national

IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban

159 Comments

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

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

159 Comments
Login to comment

it has failed to prevent Japan, Norway and Iceland from killing >hundreds of whales each year in defiance of the commission.

All three countries are whaling not "in defiance of the IWC" but in accordance with IWC rules. Norway and Iceland are allowed to hunt by raising an objection to the moratorium. Japan's scientific whaling is exempt from the moratorium. One of major objectives of this Agadir meeting is to close these "loopholes", a point this very same article makes.

Calling it “fundamentally unacceptible,” Wendy Elliott of WWF >International said all the preparations for the meeting were held in >secret, and “now is the moment to open up a transparant and honest >discussion.”

Well this is already outdated. "Greenpeace and WWF give conditional support to commercial whaling plan"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/21/greenpeace-backs-commercial-whaling-ban

Jeez you'd think AP would have better reporting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was reading that the international community is getting serious because Japan has paid rego fees for certain countries and also provided them with prostitutes. In my opinion this should be banned...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ban 'researching'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No ban international relations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If a country hunts more than its quota, that quota would be lowered in subsequent years.

What would stop a country hunting more than its (new improved, lower) quota the next year?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Within minutes of opening the annual conference, the commission’s deputy chairman, Anthony Liverpool, adjourned the open sessions for two days to give pro- and anti-whaling countries a chance to discuss whether a compromise was possible.

Hahahaha, the "member countries" adjourned to discuss the future of whaling WITHOUT the WWF and the other animal-rights NGO zealots. Talk about a slap in the face.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo at 08:58 AM JST - 22nd June "If a country hunts more than its quota, that quota would be lowered in subsequent years." What would stop a country hunting more than its (new improved, lower) >quota the next year?

Close monitoring by the IWC as per the proposal. Besides, if any whaling country wanted to take more than it's alotted quota, ie; set it's own numbers, it would be far more expedient to just leave the IWC and do whatever they want.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sirgamble at 08:28 AM JST - 22nd June I was reading that the international community is getting serious >because Japan has paid rego fees for certain countries and also provided >them with prostitutes. In my opinion this should be banned...

But I'll bet you failed to read that the countries named by the Sunday Times as receiving bribes denied those charges. Buying votes through bribes was INVEBNTED by the anti-whaling faction and the WWF.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lately we keep seeing environmentally intelligent solutions cancelled or outvoted by the interests of profits. Humanity never learns.

Sink the whaling fleets if they violate the ban. Pass agreements to grant control over whaling regions to protectorate nations empowered to defend the areas with force if necessary. Then we can see if Japan and others have the guts to challenge it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What makes them think the Japanese will to agree to strict monitoring and scrutiny of their catch? They have been doing their damnedest to hide these facts in every part of their fishing industry for decades. They will just pull out of the IWC altogether, which in a way, is a good thing. Then, there is nothing protecting them. If they show up in the southern ocean without the protection of the IWC there will be more than just the Sea Shepherd waiting for them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Close monitoring might show up the fact that a country was exceeding its quota, but how would it stop it exceeding its new reduced quota? If the IWF has no teeth with which to enforce its own regulations, what's the point?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 - Sink the whaling fleets if they violate the ban. Pass agreements to grant control over whaling regions to protectorate nations empowered to defend the areas with force if necessary. Then we can see if Japan and others have the guts to challenge it.

Who would sink the fleets? You? Do you think the whalers will just stand by while you ATTEMPT to sink them. Has it occured to you that they might fight back? Has it occured to you that violence might lead to more violence?

And which countries, in your world, do you think would conceed international waters (aka whaling regions) to "protectorate" nations? And how would you convince these "protectorate" nations to risk their lives and ships to defend your idea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Within minutes of opening the annual conference, the commission’s deputy chairman, Anthony Liverpool, adjourned the open sessions for two days to give pro- and anti-whaling countries a chance to discuss whether a compromise was possible."

At this point the Japanese delegate was seen pulling out his fat wallet ..... off to buy some votes!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Close monitoring might show up the fact that a country was exceeding its quota, but how would it stop it exceeding its new reduced quota? If the IWF has no teeth with which to enforce its own regulations, what's the point?"

Cleo is bang on, as usual. The crybabies in Japan will just pull out of the IWF if worse comes to worst, as Ossan suggests some countries might, and will finally admit it's not science they're out trolling the world's waters for. On a plus not, since they're not trying to play nice anymore, other countries need not either.

Anyway, all Japan needs to do is up the quality of their prostitutes that they give to delegates and they'll get more votes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The crybabies in Japan will just pull out of the IWF if worse comes to worst."

Would you call any country who pulls out of the IWF and goes about it's whaling "crybabies" or is that term reserved for the Japanese?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan conducts its hunting under a clause allowing the killing of whales for scientific research, although nearly all the meat goes to the commercial market.

The benefits that whaling will provide in the context of scientific research, I reckon, is the medical purposes-- tissues/cells for improving the treatment of diseases--such as cancers, Alzheimer, brain damages, etc. Also, I wonder if whaling for such purpose requires the killing of species.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The benefits that whaling will provide in the context of scientific research, I reckon, is the medical purposes-- tissues/cells for improving the treatment of diseases--such as cancers, Alzheimer, brain damages, etc. Also, I wonder if whaling for such purpose requires the killing of species.

I mean, "does whaling for scientific research really need the killing of species, if it is truly ethical or dedicated to the best scholarly/academic interests of international communities?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The benefits that whaling will provide in the context of scientific research, I reckon, is the medical purposes-- tissues/cells for improving the treatment of diseases--such as cancers, Alzheimer, brain damages, etc.

is/are

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The IWC is a joke. It will be interesting to see how many little countries the Japanese can successfully bribe this time to get the vote them want.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan; so once again are you simply stating that Japan has to be given whatever it wishes, or it will simply ignore & pull out of the IWC & do whatever it wishes anyway? So what is the point of this meeting then? Or any compramise deal if Japan will just do as it wishes anyway? & just how do you think this will be recieved by the rest of the world? & just who's skirt are we going to hide under once we leave the IWC?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the end of all of this.. the IWC is only an advisory committee with at best limited political influence and that influence varies greatly from nation to nation. It is talk, it is debate, it is rhetoric and redefining only the words used to describe the acts of whale slaughter. When the talks fell apart from a matter of what can be agreed upon, into only 'is there any hope of any agreement at all?' it was like the old old cliche of how cold-war nations would need to argue over the shape of the table and who would sit where before any negotiations could take place! Rogue status means.. NOTHING. Unless the IWC is part of the UN and can wield ANY kind of actual force at all.. which currently it cannot - then Nihon does not even have an obligation to visit the talks, except to offer prostitutes and sake as entertainment.. which DOES have political power. Nihon is only playing a game of poker with the IWC.. and they hold most of the cards.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

& just who's skirt are we going to hide under once we leave the IWC?

Who needs to hide? Canada left the IWC, after it realized it was mostly a waste of time. Canada's not hiding. Norway and Iceland said, "So long and thanks for all the fish." They left the IWC. They're not "hiding behind anyone's skirts."

What makes you think that Japan is so special, Keiko?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let Japan, Island and Norway hunt in their waters and ban the international sales of whale meat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Seventeen mostly pro-whaling nations have had their voting rights suspended at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Morocco, in what could be a blow to Japan's hopes of resuming commercial whaling."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/22/2933768.htm

Guess the bribes & prostitutes are simply for entertainment this time as they no longer have a vote...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taj;"Who needs to hide? Canada left the IWC, after it realized it was mostly a waste of time. Canada's not hiding. Norway and Iceland said, "So long and thanks for all the fish." They left the IWC. They're not "hiding behind anyone's skirts."

Canada does not commercially hunt, sorry scientifically hunt, indigenous hunting by Inuit is done in traditional ways, & takes no more than 50 per year, & is allowed under IWC rules. Nor does it, Norway, or Iceland travel over halfway around the world to hunt in a designated sanctuary, & THAT is what is bringing much shame to Japan, the lies, the bribery & corruption, the total disregard for other nations in that area, & the views of the people there, yet we expect them to respect us & our so called "traditions" when we do not do the same for them. & as for "tradition" Japan has not been hunting in the Antarctic for centuries, only since the loss of the second world war, when it could have been called necessary, unlike now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo at 10:19 AM JST - 22nd June Close monitoring might show up the fact that a country was exceeding its >quota, but how would it stop it exceeding its new reduced quota? If the >IWF has no teeth with which to enforce its own regulations, what's the >point?

Because under the scenario you describe, the whaling country would be clearly be in violation of the IWC rules, the IWC could take what actions are appropriate and although they may not have enforcement jurisdiction, could be used against that country in the ICJ to force them into compliance. This is in stark contrast to Australia's current claim in the ICJ which does not have the merits of such a scenario. You ask "what's the point?" but I think the question you should really ask is "should the current arrangement be allowed to continue?". We have a moratorium but has loopholes that allow whaling without IWC control over take quotas or monitoring.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan at 12:42 PM JST - 22nd June Cleo is bang on, as usual. The crybabies in Japan will just pull out of >the IWF if worse comes to worst, as Ossan suggests some countries might, >and will finally admit it's not science they're out trolling the world's >waters for. On a plus not, since they're not trying to play nice >anymore, other countries need not either. Anyway, all Japan needs to do is up the quality of their prostitutes >that they give to delegates and they'll get more votes.

The IWC wants to limit commercial whaling to Japan, Norway and Iceland and restrict any other nations from commencing whaling. South Korea has already made it clear that they are not satisfied with that as they want to the option to start commercial whaling should they so choose.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Disillusioned at 10:02 AM JST - 22nd June What makes them think the Japanese will to agree to strict monitoring >and scrutiny of their catch?

By that argument why should there be any laws anywhere about anything? There will always be those who break them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 02:27 PM JST - 22nd June Ossan; so once again are you simply stating that Japan has to be given >whatever it wishes, or it will simply ignore & pull out of the IWC & do >whatever it wishes anyway? So what is the point of this meeting then? Or >any compramise deal if Japan will just do as it wishes anyway? & just >how do you think this will be recieved by the rest of the world? & just >who's skirt are we going to hide under once we leave the IWC

Apart from your continuous bad habit of putting words into people's mouths and rewriting their posts, just exactly who is this "we" to whom you refer?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan you fail to remember the IWC had quota's in place prior to the moratorium, Japan was one of the countries that refused to abide by them, that is why the moratorium was bought about in the 80's, to save the species. Since then Japan has refused to abide by the rules as others have, ergo we now have the current state. & as you have stated if Japan does not like the new rules it can simply leave, & you have stated the ICJ has no juristiction now, so are you now saying it would & does have juristiction? Because your previous comments have contradicted this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 08:27 PM JST - 22nd June Canada does not commercially hunt, sorry scientifically hunt, indigenous >hunting by Inuit is done in traditional ways,

30-06 rifles are traditional? Outboard engines on boats are traditional? Dragging and treansporting large pieces of whale behind or on a snowmobile is traditional? Selling the whalemeat through a chain of shops and supermarkets in the Northern regions (a practice encouraged by the Candaian govt) is traditional?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 08:01 PM JST - 22nd June "Seventeen mostly pro-whaling nations have had their voting rights >suspended at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in >Morocco, in what could be a blow to Japan's hopes of resuming commercial >whaling." http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/22/2933768.htm Guess the bribes & prostitutes are simply for entertainment this time as >they no longer have a vote...

And perhaps you can explain why it delights you that the IWC may remain unchanged, with a Moratorium with loopholes in effect.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guess the bribes & prostitutes are simply for entertainment this time as they no longer have a vote...

Geee, or maybe the allegations of bribery etc that come out every year just before the IWC meeting are actually a big load of bull? If indeed you were bribing someone you'd probably learn to make sure they have the funds to pay their fees too or else your bribes are worthless?

Besides, as anyone who knows anything about the current situation at the IWC realises, votes are pointless at this stage, and they have been since the St Kitts and Nevis meeting some years back.

Only the gullible could believe these tall stories at face value. Prostitutes for votes? Ridiculous!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the IWF has no teeth with which to enforce its own regulations, what's the point?

Yeah, no point in establishing moratoriums and sanctuaries (in violation of the whaling convention too) if there is no way for the IWC to enforce these regulations, is there...

Gee cleo, you are so wise. Why does any sovereign nation ever adhere to any international agreement?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"And perhaps you can explain why it delights you that the IWC may remain unchanged, with a Moratorium with loopholes in effect."

Because the loopholes can be closed legally, ergo no more hunts for 'scientific purposes', at the very least in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, & at the very least if this does not happen Japan will show all it cards by withdrawing from the IWC, & such bringing about legal action to end these hunts. So therefore less whales slaughtered than by the compromise deal anyway. & as I have shown with actual numbers, less whales are being slaughtered now than under the 'compromise deal' currently being offered! So if it remains the status quoe still less than will be slaughtered than the deal going through.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

500 in the Antarctic in the last few years is still less than over 800 being demanded by Japan, & must I state again, Japan alone is wanting to hunt in a designated Sanctuary, no other country does this, or wants to...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ohh & by the way New Zealand is planning on following Australia's lead if this deal does not go through. So therefore you have 2, & maybe more Sth American countries willing to take Japan to the IWC over the hunts claiming "scientific purposes".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica

We have a moratorium but has loopholes that allow whaling without IWC control over take quotas or monitoring.

Correction. The "moratorium" does not have any "loophole" as is so often falsely suggested.

Here is what the IWC Schedule says in paragraph 10 (e) (what is commonly refered to as "the moratorium"):

http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/schedule.htm

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

This is the text of the sham that is known as the "moratorium", and the only loophole here is that despite the text of this Schedule amendment clearly stating that "by 1990 at the latest" the IWC should reconsider the moratorium and set catch limits other than zero, this has never been done, despite scientific advice to the effect that non-zero catch limits can be set for some stocks of whales. It's 2010 - 20 years later, and there is no valid reason for the moratorium not having been lifted already, long ago. Japan may well argue to the ICJ that the moratorium is now an illegal measure for the IWC to maintain, thanks to the opportunity given by the politically motivated Australian government.

The Schedule exists because the whaling convention itself created it, and the convention itself notes that nations can object to any Schedule amendments that they wish to, and additionally that nations can catch whales for scientific purposes outside the rules of the convention and it's schedule. The convention itself which created the Schedule is not a loophole to the Schedule amendments. That is a backwards argument and it needs to be pointed out to the anti-whalers more often until they "get it".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Gee cleo, you are so wise. Why does any sovereign nation ever adhere to any international agreement?"

Because they have credibility, & integretity, where they follow through with the treaties & agreements they sign, & do not stoop to bribery & corruption to do as they wish. Many countries wanted to continue hunting whales after the moratorium, yet they all complied to the agreements they made, without resorting to lies, or corruption to continue. Now even Iceland is being bought into line, if they want to join the EU they MUST give up whaling. Which also shows it is not just an issue of other countries trying to make Japan comply, it is the world trying to move forward, & 3 rogue nations dragging the chain. Time to grow up & join the 20th century.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - davidattokyo;"Gee cleo, you are so wise. Why does any sovereign nation ever adhere to any international agreement?"

Because they have credibility, integretity, where they follow through with the treaties agreements they sign, do not stoop to bribery corruption to do as they wish.

You're referring to the self-admitted bribery that the NGO's like the WWF have admitted to doing for the last 30 years. Or are you referring to the unsubstanciated claims that recently surfaced. Has anyone actually seen this "alledged" video yet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - Ohh by the way New Zealand is planning on following Australia's lead if this deal does not go through. So therefore you have 2, maybe more Sth American countries willing to take Japan to the IWC over the hunts claiming "scientific purposes".

NZ "talked" about joining the Australian Green Parties lead but I'm under the impression that they changed their mind. No sense wasting NZ taxpayer money on a losing effort.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Additionally the "scientific uncertainties" were by no means universally agreed as warranting a blanket moratorium, indeed there was no advice from the Scientific Committee that a blanket moratorioum was warranted. Nonetheless, the dirty tricks of the anti-whaling camp made the "moratorium" possible. They appointed their own members as "representatives" of newly independent nations in places such as the Caribbean, and used these extra votes to obtain the 75% majority needed to have the "moratorium" imposed. You can get the details of that here: http://luna.pos.to/whale/gen_ume_yado.html (check the names of the foreigner delegates for yourself to confirm). The reason these same nations who had their votes abused are to this day accused of taking bribes is revenge for replacing the fake delegates appointed by the anti-whaling camp with genuine representatives from those countries, and voting consistently with their own beliefs rather than those of the fascist anti-whalers."

Ohh do you mean the investigation carried out by an independant group, eg non government, & with no reason other to uncover the truth! & in doing so have these countries/delegates that have been bribed caught on tape doing so! & yet you have failed in any way to provide any proof of the WWF bribing nations! & where exactly would the WWF get the funds to bribe countries, yet it has been proved how Japan has given aid priority to those who vote with them in the IWC, & the buildings provided from these same funds! & how they are TOTALLY not needed by some islands, now used to house chickens! But most of all the BLACKMAILING by the Japanese government involved in foreign aid/support for developing nations, is simple, you want our yen, then you vote the way we tell you too= BLACKMAIL/BRIBING/CORRUPTION.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

Ohh & by the way New Zealand is planning on following Australia's lead if this deal does not go through.

New Zealand will never do that because our politicians and their advisors have more brains than Australia's politicians and theirs. MUCH more brains.

But the more nations that join Australia's court action the better. The anti-whaling movement will be thoroughly destroyed because there is no way that a court is going to rule that the whaling convention favours the case of the anti-whalers rather than the whalers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 11:05 PM JST - 22nd June Ossan;"And perhaps you can explain why it delights you that the IWC may >remain unchanged, with a Moratorium with loopholes in effect." Because the loopholes can be closed legally, ergo no more hunts >for 'scientific purposes'

Well that is what the IWC propsal is trying to accomplish. So why are you against the IWC proposal?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

Because they have credibility, & integretity, where they follow through with the treaties & agreements they sign, & do not stoop to bribery & corruption to do as they wish.

If they wanted to do as they wish, they need not adhere to the conventions in the first place, or leave them as Canada and other nations have done, and operate either outside them or as a non-contracting government.

Seriously - do you also believe in Tinkerbell?

Many countries wanted to continue hunting whales after the moratorium, yet they all complied to the agreements they made, without resorting to lies, or corruption to continue.

Japan is doing exactly as written in the Article VIII of the convention. How can you call this a lie?

It's a WHALING convention. It was not purpose-built for anti-whaling purposes. What don't you understand about that?

Now even Iceland is being bought into line, if they want to join the EU they MUST give up whaling.

The majority of Icelanders oppose joining the crumbling Eurozone, so make of the German threats what you will, but honestly... geee you see to blindly believe anything that anyone says if it suits your purposes. That should be setting off alarm bells in your mind. "Perhaps I believe simply what I want to believe without any critical analysis at all?" This is a question you might like to ask yourself.

Time to grow up & join the 20th century.

It's the 21st century already don't you know.... and in the 21st century, when a sovereign state is adhered to an international agreement, they should act in good faith and with respect to the agreement's object and purpose... and the ICRW is a WHALING convention. In the 21st century, whether they ICJ has to force them or whether they grow up by themselves, the anti-whaling nations are going to come to respect this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo; re bribery & how it continues even this week, as I am sure you are already aware of;

"The chairman of this week’s international summit on whaling is being secretly funded by a Japanese company to stay in a luxury hotel, it was revealed Sunday."

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpps/news/japan-courts-whale-delegates-at-summit-dpgonc-km-20100620_8216431

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just a note - like the anti-whaling nations at the IWC, North Korea is the first state that springs to mind that signs an agreement and then ignores what they signed.

Japan and the other whaling nations are all acting 100% consistently with the terms of the whaling convetion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

... therefore, anti-whaling is equivalent to North Korean blustering and threats.

Funny the similarities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan the deal is about simply changing the name of Japans whaling, NOT ending it! It simply states we will no longer hunt under the guise of 'scientific research', we will now hunt under the name of 'commercial hunts', & we will take more than we currently do! So please once again where is the compromise? Ohh & we will resume coastal whaling, so therefore taking more, even more whales killed, not less! Just because japan posted its quota in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary at over 1,000, it actually took just over 500, under the current deal trying to be pushed through by Japan we want a minimum of 800. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I understand 500 is still less than 800?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Japan and the other whaling nations are all acting 100% consistently with the terms of the whaling convetion."

Just what other nation is hunting in a designated sanctuary under the guise of 'scientific research'? & when we talk of 'tradition' lets talk about our traditions, those of NOT killing pregnant females, or lactating mothers, as that brings MUCH bad luck! Guess we are now suffering the same said bad luck, huh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - "The chairman of this week’s international summit on whaling is being secretly funded by a Japanese company to stay in a luxury hotel, it was revealed Sunday."

Revealed by who and verified by who?

Is there a video? (hehehehe)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 11:16 PM JST - 22nd June Because they have credibility, & integretity, where they follow through >with the treaties & agreements they sign, & do not stoop to bribery & >corruption to do as they wish.

Germany has already styooped to blackmail. THe charges of bribery have been denied by both the countries accused of receiving it and by bthe country accused of offering it, with no evidence to substantiate the claim.

Many countries wanted to continue hunting whales after the moratorium, >yet they all complied to the agreements they made,

Which ones?

Now even Iceland is being bought into line, if they want to join the EU >they MUST give up whaling. Which also shows it is not just an issue of >other countries trying to make Japan comply,

THanks for proving my point about Germany BLACKMAILING Iceland.

it is the world trying to move forward, & 3 rogue nations dragging the >chain. Time to grow up & join the 20th century.

The whaling nations can't be "rogue" nations since all three are complying with the IWC regulations wjich permits their position and actions. You are merely advocating cultural imperialism, which apparently is a no-no for aborginial minorities but fine for other nations. Time to grow up, period.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Japan and the other whaling nations are all acting 100% consistently with the terms of the whaling convetion."

Ohh you mean Norway, & Iceland that as you have stated ignore the ban, or are you just talking of Japan hunting in a designated sanctuary, half a world away from home?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 11:57 PM JST - 22nd June Ohh you mean Norway, & Iceland that as you have stated ignore the ban, >or are you just talking of Japan hunting in a designated sanctuary, half >a world away from home?

Ohh you mean the Sanctuary that Japan officially objects to, and in either case are permitted to ignore under Scientific Permits anyway?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why does any sovereign nation ever adhere to any international agreement?

You mean like Japan adhered to the quotas for tuna?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

The vice-chair doesn't get a vote. He just chairs the meeting. So how you can refer to the vice-chair as being bribed (by having a room provided for him, alledgedly) when he doesn't have a vote in the first place, is beyond me. Come on, think about your comments before typing them in.

Additionally, the vice-chair is from Antigua and Barbuba, one of the nations that had their vote abused by anti-whalers in 1982: http://luna.pos.to/whale/gen_ume_yado.html The anti-whalers are looking for revenge because these small nations stood up to them.

no reason other to uncover the truth!

As yes. Anti-whalers only ever want to "uncover the truth". I guess you believe that?

in doing so have these countries/delegates that have been bribed caught on tape doing so!

Where is this tape? Does the tape actually show what has been claimed in the articles? Have you checked this? Or did you just decide to believe it without... "critical analysis", as I mentioned?

& yet you have failed in any way to provide any proof of the WWF bribing nations!

Ummm, I said nothing of WWF, but it's obvious that the guys who were sent to represent the nations were not their own citizens, but anti-whaling activists from abroad. Check it for yourself.

"People who did not have either the nationality of the country nor any relationship to it began to attend the IWC as delegates. They were F. Palacio of St Lucia, C. Davey of St Vincent & the Grenadines, R.S. Payne of Antigua & Barbuda."

I'll give you a hand. R.S. Payne - famous anti-whaler - born where? NYC baby!

"Roger Searle Payne (born January 29, 1935 in New York, New York, United States) is a biologist and environmentalist famous for the 1967 discovery (with Scott McVay) of Whale song among Humpback whales. Payne later became an important figure in the worldwide campaign to end commercial whaling." (Wikipedia)

Geeeeeee.... and somehow he ended up "representing" Antigua and Barbuda in 1982 for the moratorium vote? Can you explain that?

where exactly would the WWF get the funds to bribe countries,

I don't know if it was WWF, I never said that, but do you not realise that NGO groups use anti-whaling propaganda to generate huge volumes of donations from gullible people, such as yourself?

yet it has been proved how Japan has given aid priority to those who vote with them in the IWC

Aid priority? Japan gives aid to anti-whaling nations as well as nations that have no problem with whaling, so how you get to this is beyond me. Looks like you are just believing any old story without verifying the facts for yourself first, once again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 11:37 PM JST - 22nd June Ohh do you mean the investigation carried out by an independant group, >eg But most of all the BLACKMAILING by the Japanese government involved >in foreign aid/support for developing nations, is simple, you want our >yen, then you vote the way we tell you too= BLACKMAIL/BRIBING/CORRUPTION.

Oooh but Germany an anti-whaling nation is the only one that has been reported to attempt BLACKMAIL for IWC votes. Even the Sunday Times didn't talk about "Blackmail" with regard to the Pacific countries. Creating new lies for the cause?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo,

Why does any sovereign nation ever adhere to any international agreement?

You mean like Japan adhered to the quotas for tuna?

OK, let's go back a step for beginners.

Do you know the difference between an agreement (e.g. conventions / treaties / agreements) versus management measures proposed / enacted under those agreements?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

... And Japan has no objections to RMFO management measures relating to tuna quotas, that I am aware of. I guess you are talking about the CITES decision, which has nothing to do with quotas, though. Come on please, let's be more careful before posting comments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"The whaling nations can't be "rogue" nations since all three are complying with the IWC regulations wjich permits their position and actions. You are merely advocating cultural imperialism, which apparently is a no-no for aborginial minorities but fine for other nations. Time to grow up, period."

Oh that is why both Iceland & Norway have previously left the IWC, because they were such good participants, & behaving like adults!? Or maybe you are talking about Japan who is now paying for the chairman of the IWC's hotel bill & expenses? Is that not bribing & blackmail? Just as you have claimed by others, or is that simple giving of gifts? & the EU is blackmailing a country by simply saying if you want to join our group you must behave this way, if you wish to behave as you do we do not want to associate with you, is that what you call blackmail? Sounds like a simple request to me, behave or go away, plain & simple.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

Ossan the deal is about simply changing the name of Japans whaling, NOT ending it!

Of course. There is no need for a whaling nations adhered to the whaling convention to agree to end it's whaling activities.

we will now hunt under the name of 'commercial hunts'

The proposal is not for "commercial" hunts.

The proposal is for catch limits. It doesn't matter why the whales are caught, under the proposal. But under the proposal, Japan won't be able to unilaterally decide how many to catch anymore, it will be subject to agreement by the IWC.

Gee, sounds like a really bad idea!! No more unilateral quotas, but IWC agreed quotas instead!! Mmm yes, a big disaster isn't it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ohh & we will resume coastal whaling, so therefore taking more, even more whales killed, not less!

That's what they may do if the compromise isn't agreed to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just because japan posted its quota in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary at over 1,000, it actually took just over 500

... due to illegal activities by eco-terrorists... which will be dealt with one way or another, sooner or later. Of course the impact of this illegal eco-terrorists are not taken into consideration.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

Just what other nation is hunting in a designated sanctuary under the guise of 'scientific research'?

No nation is doing such a thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Do you know the difference between an agreement (e.g. conventions / treaties / agreements) versus management measures proposed / enacted under those agreements?'

Ohh do you mean just like the treaties/agreements Japan has signed relating to the Antarctic treaty, regarding the dumping of waste overboard, & refueling below the 60th degree Sth, or do these simply not need to be abided by? As you have stated yourself yes Japan has broken these, but if needed will abide??? Should we not abide without others telling us to do so, as we have signed the treaties saying we agree to these conditions, & if not why bother even signing in the first place?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"

Just what other nation is hunting in a designated sanctuary under the guise of 'scientific research'?

No nation is doing such a thing."

Then what are Japans hunts in Antarctica, The Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, being called now? Commercial?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

Ohh you mean Norway, & Iceland that as you have stated ignore the ban,

They have ICRW permitted objections to the "ban" provision in the IWC Schedule.

Education time. ICRW Article V: "Each of such amendments [e.g. IWC Schedule amendments, which include the illegal moratorium and sanctuary amendments] shall become effective with respect to the Contracting Governments ninety days following notification of the amendment by the Commission to each of the Contracting Governments, except that (a) if any Government presents to the Commission objection to any amendment prior to the expiration of this ninety-day period"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

Oh that is why both Iceland & Norway have previously left the IWC, because they were such good participants

Both Iceland and Norway are members of the IWC. Check the membership: http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/members.htm

Or maybe you are talking about Japan who is now paying for the chairman of the IWC's hotel bill & expenses?

"Japan"? What is "Japan"?

Is that not bribing & blackmail?

LOL! He is the chair of the IWC meeting! He has no power over the decisions the IWC makes, he simply runs the meeting, and he is only doing so because the other chap from Chile "fell ill", before the meeting.

the EU is blackmailing a country by simply saying

Who cares. Icelanders don't won't to join the crumbling, decrepit EU anyway. They are a bunch of debt-ridden states that Icelanders sure won't be happy to join up to, especially if they have to allow them access to Iceland's fisheries and stop whaling to boot.

Then what are Japans hunts in Antarctica, The Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, being called now? Commercial?

Japan's research programme in the Antarctic is a special permit programme allowed under the terms of Article VIII of the ICRW. Iceland too recently conducted a similar special permit program, and many other nations have issued such permits in the past as well.

These programmes are especially important today because the illegal moratorium otherwise precludes the acquisition of biological data, which is noted in the convention as being critical for sound and constructive management of whale fisheries.

