national

Sea Shepherd to battle on after Japan whaling court deal in U.S.

63 Comments

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

© 2016 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

63 Comments
Login to comment

So in the end, it is all about money. No surprise there.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

"Jeff Hansen, managing director of Sea Shepherd Australia, told the BBC the US ruling would "absolutely not" affect its own operations. He said if the ICC were to pursue Sea Shepherd in Australia "they would be entering into a court system they're in contempt of, and we would welcome that"." Looks like their celebrations might be premature.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

Is there no way to stop these criminals - Sea Sheperd?

-6 ( +15 / -21 )

just proves that the US and Japans legal reach doesnt extend beyond their borders, now if they were to use military force to force their ideals that would open a whole new can of worms I doubt Japan would have the stomach for. So its business as usual for SS . and hundred of millions of more J taxpayer legal fees down the drain for squat. LOL

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Shouldn't it be "Japanese scientists celebrate"? you know... since the nation lies about it being about science and all that.

1 ( +11 / -10 )

Shouldn't Paul Watson just forfeit his U.S. passport if he is so adamant about this and make Australia his main headquarters where he can drum up more support?

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Japan claims it conducts vital scientific research using a loophole in an international whaling ban, but makes no secret that >>the mammals ultimately end up on dinner plates.

Yes, that whaling program is nothing more than a state sponsored nationwide lie. I guess the more Japanese will expose this lie, the more people will be sensible and react.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Japanese whalers, just take the money and stop whaling!

when you go to the market I see the whale meat being displayed and Obaachan cooking and giving samples, NOBODY try it, its just a waste of taxpayer money to help the whalers with their scientific lies.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

Getting back to basics, what's the issue with catching a conservative number of non-endangered whales and eating them, anyway?

Grown adults should be able to tolerate other cultures.

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

Shouldn't Paul Watson just forfeit his U.S. passport if he is so adamant about this and make Australia his main headquarters where he can drum up more support? SS is far bigger than just Paul Watson, much of SS growth and fame has come from Japans insistance on whaling. Its Japan who has played a big part in creating the monster that is SS. A monster im happy to support. bring on the pain SS LOL

5 ( +12 / -7 )

Why am i not allowed to vote on these comments is it because im an Australian its bad enough for whaling to be in the Antarctic and Australian waters that Japans so called scientific whaling is a commercial venture but not scientific at all.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Shouldn't Paul Watson just forfeit his U.S. passport if he is so adamant about this and make Australia his main headquarters where he can drum up more support?

Watson is Canadian

10 ( +13 / -3 )

As much as I don't condone Japanese whaling, these Sea Sgepard folks really are just self promoting narcissists. South Park got it right (as usual).

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjU2sWY_tjOAhXCMo8KHbQ8AMQQFggmMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwatchcartoonsonline.eu%2Fwatch%2Fsouth-park-s13-e11-whale-whores%2F&usg=AFQjCNHv7PvZj_nUwLIemz4jcOajrlrWLQ

0 ( +8 / -8 )

The NHK report on this last night spoke of Japan's "research whaling" many times. The ICJ has ruled that what Japan was doing was not legitimate research. Japanese media should refer to "so-called research whaling", or "illegal commercial whaling" when talking about these activities.

Having lost the case Japan decided to withdraw from ICJ jurisdiction on this matter, then continued whaling as before. Japan's behaviour is almost exactly the same as China's when it comes to respecting the rulings of international courts. Rulings are not accepted and ignored whilst the government and media tell blatant lies to support the official position. The hypocrisy of Abe and co. whinging and whining about China all the time whilst they behave in the same manner is astonishing.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

Jeff Hansen, managing director of Sea Shepherd Australia doesn't even know who he's fighting. Who is the ICC?

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

when will these clowns realize their cause is an act of terrorism that can seriusly get people hurt, in fact, people already died in their self righteous 'battle'.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

when will these clowns realize their cause is an act of terrorism that can seriusly get people hurt, in fact, people already died in their self righteous 'battle'.

Absolutely. These clowns (the whalers) have already been told by an international court that their actions do not constitute 'research' yet they ignore the ruling and continue to raid the seas. The only people that have died have been on the whaling ships, one in a fire on the Nisshin Maru in 2007 (caused by whaler incompetence), another also on the Nisshin Maru in the same year when a crew member was crushed by the conveyor belt used to load whalemeat into the hold; and another in 2009 when an engine room oiler on the Kyoshin Maru 2 was supposedly washed overboard after wandering up on deck in high seas in the middle of the night, dressed only in overalls.

They should admit that what they are doing is commercial whaling, recognise that it is illegal, go home and get proper jobs.

7 ( +16 / -9 )

The ICJ has ruled that what Japan was doing was not legitimate research.

Fact checking time!

