national

Japan kills 333 whales in annual Antarctic hunt

76 Comments
By Natsuko Fukue

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

© 2017 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


76 Comments
Login to comment

It seems very greedy and arrogant of Japan to grab large mammals on the other side of the globe.

If my country was grabbing mammals from a pristine environment on the other side of the globe I would be very ashamed and would strongly oppose it.

5 ( +16 / -11 )

Shame Japan, hand your head.

3 ( +13 / -10 )

Boo!

1 ( +8 / -7 )

It seems very greedy and arrogant of Japan to grab large mammals on the other side of the globe.

Can you name a single non-landlocked nation that fishes entirely within its own borders? If not, "the other side of the globe" is moot.

0 ( +14 / -14 )

...that fishes...

I'm talking about mammals.

Maybe there is a discussion about fishing on another thread.

0 ( +12 / -12 )

Would like to know how much taxpayer money each one cost, including freezing and administrative costs. It must be worth more than gold pound for pound.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

choiwaruoyajiMAR. 31, 2017 - 04:51PM JST

If my country was grabbing mammals from a pristine environment on the other side of the globe I would be very ashamed and would strongly oppose it.

Doesn't your country import something from the opposite side of the earth? Whatever it is, natural environment is negatively affected by your import.

The distance between Australia and the Antarctic sea is as wide as the distance between Canadian border and Mexican border of US. I do not think Australia has privilege over the Antarctic Sea.

0 ( +14 / -14 )

Why did I have the impression that this season there were a lack of media articles on this hunt. No reports about Sea Shepherd.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

re: "It seems very greedy and arrogant of Japan to grab large mammals on the other side of the globe."

The high seas are open to all to fish and hunt.

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

I'm talking about mammals. Maybe there is a discussion about fishing on another thread.

Whaling is fishing. But if you prefer: Can you name a single non-landlocked nation that kills animals entirely within its own borders? If you can't just say so. And why would you object to extraterritorial killing of mammals but not fish? (And fishing tends to involve the killing of mammals as by-catch.)

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Maybe the Westerners have religious feelings or taboos about whales as Islams prohibit eating pork and Hindus cows. For them, whales are the sacred animals. But unfortunately, Japanese people do not share your religious feelings about whales.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

As long as ultra-nationalism is the preferred choice not much will change. The greens just did not make it into politics.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Not an expert on this subject, but I think that only Japan and Norway (Norway averages over 700 whales killed per year) still hunt whales in large numbers. It is not something that I understand, but on the whole, I respect the mores of both countries.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Boo indeed

0 ( +5 / -5 )

333 too many :(

5 ( +11 / -6 )

I don't have religious feelings.. just that consciously using an agreed international moratorium loophole is pretty low class.

Go out in traditional boats around Japan and get all of whatever you want. :-) you are welcome to it, but modern fishing vessel in totally different locations is not the same.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

What's the difference between killing a whale and a fly? Whales are bigger? So what. Japanese eat whale, at least they are not killing them for sport..Go eat your hamburger and stuff the fake outrage please..

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

From Sea Shepherd's own website, on a page turned up by Google but apparently removed by Sea Shepherd: "Minke whales are the most abundant baleen whale. It is estimated that there are about almost 800,000 Minke whales worldwide". I am sympathetic with whaling bans on a 'don't kill anything' basis, and yet I have to wonder if 333 whales out of a total population not that far off a million is really unreasonable.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Gotta fill those freezers boys, The Ultras food storage plan for time of war with thy neighbors. Misguided, misled. Sad, cruel, but hey, diplomacy was never a strong point now was it,

0 ( +5 / -5 )

so to you a whale is just a big lump of blubber to be killed by whoever?

yes

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

I think it is unreasonable... I'm sorry but I don't see whales as mere numbers, or as mindless animals waiting for people to kill them. I DO see them as special... because they are. I can't get into a mindset where it's okay to kill whales... it's anathema to me.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

@Nessie..."Can you name a single non-landlocked nation that fishes entirely within its own borders? If not, "the other side of the globe" is moot."

Yes, I can. Australia is one such nation. I know that for a fact. I'm fairly sure there are others. As for the killing of mammals vs killing of fish, I take your point. There's room for debate on what the difference is, when species of various kinds are being hounded to the brink of extinction left, right, and centre. I think the thing that annoys many people most about Japan is their gutlessness in this. If they could just admit that they're hunting them to eat, as everyone already knows, they would probably earn a little more respect than they have now (with their pathetic transparent lies about "research").

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I can't get into a mindset where it's okay to kill whales... it's anathema to me.

Different people have different ideas. To vegans, anyone who drinks milk is an anathema. This is why I choose my foods based on what I want to eat, and what I think is right to eat, rather than on what others think. I'm not a big whale fan (I've eaten it), but if it's a sustainable food, then I personally cannot condemn it.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I'm with john-h sentiments re the gutlessness of the authorities that be.

I've argued countless times on these forums why doesn't Whalers Inc just say we are hunting whales to eat as it is our custom.

But no - we have decades of this pretentiousness in the name of science charade played out over and over and over.

Such posturing will always be seen as insincere by many, directly affecting the image that the Japanese leaders are trying oh so hard to polish.

I can only fall back onto john-h's word - gutless.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I can't get into a mindset where it's okay to kill whales... it's anathema to me.

That's perfectly fine as long as you respect others who have different opinions and feelings and not to impose your opinions and feelings upon them. You shall never impose what to be or not to be on neighbor's dinner table.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Personally, I don't believe any endangered species. To me, all creatures in the sea or on the land could be hunted for food. It is really a conspiracy orchestrated by the mainstream media and eco-terrorists to keep us from eating a good meal. I love eating whale meat. The meat is good for health. It is a shame that most people have their brainwashed and think whales or dolphins or any other "intelligent" creatures are cute or adorable. To me, they are creatures created by God and God wants us to eat them. I want to see commercial whaling restored as soon as possible.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

The wrong "innocent animals" are continuously being killed? When are the "vagabonds" of the World going to start using their "pee brains"?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Overpopulation is the issue in the world. The Earth cannot sustain so many billions of people. Frankly, many more extinctions will occur and it IS great to protect all animals from it, but that is only a temporary, bandaid solution. To save the whales: birth caps are ultimate goal... which stem from a lack of women's rights in certain countries and a whole other bag of world problems...

1 ( +4 / -3 )

“research for the purpose of studying the ecological system in the Antarctic Sea”.

Japanese Ministry of Cetaceans Research press release on the 2016-17 whale hunt: "Yes, there are whales there. We killed 333 of them just to make sure they were whales. Now, we have concluded our research."

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Iamwhales xDDDDD
-3 ( +0 / -3 )

john_holthouseMar. 31, 2017 - 09:57PM JST I think the thing that annoys many people most about Japan is their gutlessness in this. If they could just admit that they're hunting them to eat, as everyone already knows, they would probably earn a little more respect than they have now (with their pathetic transparent lies about "research").

Those who are bent over Japan's Research Whaling and believe that they should just openly commercially hunt (Like Norway), what difference does that make to you? Or the Whales? The whales are still going to be hunted. And the numbers would probably be higher. The only thing you have to gain is that if Japan were hunting commercially they would not be exempt from recognizing sanctuaries. And that would keep them out of international waters that Australia claims as it's own, although the rest of world doesn't recognize it. So who is gutless here?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

"A Japanese whaling fleet returned to port Friday after an annual Antarctic hunt that killed more than 300 of the mammals as Tokyo pursues the program in defiance of global criticism."

Bravo!! Gambatte!!

By what authority does any nation go by to demand that another nation abide by its principles?

I applaud Japan in its defiance. Whales are animals. Period.

Humans ought kill animals as they deem fit. Period.

BRAVO!

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Why did I have the impression that this season there were a lack of media articles on this hunt. No reports about Sea Shepherd.

There were quite a few articles about Sea Sheperd and lots of SSCS press releases early in the season. They bragged about their new multi-million dollar boat that would be a 'game changer'.

Then when they spotted a harpoon ship they crowed about their find and how it was skulking behind an iceberg. How they were close to the fleet and were confident they would shut down the whalers.

And then silence. Just a small bit or two about the SSCS ships in port and letting the public visit.

Apparently this season, with their new ship and all their money and effort they saved zero whales.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Shame shame on you Japan. What do you do with it . Please give me a good answer ,ill believe in faeries. The Truth most goes to pet food. These days very few eat it so why waste time and money on this as it could be spent more wisely internal on population growth incentives.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

There is no shame in utilizing a marine resource that is sustainable, abundant and non-endangered. Trying to shame other people for eating what clearly falls into the former category is itself shameful. Regardless of whether the feeling is inspired by misguided Nationalism (Australia owns Antarctic waters!) or Whale Idolatry (such SPECIAL MAGNIFICENT creatures!), the only non-shameful response is to not eat it yourself.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Yes, I can [name a single non-landlocked nation that fishes entirely within its own borders]. Australia is one such nation. I know that for a fact.

Could you please tell me your source for that information? According to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, "The high seas area of the Indian Ocean" is specifically mentioned as an area open to Australian fishery.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

most goes to pet food

The truth is that most gets left in the Antarctic. They 'research' the tasty bits into the freezer, then chuck the rest overboard. When people tell you 'every part of the whale gets used' - they're either delusional or lying.

SS are blaming the extended hunting period, expanded hunting area (into areas deemed 'not for scientific purposes' by the ICJ in 2014) and bad weather for their inability to obstruct this year's 'research'.

Either way it's a sad result.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

its time for sea shepherd to arm the whales

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Shame!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

333 out of under a million. None of your business. Find some other cause. Perhaps a better cause would be dealing with worldwide obesity and not whale hunting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can you name a single non-landlocked nation that fishes entirely within its own borders? If not, "the other side of the globe" is moot.

I don't think it's moot. If a country conducts activities far away from its own territory and those activities are opposed by the nearest countries to where they take place then I think we have a problem.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I don't think it's moot. If a country conducts activities far away from its own territory and those activities are opposed by the nearest countries to where they take place then I think we have a problem.

I do think it is moot. If a country conducts activities in international waters whether far from its own territory or not, then the opposition of any other country whether that country is the nearest to the international waters or not is irrelevant.

Countries disagree all the time, if they didn't we wouldn't have countries as everywhere would be the same.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Don,

whether far from its own territory or not ... is irrelevant

I don't follow this. My viewpoint isn't so much about what's right or wrong, but about whether it's a good idea or not. Nessie's post compared whaling with offshore fishing. But I don't think the two are comparable in terms of international politics or feelings. Everyone conducts fishing. It's generally accepted. But whaling falls into that category of "unpopular" activities. Politically, it's more comparable to dumping industrial waste or nuclear weapons testing or elephant hunting than to general fishing. Would it be wise for France to restart nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific? Norway and Iceland generally get less flack than Japan for whaling. It may be partially prejudice, but I think it's more down to those countries not sending fleets to the other side of the world.

I don't have strong views on whaling. But if Japan wants to be admired by others, then perhaps it should conduct whaling closer to home. If it doesn't care about that sort of thing, then fine. But it has to accept the consequences.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

But if Japan wants to be admired by others,

Japan prefers rules and laws than being admired by others.

then perhaps it should conduct whaling closer to home.

based on what law?

If it doesn't care about that sort of thing, then fine. But it has to accept the consequences.

You don't care about the laws and are threatening.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

albaleoApr. 02, 2017 - 12:28AM JST

-1 Good Bad albaleoApr. 02, 2017 - 12:28AM JST

I don't follow this. My viewpoint isn't so much about what's right or wrong, but about whether it's a good idea or not. Nessie's post compared whaling with offshore fishing. But I don't think the two are comparable in terms of international politics or feelings. Everyone conducts fishing. It's generally accepted. But whaling falls into that category of "unpopular" activities. Politically, it's more comparable to dumping industrial waste or nuclear weapons testing or elephant hunting than to general fishing.

So you feel that taking whales is bad and should not be done.

I don't have strong views on whaling. But if Japan wants to be admired by others, then perhaps it should conduct whaling closer to home. If it doesn't care about that sort of thing, then fine. But it has to accept the consequences.

But it's ok as long as not in waters that Australia claims.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Japan prefers rules and laws than being admired by others.

Well if that's the case, Tina, there's no problem. (But I think you are as ignorant as me as to what Japan prefers.)

So you feel that taking whales is bad and should not be done.

No. As I said, I don't have a strong opinion on the subject. I have difficulty distinguishing the morals of deliberately killing sheep, badgers and whales.

But it's ok as long as not in waters that Australia claims.

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of whaling. I'm suggesting it's more politically acceptable when done in one's own territory. If you're against whaling on principle, then I guess it's wrong wherever it happens. But assuming we accept that views on what is right vary by country, doing something "wrong" on someone else's patch is going to cause more trouble than doing it on your own patch.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

albaleoApr. 02, 2017 - 02:18AM JST "But it's ok as long as not in waters that Australia claims." I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of whaling. I'm suggesting it's more politically acceptable when done in one's own >territory. If you're against whaling on principle, then I guess it's wrong wherever it happens. But assuming we accept that >views on what is right vary by country, doing something "wrong" on someone else's patch is going to cause more trouble >than doing it on your own patch.

The problem appears to be that term " on someone else's patch". The whaling is taking place in international waters, not in any county's territorial waters or even EEZ. On whose "patch" are you under the impression that the whaling is taking place?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of whaling. I'm suggesting it's more politically acceptable when done in one's own territory.

I agree it's more accepted when it's done in one's own territory. I'm asking why this should be the case for whaling but not fishing. I'm saying it's irrational to have this double standard.

And they're whaling in international waters. The Indian ocean fishing association to which Australia is a party denotes an area parts of which are 6000 km from Australia. It's about 8000 km between Japan and the Arctic Ocean. Australia fishes halfway around the world, just like Japan does.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

On whose "patch" are you under the impression that the whaling is taking place?

Well it's certainly not Japan's 'patch'.

Japan prefers rules and laws than being admired by others.

Japan prefers rules and laws with loopholes big enough to sail a factory ship through, than sticking to the spirit of those rules and laws.

Fixed that for you.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Dom Palmer - Then when they spotted a harpoon ship they crowed about their find and how it was skulking behind an iceberg. How they were close to the fleet and were confident they would shut down the whalers.

And then silence. Just a small bit or two about the SSCS ships in port and letting the public visit.

Apparently this season, with their new ship and all their money and effort they saved zero whales.

It appears that the eco-terrorist SS may have run out of other peoples money. Or the captains have squander too much of the suckers donations. Those people who advocate for the violence of the eco-terrorist SS need to donate more. If only to pay for their lawyer's fees.

The eco-terrorist SS did manage to find the whalers decoy vessel. Then the eco-terrorist SS headed back to port in order to sell guided tours of their garbage scow.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

(But I think you are as ignorant as me as to what Japan prefers.)

This is going on for decades so obviously Japan prefers rules and laws than being admired by others (only a few countries who are not going to admire any country other than themselves anyway)

Japan prefers rules and laws with loopholes big enough to sail a factory ship through, than sticking to the spirit of those rules and laws.

It is not loopholes. Japan is required to conduct scientic researches and allowed (and required) not to waste the whales after the research

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Japan is required to conduct scientic researches

I have always wondered what Japan is researching and where the research is published? I would think it should be available to the public.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The Antarctic is a place which should be respected and preserved by all nations by not making any commercial activities regardless of what it might anf keeping the area for nature and the study of its science put any pseudo.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

What a waste ...of whale's lives whose flesh will (mainly) go to waste, and of taxpayers money ...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Osaka_DougAPR. 02, 2017 - 03:45PM JST

I have always wondered what Japan is researching and where the research is published?

To count the number of whales and to find their age distribution. These factors are necessary for estimating the sustainability of whale stocks. The result of the research is submitted to the International Whaling Commission.

Ironically, the anti-whaling lobby is arguing that the findings of Japanese whaling research is not reliable because the sample size is too small. So, Japan has to kill more whales to satisfy the anti-whaling lobby.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

We all know that Japanese whaling has nothing to do with research and more to do with consumption. Let's at least be honest about that point. Yes research is made, yes research papers are written, yes the research papers are published, yes some of the research papers are translated into English and presented to the IWC and other scientific bodies. The so call "research whaling" hides two important points.

Japan agreed only to kill whales for research and not consumption but the ruling says the killed whale must be consumed. In fact only the belly and tail parts which are sold for consumption and the eyes and liver used for research. The remaining whale corpse tossed back into the ocean.

The research whaling also means the industry receives subsidies which would be difficult to for just a commercial setup. The cost of those research papers are very high, costing many millions.

The commercial value of the whale flesh is about ¥2.5 million per killed whale. This time ¥833 million. Plus the subsidies.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What baffles me is that Japanese electronics companies and automakers don't apply more domestic pressure. For every yen taken in by the whaling industry, Japanese businesses are forgoing hundreds of yen they could be earning through greater acceptance of the Japan brand in Australia and throughout the world. The "halfway around the world" anti-whaling argument makes no sense. But whaling also makes not net economic sense for Japan.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The Japanese whale industry employs less than 1,000 workers. It receives ¥800 million a year in subsidies. Cheaper to pay for workers to stay at home.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Japan is required to conduct scientic researches

Required?? No, tina. They use the loophole in Article 8 as an excuse, and claim the aim of the hunt is 'research' when everyone knows it's a hunt for the meat.

allowed (and required) not to waste the whales

They chuck the greater part of the whale overboard down in the Antarctic. How is that not a waste?

What baffles me is that Japanese electronics companies and automakers don't apply more domestic pressure. For every yen taken in by the whaling industry, Japanese businesses are forgoing hundreds of yen they could be earning through greater acceptance of the Japan brand in Australia and throughout the world.

Very good point, Nessie.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

zichiAPR. 03, 2017 - 03:29PM JST

We all know that Japanese whaling has nothing to do with research and more to do with consumption.

I disagree. So, you cannot say "all". Japan has to prove there are enough whales for sustainable whaling. To prove it, Japan has to do research whaling. To be honest, I cannot understand why you cannot understand this simple logic.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

CH3CHO

I disagree. So, you cannot say "all". Japan has to prove there are enough whales for sustainable whaling. To prove it, Japan has to do research whaling. To be honest, I cannot understand why you cannot understand this simple logic.

Japan proved that point years ago but rejected by the IWC leaving Japan two options. Leave the IWC and resume commercial whaling or continue with "research whaling" as a cover for commercial whaling. Both Norway and Iceland do commercial whaling without all the BS over research. Even some of the scientific research was rejected by the science community. "All" mean all here on JT! But so so many others too.

Japan isn't required or forced to make whaling research, to be honest, I cannot understand why you cannot understand this simple logic. But if Japan wants to kill whales then Japan agreed with the IWC that it would only be for the purpose of research, Catch 22, yes!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

zichiAPR. 03, 2017 - 05:43PM JST

Japan proved that point years ago but rejected by the IWC leaving Japan two options.

If I remember correctly, IWC rejected because the sample size was not large enough to conclude one way or the other. See the web page of IWC. They still do not say if there are enough whales for sustainable whaling or not. So, we need to collect more data by additional research whaling.

If IWC concluded that there are not enough whales for sustainable whaling, Japan would stop whaling. However, all the scientific data suggest there are enough whales for sustainable whaling. The day is near when we undeniably prove the sustainability.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

CH3CHO

The IWC will most likely rejects all attempts by Japan to restart commercial whaling no matter what its research comes up with. Give it up already! Leave the IWC and hunt for all the whales the free market wants to consume. But without the ¥800 million subsidies. Please stop with all foggy science and research stuff trying to hide the real reasons.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

zichiAPR. 03, 2017 - 06:59PM JST

The IWC will most likely rejects all attempts by Japan to restart commercial whaling no matter what its research comes up with.

You know that it is against the agreement of the moratorium. Those who deliberately refusing the revision of catch quota are much less respectable.

https://archive.iwc.int/pages/view.php?ref=3606&k=

IWC Schedule

10(e) 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.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

CH3CHO

so why does Japan not resign from the IWC like other countries did? Why keep beating a drum few want to listen to. No point just quoting from the iWC, its meaningless. What did you say two wrongs don't make a right.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I agree it's more accepted when it's done in one's own territory. I'm asking why this should be the case for whaling but not fishing. I'm saying it's irrational to have this double standard.

We've had this discussion before. And I think we probably agree in general terms, but come from a different angle. Fishing is conducted by most countries and doesn't attract the same opposition as whaling. Perhaps it should. But the reality is that very few countries conduct whaling these days. Is it a double standard? I think it's more like different standards.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The IWC will most likely rejects all attempts by Japan to restart commercial whaling no matter what its research comes up with.

So the IWC lied when they voted on a moratorium rather than a ban and lied when that moratorium required them to review species data by 1990, reviews that have never happened.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

cleoApr. 02, 2017 - 08:48AM JST "On whose "patch" are you under the impression that the whaling is taking place?" Well it's certainly not Japan's 'patch'.

Australia is the country claiming the "patch" to be theirs. Not Japan. The world considers the "patch" belonging to no country. Seems like a lack of animal protein in the diet can lead to confused arguments.

Japan prefers rules and laws than being admired by others. →Japan prefers rules and laws with loopholes big enough to sail a factory ship through, than sticking to the spirit of >those rules and laws.Fixed that for you.

Scientific Whaling under Article VIII existed well before the Moratorium on commercial whaling. Even the United States engaged in it in the past. So how can it be a "loophole" in the Moratorium if it existed prior to it? Please have a hamburger or something.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Seems like a lack of animal protein in the diet can lead to confused arguments.

'Twasn't an argument, 'twas an observation. And you can quit the infantile ad hominem jabs.

how can it be a "loophole" in the Moratorium if it existed prior to it?

Please put the hamburger down long enough to pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning of 'loophole.' Never mind, I'll do it for you (that way you don't need to wipe the pink slime off your fingers) -

loophole |ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl| noun 1 an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules: they exploited tax loopholes.

The moratorium failed to add the stipulation that carrying on commercial hunting under the guise of 'scientific research' as per Article 8 is still commercial hunting. People acting in good faith likely wouldn't even have seen it at the time, hence the 'ambiguity or inadequacy', aka a loophole. Only those looking for a way past the rules would imagine that any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit could be taken to mean a government can fund a private company and give it free license to kill hundreds of whales annually and put them on the table, just so long as they claim it's 'scientific'. The government is supposed to be regulating the nationals(=scientists) wanting to catch whales, not actively supporting employment in the whaling industry; and any permission is supposed to be by special permit, not a regular feature of the annual calendar.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

cleoApr. 04, 2017 - 08:10AM JST Seems like a lack of animal protein in the diet can lead to confused arguments. 'Twasn't an argument, 'twas an observation. And you can quit the infantile ad hominem jabs.

Either an incorrect observation or a totally irrelevant one. Ad hominem? Haven't said anything about you.

Please put the hamburger down long enough to pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning of 'loophole.' Never mind, >I'll do it for you (that way you don't need to wipe the pink slime off your fingers) -

Is that what you call ad hominem? lol

loophole |ˈlo͞opˌ(h)ōl| noun 1 an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules: they exploited tax loopholes. The moratorium failed to add the stipulation that carrying on commercial hunting under the guise of 'scientific research' as per Article 8 is still commercial hunting.

They "failed to add"? Before the Moratorium on Commercial whaling there was no need for Scientific whaling. Because all scientific research was done on samples obtained during Commercial whaling. Without Commercial Whaling where is the IWC Scientific Committee suppose to get it's information? The Committee itself has already stated that some information can not be obtained through non-lethal means. Of course rabid anti-meat consumption advocates and cetacean worshippers don't want the Scientific Committee to ever do their job- to guide the IWC on issues of conservation,harvesting, sanctuaries, etc. A job that is established in the IWC by-laws. Face it cleo, Minkes aren't endangered. In act they're abundant. They're a natural marine protein resource. If folks want to eat it let them. If they lose taste for it then fine.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

zichiAPR. 03, 2017 - 07:43PM JST

so why does Japan not resign from the IWC like other countries did?

Let us get things straight. Norway is still a member of IWC. https://iwc.int/members

What Norway did back in the 1980s was that they filed an "objection" to the moratorium. Thanks to the objection, they are not bound by the moratorium.

Japan accepted the moratorium, because, unlike a ban, a moratorium has its end which was written in the agreement. Those nations that cannot keep the agreement should go out of IWC, and they are Australia, New Zealand, UK and so on, and not Japan.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

What's with these figures? Japan takes 333, and Norway aims for 999...? Some kind of game? https://www.rt.com/news/383090-norway-annual-whaling-season/

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

CH3CH0

So the whole thing for you is not losing the battle or face? Regardless of the costs?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

“research for the purpose of studying the ecological system in the Antarctic Sea” OK so these whales were killed for scientific research, now can we see that research? where is the documentation? what knowledge has been gained? IF, there is no paper work, and no scientists on board, Etc, I would say that they have not complied with the IWC and therefore should be arrested, and the whale meat destroyed to stop any one from gaining what so ever from the hunt.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

cleo - The moratorium failed to add the stipulation that carrying on commercial hunting under the guise of 'scientific research' as per Article 8 is still commercial hunting.

So you've decided to re-interpret the Article to fit your own requirements?

Only those looking for a way past the rules would imagine that any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit....

It appears that you are the one who is actually looking past the rules. You are the one who is claiming some imaginary loophole as proof of a non-existent violation. If things were different, things would be different. Unfortunately for you, you are not actually in charge of the IWC.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

now can we see that research?

Yes, you can.

where is the documentation?

In numerous scientific journals and with the IWC.

what knowledge has been gained?

Various things, you would have to make the effort to find and read the research papers.

IF, there is no paperwork, and no scientists on board,

There is paperwork and there are scientists onboard.

-1 ( +1 / -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