national

Japan, Australia clash at whaling talks

102 Comments

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

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

102 Comments
Login to comment

tokyotom. Australias past is not at issue here, so dont try to divert the topic. What is at issue here is the legality of Japan`s whaling. That is very much in question. As is the behavior of Japan in general with this topic.

Japan is out of step with international vision on this topic and that will continue to cause them problems. The anti-whaling efforts will clearly go on as they are causing effective damage to Japan`s motivation and economic benefit of whaling.

In very simple strategic terms, Japan is losing this fight, they know it and it is only a matter of time where the economics of the issue outstrip the perceived benefits Japan sees from whaling and it will stop.

England`s transparency plan will likely pass as well.

As for the negativity towards Australians. I have to say both tokyotom and ironchef seem to have issues with Australians that are tempering their sentiments here. Not exactly enlightened visions here.

14 ( +19 / -5 )

With all the problems stemming from the March 11 earthquake, you'd think the J-government would find better ways to spend/waste taxpayer money than subsidizing the whaling fleet.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

It's an issue of Japan trying to get protection for their BIG FAT lie of research, and think we are all a bunch of dummies by painting research on their boats and we should be gullible to believe that's what their really doing. I have nothing against fishing but when it comes to greed and excess, its so wrong. I agree its their heritage but back then they would get a few whales to eat, but now huge boats are used to kill hundreds it's so wrong and not anymore about heritage.

Money is the root of all evil..

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Requesting Australians to protect Japanese ships that are there to rape and pillage their waters is ridiculous.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

That is a very bizarre request indeed. Australian protection whilst they hunt whales in the Antarctic?! It just shows how completely skewed the Japanese perspective is on this. One of the Sea Sheperd boats is registered in Fremantle, so obviously Australia is not going to protect Japanese whaling ships in the Antarctic. I am amazed they have the temerity to ask.

the aussies are so santimonious on this issue, it realy pisses me off

Yep, we like our whales way down here in the south. I see them when I am surfing from time to time, and I think they are magnificent. If I have to choose between Japanese boats harpooning them, and me being able to see them swimming past, I choose the latter.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Japan wants Australia to protect their fleet? WTF . Japan also fears the transparency can not bribe so easy in the future.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Why don't they go whaling off Fukushima? May catch some dolphins there too. That way they can definitely "research" the effects of the radiation - and we can all stand by and watch them eat the product.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

I would say that with the exception of this one issue Japan as a nation is held in high esteem by most Australians.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Japan needs to protect its whaling industry.

Why? It swallows more in taxes than it produces in revenue. It's an albatross.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Maybe Japan should start whaling along its coast traditional style again just like they hunt dolphins.....opps I forgot....they dumped tonnes of nuclear waste in the water!!!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

So.... Japan is DEMANDING that Australia protect its commercial whaling in an area it considers a whale sanctuary? Is there not something a bit off about this?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I commend the minister for standing up to the Japanese and giving them a firm "hell no" and calling their research a load of crap! The Japanese seem to understand only two things in this world, superior military force and economic embargos. If their heavy oil fueled ships cross south of 60 degrees this year they are in violation of international maritime law. Maybe Australia should send some enforcement to tag along, if only to sieze and arrest the Japanese fleet when they cross the line.

3 ( +5 / -3 )

tkoind2.

HFO fuel is just ONE restrictions that got imposed, another one is single-hull vessels and a few more.

But lets see how the next season will play out.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yeah. Save the whales so we can exploit them!

Whales are pretty tough mentally, Mr Dog. I'm sure they can handle a bit of watching. Better than a harpoon in the head, anyway.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"the aussies are so santimonious on this issue,..."

"typical Aussies--always defensive and trying to win every argument as if they have a chip on their shoulders."

Where do these things appear in the article?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I agree, strange request indeed. Why should Australian taxpayers pay to "protect" Japanese whaling vessels that they believe are illegally hunting whales in their backyard?

It's not as though the Australian public are attacking the vessels. Sea Shepherd is not an Australian organisation, nor are its actions supported by the Australian government (or the majority of the Australian public).

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I am sure England or Britain will suffice

That's GREAT Britain to you. ^o^

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What's so Great? Lousy Weather, Lousy Food, Lousy TV, Strange people and accents, etc. Joking of course. ;)

I think australia as having one of SSCS vessels registered there is somewhat responsible for them and their actions. Why some other countries struck them of their register, even if only for the bad press.

Up till now Australia didn't openly support SSCS actions but that can be now turned against them due to the registration.

I posted a BBC article recently that discussed the current meet and showed ALL points on the agenda and that includes indigenous whaling(considered the most cruel form and thus might be gone soon), how to establish a southern atlantic whale sanctuary(yup, you read that one right), etc.

Article talked also about motives behind some countries stances, etc.

As for the vote-buying, IIRC, those countries approached Japan and now are turning round and asking for more monies to go anti from the oppostion. Well reported in many articles, in short they couldn't give two hoots about the whales all they care is the foreign aid and their pockets.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Japan has no right to demand anything.They can politely ask and they will be politely turned down.The Australian govt. has to respond to Australian voters, and most Australian voters oppose whaling in the Southern Ocean.Whale watching is big business on the East coast.Whalers losing their livelihood are no more important that whale watch operators losing theirs.Japan has a lot more important things that need doing before adding more unsellable meat to whale mountain in Tokyo.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I think they should be allowed to catch the whales SO LONG AS it's in Japanese waters. Last time I checked, they lost WWII so with that said, what the heck are they doing down there past Australia? I'm thinking of The Battle of Coral Sea where Americans and Australians fought to keep the Japanese out of the area with their so called invasion plans.

Who said they could just cruise on down south and start fishing off your coast? That's Australia's economic zone whether they use it for fishing or not.

To the Aussies, I think you better teach those Whalers a lesson. They need a clear message that Tokyo won't be able to help them if they come that far south. If Japan sends warships then you call my friend Barack in the White House. He loves history. We'll be there for ya.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

NetNinja.

Not that easy since Australia filed a claim with the ICJ, as any actions they take now can compromise/weaken their claim and that includes registering a SSCS ship.

BTW it is not Australia's EEZ and the sanctuary is only recognised by 5 nations, hence why the IWC is talking now about creating a permanent sanctuary at the current meet.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There's no need for any Australian people vs Japanese people acrimony here. I think it should be recognised that this situation is not pitting our people against your people, but rather it is diplomatic relations between our governments.

Although most Australians are against whaling on conservation grounds, they are not holding the Japanese purposefully responsible.

Arguments framed in terms of historical context are inherently flawed because whilst in the past they may not have recognised that whales are near extinction, we do now realise this and have a responsibility to protect these magnificent creatures. What is the point in driving them to extinction?

Japan will continue to draw international condemnation on this issue and although Japanese pigheadedness is a trait I occasionally admire, in this case all that is happening is Japan's soft power is being damaged for very little return.

Disclosure: I'm an Aussie, married to Nihonjin. Been to Japan several times. Love Japan. Definitely not a hater.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Japan is going to face more direct criticism & disagreement when dealing with the rest of the world, gone are the days when other govts tip toed around Japan in order to maintain business ties.

Japan you need to start facing nations head on, the days of cowtowing to Japan are fast becoming a relic of the past, Japan had better start getting used to it because its only going to increase

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Protect the whaling industry? Japan has a huge stockpile of meat, BECAUSE no one wants it!

It's all about pride.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

CrazyJoe,

It is illegal when the whales they catch are used for purposes other than research. Whale meat & other products made from whale blubber etc. are still sold in Japan - commerical purposes, not research.

The Sea Shepherd group are trying to help protect the environment, not destroy it. They would not exist if mankind actually started to respect nature & the environment in which your children, your grandchildren and their children must grow up in.

This world is being slowly drained & destroyed by corporations, led by rich people who want to improve their one life, rather than protect the future lives of billions of people.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What Firey said :)

2 ( +3 / -1 )

in the history of the organization they have never intentionally killed or harmed (bombed) anyone

You sure about that?

They certainly intentionally hurt people economically. I would call sinking peoples ships and then showing off about it pretty sick."

yes, I'm sure about that. Noone got seriously hurt. Japan claimed one of their sailors had a minor injury, that's it. All their actions has one goal, saving the lives of sea creatures from profit hunters. Killers of nature against protecters of nature.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I think its a fair request by Japan and nothing strange at all and nothing to do with whether you agree with whaling or not. Australia's response seems very hypercritical...say one thing do another. Where are "they" registered again?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

One argument that excites the anti-whalers is that whales are endangered, and that whaling therefore threatens their extinction. The world's great whales are in trouble. Seven of the 13 species of great whale, including the blue whale and the bowhead, are indeed considered endangered. But several—fin and Bryde's whales in some waters, and minke whales just about everywhere and abundant. Iceland, Norway and Japan all want to catch only abundant species of whales.

Some anti-whalers appear to be in deep denial about these facts. IWC appear to accept the evidence that the populations of certain species are recovering to healthier levels. The IWC was set up to manage “the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry”. In the years since the moratorium was imposed, the IWC's scientists have determined that in certain waters minke, fin, Gray and Bryde's whales are now abundant enough to be hunted commercially. They have also devised a conservative method for calculating catch limits. Some anti-whaling governments like Australia talk about the IWC's evolving mandate. Australia suggests that one possible interpretation of the “orderly development of the whaling industry” is its “orderly running down to nothing”.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

citizen12, I am sure England or Britain will suffice. Nit picky a bit are we?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

sfjp330

Yep, history shows Australians really like their whales. Whaling was Australia's first primary industry.

Ahem* History shows the whole world really liked their whales, sfjp330, not just Australia. But I like your presentation, because I think, based on what you have said, that Australia (as well as many OTHER countries) might also be able to claim that Whaling is part of our cultural heritage as well. So, as you have rightfully pointed out, perhaps we are entitled to a good 'ol whale hunt now and again for the sake of the old ways. But that's not what happens, is it. Australia abided by the wishes of the international community, and stopped whaling, despite some domestic communities' absolute love of the old ways. And for people like me, that works out just nicely, because I get to marvel at the wonder and majesty of nature now and again. And for the whalers? Well, many of them run whale watching tours these days, and do alright for themselves.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I'm willing to bet Tamarama wasn't even born yet.

Tamarama is old enough to remember the closing of the last whaling station in Australia - Albany, in about 1978 I think. He was 6.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So.... Japan is DEMANDING that Australia protect its commercial whaling in an area it considers a whale sanctuary? Is there not something a bit off about this?

Just like how the SDF needed baby-sitting services by the Dutch army when they were abroad.

The Japanese authorities just stab other nations in the back after sympathy and help poured this way. The Koreans - they got a thank you note, Takeshima style. The Taiwanese - their students were refused financial help here. Rest of the world - up yours, we're continuing to catch whales (all in the name of science, of course!). Oh, and Australia - babysit for us. And for anyone else - please buy our products (although we haven't checked for their safety - or in the case of France - we knew about the cesium but didn't tell you anyway!)

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Time to donate to SeaSheperd again. They are the only ones that can stop the whalers. There will never be an agreement and Japan will do its best to kill as many whales as they can. Seasheperd was very effective in last years fight. They discovered a new method of stopping more whales to be transferred to processign ship which proved very effective. I'm very hopefull that they will keep the number dead whales to minimum.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Dilbert14.

The processing/factory ship is not the one doing the killings. Those are done by other ships the processing ship simply picks up.

And I though it was SSCS throwing stuff at the whalers. ;)

Not arguing but SSCS logic at times don't make sense to me nor many others.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The JMSDF should protect their own fleet, not Australia.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Personally responsible, I meant. Not "purposefully responsible"

1 ( +3 / -2 )

There may be plenty of minke down in Antarctica, but if the hunt was completely commercialised (ie not subsidised big time out of taxes) the price of the meat would put it out of reach of the few people who would want to eat it; it's economically unsustainable rather than ecologically unsustainable.

Japan takes like 400 -500 a year.

Japan aimed to take 850 minke last season, thanks to SS they were able to kill only 170.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

On a purely economic point of view, it doesn't make sense for Japan to keep pushing for whaling anymore. Whaling is not economically sustainable as the whole system (fisheries, etc...) is heavily subsidized by tax payers. The only reasons I can see Japan trying to keep going on with this practice are: pride, symbolic nationalist feelings, and probably political maneuvering to keep the nationalist fringes on board. However, with a DPJ government (at least for now), the recent disaster in Tohoku, the dire economic situation, the country has more urgent priorities (and doesn't need to protect the extreme-rightists as much as it used to do), so I wouldn't be surprised if Japan progressively drops the gun and abandon research whaling.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

it's economically unsustainable

Oh, is it? how do you know, Cleo? it hasn't been commercially yet.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

TamaramaJul. 14, 2011 - 08:33AM JST. Australia gets vilified for standing up for something it believes in

Then tell me where Japan has violated the IWC rules in which Australia agreed to?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It is even more puzzling that the whaling program is not financially competitive and relies mostly on tax payers funding. It shows that the economic rationality is not the real motive of the Japanese. I believe it is purely a matter of national pride, which cannot be fought against with rational arguments (whaling is an emotional matter, not rational for them). But the history showed us how far people and countries can go when pride is an issue :-(

1 ( +1 / -0 )

IT IS NOT for research...i see the meat sold in stores and served in lunches at elementary schools....they are full of crap!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Stranger

The point it endorses is that the IWC doesn't follow the very reason for it's existence. It has turned an anti-whaling organization. Which is why Japan should opt out of it

. Absolutely incorrect. At present it is following the very reason for it's existence by pursuing the first part of the sentence quoted which reads; "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks, which is clearly what it is trying to do. Entirely admirable, I would have thought.

sfjp330 Again, you haven't answered the question. But in relation to this;

In the agreement with the IWC, where does it state that Japan has to provide detailed information on their scientifc subject?

You have this, in article VIII of the whaling convention.

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. So, do you want to rethink the last part of your post?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If you put Japan in a corner, here is a problem. Japan has considered forming a regional organization with other North Pacific countries, such as South Korea, China and the Russian Federation, as an alternative to the IWC. Such a development would be of serious concern for the anti-whaling movement due to the market size and harvesting capacity of these states. If Japan chose to leave the IWC and join this new organization then other pro-whaling states, such as Norway and Iceland, may follow. Once the IWC ceases to regulate the major whaling states its legitimacy as the ‘appropriate organization’ will be substantially undermined.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Australia in the past hunted whales to the brink of extinction until it realized the errors of its ways. In 1962 it was estimated that there was only 200-500 Humback whales left in Australian waters. We had effectively wiped them out. Hence it stopped whaling and has done everything it can to protect whales ever since. Australia was incredibly stupid and selfish. This is the reason why everyone is so indignant today about Japanese hunting whales near its shores.

Australia made a massive environmental mistake but now is doing everything it can to rectify that. Japan seems to ignore its mistake and is stubbornly intent on hunting these whales.

The central flaw in Japan's argument is that what if every country on earth decided to follow their lead and hunt whales near Australia for scientific purposes. Imagine India, China, Brazil, and Russia sending fleets down there too!!! Imagine if 20 countries set 900 whale quotas for "scientific research" and hunted with the same sense of entitlement. All the whales would be gone in a heartbeat. This is what the moratorium aims to prevent. It is glaringly obvious.

Basically Japan is greedy and selfish, pure and simple.

The fact that the Japanese government berates Australia for not protecting their whaling fleet is narcissism at its finest.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This again. It's like flogging a dead... Well, Japan and the other 'pro' whaling nations need to realize that industrial scale factory ship whaling is not tradition.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

TamaramaJul. 13, 2011 - 08:25AM JST. Australian protection whilst they hunt whales in the Antarctic?! It just shows how completely skewed the Japanese perspective is on this. Yep, we like our whales way down here in the south.

Yep, history shows Australians really like their whales. Whaling was Australia's first primary industry. By 1845 26,000 whales had been killed by Australians and by 1935 there were so few southern right whales remaining that whaling ceased and they became protected internationally. Between 1936 and 1938 more than 12,000 humpback whales were killed. 18,000 whales were caught and processed between 1949 and 1963 at Carnarvon, Point Cloates and Albany in Western Australia. The population there was reduced to about 800 whales. Between 1950 and 1962 nearly 12,500 humpbacks were killed and processed along the east coast. Australia ceased whaling in 1978.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

England`s transparency plan will likely pass as well.

It's Britain, not England.

Nice to see countries having the minerals to clash with Japan over this in the wake of the Tohoku disaster. I bet Japan was looking forward to an easy ride at this meeting.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

the aussies are so santimonious on this issue, it realy pisses me off, like Australia has never been a bad boy in its history

tokyotom -- as opposed to Japan which says whaling is part of its "unique" history/culture, and therefore they have a right to conduct the whaling -- which other countries must respect. That sounds pretty sanctimonious to me.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Readers, please stay on topic. Slavery is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Tamarama haha sorry.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Readers, please keep the discussion civil and focus your comments on the topic, not at each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny, Their goal is to save as many whales as possible. Blocking the ship to bring the dead whale for processing prevents it from going and killing more whales. So, yes, one whale is not saved, but many others are this way. It's much better than throwing stuff at them and hope they feel bad about what they're doing. It's not a violent act either, just park their boat very close to the processign ship, noone can be hurt. Whalers must throw stuff at them to get them leave.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Dilbert14.

No problems. I am neither pro nor anti-whaling, but if whale hunting is sustainable than all is good and feel free to take a number that won't endanger the species.

Now I do disagree with the methods of SSCS, PETA, etc. Btw, I do contribute to Greenpeace, WWF and also adopted a few endangered animals.

Might seem strange to you but not all people only see black/white.

But extremists of any stripe only cause more harm than good and that is my view.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

sfjp330 - Yes, Australia was a whaling nation and Australia used to hunt whales. Now, the whale watching industry in Australia and many other countries is worth far more financially and much more sustainable than hunting them to kill them.

illsayit - You are missing the point of Australia's objection to whaling. It does have something to do with 'the Green Thang', but that is not the only reason. It is more to do Japan's lies and deceit over the 'scientific research'. If Japan was to stop misleading the countries of the IWC and stop bribing smaller nations to win votes so they can hunt whales 'for research' things would be different.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@cronus I agree completely. Couldn't have put it better myself.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The biggest problem to my eyes is that the original basis for the moratorium has not been resolved and since then anti-whaling community had ransacked IWC.

The original text for basis of the moratorium was;

Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10, catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes of whales from all stocks for the 1986 coastal and the 1985/86 pelagic seasons and thereafter shall be zero. This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits.

Since then there has been no comprehensive assessment on anything and all the anti-whaling nation been shouting was "No more hunting PERIOD "

There wasn't even a constructive argument on why the commission had postponed this assessment.

Really, if you want a civilized discussion on this matter then wind back the clock and come back to the table to commit a resolution to the original reason for the establishment of the moratorium.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Since then there has been no comprehensive assessment on anything and all the anti-whaling nation been shouting was "No more hunting PERIOD "

There wasn't even a constructive argument on why the commission had postponed this assessment.

Really, if you want a civilized discussion on this matter then wind back the clock and co

0 ( +1 / -1 )

But whaling is not sustainable

and such whaling programs would probably be sustainable.

Well, which is it?

I'm pretty sure Antarctic minke whales are way more abundant than any species in Japan's waters, so I'm not sure what reasoning you used to arrive at the conclusion that whaling in Japan's coastal waters would be sustainable, but whaling in the Antarctic wouldn't be. There are lots of minke whales in the Antarctic. The lowest estimates puts them at about 380,000. Japan takes like 400 -500 a year.

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

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The bottom line is Australia's comments are 100% on the nose on this issue -- the cannot nor should not send out ships to protect the whaling ships any more than they would for the other traffic in those waters, particularly when the scientific research is an outright lie. Japan has come off yet again looking like a petulant child not getting what they want, and lying about what they're actually trying to get. As for the bribes, yeah, we all believe your denials. haha.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Then why demand Australia baby-sit their ships?

Because the idiots who are harassing them have their ships registered in Australia?

Take care of your own garbage etc etc... I would have thought that was simple to understand.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Then you SURELY must admit they are not Japanese waters either. So why do they seem to think they can send the Japanese coast guard down there or suggest coast guards/naval ships from other nations should be protecting them?

Japanese ships can be under the protection of the Japanese Coast Guard when in international waters.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Would you rather have Japan leave the IWC and go back to full commercial whaling with none of the catch limits that the IWC has?

Yes, I would. Definitely.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

sfjp330 You conveniently ignored my last post directed at you, and I take exception again to what you write.

If you remember, Australia had 150 years of aggressive whaling history that almost made some of the whales extinct,

Suggesting that Australia is solely responsible for bringing whaling populations to extinction is irresponsible, and you know it. Australia is one of dozens and dozens of countries that carried out whaling, and shares the responsibility with them. Australia has not 'washed it's hands' of whaling anymore than any other country - it just complied with the wishes and spirit of the whaling moratorium. Now, due to a generally more acute sense of environmental responsibility, many Australian are anti-whaling, and even if whale numbers increased to the point of being commercially viable and sustainable, I doubt that industry would ever resurface in this country again due to the sentiments of the populace. You have this wierd anti-Australian bent because we are....now a nation that prefers conservation?! Strange.

Australia gets vilified for standing up for something it believes in, and yet, I wonder how things would be if the Japanese whaling fleet headed up near Alaska to carry out some whaling, or off the coast of Hawaii? Would the people of the US behave any differently to the way Australians currently do? And not that I think that the US is any kind of yardstick for morality or world leadership, but historically and geographically it's a reasonable point of comparison.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No, under the letter of the law, they haven't, and I haven't argued that they have. Whether or not they are participating under the spirit of the law, is another thing. But let me ask you this sfjp330, do you really believe that the primary reason Japan has a whaling program is for Science?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But let me ask you this sfjp330, do you really believe that the primary reason Japan has a whaling program is for Science?

I doubt anyone believes that. Everyone knows that Japan wants to re-start commercial whaling. They are doing "scientific whaling" to show that they can go back to commercial whaling and not deplete the whale stocks.

If Japan was as "evil" as anti-whalers like to make out, they would leave the IWC and whale to their hearts content. Which is what I think, they should do, and hope they do.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Mr Dog

I doubt anyone believes that

Maybe they don't MrDog, but plenty of people on this site argue right along party lines maintaining that very position. I, like you, seriously doubt that they really believe it, but it doesn't stop them arguing the point till they're blue in the face.

They are doing "scientific whaling" to show that they can go back to commercial whaling and not deplete the whale stocks

.Right. But that's NOT what the moratorium on whaling is designed for, is it? If the IWC thought it was OK to perform low level/impact commercial whaling, they would grant licenses or whatever to do so. But they haven't and they don't, becuase, as yet, whale stocks haven't been sufficiently replenished. Which leaves Japan being belligerent, sanctimonious, manipulative and deceitful in exploiting loopholes for purely selfish reasons. They are being very poor global citizens in doing so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Correct, which merely endorses my point. They have the power to endorse commercial whaling, and have so far decided against it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Correct, which merely endorses my point. They have the power to endorse commercial whaling, and have so far decided against it.

The point it endorses is that the IWC doesn't follow the very reason for it's existence. It has turned an anti-whaling organization. Which is why Japan should opt out of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TamaramaJul. 15, 2011 - 07:24AM JST. 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. So, do you want to rethink the last part of your post?

It's nice to have conditions, but how is this enforced?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Absolutely incorrect. At present it is following the very reason for it's existence by pursuing the first part of the sentence quoted which reads; "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks, which is clearly what it is trying to do. Entirely admirable, I would have thought.

The opposite is just as true. For example,

Absolutely incorrect. At present it isn't following the very reason for it's existence by not pursuing the second part of the sentence quoted which reads; "make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry", which is clearly what it isn't trying to do. Entirely contemptible, I would have thought.

The purpose of "providing for the proper conservation of whale stocks" is to "make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry". The IWC has turned into an anti-whaling organization that will never give approval for commercial whaling ever, on any grounds, period. Therefore, they have have lost all credibility and Japan should stop participating in the charade.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sjjp330

It's nice to have conditions, but how is this enforced?

Look, you can't keep changing the goalposts on the argument. You asked for an agreement about providing research data, and I showed you where it is. Japan are as bound by this as anyone else are, and if they are to be a reasonable and obliging world nation, they will adhere to their part of the bargain in good faith. After all, they are already exploiting the loophole in a completely self serving manner - they should at least have some modicum of decency.

Stranger, You can't commercially whale if there are no whales. Can you. They have to build stocks, to exploit them. You might choose to ignore part of their mandate, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You can choose to ignore the fact that there are 380,000 Antarctic minke whales

Well, I didn't mention anything about Minke whales. It's up to the IWC to determine what sustainable whale populations are. Therefore, they are the ones 'ignoring' the fact that there are 380,000 Minke Whales in the Antarctic, and I would suggest that might be because they don't believe that that is a population that can sustain commercial whaling at this time. And with 'conservation' being 50% of aforementioned quote, I applaud their decision.

As for my personal position on whaling, you are silly to assume anything. If whale populations were at a level deemed to be safe and stable and able to absorb some level of commercial whaling by the IWC, and the international community agreed that whaling, in some capacity can recommence, I would be OK with that. But they haven't, and I strongly object to countries ignoring the wishes of the international community by acting unilaterally through clearly deceitful means, for purely selfish reasons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's up to the IWC to determine what sustainable whale populations are....and I would suggest that might be because they don't believe that that is a population that can sustain commercial whaling at this time.

Lol, do you seriously believe that? The IWC is against whaling 100% period. Suggesting that they considered the number of minke whales and came to the conclusion that it just wasn't sustainable at this time, but might be at some point in the future, is like suggesting that the main reason behind Japan's continued whaling is research. Everybody knows better, and if you don't I think you're a little behind in the discussion.

and the international community agreed that whaling....I strongly object to countries ignoring the wishes of the international community

They never will, and object all you like. Btw, it's not the "international community" v.s. Japan. It's the anti-whaling countries v.s. the pro-whaling countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lol, do you seriously believe that?

As opposed to believing what? Who do you think determines that? Enlighten me, pray tell.

The IWC is against whaling 100% period

That's just your opinion. Care to provide some evidence for that position.

Everybody knows better, and if you don't I think you're a little behind in the discussion.

You attempting to assume some kind of intellectual high ground in this discussion does nothing to impress me, Stranger. I've seen nothing substantial in your arguments at all. You run around in ever more unconvincing circles, eventually resorting to insults. Nice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tamarama Jul. 15, 2011 - 09:46AM JST. Japan are as bound by this as anyone else are, and if they are to be a reasonable and obliging world nation, they will adhere to their part of the bargain in good faith. After all, they are already exploiting the loophole in a completely self serving manner - they should at least have some modicum of decency.

Japan has option to leave IWC. They are not bound at all. Problem is Australia has refused to talk about a compromise. Japan can very readily walk out of the IWC tomorrow, just the way Canada did. Canada's not a member of the IWC because it feels that it's a place where nothing gets achieved. So if Japan walked out tomorrow of the IWC, then it could whale as much as it wanted. It would be under no international scrutiny whatsoever. Then what's next for Australia? They will not be able to do nothing. .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tokyo Cherry Boy,

Maybe Japan should start whaling along its coast traditional style again just like they hunt dolphins.

Exactly right. Then they can protect their own whaling ships in their own waters rather than hunt in other countries regions and then complain when people protest against it.

....opps I forgot....they dumped tonnes of nuclear waste in the water!!!

Yeah and that will really spoil their precious whale meat, but wait didnt their chronic over whaling reduce the number so much which is why they have to whale in Antarctica.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp330

Japan has option to leave IWC.

Sure, I guess everybody has that option. Not sure why they would though, because at the moment they get to do a little commercial whaling....I'm sorry, forgive me, 'research' whaling, with the endorsement of the IWC, so it would look very bad indeed if they suddenly take their toys and go home given how good they have it. Canada? Canada, as far as I know - and you are welcome to correct me if I am wrong, don't conduct commercial....sorry again, 'research' whaling. But I think you are missing the point entirely, sfjp330. Of course anyone can go out and unilaterally start commercial whaling. But the point is, that we are members of a global community. And as members of a global community, we have an obligation to the other people in this community, as well as to the planet we inhabit, and the future generations that will take our place. If the international community organization that looks after the whales, and whale stocks - the IWC, says "Hey, you know what, as a group we have gone too hard for too long on the whales - it's now time to let the populations recover and replenish, and then we will look at re-introducing commercial whaling when the time is right" - which is exactly what the current moratorium is (the word moratorium means delay, or a period of waiting), then Japan, and other pro-whaling nations should just be mature and responsible community members, and abstain until such time as the green light is given to recommence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sfjp330 Delving into ANY country's history is going to turn up practices and protocols that don't align with their current stances. Your little google cut and paste spiel in no way undermines Australia's argument... you said it yourself... they ceased whaling in 1978. I'm willing to bet Tamarama wasn't even born yet. That'd be like saying modern day Americans are pro-slavery because their ancestors were. It's 2011 for crying out loud.

Disclaimer: I'm not comparing slavery to whaling... I am merely using it as an example as to why sfjp330's comment holds no weight.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

CapnAwesome No offence taken :)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Zenny, fair enough. Understand and respect your view. I on the other hand can't stand watching these great creatures being harpooned to painfull death. Not even one of them. I think their lives are hard as it is, natural conditions and predators are keeping their numbers down. Calling seasheperd extreemists is a seperate issue and I don't think you're right on that. Extreemists would take extreeme measures to fight the situation. Throwing rancid butter to whalers doesn't qualify. Throwing bombs would. Fact is, they are keeping the number of dead whales to minimum. That's what matters. They haven't seriously hurt anyone either. So I'm with them all the way, same as all other people who beg them to do a good job and donate.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Nickinfutz, what is the story on the restrictions of heavy oil fueled ships? Can you tell us more. That may well obviate this issue. Just enforce the regulations against such ships and force them to return home or put in to port for internment. Problem solved and Sea Shepherd can retire.

Not the help Japan was looking for, but then life is like that isn`t it?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

WIse words, Cronus! The relationship between Japan and Aus. has never been closer, as evidenced by the huge amount of donations Aussies gave after March 11, and the Aussie rescue teams that were much appreciated here in Tohoku.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Just a month ago the Ministry of Whaling was urging the SDF to send a boat to protect them, unsuccessfully it appears.

Meanwhile the japanese judicial system upholds the convictions of Greenpeace Japan members for "stealing whale meat" when in fact what they did was catch so-called research whalers stealing and selling whale meat (http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110713p2g00m0dm013000c.html).

Japanese thinking on this issue is completely topsy-turvy.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sorry, I'm on a roll here.

As opposed to the Japanese whalers intentionally ramming and sinking ships?

As opposed to the Ady Gil moving in front of the Japanese ship to get intentionally hit, you mean?

As for suggesting that SS may have intentionally killed (bombed) someone or some people since there is no evidence that they have you need to provide if to go with the suggesting. Had they killed someone it would appear in every news article related to them and I'm quite sure they wouldn't be allowed to operate as a group, let alone lose ALL support they have left.

No. You're either not reading what I wrote, or reading it with SS-tinted glasses on.

I said:

They certainly intentionally hurt people economically.

Oh, and then there's the guy who got hit with the acid last year.

the scientific research is an outright lie

Where is your proof for that? I think the Japanese research papers are more than enough proof that they are conducting research.

As I've said many times on other comments sections.

Would you rather have Japan leave the IWC and go back to full commercial whaling with none of the catch limits that the IWC has?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What I can't stand about this issue is the lie of "research". I believe that like I believe Japan was a victim of WWII. It doesn't help eliminate the image of the Japanese as sneeky which was the view some 60 years ago.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

IT IS NOT for research...i see the meat sold in stores and served in lunches at elementary schools....they are full of crap!

The meat isn't for research.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Right. But that's NOT what the moratorium on whaling is designed for, is it?

No. But, it's what the IWC was designed for, wasn't it???

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

From wiki:

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is an international body set up by the terms of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 2 December 1946 to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry".

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

TamaramaJul. 14, 2011 - 12:36PM JST. But let me ask you this sfjp330, do you really believe that the primary reason Japan has a whaling program is for Science? Which leaves Japan being belligerent, sanctimonious, manipulative and deceitful in exploiting loopholes for purely selfish reasons. They are being very poor global citizens in doing so.

Do you know anything about contracts? It's the meetings of minds and Japan complied with all the rules of IWC. Regarding your questions of "scientific research". In the agreement with the IWC, where does it state that Japan has to provide detailed information on their scientifc subject? Unless it's stated, Japan has no obligations to anybody and Australia agreed to this provision. a By directly attacking Japan on this issue, Australia clearly shows that they don't honor the contract. Who's actually belligerent, sanctimonius, and manipulative? Ask any experienced corporate lawyer and they will tell you the same. If Australia has a hidden agenda, they should leave IWC.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Stranger, You can't commercially whale if there are no whales. Can you. They have to build stocks, to exploit them. You might choose to ignore part of their mandate, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

You can choose to ignore the fact that there are 380,000 Antarctic minke whales (low estimate) and Japan taking 400 - 500 a year is going to drive them to extinction, and you probably do, as do all the anti-whalers, because it doesn't fit in with your no-whaling ever, period, stance on the issue.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Oops, "ISN'T going to drive them to extinction" is how it should read, obviously.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Zenny, Don't wanna start a long discussion on this, but anyone who doesn't agree that whales should be killed can not hate what Seasheperd is doing. If you have better idea, they are willing to hear. I think throwing stuff at them is just a last resort and way of showing their feelings. Other than that, whalers are as violent, if not more violent than they are. So I support any and every action taken by seasheperd. They are the ones braving the cold and isolation. They are the ones taking action, doing what they believe must be done, saving these magnificent creatures from painfull death.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Since then there has been no comprehensive assessment on anything and all the anti-whaling nation been shouting was "No more hunting PERIOD "

There wasn't even a constructive argument on why the commission had postponed this assessment.

Really, if you want a civilized discussion on this matter then wind back the clock and come back to the table to commit a resolution to the original reason for the establishment of the moratorium.

I agree completely, except that I don't think the anti-whalers will ever come back to the table. Therefore, instead of continuing to call for compromise I think Japan should quit wasting it's time and leave the IWC.

Requesting Australians to protect Japanese ships that are there to rape and pillage their waters is ridiculous.

It's called hunting, but that's typical of the emotional hyperbole in the anti-whaling camp.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

There is notthing illegal that Japan is doing in regards to whaling. The Sea Shepherd terrorist group has a long history of violence. It's time they abandon ship. Japan needs to protect its whaling industry.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

yes, I'm sure about that. Noone got seriously hurt. Japan claimed one of their sailors had a minor injury, that's it. All their actions has one goal, saving the lives of sea creatures from profit hunters. Killers of nature against protecters of nature.

Nice way of ignoring the ships that the SS brag about sinking. Plus 10 SS points for you!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Japan follows the IWC rules in which Australia belongs to and agreed to of the current rules. Now they have their own set of dictator agenda. If Australia has a beef, make a complaint to IWC which is like a UN. If you remember, Australia had 150 years of aggressive whaling history that almost made some of the whales extinct, and since they have not commercially whale for slightly over 3 decades, they wash their hands like it never happened and demand changes from country that follows IWC rules. Why don't Australia get out of IWC if they cannot comply with the rules. If Australia stays, maybe Japan should leave the IWC.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

i just don't get all the anti JP remarks on this page!/site. I fully support Japan! WHY is it ok to kill many other animals for food? oh yeah "endangered" ok whatever. Japan has a low ranking of self sustaining food source. so it uses the ocean for Food, to its advantage. think of it this way once the whales are gone there will be no more whale Hunting. i do NOT support sea sheppard. get a life.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Im Australian. Id never pay to go see whales, and I bet a lot of people dont; poor whaler industry. I also am for commercial whaling; but too my voice isnt heard in Australia, probably why I dont live there, lol. Id have to argue everybody all the time about how precious some fish are, okay mammals. And at the same time defend my own mammal instincts. A definite no win. Im so not into the eco thang, Im so tired of hearing it coming out of Australia. Maybe I should call meself Japanese, but as far as classification goes, like whales as mammals, Im not asian enough looking for that. Lost.....but dont worry the green people will always be there to say, you were wrong but we are generous, you just have to love the whales. I think Id rather love a god or something that is real.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

That is one thing that always confused me.

How many whales did SSCS actually truly save by preventing the Whalers from taking in dead or dying whales?

IMHO, if the whale is already dead all they re doing is preventing the whalers from taking their catch/spoil but was the whale saved? Is it still swimming in the oceans?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

the aussies are so santimonious on this issue, it realy pisses me off, like Australia has never been a bad boy in its history

-13 ( +10 / -23 )

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