national

Suga says Japan will keep on whaling, despite resolution

65 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

65 Comments
Login to comment

How do you spell moron? S ... U ... G ... A

10 ( +18 / -8 )

Cash in the pocket is way better than international condemnation. Goooo team Japan.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Insufferable arrogance! Unbearable self-rightousness!

14 ( +19 / -5 )

So even if the INTERNATIONAL court bans it, and Japan continues, they cant do anything about it? Whats the use of such a court then i wonder

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Good! That makes them poachers and the governments of the southern oceans can deal with them appropriately. I live to see the day when the Nissin Maru is beached and burned!

10 ( +14 / -4 )

So even if the INTERNATIONAL court bans it,

The court didn't ban Japanese whaling. They banned the JARPAII research permit and then when on to explain what an acceptable research plan would need to include. The court specifically said that they expected a new research plan to be written.

-4 ( +6 / -9 )

A reports said 90% Japanese hate China, the top reason is "They dont obey International law!" I am surprised that can this be a reason?

Then how about the whaling?

9 ( +14 / -6 )

I might agree with Japan if people were actually eating it. I can only assume some corrupt officials pockets are getting fat and this sham is to spite the west. Waste of tax payers money and puts a negative light on Japan.

8 ( +9 / -2 )

This is same as a criminal saying, "I will keep on staling, no matter what the law say." Let's see how that will work for Japan.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Hi, I'm a Japanese and I don't understand why our government has to take a risk to endorse whaling so devastatingly. I agree that whale meat tasts good but we can live without eating it.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Unbelievable stupidity.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

The press has twisted the ICJ ruling to the point where these stories seem to be coming from an alternate reality.

NZ got a resolution passed saying that scientific permits must be reviewed by the scientific committee to ensure compliance with the ICJ ruling.

Japan stated that they will submit their proposal for the 2015-2016 season to the scientific committee in the next couple of months, in accordance with the resolution AND the ICJ ruling.

How is this defiance?

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

Very sad to hear, just cannot understand their determination especially when even at the lowest level it costs more than it makes. For sure Japan has more pressing issues including aging population, downturn in manufacturing and energy production! I would hope they just quit!

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Do it in your own waters Suga...if the Japanese whalers / Eco vandals go down to the Antarctic sanctuary , may the Sea Shepherd fleet be there to meet them with the most robust campaign ever. Let the thick skulled, Japanese oyaji who are pushing this taxpayer money wasting farce have something " very regrettable " to whine about. If these twits in charge had to put up their own money for the hunt instead of wasting our taxes I bet they would change their minds about " cultural tradition " real quick.

8 ( +10 / -3 )

Then how about the whaling?

What about whaling? It is legal under international law.

This is same as a criminal saying

Except the law about whaling says it is OK if you meet certain conditions. Japan plans on meeting those conditions, so no legal problem.

-9 ( +4 / -12 )

Though anti-whaling nations say the IWC should be acting to conserve whales, Japan and its allies argue that it was set up to manage whales as a resource.

The preamble to the convention will say Japan is right and the anti-whaling nations are wrong and unobjective on this point.

Preamble available here: http://iwc.int/private/downloads/1r2jdhu5xtuswws0ocw04wgcw/convention.pdf

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Shinzo Abe, you suffer from so much pride.

There is absolutely no real need whatsoever for Japan to embark on whaling, whether for research or otherwise. Everybody knows this.

Do you really think these intelligent creatures deserve to be destroyed, regardless of human gain?

Your manufacturing and technological prowess is superior to that of many countries, and Japan is the last country in the world that actually needs to resume whaling activities. So why do you insist on doing something so wrong when you have no reason to do so?

You talk about whaling as part of your culture; but that is an archaic view based on on a medieval past era.

Please bring your country into the modern age and do the right thing: stop the whaling and allow these intelligent mammals to live their lives without the threat of destruction that you currently seem to desperate to thrust upon them.

The world would respect you for such a decision.

Arigato.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

@marcelito

Do it in your own waters

Funny, Japan proposed this again this year. I think it's the 12th time now.

Every year it gets voted down by the anti-whaling bloc.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

"Though anti-whaling nations say the IWC should be acting to conserve whales, Japan and its allies argue that it was set up to manage whales as a resource."

It only takes 30 seconds for anyone to go to the IWC website to read that the above in correct. The IWC was never formed to be a solely conservation body, but in fact to regulate the WHALING INDUSTRY ands conservation measures exist only to MAINTAIN STOCKS for the purpose of whaling. The Anti-Whaling nations are so bent on eliminating whaling of any kind that they are willing to destroy the IWC. Another non-binding unenforcable resolution passed by the anti-whaling faction will do nothing. There are other nations whaling openly by raising an objection to the1986 Moratorium.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Insufferable arrogance! Unbearable self-rightousness!

Uk9393 -- spot on. And at a dose of willing ignorence to boot. So glad to see the world not buying the "Japan is special" nonsense.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

It's fun down-voting the pro-whalers comments, it's like playing whac-a-mole at the arcade.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Japanese

Tell your government what the majority of the good japanese people think about whaling

Hook Abe and serve him in a 3 star michelin restaurant in Tokyo

Respectfully

Peter

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

would you expect any better, why is Japan even apart of the IWC, why are they even apart of the international community they are basically screw you to both the IWC & ICJ. no better reason to donate more cash to SS.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@Peteritalia

Tell your government what the majority of the good japanese people think about whaling

The last poll I saw had 60% of Japanese supporting the continuation of whaling.

@wtfjapan

they are basically screw you to both the IWC & ICJ

No they are not.

The IWC regulations allow for research whaling and the moratorium the IWC passed requires review of species status to determine if each species still requires the protection of the moratorium. These reviews have never been done in almost 30 years, but if the IWC ever decides to do what their own regulations require them to do they will obviously need data and Japan is the only member country with an ongoing data collection program.

And the ICJ ruling contemplated future research whaling plans and gave guidelines for future research plans.

Sure looks like Japan is the one following the IWC and ICJ.

why is Japan even apart of the IWC

I do agree with this question though. The IWC has obviously diverged from their original and stated purpose. So being that membership is voluntary Japan should quit. Then they can issue quotas for any species and amount of whales they want. Return to open commercial whaling and let the industry thrive or starve as the free market dictates.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Outright stupidity. Putting aside being for or against whaling, what does Japan gain from doing this politically? Nothing. It undoes all the other good stuff they do. Whale meat and the eating of it is no longer customary nor is it part of "Japanese culture". 99.9% of the population couldn't care less if there was no whale meat around. That is all BS. It matters to an incredibily minute proportion of the population in Japan, but damages Japan's standing politically by a huge amount. Continuing in this vain is stupid. It does nothing to help Japan, and instead damages the Japanese economy in complete ignorance and disrespect to international Japanese business people, who are working their butts off to keep Japan on the map.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I do really think that Japanese Government must study Reputation Risk Management!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Japanese Government must study Reputation Risk Management!

Study shows anti-whaling countries' reputations are getting worse in Japan. I wonder how other whaling countries and neutral countries think about them.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

would you expect any better, why is Japan even apart of the IWC

Because the purpose of the IWC is (supposed to be) for sustainable management of whale stocks, and the Japanese are a whaling country. Being part of the IWC is being responsible.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The IWC member countries should place travel restrictions on Japanese government officials as punishment for ignoring their ruling. Why else have the IWC if you can't enforce rulings?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

StrangerlandSep. 20, 2014 - 12:27AM JST Because the purpose of the IWC is (supposed to be) for sustainable management of whale stocks, and the Japanese are a whaling country. Being part of the IWC is being responsible.

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

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It's fun down-voting the pro-whalers comments, it's like playing whac-a-mole at the arcade.

And disgusting, Mitch. Ultimately, an anti-whaler in the absence of scientific proof of necessity is advocating the unjustified restriction of other people's human rights and freedom and the denial of other people's convictions and culture. It is in its fundament little better than a racist attitude.

@HarleyShogun

Do you really think these intelligent creatures deserve to be destroyed, regardless of human gain?

They might be somewhat intelligent, and they don't deserve to be destroyed, but personally, I am much more concerned at the West's unscientific attitude, arrogance and intolerance on this issue.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Japan should use its resources wisely.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Kazuaki ShimazakiSep. 20, 2014 - 05:42AM JST Personally, I am much more concerned at the West's unscientific attitude, arrogance and intolerance on this issue.

Then tell us the difference in scientific research that Japan learns from killing the wales compare to Australia and New Zealand that conducts their non lethal "research" in Southern Ocean? These two countries has already demonstrated that non-lethal research on a national and international scale demonstrating that whales do not need to be killed in the name of science.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Then tell us the difference in scientific research that Japan learns from killing the wales compare to Australia and New Zealand that conducts their non lethal "research" in Southern Ocean? These two countries has already demonstrated that non-lethal research on a national and international scale demonstrating that whales do not need to be killed in the name of science.

Here's the difference. Japan is proving every year that a little whaling does not kill the whale population. Australia and New Zealand are not proving their thesis that a little whaling does kill the whale population. Yet the latter tries to restrict other people's freedoms in the name of Ick.

You tell me. Which is the less scientific attitude.

Also, I'll just put up something that I wrote for another similar thread:

...We shall assume that there is one way of research that involves killing the whale and one that doesn't. They are of roughly equal efficacy and cost, and we shall assume the ecosystem is not being significantly endangered by the death of the whale. What is the better option? [...] as long as there is still significant demand of whales, the option that involves killing the whale is better. Economically, after the whale is "tested", it can be sold, recuperating at least part of the cost. Further, the whale can be eaten, which brings a certain amount of nutrition and joy to the eater, another good. That's TWO goods.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Here's something for whale huggers to think about, if at all possible, We all know Minkes are abundant, so abundant in fact that limited sustainable commercial whaling is likely feasible. But what are those growing numbers of Minkes feeding on? How does one determine the diet by "non lethal means"? To date no one has been able to examine the stomach contents using non-lethal means. No one has successfully put giant diapers on a Minke whale to collect and analyze the feces. And why is the Minke's diet important? Because there are many other species of whales which must compete with the Minkes. An example would be the world's largest and highly endangered Blue Whale. I would like to know what animal conservation program of a non-endangered species is conducted in New Zealand where no specimens are ever killed.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Kazuaki ShimazakiSep. 20, 2014 - 06:01AM JST Further, the whale can be eaten, which brings a certain amount of nutrition and joy to the eater, another good.

Japan’s practice of research whaling also note that majority of the whale meat obtained from “the research” goes unsold at some auctions. Japan's government-subsidized whaling program is sinking deeper into debt. Since Japan is a democratic country, why don't the goverment put the ballot on the front of the voters and see if they like to vote to continue the millions in whale subsidies. There were allegations made few years ago that Japan bribes small-nation members of the IWC to vote for relaxed whaling rules with cash and other benefits didn't do much for the national image.

So why is the whaling industry being sustained and who for? The only beneficiaries seem to be the individuals in the whaling industry, a small number of “whale meat” gourmet eaters, maybe some crooked diplomats, and the specialty restaurants which can afford to offer a “delicious” whale meal of the day, thanks to Japanese government wasted subsidies.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Some 75 year old idiot from the Jiminto Party has just said he wants whale meat served in the Diet canteen because:

"It's our culture the eat whale meat"

Mercifully, the younger people all over Yahoo Japan are howling him down at present.

Hard headed oyaji pride.....

1 ( +2 / -1 )

99.9% of the population couldn't care less if there was no whale meat around.

Well except polls of actual Japanese say that 60% support whaling.

but damages Japan's standing politically by a huge amount

It damages Japan politically a minute amount. Most countries and people don't really care one way or the other about whaling. Not even half the countries in the world are members of the IWC. And the IWC vote on NZ resolution was 35 for 20 against with 33 not voting. Both those facts seem to indicate that most countries don't care.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Mike O'BrienSep. 20, 2014 - 08:56AM JST Well except polls of actual Japanese say that 60% support whaling.

Where did you get 60 percent? They recently did a poll through 1200 people (adults), and only 27 percent support whaling.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Wow, Japan not living up to promises in groups it volunteered to join. Who'd a thunk it? This is Japan's true colours; fakes smiles and promises of this and that with the underlying idea that Japan will get its way. Then crying when they do not, switching among the reasons why it's doing something (and contradicting itself), then like a petulant child finally just saying, "Well, I don't care... we're doing it anyway!" and plugging ears and covering eyes and singing "lalala we're being attacked culturally", etc.

The biggest shame of it all is that no one in JAPAN wants the meat, and the fishers are paid or protected by funds diverted from disaster relief (for which the JSDF used it for other purposes after that!), and then they force-feed it to kids in school lunches because there is so much rotting meat stockpiled in freezers. So incredibly sad and pathetic.

tinawatanabe: "Study shows anti-whaling countries' reputations are getting worse in Japan. I wonder how other whaling countries and neutral countries think about them."

Tina, unlike the Japanese, who are desperate in so many cases to hear what the world thinks about them (until it's bad, such as with all the nations against whaling and pointing out the fact that Japan lies about its reasons and should abide by promises its made but refuses to), I don't know too many other nations that give a darn about what Japanese 'studies' (and we know how science is here!) think about it.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

ossan - re "How does one determine the diet by non-lethal means?" , I believe you are correct in suggesting that killing whales and examining the contents of their stomachs will give an exact answer. And as you further stated this may well help save endangered whales such as the Blue whale because they are competing for food resources. So lethal research may help save others - that's good isn't it!

But my query is, after examining the guts (and I assume the whole alimentary canal) of over 10,000 whales don't they know yet? I mean a program, spread over decades, taking into account seasonal variations and climate changes impacting food sources, ocean currents etc, to date is unfinished? Are whales stomachs so complicated that after 10,000 examinations, the mysterious diet is still so elusive?

Or is it because they may change their diet suddenly from one year to the next (which may impact on those that are truly endangered) so a continuous lethal program is necessary - just to be sure, you know?

It's all a little confusing.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

browny, The very valid questions you raised can be answered rather easily, Firstly, yes the main diet of marine species can and do change over time in adjustment to the supply of that particular food source, Secondly a number of specimens would have to be killed and examined every year to detect such changes. The number killed would have to be a representative sampling number. None of this is particularly unique to whales, it would apply to any marine resource and that's how it's done all over the world, including the fisheries authorities of Australia and New Zealand, They just happen to be countries which don't consider whales to be a marine resource. The fact is that such examinations of whales were going on for decades and information was being gathered, ending up in the hands of the IWC Scientific Committee. Whales for examination were available through commercial whaling. But wen tec1986 moratorium went into effect those samples vanished. Without the Scientific Whaling permits allowed under IWC Article VIII we would remain in the dark on certain species, populations, and the information necessary to actually apply conservation measures. Of course this means nothing to people and nations who do not understand the difference between "conservation" and "preservation".

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Japan’s practice of research whaling also note that majority of the whale meat obtained from “the research” goes unsold at some auctions.

I wonder why the anti-whalers don't realize how this is actually rather devastating to their anti-whaling argument. Let me put it in simple language: If you believe demand is low, a commercial program will either self-collapse or catch only a few whales (less apparently, than the current "scientific" program), which means it is not significantly harmful to the environment and thus destroying the only credible basis the anti-whalers have for continuing the moratorium.

