national

Japan's whaling draws fire for possible violation of int'l treaty

34 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

"Japan's whaling draws fire for possible violation of int'l treaty"

Ya think...

1 ( +7 / -6 )

sanctions are needed against this regime.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

If these Seis are endangered, Japan should stop.

Minkes however are not endangered so Japan should up their quotas for them instead.

Whaling is not an issue. Whaling of endangered species is

0 ( +10 / -10 )

@dcog9065 - Minkes however are not endangered so Japan should up their quotas for them instead.

Yeah, until they become endangered again. Then what?

0 ( +12 / -12 )

DisillusionedToday 09:55 am JST@dcog9065 - Minkes however are not endangered so Japan should up their quotas for them instead.

Yeah, until they become endangered again. Then what?

Whales of all species became endangered because of the wanton killing for whale oil on a monstrous scale carried out by western nations from the 1800s to early 1900s. The IWC was founded in 1946 as a response to this kind of unregulated whaling. Today we have the means to monitor populations. No whaling country today would hunt whales to the point of becoming endangered, if they have any intention of being able to continue whaling.

-3 ( +11 / -14 )

Yeah, until they become endangered again. Then what?

@Disillusioned: Minkes have never been endangered and are unlikely ever to be even though Norway and Iceland kill a huge amount of them each year, magnitudes more than Japan.

Their numbers have been proven to be sustainable even if catches were increased 30 times so hunting these whales is of no concern whatsoever

0 ( +10 / -10 )

@dcog9065 - Their numbers have been proven to be sustainable even if catches were increased 30 times so hunting these whales is of no concern whatsoever

Proven by whom? The nations who wish to return to commercial whaling?

@OssanAmerica - Whales of all species became endangered because of the wanton killing for whale oil on a monstrous scale carried out by western nations from the 1800s to early 1900s.

Thank you for the totally unnecessary history lesson. However, you have proven why no single country should be able to return to commercial whaling. This resource was created by the 100 or so countries who forewent their financial gain stopped commercial whaling. Why should one or two countries be able to profit from this resource without compensating the other countries who created this resource? Furthermore, if one or two countries can plunder this resource, why can't all countries share in the bounty? - Because the whales would very quickly become endangered and pushed to the brink of extinction again, of course. One world, one rule!

-2 ( +11 / -13 )

"Japan was under fire for its "research" whaling in the Northwest Pacific as a possible violation of an international treaty on endangered species, while Tokyo's ivory trading practice was also questioned."

Get ready for a whole lot of science defense to switch to "you're attacking our culture!" lunacy.

10 ( +21 / -11 )

DisillusionedToday 10:19 am JST@dcog9065 -

@OssanAmerica - Whales of all species became endangered because of the wanton killing for whale oil on a monstrous scale carried out by western nations from the 1800s to early 1900s.

Thank you for the totally unnecessary history lesson.

You're welcome. But it was obviously necessary since you seem to think that a country that wants to continue whaling would decimate the population until it became endangered. We are living in times of achieving sustainable utilization of natural resources.

However, you have proven why no single country should be able to return to commercial whaling. This resource was created by the 100 or so countries who forewent their financial gain stopped commercial whaling. Why should one or two countries be able to profit from this resource without compensating the other countries who created this resource?

Nobody is suggesting that "one single country" should be allowed to resume commercial whaling. In fact there are two countries that are commercially whaling right now by having objected to, and not recognizing the moratorium. Where did you get this strange idea?

Furthermore, if one or two countries can plunder this resource, why can't all countries share in the bounty? - Because the whales would very quickly become endangered and pushed to the brink of extinction again, of course. One world, one rule!

If the moratorium on commercial whaling were to be lifted. ALL COUNTRIES CAN SHARE IN THE BOUNTY. This applies to all members of the IWC that wish to carry out commercial whaling. But one of the puposes of the IWC is to monitor populations for the purpose of regulating whaling, that is setting limits, either by species, numbers, seasons, etc. All this is aimed at whaling "sustainably" not reducing them all to endangered status as was done in the past.

-4 ( +12 / -16 )

All this is aimed at whaling "sustainably" not reducing them all to endangered status as was done in the past.

