national

Japan kills 30 whales in 1st hunt since ICJ ruling

46 Comments

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

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

46 Comments
Login to comment

If Japan returns to the Antarctic, there will be further court cases too!

6 ( +10 / -4 )

If Japan returns to the Antarctic it will be with an iron clad compliance with the ICJ ruling so Australia has won the battle but may lose the war. Meantime the media uses this headline despite the fact that the ICJ ruling had nothing to do with nor addressed North Pacific or Coastal waters whaling.

-10 ( +7 / -17 )

Just another expensive public funded operation to bring home the bacon for a majority of people who don't want it or eat it.

In April, Fisheries Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi said the target would be 210 Pacific whales - about half the current catch. He also said, we aim to resume commercial whaling at the earliest possible date, by conducting research whaling,"

The so called research in the Pacific is the same as the Antarctic which was ruled unscientific by the International Court.

The first whaling fleet caught just 30 whales, we'll have to wait and see how much research bacon the second fleet lands.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

30 samples is not enough to provide any kind of valid data for population research. This is not killing for the sake of research, it's 'research' for the sake of filling freezers.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

So Japan doesn't care about the rule of law. < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julia-musto/everything-you-need-to-know-japanese-whaling_b_5460142.html>

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

It;'s important research; they gotta know if the whales are stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. All hail Japan; saviours of the universe!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

deplete the whales...does it matter? i don't eat it, i don't see their need maybe Japan research will help me understand their function in the ocean aside from gobbling all the small fish i usually eat

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

This is all part of their ploy to win some sort of international sympathy. They will be complaining they have to hunt whales in the southern ocean to support the whale eating culture cos they can't catch enough in the northern pacific. However, the thing is, Japan does not have a whale 'eating' culture. It has a whale 'hunting' culture, which is very different. Most of the Japanese people who have eaten whale meat were forced to eat it during their junior and senior high school days. That is not culture!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

More accurate would be....>northwestern Pacific "research" hunt.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Good. More whale tartar appetizers for my next BBQ. Seriously get educated. 300,000 minke whales. NOT endangered. 30 doesn't make a difference. Fukui sells tons of whale meat. Big beautiful steak. Cheap cheap!

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

"Big beautiful steak. Cheap cheap!" because it's funded by the tax payers? Let's see how much of a profit they can make if it were 100% commercial. I think the whaling industry would eventually die. Not enough people want to eat whale.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

ka_chanJun. 14, 2014 - 08:29AM JST So Japan doesn't care about the rule of law

Ridiculous comment. The ICJ ruling didn't address any whaling research or otherwise outside of the Antarctic JARPA II program.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

I want to see many more restaurants serve whale meat. I only find boiled ones at Izakayas. I want to try different cookings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We can't stop them from fishing in their own waters.... but once they run dry.... stay out of international waters. But that said... they'll bribe somebody to turn the other way while they continue to satisfy themselves. I really like Japan... but this issue is testing me.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

And learned what?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

**Japan has caught 30 whales off its northern coast in its first hunt since an international court ordered the halt of its annual expedition in the Antarctic, officials said Friday.

So Japan isn't breaking their agreement, they are just continuing their hunt in their Northern coast.

Until someone takes Japan to court to halt the Northern Coast hunts I don't see it ending.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't eat whale meat if you paid me and find the hunting of these animals repugnant. But, they aren't hunting endangered species and are within their right to stretch/break the law.

