national

Japan whaling town gets season's first catch

84 Comments

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

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

84 Comments
Login to comment

Japan’s argument that the centuries-old whaling tradition is still part of its culture.

Just like all the men that wear suits. Oh sorry. that is copied from western society!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So this species is not under IWC jurisdiction and the hunt is in ,local waters so presumably it won't be an issue for anyone. Except for the whale huggers of course. I just had whale nigiri at Tsukiji a couple weeks ago. It was very good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the japanese will know what the meaning of a dying species means when they can't eat whale anymore... oh thats too late then -_-

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd be more worried about the tuna stocks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd be more worried about the tuna stocks.

Seriously, whale stocks have been making rapid comebacks. Tuna on the other hand is in serious jeopardy. If anything needs protection, it isn't whales right now, its tuna.

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic. The subject is whaling, not tuna.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I had a Baird's beaked whale meal in Wada earlier this year, it was excellent. But it's not an easy place to get to.

OssanAmerica,

I've not been yet, but there are apparently lots of restaurants (30+) in the Noge district of Yokohama (outside Sakuragicho station) that have recently started serving whale dishes. If you are ever in that area... :)

Sebaschan,

As the article says, the Wada whalers will catch up to 26 Baird's beaked whales this season, it is managed by Japanese authorities. If you have any real evidence of this species being in threat of extinction then feel free to present it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've not been yet, but there are apparently lots of restaurants (30+) in >the Noge district of Yokohama (outside Sakuragicho station) that have >recently started serving whale dishes. If you are ever in that area... :)

Never been there but thanks VM for the tip. I'll make a note of it for my text trip over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One of the best thing about Japan is the seasonal food :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The number is negligible compared to Japan’s hunts in Antarctica and the northwestern Pacific Ocean

Not if you're a Baird's beaked whale, it's not.

From the EIA homepage -

EIA has tested samples of Baird’s beaked whale meat for mercury contamination. A whale killed on 28th May 2002 off Hakodate, was found to be carrying 0.87ppm (parts per million) of mercury and 0.39ppm of methyl mercury. These levels are significantly higher than the permitted levels under Japan’s Food Sanitation Law of 0.4ppm for mercury and 0.3ppm for methyl mercury.

Since the commercial whaling moratorium was passed, 1032 Baird’s beaked whales have been killed in Japan (as of June 2003). The IWC Scientific Committee has repeatedly expressed concern about the lack of information on the population size and structure of the Baird’s beaked whale around Japanese coastal waters. In 2000 Japan stated that it was unwilling to submit its research on this species to the IWC and international scrutiny.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

679 minke whales and one fin whale over five months, below its stated goals of up to 935 minke whales and 50 fin whales

Over 300 whales were saved.

Good. Pity it couldn't have been more saved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

good info there cleo. INteresting that Japan didn't want to give up the stat's

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good to see them staying at home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

notimpressed,

Japan doesn't submit it's research on Baird's beaked whales to the IWC because Japan maintains that the IWC has no responsibility for management of that species. And the IWC isn't a proper management body anymore, anyway.

One can find papers regarding the research on the government webpages, like you can with various marine species that the government authorities monitor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For example: http://kokushi.job.affrc.go.jp/H19/H19/H19_47.pdf

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thats 26 whales to be brutalised until death in the name of a plate of sashimi. Enjoy the taste of fear.

It's good that Watanabe san realises we live at the cost of precious lives, but as these whales are so rare no one knows how many exist, who knows just how precious?

Note the mean body length of the slow maturing female whales (theyre the biggest, the ones you aim for) is going down. Does that hint theyre having to take younger, less mature whales?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The purpose of the scientific study is to find out how to lure the whales to Japanese waters. Come fishy fishy, there you go,....<whack>! Next!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dontpanic,

For the record the 26 whales will not all be eaten as sashimi. Indeed the Baird's beaked whale that I sampled consisted of roasted and fried whale, rather than raw sashimi.

these whales are so rare no one knows how many exist

Research is done on the numbers, and conservative quotas are set in light of that, in accordance with a management procedure (PBR) that is employed by the USA for their resources. You are to be commended for your concerns, I would share them too if it were not for those facts.

Note the mean body length of the slow maturing female whales (theyre the biggest, the ones you aim for) is going down.

Which research shows this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"For the record the 26 whales will not all be eaten as sashimi."

Well that makes all the difference then eh?

"Research is done on the numbers, and conservative quotas are set in light of that"

No-one knows the numbers, how can you set quotas on that?

"Which research shows this?"

Look it up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How on earth is whale hunting NEAR ANTARCTICA part of "centuries-old traditional Japanese culture"? Never knew their boats were so advanced back then.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dontpanic,

No-one knows the numbers

We do have an idea of the numbers from research. (Of course, we would always like to have better information.)

Look it up.

The research I see seems to conclude that, based on catch-at-length data accumulated over a number of years, there is no evidence of negative impact on the stock from the catches. I am not sure who is doing the research that you refer to, but it seems to contradict the conclusions of those producing research about the stock and regulating the whaling, who actually have biological data to know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not necessary to kill whales to perform the scientific research.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227136.100-why-japans-whaling-activities-are-not-research.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo - The data I refer to is also from the Japanese catch which in any case is too small to be representative. If it contradicts your data it simply reinforces the fact that no-one knows the population of the Bairds beaked whale. You simply cant claim sustainability if you cant count the population.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yokomoc,

These whalers are killing the Baird's beaked whales for eating. That they conduct scientific research using biological samples taken from these whales is just common sense - why wouldn't they? The regulators can obtain these data samples almost for free. And this is what happens with pretty much any well-managed fishery - they take data from the commercial catches.

WRT special permit catches that Japan takes, it's not the case that all the useful data that Japan obtains from those operations could be obtained through non-lethal methods. See comments here if you are interested:

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/australia-nz-launch-major-non-lethal-whale-research-expedition#comment_283250

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dontpanic,

The data I refer to is also from the Japanese catch which in any case is too small to be representative.

If that's the case then your original statement is wrong - but you made it anyway?

You simply cant claim sustainability if you cant count the population.

That's not a statement that is compatible with the general scientific thinking in this area, so far as I am familiar with it. Google "uncertainty, management procedure" or something like that. Absolute certainty in numbers is not a requirement for sustainable management.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"If that's the case then your original statement is wrong - but you made it anyway?"

What? That the whales will be brutalised until they die, dont think so. Or do you refer to my use of the mean length data? If its wrong, then its no more wrong than your statement "We do have an idea of the numbers from research. (Of course, we would always like to have better information.)"