Read the convention before posting further, I would suggest. Night night!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo, so what you are saying is if a country agrees with a treaty it can enforce it, yet if it does not then it can simply ignore it! So then why would any country involved with the IWC believe that Japan will abide by any quota set by the IWC in any new deal. It has never before, & as you have stated it will simply do as it wishes if it does not get its way! & the IWC has no recourse! So please explain your position clearly, is Japan going to abide by the IWC no matter the outcome? Or is it going to do whatever it wishes, if it does not like the outcome?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Not only do the anti-whalers pretend to represent other countries at the IWC"

Are you speaking of NGO's, whose members represent conservation groups, not countries! PLEASE David try not to get confused because someone is of a nationality but representing an NGO, they are representing the NGO, NOT a nation!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo at 11:10 PM JST - 22nd June The Schedule exists because the whaling convention itself created it, >and the convention itself notes that nations can object to any Schedule >amendments that they wish to, and additionally that nations can catch >whales for scientific purposes outside the rules of the convention and >it's schedule. The convention itself which created the Schedule is not a >loophole to the Schedule amendments. That is a backwards argument and it >needs to be pointed out to the anti-whalers more often until they "get >it".

After reading your post, particularly the above section this several times I believe that from a legal perspective you are completely correct. Of course that means nothing to the anti-whaling crowd who are on a par with religious wackjobs. My guess is that the anti-whaling faction are going to destroy the IWC. I'm still not sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 11:52 PM JST - 22nd June Ossan the deal is about simply changing the name of Japans whaling, NOT >ending it!

Well the IWC isn't an ANTI-WHALING organization. So why should any propsal it offers "end" whaling unless there are scientific reasons to back it up?

It simply states we will no longer hunt under the guise of 'scientific >research', we will now hunt under the name of 'commercial hunts', & we >will take more than we currently do!

Scintific Reearch Whaling as permitted under Article VIII is not a "guise" as much as you'd like it to be. If it were, the IWC Scientific Committee would have rejected any reports submitted by Japan, wjich they haven't. Furthermore you obviously haven't read the IWC propsal if you actually think it calls for Japan "to take more whales than they currently do"

So please once again where is the compromise? Ohh & we will resume >coastal whaling, so therefore taking more, even more whales killed, not >less! Just because japan posted its quota in the Southern Ocean Whale >Sanctuary at over 1,000, it actually took just over 500, under the >current deal trying to be pushed through by Japan we want a minimum of >800. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I understand 500 is still >less than 800?

If you had followed up on the developments of the IWC negotiations, rather than spendionmg your time being emotionally bent out of shape over it, you would have noticed that Japan had already intimated a lower number even below 500 may be negotiable. In this regard I find Japan to be a hell of alot more willing to compromise than the "not-one-whale-must-be-killed" fanatics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 12:10 AM JST - 23rd June Oh that is why both Iceland & Norway have previously left the IWC, >because they were such good participants, & behaving like adults!?

Oh didn't you know that Iceland amd Norway are IWC members? Don't you think you should read up on this subject before arguing for argument's sake?

The EU is blackmailing a country by simply saying if you want to join >our group you must behave this way, if you wish to behave as you do we >do not want to associate with you, is that what you call blackmail? >Sounds like a simple request to me, behave or go away, plain & simple.

Threatening an action for the purpose of influencing another's action is indeed Blackmail. "to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.:" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blackmail Maybe reading up on the English language as well as Whaling would be a good idea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;Oh you mean like "bribery" is giving another money to vote as you wish, or maybe you mean "blackmail", either you vote our way out you will not receive our money?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"Oh didn't you know that Iceland amd Norway are IWC members? Don't you think you should read up on this subject before arguing for argument's sake?"

They may be this year, but as you have previously stated at times they were not, they simply left the IWC, & did as they pleased. I guess that does not flow with the EU, huh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 01:45 AM JST - 23rd June Ossan;Oh you mean like "bribery" is giving another money to vote as you >wish, or maybe you mean "blackmail", either you vote our way out you >will not receive our money?

Considering that the anti-whaling nations started with the IWC vote buying why is this such a big deal to you? Or have you not read up on the history of the IWC to know that's how the moratorium got put into place?

KeikoTokyo at 01:47 AM JST - 23rd June

They may be this year, but as you have previously stated at times they >were not, they simply left the IWC, & did as they pleased. I guess that >does not flow with the EU, huh?

Where did I state that they were not? Honestly, just exactly what are you arguing? Do you have a point? Do you support the IWC propsal? Or do you, as I suspect, object because "some whales will still be killed"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"But the belligerent pose adopted by Japanese negotiators belies the fact that back home, there is almost no appetite for whale meat or whale hunting.

Japanese shops are packed with an impressive array of delicacies from around the world, but whale meat is as exotic to most Japanese as frogs' legs or escargots are to most Americans.

"We ate whale meat as children," says a shopkeeper speaking in Japanese. "But we didn't like it."

"The media pays very little attention to this issue. Ironically, a very small minority group gets a disproportionately big voice. The stake involved is so small, so Japanese government has very little stake in this," Taniguchi says."

"It is not illegal. But I became aware that by sticking to this minor, minor issue, Japan was gradually losing its friends from the international community," Taniguchi says.

"To be blunt, I became aware that the whaling issue was one of the best ways to lose friends for Japan," he says.

"He says Japan's government-subsidized hunts in the Antarctic have flooded the market with whale meat, depressing prices and further damaging Japan's coastal communities where whaling matters the most."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127939189

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"Do you support the IWC propsal? Or do you, as I suspect, object because "some whales will still be killed"?

I as others around the world object to whales being killed by a couple of nations that have so far ignored all international moratoriums, so like a spoilt child in school, misbehaved, & as just as in school, those who misbehave should not be rewarded or get what they want for behaving like spoilt brats. Is time for Japan to grow up & join the rest of the 21st century, as it claims it is & deserves, so act like it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan, here is the word of over 200 scientist, trained in the field! Or are you going to state now how you are better educated & trained than them now?;

AGADIR, Morocco — More than 200 scientists and experts Tuesday called on the International Whaling Commission to maintain its ban on commercial whaling to ensure the future of species depleted by industrial hunting.

"The IWC must not undermine the conservation achievements of the last few decades by again endorsing commercial whaling," they said in a petition.

"There is no evidence that any of the few populations and species known to be increasing have reached, or are anywhere near, the levels that might justify non-zero catch limits."

"The scientists, from about 30 countries, also called on IWC governments to reject a provision in the chair's proposal that would allow quota-based hunting in the Southern Ocean -- declared a whale sanctuary in 1994 -- over the next 10 years.

"We believe that to do so would be highly inappropriate and untimely and would again risk the future of the whales," said Mark Simmonds, International Director of Science for the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society."

"The long-lived and slow-breeding mammals are difficult to monitor, and the whaling industry has evaded and obstructed efforts to ensure compliance with international regulations, they charged"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iPUjGuZokfP3tyEKCC8pXzfvgnVg

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"Considering that the anti-whaling nations started with the IWC vote buying why is this such a big deal to you? Or have you not read up on the history of the IWC to know that's how the moratorium got put into place?"

I have, yet have to see any proof, please provide some, just like has been provided of Japans vote buying over the last few weeks, including offending nations now barred from taking part in the vote in the IWC!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo >http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127939189

I listened to the NPR news yesterday. It just sounds like whaling is a re-enactment of Japan's anachronistic national pride.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 02:05 AM JST - 23rd June Ossan;"Do you support the IWC propsal? Or do you, as I suspect, object >because "some whales will still be killed"?

I as others around the world object to whales being killed by a couple >of nations that have so far ignored all international moratoriums,

Do you recognize that they have ignored it because the current IWC rules allow them to do so? Do you think that maybe changing the IWC rules might be a good idea?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - here is the word of over 200 scientist, trained in the field!

Have these 200 scientists been invited to the closed door IWC meetings that are now taking place?

They had their say, now it's time for the IWC members (not the anti-whaling NGO's) to make a decision.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 02:10 AM JST - 23rd June Ossan, here is the word of over 200 scientist, trained in the field! Or >are you going to state now how you are better educated & trained than >them now?;

200 biased scientists?

"The limitations of science-based management thus relate to questions of the quality of the data-base and the methodologies available, but also, and importantly, to the nature of the forum for scientific discussions and the social and political objectives which the scientists' findings are to inform. Many non-scientists (as well as scientists) remain oblivious to the imperfections of the scientific means used to reach "the truth". Environmental scientists, given the often intensely political nature of their investigations, frequently hold positions that are the opposite to those held by similarly trained scientists serving other masters.

Furthermore, in such public arenas lower standards of proof are asked for and offered. The result is often public statements by scientists that are mere supposition, yet offered as rigorously derived scientific "facts", a class of evidence that has been called "trans-science" (Weinberg 1976).

There is another problem resulting from a scientist's identification with a particular side in a public controversy; that is the frequent co-optation of the scientist by that particular interest group. This may result in the professional or institutional inertia that frequently hinders the search for innovative solutions to difficult management problems (Regier et al 1989)."

http://luna.pos.to/whale/icr_wac_freeman.html

At least whatever my position is, it's not biased "towards" or "against" whales in particular. I advocate the sustainable use of all natural resources, which of course includes management and conservation. From my point of view, short sighted people like you who are trying to wreck the only international regulatory body we have over whaling are forsaking conservation of whales.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 02:18 AM JST - 23rd June Ossan;"Considering that the anti-whaling nations started with the IWC >vote buying why is this such a big deal to you? Or have you not read up >on the history of the IWC to know that's how the moratorium got put into >place?" I have, yet have to see any proof, please provide some,

"However, since the late 1970s and early 1980s, many countries which have no previous history of whaling (some of which are landlocked such as Switzerland and Mongolia) have joined the IWC. This shift was first initiated by Sir Peter Scott, the then head of the World Wildlife Fund. Labelling the IWC a "butchers' club", he mounted lobbying campaigns in developed countries with support from the green lobby and anti whaling block of IWC members to change the composition of the IWC's membership, which was instrumental in obtaining the necessary three-quarters majority vote to implement the moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986. This campaign triggered the first accusations of vote-buying in IWC. According to Scott's biographer, Elspeth Huxley, China's decision to join was influenced by a World Wildlife Fund promise to provide $1 million to fund a panda reserve.[25][26] Dr. Michael Tillman, former IWC Commissioner of the United States, said in a radio interview that "there was what we called 'common knowledge,' that a number of countries joined and that their dues and the travel support was reportedly due to conservation groups providing it. So that, in a sense, one could say that the conservation groups set out a strategy that the Japanese copied."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission

"It was primarily a victory for an unlikely figure – Lyall Watson, the flamboyant South African author of the 1970s bestseller Supernature. In preparation, he went to live in Japan to study the psychology of his main opposition and then used the rules of the IWC – which allow any nation to join – to persuade the Seychelles to sign up and appoint him as head of its delegation. He toured the world persuading other previously uninterested governments to join his side. Soon Japan was hard on his heels offering inducements for other governments to join, or switch their votes, to support whaling. It was a desperate race; as the IWC takes important votes by a three quarters majority, Watson had to recruit three new members for every one enlisted, or turned, by Japan."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/7839372/Whalers-armed-and-ready.-.-..html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"Considering that the anti-whaling nations started with the IWC vote buying why is this such a big deal to you? Or have you not read up on the history of the IWC to know that's how the moratorium got put into place?"

At what point in the article does it say Lyall Watson paid countries to vote with him?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Watson had to recruit three new members for every one enlisted, or turned, by Japan."

What do YOU think that means?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think that means he showed them what Japan was doing was unjust/deceiptful, & not in complience with the agreements by the IWC, much the same is what is happening now. If you believe 1 person had the funds to bribe all these nations then the monetary trail would be easy to follow, would it not? Just as the monetary trail back to Japan has been exposed, NOT just rumor, or by insinuation. PLEASE some proof, not just insinuations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At the moment it just shows you projecting Japans own unscruplious behavior on others, rather than providing proof of change of money between groups! & providing proof of vote buying by these other groups, where-as it has been proven the monetary exchanges for votes by Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

& Ossan you are so correct, it is more important to send fleets losing money to the other side of the world, the Antarctic to continue hunting in Japans name, rather than compramise & go back to coastal whaling in our own waters! Protecting the Antarctic waters for our whaling is so much more important than protecting our own traditional whaling towns!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - where-as it has been proven the monetary exchanges for votes by Japan.

Did you find the "alleged" video?

Where can it be found?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - At what point in the article does it say Lyall Watson paid countries to vote with him?

IWC members were in fact being influenced (aka bribed) by the WWF for over 30 years.

China's decision to join was INFLUENCED by a World Wildlife Fund promise to provide $1 million to fund a panda reserve. Dr. Michael Tillman, former IWC Commissioner of the United States, said in a radio interview that "there was what we called 'common knowledge,' that a number of countries joined and that their dues and the travel support was reportedly due to conservation groups providing it.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul;"a number of countries joined and that their dues and the travel support was reportedly due to conservation groups providing it."

Please provide truth of monetary exchanges for votes?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul, sorry truth, & proof. Because so far all we have seen is the pot calling the kettle black, or the corrupt group projecting their own failings on the other. So far we have had proof of Japanese bribes, we are yet to see the proof of WWF or any other conservation groups bribes, & I mean actual transfers of money has been shown, as has happened from Japan to international organisations, & voters in the IWC.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 03:22 AM JST - 23rd June PLEASE some proof, not just insinuations.

Please provide the proof that Japan bribed the South Pascific countries before the Agadir meeting. The countries have denied receiving any and Japan has debied offering any. Pleae, the proof and not just insinuations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 03:36 AM JST - 23rd June & Ossan you are so correct, it is more important to send fleets losing >money to the other side of the world, the Antarctic to continue hunting >in Japans name, rather than compramise & go back to coastal whaling in >our own waters! Protecting the Antarctic waters for our whaling is so >much more important than protecting our own traditional whaling towns!

I ask you again, please refrain from re-writing what others post. And again, who exactly is this "our"?? Who exactly do you purport to represent when using such terms? Please clarify.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Blah, blah, "Rouge state".

For anyone interested in putting the current threats to withdrawl into perspective, may I suggest a gander at this list of countries who are party to the Convention. Most interesting (to me, at least) is the appendix which shows all the niggling, withdrawls, and straight up hissy fits that have gone on over the history of the IWC.

http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/convention_status.pdf

Sample for those who don't have time to follow the link:

Canada: a straight forward withdral. (gave notice 1981, effective 1982)

Panama: 10 years of back and forth, before leaving in 1978.

July 2, 1968 notice of Panama's withdrawal, to be effective June 30, 1969. June 13, 1969, Panama cancels withdrawal dated July 2, l968. Nov. 16, 1977, Panama, notice of withdrawal to be effective June 30, 1978. June 26, 1978, Panama's decision to remain a party to the Convention. February 7, 1979, notice of Panama's withdrawal from the Convention. The withdrawal became effective on June 30, 1980.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan, you want proof well here it is;"the Sunday Times catching officials on tape acknowledging they received benefits from Japan was proof of undue influence on the 88-nation commission," from; http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/iwc-meeting-abuzz-over-japan-vote-buying-accusations

Then there is this paper showing;"Support to the pro-whaling countries amounts to more than 60 billion yen total", & how priority goes to contries that support Japan in the IWC. http://chikyu-to-umi.com/kkneko/english/oda2e.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taj, you failed to mention how neither Canada, nor Panama send whaling fleets to Antarctic waters! Neither country hunts whales, & if you wish to talk of Inuits then that is allowed under IWC rules for indigenous hunting, & they take less than 50 per annum.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo, I think you missed my point. Did you look at the document I linked?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo, I'll take my response to your 'proof' of bribes over to the bribe thread. See you there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know I am slow...but I fail to see the big issue. The whales that they are selectively hunting / researching are not endangered and have limits set to sustain a healthy population. Sure some endagered species slip through the cracks but that is criminal. Same as ivory showing up for sale in India / China and rhino horns. However the Japanese sure found a loop hole and exercise it. My opinion is they should leave the IWC, or they and all fishermen given the right to hunt whales under the quote system.

I know some of you will come back with well they will ignore the quotas. Well people ignore cross walks, DUI laws, internet music / copyright infringement. No system is perfect, when you catch somebody in the act, arrest them / fine them.

Maybe its just me but there are a lot more issues out there worth this much time and effort. Just my 2 yen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There ARE no quotas. Yet people claim Japan will ignore them. Instead they just set their own, anyway. People are nuts if they seriously think Japan is asking for quotas to be set (instead of Japan deciding for itself) just so that they can later go and ignore the quotas.

That doesn't make sense at all, except to fanatics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

& GREAT NEWS for the whales, there will be no return to commercial whaling! So I guess all those bribes & prostitutes were for nothing, great investment of taxpayers money there by the government!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

Wake up and join the real world.

GREAT NEWS for the whales, there will be no return to commercial whaling!

Uuuh, what is Iceland doing? What is Norway doing? And what it is that you think Japan is doing?

... "commercial whaling"? No?

So, what is the "great news"?

So I guess all those bribes & prostitutes were for nothing,

These are baseless allegations. There is no proof - just talk of a video tape, and yet the video tape is not released so that independent people can review it to verify that the allegations are true. The lack of the release of the video tape is proof that the allegations are false. Otherwise it'd be public already.

On the other hand it's a proven fact that anti-whaling activists illegally acted as representatives of some of these small countries in the early 1980's in order for the anti-whaling movement to illegally establish the moratorium. Such as Roger Payne "representing" Antigua and Barbuda, despite being an American citizen with no relationship to A&B.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 12:56 PM JST - 23rd June Ossan, you want proof well here it is;"the Sunday Times catching >officials on tape acknowledging they received benefits from Japan was >proof of undue influence on the 88-nation commission," from; >http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/iwc-meeting-abuzz-over->japan-vote-buying-accusations Then there is this paper showing;"Support to the pro-whaling countries >amounts to more than 60 billion yen total", & how priority goes to >contries that support Japan in the IWC. http://chikyu-to->umi.com/kkneko/english/oda2e.htm

That's not proof. That's just more anti-whaling propaganda. Show me a link to the video.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 08:39 PM JST - 23rd June & GREAT NEWS for the whales, there will be no return to commercial >whaling! So I guess all those bribes & prostitutes were for nothing, >great investment of taxpayers money there by the government!

Why are you rejoicing in the failure to reduce the number of whales killed? Why are you so happy that the whaling countries can continue to hunt LEGALLY within IWC regulations as they do now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - you failed to mention how neither Canada, nor Panama send whaling fleets to Antarctic waters! Neither country hunts whales,

if you wish to talk of Inuits then that is allowed under IWC rules for indigenous hunting, they take less than 50 per annum.

wHaT? Are you admitting that whaleing has actually been ALLOWED under IWC rules?

That the IWC allows its member nations to hunt whales - take them out of the oceans - and eat them?!?!?!?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul, no I am not saying that! You are! As you just stated the IWC does not allow whaling, ergo Japan is a rogue nation! & I guess that will serve us well in the ICJ with Aus taking us there, & now NZ stating they will join the action. Yep going great for the Japanese whaling industry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - no I am not saying that!

Yes you did. Now you're arguing against your own quote.

"if you wish to talk of Inuits then that is allowed under IWC rules for indigenous hunting, they take less than 50 per annum."

So who do you think is winning your argument? You or you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 11:58 PM JST - 24th June arrestpaul, no I am not saying that! You are! As you just stated the IWC >does not allow whaling, ergo Japan is a rogue nation! & I guess that >will serve US well in the ICJ with Aus taking US there, & now NZ stating >they will join the action. Yep going great for the Japanese whaling >industry.

Who is this "US" you keep refering to? Whom do you purport to represent in your posts? Please clarify as it's very confusing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul, local indigenous hunting will always be allowed under the IWC, by that it is described hunting by indigenous groups, carried out in traditional methods, are you claiming Japans hunts in the Antarctic is carried out in traditional methods, & has been done so there for centuries?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul, ossan - whatever you do - avoid the point of keito's posts.

Is it because there are no parallels to be drawn between indigenous small scale coastal hunting and a modern(ish) factory fleet operating half an ocean away?

Find another straw to clutch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Question for yelspal, Keikotokyo, etc.

How do you feel that Australia wants to end indigenous Whaling too?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yelspal - whatever you do - avoid the point of keito's posts.

Thanks for the advice but I just like hearing KeikoTokyo admit that the IWC allows whaling.

The IWC also allows scientific research.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul at 06:47 AM JST - 25th June The IWC also allows scientific research

The IWC also allows members to raise an objection to the moratorium and hunt commercially. Why people who are suppose to be anti-whaling are happy that this will continue is beyond me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The IWC also allows members to raise an objection to the moratorium and hunt commercially. Why people who are suppose to be anti-whaling are happy that this will continue is beyond me.

What most people misunderstand, I guess, is that the IWC is the largest environmental organization. No, it’s not. It's more like an international Business Roundtable where hundreds of CEOs representing multi-national and worldwide mega corporations gather for business and economic agendas. People representing anti-whaling nations are NOT in the same line with environmental activists. Some countries are happy with imposing the quota on whaling, because it can prevent three countries from excessive killing of cetaceans for the preservation of marine ecology. The IWC's moratorium and new proposal are just like each country's environmental commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. If you don't like it, just leave it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hi Zenny - Are they? Those crazy guys!

Indigenous whaling is a separate issue to commercial whaling. Personally, the animals are probably killed in an equally inhumane manner so I'd be happy enough if it ended on that score.But I think peoples that choose a traditional native lifestyle, and/or that hunt as part of an animistic belief system, should be left alone as long as overall populations are not threatened. I see no link to Japan's activity though?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yelspal - Indigenous whaling is a separate issue to commercial whaling.

Did you read the article?

"Many commission members oppose sanctioning ANY whale hunting at all."

The IWC membership attempted to negotiate a compromise but the anti-whaling zealots won't accept any compromise. They want ALL whaling to end.

The only thing they will accomplish is the end of the IWC and then nations will be free to set their own limits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think peoples that choose a traditional native lifestyle, and/or that hunt as part of an animistic belief system, should be left alone

If they choose a traditional native lifestyle, fair enough. If they choose to live in modern housing, wear modern clothes, shop at the supermarket, use phones, TVs, central heating and other mod cons, drive cars, snowmobiles, motorboats, etc., etc., and choose to go out hunting with power-driven harpoons, guns etc., at the weekend for the kick it gives them, then I say No.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo - totally agree. It has to be a key part of a genuine culture - otherwise is just a loophole, and we all know what whalers do with loopholes.

arrestpaul - well I'm anti-whaling, and anti-zealotry - fanaticism of any sort. As above, I don't think IWC or anyone should prevent traditional communities hunting for much needed food and blubber just because they're lumped in with large scale commercial operations. Also as above, I think whales suffer tremendously in both large and small scale hunting; they are big, strong and hard to kill - it often very drawn out. So when communities urbanise - as per cleo's posts - they should cease the hunting.

If IWC ends and nations set their own limits (as occurs annually in 3 cases at the moment) - those noations will face the same resistance they face now - they just won't have the regulatory fig leaves they hide behind at the moment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo at 10:21 AM JST - 25th June I think peoples that choose a traditional native lifestyle, and/or that >hunt as part of an animistic belief system, should be left alone If they choose a traditional native lifestyle, fair enough. If they >choose to live in modern housing, wear modern clothes, shop at the >supermarket, use phones, TVs, central heating and other mod cons, drive >cars, snowmobiles, motorboats, etc., etc., and choose to go out hunting >with power-driven harpoons, guns etc., at the weekend for the kick it >gives them, then I say No.

So then you are against the "substistence whaling" carried out by the aboriginal groups in the United States, Canada and Greenland? The same "subsistence whaling" authorized by the IWC and accepted as perfectly fine by the majority of the anti-whaling community? If you are, although I will hardly agree with you, you'll get credit for consistency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yelspal at 08:44 AM JST - 25th June I think peoples that choose a traditional native lifestyle, and/or that >hunt as part of an animistic belief system, should be left alone as long >as overall populations are not threatened. I see no link to Japan's >activity though?

200 years ago the inuits and other north american tribes rowed out to sea in their canoes/kayaks and speared whales with a harpoon and dragged them back to shore to butcher. Today they use grenade tipped harpoons, their boats have outboard engines, use binoclears, VHF radios and cellphones to communicate among each other, and after butchering the whale, splitting it among the tribe members they drive off with huge pieces of whalemeat towed behind their snowmobiles, some of the meat destined for supermarkets. 200 years ago the Japanese of some whaling villages rowed out to sea in their wooden flat bottomed boats and speared whales with a harpoon and dragged them back to shore to butcher them, splitting them up among village families....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yelspal - If IWC ends and nations set their own limits (as occurs annually in 3 cases at the moment) - those noations will face the same resistance they face now - they just won't have the regulatory fig leaves they hide behind at the moment.

The jurisdiction of whaling regulation will definately change. The WWF and other NGO's will be forced to deal directly with each and every government that allows or intends to allow whaling instead of trying to undermine the democratic voting process of the IWC.

I don't believe that eco-terrorist supporters will be welcomed with open arms when they try to undermine governments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - If they choose a traditional native lifestyle, fair enough. If they choose to live in modern housing, wear modern clothes, shop at the supermarket, use phones, TVs, central heating and other mod cons, drive cars, snowmobiles, motorboats, etc., etc., and choose to go out hunting with power-driven harpoons, guns etc., at the weekend for the kick it gives them, then I say No.

Presently, you can make that case to the IWC. If the membership agrees, it's a done deal. Unfortunately, the anti-whaling NGO's don't agree with you. They demand that ALL whaling cease and will accept no compromise. If things don't change within next year, the IWC may collapse and you would be forced to make your case to every country that participates in whaling.

There is an outside possibility that a new "whaling commission" could be formed, without the NGO's, that nations would be willing to voluntarily turn over their jurisdiction of whaling to. Maybe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Moddy, why was my reply to Ossan removed?

arrestpaul -

you can make that case to the IWC. If the membership agrees, it's a done deal. Unfortunately, the anti-whaling NGO's don't agree with you. They demand that ALL whaling cease and will accept no compromise.

Actually the NGO's and I are basically on the same page. How may people are there left genuinely living traditional native lifestyles? No more than a handful. I doubt that between them they'd be able to kill more than one or two whales in a year. A poor deal for the one or two whales that cop it, but not much different from the wildlife that gets chased through the jungle by primitive tribes before being hacked to pieces.

As I said to Ossan before I was so rudely deleted, it is impossible to kill a marine mammal humanely. This is why all whaling should cease. Quotas and whatnot make no difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - Actually the NGO's and I are basically on the same page.

This is why all whaling should cease.

Quotas and whatnot make no difference.

This is good to know. So it doesn't matter if the research is legitimate or not, you're against all whaling and it doesn't matter what the IWC membership allows or doesn't allow, you're against all whaling. That explains a lot. Thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"How do you feel that Australia wants to end indigenous Whaling too?"

Sorry but you are incorrect in that statement, just more romour mongering & another attempt to create anti-Australianism, while if you look at the facts of the IWC meeting & how the EU & Latin American countries refused the so called compromise. A compromise that stated Japan will continue to do just as it has, & get coastal whaling added to what it wants to do, so therefore continue hunting in Antarctic waters, & hunt coastally as well. Gee doesn't sound like we were giving up much to compromise there!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"Today they use grenade tipped harpoons, their boats have outboard engines, use binoclears, VHF radios and cellphones to communicate"

& just where do you think these came from? Japan has donated them to try to nullify arguments, rather than admitting these people hunt to sustain, while Japan hunts to put meat in freezers, feed pets, & make fertilizer! & as you have stated previously Japan will not give it up simply as a matter of pride!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan;"The IWC also allows members to raise an objection to the moratorium and hunt commercially."

Yes they do, & in a democratic process it was DENIED.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Although I am at a distinct disadvantage as I have never seen your original response to me, I think you are wrong. Personally, I think it's impossible to KILL ANY ANIMAL humanely. Therefore, ALL animal killing should cease, not just whales. That of course is in an ideal world which, wheher we like it or not, reality does not permit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo at 08:31 PM JST - 26th June Ossan;"Today they use grenade tipped harpoons, their boats have outboard >engines, use binoclears, VHF radios and cellphones to communicate" & just where do you think these came from?

It is a requirement by law in Greenland. Has nothing to do with Japan.

KeikoTokyo at 01:09 AM JST - 27th June Ossan;"The IWC also allows members to raise an objection to the >moratorium and hunt commercially." Yes they do, & in a democratic process it was DENIED.

The IWC regulations , which includes the right of members to raise an objection (to the moratorium) and hunt commercially were established BY A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. Now who has the authority to DENY an IWC members' rights? Please show us a link where Norway and Iceland's right was "denied".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Osaan - You might personally believe that no animal can be killed humanely but your point seems to be that therefore it's OK to stand by while any animal is tortured to death cos that just "reality".

On top of that I believe whales suffer more that that as they're way bigger - imagine harpooning an elephant and then quadruple it+. They are what remains of a key part of the ocean eco-system that directly affects where I live as well as Australia and many other countries, and they are of a higher order of intelligence and have stronger familial and social societal bonds than most species.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo at 11:35 AM JST - 27th June I think it's impossible to KILL ANY ANIMAL humanely Many caring people who have had sick, much-loved pets euthanised would >disagree with you on that.

And there are those who think that even euthanasia is inhumane.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yelspal at 11:40 AM JST - 27th June Osaan - You might personally believe that no animal can be killed >humanely but your point seems to be that therefore it's OK to stand by >while any animal is tortured to death cos that just "reality".

No one is conducting "torture operations" on any animals including whales.

It also seems to align you with the right wing nutjobs muttering away >that western people eat cows and japanese eat whales so bog off and just >leave us to it.

I don't align myself with any groups especially the jp right wing. However if that's all they are saying, then I wouldn't disagree with that statement.

On top of that I believe whales suffer more that that as they're way bigger - imagine harpooning an elephant and then quadruple it+. They are what remains of a key part of the ocean eco-system that directly affects where I live as well as Australia and many other countries, and they are of a higher order of intelligence and have stronger familial and social societal bonds than most species.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No one is conducting "torture operations" on any animals including whales.

If it isn't torture to chase a terrified animal to exhaustion, blow a hole in it with a grenade-tipped harpoon and when the explosion doesn't kill it (instant kills are rare), let it thrash in agony for minutes or even an hour or more, or hoist it out of the water by the tail so that it cannot lift its head and drowns in a spreading pool of its own blood, then the mind boggles at what atrocities you think would count as torture.

If a fraction of that occurred in a slaughterhouse on land, there would be hell to play, and rightly so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo at 02:31 PM JST - 27th June No one is conducting "torture operations" on any animals including >whales. If it isn't torture to chase a terrified animal to exhaustion, blow a >hole in it with a grenade-tipped harpoon

Firstly, it's not "torture" because the goal is not to cause unnecessary suffering. The use of grenade tipped harpoons is just for that purpoes. Secondly, your definition of "torture" is the usual emotion-laden-the -poor-anmimal-is-suffering rant which is your personal interpretation of the word, not that which is generally applied in society as a whole. Finally, let's drop this as the MOD has already been deleting this line of discussion.

and when the explosion doesn't kill it (instant kills are rare), let it thrash in agony for minutes or even an hour or more, or hoist it out of the water by the tail so that it cannot lift its head and drowns in a spreading pool of its own blood, then the mind boggles at what atrocities you think would count as torture.

If a fraction of that occurred in a slaughterhouse on land, there would be hell to play, and rightly so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it's not "torture" because the goal is not to cause unnecessary suffering.

The goal is to put whalemeat on a plate, which is not necessary. Your definition of torture would make the word obsolete, since the people who torture for the usual reasons - to gain information - could just simply say the suffering wasn't unnecessary, but merely a means to an end and the information gained was necessary.

torture |ˌtɔːtʃə| noun the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain. • great physical or mental suffering or anxiety : the torture I've gone through because of loving you so. • a cause of such suffering or anxiety : dances were absolute torture because I was so small.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo at 10:50 PM JST - 27th June it's not "torture" because the goal is not to cause unnecessary >suffering. The goal is to put whalemeat on a plate,

For the commercial hunters yes. In the case of those hunting under IWC SCientific Permits it's both obtaining data and putting whalemeat on a plate. In both cases, the purpose of killing whales is not cause them to suffer for whatever reason.

which is not necessary.

In your obviously not so humble opinion, which you have every right to have. However those who feel otherwise also have he right to their opinion. But the right to have an opinion, and attempting to force it on others is something else.

Your definition of torture would make the word obsolete, since the >people who torture for the usual reasons - to gain information - could >just simply say the suffering wasn't unnecessary, but merely a means to >an end and the information gained was necessary.

As soon as we can establish that whales have special knowledge that can be forced out of them by torturing them, I'll be happy to take the above seriously.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - Your definition of torture would make the word obsolete, since the people who torture for the usual reasons - to gain information - could just simply say the suffering wasn't unnecessary, but merely a means to an end and the information gained was necessary.

torture - noun the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain. • great physical or mental suffering or anxiety : the torture I've gone through because of loving you so. • a cause of such suffering or anxiety : dances were absolute torture because I was so small.

Ok, Ok, no more torture. I'll talk, I'll talk.... I did it. I did it all. It was me what sank the Pequod and I drowned that one-legged Captain Ahab too.

Signed Moby Dick

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan - Arrestpaul. OK - it was me that used the word torture in exactly the sense Cleo points out. Once again it seems to me you are just avoiding the point. Whales suffer terribly, and it is drawn out. More than farmed cattle. Not still confused I hope?

The grenade harpoons you talk about would damage too much of the meat if they were powerful enough to kill them immediately so are set to incapacitate - just slow down enough that they can be winched up a ramp. It is disgusting and put whalers are in the same basket as the people that kill mink with red-hot pokers to avoid marring the skins.

The ends (gee - that "crucial" research) do not justify the means.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Animal rights groups have been using words like Torture, suffering to evoke emotional reaction and to increase identification with the animal and hence sympathy for ages. Truth is all animals suffer when killed by human beings for food. That's reality but we accept it. It's hypocritical to accept it for some animals but not for others, and it's absurd to waste time thinking up ways of justifying that bias. The true hypocrisy is that anti-whalers persistently argue that Japan has no tradition of whaling, or that the scientific research is fake or unnecessary. Both points being very easily debatable. But given the opportunity to close all IWC loopholes at Agadir, they failed to do so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've never debated Japan has a history of whaling - many countries have a tradition of whaling hence the decimation of whale populations worldwide. The difference is that almost all of them have stopped.

I find it absurd to argue that all ways of slaughtering animals for food are equally cruel when it is blindingly obvious that some animals are killed in far more distress and pain than others. There are laws against animal cruelty, reflecting societal antipathy to unnecessary or gratuitous pain inflicted on animals, in many countries - even, I expect, Japan although it would be true hypocrisy to outlaw it and subsidise it at the same time.

The "scientific research" is a bogus excuse to try and keep the industry alive orchestrated by the tiny, tiny sector of Japan that depend on it. I suspect if the Japanese government had known how vast the drain on a steadily more bankrupt economy was going to be - they'd have bitten the bullet in 1979. Instead it has now become a point of honor for nationalists and admitting the research is secondary to the commercial operation affords no honorable escape for a buck-passing Fishing Ministry. Like other areas of the economy - it is in a big hole and still digging.

Research is NOT the point of the whaling and everybody knows it except a few PR hacks and ultra-nationalists that are still smarting a bit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yelspal at 12:44 PM JST - 28th June I've never debated Japan has a history of whaling - many countries have >a tradition of whaling hence the decimation of whale populations >worldwide. The difference is that almost all of them have stopped.

You couldn't be more wrong. Whales became decimated to the verge of extinction by western whalers, UK, Austraia, USA, Norway, etc who indisciminately killed whales for their blubber which was boiled down into whale oil. Although some parts, such as te baileen were used, the bulk of the carcass incl;uding the meat was thrown overboard, in what must be one of if not the most horrific squanderings of wild animal resouces in human history. This didn't end until crude oil was discovered and petroleum became the main world's energy source. An interting fact is that even with the adbvent of modern commercial whaling in the 20th century, bearing in mind that even Australia didn't stop whaling until 1978, Japan was the only whaling country that always kept the whalemeat for human consumption.

I find it absurd to argue that all ways of slaughtering animals for food >are equally cruel when it is blindingly obvious that some animals are >killed in far more distress and pain than others.

That is your personal opinion based on your interpretation of the extent of the animal's "suffering" which itself is subjective.

There are laws against animal cruelty, reflecting societal antipathy to >unnecessary or gratuitous pain inflicted on animals, in many countries - >even, I expect, Japan although it would be true hypocrisy to outlaw it >and subsidise it at the same time.

Those laws are designed to prevent animal cruelty, mostly in the pet trades as well as human conduct towards pets, They also are aimed at ensuring that slaughergouse likking methods are not unnecessary cruel and inefficient. In the case of harpooning whales, nothing is more efficient and quick to kill than a grenade tipped harpoon.

The "scientific research" is a bogus excuse to try and keep the industry >alive orchestrated by the tiny, tiny sector of Japan that depend on it.

The IWC Scientific Committee has been receiving research papers from the Japanese researchb whaling program year after year. Never have they deounced them as "bogus". Even Australia as part of the scientific committee has recognized their scientific value.

I suspect if the Japanese government had known how vast the drain on a >steadily more bankrupt economy was going to be - they'd have bitten the >bullet in 1979. Instead it has now become a point of honor for >nationalists and admitting the research is secondary to the commercial >operation affords no honorable escape for a buck-passing Fishing >Ministry. Like other areas of the economy - it is in a big hole and >still digging.

Banning the killing of all whales for any reason, regardless of the scientific data supporting sustainable whaling numbers, based solely on the demented belief that whales are somehow "special" is now threatening to destroy the only regulatory agency we have to monitor and protect whale populations. The rabit anti-whaling zealots are the biggest enemy of whales.

Research is NOT the point of the whaling and everybody knows it except a few PR hacks and ultra-nationalists that are still smarting a bit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it is our culture, let it be

0 ( +0 / -0 )

to evoke emotional reaction and to increase identification with the animal and hence sympathy

And what's wrong with that? The inability to feel empathy is a classic sign of the psychotic.

It's hypocritical to accept it for some animals but not for others

I'm glad we agree on that. We don't accept for cows and pigs the killing methods you apparently think are fine and dandy for whales. It's hypocritical to say (as the law does) that animals in the slaughterhouse must be stunned and rendered unconscious prior to slaughter and must be treated throughout in a way designed to avoid causing avoidable excitement, pain or suffering to the animal, but that it's OK to wreak mayhem on the open seas. And you try to tell us that the whales aren't even being killed for their meat....So what is the relevance of your statement that all animals suffer when killed by human beings for food?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yelspal - The "scientific research" is a bogus excuse to try and keep the industry alive orchestrated by the tiny, tiny sector of Japan that depend on it.....

Research is NOT the point of the whaling and everybody knows it.....

Blah, blah, blah. Your claim that "research is not research" and that a whaling commission doesn't need up to date data on whales is NOT KNOWN by "everyone". Tsk, tsk. That is the position of the animal-rights, anti-whaling zealots who have infested the IWC. Your repeating the same distortions over and over again doesn't change the fact that scientific research involving 1/10th of ONE percent of the 800,000 minkes IS necessary to fully understand the health and potential of the remaining 99.9% of the minke whales. The taking of skin samples by obviously biased anti-whaling groups does not give any indication of the condition of hearts, lungs, brains, etc. Everyone except anti-whaling zealots know that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Blah, blah, blah.

Now there's an intellectual argument. Can't answer it.

scientific research involving 1/10th of ONE percent of the 800,000 minkes IS necessary to fully understand the health and potential of the remaining 99.9% of the minke whales

We have to kill the whales to see how healthy they are? (You do understand that a dead whale is in no way healthy?)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo, do you understand percentages? Do you understand sampling rates? Do you understand why sampling would be required to understand the OVERALL health of the minke pods?

scientific research involving 1/10th of ONE percent of the 800,000 minkes IS necessary to fully understand the health and potential of the remaining 99.9% of the minke whales

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo at 11:01 PM JST - 28th June to evoke emotional reaction and to increase identification with the >animal and hence sympathy And what's wrong with that? The inability to feel empathy is a classic >sign of the psychotic.

And the conviction that one can understand completely how an animal or plant feels is also psychotic. And to harm humans based on such a belief is criminal.

It's hypocritical to accept it for some animals but not for others I'm glad we agree on that.

We don't accept for cows and pigs the killing >methods you apparently >think are fine and dandy for whales. It's >hypocritical to say (as the >law does) that animals in the slaughterhouse must be stunned and >rendered unconscious prior to slaughter and must be treated throughout >in a way designed to avoid causing avoidable excitement, pain or >suffering to the animal, but that it's OK to wreak mayhem on the open >seas.

Sorry but I don't think a genade tipped harpoon exploding in he head is an awful lot of suffering. And even in slaughterhouses, where laws and rules do exist, we all know that things don't go as they should. I think that attempting to push an anti-whaling agenda on the basis that whaling causes "more suffering" than all the other animals we kill for food is nonsense. The ONLY rationale in my book to limit or stop whaling is sustainability numbers. Some stocks do need protection to recover, and some don't.

And you try to tell us that the whales aren't even being killed for >their meat....

I never said that. Show me. I think we established that they aren't being killed to "torture" them.

So what is the relevance of your statement that all animals suffer when >killed by human beings for food?

The relevance is that when ANY animals are killed for food you can't sit there crying about how it suffered. Firstly, that's the real world so get over it. And secondly you'll make the steak taste bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Ossan

I think we established that they aren't being killed to "torture" them.

Oh dear - still a bit confused after all.

I think that attempting to push an anti-whaling agenda on the basis that whaling causes "more suffering" than all the other animals we kill for food is nonsense. The ONLY rationale in my book to limit or stop whaling is sustainability numbers

Sorry but I don't think a genade tipped harpoon exploding in he head is an awful lot of suffering.

Well I 100% disagree - those grounds are more than enough to me to ban whaling even with all other arguments . Any and all other methods that cause unnecessary suffering as well. Japan is not alone with their heads in the sand – mulesing in Australia, mink industry in Russia, bear bile in Korea, gin traps anywhere – all disgusting and shameful practices.

does not give any indication of the condition of hearts, lungs, brains, etc

What for? Frying? Those guys on deck are not scientists Ossan - they are butchers. If the state of Japanese scientific prowess is so abysmally low that they have to kill 1000 specimens to draw some conclusion about overall population health - you need new scientists.

The IWC Scientific Committee has been receiving research papers from the Japanese researchb whaling program year after year. Never have they deounced them as "bogus"

The IWC has repeatedly, year after year after year, requested Japan to cease lethal research. Not that highly valued then. It is not necessary. Yip - this ones good, yip - this one's good, yip - this one's good. All good - can we kill more now?

Research is NOT the point of the whaling and everybody knows it except a few PR hacks and ultra-nationalists that are still smarting a bit.

First thing you've posted I agree with :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And you try to tell us that the whales aren't even being killed for their meat....

I never said that. Show me.

Japanese whalers ... conduct research whaling in accordance with IWC regulations

Japan has been complying with all the rules.

they are not lying because they are in full compliance with the IWC rules

The IWC rules state that any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research. So if as you claim Japan is in compliance with the rules, then it is killing the whales for research purposes, not for their meat. Now you want to deny the claim that the whales aren't being killed for food. So which is it, scientific research in compliance with IWC regulations, in which case (you seem to be saying) any comparison with how animals being killed for food are treated would be inappropriate (would a comparison with the treatment of lab rats, guinea pigs and monkeys used for AIDs research be appropriate?)? Or killing for food, which is in violation of IWC regulations (and uses methods that would never be allowed in a landside slaughterhouse)?

even in slaughterhouses, where laws and rules do exist, we all know that things don't go as they should

So we should just throw all the rules out of the window and go for it hell for leather, fur and organs flying everywhere? Laws and rules exist on the roads too, but we still have traffic accidents. Maybe we should just scrap the driving test, turn off the traffic lights and let people drive on the right or the left, as their fancy takes them and with as much alcohol in their system as they like, since they're going to have the occasional fender bender anyway?

the conviction that one can understand completely how an animal or plant feels is also psychotic. And to harm humans based on such a belief is criminal

'completely'? Maybe not. But to see an animal with a hole in its body, pumping out blood and writhing in (what appears to be) agony, and to come to the conclusion that it's not suffering - maybe it's enjoying itself - is certainly psychotic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - The IWC rules state that any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research. So if as you claim Japan is in compliance with the rules, then it is killing the whales for research purposes, not for their meat. Now you want to deny the claim that the whales aren't being killed for food.

So which is it, scientific research

in compliance with IWC regulations, in which case (you seem to be saying) any comparison with how animals being killed for food are treated would be inappropriate (would a comparison with the treatment of lab rats, guinea pigs and monkeys used for AIDs research be appropriate?)?

Or killing for food,

which is in violation of IWC regulations (and uses methods that would never be allowed in a landside slaughterhouse)?

OssanAmerica has repeatedly shown to you that the IWC mandates that the whales taken for scientific research can not go to waste. The parts not needed for scientific research must be used and not discarded. The whale meat is put up for sale and is eaten.

As a "WHALING commission" the IWC requires research data for up to date information on the OVERALL health of the whale pods.

So the real question is not, "which is it" but "why do you keep spinning the issue instead of reading the IWC documents"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul -

"why do you keep spinning the issue instead of reading the IWC documents"?

Ossan asked me to show him where he had claimed the whales were not being killed for food. I gave him his quotes, including quotes from the IWC regulations. Maybe you should try reading them and do a bit of research into the meaning of the word 'purpose'.

The ones spinning the issue are those who repeatedly claim that the purpose of the 'scientific research' is research and not hunting for the table. If I get in my car at point A and set off for point B, the purpose of my trip is to reach point B. If I wrap the car around a lamp-post I will be obliged to clear the mess off the road, that doesn't mean the purpose of my trip was to create a pile of scrap metal. When I put my empty wine bottles in the recycling bin, it doesn't mean that my purpose in buying the wine in the first place was to keep the recycling company in business.

Japan has made it perfectly clear that if the world would just shut up and let it get on with the commercial whaling it wants to do it would be quite happy to drop the 'we're only doing it for the research' figleaf. It's perfectly clear what the purpose of the Japanese whaling programme is. Let's just drop the topsy-turvy disingenuous anti-logic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - It's perfectly clear what the purpose of the Japanese whaling programme is. Let's just drop the topsy-turvy disingenuous anti-logic.

It may be perfectly clear to you that scientific research is not scientific research and that an international whaling commission doesn't need up to date data on the overall health of whales and that whale meat must be wasted instead of eaten but than doesn't make it so. The intention of the animal-rights zealots to end all whaling by spinning the facts to their advantage is clear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It may be perfectly clear to you that scientific research is not scientific research

It's perfectly clear to the Japanese whalers, who have said they'd be happy not to kill whales for 'research' if only they were allowed to kill whales commercially.

and that an international whaling commission doesn't need up to date data on the overall health of whales

The overall health of the whales Japan researches is 'very dead'.

and that whale meat must be wasted instead of eaten

Don't kill the whales and there is no meat to be either wasted or eaten.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It may be perfectly clear to you that scientific research is not scientific research

cleo - It's perfectly clear to the Japanese whalers, who have said they'd be happy not to kill whales for 'research' if only they were allowed to kill whales commercially.

So the whalers say it's research. The IWC says it's research. The IWC says they need up to date scientific research to oversee the health of the whale population. The animal-rights zealots say that no whales should be taken. You say anything to spin the issue in your favor. What will you do if the IWC is dissolved because it can no longer expect to reach a compromise on whaling?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the whalers say it's research.

The whalers will call it anything so long as they can carry on killing.

The IWC says it's research.

The IWC says it's unnecessary and has repeatedly asked Japan to stop.

The animal-rights zealots say that no whales should be taken.

They're right, but why people have to be called 'zealots' just because they don't agree with you is beyond me. Ever tried to seriously understand what's behind the 'zealotry'?

What will you do if the IWC is dissolved because it can no longer expect to reach a compromise on whaling?

There was never much chance of a compromise while Japan sees whaling as a matter of national pride. Take away the 'But the IWC says we can if we want' fig-leaf and who knows, maybe Japan will find a bit of common sense and real national pride.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - The whalers will call it anything so long as they can carry on killing. The IWC says it's unnecessary and has repeatedly asked Japan to stop.

Yes, that's what it's identified as and SOME members have requested that it stop. The anti-whaling zealots simply refuse to call it research preferring to make up their own interpretation trying create spin for their agenda. The animal-rights zealots say that no whales should be taken - ever. The rest of their arguments are simply misrepresentations of the facts plus emotional diatribe to confuse the issue.

....but why people have to be called 'zealots' just because they don't agree with you is beyond me. Ever tried to seriously understand what's behind the 'zealotry'?

Behind the 'zealotry'? Are you admitting that the anti-whaling effort is 'zealotry'? Disagreeing with someone is not zealotry. Spinning, twisting and repeatedly denying the facts of an issue while attempting to achieve your own ends would qualify as zealotry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

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

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites