U.S. high court won't hear appeal over anti-whaling campaign

That's not what it states on the Japanese website I provided a link to.

But it is the truth nonetheless.

If you read the official IWC Schedule of regulations, there is a note to paragraph 7(b) which says;

The Government of Japan lodged an objection within the presribed period to paragraph 7(b) to the extent that it applies to the Antarctic minke whale stocks. The Government of Russia also lodged an objection to paragraph 7(b) within the prescribed period but withdrew it on 26 October 1994. For all Contracting Governments except Japan paragraph 7(b) came into force on 6 December 1994.

https://archive.iwc.int/pages/view.php?ref=3606&k=

Whales should be treated no differently than any other marine food source. Imagine if there was a tuna counterpart to the IWC. When one of the tuna species becomes endangered, a ban on ALL tuna catches is declared. Would this make sense to anyone?

"But whales are SPECIAL! They SING! They care for their children! They're MAMMALS!"

If the market is there and the herd numbers are large enough to absorb an annual harvesting, I see nothing wrong with whaling. The thing is, I don't see a large market for whale meat springing-up out of nowhere. At most I foresee only a niche market where people with more money than they know what to do with will buy whale meat just to say they did. Back in the 1800's there was a much larger demand for whale because of the blubber, oil and meat products in demand back then. These days, those items have been mostly replaced with other, sometimes synthetic alternatives. So I wonder why the Japanese government feels they need to pour so much money into a whaling industry - "scientific" or otherwise.

Killing does not make possession. Whether there are enough whales or not is irrelevant. They are not Japan's whales to kill.

Actually the UN has basically said (with a few exceptions) that in international waters whoever catches an animal owns it.

so you actually want a quota of 10,000 whales then? Ten countries and that would become 100,000?

No the quota would be divided between the countries that want to hunt whales.

So Japan would wish to continue with its so called research whaling so it can continue whaling in the Antarctic

No. Japan objected to the Southern Ocean Sanctuary as it applied to Minke whales. So if commercial whaling was allowed, Japan could hunt Minkes in the Antarctic without violating the Sanctuary.

If Japan returned to commercial whaling would it give up the research?

Maybe, maybe not. But if commercial whaling was going on researchers could get samples from the commercial catch.

Japan recognises the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and if it gives up its research whaling it will too have to give up whaling in the Antarctic.

Nope. Japan doesn't recognize it for Minke whales.

-11 Good Bad MoonrakerJUN. 09, 2015 - 07:48AM JST The law is an ass (which means donkey).

But no doubt only when it contradicts your own opinions?

If Japan returned to commercial whaling would it give up the research?

I think the end goal is to resume commercial whaling, but I think they are kidding themselves if they seriously think any amount of research will bring the IWC to its senses. But they don't see quiting the IWC as a viable move. (I think they should quit on a temporary basis, just as the moratorium is supposed to be temporary. Play hardball.)

That means commercial whaling without control except those set by the market.

How do you get to there? Read your own quote carefully: "Japan's objective is to resume commercial whaling for abundant species on a sustainable basis under international control."

so you actually want a quota of 10,000 whales then?

No, don't confuse quotas with demand.

What I want is a sustainable quota (however much that might be, but it's definitely more than the "zero" that the IWC has now).

How much latent demand there is is a separate issue, and it should NOT be a factor in deciding what the quota is.

The quota is just the maximum that can be taken safely. Whether latent demand would be enough to consume the quota or not, no one knows for sure. If there isn't sufficient demand, over time the full quota wouldn't be taken.

Ideally the IWC should permit the whaling, and let Japan and whoever else get on with it.

That's what happened prior to the formation of the IWC and look what happened then which led to formation of the IWC

The IWC permitting whaling doesn't mean it's a free for all - the whole point of the IWC should be to facilitate coordination amongst whaling nations so that the overall number caught is within a sustainable quota limit.

The bad stuff that happened in the past was because there was no coordination. The hazard of the IWC failing to do it's job is that it frustrates whaling nations to the point where we go back to having no coordination again.

Seems to me that some people are happy to take the huge risk of jeopardizing international cooperation for the sake of their own preferences.

No doubt people don't eat as much whale as they would have 50 years ago.

But it's an oranges and eggs comparison.

In normal markets, supply is a function of demand. And consumption is also constrained by supply (can't eat what has not been caught).

The whale meat market is not normal. There is a commercial whaling ban, which constrains whale supply artificially (that Iceland is exporting whale to Japan indicates to me that supply would be increased to higher levels to meet demand, if it were permitted to do so by the authorities). Who knows how much whale people today would be eating if annual meat production were 10 times, and there was 15,000 tons of whale in storage, rather than 1,500 tons?

Alternatively, if Japan wishes to remain in the IWC and continue with its research whaling, the cost of the research should be applied to the sale of the whale meat instead of tax subsidies.

That's not likely to fly - having only consumers pay would make the research look like commercial whaling.

I remain opposed to all commercial activity in the Antarctic.

That's not really an argument against whaling per se, and one could claim the same of any part of the world, in my opinion. I don't want to see environmental disasters happen anywhere.

how many other countries would also want to also resume whaling?

The catch figure should be whatever is sustainable. It's a separate political issue about how that quota be divided up amongst whaling nations. What's important is that nations cooperate, but if Japan called out the IWC nations for not cooperating with respect to whaling, then it could be a problem.

Ideally the IWC should permit the whaling, and let Japan and whoever else get on with it.

Please provide a link for your claim only 1500 tons remain in storage.

Sure, but note it's not my "claim", it's a published figure as of March 2015. http://www.market.jafic.or.jp/suisan/file/reizo/2015/09_syuyou_2015_03.htm (Go down to line 35 - the 1,535 number there about two thirds across the page is the amount in storage at the end of March 2015.)

Japanese whaling receives billions in subsidies but employs few people. Better uses for our taxes.

On that I agree, but the Japanese government is boxed in politically. Personally I'd rather they just quit the IWC and permitted whaling. If whaling is viable as a commercial activity then it will continue with the support of revenues it generates, and if it isn't, it will die off naturally. That's the way it should be.

The only role of government here is ensuring that the number of whales that is caught, be it zero or 2,000 or 10,000 whales, is sustainable.

As for the whale numbers, thank you for investigating the IWC site.

I see the 95% confidence interval of the most recent estimate is between 360,000 and 730,000 minke whales. If there were an estimated 3,600 - 7,300 minke whales I'd have a problem with on sustainability grounds, but with numbers 100 times the size of that, I can't see an issue with a conservative amount of whaling going on. For argument's sake, we could assume that there are actually only 200,000 minke whales (there is a less than 5% chance of this, according to the IWC page).

Why not permit catches of 0.5% of that 200,000 = 1,000 whales?

What could go wrong?

And then the government wouldn't need to keep paying our taxes to support research whaling any more.

It's a win-win for everyone.

Moonraker

Doesn't look as you are recognizing any of the pro-whaler's right disregarding it completely. Logic if your are talking about distorted self-righteous ones then I have no interest.

there are 500,000 minke whales there, what's the problem?

No matter how many there are, it's impossible to kill a marine mammal humanely in the open sea. If you can't kill humanely, you shouldn't kill at all.

I have noticed, Triring, that reading and then logic is a struggle, isn't it? I said everyone has a stake, even those who don't want them killed because the whales belong to no one and killing does not gain possession. In fact, those who don't want them killed may even have the greater stake but I will leave you to work out why.

Moonraker

Your statement can be read as claiming that all whales are anti whaling nation's possession therefore whaling nations can't have them.

Not really helpful to develop a constructive argument.

zichi,

I don't see what the problem with Japan catching whales in the Antarctic is, or why whaling there should be banned. On the contrary, there are 500,000 minke whales there, what's the problem?

If anything, whaling should be banned everywhere else, with an exception permitting whaling of minke whales there.

There's more than 4,000 tons of meat in cold storage

No, I just checked the figures a couple of days back, and there was only 1,500 tons left in storage.

It would take 15,000 tons to make it a 100 grams per person per year.

Who cares how much people eat? Are you running a whale meat restaurant? I guess not. The thing people should be concerned about is that the whaling is sustainable.

That's why it should be permitted on minke whales in the Antarctic, at least.

Killing does not make possession. Whether there are enough whales or not is irrelevant. They are not Japan's whales to kill. Those who want them alive have at least as much say, maybe more, in their future. And this is no matter what the IWC says. And, yes, I am quite happy if this argument is extended to fish as well.

No oceans, no planet. No planet, no future.

It ain't rocket science to figure that out.

So here's the crucial question: are the species Japan hunts endangered? If the answer is no, then it's sustainable. Plenty of other things going on that are really killing the planet.

I believe there is legal precedence - the US obtained compensation from Great Britain for her having provided support to "CSS Alabama" and such... this apparently covered also compensations for all those Yankee whalers sunk by "Confederate States Ships"; but I suppose the "sailors of the Confederacy" would be turning in their graves if they knew they were being considered to be in the same "class" as Sea Shepherds!

if they drop out of the IWC, which is quite likely, and resume their hunt in the southern oceans they will be poachers and treated as such.

If they drop out of the IWC then they are not bound by the IWC regulations and would not be poachers. Or are you claiming that Canada has been poaching whales for almost 3 decades? And if Canada has been poaching whales for 3 decades then obviously whale poaching is treated by ignoring it completely.

I expect the U.S. Courts will have been paid off by Japan. Why else rule contrary to the ICJ?

The US ruling is in no way contrary to the ICJ. The US ruling had nothing to do with the legality of Japan's whaling. It had to do with if SSCS violated an injunction on their actions.

A) who gets to benefit if it's allowed again? Because for sure all former whaling nations can't take up the practice again and keep whales sustainable, and

If the IWC lifts the moratorium for any species they will issue a worldwide quota that applies collectively to all IWC members. So if all IWC members desired to hunt whales commercially they would each get about 1/80 of the quota, if only 3 members desired quotas they would each get about 1/3.

The bottom line for commercial whaling is, there just isn't any demand to justify it anymore. Full stop.

Then allow commercial whaling, remove government funding of research and the industry will die off. Sounds like a sure fire plan to stop whaling.

what's to say if there were profits to be made that other countries wouldn't also want to return to whaling.

Nothing will prevent that. But then the same quota will be divided between all of them.

I would also like to see the IWC change the part about research which requires the whale meat to be sold.

That would require a 100% approval by ALL IWC members. It will never happen.

Countries that oppose whaling would be free to refuse to sell their quotas

I'll disagree with that because that gives the opposers too much power. Whales, like iPhones or whatever, should be shared among those that are actually interested in them.

Anti-whalers generally talk two sides out of their mouth. First they say if whaling is resumed, the whales will soon die off from over-catching. Then they say there is no real market for whales anyway and even most of those caught for "scientific research" are rotting away somewhere or being force fed to kids. These two positions are mutually contradictory but no one seems to care other than satisfying an irrational hatred for whalers.

I say, let's put the onus back on where it belongs. You want to ban something. You want to extend a moratorium, you develop the proof of necessity.

Signed A non-whale eating person that nevertheless wants those who do to be able to do so.

Why should one country have sole rights of exploitation for profit over whales

They shouldn't. No-one is claiming they should. As it stands there are already a number of countries that are whaling (Iceland, Norway, Japan, USA, Canada, Greenland, Russia, Faroe Islands, and several others).

A cap-and-trade regime would be the obvious solution. Countries that want to whale could buy quotas from countries that don't. Countries that oppose whaling would be free to refuse to sell their quotas. Give them quotas and let the industry in Japan die a natural death.

there is no proof that the populations could be sustained if commercial whaling was resumed and resumed for which countries.

It's obvious that whaling can be sustainable, the only question is what is the limit.

The IWC website shows that their scientists agree there are more than 500,000 minke whales in the Antarctic. Japan has been catching these ones, at a rate of less than 1,000 a year. That's less than 0.2% of the population annually. They did so for more than 20 years.

If the IWC set a catch limit of 2,000 whales a year (0.4% of the population annually), I don't think there's a concern that this would suddenly drive those whales to extinction before anyone had a chance to realize what was happening and change course.

Why should one country have sole rights of exploitation for profit over whales

If no one else wants to catch them I don't see why Japan shouldn't be allowed to.

when many other countries are against the slaughter of them

They should quit the IWC if they don't like whaling.

and use whale-watching as a lucrative alternative to slaughtering them?

There's more than enough whales in the Antarctic for both activities. People have to be considerate of others.

Furthermore, if you want to talk data, there is proof that there is no market for the meat of large scale slaughter of the whales.

I just found yesterday that Japan has a mere boatload of whale meat in storage, so there is proof that there is hardly any such meat left in Japan. But Iceland is sending another boatload over. There obviously is some market.

The IWC should just decide the limit, and then it's up to the operators if they take the full quota or not. Whether it's commercially viable to catch the full quota or not is none of anyone's business, and frankly no one knows until it's tried.

Actually the rapid decline of the whale pollution was caused by US, UK and Norway. Japan was a late comet to the business, and interested mostly in the east meat, not the oil. It is highly unfair to treat Japan like this...

end of the day SS if it needs will just start an independant organisation outside of the US. make no mistake SS or any other similar group will be down there harassing the whalers and theres very little the US courts or Japan can do to stop it. my donations and many others will be going to any group that continues the fight.

Andre Hut

US based Sea Shepherd isn't an "arm" of the organization, it IS the organization. Sea Shepherd Australia is the arm/branch/off-shoot of the organization. There is no Sea Shepherd United States because the organization that operates in/out of the US is THE Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. If Sea Shepherd Australia wants immunity from US laws and courts, then Sea Shepherd needs to move its parent organization and base of operations out of the US. Of course they won't because they would lose their primary source of tax-exempt funding in the U.S. SS Australia can't exist without funds donated in the US and funneled to them via SSCS in the US and that is one of the reasons why SS supporters' claim that US courts don't have a legitimate interest in SS Australia's activities is invalid.

Once again, the US thinks it owns the world by enforcing decisions on a foreign corporation, run by foreign people in foreign seas. The US arm of the SS organization was not involved, nor was Paul Watson who had officially resigned from SS.

Sorry folks but the U.S. injustice system has just lost even more credibility.

Disillusioned wrote: Nessy, the results show that, populations have returned to around 50-60% of what they were 200 years ago. Some species are more and some are less. However, there is no proof that the populations could be sustained if commercial whaling was resumed and resumed for which countries. Why should one country have sole rights of exploitation for profit over whales when many other countries are against the slaughter of them and use whale-watching as a lucrative alternative to slaughtering them? Furthermore, if you want to talk data, there is proof that there is no market for the meat of large scale slaughter of the whales.

This.

The question about resuming commercial whaling is:

A) who gets to benefit if it's allowed again? Because for sure all former whaling nations can't take up the practice again and keep whales sustainable, and

B) Where is the demand for whale products coming from? Don't need whale blubber for oil anymore. For cosmetics? For a smattering of oyaji who still remember and enjoy the taste of whale meat during the post-war lean years?

Those are tough sells to the international community to allowed to slaughter large, intelligent mammals indiscriminately.

The bottom line for commercial whaling is, there just isn't any demand to justify it anymore. Full stop.

besides nobody cares about whales. just because they are big and cute. please get a job and stop bother normal people

Please lead the way. I think you'll find Australia cared enough about whales to initiate an injunction against Japan in the ICJ

Ah the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Prob the worst in the US. Often letting criminal free and or handing down ridiculously light sentences to offenders. AKA the 9th Circus Court.

japan does not have enough to pay off us courts. besides nobody cares about whales. just because they are big and cute. please get a job and stop bother normal people

wtfjapan

This has nothing to with territorial claims. This is about the US Supreme Court ruling that the main US headquarters of Sea Shepherd (which let's not forget is a US based non-profit/tax-exempt organization where it is primarily funded) has violated a court injuction that was placed on it by attempting to transfer their operations to a foreign arm of their organization in an effort to circumvent legal restrictions placed on them by an American court. Sea Shepherd will now be penalized moterarily and possibly held in contempt of court. In essence the highest court of the land where Sea Shepherd is based has just declared them to have not only broken the law, but to have intentionally violated a court order. There is simply no way to spin this one in favor of Sea Shepherd.

Nessy, the results show that, populations have returned to around 50-60% of what they were 200 years ago. Some species are more and some are less. However, there is no proof that the populations could be sustained if commercial whaling was resumed and resumed for which countries. Why should one country have sole rights of exploitation for profit over whales when many other countries are against the slaughter of them and use whale-watching as a lucrative alternative to slaughtering them? Furthermore, if you want to talk data, there is proof that there is no market for the meat of large scale slaughter of the whales.

I expect the U.S. Courts will have been paid off by Japan. Why else rule contrary to the ICJ? Never mind, Australia will take up the slack

For as long as Japan maintains its arrogant stance on this issue and continues to rape the oceans it can expect to be confronted with this.

We don't know if Japan is 'raping' the oceans, because the research that the IWC was obligated to undertake in 1990 has been prevented by anti-whaling nations.

Mother Nature has spoken on the whales behalf.

The whales need to sue the whalers

finally calling a spade a spade, a radical environmentalist group! thanks AP for that.

resume their hunt in the southern oceans they will be poachers and treated as such.

not if they are whaling in international waters, unless australia is laying claim to all of it to bolster its claims against japan.

For as long as Japan maintains its arrogant stance on this issue and continues to rape the oceans it can expect to be confronted with this.

Whaling is cruel, archaic, unnecessary and in the interests of a (powerful) few.

Get over yourself Japan.

No oceans, no planet. No planet, no future.

It ain't rocket science to figure that out.

It seems that the law is the law whatever. yeah thats US law, doesnt cover international waters in Antartica, interesting that a similar law suit in Australia by Japan was thrown out. Does US law trump Australian law in the Antartica or visa versa. if any country has jurisdiction in Antartica waters its Australia since its where they hunt the whales. If Japan choses not to recognize Australias territorial claims, then why should SS listen to Japans claims

Oh, strangerland, there are many organizations providing whale population data to the IWC through non-lethal research. The results are very easily sourced via Google.

But not the research that the IWC was obliged to have undertaken in 1990, and still has not.

Oh, strangerland, there are many organizations providing whale population data to the IWC through non-lethal research. The results are very easily sourced via Google.

...And the results show a population bounce-back that would allow for sustainable whaling.

upholding a ruling stopping these sea shepherd people from killing someone. Whats the problem?

Oh, strangerland, there are many organizations providing whale population data to the IWC through non-lethal research. The results are very easily sourced via Google.

Japan will never gain permission to resume commercial whaling through the IWC no matter how they twist and turn the facts.

If this is the case, the IWC should undertake the research they were obligated to undertake in 1990 to prove that whale stocks have not bounced back, and that whaling is unsustainable.

It seems that the law is the law whatever.

The 2 million dollar demand is only a pittance of the money Japan has lost on this farcicle pursuit. Yeah, SS did violate the court order, but everybody knew they would. Japan will never gain permission to resume commercial whaling through the IWC no matter how they twist and turn the facts. Japan seems determined to resume commercial whaling at any cost and if they drop out of the IWC, which is quite likely, and resume their hunt in the southern oceans they will be poachers and treated as such.

The law is an ass (which means donkey).