There were allegations made few years ago that Japan bribes small-nation members of the IWC to vote for relaxed whaling rules with cash and other benefits didn't do much for the national image.

It is a sad world indeed, sfjp. You actually have to pay people to say the right thing.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

the main diet of marine species can and do change over time in adjustment to the supply of that particular food source

Then drag a net through the water to see how much of that particular food source is there. After weighing it, throw it back and it's still a food source. Much easier and cheaper than sending factory ships to the other side of the world with a fleet of harpoon ships to kill, butcher and freeze hundreds of marine mammals.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Japan has made decades of whale research in the Antarctic and there is nothing new to learn. Minkes eat krill almost exclusively in the Antarctic and that fact remains the same years after years. Minke and Blue Whales share the same diet. There really is very little to be gained from further research whaling and Japan could take a break for at least ten years. The numbers of the Minke whales are up and they are healthy and eat krill. The diet of the Antarctic Minke whales never changes.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Scientist said enough whale in the sea for everyone to enjoy

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The numbers of the Minke whales are up and they are healthy and eat krill.

If only the West can bring themselves to admit that and remove the moratorium like they were originally supposed to do.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

ossan - thank you for your reply.

So, as you stated, in accordance with the changes in food sources," ...a number of specimens would have to be killed and examined every year to detect such changes."

OK. So, my question was/is, What is the necessary amount of kills (number of specimens) required each year to glean the desired information? OK, I know it will vary, but a ball-park figure?

As I understand, by the quotas set (not ahieved but set) by the Whaling Industry of up to a high of around 1,000 / year, I imagine that to be the scientifically arrived at number to fulfill all research requirements.

I wonder by what means such a number was arrived at? Perhaps they borrowed from the science of human sampling, ie Gallup Polls, which often use a random spread in the vicinity of 1,000 people to ascertain trends with a +/- 5 discrepancy???

I'm not a scientist, but find it a little hard to accept such numbers of kill are needed to substantiate the research. Perhaps you have a link as to the methodology used. I'm not saying up to 1,000 kills is bad science, I'm wondering why 10, 50 or 100 etc kills is not an adequate sampling %?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If only the West can bring themselves to admit that and remove the moratorium like they were originally supposed to do.

That won't happen any time soon and I can't see how Japan can justify doing any further research in the Antarctic since there's very little to be learnt from further studies of the Minke whale?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Personally I don't care if the whales being hunted are abundant... I'm against whaling full stop. Added to that was the statement in the report above that Japan plans to return to commercial hunting. Disgusting.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I guess I've been wrong about Japan all this time -- it's obvious the Japanese don't give a fig about what the world thinks about them. Great, keep it up then^^

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

That won't happen any time soon and I can't see how Japan can justify doing any further research in the Antarctic since there's very little to be learnt from further studies of the Minke whale?

The West is in a bit of a spot about this. They've been delaying the resumption on grounds that are essentially "We aren't sure yet. We need more research." Asking for more money-wasting, time-wasting "researches" is a common political ploy to shut down or delay programs (in hopes they'd collapse) you don't like.

If they admit this, then there will be no new data, not even a promise of one. The decision will have to be made with the data on hand, which as I understand would not support their conclusion. Even the West, hypocrites though they are, will have some trouble taking an anti-scientific stance on this problem.

Personally I don't care if the whales being hunted are abundant... I'm against whaling full stop. Added to that was the statement in the report above that Japan plans to return to commercial hunting. Disgusting.

Well, if all that "scientific whaling" doesn't lead to commercial resumption, it'd kind of have been a waste, won't it?

I guess I've been wrong about Japan all this time -- it's obvious the Japanese don't give a fig about what the world thinks about them. Great, keep it up then^^

Sometimes, you have to hold to your principles, slowguy.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

cleoSep. 20, 2014 - 10:31AM JST the main diet of marine species can and do change over time in adjustment to the supply of that particular food source Then drag a net through the water to see how much of that particular food source is there.

You go drag a net and count krill. Anything to evade "killing" a whale, right? Even if it's emotionally driven and makes no logistical or economic sense. LOL

browny1Sep. 20, 2014 - 02:13PM JST ossan - thank you for your reply.

browny, I am no scientist either. The questions you raised can be answered by the two parties who actually have any input into those figures, the ICR of Japan and the IWC Scientific Committee. Both organizations have websites that you can go through to seek answers to your questions. What is significant though is that a target number is set in advance in line with their goals. In other words, "every whale that is sighted is being killed" in some disorganized "slaughterfest" as some seem to imagine is a fallacy. What I found ironic is that the ICJ ruling which found the JARPA II program to be "not scientific enough" in at least one instance felt that the target sampling size was insufficient to achieve the stated intended goal. This simply exposes the difficulty in carrying out objective study in an environment subject to emotionally driven bias on the issue.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Anything to evade "killing" a whale, right?

When "killing" (why the inverted commas? You think it's not really killing?) means chasing an animal until it's exhausted and terrified then shooting it with an exploding harpoon that may or may not kill it, and if the harpoon is not fatal either shoot it again with a rifle once it's been dragged within range, or just hang on while the animal swims on in unspeakable pain spilling blood and guts until it either drowns or dies from blood loss/shock? Yes, anything to 'evade' (sic) that.

What I found ironic is that the ICJ ruling which found the JARPA II program to be "not scientific enough" in at least one instance felt that the target sampling size was insufficient to achieve the stated intended goal.

What the ICJ ruling actually says is that the target sampling size appears to be too large and the actual sample size is too small to achieve the intended goal.

Paragraph 212 of the ICJ ruling states that, Japan's continued reliance on the first two JARPA II objectives to justify the target sample sizes, despite the discrepancy between the actual take and those targets, coupled with its statement that JARPA II can obtain meaningful scientific results based on the far more limited actual take, cast further doubt on the characterization of JARPA II as a programme for purposes of scientific research. This evidence suggests that the target sample sizes are larger than are reasonable in relation to achieving JARPA II's stated objectives. The fact that the actual take of fin and humpback whales is largely, if not entirely, a function of political and logistical considerations, further weakens the purported relationship between JARPA II's research objectives and the specific sample size targets for each species - in particular, the decision to engage in the lethal sampling of minke whales on a relatively large scale.

In other words, not that the target sample size is too small, but that it is too large, and the way in which the target size is determined lacks scientific transparency or validity. That doesn't mean it will all be properly scientific and legitimate if only they plan to kill more whales.

Paragraphs 199 to 210 point out that Japan claims a take of 50 fin whale and 50 humpback is necessary for 'multi-system competition and ecosystem research', yet despite the fact that no humpback (as a result of a political, not scientific, decision) and very few fin whales (the main population of which is outside the stated research area; and the whaling ships are not equipped to catch larger whales) have been taken, Japan has made no changes to the JARPAII objectives which include the construction of a multi-species competition model - with data from essentially only one species.

So again, it is not the case that the ICJ is suggesting japan kill more whales to make everything more scientific; it is saying that what Japan says it is doing and what it is actually doing are at odds.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Cleo, Cut me a break. How do YOU know it's "terrified"? You are superimposing a human emotional reaction onto an animal. Humans are terrified because they know what is happening. Animals are not because they don't. Their reaction is instinctive.

What the ICJ ruling actually says is that the target sampling size appears to be too large and the actual sample size is >too small to achieve the intended goal.

And that's what I said. The sample size was too small to achieve the intended goal.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Humans are terrified because they know what is happening. Animals are not because they don't. Their reaction is instinctive.

That doesn't mean they aren't terrified. "Fight or flight" - the flight part of that is fear. Fear is instinctual. Terror is intense fear. Animals can feel this as well, whether they know what's coming or not.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

All readers back on topic please.

StrangerlandSep. 21, 2014 - 08:56AM JST "Humans are terrified because they know what is happening. Animals are not because they don't. Their reaction is instinctive. " That doesn't mean they aren't terrified. "Fight or flight" - the flight part of that is fear. Fear is instinctual. Terror is >intense fear. Animals can feel this as well, whether they know what's coming or not.

Yes it does. All animals feel fear and react instinctively. But no one on this planet has been able to prove that animals feel terrified, persecuted, victimized, intimidated, harassed, tormented, bullied or any other 'Human" reactions on the same level. Therefore to use such terms is superimposing human feelings onto an animal for the sole purpose of evoking emotional reaction.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japanese whale industry needs to be honest. Don;t tell research when it is commercial food hunting.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who himself hails from a major whaling area,

I think the writer meant Taioiu Gyogyio at Shimonoseki. It was commercial but people on seto nailaii prefered shrimp and crabs, not whale eating.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It's bad PR for Japan at a time when it needs as much international support on weightier issues it can get.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I don´t understand why these politicians want to destroy the good will that Japan internationally enjoys. Fools.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Where did you get 60 percent? They recently did a poll through 1200 people (adults), and only 27 percent support whaling.

From the last poll that I saw. If you know of a newer one then post a link.

Wow, Japan not living up to promises in groups it volunteered to join.

What promise would that be? The one to review the data by 1990? Oh wait the IWC is the group that still hasn't lived up to that promise.

The biggest shame of it all is that no one in JAPAN wants the meat

So I guess the people that buy it must all be tourists.

I'm wondering why 10, 50 or 100 etc kills is not an adequate sampling %?

Then you need to read a bit about statistical sampling. There are even a number of online calculators that show just how many samples are needed to achieve a designated accuracy based on the total population.

I can't see how Japan can justify doing any further research

Well because the IWC says they don't have enough data to do the review that they promised to do by 1990. So despite what some people think, obviously the IWC doesn't think they have learned enough and believe there is more to be learnt from further studies.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Mike O'BrienSep. 22, 2014 - 08:20PM JST Where did you get 60 percent? From the last poll that I saw. If you know of a newer one then post a link.

If you didn't know, there is a history of collusion among the Japanese government, big business and the corporate news media worked to prevent the citizens from knowing the real problem. Asahi Shinbun's 60 percent claim can be a misleading poll that can influence public policy, depending on the context, and affect the public dialogue, can engage people's interest in politics. There are many attempts by Japanese goverment and media to influence public opinion, mislead public opinion, shape public opinion, and public relations efforts. Ordinary polls represent what the public thinks when they are not paying sufficient attention, and most of the time, the public is not very attentive and not very well-informed about whales.

Deliberative polling that represents what the public would think if they become seriously engaged and informed and express what they really think about after due reflection. It's a scientific effort and a research, designed to show what the public would think, if it were thinking about an issue, under good conditions. It is a practical method that can easily be instituted in many different public policy contexts, by gathering the data to show that it is credible, because the people become more informed and are able to show the reasons why people come to the conclusions that they do. Most of the opinions do change significantly after they study the whale issues.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

obviously the IWC doesn't think they have learned enough and believe there is more to be learnt from further studies

But not from the kind of 'studies' Japan insists on repeating year after year: the IWC doesn't think current 'research' methods produce useful data. Carrying on doing the same ad infinitum when it's already been shown not to work isn't a very good idea.

There has been and remains considerable disagreement over the value of this research both within the Scientific Committee and the Commission. Particular disagreement within the Committee has focussed on a number of issues, including: the relevance of the proposed research to management, appropriate sample sizes and applicability of alternate (non-lethal) research methods

http://iwc.int/permits

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

the IWC doesn't think current 'research' methods produce useful data

No the IWC doesn't think current 'research' methods produce data useful in the conservation of whales. But determining if whaling a particular species is sustainable requires different data.

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