national

Proposal to resume commercial whaling hits snag at IWC meeting

89 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.

89 Comments
Login to comment

Japan blamed anti-whaling nations for being intransigent.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So no return to commercial whaling, GREAT NEWS!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo.

Why are you happy? Japan can now still take a higher number of whales then they would have been able to do under the new IWC proposal for controlled commercial whaling.

So you are happy that Japan can continue killing about 2~4 times the whales they would if the proposal would have been accepted.

Didn't expect the proposal to go through really as Australia won't budge from their view-point and won't make any compromises.

As I said a TOTAL BAN on whaling was never an option at the conference.

Confused.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i think its unbelievable we allready killing mother earth and some country,s are still busy to kill the beautyful life of the sae ,and 1 thing i never will understand that the people in japan finding this normal and not comming in to action to the goverment ,this will not possible in the netherlands wen they slauhter wales then we will kill the goverment we like the sea and his life ,so people from japan its time to do somthing and boycot your goverment ,wen you want that your childeren have a good life on earth ACT NOW BEFORE ITS TO LATE,greetings from a sad guy and the rest of the animal and wale lovrs of this planet

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Claricifaction about the IWC proposal:

The proposal stated: 1.) Scientific whaling would be discontiuned. 2.) Commercial whaling would resume with target limits(quotas) set, for Japan the Quota would have either been 500 whales/year or less. 3.) 2 Interntaional Observers per whaling ship to make sure that quotas are adhered to. Those were the main-poinnts.

What happened 1.) Japan was willing to accept the proposals(with some reservations) and was also willing to reduce the number of whales(quota) that they catch, etc. 2.) Australia and a few other nations(likely) voted against the proposal as they want a TOTAL ban on whaling.

So for atleast one year nothing will change in the current whaling situation.

IMO, I think the court-case against Japan will drop if the current Australian goverment don't get re-elected.

HTH.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Disillusioned,

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

I guess you don't know what intransigent means.

Japan offered to more than half it's Antarctic catch quotas. What did the anti-whalers offer in return? Nothing. They demanded zero, instead of half.

KeikoTokyo,

So no return to commercial whaling, GREAT NEWS!!!

An admission from you that Japan is not conducting commercial whaling. Thank you.

pettelaar10,

1 thing i never will understand that the people in japan finding this normal and

Well lots of people outside Japan think it's normal too. Check the Te Ohu Kaimoana press release today for a Maori view from New Zealand, for example.

this will not possible in the netherlands wen they slauhter wales then we will kill the goverment

The Netherlands is a shameful nation for it's support of eco-terrorists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo - I guess you don't know what intransigent means.

.....refusing to agree or compromise; uncompromising; inflexible......

Japan has to accept a quota of ZERO. That is the compromise. If Japan is not prepared to accept this compromise then it is they are who being intransigent. Whaling is over David and you will have to find another topic to exercise your name calling and your bigotry comments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan and the IWC will NOT accept ZERO as that would be against what the IWC stands for.

Australia is trying to change the IWC into an Instituation that jumps to what they tell it to do.

Many nations like the USA, etc realised that and also realised while Australia and other nations have such an inflexible stance there won't be ANY agreement and it HURTS the whale population more than any agreement would.

In short by being hardline Australia causes more whales to die than if they were open to talks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry but everyone here stating Australia is to blame! As far as I understand there are many other countries voting as well, eg the EU, & most asking for the hunts in Antarctic waters,(Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary) to end. As for more whales being slaughtered I think you need to look at the actual figures, not what Japan says it wants, eg last few season the Antarctic hunts have got just only 500 whales, Japan wanted 800 from the new deal! Do the maths people 500 is less than 800! So Japan was NOT giving up 1/2 the catch! It was simply political spin with numbers, we still wanted more than we have actually caught in the previous years. Secondly do you really believe for 1 second that Japan would spend millions bribing nations so they can catch less whales? PLEASE, just a part of Glenn Inwoods spin! & something the rest of the world does not believe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo.

Yes, other nations are also to blame.

Japan offered to cut their whale catch down to 200 whales over a 10yr period(gradual reduction).

But I see you are more against the term "commercial whaling" than about how many will be actually caught.

I would say any agreed reduction in whale catch quotas and international observers would have been a rather good start.

Oh well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"by the three countries that claim exemptions to the moratorium on hunting for profit."

"...says its hunt is for scientific research—but more whale meat and whale products end up in Japanese restaurants than in laboratories."

AP writer doesn't appear well-informed. Does appear biased.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan can never be wrong, can it Zenny.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan can continue killing about 2~4 times the whales they would

Can someone explain this? It seems that under its so-called 'scientific research', Japan is killing more whales than it says it wants to kill in a commercial whaling programme. Why on earth would they want to do that, considering the cost of storing all the unused meat/shipping it to illegal sushi bars in the US?

Japan offered to cut their whale catch down to 200 whales

Why 'offer' to do it? Why not just do it, if all they need/want is 200 whales?

2 Interntaional Observers per whaling ship to make sure that quotas are adhered to.

And hopefully checking the number of struck-and-lost and time-to-kill, and imposing very heavy penalties on ships that don't come up to standard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 08:36 PM JST - 23rd June

So no return to commercial whaling, GREAT NEWS!!!

What??? All this means is no change to the status quo!! Norway and Iceland continue commercial whaling. Japan continues research whaling. South Korea continues pondering commercial whaling. NOTHING HAS GOTTEN BETTER FOR THE WHALES!

So why do you think this is Great News, KeikoTokyo?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Disillusioned writes "Whaling is over... " Huh? It's not ending. This failure to agree on anything isn't stopping any current or potential nations from whaling. It's achieved nothing.

(Well, maybe New Zealand has come out looking pretty good, but I think few will bother to notice.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, Japan can be wrong never said otherwise.

But a ZERO catch limit won't be accepted at the IWC, as I said this would also mean that Inuits, etc can't catch any longer.

Look at what happened over the last 2 days. Japan was willing to compromise and was willing to discuss.

Which would have been a good starting point for further talks/negotiations. Looks like some people said No talks/negotiations simply do as we want.

All newspaper articles I read online so far stated the same thing, that the sides are still too far apart and more driven by politics, etc.

Talks broke down before they were even out of the starting gate.

But the conference is still going on for another 2 days, so things might happen. Personally I am for the IWC proposal with reduced catch quotas, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny, if you defend Japan buying votes with prostitutes and cash handed out in brown envelopes by saying "no big deal, everyone does it", then nothing will change your mind on the subject.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo.

Scientific Whaling the nation that does it sets the Quota.

With commercial whaling a Quota is set and agreed to by the nation and the IWC.

Commercial whaling will need a smaller catch quota as no research is done, thus a lower count needed. Any research be accurate needs a fairly large pool of data. i.e. commercial whaling can be restricted to the actual market/consumption limit.

Still too early to see what Japan or any nation will do or decide.

I will wait and see what happens over the next 2 days.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Stoker.

I NEVER defenced Japans action, I stated that it is "No News" as it is common practice in many businesses and cultures.(baksheesh, etc)

Linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baksheesh

I am against a ZERO whaling limit but do think that whaling needs more controls and realistic quotas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I also notice you're singling out big-bad Australia (which itself submitted several alternative proposals) as if it alone voted against the resumption of commercial whaling. So you have one side blatantly lying about the purposes of it's actions (if you believe Japan really cares about the science element of it's whaling program I have some magic beans to sell you), and goes about getting it's way underhandedly (secret bribes, which you're defending as common practice, but I don't believe for a second that you'd be saying that had the British newspaper recorded anti-whalers doing it) to prop up an industry solely to thumb it's nose and flex it's muscles, and they're who you support. No, I think I'll be giving your posts the same attention I give those of davidattokyo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yaawn, Stoker.

Reread what I posted carefully and you will find what my view really is.

I am done talking to you as you are simply looking for a fight/argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Commercial whaling will need a smaller catch quota as no research is done

So if they're going to be catching for the table instead of for 'research' and no research will be being done, how will they be able to ascertain population levels, age structure, etc., all the things they claim now it's absolutely essential that they know? Aren't they basically saying if they're allowed to catch openly for the table, they won't bother anymore about whether the catch is sustainable? And if the argument is that they'd be able to monitor population levels from the quota of 200 dead whales, why are they trying to take roughly five times that now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not sure, I am not part of the Japanese or any other nations ICW delegation. So useless asking me. Noticed you like to ask people with NO inside information to clarify Japans standpoint.

I read the same info as you do online and like you I form my on Opinion on it. Right now the info is very limited and scarce no opinions can yet be truly formed, IMHO.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - So no return to commercial whaling, GREAT NEWS!!!

Can I quote you? It's nice that you admit that there is no commercial whaling now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny11 - no worries, no doubt we won't have to wait long before the usual suspects come along and tell us black is white and white is black.

arrestpaul -

It's nice that you admit that there is no commercial whaling now.

Dunno where you get that. Isn't KeikoTokyo simply saying a return to pre-moratorium status isn't in the cards?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What happened- Japan didn't bring enough hookers?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - So if they're going to be catching for the table instead of for 'research' and no research will be being done,......

That's a rather twist of reality. Why wouldn't research be conducted? The IWC still requires up to date data on the health and numbers of whales. That would be a very important part of a "whaling commission" responsibilities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo;"Dunno where you get that. Isn't KeikoTokyo simply saying a return to pre-moratorium status isn't in the cards?"

Thank you for explaining for some trying to twist words here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Uuuh, what is Iceland doing? What is Norway doing? And what it is that you think Japan is doing?

... "commercial whaling"? No?"

Thank you for confirming Japan is actually hunting commercially.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - Isn't KeikoTokyo simply saying a return to pre-moratorium status isn't in the cards?

A return to pre-moratorium numbers was NEVER in the cards. It was never even brought up for consideration.

Commercial whaling took place BEFORE the moratorium. People are glad that there will be no return to pre-moratorium days of commercial whaling but there was no chance of that happening anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10389638.stm

Bit more/different details than above article.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why wouldn't research be conducted? The IWC still requires up to date data on the health and numbers of whales. That would be a very important part of a "whaling commission" responsibilities.

I get that. (I don't agree with it, but I get it. Totally.) What I'm asking is, if they'd be able to provide up to date data on the health and numbers of whales from a catch of 200 whales, why for the past few years have they been trying to kill close on a thousand every year?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Disillusioned - Japan has to accept a quota of ZERO. That is the compromise.

Hahahaha..... That's not a compromise and it's totally unrealistic. How are you going to enforce your total ban on whaling? Do you intend to hire a navy to patrol the seas? Are you going to start ramming and sinking ships?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Disillusioned,

Japan has to accept a quota of ZERO. That is the compromise.

So as well as intransigent, you don't appear to know what "compromise" means either.

If Japan is not prepared to accept this compromise

uhhh... that's not a compromise, that's a one-way demand.

Whaling is over David and

Ah, tell that to the dinner I had last Sunday.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo,

It seems that under its so-called 'scientific research', Japan is killing more whales than it says it wants to kill in a commercial whaling programme.

Read the compromise proposal.

It's not "commercial whaling". It's just WHALING. WHALING without any stupid dumb classification in front of it. What Japan does with the quota then would become Japan's business.

And thus, idiots won't be able to whine and whinge about "scientific whaling is commercial whaling in disguise". Yes, I guess losing this propaganda favourite is why the anti-whaling camp is opposed to compromise.

Why on earth would they want to do that, considering the cost of storing all the unused meat/shipping it to illegal sushi bars in the US?

The distribution system consists of operators who store the meat after it's discharged into the market because they can make money by doing so. The shipping to the US consists of a few tens of kgs personally transported by individuals, so far as I know, which are costs borne by them for their illegal activities (under US law).

With less whale meat in circulation, the distribution operators would be fetching even higher prices for whale meat they keep in inventory too, so your logic is backwards.

Why 'offer' to do it? Why not just do it, if all they need/want is 200 whales?

They want more. Do you not understand "compromise" either?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo,

So if they're going to be catching for the table instead of for 'research' and no research will be being done

No one ever said that research wouldn't be done on the catch.

Research is always done, for both "commercial" whaling as well as research whaling, and I believe even aboriginal subsistence whaling probably has elements of biological data collection, although for financial reasons probably not as good or comprehensive as what Japan does.

how will they be able to ascertain population levels, age structure, etc.,

They will stil be able to get information, although the precision would be lower and thus it would take more time to get results than otherwise.

But as you should know, "compromising" doesn't always mean you get what you want.

Aren't they basically saying if they're allowed to catch openly for the table, they won't bother anymore about whether the catch is sustainable?

No, they aren't saying that. How you jumped there is beyond me.

And if the argument is that they'd be able to monitor population levels from the quota of 200 dead whales

Japan wasn't happy with 200 and was negotiating for higher levels. 400 was apparently barely acceptable.

why are they trying to take roughly five times that now?

Because they can take as many as they want under current arrangements, but for the sake of the IWC they were prepared to compromise with irrational anti-whalers.

Personally I think it was a dumb idea and am happy the anti-whalers destroyed it so that Japan could not agree to the compromise. That would have been a big mistake.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul,

Yes, it's nice to see KeikoTokyo agree that Japan's whaling is not "commercial whaling".

cleo,

Isn't KeikoTokyo simply saying a return to pre-moratorium status isn't in the cards?

No, KeikoTokyo clearly said that Keiko is happy there will be "no return to commercial whaling", e.g. that currently there is no commercial whaling now by Japan.

KeikoTokyo,

davidattokyo;"Uuuh, what is Iceland doing? What is Norway doing? And what it is that you think Japan is doing?

... "commercial whaling"? No?"

Thank you for confirming Japan is actually hunting commercially.

Japan isn't hunting commercially, but from your previous comments it was clear that you thought Japan was conducting commercial whaling. But now that you say there is "no return to commercial whaling", it is clear that you understand that Japan is not commercially whaling now.

Although you should be aware that Iceland and Norway (and even Japan's catches of Baird's beaked whales) are catching them on a commercial basis. So you are right that Japan's whaling ops are not commercial, but you are wrong that Iceland and Norway are not conducting commercial whaling.

Glad you have learnt something these last few days!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo,

What I'm asking is, if they'd be able to provide up to date data on the health and numbers of whales from a catch of 200 whales, why for the past few years have they been trying to kill close on a thousand every year?

If you are familiar with opinion polls you'll know about statistical precision etc based on sample size. It's the same concept.

I could have sworn that I've explained it to you before. Did you forget?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - I get that. (I don't agree with it, but I get it. Totally.) What I'm asking is, if they'd be able to provide up to date data on the health and numbers of whales from a catch of 200 whales, why for the past few years have they been trying to kill close on a thousand every year?

Of course you agree with it, any organization that is trying to regulate anything needs to do sampling.

As far as reducing the numbers to 200, I assume that's because they are willing to compromise and negotiate with other members of the IWC. Japanese whalers have only been taking about 1/10th of 1 percent of the minke whales. Well within the reproduction rate. The japanese efforts are not reducing the numbers of a renewable resource now. They are willing to work with the IWC membership but for how long?

The animal-rights, anti-whaling zealots are not willing to negotiate, compromise or even listen to the other side. That strategy will only result in every nation setting their own limits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you are familiar with opinion polls you'll know about statistical precision etc based on sample size. It's the same concept

Again, I get it. I understand statistical precision. Up until now Japan has been telling us that the quotas is has set itself each year are the bare minimum needed to conduct meaningful research. So surely any cut in the numbers tells us that either Japan has been trying to take far more whales than they need for research (I wonder why they would do that?...), or they're willing to compromise accuracy by taking fewer than the absolute minimum they say are needed to produce meaningful results. Which brings us back full circle: if accuracy isn't that important, what are we to make of the grim fairy tales we have been told about the necessity to kill the whales in order to get accurate results?

It Doesn't Add Up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look forward to another season of Whale Wars. Looks like the "fun" never stops. Wonders if their will be a "Tuna Wars" TV show? Though I think that tuna may be more intelligent than politicians, there needs to be a study done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yep to all nature haters here ,stay away from seals dolphins wales tuna ,,if you not understand this then you realy miss somthing in your brains ,,big lovefor the people that trying to do somthing for ower nature we allready killing and killing alot to, but dont worry we will punish soon for wat we have done

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Disillusioned at 09:27 PM JST - 23rd June davidattokyo - I guess you don't know what intransigent means. .....refusing to agree or compromise; uncompromising; inflexible...... Japan has to accept a quota of ZERO. That is the compromise. If Japan is >not prepared to accept this compromise then it is they are who being >intransigent. Whaling is over David and you will have to find another >topic to exercise your name calling and your bigotry comments.

Do you know what COMPROMISE means? "has to accept a quota of zero" is indicative of the people and uncompromising anti-whakling nations like Australia that are ensuring that MORE WHALES WILL BE KILLED. For what? Their ego? Even the anti-whaing nations lie the US and New Zealand aren't demanding a "zero quota". Even the WWF, Greenpeace, the Pew Group aren't demanding a "zero quota". The hard core inflexible anti-whaling crowd are like religous zealots with a goal of destroying the IWC and destroying any mechanism to manage and protect the world's whales.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo at 10:13 PM JST - 23rd June Japan can continue killing about 2~4 times the whales they would Can someone explain this? It seems that under its so-called 'scientific >research', Japan is killing more whales than it says it wants to kill in >a commercial whaling programme. Why on earth would they want to do that,

I will explain it to you but you're not going to like the truth. Which is that Japan is ACTUALLY conducting research whaling. And in order to accomplish this a specific sampling size is obviously necessary. If they were NOT conducting research whaling, there would be no need to achieve any particular sampling size.

considering the cost of storing all the unused meat/shipping it to >illegal sushi bars in the US?

There has been nothing in the news even suggesting the Japan is "shipping whalemeat" outside of Japan. Also we don't have "illegal sushi bars" in the United States, other than those operating without the proper state and local permits to run a restaurant.

Japan offered to cut their whale catch down to 200 whales Why 'offer' to do it? Why not just do it, if all they need/want is 200 >whales?

Go back to "sampling size".

2 Interntaional Observers per whaling ship to make sure that quotas are >adhered to. And hopefully checking the number of struck-and-lost and time-to-kill, >and imposing very heavy penalties on ships that don't come up to s standard.

You can hope all you want, but it appears the anti-whaling hardliners are working to ensure that it never happens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Disillusioned at 08:21 PM JST - 23rd June Japan blamed anti-whaling nations for being intransigent. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

"Sir Geoffrey Palmer, New Zealand's former prime minister and current whaling commissioner, who has been intimately involved in the "peace talks", said that "Japan did show real flexibility and a real willingness to compromise".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10389638.stm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Compromise - an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims

The adjustment - ZERO whale quota

The conflict - Hunting whales in the southern ocean sanctuary for profit under the guise of research

The opposition - Any country that can't be bought to support Japan

The agreement - Take it or leave it!
0 ( +0 / -0 )

The adjustment - ZERO whale quota

The agreement - Take it or leave it!

Ah, the Israeli school of negotiation tactics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's look at the WHOLE uncut definition:

Compromise noun

a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compromise

"Mutual conecessions" means both sides of the argument concede all or portions of their positions.

"Reciprocal modification of demand" means BOTH SIDES modify their demands.

The adjustment - ZERO whale quota The agreement - Take it or leave it!

This is NOT an "agreement". This is unilaterally imposing one's will on the other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There has been nothing in the news even suggesting the Japan is "shipping whalemeat" outside of Japan. Also we don't have "illegal sushi bars" in the United States, other than those operating without the proper state and local permits to run a restaurant.

You haven't been paying attention to the new much.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/us/21sushi.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

chuckers - You haven't been paying attention to the new much.

Where in the story that you linked to does it say that the Sei whale meat was traced to Japan?

The story does say that, "Sei whales, found worldwide, are endangered but are sometimes hunted in the North Pacific under a controversial Japanese scientific program."

How did you jump to the conclusion that the meat came from Japanese and not Norwegians or Inuit?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where in the story that you linked to does it say that the Sei whale meat was traced to Japan?

That would be this article:

http://www.physorg.com/news190406841.html

"And since the international moratorium on commercial hunting (1986), there has been no other known source of sei whales available commercially other than in Japan,"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo:

So surely any cut in the numbers tells us that either Japan has been trying to take far more whales than they need for research (I wonder why they would do that?...), or they're willing to compromise accuracy by taking fewer than the absolute minimum they say are needed to produce meaningful results.

The proposal includes (included?) mandating data sampling and reporting for ship strikes, by catches and sightings by all member nations - which would offset the scientific research loss. Shame that this wont go forward, as that would have been very beneficial - it would have yielded a more limited amount of information, but over a much wider area.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

chuckers - That would be this article:

Ok, a different article SUGGESTS that the whale meat came from the same area of the ocean as other Sei whales have been found. Good find?

The other article also SUGGESTS that the meat was, "most likely from Japanese "scientific whaling." And it SUGGESTS that, "The sequences were identical to sei whale products that had previously been purchased in Japan in 2007 and 2008, which means they not only came from the same area of the ocean - but possibly from the same distinct population," said Scott Baker......

That's incredible. With Sei whales being found thru out the worlds oceans and given their ability to range far and wide, they were able to isolate the sample down to THE SAME AREA OF THE OCEAN as other whale meat was found.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whaling will end regardless of what the stupid few think. Japan has shot themselves in the foot with their lies, deception and corruption. Furthermore, in order to understand the Australian school of negotiation tactics you have to consider that Australia has the most strict oceanic conservation laws of anywhere in the world, which means any yobbo can head down the beach and catch a fish and they are not about to have these policies ignored by a bunch of egocentric bigots that think they can do whatever they like anywhere in the world. As the Nobel Prize Winner from East Timor said, "EAT FRUIT!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

chuckers at 08:12 AM JST - 24th June <You haven't been paying attention to the new much. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/us/21sushi.html

The Hump is an old story and it appears that you didn't understand the article. The Hump is owned by an American who has Japanese chefs on his payroll. They are guilty of serving whalemeat in the United States in violation of Federal laws. The Restaurant and the chef have pleaded guilty to the charge. Nothing has been found to suggest that "Japan ships whalemeat outside of Japan". That some criminal element, to this date unnamed smuggled whalemeat into the US. Furthermore, the Hump was not "an illegal sushi bar", what was illegal was the serbving of whalemeat.

And since the international moratorium on commercial hunting (1986), >there has been no other known source of sei whales available >commercially other than in Japan,"

Japan does NOT ship whalemeat to the United States. It is illegal for anyone in the US to receive it. Perhaps you can not differentiate between the acts of criminal individuals and acts of the state?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

chuckers at 08:12 AM JST - 24th June There has been nothing in the news even suggesting the Japan >is "shipping whalemeat" outside of Japan. Also we don't have "illegal >sushi bars" in the United States, other than those operating without the >proper state and local permits to run a restaurant. You haven't been paying attention to the new much. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/us/21sushi.html

It appears that you didn't read the article or simply failed to understand it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That would be this article:

http://www.physorg.com/news190406841.html

"And since the international moratorium on commercial hunting (1986), there has been no other known source of sei whales available commercially other than in Japan,"

Oooh, somebody got owned!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Disillusioned at 07:43 AM JST - 24th June

Compromise - an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims

The adjustment - ZERO whale quota

The conflict - Hunting whales in the southern ocean sanctuary for profit under the guise of research

The opposition - Any country that can't be bought to support Japan

The agreement - Take it or leave it!

Disillusioned: I am neither for or against whaling (I have other things to worry about), but this comment was very entertaining! I understand you're twisting the definition of compromise to suit your argument, but from a 3rd party perspective, no one will take your approach with any level of seriousness.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It appears that you didn't read the article or simply failed to understand it.

If you would care to provide an explanation, I would be willing to hear it.

You stated that there were no illegal sushi bars in the US. I provide a link about a sushi bar in California that closed itself down because it had engaged in the illegal purchase and redistribution of banned whale meat.

You stated that there was nothing in the news suggesting that Japan was shipping whale meat outside of Japan. The whale meat had to come from somewhere. A follow up link stated the only known commercially available place for Sei whale meat (the specimen in question) is from Japan.

Please point out what I have failed to understand.

And, like Tahoochi, I am neither for nor against whaling as I have other things to worry about as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The proposal includes (included?) mandating data sampling and reporting for ship strikes, by catches and sightings by all member nations - which would offset the scientific research loss.

But Japan claims that sightings are absolutely not enough, you have to kill the whale so that you can pull out its ears and see what it had for dinner and whether it was pregnant. So Japan is now admitting that its lethal 'research' programme is not necessary? But with the failure of the talks, it will continue to go down to the Antarctic and conduct 'research'?

Don't worry, that is a rhetorical question. I know the answer. Lethal 'research' is not necessary if they can get the meat by other means.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica

I will explain it to you but you're not going to like the truth. Which is that Japan is ACTUALLY conducting research whaling.

One word: naive

In actual fact I guess Japan would be satisfied with a smaller number of catches because nobody actually eats whale meat in Japan. This is more an issue of national pride.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

because nobody actually eats whale meat in Japan.

If that were true, I doubt that there would be tins of it in my local supermarket. It isn't consumed on the scale as say tuna, of course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

chuckers

If that were true, I doubt that there would be tins of it in my local supermarket. It isn't consumed on the scale as say tuna, of course.

Japanese of my generation ate whale meat for school lunch. None that I have talked to liked it. Most people of generations younger than this probably have never eaten whale meat. The demand for the food is so small. This isn't an issue of demand for the food. It's an issue of pride.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I work in a junior high school. Today's menu is whale. Maybe one or two kids in each class will even try it. It is pride that is making japan fight this. But with taxes about to go up i find it deplorable that japan buys votes with aid packages worth billions of yen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hi Okikibi. Don't forget the billions spent propping up the industry itself. Those whaling forays to the Southern Ocean cost Japan lots of money, not just respect. I am amazed to read of the debt the Japanese government is in - yet it cannot pull out of such wasteful spending.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

2020hindsight at 10:28 AM JST - 24th June I will explain it to you but you're not going to like the truth. Which >is that Japan is ACTUALLY conducting research whaling. One word: naive

Really? Well feel free to write to the IWC Scientific Committee and inform them that they re "naive" for accepting the Japanese Research Whaling reports year after year. Whether you like it or not, Japan has been complying with all the rules.

In actual fact I guess Japan would be satisfied with a smaller number of >catches because nobody actually eats whale meat in Japan. This is more >an issue of national pride.

If so a willingness to compromise on the part of the "not-one-whale-must-be-killed" fanatics (which does nolt include the US or New Zealand or Japan) is critical to solve the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Disillusioned at 09:07 AM JST - 24th June Whaling will end regardless of what the stupid few think.

Perhaps but not the way the stupid few think.

Japan has shot themselves in the foot with their lies, deception and >corruption.

I guess that's why the United States, New Zealand, Greenpeace, WWF and the Pew Group all support a compromise. Even Japan has shown a willingness to compromise. It's only the stupid few who think they are above it all and think they own the planet.

Furthermore, in order to understand the Australian school of negotiation >tactics you have to consider that Australia has the most strict oceanic >conservation laws of anywhere in the world, which means any yobbo can >head down the beach and catch a fish and they are not about to have >these policies ignored by a bunch of egocentric bigots that think they >can do whatever they like anywhere in the world. As the Nobel Prize

A perfect example of cultural imperialism. Forcing your beliefs upon others, even in international waters and displaying an unwillingness to compromise for the better good of the international community.

Winner from East Timor said, "EAT FRUIT!"

East Timor which depends on Australia for it's existece will say anything to keep daddy happy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

chuckers - If you would care to provide an explanation, I would be willing to hear it. Please point out what I have failed to understand.

Using phrases like "most likely" means that the author(s) can NOT prove the statement that they are making.

"Most likely", "possibly", "could be", "it is assumed", etc, do not carry the same weight as, "Investigators have ACTUALLY traced this particular sale of Sei whale meat to a supplier in Japan".

The resturant purchased this meat from someone, a middleman. That middleman violated U.S. laws by selling the meat and they should have been arrested. The middleman could have supplied the name of their supplier, and so on back to the original whaler. That didn't happen so the author is hoping that he can lead his readers to the conclusion that the meat must have come from Japan because the author objects to Japanese whaling.

Also, because the author says he doesn't know of any other place that Sei whale meat is commercially available does not mean that it isn't available, legally or illegally, elsewhere. Sei whales are not restricted to hanging out at some aquatic sei whale bar waiting for the all-you-can-eat happy hour. These are wide-ranging animals. Proving that Sei whales swam thru (fed in?) a particular area of the worlds oceans is an amazing bit of science but it's not exactly a "smoking harpoon" is it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul;""Investigators have ACTUALLY traced this particular sale of Sei whale meat to a supplier in Japan".

Well they have proven this using DNA sampling, a Sei whale caught, & sold in Japan matches in DNA to the meat sold not only in America, but also Korea, & the sellers in Japan state it is part of the Japanese catch. So therefore the meat originated from Japan, but due to either lax border controls, or corruption the meat was then exported. If you have doubts about corruption within the whaling industry in Japan please just look at the evidence that has come to light recently regarding bribery of other nations, whale meat being stolen off whaling vessels for personal sale, etc, etc...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - Well they have proven this using DNA sampling, a Sei whale caught, sold in Japan matches in DNA to the meat sold not only in America, but also Korea, the sellers in Japan state it is part of the Japanese catch.

They've only proven that this Sei whale meat came from (fed in?) the same area of the ocean as other Sei whale meat that they've tested. Read the article again. Nobody claimed it came from the same whale.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul;'They've only proven that this Sei whale meat came from (fed in?) the same area of the ocean as other Sei whale meat that they've tested. Read the article again. Nobody claimed it came from the same whale."

I have read the article & others too, all state the same, just as the scientists do, the whale,(protected by SITES agreements), & protected, was infact the same whale caught by Japanese whalers, then on-sold by Japan, then turning up illegally in resturaunts around the world! Gee, is not so hard to see the source there! The whale meat comes from the same whale, NOT the same area!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 01:37 AM JST - 25th June I have read the article & others too, all state the same, just as the >scientists do, the whale,(protected by SITES agreements), & protected, >was infact the same whale caught by Japanese whalers,

It's CITES but yes, definitely caught by Japanese whalers who conduct research whaling in accordance with IWC regulations which also require the meat to be utlized, therefotre it is sold for consumption.

then on-sold by Japan, then turning up illegally in resturaunts around >the world!

Please provide evidence that the meat, which is legally sold within Japan, was "sold by Japan" to other countries. I dare you. The meat was legally purchased by individuals and illegally shipped overseas. The term "smuggled" is used to describe this. This has nothing to do with "Japan" or "Japan's whaling".

Gee, is not so hard to see the source there! The whale meat comes from >the same whale, NOT the same area! Please read & post facts, not >slanderous misconceptions.

That doesn't support your ridiculous claim that "Japan shipped the meat overseas". Or maybe you can't tell the difference between the country, government, and individuals?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"Please provide evidence that the meat, which is legally sold within Japan, was "sold by Japan" to other countries. I dare you."

Once again I stated the whale was caught & sold by Japan, if lax customs let it transfer internationally to not just 1 but several countries does that not show not only the sale of this meat encourages smugglers, but also shows Japans lax customs?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 02:36 AM JST - 25th June Ossan;"Please provide evidence that the meat, which is legally sold >within Japan, was "sold by Japan" to other countries. I dare you." Once again I stated the whale was caught & sold by Japan,

Yes caught legally, and sold legally within Japan.

if lax customs let it transfer internationally to not just 1 but several >countries does that not show not only the sale of this meat encourages >smugglers, but also shows Japans lax customs?

The failure of custoims to have detected and stopped such smuggling whether out of being lax or otherwise still does not implicate either the government or nation of "Japan" as smugglers. The only thing this shows is that there is a demand, albeit illegal, for whalemeat in countries where it is prohibited, hence offering an incenstive for those with criminal intent to break the law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo>I have read the article & others too, all state the same, just as the scientists do, the whale,(protected by SITES agreements), & protected, was infact the same whale caught by Japanese whalers, then on-sold by Japan, then turning up illegally in resturaunts around the world!

You seem to fall into the collapse between morality and legality in the statements above. Here's a question for you. Is it "illegal" for them to sell the whales to wholesalers in Japan today? Curious how would you explain the realm of rhetoric on an ou-moded IWC's commercial-free whaling that has NO legal leverage on any country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We are seeing the gestation of WWIII. Just because some damn dolphins and whales...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

# ** YuriOtani at 02:41 AM JST - 24th June

Look forward to another season of Whale Wars. Looks like the "fun" never stops. Wonders if their will be a "Tuna Wars" TV show? Though I think that tuna may be more intelligent than politicians, there needs to be a study done.**

yeah yeah, there's a need to do a rigorous study on certain individuals that think that whaling is japanese culture. well, it's NOT. Get used to it or go back to okinawa where you belong!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and as for my 2 cents, let them kill all of 'em whales and dolphins...let them kill all the tuna to the point of extinction. let them...for when these species are no more, they all will start eating feces or..themselves.

The most dangerous and arrogant and utterly ignorant creature in this planet is the human being. They killed mother earth long time ago already, all we have now is nothing but garbage. So yes, let them be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KyokoSmile at 08:34 AM JST - 27th June yeah yeah, there's a need to do a rigorous study on certain individuals >that think that whaling is japanese culture. well, it's NOT.

Anyone who thinks that whaling is not part of Japanese culture simply has no idea what they're talking about. Whether it is or not is not even the issue to be resolved.

"Archeological evidence in the form of whale remains discovered in burial mounds suggests that whales have been consumed in Japan since the Jōmon Period. Without the means to engage in active whaling, consumption primarily stemmed from stranded whales.[9] Surviving Ainu folklore reveals a long history of whaling[9] and a spiritual association with whales.The earliest records of hand thrown harpoons date only back to the 12th century"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan

http://www.whaling.jp/english/history.html

"Whaling in Japan dates back to the seventh century during the Yamato-Asuka period in ancient Japan. The oldest Japanese book in existence, called the Kojiki, chronicled that the Emperor Jimmu, the first emperor of Japan, ate whale meat. In addition to the Kojiki whaling is also mentioned in numerous other historical writings in Japan."

http://facts-about-japan.com/whaling-history.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whether it is or not is not even the issue to be resolved.

no point reading the rest of your post after this sentence then.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DenDon at 10:57 AM JST - 27th June Whether it is or not is not even the issue to be resolved. no point reading the rest of your post after this sentence then.

Perhaps you would care to explain what YOU think the issue is then?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

by putting up a few wiki quotes? haha no I don't think so. The issue is common sense, you can't find that on wiki.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Archeological evidence in the form of whale remains discovered in burial mounds suggests that whales have been consumed in Japan since the Jōmon Period

Presumably traces of ice found with the remains also suggest that the whales came from the Antarctic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DenDon at 10:57 AM JST - 27th June Whether it is or not is not even the >issue to be resolved. no point reading the rest of your post after this >sentence then.

How about you telling me what you think the issue is then?

DenDon at 02:33 PM JST - 27th June by putting up a few wiki quotes? haha no I don't think so. The issue is >common sense, you can't find that on wiki.

If you have no idea what the real issue is then please refrain from posting irrelevant OT comments. Common sense, yes?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo at 02:52 PM JST - 27th June "Archeological evidence in the form of whale remains discovered in burial mounds suggests that whales have been consumed in Japan since the Jōmon Period" Presumably traces of ice found with the remains also suggest that the >whales came from the Antarctic.

No, it's the practice of eating whalemeat that is tradition. Whales migrate so where they came from or are going to, as well as where they are caught is irrelevant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ha ha ha

Although whaling is banned by the IWC, Japan still hunts whales under the premise of "research". The harvested whale meat ends up in restaurants and supermarkets.

http://facts-about-japan.com/interesting.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yelspal at 10:49 AM JST - 28th June ha ha ha Although whaling is banned by the IWC, Japan still hunts whales under >the premise of "research". The harvested whale meat ends up in >restaurants and supermarkets. http://facts-about-japan.com/interesting.html

You obviously haven't read any of the IWC rules. Whaling isn't banned by the IWC. Commercial Whaling is banned under the moratorium. IWC rules permit a member to object to the moratorium amd continue commercial whaling, as in Norway and Iceland. IWC rules also permit any member to conduct Scientific Research Whaling, exempting them from recognizing moratoriums and sanctuaries and requiring them to eat the whalemeat. In addition subsistence whaling is permitted for the United States and Greenland. Canada also.

"The IWC and Scientific Permits

GENERAL

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 )

Contrary to popular belief, whale meat is not a delicacy in Japan. Many Japanese dislike the taste and older Japanese are reminded of the post-World War II period when whale meat was one of the few economical sources of protein.

http://facts-about-japan.com/interesting.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yelspal at 12:11 PM JST - 28th June Contrary to popular belief, whale meat is not a delicacy in Japan.

It is indeed a delicacy, but it is limited and not available everywhere. It is the anti-whaling faction which erroneously believes that all Japanes eat whalemeat all the time, which obviously is not true.

Many Japanese dislike the taste

Undoubtedly some dislike it. And some must love it. And many being indifferent.

and older Japanese are reminded of the post-World War II period when >whale meat was one of the few economical sources of protein. http://facts-about-japan.com/interesting.html

It was the US Occupation forces (GHQ) that put whalemeat heavily into the post war Japanese diet. Faced with the prospect of stuffing the Japanese with SPAM like we did the entire Pacific, the sudden realization that Japan had a thoroughly working whaling fleet resolved the protein shortage problem.

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