national

Sea Shepherd finds Japanese ship with slaughtered whale

109 Comments

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

© 2017 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

109 Comments
Login to comment

BREAKING NEWS: Whalers catch and kill whales!

10 ( +20 / -10 )

"“The fact that the Japanese crew went to cover up their harpoons and the dead minke whale on deck just shows that they know what they’re doing is wrong,”

Exactly! And all the "it's our culture" and "you're attacking us" all when they cannot admit it is NOT AT ALL for science doesn't hide the fact that they tried to hide the whale, knowing what they are doing is wrong.

10 ( +24 / -15 )

" ...... in defiance of a worldwide moratorium .. "

They just don't care and don't give a sh....!

Shame on them.

If it was really for "scientific reasons" .... well, I don't think they have to kill that many whales.

If it is for "dietary reasons" they should state so and obey laws, rules and regulations.

That easy!

19 ( +25 / -6 )

The Japanese whaling boat was caught in Australia water recognised internationally with a dead whale onboard. Knowing where it was caught only the Captain know. Japan know about how Australian feel about whales. Only yesterday in a face to face meeting with Australian PM and the Japanese PM, Abe promise to do more to limit whaling to Japanese waters. Ok that sounds fair. But the very next day the Japanese whalers go the cruise Australia water with their catch of fresh whales. Talk about a slap in the face to Australian relationships.

15 ( +20 / -5 )

Tokyo claims it is trying to prove the whale population is large enough to sustain a return to commercial hunting.

The 'logic' is staggering! It's even more staggering that the IJC stands for it, though. I hope Japan gets dragged over hot coals for it's continual brazenness next time they are called in to the international courts.

Waters will be fished out by sometime in the 2040's. And while some groups do what they can to stop that from happening, Japan continues to defecate on the very thought that we can create a better balance in the world.

15 ( +21 / -6 )

around the nation’s Antarctic territory

...a territorial claim recognized by only 4 out 200 countries in the world.

-8 ( +13 / -21 )

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists minke whales as "least concern", meaning they are not in any imminent danger of extinction. The IUCN estimates that there are over 100,000 minke whales in the wild, and it should be possible to continue hunting them without endangering the species.

Whether you like it or not, those are the facts.

Australia always sticks its nose into this, thinking that it owns the ocean. They should mind they're own business. They're the same way here, always trying to control the comments and political slant of the comments.

-8 ( +16 / -24 )

Neither of them cares. Any leader pushing TPP obviously doesn't care about the people or the environment.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Nessie: "...a territorial claim recognized by only 4 out 200 countries in the world."

Regardless, they still flat out defied the international court decision, and now when this becomes an even bigger story their defense will be what? It's "for science"? Then when it's proven it is NOT, "You're attacking our ancient culture of manning diesel ships thousands of kilometers outside our waters"?

5 ( +16 / -11 )

There is definitely a clash of cultures here. My Japanese students have not grown up in a society that believe animals have rights or that they shouldn't be exploited - quite the opposite. The western world has been moving towards greater compassion and concern for animals for their own sake, not for the benefit of human beings. But this way of thinking is largely non-existent in the general Japanese populace. BUT the whaling is taking place in international waters so it is Japan that is being culturally insensitive since no country protests whaling in Japanese waters.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

it's just to appease the right wing IJA voting crowd. Impound the ship and fine Japan

14 ( +20 / -6 )

Put an embargo on Japan the same way we did on Russia, Iran, North Korea... the western governments are not putting up a fight at all over the whaling thing. Why was whaling not mentioned in the TPP agreement? Why is Japan allowed to negociate a FTA with the EU without first commiting to a halt in the hunt? There are so many ways the west can pressure Japan to stop doing this. They choose not to.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

To the crew of the Nisshin Maru: Well done!! Good luck and good hunting!!! F the Sea Shepherd!!!

-26 ( +10 / -36 )

you are all miss the point. These whales are Australian whales. Their all pets. If you ask the whale in waters south the equator, I bet the Whale will state he was in Australian waters when their mum gave birth and therefore a Australian Whale. Ok in Australia our pet often jump the back fence for a night of harmless fun. This is allow and pets are part of Australian society. What makes this worst it is not anyone in the our local neiboughood like Indo or NZ or Polynesia . It someone from the other from out state who is killing our Pet Whales for food, Go and eat your own whales. That right you have all kill them all and now you are killing Dolphins. We can,t tell you what to do with your Pets, sorry food source. Please can you reframe from travelling ten of 1000,s of mile to slaughtor our pets.

-12 ( +9 / -21 )

Do westerners use the word "slaughter" to chicken, sheep, pigs, cattle as well? We Japanese are slaughtering fish everyday and eating them.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Japan......getting it wrong again, wud love to cheer you doing something right for a change! How about it huh!!

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Regardless, they still flat out defied the international court decision, and now when this becomes an even bigger story their defense will be what?

It's my understanding that no ruling has been made on the revised Japanese program.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

So what's stopping the Australian navy from catching and impounding these whaling ships? They're clearly within Australian water as well as violating the 2014 ban.

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/cm/main?d=20170116-38633486-bbc-int

Also, I'm shocked to see how the Japanese themselves think that this is totally okay for some unknown reason.

I just don't know what to say.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Why does anyone care? These whales are not endangered.

People get so up in arms about something that would disappear if ignored. Seriously.

Whaling is not the problem it once was (in the west), and the only reason why Japan continues to support this activity is because western countries are telling them they shouldn't do it.

The more people complain, the more Japan will dig in its heels.

-11 ( +10 / -21 )

These whales are Australian whales

They are not owned by any country. Or anyone for that matter.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

The more people complain, the more Japan will dig in its heels. and the more Japan will make itself look bad on the world stage. Just look at what China, Korea complaints continue to do. Just look at the support SS continues to gain, now 5 western countries continue to fund them. Eventually Japan will come to the stage that they'll say the negatives will far outweigh the positives of whaling, it just depends if their pride is worth holding onto at all cost, history has shown it clearly isnt. Japan has wavered before, will waver again.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

To the crew of the Nisshin Maru: Well done!! Good luck and good hunting!!! F the Sea Shepherd!!! To the crew of Sea Shepherd: Well done!! Good luck and good hunting!!! F the Whalers!!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hope the next whale they find is Moby Dick.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Whale sushi tastes awful. Give it a try if you're in Japan.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

They're clearly within Australian water

Source?

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Whale sushi tastes awful. Give it a try if you're in Japan.

I like it. It's got a bit of a bite/kick to it. I wouldn't say I love it, but it tastes good to me.

-7 ( +10 / -17 )

strange, I stated ask the whales, so did you, don,t think so. If you know anything about Pets, which you seem don,t know that Pet own you. Australia has yet to come with a 10 year issue passport that would last all the rigger of the freezing Antactic and the balmy topical Australia waters where all the whale spices south of the equator give birth. At the moment all whales are issued a digital interim notice of citizenship. You can easy check that on the WWWW World Wide Whale Web, Stranger.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Strangerland: I like it. It's got a bit of a bite/kick to it. I wouldn't say I love it, but it tastes good to me.

Do you have dreams of a certain sentient being singing to you at night?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I stated ask the whales, so did you, don,t think so.

I think you should ask God, he'll tell you that I'm right. So will the ghosts, and the aliens from the other dimension if you ask them.

At the moment all whales are issued a digital interim notice of citizenship.

So if I issue a digital interim notice of citizenship for you from Strangerland, I will own you?

Seems legit.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

They're clearly within Australian water

@Nessie

Source?

;-)

https://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/sea-shepherd-finds-japanese-ship-with-slaughtered-whale

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Only a member Countries of United Nation Country can issues Whales DINOC,s, I did say check on the WWWW, I assume you can speak and understand whale audio because they have no written text due to having fins. WWWW works on whale voice commmad. Anyway I don,t think you a country, Stranger. You should know better then putting up false news.. your just coming up with ridiculous statements now.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Toss Abe in jail, seeing as how he is the "top" banana in all of this, he should be made to take responsibility for the actions of the people under him!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

your just coming up with ridiculous statements now.

Heh, seems like a lot of calling the kettle black from that there pot:

I stated ask the whales

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Australia always sticks its nose into this, thinking that it owns the ocean.

Firstly, how exactly has Australia 'stuck it's nose into' this?

They should mind they're own business.

The international moratorium on whaling is Australia's business as much as anyone else's. Australia agrees to it and observes it, despite Australia having a long culture and history of Whaling. Australia now has a healthy industry surrounding the repopulated stocks of whales that move up and down it's coast - it has adapted to a change of circumstances and sentiment regarding this type of wildlife.

They're the same way here, always trying to control the comments and political slant of the comments.

News flash tiger. It's a discussion board where sharing opinions and having discussion is what we do. I'm certainly not going to hold back because you don't like my opinions. I am very anti-whaling because I have spent a great deal of time surfing in the Indian ocean over the years seeing whales up close and personal. I find them to be thoroughly magnificent creatures, and I absolutely reject Japan's completely selfish, self serving whaling program that has absolutely nothing to do with science. Nothing. It's a shameless example of a country that is not truly a considerate and observant global citizen, and that kind of behavior, whilst by no means exclusive, offends me.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

“The fact that the Japanese crew went to cover up their harpoons and the dead minke whale on deck just shows that they know what they’re doing is wrong,”

They would have covered it up to prevent these eco-terrorists from doing anything to damage their sampling equipment or research sample.

I took a look at the new research plan, and there's no doubt in my mind that it is research.

“We will continue our efforts in the International Whaling Commission to strongly oppose commercial whaling and so-called ‘scientific’ whaling, uphold the moratorium on commercial whaling and promote whale conservation,” he added.

Why would you be a member of the whaling commission and want to keep this 30 year old moratorium on whaling? It's all so backwards.

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

Pro whalers can't come up with a single argument to support this abomination of a hunt.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

I'm not commenting on the right or wrong of hunting whales but noticed throughout the comments that many people here seem to think the IWC is an "International court" and has legal authority. Actually, the IWC is a voluntary international organization and is not backed up by treaty. Members can quit at any time and are not subject to any regulations by simply making an official objection. The IWC has no ability to enforce any of its decisions through penalty, fines, or other legal means.

Perhaps Japan should just quit the IWC, like Canada did, if it wants to continue commercial whaling.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Thunderbird2

Posting a "what IF" scenario is meaningless. Minke whales are not endangered and whale meat have been consumed by Japanese people for thousands of years.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

From an economic standpoint it makes no sense to continue industrial whaling in distant waters. The money would be better spent on education or social welfare programs.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Pro whalers can't come up with a single argument to support this abomination of a hunt.

What is a "pro whaler"?

Personally I don't have a problem with people of different cultures hunting whatever they like, so long as it is sustainable. I don't think any culture is better than another or "correct" when it comes to classifying what is, and is not suitable as food. That's for people of each culture to decide for themselves, in my humble opinion. So I am pro cultural diversity, and pro sustainability.

Perhaps Japan should just quit the IWC, like Canada did, if it wants to continue commercial whaling.

I'd take that option too. I think Japan has let itself be taken for a ride for 3 decades. A 3 decade long "moratorium" is a joke, and Japan looks silly for just taking this.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

[whales] have been consumed by Japanese people for thousands of years.

How many Japanese people still eat it today? Not enough to consume the stockpiles just sitting in freezers. Not enough for the industry to be profitable without government subsidies.

The tradition excuse is weak.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

From an economic standpoint it makes no sense to continue industrial whaling in distant waters.

What makes sense from an economic standpoint is best left up to free markets to determine, based on supply and demand. We should avoid have central planners make decisions, because they invariably screw up big time.

The central planners should only concern themselves with ensuring that any production decisions that are made, are sustainable ones. E.g. how many whales can be caught. And Japan's research is aimed at informing those decisions.

The money would be better spent on education or social welfare programs.

If the IWC would permit commercial operators to operate, rather than keep this outdated 30 year old moratorium in place, whaling license fees could be use to fund any research, and then yes the money could be spent elsewhere (or not at all, as Japan's public debt is huge).

The problem is the issue has been politicized, and Japanese politicians can't make the best decision without the IWC acting properly, and setting proper sustainable limits for whaling operations. "Zero" is not a proper catch limit, it's ridiculous.

How many Japanese people still eat it today? Not enough to consume the stockpiles just sitting in freezers.

That's fake news, there is hardly any whalemeat in freezers. It's one of the scarcest frozen marine commodities in Japan. Data shows it.

Not enough for the industry to be profitable without government subsidies.

It's ridiculous to complain that the industry is not profitable, considering there is a commercial whaling moratorium in place. Get rid of the moratorium, see if the industry then stands on it's own feet, and if not let it die.

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

Japan cancelled its 2014-15 hunt after the ruling, but restarted it the following year under a new program with a two-thirds cut in the target catch number—saying the fresh plan was genuinely scientific.

Cry wolf much?

"Trust me - this time it's for science! Yeah, science! That's the ticket!"

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Thanks Tamarama, you took the words out of my mouth.

@quirkyJapan, care to elaborate on those comments? As stated this is a discussion fora and in the years I've been a member I don't believe we stick our noses into things or control the comments as you state.

Whaling is a topic of great significance in this country, and yes, it feels like a slap in the face in light of the ICJ ruling.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Says one,

Not enough for the industry to be profitable

Says another,

It's not about food. It's about profit.

So, some of you think there is money in the whale meat business, and some of you don't. Sort your story out, please!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

So, some of you think there is money in the whale meat business, and some of you don't. Sort your story out, please!

The money isn't in the whale meat business. It's in the 'scientific research' subsidy boondoggle. They can't sell the meat (when they put it to auction, there were no bids...) but people who make the relevant decisions do very well out of the subsidies, thank you very much.

On a level with the empty concrete boxes and roads to nowhere.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

That's fake news, there is hardly any whalemeat in freezers. It's one of the scarcest frozen marine commodities in Japan. Data shows it.

Oh no! It's fake news! Care to tell me which non-fake data shows there's no meat in freezers? Reputable sources say there is.

"almost 10 million pounds of unsold whale meat now sits in freezers at ports"

http://m.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1201/Almost-nobody-in-Japan-eats-whale.-Why-is-whaling-so-important-to-Japan-video

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I love the absurdity of that blue tarpaulin photo. What's large and whale shaped and is lying on a whaling ship which is actively hunting whales, but isn't a whale? Hmm...

2 ( +4 / -2 )

in defiance of an international court decision against Tokyo’s hunts, activist group Sea Shepherd said Sunday.

Except they aren't in defiance of an international court decision.

in defiance of a worldwide moratorium on commercial whaling.

Except they are not in defiance of a worldwide moratorium.

The dead whale is the first to be documented since the ruling by the International Court of Justice

No it isn't. Japan documented over 300 last year.

“The fact that the Japanese crew went to cover up their harpoons and the dead minke whale on deck just shows that they know what they’re doing is wrong,”

So does that mean when I close the curtains in my bedroom or bathroom it is because I know what I am doing is wrong?

If it was really for "scientific reasons" .... well, I don't think they have to kill that many whales.

Simple statistics show scientifically that if it is for "scientific reasons" they do have to kill that many.

The Japanese whaling boat was caught in Australia water recognised internationally

The waters are NOT recognized internationally as being Australian.

Regardless, they still flat out defied the international court decision,

They fully complied with the international court decision.

There are so many ways the west can pressure Japan to stop doing this. They choose not to.

Exactly. Because the west does not really care about the whaling situation. It is merely a talking point that they exploit to appease a vocal minority.

So what's stopping the Australian navy from catching and impounding these whaling ships? They're clearly within Australian water

Well the fact that the navy catching and impounding the ships would be an act of war. And the waters still are NOT Australian.

Australia agrees to it and observes it,

Well no actually they don't. They only follow the parts of it they want to and ignore the rest, kind of like the claims about the Japanese whalers.

From an economic standpoint it makes no sense to continue industrial whaling in distant waters. The money would be better spent on education or social welfare programs.

Can you provide definitive proof that this claim is true or is it just an opinion?

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Thunderbird2JAN. 16, 2017 - 05:01PM JST

Pro whalers can't come up with a single argument to support this abomination of a hunt.

Anyway, contrary to what you fancy, there are a lot of good reasons for whaling.

The whales are not endangered.

The moratorium was, when it was agreed, to be lifted by 1990. Anti whaling nations are unreasonably delaying the process.

Research whaling is not prohibited by the moratorium. This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice.

Japanese research whaling satisfy the standards put by ICJ.

Japanese whalers take whales in the international water, which does not belong to Australia.
-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The Australian government should just send patrol vessel to those waters, like they promised to do, but didn't, due to budget cuts.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Dom Palmer

Well no actually they don't. They only follow the parts of it they want to and ignore the rest, kind of like the claims about the Japanese whalers.

I look forward to your explanation of this with great anticipation.....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I look forward to your explanation of this with great anticipation.....

Well I don't want you to have to wait.

It is very simple. The moratorium required reviews of species by 1990 and every 10 years after to scientifically determine if the species still required the protection of the moratorium. To date not a single review has been done because they have been blocked by the anti-whaling bloc in the IWC, including Australia. So supporting the commercial ban portion of the moratorium while blocking the review portion is kind of an obvious hypocrisy.

And if I was willing to follow the Sea Shepherd's logic. If cover the whale carcass is proof that the whalers believe they are doing something wrong, then blocking the moratorium reviews must be proof that the anti-whalers know the reviews of at least some species would result in those species being removed from the moratorium's protection.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"But the very next day the Japanese whalers go the cruise Australia water with their catch of fresh whales. Talk about a slap in the face to Australian relationships." John-San

This whaling thing should not be ruled by Sea Shepherd but by common sense. Fishing industry (all around the world) already eradicates lots of the planet oceans assets. Especially cruising around Africa (what do you think Ticad is also about?) in exchange of financial compensations. The same consideration for oceans, forests, natural ressources reminds us that our future is more dangerous than we think.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If this Japanese captain has broken international and maritime laws, simply arrest him and his crew and hold them responsible for there actions.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I fully support Japan's tradition of whaling... the long tradition of traveling to the opposite end of the earth in factory ships to catch whales for the scientific purpose of freezing the carcasses to then try to force the meat on an ever shrinking market. This is such a long national tradition dating back thousands of years - no, tens of thousands of years I'm sure - that it must be respected. Shame on you all for daring to doubt this! It has nothing to do at all with buying votes in less populated areas that are have an over-representative proportion of votes in elections. In fact, you bringing up that point clearly shows that you have no respect at all for a country's traditions! Shame, shame, shame!

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Anyway, contrary to what you fancy, there are a lot of good reasons for whaling.

The whales are not endangered.

Irrelevant. That's not a reason to hunt them.

The moratorium was, when it was agreed, to be lifted by 1990. Anti whaling nations are unreasonably delaying the process.

Good, I hope it's never lifted... but still not a reason to hunt

Research whaling is not prohibited by the moratorium. This was confirmed by the International Court of Justice.

Research hunting is just hunting whales to see if there are enough for them to be hunted. Still not a reason to hunt.

Japanese research whaling satisfy the standards put by ICJ.

So? Still not a reason to hunt

Japanese whalers take whales in the international water, which does not belong to Australia.

Why? That's not a reason to hunt.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

If this Japanese captain has broken international and maritime laws, simply arrest him and his crew and hold them responsible for there actions.

The Japanese captain has not broken international or maritime laws. So no reason to arrest or hold anybody.

Now will you have the same opinion if the Sea Shepherds follow the pattern from previous years and break maritime laws by attacking and ramming the Japanese vessels? Will you call for the Sea Shepherd captains and crews being arrested?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

MrBum

Care to tell me which non-fake data shows there's no meat in freezers?

Fake argument! I said that it is scarce, not that there is none.

And "10 million pounds" your source came up with is fake news! That number is 4,500 tonnes. Why do you think your source would be reporting in pounds, rather than the original tonnage? Because they want to be able to say "millions" to give the impression that the number is large - fake news!

Look, here is the original source of the data with most recent figures: http://www.market.jafic.or.jp/suisan/file/reizo/2016/09_syuyou_2016_11.htm

There was 3,126 tonnes of whale as of the end of last November. To put it in perspective, it's out of 912,401 tonnes of frozen marine products, or 0.33% of the total.

So frozen whale is relatively restricted in supply, not in some sort of abundance.

But more than this, the truly telling factor is that Iceland's commercial whalers shipped whale meat here last summer, which they would not be doing if they weren't making money by doing so (or expecting to make money in future if they aren't already).

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Notice that the Sea Shepard criminals don't go after the whalers of Iceland or Norway? It smells of racism.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Remember,it is for research. Sometimes these scientists have to kill the animals they are researching. That is all for the noble cause of pure science. Now I am sure the scientist on board the Nisshin Maru are working hard on their scientific essay.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Which nation, or group of nations, has been appointed in charge of deciding what animals are permissible to be hunted by the peoples of the world? Please name the authority that granted this power, and, most importantly, why this authority is normative. Thanks!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Cybernetic Tiger,

You wrote, " I have every right to eat whale meat of species that are not endangered and I do so with pleasure."

This implies that it is possible to not have the right to eat a particular animal. May I ask, from where do these "rights" by which we are to discern which animals may be eaten cometh?

Who gives these rights? By what authority? Is the authority over the entire world?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Last time I head from this AFP reporter in Sidney about the Sea Shepherd was "New Sea Shepherd vessel targets Japan whaling fleet after spotting harpoon ship behind iceberg" on Dec 23. And this time the reporter says "Sea Shepherd finds Japanese ship with slaughtered whale."

So what have they been doing between these two reports? A vacation?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

So what have they been doing between these two reports? A vacation?

Running around like chickens with their heads cut off and burning fuel.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald

But the activists have since suffered a setback in their hope to disrupt the whale slaughter when heavy fog set in overnight and they lost track of the main abattoir ship, Nisshin Maru.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/japan-kills-whale-in-australian-sanctuary-as-hunters-give-sea-shepherd-the-slip-20170116-gtsd4l.html

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Actually, the IWC is a voluntary international organization and is not backed up by treaty.

And it's a trade group. The conservation aspect of the IWC is supposed to be in the service of sustainable whaling. Australia is blocking sustainable whaling. It should be the one to leave.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Whale meat is delicious

Wow, this is totally a matter of opinion, and if it was so delicious why is so much of it sitting around in freezers and not flying off the shelves?

It's an acquired taste to say the least, and few Japanese today actually LIKE whale.

No to mention the toxins in the meat, that could cause potential health hazards to those who eat it, especially children.

One other thing, if it was so delicious, why isnt Mr Abe and the rest of the whalers, and the the non-talented talento-san tachi, out there on TV with all the other "food" shows that are shown ad-naseum here on Japanese TV promoting whale meat?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I like it. It's got a bit of a bite/kick to it. I wouldn't say I love it, but it tastes good to me.

Haven't tried it yet. I wonder, is it expensive?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The moratorium required reviews of species by 1990 and every 10 years after to scientifically determine if the species still required the protection of the moratorium. To date not a single review has been done because they have been blocked by the anti-whaling bloc in the IWC, including Australia.

Oh, I see. So you are objecting to Australia and other countries opposing a review as built into the structure of the mechanics of the IWC?

Seems like you are comparing apples and oranges to me.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Not this story again. Beating a dead horse.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Oh, I see. So you are objecting to Australia and other countries opposing a review as built into the structure of the mechanics of the IWC?

Yes opposing to the blockade of the review to take place for the last quarter of a century. Let the review be carried out and not be blocked by anti-whaling nations so we can see normalization to the process.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Tamarama,

So you are objecting to Australia and other countries opposing a review as built into the structure of the mechanics of the IWC?

Rather than getting into the weeds, just look at the name of this organization. IWC. W is for Whaling. And Australia doesn't want Whaling. So wtf are they doing there? More fool Japan for putting up with this, but Australia and others who don't want to do any whaling have no business telling other people that they shouldn't do any either. There are enough whales for some to be caught, the current zero catch limit is a sham.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Impressed looking at the obsessive down voting of people who don't think whales should be treated any differently than other animals harvested for food.

WolfpackJan. 17, 2017 - 09:12AM JST I like it. It's got a bit of a bite/kick to it. I wouldn't say I love it, but it tastes good to me. Haven't tried it yet. I wonder, is it expensive?

It is not particularly expensive, maybe around the range of horse meat. Often the meat isn't particularly good though, bad whale meat is pretty fishy.

