national

U.S., Australia, NZ 'disappointed' over Japan whale hunt

152 Comments

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

© 2011 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

152 Comments
Login to comment

You-Junkinjapan - I think you are pretty close to correct there. I wouldn't use the word encourage but "turn a blind eye to" as they really sympathize with them.

What's the difference? This has been going on for years. They know that the eco-terrorist SS are going to attack and ram other nations vessels when they leave Australian, Netherlands, and New Zealand ports. No one can say that they didn't know what violence the eco-terrorist SS is capable of. "Turning a blind eye" under these circumstances IS "encouragement".

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Or maybe Australia, the Netherlands, and New Zealand prefer to encourage eco-terrorism?

I think you are pretty close to correct there. I wouldn't use the word encourage but "turn a blind eye to" as they really sympathize with them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You-Junkinjapan - Then maybe they should arrest the Sea Shepherds and confiscate their boat. It seems these people have done some things in the past that endanger human life. These people are fanatics. Fanatics do risky things without consideration for human lives.

Canada did arrest the eco-terrorist Watson and seized one of his garbage scows. The eco-terrorist Watson chose to abandon the rust bucket rather than pay the dockage fee.

The U.S. Coast Guard will seize or sink any vessel that commits act of piracy or eco-violence within it's waters.

Australia, the Netherlands, and New Zealand governemnts seem to releish their passive/aggresive stance on eco-terrorism. They're not the ones who are actually involved in attacking vessels of other nations but they are the ones who allows the attacks to continue.

No nation should register and then allow a eco-terrorist vessel to represent their country and no nation should allow eco-terrorists to enter or leave their ports. What's truely disappointing is the failure of Australia, the Netherlands, and New Zealand to stop the violence eco-terrorism. Or maybe Australia, the Netherlands, and New Zealand prefer to encourage eco-terrorism?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

cleo - In the same way as there is sutra-copying in Kyoto. And just as meaningless. Maybe you approve of bogus marriage as a way of getting a passport. Lots of people do get a passport after getting married, and it's all legal, moral and above board. Then there are those who do the paperwork just to get the passport, who make a mockery of the whole idea of marriage. The 'scientific research' whalers are making a mockery of the whole idea of international agreements.

You mean you're happy copying sutras and/or marrying someone you'll never see again, if it gets you through the loophole.

To me, it means that scientific research is being conducted and that the whalers are operating within the framework of the IWC.

The tax code does not make the copying of sutras illegal or require that a tax be paid for tourists/visitors who perform a religious act/function at these temples. In other words, they're working within the framework of the rules and regulations of the tax authority. If you don't like it, maybe you could get yourself appointed to a high position within the tax authority and then create all of the "new" taxable acts you wish.

It is illegal in many countries for people to engage in "sham" marrages only for the purpose of obtaining a passport or becoming a citizen. If it's illegal, they can then be fined or arrested for breaking an actual law.

You talk as if a "loophole" is a bad thing. It's neither good or bad. A "loophole" only means that a law or regulation didn't address that specific area of concern.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I should have phrased it better. I think it is weird that the only way Japan can hunt whales is if it is scientific. It boils down to anti whaling countries not accepting Japan to hunt whales for food. Where as Japan wants to use the scientific data in order to hunt whales for food. When that said, I think Japan's diplomacy has not been very impressive. If they had played the right cards they should have by now been able to hunt commercial like Norway and Iceland.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

“The Governments of Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United States jointly condemn any actions that imperil human life in the Southern Ocean,” they said in a joint statement released by the U.S. State Department.

Then maybe they should arrest the Sea Shepherds and confiscate their boat. It seems these people have done some things in the past that endanger human life. These people are fanatics. Fanatics do risky things without consideration for human lives.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

cleo - Dotobock, who's in favour of whaling, appears to agree that the 'scientific' research is a scam (the only way Japan can take whales is if they call it research). When their backs are against the wall, the pro-whalers, both here and in the Diet, start jabbering about 'food culture' and 'tradition' - they know the research is a scam.

Then you're admitting that there is research. You believe that research to be a scam but that doesn't change the fact that research is being conducted.

"Food culture" and "tradition" are additional reasons for taking whales. (Taking whales within a reasonable expectation of conservation of a food source, of course.)

I'm not speaking for Dotobock but the statement, "the only way Japan can take whales is if they call it research" does not automatically mean that the "scientific research" is a scam. To me, it means that research is being done and that the whalers are operating within the framework of the IWC.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is nothing to support the allegation that Japan's research whaling is a scam. The only substantial evidence of that would be the IWC Scientific committee declaring that Japan's research whaling data which it submits to the committee was false and not valid data. This has never happened. The allegation that the research is a scam comes from anti-whalers who are not privy to the data, are not trained in their use and interpretation, or simply have an agenda of stopping all whaling including research whaling. Such an agenda is at conflict with the charter and purpose of the IWC itself.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I don't care if the tourists copy sutras or not. The people I took there thought it was a bit of a lark. What I do mind is the temples using it as a means of tax avoidance. Dotobock, who's in favour of whaling, appears to agree that the 'scientific' research is a scam (the only way Japan can take whales is if they call it research). When their backs are against the wall, the pro-whalers, both here and in the Diet, start jabbering about 'food culture' and 'tradition' - they know the research is a scam.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

cleo - And WE ALL know the data-taking is no different - and no more efficacious - than the tourists copying out the sutras to get around the law.

No, "WE ALL" do not know that. That's your conclusion and it's obvious from reading these threads that many people do not believe as you do. YOU don't like tourists copying sutras so it must be a scam. YOU want all whaling stopped so any associated research must be a con job. The whale meat is not wasted but YOU consider that to be a purely commercial venture and reject any and all collected data as a fraud. But your primary goal is to end ALL whaling. You're entitled to your opinion but you don't speak for everyone else.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Someone doesn't know the difference between efficiency and efficacy?

If the research has little to no efficacy then there's no point doing it.

Dunno if they still do it, but the last time I was in Kyoto some of the temples were having their tourists sit down and copy sutras, as a way of getting round the tourism tax. They claimed their visitors were there for religious reasons - see, they're devoutly copying sutras before they go off taking photos and gawping at the statues, that proves it's religious, not commercial - but they, the tourists (including the foreign ones who could barely write their own name in kana, never mind write out and understand a sutra) and the tax man all knew it was a con.

Just like the 'scientific' research - see, they're taking data before they cut the meat up and freeze it for the shops, that proves it's scientific, not commercial. And we all know the data-taking is no different - and no more efficacious - than the tourists copying out the sutras to get around the law. It's a transparent con.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

I do not quite get the research thing myself to be honest. I guess it is the only way Japan can take whales is if they call it research. That has to do with IWC regulations though and Japan is using that to their benefit. But other countries are not doing their jobs at IWC. They have an obligation to work in the interest of the whaling industry. I also do not get why Norway and Iceland can hunt commercial but not Japan. Cannot Japan simply protest the sanctuary and start a commercial hunt? I do not think there is a reason why Japan should be voted down when they want to start a commercial hunt though. Maybe if there can be some kind of compromise everyone can be happy enough. Such as let Japan hunt minke whales but not in the Southern Oceans? But at this point, neither Japan or other countries are willing to have a compromise so we will probably have many years of useless confrontation. Since people and countries say the same things year after year at the IWC meeting, they might as well have the meetings once every two years just to save some cash.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

SwissToni - Thats stating the obvious. I'd hardly expect the whalers to go through all this nonsense and than agree any of the whales they sample are unsuitable to be harvested.

I think you will find though that there are others who arent actively anti-whaling who doubt the efficacy of Japans whale research too.

Efficiant/inefficient - it's still research and the efficiency doesn't make it less so or non-existent.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

James Tanaka - Well i'm dissappointed too.. i can't find whale meat at my grocery store in USA.

It's right next to the horse meat, kangaroo, and spotted dick. You just haven't looked long enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Davidattokyo, 'SwissToni, "It's the efficacy and need for that research that is in doubt." Only in doubt by anti-whalers.

Thats stating the obvious. I'd hardly expect the whalers to go through all this nonsense and than agree any of the whales they sample are unsuitable to be harvested.

I think you will find though that there are others who arent actively anti-whaling who doubt the efficacy of Japans whale research too.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan will stop hunting whales when the oceans will become empty deserts.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japan has to put up with lots of crap from countries such as Australia and SSCS for simply having a different preference in food. I agree with the fact that despite the unfair harassment and the unfair stance by other countries the Japanese do not fight back like other people who hunt whales. I'm sure if SS members roamed the streets of Iceland or Norway you would have angry mobs in a lynching mode. In Faroe Islands SSCS members had to flee because they were physically threatened by angry mobs. In Taiji where they also hunt the same type of whales the town invited anti whalers to a town meeting trying to explain their views to SS members from USA and Australia.you probably wount find more tolerant people anywhere and SS exploits that. Nit fighting back though is at times a true sign of strength, Japan and any Japanese whaler should not be pushed or intimated to change their stance and take pride in what they do.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Cleo

The Japanese are not saying "Golly, we have no idea how many whales there are. The only way to know for sure is to kill them all and count them." That's the straw-woman argument you keep laying out.

The Japanese position is that we are confident that certain species such as minkes have rebounded to abundant levels (which even the conservationists concede), and we want more precise knowledge, with the aim of sustainably hunting these abundant whales. For whales whose conservation status is less known, we want data on age, growth, etc. to determine whether these whale populations are increasing or decreasing. This is the rationale for hunting fin whales.

Censuses of people are only done once every ten years - but they need to do a census of whales every year? Why do the pro-whalers think whales are more important than people?

Right, if only the damn whales would send their census forms back by return mail.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It comes from the freezers, mostly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is this the only hunt they do every year? I personally have no desire for whale meat, but I see it at the local super markets like Elena, and Max Value from time to time and I wonder where they get the meat from the rest of the year.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well i'm dissappointed too.. i can't find whale meat at my grocery store in USA.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I agree. Watson, with his many years of violent eco-terrorist activities has found his perfect niche, the Japanese, far less willing to resort to violemt resistance than thje Canadians, Norwegians or Icelanders, conducting research whaling in in waters that are owned by no country but are in the minds of Australian nationalists "their waters" and an anti-whaling country that has a history of racism against Japanese to start with. He has managed to use the ugliest aspects of that country to his advantage.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Pete Bethune a former SSCS member explains that they used Butyric Acid against Japanese whalers. Butyric Acid PH is 1.5 times worse than battery acid. You get that on your face and you get severe injury. Pete Bethune also openly admited to purposefully sinking the AG as a PR stunt. It was orders from Watson. Watson has also said that Australia should send a naval vessel to the Southern Ocean to protect Australia's territorial waters. Sending a naval vessel would be seen as a act of war. These waters are not Australian. NO country in the world recognizes these waters as Australian. This would be a complete pointless naval confrontation over a territorial claim recognised by no other nation on earth and an issue that essentially boils down to outright cultural imperialism.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

SwissToni,

It's the efficacy and need for that research that is in doubt.

Only in doubt by anti-whalers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sea Shepherd has chosen to draw on imagery from the Pacific War, modeling its campaign logo on "the legendary Flying Tigers who fought the Japanese Imperial Forces in China" and taking their name — Operation Waltzing Matilda — from "the unofficial national anthem of Australia." SSCS is playing on nationalism, anti Japanese racism. If they would have cut out the WW2 bollocks and only stuck with environmental reasons or conservation reasons they would actually have helped their own cause.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

While, I do not believe that all anti whalers are bad people. In fact, in general I have a lot of respect towards people who are concerned about the environment. I know many people in Australia feel strongly about this issue. It has even reached the level where both countries's Prime Ministers have talked about this issue. What was good to hear was that both countries leaders agreed to disagree and not let this conflict have any consequences between the two countries which enjoy a good relationship.

However, the strong anti whale sentiments have also shown their ugly side with extreme anti Japan racism. SSCS anti-Japanese propaganda that harkens back to the ugliest moments of WW2. Their logo of their campaign is of a Chinese resistance movement during WW2. There is an undercurrent of anti-Japan racism that permeates Sea Shepherd’S propaganda. They also keep referring to Japanese as barbarians. Watson needs to target other cultures, the Japanese is an easy target because it is "others" and not "us" and because of WW2. This guy has completely lost the plot. He is a hateful racist who is obsessed with Japanese whalers rather than saving the whales. People with an anti whale stance do more harm than good by supporting such a violent group of hateful people.

"

There is only victory or defeat for the whales, and we do not intend to see the whales defeated, nor do we intend to let the murdering barbarian butchers win.

Watson.

I sometimes have called anti whaling stance as culture imperialist and perhaps I should be more careful as I think most people are genuine despite being anti whale. But Watson on the other hand who keeps imagery from WW2 and keeps referring to the Japanese as barbarians is a hateful racist in my view. Why support such a man?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Arrestpaul, 'So you agree that data is gathered which means that research is being conducted.'

It's the efficacy and need for that research that is in doubt.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I feal sory about the whales hountings ower the limt and I hope that japan would reduce the number of the whales hounting as that is not really appreciated by the rest of the wrold and it is against the terms,limits of valeslifetaking.I hope that this problem it can be solved and sorted out or at least the whales hounting,if it is for them meat to can be replaced by some other tastes and or flawours on its measure,howewer I would also recomand for Japan to hold itself back from this activity.And I wish to find in as in the measure sort of fish,plant or interesting food that it would howewer replace this activity and using.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Yawn another article about the same old topic. Doesn't the world have enough problems, real problems to worry about that a dispute over whales? Maybe its the explanation for these problems, people just loose their focus of what's important. Yes they hunt whales, since hundreds of years, and yes we don't, Get over it!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

SwissToni - I can only agree that is how Japans whalers have named their hunt. I believe the data gathered is a byproduct of a commercial hunt, rather than the meat a byproduct of a scientific hunt.

So you agree that data is gathered which means that research is being conducted.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Sea Shepherd should tackle the extremely endangered RIGHT WHALE in USA and Canada. If they loved whales as much as they do, go and save some endangered whales and leave the Japanese whalers alone who hunt non endangered whales. Their campaign is driven by hate of whalers especially Japanese and not the love of whales.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

cleo

The problem is that they say they need to kill them to find out how many there are, and then they justify how many they try to kill by saying there are enough for them to kill that many. If they know there are enough for them to kill so many...they don't need to kill them because they already claim to know.

Japan needs to kill them or wants to kill them because they look at them as food. Once they know the numbers the growth rate and whatever scientific knowledge there is available then Japan can hunt whales knowing just how many they can hunt without depleting the stocks. That's the point of IWC. Where as anti whaling stance is that whales should not be killed, therefore we got people banging their heads against each other. You I believe do not support killing of any animal, which is a fair stance. My view is though, while I think it is perfectly legitimate and fair to have a stance like yours, I do not support people forcing their stance on to other people.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I would rather the whales werent killed, there'd be no waste then.

Back to square one, as usual.

This is exactly what the anti-whaling nations are seeking for, a research program without taking samples (non-lethal) which they know is highly inaccurate and unreliable thereby assuring their annual stance that "data is insufficient! moratorium to continue!!".

0 ( +3 / -3 )

SwissToni,

I believe the data gathered is a byproduct of a commercial hunt, rather than the meat a byproduct of a scientific hunt.

People have the freedom of belief, but Japan's activities are consistent with the whaling convention requirements, and the Article VIII requirements completely override the "moratorium" on commercial catches.

Importantly there are material differences between the whaling of the commercial days versus the special permit days. "Commercial whaling in disguise" is but a anti-whaling perspective, but it is certainly not the only perspective, and certainly not the perspective most consistent with the facts.

I doubt that. I dont see such a judgement reducing the barbarity of the hunt.

A lot of people (such as myself, formerly) don't have a problem with whaling except when it is (thought to be) unsustainable or illegal. Although you claim to buy into the barbarity argument, not all the anti-whalers do. You yourself noted that all anti-whalers can't be classified as having exactly the same views on this.

I think it would spur them on to get a change in the law.

Some other people show humility when they are proven to be wrong - being able to admit I was wrong was why I am no longer an anti-whaler - but even if there weren't such people as this... I recommend you don't hold your breath. It's not easy for international law to be changed as you desire. After all, that's why the anti-whalers subverted the whaling convention in the first place, rather than simply change it to be an anti-whaling convention.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

cleo,

The problem is that they say they need to kill them to find out how many there are, and then they justify how many they try to kill by saying there are enough for them to kill that many.

You are off the mark on this point.

Abundance estimates are made by sightings surveys. And we know there are some hundreds of thousands.

Trends in abundance are determined through population modelling.

The biological samples are taken for the purpose of investigating these trends in abundance.

I trust you are clear on this now, even though you don't like whaling or related research.

Censuses of people are only done once every ten years - but they need to do a census of whales every year?

A census is different from a sample, I'm sure you know this already so I need not explain further.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Davidattokyo, ' I suspect an International Court of Justice ruling in favour of Japan will act as such a trigger for a great many such anti-whalers, who like me, do respect the law.'

I doubt that. I dont see such a judgement reducing the barbarity of the hunt. I think it would spur them on to get a change in the law.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Dotobock, 'There is lots of anti Japan racism by the likes of anti whalers, especially SS.'

You are so wide of the mark. Sea Shepherd and other anti whaling groups have and are quite happy to tackle nations other than Japan.

Its fair to say this website and this issue attract a good few who want to take an easy shot at Japan. But it attracts its fair share of oversensitive souls too.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Arrestpaul, ' so you agree that scientific whaling is being conducted'

I can only agree that is how Japans whalers have named their hunt. I believe the data gathered is a byproduct of a commercial hunt, rather than the meat a byproduct of a scientific hunt.

I would rather the whales werent killed, there'd be no waste then.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

You're missing my point, Nessie. How censuses of marine animals are made is not the problem.

The problem is that they say they need to kill them to find out how many there are, and then they justify how many they try to kill by saying there are enough for them to kill that many. If they know there are enough for them to kill so many...they don't need to kill them because they already claim to know. If they want to claim they need to kill them to find out how many there are, then they're admitting they don't know how many there and and so they don't know how many they can kill sustainably. Round, and round, and round.

Censuses of people are only done once every ten years - but they need to do a census of whales every year? Why do the pro-whalers think whales are more important than people?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@cleo

They're supposedly 'sampling' them to determine the health of the stocks, so that's a totally round-about argument.

You keep making this bogus claim. How do you think censuses of marine animals (abundance, age, size at maturity) are made?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

SwissToni - As for the difference between commercial and scientific whaling. Well one is conducted simply for commercial reasons. The other is conducted simply to gather data. The clause in the IWC regulations requiring whales not be wasted is Japan's whalers 'get out of jail free' card. The issue of Japans whalers true motives is to be aired at the ICJ soon.

Data is being gathered, so you agree that scientific whaling is being conducted. If you would prefer that the minke whale carcasses simply be tossed aside, you should probably write a letter to the IWC and ICR and voice your concerns but why would anyone want a whale to go to waste?

Australia still has yet to prove that they even have a case against Japan or the whalers before anyone needs to provide a defense of Australia's politically motivated and phoney charges.

-4 ( +2 / -5 )

oldsanno - Why did SS, registered in USA, register its ships in the Netherlands?

It's not uncommon for vessels owned in one country to be registered in another. The U.S. requires costly and extensive safety and cargo inspections. They also require that their ships Masters (Captains) adhere to a code of conduct that forbids ramming other vessels and using U.S. flagged ships to commit acts of violence. The U.S. would pull the eco-terrorist Watson's ticket in a New York minute.

The Dutch Maritime Registry obviously doesn't care if Dutch ships and Masters act like pirates. The Dutch Parliment is currently trying to obtain control of what vessels can be registered in the Netherlands specifically to de-flag the eco-terrorist scow Steve Irwin. Many in Parliment are embarrassed by the eco-terrorist violence committed under a Dutch flag.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I'd support an ICJ case here. This seems dead locked. And I believe Japan has the law on their side and have a very good chance of winning. Australia should put the money where their mouth is and take it to court. In the mean time, I hope no one gets hurt due to the sheer stupidity of SS's actions. There is lots of anti Japan racism by the likes of anti whalers, especially SS. Japan should stay it's course, no need to compromise. Japan should never ever give up the right to hunt whales for food.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

OssanAmerica,

Sooner or later those "others" are going to have to grow up.

Harsh :) There are some hardened types ($$C$ supporters for example) who seem to feel some kind of increased self-worth through being anti-whaling (thus violence and disrespect of the law becomes justifiable), whereas I believe the majority are simply good people who have been misled by the commercial anti-whaling propaganda machine. I was such myself originally, and it was only the overt racism towards the Japanese that I perceived in my local media at the time that triggered me to consider things from an independent perspective. I suspect an International Court of Justice ruling in favour of Japan will act as such a trigger for a great many such anti-whalers, who like me, do respect the law.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The Japanese whalers arguments have been demonstrated as a ploy to continue commercial whaling.

Dream on. That remains but an "argument" Australia has taken to the International Court of Justice, and one that will fail given, amongst other things, 1) the clear object and purpose of the whaling convention and 2) the material differences between the former commercial whaling and current Article VIII special permit operations.

In truth theyre always going to be vilified as long as they are in conflict with others wishes. Win or lose the ICJ case, or the suit in the US.

Vilified by you and the likes of $$C$ perhaps, who have no respect for any law that doesn't suit.

But as for other anti-whalers, such evidently baseless vilification has great potential to break these fundamentally fair-minded people away from the shackles of the commercial anti-whaling industry propaganda. (I know this from experience, being a converted anti-whaler myself.)

the Japanese whalers have spent many years trying and failing to win the moral high ground

They have the moral high ground, what they have lacked is the political nouse of the Norwegians.

Yours and Ossanamerica's seems to he the legality, never mind the morality.

Our personal morality is meaningless, and mine is neither more nor less than yours. Legality is what matters in international disputes. Most people respect the law, even if some people don't.

there you go agin trying to give people a simple label.

You described the Article VIII as a "get out of jail free card". Such a characterisation can only be valid if one is looking at the issue from the context of the idea that "whaling is/should be banned". That is why anti-whalers describe what is an actual part of the whaling convention as a "loophole". It can only be regarded as a "loophole" if one ignores the whaling convention itself except for the "moratorium". This is like selective quoting, and why this is flawed thinking. The truth may hurt, don't shoot the messenger...

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

SwissToniDec. 16, 2011 - 08:16AM JST Davidattokyo, Ossanamerica, say what you will to cloud the issue, you cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear. >The Japanese whalers arguments have been demonstrated as a ploy to continue commercial whaling.

No I don't think it has. Demonstrated by whom? When? Where?

Stop beating about the bush it's BS. In truth theyre always going to be vilified as long as they are in conflict with >others wishes.

That's ok. Sooner or later those "others" are going to have to grow up.

Win or lose the ICJ case, or the suit in the US. Whaling is a popular passtime in whaling circles only.

I don't think anyone is trying to make whaling "popular".

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Davidattokyo, 'The reason that anti-whalers look at it from this perspective is because they wish to believe that there is a permanent ban on whaling'.

Wellnthere you go agin trying to give people a simple label. It's not like that. Anti whalers, like those that support it, have multiple reasons to continue those battle. Yours and Ossanamerica's seems to he the legality, never mind the morality. Keep clouding the issue, I'm sure you think it helps.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

'Why does not Japan then reverse it's stance and start a commercial hunt?'

Because the Japanese whalers have spent many years trying and failing to win the moral high ground. Such an obvious change of tack would be like admitting defeat.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Davidattokyo, Ossanamerica, say what you will to cloud the issue, you cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear. The Japanese whalers arguments have been demonstrated as a ploy to continue commercial whaling. Stop beating about the bush it's BS. In truth theyre always going to be vilified as long as they are in conflict with others wishes. Win or lose the ICJ case, or the suit in the US. Whaling is a popular passtime in whaling circles only.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

cleo

Why did SS, registered in USA, register its ships in the Netherlands?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Why does not Japan then reverse it's stance and start a commercial hunt?

Is there any revokable caluse stated in the agreement?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

SwissToniDec. 15, 2011 - 06:07PM JST Ossanamerica, 'The closest Japan came to ceasing it's completely legal research whaling was when the IWC >offered a compromise in 2010 to break the gridlock' "Yes, by offering a commercial catch quota. Japan was full on for the idea and insisted on inclusion of a Southern Ocean catch. That certainly adds credence to the argument that Japan is currently only whaling for research purposes."

It was offered by the IWC and included a reduction in catch numbers over time. The only thing this proves is that Japan was willing to negotiate to accomodate the utterly baseless demand to cease research whaling in the Southern Ocean, and that the anti-whaling harliners were more interested in flexing their authority over waters they didn't own rather than reduce the number of whales taken.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan agreed to the moratorium on commercial whaling. Norway and Iceland didnt.

Why does not Japan then reverse it's stance and start a commercial hunt? Though, I do think Japan has a right to hunt non endangered whales in a sustainable manner, I do not understand their diplomacy at times. I do know that they applied to hunt commercially and got voted down by IWC. I also agree on the fact that other countries are not doing their jobs at IWC. Scientific research is carried out before a country starts to hunt commercial. Once there is data available from the scientific research then from that data a commercial hunt can be carried out using management procedures such as RMP. What we have here is that because other countries are not doing their jobs at IWC and Japan gets voted down to hunt commercial, Japan keeps their scientific research ongoing in hope to hunt commercial while the other countries in hope that Japan will stop hunting. Cannot Japan simply do as Norway and Iceland though? To stop agreeing on the commercial moratorium?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The other is conducted simply to gather data. The clause in the IWC regulations requiring whales not be wasted is Japan's whalers 'get out of jail free' card.

The reason that anti-whalers look at it from this perspective is because they wish to believe that there is a permanent ban on whaling. However legally the moratorium is temporary and furthermore subordinate to the whaling convention, thus such an interpretation is flawed both legally and in reality.

For it is natural that a whaling convention that allows for essentially unregulated scientific catches up to the discretion of the contracting government to at least require that those whales taken be utilised fully, in accordance with the spirit of the notion of optimum utilisation of whale resources.

Anti-whalers pretend the "optimum utilisation of whale resources" purpose of the whaling convention does not exist, and hence have found themselves lost on a tangent.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

SwissToni,

The issue of Japans whalers true motives is to be aired at the ICJ soon.

Indeed we conservationists, who understand what the purpose of the whaling convention is, feel this day can't come soon enough.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Dotobock, 'Can someone tell me why Japan can't hunt commercial where as Norway and Iceland can? Thank you. I'd like to know what the difference in commercial and scientific is'.

Japan agreed to the moratorium on commercial whaling. Norway and Iceland didnt.

As for the difference between commercial and scientific whaling. Well one is conducted simply for commercial reasons. The other is conducted simply to gather data. The clause in the IWC regulations requiring whales not be wasted is Japan's whalers 'get out of jail free' card. The issue of Japans whalers true motives is to be aired at the ICJ soon.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ossanamerica, 'The closest Japan came to ceasing it's completely legal research whaling was when the IWC offered a compromise in 2010 to break the gridlock'

Yes, by offering a commercial catch quota. Japan was full on for the idea and insisted on inclusion of a Southern Ocean catch. That certainly adds credence to the argument that Japan is currently only whaling for research purposes.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This is all so silly, and obviously strange moves by certain countries, that Im just praying that theyre not using all this talk as bait.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Not only do they hunt whales in Alaska and Washington State, the US if the first and only country in the world together with Canada which is steadily driving the right whale to extinction. I don't think they are fit to tell others jack.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Can someone tell me why Japan can't hunt commercial where as Norway and Iceland can? Thank you. I'd like to know what the difference in commercial and scientific is. It's not as if commercial whaling doesn't take any scientific data what so ever. What are th criterias for each label?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The IWC is just another useless corrupt payed-off body like the UN. Useless and only exists to give the assumption that they are effective.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

herefornow,

If Japan could make a plausible argument that hunting whales in the Southern Ocean was critically important to their food stock or even their culture, then they might get some sympathy

Hey there is an "international convention for the regulation of whaling".

Is international law being on their side not enough for you?

If these nations have a problem with the convention, they should withdraw from it.

But not withdrawing from it, and demanding Japan opt to not exercise it's rights under it, is just plain silly and unbecoming of proper sovereign states.

The purpose of the research is not research in an of itself. The research is of the nature required by the whaling commission to fulfill it's mandate of optimum utilisation of whale resources.

But that sort of rational logic does not work in Japan, where the "we are Japan, we are different, leave us alone" attitude

Eating whales is different to those nations that killed whales for oil primarily, and yes this diversity ought to be tolerated. Fascism is bad don't you know.

So you, Ossan and others can argue all you want about Japan's "right" to conduct the hunt, and ignore the fact that it is badly losing the world-wide PR game on this

If western PR is your priority gee then I guess I can see what you value in the world. Time for Japan to stop whaling and get Kim Kardashian over here quick!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

OssanAmerica,

A moment of thought suggests that the anti-whaling nations are in conflict with the IWC charter to start with and they should not even be members. Perhaps they should start an Anti-IWC where their regulations will apply soleley to their members.

Indeed the reason they don't quit and draft an anti-whaling convention is because they know they can best fulfill their political objective of obstructing the rights of other nations by behaving in bad faith at the whaling commission.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The US uses the Pelly Amendment to try to bully whaling nations, but it has never worked. Sustainable whaling doesn't detract from the IWC's conservation program at all, sustainable whaling is by definition compatible with conservation.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

globalwatcher,

Japan needs to justify the reason of 850/annually caught whales for "somewhat elementary level" research purpose.

Japan is legally entitled to catch as many whales for research purposes as it "thinks fit" (see the whaling convention).

As a sample size, 850 is hardly unusual. They could be catching 200 is there'd still be people (without any knowledge of the research or it's purpose) saying that it was too many. It's not the number they are really complaining about, they just don't like whaling per se.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I brought my left over whale and curry from last night for lunch today.

Will probably be asked to share the delicacy.

They should take as many whales as needed to make sure the research is sound.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

that is NOT engaged in commercial whaling.

Hi Ossan, agreed. Japan needs to justify the reason of 850/annually caught whales for "somewhat elementary level" research purpose. I hope both sides keep their heads to civil and common sense here.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

globalwatcher, I was unaware that the Secretary of Commerce had anything to do with the State Department. Additonally the scope of US trade relations with Iceland as opposed to Japan is incomparable. Even further, the claim that some country is violating the 1892 moratorium on commercial whaling has no bearing on a country that is NOT engaged in commercial whaling.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Really? What action is US State Dept which has absolutely nothing to do with whaling taking

Hi Ossan, I think the US State Dept is opening a dialogue with Japanese govt on this issue more than just expressing "disappointment" IMHO. I have lised the Fisherman's Protective Act of 1967. FYI

On July 19, 2011, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke certified under section 8 of the Fisherman's Protective Act of 1967, as amended (the "Pelly Amendment") (22 U.S.C. 1978), that nationals of Iceland are conducting whaling activities that diminish the effectiveness of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) conservation program. This message constitutes my report to the Congress consistent with subsection (b) of the Pelly Amendment.

In 1982, the IWC set catch limits for all commercial whaling at zero. This decision, known as the commercial whaling moratorium, is in effect today (July 19, 2011).

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Oh butt out of Japan's affairs.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

That will make your position indefensible.

In other words, if Japan just dumped the 800 dead minke whale carcases into the Southern Ocean without bringing it back home, the anti-whalers will have no arguments?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Japan conducts Research Whaling under the IWC regulations. The IWC itself is a regulatory body for the whaing industry. It is also tasked with ensuring that global stocks are not depleted. To that end the IWC Scientific Committee utilizes the data provided from research whaling. The IWC is not an academic marine biology research center. That is not their charter and not their goal. Japan's position is entirely defended by their compliance with those IWC regulations. The IWC exempts research whaling from recognizing moratoriums and sanctuaries. It's all in writing at the IWC website. Which, explains why the anti-whaing nations can only "express dissappointment" and many anti-whaling advocates can only deny the facts. Of course many of them have never bothered to read the IWC site either. The closest Japan came to ceasing it's completely legal research whaling was when the IWC offered a compromise in 2010 to break the gridlock between the two fafctions. However this was undermined by Australia and other anti-whaling nations who refused to compromise at all. A moment of thought suggests that the anti-whaling nations are in conflict with the IWC charter to start with and they should not even be members. Perhaps they should start an Anti-IWC where their regulations will apply soleley to their members.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Defend your position by providing the evidence that you are indeed studying the ecology of cetaceans and mammals for academic/scientific purpose at an international level

I believe they did already. It's these anti-whaling nations that are crying "we don't trust your data". Then, we're back to more research but the same anti-whaling nations are crying "no more lethal research" as if non-lethal research is poster boy for "accuracy".

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

If Japan wants to keep practicing what they preach, go on. Just let them do it if they can keep their faith in their 'questionable' business to the detriment of fallen, schizophrenic national image.

Stand by what you say. If you justify whaling for scientific purpose and insists that it depart from commercial purposes, make an utmost commitment to that practice. All you need to do is prove how your practice is different from that of local whalers going off the Antarctica to catch the whales for business. Defend your position by providing the evidence that you are indeed studying the ecology of cetaceans and mammals for academic/scientific purpose at an international level—i.e., preservation of marine biology and/or oceanography. That's the only way you can brush off the criticism from international community for the restoration of your national credibility. And don't even think about flip-flopping from pure science to business/consumption practice—like many pro-whalers when you face a mounting criticism. That will make your position indefensible.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

They eat whale in Alasaka. Maybe the US should get their own house in order, before criticizing foreign governments. Oh wait, they never do that.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

globalwatcherDec. 15, 2011 - 03:19AM JST The whole issue is escalating to the point that is nothing but stupid. I recalled Japanese whaling industry has just >filed a law suit to the State of Washington last week, then now the US State Dept is taking over and coodinating with >Australia, NZ, Holland agains Japan.

Really? What action is US State Dept which has absolutely nothing to do with whaling taking? What exactly are they "taking over"? If you read the article you would realize that those countries "expressed dissappointment". That's not exactly what anyone would call an operation of any consequence.

Many more countries will join them against Japanese Whaling industry. Well, it seems like the verdict is already in >for the dispute. The whaling war of Japan is over no mater how you look at it.

Nope the verdict is likely years ahead and when the ICJ finally gets around to hearing the Australian claim.

Hope everyone can go home before someone gets hurt in process. Maybe within a couple weeks we will see >Japanese PM speaks in public showing his deep bowing in regret and apology. Today, The world has a low >tolorence towards "loophole", "terrorism" and "corruptions". Hope Japan gets this message sooner.

Agree SSCSI should cease their lawless acts of violence, go home and demonstrate peacefully like all the other anti-whaling orgaizations.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The whole issue is escalating to the point that is nothing but stupid. I recalled Japanese whaling industry has just filed a law suit to the State of Washington last week, then now the US State Dept is taking over and coodinating with Australia, NZ, Holland against Japan. Many more countries will join them against Japanese Whaling industry. Well, it seems like the verdict is already in for the dispute. The whaling war of Japan is over no mater how you look at it.

Hope everyone can go home before someone gets hurt in process. Maybe within a couple weeks we will see Japanese PM speaks in public showing his deep bowing in regret and apology. Today, The world has a low tolorence towards "loophole", "terrorism" and "corruptions". Hope Japan gets this message sooner.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

A dead whale, is a dead whale, don't you know.

David -- precisely. And that is exactly why these four countries think Japan is clueless. If Japan could make a plausible argument that hunting whales in the Southern Ocean was critically important to their food stock or even their culture, then they might get some sympathy -- like the Eskimos do. But they are doing it just to show that they CAN, and flaunt their willingness to do so. It is just an arrogant exercise that brings no real scientific value, or even economic one to Japan. (They could re-train the folks involved in the hunt for much less than the cost of protecting them.) But that sort of rational logic does not work in Japan, where the "we are Japan, we are different, leave us alone" attitude that came about do to Japan's great post-war success is still way too prominent. So you, Ossan and others can argue all you want about Japan's "right" to conduct the hunt, and ignore the fact that it is badly losing the world-wide PR game on this, and just reinforcing folks belief that Japan, and its people, are isolated and cold-hearted. Your "moral" victory will only hurt Japan in the long-run.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Dotobock, 'Does it mean that if whales were farmed it would be OK?'

If you could selectively breed out their wanderlust, social systems and communication skills, provide them with pens large enough for free movement, feeding diving and all their other basic needs as well as finding a humane killer, why not? How realistic do you think that is though?

'DUe to technology more and more whales do die straight away.'

The grenade harpoon has barely changed since its inception in the late 1800s. It requires a great deal of skill to get a clean kill, accuracy in shooting a moving animal from a moving platform is parlous. Secondary killing methods continue to be required to this day because of the harpoon lack of efficiency.

Dont be fooled, whalers cannot predict where a whale will breach. But once they see a pod they chase them down exhausting the animals and removing their capacity to dive for any great period. Only once the whale has been drawn into range can they be harpooned. Its not a nice way to kill an animal.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Surprised that pro-whaling people do not get it! Using a loop hole to do this looks bad, a large majority of nations condem these actions, more than support! The bunker down mentality is not a winning position.

As david and other have alluded to on MANY OCCASIONS, it's not a loop hole. It's written on the convention.

"Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted. "

It would constitute a "loop hole" only if such statement didn't exist.

Why do anti-whalers repeat the same old misinformation time and time again?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Surprised that pro-whaling people do not get it! Using a loop hole to do this looks bad, a large majority of nations condem these actions, more than support! The bunker down mentality is not a winning position.

If there was a loop hole allowing me to "harvest" ( for science) several hundred Japanese to discover " why" their breeding rate was so low, is that legitimate?

And their feeding habits without the use of TV? Or non lethal means...unless it's for science?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

yep just saw the SouthPark episode "Whale Whores" funny stuff pretty much sums up the Japanese. LOL http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s13e11-whale-whores

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Disappointment is Japan's middle name

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It seems that only whale related threads attract posters like davidattokyo, arrestpaul, OssanAmerica, Dotobock, kujiranikudaisuki, etc... hey you guys, is there any other thread you may want to comment on? the whale threads are getting BOOOOOORRIINGG!!!! Yawnn (-_-)ZZzzZZzzz....

I think the whale debate is a progressive debate, it talks about ethics, culture, environment. While there might never be a fully agreement, in the future these kind of debates will be more important as we realize more and more that we live in the same global planet with lots of challenges in the future. Deforestation, population growth, GMO food, unsustainable farming, animal rights. Over exploitation of the oceans, pollution in the oceans. At the moment though, I do not feel the minke whale hunt is such a great issue. I would like to know why others think it is. Apart from the barbaric, inhumane view.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

I believe thats because the US recanted on fishing rights agreed following Japans acquiescence to the moratorium. It may be a good reason for Japan to be miffed, but that doesnt make the 'research' excuse any more valid. Yes, the loophole exists, and so technically it may be legal but that does not make it right. The Japanese whalers have demonstrably swapped one quota for another for commercial reasons.

I have heard about the fishing rights. I do not know the exact details but it was USA granting special fishing rights to Japan or something like that. The Japanese stopped hunting whales for food due to uncertainties in stocks in the 80s until stocks were determined but they were in the 90s. This was the original agreement then the anti whale used other reasons to oppose whaling mostly cultural and not scientific.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

spudmanreincarnated,

I was talking about us conservationists, not paid lobbyists of the commercial anti-whaling industry.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

We conservationists would not support it if this were not the case.

No, paid lobbyists support it for the pay. The same reason that this whaling is conducted, for the money.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

'Ask yourself this question. Why is Japan doing scientific research?'

I believe thats because the US recanted on fishing rights agreed following Japans acquiescence to the moratorium. It may be a good reason for Japan to be miffed, but that doesnt make the 'research' excuse any more valid. Yes, the loophole exists, and so technically it may be legal but that does not make it right. The Japanese whalers have demonstrably swapped one quota for another for commercial reasons.

There are plenty of cases where civilians have 'broken' laws when demonstrating against moral issues. Sometimes it is the last resort to shock authorities into action. I hope nothing goes wrong at this years hunt. But ,taking account of the strength of feeling in both the Whalers and Sea Shepherds camps, luck cant last forever. Introducing the military wont help.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

"They're supposedly not allowed to hunt any in order to eat the meat."

That's wrong. What 's to keep Japan from doing exactly what Norway and Iceland are doing? Raisng an objection and contiuning to hunt wehales commercially.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

SwissToniDec. 14, 2011 - 11:08PM JST One thing remains clear, these four nations publicly oppose Japans whaling programme. Wonder how this will >affect Japans civil case against SS in the US? There are planty of examples where public oppinion can sway a court >decision. This is especially so as no Sea Shepherd activist has been charged and convicted of any form of >terrorism no matter what tag their opponents love label them with.

It won't because the suit has nothing to do with whaling, commercial or research. It has to do with acts of violence. Did you read the full complaint?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

One thing remains clear, these four nations publicly oppose Japans whaling programme. Wonder how this will affect Japans civil case against SS in the US? There are planty of examples where public oppinion can sway a court decision. This is especially so as no Sea Shepherd activist has been charged and convicted of any form of terrorism no matter what tag their opponents love label them with.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Because it's not allowed to do commercial whaling out in the open.

They are doing scientific. And any country according to IWC is allowed to carry out permits including Japan or even Australia. So while you might not like it, it is not illegal.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Ask yourself this question. Why is Japan doing scientific research?

Because it's not allowed to do commercial whaling out in the open.

because then they know how many they can hunt in order to eat the meat

They're supposedly not allowed to hunt any in order to eat the meat.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

I have to admit that even I share one thing in common with Paul Watson.

"Watson’s love for marine life doesn’t stop him from eating fish. “Paul, who likes hamburgers and grilled cheese sandwiches equally, interprets veganism as a form of philosophical lunacy,” David Morris writes in Earth Warrior. Morris’s book details often-hilarious disputes between Watson and the vegan crewmembers. One standoff ensued when Watson ordered the vegans to retrieve a driftnet left by an escaped fishing vessel. The crew took an agonizingly long time, trying to free every squid caught in the net, about which Watson couldn’t care less. He didn’t even mind profiting from the work of the ship he threatened -- Morris reports that he later sent his chef over to the net to “requisition a few squid for dinner.”

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/347-sea-shepherd-conservation-society

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Isn't your "whaling is inhumane" argument good enough?

Yes, it is. Trumps all other arguments.

It's interesting to see you desperately trying to defend those other, irrelevant, arguments, though.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

cleo.

They're supposedly 'sampling' them to determine the health of the stocks, so that's a totally round-about argument.

Ask yourself this question. Why is Japan doing scientific research? Well, it is to determine the number of whales. Then why do you think Japanese bother to count whales? Has it ever crossed your mind that the reason is because then they know how many they can hunt in order to eat the meat without depleting the stock? The Japanese are not counting whales just for the sake of counting them.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Nothing new here. The same old. Japan wanting to utilize a non endangered mobile source of protein in a sustainable manner vs whales are magnificent animals and whaling is barbaric. USA's stance is interesting because they are an anti whaling whaling nation. USA hunts whales. They also are the first country in the world to actually drive a whale species to extinction. I think the Japanese government has every right to be disappointed over the American mismanagement of the right whale.

