national

Whalers in crosshairs at IWC meeting this week

64 Comments

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

© 2016 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

64 Comments
Login to comment

issues of national sovereignty, subsistence rights and culture

None of the above can be applied to Japan's southern ocean hunt, sorry 'research'.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

Sei and fin whales ARE classed as endangered, by the way. Looking at you Japan and Iceland.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

"The meat ends up on supermarket shelves and in restaurants, in line with an IWC stipulation that whales taken for science must be eaten.

Congratulations to AFP. Finally applying ethical journalism to this subject.

"The International Court of Justice ruled in 2014 that Japan was abusing the scientific exemption. Tokyo cancelled its 2014/15 hunt, only to resume it the following year, netting an estimated 300-plus animals. "

Not quite accurate. Japan resumed a NEW JARPA Program that met the ICJ's requirements. Notice that no country is taking Japan to the ICJ now?

-11 ( +12 / -23 )

Notice that no country is taking Japan to the ICJ now?

Maybe you missed the 'special declaration' Japan made following the furore elicited by the decision to restart killing whales, that it will now take a sweeping exception to ICJ jurisdiction?

Japan's ambassador to the UN stated that the court's jurisdiction "does not apply to ... any dispute arising out of, concerning, or relating to research on, or conservation, management or exploitation of, living resources of the sea".

Nothing to do with the new 'research' programme (NEWREP-A, not JARPA, but it's really only the name that's changed, so it's as well to get it right) being in line with ICJ requirements. It isn't.

14 ( +19 / -6 )

So, if it is not eaten, but kept in freezers, doesn't that subvert the stipulation? Cos it should.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Japan will be OK. With tax money, we give money to "small island nations" for their development. I'm sure when they vote, Japan will stand a whale of a chance.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

I had to laugh at the picture of those South Koreans protesting against Japan by simulating harpooning whales.

That's rich, from a country where some of its people engage in the inhumane dog meat trade (and many of these dogs are hardly treated in a 'humane' way before being killed for food).

-10 ( +9 / -19 )

The stage is set for heated debate, as the 88 members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) are deeply divided along pro- and anti-hunting lines.

This sentence is misleading as it sounds like the world is equally divided on this issue.

Hunting nations Japan, Norway and Iceland are traditionally pitted against much of the rest of the world at the biennial IWC meetings

This is a much more accurate description.

The biggest hunter by far today is Norway—netting 736 minke whales in 2014.

This is news to me as I thought Japan was always the biggest .

The traditional taste for whale meat, however, has declined significantly in all three countries.

Well then, quit it already.

Whaling has no place in the 21st century. It’s outdated, it’s thoroughly inhumane,”

Agree. What surprises me is why the rest of the world hasn't imposed some kind of sanctions on these 3 nations. What was a real shocker to me was that the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand didn't mention this issue at all when it came to the TPP negociations. I was almost willing to bet that they would have.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

an IWC stipulation that whales taken for science must be eaten

The IWC does not stipulate that the whales must be eaten. The stipulation is that Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed.

This does not happen. The whaling ships cut off the tasty bits and dump the rest of the whale - most of the whale - overboard. That can only be called 'processing' if giving the other wildlife of the Antarctic a free feast is considered part of scientific research, and I'm sure not even the ICR claims that.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

It is strange that the Chinese who eat dogs and monkey brains do not eat whale meat.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

It seems that small country Japan is just doing scientific research that IWC permits Japan and others to hunt whales and ICJ has never banned though Japan looks like abusing it a little.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Another religious war.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Schopenhauer at Oct. 24, 2016 - 08:44AM JST It is strange that the Chinese who eat dogs and monkey brains do not eat whale meat.

off topic and juvenile. I hope your dumb posts gets deleted and your sorry ass banned

2 ( +10 / -8 )

What do Korea and China have to do with this?

Let's keep it to the main protagonists: three identified states.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Whalers in crosshairs at IWC meeting this week

IWC stands for International Whaling Commission. All the members of IWC is supposed to represent whalers.

https://iwc.int/history-and-purpose

The IWC was set up under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which was signed in Washington DC on 2nd December 1946. The preamble to the Convention states that its purpose is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.

Does anyone remember what the reason was against whaling? The article says,

“There is no humane way to kill whales at sea,” she said, pointing out that many die long drawn-out deaths from horrific wounds inflicted by harpoons with explosive tips.

Oh, how heartbreaking. Her imagination may be way beyond mine.

-7 ( +9 / -16 )

If Norway and Iceland can continue commercial whaling, why can't other countries follow suit. One of the biggest problems we have today is that most people in this world have been brainwashed by the top 1% by treating creatures such as whales, dolphins, tigers, elephants, monkeys, and all so-called endangered species too much like us. There is a reason why these creatures exist today. God has created these creatures for us to eat. Remember, humans are hunters. Hunting is in our genes. The top 1% lie to us all the time. They are the ones who consume the meat of these so-called endangered species everyday. The reason they don't want us to eat it is that they can eat as much as they could. It is utterly nonsense for people treating whales or dolphins as "cute" animals we should "protect". The more we protect, the more they are vulnerable to extinction because this alters the nature's balance. As a result, we are experiencing a disatrous population explosion of whale, dolphin, and whatever endangered species on a global scale. We must eat their meat to keep their numbers in check.

We must support Japan to start commercial whaling as soon as possible. No one could deny that whale meat and dolphin meat are delicious.

-15 ( +7 / -22 )

Thomas Ryu - If Norway and Iceland can continue commercial whaling, why can't other countries follow suit?

The reasons are clearly stated in the article, subsistence, sovereignty and culture. Whales cannot be hunted for profit, which is what Japan is seeking to do. The rest of your post is totally off topic.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

We must support Japan to start commercial whaling as soon as possible. No one could deny that whale meat and dolphin meat are delicious.

I suspect you're trolling, but...

I've had whale. It's ok. I definitely wouldn't go with delicious, just not bad.

Whales cannot be hunted for profit, which is what Japan is seeking to do.

Actually the only thing that is preventing Japan from whaling commercially is that they a signatory to the IWC. They have agreed to not do commercial whaling.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

DisillusionedOCT. 24, 2016 - 11:03AM JST

Thomas Ryu - If Norway and Iceland can continue commercial whaling, why can't other countries follow suit?

The reasons are clearly stated in the article, subsistence, sovereignty and culture. Whales cannot be hunted for profit, which is what Japan is seeking to do.

It is incorrect. See IWC webpage.

https://iwc.int/commercial

Commercial Whaling Today

Norway and Iceland take whales commercially at present, either under objection to the moratorium decision, or under reservation to it.

Back in 1980's, Norway and Iceland logged objection to the whaling moratorium. Thanks to the objection, they can continue their commercial whaling today.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

God has created these creatures for us to eat.

OMG!! If that's true(which it obviously isn't thank god!) she also created slugs, cockroaches etc have at'em!!

0 ( +6 / -6 )

so many other types of food to choose, stop whaling

1 ( +7 / -6 )

so many other types of food to choose, stop whaling

Or we could stop cowing.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The solution is clear; Japan should just switch to Minke whales and only hunt for commercial purposes. That way they could increase their annual catch 10x or so and face no objections.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

More than 80 nations square off in Slovenia this week over the fate of the world’s remaining whales

"Remaining" whales? As if the whales have decided to stop breeding?

For environmentalists, it is an issue of cruelty as well.

Well I care about the environment, but I don't think any animal we eat enjoys being killed...

This year’s meeting marks the 70th anniversary of the commission’s founding, and the 30th birthday of a whaling moratorium estimated to have prevented the killing of tens, even hundreds, of thousands of whales.

That's quite incredible. Why is there still a moratorium, if there are so many whales?

“The creation of (a) South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary would be a huge milestone for whale protection,” said Greenpeace whale expert John Frizell.

Is he saying that he wants some sanctuary there in exchange for lifting the moratorium? Could be a good compromise.

Why are Norway, Japan and Iceland bothering with this meeting if it's ignoring their interests and making them out to be pariahs? Slovenia is a nice place to visit I guess, maybe that's why.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Japan has zero grounds to be doing what they are doing, and they look like fools standing up there with Iceland and Norway. The latter two have at least some grounds when talking about sovereignty and the fact that they don't try to hide what they are doing under the guise of science. Japan goes WAY out of its territory, then when that's pointed out says "It's for science", then when you point out it's not necessary to kill them to do such research and that they never produce international papers anyway, they say, "You're attacking our culture". Then when you point out they said it's for science, not culture, and even if it is culture they can't push their culture on the rest of the world given that they are far out of their sovereign territory, they just get all red-faced and angry and threaten to stop giving money (which of course they only give so they can try and get their way).

