national

Japan walkout throws whaling talks into disarray

201 Comments

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

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

201 Comments
Login to comment

I like whale and think the hunt is ok, but what kind of scientific research are they doing?

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

My Way or No Way...ridiculous !

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Didn't Japan do that before? and then bombed pearl harbor......

Anyone still feeling like they should go easy on the poor wittle Japanese because of the tsunami????

Nope. Business as usual.

-7 ( +8 / -15 )

I'd like to try whale. As long as the numbers are kept balanced, I have no problems with hunting its the pirates that try to interfere that I have a problem with.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

I think the world is getting sick of Japan, her blatant lies and her hissy-fits.

If Japanese people want to eat whale meat, that's fine by me, but please have the balls to just come out and say "Eating whales is part of our culture, so screw you." instead of lying about it and calling it "scientific research".

11 ( +20 / -9 )

I've had whale and it tastes really good, Mine was a kind of stew, and tasting like veal (or maybe beef)... In fishing villages on the Pacific Coast of Chib a(Kujukuri) it can be bough in gift shops canned or smoked... What I'm sure of is that the Japanese whalers do not take enough whales right now to have a significant impact on their ecosystem. As they are not that threatened any longer, I am not against hunting then in small numbers.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Like this is unexpected? Oh for the record I am against whaling. There is no need to harvest such a noble animal for food and the method to kill them is inhumane.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

If Japan just stuck to taking some whales off its coast instead of heading way down south they wud be fine, Japan is just so good at making itself look bad & now the world doesnt hesitate to say it like it is & Japan just blindly carries on

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Awwww..... poor Japan, once again the world's cry-babies when they don't get their way.

Anyway, let them walk. The rest of the world can decide it's an official whale sanctuary and police it as such. Only one of the nations of those who walked out 'research' in that area anyway, and the African nations have been bribed by Japan, so what are they going to do? Japan just gives even more fuel to environmental groups and make themselves more the villain.

Japan is a laughing stock on this issue.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Again! Japan... You can be as Unique as you want, but realize that everyone else on the planet views you as an aggressive bully. Can not claim everyone hates me when actions like this are taken.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Like smith says, the article doesn't mention that except for Iceland, all other nations are non-whaling nations whose pols have been bribed by Japan with cash and prostitutes

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Japan claims its hunts are for research purposes though the meat from the killed whales mostly ends up in restaurants, stores and school lunches.

My my JT. Have you read the IWC guidelines? If you had, you wouldn't write something so blatantly biased and ignorant.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Typical of Japan."Our way or no way". Japan will learn when her economy declines to the point that no one takes this place seriously any more. Whaling is just another example of foolish intransigence by Japan.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14153779

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Duh... IWC... Let Japanese and others eat whales! Respect!

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

CAP'N there be whales!

-Star Trek IV

3 ( +4 / -1 )

but what kind of scientific research are they doing?

Does adding mayo make it taste any better? It's important research!!!

6 ( +9 / -3 )

If they were just honest and said, we eat whales, this would go away. It's not any international body's concern if Japanese eat whale or not. Just silliness.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

If it's really just symbolic and few whales are caught in those waters, why protest at all?

Obviously, they see this as a threat to their industry. They've already been allowed a number of exceptions, including access to areas where there shouldn't be any whaling in the first place. They, and I mean ALL the pro-whaling countries and not just Japan, ought to suck it up and deal with the fact that there already aren't enough whales to feed their demand, so a merely "symbolic" proposal for a sanctuary should be no issue.

They KNOW it's beneficial to any animal population to set up sanctuaries. They're just too stuck-up and belligerent to admit it they're slowly eating marine mammals - yes, more than one kind :P - into extinction.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

If Japanese people want to eat whale meat, that's fine by me, but please have the balls to just come out and say "Eating whales is part of our culture, so screw you." instead of lying about it and calling it "scientific research

This lie is certainly justified if you actually know the history of the commercial whaling ban.

The Japanese were promised that they would retain their access to fish near the US in exchange for their ceasing commercial whaling. After Japan agreed to the ban on commercial whaling, the US still withdrew these fishing rights. This cover of 'scientfic research' whaling was used as the get-out clause by the Japanese.

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

After these amendments were passed in the mid-1980's, the Reagan Administration asked Japan to comply with the IWC moratorium on whaling or face trade sanctions and loss of fishing rights in U.S. waters. Japan stood to lose a million-ton Alaskan pollock fishery if it did not comply.

After further negotiations, Japan finally agreed to withdraw its objection to the moratorium. Thus, the moratorium on commercial whaling went into effect in 1986. Later, the United States ended up phasing out the fish allocation, an unforeseen loss for Japan.

http://animal.discovery.com/tv/whale-wars/whaling/japan-withdraw-moratorium.html

For the record, I do not support whaling, as it causes unneccessary damage to Japan's image abroad - and the the practice itself seems brutal compared to more humane ways of slaughter.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

This part of the posting above is also a quote:

After further negotiations, Japan finally agreed to withdraw its objection to the moratorium. Thus, the moratorium on commercial whaling went into effect in 1986. Later, the United States ended up phasing out the fish allocation, an unforeseen loss for Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Japan claims its hunts are for research purposes though the meat from the killed whales mostly ends up in restaurants, stores and school lunches"

."My my JT. Have you read the IWC guidelines? If you had, you wouldn't write something so blatantly biased and ignorant."

JT didn't write anything : Copyright 2011 Associated Press.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

JT didn't write anything : Copyright 2011 Associated Press.

Well then, it's even more of a loss to serious journalism. The AP doesn't seem to do any research before writing an article and writes biased rubbish ignoring facts.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan is banking on "you hurt my feelings" to win this vote, I hope they make a resolution that any party that does not vote makes their vote forfeit.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"Japan claims its hunts are for research purposes though the meat from the killed whales mostly ends up in restaurants, stores and school lunches"

MrDog: Disregarding the attribution for the article, what is factually wrong with that statement?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I tried Whale twice, but only because of the social situation as I was in, it tasted like shoe leather and the other time, it was a stew, also nothing to lose sleep over. There are no serious nutritional benefits to eating Whale meat as it is also considered toxic, I am not the one to preach to people what they should or should not eat, but I consider myself a pretty healthy guy and I do watch what I eat, but Whale meat, I would never give it to my child. I feel if the Japanese want to eat, hey, knock yourself out!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I would never give it to my child.

No, leave that to the school he/she attends.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan playing politics yet again, when they should be attempting to get their own ruined house in order. Got to laugh also at the African / Caribbean "whaling nations" who joined Japan in storming out. Not only do these nations have no connections with whaling - they probably don't even know what a whale is! They certainly know what Japanese Yen are though...

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

While all the attention is on this they will be out overfishing Tuna in the Pacific.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

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

Are we all in violation here then?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

MrDog: Disregarding the attribution for the article, what is factually wrong with that statement?

You don't know??

First, the IWC rules state that the caught whales have to be fully used. Not just the bits used in research, the WHOLE whale (as much as is possible). Second, the research being done doesn't need tonnes and tonnes of whalemeat and blubber.

Saying "Japan claims its hunts are for research purposes though the meat from the killed whales mostly ends up in restaurants, stores and school lunches" is facetious. If the person who wrote the article had done any research other than reading the SeaShepherd website, they wouldn't have written that.

Japan may be using the "scientific whaling" thing as a cover for commercial whaling, but they are following the rules set by the IWC, the International WHALING Commission. Who says that the caught whale mustn't be wasted. So of course they are going to sell the meat and blubber they don't need for research to be used for food.

The AP's biased reporting is disgusting.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

"Japan claims its hunts are for research purposes though the meat from the killed whales mostly ends up in restaurants, stores and school lunches"

MrDog: Disregarding the attribution for the article, what is factually wrong with that statement?

Under the laws of the IWC, meat from whales killed for scientific research is allowed to be sold. The above statement tends to make the reader think that this is not allowed.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The Japanese are against the sanctuary cos they reckon it has no scientific basis? Haven't the Japanese being doing 'Scientific Research' in the Ross Sea for the past 30 odd years? If they don't have any 'Scientific' results supporting their claims after so long it would point one to believe their 'scientific Research' is just a load of complete and utter bovine excrument! - And now, with the new transparencies in the payment system they are gonna be flat out getting the support they need to continue their 'Scientific Research'.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

It's all moot anyway as the remaining whales are destined to starve to death or suffocate on discarded human rubbish. After a few more years of turning the world's oceans into a wasteland with oxygen-free water, the whales will all be completely gone, along with most of the other marine life, including plankton, sharks, tuna, octopi and coral.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

well with yesterday's discovery of 42 Cesium cows shipped all over Japan, the Japanese might only be able to sell whale meat soon.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

tkoind2: "Typical of Japan."Our way or no way"."

True. Japan has had this attitude for a long time. The funny part is when they try to apply it to areas OUTSIDE Japan (ie. Antartic/Southern Sea). I'd say it's ironic that they whine about how whaling is 'part of our culture' and then demand they be allowed to do whatever it wants in areas outside of its jurisdiction (ie. forcing their values on others), but in this case it's simply ignorance.

beams: "Under the laws of the IWC, meat from whales killed for scientific research is allowed to be sold. The above statement tends to make the reader think that this is not allowed."

Maybe biased readers, yes, but what it actually implies is that the primary reason for the hunt is not actually research.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

So we can assume everyone who walked out with Japan (except maybe Iceland) did so to ensure they keep getting those fat cash-stuffed envelopes coming their way. Poor Japan, always the victim! Why not quit the IWC completely? Oh, wait, then you wouldn't be able to do any "legitimate research" and the Australians could sieze and arrest you for poaching.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

tkoind2: "Typical of Japan."Our way or no way"."

And I guess the anti-whalers don't say the same thing? There is a reason why the IWC has been dead-locked and can't function properly.

Simple Reason, NEITHER side is willing to give anything nor willing to compromise.

And who suffers are the truly endgaered whales like the mexican whales or the Grey/Gray whales that are endangered and about to become extinct of the russian coast due to sea-mining up there.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"Japan may be using the "scientific whaling" thing as a cover for commercial whaling, but they are following the rules set by the IWC, the International WHALING Commission. Who says that the caught whale mustn't be wasted. So of course they are going to sell the meat and blubber they don't need for research to be used for food.

The AP's biased reporting is disgusting."

You're admitting the scientific research is a sham but it's disgusting to state that food sales are the real reason for whaling?

"Under the laws of the IWC, meat from whales killed for scientific research is allowed to be sold. The above statement tends to make the reader think that this is not allowed."

The article says nothing to that effect at all.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

if they walk out, why didn' the other counties just vote? they missed a golden oppertunity

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The article says nothing to that effect at all.

That's the problem. It doesn't explain that the meat from research whaling is SUPPOSED to be sold for consumption. The article leaves that out.

Also, the article says, "Japanese whalers are active in an area off Antarctica that has already been established as a sanctuary." I think this implies that the "whale sanctuary" was established before Japan started whaling there when, in fact, it wasn't.

Very biased article.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

NEITHER side is willing to give anything nor willing to compromise.

Oh, I don't think that's true at all. I think Japan would be very open to, for example, say reducing it's catches a bit in exchange for a sanctioning of commercial whaling.

It's the anti-whaling side that refuses to budge an inch. Please explain to me where Japan could compromise on the issue in the complete absence of any commercial whaling.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Nuckinfutz: "So we can assume everyone who walked out with Japan (except maybe Iceland) did so to ensure they keep getting those fat cash-stuffed envelopes coming their way."

Of course! Don't forget only yesterday Japan, Iceland, and Norway were whining about conditions in the new 'let's make things more transparent with payments' legislation the Britain was suggesting the IWC adopt.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Mrdog-research whale meat distributors...some meat on the market DOES come from the "research" whales. I agree, the meat is tasty...however, it should be hunted properly and using certain allowed species.*papasmurfinjapan had it right-man up and be honest Japan!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Stranger: "It's the anti-whaling side that refuses to budge an inch. Please explain to me where Japan could compromise on the issue in the complete absence of any commercial whaling."

Why should the 'anti-whaling' side of the IWC budge an inch on a proposal which might force Japan to fish in its exclusive waters instead of a created whale sanctuary? Japan wants to have its cake and eat it too, claiming it's for research, then crying about culture when people say it's actually for consumption. And yet they claim it's their 'culture' and impose this belief on others by doing it outside their own nation!

Someone posted that there's WAY more meat than needed for the research and so it must be sold, but do you REALLY think they need the amount of whales they do for their so-called research?

As has also been said, seeing if it tastes better with mayonnaise is no more 'research' than asking the African nations' delegates which prositute they liked best.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

You're admitting the scientific research is a sham but it's disgusting to state that food sales are the real reason for whaling?

It's disgusting to twist facts to suit your biased views. Which is what the "writer" of this article has done. Scientific whaling may be a "sham", but it's still following the rules set by the commission. So, it's perfectly legal. And selling the unused meat for consumption is what they have to do to stick to the rules.

"Under the laws of the IWC, meat from whales killed for scientific research is allowed to be sold. The above statement tends to make the reader think that this is not allowed."

The article says nothing to that effect at all.

Oh, come on!

Whatever your views on whaling, this is a very biased article.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

For the record there is NO internationally recognized whale sanctuary PERIOD At the moment all waters are sheltered through the 1986 moratorium including Antarctica which was scheduled for evaluation in the 90's which till this day the anti-whaling community has been STONEWALLING based on assumption that there is not enough scientific data, the reason why Japan is conducting scientific hunts in the first place. People should really get their facts straight.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

1)

research whale meat distributors...some meat on the market DOES come from the "research" whales.

Where does the rest come from then? Facts please.

2)

I agree, the meat is tasty...however, it should be hunted properly and using certain allowed species.

It is "hunted properly and using certain allowed species". So what's your problem?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Mr. Dog, I am not against Japan whaling in or around its own waters but do you honestly believe for a second that Japan would be "research whaling" if they were not allowed to eat the produce?

No I don't.

I also don't think that there should be a blanket ban on whaling either. The anti-whaling crowd demand a complete ban. Which is not needed and unfair.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan doesn't even hunt in the Atlantic. It's just politics

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Mr. Dog: "Oh, come on! Whatever your views on whaling, this is a very biased article."

The poster of the comment you are refering to ("The article says nothing to that effect at all") was responding the comment by beams: "Under the laws of the IWC, meat from whales killed for scientific research is allowed to be sold. The above statement tends to make the reader think that this is not allowed."

When Paulinusa made the comment you refer to she was spot on; the article does not 'make readers think that it is not allowed' at all. The article simply points out that there is where the majority of the food ends up (ie. it is the primary purpose of the whaling -- not research!). Man, and you talk about bias??

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The article simply points out that there is where the majority of the food ends up..."

and by 'food' I mean whale meat, as it ends up on plates (just in case).

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I like whale and think the hunt is ok, but what kind of scientific research are they doing? couldn't agree with you more

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

When Paulinusa made the comment you refer to she was spot on; the article does not 'make readers think that it is not allowed' at all. The article simply points out that there is where the majority of the food ends up (ie. it is the primary purpose of the whaling -- not research!). Man, and you talk about bias??

The article points it out in a way that makes it look suspicious. And, yes, I am talking about bias. If you can't see that this article is very one-sided, you have problems with comprehension.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

SamuraiBlue: "... (not enough scientific evidence) the reason why Japan is conducting scientific hunts in the first place."

That gave me a laugh.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Mrdog, I think you confused quite a few people, including myself. In your defense though, the point you are trying to make is a difficult one to see. So difficult in fact that the writer of the sentence may not even realize they did it themselves. The bias you see is purely semantical, and it would take a master to make it intentionally. Well, maybe he or she was a master, or maybe it was an accident, though probably still a result of bias. Its not so clear.

But I think the point here is that Japan is clearly violating the spirit of the rules. Sure, they can use and abuse the letter of the rules, which state the killing of the whales must be for research. But making up research to kill whales to get meat is against the spirit of the rules. I have not seen anything to suggest much if any of this research is legit or necessary. Killing whales to save them? Please!

But then, the rules are pretty crappy. Mostly they are there because some people with power have a special thing for whales. Well, the Hindus having a special thing for cows sure has not brought the beef market to its knees like love for whales has done commercial whaling. Most anti-whalers need extra time in the morning to wash their two faces. But then, so do the whalers!

My main gripe is that there is no solid proof certain whales have recovered enough to allow whaling.

Anyway, I think it would have been smart to support the sanctuary for the whalers and keep their whaling in the Northern hemisphere. That would deflate Sea Shepard a bit as they can no longer act like the whalers are somehow violating Australian sovereignty, which though is a ridiculous argument, it is a strong basis for support for Sea Shepard Down Under.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why should the 'anti-whaling' side of the IWC budge an inch on a proposal which might force Japan to fish in its exclusive waters instead of a created whale sanctuary?

Are you saying the proposal would permit commercial whaling in Japanese waters. Ha! That's a good one. The anti-whalers will never agree to commercial whaling, anywhere. That's what I mean when I say, it's the anti-whalers that won't compromise, not the other way around.

Plus, it's the antarctic minke whale that is so plentiful, not necessarily whales in Japan's waters. If they are going to hunt, it should be of a plentiful species.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The article simply points out that there is where the majority of the food ends up..." and by 'food' I mean whale meat, as it ends up on plates (just in case).

Nice try, the article is clearly implying that the whaling isn't for research at all and then blatantly omitting the very important point that they are SUPPOSED to sell research whale meat for consumption.

Omitting relevant facts is as bad as lying.

The article is very obviously biased against whaling.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

In the end, whaling is killing whales, and whales are heading for extinction.

If the whaling nations' purpose is to make whales extinct, they should continue with whale hunting.

However, this action will make a lot more people/nations hate them for doing so.

I feel a very bitter taste toward Japan today.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

But I think the point here is that Japan is clearly violating the spirit of the rules.

The spirit of rules has changed since Japan joined. They should be violating the "spirit" of the rules.

My main gripe is that there is no solid proof certain whales have recovered enough to allow whaling.

Which whales are you referring to? The antarctic minke was never endangered and is today plentiful.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

In the end, whaling is killing whales, and whales are heading for extinction.

Whaling is hunting and referring to all whales as "headed for extinction" is not factual.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

FireRei.

Eating an form of meat, fish, plants involves killing them. Don't be fooled, humans are driving the species of the world into extinction may it be eating them or by encroaching into their habitats, etc.

Now the real question is why everyone is soooo worked up over a few species of whales(not close to extinction) when way more animals, whales, fished, Insects are way closer to extinction?

Everyone one is worried about a few whale species, yet others which are NOT hunted are closer to extinction and more threatened.

Think about that one, but while you and others(IWC) bicker over a few points ...

Sorry, got to say most posters here don't care about the whales but simply jump on a band-wagon and argue. Which is sad as there are many way more endangered species from mammals to fish, insects etc that are ignored.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

As in most cases, Japanese politicians (or officials as the case may be) behave like children that have been refused candy. High time they do some growing up. Their economy is on a slide without much hope of returning to the days of glory and someone might wait for them around the corner.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Forgive me if I am wrong but I thought one of the ideas floated was to encourage Japan to do commercially whale in it's waters and stop whaling for 'science' elsewhere? Thought I had read that previously. They do already hunt in Japaneae waters though. The question maybe should be, how many whales do they need to kill to add to the market when they supposedly have tonnes of frozen meat in storage. I saw a lot of whalemeat being sold in shimonoseki but it would be useful to know the real supply and demand figures.. And not include the meat that is disposed of daily in sushi shops everywhere. Personally there should be a concensus asked of the Japanese public. Is it worth the waste, the outcry, the alienation in a time when the ministry of fisheries and farms has admitted today it cannot enforce testing of produce in the north and is suggesting that radioactive sludge containing cesium levels of less than 200 Bq/kg be sold as fertiliser to further poison the rest of Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, got to say most posters here don't care about the whales but simply jump on a band-wagon and argue. Which is sad as there are many way more endangered species from mammals to fish, insects etc that are ignored

Zenny -- silly comment. So what if there are other "more endangered" species. How does that give Japan any more right to go into international waters to try and hunt whales? As usual, your "logic' does not hold up to any scrutiny.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

herefornow.

Now if you did read and understood the whole post and did a smidgeon of research, you would understand. HInt: I posted links to BBC articles(multiple).

Still stand by my opinion that most of the anti-whalers jumped on a bandwagon because it is popular to save certain species but know little to none about other species(whales, etc) closer to extinction.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I hate that Japanese pro- whalers are being called "the Japanese". They truly don't represent any but a very small minority of Japanese. Most Japanese don't know a danged thing about whaling and don't want anything to do with it.

As far as them being childish, yes. But that would go for both sides, not just the one whose position you support. I lean anti-whaling, but I am not a fan of Sea Shepard. I find the whaling to be just needless stirring of the pot. At least with other meat eating and hunting you can clearly argue cases of need and over-population.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Our way or no way!"

Now that's an interesting statement. It was said as a slur to Japan, but I don't see it as a particularly Japanese trait.

"Our way or no way! The American Way!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If the radiation floating around Japan doesn't get you then the carcinogens in the whale meat will-bon apetit!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"Our way or no way! The American Way!

"It's my way or the highway and they just reinstated tolls, so you better bring your wallets!" is what I tell my kids. I wonder how old they have to be before I can legally kick them out of the house?

*Yes, it's off-topic, I know.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sorry, got to say most posters here don't care about the whales but simply jump on a band-wagon and argue.

Aye, but it's a fun band-wagon to ride on.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Stranger: "Are you saying the proposal would permit commercial whaling in Japanese waters. Ha! That's a good one. "

That's what they doing now, they could just continue to commercial whale under the guise of research IN THEIR OWN WATERS! Man, the trees are right there behind the forest, my friend!

"Nice try, the article is clearly implying that the whaling isn't for research at all and then blatantly omitting the very important point that they are SUPPOSED to sell research whale meat for consumption."

Once again I find it funny that you guys read into things with as much or more bias than you claim exists in them.

'Japan claims its hunts are for research purposes though the meat from the killed whales mostly ends up in restaurants, stores and school lunches.'

This is a fact, my friend, and not a lie. Even more amusing is that Japan and others are trying to block the sanctuary from being officially recognized because they claim it "lacks scientific evidence"! THIS! From Japan!!! hahahaha.

Anyway, leave Japan and it's African paid-off nations to walk out, and let the world decide without them. When the whalers faced even tougher opposition in the sanctuary as a result they have but themselves to blame. They can't cry 'cultural rights' and in turn impose their 'values' on almost every other nation on the planet.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I think you confused quite a few people, including myself. In your defense though, the point you are trying to make is a difficult one to see. So difficult in fact that the writer of the sentence may not even realize they did it themselves.

If you can't see the bias, you have problems...

The bias you see is purely semantical, and it would take a master to make it intentionally. Well, maybe he or she was a master, or maybe it was an accident, though probably still a result of bias. Its not so clear.

No, it wouldn't "take a master to make it intentionally".

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If the majority vote for the sanctuary... Done deal.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

That's what they doing now, they could just continue to commercial whale under the guise of research IN THEIR OWN WATERS! Man, the trees are right there behind the forest, my friend!

What are you talking about, Smith? Is there a proposal right now at the IWC to approve commercial whaling in Japanese waters? No, of course there isn't. If the IWC gave permission for commercial whaling, THEN Japan would have room to compromise on where and how many whales.

Once again I find it funny that you guys read into things with as much or more bias than you claim exists in them....This is a fact, my friend, and not a lie.

Seems obvious to me. "Japan claims its hunts are for research" implies that they might not be. "Japan's hunts are for research purposes" would be unbiased. Or is Japan presumed guilty until proven innocent by the international court?

block the sanctuary from being officially recognized

Ah, finally someone admits that the "sanctuary" hasn't been officially recognized, and therefore isn't a sanctuary at all.

almost every other nation on the planet.

According to Wiki, there are 89 nation members of the IWC. How many pro, how many anti? Anybody got those numbers?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@chewitupJul. 15, 2011 - 12:53PM JST,

You have some misunderstandings about the IWC and it's rules and purpose.

The Whaling commission's rules, as described in the International Convention for the Regulation (not "banning") of Whaling, actually do make it clear that killing whales to get their meat is entirely in accordance with the spirit of the rules.

What isn't in the spirit of the IWC's rules was the so called "moratorium" decision on 1982 (adopted in the absence of, and indeed against scientific advice that it was necessary).

The "moratorium" denies whaling cultures their sovereign rights to sustainably exploit whale resources, this is against the spirit of the convention.

The "moratorium" also has the side-effect of precluding the gathering of biological data from commercial whale catches, which scientists use to advise managers about how to sustainably manage fisheries (this applies for both whales and other fisheries). Japan's JARPA programmes have been filling this data void, and biological data from the JARPA programmes continues to be used by the IWC Scientific Committee. If one cares to read this year's report one can again see that the JARPA biological data that could only be obtained through lethal research continues to be used for research purposes.

Some suggest that JARPA is just replacing commercial whaling, yet ignore the fact that JARPA catches are significantly lower than commercial catches prior to the moratorium, and indeed at around 850 minke whales a year are not unlike sample sizes used for other types of population studies.

Killing whales to save them? Please!

They aren't killing whales to "save them", they are killing them so as to gain biological data which can be analysed so as to better inform decisions about sustainable use of these resources.

there is no solid proof certain whales have recovered enough to allow whaling.

I suggest you check the IWC Scientific Committee reports for up-to-date information.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land, your read of the bias in the article is quite correct.

The article connects the two parts of the sentence with the word "though", so as to suggest that the fact that whale is food in Japan conflicts with the whales being caught for research purposes.

A non-biased article would state that IWC rules require that whales caught for research purposes also be utilised fully, rather than have meat dumped at sea as was done back in the old days of whaling for oil.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

FireyRei,

whaling is killing whales, and whales are heading for extinction.

Whales die for various reasons. Humans contribute to their rate of mortality in various ways. Whaling does not necessarily mean that they will go extinct, and that certainly isn't the aim.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Osakadaz,

The question maybe should be, how many whales do they need to kill to add to the market when they supposedly have tonnes of frozen meat in storage.

The important issue is how many whales can be caught on a sustainable basis.

This is what regulators ought concern themselves with.

The commercial decision of how much of the sustainable quotas to use is a commercial decision for businesses, not regulators.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Let them do it !!! I don't care anymore

Let them kill all the whales

Freaking idiots

0 ( +2 / -2 )

more amusing is that Japan and others are trying to block the sanctuary from being officially recognized because they claim it "lacks scientific evidence"!

There is no scientific basis for the Southern Atlantic Sanctuary that has been proposed, as required under the whaling convention (Article V).

Common sense - given that there is already a moratorium on commercial whaling, there is already a de facto "sanctuary" throughout the entire world by a different name.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Let them do it !!! I don't care anymore

Let them kill all the whales

Freaking idiots

.

LOL The heat got to you?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Seems obvious to me, too. "Japan claims its hunts are for research" is a statement of fact. Japan does make this claim, at every opportunity. "Japan's hunts are for research purposes" would be mere parrotting of the Japanese line, and highly biased.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"Japan issues special permits allowing hunts for scientific research" would also be a statement of fact, without the implied suspicion in the "claim" statement.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Skep, my daughter is going to an international private school, so they don't serve it there, so I don't need to worry. I don't personally like the slaughter of Whales, but as long as Japan doesn't decimate the population, then why not? I think too many of us put to much emotion into this debate and neither side will win(ring a bell?) Japanese will never back down to international pressure and will always claim it is their ancestral, historical right to do so. For most westerners, Whales are these highly intelligent magnificent creature who's population is dwindling from overfishing. I believe that the Japanese have the right to go Whaling. I have a different point of view, but that's totally irrelevant. Neither side will give in. I think there should be some reaching across the aisle and to reach some common ground. Not gonna hold my breath, just sayin'......

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

They walked out, well, who can blame them? It is only stressful and since they are already in beautiful Jersey, they might as well enjoy an afternoon out.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

"Japan issues special permits allowing hunts for scientific research" would be a statement of half a fact; it leaves out the bit about this means that Japan is permitting itself to hunt, as well as the fact that the IWC has umpteen times urged Japan not to issue any more special permits.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@davidattokyo, surprised you did not quote your usual line written over 60yrs ago stating the IWC was set up for sustainable whaling,(& if had of been abided by Japan may still be considered sustainable now), yet failing to add for over 50yrs the IWC set sustainable quotas, so whaling could be sustained, yet Japan refused to abide by these quotas so therefore the GLOBAL moratorium HAD to be introduced to protect against extinction. So if Japan REFUSED to abide by sustainable quotas, as proven by history, why would the world believe for one second they would now? Japan has proven not only by ignoring sustainable quotas, but but refusing to accept many IWC endorsments to end its "scientific research" whaling,(cover for commercial whaling), so why would the world believe for a second that if Japan was allowed commercial whaling that it would abide by set quotas? It has repeatedly proven it is willing to lie & ignore the rest of the world in this issue, & corrupt the world organization set up to oversee it.

Japan continues to try to play the victim card, & say this is our tradition, just what yr did whaling in Antarctic waters start for Japan again? & if it a argument of "tradition" then "scientific research" has nothing to do with it, does it? Simily Australia, who you continually berate, also has the great "tradition" of whaling, something someone else on a previous thread pointed out, so therefore by your argument then Australia should argue this is "OUR TRADITION" so should also kill whales, except for the fact they have joined the rest of the world & 21st century, something the Japanese whaling industry still refuses to do.

You continually argue Japans whaling is sustainable, yet agree Minke numbers are 200-300 thousand, now going by Japans "sustainable" numbers, & commercial whaling was reintroduced, then if just 50 nations from the IWC killed 1,000 Minkes per year,(Japans rate), then the population would be destroyed in 4-6yrs, yes? Then we get on to critically endangered whales,(something many posters say Japan does not do), Fin, & Humpbacks, lets say, well Japan DOES hunt these critically endangered species, am sure with all your references you will see they ARE on Japans SELF IMPOSED quotas, & DNA that has been traced back to Japans hunts show back shows this leads to illegal trade around the world.

Now lets look at "compromise", Japan was offered a deal; to end hunts in Antarctic waters in return for "Coastal commercial whaling", Japan refused & rebuked this proposition, it stated it will wanted to continue to hunt in Antarctic waters & have coastal whaling as well. Is not a compromise giving something up to get something else, then just what was Japans whaling industry giving up? Continuing its hunts in the Antarctic & we will have coastal commercial whaling as well,(which it does anyway under the guise of "research" once again), so please tell us again just what was Japan willing to give up, & just how were they willing to compromise in the deal? Oh that's right absolutely nothing, will have our cake & eat it too.

Now to the current meeting, if Japan wanted to be actively condusive to the good working of the IWC, then why would it so actively oppose to the introduction of laws to eliminate corruption? You have repeatedly stated that anti-whaling countries are responsible for the corruption of the IWC, then would not this have been a good chance for Japan to end this? Then not only fighting tooth & nail to prevent transparency within the IWC,(unless of course they have something to hide, like a criminal refusing to take the stand at trial). Then when a proposal was put forward to create a sanctuary on the otherside of the globe from Japan they choose to walk out, along with their bribed cronies, like a baby spitting the dummy when it does not get what it wants! Surely if Japan was SO concerned with making the IWC a functional international group, & something they can work compromise deals in, then surely taking part of a vote would be more condusive to creating a harmonious working group, than behaving like a spoilt child? Or should anti-whaling nations behave like Japan & its bribed cronies when a proposal is put forth by Japan & behave the same way? Would LOVE to see your comments then!!!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

"Japan issues special permits allowing hunts for scientific research" would be a statement of half a fact;

Just like the article left out that they are supposed to sell the meat for consumption.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If anything, I think for the Japanese overall it is more about defiance rather than tradition, simply put.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Japanese whaling research showed that a sanctuary is no sanctuary if the sanctuary border is not honored by certain whaling nation. Therefore japan concludes that establishing a sanctuary is a total waste of time.

Case closed. Next.............................

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Funny how the delegates from Zambia never realised how important whaling was to their country until a few ladies of the night, sushi platters and fat brown envelopes arrived at the embassy...a mystery for the ages.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Ayler

Correct! Not to mention the other African nations that never even traditionally hunted Whale, now all of a sudden, it's a big issue to them? I see......

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

DJbooth,

On one hand you say scientific whaling is a cover for commercial whaling and it catches how many whales it likes, yet on the other hand you suggest that Japan can't be trusted to abide by international quotas.

Logically if that were the case Japan would already be catching as many whales as it likes for commercial purposes.

Yet in reality, Japan reduced catches significantly in the wake of the moratorium when it brought in scientific whaling.

Obviously therefore your beliefs are completely wrong for some reason.

You continually argue Japans whaling is sustainable, yet agree Minke numbers are 200-300 thousand,

Latest information from the IWC Scientific Committee suggests the new estimate next year will be between 400,000 to 600,000 and probably leaning more towards 600,000.

if just 50 nations from the IWC killed 1,000 Minkes per year,

If nations want to share the quota then the quota should be divided up between them so that in sum the quota is sustainable. This incidentally is why there is an IWC in the first place - to prevent the sort of hypothetical crisis situation you raise.

Therefore the conclusion is that the IWC ought to be setting such sustainable quotas right now - if we really care about preventing nasty crises. I do. (You don't seem to as you disagree with me.)

It's not Japan's fault that no one else is particularly interested in an Antarctic minke whale quota at the moment, and certainly no reason that Japan should be denied a quota.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The whaling issue is just the most high profile one but the philosophy of sustainable use of natural wild resources is the same across the board.

Antis think certain animals are too good for eating, Non-antis think Antis are a bunch of really nasty arrogant people who should mind their own business.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Correct! Not to mention the other African nations that never even traditionally hunted Whale, now all of a sudden, it's a big issue to them? I see......

It goes the same for those anit-whaling nations who have no interest whatsoever in pursuing "orderly development of the whaling industry". It's equivalent to having vegan members inside the National Cattlemans Beef association.

When IWC allowed these members is the downfall of this organization.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Stranger: "Is there a proposal right now at the IWC to approve commercial whaling in Japanese waters?"

It's amusing to watch you cherry-pick my points and avoid your own hypocrisy; Japan could very well proclaim it was doing 'science' in its own waters while in actuality doing it for commercial purposes. Sorry I had to dummy it down for you, I thought you got the obvious. But then, you guys do play a pretty good game at crying about hypocrisy and ignoring the fact that the actual crying is hypocrisy itself. Again... push aside those wee-little shrubs that you can't see the forest for.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Nigelboy: "When IWC allowed these members is the downfall of this organization."

No kidding!

Of course the big difference is that the land-locked African nations with zero experience in whaling and that have probably never even seen one are being paid big money, given prostitutes, and wined and dined on your tax money are doing so ONLY for that purpose, whereas other groups are against a mere one to three nations intent on over-fishing and over-whaling to gain a few extra bucks in the short term.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

davidattokyo: "Logically if that were the case Japan would already be catching as many whales as it likes for commercial purposes."

We're all well aware that, sadly, Japan is far from logical on issues like whaling and blue-fin tuna. They do try to catch their quota if not more, but are fortunately blocked by people who are actually logical. Nice try, though.

But hey, it was funny to watch Japan freak out about the idea of making payment methods to the IWC more transparent! I'm curious what you have to say on that issue. :)

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Sorry; "it's" not 1st!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sorry;"1st", damn auto-correct!!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Once again will try;"1ft"

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This breaks my heart Japan....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Some nations make billions of $ from eco-tourism/whale watching, & those same whales Japan kills in the Antarctic also provide a financial living from those who live close to the Antarctic region, unlike Japan on the otherside of the equator. Wonder how Japan would feel with other nations pillaging just outstside it's EEZ, but in a internationally recognised sanctuary & affecting it's economy??? Just food for thought there, & not whale bacon either!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ohh you mean like a group that is soley concerned with conducting commercial whaling fudging population figures so it conduct commercial whaling in a designated sanctuary?

For the first part of the sentence, IWC is for orderly development of whaling industry and therefore, should be concerned with conducting commercial whaling. As for the latter part, you need to show me proof that Japan is fudging population figures.

As davidattokyo alluded to, by placing a commercial moratorium, there is a de facto sanctuary in place so there is no need to "ban" scientifiic research in open seas unless of course these nations who are for the sancturary can prove that these researches do in fact deplete the sources in an unsustainable manner.

As for your question as to how Japan would feel with other nations pillaging just outside it's EEZ, look no further around Senkaku/East China sea where outside the EEZ, Japan has no qualms against Chinese fishermen. It's when they encroach within the EEZ where Japan Coast Guard takes action.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Funny, then why are we hearing all these complaints from the Jgov regarding foreign controlled islands that Japan claims as theirs everyday? Just today Jgov embargoed a Korean airline for just flying over a Korean controlled island?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The diplomatic solution might be very difficult to reach between Australia and Japan. If I was Australia, they really need to compromise and build trust before additional friction develops. If not, this might be a good time for Japan is to leave the IWC. Few years ago, Japan did considered forming a regional organization with other North Pacific countries, such as South Korea, China and the Russian Federation, as an alternative to the IWC. Such a development would be of serious concern for the anti-whaling movement due to the market size and harvesting capacity of these states. If Japan chose to leave the IWC and join this new organization then other pro-whaling states, such as Norway and Iceland, may follow. Once the IWC ceases to regulate the major whaling states its legitimacy as the ‘appropriate organization’ will be substantially undermined. With Japan, if SK, China, and Russia gets agressively involved in wide scale whaling without restrictions, Australians will have will have more problems. Australia really needs Japan as a ally.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Japan has a desire to be seen as good members of the international community and cooperates with other countries. They deserve a bit of credit for, given the amount of pressure they've been subjected to. The international scrutiny is only legitimate because Japan has accepted that it should be. Japan can withdraw that acceptance at any moment, as can any other sovereign country. The only reason that we can observe what's going on or subject the Japanese to scrutiny is because Japan accepts this by being a member of the IWC. If it didn't, Japan could whale five times as many whales and Australia or any other country would not be able to tell it not to do so. Because it have broken its contract with the IWC. And this is what might happen if push too hard.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

sfjp330

The diplomatic solution might be very difficult to reach between Australia and Japan. If I was Australia, they really need to compromise and build trust before additional friction develops.

Why do they, more to the point why should they. After all this ban is talking about waters in Australia's region of the world not Japan's. So maybe its Japan that needs to back down.

If not, this might be a good time for Japan is to leave the IWC. Few years ago, Japan did considered forming a regional organization with other North Pacific countries, such as South Korea, China and the Russian Federation, as an alternative to the IWC. Such a development would be of serious concern for the anti-whaling movement due to the market size and harvesting capacity of these states.

Again go for by all means Japan can leave the IWC and form its regional organisation with its North Pacific partners. Then the anti whaling countries in the South Pacific and Southern ocean area can make as many sanctuaries as they want. Oh but wait the Japanese arnt satisfied whaling in the Northern Pacific they do their whaling in Australia's backyard.

Australia really needs Japan as a ally.

Why does Australia need Japan as an ally? Really, what does Japan do for Australia? If you are talking trade lm sure there are other countries that can pick up the slack (China) for example.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

nigelboy,

As for your question as to how Japan would feel with other nations pillaging just outside it's EEZ, look no further around Senkaku/East China sea where outside the EEZ, Japan has no qualms against Chinese fishermen. It's when they encroach within the EEZ where Japan Coast Guard takes action

But what you are forgetting, the area Japan whales in is claimed by Australia as part of its EEZ and while only a handful of countries recognise this fact it is much the same as Japans claim of a EEZ around Senkaku. Not all countries recognise this yet Japan enforces it with its coast guard and fires on and arrests people fishing in there illegally. Maybe its time Australia did the same in its claimed EEZ. Start firing on and arresting Japanese whalers. More action less talk and send these Japanese back to their own radioactive waters to fish

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Spidapig24Jul. 16, 2011 - 07:45AM JST Why does Australia need Japan as an ally? Really, what does Japan do for Australia? If you are talking trade lm sure there are other countries that can pick up the slack (China) for example.

Then Australia should embrace China, since China is a main buyer in iron ore, mining has been a enviromental disaster in Australia.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Spidapig24Jul. 16, 2011 - 07:45AM JST. Then the anti whaling countries in the South Pacific and Southern ocean area can make as many sanctuaries as they want.

Australia can make all the rules they want, but if Japan is no longer a member of IWC, how are you going to enforce your rules? Australia does not have much human resources, let alone tiny Navy.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Spidapig24Jul. 16, 2011 - 07:52AM JST. Maybe its time Australia did the same in its claimed EEZ. Start firing on and arresting Japanese whalers. More action less talk and send these Japanese back to their own radioactive waters to fish.

Then comes the compelling issue of enforcement. Opening the EEZ will make enforcement complicated and in a sense impossible by extending law enforcement resources beyond what had reached it’s capacity. Australia have no enforcement powers in waters, and even if such powers existed, Australia lack the enforcement budgets, vessels and manpower to patrol waters more than 5km offshore.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There's a great show on the Discovery Channel in the states now called 'Whale Wars.' Follows the Sea Shepherd on its missions. Do you think that show will ever be aired on Discovery Japan? I think not.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

sfjp330.

Then Australia should embrace China, since China is a main buyer in iron ore, mining has been a enviromental disaster in Australia

Mining has been an environmental disaster in Australia has it? Maybe in the past yes, but mining in Australia is very well regulated in terms of the environmental damage that occurs. Also mining contributed to the massive financial boom that mining has provided allowing Australia to ride out the world financial crisis quite well.

So l really think your on the wrong track with your statement there.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

sfjp330,

Australia can make all the rules they want, but if Japan is no longer a member of IWC, how are you going to enforce your rules?

The same way Japan does with its navy and customs and fisheries patrols.

Australia does not have much human resources, let alone tiny Navy.

Do you know much about Australia? Obviously not. Maybe you should google the Australian navy and also customs and fisheries. You will find that they have enough resources to monitor and deter the Japanese whalers if thats what they choose to do.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

sfjp330,

Australia have no enforcement powers in waters

Just as Japan "claims" the waters around Senkaku islands as part of its EEZ. Australia has already claimed the waters around its Antarctic claim as part of its EEZ. Yes Japan hasnt recognised this claim as Australia hasnt recognised Japans claim to Senkaku. So what is the difference? If Australia was to send fishing vessels into the Senkaku EEZ they would be forced out at gunpoint, true? What is the difference?

Australia lack the enforcement budgets, vessels and manpower to patrol waters more than 5km offshore

Im sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about. Australia in the past has indeed sent law enforcement vessels to monitor Japanese activities in the whaling grounds and as for your ludicrous statement that it doesnt have the vessels or manpower to patrol more than 5 km offshore. Please! Stop embarrassing yourself with totally ridiculous statements and do some research.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@smithinjapan Jul. 16, 2011 - 12:52AM JST

We're all well aware that, sadly, Japan is far from logical on issues like whaling and

M'kay... nice argument there. Well done.

watch Japan freak out about the idea of making payment methods to the IWC more transparent! I'm curious what you have to say on that issue. :)

Were you watching Japan "freak out"? How? Were you there?

As for this sideshow about payment methods, what's the point - the IWC hasn't been conducting any votes for a couple of years anyway, so why anyone still believes that Japan is buying votes is beyond me. Especially since the allegations last year came from News Corp.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@DJboothJul. 16, 2011 - 01:29AM JST

Some nations make billions of $ from eco-tourism/whale watching, & those same whales Japan kills in the Antarctic

It's all about money for you, isn't it.

Japan kills mainly minke whales in the Antarctic, and there are hardly any eco-tourism ventures that target these same whales. The fact that Japan has been catching whales in the Antarctic for more than 50 years is evidence enough that doing so has no negative impact on the potential for whale watching.

Besides, priority wise food for people comes before photo targets for rich tourists.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@nigelboyJul. 16, 2011 - 01:47AM JST

As for the latter part, you need to show me proof that Japan is fudging population figures.

Absolutely - the IWC Scientific Committee is working on the population figures as a group. When the estimate is announced next year it will be from the IWC SC as a whole - not just Japan as the anti-whaling propaganda will have it.

As davidattokyo alluded to, by placing a commercial moratorium, there is a de facto sanctuary in place so there is no need to "ban" scientifiic research in open seas

To be precise, the commercial moratorium precludes commercial whaling, but like the moratorium, whaling convention sanctuaries don't apply to special permit research catches either. The Southern Atlantic Sanctuary is therefore entirely pointless from a view to the number of whales that are being caught there. And Japanese research doesn't cover Atlantic waters anyways..

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

davidattokyo,

Besides, priority wise food for people comes before photo targets for rich tourists

I agree that food for people comes before photos for people (and not only rich people take photos of whales). However given that Japan is still sitting on a massive stockpile of whale meat why do they need to keep increasing that stockpile. Afterall like all food it will not keep forever so why not suspend whaling for a while until the stockpile is reduced. You know why as well as l do, because the Japanese are being bloody minded and are whaling for the sake of it. They dont need the meat for food now do they?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

wow what an extremely childish thing to do...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Spidapid24,

given that Japan is still sitting on a massive stockpile of whale meat why do they need to keep increasing that stockpile.

It's a tiny stockpile of whale meat, only a few thousand tonnes doesn't provide food for many meals in Japan. And there is certainly more need for food stockpiles than there is useless digital photographs that people hardly ever look at again once they are taken.

Afterall like all food it will not keep forever

If it's frozen like whale meat is then it lasts for a good number of years (10 or so).

why not suspend whaling for a while until the stockpile is reduced.

The stockpile is already reduced compared with what it was before the moratorium. And there is no good reason why this should be the case considering there are plenty of whales out there that could be caught sustainably.

You know why as well as l do, because the Japanese are being bloody minded and

You ought to stop speaking for anyone other than yourself if you are going to say wrong things.

They dont need the meat for food now do they?

If there was no stockpile of food in Japan and a massive earthquake strikes tomorrow, then what do you think people are going to eat in the days that follow??

Gee this scenario doesn't sound so unfamiliar to me actually...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Gee this scenario doesn't sound so unfamiliar to me actually...

you just don't have a clue do you? absolutely none at all...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

so why anyone still believes that Japan is buying votes is beyond me.

yeah, I would imagine it is

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You really think that if another massive earthquake hit they would start giving away free whale meat? really? didnt hear anything about that last time. funny. watching someone clutch at straws is kind of entertaining for a while but I think you're relegated to the pay no mind list from now on unless you can up the comedy ante.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

a walk out was a Bad move, thats what North Korea does. & anyone who gives up easly on Debates. i see alot of people here are "anti whale hunting" thats OK BUT i ask the same question they do. WHY is it OK to kill cows, pigs, chickens?! Don't tell me they are "not in Dangered" They still Get Killed.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ayler,

You missed the point. The point is, is that without stockpiling food (be it whale or whatever - there is millions of food stockpiled in Japan right now) then you don't have anything to eat when your supply suddenly gets disrupted.

Why people would imagine whale food be treated so differently to every other type of food is also - you guessed it - beyond me. There is a stockpile of whale meat - so what - there is a stockpile of lots of stuff, and the whale meat one is relateively tiny.

You really think that if another massive earthquake hit they would start giving away free whale meat? really? didnt hear anything about that last time.

Actually there was some whale meat distributed to people in affected communities - but that wasn't my point. Glad you decided to raise it though.

Raymasaki,

a walk out was a Bad move,

The bad move was to put to vote a proposal that was obviously never going to pass, and also be entirely ineffectual. See this BBC piece for an explanation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14163984

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

this might be a good time for Japan is to leave the IWC

I have said that many times.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You missed the point. The point is, is that without stockpiling food (be it whale or whatever - there is millions of food stockpiled in Japan right now) then you don't have anything to eat when your supply suddenly gets disrupted.

No I didn't. Your point was that whale meat stockpiles were important should another major earthquake happen. throw in the "be it whale or whatever" now but that's a bit late. or are you going to join the 'whatever' side? yeah....probably not eh. if you really think there is any relation between whaling and the reconstruction of Japan/feeding the hungry masses you really need to step away from the keyboard for a bit and take a stroll, go to the park, throw a frisbee...

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Actually there was some whale meat distributed to people in affected communities - but that wasn't my point. Glad you decided to raise it though

I aim to please ! You'll back it up with some hard stats then. Good job I raised it eh? Get googling!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

having a bit of trouble with the old keyboard Davey?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I see many from Japan side with these murders thats to bad...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

IWC needs to be reformed to only allow currently whaling nations in.

The other countries pretending to be interested in resource management of whaling are being more dishonest about their role there than Japan ever was about scientific whaling.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

ALL THE ANTI-WHALERS.. shut the hell up!... the only bullies are the hypocrite Americans who think they can tell other countries what to eat.. while they have over 6000 slaughterhoues across America which kills billions of chicken pigs and cows per year... The Japanese can eat whales if they want... if you dont like it.. you know what you can do!!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I see a lot of people talking about how whales taste, I hear human tastes quite good, well i dont know if it does, but if certain people In Japan are so intent to kill highly intelligent mammals why dont they take up doing that as well, It seems the base route of spin doctors is to compare whale to other animals, they are not other animals, they are highly intelligent creatures and the rest of the world is waking up to this fact. Certain people in Japan arnt.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

the area Japan whales in is claimed by Australia as part of its EEZ and while only a handful of countries recognise this fact it is much the same as Japans claim of a EEZ around Senkaku.

The basis for the claims is different. Japan is claiming land, and based on that claim, the waters around that land. This claim is disputed, but the bottom line is that waters close to one's territory are yours. Everyone accepts this under maritime law.

Isn't it the case that Australia is claiming a patch of open ocean that is well outside its EEZ, i.e., waters they are not Australian waters? This would make it an unprecedented ocean-grab.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

davidattokyo

It's a tiny stockpile of whale meat, only a few thousand tonnes doesn't provide food for many meals in Japan. And there is certainly more need for food stockpiles than there is useless digital photographs that people hardly ever look at again once they are taken.

I think you and l have very different views of what the definition of tiny is. I certainly wouldnt call a couple of thousand tonnes tiny would you really. Actually isnt it up around 4 or 5 thousand tonnes certainly not tiny. And isnt some of that meat from before the ban on commercial whaling? According to the JWA it is. So clearly do they really need to keep whaling with such a massive stockpile and a declining consumption rate?

The stockpile is already reduced compared with what it was before the moratorium. And there is no good reason why this should be the case considering there are plenty of whales out there that could be caught sustainably.

Says who? the figures put out by the ICR? Yeah we can all believe them cant we. Even the IWC have reduced the number of whales (minke) by around 50 % havent they? And after all these years of research we still dont have definitive figures. And finally the biggest laugh in your statement "sustainably", PLEASE! The Japanese have a great track record of sustainable fishing dont they? Like their sustainable tuna fishing, how is that poaching of Australian tuna grounds going by the way? Yep trust the Japanese fisheries. I wouldnt trust the Japanese fishing industry at all their track record speaks for itself.

If there was no stockpile of food in Japan and a massive earthquake strikes tomorrow, then what do you think people are going to eat in the days that follow??

HAHA I was waiting for this line, oh no the stockpile is for an earthquake or war or incase we get nuked again. Rubbish! If there is such a massive earthquake and the power goes out? No frozen whale. Working on your theory they better slaughter every cow in Japan and every whale in the world after all the Tokai earthquake is coming (eventually)

.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nessie,

The basis for the claims is different. Japan is claiming land, and based on that claim, the waters around that land.

So it is the same then! Because if you look the Australian claim is for the sea directly offshore from the Australian Antarctic zone which is the slice of Antarctic land mass claimed by Australia. So in that respect its identical.

This claim is disputed, but the bottom line is that waters close to one's territory are yours. Everyone accepts this under maritime law.

Yes both claims are disputed correct. Few countries recognise Japans claim in the Senkaku's and few recognise Australia's in Antarctica. So according to your arguement Japan should recognise the Australian EEZ in Antarctic waters. Thanks for making my point.

Isn't it the case that Australia is claiming a patch of open ocean that is well outside its EEZ, i.e., waters they are not Australian waters? This would make it an unprecedented ocean-grab

See above. Australia is claiming the waters directly off its land claim in Antarctica. A claim which is recognised by a handfull of other nations. It actually is not in the middle of open ocean but extends from landfall outwards as per current EEZ's. So no its not an ocean grab but is in the same vain as Japans claim on the Senkaku's for example.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ayler

No I didn't. Your point was that whale meat stockpiles were important should another major earthquake happen.

Whee, now you're telling me what my point was. As I said first up, "there is certainly more need for food stockpiles". Food stockpiles includes whale stockpiles, but is certainly not limited to whale stockpiles as you seemed to think at first.

if you really think there is any relation between whaling and the reconstruction of Japan/feeding the hungry masses you

You would only get that idea if you were interpreting my comments in the context of your own preconceptions and biases, rather than objectively.

You'll back it up with some hard stats then. Good job I raised it eh? Get googling!

You can check it yourself via Google. I could waste time Googling and post the links to show you the news articles and you'd just turn around and go off on your next tangent. Check about the research whaling meat from Kushiro, Hokkaido this year.

having a bit of trouble with the old keyboard Davey?

Actually, I had turned off my computer for the day...

Jarvis,

they are not other animals, they are highly intelligent creatures and

They are not so intelligent that they aren't good for eating.

I have no desire to eat members of my own species, and don't know anyone who does, so I don't know why you would raise that point. Whales are not humans like us. Whales are animals more like those intelligent pigs we eat.

Nessie,

Isn't it the case that Australia is claiming a patch of open ocean that is well outside its EEZ, i.e., waters they are not Australian waters? This would make it an unprecedented ocean-grab.

Australia is claiming the patch of open ocean based on some claim they think they have over part of the Antarctic continent. They think they can claim an EEZ around the Antarctic continent as a result. With less than a handful of nations recognising that land claim (and only those nations with other equally dubious claims) they shouldn't be surprised that the rest of the world thinks those waters are high seas under international law.

I like Aussies generally but they are crazy about these particular issues.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Spidapig24

So it is the same then! Because if you look the Australian claim is for the sea directly offshore from the Australian Antarctic zone which is the slice of Antarctic land mass claimed by Australia. So in that respect its identical.

No since under the treaty of Antarctica which had been ratified by Australia, they cannot make any assertion towards Antarctica therefore no coastline as a baseline for an EEZ to be established. Technically claiming EEZ within Antarctic zone violates the treaty.

It's a complete different situation where Japan has a definitive point of reference to establish an EEZ.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SamuraiBlue

No since under the treaty of Antarctica which had been ratified by Australia, they cannot make any assertion towards Antarctica therefore no coastline as a baseline for an EEZ to be established.

Actually the Australian claim in Antarctica dates from 1933 before the Antarctic treaty. Also the treaty states "1. Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as:

a) a renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica; b) a renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica which it may have whether as a result of its activities or those of its nationals in Antarctica, c) or otherwise; prejudicing the position of any Contracting Party as regards its recognition or non-recognition of any other State's rights of or claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica.

So even though Australia has ratified the treaty as you can see from (A) Australia's previous claim is not renounced just because they signed the treaty.

Technically claiming EEZ within Antarctic zone violates the treaty.

As you can see from above it actually doesnt violate the treaty at all

It's a complete different situation where Japan has a definitive point of reference to establish an EEZ.

As does Australia, its claimed land in Antartica dating back to the 1930's. Its the same situation a nation has a disputed claim to land which some other nations recognise and as such both nations have claimed an EEZ around their disputed claim. And interestingly the Federal court in Australia agrees and handed down a verdict that states that the Japanese are violating the Australian EEZ by fishing in these waters.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You would only get that idea if you were interpreting my comments in the context of your own preconceptions and biases, rather than objectively.

No I got my ideas from the things you typed. Where you get them from who the hell knows, certainly no rational intelligent person would come up with such nonsense. I found nothing on distributing whale meat to earthquake victims, as you well know since it only happened in your imagination. There is little sense in debating with you however, we'll simply never agree. I'll just have to get some what satisfaction I can from knowing I'm right :)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Ayler,

I found nothing on distributing whale meat to earthquake victims, as you well know since it only happened in your imagination.

Dont worry this just seems to be the excuse for the continued whale just in case of an earthquake. Its a crock, if it wasnt earthquakes it would be meteors, or some other rubbish excuse. The facts are Japan is sitting on a massive stockpile of whale meat that is slowly diminishing. Its slowly diminishing because demand is low and they are now using the earthquake excuse as justification to keep building this stockpile.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spidapig24

Here is the original article and not a Wiki interpretation .

Article IV

[territorial claims]

Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as:

(a) a renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica;

(b) a renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica which it may have whether as a result of its activities or those of its nationals in Antarctica, or otherwise;

(c) prejudicing the position of any Contracting Party as regards its recognition or nonrecognition of any other State's right of or claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica.

No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.

By making claim violates article 4 section2 of the treaty.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

SamuraiBlue,

Here is the original article and not a Wiki interpretation . Article IV [territorial claims] Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as: (a) a renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica; (b) a renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica which it may have whether as a result of its activities or those of its nationals in Antarctica, or otherwise; (c) prejudicing the position of any Contracting Party as regards its recognition or nonrecognition of any other State's right of or claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica. No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force. By making claim violates article 4 section2 of the treaty.

SamuraiBlue, Thank you so much for making my point so perfectly. I will spell it out for you. As Australia's Antarctic claim dates from 1933 and the Antarctic treaty dates from the 60's l believe then Australia' claim predates the treaty. As such if you read the following you will understand where you went wrong:

Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as: (a) a renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica;

The key there being previously asserted claims. As Australia's claim is prior to the treaty the treat does not mean Australia renounced its rights that predate the treaty. So the Australian claim stands, thatnks for supporting my position there.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ayler,

No I got my ideas from the things you typed.

In that case, you need to learn to read :)

certainly no rational intelligent person would come up with such nonsense.

The stuff you made up as a strawman?

I found nothing on distributing whale meat to earthquake victims, as you well know since it only happened in your imagination.

So if the news that I say exists is actually in my imagination and you found nothing about it, what would you say if I can show you an article that shows the JWA did indeed send whale meat from Kushiro to Ishinomaki residents, after a survey of evacuated residents found that "almost all respondents said they quote, want to eat whale meat, unquote"?

Would you be able to admit that you are wr..., wro..., wrong?

Don't tell me your Google ability is as poor as your reading comprehension.

There is little sense in debating with you however, we'll simply never agree.

That much is indeed obvious.

I'll just have to get some what satisfaction I can from knowing I'm right :)

LOL

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Spidapig24

I guess you can't read, the concept of EEZ was established in the 70's way after the treaty of Antarctica had been ratified, therefore claiming EEZ is a direct violation of article 4 section 2 stating NO NEW CLAIMS or ENLARGEMENT of an existing claim to territorial sovereignty shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.

Really Australia has no basis since most nations does not recognize her claim in the first place and claiming EEZ a fairly new concept after the ratification of the treaty of Antarctica is considered as enlargement of an existing claim that goes against the treaty.

Try again.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Spidapig24,

Dont worry this just seems to be the excuse for the continued whale just in case of an earthquake. Its a crock, if it wasnt earthquakes it would be meteors, or some other rubbish excuse.

So go tell that to all those cold storage facilities around Japan that are loaded with food, that they are all entirely nuts, if you think it's such a big problem. Your expert advice on how to manage inventory would surely be paid much heed.

The facts are Japan is sitting on a massive stockpile of whale meat that is slowly diminishing.

A few thousand tonnes of whale meat versus millions of tonnes of frozen seafood, and you call it "massive"? Whale meat production peaked at 226,000 tonnes back in the 1960s. And you are getting all excited about a few lousy thousand tonnes?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

the Australian claim stands

Doesn't mean the claim is recognised...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

davidattokyo,

So go tell that to all those cold storage facilities around Japan that are loaded with food, that they are all entirely nuts, if you think it's such a big problem. Your expert advice on how to manage inventory would surely be paid much heed.

Now you are putting words in my mouth, by all means have a stockpile just in case of a disaster. Just out of curiosity how many people are dying of starvation in the world while Japan sits on this stockpile? The Japanese in their eternal victim mentality will no doubt use the earthquake stockpiling as an excuse to continue their research whaling sidestep around the ban on commercial whaling much like you are.

A few thousand tonnes of whale meat versus millions of tonnes of frozen seafood, and you call it "massive"? Whale meat production peaked at 226,000 tonnes back in the 1960s. And you are getting all excited about a few lousy thousand tonnes?

Ok lets call a spade a spade. Who really cares what whale meat production peaked at in the 60's. But maybe that peak is the reason why whales almost became extinct have you actually thought of that. But hey lets reintroduce commercial whaling and let the Japanese at it again is that what you want David? Would you trust the Japanese to resume commercial whaling responsibly? Dont bother answering that l already know your answer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo,

"the Australian claim stands" Doesn't mean the claim is recognised...

Exactly right, it doesnt mean that the claim is recognised, much like Japan claims Senkaku as its territory. It is a claim that other countries either recognise or dont and that is a fact of life. Japan claims Senkaku and enforces it, Australia claims the eez around its Antarctic claim and should enforce it. Now that would be interesting.

But in all seriousness David we will never agree on this. You are a pro whaler with you buddies like Glen Inwood and so forth. You will only ever see the Japanese side. Personally if the Japanese want to whale around Japan l say let them. When Japan travels to the other end of the earth in my countries back yard to whale thats where l have an issue. I say let them whale in there own waters but stay out of other peoples areas. Look at the countries that border the Japanese whaling area in the southern ocean. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile, etc, they all want no whaling in their region pure and simple. No one is saying to the Japanese dont whale. They are saying dont whale in our region.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A few thousand tonnes of whale meat versus millions of tonnes of frozen seafood

The difference being that the Japanese have a voracious appetite for fish, not so for whale. Per capita consumption of seafood - over 70kg pa, per capital consumption of whale - 30g pa with 95% of the population never or rarely eating it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo, logical, rational arguments are not appreciated here.

But the point of all this is, that we are members of a global community. And as members of a global community, we have an obligation to the other people in this community, as well as to the planet we inhabit, and the future generations that will take our place. If the international community organization that looks after the whales, and whale stocks - the IWC, says "Hey, you know what, as a group we have gone too hard for too long on the whales - it's now time to let the populations recover and replenish, and then we will look at re-introducing commercial whaling when the time is right" - which is exactly what the current moratorium is (the word moratorium means delay, or a period of waiting), then Japan, and other pro-whaling nations should just be mature and responsible community members, and abstain until such time as the green light is given to recommence. Walking out of meetings like this is rather pathetic

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Oh boy.

And when do you suggest for this green light to be initiated? On what terms? That was suppose to have been conducted in the mid 90's which had been STONEWALLED by the anti-whaling community without a date to be seen. Japan had already submitted countless numbers of research paper stating that certain species can be safely hunted without the risk of extinction.

You are right on the fact that rational arguments are not appreciated since no one is reading into the original problem which was caused by the anti-whaling community in the first place.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

SamuraiBlue,

Japan had already submitted countless numbers of research paper stating that certain species can be safely hunted without the risk of extinction.

Thats hilarious. Nobody agrees with the inflated numbers that the Japanese have put forward, the numbers are estimated to be well below the Japanese figures according to estimates from the IWC. And while we are at it, since when can Japan be trusted to hunt anything in moderation with concerns about its on going survival. If given open slather Japan WILL hunt the whales to extinction just like they have with other species and like they are doing with Tuna. They do not know how to responsibly hunt they have a all or nothing approach. And as for quotas HA. Whats a quota to a Japanese fisherman, they view that as a minor annoyance that is ignored as long as they can get away with it.

You are right on the fact that rational arguments are not appreciated since no one is reading into the original problem which was caused by the anti-whaling community in the first place

So what problem was caused by the anti whaling community, the fact there are still whales around or the fact they slowed Japan's destruction of them?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Spidapig24.

Whoah. Back up a minute here.

You are trying to say all the Mediterranean fisher-men, etc that hunt Blue-fin tuna are all Japanese in origin. As are the australians, etc(who coin it majorly) and raise them in in glorified feeding pens.

Also much of the blue-fin tuna that is consumed worldwide is traded via Tsukiji, etc. The same way that 80+% of the worlds Shark-fin is traded via Hong-kong.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Zenny11,

You are trying to say all the Mediterranean fisher-men, etc that hunt Blue-fin tuna are all Japanese in origin. As are the australians, etc(who coin it majorly) and raise them in in glorified feeding pens.

No sorry about that Zenny l was refering to the Japanese fishing boats that have been illegally fishing in Australian waters and the other Japanese fishing boats that have been overcatching on their quotas until caught. I wasnt refering to fishing in the Med.

The point l was trying to make was given their history it would be an unwise move to give the Japanese unrestricted self set totals for commercial whaling (if it where reintroduced).

Sorry for not being more specific. I didnt mean as a whole (i.e in the med etc).

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Spidapig24.

But that is the exact problem the WHOLE world is overfishing as the demand for Tuna, Sushi, etc has grown by a far margin globally over the last 10yrs, etc. I think it got close that the whole world now consumes more blue-fin-tuna than Japan(granted japan is still the largest consumer as a country).

Ditto for other fish and whale as many other people outside Japan are curious about the taste. Russia, Korea, etc are wanting to resume commercial whaling as the demand for it is their in their countries.

So pointing fingers and saying you are the bad guy(while doing it yourself in the back) gets you nowhere.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Zenny11,

I understand what you are saying about everyone overfishing and to some degree l do agree with you. But the issue here is the Japanese and them wanting to reintroduce commercial whaling. The point l was trying to make was that the Japanese cannot be allowed to resume commercial whaling and set their own quotas and be expected to do so in order to maintain a species. It wont happen. I know a lot of countries overfish, but in this case we are talking the Japanese and they have a bad history of it, why is it that they went to Antarctica in the first place to hunt whales? Because they had driven stocks in the Northern hemisphere to the brink of extinction. You think that wont happen again?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No I don't think it will happen due to the migration patterns of whales. Also there is no evidence that Japan alone drove northern whales globally into extinction.

If so the world wants to see that proof.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Spidapig24

Thats hilarious. Nobody agrees with the inflated numbers that the Japanese have put forward, the numbers are estimated to be well below the Japanese figures according to estimates from the IWC.

First of all who are you referring since IWC science committee had accepted the figures and accepted the research legitimate. Please elaborate.

Second Japan has committed a lot in fish cultivation. The Blue fin tuna ranch that Australia dearly operate is a spin-off from the Kinki University research in complete cultivation process of the blue-fin. Japan is the top runner in conservation and restoration of natural sea life now trying to develop a cultivation process for eels with the dwindling natural resource at place.

Last Japan is not trying to set it's own quotas, Japan want the members to come to a mutual agreement for a quota so they can resume commercial fishing of whales which was the original agreement in placing a moratorium 30 years ago.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@davidattokyo, glad to see you believe an activity berated by the world, has been condemned from the globally including from the recognized regulatory board, an industry that drains hundreds of millions of $ annually from Japanese finances,(where especially right now am sure is MUCH needed elsewhere), is much more important than the survival/economy of small pacific islands that rely on tourism, & much of it whale watching, just so Japan can continue with its lies & conduct unnecessary hunts in a region on the other side of the equator. Much to the detriment of those who actually live in that hemisphere. The IWC has agreed the whale watching industry is worth billions of $ annually, & for many small islands a MASSIVE source of income, so good to hear you would prefer these nations starve & suffer for Tokyo's choices. & before you go off on a rant lets remember these Minke whales you talk of in Antarctica migrate along the same routes as the Humpbacks,(so are also a major source of income to Pacific nations), & because of their natural curiosity are well know for their interactions with humans, many of them life changing, & not just a few pictures that you would have everyone believe is all that those who interact get from them, & once again what about the lively hoods of those who survive from this tourism, are they nothing to you? & while we at it it has been "scientifically proven",(& not from Japans research slaughters), that not only are whales worth much more alive than for sushi for less than 1% of the Japanese population, but they apart from helping support a healthy ecosystem,(therefore they contribute to healthy oceans which Japan depends on for its seafood products), but also are responsible for trapping/removing massive amounts of carbon from the environment, so contributing to a healthy, sustainable planet.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Spidapig24,

Just out of curiosity how many people are dying of starvation in the world while Japan sits on this stockpile?

Are you blaming starvation in Africa (for example) for Japan stockpiling food? If not, I don't understand your point.

The Japanese in their eternal victim mentality will no doubt use the earthquake stockpiling as an excuse to continue their research whaling sidestep around the ban on commercial whaling much like you are.

Research whaling and the idea of maintaining stockpiles of food have nothing to do with each other. And recall it was an anti-whaler who raised the stockpile issue, not me in defence of research whaling. I've never heard the Japanese make the argument you suggest they would.

Who really cares what whale meat production peaked at in the 60's.

Well, anyone who wants to keep a tiny stockpile of whale meat in perspective does.

maybe that peak is the reason why whales almost became extinct have you actually thought of that.

This is a fair point. But still, the stockpile is obviously not massive now as claimed.

But hey lets reintroduce commercial whaling and let the Japanese at it again is that what you want David?

No I want the IWC to set sustainable catch limits in accordance with the scientific advice of it's own scientific committee and for whaling operations to be monitored for compliance in accordance with international rules, and for compliance to be monitored internationally. I don't think anyone wants to go back to unregulated whaling but realistically we are closer to that now with the status quo than we would be if the IWC would do it's job and set sustainable quotas in accordance with scientific advice.

Would you trust the Japanese to resume commercial whaling responsibly?

That sort of fear is why we should have international regulations, rather than leave regulations over to individual nations - as is now the case as Japan effectively catches as many whales as it wants for research purposes (which anti-whalers claim is actually commercial whaling). Funnily enough the whales aren't doing so badly inspite of this, but hey dream a nightmare if it pleases you.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Spidapig24,

But in all seriousness David we will never agree on this. You are a pro whaler with you buddies like Glen Inwood and so forth. You will only ever see the Japanese side.

Only 4 countries recognise Australia's claim.

When Japan travels to the other end of the earth in my countries back yard to whale thats where l have an issue.

Sure if they were doing it in your backyard, but they aren't doing it in anyone's backyard they are doing it in international waters.

The IWC came into existence primarily to regulate whaling in the Antarctic - to now suggest that this is Australia's backyard is to deny the IWC's primary reason for existence. If you wanna do that stop blaming Japan alone. Lots of nations have agreed to the whaling convention.

Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile, etc, they all want no whaling in their region pure and simple.

There is no whaling in their recognised EEZ's.

No one is saying to the Japanese dont whale. They are saying dont whale in our region.

Actually no, Australia is telling the Japanese not to whale any where. You can read this in Australian policy documents.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Spidapig24,

Nobody agrees with the inflated numbers that the Japanese have put forward, the numbers are estimated to be well below the Japanese figures according to estimates from the IWC.

You are just pulling this stuff...

The IWC's latest report explicitly says when new estimates for minke whales are (finally) agreed next year, they are likely to be close to the estimates produced using an abundance estimation method that has been produced by Japanese researchers. There is an Australian method as well, but the report says the estimate will likely be closer to the "Japanese" method's number. E.g. one can presume it is believed the Japanese method to be more accurate than an alternative Australian method.

And while we are at it, since when can Japan be trusted to hunt anything in moderation

That's why it should be regulated, not unregulated as research whaling is now.

If given open slather Japan WILL hunt the whales to extinction just like

Japan has open slather - they can hunt as many whales as they like for research purposes.

So when pray tell are the whales going extinct?

Your statements are full of bias against "Japanese".

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Spidapig24,

The point l was trying to make was that the Japanese cannot be allowed to resume commercial whaling and set their own quotas and

If commercial whaling is allowed to resume, the Japanese WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to set their own quotas.

The IWC would set the quotas in accordance with scientific advice from it's scientific committee.

Right now the Japanese DO set their own quotas - they issue special permits to catch as many whales as they think necessary for research purposes. Anti-whalers including the Aussie govt claim this "commercial whaling in disguise".

So you are saying you are afraid of what is already reality, when we already have that reality and what Japan would like is for the IWC to set quotas for commercial whaling. Furthermore - note that if the IWC set quotas for commercial whaling, these quotas would be reduced where any scientific whaling were taking place.

You should be HAPPY about this, until you are not being honest about your beliefs surrounding this issue.

why is it that they went to Antarctica in the first place to hunt whales? Because they had driven stocks in the Northern hemisphere to the brink of extinction.

Matey, lots of nations went to the Antarctic to harvest whales, and the Japanese would probably still be hunting whales locally if the Americans hadn't plundered the Japanese whaling grounds during the 1800's (which is related to the reason why Perry wanted Japan to open its doors to the world in the first place).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

DJbooth,

good to hear you would prefer these nations starve & suffer for Tokyo's choices. & before you go off on a rant lets remember these Minke whales you talk of in Antarctica migrate along the same routes as the Humpbacks,

Can you provide evidence that the migration routes of minke whales are as you state?

It's sure the first time I've heard the claim that nations are starving because Japan catches a tiny fraction of the Antarctic minke whale population each year...

The rest of what you wrote is a laugh, thanks

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@davidattokyo, what can't after all these yrs of "scientific research" prove otherwise? Funnily enough non-lethal methods of research practiced by those nations in the Sth Pacific,(who's whale population & economies Japan is happy to decimate), have proven such things,(google it for yourself, as you have suggested to other posters,"because I do not have the time to do your work for you"). Just as these nations have proven Japan has produced no "scientific evidence" from it's so called research that can not be done through non-lethal research, & as you have stated yourself Japan would not be doing this so called research unless it was lethal,(therefore whale meat to sell), much of the reason the IWC has repeatedly passed motions condeming JARPA 1&2, & repeatedly asked for it's ending. As for Japans figures agreed by actual scientists & scientific research onto numbers they find them substantially lower than Japans reports,( done via non-lethal DNA testing), but then of course Japan has reason to inflate population figures so they can say there is more than actually is to back up it's argument for commercial whaling. While other scientist have no vested interest so are willing to give actual figures, not fudging them for their own gains.

& still you have failed to answer pertinent questions posted to you? & just how many thousands of tons of whale meat was donated to 3/11 survivors again? Your argument for such a large stockpile. Are you happy to see the decimation of small Pacific islands nations economy based on tourism, therefore starving them of money therefor food for MASSIVE 5-10 thousand ton stockpiles of whale meat in Tokyo? But then again I guess once stocks run out in the ocean the price of meat stored since before 1986 will go up, so people in the current whaling industry stands for more profit $$$, huh?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

& for an uneccessary project which cost the Japanese taxpayers tens of millions of $$$ annually!!!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Sorry, billions of $$$ once bribing & vote buying is counted in!!!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

As for the rest of my post being a laugh here is some scientists view on that & the carbon footprint of whaling,(even withstanding other environmental damage done to ecosystems), here is a little scientific paper,(eg not done by butchers on a meat processing ship);

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/56712/title/The_carbon_footprint_of_industrial_whaling

0 ( +2 / -2 )

& for the record davidattokyo, many Sth Pacific,(Aus,NZ,Pacific Islands,Sth American nations), have conducted scientific research, non-lethal,& invited Japan to be a part of, Japan refused for the simple reason it WAS non-lethal, so no meat for the commercial market, so I guess of no use to Japan.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I support "traditional" whaling in Japan - you can eat your traditional food as long as you catch it in a "traditional" boat i.e. a 3 metre wooden thing with oarsman and a harpoonist who has to throw into into the whale. If everything is "traditional", we will then see exactly how much the Japanese want their traditional food.

This is the problem with so-called "traditional" things - they are cherry-picked from history. Traditionally a Japanese would have been lucky to have had rice or fish, mostly surviving on a vegetarian diet of buckwheat and a few vegetables. Now they demand weekly tuna sashimi has a birthright.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What a biased article. The ones who threw the IWC meeting into dissarray were the Buenos Aires group that demanded a vote on the Atlantic Sanctuary. Even the antiwhaling countries told them not to push it because there;s little whaling done in the Atlantic anyway, the Whaling countries would walk because this was something they had agreed to under an earlier propsal in return for their terms but that propsal never consumated and the Buenos Aires Group could never get the required 2/3rds votes to get it passed anyway.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

davidattokyo,

"But in all seriousness David we will never agree on this. You are a pro whaler with you buddies like Glen Inwood and so forth. You will only ever see the Japanese side.' Only 4 countries recognise Australia's claim.

What does your answer have anything to do with my statement David, nothing whatsoever. But seriously when the Japanese rig voting by paying bribes, and your good mate Glen organises flights out of Australia to spy on SS l cant expect a much better answer true?

Sure if they were doing it in your backyard, but they aren't doing it in anyone's backyard they are doing it in international waters.

Nice play on words their. Maybe l should have simplified it for you. When Japan conducts its whaling in Australia's region rather than Japans region. Is that better?

The IWC came into existence primarily to regulate whaling in the Antarctic - to now suggest that this is Australia's backyard is to deny the IWC's primary reason for existence. If you wanna do that stop blaming Japan alone. Lots of nations have agreed to the whaling convention.

Rubbish, you say the IWC came into existance to primarily regulate whaling in Antarctica. "The main duty of the IWC is to keep under review and revise as necessary the measures laid down in the Schedule to the Convention which govern the conduct of whaling throughout the world". Notice that the word WORLD is used not Antarctica as you erroneously claim.

Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile, etc, they all want no whaling in their region pure and simple. There is no whaling in their recognised EEZ's.

You just dont get it do you David, the world doesnt belong to Japan (as much as they and you think it does). How would Japan feel if Australia came and fished in waters in its region against its wishes. Would they sit back and take it or would they protest. While the Japanese may not hunt in the mentioned countries EEZ's they still hunt against these countries wishes in their region and thats the point.

Actually no, Australia is telling the Japanese not to whale any where. You can read this in Australian policy documents.

Actually you are wrong again, Australia is primarily concerned about Japanese whaling in the Southern ocean and thats the main point of its arguement and its court case.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

davidattokyo,

"Nobody agrees with the inflated numbers that the Japanese have put forward, the numbers are estimated to be well below the Japanese figures according to estimates from the IWC." You are just pulling this stuff...

Let me just say this then "The Commission is unable to to provide reliable estimates at the present time. A major review is underway by the Scientific Committee." And that statement is from the IWC. While the Japanese "claim there are 935,000 minke whales the IWC cant even provide a reliable estimate. But wait doesnt the ICR provide the IWC with a wealth of scientific research? Surely accurate numbers of whales would be a good place to start. After all what exactly are they researching?

"And while we are at it, since when can Japan be trusted to hunt anything in moderation" That's why it should be regulated, not unregulated as research whaling is now.

Oh so you admit that the Japanese need to be regulated unlike now? Wow thats a massive admission by you that they ICR cant be trusted to regulate their own whaling ;-)

Your statements are full of bias against "Japanese".

Funny on that sounds so much like a quote from the JWA website. Oh you dont like Japans culture of whaling you must be racist or trying to force your ways on Japan and restrict our culture. My statements reflect my feelings towards Japanese whaling in my region. As l have said before if the Japanese want to whale in their region go for it l am all for it. I am opposed to the Japanese whaling in my home countries region and ignoring my countries requests for them to stop. Pure and simple

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Samurai Blue Oh boy.

And when do you suggest for this green light to be initiated? On what terms?

Well, it's not for me to say - I don't work for the IWC, Samurai Blue. It's obviously them that makes that decision. The Terms? Pretty obviously when whale stocks are at a level able to sustain whaling.

Japan had already submitted countless numbers of research paper stating that certain species can be safely hunted without the risk of extinction.

Course they have. But it has obviously been rejected to this point. Perhaps they should shoot less and head count more?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

U.S. or other third party counties might have to get seriously involved as a mediator to resolve the differences. The current demand by Australia for complele halt in whaling is a impossible goal. This is not a realistic demand. Australia cannot stop it, but if negotiation with Japan is compromised, then they might be able to control the future whale hunt to a manageable level, including stricter monitoring of thier operations. Japan is most likely willing to talk about new whaling program that may result in substantial reduction over next decade. Most of the meat from the slaughtered whales is isolated in three countries, but there is a indication of growning international black market in whale products. Future problem might be that these whale meats might be in demand of other countries besides Japan with substantial economic gain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tamarama

Course they have. But it has obviously been rejected to this point. Perhaps they should shoot less and head count more?

I guess you haven't read into IWC science committee web site because all of submitted paper done by Japan had been validated and accepted. In accordance I believe they had updated the estimate based on those papers.

Spidapig24

Nice play on words their. Maybe l should have simplified it for you. When Japan conducts its whaling in Australia's region rather than Japans region. Is that better?

It's not even Australia's region since it is closer to Antarctica.

How would Japan feel if Australia came and fished in waters in its region against its wishes. Would they sit back and take it or would they protest. While the Japanese may not hunt in the mentioned countries EEZ's they still hunt against these countries wishes in their region and thats the point.

Cry me a river, as long as they are fishing outside the EEZ of Japan, Japan wouldn't bat an eyelid since that is the LAW of the sea(UNCLOS). The same law that states Australia does not have any claim of EEZ in Antarctic waters.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Spidapig24,

What does your answer have anything to do with my statement David, nothing whatsoever.

You are saying the "Japanese side", yet only 4 nations in the entire world agree with Australia's claim.

How can you characterise the rest of the world less 4 nations as a Japanese side view?

But seriously when the Japanese rig voting by paying bribes,

There is no voting at the IWC in recent years, so talking about bribes for votes is crazy. Only people who believe everything they read in News Corp publications would believe that.

and your good mate Glen organises flights out of Australia to spy on SS

The IWC unanimously calls on nations to take measures to ensure human safety at sea and monitoring the movements of the eco-terrorist organization is fully compliant with that. Australia agreed with these IWC resolutions, so who is complaining, unless they are complaining to suck up to gullible Aussie voters?

Nice play on words their.

Their what?

Maybe l should have simplified it for you. When Japan conducts its whaling in Australia's region rather than Japans region. Is that better?

International waters are not "Australia's region". They are called "international waters" for a reason.

Rubbish, you say the IWC came into existance to primarily regulate whaling in Antarctica.

Sure it did. Read a history book.

"The main duty of the IWC is to keep under review and revise as necessary the measures laid down in the Schedule to the Convention which govern the conduct of whaling throughout the world". Notice that the word WORLD is used not Antarctica as you erroneously claim.

Yeah but the main whaling grounds at that point were the Antarctic grounds.

You just dont get it do you David, the world doesnt belong to Japan

I know that - it's not me calling International waters Australian waters (or Japanese waters)

How would Japan feel if Australia came and fished in waters in its region against its wishes.

Everyone including landlocked nations have the right to fish in international waters.

While the Japanese may not hunt in the mentioned countries EEZ's they still hunt against these countries wishes in their region and thats the point.

Those countries should not presume that international waters belong to them.

Actually you are wrong again, Australia is primarily concerned about Japanese whaling in the Southern ocean and thats the main point of its arguement and its court case.

It is who who are wrong. If you bother to read the Australian case document (as I have done) they indeed state that they are opposed to whaling besides the Southern Ocean but they are limiting their case itself to Southern ocean whaling only.

Australia's case is certain to fail, by the way. It's the worst legal case I have ever seen.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SamuraiBlue,

I guess you haven't read into IWC science committee web site because all of submitted paper done by Japan had been validated and accepted. In accordance I believe they had updated the estimate based on those papers.

Funny about that because if you go to the IWC scientific committee website and check out the figures there is a not on Minke whale numbers and l will quote it for you "The Commission is unable to to provide reliable estimates at the present time. A major review is underway by the Scientific Committee." So if the Japanese figures have been validated and accepted maybe someone should tell the IWCSC. Or are you just imagining that the figures have been accepted

"Nice play on words their. Maybe l should have simplified it for you. When Japan conducts its whaling in Australia's region rather than Japans region. Is that better?" It's not even Australia's region since it is closer to Antarctica.

Ok you are obviously struggling a bit here so l will help you out. Japan is a small country in the northern hemisphere, Australia is a large country in the southern hemisphere. Japan conducts its whaling in the southern hemisphere between Australia and Antarctica. Incidentally the distance from Australia is about 2300km while the distance from Japan is 12,000 km. So who's backyard are they whaling in?

"How would Japan feel if Australia came and fished in waters in its region against its wishes. Would they sit back and take it or would they protest. While the Japanese may not hunt in the mentioned countries EEZ's they still hunt against these countries wishes in their region and thats the point." Cry me a river, as long as they are fishing outside the EEZ of Japan, Japan wouldn't bat an eyelid since that is the LAW of the sea(UNCLOS). The same law that states Australia does not have any claim of EEZ in Antarctic waters.

WOW Cry me a river, thats about as adult as Japan walking out of the meeting! Now let me see l remember not so long ago a big outrage in Japan about Chinese fishing around some islands (Diaoyu) wasn't it? Has Japan's claim to these islands been recognised in international law? Nope. So has Japan placed an EEZ around a zone it has no legal standing too? You see the two cases are similar, you say Australia has no legal claim to the EEZ around its Antarctic territory (you may be right). But using your same argument Japan is in the same situation with the Diaoyu islands. Oh and for the record Japan does complain about fishing outside its EEZ.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spidapig24,

Let me just say this then "The Commission is unable to to provide reliable estimates at the present time. A major review is underway by the Scientific Committee." And that statement is from the IWC.

This is true, but you should read the most recent report from IWC 63's Scientific Committee. It's on the IWC homepage. Check the section about minke whale abundance, it provides more up to date information about the status of the "reliable estimates" which are due to be agreed next year.

But wait doesnt the ICR provide the IWC with a wealth of scientific research? Surely accurate numbers of whales would be a good place to start. After all what exactly are they researching?

Besides numbers they are collecting biological data that can be used to determined trends in abundance. An abundance estimate only tells you a range within which true abundance is likely to fall with a certain degree of confidence (like a public opinion survey). The catch-at-age analysis which is mentioned in the IWC 63 report uses Japanese data to analyse actually trends in abundance over time. This information together with abundance estimates allows for better sustainable catch limits to be set than would otherwise be the case.

Oh so you admit that the Japanese need to be regulated unlike now?

I raise the point because you argue that - yet the reality is that they are unregulated as of now. If you think they can't be trusted then you should (like me) be arguing in favour of IWC regulated hunting. This would address your issue with your belief than Japanese people can't be trusted. I argue for regulated hunting from a risk management perspective. (Maybe you are not familiar with risk management, I suggest you don't just try to guess what it is...)

Funny on that sounds so much like a quote from the JWA website.

Gee, what a coincidence. Maybe you are biased then if multiple people are saying that of you?

I am opposed to the Japanese whaling in my home countries region and ignoring my countries requests for them to stop. Pure and simple

A little too simple, obviously.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Tamarama,

Course they have. But it has obviously been rejected to this point.

Incorrect. IWC Scientific Committee advice is that sustainable catch limits for certain whale stocks can be set already. This has been the case for almost 2 decades (20 years) now. See "Revised Management Procedure"

The politicians at the IWC refuse to act on this advice because "Whales are special", etc. They ignore science.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

davidattokyo,

"What does your answer have anything to do with my statement David, nothing whatsoever." You are saying the "Japanese side", yet only 4 nations in the entire world agree with Australia's claim.

Again what does this have to do with the my statement. I will repeat what l said "But in all seriousness David we will never agree on this. You are a pro whaler with your buddies like Glen Inwood and so forth. You will only ever see the Japanese side." I was making a personal view that we will never see eye to eye.

"But seriously when the Japanese rig voting by paying bribes," There is no voting at the IWC in recent years, so talking about bribes for votes is crazy. Only people who believe everything they read in News Corp publications would believe that.

Answered like a true pro whaling advocate, the fact that the NZ, UK have accused the Japanese of rigging the IWC by paying for memberships and tying aid to votes is false is it? YAWN typical response, Japan says its innocent so it must be hey?

"Maybe l should have simplified it for you. When Japan conducts its whaling in Australia's region rather than Japans region. Is that better?" International waters are not "Australia's region". They are called "international waters" for a reason.

Yes they are international waters arnt they but who's region are they in? As l said earlier if Japan wants to hunt whales do it in their own part of the world dont sail halfway around the world to other countries backyard and conduct their commercial (oops Research) whaling.

"The main duty of the IWC is to keep under review and revise as necessary the measures laid down in the Schedule to the Convention which govern the conduct of whaling throughout the world". Notice that the word WORLD is used not Antarctica as you erroneously claim." Yeah but the main whaling grounds at that point were the Antarctic grounds.

But David the document doesnt say that does it? It doesnt specify a region or area of interest it does however cite the word WORLD. So unless it states Antarctica your point is mute.

"You just dont get it do you David, the world doesnt belong to Japan" I know that - it's not me calling International waters Australian waters (or Japanese waters)

Well why doesnt Japan listen when the majority of countries that border this region say they dont want whaling there.

"While the Japanese may not hunt in the mentioned countries EEZ's they still hunt against these countries wishes in their region and thats the point." Those countries should not presume that international waters belong to them.

Very good point there. So the nations that border the area in question should remain silent on what happens in their area, while another nation from the other end of the earth can come in and impose its will on the region. Love the logic there David.

"Actually you are wrong again, Australia is primarily concerned about Japanese whaling in the Southern ocean and thats the main point of its arguement and its court case." It is who who are wrong. If you bother to read the Australian case document (as I have done) they indeed state that they are opposed to whaling besides the Southern Ocean but they are limiting their case itself to Southern ocean whaling only.

So the case is purely about the Southern Ocean whaling as you just said. My point exactly! If the case was about whaling worldwide then that would be the basis of the case, but as you say its limited to the Southern Ocean.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spidapig24,

the fact that the NZ, UK have accused the Japanese of rigging the IWC by paying for memberships and tying aid to votes is false is it?

Which court was that accusation made in? Name the court and case number / reference. Or was it just some propaganda you are refering to??

Yes they are international waters arnt they but who's region are they in?

International waters by definition are ... international. They are no more one nations' region than they are anothers'. Check international law if you are confused on this point.

But David the document doesnt say that does it?

Sure but that doesn't change history. You are grasping at straws if you really want to argue this of all points.

Well why doesnt Japan listen when the majority of countries that border this region say they dont want whaling there.

International waters are ... international waters. I'm not sure what it is that you do not understand about this. If confused, check UNCLOS. Even land-locked nations have the same rights as Japan etc in international waters. Don't be crying to me about it if you don't like what the world has agreed.

So the case is purely about the Southern Ocean whaling as you just said. My point exactly!

Do you actually remember what your point was?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

davidattokyo,

"the fact that the NZ, UK have accused the Japanese of rigging the IWC by paying for memberships and tying aid to votes is false is it?" Which court was that accusation made in? Name the court and case number / reference. Or was it just some propaganda you are refering to??

You know quite well that it wasnt made in a court, but the accusation has been made a few times by representatives of some countries and other countries have backed the allegations. You know that as well as l so to play the holier than thou "what court routine" doesnt wash.

"Yes they are international waters arnt they but who's region are they in?" International waters by definition are ... international. They are no more one nations' region than they are anothers'. Check international law if you are confused on this point.

Yes, Yes l realise David that inernational waters are international waters. So you are saying that the countries that border oceans and international waters have no right to have a say in what happens in them?

"But David the document doesnt say that does it?" Sure but that doesn't change history. You are grasping at straws if you really want to argue this of all points.

So let me get this right, the document l quoted states "world" and you claim it only refers to Antarctica. But lm grasping at straws. Ok does it or does it not refer to the term world or does it say Antarctica. Funny in the above point you wont accept something that isnt a legal fact yet here is a charter of an international organisation and you are disputing that. PLEASE David enough!

"Well why doesnt Japan listen when the majority of countries that border this region say they dont want whaling there." International waters are ... international waters. I'm not sure what it is that you do not understand about this. If confused, check UNCLOS. Even land-locked nations have the same rights as Japan etc in international waters. Don't be crying to me about it if you don't like what the world has agreed.

See what you are not grasping is this David, you are saying Japan which isnt even located near the place in question has more rights than the countries that border the region. Do you see the problem there David.

"So the case is purely about the Southern Ocean whaling as you just said. My point exactly!" Do you actually remember what your point was?

YAWN! David you said that the Australian government wanted to stop world wide whaling. Now to use your phrase, wheres the court case? Oh wait there is a court case and surprise surprise its filed by the Australian government and is aimed at, wait for it!!! Japanese whaling in the Southern ocean.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Yes they are international waters arnt they but who's region are they in?" International waters by definition are ... international. They are no more one nations' region than they are anothers'. Check international law if you are confused on this point.

Yes, Yes l realise David that inernational waters are international waters. So you are saying that the countries that border oceans and international waters have no right to have a say in what happens in them?

Jesus! Why can't you understand this simple thing!!

Yes l realise David that inernational waters are international waters. So you are saying that the countries that border oceans and international waters have no right to have a say in what happens in them?

NO. They don't have any say in what happens in them. That's because they are international waters.

the fact that the NZ, UK have accused the Japanese of rigging the IWC by paying for memberships and tying aid to votes is false is it?

Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything. Proof however is another matter. Anyway, it is well documented that the bribing for votes was started by the anti-whaling side.

Now let me see l remember not so long ago a big outrage in Japan about Chinese fishing around some islands (Diaoyu) wasn't it? Has Japan's claim to these islands been recognised in international law? Nope. So has Japan placed an EEZ around a zone it has no legal standing too? You see the two cases are similar, you say Australia has no legal claim to the EEZ around its Antarctic territory (you may be right). But using your same argument Japan is in the same situation with the Diaoyu islands.

The 2 cases are NOT similar. One is about a disputed area, and who's EEZ it falls into; the other isn't. Australia does not dispute the international waters that the whaling is being done in.

Oh and for the record Japan does complain about fishing outside its EEZ.

Proof of this please.

See what you are not grasping is this David, you are saying Japan which isnt even located near the place in question has more rights than the countries that border the region.

What you are obviously not grasping is the concept of "international waters".

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Kudos to the nations who walked out. The whale is in no way endangered and does serve as an important food to many nations.

Is Spain against whaling? How about you own torture of bulls for entertainment? How many cows in the US becomes Big Macs? Isn't it funny how some nations only want to save the cute and "noble" animals?

I think a lot of nations should mind their own business and leave others alone. For the record, I am not pro whaling, but I just don't think it's right to outlaw everything that I personally don't agree with.

Why don't we let India who sees cows as holy decide over the US beef industry?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

MrDog,

Jesus! Why can't you understand this simple thing!!

Oh but l do understand. I understand that what David is saying is that as international waters Japan can do as it pleases and that no-one has a right to object. After all it is international waters right?

"Yes l realise David that inernational waters are international waters. So you are saying that the countries that border oceans and international waters have no right to have a say in what happens in them?" NO. They don't have any say in what happens in them. That's because they are international waters.

Excellent l love the logic, just because its in international waters any country can do as it pleases regardless of what any other nation thinks.

"the fact that the NZ, UK have accused the Japanese of rigging the IWC by paying for memberships and tying aid to votes is false is it?" Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything. Proof however is another matter. Anyway, it is well documented that the bribing for votes was started by the anti-whaling side.

And using your own argument here where is your proof that the anti whaling nations started the bribing. Proof please? After-all "Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything."

"Now let me see l remember not so long ago a big outrage in Japan about Chinese fishing around some islands (Diaoyu) wasn't it? Has Japan's claim to these islands been recognised in international law? Nope. So has Japan placed an EEZ around a zone it has no legal standing too? You see the two cases are similar, you say Australia has no legal claim to the EEZ around its Antarctic territory (you may be right). But using your same argument Japan is in the same situation with the Diaoyu islands." The 2 cases are NOT similar. One is about a disputed area, and who's EEZ it falls into; the other isn't. Australia does not dispute the international waters that the whaling is being done in.

Yes one is a disputed EEZ that Japan claims as its own and the claim is recognised by few nations, the other is a claimed EEZ that is recognised by a handful of nations. So how are they that different? As for your statement "Australia does not dispute the international waters that the whaling is being done in", now where did you pull that **** from. So the fact there is a Federal court ruling in Australia about the Japanese whaling in the claimed EEZ would allude to the fact that it does dispute this or did you overlook that?

"Oh and for the record Japan does complain about fishing outside its EEZ." Proof of this please.

Try looking it up for yourself, it aint that hard.

What you are obviously not grasping is the concept of "international waters".

Believe me l grasp international waters, what you and David dont grasp is yes some of the activities take place in international waters. However that doesnt mean people and countries opposed have no right to voice an opinion. Especially when the activities are taking place in their own region. Or are you saying Japan has a right to do as it pleases where ever it pleases?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Spidapig24,

You know quite well that it wasnt made in a court, but the accusation has been made a few times by representatives of some countries and other countries have backed the allegations.

Glad we could confirm that you are talking about unproven allegations.

You might want to consider why Australia hasn't mentioned anything about it in it's flimsy court case at the ICJ. Would have been a good opportunity if anyone seriously believed the allegations... don't you think.

Yes, Yes l realise David that inernational waters are international waters. So you are saying that the countries that border oceans and international waters have no right to have a say in what happens in them?

Every sovereign nation has equal rights in international waters, so of course they have a say but their say is no more than Japan's, and they say certainly can't preclude the rights of other sovereign states.

So let me get this right, the document l quoted states "world" and you claim it only refers to Antarctica.

I claimed the reason the IWC was established was because nations were worried about whale stocks being depleted in the Antarctic. That they set up a generic organization to cover the entire world hardly disproves the historical catalyst for the creation of the IWC. You seem to be arguing this point for the sake of arguing, by the way.

But lm grasping at straws.

Glad we cleared it up.

See what you are not grasping is this David, you are saying Japan which isnt even located near the place in question has more rights than the countries that border the region. Do you see the problem there David.

Japan does not have more rights - it has exactly the same rights. The only difference is that Japan is exercising it's rights. Nothing wrong with that. And that doesn't mean that other nations don't have the exact same rights. This is straight up and down stuff.

David you said that the Australian government wanted to stop world wide whaling.

That's right, they do. If you seriously want to argue that Australia is not opposed to Japan's whaling in Japanese waters you are sadly misinformed. This is another point that you seem to be arguing for argument's sake. I'll prove you wrong with a simple Google search string. Google this: "Australia's stated policy of bringing about a permanent ban on commercial whaling world-wide". Then tell me if you still wish to claim that no one opposes Japan's whaling in it's own waters.

I understand that what David is saying is that as international waters Japan can do as it pleases and that no-one has a right to object.

They can say whatever they like but they can't take away Japan's rights. Freedom of speech does not mean when you say something you get to have it your way. If you don't like nations having rights in international waters your problem is with UNCLOS, ICRW etc, not with Japan (or me).

Excellent l love the logic, just because its in international waters any country can do as it pleases regardless of what any other nation thinks.

They can do what they are entitled to do under international law. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you have the law on your side.

Especially when the activities are taking place in their own region.

We have already established that we are talking about international waters which are no more the "region" of one nation than another's. UNCLOS, ICRW law applies, not meaningless opinion.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

davidattokyo,

"You know quite well that it wasnt made in a court, but the accusation has been made a few times by representatives of some countries and other countries have backed the allegations." Glad we could confirm that you are talking about unproven allegations.

Yes David they are unproven allegations. But if they are unproven why did you say this "The IWC never votes on anything these days so allegations of "vote buying" are mute...". But l do like your thinking, so lets apply it to this situation. As Japan has yet to take SS to court over its actions then l guess they are unproven allegations too and we wont hear anything from you about them?

You might want to consider why Australia hasn't mentioned anything about it in it's flimsy court case at the ICJ. Would have been a good opportunity if anyone seriously believed the allegations... don't you think.

Seriously David l expect better than this, you know as well as l do that the case is about the legality of Japanese whaling in the Southern ocean. Not about Japanese corruption.

"Yes, Yes l realise David that inernational waters are international waters. So you are saying that the countries that border oceans and international waters have no right to have a say in what happens in them?" Every sovereign nation has equal rights in international waters, so of course they have a say but their say is no more than Japan's, and they say certainly can't preclude the rights of other sovereign states.

I actually agree with you here, as these nations have equal say then they can also use an international organisation to put measures in place for the protection of a region. i.e. Whale sanctuaries etc.

I claimed the reason the IWC was established was because nations were worried about whale stocks being depleted in the Antarctic. That they set up a generic organization to cover the entire world hardly disproves the historical catalyst for the creation of the IWC. You seem to be arguing this point for the sake of arguing, by the way.

No actually you made a claim, you states that it was aimed at one area and l pointed out different end of story.

"See what you are not grasping is this David, you are saying Japan which isnt even located near the place in question has more rights than the countries that border the region. Do you see the problem there David." Japan does not have more rights - it has exactly the same rights. The only difference is that Japan is exercising it's rights. Nothing wrong with that. And that doesn't mean that other nations don't have the exact same rights. This is straight up and down stuff.

Correct and the nations of the region are exercising their rights to protest against Japans actions. So everyone is exercising their rights correct?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Davidattokyo,

Something has been bothering me about this whole discussion. Can you clear something up for me, you only seem to turn up here when whaling is on the agenda, you have you blog which is 100% pro whaling, you have your pro whaling twitter site. So just so l understand where you are coming from, do you have a vested interest in whaling? Do you work in a whaling related industry?

You seem happy to admit you research and read almost all documents that come out of the IWC why is that?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

This whole thread is in disarray (笑)

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Spidapig24,

if they are unproven why did you say this "The IWC never votes on anything these days so allegations of "vote buying" are mute...".

Because there is no voting anyway, so why anyone is concerned about vote buying is beyond me!

As Japan has yet to take SS to court over its actions then l guess they are unproven allegations too and we wont hear anything from you about them?

Well there is an arrest warrant out for Watson if that is any indication... he has evaded Japanese police so far.

Seriously David l expect better than this, you know as well as l do that the case is about the legality of Japanese whaling in the Southern ocean. Not about Japanese corruption.

Seems like two sides of the same coin if you ask me, but yeah I guess I'm kind of finding it hard to distinguish one flimsy argument from another. +1 to you there.

I actually agree with you here, as these nations have equal say then they can also use an international organisation to put measures in place for the protection of a region. i.e. Whale sanctuaries etc.

Which they have failed to do for the last 10 years because their sanctuary proposal has never been regarded highly enough to be adopted. The reasons for this are clear if one reads Article V of the whaling convention. (These whale convention sanctuaries are only supposed to be imposed under certain conditions - not the whims of anti-whaling nations.)

Correct and the nations of the region are exercising their rights to protest against Japans actions. So everyone is exercising their rights correct?

Yes, and you can thus stop complaining about Japan not heeding the protests, right?

you only seem to turn up here when whaling is on the agenda

I'm here, I just don't post mindlessly on every topic. It's not like JT is phoning me up when they run a whaling story.

you have you blog which is 100% pro whaling, you have your pro whaling twitter site.

Gee you checked me out thoroughly didn't you! I hope you checked the posts I blogged last year about the Australian ICJ case. Should be a good reality check. "Pro-whaling" or not, the ICJ will judge on the merits of the case, and that you should be worried about if you support Australia's position.

So just so l understand where you are coming from, do you have a vested interest in whaling? Do you work in a whaling related industry?

Nope. But I do admit to loving whale sashimi and tatsuta-age...

You seem happy to admit you research and read almost all documents that come out of the IWC why is that?

I'll admit I haven't been reading as carefully in recent years as I was back in the 2000's, but I still know what is going on and what to look for (e.g. minke whale abundance estimate work, plus trends in abundance work that uses data provided by Japan's lethal research - all science conducted by the IWC's own Scientific Committee). Why is that? I have a personal interest in the science of sustainable use of natural resources, whales especially, and I care about minority cultures not being discriminated against - this is my sense of fairness and justness if you will. Some people care more about whales than they care about people. I care more about people than I care about individual whales. I guess you can concede this is not so unusual.

Now, I trust that you won't let your arguments descend into personal attacks on me, rather than the content of what I have been saying... It's very easy to label someone a "pro-whaler" and use that as flimsy justification for ignoring every logical argument they put forth. In fact, I'm 100% sure you're above that level!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

davidattokyo,

"if they are unproven why did you say this "The IWC never votes on anything these days so allegations of "vote buying" are mute..."." Because there is no voting anyway, so why anyone is concerned about vote buying is beyond me!

So there's no votes? Really? Wasnt the commercial hunting ban passed by a vote, dont resolutions get voted on? And didnt the Japanese admit to buying votes back in 2001? Thats right it did. Wow.

"As Japan has yet to take SS to court over its actions then l guess they are unproven allegations too and we wont hear anything from you about them?" Well there is an arrest warrant out for Watson if that is any indication... he has evaded Japanese police so far.

But David it hasnt been proven in a court of law. Just like the bribery allegations, just like Australia's claims. Isnt that what you said? "Name the court and case number / reference" to use your words. A warrant means nothing, anyone can make up lies to get a warrant issued. If it hasnt been to court its only an allegation right? (your words David)

"I actually agree with you here, as these nations have equal say then they can also use an international organisation to put measures in place for the protection of a region. i.e. Whale sanctuaries etc." Which they have failed to do for the last 10 years because their sanctuary proposal has never been regarded highly enough to be adopted. The reasons for this are clear if one reads Article V of the whaling convention. (These whale convention sanctuaries are only supposed to be imposed under certain conditions - not the whims of anti-whaling nations.)

Yeah back to that Japanese admission of vote buying, wasnt that one of the reasons the sanctuary didnt get up? Oh it was wasnt it. Damn l bet your kicking yourself now that the head of the International Division of Japan's Fisheries Agency admitted to the vote buying.

"Correct and the nations of the region are exercising their rights to protest against Japans actions. So everyone is exercising their rights correct?" Yes, and you can thus stop complaining about Japan not heeding the protests, right?

When you stop complaining about Australia using its rights to try and stop Japans whaling. Or do you just like to silence opposition?

I'm here, I just don't post mindlessly on every topic. It's not like JT is phoning me up when they run a whaling story.

But David you ONLY comment on whaling stories. In fact since Jan 1 2011 you have made over a hundred comments of them 3 have been on non whaling issues. So you do only post on whaling issues.

Now, I trust that you won't let your arguments descend into personal attacks on me, rather than the content of what I have been saying... It's very easy to label someone a "pro-whaler" and use that as flimsy justification for ignoring every logical argument they put forth. In fact, I'm 100% sure you're above that level!

David, l have never personally attacked you and do not intend to start, you have an opinion, as do l and even though they are on opposite ends there is no need for attacks. Yes l think you are passionately pro whaling and l am while it may appear l am anti whaling l actually am not totally anti whaling. If the Japanese need whales for food so be it, but if they confined there hunting to Japanese waters l for one would remain silent about it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Spidapig24,

So there's no votes? Really?

Yes, not for the past 3 or 4 meetings so far as I recall.

As part of the "future of the IWC" process that you can read about on the IWC page, parties agreed to seek to agree on resolutions etc by consensus decision rather than by voting. They recognised that voting at the IWC had degenerated into pointless political posturing which never actually achieved anything useful for the organization. (Personally I think the meetings of the politicians are a complete waste of time and they should stop those too, as well as the voting, but not everyone is here yet...)

Wasnt the commercial hunting ban passed by a vote

Sure, but that was back in 1982, and also prior to any allegations of vote-buying by Japan too, I might add.

And didnt the Japanese admit to buying votes back in 2001?

Maybe you are talking about the Komatsu statement regarding use of ODA as a foreign relations tool? That wasn't an admission of vote buying.

But David it hasnt been proven in a court of law.

True, you have to catch the alleged criminal before you can prove their guilt in a court of law. But as for Japan, they are hardly running from Australia's court case, on the contrary Wikileaks revealed that the Japanese government was quietly looking forward to it. Australia could add those corruption allegations if they wished to. Watson on the other hand for some reason avoids visiting Japan... hmmm...

Yeah back to that Japanese admission of vote buying, wasnt that one of the reasons the sanctuary didnt get up? Oh it was wasnt it.

Do you have proof that the nations against the sanctuary proposal didn't simply think the proposal was deficient and inappropriate?

When you stop complaining about Australia using its rights to try and stop Japans whaling.

Oh I more than welcome Australia's taking Japan to court. This is exactly what we need.

I do have a problem with Australia failing to deliver when it comes to their obligations under the SUA convention however. That's not Australia using their rights, that's Australia failing to act on it's international obligations.

But David you ONLY comment on whaling stories. In fact since Jan 1 2011 you have made over a hundred comments of them 3 have been on non whaling issues. So you do only post on whaling issues.

No, I don't post only on whaling issues. Apparently you've already confirmed this for yourself as well, so no point in arguing it!

Yes l think you are passionately pro whaling

Good judgement on your part.

and l am while it may appear l am anti whaling l actually am not totally anti whaling. If the Japanese need whales for food so be it, but if they confined there hunting to Japanese waters l for one would remain silent about it.

Good for you in that respect, although as for international waters the whalers have international law on their side. Of course you are welcome to disagree with and criticise the law. Just as we "pro-whalers" are welcome to criticise certain nations for failing to respect the sovereign rights of Japan in international waters (Australia being a prime example).

The End.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

First, Australia doesn't own the ocean. Second, I am starving and I can't wait for us to go do some more research.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

WhaleMeatIsYummy

First, Australia doesn't own the ocean.

Neither does Japan

Second, I am starving and I can't wait for us to go do some more research.

Not a terribly intelligent comment given there is no shortage of whale meat in Japan actually there is a 6000 ton stockpile. Better luck next time

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Please refrain from posting remarks like this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not just Japan, it's the "ASIAN ATTITUDE" toward the seas that has to be altered. They heat up their water in huge stock pots then pour bags and bags of SHARK FINS in the water for a few minutes then serve it to their patron calling and call it SOUP to the tune of up to hundreds of dollars per serving. * They do NOT seem to care that there are a finite number of sharks, I have recently heard that Asians BELIEVE sharks can regrow their dorsal fin's??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

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

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites