Japan support for whaling outweighs opposition: poll

Japan support for whaling outweighs opposition: poll

Technically true, but somewhat misleading, given the vast majority of those polled didn't express an opinion.

Of 1,200 people questioned for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), 26.8% said the country should continue its hunt against 18.5% who opposed it. The remainder expressed no opinion.

So 26% nationalists want to support whaling out of irrational national pride and the need to maintain the cultural status quo, and the rest don't care. Sounds like Japanese politics. Too bad they will have to pay the price of illegal whaling out of tax payers' (and donors) money.

How can they continue whaling when commercial whaling is banned? I guess the 26% want to continue "scientific research".

The remainder expressed no opinion.

Indeed, the MAJORITY expressed no opinion. Understandable. In Japan, you're supposed to keep your opinions to yourself.

I believe that whaling has nothing wrong if you dont send species to extinction. Japanece and European whaling is sustainable at the current rate

In 2012 Japanese whaling companies confessed their failure to sell 908 tonnes of their 1,211-tonne seasonal haul and, following the 2011 tsunami and earthquake, the government admitted to redirecting £18.5 million from its disaster recovery fund to boost its annual £3.87m whaling subsidy. The figures paint a picture of a nation holding onto tradition in the face of overwhelming apathy for both the practice, and the culinary treat itself. Japan's Fisheries Agency is even attempting to boost falling sales by offering mail order meat deliveries.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-11/27/japanese-public-want-whaling

Really, folks? You guys are still apathetic towards whaling, even though the government has even managed to funnel millions of dollars of Tohoku recovery money into illegal whaling? You guys should be livid, not apathetic.

75% of whale meat is unsold. You guys still want to continue whaling for some unknown reason?

Actually it should be 74% don't support it.

Waste of money in the faux name of cultural tradition

Actually it should be 74% don't support it.

It's neither, they don't care.

1,200 people questioned? Oh come on!!!

Pu another way ONLY slightly over 1/4 of Japanese support whaling. That's not a very high number frankly.

I'd say that (and I have done before) that whilst the SS continue their antics in the Southern Ocean's the Japanese will always be more positive to whaling than against it. They see this as a direct attack on them.

If these attacks aren't carried out and a more intelligent debate revolving around cost, demand and tax payers money took place then the support of the Japanese public will drop.

@timfox I thought jeff's comment was right on. Where is your contribution?

FWIW Im one of the 75%

If these attacks aren't carried out and a more intelligent debate revolving around cost, demand and tax payers money took place then the support of the Japanese public will drop.

Somehow I doubt that, since they see that the mere act of telling Japan that they should not do something (no matter how reasonable) is an act of "cultural imperialism".

There are too many crazy nationalists who want to continue whaling no matter what that outweigh the apathetic public.

So just about more than half don't give a %$'& about whaling, and way less than 30% actually support it. Yeah, there are many ways of lying with statistics. Less than 20% publicly oppose it.

Bad headline. Should be "Majority of Japanese DON'T CARE about whaling". So then the logical conclusion is: Why keep putting government resources into it? And, why let Japan have to defend itself in the International Community against coiuntries like NZ and Australia when most folks could give a damn?

JeffLee

Indeed, the MAJORITY expressed no opinion. Understandable. In Japan, you're supposed to keep your opinions to yourself.

I think it's more "somebody else should decide for me", and in this case, the nationalists will...

This lack of political and social involvement and overall apathy in Japan is unusual, and unique to Japan.

54.7% are not sure...or undecided? It sounds like with that "neutral" attitude, they may at least not be in favor of spending precious taxpayer money on this. The neutral attitude would see, go ahead and do it, but don't use my money.

Polls don't mean crap, you can poll 1,000,000 people but only include 1200 people to make it look anyway you want. Plus when 50% of the people have NO opinion I would think that would also factor into it.

Wow... more than 50% had 'no opinon' and yet the people who conducted the survey claim Japan is in favor of whaling. Geez... I wonder who carried out this poll?

Headline should read: "Vast majority of Japan have no interest in their country's whaling program."

Polls don't mean crap, you can poll 1,000,000 people but only include 1200 people to make it look anyway you want.

If you include 1200 self selected people then it isn't a poll. Polls go to great lengths to make the selection random.

Take another poll to the same people and advise them that the whaling cost the Japanese taxpayers approximately $60 million dollars anually, see if the opinions are different on continuation of whaling. The general public is clueless on how much J-goverment spends on whaling.

No worries, Seasheperd will put a stop to this sooner or later.

I will support whaling as long as Paul Watson is against it.

I personally never ate whale meat, nor do I have the urge to in the near future. However, why should Japan cave to foreign pressure and have to do what others tell them to. First and Foremost, it's not illegal... yet. many may point to the International Whaling Commission, but I also point to IWC and say Japan is permitted to continue whaling, "scientific" whaling. Until this ruling is change, but....

26.8% said the country should continue its hunt,18.5% who opposed it. The remaining 54.7% expressed no opinion, which also means they don't care to oppose whaling. 54.7 + 26.8 = 81.5%, say they don't mind Japan is Whaling, though you may not like the math.

I really can't stand SS actions in the high seas, they're putting lives at risk with their antics. it's illegal, yet no one wants to arrest and punish them, so why should Japan when it's doing it legally.

I'm guessing "Majority of Japanese people couldn't care less about whaling issue right now" wouldn't have made such a tabloid headline, which is why they didn't run with it.

What is it they say: lies, damn lies and statistics.

People should not be too worried, whaling will die a natural death. According the International Whaling Commission Japan caught on average 1800 whales a year in the 80's and only 591 on average between 1989 and 2012.

As the report said, a quarter supports it, 18% is against it and the rest have no opinion or keeping it to themselves. I don't know anyone who eats whale meat here in Japan. I was given some by friends of my in-laws as they wanted to see my reaction.

Just let time take its course, not smoking was unthinkable 5 years ago, now smokers are on fast decline, whale meat will follow.

Then please leave Japan ASAP, don't worry, we will be okay without grumpy foreginer.

Here we go again, "leave Japan" and "we will not cave to 'foreign pressure'" is the nationalists' answer to everything.

I truly hope Japanese whaling ends this year, not only as someone who feels that it is absolutely wrong to commercially exploit cetaceans or imprison them but as someone who would hate to see Japan suffer further hardship and alienation.

I wonder how many of those polled knew of the huge subsidies and redirected "tsunami relief fund" yen it takes to continue whaling?

Within the anti-whaling movement there are increasingly more calls for a Japanese boycott, many realize what that would mean economically to the public so it is not entirely supported, but if groups ever united and did call for a boycott it could indeed have a great impact. Personally I didn't contribute to the relief fund to see the Japanese public suffer yet another hardship but neither do I try and bring attention to the plight of whales because I want to see more carcasses in what is suppose to be a sanctuary ...

Hopefully Sea Shepherd will deliver one final blow to the Japanese whaling industry and we can be done with this foolishness.

Headline should read: "Vast majority of Japan have no interest in their country's whaling program."

This is exactly correct! JT should change the headline!

The anti-whaling comments on here run the gamut from the bitter to the oblivious. Only 2 seem rational, and actually thought out.

Consider these 2 points: 1.The survey was carried out by an anti-whaling group. No matter how you spin it, their movement lacks support.

The no opinion response represents those who are undecided as well, given that there are only three possible choices. Evidently the majority of Japanese either think this is a non-issue, or consider the nuances of the issue to great for them to come down on one side.

It's amusing when even though only roughly 28% of the Japanese actually support whaling, being anti-whaling is supposedly "Japan hating" and "cultural imperialism". Pro-whalers are in the minority here.

I am a Japanese national and avid surfer and speak on behalf of most of my friends and Japanese people I know that enjoy the Ocean and the marine creatures we see and encounter in the waters. Many of us enjoy eating whale as a special delicacy and some even dolphins although I personally prefer whale over dolphin due to the gaminess of dolphin meat. Most Japanese love dolphins and whales for the majestic creatures they are but also enjoy eating them on occasion as they are considered tasty to many of us and if scientifically sustainable should not be interfered by foreign anti-whaling coalition and organizations just because they are against it from their cultural perspective. I love watching dolphins and whales breach close to me while I surf and have even played with some that were friendly but still, it wouldn't stop me from eating them once in a while, I don't want to see them go extinct either but sustainable whaling of the Minke whale species is something myself and a whole lot of normal active Japanese people would support whole heatedly.

Thanks to how whaling is portrayed in the media, the poll isn't at all surprising.

How many of hose polled know:

how much tax is spent on whaling?

how money was used from Tohoku funds for whaling?

whaling is supposed to be for research, not for consumption?

both whalers and Sea Shepherd are equally aggressive, but TV coverage paints the picture that the whalers are the victims.

If the whole story was told, the poll might be different, but the large percentage that don't actually give a stuff is more favorable to opposers than supporters.

You guys really need to separate whaling from "culture". Whaling is NOT a part of culture. Besides culture changes all the time. Being anti-whaling is not the same thing as anti-Japan.

Many of us enjoy eating whale as a special delicacy and some even dolphins

You don't represent the Japanese people. Only 5% of the population eat whale meat. 75% of the whale meat is unsold. Only 28% support whaling.

Most Japanese love dolphins and whales

If you love dolphins and whales then you should know that there is no humane way to kill whales, they undergo intense suffering for hours before they are killed.

Of 1,200 people questioned for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), 26.8% said the country should continue its hunt against 18.5% who opposed it. The remainder expressed no opinion.

The headline should read;

Over 50% of Japanese people don't give a shit about anything!

MasterBape, how do you know the whole story isn't being told?

Nihonryu,

"Most Japanese love dolphins and whales for the majestic creatures they are but also enjoy eating them on occasion as they are considered tasty to many of us and if scientifically sustainable should not be interfered by foreign anti-whaling coalition and organizations just because they are against it from their cultural perspective"

And this is the "them versus us" which is part of the problem.

A few quick question for you:

You support whaling, so do you agree with the amount of tax and also large amount of Tohoku funds spent on whaling?

how often do you eat whale meat?

do you believe both Sea Shepherd and whalers use aggressive tactics? Or the whalers are the victims?

This poll strongly suggests: "Japan need good researcher" out of about 120 million people only 1200 were asked and this is on the news. What a joke.

Most people support whaling in Japan. I have read Reuter and Japan TImes articles stating that close to 80% support the hunting of whales as food. The close mindedness of people who oppose whaling and label anyone a nationalist who ever thinks harvesting a natural resource really needs to think who the culture imperialist is, who the close minded racist is. It is not the Japanese or others who eat whale meat.

Sustainable utilisation of natural resources is the way of the future. Scientific advice is that sustainable utilisation of abundant whale stocks is possible. It's important to recognise that conservation and sustainable utilisation are consistent

Respect / Tolerance for peoples of other cultural beliefs. In various places around the world, people have come to eat various types of living creatures and vegetables as a result of their geographic and cultural backgrounds. Seeking today to impose one's beliefs upon others is unacceptable in a world that tolerates and respects diversity. Those people who consume no animals also consume lifeforms (vegetables) to sustain their own existence. Humble people accept that their views are theirs alone and respect the rights of others to differ, and live their lives as they wish in accordance with their own beliefs, providing that they do not infringe upon the rights of others. This is a basic foundation of decent and peaceful human society.

Should have also asked in the survey whether they believe they are well informed of the actual details behind the issue as I suspect there to be the sense of Japan's tradition being victimized over cultural differences prevailing here.

Thomas Anderson

So 26% nationalists want to support whaling

I personally do not support whaling but I oppose this kind of self centered near sighted point of view. This kind of idea produce a sneaky inconspicuous racism. I do not like it.

@Thomas Anderson

I welcome constructive opinions, but there are many posters on this site who are only capable of saying negative things about Japan. Why are they living in the country they dislike so much ?

Japan ain't a utopia that some anime lovers are hoping it to be, but it's not as bad as many grumpy posters on this site are trying to make it sound like either. It has good and bad aspects just like any other country, why is it so hard to understand this simple fact ?

You guys/gals can argue all night about what the statistics represent, how true of a picture it paints, what a poor sampling it was... Did anyone consider that possibly the results show a willingness to support either argument, if the parties involved tried to capitalize on educating those with no opinion? What this "article" says to me is that there is a large group that could be educated and swayed to whichever side of the argument you're for. I don't see those people taking "Sea Shepherd" seriously. I don't blame them either. If you want to convince me of something, then educate me. Throwing bottles at me generally won't work. I think this is a huge chance for Greenpeace, or some other non militant conservation/preservation group, to make an investment, and an impact on the Japanese people. Even though I myself, believe they have the right to eat whatever they want as long as it's sustainable, some times you have to help the other team out, by pointing out what should be OBVIOUS.

Most people support whaling in Japan. I have read Reuter and Japan TImes articles stating that close to 80% support the hunting of whales as food.

Oh... so apparently 80% support whaling even though only 5% of the population eat whale meat. Makes sense. Besides commercial whaling is illegal, so I guess they really support spending tens on millions of tax-payers' dollars a year on "scientific research".

Respect / Tolerance for peoples of other cultural beliefs.

I've said it before, it has nothing to do with culture. If you cared about your "culture" so much, then maybe you should stop eating meat, an import of foreign culture. While you're at it, maybe you can stop using the Internet and your computer, undoubtedly foreign devil inventions designed to undermine Japan and its culture.

As we live in a global world facing environmental challenges. It turns out that the best thing you can do for the planet is to eat whale meat compared to other types of meat. Harpooning a whale has far less consequences than farming livestock.

Where I live in Japan, they hunt whales and whale bentos are sold at your local train station, you can get whale meat at the local fish store. I think it is great. If people have a problem with it then keep it for yourself. You do not need to like it or try it but you have no right to tell the people to stop eating it.

The headline is incorrect and only to gain media attention. The fact is, only 25% support whaling and over 50% don't care.

I welcome constructive opinions, but there are many posters on this site who are only capable of saying negative things about Japan. Why are they living in the country they dislike so much ?

Whaling is frowned upon in most countries, Japan is no exception. Even the US used to be a major whaling country, and they've caved in under societal pressure. The only difference is that Japanese people tend to feel victimized whenever they are criticized and cry foul over "not being considerate of cultural differences" (whenever it suits them).

Why should Japan be above it all? It makes no sense that Japan should be treated as an exception just because the Japanese people tend to feel that it's unfair when they are criticized, no matter how much the criticism is warranted or legitimate.

I wonder how many of the people in Tohoku who are still living in shelters were polled.

Hide Suzuki: "I welcome constructive opinions, but there are many posters on this site who are only capable of saying negative things about Japan."

Well, one of the problems with many people here, Japanese and foreign, is that kind of knee-jerk reaction. Being against whaling isn't saying something negative about Japan, my friend -- it's paranoid and selfish people who think that. These are the same people who ultimately fall back on the "you are attacking our culture" or, "if you don't like it leave" bottom-of-the-barrel comments.

agutarosendahl

Most people support whaling in Japan. I have read Reuter and Japan TImes articles stating that close to 80% support the hunting of whales as food.

Did you read the story???

Even the US used to be a major whaling country,

They hunt whales in USA too. USA is an anti whaling whaling country. This stance is the most hypocritical of them all. They hunt far more endangered whales in Alaska and Washington State than what Japan is doing. Americans from European decent have no culture of eating whale meat so they killed whales for oil where as Native Americans and Inuits hunted whales for food just like the Japanese did and would like to continue.

Anyway, the point is that whaling and anti-whaling have NOTHING to do with culture or traditions (maybe a little bit) or countries or whatever... it's about whaling, and it's about animal rights. When people bring up culture or countries, then they are arguing things that are beside the point, i.e. whaling and animal rights.

In various places around the world, people have come to eat various types of living creatures and vegetables as a result of their geographic and cultural backgrounds

And the Antarctic has been part of Japan's geographic and cultural background since when?

I'm no more opposed to people eating whale meat than am opposed to their eating cow meat, or pig meat, or horse meat, or sheep meat, or hen meat, or dog meat or rabbit meat or cat meat or any other kind of meat. Just (1) don't torture the animal beforehand (2) if you must kill, kill humanely; if you can't kill humanely, don't kill at all (3) don't lie about what you're doing and (4) don't expect my vegetarian taxes to subsidise your blood-stained dinner.

Correct headline: 55% of Japanese have no opinion either way on the whaling issue.

I guess because the Antarctic is too far from the shores of Japan to register...good luck, Sea Shepherd and fleet!

The funniest part about this whole thing is that they're not even really bothering to lie about the purpose of killing the whales -- the poll wasn't asking people if they support Japan's scientific research, was it?

18.5% opposed the hunt. A whole 18.5%. HA HA HA! That's a pretty telling statistic. And I'm sure the pro-violence/anti-whaling crowd tried to round up as many "opposed" votes as possible and all they could manage was this pathetic showing. 18.5% hehehe.

Are the actual questions asked available online? It would be interesting to see how the IFAW conducted this survey.

The Antarctic needs to be off limits to all commercial activities.

This has no scientific or environmental value what so ever. It comes from pure close minded emotional reasoning.

They do scientific research to find out how many whales they can hunt commercially.

I don't think that research has any merit, and like I said if whales can consciously feel suffering then it would be considered unethical.

There's plenty of scientific evidence that the Antarctic needs to be protected from all commercial activities by all countries.

Considering that eating whale meat is far more environmental friendly than eating beef. Energy is low in relation to yield and the natural habitat does not have to be destroyed and turned into agricultural land. Your view seems shortsighted.

@MasterBape Nihonryu,

"Most Japanese love dolphins and whales for the majestic creatures they are but also enjoy eating them on occasion as they are considered tasty to many of us and if scientifically sustainable should not be interfered by foreign anti-whaling coalition and organizations just because they are against it from their cultural perspective"

And this is the "them versus us" which is part of the problem.

A few quick question for you:

You support whaling, so do you agree with the amount of tax and also large amount of Tohoku funds spent on whaling? Yes, I do. My friends from Tohoku have relatives that depend on whaling and the resumption of it for their livelihoods. how often do you eat whale meat? About once a week and when SeaShepard are acting up us local surfer guys and gals do a whale eating party on purpose to show our support for the whaler's cause and an excuse to eat delicious whale sashimi!

do you believe both Sea Shepherd and whalers use aggressive tactics? Or the whalers are the victims? The whalers are minding their business and operating in a responsible and legal fashion. The whaling is done in international waters on an abundant whale species so yes SeaShepard are usin aggressive tactics and can go to hell as far as I am concerned!

There are marid of hidden agendas concerning whale hunting that has noting to do with whales.

The original argument thrusted by the US was to open the Japanese beef market in the 70's which hooked up the UK enviormentist group. This was latter supported by Australia, New Zealand and other South American nations which are all beef producing nations which has a great interest to keep other meat products off the market to protect their own industry.

The second is the sovereignty of Antarctica, you'll many here posting "not in our backyard" sentiment which is part of Australia, Argentina and South Africa agenda but cannot make assertion of their claim for Antarctica based on an international treaty so they use this guise as a rouse to hide thier true agenda.

Third is the white spremecy (anti-Japan) factor which I see alot here.

So the whale conservist movement is shrouded with marid of hidden agenda that has nothing to do with save the whale.

The polls support it and that makes it okay? Next Japan will support attacking China and relive wolrd war 2 horror? The poll makes things okay?

Without knowing how they conducted this survey, it is impossible for me to comment.

Was it conducted over the telphone, by fluent native Japanese people? On the street corner by Japanese-speaking Westerners? Over the internet, in what kind of context? Most Japanese will respond very differently depending on the situation.

Thomas Anderson

Whaling has many environmentally damaging consequences.

The above statement has no context without any substance to support your claim.

The 800,000 is based on a 1990 study and only for the Antarctic seas alone. The present IUCN Red List Ver.3.1 (2001) for minke whales is LEAST CONCERN meaning they are not an endagered spiecies.

I believe it would be wrong and in the nature of cultural imperialism for Ireland to attempt to impose our cultural values on those nations whose populations have depended on the whale for generations." I sense in these words a dawn of changes in the worldwide current on the whaling issue."

Irish Minister of Culture. Higgins

I don't think we will ever agree but it's good to see people with an open mind who doesn't come from a whaling background. If only people could tolerate cultural diversity instead of imposing their close minded culture imperialist views on others. I think this world would be better off.

So 1200 people out of how many million are asked by an international body for their opinion on whaling and the vast majority have no opinion. A small portion are against it and slightly more support it. Well l would dare say it hardly reflects the actual mood of the Japanese public. More likely the 28 odd percent answered the way they did purely on nationalistic grounds or because of who conducted the survey and the majority with no opinion where merely waiting to be told which way to vote. As we all know that the Japanese are not big on individual thinking

I don't think we will ever agree but it's good to see people with an open mind who doesn't come from a whaling background. If only people could tolerate cultural diversity instead of imposing their close minded culture imperialist views on others. I think this world would be better off.

You're making the same fallacy over and over again that this has anything to do with culture because you find whaling to be indefensible.

And anyway Western whaling nations like Norway and Iceland are also blamed so your claim that this is Western cultural imperialism is moot. Japan is not an exception.

My personal views, not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone.

(1) Is whaling a tradition? Was. (2) Is whaling Okay? - Yes, if it's a NECESSARY sustainable food source (3) Is whale meat tasty? - From what I've heard, yes. (4) Is it nutritious for growing children? Yes...but (5) Is whale meat a risk to health? Well, there have been numerous reports that it has high levels of mercury, like Blue Fin Tuna I will not give it to my little ones just yet. (6) Is it necessary to be on school lunch menus? Certainly not, is my tax paying for that?, hope not. (7) Is whaling bloody? - Yes, no tranquilizers for these mighty mammals. (8)Are our taxes (here in Japan) used for whaling purposes? From what Ive read yes, shame. Democracy prevails. (9) Is the above mentioned survey good to see some consensus on this issue? Certainly not.

I choice to NOT eat whale as I thinks not NECESSARY for peoples health, economic stability or culture. If you do so choice to eat meat, then I am not going to argue with you. Enjoy your meal, well at least your dog/cat will.

I wonder if any information regarding the amount of tax revenue spent on whaling was given when the questions were asked. If not, the figures would probably look very different.

In fact they do. 90% polled said they oppose using government money to build a new factory ship for whaling.

Canada and USA are also referred to as Anglo Saxon countries but they don't oppose whaling. They hunt whales. UK, NZ, Australia are anti whale culture imperialist extremists trying to impose their close minded views on whales onto others.

You should stop saying that they are cultural imperialist extremists just because they are anti-whaling. You are overreacting.

NZ, Australia are anti whale culture imperialist extremists trying to impose their close minded views on whales onto others.

Not at all. They just want the Antarctic waters, which are close to them, to become a whale sanctuary.

NZ, Australia are anti whale culture imperialist extremists trying to impose their close minded views on whales onto others.

Not at all. They just want the Antarctic waters, which are close to them, to become a whale sanctuary.

And let's not forget that NZ has a longer 'cultural' tradition of whaling antarctic waters than Japan.

@Thomas Anderson

Nobody is forcing whale meat on anybody but we Japanese certainly don't like to be forced into not eating whale meat for none other reason than you or other anti-whaling people feel its morally wrong and try to bully your perspectives. Many, most Japanese feel the same way.

@Zichi

If we Japanese no longer have interest in eating whale as you say just leave it alone and don't bother anyone about it and see where it leads. I bet we will continue eating whale for many generations forward. Just as we will continue to eat horse, raw fish, etc. Your argument that we don't have the culture to whale is silly, with modern tools and equipment, mankind including indigenous people's adapt with new technology just as the Native Americans utilized and adapted to the horses brought in by the Spaniards to hunt buffalo and wage war, do you think we Japanese don't have the right to advance our own hunting, fishing, farming practices culture with the advent of new technologies and know how regardless if it was founded on by western cultures? What's wrong with sustainable harvest of the ocean's creatures? Japan is 90% mountainous, the rest are cities, we don't have vast pastoral lands that many western countries have to raise livestock, we must utilize the ocean in proficient and sustainable ways.

At the end of the day, please use logic and sound reasoning not just an emotional based diatribe as to why Japan needs to succumb to anti-whaling groups wish to end all manners of hunting whales, dolphins. There is nothing to be ashamed of being Japanese and proud to harvest and eat whale.

Thomas Anderson: "You should stop saying that they are cultural imperialist extremists just because they are anti-whaling. You are overreacting."

Exactly. I said something along the same lines a little earlier, but the post disappeared. Evidently some people think that if you are pro-whaling (not pro-science, mind you, but pro-whaling) you are open-minded, but any objection to it and you are a 'close-minded cultural Imperialist'. If it weren't so sad, the hypocrisy would be amusing.

Nobody is forcing whale meat on anybody but we Japanese certainly don't like to be forced into not eating whale meat for none other reason than you or other anti-whaling people feel its morally wrong and try to bully your perspectives. Many, most Japanese feel the same way.

Right now Japanese people are free to eat whale meat, but only 5% of the population do.

And commercial whaling has been banned by IWC for more than 20 years, which Japan is a member of. So it's not even a matter of they can, because they clearly can't.

If we Japanese

Why do you say "we Japanese"? You don't speak for the Japanese people.

NihonRyu: "If we Japanese no longer have interest in eating whale as you say just leave it alone and don't bother anyone about it and see where it leads."

Japanese DON'T have interest in eating whale -- or at least some 90% + don't -- but people like yourself force it on the country by claiming it's culture (after the science lie fails). This is not opinion, it's fact -- as can be proven by the sheer amount of stock that is rotting in freezers only to be made into cat food later because no one wants it. Whaling is cronyism, bottom linen -- the people who do it cannot make any money from it, so the government subsidizes them with out taxes and more recently with Tohoku relief funds.

@ThomasAnderson Do you think Japan and the whale species would be better off with Japan leaving the IWC? It is a whaling commission isn't it? What's the purpose of a whaling commission that has no purpose to support scientific based sustainable whaling to protect future whale stocks? Ridiculous isn't it? That is probably why Norway and Iceland left the IWC. Lets not forget that it was mostly western cultures practice of non-sustainable whaling for hundreds of years discarding the meat that led to whale population decline in the first place. We Japanese eat and use almost all of the whale's valuable gift to us thus the many shrines dedicated to whales all around traditional Japanese whaling towns.

@NihonRyu

Do you think Japan and the whale species would be better off with Japan leaving the IWC?

Obviously, no. Do you think that it would be good for Japan?

What's the purpose of a whaling commission that has no purpose to support scientific based sustainable whaling to protect future whale stocks?

It is based on scientific findings.

That is probably why Norway and Iceland left the IWC.

They did not leave IWC.

Lets not forget that it was mostly western cultures practice of non-sustainable whaling for hundreds of years discarding the meat that led to whale population decline in the first place.

Blame it on Western nations all you want, but commercial whaling is unsustainable. Whale population is declining and whales reproduce extremely slowly.

We Japanese eat and use almost all of the whale's valuable gift to us thus the many shrines dedicated to whales all around traditional Japanese whaling towns.

Completely irrelevant hogwash fantasy. Commercial whaling is unsustainable, period. Japan is responsible for the decline of some whale species.

All readers, please do not bicker with each other. Focus your comments on the story. Posts that are impolite will be removed.

NihonRyu: "We Japanese eat and use almost all of the whale's valuable gift to us thus the many shrines dedicated to whales all around traditional Japanese whaling towns."

I thought it was for science.

NihonRyu: "There is not enough of us english speakers around reading Japan Today to counter and defend against the huge anti-japan foreign crowd like yourself."

And once again you prove that you are more of a detriment to the Japanese people than an objective participant -- you assume that anti-whaling equals anti-Japanese, despite most of Japan being apathetic to the issue, if not downright against it.

@SmithinJapan

Can you show me the link to the hordes of whale meat that is rotting in freezers? Also the 90% of Japanese that has never eaten whale? Please furnish proof from a reliable non anti whaling source preferably Japanese. Almost every Japanese and many foreigners in japan that I know have tried it and many like it. Is it as easily available and economical as chicken, pork, beef? No, but neither is horse which is eaten by many Japanese but not regularly as it is more scarce just as whale is. Whale is not seen here as a cheap food that is given to pets.!? Are you kidding? I can see the guts and non-choice cuts of whale being used in pet food perhaps but certainly not main good portions that can be seen provided by any number of izakayas and specialty restaurants across Japan.

NihonRyu: "We Japanese eat and use almost all of the whale's valuable gift to us thus the many shrines dedicated to whales all around traditional Japanese whaling towns."

Really? Then why the surplus rotting in freezers and/or forced on kids for school lunch?

It's on the article:

“The good people of Japan are taking whalemeat off the menu,” said Patrick Ramage, director of IFAW’s global whale program, citing the 88.8% of respondents who said they had not bought whalemeat in the last year.

I've eaten whale meat, various bits of the animal, in various dishes.

I'm afraid it doesn't move me.

I can eat almost anything, love all kinds of sashimi provided it's no longer moving, natto - great, umeboshi - no problem, plain boiled white rice - fine.

But whale meat just isn't good to eat.

It tastes like fishy beef.

Odd.

You never see it in supermarkets.

I wonder who eats this stuff?

So here we are at the annual time of year where diplomacy breaks down and the true battle begins. The Japanese whalers financed by the "tsunami relief fund" and taxes will waste billions more yen to attempt to kill whales in a designated sanctuaty: not because the meat is needed or that the majority of the tax payers (or indeed even 1/3) want it, but to prove to the world that they will not be told what to do! ( What a sad bit of insecurity group therapy would be much cheaper)

For me this is also the time where I feel like trying to resolve this through communication is poinless. Ultimately the nationals can't see this is an environmental or biological or humanitarian issue but want to make it some personal assaullt to their .... boo hoo hoo ...

If the Japanese gov. persists in 2013 there will most likely be a boycott and the Nationals and pro whalers can point their bitter little fingers at the rest of the world but it's the Japanese public , only 25% of which support whaling in the first place, that will suffer.

I've tried whale meat and IMO, nothing to write home about...........has a funny smell about it too. Wouldn't call it 'bad' but not exactly my idea of 'oishii' either......

Right now Japanese people are free to eat whale meat, but only 5% of the population do.

Of course. If an item is not marketed and promoted, it doesn't get popular (almost by definition).

And commercial whaling has been banned by IWC for more than 20 years, which Japan is a member of.

Actually, it isn't a ban. It's a moratorium. Which was imposed for the specific purpose of determining the future of whaling, meaning they needed to get data on how fast they replenish, which whales would be the best ones to harvest, how many could be harvested while not endangering the relevant species, etc, etc.

The implicit understanding of a moratorium is that it is temporary.

So it's not even a matter of they can, because they clearly can't.

Sure they can. All they have to do is resign from the ICW. Which, if you will recall, they were coerced into joining in the first place by the U.S. Which then proceeded to screw them over anyway. Heck, they could have walked away at that point just on bad faith alone, and no one would have been able to blame them. But, as a sign of compromise, they chose to stay, and to put their whaling industry in danger by freezing it, while keeping it marginally alive through the research clause. And yes, they do actually do valid, legitimate, research, which does provide significant data on the life cycle of the whale. Why wouldn't they? They need this data in order to create a sustainable industry.

Why don't they get this data through non-lethal means? Well, asides from the increased danger and the likelihood of failed testing (one gets the impression that some of the scientists promoting biopsy darts have never had to try shooting a moving whale on a rocking ship wearing full cold weather gear in the middle of the Antarctic), the overarching reason is if they didn't kill whales, what little remains of their whaling experience dies. Being that the Japanese never pretended that they were giving up whaling forever, it would be somewhat foolish to allow that to happen. Re-starting an industry with no experienced hands is an expensive and difficult process.

So, Japan does indeed have options on the table. They can stay in the ICW and try to get the moratorium lifted on the basis of sustainability. They can stay in the ICW and keep on their compromise of research whaling. If they want to be dicks about it, they can re-new their initial objection and still whale, like Norway does. They can walk away from the ICW and go it alone. They can walk away from the ICW and join NAMMCO, which at least can honestly claim to be a commission concerned with sustainable whaling, and not just an excuse to asphyxiate the whaling industry to death.

NihonRyu: "Almost every Japanese and many foreigners in japan that I know have tried it and many like it."

Ask any kid if they prefer hamburgers or whale meat and almost all say the former. It's well documented, though I suppose any proof you're going to simply dismiss as 'anti-whaling' and ignore the actual argument. This isn't 1945, when people partook of whale meat as a form of nutrition, nor should whaling under the guise of scientific research be allowed because a few old men miss the good old days.

Here's but one of literally THOUSANDS of resources showing the facts. Like I said, though, you'll likely just dismiss it as 'anti-whaling Imperialism... bla bla bla' because you don't like it. And dismiss it all you want, this article, or a similar version, appeared on JT some time ago much to the chagrin of mercury-poisoned people across the nation.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/distaste-leaves-whale-meat-sales-in-japan-high-and-dry/story-fnb64oi6-1226396682864

Note the last paragraph: "The current stockpile of about 4,700 tonnes is 1,000 tonnes less than it was two years ago, partly because of the tsunami last March, which destroyed 81 freezers containing an estimated 200 to 300 tonnes of whale."

Of course. If an item is not marketed and promoted, it doesn't get popular (almost by definition).

So in other words, you must force them or deliberately encourage them to eat whale meat before you can even attempt to justify whaling. But this isn't even about the consumption of whale meat, it's about PROTECTING WHALES, which the IWC has correctly banned commercial whaling for this very purpose. Whether the Japanese people or anyone enjoy whale meat or not does not matter in the slightest. It was about "scientific research", remember? Japanese people can only support "scientific research" of whales, by killing thousands of them, by spending tens of millions of tax-payers' dollars per yer, which seems absurd.

It seems strange to me, that the Japanese government, and some Japanese pro-whalers, are happy to spend tens of millions of tax-payers' money per year on "scientific research" of whales. Why are they so intensely supportive of conducting scientific research on whales that have little to no scientific merit?

Thomas Anderson

I don't think that research has any merit

I don't think that your opinion is formed on proper information.

ICJ is currently considering merits of Japan's research, through their process. Not through trial by biased western anti-whaling media.

Please wait for a little while, and if Japan wins ICJ case, then please be mature and create new opinion based on decision of the ICJ. Please do not ignore ICJ decision and stick to a baseless opinion.

I said if whales can consciously feel suffering then it would be considered unethical.

You judgement and ethics are yours, not of those who would eat whales or many many other types of animals.

Please, enlighten me on what merit does the scientific research of whales have? Is it really worth spending tens of millions of dollars per year? Is it even necessary to kill them?

ihope2eatwhales: "Please do not ignore ICJ decision and stick to a baseless opinion."

And yet how many times has Japan threatened to pull out of the ICJ when judgement doesn't go in their favour, despite the landlocked African countries Japan bribes with hookers and alcohol voting for them? If the ICJ judgement goes against Japan, will you honestly sing the same tune? or will it be more of the same, "attack on Japanese culture" rubbish that makes most pro-whalers' arguments moot?

So in other words, you must force them or deliberately encourage them to eat whale meat before you can even attempt to justify whaling.

You can't force customers to buy your product. Really, it's kind of common sense.

But yes, if you want your product to be successful, which will lead to your industry being profitable, you do have to deliberately encourage it. Nothing sells itself.

It's called "Marketing".

But this isn't even about the consumption of whale meat,

Any argument calling into question the profitability of the whaling industry pretty much requires inclusion of factors affecting whale consumption.

it's about PROTECTING WHALES,

For you, maybe it is. Not for Japan, and not for the ICW.

For Japan, it is about protecting the whales from decline in order to maintain sustainable whaling. For the ICW, it is (or it should be) about gathering information that will allow whaling in a controlled, effective, and efficient manner, ideally in a way that promotes greater biodiversity in the environment.

which the IWC has correctly banned commercial whaling for this very purpose.

Well, half its purpose. It placed a moratorium (which is a temporary ban) for "a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks" and "the establishment of other catch limits".

Whether the Japanese people or anyone enjoy whale meat or not does not matter in the slightest.

I worry when people start trying to legalize their version of morality.

It was about "scientific research", remember?

It still is. It certainly isn't about industry. Many people have pointed out that the government has to give the whalers grants, and any profits made on the meat are entirely recycled into the program, both situations being so common in research they are almost cliches. If they wanted to make an industry out of it, they would have to up their output by quite a bit.

Japanese people can only support "scientific research" of whales, by killing thousands of them, by spending tens of millions of tax-payers' dollars per yer, which seems absurd.

It seems absurd to you that scientific research can only be supported with tax payer's money? Asides from government grants and private corporations, how else are you going to fund research? Very little scientific research is profitable enough to support itself. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.

And yes, thousands of samples are required in order to get an accurate representation of a population. That's basic science.

zichi

If Japan are able to make sustainable whaling, why is it, that it now needs to go to end of the earth, the Antarctic to find them?

Japan does not need to. Whales are found in Western North Pacific also. As for the Antarctic Ocean, there are more than half a million minke whales there. It is the most plentiful in the world. It is the natural sustainable use to harvest from most abundant of all stocks of whales.

There is no conservation reason not to have sustainable harvest from such large stock of whales.

If you oppose whaling, it would make more sense if you would oppose harvesting of smaller stocks of whales in Western North Pacific first.

Maybe it is a possible compromise.

BertieWooster

You never see it in supermarkets.

No, I do. Maybe you are talking about yourself, as one who does not look so carefully as those who do hope to eat whales.

There is whale in my local supermarket, and of course I have enjoyed eating it from time to time.

ICJ is currently considering merits of Japan's research, through their process. Not through trial by biased western anti-whaling media. Please wait for a little while, and if Japan wins ICJ case, then please be mature and create new opinion based on decision of the ICJ. Please do not ignore ICJ decision and stick to a baseless opinion.

Your name implies the consumption of whales, which is not the purpose of scientific research of whales. Even if the ICJ decides that the scientific research of whales has any merit, the purpose is not the consumption of whale meat, or even about whaling.

Why are the Japanese government and pro-whalers (I mean pro-scientific researchers) so intensely curious of finding things about whales?

(excuse the numerous typos, grammar mistakes in my last post)

How many whales do they need to kill to research a species, how many years?, what are they researching exactly? Whale population?, migration paths?, biological research?, no, no silly me, it's the taste, each year the ocean bares fresh meat, like a fine wine each years is different?

I can see the guts and non-choice cuts of whale being used in pet food

No you can't. The bits that aren't worth freezing (or preserving in salt as 'gifts' to the crew, nudge, nudge) get chucked overboard in the Antarctic - bones, blood and guts, about 40% of each carcass.

Almost every Japanese and many foreigners in japan that I know have tried it and many like it.

Yes, and it's for research, right? Porkie alert.

Close to 90% of Japanese have not eaten whale meat in the past year. The Japanese are typically passionate about food. If they liked it, they'd be buying it whatever the price. They don't buy it because they don't like it.

asides from the increased danger and the likelihood of failed testing (one gets the impression that some of the scientists promoting biopsy darts have never had to try shooting a moving whale on a rocking ship wearing full cold weather gear in the middle of the Antarctic)

What 'increased danger'? How is shooting a biopsy dart any more dangerous than shooting an exploding harpoon? The virtual impossibility of getting a clean shot when shooting a moving whale on a rocking ship wearing full cold weather gear in the middle of the Antarctic is what makes whale hunting so inhumane - there is no guarantee of a quick death for the animal. At least with a badly-aimed biopsy dart the worst that can happen is no sample gets taken. A badly-aimed exploding harpoon can mean an animal having a hole blown in its body leading to extreme pain, shock and eventual death from either bleeding or drowning.

cabadaje

Any argument calling into question the profitability of the whaling industry pretty much requires inclusion of factors affecting whale consumption.

Head palm. Commercial whaling is banned by the IWC, which I'm pretty sure that means that commercialization of whale meat is also banned.

For you, maybe it is. Not for Japan, and not for the ICW.

IWC has banned commercial whaling, which Japan is a member of hence it has agreed to its ban.

What 'increased danger'?

Perhaps that's something you should look into. No good knowing just one side of the argument.

there is no guarantee of a quick death for the animal.

Then perhaps more research is needed into that.

At least with a badly-aimed biopsy dart the worst that can happen is no sample gets taken.

But even with a successful one, you still have the problem of no whale being taken either.

Really folks, it's about pro-scientific research or anti-scientific research of whales, since commercial whaling is banned by the IWC. It's not even about pro-whaling or anti-whaling. What you are only allowed to do is selling the remains of the "scientific research".

So the "thumbs down" I got means that people are "angry" that I suggested not using taxpayer money for whaling? I didn't even say ban all whaling.

@NihinRyu How can you on the one hand be in awe of the majestic whales and at the same time enjoy munching on them?

I was in the Nagoya Aquarium just over a week ago and I was upset at seeing dolphins and Belugas in big tanks, patrolling back and forth, slowly going out of their minds... I don't see them as food. I CAN'T see them as food. To me they are sentient creatures: they have emotions, family ties, a language, social structure...

My friend didn't understand why I was upset to see the Beluga and dolphins in the tanks. We both come from Island cultures, yet our view of whales is so markedly different.

AriesKJJ,

For me this is also the time where I feel like trying to resolve this through communication is poinless.

Communication is two-way, not one way from you. Maybe it is why you feel as you do?

Ultimately the nationals can't see this is an environmental or biological or humanitarian issue

Whaling is not environmental issue. It is just simple issue of cultural difference. People such as you cling to your anti-whaling culture, and seek to impose on others. Instead of just deciding your culture, you try to decide the culture of others.

There are 500,000 minke whales in the Antarctic Ocean. No proper biologist would say such small catch of them is environmental issue.

If the Japanese gov. persists in 2013 there will most likely be a boycott

Why would 2013 be different from 1987 ~ 2012? (Maybe you mean China would participate this time?)

the Japanese public , only 25% of which support whaling in the first place

Only 25% according to IFAW. It is an anti-whaling group, not independent polster.

Ihopetoeatwhales-san,

No, I do. Maybe you are talking about yourself, as one who does not look so carefully as those who do hope to eat whales.

There is whale in my local supermarket, and of course I have enjoyed eating it from time to time.

You don't live in Okinawa, then.

I've never seen it here in any supermarket or fish market.

I have seen "bacon" in Hokkaido. But not here.

It's true that I've not particularly looked for it, but I would have noticed it if it had been here.

Head palm.

Stop hitting yourself. It really is less am intellectual habit and more a childish one.

Commercial whaling is banned by the IWC, which I'm pretty sure that means that commercialization of whale meat is also banned.

Then you really should stop using whaling industry arguments.

You can't have it both ways. If you are going to refer to commercial aspects, such as profitability or demand, you have to allow the other side to present commercial aspects as well, i.e. marketing. If you are refusing the inclusion of commercial aspects, then you have to deal with the facts from the perspective of research.

IWC has banned commercial whaling, which Japan is a member of hence it has agreed to its ban.

Already answered. If you cannot counter the points, that's fine, if you don't understand them, please ask for clarification, but please don't just ignore them. They aren't going to go away.

cabadaje, are you aware that commercial whaling is actually banned, and that Japan has agreed to its ban? Ok, now let's move on...

cabadaje: "It certainly isn't about industry. "

Really? Doesn't seem to be the defense of the government when asked why they used Tohoku relief funds for whaling -- they said specifically that said funds were used to prop up areas industries that depend on whaling (despite them contradicting themselves that it's for science, I might add!).

So the "thumbs down" I got means that people are "angry" that I suggested not using taxpayer money for whaling? I didn't even say ban all whaling.

No, no, the "Thumbs Down" just means that there are two posters who aren't even bothering to evaluate posts on their reason or logic, but rather on whether they agree to being anti-whaling or not. If it even feels like you are not rabidly against anything that might imply that whaling is anything other than evil, you get a thumbs down.

ihope2eatwhales: "Whaling is not environmental issue. It is just simple issue of cultural difference. People such as you cling to your anti-whaling culture, and seek to impose on others."

I thought it was about science, but clearly you agree it's not. Good on you for refusing to side-step the obvious and admit to the illegal.

smithinjapan,

Ask any kid if they prefer hamburgers or whale meat

If you ask kids who tried fried whale, I think you will find 50/50. I never heard of anyone who does not like fried whale, even non-Japanese I have eaten with love it so much. Raw whale was too challenging for some non-Japanese though.

It's well documented

I have never heard of such crazy and pointless study myself. Only anti-whaler should find the result interesting. Everyone else would understand that many people like whale, irrespective of arbitrary comparison with hamburgers.

nor should whaling under the guise of scientific research be allowed because a few old men miss the good old days.

The reason it is allowed is written in whaling convention itself, not because old men miss old days.

Note the last paragraph: "The current stockpile of about 4,700 tonnes is 1,000 tonnes less than it was two years ago, partly because of the tsunami last March, which destroyed 81 freezers containing an estimated 200 to 300 tonnes of whale."

What is your claim? Besides decrease due to tsunami, you mean stockpile has decreased by around net 700~800 tonnes. It means a minimum 700~800 tonnes of whale was eaten. Minimum.

If anti-whalers would permit commercial whaling, I am sure consumption would increase due to extra whale to be eaten. This is my ardent hope.

Really? Doesn't seem to be the defense of the government when asked why they used Tohoku relief funds for whaling -- they said specifically that said funds were used to prop up areas industries that depend on whaling (despite them contradicting themselves that it's for science, I might add!).

It's precisely the defense the government claimed. Remember, research whaling and commercial whaling are both still whaling. Industries that depend on whaling don't really care why the whales are brought in (though they would prefer commercial, as it leads to more whales, therefore more business, therefore more profit.

If Japan's whaling is for hunting and food and not for research, which it clearly it isn't and all the pro whalers on this post are stating that too, then it breaks the IWC treaty which Japan is a signature of.

How so?

cabadaje, I still don't think that you get it... There's no such thing as the whaling industry, because commercial whaling is banned. There's only scientific research of whales.

I have never eaten whale meat before, but because many Westerners are against it & speaking eloquently about it & getting violent about it, I have decided to make it a point to look for whale meat on my next visit to Japan.

ihope2eatwales: "If you ask kids who tried fried whale, I think you will find 50/50."

Any stats to back this up? I can't give you the stats to prove my point at the moment, but recall it being an actual survey a few years back. The kids aren't going to be for fried whale just because you wish it so.

"The reason it is allowed is written in whaling convention itself, not because old men miss old days."

But that's the main reason, when Japanese cannot defend the fact that it's not for science, it is pushed -- whine whine.... Japanese culture..... whine whine..... I remember eating blubber as a child.... whine whine.

"What is your claim? Besides decrease due to tsunami, you mean stockpile has decreased by around net 700~800 tonnes. It means a minimum 700~800 tonnes of whale was eaten. Minimum."

Wow, somebody can't read! No, it means that much was washed away or destroyed by the tsunami, as it clearly states.

cabadaje, I still don't think that you get it... There's no such thing as the whaling industry, because commercial whaling is banned. There's only scientific research of whales.

Already answered. If you acknowledge that the whaling is for research, you don't get to use arguments regarding commercial failure.

What 'increased danger'?

Perhaps that's something you should look into. No good knowing just one side of the argument.

Since you brought it up, maybe you could enlighten me. The Aussies seem to think that biopsy darts and nets to catch whale pooh are way better, safer and more environmentally safer than exploding harpoons

But even with a successful one, you still have the problem of no whale being taken either.

But if the aim is scientific research, surely the fewer animals sacrificed, the better. That's the basis of the regulations covering lab animals used in research.

It's amazing how all the pro-whalers insist Japan is adhering to the IWC convention, yet at the same time agree that the whales are being killed for their meat. It's a wonder their heads don't explode with the irreconcilable contradictions raging inside.

if you want your product to be successful, which will lead to your industry being profitable, you do have to deliberately encourage it. Nothing sells itself.

I can't remember the last time I saw an advert for blue-fin tuna, yet for some reason it sells like crazy.

Mmm, not for some reason; for the very good reason that people like it. If they liked whale, they'd queue up to buy it. I don't see any queues.

There's no such thing as the whaling industry, because commercial whaling is banned. There's only scientific research of whales. Yet the IWC disagree.

Who to believe?

Already answered. If you acknowledge that the whaling is for research, you don't get to use arguments regarding commercial failure.

I'm not being against whaling on the basis of commercial failure in the first place... I don't even care about the commercial aspect of whaling. It's about the protection of whales which means that it should not even be commercialized in the first place. Besides it's already banned, and that's reality.

It really does seem like that Japan is conducting scientific research by killing whales in order to resume whaling... Well that really is twisted Japanese logic at its finest...

After halting its commercial whaling, Japan began scientific research hunts to provide a basis for the resumption of sustainable whaling.

However, it would be highly ironic if their own very research concluded that whaling is NOT sustainable, and hence they must end whaling for good:

The study also contradicted previously presented JARPA data used to indicate Antarctic Minke whale populations were healthy.

That would be the definition of "shooting themselves in the foot".

@SmithinJapan

Your link to your source that whale meat is not being sold is from an Australian newspaper, hardly a source that I would call non-biased about the whaling issue. Couldn't find anything on Japanese sites that agee confirms this information.

Zaichi

Kansai is full of whale meat restuarnts, harihari nabe is whale meat stew, saezuri in a Kanto-daki is whale toungue, Kujira no tatsuta-age was a local soul food, kujira becon is sold everywhere around these days.

Anyone who is over 30 and went to a public school here in Japan had whales meat for lunch at least once and it had made a come back since they are serving whale meat at more than 5000 schools from 2009.

It is more popular than many people whats you to believe.

NihonRyu: "hardly a source that I would call non-biased"

Like I said... you'll refuse to acknowledge any and all proof, despite it being rock solid, so long as it does not agree with you. Let me guess, you'd wish me to quote 2-Channel on the issue?

Where can we find an unbiased source for how much whale meat is sold/ eaten every year?

Oh yeah, one more thing. The science research is done to see if commercial whaling is sustainable which is the only single issue that is blocking the lifting of the moratorium that was set in 1982 which was suppose to have been lifted after there was enough evidence that whaling certain spiecies were sustainable. Japan provided various scientific research concerning the sustainability of the minke whale for commercial whaling but some nations refuse to accept so Japan is out to do more research to prove it is sustainable for commercial whaling.

Really a moratorium is supose to be temporary that is why they call it a "MORATORIUM", IWC is a international regulation entity for WHALING.

If a nation is against whaling why even enlist to an international entity that promote whaling in the first place?

Get out of IWC go to ICJ and make a case not stonewall the natural process. Many of the anti- whaling nations are acting like PRC and/or ROK shouting "We are the righteous" and yet gets cold feet when it comes to walking the walk.

From that point I commend the Australians, at least they went to ICJ although they still claw their seat in IWC.

"A whale isn't a fish, it's an insect."

Peter Cook

It is more popular than many people whats you to believe.

If whale meat was so popular, then why is 75% of the whale meat left unsold? Facts and figures speak more than mere anecdotal evidence.

The science research is done to see if commercial whaling is sustainable

Which is just about the most ridiculous thing ever... It's not necessary to kill them in order to prove that it's sustainable or not...

Thomas Anderson

Please read, sustainable for commercial whaling. It's in bold TWICE.

As for the stock, Japan consumes until the next season stock comes in. If there was a large surplus don't you think the supply would double in volume every year?

...Yes. It's not necessarily to kill them. You can find that out without killing them.

As for the stock, Japan consumes until the next season stock comes in. If there was a large surplus don't you think the supply would double in volume every year?

...What?

No commercial whaling was not banned it was suspended under a MORATORIUM. Whaling went on until the early 80's when moratorium went into effect.

One more thing whales is NOT a single spiecies by the way to get this point straight since some people are ignorant to even this fact.

Moral is something not relevant and if you what to talk what is moral or not then I suggest talking to a preist or a philosopher since it has nothing to do with minke whale spiecies sustainability through commercial whaling.

No commercial whaling was not banned it was suspended under a MORATORIUM.

Yes. That practically means banned.

ban 1 (bn) tr.v. banned, ban·ning, bans

To prohibit, especially by official decree:

Moral is something not relevant and if you what to talk what is moral or not then I suggest talking to a preist or a philosopher since it has nothing to do with minke whale spiecies sustainability through commercial whaling.

It's 100% relevant. We're talking about whether you support whaling (sorry, scientific research) or not. You can be against whaling on moral grounds. You don't have to be a priest of a philosopher in order to discuss morals.

Pro whalers and nationals - Calling What the Japanese government and whaling industry does in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary scientific research is naive or cowardly. If what you are doing cant pass the truth test then stop what what you are doing.

""Sorry Thomas but moral has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is "Is commercial whaling of minke whales sustainable or not" if yes then the moratorium can be lifted if not then IWC needs to set a date on when it can be lifted. If there is not enough fact then further scientific research is required. Nothing to do with conscience.

@SmithinJapan

No I am just asking for a source to the information from a respectable Japanese news organization such as Yomiuri, Asahi, Mainichi shinbun, etc.

@Zichi

Is there a Japanese article that confirms the unsold whale meat information due to its unpopularty? My local Izakaya owner tells me that whale meat is expensive and rather scarce instead due to the moratorium on commercial whaling. Perhaps my seaside locale and population are accustomed to eating whale more but around my parts we all have eaten whale in he past year and most on a monthly or weekly basis such as I and is available at all the major supermarkets.

Summer is the start of sell the the meat since winter is the hunting season. Tell me how much is left next summer beofre this year's catch is broght back and you may have some point but it really doesn't matter since it's about resuming commercial whaling of minke whales or not based on the scientific research turned in by Japan as evidence that commercial whaling of Minke whales is sustainable as discussed when the MORATORIUM was placed into effect in 1986.

One more thing the price of whale meat at the moment is sold with a premium since it has to pay the cost of research as well as the ship has to be under a Japanese flag with Japanese sailers. After commercial whaling resumes the price of whale meat would go down.

@NihonRyu

"75% of whale meat unsold at auction" Thursday, June 14, 2012 - http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120614a7.html

A quick google search can lead you to countless news articles.

@Thunderbird2

Who dictates what traditions should due out? We Japanese should choose our own destiny whether we contine whaling or not and shouldn't be forced down our throats to stop us based on others cultural perspectives. Btw- we eat horses too and love it! I guess your against that too? Love horseback riding and horses but horse sashimi is excellent just as whale sashimi is tasty as well. If there is enough market and interest in Japan to keep sustainable whaling in place what's the dilemna?

Is there a Japanese article that confirms the unsold whale meat information due to its unpopularty?

日本が北太平洋の調査捕鯨で得た肉の販売方法として、昨年初めて実施した入札で、売り出した約1210トンのうち、４分の３が落札されずに売れ残った...日本人の鯨肉離れや鯨肉人気の低迷を印象づける結果となった

In tenders held for the first time this year as a means of marketing the meat of whales taken in the North Pacific by Japan, of the approx. 1210 tons offered for sale three-quarters remained unsold.....underlining the move away from the custom of eating whale meat, and its unpopularity

http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXNASDG1300L_T10C12A6CR0000/

You should stop saying that they are cultural imperialist extremists just because they are anti-whaling. You are overreacting.

Sure Thomas, right after you stop calling everyone who supports it a "nationalist".

I've eaten whale plenty of times in Japan. Tastes pretty good to me. SS and that lot need to stop fooling around and get real jobs.

I am from Norway. Our Viking ancestor have been eating Whale meats for thousand of years. It made them tougher, healthier, stronger and withstand the harsh weather and wind for their voyage. There is nothing wrong about eating Whale meat. Japanese do not need to bend the outside pressure for giving up their cultural heritage and sea adventure. They have to made up their mind with natural instinct not because of political correctness.

Even Japanese stop eating Whale, Scandinavians will never given up their ancestral rights of whaling and eating whale burger is simply irreplaceable.

If anti-whalers would permit commercial whaling, I am sure consumption would increase due to extra whale to be eaten. This is my ardent hope.

Hmmm. So the little whale meat they get now doesn't sell. So why would whaling more increase consumption???

One more thing the price of whale meat at the moment is sold with a premium since it has to pay the cost of research as well as the ship has to be under a Japanese flag with Japanese sailers. After commercial whaling resumes the price of whale meat would go down.

Wrong. Supply is already more than demand.

the price of whale meat at the moment is sold with a premium since it has to pay the cost of research

It doesn't pay the cost of research. The huge government subsidies do that. When the meat was offered at tender, three-quarters remained unsold, some because bids did not reach the asking price, some because there were no bids at all. Looks like the icr would rather hang on to the frozen meat (and the government subsidies) than get at least a bit of money back by selling the meat cheap. If they held annual everything-must-go clearance sales at whatever price was needed to empty the deep freezes before the ships came back half-empty from the southern ocean debacle each year, you might have more people buying whalemeat if only out of curiosity. But the icr doesn't want to promote 'traditional Japanese culture', it wants to make a profit.

There is nothing wrong about eating Whale meat.

Agreed. It's the killing that's the problem. By all means eat the ones found beached and dead. Like eating roadkill, much more ethical than either hunting or factory farming.

SamuraiBlue: "As for the stock, Japan consumes until the next season stock comes in. If there was a large surplus don't you think the supply would double in volume every year?"

Nope. They keep doing it anyway, the government pays for the whaling via subsidies (which come from disaster aid of late), then pays the whalers off exhorbitant amounts for the stock and it rots in freezers until it is no longer fit for consumption by humans and is ground up into pet food.

I guess some people doesn't know how real auction is done. Unlike various online bids there is a LOWEST STARTING PRICE set and the bid becomes falls through if the bids does not surpass that price.

The researchers places the cost on top of presumed market price as lowest starting price so there is a premium on top as I stated above. They are not to make a profit or even disload surplus since if they sold it below their calculated price then it is as same as throwing it away which violates article 8 of IWC scientific research whaling.

if they sold it below their calculated price then it is as same as throwing it away which violates article 8 of IWC scientific research whaling.

No. Throwing it away (like they do with the 40% of the carcass they don't bother to drag back to Japan) would violate Article 8. Selling it, for whatever price, is not in violation of Article 8. Article 8 does not say the 'researchers' have to make or not make a profit from the 'byproducts' of their 'research'. In fact Article 8 says that it's the government, not the researchers, that decides what happens to the byproducts. If the government were to decide the meat should all be distributed totally free of charge, then that would be in keeping with Article 8.

Article 8 says -

2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.

smithinjapan: "it rots in freezers until it is no longer fit for consumption by humans and is ground up into pet food."

If it were so, as SamuraiBlue says, such large surplus of meat would mean the size would double in volume every year. (You may know that meat can be kept in frozen storage for many years due to the modern freezing technology.)

However, you showed yourself that it stock does not double, but actually decreased by net 700 - 800 tonnes in one year.

zichi,

There's a very large tonnage of whale meat in freezers unsold from previous seasons. This is 4,000+ tons.

4,000+ tonnes is very small, not large. Maximum supply of whale in history was more than 200,000 tonnes.

Please think of number of Japanese people who would eat whale. More than 10 million at least, if we believe IFAW statistics of people who bought whale meat.

4,000 tonnes does not provide so many meals for so many people.

I imagine even more people would buy if they had a good chance, e.g. plentiful supply and reasonable price. I know, I would buy more regularly if it were possible.

zichi

500 yen per 100 grams, that is about the same as the BEST WAGYU BEEF sold on the market. It just shows how the lowest bidding price reflects the premium to offset the research cost.

Environmentalists routinely condemn the hunt and maintain it does not have the support of Japanese people.

Well, they are clearly wrong. Most of the Japanese people I speak to support Whaling and think that these environmentalists are just hectoring, jobless, hypocritical foreigners who should stop telling Japanese how to behave/what to think etc (i.e.the west social democrats from English speaking countries do). If you want to anger a Japanese person just say the magic words Sea Shepherd.

Japanese people often do want to give their opinions in a public poll so if it was a secret ballot the results would be much higher.

"If the whole story was told, the poll might be different, but the large percentage that don't actually give a stuff is more favorable to opposers than supporters."

See my above comment. Not giving an opinion does not mean they dont have one. More Japanese support Whaling than like hearing tedious foreigners criticize their culture and eating habits. How come Norway doesnt get visits from Sea Shepherd?

I guess maths isn't your strongest strength.

Perhaps you need to look into how much was sold during the entire year in various fishing ports and markets.

Fishery Agency provides this on a monthly basis which basically summarizes each marine products. According to their stats, as of August of 2011, there were 4,247 Metric tons of inventory. During the course of the next 12 months, there was 4,597 Metric tons delivered to ports. The ending stocks for August of 2012 was 4,074 Metric tons which means over 4,700 Metric tons were sold during that 12 month period.

http://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/kouhyou/suisan_ryutu/reizou_ryutu/index.html

As for the 75% unsold at auction business, that was the first time that the ICR decided to try the auction as opposed to directly selling them to the wholesalers/distributors in hopes of increasing the price. Hence, 75% unsold simply means that the seller did not accept the bid.

If the anti-whaler's position is that the whaling industry itself would not exist based on low demand, they should all be for lifting the moratorium (hence the removal of government subsidy) and let the industry just dissapear.

I will read the link you provided. Only about 1,000 tons of whale meat was landed from the last trip to the Antarctic. Where did the other tonnage come from?

We're you the one that linked about "unsold" whale meat propaganda BS from North Pacific?

Even if 6,000 tons of whale meat were sold in the last year, it still would not cover the ¥6 billion of costs

In other words, remove the tedious aspects of biology analysis costs then it would be profitable. Thanks.

well that's just not possible under the current IWC treaty since its about "whaling research" and not "whale hunting".

Then what are you arguing about? Under the current "research" system, it's not self sustaining simply because the market cannot absorb the "additional" research costs hence the government subsidies. Remove the tedious research aspects (i.e. lifting the moratorium) then the additional costs are removed whereby the market price substantially offsets the now normal operating costs associated with the fishing industry. Make ICR and other organization a taxable 財団法人 in which the profits they attain are now taxable.

well that's just not possible under the current IWC treaty since its about "whaling research" and not "whale hunting".

in case you forgot IWC stands for International Whaling Commission. Which means management of whales. It is a club for whale hunters. Therefore, whether scientific or whale hunting it means hunting whales. If you don´t like whale hunting then you should not be a member of IWC.

The Convention states that its intention is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.

http://www.iwcoffice.org/history-and-purpose

Therefore when anti whaling countries sign this declaration they have no choice but to work in the best industry of the whaling industry. If they can´t live up to their promise, they become liars. Such as UK, Australia and NZ.

And by imposing their views on whales on other people they become culture imperialists.

If you don´t like whale hunting then you should not be a member of IWC.

since1985andersen

Agreed. While the anti-whalers talk about the so-called "loophole" that Japan allegedly practices despite the fact that such conducts are allowed under Article 8, the most glaring "loophole" I see is that certain anti-whaling nations can join or remain a member of an organization that calls for "orderly development of the whaling industry".

Speaking of science Philip Hammond, Chairman of IWC scientific committee,resigned due to countries rejecting the Revised Management Procedure due to reasons not having anything to do with science. They just don´t get it that sustainable whaling can be done. They are not interested in RMP because they don´t want people to hunt whales. Period. Whether stocks are abundant or the hunt sustainable. It´s not as if Japan is forcing whale meat on Australians. So why do they feel the need to impose their views on whales to Japan? Culture imperialists.

@nigelboy Thanks for the more indepth research into the issue to invalidate the anti-whaling proponents claim about the unsold whale meet. Every owner of a restaurant that serves whale has also said if it wasn't for the moratorium on commercial whaling they could provide much more whale at a lower cost. What I paid for the choice Fluke meat in Tokyo was quite high perhaps equal or more than wagyu beef. I hate it when cultural imperialists such as anti-whalers. nose around on what we r allowed to eat.

That would be Japan which is member of the IWC and a signature to the treaty banning commercial whaling

No. That would be the anti-whaling nations who are current members of IWC which is for the orderly development of the whaling industry who refuse to lift the moratorium despite the scientific evidence presented to the Scientific Committee.

That would be Japan which is member of the IWC and a signature to the treaty banning commercial whaling.

Which treaty are you talking about? You need to be more specific and a source. Thanks.

I think a more suitable title for this article would be related to how Japan can justify whaling if only 26% at most think it should continue.

The situation is quite simple:

The Japanese government exploits a loophole in the IWC's treaty language (the clause allowing "scientific whaling") in order to subsidize a dying industry (because most of the meat doesn't get sold due to lack of demand) in economically depressed rural communities with few other employment options.

The question Japanese voters need to ask themselves on this issue is not "Why should we change our food traditions to suit outsiders?", it's "Should my taxes be used to kill whales that mostly don't get eaten anyway in order to keep some people employed, or is there a better way my taxes could be used?"

Governments do this sort of thing all the time, especially if it can result in votes in key constituencies

Votes? Didn't know "whaling" was one of the issues raised by political parties/candidates in this upcoming election or the elections before that.

The question Japanese should be asking is why should "whale meat" be considered a "delicacy" instead of being part of a reasonable alternative just because some outsiders who don't consume this don't like it?

Should my taxes be used to kill whales that mostly don't get eaten anyway in order to keep some people employed, or is there a better way my taxes could be used?"

If there is no profit in hunting whales and this industry is dying out then there is no reason for culture imperialists to vote against Japan wanting to resume commercial whaling. Besides, if they vote against Japan they are not doing their jobs at IWC which is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry. Ethical standards are culturally defined. They must not be imposed upon other cultures. If any such attempts are made through political or economic pressure, this fulfils all the criteria for the concepts of "cultural chauvinism" or " cultural imperialism".

World opinion" has proscribed whaling Pure presumptuousness! This opinion is almost exclusively found in densely populated urban Western societies, where people have become alienated from nature and where care for pet animals compensates for weakened family ties and social bonds. These societies - perhaps 20% of the world population - may be the most outspoken and influential, but by no means do they represent "World Opinion". Incidentally, these very societies have emerged from the Eurocentric culture, which has a woeful history of colonialism and a lamentable habit of deliberately ignoring the values found in foreign cultures. When it comes to whaling, these societies still fail to acknowledge the democratic right of dissident minorities.

Klaus Barthelmess University of Cologne, Germany

See my above comment. Not giving an opinion does not mean they dont have one. More Japanese support Whaling than like hearing tedious foreigners criticize their culture and eating habits.

They may not want to give their opinions, but they give it with their consumption habits and 90% didn't eat whale in the last year.

Also, 90% said the wouldn't want government money given to build a new factory whaling ship. I wonder if they know how much government money is currently given to research whaling.

I hate it when cultural imperialists such as anti-whalers. nose around on what we r allowed to eat.

Nobody is doing that. Eat whale if you like it. I have and I would say I'm indifferent to it. Not bad, but nothing to write home about.

Japanese themselves are indifferent to it. You can say it costs as much as wagyu, but wagyu is eaten in numbers in Japan. Most people my age had whale meat at school and they didn't really go for it then. The numbers in this survey show this.

zichi.

are you working in the whaling industry and will you be making comments on posts or just this one?

I´m just speaking out against racism and culture imperialism as I see close minded people forcing their values upon others and see an unwillingness to consider the existence of different cultural values and standards. There is no reason to why Japan and other whaling countries should adhere to culture imperialists social norms.

Readers, racism has no part in this discussion.

The Japanese, Norwegian, Icelandic governments adheres to the International Whaling Committee's standards and rules. Meanwhile. Culture imperialists and organizations still suggest that the research whaling program is a “loophole” used to illegally obtain whale meat for sale on the market and for consumption. It is not a loophole. It´s according to IWC standards.

Whaling countries and cultures are motivated by the deeply engrained cultural tradition of whaling, the emphasis on science and resisting against racism and culture imperialism.

I´m just speaking out against racism and culture imperialism as I see close minded people forcing their values upon others and see an unwillingness to consider the existence of different cultural values and standards.

Yes, but the point of this article is that most Japanese have no strong views about whaling as "cultural heritage" and don't see the issue in that way. They don't buy whale and they don't want extra money spent on a new whaling boat (90% oppose). In fact if the amount of money spent on research whaling was more broadly reported, you would probably find more opposition.

There are some nationalists that use the whaling issue to vent their jingoism, but they do not represent the average Japanese view.

There are some nationalists that use the whaling issue to vent their jingoism, but they do not represent the average Japanese view.

However, all the major political parties from the right wing LDP to the Japanese Communist Party do support whaling. Socialists, liberals as well as conservatives and nationalists. And given that these poll was done by an anti whaling organization I would not put too much emphasis on it.

It´s just as much the right to eat whale, this choice should not be forced by outsiders with a culture imperialist mindset. Telling your neighbor not to eat his dinner because you don't like his food is very rude.

If Japanese want to whale and eat whales that's fine, do it in your own waters. You just can't do it in international waters designated as a sanctuary. If you choose to ignore the will of the international community, the environmental community and the scientific community: then don't cry or complain when you are paying the consequences.

Culture imperialists.

.... way to uncover the world wide plot to impose our cultural beliefs on you. Can't believe you saw through the whole anti-whaling thing, after all the time and money spent we didn't think you would find out. Well done detective!

since1985andersen

It´s just as much the right to eat whale, this choice should not be forced by outsiders with a culture imperialist mindset. Telling your neighbor not to eat his dinner because you don't like his food is very rude.

I'm sorry but no one is telling you not to eat your whale. So no one is being rude. Just as no one except the Japanese are forcing cultural imperialism on anyone else. The fact is while we in the west do not like your whaling we really do not overly complain when it is conducted in your own waters. We do however complain when you leave your waters and sail thousands of kilometres and conduct your whaling in someone else's region. In an area that is a declared sanctuary, when you illegally enter other nations waters. And then you have the nerve to say our protests are cultural imperialism. The fact is when it comes to southern ocean whaling it is Japan that is the aggressor, it is Japan that is forcing its culture on other nations, and it is Japan whining when those nations it forces its will on dare to protest. Therefore it's the likes of you and the Japanese that should look I the mirror for a definition of cultural imperialism

for the first time yesterday I saw whale meat in my local supermarket -Lincos- I lost masses of respect for them instantly. Needless to say its still on the shelf now.

Japanese ignorance of whaling history is incredible. The West has a very long ancient history of Whaling, and it was very important from blubber, to skin to bones. They tell us we dont know what its like to give it up, um yes actually we do.

@outta here The declared sanctuary in the southern ocean that you speak of where Japanese whaling is conducted is not internationally recognized or binding nor is it in the territorial waters of any nation. Please be reasonable. Since that area has the most abundance of minke whales in the world would it not make sense to harvest there instead of around elsewhere where there are fewer numbers? Are the Japanese hunting whales in any nation's territorial waters? I think not. Its in international waters, please try not to pretend like it's in any nation's back yard. That's like Japan complaining about Korea or China fishing in the international waters of Sea of Japan. lol.. If Australia came to fish in the international waters of Sea of Japan, I am sure Japan would not complain as it is allowed. We are only after whale species that are highly abundant and renewable. Is Australia, NZ going to miss a few hundred or thousand whales out of a population of over a million in the vast open ocean far from their territorial waters in the Southern ocean? I think not... It is simply cultural imperialism.

NihonRyu

@ outta here The declared sanctuary in the southern ocean that you speak of where Japanese whaling is conducted is not internationally recognized or binding nor is it in the territorial waters of any nation.

Well lets see it was adopted by an IWC vote of which the majority agreed, it is recognised by every single nation in the region, it is recognised by countless other nations. It is disputed by one single nation. Japan!

So I'm sorry but it is recognised internationally, it is bind into all signatories of the IWC of which Japan is a member.

Please be reasonable.

Please be reasonable! What a joke. Japan is requested to stop whaling in one single section of ocean. One area and it refuses. Who is being unreasonable. The sanctuary covers a portion of the southern ocean. Not all of it. The only ones being unreasonable here are the Japanese.

Since that area has the most abundance of minke whales in the world would it not make sense to harvest there instead of around elsewhere where there are fewer numbers?

According to who? The Japanese...... Their figures have already been found to be 50% over in flatted already at a minimum. So yeah if you say their are abundant sure we believe you!!

Are the Japanese hunting whales in any nation's territorial waters?

You are fishing in a nations claim EEZ yes. If you want to be really technical. Australia has claimed an EEZ there and Japan fishes in it. It is much like Japan complaining if china started fishing around the senkakus. Both claims are unproven, both claims are not widely recognised yet every week we hear you Japanese whining about china entering your claimed waters. Yet when we do the same we are being cultural imperialists.....

. That's like Japan complaining about Korea or China fishing in the international waters of Sea of Japan. lol.. If Australia came to fish in the international waters of Sea of Japan, I am sure Japan would not complain as it is allowed.

Ok let's get the analogy correct. If Japan and Australia where members of an international treaty and the said treaty imposed a sanctuary off the coast of Japan and Australia started fishing in those waters would Japan sit there and say nothing? Now before you answer that think carefully because everyone knows what you Japanese are like at complaining....

We are only after whale species that are highly abundant and renewable.

Really! Maybe you need to go to your own ICR and JWA websites and see the non abundant whales you have taken all in the name of research. See your harvest isn't restricted to minke whales. And one would think before defending your whaling program you would learn that.

Is Australia, NZ going to miss a few hundred or thousand whales out of a population of over a million in the vast open ocean far from their territorial waters in the Southern ocean? I think not... It is simply cultural imperialism.

Lol millions! That's hilarious. Even the over inflated Japanese numbers say their are only 650,000 minkes in the southern ocean. Millions haha where did you get that figure from

In case people forgot. IWC is a whaling organization. Being an IWC member and opposing Japan hunting whales and not voting in favor of Japan wanting to resume commercial whaling is not providing for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry. The objective of IWC. Further, Japan is hunting in international waters. The majority world view is in favor of utilizing a natural renewable resource sustainably. The Anglo Saxon culture imperialist stance is a minority view. With no respect of world opinion and other cultures countries such as Australia is embarrassing themselves with their backward close minded attitudes and their silly nationalist xenophobic views. " Our region"

The so called "Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary" is also against the ruling made by the IWC themselves.

The Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is in contravention of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) on which the IWC is based and is therefore illegal.

This view received strong support from Professor W. T. Burke of the University of Washington in his paper circulated as IWC Document Number IWC/48/33. He refers to Article V(2) of the ICRW, which states that the creation of any sanctuary must "be based on scientific findings" and "take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry".

As there is no settlement procedure in the IWC for this type of dispute, Japan has asked the IWC to submit its case to a relevant legal body for analysis. The IWC has refused to do so.

SamuraiBlue,

So you and the Japanese claim the southern ocean sanctuary is against the rules of the IWC yet you read the rules of the IWC and it clearly states that it may introduce sanctuaries at any time with a majority vote. Now the Japanese are dead against the southern ocean sanctuary and claim it is unlawful they also refused to sign the agreement on this sanctuary. Yet interesting these same people you included have not once complained about the Indian Ocean whale sanctuary! Why is that? One reason really because you Japanese don't hunt there. In fact you Japanese have not raised one single objection to this sanctuary while screaming that the southern ocean one is illegal. That is hypocrisy at its biggest

Outta here

Any rule and/or regulation that goes against the master rule in which this case "International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW)" which equates to the constitution for IWC is void and null like any other law that goes against the constitution of a nation.

SamuraiBlue,

Article V. 1. The Commission may amend from time to time the provisions of the Schedule by adopting regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization of whale resources, fixing (a) protected and unprotected species; (b) open and closed seasons; (c) open and closed waters, including the designation of sanctuary areas; (d) size limits for each species; (e) time, methods, and intensity of whaling (including the maximum catch of whales to be taken in any one season); (f) types and specifications of gear and apparatus and appliances which may be used; (g) methods of measurement; and (h) catch returns and other statistical and biological records.

Please not section c. I think that pretty much negates your complaints and comments that it is against the ICRW given that it actually comes from the IWC charter

The foregoing remark for International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is as follows;

The Governments whose duly authorised representatives have subscribed hereto, Recognizing the interest of the nations of the world in safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks; Considering that the history of whaling has seen overfishing of one area after another and of one species of whale after another to such a degree that it is essential to protect all species of whales from further over-fishing; Recognizing that the whale stocks are susceptible of natural increases if whaling is properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources; Recognizing that it is in the common interest to achieve the optimum level of whale stocks as rapidly as possible without causing widespread economic and nutritional distress; Recognizing that in the course of achieving these objectives, whaling operations should be confined to those species best able to sustain exploitation in order to give an interval for recovery to certain species of whales now depleted in numbers; Desiring to establish a system of international regulation for the whale fisheries to ensure proper and effective conservation and development of whale stocks on the basis of the principles embodied in the provisions of the International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling, signed in London on 8th June, 1937, and the protocols to that Agreement signed in London on 24th June, 1938, and 26th November, 1945; and Having decided to conclude a convention to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry;

If any regulations that does not adhere to the foregoing remarks which is the founding basis for this document then it becomes null and void.

An article within the document is under the foregoing remarks not above therefore trying to create a permanent sanctuary goes directly against the above.

zichi, it is anti-whalers who force taxes to contribute to whaling research programme. Anti-whalers complain from one side of the mouth that they do not like to pay the taxes for it. But they complain out the other side of the mouth that whaling would not exist without tax payer support for research whaling.

Many times I suggest to anti-whalers that they should agree to have IWC lift moratorium on the commercial whaling. Then, you need not pay taxes to support commercial whaling. And also, commercial whaling should not begin anyway, if it is true as you believe that commercial whaling could not exist.

You are forcing yourself to pay the taxes, by your refusing to agree to have useless moratorium abolished immediately.

So, please stop your selfish complaining about it.

Also, you should think about the comment you post. Whalers could not steal so much whale meat as to have impact on amount of whale meat stockpile. Claim of whalers stealing much whale meat by Greenpeace was found to be incorrect by independent investigation. Crimes committed by Greenpeace were confirmed by citizens who reviewed the legal process also. I suppose you do not like to recognize such facts. But they are facts anyway.

zichi,

That would be Japan which is member of the IWC and a signature to the treaty banning commercial whaling.

No treaty bans commercial whaling. IWC currently has "moratorium" on commercial whaling, and there is no reason for the moratorium to continue. That is why Japan wishes it to be lifted.

If you want a treaty that has banned commercial whaling, you need to make it by yourself, not pretend whaling treaty is an anti-whaling treaty.

Outta here,

read the rules of the IWC and it clearly states that it may introduce sanctuaries at any time with a majority vote.

Rule also says sanctuary must have the scientific basis.

However even IWC's own scientific committee never advised of such a basis, and independent scientific review of sanctuary did not indicate any benefit of it for conservation.

Indian Ocean is not whaling area, so of course whalers would not care about it. Call it sanctuary or not is just the propaganda statement. But Southern Ocean whaling ground entirely being sanctuary with no reason is very unfair to whalers.

Outta here, please check Article V part 2. Not just part 1 only.

Again, what we have here are anti-whaling nations declaring "sanctuaries" which is not based on scientific findings which goes against Article V Section 2 as ihope2eatwhales mentions. In addition, we have Australia claiming EEZ on their Antarctic territory which they and total only 4 nations claim despite the fact that ATS specifically calls for "no new claims" (concept of EEZ is based on UNCLOS which is issued later than the ATS).

Forget the "loophole" that I mentioned previously about a anti-whaling nation being a member of an organization that calls for "orderly development of the whaling industry". What we have here are country(ies) grossly violating agreements and changing their rules conveniently to go against Japan.

If people want to eat whale meat then they should pay the real cost of it.

Exactly. The rest of us are subsidizing the Japanese whaling industry. The majority of Japanese don't eat whale meat and most of it goes unsold. The industry is thus larger than it would be if it were not subsidized. The long-suffering Japanese taxpayer is not happy about paying for this and, if given the honest and informed choice, would prefer their taxes to be used for something more constructive. As for those outside Japan, they have a legitimate stake in how the sea's resources are managed. They are entitled to express their views on how whales are harvested because those whales are a part of the global commons that we all share as human beings. It's not "cultural imperialism" to disagree with how natural resources are managed and those who claim that it is are simply trying to garner support by deceitfully and cynically playing on people's fear instincts.

They are entitled to express their views on how whales are harvested because those whales are a part of the global commons that we all share as human beings.

Exactly, this is a good point. You can't just hunt whales just because you felt like it. Nobody owns the ocean's resources and therefore it's not up to one country to say they should be able to do something they feel like. The people who are saying that they are being bullied by the anti-whaling nations have a victimized mentality. They are saying... they are victims.

There are no such things as "anti-whaling nations", it only means that there are more people who think that whaling is a bad idea opposed to good. If you think that whaling is a good idea, then you'd need to convince a whole heck of a lot of people on why. Don't just play the victim and say that you're being bullied. You're not being bullied, you're just being ineffective on convincing people that whaling is a good idea. Saying that you're victim may comfort you, but you're not going to be convincing anyone.

And just because that it's part of culture, does that necessarily mean that it should be continued? No. Bad ideas should be discontinued, period.

zichi,

If people want to eat whale meat then they should pay the real cost of it.

Anti-whalers refuse to let this happen. If anti-whalers truly want it, they would fight with non-anti-whalers to abolish the moratorium.

SamuraiBlue

If and when commercial whaling starts and can be placed on the international market nation that requires to import animal protien can obtain food security independence.

We've already been doing commercial whaling before the ban on whaling 20 years ago. It didn't work, it was not sustainable and the whales were about to go extinct.

SamuraiBlue

Don't kid yourself there a various reason I had mention earlier that make other nations anti-whaling mainly the beef export nation which is it's main export item.

There you go again, you're playing the victim, you're saying that Japan is a victim of conspiracies of the Western nations, but you're ignoring the only relevant question: How and why is whaling a good idea?

How and why is whaling a good idea?

How and why is it a bad idea (other than that the killing of certain animals offends the sensibilities of militant environmentalists with too much time on their hands)?

I suggest that Japan donate any surplus whale meat to feed the children in poor countries. That would shut the SS folks up right quick.

hidingout

How and why is it a bad idea?

Have you not been paying attention? There are many reasons on why it's a bad idea 1) It's unsustainable 2) It's cruel and inhumane, there's no humane way to kill whales 3) Not many people actually eat whale meat and so on and so forth.

So is it really worth paying tens of millions of tax-payers dollars a year? Probably not.

(other than that the killing of certain animals offends the sensibilities of militant environmentalists with too much time on their hands)?

It's not merely the idea of "militant environmentalists", there's scientific declaration that animals have feelings and that they must be respected accordingly.

I suggest that Japan donate any surplus whale meat to feed the children in poor countries. That would shut the SS folks up right quick.

You see we don't even need to waste tens of millions of tax-payers' money to do that, we already have plenty of food. Again, bad ideas after bad ideas.

Have you not been paying attention? There are many reasons on why it's a bad idea 1) It's unsustainable

Yes I have been paying attention, just not swallowing the SS propaganda. Do whales not reproduce? Assuming you are willing to agree that they do (a big assumption I know) then there is absolutely, mathematically, factually some level of whaling that is "sustainable". Arguing otherwise is to deny reality.

2) It's cruel and inhumane, there's no humane way to kill whales

More propaganda which falls under the category I mentioned above ... "offending the sensibilities of militant environmentalists". I should say that I would accept this argument from people who are strict vegetarians.

3) Not many people actually eat whale meat and so on and so forth.

Sorry, just because something is unpopular doesn't make it wrong. SS and that lot have done an excellent job of stigmatizing the consumption of whale meat. Folks in rich countries have options therefore they choose to eat other types of meat to avoid taking a SS trident in the back.

So is it really worth paying tens of millions of tax-payers dollars a year? Probably not.

Its been my experience that those who cry loudest about "their tax dollars" are usually the ones paying the least. Regardless, taxes are wasted on hundreds of things - harvesting food would seem to be to be quite low on the list of wastage.

It's not merely the idea of "militant environmentalists", there's scientific declaration that animals have feelings and that they must be respected accordingly.

Now you are just repeating yourself - forcing me to repeat myself. This argument is only acceptable from someone who has taken a decision to refrain from partaking of all meat.

You see we don't even need to waste tens of millions of tax-payers' money to do that, we already have plenty of food. Again, bad ideas after bad ideas.

Again with the taxes? Interesting that you would say assistance to the poor = wasting taxpayer money. As to your point about having enough food ..... its a comment only someone who has enough food would make.

Straight from the mouth of the UN .... "Despite rapid economic growth in some African countries in recent years, no government across the continent can rightfully claim that all its citizens have access to enough affordable, nutritious food to meet their dietary needs."

Anyone who has been "paying attention" would know that food prices have been rising around the world. Food production/distribution is controlled by giant corporations and scarcity of food is a real problem for hundreds of millions of people around the world who don't have the luxury of walking down to a well stocked supermarket.

Contrary to the propaganda put out by SS and that lot, whale meat is an excellent source of protein and contains many fatty oils that are absent from the diets of poverty stricken people. Have a look at some of the excellent options for preparing whale meat.

http://www.squidoo.com/Whalerecipes

If you're just going to automatically refute anything by attaching "propaganda" to the argument, then we are unable to even have a rational discussion.

Do whales not reproduce? Assuming you are willing to agree that they do (a big assumption I know) then there is absolutely, mathematically, factually some level of whaling that is "sustainable".

Right, and if you hunt more than they are able to reproduce, then we will drive them to extinction which is already happening to oceanic species that we hunt commercially. And whales reproduce extremely slowly.

More propaganda

Is it propaganda to say that we should not kill animals in a cruel, inhumane way? News to me.

Regardless, taxes are wasted on hundreds of things

Yes, and scientific whaling is one of them. We should cut waste as much as possible so they can be put to better use.

This argument is only acceptable from someone who has taken a decision to refrain from partaking of all meat.

No, because it is possible to raise and kill animals in a humane way. Besides there's no harm in arguing that we should not eat any meat. Is it unrealistic? Yes. Can we still talk about it? Yes.

Interesting that you would say assistance to the poor = wasting taxpayer money.

A rational argument would suggest that having the most amount of kilojoules of food per dollar or whatever would be the most desirable outcome if we were to feed the most amount of people in poor countries. Scientific whaling is not the most efficient way to feed the poor.

Folks in rich countries have options

Japan is not a rich country?

This argument is only acceptable from someone who has taken a decision to refrain from partaking of all meat.

OK. I raise my hand. So now you accept the argument? Good. Stop killing.

harvesting food would seem to be to be quite low on the list of wastage.

Tut tut, slipping again. It's 'scientific research', not hunting for food.

"Despite rapid economic growth in some African countries in recent years, no government across the continent can rightfully claim that all its citizens have access to enough affordable, nutritious food to meet their dietary needs."...scarcity of food is a real problem for hundreds of millions of people around the world who don't have the luxury of walking down to a well stocked supermarket.

You think Japan should be killing enough whales to be able to export to Africa and sell cheap? How will they be paid? In elephant tusks and rhino horns? Or you want the African nations to start their own killing of whales?

And if you've moved on to looking for new potential markets for the whale meat that Japanese people don't want to eat, can we take it that you've dropped the excuse of 'it's tradition'? It certainly ain't tradition in Africa.

Japan is not a rich country?

While I expect it from Thomas, this kind of selective quoting is beneath you cleo. You know very well that I was responding to Thomas' assertion that "not many people eat whale", and the faulty conclusion he derived from that information. Anyone who has interacted for any length of time with Japan will recognize that outside of a very vocal minority, the Japanese people are mostly eager to be liked by the Western world. The fact (and I haven't researched this for myself I'm just accepting the information put forward by the anti-whaling posters here) that fewer Japanese people are eating whale meat these days is undoubtedly at least in part due to the influence exerted on them by western culture. Reluctant props to the SS lot on this point, they have been very effective in getting their message out.

So yeah, Japan is a rich country and most of the people living here do not have to eat whale. There are other options available to them. The rest of the sentence that you chose not to quote, you know, the bit about getting a SS trident in the back, is at least as plausible an explanation for the decrease in whale consumption as is the idea that the Japanese suddenly realized how immoral whale hunting is.

OK. I raise my hand. So now you accept the argument? Good. Stop killing.

First I applaud your consistency and respect the stance you have taken. Second, its been several decades since I've personally killed anything for food so there will be no need for me to adjust my behavior at all. Third, you must understand that as admirable as your stance may be, there are many proponents of other viewpoints whose rights must also be respected. imo you certainly have the right to use the argument that killing whales is inhumane - the same can't be said for all the other anti-whaling posters contributing to this topic. I for one won't argue that particular point with you any more.

Tut tut, slipping again. It's 'scientific research', not hunting for food.

I reject the whole hunting for scientific research idea. And I think the Japanese are wrong to exploit this loophole. It is my opinion that commercial whaling should be allowed at levels that permit for a sustainable population of all whale species. I also think the Japanese are wrong to go to far off seas to hunt whales. I support whale sanctuaries and whale hunting seasons in much that same way that I think National forests/parks and hunting seasons are required to protect the various four-legged animals hunted for food.

You think Japan should be killing enough whales to be able to export to Africa and sell cheap?

Where did I say that? My suggestion was that (since so many folks seem to be hanging their argument against whaling on the fact that all the meat isn't used up every season) Japan donate any surplus meat to poor people. My understanding of the word donate is that it does not involve any payment -"cheap" or otherwise. In this way all the whale meat would be consumed and the Japanese would be assisting the less fortunate. Sounds like a win/win to me.

How will they be paid? In elephant tusks and rhino horns?

Again, I never suggested any payment at all. Your statement here is dangerous in that it could be taken to mean that you think Africans are so backward that they don't have currency.

And if you've moved on to looking for new potential markets for the whale meat that Japanese people don't want to eat, can we take it that you've dropped the excuse of 'it's tradition'?

I've not used the "tradition" argument, although I think its a good one. You must be confusing me with someone else. The only reason I posted the link about food shortages in Africa was because I've been to Africa many times and have seen first hand the abject poverty under which so many are forced to exist. I knew therefore that Thomas was wrong when he made the laughable suggestion that "we have plenty of food" - an idea even the UN doesn't subscribe to. The meat could be donated to any number of countries or even distributed domestically since there are many poor people in Japan as well. Alternatively the whole whaling for scientific research charade could be abandoned and commercial whaling resumed.

Consumable meat rotting in freezers while children starve is a crime far greater than the killing of a whale. And if Japan is indeed stockpiling frozen whale meat and not seeing that it gets into the hands of the people who could benefit from it ..... then shame on them.

They have tried to use every angle under the sun but still fail, and then the name calling starts.

Lets at least try to recognize the name calling from your side as well. In fact my experience has been that nobody calls names better than a frustrated liberal. When a very vocal anti-whaling contributor to this thread likened a polite Norwegian poster to an infamous mass killer the statement went unchallenged by you or anyone on your side for an entire day. Even the mods allowed it to stand until I replied in kind and got us both deleted.

Fyi, I've "selectively quoted" because quite frankly, you write too much, so I omitted the majority of your writing for that reason. I've responded to every one of your points.

You know very well that I was responding to Thomas' assertion that "not many people eat whale", and the faulty conclusion he derived from that information.

Please show me any data that state otherwise. These data show that Japanese people eat on average only 23.2 grams of whale meat per year, compared to 29.6 kg of seafood per year.

http://ika-net.jp/images/en_pdf_files/23.7g_e4.pdf

that fewer Japanese people are eating whale meat these days is undoubtedly at least in part due to the influence exerted on them by western culture.

Does it matter? That's like saying, "Wearing fur is considered unfashionable, therefore we must make fur fashion 'cool' again in order to increase more fur demand".

I knew therefore that Thomas was wrong when he made the laughable suggestion that "we have plenty of food"

Yes, we have plenty of food in JAPAN (and other advanced nations). Did I even say anything about Africa? No. Besides that's off-topic.

that fewer Japanese people are eating whale meat these days is undoubtedly at least in part due to the influence exerted on them by western culture.

Even during the 60s at whale consumption peak, Japanese people ate very little whale meat compared to other seafood.

http://ika-net.jp/images/en_pdf_files/23.7g_e4.pdf

its been several decades since I've personally killed anything for food

If you've eaten meat or worn fur/leather, you've killed just as surely as if you wielded the knife/harpoon/stun gun/electric terminals in your own hands. Just that you paid for someone else to get their hands dirty.

SS and that lot have done an excellent job of stigmatizing the consumption of whale meat. Folks in rich countries have options therefore they choose to eat other types of meat to avoid taking a SS trident in the back.

The first time I read that i assumed you meant people in the west didn't eat whale meat because of SS - a ridiculous claim that didn't warrant any kind of reply. Now you're claiming that Japanese don't eat whale because they're afraid of getting a SS trident in the back? That's so ridiculous it deserves a prize for Most Outlandish Claim of the Year. The presence of SS in Japan (apart from the very softly, softly approach in Taiji) is virtually zero. The SS message of why whaling is wrong is not being promulgated in Japan, the media see to that. The only information most Japanese reliant on Japanese-language news sources have is that SS is a bunch of activists who for some reason don't want Japan to exercise its sovereign right to kill whales. I have never, ever, seen any suggestion in Japan of anyone being afraid of a 'trident in the back' for eating whale meat. At least you are right in saying that this 'trident' is 'as plausible an explanation for the decrease in whale consumption as is the idea that the Japanese suddenly realized how immoral whale hunting is.'. Japanese people don't refrain from eating whale meat because they've 'suddenly realised how immoral whale hunting is'. They don't eat it because they don't like it, it simply does not feature in their daily diet because they have lots of other much more tasty choices.

Your statement here is dangerous in that it could be taken to mean that you think Africans are so backward that they don't have currency.

Come on now, joined-up thinking isn't that difficult. You suggested the whale meat Japanese people don't want to eat (yet for some reason should still be obtained by continuing to kill whales?) should be used to feed 'poor people', indeed, you say now, 'donated' to them. You think they're so backward they have to be hand-fed on largess?

Whales are on the brink of extinction. It doesnt make sense to eat them, it is not necessary. Fish can be farmed, whales can't. We have a responsibility to preserve majestic animals for future generations. Whaling is outdated and is a violation of nature.

@since1985andersen

There is not a single researcher out there, from any country, that has purported millions of minke in that ocean. You flat out made that up.

More so, you completely ignored Outta Here's comment that debunked every little point you had to say. At least recognize your own ignorance and learn from it. You're an okashii pariah of your own country, you should learn to respect japan's current culture and views.

hidingout: "In fact my experience has been that nobody calls names better than a frustrated liberal."

So you start off your argument by name-calling. Nicely done. Unfortunately for you Zichi is spot-on -- you have not at all defended the rationale for whaling and have only resulted to name-calling, same as the minority of Japanese who still support whaling, and the minority of those supporters who actually are willing to buy the meat.

As I've said, it's quite humorous to watch you guys say it's for science and then react with "you Imperialists are attacking our culture" when it becomes quite frank to you you cannot defend that it's not for science at all. Add to this the inability to defend the money spent on whaling from reconstruction funds and it's quite clear that only greedy, money-grubbing interests are still interested in the hunt. There's nothing 'cultural' about whaling except for the denial of the facts that it's no longer needed.

I think that I never eat whales meat. Majority of Japanese never tasted it.

My suggestion was that (since so many folks seem to be hanging their argument against whaling on the fact that all the meat isn't used up every season) Japan donate any surplus meat to poor people.

So, they use taxes to finance the hunt and catch way more than they can sell, so they should continue using tax money to kill whales to give to someone else? What's the point? Why not just stop killing whales, stop wasting tax money (while claiming there is a need to raise taxes), and if there is a desire to help poor people in undeveloped countries (which is of course very commendable), use targeted ODA to develop the infrastructure and technology they need to support themselves, instead of dumping unwanted meat on them in an act of misguided charity that would threaten to stifle local food production?

I think that I never eat whales meat. Majority of Japanese never tasted it.

Its an interesting point, and certainly a relevant one since (unless they are hypocrites) most of the people contributing to this thread have not tasted it either. Yet somehow they feel comfortable claiming that "it tastes bad" and the Japanese people don't want to eat it for that reason.

Like I said earlier, I've eaten whale plenty of times in Japan and it tastes pretty good to me. Certainly a lot better than some of the dishes that are eaten on a regular basis in Japan. I urge people to try some of the delicious recipes I posted above before claiming that whale meat tastes bad.

So, they use taxes to finance the hunt and catch way more than they can sell, so they should continue using tax money to kill whales to give to someone else? What's the point? Why not just stop killing whales, stop wasting tax money (while claiming there is a need to raise taxes)

Agreed, its been my stance all along (in spite of attempts by you and smith to put words in my mouth) that "scientific whaling" is a sham. If commercial whaling were allowed there would be no taxes used. And if there is such a poor market for the meat (even at reasonable prices) then the commercial whaling companies will all fail and the militant environmentalists will get what they want without having to resort to acts of piracy and terrorism.

and if there is a desire to help poor people in undeveloped countries (which is of course very commendable), use targeted ODA to develop the infrastructure and technology they need to support themselves, instead of dumping unwanted meat on them in an act of misguided charity that would threaten to stifle local food production?

All due respect cleo, but are you saying that charity can only occur through targeted ODA? I disagree. Perhaps you haven't seen real poverty before, but I can tell you I've seen villages that would strip a whale carcass to the bone in a matter of days and still be hungry. Talk of "stifling local food production" is again, regrettably, the sort of comment that would only be made by someone with a full freezer and a bottle of scotch by her side.

,

Its an interesting point, and certainly a relevant one since (unless they are hypocrites) most of the people contributing to this thread have not tasted it either. Yet somehow they feel comfortable claiming that "it tastes bad" and the Japanese people don't want to eat it for that reason.

Once again you miss the point. No one here is claiming that Japanese people do not eat whale meat because posters on JT think it tastes bad. Like anyone else, the Japanese are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about what tastes good and what doesn't, and what they want or don't want to eat. As I've mentioned before, the Japanese are pretty passionate about food; if they like the taste of something, they will eat it, regardless of the price and whether the animal it comes from is endangered or not (cf. bluefin tuna). The only reason not to eat something (apart from the recent problem of whether it comes from the irradiated parts of the country) is because it does not appeal, ie it does not taste good.

I'm quite sure that to some people's palates, whale does taste better than some of the other stuff they might be offered - natto, kusaya, mozuku, wasabi, nameko are some of my personal love-to-hates that come to mind. 'It tastes pretty good to me, so the taste can't be a reason for other people not to eat it' is not a sensible argument.

People not wanting to eat any whale meat - for whatever the reason - is a good thing in my opinion.

And if there is such a poor market for the meat (even at reasonable prices) then the commercial whaling companies will all fail and the militant environmentalists will get what they want without having to resort to acts of piracy and terrorism.

It's not that simple. I'm sure the Japanese government will start pouring grant money into the failing whaling industry in order to "support the whaling tradition".

are you saying that charity can only occur through targeted ODA?

No, I'm saying the opposite of that. Instead of just chucking surplus meat at folk to get rid of it and calling it charity, far better to help them develop channels whereby they can secure their own food without relying on largess. I'm sure you understand the reasoning behind give a man a fish vs. teach him to fish.

Talk of "stifling local food production" is again, regrettably, the sort of comment that would only be made by someone with a full freezer and a bottle of scotch by her side.

No, if you knew anything about food aid you'd know that food aid programmes used as a means of disposing of gluts undercut local producers in the countries being 'helped'. Brushing the unwanted crumbs off your table and calling it charity is both extremely arrogant and counter-productive.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/10/food-aid-as-dumping

All readers back on topic please. From here on, posts that do not refer to the poll will be removed.

This has opened up a whale of an argument. This is a leviathan problem for Japan's image.

Even if Japan wanted to donate the so called "Stocked-up" supply, it can't since CITES clasify Minke whales as Appendix I even though both IWC and IUCN Red List does not consider them endangered.

Here is the reason why;

Although the IWC Scientific Committee had admitted that the population of the minke whale was robust, Seychelles explained as the biological reason for the proposal that the population of these whales might decrease in the future because the harvesting of their prey fish was increasing.

Since the proposals lacked scientific justification for the idea that these whales were threatened with extinction and thus did not satisfy the CITES's own criteria (Berne Criteria), the Secretariat of the CITES recommended that these proposals be rejected.

One thing to be noted is that among the 58 nations which attended the meeting out of 81 member nations at that time, there were many nations which did not belong to the IWC and thus did not have correct knowledge about whale populations or the IWC regulation of whale stocks. If people who are unfamiliar with the IWC read the proposals to list in Appendix I those whale species whose catch limits were set to zero by the IWC, they might think these whales are endangered and need to be added to Appendix I.

However, "zero catch limit" does not necessarily mean that the whale stocks are endangered. Even if the population of a whale stock is at its initial level, i.e., not decreased because of whaling to it, the catch limit set by the IWC is zero because no one is supposed to take any whales. This situation was applicable to the Bryde's whale stocks. In the case of the minke whale, "zero catch limit" was going to start in 1986 by the commercial whaling moratorium decision of 1982, which lacked scientific justification and has never been recommended by the IWC Scientific Committee.

Under energetic lobbying by Seychelles and anti-whaling NGOs, these proposals were adopted (the first proposal got 5 against, 30 for, and 24 abstentions, second proposal got 4 against, 34 for, 18 abstentions, and third proposal was adopted without vote since the results would be obvious). Thus, both minke and Bryde's whales, which were not "threatened with extinction" at all, were added to Appendix I.

And mods don't tell me that the beef/pork export industry is off topic since whales are also animal protien which would be racing for the same global food market and if whale meat was to be placed in the world animal protien food market the bottom line beef for human comsumption will be lowered into the pet food market which will be a large hit to the meat packers worldwide.

zichi,

I don't support the brutal slaughter of whales by any country or in any seas even if we weren't subsidising whaling with our taxes.

Until you say this, instead of complain about paying taxes, it is not clear. You should not blame others for everything.

I'm 100% opposed to whaling whether its research whaling or commercial whaling. That has been my position for more than 50 years

Since before 1962. You are quite an impressive anti-whaler.

whatever you pro whalers state I'm not going to change.

In that case, thank you for paying taxes for many years.

Thomas Anderson

Whaling is not unsustainable.

If you disagree, show the proof.

Look at the world. There are whales in the sea, and whale in the supermarket (or freezers, if you would insist).

So is it really worth paying tens of millions of tax-payers dollars a year? Probably not.

As I say many times, if tax is a problem, abolish moratorium and let's have the commercial whaling instead, like Norway and Iceland. (Maybe you do not know Iceland exports much whale meat from it's commercial whaling to Japan.)

zichi,

If the whaling countries like Japan hadn't been stopped from slaughtering these beautiful creatures in the many tens of thousands, some of the species would have become extinct and even the common ones would only be around in very reduced numbers.

It is dubious allegation.

At its peak, Japan was killing a massive number, 200,000 tons of whale flesh landed at the ports.

True. Such whaling in early 1960's was unsustainable, I agree.

However moratorium was introduced in 1982, not 1962.

At that time, moratorium prevented whaling of only highly abundant minke whale. Other species of whale were already protected.

Moratorium was not necessary for protection of abundant minke whale. This is the point.

Please do not mislead by suggesting whalers wish to return to unsustainable whaling of 1962, rather than sustainable whaling of 1982.

Thomas Anderson,

Right, and if you hunt more than they are able to reproduce, then we will drive them to extinction which is already happening to oceanic species that we hunt commercially. And whales reproduce extremely slowly.

"Extremely slowly" is not a useful to determine sustainability.

One must consider so-called quantitative information.

Research of Australian scientists shows some humpback whales increasing by 10% in number each year.

You can complain, but with growth of 10% each year, no serious person can accept that whaling is not sustainable.

Instead of making further excuses, just accept that whaling is sustainable. Sustainability is not opinion. It is one of the cold hard facts.

zichi,

Commercial whaling was only around for about 100 years and look at the damage to whaling populations it achieved. More damage was done in those 100 years than the entire history of whaling before it.

Commercial whaling is around today, also. See Iceland, Norway. Even anti-whalers claim Japan's whaling is commercial.

Despite commercial whaling, whales are not extinct because of it.

The reason is because it is sustainable.

zichi,

So the amount of whale meat eaten in Japan works out at about 24 gm per person per year. I would call that a very low demand for whale meat.

We could not draw such conclusion.

Commercial whaling moratorium acts as interference in normal market for whale meat.

For example, for average consumption to be even just 100 grams - enough for a nice meal each, there would need to be 12,800 tonnes each year.

It is impossible now, because of moratorium.

Even though we get some 1,000 tonnes of whale from Iceland, it is never so much.

'Sustainablity' is not the problem. There is no humane way to kill a marine mammal at sea. If you cannot kill humanely, you should not be killing at all.

Look at the world. There are whales in the sea, and whale in the supermarket (or freezers, if you would insist).

Umm... you do realize that commercial whaling is now banned?

cleo

'Sustainablity' is not the problem.

I agree. Thomas claimed otherwise. But we all know there is no problem with sustainability.

Thomas Anderson

Umm... you do realize that commercial whaling is now banned?

Do you think so?

Iceland and Norway and Greenland are catching whales and selling meat in supermarkets. Anti-whalers say Japan's research is commercial whaling as well.

So, if you wish to claim commercial whaling is unsustainable, please state your projection for date by which whales become extinct, so we may have this important information.

Thank you.

zichi,

But we can since its reported in a link previously provided by Thomas.

Existence of a link to anti-whalers' propaganda does not change reality.

Again consider. To have average consumption of 100 grams, 12,800 tonnes of whale meat is required. But we do not have such amount of meat, because "moratorium" creates the artificial ceiling on availability of whale meat. Such claim that consumption is small now means there is small demand is to put carriage before the horse, because stockpile of only 4,000 tonnes means only small consumption is possible.

Sustainable commercial whaling it not possible. To be able to reduce the current high price of whale meat and to make a profit, whales would have to be slaughtered in the tens of thousands.

Iceland has sold 1,000 tonnes of meat to Japan. They did not slaughter whales in tens of thousands.

If the whaling ban was lifted other countries would also want to return to commercial whaling adding to the slaughter numbers.

Which countries? Which whales will they catch? Do they belong to IWC also? If so, there is no problem.

You have so many unfounded concerns. Biggest concern should be collapse of IWC due to anti-whalers. Then maybe your fears become reality.

Existence of a link to anti-whalers' propaganda does not change reality.

You usually refute data by providing contradictory data.

I agree. Thomas claimed otherwise. But we all know there is no problem with sustainability.

You missed cleo's point, her point is that you should not be killing any whales, period. How do you answer that you can never kill whales humanely?

So, if you wish to claim commercial whaling is unsustainable, please state your projection for date by which whales become extinct, so we may have this important information.

That's not how science works, that's pseudo-science. Of course we don't know the exact date which the whales will become extinct. That's pseudo-science 101.

I agree.

No, you most certainly do not agree with me. Sustainability is not the problem does not mean there is no problem with sustainability. Before you worry about how many whales you can kill before numbers start going down again, you should be considering whether you should be killing any whales at all when you cannot kill humanely. The answer is you cannot kill humanely, and so should not be killing at all. That makes any question of numbers, sustainability, prices, supply and demand, etc etc etc, totally irrelevant, immaterial, inconsequential, trivial and beside the point.

At the end when all anti-whaler supporters propaganda fails it falls back to the non-humane killing argument.

Stupidity at it's best I thought we were talking about if it is possible for commercial whaling not the method on how to hunt whales in which most fish suffocate when caught by nets so I guess all of you are against that as well. Fishing with a reel is even worse since the fish is hooked and is reeled in as the fish struggles for it's life to get away.

And while we are at it how about the culling of kangaroos and other animals that is allowed and in some places even endorsed which is done by a rifle which has the same effect as a harpoon.

Sorry but killing an animal has nothing to do with moral concepts since you going to kill it no matter how you do it.

Stupidity at it's best I thought we were talking about if it is possible for commercial whaling

Erm commercial whaling is not possible, that's why we have the moratorium...

Erm commercial whaling is not possible, that's why we have the moratorium...

This is a great argument, if you're looking for a good example of circular reasoning.

No Tommy

Commercial whaling is on halt because various nations at IWC going against the founding reason based on the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling are stonewalling GOING AGAINST recommendation based on scientific evidence to reinstate commercial whaling for their own petty gain that is why.

This is a great argument, if you're looking for a good example of circular reasoning.

No, because based on the best data available, commercial whaling will drive the whales species to extinction. That's why we have the moratorium.

Commercial whaling is on halt because various nations at IWC going against the founding reason based on the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling are stonewalling GOING AGAINST recommendation based on scientific evidence to reinstate commercial whaling for their own petty gain that is why.

Yes, it's all a conspiracy, isn't it, and Japan is a victim. Isn't that why Japan is conducting "scientific research" in order to prove that commercial whaling is sustainable?

At best we don't have enough data, at worst commercial whaling is not sustainable. Unless we have proper data, we shouldn't be whaling and possibly drive the whales to extinction.

Again if you can't win label the victim label to evade argument.

Yawn really getting old.

Nobody owns the ocean's resources, so if the majority of the countries decide that we shouldn't be whaling, then no country shouldn't be whaling. It doesn't matter what the reason is. If you disagree then you're going against the whole idea of democracy, and you wouldn't want that, would you.

Democracy has set rules in which case the IWC's is International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Coming to a conclusion against those set rules is not a democracy it's called vigilantism something most people do not respect.

it falls back to the non-humane killing argument.

As far as I'm concerned at least, this is no 'fall-back' - it's the principal, overriding argument.

Stupidity at it's best I thought we were talking about if it is possible for commercial whaling

In that case it would appear you're showing your own stupidity. The topic of the thread is 'support for whaling', not whether commercial whaling is possible. Oops.

Sorry but killing an animal has nothing to do with moral concepts since you going to kill it no matter how you do it.

It may have nothing to do with your moral concepts. Please don't try to paint the rest of humanity with your nasty little ethics-depleted brush. At some point, we're all going to die; I take it you have no concerns about how or when you go, or how long it takes, since you're going to end up dead anyway?

Fishing - yeah, if I could I would stop that, too. Though I'm not sure a cold-blooded fish with a brain the size of a small pea feels pain and terror on the same level as a whale or dolphin.

Well anyway, the people have spoken, so you better get used to it.

Isn't that why Japan is conducting "scientific research" in order to prove that commercial whaling is sustainable?

Yes, and they are taking their time to come up with any conclusions. If they had evidence that whaling is sustainable, wouldn't you think they would present ir?

So, either they can't prove that it is sustainable or that they are OK to keep up with the research charade.

But back to the point of the article: Japanese aren't interested in eating whale. The whole reason for whaling is to statify nationalists who are angry that other nations condemn it. It's not because people are craving whale. In the past whale was a cheap meat that they gave to school kids. Even now there are some that insist that they have schools force whale meat on kids. The reason? They are scared that eventually Japanese won't even want to eat whale.

all living thing including plants feels it as concluded by scientific experiment

One link, please, that explains how something with no brain and no central nervous system can feel pain, and how a plant feeling pain is any kind of 'survival instinct' - it's not like it can flinch, or up roots and run away.

Classic response to the 'but plants feel, too' argument ; either the person doesn't believe what they are saying, is therefore obviously a troll and should be ignored; or actually does believe it, therefore obviously has the intellect of a mildewed potato and should be ignored.

The Anti-whaling proponents here are really not rational in the way they bolster their argument are they? Even if there was a special laser that could kill a whale instantly and effortlessly, they would find a way to argue something else as to why sustainable commercial whaling cannot take place.

Ridiculous, well I am off to the supermarket now for whale sashimi for dinner. lol.. Gotta do my part to support team Japan!

Even if there was a special laser that could kill a whale instantly and effortlessly,

The entire argument is that you shouldn't even be killing whales at all.

Ridiculous, well I am off to the supermarket now for whale sashimi for dinner. lol.. Gotta do my part to support team Japan!

And your entire argument is supporting whaling = supporting Japan, for some reason. But you're just wasting Japanese tax-payers' money which could be put to better use. So whaling != supporting Japan.

they would find a way to argue something else as to why sustainable commercial whaling cannot take place.

It's NOT sustainable, at least commercial whaling isn't.

I am off to the supermarket now for whale sashimi for dinner. lol.. Gotta do my part to support team Japan!

And it's those who are opposed to whaling who are, somehow, racist.....

Thomas Anderson,

at worst commercial whaling is not sustainable.

"At worst" is not realistic.

Why will sustainable commercial whaling of Iceland and Norway be suddenly not sustainable? In order for it to be so, Iceland and Norway must decide to catch as many whales as possible, instead of catching sustainable amount as is now.

Explain why you think it would happen, if you fear it seriously?

Unless we have proper data, we shouldn't be whaling and possibly drive the whales to extinction.

We do have proper data.

It's NOT sustainable, at least commercial whaling isn't.

It is sustainable. Even if you refuse to acknowledge reality, it is.

Thomas Anderson,

Nobody owns the ocean's resources, so if the majority of the countries decide that we shouldn't be whaling, then no country shouldn't be whaling. It doesn't matter what the reason is. If you disagree then you're going against the whole idea of democracy, and you wouldn't want that, would you.

International society is not democracy. International society is made up of the sovereign nations, each decides it's own laws. For the whales, there is whaling agreement. But it is for each nation to decide to join it or not.

Also, you should be careful what you wish for. (Unless you are happy to do as Chinese and Indian says about everything, as they have more than 2 billion people, easy enough to dominate such "world democracy".)

2020hindsights,

Yes, and they are taking their time to come up with any conclusions. If they had evidence that whaling is sustainable, wouldn't you think they would present ir?

They proved already.

Anti-whalers just ignored it. They said "show data" as an excuse for the moratorium. But even when data was produced, and IWC's scientific committee agreed whales can be caught, anti-whalers refused.

So, either they can't prove that it is sustainable or that they are OK to keep up with the research charade.

Or anti-whalers behave without honour.

Japanese aren't interested in eating whale.

Even more than 10 million people are interested, according to anti-whalers themselves.

This has nothing to do with the poll. Please stay on topic.

Why will sustainable commercial whaling of Iceland and Norway be suddenly not sustainable?

Iceland and Norway are much smaller countries, not that I support their whaling. They just thought that it was a good idea that the moratorium should not apply to them.

International society is not democracy.

The moratorium was applied democratically by the representative members of IWC.

Also, you should be careful what you wish for. (Unless you are happy to do as Chinese and Indian says about everything, as they have more than 2 billion people, easy enough to dominate such "world democracy".)

It's the number of the countries that count, not the population.

Anti-whalers just ignored it.

Ok. So shouldn't Japan stop the "scientific research" then?

zichi,

Population of Iceland, 320,000. Population of Norway, 5 million. Population of Japan, 129 million.

Individual population has no meaning. There is international market for whale meat amongst these nations. Whaling business in Iceland catches fin whales to export the meat to Japan.

(How funny. Anti-whaler is eager to deny size of market for whale meat in Japan, but is eager to emphasize Japan's population when denying sustainability of whaling.)

Readers, you are going around in circles. From here on, posts that do not refer to the poll will be removed.

Even more than 10 million people are interested, according to anti-whalers themselves.

Exactly! Such a small number that it doesn't make sense to continue this expensive 'research whaling' charade. What you have to realise is that when there were large numbers of whale caught, whale was a cheap alternative to beef. Even if commercial whaling resumes, it is unlikely to be cheap. So the only reason for choosing whale over beef (cheap) is lost.

82% of Japanese are NOT AGAINST whaling. Good news. Whaling will continue.

Hopefully, Japan will, at some point, do the right thing and leave the IWC altogether.

82% of Japanese are NOT AGAINST whaling. Good news. Whaling will continue.

No it won't because the rest of the world don't agree.

Population of Iceland, 320,000. Population of Norway, 5 million. Population of Japan, 129 million.

Relevance of your post, nil.

Even the US used to be a major whaling country, and they've caved in under societal pressure.

If the US is like Australia they stopped commercial whaling because a more economical synthetic oil became available, there was no sudden recognition of wrongdoing, and they still allow whaling in Washington state for the indigenous Americans there as they do in Alaska ( also part of the USA )

Agree or disagree with the poll and the way its worded, but put simply Japan is not breaking the law, so maybe the law needs changing.

The whaling war will continue I'm afraid until devastating climate changes will take hold on whaling stock and then that ultimately be the determinator of events...

How much more "research" do you Japanese need to do before you find what your looking for? For gods sake, stop eating everything that lives in the ocean and give the whales a chance or your whale gods might get angry.

JackInMilwWI,

How much more "research" do you Japanese need to do before you find what your looking for?

If you would investigate the situation of any well-managed fishery in the world, you would find that up to date scientific information is indispensable for them. Tuna quota was recently raised in one fishery. It could only happen because of the scientific data.

If Japan would stop research now, for example 5 years later when moratorium is abolished, Japan would have no up to date information, and not be able to conduct the whaling safely. Even anti-whaler should not want such a thing.

So for Japan research is necessary until the moratorium ends.

give the whales a chance or your whale gods might get angry.

There are 500,000 minke whales. Japan does not propose to catch them all.