Japan has no argument. Period. Whale in their own waters? That's different.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

"South Korean activists portraying Japanese fishermen spear a "whale" during a protest against Japan's whaling fleet outside the Japanese embassy in Seoul".

A photo of SK so called 'activists' (should read "SK anti japan activists", these guys are more about Japan than whaling per se) is probably not the best choice to illustrate an article about international whaling. South Korean themselves "legally' sell and eat whale meat that is accidently (and conveniently) caught in their fishing nets.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/south-korea-whaling-bycatch/

0 ( +5 / -5 )

"For Science", could these brain dead Japanese whalers provide what all the years of scientific research has resulted in? All I hear is it is for scientific research? Well I guess it beats I was drunk.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

The proposal by Australia and New Zealand is just political posturing. Article VIII exempts scientific whaling from ALL other provisions of the IWC, so the only way to do what they want would require a unanimous vote. Something that they will not be able to get and they know it. Yet they will still waste time making and defending their proposal purely to appease some of their voters.

A study by the IWC's own Scientific Committee found that whale sanctuaries are of no use. With the moratorium in place, essentially the entire planet is a sanctuary. So any further designation is of no value. Throw in the fact that Article VIII exempts scientific whaling from all other IWC regulations (meaning sanctuaries don't apply to scientific whaling) and Article V allows any member to object to any new regulation (and thus not be bound by that new regulation). And what you are left with is that only countries that already wouldn't do any whaling will be controlled by any sanctuary. Just another political game to appease voters back home while actually doing nothing.

but it's really only the name that's changed

Anyone who has read the new plan and the old plan can plainly see there have been major changes.

So, if it is not eaten, but kept in freezers, doesn't that subvert the stipulation?

No. The stipulation is misstated in the article. It does not require it to be eaten, it requires it to be processed to the extent practicable. So unless force feeding it to unwilling people is practicable...

I had to laugh at the picture of those South Koreans protesting against Japan by simulating harpooning whales.

It is even funnier than that. "South Korea reports an average of 80 to 100 whales as bycatch annually to the International Whaling Commission, the body that regulates whaling and whale conservation."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/south-korea-whaling-bycatch/

What do Korea and China have to do with this?

Well Korea kills about as many whales (and eats them) as Iceland.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

None of the above [national sovereignty, subsistence rights and culture] can be applied to Japan's southern ocean hunt, sorry 'research'.

The issue of national sovereignty is involved because Australia is making extra-territorial claims in setting up their illegal whale sanctuary.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Nessie: "The issue of national sovereignty is involved because Australia is making extra-territorial claims in setting up their illegal whale sanctuary."

In part, yes, but then sovereignty has always been an issue when looking at the three main whaling nations. Japan never makes it a big issue, of course, because it does not go in Japan's favor. Sovereignty is one of the BIGGEST issues as to why Japan should not be doing what its doing. Again, with Norway and Iceland to an extent at least they do what they are doing in their own waters. Japan does not.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

@mike

Anyone who has read the new plan and the old plan can plainly see there have been major changes.

Well, you give the impression that you've read them yourself; I asked you to explain those 'major changes' on the other thread and you mumbled something about statistics and disappeared when pushed further, so I now extend you the same invitation p to explain it to us all:

Other than the reduction in quota bringing supply in line with demand, what major changes does NEWREP have from JARPAII? And by what 'scientific' statistical sampling methodology has this new quota - which so conveniently matches consumption - been arrived at?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The issue of national sovereignty is involved because Australia is making extra-territorial claims in setting up their illegal whale sanctuary.

And fun fact for those complaining about Japan's exempting marine resources from ICJ jurisdiction. Australia has exempted their sovereignty claims from ICJ jurisdiction. And unlike Japan's exemption, which can still be litigated in other forums, Australia's exemption has no alternate forum for adjudication.

Sovereignty is one of the BIGGEST issues as to why Japan should not be doing what its doing.

Why? The UN has said resources in International waters are open for use by ALL nations, that would include Japan.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

God has created these creatures for us to eat.

That's the sort of statement that makes my blood boil... This planet and its wildlife are not there for humans to eat. Whales evolved while we were still in the trees. They have more 'right' to the planet than we do.

I don't agree with the aboriginal hunting either. Whales are whales, no matter who hunts them. Culture as an excuse is a total cop-out... so many countries use that as a crutch to support animal cruelty (bull fighting for example). Norway, Iceland and Japan need to stop hunting now!

2 ( +7 / -5 )

They have more 'right' to the planet than we do.

No species has more right to the planet than any other. And if humans evolved after whales then wouldn't that mean humans are more evolved than whales? And haven't newer more evolved species replaced older species since life began on the planet?

Norway, Iceland and Japan need to stop hunting now!

Why didn't you include those countries with aboriginal hunts? Or the countries that aren't even part of the IWC and hunt whales with no regulations?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The UN has said resources in International waters are open for use by ALL nations

Sovereignty strikes me as being an odd, wrong angle to come at this issue from.

For argument's sake, imagine that all the whales were swimming around in Japan's waters. Would that mean that Japan then ought to be able to catch them all? I'd say no to that.

Even if they weren't all in Japan's waters, but Japan's hunting within it's own waters were by itself enough to have such negative impact as to drive the overall population of whales towards extinction, then that shouldn't be acceptable either.

Surely people should be thinking about this in terms of conservation and sustainability, not arbitrary lines that humans have drawn on our maps?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sovereignty is one of the BIGGEST issues as to why Japan should not be doing what its doing. Again, with Norway and Iceland to an extent at least they do what they are doing in their own waters. Japan does not.

Three quick questions for you:

Can you name any ocean-fishing country that fishes exclusively in it's own territorial waters?

Is Antarctica in Australian waters?

Does the so-called Australian Whale Sanctuary include any part of Antarctica?

Looking forward to your response.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Why didn't you include those countries with aboriginal hunts? Or the countries that aren't even part of the IWC and hunt whales with no regulations?

I refer to:

The only commission-sanctioned way to catch whales is with an aboriginal subsistence whaling licence—issued to indigenous communities in North America, Russia, Greenland, and the Caribbean nation of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

I want them to stop too. This is the 21st century for Pete's sake!

No species has more right to the planet than any other. And if humans evolved after whales then wouldn't that mean humans are more evolved than whales? And haven't newer more evolved species replaced older species since life began on the planet?

So as a more evolved species we can hunt whales, that what you're saying? Sounds more like a throwback than a more advanced being. We don't NEED to hunt whales, we don't need to EAT whales... human arrogance, that's all it is.

As for 'replacing' older species... that's evolution old chap. I don't think more modern Mesozoic animals picked up clubs and spears and went hunting around for older species because they felt superior... or for scientific purposes.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

God has created these creatures for us to eat.

Then how come she put them thousands of miles away, under the water, in a freezing-cold, hostile environment? If she meant us to eat them how come they can't be grown in an allotment, or picked off a tree?

humans are hunters. Hunting is in our genes

Nobody leave the room, it looks like someone has stolen all my genes. Never saw the point of hunting, never felt the urge to hunt, never felt anything but pity (for those who hunt to survive) shading into contempt (for those who hunt for fun).

we are experiencing a disatrous population explosion of whale, dolphin, and whatever endangered species on a global scale.

Links, please. The only disastrous population explosion is the human one.

As if the whales have decided to stop breeding?

Considering the fact that of the 333 Minkes Japan 'researched' last season 200 were pregnant females, if I were a whale living in the Antarctic I might reckon not breeding would be a good way to raise my chances of survival.

I don't think any animal we eat enjoys being killed...

A quick, painless death while unconscious after stunning, vs. a terrifying chase, having a hole blown in your side with an exploding harpoon, followed by a slow (average 4 minutes, times of over an hour not unknown), agonising death.

Yeah, no difference at all.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

cleoOCT. 24, 2016 - 04:15PM JST

Considering the fact that of the 333 Minkes Japan 'researched' last season 200 were pregnant females,

Really?

In the last season in Southern hemisphere (December 2015 to March 2016), Japanese fleet conducted non-lethal research only.

http://www.icrwhale.org/160324ReleaseJp.html

In the last season in Northern hemisphere (May 2016 to July 2016), Japanese fleet whaled 90 Sei whales and 25 Brydes whales, but no Minke whales.

http://www.icrwhale.org/160725ReleaseJp.html

I am afraid that "333 Minke whales last season" is one of the rampant misinformation spread by activists.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

TBH, most people need Japan to continue whaling so everyone can focus their supposed outrage solely on them. The reason being, as soon as all whaling is ended globally, the natural next target would be pigs and cows so say goodbye to beef and bacon

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Aly RustomOCT. 24, 2016 - 08:35AM JST

What surprises me is why the rest of the world hasn't imposed some kind of sanctions on these 3 nations. What was a real shocker to me was that the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand didn't mention this issue at all when it came to the TPP negociations. I was almost willing to bet that they would have.