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18162.pdf

"The Court finds that JARPA II can broadly be characterized as “scientific research”."

Whoah! Sure didn't get that impression from the AFP article!

Reading on, I see the split decision of the judges (twelve to four) was based upon an argument that Japan's program wasn't "reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives" from the evidence presented.

"Reasonable" seems like a subjective criteria dreamt up by the majority of judges to justify a ruling against Japan. If you ask a whale eater, is it "reasonable" to kill a whale to eat it, their answer will be yes. If you ask someone who is against whale eating the same question, the answer will be no. So it looks to me like the twelve judges who voted against Japan have some cultural biases against whaling.

So it seems that Japan has since reformulated it's program so as to show that it is "reasonable" in relation to its stated objectives, in accordance with the judgement.

In China's recent case, I believe the court was unanimous in it's decision.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Cleo, I know you object to whaling, but whatever you think of their politics the actions of Sea Shepherd have been recklessly dangerous and they must be stopped.

If they want to hang around the whaling fleet and protest, shout and scream like the entitled little children they resemble, Sea Shepherd are more than welcome to do so, but to ignore the rules of safe navigation and to deliberately endanger other ships is TOTALLY unacceptable.

There are many, many much more serious environmental issues to address in the world than the Japanese sustainably killing a few minke whales from a burgeoning population, but these Sea Shepherd idiots don't really care about the potential environmental benefits of their behaviour - they are egotistical "glory-seekers" who believe that by focusing on whales they will get the greatest acclaim for their self-righteous actions.

Save the tuna, leave the whalers alone, I say. Or save the Amazon rainforest, perhaps. Sea Shepherd's fleet should be confiscated and scuttled to make an artificial reef for sea life to flourish.

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

Regardless of the legalities, Japan's Antarctic whaling program is a dreadful waste of money that should anger all Japanese taxpayers, whatever one may think of Sea Shepherd and its methods. The whole thing is one big boondoggle, keeping taxes flowing to the Institute of Cetacean Research and into the pockets of amakudari politics by pointlessly turning whales into unsold frozen meat. Japan could (and should) scrap the ICR and scrap the Antarctic program, and would still easily meet the tiny demand for whale meat from whales caught off its coast by small town whalers.

What a waste of money. What a waste of life.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

"Reasonable" seems like a subjective criteria dreamt up by the majority of judges to justify a ruling against Japan.

Not if you read your link, it doesn't. It explains clearly what is meant by 'reasonable' and why the Japanese so-called 'research' is not reasonable.

If you ask a whale eater, is it "reasonable" to kill a whale to eat it, their answer will be yes.

But that was not the question asked. The question asked was whether the Japanese so-called 'scientific research' carried out under permits issued under Article 8 was in fact in accordance with the provisions of Article 8, ie whether the lethal take was for the purpose of research. The answer is that it was clearly not.

it looks to me like the twelve judges who voted against Japan have some cultural biases against whaling.

Or maybe the four who voted with Japan have some cultural bias towards whaling/against the moratorium on commercial whaling? (One of the four is Japanese, in fact he is the father of Crown Princess Masako and a career diplomat.)

The findings of the ICJ as set out in the press release you provided the link for deal exclusively with the question of whether the design and implementation of the 'research' are reasonable in relation to achieving the programme’s stated research objectives. They were shown to be not reasonable from a scientific standpoint.

Whether or not killing whales in order to eat them is reasonable or not was not an issue that anyone asked to be considered.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

Yoshitsune, I agree with you, but as examples of Japanese government wastefulness go, the ICR budget is merely scratching the surface.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

There are many, many much more serious environmental issues to address in the world than the Japanese sustainably killing a few minke whales from a burgeoning population, but these Sea Shepherd idiots don't really care about the potential environmental benefits of their behaviour

Who says it's all about the environment? Whether any particular species is burgeoning or endangered, there is no excuse for inflicting unspeakable agony and suffering on individual members of that species.

the actions of Sea Shepherd have been recklessly dangerous and they must be stopped.

Nothing could be easier. Just stop the whaling, and SS will be left gesticulating helplessly at the icebergs in a whaler-free Southern Ocean.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Japan claims it conducts vital scientific research using a loophole in an international whaling ban, but makes no secret that the mammals ultimately end up on dinner plates.

As JT has been told numerous times, it isn't a loophole. Article VIII is an original part of the ICRW written in 1948 while the moratorium wasn't written until 1984. Kind of hard to write a loophole for a moratorium that is almost 4 decades in the future. And Article VIII requires the whales caught be processed to the extent practical so there is no reason to make eating of the meat secret as it is part of following the regulations.

and Australian waters

No whaling takes place in Australian waters.

Watson is Canadian

Watson has dual citizenship and thus a US and a Canadian passport.