Western anti whaling is a mix of racism and romanticism. Little logic. I really cannot imagine Westerners being bullied into following the dietary laws of India or the Arab world, and I also cannot imagine an Englishman, despite a great love for horses, pressurizing the French to give up horse meat so why is Japan being harassed over whaling? Whaling has nothing to do with environmental concerns.

The Japanese, have a fine cusine. To eat a good Japanese meal is to take part in an art form where each dish is presented with the exquisite aesthetic; whales, like sushi, sashimi, kabuki is an intrinsic part of the country's culture; an incredibly rich and profound culture. Ganbare.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

cleo,

They aren't sampling them in numbers that would threaten the health of the stocks. The 850 minke quota compares with estimated abundance of some hundreds of thousands

They're supposedly 'sampling' them to determine the health of the stocks, so that's a totally round-about argument.

No, it isn't. We are talking what is essentially standard fisheries stock assessment methodology. Isn't your "whaling is inhumane" argument good enough? You detract from your position with weak psuedo-science comments like this, just sayin'.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

DS of course, slippery fingers from the Samoosa.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

GS.

Whale bacon or tinned whale meat as sold by Mitsukoshi.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I see "whale bacon" advertised on TV all the time, in SkyPerfect.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Good Bad gogogoDec. 14, 2011 - 01:51PM JST It makes no secret of the fact that whale meat from this research ends up on dinner tables and in restaurants. Japan used to keep this very secret only in the last few years after it was exposed from protesters.

No that's not true at all. Whale meat has been available instores in Japan for as long as anyone can remember. And Article VIII of the IWC regulations REQUIRE that whales taken for scientific research be consumed so as not to go to waste.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

tokyokawasakiDec. 14, 2011 - 05:25PM JST This is how the West views Japan and it's whaling industry: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s13e11->whale-whores

It is also how the west views Sea Shepherd and Paul Watson (thew douche)

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

900 whales is nothing compared to the overall population. Allow hunting within mutually agreed numbers and then get out of the way. The only reason the J-govt gets all stroppish about it is the outside pressure. The world presses, and Japan presses back. It becomes a matter of pride. If nations could agree on how many whales could be hunted without species loss it would be a much better long term solution. At that time, the J-gov't could step back and see if whaling could survive as part of the overall commercial fishing industry.

If it can't, it will die a natural death. If it can survive, it will provide a renewable source of food to a willing consumer base.

Remember when you were a kid? As soon as someone said, "you CAN'T.....", you wanted to do it. Even if you had little interest, or it would cost you money/time. It's a natural human reaction to pressure. Remove the pressure, and then we can know whether or not whaling is truly viable.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Australia, the greedy country, will never have the Will to stand up against revenue, hence the banning of SS and the lukewarm 'condemnations'. Support SS with funds and ignore hypocritically weak governments. Be an anarchist!

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

whale = yummy

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

I had to say this, but intervening in a country's affairs to much would just annoy them further..

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@MaboDofuIsSpicy

It is not a legal loophole at all. It is legal. And they are doing relevant research. Live with it. SS is wrong and breaking the law. now I am eating whale bacon and eating seafood curry. Yummy

Booring..YAWN~~~~

0 ( +6 / -6 )

@ReformedBasher

yawn...

I second that.... YAWN~~~

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Don't like the sight of whale meat? Vote with your feet.

I for one am tired of meeting young arrogant Aussies,Kiwis and Canadians in Japan who take the relative unspoiled condition of their sparsely populated young nations as some kind of proof that they are the better stewards of nature and can tell everyone else what to do.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

They aren't sampling them in numbers that would threaten the health of the stocks. The 850 minke quota compares with estimated abundance of some hundreds of thousands

They're supposedly 'sampling' them to determine the health of the stocks, so that's a totally round-about argument.

Where is their commitment to the whaling convention?

Same place as Japan's commitment to true scientific study. Nowhere.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Neneswsw,

the fact that Japan is catching around (or just less than) a thousand whales a year is worrisome.

They aren't sampling them in numbers that would threaten the health of the stocks. The 850 minke quota compares with estimated abundance of some hundreds of thousands. We conservationists would not support it if this were not the case.

And the numbers are increasing each year too.

No they don't, actually. The original JARPA program had a quota of approx 400 +/- 10% IIRC, and JARPA II from 05/06 is for 850 +/- 10%. Some NGOs may make the claim that quotas increase each year, but that's just a big fat lie.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

@genji, fair enough, but the fact that Japan is catching around (or just less than) a thousand whales a year is worrisome. And the numbers are increasing each year too.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

nenewsw http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/table_permit.htm

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

RevHead,

what i don't understand there is a report somewhere from Japan Fisheries i think that says there is tonnes of this whale meet stored in freezers not being consumed, so why the need for more???

It does get consumed, that's why it is stored in freezers. There are millions of tonnes of product in storage in Japan, whale makes up but a tiny insignificant fraction of this.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

It is not a legal loophole at all.

It is legal.

And they are doing relevant research.

Live with it.

SS is wrong and breaking the law.

Right now I am eating whale bacon and eating seafood curry.

Yummy

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

some14some - World is disappointed over Japan's Whale hunt and related (un)scientific research.

Correction, most of the "world" doesn't care one way or the other about whales. You're confusing reality with the vocal minority that also supports violence as a means to achieve their goal of ending all whaling.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Elbuda Mexicano - Japan should come clean and ADMIT it is NOT doing research but WHALING! HUNTING of these endangered species ASAP!!

Scientific research is still scientific research whether you approve of it or not.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

m5c32,

BUT, it's a legal loophole.

It's just plain legal.

If nations were serious about this being a really important issue they'd close that loophole.

It's not a loophole. It's an explicit part of the whaling treaty. The treaty can't be changed without the assent of all states adhered to it, and there are many that would reject the deletion of Article VIII of the whaling convention. (Doing that would be akin to abolishing the "scientific basis" principle that is supposed to underlie all whaling management decisions, which in practice is ignored due to the intransigence of the anti-whaling nations).

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

@genji, wikipedia is not a reliable resource, anybody can edit it and the information stays there (with a "citation needed") unless proven wrong.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

“We are deeply concerned that confrontations in the Southern Ocean will eventually lead to injury or loss of life among protesters, many of whom are nationals of our countries, and whaling crews,” they said.

Yet none of them do anything about the eco-terrorists who have created this situation...

Commercial whaling is banned under an international treaty but Japan has since 1987 used a loophole to carry out “lethal research” on the creatures in the name of science.

The media is forever parroting the commercial anti-whaling industry propaganda like this. Hopefully they will finally take note when the ICJ rules against Australia in their case against the Japanese, and change their boilerplate whaling articles accordingly thenceforth.

The four nations hit out at Japan’s claim it is carrying out research, saying they “wish to emphasize that lethal techniques are not required in modern whale conservation and management.”

Politicians posing as scientists! The IWC's own scientific committee utilises biological data provided by Japan's research precisely because no feasible or viable non-lethal alternatives exist.

“We will continue to engage on this matter,” the four nations pledged, reaffirming their commitment to the “global moratorium on commercial whaling.”

Where is their commitment to the whaling convention?

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Not for want of trying. They wanted to take 50. SS stopped them killing the other 49.

Yet only one of these activities is illegal. Those of the SS. Maybe you all should quit putting so much energy into supporting criminals, and support legislature to close the loophole.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

oldsanno - Does anyone know why the Netherlands joined this statement? What's the connection?

According to international law dating back to a time when pirates (unflagged or unregistered vessels) freely sailed the high seas attacking other ships, no country will allow an un-registered vessel to enter or leave it's ports. If a vessel isn't registered with any nation, it can be seized by any government.

The Netherlands allows the eco-terrorist SS scow Steve Irwin to represent the Netherlands. There is currently an attempt by the Dutch cabinet to wrest control of ships registry away from the maritime association because many in the Dutch government are embareassed by the continuous violence committed by the eco-terrorist SS Steve Irwin in the name of the Netherlands.

The Dutch are one of the few countries left who haven't refused to register eco-terrorist SS ships or have removed eco-terrorist SS ships from their registry (and responsibility).

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Genji, Mabo

Lying about scientific research does not make comercial hunting of whales any more legal than lying about shooting in self-defense makes murder legal.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

So your statement of they take fine whaleS is wrong. They took A fin whale in 2009.

Not for want of trying. They wanted to take 50. SS stopped them killing the other 49.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

funkymofo, wheres your facts? Japans last harvested fin whale was in 2009. They harvested 1. Iceland took 125... So your statement of they take fine whaleS is wrong. They took A fin whale in 2009. (source wikipedia, topic fin whale) yours is missing....

1 ( +6 / -5 )

genji, Thank you for informing me of my rights. You posted a false statement. Japan hunts fin whales, which are endangered. I was correcting your mistake. Keep rolling those eyes, but maybe you'd be better served by using them to check your facts.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

This is how the West views Japan and it's whaling industry: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s13e11-whale-whores

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The fin whale sits fairly and squarely on the endangered list. *rolleyes

minke whales are not...*rolleyes

You have a right to not like whaling. But since Japan is conducting legal (see loophole) activity you will just end up like the US, NZ, an Aussies "disappointed".

4 ( +8 / -4 )

This debate will go on for ever, what i don't understand there is a report somewhere from Japan Fisheries i think that says there is tonnes of this whale meet stored in freezers not being consumed, so why the need for more??? I understand that some people like to eat it, no worries, but after trying it once is enough..........

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The whales they are hunting are not endangered....

America, Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands should focus on actual world problems... not some Japanese boats killing a few un-endagered whales. *rolleyes

The fin whale sits fairly and squarely on the endangered list. *rolleyes

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Disappointed: Yes Surprised: No

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Japan should come clean and ADMIT it is NOT doing research but WHALING! HUNTING of these endangered species ASAP!!

The whales they are hunting are not endangered....

America, Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands should focus on actual world problems... not some Japanese boats killing a few un-endagered whales. *rolleyes

1 ( +9 / -8 )

why the Netherlands joined this statement? What's the connection?

Japan has tried to apply pressure to the Netherlands to strike the Steve Irwin from its register, and apparently the Dutch, quite rightly, don't take kindly to being told which ships can or cannot be registered with them.

I'm disappointed that the UK hasn't expressed its disappointment, but not really surprised. The Tories were never very good on animal welfare.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

The thing is, Sea Shepherd and the Japanese whalers need each other. If it wasn't for the whalers, Sea Shepherd wouldn't have a large proportion of their activities, and would sit around bored during the winter. And if it wasn't for people protesting, the Japanese whalers wouldn't be able to try and show once again that they are the victims and that nobody appreciates all the white papers they have come out with(?) after extensive research on the animals.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

Loophole = non illegal, sneeky way. Loophole!!!.... Of course other nationals are sceptial and bemused at the constant use of this LOOPHOLE. Not a negative term at all? It traditional??? So is the NHK new year program? Disappointment that's Regretable

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

yawn...

3 ( +8 / -5 )

lethal research

There's no mention of lethal research in the statement.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152656.htm

Joint Statement on Whaling and Safety at Sea Governments of Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United States Call for Responsible Behavior in the Southern Ocean

Does anyone know why the Netherlands joined this statement? What's the connection?

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

new strategy: leave the IWC

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Here's the thing. Yes, it's roundabout and sneaky and an 'open secret'. BUT, it's a legal loophole. If nations were serious about this being a really important issue they'd close that loophole. Close it and then Japan would have to violate in'l law and be subject to sanctions, etc. It's not a wholehearted sentiment when they say they feel disappointed; it's window dressing.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

U.S., Australia, NZ 'disappointed'

I love these words and phrases that are chosen to chastise without offending.

We are disappointed. We are deeply concerned. This isn't helpful. We wouldn't have advised that move. We would have hoped for a different outcome.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Patrick:

It did take a lot of practice, but I never turn down any food someone offers me as it is rude to do.

That is how I practiced my Japanese and befriended a lot of nice people.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

I agree genji. That is my whole point.

Whether I like whale meat or not, is moot.

It is legal under the law.

Sea Shepard, while taking the law into their own hands is just as bad as people shooting doctors that legally provide abortions.

One must follow the laws we create whether we like them or not.

If not, then all hell would break loose.

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

It's pathetic that these four nations condemn the commercial whale hunt by Japan (it's not research) yet do very little to stop it. Japan blatantly exploits a loophole in the IWC rules and ignores an international whale sanctuary. Yet, SS are the criminals cos they are the only ones with the balls to confront these lying caniving Japanese hunters. It doesn't make sense! The anti-whaling nations have to stop peeing in the pocket of the Japanese fishery and put a stop to this farce!

-5 ( +10 / -14 )

Japan should come clean and ADMIT it is NOT doing research but WHALING! HUNTING of these endangered species ASAP!!

Well first of all they are not endangered so give that a rest. Number two as long as research is legal and this means of research is legal (see this is the loophole that allows them to continue this...legally) countries will voice their opinions and views, but no country is going to attack the Japanese because the Japanese are within the confines of the law.

-2 ( +13 / -15 )

It makes no secret of the fact that whale meat from this research ends up on dinner tables and in restaurants.

Japan used to keep this very secret only in the last few years after it was exposed from protesters.

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

Japan should come clean and ADMIT it is NOT doing research but WHALING! HUNTING of these endangered species ASAP!!

-3 ( +13 / -16 )

My questions are: Who actually benefits from the whale hunting? Japanese consumers? No!

Fishery agency??? Maybe...

I do not see the reason for continuing this weird hunting tradition since there are no demands from the public.... Does the Japanese fishery agency continue this just for the money???? I really want to know who is benefiting from all this.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Honestly, most Japanese do not care for whale meat! (except some 2ch people). Japanese fishery agency is stupid for creating this mess.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

They are not breaking the law so let them hunt.

Sea Sheps should be arrested if they interfere.

I love whale blubber with hot chinese mustard and soy sauce.

If you have not tried it, do not complain.

Just another animal to eat and enjoy.

Baked Christmas Whale with Eggnog, mashed potatoes and veggies.

-14 ( +15 / -29 )

World is disappointed over Japan's Whale hunt and related (un)scientific research.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Whatever......when the guns come out and the shooting begins, then we'll have us a show.

I still love that "South Park" episode that talked about Japan's whaling.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

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