I hope someone can take them before the ICJ over this, but until then all we can do is complain.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yes, there is no shortage of whales meat yet. One thing is good, now people are not funding the SS pirates. They maybe struggling to survive at this point.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Anti-whale hunt countries bash only Japan, not Norway or Iceland. It's easy for Japanese to guess why.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

tinawatanabe, yeah, easy for the Japanese to delude themselves into a half-arsed victim-complex guess at why. The Northern Pacific hunt has never been harassed by SS because it is in waters nearer Japan, which is the inconvenient truth the Japanese don't want to hear because it doesn't suit Japanese victim complex "it is Japan bashing" views. If Iceland and Norway turn up for a hunt in a whale sanctuary in the southern oceans, they will get plenty of harassment, but they stick to waters nearer home. When Japan sticks to waters nearer home, like they do with the North Pacific hunt, they are also left alone! Or did you just somehow read all about SS harassing this hunt in the article above and everyone else missed that bit?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

tinawatanabe

Anti-whale hunt countries bash only Japan, not Norway or Iceland. It's easy for Japanese to guess why.

I can see why you might be sensitive on this issue but your are wrong. First, the majority of countries, including those who hunted whales in the past, like America, Britain no longer hunt them.

Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd have made campaigns against Norway and Iceland for their whale hunting which isn't done under the "guise of whale research", its just commercial whaling.

There are always articles in America and Europe about that whaling. There are many organisations in those countries to try and stop the whale hunting.

While JT may reproduce an article, it does not reproduce a whole newspaper?

The disturbing point about Japanese whaling, at least for many, is that its really commercial whaling nothing to do with research. In fact, since the beginning of the research whaling there have been about 130 scientific papers published in peer review journal but the contents of any of them dismissed. Some were even dismissed by the IWC review committee.

Those research papers have cost the taxpayer more than ¥100 million each, but there again, the whaling industry which employs less than 2,000 workers has used up ¥billions of public funds. For what. just to make some kind of point about whale hunting being a cultural thing, which it isn't any longer, since the majority no longer buy or eat whale meat. 

Mostly importantly, the research was dismissed by the International Court.

The second disturbing point is Japan is the only country whale hunting in the Antarctic which for many is a very sensitive issue with a need to protect the environment there.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

zichi

Mostly importantly, the research was dismissed by the International Court.

Looks as if someone is talking looney since Hague never did. If they did what you state show us proof.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

SamuraiBlue

the International Court dismissed "on block" Japan's research whaling in the Antarctic which is also the same as the research in the Pacific. So no loony talk here? http://www.dw.de/world-court-harpoons-japanese-whaling-program/a-17531835

4 ( +6 / -2 )

they stick to waters nearer home

I thoght you bashed Japan even when increased import of whale meat. You can't stand that Japan eating the creature you have a strange attachement to, but OK with Norway and Iceland.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

tinawatanabe, the "Japan bashing" thing is total rubbish. My only objection to Japan's whaling is being forced (as a taxpayer) to assist in the funding of ridiculous unpopular missions to a whale sanctuary in the southern oceans so that Japan can hunt down a food source no one wants to eat. I don't care what you eat. I have no attachment to whales. I tried kujira bacon once, but I found it so disgusting that I wouldn't try it again! You choose "Japan bashing" and "victim complex" as your explanation because you want to. The truth is that when Japan hunts whales off the coast of Japan you are left alone to do it. That's why this article does not mention hunt protests or Sea Shepherd. When you go to a whale sanctuary in the southern oceans you are harassed. Norway and Iceland don't go to the southern oceans. If they did, SS would harass them. Anti-Japanese racism has absolutely nothing to do with this issue and hunt locations have everything to do with it. Try and open your eyes instead of embracing an ignorant myth spread by NHK and right-wing morons.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

hampton, you didn't refer to my point. From your logic, you shouldn't bash Japan when increases the import of whale meat. But you do, why?

And there're many industries that are assisted by taxpayer's money.

So, anti-Japan is the only reason you do this.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

tinawatanabe

Anti-whale hunt countries bash only Japan, not Norway or Iceland. It's easy for Japanese to guess why.

The fact is Norway and Iceland are being honest and up front about their whaling because it's part of their culture to be that way; it's to eat and sell.

Japan does not have a culture of being up-front and honest. it's all about saving face (tatemae) so they lie about the purpose of their whaling. Nobody likes a liar.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Readers, please stop bickering. Focus your comments on what is in the story and not at each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whale hunting by Japanese will die slowly not today or tomorrow. when the next generation of politicians will decide to put a stop on it..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I've read many articles and posts of anti-hunting, but their points have never been convincing. I've come to a conclusion that there is an order of importance of creatures in their mind. that is, 1st Human beings (white) 2nd Animals (Whale and Dolphin) 3rd Other human beings 4th Other animals So, they can't stand that 3rd rank creature eating 2nd, but 1st rank eating 2nd is OK. This is the only theory so far that can explain what anti-hunt are saying and doing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope someone can take them before the ICJ over this, but until then all we can do is complain.

There is no reason Australia couldn't have raised the issue of whether the JARPN II research whaling was in compliance with the regulations in the same case where they raised the issue of JARPA II. The fact that they didn't raises the question of what Australia's complaint was really about. Was it really about protecting whales or was it a round about way to assert their claim on Antarctica?

When Japan sticks to waters nearer home, like they do with the North Pacific hunt, they are also left alone!

So then the SSCS and other anti-whalers are all lying? It isn't about hunting whales it is about where they are hunted?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

No it is about whaling in an area that Australia regards as a whale sanctuary, in its Antarctic territorial waters . Japan can do what it likes in its own waters, as long as Japanese people don't object. Those whales will be contaminated with radioactive material and mercury so where is the scientific bit .It is purely traditional in Japans territorial waters for food when no other resources are available when fished out stay away from the Antarctic. With your so called scientific commercial whaling activities.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Antarctic territorial waters

There is no such thing and would love to see Australia claim one to the global community.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

No it is about whaling in an area that Australia regards as a whale sanctuary, in its Antarctic territorial waters

Well if those were valid claims it would explain Australia's position. But first Australia did not mention either of those topics as issues in their ICJ claim. Second Australia knows they have no recognized claim to Antarctic territorial waters. And lastly by the IWC's own regulations the sanctuary doesn't apply to Japan's hunting of Minke whales.

And neither of those issues explain the actions and attitudes of the anti-whaling groups.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

zichiJun. 14, 2014 - 02:15PM JST The disturbing point about Japanese whaling, at least for many, is that its really commercial whaling nothing to do with >research. In fact, since the beginning of the research whaling there have been about 130 scientific papers published in >peer review journal but the contents of any of them dismissed. Some were even dismissed by the IWC review >committee.

As far as I am aware there exists no "IWC Review Committee". There does exist an IWC Scientific Review Committee. Please provide links to support your statement that data submitted by Japan has been "dismissed" by the IWC Scientific Committee.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

In 2002, in an open letter published in the New York Times, twenty-one scientists (including three Nobel laureates) stated emphatically, “We, the undersigned scientists, believe Japan’s whale research program fails to meet minimum standards for credible science.” The letter specifically states there is no compelling reason to kill whales in order to obtain data from them. The favor shown for non-lethal methods is at least acknowledged by Heazle.

However, in a 2003 response to similar accusations, published in BioScience, IWC scientific committee members supported the 2002 rebuke of Japan’s whaling programs. The scientists stated, “Japan's scientific whaling program is so poor that it would not survive review by any major independent funding agency,” and when it comes to misrepresenting commercial activities as science, “there has rarely been a more egregious example of this misrepresentation than Japan's scientific whaling program.” They also explained that the vast majority of publications resulting from these programs have absolutely no value for the management of whale stocks.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Gee, thanks for the links How many of the 21 scientists who signed the open letter in 2002 were on the IWC Scientific Committee? How many "IWC Scientific Committee members" supported the rebuke as appeared in Bioscience in 2003? I have asked you for evidence that the IWEC Scientific Committee has rejected Japan's submitted data as "invalid" or "fraudulent", a condition that would preclude Japan's ability to issue Permits under Article VIII.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

In December 2006 The IWC Scientific Committee released their 'Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from the Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic' referred to as SC59Rep1. The whole report is 36 pages long, but this excerpt seems to indicate that the Scientific Committee far from dismissed the data submitted by Japan.

8.4 Scientific contribution of JARPA

The JARPA project has generated extensive data that are available to IWC scientists through the data sharing agreement. The programme has also resulted in a number of publications in the IWC Journals and in other international peer-reviewed journals. Except for cruise reports and commentaries there have been 22 articles in Rep.int.Whal.Commn and J.CetaceanResManage ., and 58 articles in English language journals. Of the latter, the majority is in the fields of physiology, reproduction and chemistry, while six articles are concerned with management. In addition a total of 182 scientific documents based on JARPA data have been presented to the IWC Scientific Committee meetings.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

From 1987 to 2006, Japanese scientists presented 182 scientific documents to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and had 91 papers published in peer-reviewed journals. So, only about 50% were published in peer review journals, and the other 50%? In what, 19 years, only 58 articles in English language journals? It all adds up to less than poor results for publishing the research and some of the peer review articles were rejected by some scientists.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

From 1987 to 2006, Japanese scientists data was not 'dismissed' by the IWC Scientific Committee. Claiming that it was is less than poor sportsmanship.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

From 1987 to 2006, Japanese scientists data was not 'dismissed' by the IWC Scientific Committee. Claiming that it was is less than poor sportsmanship.

Its not poor sportsmanship to point out only 50% (91 out of 182) of the submitted papers were published in peer review journals and even less in English journals (58 out of 182)

And some scientists rejected those peer review articles, which is what happens sometimes and the sole reason for any peer review.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Its not poor sportsmanship to point out only 50% (91 out of 182) of the submitted papers were published in peer review journals and even less in English journals (58 out of 182)

Yes it is, as those 50% of papers weren't meant to be published in peer reviewed papers. they were submitted to the IWC as required by research data sharing agreements. And just why does the number published in English language journals matter? Are English language journals the only 'real scientific journals'?

And the IWC Scientific Committee STILL didn't 'dismiss' the data as someone claimed.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Scientific papers are only worth the paper they are written on once they are published in peer review journals and analysis by other scientists and yes English peer review journals because English is the international language and carry a greater weight in the science community.

You don't actually know "those 50% of papers were meant to be published" since its unlikely you have even read them and are just guessing based on your opinion.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

`samuraiblue actually the UN confirmed in 2008 the Australia's Extended Continental Shelf: which includes the standing claim before the extension see here http://www.academia.edu/165230/Australias_Extended_Continental_Shelf_What_Implications_for_Antarctica_WorkingPaper

0 ( +1 / -1 )

scientific peer review, a quality-control system that requires all new scientific discoveries, ideas and implications to be scrutinized and critiqued by expert scientists before they become widely accepted. Otherwise as it happened several times in recent times, scientific papers can be based and presented on false data.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

You don't actually know "those 50% of papers were meant to be published" since its unlikely you have even read them and are just guessing based on your opinion.

No I am basing it on the fact that those papers were data being shared with the IWC as required. Data without analysis is hardly something that would be published in a peer reviewed journal. But thanks for your learned opinions on everything.

wtfjapan actually within the first two paragraphs the paper says

This Antarctic ECS does not include the ECS offshore the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT), which Australia requested the CLCS not to consider for the time being.

The extended shelf is off some islands that no one disputes as being Australian territory. And the EEZ's around those islands are not hunted by Japanese whalers.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The research whaling was the only way to bring home the bacon, and its very clear to the world that's what its really all about. For a short period under President Reagan Japan stopped whaling in return for American fishing rights but when it lost those, the country returned to whaling. That shows how weak the cultural aspect of whaling is. Japan offered to the IWC to give up whaling in the Antarctic or greatly reduce the quota in return for being allowed to make commercial whaling in its own waters. That offer was rejected by the IWC.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites