientific committees to consuming the whales, then any claim that "the real reason is to eat whales" becomes not only unprovable but irrelevant. Australia's decision to bring action against Japan in effect is to bring action against the authority of the IWC itself, the only recognized international regulastory body for whaling, of which Australia itself is a member. Let me put it into simple terms; it doesn't make any difference from a legal point of view whether Japan is hunting for research or consumption or both.

If the court agrees, the scientific research >guise will be blown. Then >what? Japan leaves the IWC perhaps and resumes >commercial whaling?

Don't worry, the court can't. Unless Australia can prove that Japan has not been complying with the IWC regulations. AS for leaving the IWC, maybe yes and maybe no. But personally, I doubt Japan will, and there are a number of anti-whaling nations, such as the United States and Ne Zealand that would prefer that Japan remain within the IWC. There is a need to re-vamp the IWC and bring control over all whaling back into it's hands and Australia's self-centered position is a detriment to that goal. Just in case you are unfamilar with the IWC rules on "Research Whaling"; "A major area of discussion in recent years has been the issuing of permits by member states for the killing of whales for scientific purposes. The use of such permits is not new. The right to issue them is enshrined in Article VIII of the 1946 Convention. Whilst member nations must submit proposals for review, in accordance with the Convention, it is the member nation that ultimately decides whether or not to issue a permit, and this right overrides any other Commission regulations including the moratorium and sanctuaries. Article VIII also requires that the animals be utilised once the scientific data have been collected. Prior to 1982, when it was agreed that a moratorium would come into effect in 1986, over 100 permits were issued by a number of governments including Canada, USA, USSR, South Africa and Japan." http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm#guidelines

Australia has two routes to win this case; Either prove that Japan has been violating IWC regulations, or prove that Australia has enforcement juristidiction over an area of sea that it is claiming, a claim recognized by 4-5 countries in the world. I do not believe Australia can prove either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica;"Don't worry, the court can't. "

Just how can you be so sure? Are you a judge in the Hague? Or are you part of the ICR corruption team & now setting out to bribe the judges? Maybe you & davidattokyo should team together & charge the Japanese government $5 each,(as he has stated), & become lawyers to defend this? Ohh & by the way I have also read many statements/papers from professional lawyers that say they can win this case, I guess that is why they are persuing it, but of course you know so much more about the law than barristers employed by other governments other than our own here in Japan, oops sorry forgot you are not even a resident of Japan, maybe you should come back home to defend all these traditions you believe in?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sirgamble at 08:54 PM JST - 28th May The guys at www.rant-a-day.com did a decent report on this I think.

That article is mistaken. Scientific Research Whaling is exempt from Moratoriums and Sanctuaries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You need an idea before you have a paper. If you are such a genius then please, tell us how to age a whale without counting the rings from it's ear plug.

Tiny drop of blood, small scrap of skin, skin flakes for a DNA sample. You don't need to kill a whale to find out how old it is. Google it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 12:37 PM JST - 28th May OssanAmerica, if it truely was about research then why did Japan refuse >to join a research program funded by Aus, NZ, & Sth American countries, >& approved by the IWC,(unlike Japanese hunts), in the Antarctic that is >non-lethal. If we are so interested in research surely we would have >loved to be part of such a project?

This is a legal case. For Australia to win it they need to prove that Japan has not been in compliance with Article VIII of the IWC regulations which pertain to Scientific Research Whaling. What Japan's true motives may or may not be, or whether they participate in any other research programs or not, is irrelevant to being able to prove this point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sounds nice in Theory.

One question how would you obtain that sample?

This not a small animal like a wolf or lion that is easily tranquilized & handled to take the sample.

Can't tranquilize a whale as it would drown unless you can keep it floating and wet.

Same reason why exploding harpoons been used for the kill for over 130+yrs, the thing is big and tough.

Also always wondered who researchers would collect a stool sample from a swimming whale. Got an image of a remote controlled sub swimming behind the whale with a bucket.

Keen to learn the answers to the above.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard: "Its because age can be ascertained by examining a dead whale, but there are no effective ways to measure that while they are alive."

Forgive me for such a silly question, but what's the point of killing something to ascertain its age if you want to study the life-cycle of a creature? What does that have to do with anything aside from the age it was at the time of death? It's not like you let it live until it died naturally and said, "well, compared to 20 years ago thanks to massive mercury poisoning they are not living as long". Instead you're saying, "We killed this one at one year of age. Ummm... how old was the last one we killed? One year and two months? Well jeezums crow! that means the last one was two months older!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny11, great sense of humour there! Just so you have the info, you could easily Google it how many Universities have gained these samples without lethal means,(not Japanese universities obviously!), they simply collect skin sample that fall off the whale as it swims, or by small darts fired into the skin then pulled back with the sample inside it. As for excrement that is once again collected from the ocean behind the whale,(pity the Japanese whaler who's job it is to collect that from lethal research!).

Ossan you have previously stated other countries should close this loophole legally if they object, I guess that is what they are now doing, so why are you so upset? You should be happy because if Australia wins then SSCS will no longer be launching campaigns against Japan in the Antarctic, will they? That is as long as Japan accepts the courts ruling when they loose.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sirgamble at 12:54 PM JST - 28th May I like the fact that it will be a court case rather than a popularity >contest, whereby Japan has bribed countries to vote with it.

I suggest you do some reading up on the history of the IWC. The practice of bribing countries, those that don't even have coastlines, was started by the Anti-Whaling faction which brought about the Moratorium in 1986, which incidentally was suppose to be temporary. The whaling nations started in reaction to this.

One reason the USA, Australia, NZ, UK...etc (most of the world) have not counter-bribed countries to vote for their opinion is because in a court of law this will be significant. I can just see Japan arguing "but the IWC voted..." and the Judge saying "but only because you bribed them... how dodgy is that!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Keiko: Not only has Ossan said what you claimed he is saying, he has said time and time again he would support a total ban if it became international law. My guess is he won't, but I'm hoping he proves me wrong and follows his own pledge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It also demonstrates our commitment to do what it takes to end whaling globally,

In other words, Australia has no interest "to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry" as per ICW Convention and yet is going to try to prove that Japan has violated Article VIII of the same Convention.

The hypocricy of this insignificant nation is as always, comical.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

(Sigh) So what I didn't read is what crime was comitted by Japan that requires taking them to court. Australia wants to challenge Japan's right to whale under the IWC's "Scientific Research" rule. As the rule is written, Japan seems to be fully in compliance. If Australia was REALLY interested in solving this problem, they would be taking the IWC to court for failing to abolish the "Scientific Research" rule.

The IWC was established to oversee whaling operations, not abolish them completely. The whales taken from the southern hemisphere are almost always Minke whales - which are not under any of the conservation categories. They are plentiful. If they were Endangered or even Threatened, I could see taking measures to stop their harvesting. The issue seems to be more that it's a whale being harvested rather than a fish and I'm sorry but I fail to see why that matters if they're not threatened as a species.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Keiko.

Thx, just wondering if it is timewise and money-wise feasable to do it on a large scale. You woul;d also need to make sure that the same Animal is not sampled twice.

I am all for non-lethal data-collection but don't think it can replace 100% some data that can be obtained from a dead animal.

Wouild like to see more non-lethal methods used but dount it will be feasable but it could bring down the number of animals that would need to be killed.

HTH.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Legal expert Professor Don Rothwell from the Australian National University predicted earlier this year that Australia would be successful should it take Japan to court over its whaling program."

This rabid anti-whaling law prof has absolutely zero credibility after his immediate comment after Bethune boarding the SM2, that it was "legal". With 24 hours Bethune ws detained in violation of Japanese Law onboard a Japanese flag ship and both New Zealand and Australian governments agreed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 10:00 PM JST - 28th May Ossan you have previously stated other countries should close this >loophole legally if they object, I guess that is what they are now >doing, so why are you so upset?

Yes I have said that. OK let me explain it to you in simple terms. And you can read up on it for yourself if you don't believe me. The IWC'was founded originally by whaling nations for the purpose of regulating whaling. This means setting rules and limits for the purpose of ensuring sustainable stocks and that no species will be pushed to the brink of extinction, as they were when the western countries hunted them in the 19th century. However, an anti-whaling faction started manipulating the votes with bribes in order to try and convert he IWC into a non-whaling organization.(A practice that the whaling countries then started using in response). Which it was never meant to be. The upshot is that a temporary moratorium on commercial whaling was placed in 1986 to be reviwed in 1993. Well it never was. And because the IWC rules permit Scientific research whaling exempt from moratoriums and sanctuaries, it allowed whaling to go on. The IWC also allows countries to just reject the moratorium and keep hunting. In other words, the IWC has lost all control over regulating whaling. Now the IWC is finally moving towards regaining that control and to that end a vote will come up in June, as well as nergotiations prior, that mat permit limited commercial whaling but reduce the overall catch, and MOST importantly, bring control back into the hands of the IWC. It will "close the loophole".

so why are you so upset?

Because what Australia is doing, first by standing against the IWC proposal in a our-way-or-no-way self centered position, a position that not even anti-whaling nations like New Zealand and the United States are willing to take, AND secondly to take an unwinnable action like this which will drag the IWC into having to defend THEIR position which authorizes Japan to do what THEY are doing merely hinders the progress that is currently being made to revamp the IWC regulations.

You should be happy because if Australia wins

I do not believe Austalia can win. But I do believe that they can cause alot of damage to the progress being made to revamp the IWC and change the regulations.

smithinjapan at 10:29 PM JST - 28th May Keiko: Not only has Ossan said what you claimed he is saying, he has >said time and time again he would support a total ban if it became >international law. My guess is he won't, but I'm hoping he proves me >wrong and follows his own pledge.

I suggest you refrain from making pointless ad hominem attacks, interjecting yourself needlessly into other people's exchanges and go read up on the subject before posting anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 09:40 PM JST - 28th May OssanAmerica;"Don't worry, the court can't. " Just how can you be so sure? Are you a judge in the Hague?

One does not need to be a judge to look at a claim, know what the basis of the claim will be and what the claimant will have to substantiate in order to win. It's no guarantee of course, but it's enough for any layman to determine whether a claim should or should not be filed.

Or are you part of the ICR corruption team & now setting out to bribe >the judges? Maybe you & davidattokyo should team together & charge the >Japanese government $5 each,(as he has stated), & become lawyers to >defend this?

I'm part of no team but if you want me to bribe someone just send me the money.

Ohh & by the way I have also read many statements/papers from >professional lawyers that say they can win this case, I guess that is >why they are persuing it, but of course you know so much more about the >law than barristers employed by other governments other than our own >here in Japan, oops sorry forgot you are not even a resident of Japan, >maybe you should come back home to defend all these traditions you >believe in?

Come back home? I already am home. My my so much personal spite. It must be awful not to understand reason and have to argue with only your emotional bias as a defense. I guess that explains all the personal attacks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So what I didn't read is what crime was comitted by Japan that requires taking them to court.

Well, listen. Suppose there is an agreement between 2 parties about not doing something unless under specific conditions. One party does it anyway and just pretends to fit the specific conditions which allow the act. Do you think this is not a violation of the agreement? I think many people would think so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica; so now your position has changed? You are no longer happy for another country to legally close the 'loophole' that has allowed Japan to ignore a moratorium? But I am sure I have seen your post before stating if a government closes this 'loophole' legally you would support the end to the hunts, because then it would be Japan breaking international law? But now that is a possibility you are no longer happy with that stance? & you only oppose groups who protest & try to stop, what you call legal, actions? But if the loophole is closed are you now saying you would support Japan being a "rouge state", an "environmental terrorist"to continue its hunts in Antarctic waters? Would that then not make SSCS upholders of the law, & Japanese whalers terrorists & pirates? Is this what you support now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

david my dear,

I don't know if a "paper" eventuated from that particular experiment or not, perhaps you could read through the ICR webpage and related material then tell me about it.

Oh, the expert does not know about such a paper, and I too can't find anything about Japan doing research on development of non-lethal methods. Are we to conclude that your little story about them working on such things was... a lie? As so often??

I did read a bit about it in a report,

Oh, a mysterious report. But you forgot to write down the title and the author, right? How convenient... I bet it was not a Japanese author...?

and they were hoping that the information would be useful for stock definition studies (let me know if you need a brief intro to that subject unless you are capable of using Google for yourself!)

That will be fine, thank you very much. I will for the moment be happy with the conclusion that Japan has no interest what so ever in doing some REAL research as to limit the damage of the "population studies". After all, even their biggest supporter is not able to mention 1 single paper on the topic...

Huh? Because of the moratorium, they do have to catch them to know their age. If there was no moratorium, they would be able to access the commercial catch data, like is done for other fisheries.

Uh, no no no, my dear. They have to catch them to know their age because in the 30 years they have been doing "research", they have not devoted even 1 second into thinking about a way that would allow knowing their age without having to catch AND KILL the animal. You - not being able to provide any paper showing otherwize - would agree, wouldn't you?

What other fishery in the world has had a moratorium for the past 25 years and catch-at-age data or equivalent obtained despite it?

Oh, how clever to use the word "fisheries", because we both know very well that there are plenty of land animals where people guess the age of the animal without actually killing it, now don't we? But Japan has no interest in NOT killing the animal. No, they prefer pretending to have no other way but to kill it for their precious research (and eat it afterwards).

You need an idea before you have a paper. If you are such a genius then please, tell us how to age a whale without counting the rings from it's ear plug.

davidattokyo admitting that in the 30 years of research not a single clever idea was found by this huge whaling "research" organisations. Well, they are jst fishermen after all, aren't they? It is not that they are real researchers.

Counting them is not the only research they do. "How many whales are there" may be the extent of your scientific curiosity, but when it comes to optimum sustainable use, more information than that is required.

Then what is the exact reason that necessitates into killing these animals for research, my dear david? Because, you don't seem to make a lot of sense. You mentioned age, sex, diet... All things that can be known WITHOUT killing, right?

They are working on methods such as I mentioned, if you read the IWC annual report about the JARPN programme for the past couple of years you can probably find reference to it there.

Oh, I will PROBABLY find them? But I don't see anything about research into these methods on the website of the whalers, my dear? And neither are you able to produce any papers on them? Ar we to conclude that - NO! - they are indeed not doing any research into such methods!?

You lost david. Give it up. You are trying to defend something composed of nothing but lies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gogogo

Tiny drop of blood, small scrap of skin, skin flakes for a DNA sample. You don't need to kill a whale to find out how old it is. Google it.

Incorrect. You bought the anti-whaling propaganda it seems.

The proposed methods using skin-flakes were a pipe dream, they haven't been developed to the level that they can be used.

And gee, who would ever have thought - it's a lot easier to harpoon a whale than it is to find it's skin flakes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan,

Forgive me for such a silly question

OK, we can cut you some slack, but let's make it the last time please.

what's the point of killing something to ascertain its age if you want to study the life-cycle of a creature?

Where did you get this "life-cycle" thing from?

The age information is for studies of the population, e.g. it's a population sample, they aren't killing the whales because they are interested in how old a particular whale might be. Determining that is not the aim of obtaining this data. Gaining the information required to understand the population is what it's all about. If you are actually interested, read up about catch-at-age data and applications in fisheries management, although I guess you aren't interested.

What does that have to do with anything aside from the age it was at the time of death?

You'd obviously be surprised if you had more of a clue about the scientific techniques that are employed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy,

The hypocricy of this insignificant nation is as always, comical.

Yes indeed. I think it will be very interesting when Japan has the opportunity to bring up the history of BS and deceit from nations such as Australia at this court case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Keiko - if there is data sets of age information available from collecting whale skin flakes, produce it.

You can't, because such data doesn't exist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is this yapping about development of non-lethal research? It's not only time consuming and expensive but it's not going to give any new info. Past lethal research provided all the necessary information already to resume commercial whaling on certain species.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica

This rabid anti-whaling law prof has absolutely zero credibility

Yes, I suspect his career won't be looking so flash once this case is concluded. He seems to be very very blinkered indeed. (He does seem to have connections with IFAW, which would explain it.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123

One party does it anyway and just pretends to fit the specific conditions which allow the act.

You are confused. One party does something fitting the conditions, but the other party is just pretending that the other party is pretending to do it to fit the conditions, despite all the evidence to the contrary, such as statements from the chair of the IWC Scientific Committee himself who said Japan's research input was "critical" for the tasks of the Scientific Committee.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Come on, david. Just 1 paper that fits with all that "but they have no other choice but to kill the whales" crap you told us so many times. Show it to us!

such as statements from the chair of the IWC Scientific Committee himself who said Japan's research input was "critical" for the tasks of the Scientific Committee.

Let the chair of whatever be the specialist of the chair he is sitting on, and let scientists evaluate the value of science: the Japanese papers are barely accepted in even low impact journals, and NEVER get cited. The scientific community, yes even those working in the same field - are en masse ignoring the crappy "research" produced by these fishermen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo; once again you are quoting the head of the IWC scientific committee, once again is he not Japanese?(so therefore open to bribery & corruption). A simple yes or no will suffice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Besides, you admitted it yourself: no research on non-lethal methods has been done by these "researchers" despite 30 years of work...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is this yapping about development of non-lethal research? It's not only time consuming and expensive but it's not going to give any new info. Past lethal research provided all the necessary information already to resume commercial whaling on certain species

Forgot to add inaccurate and unreliable.

The absurdity of the anti-whaling nation is that they do not recognize the more accurate lethal research conducted by Japan but are willing to promote/conduct and also demand Japan to conduct a more inaccurate, unreliable, time consuming, and expensive non-lethal research.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Yes, I suspect his career won't be looking so flash once this case is concluded. He seems to be very very blinkered indeed. (He does seem to have connections with IFAW, which would explain it.)"

IFAW, are they not one of the very same groups demanding Japan end its senseless hunts in the Antarctic? Or do you think you can just post something & no one will question it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I already told you where to find it.

Yes, and I checked and could not find any, and neither could you. BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE! :P

Come on, david, just 1 paper!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123

Oh, the expert does not know about such a paper, and I too can't find anything about Japan doing research on development of non-lethal methods.

Well of course you can't. You're blinkered.

Are we to conclude that your little story about them working on such things was... a lie?

You might, despite reality. If you wanna deny that the ICR is working with non-lethal methods, you are wrong. Your being too lazy to check the facts for yourself does not change reality. (I can produce a paper, but what are you going to do once I do? Admit that you were wrong? I doubt it - you are a troll it seems)

Oh, a mysterious report.

It was on the ICR homepage, if I recall. They even had a picture of the device after it was confirmed as being attached to one of the subjects, swimming through the water...

Still wish to continue? You are entirely anonymous of course, so I wouldn't be surprised..

That will be fine, thank you very much.

LOL, no interest in science at all :)

Uh, no no no, my dear. They have to catch them to know their age because in the 30 years they have been doing "research", they have not devoted even 1 second into thinking about a way that would allow knowing their age without having to catch AND KILL the animal.

It's not their objective to develop such theoretical, pointless methods. The whole goal is to gather information that can aid sustainable whaling. Focusing on developing non-lethal methods (which may be impossible) is not in scope.

Oh, how clever to use the word "fisheries", because we both know very well that there are plenty of land animals where people guess the age of the animal without actually killing it, now don't we?

Fish and whales live in the sea, not on the land.... so does it surprise you that the research methods differ? (Think about this before you post another dumb response)

But Japan has no interest in NOT killing the animal.

Ultimately they hope to utilise whales sustainably, like fish, yes.

You mentioned age, sex, diet... All things that can be known WITHOUT killing, right?

... no? Incorrect. Where do you get this stuff?

Oh, I will PROBABLY find them?

Yes - I do give you that much credit. Or are you entirely incompetent?

But I don't see anything about research into these methods on the website of the whalers, my dear?

They aren't a bunch of bloggers, or twitter users, matey.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

once again you are quoting the head of the IWC scientific committee, once again is he not Japanese?(so therefore open to bribery & corruption). A simple yes or no will suffice.

No, he is not Japanese. His name is "Arne", and you can find a quote from him about the research at a BBC article by Richard Black about science, pitched at around the level just above what you could probably understand, by my estimation. Want the link?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6667907.stm

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

....

This is where you now ignore the article and the information... "thru", and go off on some nutty tangent instead because reality doesn't match the fiction that you believe in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Empty words from an empty organisation where half of the countries are being paid by the Japanese tax payer to praise the Oh-So-Great-Japanese-Culture of going all the way to the South Pole to hunt animals on order to... count them! :P

HAHAHA! As forecast!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

japanese input on whale research?!! wipe your mouth with those papers,your sushi is getting rotten.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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

Empty words from an empty organisation where half of the countries are being paid by the Japanese tax payer to praise the Oh-So-Great-Japanese-Culture of going all the way to the South Pole to hunt animals on order to... count them! :P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah Australia, tilting at windmills. How does the ICJ have any jurisdiction when this is a matter for the IWC which both Australia and Japan belong to. For the record I like Peter Garret singing better than flapping his gums about whaling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just another ... for emphasis...

"To make it very short, the review panel was very pleased with the data (Japan has) collected and provided from the programme,"

....

This is where another anti-whaler ignores the quote and continues to dispute the legitimacy of Japan's scientific data...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo; you mentioned earlier the great work done by the SOWER research program, should I remind you of yourobligations to the IWC; the Commission shall appoint two observers to each factory ship that is supplied by whale catchers.

IWC/M10/SWG 4 page 14

So therefore by having 2 foreign observer onboard a vessel does not constitute us going out of our way, it is simply a part of our agreements. So we are not going out our way to supply vessels, we are simply supplying them as part of our agreement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo; "In 2005 a Resolution was passed (30 votes to 27 votes with 1 abstention) that strongly urged the Government of Japan to withdraw its JARPA II proposal or to revise it so that any information needed to meet the stated objectives of the proposal is obtained using non-lethal means. Japan withdrew a proposed resolution in favour of the research programmes.

In 2007 the Commission passed a Resolution asking Japan to refrain from issuing a permit for JARPA II by 40 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 1 abstention; 27 countries decided not to participate in the vote as they believed that the submission of the proposal was not conducive to building bridges within the Commission."

Once again proof from IWC documents stating of resolutions strongly urging the government of Japan to withdraw from JARPA 2.

& it goes on & on, I am sure this will reappear again in court, maybe you should read it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

& we all know who the 1 abstention was don't we?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry KeikoTokyo.

Resolutions/recommendations are not legally binding especially when it conflicts with Article VIII of the actual convention. The vote count only indicates that there are too many anti-whaling nations as members who have no interest in development of whaling industry which that in of itself conflicts with the purpose and goal of the IWC.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry forgot to add the URL;

http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm#guidelines

'nigelboy;" *

the purpose and goal of the IWC. *

"

Where do you get that idea? From davidattokyo? If so maybe you should do some more research.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy;"The vote count only indicates that there are too many anti-whaling nations as members who have no interest in development of whaling industry"

Or maybe it shows there are more countries interested in the preservation of whales, rather than their destruction, & therefore showing why the international community is showing its ire to Japans lies,(not people being racist or anti-Japanese), & our disregard for the rest of the world, ergo declaring the worlds oceans as our own to destroy despite the protests from the international community, to which the oceans actually belong?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More political grandstanding. Even if the court ruled against Japan they could just drop out of the treaty any time they cared to. I doubt it would be worth it though. On the other hand since a compromise was put forward and then rejected I'm not sure that the Aussies will win.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ca1ic0cat, Japan has rejected the compromise, it was not put forward by the Japanese. The Japanese have stated it reduces their 'catch' in the Antarctic by to much, NZ has said it is too many in the Antarctic, Australia, Brazil, Chile have rejected it outright, just as the EU. So therefore unless Japan has paid people to vote for it, it will be rejected, at Japans agreement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where do you get that idea?

Read the paragraphs before Article 1.

http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm

Or maybe it shows there are more countries interested in the preservation of whales, rather than their destruction

Which is fine but I disagree that such views should be voiced in an organization where their purpose and the goal is the development of the whaling industry. If it's done in a sustainable manner, I believe whaling will contribute to less reliance on other marine sources.

And please don't label "international Community" as that of anti-whaling. That's just arrogant my friend. The international community not only includes the anti-whaling nations, it includes the pros as well as billions of people who choose not to eat pork for religious reasons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy;"And please don't label "international Community" as that of anti-whaling. That's just arrogant my friend. The international community not only includes the anti-whaling nations, it includes the pros as well as billions of people who choose not to eat pork for religious reasons."

So you are saying the 3 countries that continue to commercially whale, despite international agreements to cease it are now the whole international community? & that anyone who does not eat pork therefore eats whale? BIG assumptions there!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Australian Green Party is pandering to their constituents before the next election. Australia does not own the Australian Whale Sanctuary waters and in order for the ICJ to rule in Australia's favor, Australia must prove that the area is actually theirs. With only 4 out of 193 nations agreeing to Australia's jurisdiction, the chances of that happening are slim to none.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is just a matter of time before Japan is forced to stop the rediculous practice of killing off these wonderful creatures....

Any pressure that can help speed up the process is fine by me....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

KeikoTokyo - So you are saying the 3 countries that continue to commercially whale, despite international agreements to cease it are now the whole international community?

International agreements made at the IWC, the recognised authority over whaling? The IWC that created the whale sanctuaries, created the moritorium and has given permission to Norway, U.S., Japan and several island nations to take a limited number of NON-endangered whales.

Australia is now going to ask the ICJ to overrule Australia's own agreement with the IWC. Sounds like a huge waste of tax money for the Aussies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't wait for the trail and see Australia make a fool of herself to apease the bleeding hearts for the "magnificent creatures". And when logic and law take over Australia's Kevin "bloody" Rudd and Peter "heads are burning" Garrett will look pretty foolish but just may win another election for stickin it to those "Japanese Whalers".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good morning.

So, david, any success?

You say the whalers are doing research, and in the course of that research they have no other choice but to kill the animal. Yet for the data their are gathering there is no real need for killing it. You say there is. So, what we all want to know is whether over the last 30 years of "research", the Japanese have put some effort into developping non-lethal ways for gathering their data. Yet, there are no such papers on their website, nor were you able to present any such papers.

The conclusion seems to be clear, david: the "researchers" are not so much interested in the research, but rather in the "byproduct" of the research, namely the killing of the animal. Hence, no efforts in developping non-lethal sampling.

In other words, this "research" is just a coverup for "killing". Until you can show us some evidence showing the Japanese ever tried to limit their damage to the whale population by investigating non-lethal wampling ways, we will have to call this "research" what it is: a big pile of nonsense. The international scientific community seems to agree with us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

im going for a whale burger so i can see what all the fuss is about. i reakon it must be really good meat to cause all this fighting. if you cant beat em, join em

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul - in case you didn't know, the Greens are not the Government in Australia. Also, from what I read in the article, there was no mention of the court case being dependent on recognition of the Australian sanctuary. I wonder how Americans would feel about this if the Japanese were whaling off the coast of California or Hawaii? It's easy to be critical when your interests are unaffected. My point of difference with the Australian Government's approach is with respect to Japanese people whaling in Japanese waters - in which I say Australia has no logical interest. I say that if whaling in the region of Japan would satisfy Japan's cultural needs, nobody should begrudge it. But "research" which has never produced any meaningful results and has no meaningful research goal other than supplying a dwindling market for mercury tainted meat in Japan from whales on the other side of the planet has no sensible link with Japanese culture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 11:46 PM JST - 28th May OssanAmerica; so now your position has changed? You are no longer happy >for another country to legally close the 'loophole' that has allowed >Japan to ignore a moratorium?

I'm honestly sorry that you appear to be comprehension challenged. First, I haven't changed my position on anything. Second, closing the "loophole" in the IWC regulations can ONLY be done by the IWC itself, not by Australia and not by the ICJ. Third, the IWC is currently moving towards a complete change in regulations that specifically CLOSES THE RESEARCH WHALING LOOPHOLE. And guess what IWC member is vehemently fighting it? AUSTRALIA.

But I am sure I have seen your post before stating if a government >closes this 'loophole' legally you would support the end to the hunts, >because then it would be Japan breaking international law?

If the IWC changes it's rules and no longer permits Scientific research Whaling, then obviously the research whaling will end. Japan will not break the "law" in this regard, for many reasons but one of them being that they could leave the IWC and do what they want.

But now that is a possibility you are no longer happy with that stance? >& you only oppose groups who protest & try to stop, what you call legal, >actions?

The one who is NOT happy is Australia, it objects to the IWC propsal that would end Research whaling. The groups I oppose are eco-terrorists and that has to do with criminal behavior and actions, not with whaling.

But if the loophole is closed are you now saying you would support Japan >being a "rouge state", an "environmental terrorist"to continue its hunts >in Antarctic waters? Would that then not make SSCS upholders of the law, >& Japanese whalers terrorists & pirates? Is this what you support now?

I think you've lost your mind. The IWC proposal closes the Research whaling loophole but permits commercial whaling on a reduced basis. In other words, less whales taken and brings full control over whaling back into the hands of the IWC. I support the IWC. Without it there is no functiuonal international authority to regulate whaling. Anyone with half a brain who would not want whale species to go extinct or pushed to the brink like in the 19th century would support this. Your comments about Japan becoming a rogue state, terrorists and pirates are complete incoherent nonsense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo and your mates, if Australia have no chance of winning, then what are you getting all hot and bothered about?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is well over due. The pathetic veil of 'Scientific Whaling' has been lifted to show the total disregard for conservation of whale species on the other side of the world and locally. DID YOU KNOW that Japan has very little local fish industry left and that the oceans surrounding Japan are so full of giant jellyfish because Japan has destroyed all the top predators of the ocean near Japans shores.

For Japanese to label this as racists is shallow and telling. If they haven't noticed.. and they haven't - it's about the conservation of Whale species.

Shame on you Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Aussie Aussie Aussie!!! You Go! You Win! Friends of the world are friends to all!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Japanese would be well informed to know that there is a strong compliment of Japanese citizens supporting Sea Shepherd struggle against the Japanese Whaling fleet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

">KeikoTokyo at 11:46 PM JST - 28th May OssanAmerica; so now your position has changed? You are no longer happy >for another country to legally close the 'loophole' that has allowed >Japan to ignore a moratorium?

First, I haven't changed my position on anything. Second, closing the "loophole" in the IWC regulations can ONLY be done by the IWC itself, not by Australia and not by the ICJ. Third, the IWC is currently moving towards a complete change in regulations that specifically CLOSES THE RESEARCH WHALING LOOPHOLE. And guess what IWC member is vehemently fighting it? AUSTRALIA.

But I am sure I have seen your post before stating if a government >closes this 'loophole' legally you would support the end to the hunts, >because then it would be Japan breaking international law?

If the IWC changes it's rules and no longer permits Scientific research Whaling, then obviously the research whaling will end. Japan will not break the "law" in this regard, for many reasons but one of them being that they could leave the IWC and do what they want anyway. Would that be good for whale management? Would that be good for the whales?

But now that is a possibility you are no longer happy with that stance? >& you only oppose groups who protest & try to stop, what you call legal, >actions?

The one who is NOT happy is Australia, it objects to the IWC propsal that would end Research whaling. The groups I oppose are eco-terrorists and that has to do with criminal behavior and actions, not with whaling.

But if the loophole is closed are you now saying you would support Japan >being a "rouge state", an "environmental terrorist"to continue its hunts >in Antarctic waters? Would that then not make SSCS upholders of the law, >& Japanese whalers terrorists & pirates? Is this what you support now?

I think you've lost your mind. The IWC proposal closes the Research whaling loophole but permits commercial whaling on a reduced basis. In other words, less whales taken and brings full control over whaling back into the hands of the IWC. I support the IWC. Without it there is no functiuonal international authority to regulate whaling. Anyone with half a brain who would not want whale species to go extinct or pushed to the brink like in the 19th century would support this. Your comments about Japan becoming a rogue state, terrorists and pirates are complete incoherent nonsense."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The world is watching closely and the barbaric slaughter will come into >th world attention whilst many Japanese still call whales "fish" due to >ignorance.

No they aren't. Near war on hte Korean Penninsula, Biggesrt oil spill in US history, and the Euro is tanking. You think whaling is a big issue? BTW a great many people outside of Japan also call whales "fish" out of ignorance. Most Japanese call whales "fish" as in "seafood".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

... just imagining now the silence at JT after Australia has lost the case...

... except from me and all the people here who actually have a clue! (Should be about 20 comments in total I guess).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The popular consensus is that Japan has already lost the case. It seems that those that have a clue don't agree with you davidattokyo. Perhaps the world is larger than the individual after all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lose? I will be totally flabbergasted if ICJ takes Australia's case into consideration, let alone go though hearings to give out a verdict.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I should imagine few inflated egos will be 'flabbergasted' and even 'shocked' when they lose the case. That's the cost of living an insular existence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo said: It's not enough to get data one year. The idea is to sustainably utilise whales from now into the future. There's a need to constantly update the information for that purpose.

The way I see it, this is crucial to your support of research whaling. Yet you have done an extremely poor job of explaining. So poor in fact that I think you simply have no excuse for the massive numbers of whales killed over decades in the name of obtaining this data.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot at 10:57 AM JST - 29th May The popular consensus is that Japan has already lost the case.

Popular only amongst the anti-whaling crowd. Not among people with any objective view of merits (or lack thereof) of Australia's claim and the burden of substantiating the two biggest points, ie; Japan's compliance wkth Article VIII of the IWC regulations, and Australian jurisdiction over the AAT.

It seems that those that have a clue don't agree with you davidattokyo. Perhaps the world is larger than the individual after all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan and Australia have important trading relations. Australia for it's abundance of minerals and natural resources, and Japan for it's technology. However, Australia is willing to forgo these ties if the interests of conservation are not addressed.

This would seem like a reasonable request. Leave the whales in the Southern Oceans alone. However, Japanese government time and time again have ignored these pleas.

A simple analogy would be "having the balls to stand up for what you believe in" and therein, taking a stand for the preservation of species for future human generations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/world/asia/28briefs-whalebf.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like yours I guess botbot since Australia doesn't have a case unless they are able to prove that Japan had violated their sovereign rights. If Australian's plea is based on whaling alone then ICJ will just throw it to IWC, the international ruling authority concerning whaling. If ICJ should consider the case, as I mentioned in my previous post dozen other nations who place claim over Antarctica will no doubt make protest. Either ways no luck for Australia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia are of the opinion they have easily won the court ruling. Killing 1000's of whals in the name of science is justification enough to see that Japan will lose. It doesn't take Einstein to understand this simple fact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not about sovereignty, it's actually about whales. You should understand the difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then ICJ has no jurisdiction unless whales were granted autonomy by international consensus in which case again Australia has no case since the whales themselves need to file the protest. ICJ is not some kind of diluted tree hugging eco-evangelist it is the "International Court of Justice" and therefore it will follow due process accordingly to any and all international treaties and agreements. Australia can only make a case if it can prove Japan had violated their sovereign rights.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your saying that species need to represent themselves in the International Court. That's a curious thing to say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Species don't 'belong' to a sovereign country, but should be protected from poaching under an international ruling. But because you are so persistent on this idea of sovereignty I will pose this question to you. How would you like it if I traveled thousands of kilometers to take your species? How would you feel?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica;"If the IWC changes it's rules and no longer permits Scientific research Whaling, then obviously the research whaling will end. Japan will not break the "law" in this regard, for many reasons but one of them being that they could leave the IWC and do what they want anyway. Would that be good for whale management? Would that be good for the whales?"

So when the loophole is closed Japan will just simply leave the IWC,(like a spoilt little child), & do whatever it wishes anyway, "would that be good for the whales?" So you are saying after years of bad behaviour, by ignoring moratoriums, & sanctuaries Japan will now blame everyone else because it did not get what it wanted!!! Such a mature response, bully & bribe, then if that fails ignore all & do whatever you wish, & damn the rest of the world!

"I think you've lost your mind. The IWC proposal closes the Research whaling loophole but permits commercial whaling on a reduced basis. "

Take a look at the actual figures, there would be no reduction in actual numbers, & they would be killing more whales than they have in the previous years. Maybe you should start reading papers, & looking at actual numbers for the last few years, & stop preaching the false propaganda put out by those with vested interests in whaling & making profits from it.

"Third, the IWC is currently moving towards a complete change in regulations that specifically CLOSES THE RESEARCH WHALING LOOPHOLE. And guess what IWC member is vehemently fighting it? AUSTRALIA."

Australia is opposed to the reintroduction of commercial whaling, that has always been that countries stance, nothing has changed there. The only propaganda you are now preaching is how they are opposed to closing the loophole, they are not, nor are NZ, but both countries are opposed to the current deal, because it will start commercial whaling again, which Japan is doing anyway under the guise of "scientific whaling", so nothing would change with the current proposal, except the fact more whales would be killed than currently. If there was a proposal to close the loophole without starting commercial whaling again I am sure they would be supporting it. Once again you are just blurting out false propaganda, being put out by those who wish people to believe Japan is the victim once again.

Also Japan has already stated it will not support the current proposal because it does not allow us to kill as many whales as we wish, or maybe we are stating that because we know it is going to fail. So the proposal you are talking about is already dead in the water.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@KeikoTokyo. Excellent observations and understanding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot,

The popular consensus is that Japan has already lost the case.

That's why Australia has taken more than 20 years to bring this case to court, and they've done it in an election year after they promised prior to their previous election that they would do so, and the Aussie Green and Liberal parties plus the Japanese government ALL think that Australia's decision is politically motivated.

LOL!

Australia is willing to forgo these ties if the interests of conservation are not addressed.

Pfffffwhat? Australia's govt was at pains to state that they don't intend to let their political anti-whaling stunt effect the rest of their relationship with Japan.

Leave the whales in the Southern Oceans alone.

The IWC was established to management the utilisation of these resources. Where did you get this "leave the whales alone" stuff from?

MistWizard,

Gee, that's too bad if you think I've done an extremely poor job of explaining, maybe I have, after all, I do not give lectures in fisheries management science for a living. So, you are welcome to read research available on the IWC Scientific Committee homepage, which uses Japan's data, and to make your own decision based upon that, they are the experts. Presumably it'll be more convincing if you get it straight from the horse's mouth, rather than mine. And if you aren't convinced, perhaps you can write to the IWC Scientific Committee scientists who have been using Japan's data, and tell them that you think they are all a bunch of fraudsters, or something. Good luck!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"having the balls to stand up for what you believe in" and therein, taking a stand for the preservation of species for future human generations.

Sustainable whaling doesn't preclude the preservation of species. Just WHEN exactly do you think the Antarctic minke whales aren't going to be there any more? Year and date please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Rejoice! The Nippon government propaganda machine will be mute, and earth loving people will be victorious for future generations to come! Soon the whales will claim their rightful victory. Happy times. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot,

Australia are of the opinion they have easily won the court ruling.

Actually I saw Stevie Smith saying the exact opposite. They are fully aware that the court case could (and probably will) be a massive failure. New Zealand has also said as much.

But that's not why they are doing this. They are doing this because before the last election they said they would, and they want to be seen to be upholding their old election promise because this year is an election year and Krudd's government is currently not faring well in the polls.

Geez I can lecture you about politics now too huh?

Killing 1000's of whals in the name of science is justification enough to see that Japan will lose.

Aha! So that's the argument that Krudd's government will be taking to court huh?

Do some learning, kiddo. The scientific techniques for population modelling do indeed use biological data from 1000's of specimens over a long period of time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

start commercial whaling again, which Japan is doing anyway under the guise of "scientific whaling"

BS. If Japan were having commercial whaling right now they'd be catching at least 2000 Antarctic minkes a year, as was acknowledged as being sustainable by the IWC's Scientific Committee circa 1990, 20 years ago (before you kiddies were born).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot,

How would you like it if I traveled thousands of kilometers to take your species?

I don't "own" any species, and Australia sure doesn't "own" Antarctic minke whales. The Japanese have actually been exploiting these resources together with the former Soviets since before you appear to have been born. If anyone could stake a claim it'd be them, although under international law these resources are belonging to no one, and the exploitation of them is managed under the terms of UNCLOS and the ICRW with respect to the great whales.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

So when the loophole is closed Japan will just simply leave the IWC

They will leave before that happens, I would suggest. It's actually impossible to modify the ICRW (in which Article VIII written) without the consent of Japan and every other Contracting Government.

Folks - if you don't like the convention, then YOU should leave it. You can't change an agreement after you've signed it without the consent of others who signed it.

That's just very very basic stuff.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The legal case isn't about sustainable whaling- it will likely be based on the argument that Japan kills far more whales per year than are necessary for 'research', making it a de facto commercial enterprise and thus not permissible under IWC rules.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

funkymofo,

The legal case isn't about sustainable whaling- it will likely be based on the argument that Japan kills far more whales per year than are necessary for 'research', making it a de facto commercial enterprise and thus not permissible under IWC rules.

This argument will be like peeing into the wind.

Guess what? The international whaling commission scientists who value greatly the data that Japan has provided will be wheeled in front of the court, and will confirm that Japan's data is of benefit to the work of the IWC scientific committee, as has been stated by them previously.

This is the BIG problem for such an argument.

How can the anti-whalers get the court to IGNORE all the evidence that confirms that yes indeed Japan's programme has produced a wealth of data that is of great utility to the work done in the IWC's Scientific Committee?

Anti-whaling posters may indeed ignore, ignore, ignore this information here at the comments section of JT.

But the ICJ is NOT going to ignore all the inconvenient truths in the same way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the_harper - in case you didn't know, the Greens are not the Government in Australia. Also, from what I read in the article, there was no mention of the court case being dependent on recognition of the Australian sanctuary.

Did the Aussies kick the Green Party out of the government? Good for them.

One of the things that Australia must prove to the ICJ is that they have jurisdiction to bring suit. No jurisdiction means no court case. Naming an area of water the Australian anything doesn't magically grant jurisdiction.

1) The Australian government agreed to abide by the IWC rules. 2) Japan has been abiding by the IWC rules. 3) Australia hasn't actually filed a lawsuit with the ICJ, they've only threatened to change their intended filling date to June from November. 4) Australia has no jurisdiction to file the complaint. 5) The Australian government has stated that, 'whatever our differences (with Japan) on whaling, this issue SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to jeopardize the strength and the growth of our bilateral relationship.'