"Absolute certainty in numbers is not a requirement for sustainable management"

Dont know if absolute certainty is required or not, but it seems to me that if even you concede the need for better information theres little management going on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dontpanic,

it seems to me that if even you concede the need for better information theres little management going on.

As I said in my previous comment, try googling for words like "uncertainty", "management procedure". It is evident that experts in the area recognise that absolute accuracy in abundance estimates (hence "estimates") is not a requirement for sustainable management. The key, if you read the papers on this topic, is to properly consider uncertainty in a scientific way. If management quantifies and qualifies uncertainty then sustainable management is possible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its good to see our representative of the whaling lobby is with us again for another season. :)

In this case, though, I have little problem with small-number coastal whaling in the name of tradition. As long as it is managed well and the species isn't threatened (I must admit I don't know the details in this case), then there is definitely an argument for it. Mass commercial whaling on the other side of the planet, though, is definitely a different kettle of fish (or whale)!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We can obfuscate all day long but whether we're talking whaling in the Southern Ocean or small scale commercial coastal whaling, theres such a paucity of published results theres no indication any management is going on. And whether you dipute that or not, one thing is for certain, neither are subsistance hunts and do not do so humanely.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dontpanic,

theres such a paucity of published results theres no indication any management is going on.

I don't think your observations are an accurate representation of reality, in any case Japanese authorities are permitting the whaling, as is evident in this article.

And whether you dipute that or not, one thing is for certain, neither are subsistance hunts and do not do so humanely.

"Humane killing" of animals is an oxymoron, but one thing for certain is that whales live far better lives than most of the other animals that end up on people's dinner plates.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

spudman,

I suppose that both our comments will be removed for being off-topic, but anyway:

here goes davidattokyo earning his money again, a paid lobbyist trolling JT for the sole purpose of getting a pay check.

Why have a mature discussion when you can simply attack me for having an opinion and having a bit of knowledge about the issue, huh?

silence and then he pops up for whaling stories

Whaling is a major topic of interest for me. I think it's ridiculous that you jump from there to suggesting that I'm getting a pay check for demonstrating it. But go ahead - believe whatever you like if it makes it easier for you to justify your position to yourself, irrespective of how intellectually bankrupt that might be.

Do you allow free advertising on this forum JT or is there a commercial agreement at play here?

JT evidently aren't so into conspiracy theories as you. Do you really think the whalers give a hoot about what JT readers like you think? (no offensive JT!)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo - "in any case Japanese authorities are permitting the whaling, as is evident in this article"

A good bale out position but we all know the "authorities" and those behind them whoever they may be, generally act in their own best interests.

"Humane killing" of animals is an oxymoron"

Is it? It seems to me that despatching our food animals with consideration for their pain and fear is the least respect we can pay. Where's the contradiction? Im glad you at least consider animal welfare during life. Its a shame you casually disregard it at death.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here we go again, this issue is seperate from the antarctic hunt. The IWC doesn't regulate it and therefore it is Japan's business. You can protest the antarctic whaling since it happens in international waters (sorry Australia you don't have a claim to those waters)This occurs in Japanese waters and is regulated by the Japanese, guess therE's no need for a whaling debate then is there?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Always love it. Japan argues it's whaling for scientific purposes, then decries the ban saying, "that international bans on commercial whaling violates its cultural traditions."

So, the 'cultural traditions' of Japan were all for science and in the Antarctic??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kill 'em, chop 'em up 'n send 'em my way! In Hakodate, you can get a "kujira baaagaaa" LOVES IT! Where Cleo at?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Always love it. Japan argues it's whaling for scientific purposes, then >decries the ban saying, "that international bans on commercial whaling >violates its cultural traditions." So, the 'cultural traditions' of Japan were all for science and in the >Antarctic??

Sure, I for one respect cultural traditions. I don't make a stink about Boshintang, so why should I make a stink about Kujira?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So we all know how "accurate" Wikipedia is - so take it for what it's worth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_meat (or just go to wikipedia and search Whaling").

Interesting how it's only Japan who's being hounded but not the many other groups.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dontpanic

we all know the "authorities" and those behind them whoever they may be, generally act in their own best interests.

Getting fired for not doing their jobs properly wouldn't be in their best interests.

It seems to me that despatching our food animals with consideration for their pain and fear is the least respect we can pay.

Since you keep them locked up for their entire lives before you take it from them... yes, that is a start.

The whales live free lives. Weighing that up against modern dispatch methods brings the scales down heavily in favour of whale as food. That's my opinion though, you are of course welcome to differ.

Where's the contradiction?

You are taking a life for your (or you and your societies) benefit. If you were to be killed I'm not sure how much you would appreciate the "humaneness" of the way your life is taken versus the fact that it is taken from you at all. Big picture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan,

So, the 'cultural traditions' of Japan were all for science and in the Antarctic??

As I explained to you a couple of days back:

Desire to eat whales = Desire for scientific knowledge of whales that is useful for management = Special permit whale catches in the Antarctic (where there are hundreds of thousands of Antarctic minke whales and no reason to believe that sustainable utilisation is not possible).

B comes after A, and B comes before C.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo - So you agree with me that the "authorities" have their own agenda, thats a start.

Its not necesary to keep food animals in batteries, and it is possible to give them a good life until they are despatched with as little fear and pain as possible. But lets be honest your justification is simply an attempt to steer the argumant according to your agenda, I'm sure you dont live exlusively on whale and other free roaming wild animals.

The bigger picture is, its not necesary to fish, hunt, farm or industrialise the planet into oblivion. We can all get a decent standard of living while managing our resources thoughtfully and how we obtain food is part of that. Currently whale meat is not required to survive, its a nice to have item. In those circumstances I would apply very strict controls, I certainly wouldnt allow hunting of at risk (possibly tainted) species and I would not advocate any cull with an instant kill rate of less than 50%.

Lets remember, animals dont get the opportunity to represent themselves and cannot say whether or not they appreciate the humaneness of the method of despatch. Ask yourself the question, its going to happen, do I want it quick and painless, or over a perod of 4 to 50 minutes, paralysed and in pain?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Desire to eat whales = Desire for scientific knowledge of whales that is useful for management = Special permit whale catches in the Antarctic

let me help you finish it here,

some japapanese's desire to eat whales = some japapanese's claim desire for scientific knowledge of whales that has never been proofed useful for management. = some greedy use it to ask for Special permit whale catches in the Antarctic even if they already have permit to hunt certain type of whale in their own water as said on the news!**

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dontpanic,

Its not necesary to keep food animals in batteries

I don't think there is a proper substitute for freedom.

The bigger picture is, its not necesary to fish, hunt, farm or industrialise the planet into oblivion.

I agree. Yet that is not the argument. The argument is whether sustainable marine resource utilisation should be permitted or not. I say it should. The greater degree to which we sustainably utilise natural, free ranging resources, the greater degree we can reduce our reliance on farming activities.

Currently whale meat is not required to survive, its a nice to have item.

One can say that about any individual food you shake a stick at, so it's a poor argument.

Lets remember, animals dont get the opportunity to represent themselves and cannot say whether or not they appreciate the humaneness of the method of despatch.

I want to live a free life. I'm not going to focus on my final moments of dying ahead of my life of freedom. If I'm an Antarctic minke whale the chances are that I'll die of natural causes anyway with extremely high probability. The chance of having a quick death in the case of being harpooned is still much higher than the chance of having a messy one. I think it is not rational to focus solely on the killing method and ignore the rest of the animal's welfare. Big picture - I think everyone would agree with me on this point (even if they may still find other reasons to oppose whaling)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thedeath,

The IWC was established to manage the hunting of whales such as those in the Antarctic. Why 60 years after the fact you would turn around and claim that this desire is suddenly greedy is hard to fathom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo - "I don't think there is a proper substitute for freedom"

Well there has to be, unfortunately there isnt enough wildlife to feed the world.

"The argument is whether sustainable marine resource utilisation should be permitted or not. I say it should. The greater degree to which we sustainably utilise natural, free ranging resources, the greater degree we can reduce our reliance on farming activities."

You make two points there, sustainable marine resource utilisation should be permitted. Unfortunately, especially in the case of whaling, we've been tested on how well we can sustainably utilise that particular resource and found wanting.

Your point on reducing our reliance on farming activities is madness. The worlds population is way beyond what can be sustained by hunting and gathering.

"The chance of having a quick death in the case of being harpooned is still much higher than the chance of having a messy one"

Cold harpooning and netting are methods that can take hours to kill a whale. Even when hit with a Penthride grenade harpoon there is a less than 50% chance of instant death. This is not deer hunting.

"I think it is not rational to focus solely on the killing method and ignore the rest of the animal's welfare."

Im not, as I've already said its not necesary to cage farm animals. But once you've raised the animal, its either going to feed you or provide you an income, you owe it a quick, painless, terror free death. Whales dont get that opportunity.

"Big picture - I think everyone would agree with me on this point (even if they may still find other reasons to oppose whaling)"

I disagree, even if were were solely talking about how whales die I believe most would agree with me that they want their food killed instantly and without fear. To me its irrational to want anything other than decent standards of animal welfare.

Bigger picture, should the whaling nations finally get agreement on a return to commercial whaling, you will find that there are a lot more whaling nations than anticipated. Around its own coastal waters Japan will be competing with Korea and Russia and further afield Norway and Iceland (unless stopped by the EU) will act in support of their industries. The competition that will be created for an already limited resource will see neither your nor my vision come to fruition.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

unfortunately there isnt enough wildlife to feed the world.

That's not a reason not to utilise the wildlife resources that are available on a sustainable basis.

in the case of whaling, we've been tested on how well we can sustainably utilise that particular resource and found wanting.

Past mistakes are not an indication of future mistakes. Particularly so when you consider that most of the demand for whale products in the past was for industrial oil products.

Today, even the anti-whalers argue that there is little demand for whale products, and if they really believe that then naturally there is nothing to be feared from sustainable whaling.

The anti-whaling rhetoric is of course contradictory, but that doesn't matter to it's proponents.

The worlds population is way beyond what can be sustained by hunting and gathering.

I agree. That is not an argument to forgoe all sustainable use of natural resources on a sustainable basis.

Cold harpooning

Is not a method employeed by modern whalers today. The main three whaling nations all use penthrite grenade harpoons which have excellent efficiency compared with methods used by yesterday's whalers.

and netting are methods that can take hours to kill a whale.

Who is deliberately trying to net whales these days?! Even the "aboriginal subsistence whalers" use guns etc to take their catches.

Even when hit with a Penthride grenade harpoon there is a less than 50% chance of instant death.

Recent statistics show improved figures, although you have only the data provided by the whalers themselves to rely on - if the statistics were good enough for you then you'd just say you thought they were made up figures anyway.

This is not deer hunting.

Deer hunting is not perfect either.

its not necesary to cage farm animals.

Being free and not being in a cage are very different things. You don't seem to care much for farm animals.

Whales dont get that opportunity.

Whales get a free life. Most die of non-anthropogenic causes.

I believe most would agree with me that they want their food killed instantly and without fear.

Without respect to the life of the animal?

Well, if it were me, I'd rather be reborn a whale than a barn yard animal. Readers can ask themselves the same question.

you will find that there are a lot more whaling nations than anticipated.

Anti-whaling rhetoric says that there is no demand for whale products.

Around its own coastal waters Japan will be competing with Korea and Russia

They won't be "competing", they will be "cooperating" through an international organization. Maybe not the IWC though.

further afield Norway and Iceland

Japan does not hunt in the same areas and I doubt they ever will.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo - "resources that are available on a sustainable basis."

The only concrete info is that theyre there. How you fish determines whether it's sustainable or not.

"Past mistakes are not an indication of future mistakes."

Except where those mistakes continue to be current mistakes. Japan bears a massive responsibility to the current state of Blue Fin Tuna stocks.

"That is not an argument to forgoe all sustainable use of natural resources"

Never said it was. It's you that inexplicably pointed out a need to reduce reliance on farming.

"The main three whaling nations all use penthrite grenade harpoons which have excellent efficiency compared with methods used by yesterday's whalers."

Statistically increasing instant kill efficiency to less that 50% can be called excellent when compared to netting, cold harpooning and older black powder grenade harpoons. But it is still nowhere near acceptable when more than half the kill dies slowly, bloodied and terrorised.

"You don't seem to care much for farm animals"

What makes you say that? The fact that I believe food animals can be farmed outside of a cage? Surely that indicates I do care. However in addition to good animal welfare in life your humanity should determine whether or not torturing your food to death is acceptable. Mine says no, I think most would agree.

"Most die of non-anthropogenic causes."

Because of the moratorium!!

"They won't be "competing", they will be "cooperating"

Read selling product to Japan. Russia and Korea will still be taking the same whales, just from different hunting grounds, pressure on the unknown numbers of (in this instance) Bairds whale will be increased.

"further afield Norway and Iceland

Japan does not hunt in the same areas and I doubt they ever will."

Really? The Japanese fleet goes to the Southern Ocean because thats where the whales are. Common sense indicates fleets go where the fishing is best. Japanese fishing fleets can and do operate globally and in my experience the Japanese have a great deal of common sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Its a part of their culture" - OK, so how about Cannibals? It's their >culture to kill humans and eat there meat. Fair is fair - don't >discriminate.

For one, cannibalism involves (presumably) killing a human being. Animals don't have human rights. Second, if cannibals had their own country and own laws, what could anyone do about it besides be smart and not take a vacation there? The eating of whale meat can only reasonably be compared to the eating of any other kinds of meat, including fish and fowl.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dontpanic,

"How you fish determines whether it's sustainable or not."

You need scientific advice based on actual data in order to even know what would likely be sustainable. But the point remains, if the resources are available they should be used, rather than being weak and resorting to unnatural, destructive farming practices. It makes no sense to be farming to such an extent when there are perfectly good sources of food that are naturally available to reduce the need for it.

Japan bears a massive responsibility to the current state of Blue Fin Tuna stocks.

Tuna management <> whale management I agree that tuna management is stuffed up. Indeed I think the tuna managers should be taking a lead from the approach to resource utilisation pioneered by the IWC's Scientific Committee in response to past over-exploitation of whales. The problem with tuna is that the international organizations aren't making science based decisions. They are favouring their fishing industry over resource management. (In the IWC science is ignored as well, but in its case the fishing industry and resource management are both ignored with favour given to irrational anti-whaling propaganda.)

still nowhere near acceptable when more than half the kill dies slowly, bloodied and terrorised.

More than half die instantaneously when modern methods are used. It's when more primitive methods are used that circumstances like you describe arise. For example the average time-to-death for bowhead whales in the Russian "subsistence" hunts is apparently over 1 hour. These people do the best with what they have available to them in their environment, but anyway their situation has nothing to do with modern whaling in Japan Norway and Iceland. It doesn't make sense to punish whalers with good modern techniques available because people in other parts of the world have poorer techniques.

What makes you say that?

Because the only thing you appear to care about is how "well" they are killed. Big picture - there is more to life than how you die. Much more.

Because of the moratorium!!

Even without the moratorium it would still be the case that most die naturally. In modern commercial whaling under new sustainable harvest quotas, typically less than 1% of the target whale stock would be caught each year. This is already decided and agreed by IWC scientists. (This is also how it is going to be sustainable.) The number of whales dying naturally each year would thus continue to dwarf the numbers taken by hunting.

Russia and Korea will still be taking the same whales, just from different hunting grounds, pressure on the unknown numbers of (in this instance) Bairds whale will be increased.

Russia and Korea can hunt Baird's beaked whales already (they choose not to), so your point is mute. The IWC moratorium has nothing to do with management of this species.

Really? The Japanese fleet goes to the Southern Ocean because thats where the whales are.

There are whales in the North Pacific and North Atlantic too don't you know. Iceland and Norway don't have the industrial capacity to go to the Antarctic and hunt whales there, but even if they did, Japan would certainly cooperate with them (and any other users) to ensure the overall sustainability of numbers taken. They did so in the past, no reason to think they wouldn't in the future as well. The only issue is appropriate regulations to ensure that all players stick to their quotas. And whales are not like sardines, such regaulations could be agreed easily if there was the will to do so.

That's the last one from me here. I'm sure you will have other reasons to maintain your opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You may have gone but I'll still address your points.

"You need scientific advice based on actual data in order to even know what would likely be sustainable"

To know what would be sustainable yes, but the Japanese operation is not a native fishing operation, cash plays a major part in it and would inevitabely determine how many are taken.

As to the rest of that paragraph, read it again and ask yourself if you havent made yourself look a little silly.

"More than half die instantaneously when modern methods are used."

Not true. Look up the evidence from the Norwegian and Icelandic operations. Average instant kill rate is less than 50%, average time to death 4 minutes and up to 50.

The measure for a kill is when the whale stops moving. As`we all know animals can continue to live after they stop moning. Whales can even be concious as the slicing operations start.

"Even without the moratorium it would still be the case that most die naturally."

The moratorium was put in place to stop whalers taking to the point of extinction. How does that stack up with the above statement? or are you saying populations were in decline anyway and whaling was incidental? But then that wouldnt expalin the recovery in numbers, would it?

"Russia and Korea can hunt Baird's beaked whales already (they choose not to), so your point is mute."

At the moment they dont hunt Bairds beaked whales because its uneconomical. Korea is already looking to start. Opening the market in Japan is very likey to make the numbers stack up. Moot, I dont think so.

"These people do the best with what they have available to them in their environment. It doesn't make sense to punish whalers with good modern techniques available because people in other parts of the world have poorer techniques"

I havent advocated an end to subsistence whaling, I advocate an end to the commercial torture and exploitation of species recently brought to the edge of extinction when there is no good reason to do so.

"Because the only thing you appear to care about is how "well" they are killed."

It only appears that way to you because you've choosen to ignore what doesnt fit the bill.

"The problem with tuna is that the international organizations aren't making science based decisions."

The problem with tuna management is that quotas are ignored.

"The only issue is appropriate regulations to ensure that all players stick to their quotas. And whales are not like sardines, such regaulations could be agreed easily if there was the will to do so."

There are already appropriate regulations in place but Norway and Iceleand choose to ignore them and Japan to circumvent them. The only way to ensure anyone sticks to a quota is to have a zero quota and then any that appears for sale is more easily spotted and instantly recognisable as illegal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK, you are nice and polite so I'll continue as well...

A little silly? Your argument is like saying "we have cars so there is no need to have any public transport". My argument I like saying that "public transport is better and to the extent we can get people from A to B with public transport, we should do so, and fall back on using cars only when necessary".

Not true. Look up the evidence from the Norwegian and Icelandic operations.

Let me quote from a document available at the current IWC meeting (June 2009) refering to Norway's operations:

"the instantaneous death rates have steadily increased from about 17% at the beginning of the 1980s to at least 80% in 2000."

I don't know what figures you are looking at, but they are evidently very very stale. It explains how you can regard whaling as "commercial torture", but it appears the basis for your opinion is old irrelevant data.

The moratorium was put in place to stop whalers taking to the point of extinction. How does that stack up with the above statement?

My statement about most whales dying naturally was with respect to sustainable whaling operations, not past unsustainable whaling operations. I am not in favour of unsustainable whaling. Be in no doubt about that.

At the moment they dont hunt Bairds beaked whales because its uneconomical.

You were saying last time they would start if the moratorium wasn't in place, now you are saying that it's because its not economical. Removing the moratorium won't change the economicality of it. Japan's coastal whalers are harvesting their quotas, so unless they are running at a loss out of foolish pride I think it's clearly economical.

Korea is already looking to start.

For minke whales yes, not Baird's beaked whales. And with respect to Minkes, Japan and South Korea are cooperating closely already. No reason to think that they would stop in future when the moratorium loses its effect. South Korea and Japan are not stupid, they realise that they have a mutual interest in the whales that roam their coastlines.

Opening the market in Japan is very likey to make the numbers stack up.

The market already is open. I can buy whale products in my local supermarket even. Lifting the moratorium would potentially increase supply, but not actually open a market that is not already there.

and exploitation of species recently brought to the edge of extinction when there is no good reason to do so.

No species that is below 50% of it's natural level would be targetted by commercial whaling under the rules adopted by the IWC. Over time targetted stocks would be maintained (depending on precise environmental circumstances) above around 70% of their natural level. No hunting would occur for stocks for which extinction was a pertinent risk. E.g. blue whales, still no where near 50% of their original levels won't be hunted in our lifetime, even if the IWC were to permit whaling. It'd only occur for abundant species.

The problem with tuna management is that quotas are ignored.

Worse. The scientists recommend quotas, the politicians ignore it and set higher quotas, and then fail to regulate their industries properly anyway. With whaling the situation is almost reverse.

The only way to ensure anyone sticks to a quota is to have a zero quota and then any that appears for sale is more easily spotted and instantly recognisable as illegal.

That's the only way that you have motivated yourself to imagine (never heard of a black market though?).

Another way which the whaling nations including Japan have already implemented is to establish DNA registries of all legally sourced products. Then, randomly sample the marketplace periodically and any products that are not found in the registry are obviously illegal. This is the market monitoring side. It's important to monitor the supply side as well, e.g. have appropriate levels of observation of the actual harvests to know that no more whales than agreed have been taken (this is also the point at which the DNA registration is done).

A suitable combination of regulations makes illegally producing products highly risky, and if there are legal sources of the product on the market at reasonable prices then there will be no financial incentive to bother going the illegal route anyway. Especially not if there is so little demand for the products in the first place, as the anti-whaling rhetoric tells us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Your argument is like saying "we have cars so there is no need to have any public transport"

No, its actually like saying we can farm animals humanely, there is no need to hunt and torture to death wild animals that are under pressure.

"OK, you are nice and polite so I'll continue as well"

Its a pleasure to be patronised by someone with so much regard for life and conservation. "Removing the moratorium won't change the economicality of it. Japan's coastal whalers are harvesting their quotas, so unless they are running at a loss out of foolish pride I think it's clearly economical"

The economics do change if restrictions are relaxed and quotas increased. The whole point of maintaining a heavily subsidised whaling fleet is to return to commercial whaling. In a freer marketplace it may well be that they dont get as much per kilo. The pressure is then on to make it pay by taking more.

"I don't know what figures you are looking at, but they are evidently very very stale."

A review of recent research of Norwegian whale killing and japanese JARPA hunts by Andy Butterworth of the University of Bristol Clinical Veterinary Science, Somerset, UK.

Percentage of whales requiring use of secondary methods: Norway 1999 57%, 2000 43%, 2001 45% - Japan 1998/99 60.7%, 2000/01 63%, 2001/02 68.4%.

Published in May 2006 however using data more recent than that quoted by you. The secondary method used is a rifle and mean bullets used is 2.2.

"if there are legal sources of the product on the market at reasonable prices then there will be no financial incentive to bother going the illegal route anyway."

The financial incentive is a return on considerable investment. Sell more and you improve your return. Its not unheard of in the industry to mask one product as another. Random DNA sampling would and does miss the majority of illegaly sold product.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let me quote from a document available at the current IWC meeting (June 2009) refering to Norway's operations: "the instantaneous death rates have steadily increased from about 17% at the beginning of the 1980s to at least 80% in 2000."

Leaving aside the fact that that still leaves a horrendous 20% of whales that even the whalers admit die slowly and in pain, one wonders why Norway in 2009 would be crowing about their 'achievements' almost a decade ago. What are the figures for the 2008/9 season?

To the time taken to die once the harpoon has penetrated should be added the terror of the chase:

whales have not evolved as a prey species and may not be adapted to being chased. Pursuit times of 30 minutes or more are not unusual in Japanese hunts for example. The pursuit itself is believed to cause physical and psychological stress, which may lead to syndromes such as Exertional Myopathy, a condition that scientists believe may prove fatal, even to animals that evade capture. http://www.wspa-international.org/Images/TroubledWatersSummary_tcm25-2726.pdf

The same article points out that the criteria accepted by the IWC to assess death are inadequate; very many of the 'instantaneous' deaths claimed by the whalers may be animals fully conscious but rendered paralyzed by their injuries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

under international rules as a scientific program despite a 1986 ban on commercial whaling. Whale meat not used for study is sold for consumption.

This sums up the whole situation and gives a good reflection of Japan's attitude to the rest of the world in general. I have no problems with culturally significant catches in Japanese waters, nor would I have a problem with Japan's research if it was research based on science and not economics. However, in no way, shape or form are these two practices linked - except by the slaughter of whales, of course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dontpanic,

Instantaneous death is not torture, and nor is using a rifle as a secondary killing method to ensure as rapid a time-to-death as possible in those cases where instantaneous is not achieved. And again this has to be placed in the context of the full welfare of the animals in questions, and whales undeniably have a better life than barnyard animals.

Percentage of whales requiring use of secondary methods: Norway 1999 57%, 2000 43%, 2001 45%

These figures from this chap from the UK (a non-whaling nation) are obviously inconsistent with what Norway has stated.

This from the IWC 59 meeting on the subject: "the results from the 2000-2002 hunt with the new penthrite grenade showed at least 80% of the whales were rendered unconscious or dead instantaneously."

I tend to think the Norwegian govt has a better grasp on these figures than others might.

The whole point of maintaining a heavily subsidised whaling fleet is to return to commercial whaling.

Well, there's that and all the biological data they are collecting for use in research to better inform future whaling management. (The Japanese government is hardly supporting the fleet with an eye to future profits for its coffers!)

In a freer marketplace it may well be that they dont get as much per kilo.

If it were commercial whaling it wouldn't be costing so much money in the first place (no need to do random sampling etc, they can just harvest in high density areas), so the meat products would be "produced" more cheaply. Plus they'd be catching more whales as well in all probability, due to sustainable quotas being set rather than quotas determined to meet minimum statistical requirements.

The pressure is then on to make it pay by taking more. Sell more and you improve your return.

Yeah, and run a high risk of being caught breaking the rules, lose the quotas (again, after finally getting them back after a 25 year hiatus), pay hefty fines, go to prison. Great choice.

Its not unheard of in the industry to mask one product as another. Random DNA sampling would and does miss the majority of illegaly sold product.

Whale products can hardly be masked as sardines, and if any illegal whaling activities were taking place on a significant scale then the random market sampling checks would certainly detect it. If the illegal activities were on such a small scale to as never be detected they would be consequence also not be a serious conservation concern for the whale stocks in question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

run a high risk of being caught breaking the rules, lose the quotas (again, after finally getting them back after a 25 year hiatus), pay hefty fines, go to prison

Interesting. How many people do you think paid hefty fines and went to prison when the tuna quotas were shown to be being violated? And if the quota isn't being honoured anyway, having it cut or taken away doesn't mean a thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Davidattokyo: I don't imagine you get invited to many dinner parties? Your arguments are those of a zealot and lack any modicum of reality. For example, You say if wild resources are available they should be used, rather than resorting to unnatural destruction farming practices. The only reason we have 6.5 billion people on this planet in 2009 is because a century ago a German scientist invented artificial fertilizers! Without them the world would be unable to feed even a third of that number including eating everything wild man could get in his mouth. There would be continuous warring over food resources. The fact that we learned to use artificial means of producing abundant hy protein food and freed us up for more intellectual pursuits is probably why all of us commentators are alive and here to use 'Japan Today' to intellectualize on the world and its future. The world is a stunningly beautiful place and its various forms of life the same. We should do the least of amount of harm we can to the natural world, now we are in the scientific age. To be frank, no one trusts Japan on its exploitation of natural resources. Are you actually a real person or a 1970's Japanese computer program?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Brunobear,

The fact that the human population exploded because people farm food is not a sane reason to preclude other people from hunting naturally renewable food resources on a sustainable basis.

And despite what you say, there are no wars about it. This is the reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo, the tuna quotas were not observed properly due to insufficient regulations. The government admitted they screwed up. Whales are a different kettle of fish. The regulations in place are as strict as they come, and if you know a way to sneak around them then sure tell me about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the tuna quotas were not observed properly due to insufficient regulations.

The tuna quotas were not observed properly because people thought they could (and for a time, they did) get away with it.

The regulations in place are as strict as they come, and if you know a way to sneak around them then sure tell me about it.

Easy-peasy. Just call it 'scientific research'.

I can't believe you walked into that one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The tuna quotas were not observed properly because people thought they could (and for a time, they did) get away with it.

Proof?

Easy-peasy. Just call it 'scientific research'.

1) The government isn't going to issue special permits to anyone who plans to use them to simply circumvent the standard quotas. 2) Under the RMP, any special permit takes result in equivalent deductions to quotas. Therefore the only way to exceed a quota in that way (which would still legal) would be to set scientific permits at higher levels than the "commercial" permits. And again, the government isn't going to issue special permits to anyone with such intentions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

... shall I wait for a better try?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Davidattokyo: The reason we are not having the wars we did before 1945 is because we can use artificial fertilizers to massively increase high protean food and feed most of 6.5 billion people or more. How long do you think whales would last if the world decided to eat them first and farmed animals second? When I was a child in the fifties you had chicken once a year because it was a scarce resource used mainly for egg production. Today, you can afford to eat it for three meals a day or more and it is available in great abundance. As is high quality beef,sheep, goat, pig and even kangaroo because they are in abundance and we can prove it, but not Koala or Platypus. Some Aussie aborigine might use your arguments of eating sustainable wildlife and as a traditional way of life, but fortunately our so-called primitive aborigines understand the word scarcity and respect our laws on protection of Australian wildlife. They also respect the views that come from the countries that guarantee Japan's, Australia and most of the world's freedom, the US and Britain. Mate, take up whale watching like the rest of us and have a hamburger for lunch on the boat or a chicken sandwich while you admire these harmless, magnificent creatures. Hopefully, you can organize Japan to become a major whale watching location for China, India and Japan. Imagine the Yuan's, Yen's and Rupee's. The Japanese businesses involved would never be able to count it all in ten life times, you duffers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How long do you think whales would last if the world decided to eat them first and farmed animals second?

i don't think they care! seriously they don't care they just want to kill it. greedy want it all. keep saying that

IWC was established to manage the hunting of whales

but unable to understand that "majority" in IWC to day manage the hunting by put the ban on whaling in most part of the world!

their fake research proof unable to convince majority of IWC to un-ban the whaling on the area they want, and they can not do anything about it. so they crying and kicking, finding every possible way to cheat the rule even use their money power buying vote from poorer nation. some doesn't even have a seashore!

denying the reality which doesn't correspond to what they want and believe, it is a classic famous Japanese childish far-right personality.

i already gave up on hope that they will understand what's today people is talking. because i know they are still sicked with their 50-70 years old ideas unable to move along with the rest of the world!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

1) The government isn't going to issue special permits to anyone who plans to use them to simply circumvent the standard quotas.

lol. That's what the current 'scientific whaling' scam is all about. The current standard quota for commercial whaling is 0. The government issues 'special permits' that exceed the standard quota by a thousand or more.

Why would anyone imagine that the government would suddenly begin to do things right if they got a small commercial quota, when they have clearly demonstrated so far their intention to ignore any quota they find inconvenient?

Shall I wait for a better try? :-)

Today, you can afford to eat it for three meals a day or more and it is available in great abundance.

I don't want to play the devil's advocate here, but all that meat is so readily and cheaply available because the producers have no scruples in cutting corners when it comes to animal welfare. The meat mass-production industry is up there with child-labour sweatshops, the drugs barons and the arms industry in terms of feel-good ethics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Brunobear,

How long do you think whales would last if the world decided to eat them first and farmed animals second?

Forever, if those nations utilising those resources cooperate for their conservation and sustainable use.

Lots of people from all around the world use the argument of sustainably utilising wildlife.

Whoever wants to make Japan a whale watching mecca is welcome to do it, but there's no need stop the sustainable use of whales to allow for it. That Japan already has whale watching is evidence of this.

cleo,

The current standard quota (0) is not a sustainable quota (what the RMP would set). In the absence of a sustainable quota your counter-argument is nonsense.

Why would anyone imagine that the government would suddenly begin to do things right

They aren't doing anything wrong, as you know. The problem is the moratorium has prevented the setting of sustainable quotas. The moratorium is the root of everything that is a problem today at the IWC.

they have clearly demonstrated so far their intention to ignore any quota they find inconvenient?

If they are "ignoring" the quotas they wouldn't give a hoot about having the moratorium overturned, and they'd be setting catch quotas in the thousands rather than the hundreds required for scientific purposes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Davidattokyo: Uncommon sense says that if the rest of the world decided to eat whale meat in preference to farmed animal meat, then whales would not last more than a few years.

Whale watching would be consigned to plastic mock ups in concrete museums and whale eating would be something you read about in the concrete library in history books.

With all your profound knowledge about whales and their demise, you would probably sell a lot of books describing what they used to be like, and who to blame for their disappearance.

The fact is though, that the rest of the world just doesn't want to eat them, only some Japanese pre-decomposers. The youth of Japan will toss the whaling policy out within a few years and join an enlightened age of the western peers. The dogs will bark and the caravan will move on!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Brunobear,

Uncommon sense says that if the rest of the world decided to eat whale meat in preference to farmed animal meat, then whales would not last more than a few years.

False dilemma.

The fact is though, that the rest of the world just doesn't want to eat them, only some Japanese pre-decomposers.

False, and I suspect that you know it.

The youth of Japan will toss the whaling policy out within a few years and join an enlightened age of the western peers.

Classic!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ninjaninaritai: You are right in the first point being a false dilemma because you know that no one else other than aging Japanese and a few isolated eskimo's wants to eat whale meat. And of course a few company men zealots. If the rest of the world wanted to eat it instead of the delinquint Icelandic and Norwegian whale fisherman selling their whole modest whale catch to Japan to go into long term cold storage, they would sell it to the rest of the world. But no one else is buying! The third point I stand by because what I read, young Japanese won't touch the stuff. The world youth culture is strongly against whaling as is Japanese youth. The only thing cool about whale meat is the freezers your a forced to accumulate it in. You and your fellow zealots should read President Woodrow Wilson's 1918, 14 points for peace, to end world conflict, which has largely been adopted throughout the world. Japan thumbed their then brutal nose at them, until the world stepped in and sorted Japan out in the forties. Japan needs to make sacrifices to, to get along with the rest of us. World opinion is against you on whaling. But the world would support Japan if it moved to a completely sustainable whale watching industry and would watch you bathe in the cash.You might even develop an artificial "marsh mallow" soft whale meat that aging Japanese could sink their dentures into.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Brunobear, do you think you are doing the anti-whaling cause any favor by referring to Japanese as unenlightened warmongers that need to be like westerners?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The third point I stand by because what I read, young Japanese won't touch the stuff. The world youth culture is strongly against whaling as is Japanese youth.

I don't think so.

http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/whale/document/20020315publicpollpressgaiyoJP.pdf

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ninjaninaritai: Japan has benefited enormously after its misplaced former militarialistic past ended in August 1945 and the West ensured Japanese Society was rebuilt on a free, democratic, secular basis and poured in enormous economic Marshall Plan aid to underwrite it. You and the other young Japanese today have only known peace and prosperity in your life times which otherwise would not have been the case. Be grateful for it as am I.

None of Russia, China, India, the US, Britain, Indonesia, Germany, or virtually any country on earth is still whaling. Just little old Japan along with insolvent Iceland, and intransigent Norway who only do it to sell their modest catch to Japan.

If whale meat was actually popular with the 127 million Japanese as your officials represent it to be, it would be dearer a kilo than bluefin tuna. Mate, they are just not queing up to buy it. That is why you stick it in freezers with doubtless much secretly getting dumped.

Japanese youth know that by developing a whale watching industry around Japan's unique and beautiful coastline those seaside resorts would develop micro economies that would dwarf that of the primitive and treaty breaching whale slaughter industry. But then Japan is dopey enough to think it is fine to manufacture motor cars and export them to the US and elsewhere at secretly way below cost and undermine other country market based motor industries. We call that mercantilism! It is evil. As a result you have the worst level of public debt in the world. 200% of GDP and rising. Japan is not running up real trade surpluses - it is going bankrupt pretending it is. Like, hey, we really love having a whale meat snack with a Saki while watching TV.

Your fight on the whaling issue is one of blustering jingoistic nationalism first, rather than just going along with the 6.4 billion people on the planet who oppose it and just may be right.

The fact that Japan buys off a number of tiny little poverty stricken states to get their whaling vote is reflective of the same insular, self centred, dogmatic militarialistic approach of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. A real Socially aware country would channel aid to those countries that had lonmg term economic social benefits. Not just an annual drip! It is why Russia was given the Kurile Islands back at the Yalta conference without firing a shot at Japan in WW11, and won't give them back to Japan now. Russia doesn't need them.

The world see the four Japanese representatives sitting at the front row there of the World Whaling Conference like four stooges and it gives the rest of the world the Sh..s. It is not an issue worth Japan losing national reputation over. The economic value is tiny as is the number of people employed in it. Japan loses money doing it. Now that is what the rest of us call plain stupid. Then they get people like you cheering for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BrunoBear,

Other than Greenpeace propaganda I've seen little suggestion that Japanese youth is "anti-whaling" like for example Australian youth, which of course is.

I'm skipping the stuff about WWII - it has nothing to do with whaling today in 2009 and beyond.

None of ... or virtually any country on earth is still whaling.

Yes, they burn oil for energy these days instead.

Just little old Japan along with insolvent Iceland, and intransigent Norway who only do it to sell their modest catch to Japan.

It is Australia that is intransigent, not Norway or the other whaling nations. And the fact that the catches are so modest is yet another indicator that there is little to be concerned about when it comes to sustainable whaling in the 21st century.

If whale meat was actually popular ... it would be dearer a kilo than bluefin tuna.

If you use the same logic you would determine that Aussie beef is not "actually popular" as well.

A minke whale recently by-caught in a sleepy area of northern Japan sold at 5.4 million yen at auction, while even anti-whaling campaigners happily point out that they can go for as much as 100,000 USD. This is not pocket money than people are dishing out of their wallets

That is why you stick it in freezers

It is necessary to have product on hand if you want to be able to sell it all year round. It costs money to store something in freezers, and someone is paying money for that purpose. You can work it out.

with doubtless much secretly getting dumped.

When you find yourself just making stuff up it should be sounding alarm bells in your own mind at least that you are grasping at straws.

It is evil.

Yadda yadda...

the 6.4 billion people on the planet who oppose it

There is no way that 6.4 billion people on the planet oppose it.

The fact that Japan buys off a number of tiny little poverty stricken states to get their whaling vote

Yadda yadda. Votes don't matter. Japan and others are going to quit the IWC if it fails to serve it's purpose:

http://www.pewwhales.org/pewwhalescommission/submissions/ICT%20submission%20to%20Pew%20Whales%20Commission%20-%20Jan,%202009.pdf

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo: How many people in the world actively support whaling?

If Japan is just going to ignore the IWC if it fails to gets its way. That is a dire warning to the rest of the world that lives by the law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Brunobear,

I think most people in the world have no trouble with the sustainable use of naturally renewable resources (of which whales are one). I don't think most people support the unsustainable use of such resources however.

The IWC has been breaking it's own rules for years, that's why whaling nations would quit it. When the moratorium for example was established it was supposed to be reviewed by 1990 with consideration to setting non-zero catch limits, in accordance with it's convention which says that such decisions be based on scientific findings.

Well it's 2009, enough whales of some species at least for sustainable harvest quotas, the science is clear, yet the IWC finds itself unable to set a non-zero catch limit for the whaling activities which it was established to regulate. The anti-whaling nations keep finding new and unscientific reasons to oppose. This being the case, why would you or anyone expect whaling nations to keep wasting resources attending it's meetings each year?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think most people in the world have no trouble with the sustainable use of naturally renewable resources (of which whales are one).

I could come up with a whole list of 'naturally renewable resources' the 'sustainable use' of which most people in the world would have trouble with.

Pet dogs and cats. Aborted fetuses, unwanted orphans. Fat removed during liposuction.

... all of which at present are allowed to go to 'waste'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The japanese whaler’s idea of “naturally renewable resource” clearly far difference from majority of IWC’s view today.

After 1990 review of the non-zero catch the majority agree to carry on the banning in most part of the world.

That is the today rule. You better make sure you understand that. The rule before 1990 was expired already. Most whaling nations help establishes the IWC, ICRW turned their back on whaling already today. What hard to understand?

Why still keep referring to the old and out dated talking?

if you can't understand what is today people agree and talking and you want to keep the dying culture, then you clearly got the non-restrict hunting area close to home, why still ask for more at the other part of the world? Wasn’t that it corrected, I call it greedy. Don’t use the words scientific and research as a tool for your greed. It help nothing but only harm your believing country’s images.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sorry beloved country

not

believing country

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thedeath,

The reality is that the anti-whalers never had any intention of lifting the "moratorium" after 1990, but they had to word it that way in order to con 75% of the membership into voting for the measure (that and other dirty tricks). It would have been against it's own rules to make it a permanent ban as well (this is something the whaling nations will inevitably point out when they quit).

So now we have the ridiculous situation where in 2009 the IWC's Schedule still contains an amendment to it which says "... by 1990 at the latest ..." simply because these words had to be chosen to impose a permanent ban under the guise of a temporary "moratorium". And there hasn't been a 75% majority since to be able to amend the wording or update the regulations. The intent of the 75% rule of the ICRW was not to enable nations that oppose the purpose of the ICRW to prevent it from functioning at all.

After 1990 review of the non-zero catch

A review never took place in 1990. What happened after that was the anti-whaling nations came up with new pathetic excuses to leave the "moratorium" in place. And they abuse the scale of their numbers to ensure that remains the case.

That is the today rule. You better make sure you understand that.

The ICRW rules state that any sovereign state that has adhered to the ICRW is welcome to exercise it's right to withdraw from the convention, and thus not be bound by any of it's (currently stupid) rules. This is eventually going to happen.

why still ask for more at the other part of the world?

Because that's what the ICRW was set up for, to enable cooperation to sustainably exploit such resources. If the IWC is no longer going to do what it was set up for, then nations that get fed up with it will simply quit - it's a matter of time.

Don’t use the words scientific and research as a tool for your greed.

There can be no sustainable use without research.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thedeath: Beautifully said indeed. Poor old Davidattokyo's dentures will still be chattering, "whaling is sustainable", long after he has left the surface of this beautiful planet. The ocean waves will crash, the krill will continue to replenish and the whales will swim on hopefully for ever. All the large mammals on earth are at serious risk of extinction now because of just one, us humans! And we are the ones with the advanced brain. God help them!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hum! davidattokyo you seem to have problem keep up with what today people's talking, but only keep referring to the old and outdated regulation. Understand nothing of what is democracy mean, and the world has change. even Japan has change.

i also read the news about Japan at the meeting, and it just look similar to what JWB's admits did at the UN before the II-iraq war. Ha! people just laugh seeing that.

i will not go back to what many people have said. i ll keep it short with your new argument.

i know Japan has been threaten to leave for many year already. i hope this time she will leave for real. please do it. pleaseee. That won't prevent the mad sea dog from abusing the Japanese whalers anyway. Hope them happy dealing with the mad dog at sea!

Remember that, If you want to hunt it on an “international” water, you better make sure the majority on the international forum agree with you. or you can forget whatever shitty reason you want to make.

and you know? it take a grownup one to understand and accept the result from a democratic way of voting when it doesn't favor his or her views.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Brunobear,

the whales will swim on hopefully for ever.

That's what sustainable whaling is all about.

All the large mammals on earth are at serious risk of extinction now because of just one, us humans!

One example shows the fallacy of that statement: Antarctic minke whales number in the hundreds of thousands - even according to Australian scientists - and are in no risk of extinction. They will continue to be in no risk of extinction due to human hunting so long as sustainable quotas are abided by. This is what the international community should therefore be ensuring, as at least this much should be acceptable to all (e.g. as a minimum).

thedeath,

Understand nothing of what is democracy mean

The international community is not a democracy, it is a collection of sovereign states.

And it's not like the majority of the world's people would ever vote against the sustainable use of natural resources. This is a principle that has indeed been adopted by the international community on occasion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The international community is not a democracy, it is a collection of sovereign states.

no comment on that, many looser say the same, i can guess!

And it's not like the majority of the world's people would ever vote against the sustainable use of natural resources. This is a principle that has indeed been adopted by the international community on occasion.

it is pointless to say "nature resources", avoid saying "whales". we talk about whale and whaling. majority of the former whaling nations has changed, and they voted to ban the whaling in many part of the world.

whales in southern atmosphere are not japanese natural resources. open a map and look at it for your self where is japan. if you want to hunt, control, sustainable use or whatever you want to claim in the international water, then make sure the international community agree with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BlackOut,

On the contrary, it is pointless to pretend that whales are not a natural resource.

Indeed the majority of the former whaling nations have changed. They run their economies on non-renewable oil extracted from the earth now instead of oil from whales.

So what? Various regions around the world for hundreds of years prior to the reckless actions of 1800's and 1900's whalers have utilised whales for food. Today there's no good reason why this should not continue to be the case.

whales in southern atmosphere are not japanese natural resources.

They are resources that the international whaling community agreed ought to be managed cooperatively by those using them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yeah, you also a nature result too.

So what? Various regions around the world for hundreds of years prior to the reckless actions of 1800's and 1900's whalers have utilised whales for food. Today there's no good reason why this should not continue to be the case.

SO WHAT? if it is not on japanese water, who want to care about your reckless reason? and why people want to care anyway? it isn't on any one case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They are resources that the international whaling community agreed ought to be managed cooperatively by those using them.

so you don't want to quit from the community anymore?

and why i can see japanese so angry when the chinese, taiwanese or korean want to manage natural result close to your water? they are also using them.

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