It used to be eaten as part of the school meals a few decades ago, it's considered fairly exotic nowadays though and I don't know many who eat it regularly.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Perhaps Japan should just quit the IWC, like Canada did, if it wants to continue commercial whaling. then that would make Japans scientific research a complete farse and lie. We know Japan doesn't like to lose face even on the smallest of issues so its unlikely they quit the IWC anytime soon.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

wtfjapan,

then that would make Japans scientific research a complete farse and lie.

No matter what Japan does, some people will come to that conclusion because that's the conclusion they start out from.

Quitting the IWC would be a perfectly reasonable response to the IWC imposing a defacto ban on all Japan's whaling, which is completely unfair and has no scientific basis either. Japan could reasonably quit, and set up a framework for "commercial" whaling where operators pay license fees, and set catch limits for whales based on the research that has been done to date. They might even continue the research to continue to inform the catch limit decision making, funded with the licensing fees.

None of that would suggest that Japan's research is a farce or a lie.

Ultimately then whether the whaling continues or not would become more of a commercial decision, within sustainable limits. There's no reasonable reason for anyone to oppose this.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Yes opposing to the blockade of the review to take place for the last quarter of a century. Let the review be carried out and not be blocked by anti-whaling nations so we can see normalization to the process.

Sounds like you have more of an issue with the mechanics of the organization - you can't blame the individual parties for operating within the perimeters of the system if that is the way it is set up. Especially when countries like Japan so flagrantly exploit it to continue commercial whaling anyway.

fxgai

So wtf are they doing there? More fool Japan for putting up with this, but Australia and others who don't want to do any whaling have no business telling other people that they shouldn't do any either.

Australia and other countries have every right to tell other countries they shouldn't be whaling. Every right, because that is what the current Moratorium on whaling stipulates. It's entirely in keeping with where the international community presently stands on whaling. If that changes, and commercial whaling is re-introduced by consensus, then that right is lost.

But it matters little to Japan anyway. They have been commercially whaling right through, including 1985 when the moratorium came into effect. They have just flipped the bird at the rest of us and carried on wholesale. So, the responsible globally harmonious (wa?) countries have facilitated the resurgence and replenishment of whale stocks, whilst Japan, who have selfishly decided they can't go without whale meat for a while, have just kept the snout in the trough. They might be reporting that there are heaps of Minke whales for them to now eat in Antarctica, but it's no thanks to them.

I personally find that quite offensive, and more than happy to call them out on it.

Quitting the IWC would be a perfectly reasonable response to the IWC imposing a defacto ban on all Japan's whaling,

It doesn't matter whether they are members of the IWC or not. It never has. They have kept whaling regardless of their membership. Their membership is a farcical as their science has been.

None of that would suggest that Japan's research is a farce or a lie.

Scientists disagree with you.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Because they want to be able to say "millions" to give the impression that the number is large - fake news!

The boi who cried fake. You have no idea what the word fake means. Is anything in the story untrue? 10 million pounds, 4,500 tonnes, either way that's a whole lot of meat for "scientific research."

To put it in perspective, 3,126 tonnes is about what 347 minke whales weigh. Take out bones and guts, and the count probably goes up. All of that meat just sitting there, paid for in part by taxpayers.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@ wtfjapan

"it just depends if their pride is worth holding onto at all cost, history has shown it clearly isnt. " Agreed, pride comes before the fall. Sometimes the line between pride and stubbornness get a little blurred hey...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Pretty much every day Abe is on TV "urging" the Chinese to respect the rule of law in the South China Sea. But when it comes to Japan respecting international law, e.g. the ICJ ruling on Japan's illegal whaling, what happens? Japan withdraws from ICJ jurisdiction. Breathtaking hypocrisy (as usual), unchallenged by Japanese "journalists".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan: "To find out whether there are enough whales to hunt we need to kill them all."

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Mikeobrian "Will you call for the Sea Shepherd captains and crews being arrested?" yes I would no one is above the law, two wrongs don't make a right. Willib, Now I am sure the scientist on board the Nisshin Maru are working hard on their scientific essay." of course they are, how cynical of you to think other wise. Donkusai, "In fact, you bringing up that point clearly shows that you have no respect at all for a country's traditions! Shame, shame, shame!" I don't think that any one is trying to put a stop to traditions at all its trying to bring back the whale population that has been decimated by lots of countries, if we (humans) carry on at the rate we was killing these creatures there would be non left, so where would or what would you do with your tradition when there is nothing left to celebrate? the key thing here is conservation, management, when the time is right may be we can bring back a structured program for catching whales, the north atlantic has had cod stocks to an all time low, there is a structure for fishermen in place so that they can't catch small or to many fish, thus giving the fish stocks to recover, so its all about a long term plan for everyone.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Tamarama

But Whaling is what the W in IWC stands for. I think it's wrong for a country with Australia's view to be in such a club, trying to sabotage it. I'd feel rotten if I ever did something like that, but that's me I guess.

I really feel there is no need for the current moratorium, it's way out of date. There's plenty of whales that could be caught. IWC is voluntary, the whalers could opt out and catch as many as they like. But the IWC is supposed to exist to make sure that not too many are caught. This should not be risked for the sake of the cultural preferences of Australians, IMO. I put pratical matters ahead of sentimental / cultural ones.

Also I feel this moratorium is a sham. Wikipedia shows me that Blue whales and Humpback whales were protected in the 1960s, long before this 1980s moratorium. So it looks to me like the moratorium was adopted under the guise of "science", and even though we now know there are loads of minke whales, it hasn't been lifted for minke whales. The organization is a joke.

I personally find that quite offensive, and more than happy to call them out on it.

Each to his own, but people of different cultures are under no obligation to listen to you. IMO you should consider yourself lucky that Japan is still at the discussion table.

Scientists disagree with you.

As I said, I read the plan and it looks fair dinkum to me.

MrBum,

0.33% of frozen marine products being whale suggests that a mountain has been made out of that molehill. Also a good chunk of that meat would be from Iceland, not tax payer funded.

To get tax payers out of it, Japan has to go to commercial whaling too.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

the key thing here is conservation, management, when the time is right may be we can bring back a structured program for catching whales,

Exactly Japan's point. They contend that for some species, specifically Antarctic Minke, the time IS right to allow a structured program. And the moratorium has provisions to scientifically determine when or if the time is right for each species. But the anti-whaling members refuse to even allow this review to take place. If the species are still so depleted that a sustainable hunt isn't scientifically appropriate then the review will show it, but it may also show that in some cases a sustainable hunt is appropriate. Hence why many people believe they continue to block ANY review.

The IWC has a mechanism based on science to determine if a sustainable hunt is possible. They also have a mechanism based on science to determine how many whales may be killed in a sustainable hunt. Let their own science be applied in an unbiased manner.

If the anti-whaling members wanted a complete and permanent ban on all whaling, which they almost undoubtedly did, then that is what they should have voted on back in the 1980's and not just a moratorium. My belief is that they knew if they did that the countries that wanted to continue whaling would just have objected under Article V (like Norway and Iceland did) or they would just quit. But by voting on a moratorium it made it seem like they were being reasonable and gave Japan a hope of returning to commercial whaling someday. To dangle that carrot but refuse for decades to even allow a look at the possibility is disingenuous and kind of undercuts all their moral arguments.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@fxgai

0.33% of frozen marine products being whale suggests that a mountain has been made out of that molehill.

Yes, when you count ALL marine products in a country with a seafood heavy diet, the percentage of whale meat is small. Over 347 whale's worth of meat is still just sitting in freezers though. You can't get around that. And how is that related to scientific research? Talk about fake...

Also a good chunk of that meat would be from Iceland, not tax payer funded.

Really? Is Iceland just giving their whale meat to Japan? Is Japan paying for it? Just to put it in a freezer?

I put pratical matters ahead of sentimental / cultural ones.

Practically speaking, you can't slaughter a whale as quickly and humanely as a cow, pig, chicken, etc. Despite their "thousand of years" of practice, the only method these whalers have is harpooning the animals and dragging them in. Due to the unique physiology of whales, it's currently unknown how long the whales are alive and left to suffer once pulled onboard the ships.

The Taiji "hunts" are worse with them just randomly stabbing into a bay full of trapped dolphins. Call me sentimental, but I just think that's cruel and necessary.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

the key thing here is conservation, management, when the time is right may be we can bring back a structured program for catching whales

Conservation and management is one thing, but not (in everyone's mind) the key thing.

There are strict rules in place determining how an animal may be killed in an abattoir; it must not be subjected to stress, pain, anxiety, etc., the animal must be stunned and unconscious when it is killed and the kill must be quick and clean.

None of that applies to the killing of marine mammals on the open sea. The terrified animals are chased to the point of exhaustion and then the harpooner takes a pot shot at it with an exploding harpoon. The death is never quick or clean, and the animal may suffer for anything from several minutes to over an hour before it dies.

I don't care how many minke or other whales there are in the oceans, I don't care how economically viable commercial whaling might be; it is impossible to kill a whale humanely, or even with any rough approximation of humaneness. The killing of a marine mammal for commercial purposes is barbaric, antiquated and unjustifiable and should be banned for all time.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

fxgai

Also I feel this moratorium is a sham. Wikipedia shows me that Blue whales and Humpback whales were protected in the 1960s, long before this 1980s moratorium.

In relation to Blue Whales, Wikipedia also shows this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Blue_Whale_Population_v1.svg/220px-Blue_Whale_Population_v1.svg.png

Now, I don't know about you, but I would say two things about that graphic. The first is that the Blue Whale population is nowhere near ready for commercial exploitation. Nowhere near it. Years and years away from it. Secondly, the moratorium on whaling appears to be having a positive impact on the population of Blue Whales. You might see it differently, but that's my interpretation of it.

Humpback populations appear to have come out of 'endangered' status in certain parts of the world, though notably not those anywhere near Japan, where they remain endangered.

Now, whilst I'd rather not see whaling personally, I wouldn't object to controlled commercial whaling if the stocks of whales were at healthy, sustainable levels that were widely and broadly agreed upon (cue the argument for Minke whales here). But we have collectively done such catastrophic damage to whale stocks in the last couple of hundred years that we need a reasonable period of time for those stocks to realistically recover. That graphic clearly shows that 30 years is nowhere near long enough, does it. Should it be 100 years?

Perhaps.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

That graphic clearly shows that 30 years is nowhere near long enough, does it.

No that graphic (and note your link doesn't appear to work) shows the situation for Blue whales. It does not show the situation with any other species and each species has to be considered separately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_whale#/media/File:Blue_Whale_Population_v1.svg

In 20 years the IUCN took Humpback whales from Endangered to Least Concern, and yes IUCN categorizations can be debated but for none specialists their categories are probably the best we have. So apparently for some species 30 years IS long enough. For others it may be much longer. Especially when commercial hunting is not the only factor in any species recovery.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

MrBum,

I imagine the meat would be getting sold overtime, like other products in frozen storage. I saw a TV show about a shop in Tsukiji the other day and they were selling whale (aiming to shift 300,000 yen's worth each day appearently). Not sure if had been frozen or not, but they seemed to sell a good amount of it.

Iceland's whalers operate commercially, so they'd be selling it to buyers in Japan, I presume. They wouldn't be in business to lose money.

So I get the impression that there is a market for whale in Japan. That being the case, it makes sense to me that the Japanese would want to do research to understand how many whales can be caught safely, which is the impression I got from a look at their research plan.

Practically speaking, you can't slaughter a whale as quickly and humanely as a cow, pig, chicken, etc.

You can't let a cow, pig or chicken swim freely in the ocean before slaughering it either though.

Tamarama,

I couldn't view your image, but no question Blue whales are in bad shape. Bad mistakes. And no one is hunting them anymore, and probably shouldn't for decades. No disagreement here.

But no one was hunting them, from well before the moratorium. So I agree to no whaling for those horribly over-exploited whale "stocks". But I just don't see an issue for limited numbers of minke whales, which seem very populous. This "moratorium" shouldn't apply for minke whales, IMO.

One remembers also that blue whales were hunted for oil too, and even if there were unsustainable demand for whale meat as food, the authorities is supposed to make sure the catch limits are safe. I'd rather the IWC decide what is safe in a reasonable way, rather than just leave any one nation to take it upon themselves to decide.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No that graphic (and note your link doesn't appear to work) shows the situation for Blue whales.

Correct. Blue whales were cited by fxgai, hence my reference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd rather the IWC decide what is safe in a reasonable way, rather than just leave any one nation to take it upon themselves to decide.

Good point. The IWC Scientific Committee has developed a method for determining safe and sustainable hunting levels based on the same science that is used to manage hunting of other species. It takes into account the population, the age structure of the population, the time to reach sexual maturity, the time of pregnancy, the success rate of pregnancy and other relevant data. After that it reduces the limit to be extra safe and the limit is reevaluated every year based on the latest data.

Meanwhile a country that isn't part of the IWC can just pick a random number for their quota and even an IWC member that has objected to the moratorium (like Norway and Iceland) can set whatever limit they want.

Wouldn't it be better to have the IWC set the limits based on science and require neutral monitors on all vessels to ensure the limits are being followed? Kind of like the plan Japan suggested a few years ago to allow commercial hunting of Minkes with neutral observers and DNA samples taken from every whale caught so that random sampling of whale meat offered for sale can be verified as coming from a registered whale thus minimizing the potential for poaching.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@fxgai

I saw a TV show about a shop in Tsukiji the other day and they were selling whale (aiming to shift 300,000 yen's worth each day appearently).

Let me guess, a Japanese TV show? They're not exactly known for their hard-hitting reporting, especially against the status quo. You wouldn't know tuna is endangered either from watching Japanese TV. I assume you live in Japan. How many people do you actually know that can't live without whale meat?

You can't let a cow, pig or chicken swim freely in the ocean before slaughering it either though.

No you can't, but that's kind of the point. Cows, pigs, etc. live on dry land and have been domesticated through selective breeding since the dawn of human civilization. I'm don't think cramming them in a factory before slaughter is humane either, but you can take measures and pass regulations against that. You can't create a controlled environment to slaughter whales quickly and as painlessly as possible though. Their environment doesn't allow it.

And that's not mentioning the toxicity of whale meat. The only reason to keep the "tradition" going seems to be stubborn pride.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Fxgai: Your a bean counter so you understand numbers. You place a value on a commodity. Whale meat from the southern Ocean is no way profitable due to transport alone, because no culture south of japan eat whale. Whale from the Northern waters might be. People are making billions USD out of whales in the Southern waters by protecting them as a reusable asset ( Whale Watching ) Where killing without farming is not reuseble asset. So your economic theory need to take into account the billions spent in protecting which is providing value to living whale. These Billions in turn, make billions, Jobs and profits. Your theory will only see short turn gains until it not is profitable again due the decline in population.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Didn't get time last night to respond fully, so just a couple of observations:

In 20 years the IUCN took Humpback whales from Endangered to Least Concern, and yes IUCN categorizations can be debated but for none specialists their categories are probably the best we have. So apparently for some species 30 years IS long enough.

With full protection in some parts of the world, some populations of Humpbacks are no longer generally classified as endangered anymore, though in some countries such as the US, they are. They are still endangered around Japan because Japan continues to catch and eat them, despite everyone else doing their best to build the numbers.

That however, just means they aren't endangered - it by no means suggests they are ready for commercial exploitation, as it appears that even in the Southern Hemisphere where stocks are doing pretty well, they are only around 40% of pre-whaling numbers.

I think you draw a very long bow to suggest that is the cue to dive back into commercial whaling, and I don't think that is a sensible approach to conservation at all. Thankfully, it appears to be the consensus at this point.

After all, what's the hurry? Why pander to the selfish and irresponsible to placate their own self-serving ideals. The culture argument is BS. What about the American, Canadian, European, Australian culture of whaling? Why is theirs less important? For they all have a history and culture of whaling.

We need to think big picture, long term and well outside a 30 year time frame. Let's right the wrongs of the past first, and think sustainably moving forward. There's no hurry.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Dom Palmer,

Thanks for details about the IWC Scientific Committee's methods. Sounds very solid and the right way to go about it, but it's all for nothing with this blanket "moratorium" in place. Japan ought to play hardball to get what its way on this I think. No need to kowtow to others about a matter of food preference.

MrBum,

The Japanese TV show was about the impact on Tsukiji businesses from the delays of the move to the Toyosu fish market, not about the rights / wrongs of whale meat. It just so happened that the shop they were following was dealing in whale meat.

This in itself is interesting. For the Japanese TV audience, that the shop was dealing in whale meat was a trivial detail in a story about the Tsukiji/Toyosu fish market issues. But some English language speakers want to question whether there is even any market for whale meat at all!

I don't know anyone who needs whale to live, but I can say the same thing about the products / services of any business. I believe in personal freedoms within reasonable bounds, and I don't see the notion of choosing to eat whales as unreasonable.

No you can't, but that's kind of the point. Cows, pigs, etc. live on dry land and have been domesticated

Which was my point too :) I'd opt to be a whale rather than a cow if I had to choose.

John-San,

Viability of whaling is for commercial operators to assess, not JT comments section. If it isn't commercially viable, whaling would end. The ocean is big enough for whale watching and whaling.

Whales reproduce and so are reusable too. Just don't catch too many is the critical part, which is my only concern. We don't want to do what we did to the Blue whales again for minke whales. But Japan is already catching minke whales now. I see no economic loss to anyone as a result of that, and Japan has been doing it for 30 years of moratorium too, and the whales seem fine. So I think there is a level of whales that can be caught that provides economic benefits (to Japanese people at least) while keeping the number of whales healthy over the long term.

Tamarama,

Is it true that Japan is catching humpbacks around Japan? How many?

I think you draw a very long bow to suggest that is the cue to dive back into commercial whaling, and I don't think that is a sensible approach to conservation at all.

What is conservation? I think it is basically this: First, we define conservative numbers of whales that can be caught. Second, we decide how many to actually catch, within those limits.

You mention "commercial" whaling but do we care? What I think matters is how many are caught, not the purpose for which they are caught. Commercial operators must operate within conservative limits, but besides that the commercial decisions are theirs, and they will live or die by them, as it should be for every business.

After all, what's the hurry?

As for minkes, why delay? Economic activity is good.

What about the American, Canadian, European, Australian culture of whaling? Why is theirs less important?

It isn't, but theirs shouldn't trump Japans right to make it's own decisions about eating them or not. Japan catching whales doesn't mean any one else is obliged to. Indians don't expect us all to stop eating cows just because of their views about that.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Fxgai, Japan are poorer for the whale operation, No way can Japan make a profit from whaling. Plus they are missing out on tourism. Until Japan stop killing whales tourism will not increase to levels Japan Government is seeking. Their are their own worst emery when it come to Promoting Japan. I know of many Aussie that go to Canada instead of Japan to ski for this reason only. I for one will not allow our children became Japanese citizens while they practice whale killing not in their waters and that includes international waters. I have discuss this with my Japanese partner and we both agree that if they want to be Japanese citizenship they can when they can make a inform decision.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

because Japan continues to catch and eat them

No they don't. Japan hasn't caught a humpback in decades.

What about the American, Canadian, European, Australian culture of whaling? Why is theirs less important? For they all have a history and culture of whaling.

They all hunted for oil not food. The economics for oil and food are quite different. That is part of why the countries that hunted for oil generally were already reducing their hunts long before the moratorium.

No way can Japan make a profit from whaling.

That is for the free market to determine. But if you are right then removing the moratorium and making Japanese whaling a pure commercial operation would cause whaling to end.

Plus they are missing out on tourism.

Any proof of this other than anecdotal claims? I read every year where tourism in Japan sets new records.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

John-San,

Whether Japanese businesses could make a profit from commercial whaling or not is their business, not yours. If they want to lose money, why would you care?

We only lose money if we are tax payers funding a public operation, which exists primarily because the IWC denies the existence of commercial operations.

Japan's just had record tourist numbers in 2016, so you seem to be totally off the mark with that one.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Plus they are missing out on tourism.

I doubt it. Most tourists are from Asia, who do not dictate what the Japanese eat.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I Why Care about Japan killing whale in the southern waters and we seen what happen the Northern western pacific whales, there is none but there is the Northeastern whales. Why because of over fishing and no Quote (Great way to run a fishery). That right Japan have no Northren Blue fin Tuna. But Australia has plenty of southern Blue fin Tuna. Japan are eating Dolphin since they run out of whale but soon they will all be gone along with all the profit this sort term industry brings. Their is something sick about the mentality of Japan Law Makers and and you if you think it improve Japan standing as a good world citzen 1: Japan is bending over backward trying to get world approval by all their volunteering for UN job instead of been ask like the rest, They do this to divert from their real action. Like They treat their poor well below their world ecomonic standing. The only good asset Japan have, are their people which they have divested in over the last 1/4 of a century. I assume you mean the best ever numbers in tourists 2016. That correct, but for the investment the Japan government outlay has not produce the numbers. The projected numbers are actual down 45 % since the investment began.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Japan are eating Dolphin since they run out of whale but soon they will all be gone along with all the profit this sort term industry brings.

Very small number of people eat very small number of dolphin in Taichi town. I don't think the rest of the Japanese eat dolphin. So, they will never be all gone.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Sorry John-San but nothing you said convinces me of the validity of your argument, and most of what you said has nothing to do with whales anyway.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Magnus Roe,

You wrote, "Impressed looking at the obsessive down voting of people who don't think whales should be treated any differently than other animals harvested for food."

In the U.S. for instance, the eating of beef from cows is done. In other nations, Cows are viewed as "sacred" and are not harmed. For arguments sake, what if those nations that considered cows as sacred began to increase in number. And again, for arguments sake, what if those nations then begin to apply societal pressure to the U.S. to abstain from harming cows. Ought the U.S. abide by societal standards that are in place in other nations?

Even if, cows began to dwindle in number and the possibility of them becoming extinct became real....WHY ought the U.S. care?

Seems to me, that this question has not been answered. And when this question is raised, the questioner is ridiculed...but an response is never given.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@mt9334

Seems more like people in your camp are clutching at straws to prop up their limp arguments, such as yours above. What has all that got to do with the here, now and the issue at hand?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Fxgai: This article is not . "Viability of whaling is for commercial operators to assess, not JT comments section. If it isn't commercially viable, whaling would end. The ocean is big enough for whale watching and whaling". You drag this profit of whaling into the comments. I am defending the needless killing of whales which the world has voted against the killing of whales. I have pointed out the best profit is from not killing whales. You mention profit not me. did you check the amount of money made from not killing whale while you were the person who is defending the killing of whale as a commercial business. Your a bean counter and you don,t have the numbers on profit of whale killing nor do you check profit numbers on not killing whales. So your comment have no weight without numbers to back up your comment.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You drag this profit of whaling into the comments.

You mention profit not me.

No you did. You said "No way can Japan make a profit from whaling". In response I pointed out that you aren't in a position to make such a determination. It's "not your business".

did you check the amount of money made from not killing whale

Who has money for the hundreds of thousands of minke whales that are not killed? And how is that money denied through some small fraction of whales being caught in the Antarctic ocean each year?

I think money can be made from both, no need for mutual exclusion. I don't see those whaling activities costing anyone a cent.

So your comment have no weight without numbers to back up your comment.

That's right. It's no more my business than it is yours.

But it's up to free people to decide how they try to make money, and catching some whales is sustainable, so there is no downside from sustainable whaling. Only potential upside. You have no right to tell other people what to do when what they do doesn't infringe on your rights in the slightest.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yes, Mate Yes, I have the right and it is my business, My relatives work in the whale watching business in Narooma and I own a share of the Business, and you have the right to gain a commercial business out of whale ( Your statement which mean profit ) and you know exactly what you meant again you drag the word business commercial, and the killing of whales in the same sentence. So you deny that also. You have the right but it is against international law killing whale for food but Japan do have a problem with international laws over the Century, Like Attacking countries which is against international law like killing whales. You and Japan seem to have problems with working with the world ever now end then you go completely of tangent.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I am defending the needless killing of whales which the world has voted against the killing of whales.

No, the IWC voted against it. Its current membership is less than 80 countries and was even smaller in the 1980 when the moratorium was enacted.

I have pointed out the best profit is from not killing whales.

No you have claimed that. You have not given any proof to support your claim.

but it is against international law killing whale for food

No it isn't. There is no such international law.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

My relatives work in the whale watching business in Narooma

Japan doesn't catch those whales, so what are you moaning about. Fine for you to get richer off whales but not for the evil Japanese huh!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Still nothing new from Sea Shepherd for weks.

I would guess they never found the Nisshin Maru and lost contact with any of the whaling fleet. Expect to hear from the ICR soon that the fleet is on their way back to Japan with a full catch.

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