If that happens, Japan needs to buy a lot more freezers to put them in, because the citizens certainly don't want to eat it.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Ivory?? Only the ruling elite need Ivory. And they make laws to suit themselves. So Japanese political will is not there at all, they need Ivory for their cuff links. Whaling is a failed business model, can't even sell it as pet food. But again the ruling elite deem it as worthy of being tax payer funded. And the refrigerator cost, the fuel cost, the refitting of ships, crew cost and should we even talk about the negative international view Japan is gaining through its barbaric actions that serve no purpose at all. Just a failed business.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

"Research"? Rubbish. What research? And whatever "research" Japan's freezers are already overflowing with whale flesh. They don't need any more. It all has to do with the LDP's ipso facto buying votes through government subsidies to an industry that is useless.

Then there is the legal question, the answer to which is not "possible" but "extremely probable."

1 ( +5 / -4 )

"Research", yeah that's it; I go to the pub so often for "research" purposes.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

OssanAmerica: "But it was obviously necessary since you seem to think that a country that wants to continue whaling would decimate the population until it became endangered. "

Yeah, because they certainly haven't done it with tuna. Japan is quite well-known for decimating stocks, thank you. Not the poster you addressed who needs the history lesson, friend.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Research? What research. Stop the hypocrisy. Its about the "sperm".

Whale "sperm" end up at high-end sushi bars & restaurants as a delicacy.

As for whale meat, not popular; most probably ended up as waste. 

And for sushi lovers, most ate the "sperm" because of Omakase of the chefs, not because customers order the "sperm". Its another of the Japanese quirks.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Japan seems to sign up to a lot of treaties and conventions, and then wants to be an exception to the rules. Whaling is only one example.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

 No whaling country today would hunt whales to the point of becoming endangered, if they have any intention of being able to continue whaling.

Except for Japan who is hunting the already endangered sei whales, as this article points out.

No whaling country today would hunt whales to the point of becoming endangered

Oh my bad. You didn't mention a country hunting whales to the point of being from endangered to being critically endangered, like what the sei whales are going to be. I just wanted to point out in advanced that the Japanese wordplay has already defeated me. Me sorry.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

ThePBotToday 05:23 am JST No whaling country today would hunt whales to the point of becoming endangered, if they have any intention of being able to continue whaling.

Except for Japan who is hunting the already endangered sei whales, as this article points out

Please read the thread carefully. A post was made that the MINKES would be commercially hunted to the point of being endangered. Nobody was talking about the Sei Whales. We all know that the Minkes are abundant and are a potential target of resumed commercial whaling if the IWC Moratorium were lifted. Seis are not a target and are taken not taken commercially.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Seis are not a target and are taken not taken commercially.

Yet Japanese boats caught over a hundred of them last year. They caught more Sei than Minke. Why did they do that?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-whale-hunt-pacific-ocean-177-killed-minke-sei-research-food-cuisine-a7968216.html

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Please read the thread carefully. A post was made that the MINKES would be commercially hunted to the point of being endangered. Nobody was talking about the Sei Whales. 

lmao.

But hey, that's why I said:

Oh my bad. You didn't mention a country hunting whales to the point of being from endangered to being critically endangered, like what the sei whales are going to be. I just wanted to point out in advanced that the Japanese wordplay has already defeated me. Me sorry.

As I was prepared for this oh so typical argument.

Yes! Yes! You were talking about MINKES. Who cares about sei whales. Who cares if this article talks about sei whales. That's not what you were talking about. So I apologize. Japan is hunting minke whales as they are abundant, which means Japan isn't endangering any animal. I understand now. I will not bring up sei whales in this thread as it is wrong to do so. This article is wrong for even talking about sei whales to begin with. Minke whales are not endangered, and so Japan has the right to hunt them in far far far away waters, like what ancient Japan has been doing for thousands of years. It's tradition.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

ClippetyClopToday 08:38 am JSTSeis are not a target and are taken not taken commercially.

Yet Japanese boats caught over a hundred of them last year. They caught more Sei than Minke. Why did they do that?

For research purposes under IWC Article VIII. They are not taken commercially.

"Japan's fisheries agency said it would collect data on the whales' stomach contents and report its findings to the International Whaling Commission."

If anyone wants to argue that this program is the same as JARPA II and shut it down, go right ahead.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

ThePBotToday 08:51 am JST Please read the thread carefully. A post was made that the MINKES would be commercially hunted to the point of being endangered. Nobody was talking about the Sei Whales. 

Yes! Yes! You were talking about MINKES. Who cares about sei whales. Who cares if this article talks about sei whales. That's not what you were talking about. So I apologize.

It was actually 3 posters talking specifically about Minke whales.

Minke whales are not endangered, and so Japan has the right to hunt them in far far far away waters, like what ancient Japan has been doing for thousands of years. It's tradition.

If you read the article it is about Sei Whales. Not Minkes. It also states that Japan will comply with CITIES. Whether the research whaling takes place off Japanese waters or International Waters is not relevant. It would only be an issue if it was being carried out in another country's territorial waters or within it's EEZ.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

For research purposes under IWC Article VIII. They are not taken commercially.

Do Sei whales that are caught 'for research purposes' end up on the menu I wonder?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Do Sei whales that are caught 'for research purposes' end up on the menu I wonder?Do Sei whales that are caught 'for research purposes' end up on the menu I wonder?

> > For research purposes under IWC Article VIII. They are not taken commercially.

Do Sei whales that are caught 'for research purposes' end up on the menu I wonder?

If it is practicable, I would say yes. Otherwise it would be a violation of IWC Article VIII paragraph (2):

" 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."

https://iwc.int/permits

"Processed" of course means slaughtering an animal amongst other things.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Ossan, don't you see any problem with that? After all, it seems that endangered Sei whales are being caught in quite substantial numbers for ostensibly commercial purposes. If the reasoning is, "Well we caught them, we researched them, so we might as well eat them" then there is no incentive to not catch an endangered species. You stated earlier that "No whaling country today would hunt whales to the point of becoming endangered", yet here we are actually hunting an endangered species. What gives?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

ClippetyClop: "You stated earlier that "No whaling country today would hunt whales to the point of becoming endangered", yet here we are actually hunting an endangered species. What gives?"

He knows Japan is overfishing and hunting endangered species and he's been caught int he lie. He won't answer your question because he can't.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

bluesky.greetrees: "As for whale meat, not popular; most probably ended up as waste. "

Forced on children in school lunches, actually.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Smith.

Not forced 90+% go uneaten and most kids bring a bento from home as meals and ingredients are well known ahead.

You might not have kids, but mine was never forced nor were other kids I know.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

ClippetyClopToday 11:50 am JST@Ossan, don't you see any problem with that? After all, it seems that endangered Sei whales are being caught in quite substantial numbers for ostensibly commercial purposes. If the reasoning is, "Well we caught them, we researched them, so we might as well eat them" then there is no incentive to not catch an endangered species.

They are being caught for research purposes. You are of the opinion that they are being caught for commercial purposes. While you're free to think whatever you like, do you not see how IF Japan wanted to commercially hunt whales they could do exactly what Norway and Iceland have done? They raised an objection to the Moratorium and presently commercially hunt whales. Or they could copy Canada and simply leave the IWC and again commercially hunt whales till the cows come home.

You stated earlier that "No whaling country today would hunt whales to the point of becoming endangered", yet here we are actually hunting an endangered species. What gives?

The take numbers for the research hunting are presented to the IWC Scientific committee in advance. Those take numbers have to match what they are researching in terms of sampling size. CITIES, which has nothing to do with the IWC and it's regulations are raising an objection to the number of Sei whales taken. The article states that Japan is going to comply. So..what gives?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The article states that Japan is going to comply. So..what gives?

The articles states that Japan would accept a monitoring team, nothing else. What do you feel would happen if Japan is found in violation of the treaty?

Or they could copy Canada and simply leave the IWC and again commercially hunt whales till the cows come home.

But they haven't left the IWC, so that's largely irrelevant I'm afraid. Japan choose to join it.

They are being caught for research purposes.

And yet they are sold commercially. We both know, and indeed everyone knows, that it is commercial whaling under the guise of research whaling. I see little change since JARPA II

You stated earlier that "No whaling country today would hunt whales to the point of becoming endangered", yet here we are actually hunting an endangered species.

You still haven't explained this simple contradiction. Japan is a whaling country that is hunting Sei whales not just to the point of becoming endangered, but past it. At best this shows a lack of faith from whalers in violation of the treaty, at worst downright ecological recklessness.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

pacinct: "Not forced 90+% go uneaten and most kids bring a bento from home as meals and ingredients are well known ahead."

A lot of kids have school lunches made by local school lunch companies or the schools themselves, although granted some schools have kids bring their own lunches. At those schools, in the past, whale and dolphin meat have indeed been forced on the kids in said lunches, with some towns taking it off the menu when mercury was found to be 10 times higher than the acceptable levels in the meat. And that was after years of consumption.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2010/09/05/national/whale-meat-back-on-school-lunch-menus/#.WiUsyraB00o

Since the meat is just rotting in freezers since no one wants it, but the whalers are still given money earmarked for disasters to go and get it under the guise of science, schools can pick up the meat at a fraction of the cost of other kinds of meat.

OssanAmerica: "They are being caught for research purposes."

BS. They are being caught for food. You don't need to the "soy-sauce vs. mayo" science to try and hide it because it's obvious. And if not, why do you guys always fall back on the "it's our cultural heritage" nonsense?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Perhaps the International Community needs to adopt the same measures that they're enacting against Ivory Poachers ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica

They are being caught for research purposes. 

Yes! That's true. The proof is that at the side of the fishing boats, it says "RESEARCH". It's for the SCIENCE of gastronomy.

The fishermen hold signs that says, "We're measuring body proportion", to MATHEMATICALLY calculate the menu costing.

They also hold signs stating, "We're collecting tissue samples", because well........

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ClippetyClopDec. 4 03:55 pm JSTThe article states that Japan is going to comply. So..what gives?

The articles states that Japan would accept a monitoring team, nothing else. What do you feel would happen if Japan is found in violation of the treaty?

That is all that CITIES is currently demanding and Japan has said they would comply. What more do you want them to do? Make up requests by themselves on CITIES' behalf? Asking what I feel "would happen" is ridiculous. Why speculate fantasy when we can see what the CITIES monitoring team conclude. They may determine that the current take of Sei whales is perfectly fine, absolutely unacceptable, or suggest a different figure. Until then, we won't know.

Or they could copy Canada and simply leave the IWC and again commercially hunt whales till the cows come home.

But they haven't left the IWC, so that's largely irrelevant I'm afraid. Japan choose to join it.

Sorry but it is VERY relevant because you appear to take the position that the Research Whaling is a complete sham and real motive is to carry out commercial whaling. If that were the case, there are several routes that Japan could take that would allow them to do just that. You have not explained why Japan does not follow the steps of nations like Norway and Iceland. Or leave the IWC like Canada. Canada also chose to join the IWC and was a member until 1981.

They are being caught for research purposes.

And yet they are sold commercially. We both know, and indeed everyone knows, that it is commercial whaling under the guise of research whaling. I see little change since JARPA II

They are sold commercially in accordance with paragraph 2 of the IWC Article VIII. You have read the clause.

Nobody "knows" if the whales are being taken commercially under the "guise" of research whaling. It is something that anti-whalers such as yourself have convinced yourself. Unless you can explain the above, why Japan needs to do that when there are easy ways to openly hunt commercially, your viewpoint is hard to substantiate.

You stated earlier that "No whaling country today would hunt whales to the point of becoming endangered", yet here we are actually hunting an endangered species.

You still haven't explained this simple contradiction. Japan is a whaling country that is hunting Sei whales not just to the point of becoming endangered, but past it. At best this shows a lack of faith from whalers in violation of the treaty, at worst downright ecological recklessness.

Nowhere does it state that Japan is taking Sei whales "not just to the point of becoming endangered, but past it". In fact even CITIES has not made such an overreaching statement. And whether there is any violation of the treaty is something that CITIES is trying to determine and the article makes clear that Japan is going to cooperate. You are at this point making unsubstantiated charges, ie; "making things up" to vilify the whalers. Such vilification should be reserved until there has been monitoring and a determination is made.

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