Having lost the case Japan decided to withdraw from ICJ jurisdiction on this matter, then continued whaling as before. Japan's behaviour is almost exactly the same as China's when it comes to respecting the rulings of international courts. Rulings are not accepted and ignored whilst the government and media tell blatant lies to support the official position. The hypocrisy of Abe and co. whinging and whining about China all the time whilst they behave in the same manner is astonishing.

Nope. They have not continued whaling as before. The followed the ICJ ruling and stopped JARPAII and then using the guidance specifically given in the ICJ ruling they wrote and implemented a new research plan. Australia has withdrawn their claims in Antarctica from ICJ jurisdiction, so why can't Japan withdraw jurisdiction? Or is Australia just a bunch of hypocrites? Now WHO is telling blatant lies?

yet they ignore the ruling

They have fully complied with the ruling.

“The ruling in the U.S. courts affects ONLY our U.S. entity,” the group’s global chief executive Alex Cornelissen said in a statement. “Sea Shepherd Global and all other entities around the world, other than the USA, will continue to oppose the illegal Japanese whaling in the Antarctic,” it added.

Well technically he is correct. But the ruling prohibits the US entity from supporting the anti-whaling campaigns by transferring money to the other branches to use for anti-whaling activities. And historically the majority of the money that the Australia branch has used for the campaigns has come from the US branch. It is hard to see how they can finance the campaign without support from the US branch.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

I would like to know how many people still do actually eat whale meat/blubber? I asked my friend in Japan if he's ever tasted it, he said that he and no one he knew like it, and he had seen packets of the stuff in supermarkets for ages that had not been sold. so is there still a huge demand for the stuff?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Kind of hard to write a loophole for a moratorium that is almost 4 decades in the future.

loophole, n an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules

You know, people who write rules don't deliberately write in loopholes. That isn't how it works. It's precisely because Article 8 was written decades before the (at the time not-contemplated) moratorium that the loophole exists; the people who wrote Article 8 had no inkling of what might happen in the future and so did not allow for it.

there is no reason to make eating of the meat secret as it is part of following the regulations

The point is that no secret is made of the fact that the purpose of the 'research' is to get the meat; the 'research' is for the purpose of stocking the freezers, not for the purpose of true research.

The followed the ICJ ruling and stopped JARPAII and then using the guidance specifically given in the ICJ ruling they wrote and implemented a new research plan.

They changed the name and little more. 30 members of the IWC Scientific Committee published an open letter in Nature stating that "Japan claims to have sincerely taken in account the view of the scientific committee and the view of the independent review panel, but in actual fact they haven't changed anything substantial in their scientific proposal....[Japan] are going ahead to do what they set out originally to do regardless of any scientific opinion."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/whaling-japan-scientists-slam-renewed-program/7099336

the IWC's scientific committee found that there remained insufficient justification for killing whales in the name of science under the new program. In December, Japan ignored that finding

The IWC has said no new whaling permits would be issued before September 2016. That means that, at least officially, the Japanese fleet is operating in the Southern Ocean without an international permit to hunt for whales.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

Even if you are for whaling...it should not use one yen of tax payer dollars. Also most of the whale meat goes to waste these days...research it.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

the people who wrote Article 8 had no inkling of what might happen in the future and so did not allow for it.

But the people that wrote the moratorium did know and they knew that Article VIII existed and what it said. So if they had wanted to they could have written the moratorium to deal with Article VIII and prevent any conflict, but they didn't.

The point is that no secret is made of the fact that the purpose of the 'research' is to get the meat; the 'research' is for the purpose of stocking the freezers, not for the purpose of true research.

And that is just your opinion. Even the IWC's own Scientific Committee has agreed many times that the Japanese are doing valuable research and that for some of the collected data the only way to collect it is through lethal means.

They changed the name and little more.

They made significant changes and even if they didn't, they made the changes that the ICJ said were required. So apparently only those little changes were what the ICJ ruling said were needed to be in compliance.

Japan] are going ahead to do what they set out originally to do regardless of any scientific opinion.

Yes. And that is to prove that commercial whaling is sustainable. Now maybe the IWC should do the review that has been required since 1990, then no more research data would be needed. But as long as the IWC continues to claim that they don't have enough data to perform their required review it only makes sense to continue collecting data.

The IWC has said no new whaling permits would be issued before September 2016. That means that, at least officially, the Japanese fleet is operating in the Southern Ocean without an international permit to hunt for whales.

Nope. Sorry. Wrong. Japan issued a valid international permit to hunt for whales. That is all that is required by Article VIII. The IWC Scientific Committee has no power to issue, revoke or disapprove Article VIII permits.

Even if you are for whaling...it should not use one yen of tax payer dollars.

Well how to spend tax money is in the hands of the government that collects it. But I basically agree. So if the IWC would do their review and set a quota, then Japan could commence commercial whaling. No government tax money and if there is no market (or not enough of a market) then no one will do it commercially.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

I work with a Balenine in my line of work. Pretty promising stuff.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Everybody knows that, Japanese whaling is a cover up for commercial whaling. Everybody also knows the reason they are doing whaling is to prove it is commercially viable even though, there is an international ban on hunting whales commercially, which Japan acknowledged when they joined the IWC. The modern world will never agree to commercial whaling regardless of Japan's research. Whales were almost driven to extinction in the last two centuries and they were commercially hunted by many countries for meat and also for oil. The IWC ban in the mid-80's came too late for many populations of whales. At present, many species have bounced back to around 50-80% of their original stocks. However, there are still some stocks of whales which have not recovered. The northern grey whale and right whales are two, whose populations have not recovered, but they are still hunted by Japan. The Minki whale they are hunting in the southern oceans does have good stocks (for now), but it would into take a few years of commercial hunting to decimate the populations once again. The humpback and southern tight whales, which are also on Japan's shopping list, have only recovered to around 50% of their original sticks and could not sustain commercial whaling. Now, here is the farce in Japan's augment, there is no market for the meat. The few locally caught whales (200 a year or so) adequately supply the small market for whale meat. Japan is just trying to exploit a resource for profit even though there could never be a profit. It's only justification of having a whale fleet. There are already thousands of tons of whale meat in freezers around the country that they intend to give away to schools because they can't sell it. What reason can Japan have for continuing its commercial whaling in the southern ocean with dreams of expanding it into a commercial entity? It's just totally daft!

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

the people that wrote the moratorium did know and they knew that Article VIII existed and what it said.

And they were likely honourable people who probably never imagined that a reasonable article allowing for the occasional killing of whales, the frequency and number to be restricted by the government responsible, would be twisted by an unscrupulous government to allow a national enterprise to kill hundreds of animals every year, with no end in sight to the 'research'. No one with a modicum of sense or decency can seriously claim that Japan adheres to the spirit of Article 8. It exploits the loophole.

that is just your opinion (that the purpose of the 'research' is to get the meat)

No, it isn't 'just my opinion'. Ask any Japanese pro-whaler about the reason for 'research whaling' and the discussion will almost immediately slip down into 'it's our culture', 'eating whale is our tradition' and similar 'justifications'. I've never yet had a pro-whaler in real life wax lyrical about the need to research how much and what kind of food a whale has in its stomach, how old it is when it is killed by a harpoon, or the feasibility of fertilising bovine eggs with whale sperm, or any of the other weird and wonderful non-peer-reviewed research projects that the ICR claims are so important they need to shoot exploding harpoons into thousands of whales. It's all about how much unesu the boats bring home to titillate the jaded palettes of old men.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

there is an international ban on hunting whales commercially, which Japan acknowledged when they joined the IWC.

The is no international ban on hunting whales commercially. There is a moratorium and it isn't even really international as it only applies to (some) IWC members.

And the moratorium was put in place in the 1980's while Japan joined the IWC in 1951. So how could they acknowledge something over 30 years BEFORE it existed?

The northern grey whale and right whales

Neither of which is hunted by Japan.

The Minki whale they are hunting in the southern oceans does have good stocks (for now), but it would into take a few years of commercial hunting to decimate the populations once again.

As the Minke population has never been decimated, it would be impossible to decimate it once again. And with a sustainable quota it wouldn't even face being decimated now.

Now, here is the farce in Japan's augment, there is no market for the meat.

If that is true, then set a commercial quota and get the government research out of the way. If there isn't a market then no one will go commercial whaling and there won't be any problem.

Claiming that commercial whaling would decimate whales while simultaneously claiming there is no commercial market is just totally daft!

And they were likely honourable people who probably never imagined that a reasonable article allowing for the occasional killing of whales, the frequency and number to be restricted by the government responsible, would be twisted by an unscrupulous government to allow a national enterprise to kill hundreds of animals every year, with no end in sight to the 'research'.

Except Article VIII had been used by other countries exactly like that prior to the 1980's. So they didn't have to imagine it as it had happened. And the research does have an end in sight. The IWC does their required review and then the need for research is over.

No, it isn't 'just my opinion'.

Yes, it is just your opinion. Sorry anecdotal claims do not change opinions to facts.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

What reason can Japan have for continuing its commercial whaling in the southern ocean with dreams of expanding it into a commercial entity?

Nationalism. Simple as that. As you've pointed out, they can adequately feed the tiny demand for whale meat by hunting whales 'locally'. The only reason for blowing billions of yen to go hunt surplus whales in the Sothern Ocean to turn into frozen meat appears to be that other countries are saying they shouldn't, so therefore they should.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Everybody also knows the reason they are doing whaling is to prove it is commercially viable

The government program has shown only that sustainable whaling is feasible.

Whether or not the costs of running a commercial operation could be recovered from the proceeds of a sustainable hunt is another matter, which is no one's business other than those who might risk their money attempting it.

The modern world will never agree to commercial whaling regardless of Japan's research.

Yes. So Japan should quit the IWC and permit whalers to operate as they please, rather than waste any more effort trying to get approval from those who have no sincere intention of ever giving it.

The government should only facilitate ongoing research that establishes how many whales may safely be caught, and fund such work with license fees paid by operators, and monitor for compliance if there is any suggestion the catch limit might not be observed. (If we are to believe the market experts here at JT, there is no reason to think that sustainable catch limits would ever be breached, so unpopular whale apparently is despite being stocked in supermarkets!(?))

The most important thing is to quit this IWC fraud and stop sending tax money there. It's ridiculous that a "moratorium" could be imposed way back in the 1980's, and 30 years later it still hasn't been lifted with arguments diverted to arguing about subsequent baggage. WhoTFcares, let's get back to basics - the whole point is to catch whales, isn't it?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The NHK report on this last night spoke of Japan's "research whaling" many times.

NHK is now nothing more than the Japanese equivalent of China's state TV.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Oh, goodness. What business is it of ours if Japan hunts whales? 'oh save the whales' they say, and for what? In what way does a whale protect us or do anything for your way of life ? And don't get all Marin biologist on me, you know what I'm talking about. Are you afraid of the krill attacking you in the night? I mean really, what's the big deal?

Take those tens of millions and get help the homeless and other less fortunate, that's much more profitable in the long run, leave the the scientists alone. Let the Japanese people eat what they like. Heck even Peter in the bible figured it out. People can eat whatever they like, why can't the Japanese? Peace on the seven seas.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

It is hard to see how they can finance the campaign without support from the US branch. it very easy. Just go to the Australian SS site and make a donation. Have done it numerous time.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

"NHK is now nothing more than the Japanese equivalent of China's state TV."

still have more credibility than fox news and cnn.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Article VIII had been used by other countries exactly like that prior to the 1980's

I'm intrigued. Can you name one country that used the loophole in Article 8 to evade the moratorium and kill thousands of whales in the name of 'science' - years before the moratorium was even thought of and there was a free-for-all in commercial whaling?

it is just your opinion

Read your own link, the ICJ are of the opinion that Japanese 'research' whaling is not 'for the purpose of research' and sample sizes were not determined by what was needed to achieve the stated research objectives. So you tell me, if the whales are not being killed 'for the purpose of scientific research', proposed catch sizes are not related to what is needed to achieve the purported objectives of that fake research, and the research results are laughingly minuscule (the ICJ calls it 'its limited research output to date'), then what is the purpose of them being out there in the cold killing whales? The obvious answer is that they are there for the meat. There is no other reason. The 'research' is an excuse.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

More pointless argumentation.

WhoTFcares? The research program was scientific research according to the same judges, and the research today is no more an excuse than this ridiculously outdated 30 year old 'Moratorium' is. Chances of the moratorium ending with less scientific research is also not more likely than is now the case.

Either Japan should quit or the Moratorium should end. Dispute solved.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

I know you object to whaling, but whatever you think of their politics the actions of Sea Shepherd have been recklessly dangerous and they must be stopped there have been three deaths in Antartica during Japans whaling hunts, they've all been Japanese whalers at the hand of the incompetent Japanese whaling industry. In any first world country they'd be shut down for just for the weak safety regulations. Seems history has shown the only reckless and dangerous parties are the whalers themselves.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Getting back to basics, what's the issue with catching a conservative number of non-endangered whales and eating them, anyway? Grown adults should be able to tolerate other cultures.

There's no fundamental difference between eating dog, cow, pig, or whale meat, so long as it's sustainable. They're all mammals. They're all relatively intelligent. It's just that Western culture breeds this attitude that imposing cultural values on others is okay. You don't see Indians coming to the US to attack ranchers for killing cows, after all.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

why should SS follow the laws anyway when Japan clearly doesn't?

they're whaling certain species to near extinction.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Whatever the Whalers are doing it is nothing compared with the vandalism perpetrated by the radical vegans aka seashepherd.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

And they were likely honourable people who probably never imagined that a reasonable article allowing for the occasional killing of whales, the frequency and number to be restricted by the government responsible, would be twisted by an unscrupulous government to allow a national enterprise to kill hundreds of animals every year, with no end in sight to the 'research'.

The people who founded the IWC probably never imagined that an organization whose express purpose was to safeguard whale stocks for the purpose of commercial whaling would be hijacked by unscrupulous environmentalists dead-set against any whaling, sustainable or otherwise

The IWC is using a loophole of its own by not acknowledging that minke stocks have rebounded and that the whale can be sustain ably hunted. Until that loophole is closed, Japan is justified in using whatever loopholes of its own it can find.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

why should SS follow the laws anyway when Japan clearly doesn't?

I am not a supporter of Japan's whaling (the ROI just isn't there), but regardless of that, Japan is following the law. That's why they changed their methods in accordance with the ruling that instructed them to do so.

they're whaling certain species to near extinction.

No one knows if that is true, because certain nations have prevented the study that was required to happen under the treaty in 1990. Actual whale stocks are unknown at the moment. Some say they are depleted, some say they have well rebounded.

The problem here is that both sides have gotten caught up in emotion on the matter. The whalers do it, even though it doesn't make any economic sense, out of a sense of pride and a feeling of 'we're not going to give in to your bullying'. The opponents won't let an actual scientific study happen, because the result may show that they were incorrect in their protests, and show that the whalers weren't actually in the wrong.

The only solution to this matter is a proper study of actual whale stocks, as required by the moratorium, and then determine how to proceed based on actual facts and numbers, rather than on emotions.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

I'm intrigued.

Good, a questioning attitude is a good attribute to have. But since I clearly said and you quoted "prior to the 1980's" this question is kind of pointless.

Read your own link

My own link? What link did I post?

Either Japan should quit or the Moratorium should end. Dispute solved.

Couldn't agree more. The anti-whalers lied when they wrote the moratorium and now refuse to even follow the regulations they put in place. So it should be repealed. Or Japan should acknowledge that the moratorium has been violated by the IWC and that the IWC has strayed completely away from the actual purpose for which they were formed. And as such Japan should quit, possibly to form a new group with Norway and Iceland.

In any first world country they'd be shut down for just for the weak safety regulations.

Three deaths in three decades would not shut down any company in any first world country that I am aware of. Especially in an industry like oceanic whaling under Antarctic conditions.

why should SS follow the laws anyway when Japan clearly doesn't?

And what laws would Japan not be following?

they're whaling certain species to near extinction.

And what species would Japan be whaling to near extinction?

Japan is justified in using whatever loopholes of its own it can find.

And why all the whining about 'loopholes' anyways? I bet most SSCS donors in the US have used the loophole in the tax code to deduct their donation from their gross income. And how many US drivers use the loophole to make right turns at a red light every day?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The opponents won't let an actual scientific study happen, because the result may show that they were incorrect in their protests, and show that the whalers weren't actually in the wrong....... no because scientific studies have proven that lethal research isnt required to study a species and certainly not in the whale numbers that Japan continue to take from the oceans. I think mostly anti-whalers just continually hate being lied to and taken fools of with the farcical label of research and tradition the Japanese put on hunting whales when its clearly commerical harvesting. If Japan just came out and said we hunt whales as we want to make it another commercial enterprise we can profit from without the interference of whale lovers then at least those opposed could label Japan as open and honest about it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

James BurkeAug. 25, 2016 - 03:16PM JST

why should SS follow the laws anyway when Japan clearly doesn't?

Japan is not breaking ANY laws. They are conducting research whaling as authorized by IWC Article VIII in International Waters. The same IWC Article exempts them from recognizing any sanctuaries or moratoriums. After the ICJ ruled that Jarpa II program did not comply with Scientific Research Whaling, the changes that the ICJ suggested were incorporated into the new Jarpa III which is in compliance. There is NOTHING in terms of rules, regulations or laws, that Japan is breaking.

they're whaling certain species to near extinction.

Japan does not hunt endangered whale species. They are targeting the very abundant Minke whales. The whale species that are endangered became that way because of western nations; the US, UK, France, Norway who hunted them without regulation since the 1800s. That's why the IWC was formed in 1946 - to manage the whale populations so that they can continue to be hunted.

In this 21st century when it is obvious that the human population on Earth is increasing at a rapid pace, technology allows for longer lifespans, the need to manage natural food resources is vital to the human race. What Japan is doing, conducting research whaling to determine if sustainable whaling for certain species can be carried out, is for the benefit of everyone.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I think mostly anti-whalers just continually hate being lied to and taken fools of with the farcical label of research and tradition the Japanese put on hunting whales when its clearly commerical harvesting.

Then if they are so sure the stocks are actually depleted, they should stop preventing the research into stock levels that was required to happen in 1990 according to the moratorium.

To be clear here, I'm not talking about the 'research' Japanese whalers that the Japanese whalers are doing. I'm speaking of this item here from the Moratorium:

Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10, catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes of whales from all stocks for the 1986 coastal and the 1985/86 pelagic seasons and thereafter shall be zero. This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits.[17]

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission#1982_moratorium

The comprehensive assessment that was required under the moratorium has been blocked from anti-whalers from happening. This in turn has extended the so-called 'loophole' that allows the Japanese whalers to keep on whaling.

If the anti-whalers really want to stop the Japanese from whaling, they should be pushing for this comprehensive assessment to happen, rather than blocking it.

But as I have said, they are worried that the results will show that the stocks have in fact rebounded, which would then allow countries to start commercial whaling again.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Japan have taken whales other than Minkes. I don't trust them to manage the numbers of any living creature. Don't see many Japanese seals around these days. Oh they're gone right? Nothing traditional about huge ships, radar or fishing in the far reaches of the globe. Whales can't be farmed so just leave them alone. Do we have to eat everything that moves? Japanese people don't give a flying about blue fin tuna, still served up and scoffed doen everywhere. People can say stuff about Sea Shepherd being self promoting. Good, big deal. If that gets them money and attention all the better. More donations, less whaling. If governments weren't spineless, Sea Shepherd wouldn't have to do what they do, the wsy they do it. Finally, you want Australians to respect other cultures? No. It's our sea too. Japan can please themselves in Taiji, but if you travel the world to harass whales, expect resistance. Gnite.
-1 ( +4 / -5 )

no because scientific studies have proven that lethal research isnt required to study a species

Actually that isn't true. The IWC Scientific Committee has said numerous times that some data for whales can only be acquired by lethal means.

The RMP, which is the method the IWC would use to set a sustainable quota for the various whale species, requires some of the data that requires lethal sampling (such as age structure of the population and age of sexual maturity and pregnancy success rate). If all you are studying is how many their are, where they go and what they eat then you are right lethal sampling wouldn't be required. But if you want to resume commercial whaling and have the IWC set a quota, well then lethal sampling is required.

And as to the number of samples they take. Well maybe reading a basic text on random scientific sampling would be of use. The number of samples required is relatively easily calculated, in fact a simple search will find a number of websites where these values can be calculated. These very same type calculations have been included in all the Japanese whale research plans. If someone believes their numbers are wrong, they can easily review and critique the math. But in all the time I have been following the whaling issue I have never seen any math/statistics based complaint about Japan's sample numbers. Just people saying the numbers are too big with no justification beyond their belief.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

F4HA604 - I work with a Balenine in my line of work. Pretty promising stuff.

Sorry, what do you mean? What are you trying to say?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Luke McMahonAug. 25, 2016 - 11:36PM JST Japan have taken whales other than Minkes. I don't trust them to manage the numbers of any living creature.

Yes they have in very limited numbers for research purposes. But they don't take Blue Whales, do they? The IWC Scientific Committee trusts them. Whether you do or not is immaterial.

Don't see many Japanese seals around these days.

There never were that many to start with. When's the last time you saw a dodo? We don't see many of those these days either.

Nothing traditional about huge ships, radar or fishing in the far reaches of the globe.

Nobody ever said those were traditional. What's traditional is the hunting and consuming of whales. Inuits today use outboard motors, high powered rifles and snowmobiles. But their taking whales is considered traditional.

Japanese people don't give a flying about blue fin tuna, still served up and scoffed doen everywhere.

Are you aware that Australia is the biggest exporter of Southern Bluefin to Japan? And that Japan is the only country with any Bluefin farming operations?

People can say stuff about Sea Shepherd being self promoting. Good, big deal. If that gets them money and attention all the better. More donations, less whaling.

Wrong. Nearly all of Sea Shepherd's funds are being spent on lawyers' fees.

Finally, you want Australians to respect other cultures? No. It's our sea too. Japan can please themselves in Taiji, but if you travel the world to harass whales, expect resistance. Gnite.

No Australians need to respect the fact that hardly any country recognizes their self-centered claim to the Antarctic waters. Not even the United States recognizes it. So Australians need to face that reality that the research whaling is being done in INTERNATIONAL waters, not Australian waters. You can't be telling them to go hunt whales in their own waters when they aren't hunting in Australian waters.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Then if they are so sure the stocks are actually depleted, they should stop preventing the research into stock levels that was required to happen in 1990 according to the moratorium. the problem is if you allow whales to be hunted again commercially then the same problems with over fishing will arise again. Japan has a history of over consuming the oceans fish, Whaling to become commercially viable will have to be caught in tens of thousands to bring costs down so they can keep the best cuts for human consumption and sell the rest as pet food.(while still making a proift) In the era of huge factory ships the world is struggling to sustainably catch oceans fish supplies how on earth do you expect them to do the same with whales which breed very slowly

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Then if they are so sure the stocks are actually depleted, they should stop preventing the research into stock levels that was required to happen in 1990 according to the moratorium. the problem is if you allow whales to be hunted again commercially then the same problems with over fishing will arise again.