My guess is that none of these countries believe it's a priority. "Everybody" says whales should be protected, but when compared to trade talks or sanctions, none of the leaders of these countries want to jeopardize their economic relationship with Japan. For the sake of public outcry and maintaining easy domestic votes, "Oh yes, it's very important". But for trade and economy, "Meh, not that important".

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

In the last season in Southern hemisphere (December 2015 to March 2016), Japanese fleet conducted non-lethal research only.

Wrong. Read your link again. The very first paragraph says that minke were taken in random sampling, and in the paragraph under Table 1, it states clearly:

捕獲したクロミンククジラ333頭(うち、オス103頭、メス230頭)(333 minke whales (103 males, 230 females) were taken). Just to make sure there is no mistake, the paragraph goes on to explain that the whales had their ears gouged out to estimate their age and had their stomachs cut open to see what they had been eating. It also says that 90.5% of the females were pregnant, two of them carrying twins. So I was wrong, it wasn't 200 pregnant females, it was 208. And 210 dead baby minke who never even got a chance to swim next to their mothers or drink their milk.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

cleoOCT. 24, 2016 - 05:51PM JST

Sorry, cleo. I retract my previous comment.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

CH3, hats off (and a thumb up) to you for acknowledging an erroneous comment. The internet would benefit from more users being big enough to do so.

Mike, still waiting for you to get back to me on that 'statistical sampling'...

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So as a more evolved species we can hunt whales, that what you're saying?

No I was responding to your claim that due to evolving earlier, whales have more right to the planet than humans.

Surely people should be thinking about this in terms of conservation and sustainability, not arbitrary lines that humans have drawn on our maps?

Yes they should. And that is exactly what the IWC's RMP is designed to do when determining sustainable quotas. It looks at a species rate of reproduction, length of reproductive life, life span, population trends over time and other factors.

These are also the factors that the IWC is suppose to consider under the moratorium when they review species to determine if they should be removed from the moratorium's protection. The first set of these reviews were due in 1990. As of yet not a single review has been done.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Mike, what is a whale to you? You seem to be pretty pro-whaling so I'd be interested to know how you feel about whales.

Back on topic and Conservation yes... but sustainability I'm not happy with. That's just looking to see if it's okay to kill them. I'd rather that sustainability never entered the equation. Just ban whaling outright. Without human interference they will reach a natural level.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Have been listening lately to the audio book of "Moby Dick". The descriptions of the whaling process of the mighty whales is incredibly grisly, and supports Cleo's horror to the extreme. It's weird that the whale is constantly described as a "fish", when it is of course a mammal like ourselves. Perhaps this is another example of "sign of the times" by those who fatuously proclaim the right to whaling is a "cultural thang". Really, what it takes to rob the mighty leviathon of its life is horrific in the extreme.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

but sustainability I'm not happy with

But many, many other people and agencies throughout the world are happy with it. Even people and agencies in virulently anti-whaling countries use sustainability in their treatment of many species.

Have been listening lately to the audio book of "Moby Dick". The descriptions of the whaling process

Are you really using the processes of the early 1800's as an argument against current whaling?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

That a modern and sophisticated country like Japan should allow the killing of these magnificent, intelligent creatures for "scientific reasons and purposes" is revolting and totally unnecessary. Japan should call a halt to this repulsive practice immediately.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Article VIII exempts scientific whaling from ALL other provisions of the IWC, "

Yes , too bad however that 90 % of the " developed world countries " that Japan so loves to be included in the world stage don't accept Japanese whaling as genuine " science. So that line of argument is killed of right there. Then we are back to the same old tired " its our culture and tradition so respect it " argument. Just why those pesky foreigners can't accept Japan, s long cultural tradition of sending fleets into the Antarctic is truly puzzling.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Nessie: "Can you name any ocean-fishing country that fishes exclusively in it's own territorial waters?"

Name one of those that fish for fish that have a moratorium on them and get around it by saying it's for science, please, then turn around and call it an attack on cultural and food traditions when you point out it's not.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Can you name any ocean-fishing country that fishes exclusively in it's own territorial waters?

Nessie, another question would be this: Can you name any country that conducts activities in the ocean contrary to the express wishes of the nearest countries?

Whatever the legalities, if Japan values having a respected position in the international community, it would probably be better to restrict whaling closer to home.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Name one of those that fish for fish that have a moratorium on them and get around it by saying it's for science

Canada was conducting research fishing for cod during the Atlantic cod moratorium. Research catches are the rule rather than the exception during fishing moratoriums. Canada also protested a fishing ban imposed by the U.S. in the Beaufort Sea--on the grounds that the ban was extraterritorial.

Nessie, another question would be this: Can you name any country that conducts activities in the ocean contrary to the express wishes of the nearest countries?

The US would be one, as above. Indonesia would be another, with respect to fishing in Australian waters. Australia would be another, over oil exploration in the Timor Sea against East Timor's express wishes. It's not uncommon for countries to have maritime disputes.

Now your turn. Here are my questions again. No dodging this time, please.

Can you name any ocean-fishing country that fishes exclusively in it's own territorial waters?

Is Antarctica in Australian waters?

Does the so-called Australian Whale Sanctuary include any part of Antarctica?
1 ( +3 / -2 )

Can you name any ocean-fishing country that fishes exclusively in it's own territorial waters?

No, I can't. But then, are there any ocean-bordering countries that that don't conduct ocean fishing? If everybody does it, then there are probably no complaints. That's not quite the same as for whaling.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

CH3CH0, thank you.

Mike -

Are you really using the processes of the early 1800's as an argument against current whaling?

There is little difference between then and now, except that the whalers have bigger, better boats and escort huge factory ships that allow them to kill more animals per trip.

The exploding harpoon is usually hailed as an 'improvement' in that used properly it usually results in instant death. In rough, open seas, however, it is rarely used 'properly'; the aim is bad, hitting a non-lethal spot; or the explosive fails to explode, resulting in a 'cold' harpoon (currently outlawed by the IWC) and possible hours of agony for the whale. Why do the ships carry 'secondary' tools of death (rifles, electric lances etc.)? Because the harpoons often do not work, is why. The whole operation, the very idea of slaughtering marine mammals, is very 18th-century.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It seems that Japan should get out of the IWC and it better go go hunt whales just like Norway, Iceland freely hunting. Today IWC seems nothing for whaling activities.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Name one of those that fish for fish that have a moratorium on them and get around it by saying it's for science, please

Name one of those fish that is covered by regulations which speficially allow for scientific research despite any other regulation or any moratorium.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

But then, are there any ocean-bordering countries that that don't conduct ocean fishing? If everybody does it, then there are probably no complaints. That's not quite the same as for whaling.

If only there were some international organization responsible for publishing estimates of whale populations for use in sustainable whaling. I guess we could always make one. We could call it something like the International Whaling Commission, but require it to publish those estimates.

Still waiting for the answers to my other two questions. Here they are for the third time:

o. Is Antarctica in Australian waters?

o. Does the so-called Australian Whale Sanctuary include any part of Antarctica?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Nessie

I guess most of us assumed your questions were rhetorical. I don't think it changes my view that if you want to have standing in the international community, it's perhaps better not to upset too many people by doing something unpopular much nearer to their home than your own.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I don't think it changes my view that if you want to have standing in the international community, it's perhaps better not to upset too many people by doing something unpopular much nearer to their home than your own.

Is catching threatened tuna far from home unpopular?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Is catching threatened tuna far from home unpopular?

Apparently not as unpopular as catching whales.

Come on, Nessie. Enough of the cryptic questions. Give us your opinion.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Give us your opinion.

Could you be more specific? I'm anti-whaling but also anti-hypocrisy, and many of the anti-whaling arguments reek of hypocrisy. The animal welfare argument would be a sound one if it were consistently applied, which tends not to be.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The stage is set for heated debate, as the 88 members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) are deeply divided along pro- and anti-hunting lines.

According to another article on JAPANTODAY, the measure failed to reach the required number of votes. AGAIN.

The vote was 38 for, and 24 against. That's only 62 votes. Did the other 26 nation members abstain from voting? Did they realize that this South Atlantic sanctuary is just a big waste of everyone's time? International water belongs to 196 nations, not just 38 members of the IWC.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Did the other 26 nation members abstain from voting?

2 countries abstained, 7 countries didn't even send a representative to the meeting and 17 countries had no voting rights (which would mean they haven't paid their dues). You can see the list of who voted how here:

http://www.ifaw.org/united-kingdom/news/iwc-meeting-south-atlantic-whale-sanctuary-harpooned-again

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites