Japan to resume Antarctic minke whale hunt despite ban

Ady Gil was a boat but not a person?

No, Ady Gil is a person, the boat was named after him.

I find the idea of donating money to an eco-terrorist group whose largest expense is paying legal fees to protect their leader, an international fugitive from justice, from lawsuits by former associates like Ady Gil and Peter Bethune, and shunned and disassociated by all other mainstream conservation organizations to be pretty darn ridiculous. I mean, why not just flush your money down the toilet?

it's evedent that you don't believe there is a need for ANY animals or mammals to be protected by creating a protected, wildlife sanctuary

No it is not.

Especially when that threatens your financial interest

The whale sanctuary threatens no financial interest of mine.

These sanctuaries wernt just made overnight, in every case there were extensive studies done, showing the need and reasoning for animal protection.

Wrong. As I have said, and as the history proves, the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was proposed and voted on with no extensive study, did not show a need and did not show the reasoning behind it. The report commissioned by the IWC's own Scientific Committee clearly stated these facts.

Stuart haywardSep. 05, 2014 - 10:49PM JST

The S. O. Whale sanctuary is an area 50 million square kilometers, where the IWC HAS BANNED ALL types of comercial whaling

It is only for commercial whaling. It is OK to hunt whales for research purposes in "sanctuary".

Why not Just Annex the Area so JAPAN can whale it legally err what would happen if some other country went into Japans back yard and whaled as they were doing Scientific research into whale meat the benefits of it. or the amount of Mercury it contains.

Mike O' Brian: it's evedent that you don't believe there is a need for ANY animals or mammals to be protected by creating a protected, wildlife sanctuary. Especially when that threatens your financial interest, but the majority of the world disagrees with you. These sanctuaries wernt just made overnight, in every case there were extensive studies done, showing the need and reasoning for animal protection. It appears that the only ones who feel the IWC is in violation is a single professor from the US and the Japanese that are invested at profiting from killing. What a nice line of work you chose, making a "difference", to bad it's a negative difference.

Mike O - well thank you for challenging my intelligence. Tells me a lot and a whole lot more.

I understand that you as a worker for the JWI will obviously have a vested interest in any aspect of discussion re whaling. No quibbles there.

But it's interesting to note over the years that you almost fail to give any credence to other opinions at all. Even ruling out a lot of the misinformed, the incorrect, the extreme and / or rude - it appears you cannot give at all. Can it be that you have been correct / right / justified in all of your 100's of statements & assumptions and everyone else has been incorrect and mistaken?

Simple example being the afore mentioned Tohoku aid monies going to the Antarctic program. Yes as I said it may be technically in bounds, but you could have given just a little and suggested something like "but the timing was a bit rich" or the like. But no - every other opinion is always fallible.

I as an observer on these discussions with no particular vested interests, find it amusing, Grins abound.

Good luck for the future of your industry. I hope you you sort it all out.

As we were talking about the Japanese Whaling Industry(JWI) I only assumed you would take "they" to mean such. But perhaps I assumed too much.

That is how I took it. I assumed you would understand that when I specifically stated so. But perhaps I assumed too much. Like assuming we were trying to have an intelligent conversation.

i simply stated that there is nothing stopping them (btw this "them" refers to the JWI and not the world) from leaving

But you didn't state that until after my comment - you know, in the future!

I wonder why this option has not been employed, because it's an obvious answer to a vexing problem.

What vexing problem would that be?

I was under the impression that the amount of whale meat consumed in Japan since it's peak has til now has been becoming gradually less

Well people might be under all sorts of impressions but without some proof those impressions could be wrong.

it would reflect a societal change - even in the least dietary customs

Well I guess so if you want to define societal customs in a way that supports your statement. But if you want to define terms just so they support your claims then we are back to my assumption that we were trying to have an intelligent conversation.

And yes Iceland is a current member, but it did have the soirit to leave the IWC in the 90's (I think) to show it's disapproval of the system.

But they also rejoined the IWC even though the system hadn't changed. So maybe their leaving was not for the reason you believe.

Unless...?

Unless what? Oh wait I realize my assumption of you participating in an intelligent conversation was wrong. My mistake. Sorry to have wasted my time.

Stuart haywood; The IWC has regulations about establishing sanctuaries. They can't just arbitrarily put them wherever they want. And they didn't follow their regulations when establishing the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

I noticed you again only cherry picked one small peace of my comments, interesting pattern to your twisted replies.

Well haywood, as you well know a comment of yours was deleted by the moderators and you may not know that my response was also deleted. Since their deletion policy seems at time arbitrary, I was not sure what parts of my comment were the problem. So I just reposted the major point to be sure that the comment made it through. Sorry if that bothers you. But on another note, I can decide to respond or not respond to any part of any comment, just like you can and like you have done before. It is one of the beauties of a public forum.

Mike O - thanks for your reply.

All becoming rather cyclic isn't it, however a few final comments on this occasion.

As we were talking about the Japanese Whaling Industry(JWI) I only assumed you would take "they" to mean such. But perhaps I assumed too much.

Re - leaving the IWC - yes we all know Japan IS a current member. i simply stated that there is nothing stopping them (btw this "them" refers to the JWI and not the world) from leaving - you know, in the future! Then they would not be held to any moratorium. They(JWI) could then in their own rights satisfy the needs of the working members (JWI) and customers. I wonder why this option has not been employed, because it's an obvious answer to a vexing problem.

And re "demand is low, that doesn't mean it has dwindled" must take into account a different understanding of the term dwindle. My Oxford dic states dwindle as "to become gradually less or smaller". Well you could have fooled me, becasue I was under the impression that the amount of whale meat consumed in Japan since it's peak has til now has been becoming gradually less. But musy have been mistaken. Sorry. And indeed if that it the case it would reflect a societal change - even in the least dietary customs.

And re Norway - yes I agree, they (norway) are still members and that their "ignoring" the moratorium was wrong, when in fact it was an objection which allowed them to not follow the moratorium and whale to their content. And yes Iceland is a current member, but it did have the soirit to leave the IWC in the 90's (I think) to show it's disapproval of the system. My comments were made in regards to suggesting NO ONE is stopping Japan from following suit and or leaving. If little places like Norway & Iceland could stand up to bullying why can't Japan??? Unless...?

And re testiing for contaminants - yes it has been inconsistent. One would hope it to be actually Very Consistent in light of all the attention. In fact a regular public release of research data showing the levels of contaminants would be appreciated by many. Can't be too hard. And mentioning other "bad" products people consume is rather a lazy diversionary comment isn't it? We are discussing whale meat at the mo' and not tobacco, junk food etc etc.

And finally re the Tohoku money. Yes we all know the Tohoku whaling indutry also suffered, but the money that was earmarked for aid was hardly intended to top up the Antarctic Whaling Program to the tune of $20,000,000+. And if it was then I'd suggest a complete lack of empathy for the millions of people hurting from the disaster. I have no factual data, but I'm sure many East Japan citizens were surprised in the least. Technically it may well have been in bounds, but smacks of arrogance and meaness and leaves a somewhat disquietening impression.

Thank you.

Mike O' Brian: What are you talking about? It was the IWC who created the sanctuary, how are they in violation of themselves? I noticed you again only cherry picked one small peace of my comments, interesting pattern to your twisted replies.

Stuart haywood: The Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was established in violation of the IWC regulations. It is null and void.

Mike O' Brian: The southern ocean whale sanctuary was established by the IWC in 1994 with 23 countries supporting it and Jaapan opposing it. (Correction) The S. O. Whale sanctuary is an area 50 million square kilometers, where the IWC HAS BANNED ALL types of comercial whaling. Japan has been accused of hunting whales within this sanctuary on multiple occasions. As for 2004. The IWC reviews that status of S.O. Sanctuary every ten years. During 2004 a proposal made by Japan to remove the sanctuary, but it failed to reach the majority vote needed. It was Japan who lodged a formal objection to the sanctuary within regards to the minke whales, claiming that the terms of the sanctuary Do not apply to that species WITHIN the boundaries of the sanctuary.

Re the moratorium - you categorically said re going alone "they can't do that because of the moratorium"

Yes I did, and that was categorically in response to your comment about 'Antarctic whaling' which would mean Japan, who as a member of the IWC are bound by the moratorium. Yet in your response you expanded my comment to 'they - the whaling world' which is not what I said. 'The whaling world' would include many countries other than Japan, some of whom aren't members of the IWC or who objected to the moratorium, in either case making them exempt from the moratorium.

My suggestion was, Japan can ignore the moratorium as you well know - all it has to do is leave the IWC.

But they haven't left the IWC and your comment that I was responding too said nothing about doing any such thing.

As I said others - Norway & Iceland - have ignored the IWC and backed up their beliefs with actions.

Sorry but Norway & Iceland have not ignored the IWC. They are both still members in good standing who are following all applicable regulations. Fact!

Facts I stated - - Whale consumption has dwindled to a miniscule amount of total meat consumed in Japan. - Extremely low demand indicates a change of order in society. - Market economics are the central determinant in the viability of a private enterprise in capitalist societies. - A % of Whale meat tested, has consistently shown to be contaminated with elements above the govt allowable levels. - Antarctic whaling is heavily (NOT Totally) subsidized by the govt to the tune of millions of dollars / year and some of that money was earmarked for Tohoku reconstruction/aid.

No, demand is low that doesn't mean it has dwindled.

No, again unless you can show that it was significantly higher in the recent past and even then it still would be a leap to say it indicates a societal change.

Yes

No, there is no consistent testing program. Individual results have shown this but the high readings are mostly from toothed whales and dolphins, testing that has included Antarctic whale meat has shown much lower levels from that meat. And there are lots of things that are bad for people that people aren't prohibited from eating/using.

Yes, of course since parts of the whaling industry are in Tohoku and suffered damage they were within their rights to apply for some of that aid and the government was within the law to distribute some of it to them.

Mike O - thanks for your replies.

Re the moratorium - you categorically said re going alone "they can't do that because of the moratorium"

My suggestion was, Japan can ignore the moratorium as you well know - all it has to do is leave the IWC. They are not bound to remain members. As I said others - Norway & Iceland - have ignored the IWC and backed up their beliefs with actions. NO ONE is stoppiing Japan from leaving a voluntary club. Fact!

Facts I stated -

Whale consumption has dwindled to a miniscule amount of total meat consumed in Japan. Extremely low demand indicates a change of order in society. Market economics are the central determinant in the viability of a private enterprise in capitalist societies. A % of Whale meat tested, has consistently shown to be contaminated with elements above the govt allowable levels. Antarctic whaling is heavily (NOT Totally) subsidized by the govt to the tune of millions of dollars / year and some of that money was earmarked for Tohoku reconstruction/aid.

That's just what I mentioned in above posts.

Please address each fact

Firstly you suggest that "they - the whaling world" - can't expand on their own, because of a moratorium.

I suggest no such thing.

But as you know and I know that moratorium is non-binding

I do not know that. In fact I know the complete opposite. The moratorium is completely binding on all IWC members who did not object to it.

but I will state facts as they exist and look forward to you addressing those facts.

So when will you state these facts so they can be addressed?

In 2004 Japan fought the ruling of there even being a wildlife sanctuary in southern oceans. Even though they lost, they continue their illegal poaching anyway.

Stuart hayward: Even though you cherry picked just a single piece of my comment, I will reply back to it.

The 'sanctuary' was voted on in 1994, so I have no idea what 2004 has to do with anything. The proposal did not include a scientific basis for the 'sanctuary', as required by the IWC regulations and thus the 'sanctuary' is a non-entity. The report commissioned by the IWC Scientific Committee found no scientific basis for the 'sanctuary' as established or managed. And Japan, as allowed by the IWC regulations, objected to the 'sanctuary', so whether it exists of not it doesn't apply to Japan.

Because It's a fact that Japan HAS hunted other species of whale in the southern ocean whale sanctuaries, (such as sperm whales) it's also fact that that action is called illegal poaching.

Except your 'fact' is wrong. Japan has not hunted sperm whales in the 'sanctuary'.

The ICJ ruling ONLY allows Mink whales to be hunted, Japans whaling industry HAS done otherwise.

And again your 'fact' is wrong. The ICJ ruling doesn't allow or disallow hunting of any species. It banned Japan from taking ANY whales under their JARPAII permit. The ruling has no effect on the JARPNII whaling permit, which does include sperm whales and is thousands of kilometers away from the 'sanctuary'.

Animals are here for foods for human.

No they aren't.

CH 3CHO & fugal: Though my comment was NOT addressed to you, I will reply. Because It's a fact that Japan HAS hunted other species of whale in the southern ocean whale sanctuaries, (such as sperm whales) it's also fact that that action is called illegal poaching. The ICJ ruling ONLY allows Mink whales to be hunted, Japans whaling industry HAS done otherwise. Fugal: I guess you had trouble reading my comment because I never mentioned any quotes from the ICJ until now.

*I eat whale in Hokkaido and understand the culinary/culture excuse. But Japan must understand that the waters off the Antarctic are not Japanese waters so any protesters have just as much right to prevent the catch of whales as Japan has to catch them.***

**Antarctic Southern Ocean is International Water where Japanese Whaler will catch Whales. Also that sea area does not include in Australian economy zone or inside Australian territory water. If Japan or other Nations hunting Wales is within sustainable practice and then let them eat what they want to eat. If you don't like to eat Whales meat and then fine it's up to you. Animals are here for foods for human.

The Fisheries Agency plans to announce the submission of its modified hunt program at the annual International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting later this month, and put it forward later in 2014.

“Collecting the necessary data requires lethal research, which was acknowledged in the ICJ ruling,” the agency official said.

“We’ve yet to decide on the number of catch next year… We plan to submit the new plan to the IWC’s scientific committee for approval in October or November,” he said.

In spite of what this JapanToday article suggests, Japan will be complying with the ICJ court ruling and the IWC guidelines.

I assume the eco-terrorist SS will, once again, resort to violence to appease it's pro-violence supporters. Unfortunately, Watson is too unstable to make a personal appearance.

Sayonara Japan. I am boycotting you over this, and my spare money will go to Sea Shepherd instead of buying your products, and I have purchased a lot of your products in the past. Give me all the thumbs down you want to, because I do not care.

Which means it is time for you to delete your account on this website since this site is about JAPAN and articles mostly about JAPAN.

Antarctic Whaling resumption is just a political smokescreen to divert the world's media away from the release of the transcripts of the secret testimony of Masao Yoshida, the chief of the Fukushima No 1 nuclear plant.

**Because the release of the documents*** due out yesterday would expose the truth about the Fukushima catastrophe and its continuing influence on Japanese politics.

The resumption of whaling is certainly important. However the damage to the International perception of Japan over whaling is a secondary concern. Because the orders of magnitude of damage in this environmental disaster are obvious given the discharge into the planets marine environment.

Whales will be affected during their long life by radioactive contamination along with all marine life.

The keyword to remember is Sea Shepherd.

While Sea Shepherd has a focus on this unevolved Japanese behaviour the National Brand will continue to suffer.

Sea Shepherd have my support. As do the rural people of Japan's provinces who are the most opposed to the NRA and their backing of Nuclear Power Plants.

http://goo.gl/PDU2xV

Stuart haywardSep. 05, 2014 - 08:51AM JST

It's a fact that commercial whaling is prohibited in southern ocean whale sanctuaries, and it was proven that is exactly what Japan was doing.

Read ICJ ruling. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18136.pdf

233 Paragraph 7 (b), which establishes the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, provides in pertinent part: "In accordance with Article V (1) (c) of the Convention, commercial whaling, whether by pelagic operations or from land stations, is prohibited in a region designated as the Southern Ocean Sanctuary." As previously noted, JARPA II operates within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary (see paragraph 120). Paragraph 7 (b) does not apply to minke whales in relation to Japan, as a consequence of Japan's objection to the paragraph.

Southern Ocean Sanctuary does not apply to Japanese minke whaling.

zichi,

Japan has debt in excess of a quadrillion yen, with budget requests in excess of 100 trillion yen for next fiscal year. Activities related to whaling are certainly not a significant component of those 100 trillion yen of requests.

Stuart hayward,

It's a fact that commercial whaling is prohibited in southern ocean whale sanctuaries, and it was proven that is exactly what Japan was doing.

Is it really a fact? I read the ICJ ruling myself, but I don't remember seeing what you are referring to. Please quote the part of the ICJ ruling where it says that (or let it slide if you just made it up or heard that nonsense from some other "source").

In 2004 Japan fought the ruling of there even being a wildlife sanctuary in southern oceans. Even though they lost, they continue their illegal poaching anyway.

Japan has a legal objection to the southern ocean "sanctuary" (which is meaningless anyway since there was already a moratorium before it), so it's incorrect to suggest what they were doing was illegal poaching.

And I'm yet to be informed of the need for a sanctuary for minke whales given that there are 500,000 of them. It's not like Japan is catching anywhere near close to even a single percentage of that number each year. No need for a sanctuary, nor a moratorium.

JTDan - if the data you seek is re meat consumption stats then I think you can find it on FAO sites or google world fish consumption etc. I researched these figures a while back.

Mike O'brien - thanks for your reply. Firstly you suggest that "they - the whaling world" - can't expand on their own, because of a moratorium. But as you know and I know that moratorium is non-binding and other whaling entities ignore it, so I suggested - Go For It!

And thankyou for acknowledging the existance of rubbery handouts & cough-ups. Many won't.

And no-where did I suggest (or believe) that Antarctic whaling exists entirely because of govt subsidies - no doubt there are many hard working individuals & companies putting in toil and coin - but I did suggest that if the industry believes what it is doing is right, cut the govt. umbilical cord (you seem to hint that it is not a pressing requirement anyway) and market itself to the country. And after success there, the world. Be strong in their beliefs.

Yoiu won't get any cute animal or the like argument out of me, but I will state facts as they exist and look forward to you addressing those facts.

Mike O' Brian: Even though you cherry picked just a single peace of my comment, I will reply back to it. It's a fact that commercial whaling is prohibited in southern ocean whale sanctuaries, and it was proven that is exactly what Japan was doing. There was more killing & eating of whale, than actual research. In 2004 Japan fought the ruling of there even being a wildlife sanctuary in southern oceans. Even though they lost, they continue their illegal poaching anyway.

@praack.... no idea what idiots gave you a thumbs up. Your remarkable statement that they're not human was groundbreaking... pure genius. And your further words that you get upset that they're protected... while not know if the species is at risk or not is absolute grade A. And finally... the best words from your amazing keyboard... "if people continue with humanizing the species of this planet then we end to learn to eat dirt". I was amazed at your insightfulness. I to want to live in a world with out wildlife!

actually with whaling it tends to flow right down into the humanization of a species- lets face it - they are not human.

so the only thing I tend to get upset about is protected status- so is the species protected? is the species at risk? and if the species is protected but no longer at risk - why is the protection still in place.

if people continue with humanizing the species on this planet then we need to learn to eat dirt

Sayonara Japan. I am boycotting you over this, and my spare money will go to Sea Shepherd instead of buying your products, and I have purchased a lot of your products in the past. Give me all the thumbs down you want to, because I do not care.

in protected Wildlife Sanctuaries, is an ILLEGAL act

Then I guess it is a good thing this isn't happeneing with Japanese whaling in the Antarctic.

If proponents of Antarctic whaling believe otherwise, then I suggest they encourage the industry to stake it out as any venture company must do in these competitive times, give up the rubbery hand-outs and cough-ups and go for it. Be strong in your beliefs, bend your backs - go global, get listed.

They can't do that as long as the moratorium is in place. So I suggest the opponents of Antarctic whaling encourage the IWC to lift the moratorium, at least as it applies to Minke whales. This would allow for commercial hunting without the rubbery hand-outs and cough-ups. Be strong in your beliefs that it is only government subsidies that perpetuate the Antarctic whale hunt.

simply because it is illegal under international law

Except it simply is not illegal under international law.

if they intend to plunder them for their own economic gain they should be paying

So then every country that fishes or derives any economic benefit from international waters should be paying every other country? Sorry that isn't what the international treaties about resources in international waters says.

supported the whale sanctuary for the last 40 years which created the abundance of whales for them to plunder

The abundance of Minke whales was there before the 'sanctuary'. And the non-existent 'sanctuary' wasn't voted on until 1994, hardly 40 years. Even the moratorium is only 28 years old.

Commercial whaling is illegal

Only in those countries which have passed laws making it illegal. Japan has passed no such law and thus it is not illegal for Japanese in international waters.

without support from JARPA

That would be why they are developing a new JARPA plan. JARPA III if you will, although it wouldn't surprise me if they changed the name.

or the IWC

Sorry the IWC's own rules and regulations make it clear they have no say in the issuance of permits under Article VIII. The IWC's support or lack of support is irrelevant.

Honestly, what is the point? Just give the fishermen the subsidy to have them sit in port.

Browny

I'd like to rec your comment. Please provide links for your data.

I really do not understand why Japan wants to continue to whale in international waters. I doubt the citizens of Japan overall care (they barely care about anything as it is) and the government could easily put a stop to it. Then why? There are many countries that "traditionally" hunted whales in the past but now abide by the rules. Why is Japan risking massive international condemnation for something like this? At the top levels, where the decisions are made, usually it comes down to influence and money. Who is influencing the politicians are how are they doing it? It just does not make sense, to continue international whaling and the risk of very bad international exposure, unless someone is benefitting. I really do not believe this is as simple at "Tradition" and maintaining it.

Japan consumes over 2,000 t of whale meat / yr. Japan consumes over 6,000,000 t of seafood / yr. Japan consumes over 4,000,000 t of beef, pork, poultry / yr.

Whaling is obviously an industry supplying a meat product indulged in by very few.

The product itself often exceeds basic govt. contaminant limits but open publication of these statistics is rare.

The whaling industry is heavily subsidized by the govt. in order to carry out it's Antarctic operations(over $20,000,000 of Tohoku reconstruction / aid money was diverted to the Antartic whaling cause)

Japanese coastal whaling has a long history involving small coastal communities.

Japanese Antartic whaling became an industrial scale operation pre-WW2 in order to procure resources esp. oil for it's military security. It was re-established post war to feed a starving nation, and fell into rapid decline asw Japanese citizens sourced more desirable foodstuffs.

Japanese people have little interest in consuming whale - proven by the demand - and the total costs involved in meeting such a dwindling demand are grossly excessive in the least.

The Japanese govt is unwilling to accept this reality and instead tries to paint it as an act of western cultural imperialism(essentially to garner sympathy - votes) playing the "we iz wronged" card.

Times change. Somethings remain and some don't. Whaling for all it's past usefullnesses, is simply past it's use by date.

If proponents of Antarctic whaling believe otherwise, then I suggest they encourage the industry to stake it out as any venture company must do in these competitive times, give up the rubbery hand-outs and cough-ups and go for it. Be strong in your beliefs, bend your backs - go global, get listed.

Millions will support you. Good Luck.

You are getting caught up with the debating "tradition" The commercial killing of ANY animals or mammals in protected Wildlife Sanctuaries, is an ILLEGAL act. It's called poaching. I guess many of you also agree with China's Ivory tusk market as well.

That is improper thinking. The street outside your home is also not yours, but if someone interferes with your right to use it (w/i reason), its them that's in the wrong, not you.

That doesn't make any more sense - because the street outside my house still belongs to someone. It also falls under the jurisdiction of the Japanese government. Your argument assumes that the right to kill whales inherently overcomes any rights people have to preserve them.

If you keep subsuming your culture to other's will, eventually you won't have one.

But you're making a slippery slope fallacy without enough evidence to support it. Your argument would make more sense if whaling were commercially viable in Japan - the fact that people aren't clamouring into the warehouses full of the stuff speaking volumes about it's relevancy to culture. Unless you can point to some catastrophic harm to Japanese culture your point is merely fear mongering.

It seems the West would condone terrorist tactics to save some (not necessarily the) whales, which is a warped value system.

Who is 'the West' in your arguments? The SS has been widely criticised by various governments - who do you think is condoning it? Some comments you read? People in the street? How are you equating that to the opinions of dozens of disparate countries and millions of people?

Again, Zichi:

How many years does it take? What's the magic number?

zichi,

This global moratorium is just a farce. I do believe you are aware that the IWC homepage states clearly that there are an estimated 500,000 minke whales in the Antarctic. Mass slaughter or not, there's plenty of whales and no justification at all for a global moratorium anymore, if indeed there ever was.

I agree with your earlier comment that Japan should quit the IWC and allow a commercial whaling industry by itself. Whether a commercial whaling industry is viable or not should be left to market forces. The cost of this whaling program is a drop in the bucket, but Japan can't afford to be engaged in all these little projects. Quitting the IWC on a temporary basis until the moratorium is lifted would be a far more cost-effective policy move.

This has been said many times. The tradition is not hunting whales or where the hunting takes place. the tradition is eating whale meat, which is hardly less than 100 years old. Prior to the arrival of Europeans there was no tradition of Easter or Christmas in the Americas, so does that mean those celebrations aren't tradition just because they didn't originate there?

Zichi:

Since the post is about Japanese whaling in the Antarctic I would question that you think that's a tradition/culture when in fact it started less than 100 years when in the 1930's and only became possible with the construction of the whaling factory ships.

I've asked this many times and I don't think I've ever had a straight answer:

How many years does it take for something to become tradition/culture?

Deeply upsetting.

Is Watson going to be out there with his fake police badge, chefs, and valets? Or is he just going to send out the drones as usual?

It's research! Written on the side of the factory ship or mother vessel - R E S E A R C H!

The again, my La Coste polo shirt doesn't mean I own a crocodile!

despite an order from the U.N.‘s top court to stop all whaling in the area

That is not what the ICJ ruling said.

hopes to bypass this ruling

No. They plan on following the ruling by modifying the plan to comply with the ruling.

fin and humpback whales also harpooned in past missions

Past research missions have not included harpooning humpback whales.

under a loophole in the 1986 global moratorium

It is not a loophole. Article VIII of the ICRW existed almost 40 years before the moratorium.

has made no secret of the fact that their meat ends up in restaurants and fish markets

Of course they haven't because Article VIII requires the meat be processed.

you can have your semantic argument

The truth is hardly a semantic argument.

so any protesters have just as much right to prevent the catch of whales as Japan has to catch them

No actually the protesters have no right to physically prevent the catch, so Japan has essentially infinitely more right to catch whales as the protesters have to interfere.

When UN asks Japan to stop Whaling than YOU MUST STOP WHALING!

Then I guess it is a good thing that the UN didn't ask Japan to stop whaling.

with the ban and stopped the whale hunt altogether

There is no such ban.

In March the ICJ revoked Japan's licenses to hunt minke whales in the Antarctic, but Japan has found a loophole that will allow them to legally launch another hunt. This defies the spirit of the ICJ's March ruling that found that Japan's previous hunts were doing the same thing, using loopholes in the regulations to engage in disguised commercial whaling.

Let me fix that for you. In March the ICJ revoked Japan's permit to hunt whales in the Antarctic, but their ruling included a discussion of what changes would be needed in any new permit to comply with the ICRW.

Tighten up the regulations, problem solved.

I agree. If the IWC and its members really want to solve this all they need to do is remove Article VIII from the ICRW. Of course Japan can always quit the IWC and then there would be no regulations stopping or even limiting their whaling in international waters.

zichiSep. 04, 2014 - 09:40AM JST

Part of the court ruling was Japan had not come up with a non destructive method to collect at least some of its data.

Lets us study the ICJ ruling. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=64&case=148&code=aj&p3=4

Ruling, Merits,

133 The Court notes that the Parties agree that non-lethal methods are not a feasible means to examine internal organs and stomach contents. The Court therefore considers that the evidence shows that, at least for some of the data sought by JARPA II researchers, non-lethal methods are not feasible.

137 ... There are, however, three reasons why the JARPA II Research Plan should have included some analysis of the feasibility of non-lethal methods as a means of reducing the planned scale of lethal sampling in the new programme.

What was needed here was "some analysis of the feasibility of non-lethal methods". All Japan has to do is to do some analysis and to conclude non-lethal methods are not feasible. Japan did that homework ordered by ICJ for the restart of research whaling.

Surely no surprise. And, Ossan, you are missing the "big picture". Sure, you can have your semantic argument about "bypass" versus "comply", but, in the end, only Japan's international reputation and stature lose. Japan had an opportunity here to show that it could rise above childish, ego-driven reasons to hunt whales, and not hide behind a bunch of nit-picking and loop-holes. But, as usual, Japan could not rise to true leadership status. A real shame.

Jerseyboy, since in principle we do not differentiate between people on the basis of their skin color, ethnicity ... etc, what separates one country's citizens from another but their culture? If you keep subsuming your culture to other's will, eventually you won't have one.

I eat whale in Hokkaido and understand the culinary/culture excuse. But Japan must understand that the waters off the Antarctic are not Japanese waters so any protesters have just as much right to prevent the catch of whales as Japan has to catch them.

That is improper thinking. The street outside your home is also not yours, but if someone interferes with your right to use it (w/i reason), its them that's in the wrong, not you.

Maybe Japan could learn from other countries.

It is a non-sequitur. The ability to conduct certain research without killing whales does not equate all.

However, Japan should quit the IWC on a purely temporary basis until the moratorium is lifted. Japan's exit from the IWC needs only be for as long as the IWC fails to permit a sustainable degree of whaling, which is the whole reason for the IWC, as I understand it.

That's a reasonable plan. What will be unreasonable would be the West's reaction to it.

Exactly that why SS will continue to get my financial support as long as the whalers go down there, bring on the pain SS!!

Personally, I would shed no tears for the SS if their boats are sunk by Hellfire missiles. It seems the West would condone terrorist tactics to save some (not necessarily the) whales, which is a warped value system.

Ultimately, I don't eat whales, but I support the Japanese right to whale as they see fit in international waters. The only reason to forbid commercial exploitation is necessity, and this is a burden of proof that should be borne (and continuously) by those who want to restrict other's rights (like Australia) for their selfish feelings rather than those who want to exercise it (Japan).

Subsidizing a failing industry for the sake of kickbacks, sorry...'national pride'. Or is that nationalist pride?

smithy and others, unfortunately the only Japanese promise was to honour the ruling on JARPA II. They were never told to stop whaling and they continued the (un-harassed) North Pacific Hunt plus coastal whaling programs. We all knew the Japanese would come back with JARPA III. Taking Japan to court over JARPA III will take years. If someday JARPA III is ruled illegal, Japan will start work on JARPA IV. This is the long game and this is the Japanese way. They have armies of useless bureaucrats employed to find ways around international rulings like this one so that they can continue to waste taxpayers' money on whaling in the Antarctic. There is no legal way to bring an end to this whaling program and the government in Tokyo is extremely right-wing and will waste tax money forever when Japanese pride is at stake.

Ah, the Japanese promise!

When UN asks Japan to stop Whaling than YOU MUST STOP WHALING! There is no ifs or buts here... What is ABE trying to achieve by ignoring the UN ORDER?

There is a difference between ASKING and ORDERING. The UN is a puppet with very little enforcement power to back up it's requests.

YuriOtani

Of course they short a ship thanks to Russia.

Russia cleared them on the 26th of August.

Japan has no business in the Antarctic Ocean. Clearly, they don't care about International laws Hmm, maybe China has a point, after all?

only working on excuses, not change

Looks like a new season of "Whale Wars", only this time Tokyo does not have a legal leg to stand upon. Of course they short a ship thanks to Russia.

gogogo

How does giving it a more scientific approach make it any different?

It allows Japan to comply with the ICJ ruling.

How does giving it a more scientific approach make it any different?

More Tax payer dollars spent on frozen blubber that continues to pile up in tax payer funded freezers. Now there is a business model even Zimbabwe would be proud of.

Japan has such beautiful whale interaction venues like Ogasawara and Zamami. This small, bullheaded segment of government continues to give a black eye to a very concerned and conservation oriented whale watching industry. Sad. Get rid of the old guard.

Antarctic are not Japanese waters so any protesters have just as much right to prevent the catch of whales as Japan has to catch them. Exactly that why SS will continue to get my financial support as long as the whalers go down there, bring on the pain SS!!

Against commercial whaling, but somewhat emotionally impartial when it comes to this annual Japanese pantomime. That being said, however, trying to restart "research whaling" after being rapped over the knuckles in the Hague is really dumb policy. It is even dumber if you consider that Japan has been trying to move closer to Australia as a counter to Chinese influence because it was the Australian government that put Japan in the dock in the first place. It also begs the question as to how many whales Japan would have to kill before Australia decided not to buy Japanese submarines?

This is an example of the same story carried in an objective, accurate non-biased manner: "Japan plans to resume Antarctic whaling next year, but with fewer killings and involving only minke whale, revising a research programme that was rejected by the UN's top court. The Antarctic whale hunt is one of two research whaling programmes that Japan has conducted since a 1986 international ban on commercial whaling. In March, the International Court of Justice ruled the Antarctic programme was not scientific as Japan claimed and must stop. Japan's Fisheries Agency said today that officials were working on a new programme for submission to the International Whaling Commission's scientific committee around November. The agency did not provide further details. Japan will go to the Antarctic later this year, but only for non-lethal research. Opponents say Japan's research hunt is a cover for commercial whaling. Press Association"

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/japan-to-resume-antarctic-whaling-30559162.html

advertisement

A more "scientific" focus? The whaling industry was claiming all along that this was "scientific research" , why should we believe them now? Besides, if you are pro whaling or not, it's still illegal to hunt them in protected wildlife sanctuaries. Why can't Japan simply hunt in their local waters, instead of traveling to the other side of the earth?

I suppose no real surprise although i had hoped that their previous commitment to abide by the ruling was a sign of some common sense on this topic.

NYtodaySep. 04, 2014 - 08:40AM JST

An inaccurate, one-sided, irrational and emotional article like this one will neither help a healthy discussion nor support the side AFP is taking. Media should be reporting facts and facts only. We don't want to read news dressed with its writer's personal agenda with a mix of fabrication & exaggeration. Do it on your personal blog.

I agree. Would it really have killed the AFP to make the headline "Japan finds loophole to slaughter whales", and then an article that started out:

In March the ICJ revoked Japan's licenses to hunt minke whales in the Antarctic, but Japan has found a loophole that will allow them to legally launch another hunt. This defies the spirit of the ICJ's March ruling that found that Japan's previous hunts were doing the same thing, using loopholes in the regulations to engage in disguised commercial whaling.

... Would that have killed you AFP? Instead we have this article, which implies that Japan is just flat-out breaking the law, and as such. What does that solve AFP? Surely the problem that needs to be fixed here is the vague and loop-hole filled whaling laws? Hating on Japan solves nothing, and despite what the AFP would like us to think, Japan isn't the only country hunting whales.

Tighten up the regulations, problem solved. Hating on Japan? Hate speech and nothing more. The AFP should be ashamed of itself for this pathetic and inaccurate article.

Well everyone knew this was coming, didn't they? I really don't think anyone is all that surprised with this story. Most people would've been surprised if Japan went along with the ban and stopped the whale hunt altogether. They are just like little kids asking their mum if they can do something...when mum says no they run off and ask dad...when dad says no they run off and ask granny.....in the end they just do it anyway regardless of what anyone says.

despite an order from the U.N.‘s top court to stop all whaling in the area.

There was never such an order.

“Collecting the necessary data requires lethal research, which was acknowledged in the ICJ ruling,” the agency official said.

At least the media was good enough to quote that statement.

Whaling vessels will collect “data necessary to calculate the number of whale catch allowed (once commercial whaling resumes),” and “construct a model of the Antarctic Ocean ecosystem,” an official of the Japan Fisheries Agency told AFP.

It's interesting. It sounds broadly the same as the JARPA II program. So what the Japanese seem to be thinking is that the ICJ accepted their JARPA II program was broadly scientific research, but saw problems with the details.

However, Japan should quit the IWC on a purely temporary basis until the moratorium is lifted. Japan's exit from the IWC needs only be for as long as the IWC fails to permit a sustainable degree of whaling, which is the whole reason for the IWC, as I understand it.

Actually, there's a lot of misunderstanding out there about the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ruling (not really the UN, for one thing) - legally, the ruling was that there was not enough scientific evidence to back up Japan's PREVIOUS WHALING PLAN. That's all. Legally, it was not a "ban" no matter what sort of spin the world wants to put on it. So that Japan can in fact legally resubmit a NEW PLAN to the IWC this fall for approval or rejection.

This story is nothing new. Japan has been very clear that it intends to resubmit a new plan for its Antarctic hunt and that this season was just a break, not a halt. This story is exaggerating, too - the government has always been pro-whaling, it's nothing new. I'm not trying to white knight for Japan, just that if you study the actual International Court ruling it's very far from a ban. I don't believe Japan should be whaling, for a lot of reasons, but this particular ruling was not and is not a ban.

さすが! (As expected) - A spade is a spade and slaughtering whales is slaughtering whales. They can claim a more scientific approach, but it is still slaughtering whales for commercial purposes, which is illegal under international law. Their end goal of the 'research' is to prove that slaughtering whales in the southern ocean is a profitable business (for Japan). Yeah, minke whales are abundant, but if Japan is allowed to hunt them on a commercial scale they won't stay abundant for long. I like that comment about building a model of the ecosystem of Antarctica. Will they build two models? One with minke whales and one without? They do not need to slaughter thousands of whales to build a model of the ecosystem. They can do that via satellite from Tokyo. Let's see how the international community responds to this. I think it's time for non-whaling countries to get tough on Japan and start slapping them with the sanctions. They'll find it hard to hunt whales if they don't have any diesel for their ships, right?

paulinusaSep. 04, 2014 - 08:42AM JST Collecting the necessary data requires lethal research,...Of course.

Maybe Japan could learn from other countries. The Australia and New Zealand conducts their non lethal "research" in Southern Ocean. The Australian Government has provided an alternative through its $32 million, six-year International Whaling and Marine Mammal Conservation Initiatives Program. Key features of this program include the Australian-led Southern Ocean Research Partnership and the setting up the Australian Marine Mammal Centre (AMMC). This initiative will deliver valuable, non-lethal research on a national and international scale demonstrating that whales do not need to be killed in the name of science.

Collecting the necessary data requires lethal research,...

Of course.

We are thinking that we will only target Antarctic minke whales in the new plan

And you know the next "new" plan will include fin and humpback whales.

I totally agree with OssanAmerica and Farmboy.

An inaccurate, one-sided, irrational and emotional article like this one will neither help a healthy discussion nor support the side AFP is taking. Media should be reporting facts and facts only. We don't want to read news dressed with its writer's personal agenda with a mix of fabrication & exaggeration. Do it on your personal blog.

OssanAmerica Sep. 04, 2014 - 07:13AM JST "But a new policy announced by the pro-whaling government on Tuesday hopes to bypass (COMPLY with) this ruling by giving the controversial mission a more scientific focus (JARPA III in compliance with the ICJ ruling's requirements).

ICJ is a voluntary organization with no enforcement and no treaty backing of any kind declared a meaningless moratorium with giant fat loopholes. They are in an organization that is strictly voluntary and not backed by any treaty that has declared a “moratorium” on commercial whale hunting. Whale hunting is not banned by international law at all. That “ban” actually means "minor reduction" and Japan knows it.

Japan sure is a sucker for punishment!

Guess Japan also still has a hard time of doing whats right!

Hint to Japan two words that will do you right................COASTAL WHALING!!

Do those & you will be mostly left alone except for things like the savage killing in Taiji.

But of course!

OssanAmerica : Just so people don't get mislead by the deliberate and constantly inaccurate biased AFP reporting:

But they're cute! And they talk to each other!!!

Oh...it's on now. This is going to be good.

jerseyboySep. 04, 2014 - 07:38AM JST Surely no surprise. And, Ossan, you are missing the "big picture". Sure, you can have your semantic argument >about "bypass" versus "comply", but, in the end, only Japan's international reputation and stature lose.

Bypass (verb): go past or around. Comply (verb): act in accordance with a wish or command, meet specified standards.

This is not "semantics". It's 8th grade English.

When UN asks Japan to stop Whaling than YOU MUST STOP WHALING! There is no ifs or buts here... What is ABE trying to achieve by ignoring the UN ORDER? This is a prime example of MR ABE'S BLATANT ARROGANCE towards the International Community... Those Whales are not properties of Japan... If Japan can't abide by the rules thenJapan should be banned from fishing altogether in International waters.

I eat whale in Hokkaido and understand the culinary/culture excuse. But Japan must understand that the waters off the Antarctic are not Japanese waters so any protesters have just as much right to prevent the catch of whales as Japan has to catch them.

Japan plans to resume its slaughter of minke whales in the Antarctic Ocean next year, an official said Wednesday, despite an order from the U.N.‘s top court to stop all whaling in the area.

Surely no surprise. And, Ossan, you are missing the "big picture". Sure, you can have your semantic argument about "bypass" versus "comply", but, in the end, only Japan's international reputation and stature lose. Japan had an opportunity here to show that it could rise above childish, ego-driven reasons to hunt whales, and not hide behind a bunch of nit-picking and loop-holes. But, as usual, Japan could not rise to true leadership status. A real shame.

Charm offensive

But a new policy announced by the pro-whaling government on Tuesday hopes to bypass this ruling by giving the controversial mission a more scientific focus.

Not exactly. The ruling didn't say to stop whaling, it said to stop whaling the way they were doing it, because it it wasn't scientific enough. If the government is intending to give it more scientific focus, that means they are trying to change to be in line with the ruling, not bypass it.

I'm on the fence about whaling, there are many things I don't like about the Japanese doing it, but this article is clearly biased.

More scientific focus LOL. That's rich. Stop with the BS excuses please.

Just so people don't get mislead by the deliberate and constantly inaccurate biased AFP reporting:

"TOKYO — Japan plans to resume its slaughter (IWC sanctioned Research Whaling) of minke whales (abundant non-endangered minke whales) in the Antarctic Ocean next year, an official said Wednesday, despite an order from the U.N.‘s top court to stop all whaling in the area (under the JARPA II program).

"But a new policy announced by the pro-whaling government on Tuesday hopes to bypass (COMPLY with) this ruling by giving the controversial mission a more scientific focus (JARPA III in compliance with the ICJ ruling's requirements).