Sounds to me like the Green Party hopes to put political pressure on the Japanese court deciding Bethune the pirate's court case and to spend a huge amount of taxpayer money on a ICJ case that Australia can't win.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are reciting incorrect information davidattokyo. Nippon took 507 whales last year. That's not 'just a few', and that's not scientific research.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bottie,

Gee, if I can show you a paper by a scientist from Denmark who is an IWC scientific expert in Age Dynamics and uses data supplied from Japan's research programmes, would you accept that as an example that you are wrong?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope the barbaric and callous slaughter of Whales is completely banned. It a cruel and inhumane entity that inflicts such atrocities on species.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot - Did the Aussies kick the Green Party out of the government? Good for them. They have never achieved government. Perhaps you are confused.

Doesn't the methane laden green party currently hold 5 seats in Parliament? Are they just taking up space or were they asked to step outside, so as to clear the air.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@davidattokyo, the decimation of 1000's of whales to prove their age is a barbaric practice. How can you claim to be sentient in this modern age?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

..Again, and I state, "the decimation of 1000's of whales to prove their age is a barbaric practice". No matter what you pretend to be studying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot,

the decimation of 1000's of whales to prove their age is a barbaric practice.

The goal is not to prove their age. The goal is to use the age data from a sample set to understand the population dynamics.

But I take it that you don't like whales being killed, for whatever reason, including science for whale management.

So therefore, your arguments here are total rubbish and you are going to be feelign very very blue after this court case is done ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot - You are reciting incorrect information davidattokyo. Nippon took 507 whales last year. That's not 'just a few', and that's not scientific research.

You're wrong on both counts. It is scientific research according to the IWC, the recognised authority. Only the terrorist SS organization and their supporters pretend otherwise. And with over 800,000 minke whales, your 507 would be considered 'just a few'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Other parts of the world seem to think your cruel and unethical in your slaughter of Whales. http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/japan-stands-by-its-renewed-scientific-whale-slaughter/2007/11/23/1195753306762.html Were you aware of this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whale meat is full of dangerous metals that break down the human central nervous system over several years. Mercury, Methyl Mercury, Cadmium, DDT & PCB’s are some of these. Japan is poisoning its own children by introducing whale meat onto school lunch menus.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo, I too look forward to Japan's comical attempts to justify the slaughter of a thousand or so whales per year, with the IWC having repeatedly asked them to stop. This number is patently ridiculous and I trust the verdict will be a reflection of that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Considering that other evolved nations consider the act of Whaling to be cruel and barbaric, then it is clear to see that SS is not a 'terrorist' organization - but ecologists with conscience. Perhaps you equate terrorism with social conscience. How very odd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo said: So, you are welcome to read research available on the IWC Scientific Committee homepage, which uses Japan's data,

I did, and I could find no justification for decades of killing so many whales. Look dude, if you don't understand you own arguments, then you cannot expect to do well in a debate. You brought it up. I thought you might have an decent answer. Unfortunately, I guess you don't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why does Japanese scientific research involve cans of Whale Meat sold in Japanese supermarkets. So for example, if scientific research = canned whales, then what does fishing equal?? fishing = research?? Could someone please clarify? There seems to be a semantic language barrier here, or perhaps we are all being deceived.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The researchers can sell the leftover meat from their research to offset costs for the research.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's interesting that Japan has no fishing industry left in the Sea of Japan because of over fishing and pollution, and yet they're amazed and confounded by the attitude of other nations disdain for their barbaric practice of Whaling the Southern Oceans. It will be a great day when the court hands down it ruling. Congratulations Australia to standing up to these bullish thugs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the 'scientific researchers' could just research the Nippon government, then we wouldn't have these problems. You could buy canned politician at the supermarket that has been freshly researched and scientifically studied for the benefit of the planet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The sad reality is that the age information that is gathered does not even require the death of the whale - it only takes tiny DNA samples that could be gathered from contact no more invasive than brushing their back for a moment with a spoon! Even more information could be gathered by cameras. The research angle has always been a farce, a legal loophole that is passed largely because the real science of it is generally not understood by bureaucrats, or by the public.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Insular and exclusive regimes like Nippon rarely admit fault, to anything - much less the slaughter of whales. The more they isolate themselves from the world, the more they believe their own lies and attempt to propagate their deception to other nations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

IWC Scientific Committee 62 docs here, for those who are actually remotely interested in science, as opposed to just voicing their baseless opinions, as some here love to.

http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SC62docs/sc62docs.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

funkymofo,

Simple yes / no question: are you aware that IWC "resolutions" are not legally binding, and merely political expressions with no legal force?

I trust the verdict will be a reflection of that.

Your trust is based on your ignorance of the science involved in stock management of marine resources, so I'm afraid you're going to be veeery dissappointed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I could find no justification for decades of killing so many whales

I could... so what does that say about your reading ability?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just been reading skimming through some reports from the IWC Scientific Committee homepage.

I like this bit: http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SC62docs/Annex%20D%20JCRM%202004%20plausibility%20comments.pdf

DESCRIPTION AND SUPPORT FOR BASELINE D Tom Polacheck and Tim Smith Description The Baseline D stock structure hypothesis was developed during the North Pacific Minke Whale IST Workshop held in January 2002 (IWC, 2003) based on new information that had become available from Japanese research whaling operations as ...

Where did they say they got the data? Japanese research whaling operations?

Geee..... what do the anti-whalers have to say about this research... "Thru"?

Here's another.

Report of the Intersessional catch-at-age working group ANDRÉ E. PUNT (CONVENOR), DOUGLAS S. BUTTERWORTH, TOSHIHIDE KITAKADO, TOM POLACHECK

Age-reading error experiment Last year, the IA sub-committee recommended that the experiment to conduct independent age readings of 250 earplugs which had been planned for 2008/09 (but could not be undertaken due to logistic arrangements) be undertaken during 2009/10. The experiment was conducted as planned during 2009/10 by Lockyer with additional readings by Zenitani and the data (along with the historical estimates of age for the earplugs concerned) were analysed to estimate age-reading error matrices for Misaki, Kato and Zenitani (see SC/62/IA2 for details). The age-reading error matrices from SC/62/IA2 were included in the analyses of changes over time in minke whale abundance based on the statistical catch-at-age analysis method of Punt and Polacheck (see SC/62/IA6 for details).

Say, where do the anti-whalers think the ear plugs came from? Trees?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot,

Why does Japanese scientific research involve cans of Whale Meat sold in Japanese supermarkets.

It doesn't.

Whale Meat sold in Japanese supermarkets that uses whale meat from whales taken for scientific purposes is a result of the Article VIII text of the ICRW that legally requires the government issuing the special permits to ensure that the whale resources taken are used to the extent possible, not just wasted after biological samples etc are taken.

This is, of course, common sense. It would be a strange whaling convention that required whale resources be wasted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mikanojo

The sad reality is that the age information that is gathered does not even require the death of the whale - it only takes tiny DNA samples

DNA does not tell you how old a particular whale was.

DNA is useful for many things, and indeed Japan collects perhaps more DNA data than any other country - but DNA is not useful for determining age of baleen whales.

could be gathered from contact no more invasive than brushing their back for a moment with a spoon!

Geeee, sounds really eaaaaasy to simply brush a spoon on the back of a fast swimming minke whale in the harsh Antarctic Ocean! (note my sarcasm).

Plus, even if this near impossible and hard to repeat feat were feasible, it still doesn't give important biological information that CAN and IS obtained through sampling whale carcasses.

Even more information could be gathered by cameras.

..... Yeah! They could .... count the wrinkles on the whales to figure out how old they are perhaps!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey davidattokyo, ear-plugs aren't science when the same tests can be done with DNA. Welcome to the 2010.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot. What is the scientific name for that test.

I would like to google it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I will supply good links, however, the propaganda machine tries to suppress the truth.

Hunting minke whales on grounds of overabundance not justified http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/january18/minke-whale-research-012110.html

DNA sampling of whale WITHOUT terminating the animals life http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2089763.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some truths about so called "research", & how it can be done non-lethally;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYtecbI6ve8

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Japanese propaganda machine tries to poison their peoples minds with false truths and rhetoric. There is not even one single fact of conviction that holds true for the savages that slaughter whales. NOT ONE!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Just been reading skimming through some reports from the IWC Scientific Committee homepage."

What does that have to do with Australia taking Japan to the IJC? Just more off topic propaganda! Try to divert the debate again, why is that? Because you know what is coming at the IJC, & I guess then worried about your future employment?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Har. What a circus.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, it is a circus.]

Charges that Australia will present are: 1.) Dumping of waste in Antartic waters. 2.) Using a refueling method that is banned in those waters.

But it is fun to see both sides getting worked up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Botbot.

I asked for the name of the test with which the age of an animal can be verified from its DNA.

Not that things can be verified via DNA testing without killing the animal.

Pls, be good enough to supply it.

Reason why I am asking is because I can't find any info about "age-verification from DNA samples".

Thx.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot,

Hey davidattokyo, ear-plugs aren't science

You, versus the IWC Scientific Committee. Good luck

the same tests can be done with DNA.

No they can't. Welcome to the real world. Do you even know what DNA is? DNA can not be used to determine age, and if you read the IWC Scientific Committee papers you'd be aware that the only age data available for Antarctic minke whales etc is that obtained from ear plugs.

Where is the data, if it can be obtained without killing whales? You can't show it to me, because it doesn't exist. Trust me, I do not write comments like this without knowing what I am talking about (unlike you...)

KeikoTokyo,

What does that have to do with Australia taking Japan to the IJC?

Ummmm, in case you didn't realise, Australia disputes that scientific research is being conducted and that it's actually "commercial whaling in disguise". The information I posted are just a few examples of the utility of the data that Japan has been making available at the IWC for scientists. So, you can stop your pretending to believe that Japan's research is not science.

Just more off topic propaganda!

What is inconvenient for you nonsense arguments is not "propaganda". What I posted is the cold, hard reality of this issue.

Zenny11,

Charges that Australia will present are: 1.) Dumping of waste in Antartic waters. 2.) Using a refueling method that is banned in those waters.

Yes, although Australia ostensibly says it's going to take Japan to court over scientific whaling, it seems likely that their lawyers (at least) have some brains and won't try to argue along those lines because they will be fully aware that they will lose. So they'll try to argue on some technicalities for sure, but then I question what the point of that is. If Japan is "dumping waste" then Japan will do whatever necessary to amend anything that is a problem (but gee, where do people think whales come from, the sky?!). And ditto for refueling, they can make changes to that if required.

But none of that is going to stop whaling, and that why Australia is going to lose this case :)

The only interesting thing will be whether the ICJ would accept Australia's call for an injunction to stop whaling while the case is being undertaken. I don't know about the circumstances in which that could occur, but if it did it would be a huge travesty of justice, because Australia is going to lose this case, and all the credibility they have as a nation state.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Charges that Australia will present are: 1.) Dumping of waste in Antartic waters. 2.) Using a refueling method that is banned in those waters.

Does Australia really need to take Japan to ICJ for the above claims? Why not just lodge a protest directly to Japan if they are concerned of the two.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;Ummmm, in case you didn't realise, Australia disputes that scientific research is being conducted and that it's actually "commercial whaling in disguise".

Actually David,"Charges that Australia will present are: 1.) Dumping of waste in Antartic waters. 2.) Using a refueling method that is banned in those waters." From Zeny11

Maybe you should get yourself up to date with what is happening?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SamuraiBlue;"Does Australia really need to take Japan to ICJ for the above claims? Why not just lodge a protest directly to Japan if they are concerned of the two."

Actually they have through diplomatic routes, & that is part of the problem we seem to ignore all these things until we are taken to court for it. I remember reading complaints along with photo's about this last year, with Japanese vessels refueling within 1 mile of an endangered penguin colony, & at the time the Japanese laughed it all off, guess not so now, huh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, Australia has tried many times to ask the Japanese to stop slaughtering whales. They were just ignored by Japan. Somehow I am not surprised.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"If Japan is "dumping waste" then Japan will do whatever necessary to amend anything that is a problem (but gee, where do people think whales come from, the sky?!). And ditto for refueling, they can make changes to that if required."

But are we not signatories on these treaties? Then should we not abide by these same said treaties, especially when we are doing something that is so offensive to our neighbors? If so why do we have to be taken to court before we will comply with what we have signed & agreed to on these treaties?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry forgot to add how we actually accused SSCS of these very same things last season, yet it is us being taken to court for breaching them!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing NEW there and NOTHING there about knowing the age of a whale from the sample.

Not surprising since the DNA NEVER changes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Zenny11. My mistake, here is your link. DNA sampling of whale WITHOUT terminating the animals life http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2089763.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo

Read closely the whaling issue and the protest to be filed against ICJ are completely separate. Like I posted before ICJ is not the international ruling authority of whaling, that's IWC's jurisdiction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sea Shepherd is welcome in any port of Australia, and they are much loved by Australia's multi-cultural community of Asian, Anglo and indiginous peoples. Japanese whale boats are not. In the last whaling season, the Japanese tried to hire an Australian helicopter to use a LRAD military grade device against the SSCS. But the Australian government discovered this and would not allow the Japanese to do so. Australia rightfully respects people who try to preserve ecology for future generations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Zenny11. Actually DNA does change over time, it accumulates mutations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia will be successful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SamuraiBlue;"the whaling issue and the protest to be filed against ICJ are completely separate. Like I posted before ICJ is not the international ruling authority of whaling, that's IWC's jurisdiction."

Just what you seen to fail to understand is that if Australia is successful in the ICJ it could see the Japanese whaling fleet banned from Antarctic waters, for breaches of international treaties they have signed. Therefore if they are banned then just how are they going to whale there?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guess you could call it using a "loophole" to close another "loophole", huh? Because no matter what the IWC say if the fleet is banned that is it...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sea Shepherd does not care whether the international court endorses a banning on whales slaughter or not. It will protect the whales, forever. So eat something else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Prevention of Marine Pollution

The Antarctic Treaty area includes over 20 million square kilometres of the Southern Ocean, extending from the Antarctic coast to 60 degrees South latitude. On the initiative of the ATCM the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1990 designated these waters a “Special Area” (where the adoption of special mandatory methods for the prevention of sea pollution is required) under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol 73/78).

Annex IV to the Environment Protocol prohibits discharge of oil, noxious liquid substances and garbage in the Antarctic Treaty area. It also contains rules for the discharge of sewage; and for ship retention capacity; reception facilities; sovereign immunity; preventive measures; and emergency preparedness and response.

Here is the environment protocol dictated by ATS. As written if Japan's whaling ships are refueled out side the 60 degrees South latitude area which I am sure they honor, then again Australia does not have a case.(If Japan didn't it would have been taken up by the ATS themselves a long time ago.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry SamuraiBlue but there are photo's showing the Japanese fleet at anchor & refueling well below the 60 degree parallel, & within 1 mile of an endangered penguin colony on mainland Antarctica just last January, which was mid breed season. Along with the photo's from the Pacific Viking from a few years ago. Thus showing a continued behaviour of not complying with treaties. That with the publications of accusations of SSCS breaking this treaty show that we were well aware of our violations of the treaty. Now time for court...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lets face it! Morally and Ecologically, YOU should NOT be there! So pick your jaw up off the ground and stay out of the Southern Oceans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Annex IV to the Environment Protocol prohibits discharge of oil, noxious liquid substances...

LOL. How many liters of butreic acid have SS been chucking into the waters over the past few years?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In fact I read a comment by davidattokyo last year regarding a post stating Japan was refueling below 60 degrees parallel, & his reply was that does not apply to Japan, guess now is time to find out these treaties & regulations do actually refer to us as well...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Australian Navy follow the Japanese whale boats in close proximity last year while they conducted operations. They have all the evidence they need to see that Japan will never harvest the Southern Ocean again. Well done Australia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Only a fool would be so presumptuous to assume that Japan could ever win a court case on the premise of Scientific Research. Good bye Japan, hello whales!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People here seem to know Australia will win because well they post the most and insist that they will win so maybe they will. Love the made up 'facts' as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hokkaidoguy, in case you do not know, rotten butter is a natural substance that is biodegradable,(it comes from cows, you know milk, butter etc), & will break down naturally in any environment. These charges relate to waste products from vessels, & oil/petro-chemical products, to which the treaty was formed & signed to protect an environmentally sensitive area, treaties to which we have agreed to abide, but have failed to. Now time for the punishment for violations of treaties we have ignored.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have to work tomorrow, but I'm glad I did something today close to the heart. Save the whales!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo:

That's nice. But butyric acid is what SS have been polluting the antiarctic with, not rancid butter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hokkaidoguy, that's nice but butyric acid is rotten butter!!! Maybe you have been reading to much from the propaganda, & not enough fact finding?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

keikotokyo:

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1334.html

I suppose the CDC is in on it too?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hokkaidoguy, that is for pure or concentrate butyric acid, which is also contained in rotten butter, is what makes it stink! & what SSCS has been using against whaling vessels, not pure or concentrate butyric acid. Once again the propaganda put out by the ICR has been taken without finding out the true facts...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

true facts.

right. you've got my attention.

who do I write the check out to?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo.

Why do ALL the news articles say "Butyric Acid" and NOT "Rancid Butter".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was talking also Australian, etc newspapers too.

So the IRC paid newpapers globally to use the wrong term.

Intersting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FYI, I watch a lot of overseas news-channels and also read overseas newspapers(multiple languages) daily.

The Internet is a great thing. ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But we have to ask where are all the 'usual suspects', you know all the ones that comment on all whaling articles, eg davidattokyo, OssanAmerica, HedaMadness, they all came out of the blocks so strong on this thread, Aus are fools, Aus can never win, Aus this & Aus that, now the facts of what Japan is being taken to court for, the why & how, all of a sudden no more comments! Why would that be? Maybe because now they know they have no comeback? Maybe because they now know the how & why of how the whaling fleet will be BANNED from Antarctic oceans? Maybe they are not feeling as confident now, they certainly were until the facts of the charges came out? What is up guys, yesterday we were all fools, & Aus could never win, Japan could never loose, now the facts are out & just how we can loose you have nothing to say? & unfortunately it is to late for our whaling industry, our arrogance in believing no one can touch us has now put us in a corner, where all the evidence has been collected over previous years, maybe even some comments on here! So now we are screwed they have fled, just like rats abandoning the sinking ship you could say! But none of them where actually Japanese anyway, guess they were just after the $'s.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From the New York Times;"Japanese whaling expeditions violate international obligations"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/world/asia/29whales.html

International obligations also include other treaties signed by Japan, not just the IWC...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Geez, you guys are still going?! And people suggest that I am getting paid!!!

KeikoTokyo, who seems to pretend to be Japanese (?) with repetitive use of "we are being taken to court" etc, and botbot have been at it like rabbits.

In fact I read a comment by davidattokyo last year regarding a post stating Japan was refueling below 60 degrees parallel, & his reply was that does not apply to Japan,

Geeeee, you've got some memory... Care to show me the post where I said that, or is this just another lie that you are paid to make up and post here?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

International obligations also include other treaties signed by Japan, not just the IWC...

None of which are mentioned in the NY Times article you posted a link to... although it does state that scientific whaling is legal.

Good luck!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Japan evidently recognises the rights of all nations to harvest marine resources from international waters under the same agreements that Japan seeks to."

So why then did Japan try to include only it & Norway, & Iceland will be allowed to whale under the 'new' proposal to the IWC?

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japanese-whalers-in-breach-of-antarctic-law-experts-say#show_all_comments

& maybe you need to be reminded of this one;"Moderator: Please refrain from using inflammatory terms like "terrorist" on these threads. They lower the level of discussion."

"Greenpeace Activists Block Refueling of Japanese Whaling Fleet's Factory Ship in Whale Sanctuary"

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-activists-block-ref

From 2008

22 January. Greenpeace blocked the Japanese whaling fleet’s factory ship Nisshin Maru from being refueled in Antarctic waters. The environmental group said the Nisshin Maru jeopardizes pristine Antarctic waters by refueling within the Antarctic Treaty Area.

More from 2008, including photo's, http://www.wildlifeextra.com.au/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=1&listcatid=1&listitemid=2163#cr

An independent group of Antarctic law and policy experts, convened in Canberra by IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare), has released a report detailing options available to the Australian Government to challenge Japan’s whaling program through the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS).

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_asia_pacific/media_center/press_releases/01_20_2009_51771.php

& sorry David, going back thru posts it shows it was infact your partner in crime, Ossan who stated Japan was quite fine to refuel below the 60 degree parallel.

But have posted a few pieces of evidence showing just how the whaling fleet has refused to follow treaties signed by the government that is funding their their "research".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 11:43 AM JST - 29th May "OssanAmerica;"If the IWC changes it's rules and no longer permits Scientific research Whaling, then obviously the research whaling will end. Japan will not break the "law" in this regard, for many reasons but one of them being that they could leave the IWC and do what they want anyway. Would that be good for whale management? Would that be good for the whales?" So when the loophole is closed Japan will just simply leave the IWC, (like a spoilt little child), & do whatever it wishes anyway, "would >that be good for the whales?" So you are saying after years of bad >behaviour, by ignoring moratoriums, & sanctuaries Japan will now blame >everyone else because it did not get what it wanted!!! Such a mature >response, bully & bribe, then if that fails ignore all & do whatever you >wish, & damn the rest of the world!

Please answer the questions: "Would that be good for whale management? Would that be good for the whales?"

"I think you've lost your mind. The IWC proposal closes the Research whaling loophole but permits commercial whaling on a reduced basis. "

Take a look at the actual figures, there would be no reduction in actual >numbers, & they would be killing more whales than they have in the >previous years. Maybe you should start reading papers, & looking at >actual numbers for the last few years, & stop preaching the false >propaganda put out by those with vested interests in whaling & making >profits from it.

Total nonsense. The IWC propsal elimanates Research Whaling, brings back limited commercial whaling, with the numbers less than currentrly being taken.

"Third, the IWC is currently moving towards a complete change in regulations that specifically CLOSES THE RESEARCH WHALING LOOPHOLE. And guess what IWC member is vehemently fighting it? AUSTRALIA."

Australia is opposed to the reintroduction of commercial whaling, that >has always been that countries stance, nothing has changed there. The >only propaganda you are now preaching is how they are opposed to closing >the loophole, they are not, nor are NZ, but both countries are opposed >to the current deal, because it will start commercial whaling again, >which Japan is doing anyway under the guise of "scientific whaling", so >nothing would change with the current proposal, except the fact more >whales would be killed than currently. If there was a proposal to close >the loophole without starting commercial whaling again I am sure they >would be supporting it. Once again you are just blurting out false >propaganda, being put out by those who wish people to believe Japan is >the victim once again.

Wrong. You're the one blurting out false propaganda. The IWC propsal is a compromise, whereas Australia refues to compromise at all. Both the United States and New Zealand are prepared to compromise. Australia by itself is ready to wrecck the chance to "correct" the IWC because it can't have it all it's own way.

Also Japan has already stated it will not support the current proposal >because it does not allow us to kill as many whales as we wish, or maybe >we are stating that because we know it is going to fail. So the proposal >you are talking about is already dead in the water.

No it's not dead at all. It's still under negotiation in the build up to the June vote.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Antarctic Treaty

The original Parties to the Treaty were the 12 nations active in the Antarctic during the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58. The Treaty was signed in Washington on 1 December 1959 and entered into force on 23 June 1961.

The Governments of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, the French Republic, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Union of South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, recognizing that it is in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue for ever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord.

The now 47 Antarctic Treaty nations represent about two-thirds of the world's human population. Article I

Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. There shall be prohibited, inter alia, any measure of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military manoeuvres, as well as the testing of any type of weapon. The present Treaty shall not prevent the use of military personnel or equipment for scientific research or for any other peaceful purpose.

Japan has deployed military personnel on two security vessels sent to protect its Antarctic whaling fleet from intervention by the Sea Shepherd conservation group's flagship, Steve Irwin , its skipper Captain Paul Watson said.

The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) is the body responsible for the conservation of marine resources in the Southern Ocean. It is supposed to regulate the harvesting of, or research into, all living organisms that are found in the marine environment within the Convention that implements CCAMLR. Protecting Antarctic Wildlife

Guidelines for visiting the Antarctic include ensuring that "wildlife and vegetation are not disturbed".

Taking or harmful interference with Antarctic wildlife is prohibited except in accordance with a permit issued by a national authority. Do not use aircraft, vessels, small boats, or other means of transport in ways that disturb wildlife, either at sea or on land. Do not feed, touch, or handle birds or seals, or approach or photograph them in ways that cause them to alter their behavior. Special care is needed when animals are breeding or molting. Do not use guns or explosives. Keep noise to the minimum to avoid frightening wildlife.

Visits to breeding wildlife are presently controlled by various codes of conduct which reflect the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty. These provisions outline, in relatively non-specific terms, ways of minimising disturbance to wildlife by suggesting practices such as not touching animals and keeping noise to a minimum during visits.

DNA sampling provides more data than can be obtained through opening a dead whale’s stomach. A series of whale scats gives a more complex picture of whale feeding habits and their internal parasites.

http://candobetter.org/node/1736

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Total nonsense. The IWC propsal elimanates Research Whaling, brings back limited commercial whaling, with the numbers less than currentrly being taken. "

Last year Japan took just over 500 minkes, & 1 fin whale, under the numbers by the 'proposal' Japan will take at least 800 minkies, + fins, + humpbacks, just how is that a reduction? Ohh & I am sorry I forgot to mention the extras we will get off the Nth Pacific. So by saying we are going to reduce numbers, we are actually saying we will lower the number on our research quota, which we do not get anyway! Then you will allow us to hunt in the Nth Pacific as well, ohh & coastal, so in fact in total we will be taking more, but we will disguise this behind a smaller number in the Antarctic, yet that number is higher than what we get now!

Not only will e do this, but we will also make the rules so that only ourselves, Norway, & Iceland can hunt whales! So therefore making one rule for ourselves, yet another for the rest of the world! How does that work? Already Korea is saying if they can whale, so can we! So by pushing this through we are saying to the rest of the world commercial whaling is ok! We are opening a free for all on the oceans of the world. & if you truely believe these rules only apply to Japan, Norway, & Iceland is that not racist? Stating we have one rule for us, but another completely different one for the rest of the world? Is that not racism at it purest point?

Appart from that we have already stated we are not willing to go along with any regulations on, ohh say Tuna fishing, or whaling, so therefore why would the rest of the world believe for 1 second we will stick to the quotas? We have shown in our own history we will do as we please, CITES proposes a ban on Tuna trade, our response; we will ignore it. IWC poses a moratorium on whaling, we lie & bribe to do as we wish.Why would the world believe us now??? If we want the world to believe us should we not show them why? I think that is another reason we are now being taken to the ICJ, because of our failures to abide by treaties we have signed! Because all we have shown is disrespect & contempt to the rest of the world, yet we expect to be treated with more. Maybe we should first stop treating the rest of the world as fools, & join the rest of the world. Stop lying to the rest of the world, admit our faults, say sorry, & move on with some dignity, something we are lacking now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Australia refues to compromise at all. Both the United States and New Zealand are prepared to compromise"

NZ has rebuked the 'deal';"

Wellington - New Zealand on Friday rejected an International Whaling Commission (IWC) proposal that would have authorized whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

Foreign Minister Murray McCully told a press conference in the North Island city of Auckland that the proposal was 'offensive' and 'inflammatory.'

'The catch limits proposed in the Southern Ocean are unrealistic,' he said. 'The proposal to include fin whales in the Southern Ocean is inflammatory. New Zealanders will not accept this,' he said. "

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_1550382.php/New-Zealand-rejects-whaling-proposal

Japan has also rejected the very same deal;" Japan rejects deal to limit whaling to its own waters A proposal by the International Whaling Commission to reduce Japan's lethal "research whaling" programme in return for increased whaling in its own waters has been rejected by Tokyo.

By Julian Ryall in Tokyo Published: 12:57AM GMT 04 Feb 2009 Link to this video

The IWC has proposed that Japan scale back or halt its whaling in the Antarctic Ocean over the next five years, a suggestion that Shigeru Ishiba, minister of fisheries, dismissed as "unacceptable."

Tokyo "will not be able to accept any proposal that would prohibit Japan from continuing its research whaling," he told reporters.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/4453013/Japan-rejects-deal-to-limit-whaling-to-its-own-waters.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So please explain just how this deal is still goin gthrough, even though Japan has publicly rejected it? Ohh & the other countries you stated were supporting it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"No it's not dead at all. It's still under negotiation in the build up to the June vote."

Ohh sorry you are still trying to bribe countries behind closed doors?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - Taking or harmful interference with Antarctic wildlife is prohibited except in accordance WITH A PERMIT issued by a national authority.

So what is your problem again?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@KeikoTokyo, That's the problem with corrupt and deceitful governments. They don't last long, and the people must endure the stupidity of their masters. What arrestpaul is incapable of understanding at this moment in time, is that it will soon be his problem when his eyes finally open.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo is fighting the wind, he fighting a battle he can never win - not even in his dreams. Whales 1 , davidattokyo < 0.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You should read some of the other international new sites. The world hates with vengeance Japans atrocities on whales. Broaden your mind, look at other news sites around the world!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo said: I could... so what does that say about your reading ability?

Nothing at all. This is not about reading ability but rather the ability to make a judgement. Determining the age of whales is simply not that important. And even it were, after killing thousands of whales, why can't they figure out other methods yet? In fact, my understanding is that even with decades of using current lethal methods they still are not sure about whale aging. They still cannot even give us a clear picture even on whale life expectency! How many thousands of whales died already, and they still are not sure? But they just keep doing it over and over? This is one of the definitions of insanity. We stop crazy people doing crazy things where I come from.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard, you are 100% right.

Even more, the Japanese pretend that they are doing research and during the course of taking samples they have no choice but to kill the animals. However, NEVER have they tried to develop methods to gather data in a non-lethal way. The conclusion is clear: they are not interested in the research, they are interested in KILLING the animals, as that gives them the excuse to eat or sell them afterwards.

In the last 30 years of "research", the Japanese have failed to produce even 1 paper on the development of non-lethal methods. On the other hand, they did publish a paper on the development of harpoons...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

‘‘In general terms, the argument will be framed around Japan’s interpretation of Article 8 of the whaling convention on whether or not Japan has a unilateral and unlimited right to engage in so-called scientific whaling,’’ said Rothwell, who advised the Australian government on the issue.

That's true. Also, many of us are not pretty sure if the objective of whaling is truly aimed in scientific research. But, why Australia?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because Australia has been requesting Japan to stop the slaughter of whale for many years. But Japan just ignored their pleas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The environmental group said the Nisshin Maru jeopardizes pristine Antarctic waters by refueling within the Antarctic Treaty Area.

Greenpeace says a lot of lies, but they themselves have refueled their ships in the exact same ocean. Hypocrisy at its worst.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sorry David, going back thru posts it shows it was infact your partner in crime, Ossan who stated Japan was quite fine to refuel below the 60 degree parallel.

OK, thanks for clearing that up for me. Personally I don't know about that particular agreement or whatever, but as I said my view is that if Japan is not supposed to be refueling there, then they should handle their fuel requirements in some other way. I make no judgement about the rule itself because I'm not aware of it, and would need to check it for myself. I don't blindly believe what anti-whaling NGOs argue, without checking it because they are wrong most of the time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

So why then did Japan try to include only it & Norway, & Iceland will be allowed to whale under the 'new' proposal to the IWC?

Huh? It wasn't Japan that wanted that, it was added there because the proposal was written by people who realize that if they open the doors for other nations to catch whales, then nations like Australia will never agree with the proposal. Because it would be "opening the door" to more whaling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica,

Total nonsense. The IWC propsal elimanates Research Whaling, brings back limited commercial whaling, with the numbers less than currentrly being taken.

As I understand it, the proposal says "who gives a big F what the whaling is for - from a conservation perspective what matters is how many whales are taken, and from which stocks".

So the proposal gives quotas to the whaling nations in exchange for them refraining from their rights to unilaterally set quotas (for either research or commercial purposes), and it also gives quotas to the so-called "aboriginal subsistence" whaling, which is now going to be renamed as "indigenous whaling" or something like that because of the racist overtones of the former term.

This helps to do away with the double standards that have persisted within the IWC, e.g. OK for Americans to kill whales in their own back yard but not OK for Japanese to kill whales in their own back yard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The IWC propsal is a compromise, whereas Australia refues to compromise at all.

Very true! It's a joke to read the Australian propaganda ... how they have been trying to find a "compromise" through diplomatic means. Yet the only "compromise" they have in mind is one where Japan just does everything that Australia demands. They have no idea of give and take, and are showing just how light weight they are down there in Australia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

The Antarctic Treaty covers the continent (Antarctica) as I understand it, not the international waters adjacent to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) is the body responsible for the conservation of marine resources in the Southern Ocean.

It doesn't cover whales. That is left to the (useless) IWC.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

The IWC proposal represents a reduction, because the smart people at the IWC don't think that the results of Sea Shepherd eco-terrorism should be taken into consideration when setting quotas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo, you are attributing comments from Ossan to me, you should be a little more careful or other people besides yourself will get confused.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the IWC proposal is flawed deeply in the way that it will limit the nations that can catch whales. That actually contravenes the text of the ICRW itself (if one is familiar with it's terms, I think the relevant part is in Article V from memory).

However the IWC also has a moratorium in place that is supposed to be reviewed "by 1990 at the latest", and so the IWC folks seem content to keep breaking the ICRW rules to satisfy the anti-whaling membership (who should simply exercise their rights under the convention to withdraw from it since they can't accept it's terms)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

Japan hasn't rejected the draft proposal, it has said it wants to negotiate on the 200 Minke whale a year quota that is proposed, because it won't be able to accept that.

New Zealand hasn't rejected the proposal, only the numbers of whales that are included. They don't think fin whales should be hunted (even just a handful each year), and so presumably they will be looking to negotiate on that.

The deal won't go through though, I imagine. I think Japan should look for a new international organization to manage whaling, as is provided for under UNCLOS, because due to the anti-whaling nations refusing to withdraw from the ICRW, the IWC is simply not working and can not work. You can not have a whalers club work when there are anti-whalers in the membership doing everything they can to stop the ship.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard,

Determining the age of whales is simply not that important.

Yes it is. Age is a very important biological parameter to have good knowledge of for stock assessments, that's why the IWC Scientific Committee has recently conducted a very important experiment in relation to the reading of ear plugs from Antarctic minke whales.

This is important - even if it is of no relevance to you in particular. You are arrogant if you think it is up to you to judge what is important and what is not.

And even it were, after killing thousands of whales, why can't they figure out other methods yet?

No. Even the anti-whaling scientists haven't been able to produce a feasible method that would replace it yet. Of course, they are welcome to keep trying.

they just keep doing it over and over?

They do it with fish too... are you complaining about that as well? Please clarify. Are you against fisheries stock assessment science in general, or only when whales are involved?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

However, NEVER have they tried to develop methods to gather data in a non-lethal way.

That's simply incorrect as anyone with a proper knowledge of the subject knows.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123,

MistWizard, you are 100% right.

MistWizard, Sorry to break it to you but this proves that you are 100% wrong. Thanks sarcasm123 for helping me prove my point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In general terms, the argument will be framed around Japan’s interpretation of Article 8 of the whaling convention on whether or not Japan has a unilateral and unlimited right to engage in so-called scientific whaling

... says Rothwell

Of course, every ICRW Contracting government has the right to do what Japan is doing.

Let's review this.

Article VIII

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted. 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. Each Contracting Government shall transmit to such body as may be designated by the Commission, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year, scientific information available to that Government with respect to whales and whaling, including the results of research conducted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and to Article IV. Recognizing that continuous collection and analysis of biological data in connection with the operations of factory ships and land stations are indispensable to sound and constructive management of the whale fisheries, the Contracting Governments will take all practicable measures to obtain such data.

I draw everyone's attention to part 4 of Article VIII. The convention recognises that biological data (such as age, currently only possible to obtain for Antarctic minke whales through lethal methods) is "indispensable" to good management of whaling.

It also says clearly that governments are required to take measures to obtain such data.

This is precisely what Japan is doing. Other contracting governments are lucky that Japan is conducting this work on behalf of other nations in the period in which there is a general moratorium on whaling.

Without this data from Japan, this part of the convention would be left unfulfilled, and that would not be good for the whaling commission.

Remember folks - the W in IWC stands for WHALING.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not only has Australia been trying to end the hunt diplomatically, but the IWC has tried numerous times as well...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wrote:

However, NEVER have they tried to develop methods to gather data in a non-lethal way.

and david responsed> That's simply incorrect as anyone with a proper knowledge of the subject knows.

Yet... I have asked him to show us just 1 paper 2 days ago, and he still has not managed to preduce one. Despite being commenting here non-stop all the time.

davidattokyo, I think we conclude that there are no such papers because Japan has never tried any such research. That is because they are not really interested in research, only in killing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And, my dear david, could you perhaps show us some paper that shows how there is absolutely no correlation found between the age of an animal and any other features it has? I am thinking about for example size? If there is - say - a clear correlation found between age and size, there is no need to kill the animals any more in order to estimate the age: one could just measure its size and estimate its age. After all, the Japanese must have 1000s of age-size data points by now. This should allow for a reasonable estimate.

I am pretty sure such papers must be out there if Japan is REALLY doing research with the goal of understanding the population statistics better... But I am sure you will again fail to produce even 1 such paper.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123

Why don't you look for yourself instead of demanding someone with your smug attitude? Biologically speaking DNA research concerning age should not be limited to whales but to all mammals but I have not heard of any research that accurately predict age because to my knowledge DNA does not carry that information, as for body size try it with humans and see the results, how accurate do you think you'll be? Why should researcher waste time knowing it will be a fool's errant in the first place?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SamuraiBlue,

I have why you assume that I have not looked myself. I HAVE looked, yet I have not found anything. "smug attitude" has nothing to do with it, I am just asking the biggest defender of the so-called "research" here to prove that indeed real research is being done, and he is failing miserably.

What does not work with humans is not guaranteed to not work on whales. I want to see the paper that shows there is only a weak correlation between sizes and age. After all, given the huge number of data points the Japanese have by now they should be able to make a nice size vs age plot. Well, now, davidattokyo, WHERE IS THAT PLOT?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After all, is it really necessary to know exactly how old a whale is? I don't think so. Estimating its age to a range of +/- 5 years is probably sufficient to do statistical analysis on it, given enough samples. And by samples here, I mean NON-LETHAL samples.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123,

I think we conclude that there are no such papers because Japan has never tried any such research.

You have concluded, on the basis of your own lack of will or ability (probably both) to find the information about the non-lethal research conducted as Japan's research programme, that such information does not exist.

Need I say more?

Anyway... for fun, let's see how this goes down. Here is a picture: http://www.icrwhale.org/img/080822RepeaseJpb.jpg

What do you think that thing in the red circle, attached to the whale is? I'll give you a clue - it's not a harpoon!

could you perhaps show us some paper that shows how there is absolutely no correlation found between the age of an animal and any other features it has?

Aaah, hang on. You mean - no other feature that can be examined without killing the whale, correct?

If there is - say - a clear correlation found between age and size

Ahahaha! I have to take a guess... are you still at the age at which you have not yet stopped growing? And... how exactly do you propose to measure the "size" of the whale... without killing it?!

there is no need to kill the animals any more in order to estimate the age: one could just measure its size and estimate its age.

Bingo! And thus it is proven! Well done Einstein! I think I will copy and paste your text and send off an email to the Head of Science at the IWC with your stunning discovery.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sarcasm123 DNA from small skin samples may be useful in estimating the age of a whale http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/pubs/whale-research.pdf

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whales are mammals and stops growing at a certain age and there will be individual difference so no matter how much data you gain there will be no definitive relationship between size and age, a person who took high school biology should know that. As I said researcher do not make fool's errant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How is it that a small country that has not killed a whale for several decades (Australia) knows more about whale research than Japan with it's 1000's of dead whales?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After all, is it really necessary to know exactly how old a whale is?

Yeah, who needs to know that. Everyone knows that Japan has an aging population without knowing how old the people are.

I don't think so.

And you are the Einstein, aintcha.

Estimating its age to a range of +/- 5 years is probably sufficient to do statistical analysis on it, given enough samples.

It's interesting you say that, but dya thunk whales stop growing and then die within 5 years?

hmmmmmmmm

And by samples here, I mean NON-LETHAL samples.

By measuring the size right.... without killing the whale!

If we ever do have whaling resumed again, let's all pray that "sarcasm123" the troll is not part of the scientific advisory panel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot - that idea of using whale skin was subsequently found to not be a feasible method for determining whale age. This was reported by the anti-whaling scientists themselves. It was just an idea they had and they spun it big time in the media for anti-whaling propaganda purposes.

The lack of any age data based on that method is proof of what I am saying.

Of course, if anyone doubts me and can show us that there is a data set based on the use of that method, then I will admit I am wrong.

(That's not going to be this year though, I'm afraid)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who cares how old they are, just let them swim.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ahum, I think both our geniusses are forgetting 1 simple thing: a human is not a whale.

Come on, davidattokyo, show me the paper. You are claiming I am too lazy or not capable of finding it. The truth is quite different, my dear: normally you present us with reports and quotes from studies all the time, yet this time...?? Silence! Complete silence! :P

I tell you why: you - my dear - know very well that there is no such paper. The reason is that Japan is not doing such research. They are not doing any population studies. No, they are just "collecting data" and not doing any thinking. The reason for that is that the data collection comes together with the killing of whales, which is their only interest.

Come on, prove me wrong. Show me the paper saying that measuring - for example - sizes is not good enough to estimate the age of the animal. THERE IS NO SUCH PAPER BY THE JAPANESE. The reason is likely that thy never tried it. Hey, if they tried it it might make their lethal sampling completely un-necessary, the horror! :P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot - OK, here's another good one.

Look at all this data that is available from Japan's research, as published in the Journal of Cetacean Resource Management.

http://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/JARPAdata.pdf

Can you show me a similar summary of all the biological data that Australia has provided to the IWC based on their research methods, which involve novel ideas such as collecting whale poohs?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Come on, it's pretty simple: they make a hypothesis: "using sizes of whales is a good estimate of their age". They next use the data they got from their Oh-so-important-lethal-sampling methods, and test the hypothesis. Based on the observation they reject the hypothesis, or accept it.

Hey, I am not saying the hypothesis will turn out to e accepted. I am saying that THEY NEVER EVEN CARED TO STUDY IT. Because they are not interested in the research. Only in the "unfortunate" killing of the animal in the progress.

Come on, david, where is the study describing this experiment? Show it NOW.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why should researcher waste time knowing it will be a fool's errant in the first place?

It would be a fool's errand because we all know there is no point to the Japanese 'research' if they can't put the research subject on a plate after they've finished prodding, poking, measuring and flensing it and pulling its earplugs out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Biopsy sampling would tell the age with having to stick dynamite up their @rse

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot,

Who cares how old they are, just let them swim.

This is the first comment from you that I can actually respect you for.

Fine. I respect your opinion that you think whales should be left to swim. Indeed, if that's what you want, then you sure have no need to know how old any particular whale might be.

So why did it take so long to get to this? If you are against killing whales, just say so. There is no need for you to pretend that you are opposing whaling because you think there is no scientific data coming from Japan's programmes.

Well done on coming out of the closet and simply admitting that you don't want whales being killed. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Journal of Cetacean Resource Management"

Should that be "Research and Management"???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, davidattokyo is 100% propoganda machine

Yes he is. And the reason he uses such bad language the last few days is because he feels he is losing. He is looking foolish because he can't answer any question you ask him.

No papers studying non-lehtal sampling, no papers showing estimates of ages might be sufficient, .... nothing!

davidattokyo knows that it makes no sense, and this makes his effort look completely meaningless. Now: who wants to do a meaningless job like his?? Nobody. That is the reason he is irritated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wrote:

I tell you why: you - my dear - know very well that there is no such paper.

And david answered:

Yeah... so did you figure out what that was in the picture, attached to the whale's back, that was not a harpoon?

See this, everyone? I ask for a paper, and davidattokyo gives me a picture of a whale... :P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Journal of Cetacean Resource Management.

A journal which barely shows up when you Google it...

Tell me davidattokyo, will it be REALLY worth my time to check this paper? Or would you care to cite the interesting part here?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123,

a human is not a whale.

Aah, music to my ears. A human is not a whale.

This is very true.

normally you present us with reports and quotes from studies all the time, yet this time...?? Silence! Complete silence!

Yes.... I've learnt that no matter how much solid information I give you, you will ignore it anyway.

I tell you why: you - my dear - know very well that there is no such paper.

Yeah... so did you figure out what that was in the picture, attached to the whale's back, that was not a harpoon?

(Maybe your next response is that they just manipulated the photograph?)

No, they are just "collecting data" and not doing any thinking.

Ah, so you admit that Japan's activities are in accordance with the ICRW Article VIII which requires contracting governments to submit such data to the IWC and it's scientific committee.

Finally!

The reason for that is that the data collection comes together with the killing of whales, which is their only interest.

You did know that the purpose of the whaling convention is to manage whaling, right... ?

They aren't doing the research for the heck of it. They are doing it because they agree with the purpose of the whaling convention, which requires data for sound whale resource management.

Come on, prove me wrong.

No, no you actually seem to have got this bit right.

Show me the paper saying that measuring - for example - sizes is not good enough to estimate the age of the animal. THERE IS NO SUCH PAPER BY THE JAPANESE.

Your logic is backwards... you can't say there must be a paper disproving every crazy idea you happen to come up with. That is asking for infinity, or the limits of your wacky imagination.

Furthermore, measuring the size of the whale is something that the Japaense do, but obviously they can do that only because they kill the whale first. A whale doesn't just stand on some scales to measure it's weight and height (length) when asked.

The reason is likely that thy never tried it.

Speculation galore... from someone who never ever checks anything for him/herself...

So anyway, tell me when you figure out what that device attached to the back of the whale's back was, in the photo that I provided.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, that's right. Oops!

So, by the time david finally presents a (completely unrelated) paper... he got the name of the journal wrong...

Sigh...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Furthermore, measuring the size of the whale is something that the Japaense do, but obviously they can do that only because they kill the whale first. A whale doesn't just stand on some scales to measure it's weight and height (length) when asked.

Yet other wild animals seem to do...? How else would you explain studies on their sizes, eh?

You must be joking. You know of absolutely no way to know the size of an object without killing or shooting it???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123,

"Journal of Cetacean Resource Management"

Should that be "Research and Management"???

Yes, that's right. Oops!

A journal which barely shows up when you Google it...

Ummm... 22,400 hits? It's the official journal of the IWC's Scientific Committee, and here you are dismissing it!

LOL!

Got some foot in mouth disease?

Tell me davidattokyo, will it be REALLY worth my time to check this paper? Or would you care to cite the interesting part here?

Well... you could just open the link?

My question to you - where is Australia's data set from all their non-lethal research? Japan's is noted in the IWC Scientific Committee's journal.

And why are IWC Scientists from places besides Japan using the ear plugs collected by Japan in their work? What's up with that huh!?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Come on, david, you have not 1 paper to show us about non-lethal methods studied by the Japanese, and you you need to kill a whale to measure its size.

Do you have to kill it to know its collor too? And its sex? :P

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123, hey don't get so touchy. You are the one who dismissed the IWC Scientific Committee's official journal and yet you are asking me for papers! This proves again my point that I can give you the best and you'll just ignore it.

It's funny that you're now resorting to asking for random papers about any old idea that springs into your mind, and you are going to jump to conclusions about Japan's research based on whether or not they happened to have a paper published showing that the idea in your mind is indeed wrong.

Yet other wild animals seem to do...?

Well, most other wild animals aren't huge ocean going animals that spend most of their time under water...

You don't think you're being unreasonable, again?

You know of absolutely no way to know the size of an object without killing or shooting it???

Eeerrrr... we are talking about WHALES, remember? Those big 5-25 ton animals that Japan is killing, which swim around under the ocean surface, only ocassionally surfacing for oxygen?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Damn, I am looking forward to cite david in the future: "You cannot know the size of a whale without killing it" :P

I think the Japanese whaling fan club will not be very happy with the job david is doing here lately...

Moderator: Sarcasm123 and davidattokyo, please stop going around in circles and sniping at each other. From here on, repetitive posts will be removed. Better still, please take a break and allow other readers to contribute.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's make a conclusion: Japan is hunting whales. It does so, not because it is culture (because they started hunting whales on a large scale only 60 years ago), not because Japanese like whale meat (most Japanese NEVER eat whale and those who try it often say it is terrible), and not because of research.

They hunt whales because some local politician got the support of a few small cities relying on whaling. He get elected, and pumps money in the cities, in the form of subsidies for "research" on whales. The guys who do this "research" are just the former commercial whalers, and they would not know how to measure an animal without killing them. In other words: they are completely not able to do real research. So, they just kill whales and pretend to do research. The meat comming from this is stored in big freezers because nobody really wants to eat it.

No efforts have been made to develop techniques for non-lethal whaling, because the only goal of these whalers is to kill the animals and put it in the freezer. However, since they are getting money for doing research, the write some low quality papers, and publish it in mostly Japanese journals, and some low level international journals. In both cases, their papers are completely ignored by the scientific community. However, it DOES seem to be sufficient to keep the tax money flowing: every year these guys get a larg amount of money from the government.

THAT is Japan's Oh-so-great whaling culture. They can be proud of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My turn!

Humans have killed animals for food/research since records have been kept. Whales are animals. This will not change. And yes, I saw Star Trek 4, and I was rooting for George and Gracie!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well Sarge, thanks for pointing that out. They're a special animal. Here's why.

First, whales are biologically special. They are the largest animals on earth. They include the biggest creature ever to have lived on our planet, the 100-foot long female blue whale. Their sheer size commands extreme respect. And whales and dolphins have large and complex brains. The sperm whale's brain is the largest of any ever to exist, weighing four or five times as much as our human brain and being at least as fissured and convoluted. The humpback whale creates the most complex, long-lasting, repetitive sound patterns of any non-human animal. Noted marine veterinarian Sam Ridgeway has reported findings that the bottlenose dolphin, by a variety of measurements (encephalization quotient, volume of cortex, ratio of brain weight to spinal cord weight, etc.) ranks just below humans and considerably above other higher primates, including gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans.

These are some of the characteristics that make cetaceans biologically special.

Second, whales are ecologically special. Whales have evolved as marine mammals over millions of years, with both baleen and toothed whales probably appearing more than 25 million years ago, long before the development of human beings and the latter's intrusion into the ocean ecosystem.

Whales are at the top of the vast food chains of the sea. Because of their size, widespread distribution, and variety of feeding patterns, cetaceans affect the ocean in special ways with global impact. Almost everything is still unknown about their role, but in many ways it appears to be ecologically unique. They fulfill a special and necessary function in the marine environment.

Third, whales, dolphins, and porpoises are aesthetically special. They have a beauty and grace all their own which is of surpassing quality. Throughout human history, cetaceans have been the subjects of exceptional artistic creations. They are supremely photogenic. This is magnificently evident in the superb new National Geographic Book, "Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises," for which Flip Nicklin was chief photographer and creative consultant.

Whales even serve as special keys for education. Cetaceans have such a unique fascination and such widespread interest for persons of all ages and backgrounds that they become breakthrough educational motivators.

Fourth, whales are culturally special. Living cetaceans have an almost unbelievable capacity for enriching the lives of human beings with whom they come in peaceful contact. You all know this from your own experience. They have a uniquely universal appeal to the human spirit. They are unmatched invokers of awe. There is a mystique about them that inspires a sense of wonder and exhilaration among persons from all races and nations, in ways no other, non-human species has equaled so widely.

Furthermore, whales appear to have a special affinity for human beings. Despite their overwhelming size and power, and despite the centuries of their being victimized by human predation, whales in the wild are proving to be uniquely tolerant of the peaceful proximity of human beings and indeed are increasingly demonstrating not merely passive coping, but deliberate initiation of positive interactions. This adds significantly to their cultural uniqueness.

Fifth, whales are politically special. The vast majority of cetacean species are non-national in range. Their living space, unlike that of land animals, does not fall within clearly defined national boundaries. Their dwelling place is largely the global commons, the seas of the world, which do not belong to any one nation. More than any other marine mammal, whales are pelagic in their habitat, and thus they constitute a unique global resource.

Moreover, whales are uniquely subject to international control. Because they are not legally an exclusive resource of any one nation, no one nation can claim a moral right to kill them. The exploitation or protection of whales is logically and legally a determination to be made on an international basis, through the specially established agency of the International Whaling Commission. In this way too, whales are unique.

Finally, sixth, whales are symbolically special. More than any other form of non-human life, whales have come to symbolize concern for the environment. At least in Western society, protection of whales has become a touchstone for caring about the inter-relatedness of all life on this water planet. There is widespread support for not killing whales because they are such a special symbol of sharing the earth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot:

it's not polite to steal people's work and repost it as your own.

(botbot's lengthy diatribe on why whales are special can be found, in its entirety, here: http://csiwhalesalive.org/csiwhy.html )

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If this is the way that Australia handles the challenge at the ICJ, then I think they will be in for a little ridicule themselves. Sarge, I actually think that anti-whalers, because they have said that if the whales die the earth dies, actually believe what went on in Star Trek 4 to be completely true. I don't think they got that it was fiction. Maybe next we'll see it presented up as proof by them in another desperate attempt at convincing us that well our survival depends on a few whales.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On the contrary sarcasm123, I think davidattokyo has presented very logically.

What he wrote is lacking logic on all levels. Starting with the "we have to kill them to count them" all the way to "we cannot measure their length without killing them".

It's you that is acting like a spoiled child because whaling is so wrong to you that no matter what you'll come up with some excuse as to why it's bad. IE: They are becoming extinct;

Which they are.

They are sentient animals;

I have never used this argument.

The meat is full of mercury and I suddenly care for the consumers of japan;

Even this one I have mever used. Although I am worried about the fact that there is a tendency to get this meat on the lunch plate of students.

They take more than 5 minutes to die so it's cruel;

It takes more than that, and yes, I do think it is cruel.

Each time one gets countered anti-whalers come up with another one in a desperate act of grabbing at straws to 'prove' their point.

I think you will find they are not as desprate as "we have to kill them or we might count them twice!".

I think you have never read my posts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know how Australias can lose court case, when most of civilized world supports them. The only way we can win is to bribe poorer African countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And it's all BS. I agree that whales are a beautiful animal. I don't want them all killed for naught. But I don't mind when a few are hunted. They are not going extinct. They are being managed by the IWC that is why there is a limit to what they set which isn't even met. I also agree that if these few are taken that scientific data should be taken from them and used. And yes I agree that their management should not be dictated by one sole country (Australia?) or group (SSCS) of self declared vigilantes. As long as they are not being overhunted, which is what the moratorium has done, I don't mind at all that a few countries are hunting them in limited numbers and at least one of those countries is allowing data to be utilized so as to help manage this resource.

But for animal lovers and people who say they care so much for the planet, there is no compromise. I'm sorry but you do not police the oceans for the world SSCS no matter how much you think you do. And Australia doesn't speak for us all either. Totally ignoring the few countries that even are interested in whales is nothing but strong-arm tactics. Good luck Australia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo said: Age is a very important biological parameter to have good knowledge of for stock assessments,

And stock assessments are not important. The market is not there dude.

You are arrogant if you think it is up to you to judge what is important and what is not.

Arrogant? No dude. I am a believer in democracy and discussion! I guess you aren't.

No. Even the anti-whaling scientists haven't been able to produce a feasible method that would replace it yet.

Replace it? Dude, it does not even work! They are not only trying to age whales they are trying to figure out how to do it! Thousands upon thousands of whales have been killed, and they still are not sure of ANYTHING!

They do it with fish too... are you complaining about that as well? Please clarify. Are you against fisheries stock assessment science in general, or only when whales are involved?

There is a high demand for fish. Besides, they can actually accurately determine the age of the fish! They are not killing loads of much rarer animals just to figure out how to age them when it comes to fish!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo: pretty much the same but from much longer ago. a Sea Shepherd no doubt called in for backup to really show you david. I don't know why you allow yourself to be baited by these trolls coming from Oz to impose their ways and pretend they are japanese in the process. We can all see they are not. Well I wish them both good luck in their Australia support when Oz gets laughed at in the International Court of Justice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@mikehuntez I don't know KeikoTokyo outside of here, seems you know more than I do about myself."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"We can all see they are not. Well I wish them both good luck in their Australia support when Oz gets laughed at in the International Court of Justice." That's a little premature isn't it. What facts supports this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Antartic waters" ( from the first sentence of this article )

I wasn't aware that Australia owns the Antartic waters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's owned and PROTECTED by the world, and yes Australia and Japan share that world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"We can all see they are not. Well I wish them both good luck in their >Australia support when Oz gets laughed at in the International Court of >Justice." That's a little premature isn't it. What facts supports this?

The fact that Australia needs to prove two critical issues, one that Australia has enforcement jurisdiction over the AAT (which it doesn't) and two, that Japan is violating IWC regulations (which it isn't). Without being able to prove these two issues, what court in the world is going to bother listening to some rant about how "it's not really research whaling, blah blah blah"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot - I don't know how Australias can lose court case, when most of civilized world supports them. The only way we can win is to bribe poorer African countries.

botbot - It's owned and PROTECTED by the world, and yes Australia and Japan share that world.

The oceans are "shared" by the 193 nations of the world but only 4 of those believe Australia's "claim" to the Antarctic. Many of the 189 other nations will file some type of "friend of the court" briefs with the ICJ disputing the Australian claim to the area. If they don't, they will be conceeding the waters in question to Australia.

No jurisdiction = huge waste of Australian tax money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thm Japanese is lying about whaling being a tradition, they only started eating during the war. we even done it in Blighty, i had it onc, horrid chewy stuff.

If the Japanese learned how to stop telling tales they might get more respect, but thy change everything as they go along.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

krisallenation - ....has interest in protect animals in danger of EXTINTION,

or danger of extintion in other parts of the World too.

If you use a little bit of your brain or common sense you´ll see that theres no need to kill an animal in danger of EXTINTION

plenty kinds of NON EXTINT animals other countries use just fine

youll find out theres no need to kill that animal in danger of EXTINTION to study it...

FYI - The MINKE whale is NOT, repeat NOT, an endangered specie. There are over 800,000 minke whales and the IWC authorized Japanese whalers to take just over 900 for research purposes. That's roughly 1/10th of 1 percent of the total population, well within the minke's reproduction rate for replacement.

As part of the agreement between the IWC and the whalers, the carcass should not be wasted. The meat and bones can not be thrown away. Might as well sell them for public consumption.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlfGarnett at 03:10 AM JST - 31st May Thm Japanese is lying about whaling being a tradition, they only started >eating during the war. we even done it in Blighty, i had it onc, horrid >chewy stuff. If the Japanese learned how to stop telling tales they might get more >respect, but thy change everything as they go along.

Whaling started in the Japan in the 12th Century. Whaling started in Europe in the 9th century. Maybe if you didnt switch from, stevecpc to chrisbiggins to alfgarnett as you go along you'd be in a better position to speak.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

¨krisallenation - ....has interest in protect animals in danger of EXTINTION¨, It makes me disappointed to see so many people have not and use this case as a battle of countries when the point is to save everyone`s planet

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ davidattokyo

no one really cares about a little whaling <

Where you been hiding mate???!!!

"Conservation" Japan doesn't even know what that word means, they will rape the sea and strip it it of everything living and breathing until there is nothing left, dolphins (Taji), whales (illiegally poaching in Australian whale sanctuary's) turtles, fish and anything else that gets trapped in miles of drift nets. Ignore all the rules, always have, whats new. "Research" a cover, and everyone knows it.

Japan's reputation is gradually going down the toilet, when it hits em hard in the pocket THATS when they might sit up and listen.

Whales and Dolphins are highly intelligent majestic creatures of the sea, do they give a shit, NO - MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY SELF SELF SELF SELF - does a population of animals have to be highly endangered before its ok not to kill em (even that wouldn't stop em tho)

Thanks god for people who care and ARE making a stand, good on you Australia, they have millions of people on their side who care about our future and the future of our kids.

RULES ARE RULES

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The more the world sees the sham of Japanese "research" the worse it looks. I am sure Japan will lose this case, if justice is served correctly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia will lose this case without doubt. The authority that regulates whaling and whale populations is the IWC, not Australia and certainly not the ICJ. Australia, despite being a member, is effectively taking the IWC to court for permitting Research Whaling. Australia should be kicked out of the IWC or be forced to pay any expenses the IWC has to incur because of Australia's action.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting piece in the SMH.

"The US has warned that Australia's decision to take Japan to court over whaling is an uncertain gamble on whales' lives."

"This is a 'bet the whales' case", said the US's representative to the IWC.

LOL! When your biggest anti-whaling ally comes out and tells you to knock it off that's not a good sign, is it!

It's funny that Australians care so much about whales that they are happy for their politicians to gamble for votes with whales as the chips.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FYI - The MINKE whale is NOT, repeat NOT, an endangered specie. There are over 800,000 minke whales and the IWC authorized Japanese whalers to take just over 900 for research purposes.

... according to the data given to us by former commercial whalers who are desperate to go back to their original job. And YOU believe that data??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The MINKE whale is STILL NOT an endangered specie.

Again: ... according to the data given to us by former commercial whalers who are desperate to go back to their original job. And YOU believe that data??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

krisallenation - ....has interest in protect animals in danger of EXTINTION¨, It makes me disappointed to see so many people have not and use this case as a battle of countries when the point is to save everyone`s planet

The MINKE whale is STILL NOT an endangered specie.

This case IS a battle of countries, at least according to an article titled, 'Australia to take Japan to int'l court over whaling'.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What on earth is going on in this board? 369 responses?? I wonder how the IWC will involve in the case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL. I can't believe how serious everyone is. As if their opinions here will affect anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123 - The MINKE whale is STILL NOT an endangered specie.

Again: ... according to the data given to us by former commercial whalers who are desperate to go back to their original job.

How many MINKE whales did Paul Watson tell you there are?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At the end of the day, whatever the numbers of Minke whales (argue the toss all day for all I care), what god given right do the Japanese Whalers have to go and murder these creatures illegally???, under cover of bloody "research" or CULTURE ha bloody ha, who are they trying to fool, does anyone out here today understand the word ILLEGAL??? obviously not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SSCSRules - At the end of the day, whatever the numbers of Minke whales (argue the toss all day for all I care), what god given right do the Japanese Whalers have to go and murder these creatures illegally???, under cover of bloody "research" or CULTURE ha bloody ha, who are they trying to fool, does anyone out here today understand the word ILLEGAL??? obviously not.

The number of MINKE whales addresses the lies that MINKE whales are listed as ENDANGERED. They are NOT.

The only ships and crews acting ILLEGALLY are the self-appointed and self-proclaimed Sea Shepard pirates who have NO LEGAL authority to be attacking another vessel or its crew. The SS represent NO nation or policing organization.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

u telling me arrestpaul that Japanese whalers are operating totally legally in Australia's southern Oceans??, if there was one Minke Whale left, they would still wanna kill it coz they won't be told what to do, Japan has a long history of "breaking the rules"

oh and not forgetting "we didn't ram Ady Gil", it was just "in the way" now I am really laffing, give it up !! goodnight twat

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@arrestpaul You WRONG yet again. Minke whales are on the endangered list. Read and weep. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_minke_whale_an_endangered_whale

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@davidattokyo RE:"The US has warned that Australia's decision to take Japan to court over whaling is an uncertain gamble on whales' lives." The reason being that the Japanese will just ignore the ruling of the international court anyway, as they have ignored reasonable pleas to stop whaling by countries that inhabit southern oceans.

And by the way, a quote without a reference or link is "Just A Quote".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Minke whales are not an ESA-listed species, meaning they are not classified as endangered or threatened. However, minke whales are protected under the marine mammal protection act.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot - I'm WRONG yet again. Minke whales are on the endangered list. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Istheminkewhaleanendangeredwhale

Why did you link to 'wiki answers' instead of going directly to the 'Endangered Species List'?

Your supplied link says:

1) Minkes whales are listed on the endangered species list as a threatened species

2) Minke whales are not an ESA-listed species, meaning they are not classified as endangered or threatened.

Hahahaha, neither answer says Minke whales are ENDANGERED. You didn't even read your own link.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica:"Australia will lose this case without doubt. The authority that regulates whaling and whale populations is the IWC, not Australia and certainly not the ICJ. Australia, despite being a member, is effectively taking the IWC to court for permitting Research Whaling. Australia should be kicked out of the IWC or be forced to pay any expenses the IWC has to incur because of Australia's action."

Get with the program Ossan, Australia is taking Japan to court for violations of the Antarctic Treaty, & when successful will see the whaling fleet banned from Antarctic waters for continual violations despite warnings. So it will not matter what the IWC say if the whalers are banned from Antarctic waters will it. Unless of course the whalers wish to break more international laws, then I guess they will have more than SSCS to deal with. You could cal it using a 'loophole' to close a 'loophole'!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SSCSRules at 03:52 PM JST - 31st May

u telling me that Japanese whalers are operating totally legally in Australia's southern Oceans??, if there was one Minke Whale left, they would still wanna kill it coz they won't be told what to do, Japan has a long history of "breaking the rules"

oh and not forgetting "we didn't ram Ady Gil", it was just "in the way" now I am really laffing, give it up !! goodnight twat

It looks like you're really getting desperate if that is the only response you could come up with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia has already launched legal proceedings against Japan. Photo / Supplied Australia has already launched legal proceedings against Japan. Photo / Supplied

New Zealand will take Japan to the International Court of Justice over its Southern Ocean whaling programme if last minute diplomatic solutions are not found.

Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said New Zealand will go to the Hague if diplomatic efforts are not successful in the next "week or two".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10648730

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's great news. Thankyou!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@arrestpaul "Why did you link to 'wiki answers'".. to keep it simple for you, so that you might understand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 04:58 PM JST - 31st May Get with the program Ossan, Australia is taking Japan to court for >violations of the Antarctic Treaty, & when successful will see the >whaling fleet banned from Antarctic waters for continual violations >despite warnings.

Forget that Australia doesn't have the jurisdiction to win that?

So it will not matter what the IWC say if the whalers are banned from >Antarctic waters will it.

If Australis intends to overrule IEC regulations claiming the Antarctic Treaty holds precedence over any IWC declared areas and sanctuaries, then Austrealia might as well ascstart packing to leave the IWC now.

Unless of course the whalers wish to break more international laws, then >I guess they will have more than SSCS to deal with. You could cal it >using a 'loophole' to close a 'loophole'!

Too bad for you that the Whalers aren't breaking any international laws. And even if they were, it's sanctioned by the IWC, in which case as I stated arlier, Australia is effectively bringing the IWC to court.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well then Ossan you should be happy & encouraging the Aus gov to continue then shouldn't you, because then the whalers can do whatever they please, right?

Ohh, you forgot to mention how Ms Medina is now a pawn of the ICR. Wonder how much that cost them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Clearly the United States thinks what Australia is doing is stupid.

"The US has warned that Australia's decision to take Japan to court over whaling is an uncertain gamble on whales' lives.

If Australia loses, all other anti-whaling countries will have lost as well, Washington's top whale policy official, Monica Medina, says.

Ms Medina, the US commissioner at the International Whaling Commission, told the Herald yesterday the US wanted to save whales now using the diplomatic route, rather than take a chance on favourable litigation."

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/us-warns-of-risks-in-australias-whale-action-20100530-wnj0.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australias legal action has nothing to do with the IWC, it has to do with violations of the Antarctic Treaty, of which Japan is a signatory. So why would we sign it if it had no meaning or juristiction?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ohh & Ossan, it looks like NZ could also be taking the same action as Aus, unless Japan changes its view on Antarctic whale hunts in the next week or 2! So then I guess will just say they are stupid too, huh?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10648730

Australia has already launched legal proceedings against Japan. Photo / Supplied Australia has already launched legal proceedings against Japan. Photo / Supplied

New Zealand will take Japan to the International Court of Justice over its Southern Ocean whaling programme if last minute diplomatic solutions are not found.

Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said New Zealand will go to the Hague if diplomatic efforts are not successful in the next "week or two".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK, so that's 2 countries and a legally binding treaty - of which Japan, and those two countries, and many others are signatory to. I guess it looks bad for Japan now hey.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 07:47 PM JST - 31st May Ohh & Ossan, it looks like NZ could also be taking the same action as >Aus, unless Japan changes its view on Antarctic whale hunts in the next >week or 2! So then I guess will just say they are stupid too, huh?

Don't get your undies all wet yet. New Zealand has and continues to advocate a diplomatic solution, justb like the United States and is participating in the negotiations leading up to the June IWC vote. This is in sharp contrast to Australia's position. And to answer your question, yes.

New Zealand will take Japan to the International Court of Justice over >its Southern Ocean whaling programme if last minute diplomatic solutions >are not found.

Exact same comment issued months ago. No change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As of today both the United States and New Zealamd do not agree with Australia's action.

"The Government's legal case is drawing criticism from the US representative at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and from New Zealand prime minister John Key, who argue that negotiation is a better way to protect the whales."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/31/2914418.htm?section=justin

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Right, like US diplomatic solutions ever worked. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, do I need to continue?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ohh, you forgot to mention how Ms Medina is now a pawn of the ICR. Wonder how much that cost them?

Geeeeee! The ICR sure is powerful if it can get the US IWC commissioner to say whatever they want...

Hmmmmm, but isn't it possible Medina just thinks Australia are blowing out of their backsides for domestic political purposes, like everyone else?

As for New Zealand - I don't know if it is my blind faith in the good sense of my fellow countrymen (besides Bethune and the two huge guys who came to Japan to loiter outside the court), but given that Sir Geoffrey Palmer has previously spoken firmly against legal avenues to stop whaling, I don't think New Zealand's government will be signing up with Australia to share in their embarassment.

After all, there are no elections in New Zealand this year, unlike Australia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot, they did work on Japan though!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"Exact same comment issued months ago. No change."

Is this what he said months ago?

"Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said New Zealand will go to the Hague if diplomatic efforts are not successful in the next "week or two".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@OssanAmerican - It's misleading to quote out of context, the reporter you quoted, also went on to say this - in the very same article.

"Every year at the Whaling Commission meeting - which is being held next month in Morocco - there is a compromise being put [forward] ... which aims to stop Japan having its commercial scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean, but in exchange having some form of commercial whaling in coastal areas. "The US is one of the major backers [and] protagonists for this compromise proposal and so I think their claims that what our government is preparing to do could endanger more whales is, as I say, hypocrisy. "They are, at the moment, backing a proposal in June in Morocco that could see the very same thing happen." Australia is refusing to support the compromise that would let Japan set up a coastal whaling program in return for stopping its so called scientific research in the Southern Ocean.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would like to see Japan counter-sue Australia for bad faith participation at the IWC.

The Vienna convention on treaties requires parties to them to act in good faith and in accordance with the spirit of these conventions.

Australia clearly has failed to act in accordance with the spirit of the IWC's convention in recent years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo:

"The Government will consider joining Australia's international legal action against Japanese whaling, Foreign Minister Murray McCully says."

Consider / Will?

Which article do you want to believe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Botbot Everything you quoted doesn't change the excerpt. The US and New Zealand are actually working to reduce the numbers of whales taken. Australia is acting on it's own for domestic political purposes and risking the position of all the anti-whaling nations. Talking about taking things out of context, why leave out the fact that the person calling the US hypocrits is Michael Kennedy, campaign director for the Human Society, an organization that advocates no killings of whales at all for any purpose whatsoever? This obviously is in conflict with the IWC proposal to reduce the number of whales being taken.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry that was meant to read; less whale killed in upcoming years than last year...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"the IWC proposal to reduce the number of whales being taken."

I will explain it to you again because you did not seem to understand it last time; this proposal is about allowing commercial whaling, NOT closing the research 'loophole'. As for killing less whales, Japan only killed just over 500 last season, the numbers they are demanding is 800, & that is just Minkes only in the Southern Ocean. So they want to open up the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary to commercial hunting! Gee I wonder why the world is not buying it! Secondly we then want to be allowed commercial hunts in the Nth Pacific, & coastal whaling, so please explain how this 'deal' is going to mean less whale killed last year, than upcoming years? Ohh & the icing on the cake; we want one rule for us, Norway, & Iceland, yet another for every other country? How just do you think that sort of racism will go down? Already Korea has stated if Japan can hunt whales so can we! This is how the IWC has been successful, because even though it is not law other countries have abided by the global moratorium, while we with 2 other countries have not, now we want to be rewarded! Or maybe it is just blackmail, give us what we want or we will do even worse! GREAT foreign policy there!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"The Vienna convention on treaties requires parties to them to act in good faith and in accordance with the spirit of these conventions."

Exactly, & just how has Japan acted in good faith with the Antarctic Treaty, you know not discharging waste in Antarctic water, NOT refueling below the 60th parallel. Thank you for pointing out why we are now being taken to the ICJ, for ignoring our treaty agreements that we have signed. You know the Antarctic Treaty...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

David & please remember there are more countries that have voted against us than with us in the IWC!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"I would like to see Japan counter-sue Australia for bad faith participation at the IWC.

The Vienna convention on treaties requires parties to them to act in good faith and in accordance with the spirit of these conventions.

Australia clearly has failed to act in accordance with the spirit of the IWC's convention in recent years."

Does that mean you think Japan should sue every country that has voted against them at the IWC! WOW man you are really grasping at straws now! At least Australia has not gone around bribing nations for their votes! Maybe Australia & anti-whaling nations should sue us for the very same reason, & for the fact we have corrupted an international organisation?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@OssanAmerica Diplomacy is ability to tell a person to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip. A legally binding international court agreement binds the rule to which all countries must abide. Go figure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well according to earlier posts Australia is filing a complaint to ICJ on refueling and garbage disposal not whaling. If it was purely on whaling, Australia would be kicked out before any hearings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@KeikoTokyo

I believe that is the court to decide, not you or I.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SamuraiBlue Sometimes diplomacy involves indirect dealing to achieve the desired outcome. If you research the background of Peter Garret, you'll understand. He stated, and I quote, 'We want to see an end to whales being killed in the name of science in the Southern Ocean'

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/scientific-whaling-to-be-tested-in-court-20100528-wlex.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can't be much clearer than that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo

It doesn't matter what YOU think. As I posted before it is for the court to decide, got it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SamuraiBlue Actually as a democracy it's important what EVERYBODY thinks. Got it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A refueling operation within the Treaty area would be contrary to the spirit of the Antarctic Treaty. Japan, as a party to the Treaty, must comply with the letter and the spirit of the Treaty and not refuel within the Treaty area and comply with Annex IV on the Prevention of Environmental Pollution".

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/media/releases/whales/greenpeace-blocks-whalers-from?mode=send&page=273

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SamuraiBlue, please note ANY discharge, including 'pumping'

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot

It is going to be fought in court therefore it doesn't matter what everyone think, it's all up to the judge and jury(if they have one).

KeikoTokyo I have already posted the relevant text in FULL. I really do not care what YOUR interpretations are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SamuraiBlue, 'my interpretations', ohh you mean the rest of the worlds interpretations, & how they abide by them, yet the Japanese whaling fleet are a complete separate entity & the rules do not apply to them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Sumarai .The human condition 101. The people duly elect a government. The government at least in theory represent the values of the people. That's why your going to court. That's democracy in action. Now a court is suppose to represent societies values. Society (wait for it, this is a clincher) is made up of people. Therein SamuraiBlue, people do influence the outcome of courts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo No I copied and pasted all, and it is only YOUR interpretations since you do not represent the world.

botbot The separation of powers is the model of governance of democratic states and independent judiciary is the key component. Therefore once rules are set, the judge is not swayed by populous opinion, he only make decision reflecting the LAW.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The independence you decree is legislation that has been defined by the international court that has precedence over the sovereign laws of countries. I assert that it's the people that elect the government, that generates the legislation that defines the court ruling. In this case the international courts subjects are the people of the world. Therefor any ruling is not independent of the subjects of the court that it passes judgment over. If it was as you stated then there would be no defense, just prosecution and summary execution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The people duly elect a government. The government at least in theory represent the values of the people.

It's not an Australian Court, it's an International court. UN officals are not elected into thier positions, they are assigned their positions. Therefore the judges who preside over the case are not put there by elected officals (so they don't nessecary respent the will of people), also in the international court/community there are shockingly more then one society being represented(some of them aren't even democratic), with different societal values, so people don't necessarily influence the outcome of international courts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Good Jorb. Don't assume I meant Australian court, such presumption is akin to prejudice which is not a valid premise for debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You cerntianly weren't talking about the international court refered to in the article, so the other logical assupmtion/logical prejudice of sorts to be made, would be an Australian court. If you could be so kind as point which court you were speaking about, because the one you were refering to is not how an international court works.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good Jorb, this whole discussion has been about the international court! You are the first poster to say Australian court! Do you not understand we have not only to sign treaties to be a part of the international community, but also to abide by them, respect them, & be a part of, otherwise we are just violating not only those treaties, but also Geneva conventions? Ergo now we are being taken to the International Court of Justice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good Jorb, & certainly Australian courts do not work as is now being shown as the Japanese judicial system, for if Australia was taking us to court in the way our judicial system works they would have already won, & we now would be simply waiting for our punishment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this whole discussion has been about the international court!

I'm well aware of that but botbot said;

"The people duly elect a government. The government at least in theory represent the values of the people. That's why your going to court. That's democracy in action. Now a court is suppose to represent societies values. Society (wait for it, this is a clincher) is made up of people. Therein SamuraiBlue, people do influence the outcome of courts."

That is not what the international court is, it closer to what an Australian Court(which is why I assume that was what botbot was refering to). If you or botbot want to tell me which court s/he was talking about that would be much appreciated.

Do you not understand we have not only to sign treaties to be a part of the international community, but also to abide by them, respect them

You mean like how the IWC allows Japan to engage in "scientific whaling".

but also Geneva conventions?

The international laws related to the humanitarian treatment of the victims(human) of war? really?

Australia was taking us to court in the way our judicial system works they would have already won

Who's us? It's assumptive of you to predict the outcome of court case, unless you're a legal expert.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SamuraiBlue; do I need to remind you of your own statements earlier in the thread?

"

Prevention of Marine Pollution The Antarctic Treaty area includes over 20 million square kilometres of the Southern Ocean, extending from the Antarctic coast to 60 degrees South latitude. On the initiative of the ATCM the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1990 designated these waters a “Special Area” (where the adoption of special mandatory methods for the prevention of sea pollution is required) under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol 73/78). Annex IV to the Environment Protocol prohibits discharge of oil, noxious liquid substances and garbage in the Antarctic Treaty area. It also contains rules for the discharge of sewage; and for ship retention capacity; reception facilities; sovereign immunity; preventive measures; and emergency preparedness and response.

Here is the environment protocol dictated by ATS. As written if Japan's whaling ships are refueled out side the 60 degrees South latitude area which I am sure they honor, then again Australia does not have a case.(If Japan didn't it would have been taken up by the ATS themselves a long time ago.)"

Sorry the Vienna covnention, not Geneva, & by the way from davidattokyo;"The Vienna convention on treaties requires parties to them to act in good faith and in accordance with the spirit of these conventions."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot - The independence you decree is legislation that has been defined by the international court that has precedence over the sovereign laws of countries. I assert that it's the people that elect the government, that generates the legislation that defines the court ruling. In this case the international courts subjects are the people of the world. Therefor any ruling is not independent of the subjects of the court that it passes judgment over.

Which people elect an international court? I've never heard of such a thing. Are you saying that the people of the world elected the ICJ? When did this happen? Can you provide a date or possibly a sidewalk chalk drawing to substanciate this?

The international court DOES NOT have precedence over the sovereign laws of any country unless that country has GIVEN the ICJ precedence.

You seem to be confusing the rules of a national court with the international court.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good Jorb;"Who's us? It's assumptive of you to predict the outcome of court case, unless you're a legal expert."

The following is courtesy of OssanAmerica from this same thread;

One reason the USA, Australia, NZ, UK...etc (most of the world) have not counter-bribed countries to vote for their opinion is because in a court of law this will be significant. I can just see Japan arguing "but the IWC voted..." and the Judge saying "but only because you bribed them... how dodgy is that!"

"One does not need to be a judge to look at a claim, know what the basis of the claim will be and what the claimant will have to substantiate in order to win. It's no guarantee of course, but it's enough for any layman to determine whether a claim should or should not be filed."

"I'm part of no team but if you want me to bribe someone just send me the money."

"Australia will lose this case without doubt. The authority that regulates whaling and whale populations is the IWC, not Australia and certainly not the ICJ. Australia, despite being a member, is effectively taking the IWC to court for permitting Research Whaling. Australia should be kicked out of the IWC or be forced to pay any expenses the IWC has to incur because of Australia's action."

All from OssanAmerica during the previous thread, & there is more, if you need no more proof of corruption & the arrogance of the Japanese running this cause then I will add davidattokyo's comments. I am sure the rest of the world will be most impressed by how the Japanese think they can bribe, bully, threaten, & rule the rest of the world, including organisations such as the IWC, & the ICJ.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul;"The international court DOES NOT have precedence over the sovereign laws of any country unless that country has GIVEN the ICJ precedence."

You seem to have forgotten how Japan is a signatory on the very same treaty that the Australian gov is taking us to the ICJ for, therefore we have signed it, yet not obligated it on our own whaling fleet, ergo in breach of afore mentioned treaty! Therefore we are being taken to court for breaches of this same treaty, despite being warned for many years of our breaches & the consequences. Just to finish it off is how davidattokyo has explained;

"The Vienna convention on treaties requires parties to them to act in good faith and in accordance with the spirit of these conventions."

& just how has Japan followed these treaties? While at the same time accusing others of the same breaches, therefore showing our understanding of our obligation to same said treaty?

Once again the rules apply to every one, but then again we are now trying to push through a deal that only is reserved for 3 countries in the world, the rest of the world has to abide by different rules!But I guess that is part of the problem isn't it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Russia, Europe, the U.S., South America et all will not conceed control of Antarctic waters to Australia. IF Australia actually proceeds with this case, the ICJ will be flooded with legal opinions from the other 189 nations that do not accept Australia's jurisdictional claim to the area.

Without jurisdiction to bring suit - there will be no whaling trial in the ICJ but there will be an international legal ruling that Australia's claim to the area is not valid.

This case will be a huge waste of Autralian taxpayer money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All from OssanAmerica during the previous thread, & there is more, if you need no more proof of corruption & the arrogance of the Japanese running this cause then I will add davidattokyo's comments.

Are you saying OssanAmerica(if he is Japanese)is a corrupt Japanese offical/person who is running the "cause"? How his comments constitute anything other then his opinion is conjecture at best.

impressed by how the Japanese think they can bribe, bully, threaten, & rule the rest of the world, including organisations such as the IWC, & the ICJ.

The rest of the world, really? (Note: Japan isn't the only nation who hunts whales).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's funny because Brazil & Chile have stated their backing of Aus, & also were part of a group to conduct non-lethal research this year! Lets see Japanese whaling vessels try to put into a Sth American port! & the Antarctic Treaty has been sign by these afore mentioned countries as well, so would like to see us take it up with them too!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is not about Australia claiming juristiction, it is about Japan complying to treaties to which it has signed! & has then chosen to break! Once again do the crime, then do the time...

PS, it actually now seems like Japan trying to worm out/bribe its way out of contractual agreements again!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good Jorb, you are so right, there is 3 countries that does it using loopholes, or ignoring the IWC, so that MUST make us right then, you know might is right, & there is 3 of us whole countries behind it, the only other countries that allow it is purely subsistance by indigenous tribes, that take under 50 a year, by way of hand thrown spear! Yeah let's accuse them of our crimes hunting with explosive harpoons, dumping our waste, & refueling in protected areas! While they hunt in canoes throwing hand thrown harpoons THAT WILL SAVE US! Yeah right, once again the rest of the world is not that stupid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am sure the rest of the world will be most impressed by how the Japanese think they can bribe, bully, threaten, & rule the rest of the world, including organisations such as the IWC, & the ICJ.

Why would they need to. All they have to do, is pull out the treaties, point to the relevant sections, and case dismissed. Australia doesn't even have a case other then, we don't like it, stop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 11:17 PM JST - 31st May Ossan;"the IWC proposal to reduce the number of whales being taken." I will explain it to you again because you did not seem to understand it >last time; this proposal is about allowing commercial whaling, NOT >closing the research 'loophole'.

Let me explain it to YOU again; the IWC proposal eliminates Research Whaling. In return commercial whaling will be permitte with reduced take numbers and tight IWC control.

"The International Whaling Commission issued a draft proposal on 22 April that would lift the current ban on commercial whaling, established in 1986, in favour of a progressive reduction and regulation approach. If approved, the proposal would allow limited commercial whaling to continue over a ten year period.

The new proposal sets specific catch-limits to be observed over the next five years, after which further reductions of the established limit will occur, until a zero-catch limit is ultimately realised. The IWC claims that these regulations will save between 4,000 and 18,000 whales over the next ten years, and would maintain rigorous regulation and monitoring to ensure that the quotas are not violated. Additionally, the proposal establishes a South Atlantic Sanctuary, recognising the non-lethal value and uses of whales, and addresses corresponding scientific conservation and management issues for these coastal states."

http://ictsd.org/i/news/biores/74821/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whaling should be banned worldwide. They suffer terribly when they are murdered and sometimes the babies are taken out alive from their mummies tummies. Australia is being very brave because some horrid right wingers may try to boycott their products. I hope Japan loses then all of us nice opeople can smile and go whale watching, whoooopeeee!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That is highly unlikely since minke whales give birth in the warm southern pacific ocean and not in the fridge antarctic waters or the pup will freeze to death as soon as they are given birth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul: http://www.icj-cij.org/

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946.

The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York (United States of America).

The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.

The Court is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for terms of office of nine years by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. It is assisted by a Registry, its administrative organ. Its official languages are English and French.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul: In addition: http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5

The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who cares about circular rhetoric, or courts that are paid in blood - ecology is higher than any court or corrupt government. Without it, you don't a planet to live on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 03:55 AM JST - 1st June Good Jorb;"Who's us? It's assumptive of you to predict the outcome of >court case, unless you're a legal expert." The following is courtesy of OssanAmerica from this same thread; One reason the USA, Australia, NZ, UK...etc (most of the world) have not >counter-bribed countries to vote for their opinion is because in a court >of law this will be significant. I can just see Japan arguing "but the >IWC voted..." and the Judge saying "but only because you bribed them... >how dodgy is that!" "One does not need to be a judge to look at a claim, know what the basis >of the claim will be and what the claimant will have to substantiate in >order to win. It's no guarantee of course, but it's enough for any >layman to determine whether a claim should or should not be filed." "I'm part of no team but if you want me to bribe someone just send me >the money." "Australia will lose this case without doubt. The authority that >regulates whaling and whale populations is the IWC, not Australia and >certainly not the ICJ. Australia, despite being a member, is effectively >taking the IWC to court for permitting Research Whaling. Australia >should be kicked out of the IWC or be forced to pay any expenses the IWC >has to incur because of Australia's action." All from OssanAmerica during the previous thread, & there is more, if >you need no more proof of corruption & the arrogance of the Japanese >running this cause then I will add davidattokyo's comments. I am sure >the rest of the world will be most impressed by how the Japanese think >they can bribe, bully, threaten, & rule the rest of the world, including >organisations such as the IWC, & the ICJ.

Thanks for copying bits and pieces of my comments. But if you think that any of it supports your charge of corruption, or arrogance of the Japanese,(a rather intersting charge considering that I am American, not Japanese) or your absurdb charges of bullying and threatening the rst of hte world I seriously suggest you seek psychiatric counseling as soon as possible. Australia's action with fail because of the merits of the claim. Regardless of the outcome it will take forever to reach a conclusion, by which time the IWC will have reached new regulations anyway. Both the United States and New Zealand, ardent anti-whaling countries, disagree with Australia's action. Finally I find it interesting that you call me Japanese when you always write "we" as if you yourself were Japanese. It's really time that the anti-whaling j-bashing with their ridiculous arguments found something new to do. At least until there are new developments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@OssanAmerica They disagree (US/NZ) because they're in no economic position to dispute anything at the moment. And yes, it is unfortunate that Japan has become the brunt of many jokes, but they've opened themselves to ridicule for their monstrous antics in the south seas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"by which time the IWC will have reached new regulations anyway."

Once again you do not seem to be up with current events, NZ has rejected to proposal, & interestingly enough so has Japan. Japan has done stating it does not allow enough catches in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary! Which is a bit silly having a sanctuary, then allowing a country to commercially hunt there, isn't it? & who is to say that Japan will abide by such a treaty anyway, because we do not abide by the ones we have signed already! So why would the world ever believe we would abide by this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gogogo - The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).

Thanks for the info but which question were you answering?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul: Your previous question:

Which people elect an international court? I've never heard of such a thing. Are you saying that the people of the world elected the ICJ? When did this happen? Can you provide a date or possibly a sidewalk chalk drawing to substanciate this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

could you perhaps show us some paper that shows how there is absolutely no correlation found between the age of an animal and any other features it has? I am thinking about for example size? If there is - say - a clear correlation found between age and size, there is no need to kill the animals any more in order to estimate the age

I imagine there's a clear correlation with length up until maturity, and then little or no correlation after that. Take humans for example. Size correlates with age until one's late teens. For the next 50 years of life, age and size don't correlate well, a least for visible size, such as height. You can't tell a 50-year-old from a 25-year-old by size. There may be a correlation with weight, but you're not going to put live whales on a scale to weigh them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let face it, if do something is morally and ethically wrong then eventually you are doomed to fail. The consequence of which you will be remembered for only.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This Legal/illegal crap has got to stop. The Japanese ae using a loop-hole purposely written into the accord. We all use loop-holes whether it be about paying taxes, parking for 5 minutes in a "no parking" zone or any one of number of other laws or contract conditions you want to fudge on. If you don't like the loop-hole, work to close it, if you can't close it, live with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 01:20 PM JST - 1st June Once again you do not seem to be up with current events, NZ has rejected >to proposal, & interestingly enough so has Japan. Japan has done stating >it does not allow enough catches in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary!

No "Keikotokyo" it's YOU who's not up to current events. The IWC made a proposal that offers limited commercial whaling but closes the "loophole" (can you admit to this now??) with take number much lower than they are now and close monitor and control by the IWC. Japan rejected it on the numbers but indicated they wre negotiable on the numbers. Nzealand amd the US rejected it saying the numbers were too high but were ope to negotiation. It is Australia alone, despite having been part of the IWC committee that put together the propsal itself, that rejected it in entirety, claimed non-negotiability and went ahead with the action before the ICJ. To put as simply as possible for you - Japan, United States, New Zealand are willing to talk..Australia isn't. The reason that anti-whaling nations like the US and NZealand are for negotiating a solution is because they know that the IWC must remain intact as the governing authority over whaling without which any efforts to manage whale populations will fall into chaos.

Which is a bit silly having a sanctuary, then allowing a country to >commercially hunt there, isn't it?

Australia was part of the IWC committee that put together that poropsal so why don't you ask them if it bothres you?

& who is to say that Japan will abide by such a treaty anyway, because >we do not abide by the ones we have signed already! So why would the >world ever believe we would abide by this?

Japan is abiding but the IWC regulations completely whether you or Australia likes it or not. Common sense solutionn is to chahge the regulations, which the IWC is moving towards but Australia alone is acting like a spoiled child. But you;re right, Japan COULD do what Norway and Iceland did, object to the Moratorium and just plain hunt as they wish. You think that's a better solution? Or the one that the IWC is proposing?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why is australia so much into this whaling thing????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Over 1200 whales have been hunted each year since commercial whaling was banned in 1986. Japan has been whaling under the guise of 'scientific research', killing hundreds of whales each year and selling whale meat openly on the market. Japan is now planning to increase its 'scientific whaling' operations in the Southern Hemisphere and to include the hunting of humpback and fin whales. Norway continues to hunt whales under its objection to the IWC moratorium against commercial whaling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot at 08:03 PM JST - 1st June Over 1200 whales have been hunted each year since commercial whaling was >banned in 1986.

By Japan, Norway, Iceland, the USSR, USA, Canada, ....

Japan has been whaling under the guise of 'scientific research', killing >hundreds of whales each year and selling whale meat openly on the >market.

In accordance with IWC Article VIII permitting Scientific Whaling and requiring that the whale meat be utilized.

Japan is now planning to increase its 'scientific whaling' operations in >the Southern Hemisphere and to include the hunting of humpback and fin >whales. Norway continues to hunt whales under its objection to the IWC >moratorium against commercial whaling.

Don't like it? Support the IWC propsal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"The IWC made a proposal that offers limited commercial whaling but closes the "loophole""

Ohh we are all so silly, so you mean by changing the name of the hunts from 'scientific' to 'commercial' that changes everything, right? So the 'loophole' is being closed to open another 'loophole', commercial whaling, Thanks for explaining that for us all! Ohh & 'commercial' hunts in a designated sanctuary, yep you are so right, that makes so much more sense now! Ohh & you forgot to mention that Japan only got just over 500 whales in last seasons hunts, just a few more in the previous seasons, but now wants at least 800 from Antarctic waters under the new proposal. So let me see as far as I understand 500 is still less than 800 is it not? Not to mention the extra whales from the Nth Pacific, & coastal hunts, hmm once again thanks for making the facts so much clearer!

To put as simply as possible for you - Japan, United States, New Zealand are willing to talk..Australia isn't.

Ohh that is right it is all Australia's fault now, so sorry I forgot! Gee how many years have Aus & other nations been trying to negotiate with us over this. Even our foreign Minister in his last visit to Australia told them that we would not change our position, & continue to hunt as we wish! Gee does that sound like a country willing to negotiate? Ohh & for the record NZ has given us a week, 2 tops to change our position our they too will take us to the ICJ, guess everyone is getting tired of trying to negotiate with a country that has stated it is not willing to negotiate, & wants to behave like a spoilt little child!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@OssanAmerica

Ellipsis not required..

By Japan, Norway, Iceland, the USSR, USA, Canada, ....

Thanks but No thanks. I'll support Australia's bid to ban whaling.

Don't like it? Support the IWC propsal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica, as you have stated if Aus wants to stop the hunts to close the 'loophole' legally, once again I believe that is their motives to these actions. So why are you attacking them for following through? Or is it you are just scared now they may win? So trying to make it out to be something it is not, & at the same time defend your indefensible view?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So.. I don't agree with whaling. And cannot understand why Japan is so stubborn about it.

But, why Japan doesn't demand Australia (and everyone else) because all those millions of poor cows people kill and eat everyday? Aren't they mammals as well?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 11:59 PM JST - 1st June OssanAmerica, as you have stated if Aus wants to stop the hunts to close >the 'loophole' legally, once again I believe that is their motives to >these actions.

Then read the positions of the US, New Zealand, Japan as well as the parties ot in power in Australkia. There is a unanimous voice pointing out that this is a politically motivated action in the run up to the November elections.

So why are you attacking them for following through? Or is it you are >just scared now they may win? So trying to make it out to be something >it is not, & at the same time defend your indefensible view?

LOL. So you think the United States and New Zealand are "scared" they may win? Is that why they've criticised Australia's singular action? No, they have done so because hey see Australia as having very little chance of success and potentially danaging the position of the anti-whaling nations. My criticism is because Australia acting like a spoiled 2 year old threatens the in-process re-vamping of the IWC.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 09:31 PM JST - 1st June Ossan;"The IWC made a proposal that offers limited commercial whaling >but closes the "loophole"" Ohh we are all so silly, so you mean by changing the name of the hunts >from 'scientific' to 'commercial' that changes everything, right?

I bet you failed math.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica;"So you think the United States and New Zealand are "scared" they may win? Is that why they've criticised Australia's singular action? No, they have done so because hey see Australia as having very little chance of success and potentially danaging the position of the anti-whaling nations."

Ohh so you mean, & I quote;" Australia has already launched legal proceedings against Japan. Photo / Supplied Australia has already launched legal proceedings against Japan. Photo / Supplied

New Zealand will take Japan to the International Court of Justice over its Southern Ocean whaling programme if last minute diplomatic solutions are not found.

Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said New Zealand will go to the Hague if diplomatic efforts are not successful in the next "week or two"

I guess that is not New Zealands stance then? I guess they are backing up "OssanAmericas" view, & will follow him through all, because he has a greater understanding as a "layman" than any barrister giving advice to any government, whether Australian or New Zealand, sorry but I have not read that press release anywhere, or even heard your name mentioned in international politics. But then again I guess if you were such a political influence then you would have made yourself present while the FBI arrested Paul Watson under your guide as a 'terrorist' whilst he was in New York recently, huh?

Ohh & just to remind you of what NZ Foreign Minister ha just stated 2 days ago;" Australia has already launched legal proceedings against Japan. Photo / Supplied Australia has already launched legal proceedings against Japan. Photo / Supplied

New Zealand will take Japan to the International Court of Justice over its Southern Ocean whaling programme if last minute diplomatic solutions are not found.

Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said New Zealand will go to the Hague if diplomatic efforts are not successful in the next "week or two"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ohh, Ossan, if we were so willing to 'negotiate', then why would NZ now be stating the same as Aus to take us to the ICJ, that would mean to trials against us at the same time, regarding the same situation in the Antarctic! I guess that shows our willing to negotiate, right? Ohh & by the way why is an American so emotionally involved with this,(seeing how both Japan & America is in the Nthn Hemishere), saying how these countries should allow an area in their local area should be controlled by Japan? & our politics?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 02:12 AM JST - 2nd June Ohh, Ossan, if we were so willing to 'negotiate', then why would NZ now >be stating the same as Aus to take us to the ICJ, that would mean to >trials against us at the same time, regarding the same situation in the >Antarctic

Keikotokyo- you really need to stop posting lie after lie after lie. It's just getting very tiring. Please refrain.

"AUCKLAND—New Zealand says it won't consider joining Australia's international legal action to stop Japanese whaling until diplomatic efforts fail, because going to court is a risky move."

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/36586/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Aside from some posters who are engaging in a shameless bickering/pissing contest, we're yet to know which one is right or wrong on this matter. There's just simply no ample/valid evidence to prove that Japan has been fooling other nations by hunting whales for commercial purposes under the disguise of "research whaling." I personally don't have any problem with Australian government's legal action against Japan. If Japan insists that they are exactly conducting whaling for research purposes, then all they need to do is prove it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am for australias action for the same reason. Lets get the situation resolved by a 3rd party and LETS all respect the outcome.

My guees no matter what decision will be reached there will be more bickering/pissing contests.

Fanatics gotta love them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's just simply no ample/valid evidence to prove that Japan has been fooling other nations by hunting whales for commercial purposes under the disguise of "research whaling."

400,000 pounds of frozen whale sitting in freezers proves otherwise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guest.

Baah, same goes for SSCS, Israel, etc common tactics by fanatics.

Either play the victim card or attack the others side personality.

Kettle = Pot = Kettle and all are BLACK.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 02:12 AM JST - 2nd June Ohh, Ossan, if we were so willing to 'negotiate', then why would NZ now >be stating the same as Aus to take us to the ICJ, that would mean to >trials against us at the same time, regarding the same situation in the >Antarctic! I guess that shows our willing to negotiate, right?

I don't know how many times I can show you New Zealands position, that they prefer a diplomatic solution, and are actively negotiating as is the United States. It is Australia alone which refuses to do so.

Ohh & by the way why is an American so emotionally involved with this, (seeing how both Japan & America is in the Nthn Hemishere), saying how >these countries should allow an area in their local area should be >controlled by Japan? & our politics?

I don't know "KeikoTokyo", why is a non-Japanese so emotionally involved in this and posting pretending to be Japanese by constantly saying "we"? You are asked for the umpteenth time to stop with your personal attacks which have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Or if you like, keep doing it till the MOD starts knocking out your posts.

Moderator: You're the one who is being most impolite. Lift the level of your contributions or you will be leaving us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

guest at 05:09 AM JST - 2nd June OssanAmerica Is it a typical Japanese behavior syndrome that when you have lost the >argument you play the victim?

More nonsense from the trolls.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BTW, still would like to see ANY links by the anti-whalers that show that Butyric-Acid = Rancid Butter and that the distilled form is as harmless as the acid dissolved/contained in Butter. With that I mean Scientific data not propaganda by SSCS, etc.

If they want a discussion than they need to disucss and back up their arguments with valid proofs, DON'T come into a discussion with a mindset "Of you are wrong and we are right".

They will also need to justify their viewpoints with their personal reasons and stop being a front for SSCS, etc. Repeating a view/opinion over and over don't make it stronger.

HTH.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jeez Zenny11 Butyric Acid is rancid butter already. PROOF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butyric_acid

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@AmeriJap, or whatever the 'new' handle is. Your statement is so wrong, you can go to a Japanese supermarket and purchase canned Whale meat. The excuse for killing whales has always been the same, to research the age of the animal.

There's just simply no ample/valid evidence to prove that Japan has been fooling other nations by hunting whales for commercial purposes under the disguise of "research whaling."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Proof from wikipedia. Yes, you clearly win the argument there because Wikipedia is the expert on the subject. Certainly a better source of information than the CDC for example.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your statement is so wrong, you can go to a Japanese supermarket and purchase canned Whale meat.

And so what if you can? (Be careful, your answer is very likely to show a lack of understanding on the subject. Again)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Milk is lactic acid. Orange juice is citric acid. Rotten butter is butyric acid. It is less acidic than beer yet the Japanese whalers keep referring to it as "acid" like it is sulfuric acid. The fact is that butyric acid is non-toxic, non-corrosive, organic and biodegradable. It just stinks really bad. The whalers are ...lying when they say it burnt them - Any chemist will affirm that butyric acid does not burn.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The excuse for killing whales has always been the same, to research the age of the animal.

No it hasn't. But please feel free to continue to believe it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Any chemist will affirm that butyric acid does not burn.

Except for the one with the PhD on this thread. And all of those that work for the CDC and other governmental organizations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please save the Whale, thanks a lot !!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heda Heda Heda.. :) There's no proof any of the whalers have suffered burns, scarring or injuries. Case closed!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Save the whales!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot - Jeez Zenny11 Butyric Acid is rancid butter already. PROOF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butyric_acid

Hahahaha - You STILL don't read the links you provide. You're a hoot.

From your supplied link:

Butyric acid is found IN butter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot - There's no proof any of the whalers have suffered burns, scarring or injuries. My mind is closed!

According to the victim, Mr Kominami - wearing a helmet with a plastic visor in court to demonstrate how he sought to protect himself on the whaling ship – described how he felt when the substance splattered his face. “I heard voices saying ‘Yoo-hoo!’ from the Sea Shepard boat. I tried to turn towards the boat but my vision became blurred. My eyes hurt and I could hardly open them,” he said. “I felt a particularly strong pain in the right eye, as if it was on fire. I smelled butyric acid. It stinks. It smells like blue cheese, but with the odour intensified, or like a cesspool.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7138940.ece

0 ( +0 / -0 )

botbot - Look and weep silly man. We posted you a video as we are unsure whether you can read..

Hahahaha..... 'We posted you a video'.... You so funny. Who is this 'WE' that you keep refering to?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's a video of the clumsy Mr. Kominami. I'd say the injury was self inflicted from his own stupidity. So would you if you click this link. What a fool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSON88tvRSU&NR=1

0 ( +0 / -0 )

out of my curiosity, when is the next election in Australia? i remember this guy promised promised 3 years ago before he was elected that he would bring the Japanese to the court. it has been 3 years right? what take him so long? i hope it is not for the next election sake.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

by the way i talk about "Kevin Rudd" the Australian PM.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@thedeath Hi random reappearing person, you should ask the opposition - they can supply you with suitable conspiracy theories.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ guest There's just simply no ample/valid evidence to prove that Japan has been fooling other nations by hunting whales for commercial purposes under the disguise of "research whaling." 400,000 pounds of frozen whale sitting in freezers proves otherwise.

Ummm... I'm no NASA engineer. But I do believe in an open market 400,000 lbs of frozen whale would mean you do not have enough demand for your product. That kinda throws your statement in the trash, especially when the IWC mandates that your whale meat cannot be wasted. Hence it is frozen and stored.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@thedeath Hi random reappearing person

i recommencement you read more on my history post before say that.

you should ask the opposition - they can supply you with suitable conspiracy theories.

why bother to answer me when you don't know the answer?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia institutes proceedings against Japan for alleged breach of international obligations concerning whaling

THE HAGUE, 1 June 2010. Australia yesterday instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice against the Government of Japan, alleging that “Japan’s continued pursuit of a large scale programme of whaling under the Second Phase of its Japanese Whale Research Programme under Special Permit in the Antarctic (“JARPA II”) [is] in breach of obligations assumed by Japan under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (“ICRW”), as well as its other international obligations for the preservation of marine mammals and marine environment”. The Applicant contends, in particular, that Japan “has breached and is continuing to breach the following obligations under the ICRW: (a) the obligation under paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule to the ICRW to observe in good faith the zero catch limit in relation to the killing of whales for commercial purposes; and (b) the obligation under paragraph 7 (b) of the Schedule to the ICRW to act in good faith to refrain from undertaking commercial whaling of humpback and fin whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.” Australia points out that “having regard to the scale of the JARPA II programme, the lack of any demonstrated relevance for the conservation and management of whale stocks, and to the risks presented to targeted species and stocks, the JARPA II programme cannot be justified under Article VIII of the ICRW” (this article regulates the granting of special permits to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research). Australia alleges further that Japan has also breached and is continuing to breach, inter alia, its obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Released today from the Hague.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope Australia wins so the wicked slaughter of the lovely animals can be stopped. The people who hunt them are horrid and so are the peoplethat eat them. Ban it forever, it is grotesque.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More life and less @thedeath is my moto. Save the whales.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So their entire case rests on the court ruling that whaling under scientific permit is commercial whaling - despite being carried out under review of the scientific committee of the IWC.

Good luck with that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Applicant contends, in particular, that Japan “has breached and is continuing to breach

Funny.

The only party that I see that "has breached and is continuing to breach" under ICRW is Australia's continued membership in the IWC.

What a joke of a country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia's absurd behavior is evident in that they were a member of the IWC committee that put together the new IWC proposal, which Japan rejected wanting higher take numbers, and New Zealand and the US rejected wanting lower numbers. But all parties saying they are willing to negotiate. Australia on the other hand rejected the IWC propsal and instroduced it's own zero-take take-it-or-leave it proposal which is not even supported by the anti-whaling nations then proceeds to bring action at the ICJ. If an individual behaved this away they would be dismissed from their position of employment or urged to seek psychiatric counselling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - Australia institutes proceedings against Japan for alleged breach of international obligations concerning whaling.....

This case makes no sense. Is Australia 'claiming' that the ICRW did not have the authority to grant Japan's request for scientific research?

Australia, as a menber of the IWC, agreed to the 'special permit' JARPA II. Is Australia going to try to prove that they had no idea what they were signing?

'We're sorry your honor, we didn't actually read the document before we signed it and shouldn't be held responsible for our ignorance.'

This is a huge waste of Autralian taxpayer money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"If an individual behaved this away they would be dismissed from their position of employment or urged to seek psychiatric counselling."

Should we then look at the behaviour of ICR the same way? While the rest of the world, bar 2, has abided by the moratorium on the ban world wide of whaling, the ICR has ignored it, issued its own catch quotas, & refused to negotiate with foreign countries. When CITES talked of banning Bluefin Tuna trade, the Japanese fishing industry stated they would simply ignore it! Just as Japan has stated if they do not get our own way in the IWC we will simply leave & do as we wish! Hmmm, just who is behaving like a spoilt child? Definately not Australia, otherwise NZ would now not be planning the same act against Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul, I think what they are going to show is how Japan has betrayed its own agreements regarding JARPA II, & in doing so broken the rules of the IWC. Once again unless you are a judge in the ICJ who are you to state anything until a verdict is handed down, or do you believe along with Ossan, & David that no one has the right to question/question Japan in an international court over this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 01:54 AM JST - 3rd June Ossan;"If an individual behaved this away they would be dismissed from >their position of employment or urged to seek psychiatric counselling."

Should we then look at the behaviour of ICR the same way?

Nope. Because they are abiding by IWC Regulations Article VIII completely.

While the rest of the world, bar 2, has abided by the moratorium on the >ban world wide of whaling, the ICR has ignored it,

Wrong. Norway amnd Iceland have and continue to hunt whales by objecting to the 1986 Moratorium. The former USSR hunted whales on an enormous scale after the moratorium as well. Scientific Research Whaling is specifically exempt from recognizing Moratoriums and Sanctuaries.

issued its own catch quotas,

That's what Article VIII calls for.

& refused to negotiate with foreign countries.

The ICR does not negotiate with foreign countries.

When CITES talked of banning Bluefin Tuna trade, the Japanese fishing >industry stated they would simply ignore it! Just as Japan has stated if >they do not get our own way in the IWC we will simply leave & do as we >wish!

Bluefin Tuna are irrelevant to this discussion.

Hmmm, just who is behaving like a spoilt child? Definately not >Australia, otherwise NZ would now not be planning the same act against >Japan.

Australia is the only one acting like a spoiled child and that is why New Zealand and the United States, both strong abnti-whaling nations have criticised Australia's unilateral action.

"US, NZ criticise Australia's anti-whaling court bid"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/02/2915611.htm?section=justin

Why don't you try reading what the IWC rules actually are as regards Scientif Research Whaling? Then you will have an idea of what Japan is allowed to do and not allowed to do. It's there for anyone to read.

"A major area of discussion in recent years has been the issuing of permits by member states for the killing of whales for scientific purposes. The use of such permits is not new. The right to issue them is enshrined in Article VIII of the 1946 Convention. Whilst member nations must submit proposals for review, in accordance with the Convention, it is the member nation that ultimately decides whether or not to issue a permit, and this right overrides any other Commission regulations including the moratorium and sanctuaries. Article VIII also requires that the animals be utilised once the scientific data have been collected."

http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm#guidelines

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - I think what they are going to show is how Japan has betrayed its own agreements regarding JARPA II, in doing so broken the rules of the IWC. Once again unless you are a judge in the ICJ who are you to state anything until a verdict is handed down, or do you believe along with Ossan, David that no one has the right to question/question Japan in an international court over this?

I'm an internet user, same as you. I'm questioning Australia's legal claim in a thread about the court case.

......the JARPA II programme cannot be justified under Article VIII of the ICRW” (this article regulates the granting of special permits to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research)......

Australia is claiming that Article VIII, which regulates special permits for scientific purposes, doesn't apply to the JARPA program, which was allowed a special permit to take minke whales for scientific purposes. The basic argument doesn't make any sense. The whalers were given a permit by the organization that regulates whaling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul;"which was allowed a special permit to take minke whales for scientific purposes."

PLEASE once again look at the injunction! It specifically states Fin, & Humpbacks, both of these Japan has included on its 'carnege'. Fin whale DNA has been traced back to 2 foreign restaurants outside Japan. Once again this DNA has been traced back to Japan, & Japanese hunts. Therefore Japan is both neglecting its agreements in the IWC, & also breaking CITES agreements. Therefore Australia is taking us to court over these breaches, & I do not think a country takes one of its biggest trading partners to international court over trivial matters. One would only do this with the utmost legal advice & backing, NOT a laymans view, eg OssanAmerica's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"Why don't you try reading what the IWC rules actually are as regards Scientific Research Whaling? Then you will have an idea of what Japan is allowed to do and not allowed to do. It's there for anyone to read."

Do you not think many barristers have presided over this, & given their 'professional' advice, not that of a simple 'layman' as yourself. Or do you still believe your legal advice is better than professionals, giving advice to a countries government?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - I do not think a country takes one of its biggest trading partners to international court over trivial matters. One would only do this with the utmost legal advice backing, NOT a laymans view

I believe this is more of a political matter, as in getting someone re-elected in Australia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How's that court case coming? Are the legal professionals all in agreement? Or are they asking advice from laymen? Will the following arguments against whaling come out in this: Magnificent Creatures, Take Too Long To Die, Meat is Chock-a-Block with Mercury, Australia owns the Southern Ocean, Japanese Can't Whale in International Waters (which counters the previous one), Japan buys votes in the IWC, Australians have a rapport with Whales and speak their Language. Or similar other arguments with similar solid backing of Conservation Groups? I hope they broadcast this on TV. I'm in for a good show.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

According to an Australian site it could take up to 2 years just to see where this case is going, which of course not unusual in any court action. By that time the IWC may have changed it's regulations in such a way that this "case" may become a moot point. Of course it will still have accomplished it's true political objective.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I read a paper yesterday that was recently published in a law journal that ultimately dismissed legal advice (commissioned by IFAW) as being IFAW propaganda.

I'm not sure, but I think the Australian case may be based on the IFAW commissioned legal advice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo

Fin whale DNA has been traced back to 2 foreign restaurants outside Japan.

No it hasn't. Go check your facts.

Besides, whether Americans and Koreans want to eat Japanese research whaling by-products has nothing to do with determining whether Japanese government backed research whaling is indeed research.

Therefore Japan is both neglecting its agreements in the IWC, & also breaking CITES agreements.

Japan has legal CITES reservations with respect to the species of whale involved. If you understood CITES properly you would recognise this. As for the Korean and US sides of the trade, yes it probably broke CITES regulations since those two states chose to be bound by the silly whale meat trade restrictions.

Therefore Australia is taking us to court over these breaches

Good luck, they'll need that or to bribe the judges.

I do not think a country takes one of its biggest trading partners to international court over trivial matters.

Australia obviously does when the Labor government is worried about elections later in the year.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

do you believe along with Ossan, & David that no one has the right to question/question Japan in an international court over this?

Australia has the right to bring a court case.

But it doesn't have the right to expect it can actually win when the grounds for it's case are baseless.

Bring it on. The Australian court case will bring clarity to much of the world regarding the legitimacy of what Japan has been doing. Except of course, to the anti-whaling movement and it's followers, who will dismiss the lost court case for some peculiar reason and skip along to some other area of anti-whaling propaganda.

Meanwhile the precedent will have been set and Japan will wield much leverage on this issue in future because of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan eats whale meat, so in order to get that whale meat Japan conducts research, whether that research is good or bad or helpful is irreverent, the only way for Japan to eat whale is to conduct research. Moral killing of whales aside this is the issue Australia has a problem with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul: So you`d start conservating the minke whales only when it starts becoming an endangered specie or when it´s completely devasted from this planet? Also, If it became extint what would you do?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hope we all win with Australia winning this for us. God bless the ones who worry about the beauties He created.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

krisallenation - So you`d start conservating the minke whales only when it starts becoming an endangered specie or when it´s completely devasted from this planet? Also, If it became extint what would you do?

I never said that. There are over 800,000 minke whales and Japan is limited to taking no more than 935. That's around 1/10th of 1 percent, well within the reproductive rate of the minke.

That IS conservation of a natural resource.

For the record, the minke is NOT endangered and it hasn't become extinct. Feel better now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Japan has legal CITES reservations with respect to the species of whale involved. If you understood CITES properly you would recognise this. As for the Korean and US sides of the trade, yes it probably broke CITES regulations since those two states chose to be bound by the silly whale meat trade restrictions."

So by this you mean Japan chooses to ignore the CITES agreement on the banning of trade of endangered whale meat, just as it stated it would if Bluefin Tuna was put on there? So you mean once again there is one rule for Japan, & another for the rest of the world?

Fin whale DNA has been traced back to 2 foreign restaurants outside Japan.

No it hasn't. Go check your facts.

I have, & yes they have traced the Fin whale DNA back to Japan, even if the ICR try to deny it. The scientific facts, & DNA evidence prove it. Please check your facts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gogogo,

Japan eats whale meat, so in order to get that whale meat Japan conducts research, whether that research is good or bad or helpful is irreverent, the only way for Japan to eat whale is to conduct research. Moral killing of whales aside this is the issue Australia has a problem with.

That's Australia's argument, but in court an argument is assessed based on evidence both for and against it. Australia has it's work cut out proving all that it claims, because the onus is on them to establish that there is no "research"... despite the IWC Scientific Committee reports being full of information about it, and the data provided by Japan being used in that context.

What is Australia going to argue? That the information isn't needed? If that's Australia's argument then the court will have to look at the whaling convention, and decide what "management" of whale stocks means and then whether Japan's research is contributing to it.

If Australia is really unlucky Japan will bring up a few issues of it's own such as the IWC's arguably illegal imposition of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary as well as the failure to lift the moratorium. Both go against the object and purpose of the whaling convention.

krisallenation,

arrestpaul: So you`d start conservating the minke whales only when it starts becoming an endangered specie

Conservation starts right now. Just because there are many many minke whales does not mean we should have "open slather" on them. What we should have is sustainable catch limits. That way we ensure that they are conserved. We use some now, leave lots in the ocean to reproduce and replenish their numbers, and then take more later.

That is conservation.

KeikoTokyo,

you mean Japan chooses to ignore the CITES agreement on the banning of trade of endangered whale meat

Not endangered whales, but whales that CITES politicians decided to list on it's Appendices. Yes, Japan chooses to ignore these politically motivated decisions.

So you mean once again there is one rule for Japan, & another for the rest of the world?

No. Every CITES party has the right to ignore listings that they regard as inappropriate. Many nations do this, not just Japan. If you look at the list of such reservations you'll find that it is very long.

I have, & yes they have traced the Fin whale DNA back to Japan

You're still wrong. It was not Fin whale meat that was brought into South Korea and the USA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're still wrong. It was not Fin whale meat that was brought into South Korea and the USA.

Testing showed the fin whale meat likely came from the same whale offered for sale at a Japanese market in 2007, which the scientists also tested.

The study also detailed DNA testing of whale meat that led The Hump sushi restaurant in Santa Monica, Calif., to close last month. "Since the international moratorium, it has been assumed that there is no international trade in whale products," said Scott Baker, associate director of OSU's Marine Mammal Institute and lead author of the study, in a written statement. "But when products from the same whale are sold in Japan in 2007 and in Korea in 2009, it suggests that international trade, though illegal, is still an issue."

The study looked at 13 pieces of mixed whale meat sashimi purchased from an unnamed restaurant in Seoul, South Korea last year. Four were from an Antarctic minke whale, four from a sei whale, three from a North Pacific minke whale, one from a fin whale and one from a Risso's dolphin. From AP.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's Australia's argument, but in court an argument is assessed based on evidence both for and against it. Australia has it's work cut out proving all that it claims, because the onus is on them to establish that there is no "research"... despite the IWC Scientific Committee reports being full of information about it, and the data provided by Japan being used in that context.

I am not arguing credibility or even if the research exists, I'm sure it does somewhere... research credibility and facts aside, whether it curses cancer or finding out how old the whales are Japan needs to constantly do this research in order to eat whale.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Not endangered whales, but whales that CITES politicians decided to list on it's Appendices. Yes, Japan chooses to ignore these politically motivated decisions."

So you are saying it is OK for Japan to ignore a U.N. backed group, set up to protect endangered species, because Japan thinks it can trade in animals that the UN has deemed to be endangered, therefore needing protection? Just as with the Bluefin Tuna proposal, even before a vote had been taken Japan stated we will simply ignore it! What gives us the right to ignore a UN backed sanction? This is why people say we behave like a spoilt brat! Because if we do not get our way we throw a little tantrum, storm off, do whatever we wish, & pay people like Glenn Inwood to fight our PR battles!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidatokyo;"Japan chooses to ignore these politically motivated decisions."

As do Interpol, that is why they have rejected any attempt to place an arrest warrant out for Paul Watson, stating they do not take 'political prisoners', nor do they get involved in 'domestic politics'. I guess that is one argument we lost soundly!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo

Because if we do not get our way we throw a little tantrum, storm off, do whatever we wish

This sounds very much like what Australia is doing right now. The bluefin tunas do not have anything to with whales and even if it does Japan(Kinki University) was the only nation that was doing research on complete cultivation which succeeded 8 years ago. Whether endangered/hunted or not research would be needed to determine the health of the population including demographics on age which can at the moment only be done through lethal methods. Without it you don't know which way the population is heading and the species could go extinct without knowing the cause.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - As do Interpol, that is why they have rejected any attempt to place an arrest warrant out for Paul Watson, stating they do not take 'political prisoners', nor do they get involved in 'domestic politics'. I guess that is one argument we lost soundly!

Japan didn't request that INTERPOL issue a RED notice (arrest warrant) for paul the Pirate. They requested a BLUE notice to keep track of his portly whereabouts.

Blue Notice - To collect additional information about a person’s identity or activities in relation to a crime.

Red Notice - To seek the arrest or provisional arrest of wanted persons with a view to extradition.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul;"Japan didn't request that INTERPOL issue a RED notice (arrest warrant) for paul the Pirate."

Report: Japan issues warrant for anti-whaling boss The Japanese Coast Guard has obtained an arrest warrant for the leader of the Sea Shepherd environmental group for its disruption of Japan’s annual whale hunts, local media reported Friday.

from; http://lmliberty.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/japan-issues-arrest-warrent-for-paul-watson/

Tokyo will seek Interpol’s help to arrest Canadian Paul Watson for ordering his crew to harass whaling ships in clashes in which Japanese crew were allegedly injured by rancid butter projectiles, broadcaster NHK reported.

from; http://www.japanprobe.com/2010/05/03/japan-issues-arrest-warrant-for-paul-watson/

TOKYO, Japan, May 5, 2010 (ENS) - The Japan Coast Guard has obtained an arrest warrant for Captain Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, for the organization's interference with Japan's annual whale hunts in the Southern Ocean.

from; http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2010/2010-05-05-02.html

An arrest warrant has apparently been issued for Paul Watson, the pro-violence leader of the animal rights group Sea Shepherd: Tokyo will seek Interpol’s help to arrest Canadian Paul Watson for ordering his crew to harass whaling ships in clashes in which Japanese crew were allegedly injured by rancid butter projectiles, broadcaster NHK reported.

from; http://www.wikio.com/video/japan-coast-guard-sea-shepherd-watson-3177136

& I can keep going on & on if you wish. Did all these news reports just make this up? Or did the ICR PR/press machine go off half cocked & failed in their bid, so now try to say; Ohh no it was not like that! Very common thing keeps coming out, everytime it does not work out the way the ICR plan, then say; ohh no was not that way. Glenn Inwood hard at work again!

SamuraiBlue;"Without it you don't know which way the population is heading and the species could go extinct without knowing the cause."

Ohh so once again we cannot understand the reason for extinction is caused by overfishing, we have to go out & do lethal research to find that out! Wow, & the rest of the world can work that out without lethal research, many others just tag, track, & use DNA sampling to work out stocks. I guess that is why we are being taken to the ICJ to answer these very same questions, why other countries can do it without lethal research, yet we need to kill everything to understand what happened to its population after we have decimated it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - I can keep going on on if you wish.

You're confusing the actions of two separate police agencies.

Japan has issued an arrest warrant for paul the Pirate.

Japan has requested INTERPOL's assistance (blue notice) to keep track of the Pirates whereabouts.

INTERPOL has not issued an arrest warrant (red notice) for the Pirate.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul; please prove your comment;"Japan has requested INTERPOL's assistance (blue notice) to keep track of the Pirates whereabouts."

Because all the press that has come out from the ICR & Glenn Inwood at the time state otherwise. Please give evidence that Japan just requested a "blue notice", & did not infact request a "red notice". Or is that just the story now because that request FAILED?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - please prove your comment;"Japan has requested INTERPOL's assistance (blue notice) to keep track of the Pirates whereabouts."

The Japanese authorities will put Watson, 59, on the international wanted list through Interpol, the sources said. But the authorities are likely to ask the international police agency only to issue a "blue notice" -- a request for police in member countries to provide information about an individual's location and activities -- not a "red notice" requesting arrest, they said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FD68MG0&show_article=1

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gogogo,

Japan needs to constantly do this research in order to eat whale.

If there was no research there would still be whale on sale in Japan. There is by-catch as well as product from overseas.

As we know that by-product whale does on sale is secondary to the research and is required by the convention. There would be no point in researching whales for the benefit of optimum utilisation of whales (as noted in the convention) and then wasting all the whales that were caught for research. That would be a big contradictory loophole in convention which anyone serious would laugh at.

The problem of course from the perspective of people who think that the moratorium came before the convention is that they think the convention is a loophole stopping the moratorium... even though it is within the context of the convention that the moratorium was imposed (and illegally has not been lifted since).

KeikoTokyo,

So you are saying it is OK for Japan to ignore a U.N. backed group, set up to protect endangered species, because Japan thinks it can trade in animals that the UN has deemed to be endangered, therefore needing protection?

The UN is not CITES. But CITES is a bunch of politicians, and politicians, as everyone knows, aren't always objective and often ignore science when making politically important decisions. If a bunch of CITES politicians make a bad decision to put a certain species on one of the CITES appendices without the proper basis to do so, then YES it is OK for other nations to "ignore" that. It's in the CITES rules. Japan is but one of the nations who has done this for certain politically delicate species, as I said if you take a look at the full list you'll see that a great number of other such reservations have been lodged for other species by other nations.

What gives [Japan] the right to ignore a UN backed sanction?

The CITES convention does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If there was no research there would still be whale on sale in Japan. There is by-catch as well as product from overseas

The type of whale being researched can not be legally traded on any markets so nothing comes from overseas. In order to get enough of the type of whale Japan wants to eat Japan needs to conduct research.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul;"are likely to ask"

It only says likely to ask, yet every publication reporting on it after the request was put in have stated they did in fact ask for an international arrest warrant, but was rejected by Interpol. All these publications got their information direct from the ICR PR/press spokesman, Glenn Inwood.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - arrestpaul;"are likely to ask"

It only says likely to ask, yet every publication reporting on it after the request was put in have stated they did in fact ask for an international arrest warrant, but was rejected by Interpol. All these publications got their information direct from the ICR PR/press spokesman, Glenn Inwood.

You asked me for a link and I provided one. Where is your link that INTERPOL rejected the request for a blue notice?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul, there are thousands of press releases stating Japan sought an arrest warrant, not a 'blue notice'. After an exhaustive search the only statement saying that was the one you provided, & it was very obscure!

& as for proof it was rejected just look at the fact Paul Watson was in the US after the request, & then traveled onto the EU. If an arrest warrant was issued then he would have been arrested, would he have not?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul, apart from that this thread is supposed to be about Aus taking us to ICJ, is it not?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia's bid to take Japan to the International Court of Justice over its so-called scientific whaling program may be about to get a boost.

Two former Japanese whalers have told the ABC's Foreign Correspondent program of systemic embezzlement by crewmen onboard the country's whaling ships.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/08/2921092.htm?section=justin

Now even the whalers are giving up their secrets of corruption inside the ICR!!!

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