It's not like they would say 'oh, the stocks have replenished themselves, have a free-for-all'. As it says in the moratorium:

This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits.

As you can see, the research is intended to determine what catch limits should be, in order to determine what is sustainable.

Whaling to become commercially viable will have to be caught in tens of thousands to bring costs down

The catch limits will be determined based on whale stocks, not based on commercial viability. If the limits are not large enough for commercial whaling to be commercially viable, that is too bad for the whalers.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Let's look at fxgal's selective quoting from the link (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18162.pdf) to determine the real facts.

The document does indeed say that "The Court finds that JARPA II can broadly be characterized as “scientific research", but it goes on to say that "The Court concludes that the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II are not “for purposes of scientific research”".

This tells us that although the Japanese claimed they were carrying out scientific research according to the JARPA II plan, in practice they were engaged in commercial whaling and were not following their JARPA II plan at all. In other words the Japanese were, and are, lying when they say what they are doing is research.

Now the Japanese have written a new research plan, but that is just another piece of paper. Instead of listening to their lies look at what they are doing and you will find there is no difference whatsoever from the whaling this year and the whaling two years ago.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Now the Japanese have written a new research plan, but that is just another piece of paper. Instead of listening to their lies look at what they are doing and you will find there is no difference whatsoever from the whaling this year and the whaling two years ago.

Sure it is - they put in place all the elements required by the lawsuit. As such, you can say that the lawsuit was effective - it pointed out problems with the Jarpan II plan, and forced the Japanese to fix those problems.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Whaling to become commercially viable will have to be caught in tens of thousands to bring costs down so they can keep the best cuts for human consumption and sell the rest as pet food.(while still making a proift)

That is not how markets work. Catching more whales will lower the price, meaning you need to catch even more to make a profit. But when they catch even more whales the price will drop even more, meaning you need to catch even more to make a profit. But when they catch even more whales the price will drop even more....

You can't force a profit into a market by flooding it with product. Flooding it with product will have the exact opposite effect. Especially when there isn't a very large demand.

The only way that strategy might work is if there is a large unmet demand and/or the product is a necessity. It will never work with a luxury item. Rolls Royce (for example) can't increase their profits by making more cars, if they could they would.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Scrote,

in practice they were engaged in commercial whaling

The ruling doesn't say that anywhere.

The ruling says the judges agreed that Japan's activities was scientific research, but most judges thought the activity wasn't "reasonable", and therefore didn't fall within the allowed scientific whaling rules.

And because anything that isn't scientific whaling is banned by the "commercial whaling" moratorium, Japan's scientific research which was not "reasonable" in the eyes of those judges was not allowed.

They don't say anywhere that Japan was in practice engaged in "commercial whaling", whatever that means.

In other words the Japanese were, and are, lying when they say what they are doing is research.

That's totally false though, the judges said that they classified it as scientific research, but it was activity that did not meet some "reasonable" test that the judges came up with.

Now the Japanese have written a new research plan, but that is just another piece of paper.

Since they were doing scientific research in the first place, according to the judges, my guess is that the Japanese scientists "re-did their homework".

Look, I know some people don't like people killing whales, but having those feelings doesn't change the facts about anything.

And I STILL have no idea why this 30-year old "moratorium" fraud hasn't been lifted. That'd surely solve the conflict.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Good on Sea Shepherd. Their Australian branch will never relent.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

JARPA II was a research plan, but the Japanese did not follow this plan. This is why the ICJ ruled that "the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II are not “for purposes of scientific research”". If the Japanese were not conducting research then they must have been engaged in commercial whaling.

Now there is a new plan, but the Japanese have withdrawn from ICJ jurisdiction rather than risk having it tested in court as they know that their implementation of that plan would not be accepted as research. They know they are guilty, they know that they are lying when they say they are conducting "research", but they have the gall to carry on regardless. It's shameful, especially when the government keeps going on about the need to "respect international law". They could start by following it themselves.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

but the Japanese have withdrawn from ICJ jurisdiction

Australia (which has taken Kyodo Senpaku to court and levied a million dollar fine against them for 'whale hunting in Australian waters') has withdrawn from ICJ jurisdiction rather than risk having their territorial claims tested in court as they know that their claim would not be accepted. They know they are guilty, they know that they are lying when they say the territory is "Australian", but they have the gall to carry on regardless. It's shameful, especially when the government keeps going on about the need to "respect international law". They could start by following it themselves.

Oh and withdrawing from ICJ jurisdiction is respecting international law. The ICJ treaty specifically allows members to do so and many countries have taken advantage of that ability. To condemn Japan for do so while ignoring other countries (especially their opponent in the ICJ whaling case) is disingenuous.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

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