politics

NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling

363 Comments

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

© 2011 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

363 Comments
Login to comment

AUSTRALIA... SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!.... the JP people can hunt whales if they want to.. and so does Iceland and Norway... Leave the sovereign nation of Japan alone!!

-23 ( +11 / -35 )

The Japanese people are free to hunt whales in their own waters, but if they travel halfway around the world to do it then others have a right to protest.

16 ( +24 / -8 )

Anyone can protest nobody has a problem with that, but obstructing activities like SSCS, PETA, Anti-Abortionist, etc do goes way beyond protests.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Non-violent protest, including obstruction, sit-ins, chaining yourself to railings etc is fine with me. Marching outside the Japanese embassy in Canberra achieves nothing; physically blocking access to the factory whaling ship gets results.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Well for Australians to get to the Antartic it still isnt a hop skip and a jump-you could say it is still halfway round the world. Or maybe a quarter-still a fair distance there mate. So I think fishing is alright, and doing scientific research to make sure there isnt an extinction of said fish is alright too. And if you dont like the taste you dont have to take an interest. No ones suggesting you go and eat some rat or dog. Open waters are open waters afterall. If practicing war moves was the problem one could understand it would seem threatening, but what's so threatening about chasing fish? Australia has a rascist issue. I would be interested to know if that is exactly what Rudd said though? The quoted area of this artcile?? Seems as if he could be pinned for racism with remarks like that.

-9 ( +8 / -17 )

illsayit "what's so threatening about chasing fish?"

The issue is whaling, not fishing. The Southern Ocean is a designated whale sanctuary. How would Japan like it if Australians started killing animals in Japanese designated animal sanctuaries? Oh, I forgot, Japan doesn't have any - they could't care less for their environment or animals. Take a hike in the mountains and look at all the garbage dumped there or in the rivers and beaches.

5 ( +10 / -6 )

If Japan's security includes the coast guard then there will be trouble... although different situation they have sunk a number of suspected NK boast in Japanese waters in the past via gun fire. Not cool.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japan (and this especially means the Japanese MFA and Prime Minister's office) needs to think very carefully about the perceptions of the rest of the world towards some of its actions. It seems to be heeding international opinion about cleaning up its act on official visits to Yaskukuni Shrine. Why persist in losing so much international goodwill to protect a few unnecessary (and subsidized) jobs in the whaling ports?? This seems like almost a sort of national masochism.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Once again Japan ignores pretty much the entire world and when criticized calls it 'an attack on culture'. I always find that 'logic' amusing -- Japan imposing its so-called traditions on the world and claiming they are being attacked.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

NZ and Australia is not SSCS and Japan should handle this issue with care and comply. Or do they intend to relocate another $27 million or more to protect the fleet and the pathetic leftover of their prestige from heavier consequences? Maybe not, unless they went completely mental.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Anyone can protest nobody has a problem with that, but obstructing activities like SSCS, PETA, Anti-Abortionist, etc do goes way beyond protests.

Which is why McCully said:

The New Zealand government has consistently urged all parties to act responsibly during the whaling season, and to avoid actions that may put their lives, or the lives of others, at risk,

Does anybody know what 'scientific research' they do?

The program's so-called 'scientific' purpose is highly dubious,

They kill the whale and then take the ear wax out to determine it's age. That's all they have been doing every year.

There is not much appetite for whale meat on the Japanese market. The whaling fleet is getting old and requires increasing amounts of government cash to keep it afloat.

That's true. No Japanese person I've talked to likes whale. It's more of an issue of pride. Swallow your pride and be international citizens.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Seems as if he could be pinned for racism with remarks like that.

@illsayit...what? what Rudd remarks? what racism have you found..where?

I am an Aussie and there is just as much racism there as there is here in Japan..try reading 2channel any day of the week...but to imply racism in Rudd's quotes here? fair crack o' the whip mate!?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

One day the Japanese will get smart and not tell everyone they are doing it.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

I think New Zealand and Australia should prepare to take immediate action against the Japanese whaling ships should they come that far south for whaling. It's clear as day. Japan, northern hemisphere, New Zealand and Australia, southern hemisphere. The blockade should start at the equator to save the Japanese some gas.

If a blockade was enforced at the equator that would allow enough time for communication between the 3 governments before taking extreme measures such as boarding the vessels or firing live rounds at the vessels.

Furthermore I think America needs to step and talk Japan down from engaging in any kind of activity that could hurt diplomatic relations between Japan and her western allies. Now is the time for Japan to rebuild.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I like the Pro posts here. After all, whales are just functioning mammals. If they were high functioning, they would have gotten out of the water a long time ago, and invented things so they could grow, or hunt lower functioning animals for food.

-12 ( +6 / -18 )

JapanGal. Look at a map. Who's backyard is that? Change course please and head back 010 till you get to the land of the rising sun. If there are any whales up there, they're all yours.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

NetSamurai. There is no back yard on a globe. Pick up a beach ball and study.

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

The Japanese people are free to hunt whales in their own waters, but if they travel halfway around the world to do it then others have a right to protest.

That is half correct. I mean legally might be correct. In reality Japan and any other countries might not be free hunting whales even in their own waters, as whales are not permanent residences of their territory, they swim up and down, they are the whales of the world's seas. They might congregate at one place at one country's territory and move again and killing them would affect the whaling program of all other countries. Thus the whales of the seas are all all other countries' properties too, and reaching a mindful accord and keeping international agreement would be the best .

1 ( +3 / -2 )

JapanGal. Maybe it's your English but by backyard, I'm sure he meant territorial waters.

It's pretty easy. Look at the map. Japan here, thousands of miles / kilometers from Australia and New Zealand.

Your comments about whether are not whales are intelligent are wrong. They're very intelligent. They go as far away from Japan as they can. Whale: "Dude, he's got a harpoon and a Samurai sword!! Lets get out of here. Go South!! Pretty smart whale if you ask me.

So those whales go down south to a safe haven. Coldest frickin place on the planet. Leave us alone. Don't go down under. New Zealand and Australia have declared that they are willing to protect the species.

It's unfortunate for Japan that neither country can be bought.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Overall the Japanese are not a greedy or selfish people and they care what others think of them but I think in some perverse way they feel they're owed a couple of indescretions and this is one of them. Not that I agree one bit.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Readers, the word "racism" has no place in this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JapanGal: "If you like pork bacon, you will love whale bacon. If you like that fatty Okinawan pork, you will love whale steak with lots of blubber."

Rubbish. That's like saying if you like beef, you will love dog. If you like chicken, you will love frogs legs. It's just not that simple. It's quite obvious from the thread that social morays and concepts of ethics come into play.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If New Zealand is down under, is Japan up over?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

New Zealand and Australia can talk the talk but it seems only Sea Shepherd can walk the walk when it comes to protecting the whales! Japan is paying $27,000,000 for "added security" just so they can conduct "scientific research"? Sounds more like egotistical bullsh$t than research to me! It's time the countries DOWN UNDER reach DOWN UNDER and see it they feel a pair! Don't just talk! Stop the Japanese with force!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The Antarctic and the Southern Oceans belong to the world and not any single country.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

"Show some proof. I just did. Anything that would try to get as far away from you and your harpoon is INTELLIGENT.

Here in this case, if we leave Japanese whalers unchecked they would wipe the species off the face of the Earth. . You wouldn't even see a picture of a whale in a biology book. They are whales (mammals) not cattle (animals)

So lets take some things into account that might help us better understand why the international community is so against Japan's Whale Hunt.

No. 1: History shows us that Japanese can be cold-blooded people that kill warm-blooded mammals such as whales. No. 2: It's not your area of the world so you had better ask permission. Otherwise get sunk. No. 3: Stop bribing, price fixing and lying to get your way. The world is catching on. No. 4: The world is helping you with your little nuclear problem and reconstruction. Stop killing whales

There it is. Most people don't eat whale anyway. Forget about it. Focus on rebuilding.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

People do eat whale meat and I am one of them. People have to be more opened minded. They are doing a legal hunt and no one should interfere physically.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

Good move nippon. Go ahead, trash the opinions and feelings of your friends in australia and nz many of whom gave aid and comfort during your dark days of march.

-3 ( +4 / -6 )

SHAME on Japan!! Especially in these troubled times, they still insist that this barbaric act should go on. SHAME!!! Japan = Killers of sealife.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

JapanGal

The Whales in question are south of New Zealand and Australia, far outside Japan's jurisdiction. It's that island fever that makes you think the whole wide world is Japan but it's not. Japan is a small island land mass located in the northern hemisphere.

The point that you keep missing is that no one posting here is arguing the whale hunt itself. Most of posts I've seen are saying that "You can do your killing in your own waters" Don't come below the equator to kill an endangered species.

If I were in your position, as a regular citizen, I'd get my pride in check real fast. I'd say wait a minute. If we Japanese upset the Australians they might not shoot us but they may cut us off. Everything is cause and effect if the moderators would allow me to point that out to you.

Lets say you do go down there despite their protests and harpoon away. What then? Acting all brash, cleaning the blood off your harpoon like whatchagonna do about it. Well, if it's whale you insist on then you might not need that Australian beef (You aren't comfortable with your own). Or they might stop importing your cars. You can kiss Cairns as your honeymoon destination goodbye.

You see my point? You risk too much to let Harpoon Hideo (Call him Ishmael) go down south and ruin diplomatic relations. For what? A whale sandwich?

Okay we are talking about whales so let me offer some advice to better understand the gravity of the situation today. Go read Moby Dick and consider what you are willing to sacrifice in order to have your whale.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Not endangered. Not illegal...not a problem

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Overall the Japanese are not a greedy or selfish people and they care what others think of them but I think in some perverse way they feel they're owed a couple of indescretions and this is one of them.

Wurthington -- really? Then how do you explain that Japan has almost singlehandedly caused the decline of many tuna species around the world to such dangerous levels? Oh, that's right, consuming 80% of the yearly catch of bluefin tuna for example is not "selfish or greedy", just an "indescretion" right? Afterall, Japan is special and its culture must be respected by the rest of the world, no matter the consequences. Stop kidding yourself. Japan, due to its inward focus, and arrogance, doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks, and will continue to have as many indescretions as their wealth will allow them. They have made a science of snubbing their nose at international opinion, and this year's whale hunt is just another example.

-1 ( +7 / -7 )

AUSTRALIA... SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!....

Seeing I'm living here, I can tell you this is not news in Australia. The average Australian, and Japanese for that matter, does not care one way or another.

As far as I'm concerned, Australia has no real right to say boo. The government is just going through the motions anyway. What? Expecting politicians of any country to do actually stuff? The truly efficient politicians, and also most honest, are called dicatators. Sad but true.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

if we leave Japanese whalers unchecked they would wipe the species off the face of the Earth

Which particular species are we talking about here? Last time I checked, there were quite a few.

I'm sorry whales get killed but some of you guys need to stop dribbling and start making sense.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Stay on topic please. Tuna is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My first post might be considered arrogant toward Japan let me elaborate my thoughts.

SSCS is a group and not a country, if Japan prepares to get engaged in a skirmish with them and reacts the same way its plain wrong. Japan should react as a country searching for legal and political solution with dignity.

Japan tried it and didn't win, not even were able to get the necessary support although they tried everything even bribes or paying off of poorer countries and threw in all their political influence.

Now, despite they lost the fight they want to go back again flying against the wind even flying in the face of NZ and Australia and the whole world. They called SSCS a renegade, paramilitary, terrorist group and now Japan opted to pile up military class weapons and employ professional J Self Defense Forces on civilian ships and remained defiant.

It means that they make just themselves appear renegade and all the other things they accused SSCS in the eyes of the world.

They do it repeatedly year after year. A Benjamin Franklin quotes apply; "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. " That is called in everyday life " they went completely mental "

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

New Zealand's politicians (in election year, and the Labour party in particular who are incidentally miles behind in opinion polls) should stop pretending that the Southern Ocean belongs to New Zealand any more than any other sovereign nation in the world.

It is New Zealand's politicians who are being entirely disrespectful - disrespectful of the sovereign rights of nations under long established international law.

Rather than posture about it, McCully should just wait for the outcome of the ICJ case that Australia has brought. Let's hear what he has to say once the ICJ has reached it's decision.

And it is none of New Zealand's business that a sovereign nation has determined that security measures to protect the legal activity's of it's nationals against interference from illegal acts is necessary. What's more - Japan wouldn't need to deploy such measures were New Zealand (and Australia) fulfilling their international obligations to suppress the illegal acts of the eco-terrorists under SUA.

McCully said Japan’s whaling program “serves no useful purpose and deserves to be consigned to history.”

Japan isn't doing it for New Zealand's benefit, but for the long-term benefit of whaling industry and consumers of whale products.

“The program’s so-called ‘scientific’ purpose is highly dubious,” he said.

New Zealand isn't even interested in the whaling industry and consumers of whale products so what they pretend to think is irrelevant.

“There is not much appetite for whale meat on the Japanese market.

New Zealand's foreign minister is hardly a market expert. The recent AFP poll reported here on JT showed that in fact a majority of Japanese people (more than 60 million people) have interest in eating whale to varying degrees.

-3 ( +5 / -7 )

NetSamurai,

if we leave Japanese whalers unchecked they would wipe the species off the face of the Earth

Currently the Japanese whalers ARE left unchecked. There is no regulation of Japan's research whaling activities.

Japan's government has been campaigning for the IWC to once again start regulating commercial whaling operations, but nations like Australia have kept knocking them back.

Australia evidently cares more about appearing to have zero-tolerance for whaling to appease it's domestic fringe constituency than it does for sound management and regulation of whaling industry.

Reality: There are whalers. We either accept it and regulate, or we don't accept it and have unregulated whaling.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I believe in deregulating everything.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

NetNinja,

Japan's activities are legal under the terms of the UN Law of the Sea and the whaling convention.

Activities such as those conducted by Japan on the high seas are covered under international law, Australia and New Zealand have no basis for complaining.

Australia's ICJ case was confirmed by Wikileaks to be a total sham to try to save former Prime Minister Rudd's ailing popularity, few in even the Australian government itself seriously think the case stands a snowball's chance in hell.

You might as well get used to the reality that although you make not like people exercising their legal rights, there's little you can do to prevent this unless you want to resort to illegal activity or outright war.

-5 ( +4 / -10 )

I can only assume the Japanese scientists are morons if they need to repeat the same research year on year out without ever publishing any results explaining why they're doing it.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Bluebris,

I assume that you who have insufficient understanding of Japan's activities.

Japan's research is of an ongoing nature, and the data is constantly provided to the IWC. They are no more moronic than the researchers who repeatedly conduct opinion polls, for example. Other relevant examples include a good body of research related to management of other fisheries. It's is never-ending.

-3 ( +5 / -7 )

Although I disagree, there are no actual laws preventing any country from whaling.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Now we see the barbaric and arrogance manner of Japan being !

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The Chinese government has demonstrated how to 'silence' a dispute with Japan during the trawler incident! The Japanese government is a lame duck and if Australia, NZ failed to make Japan took this dispute of whales seriously, both of them (Australia,NZ) will be seen as the lame duck's prey which is very very bad to their national repuatations!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

If Australia and/or NZ really are sore about this issue, it would be the perfect time to point out how dysfunctional the J-government is and that it's no wonder they can claim whaling is a 'tradition' despite them having to go way outside their nation to do it. They could easily say things like, "Well, if this PM won't listen we'll appeal to the next one in March", or, "The defense of what they are doing changes as quickly as their PMs", or, "It never changes because by the time a Japanese PM gets our requests and bothers to read it, he's already no longer PM".

Maybe the embarrassment would help them see the light and stop whaling in the Antarctic; it usually takes this kind of embarrassment.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

With the increasingly high inventory of whale meat in Japan (civilized Japanese citizens simply reject this exortic taste) , Japanese Gov't's intention behind the fight for the whaling right appears to be less & less convincing -- Stop politicalize this lovely animal & stop contaminating the image of the (great majority of) Japanese !

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@zichi

South Korea used to allow commercial whaling but banned it when the IWC implemented a global moratorium in 1986. Does banning not mean illegal? BBC NEWS ASIA-PACIFIC ( 3 January 2011 .)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12106125

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

CrazyJoe,

I think the moratorium is not international law?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mussolini said "To remain healthy, a nation should wage war every 25 years." Is this the only way Japan can wage it's war to remain healthy? If Australia or New Zealand or Sea Shepard can manage to injure or kill a Japanese whaler will Japan have what it needs to elect its fascist politician as leader?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@zichi

You did say "there are no actual laws preventing any country from whaling". I proved you wrong. South Korea is one of them.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

CrazyJoe

there are no international laws against whaling. The IWC moratorium is not one. IWC is a voluntary international organization and is not backed up by treaty.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

zichiOct. 05, 2011 - 01:10PM JST The Antarctic and the Southern Oceans belong to the world and not any single country.

It is funny how people (and also countries) use exactly the same rhetoric, when it suits them and forget it, when it doesn't. Like Russians say: "The international air space belongs to the world, so we can fly our planes". Japanese say: "NO". Or, Japanese say: "The Antarctic and the Southern Oceans belong to the world and not any single country." Australians say: "NO". I just can't stop smiling.

... Not to say anything against zichi, though. He is one of the most reasonable guys here.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@zichi

"there are no international laws against whaling" it's obvious. Your post was "there are no actual laws preventing any country from whaling". South korea is one of them.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Konsta,

the Southern Ocean is massive and nowhere near to Australia. Countries at best can claim 200 miles of sea around their countries even though the internationally agreed limit is 12 miles. As for Antarctic the nearest countries are the ones on the southern tip of S. America?

You might not be able to fly a plane across a countries air space without maybe the fear of being shot down like the Korean airliner but no way to stop all those satellites?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

CrazyJoe

the S.Korean law only stops whaling in that country. Does it stop them from whaling and landing the catch in another country? There are no international laws preventing countries like Japan from whaling?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The sashimi must be excellent though.

Even though I think whales are big dumb delicious animals, NZ and Aussie have all the rites in the world to criticize them but who cares. Nothing will come of it.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@zichi

"There are no international laws preventing countries like Japan from whaling?" that is correct.

Whaling is banned in South Korea, around the country and off its shores at present.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/04/23/us-whaling-korea-idUSTRE53M0KA20090423

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

CrazyJoe, thanks for the link and it would appear from the article that the S.Korean law isn't 100% effective?

It does allow the sale of whales caught accidentally and is home to restaurants specializing in pricey whale meat dishes.

But conservation groups such as Greenpeace say South Korean boats have been deliberately catching an increasing number of whales and declaring the catches as accidental.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I guess the "whale wars" will never be won by laws?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The sea is a dangerously unpredictable entity to whom far too many of my own family have lost their lives in the past. I do not wish to read, hence from now that any member of the crews of either the whaling ships or the Sea Shepherd have been greviously injured or killed.It is enough to battle the storms on the high seas without creating them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

S.Korea and Russia are very interested in resuming commercial whaling. S.Korea has seen quiet an increase in the demand for whale-meat over the last few years.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@zichi

Laws are never 100% effective anyway. Hasta la vista!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Is this the only way Japan can wage it's war to remain healthy?

Hopefully a skirmish won't escalate into war. I guess Japanese know this might be their last year and last chance to get rid of SSCS and will do their best to sink SSCS ships. Also, although their presence for whaling might be legal and accepted in Antarctic waters or in the whale sanctuary by the international law, sending ships loaded with military class weapons and SDF officers might violate the law. I don't know I am not a legal expert.

SSCS probably don't posses these weapons as the Japanese request the Australian authorities to search SSCS ships every year. Yet, the situation is dangerous, I expect the Japanese to try to sink SSCS ships and kill or capture Captain Paul Watson and I worry that lives will be lost.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I think the whaling issue is a wonderful reason for all of us to support South Korea's claim of Dokdo. After all, they have to protect the whales there from the Japanese fleet...

The thing that annoys me most about Japanese whaling is the fact that the JGov is abusing science (this is an insult to all real scientists) and that they are lying about the purpose of whaling. If You tell someone else an obvious lie to her face, it is either a joke or it is rude beyond measure. You tell the listener that You don't give a damn on her and her opinion, because You think You are far more powerful than her or because You believe she is just to dumb to see through Your lies.

By the way, whale meat contains lots of toxins, since whales are at the top of the (natural) food chain. Mercury, chromium and other nice stuff. If people really want to poison themselves, there are less controversial ways available for destroying one's health. Since most of the whale meat eaters are old geezers who never mentally arrived in the 21st century, whaling will die out at some point. Hopefully, before whales die out.

Though whaling is technically not illegal, it is internationally ostracised. If Japan continues whaling, they should shut up about any other matter their neighbours do. After all, putting political critics in jail without a fair trial is perfectly legal in China, it's just ostracised by the rest of the world.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Affix

As they already did it once when they sank the the New Zealand-registered Anti-Whaling Vessel theAdy Gil . I think they will try it again and will try harder.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The SSCS is another incarnation of Greenpeace and must be dealt with as such.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Are we going through this issue again? YIkes. This is where I am completely against Japan. No because whales are beautiful and intelligent as some people love to say, which burns my butt to hear. I love them very much, but food is food. As long as Japan holds on to this bull that it is doing scientific whaling, I am totally against whaling. It is a lie and they act like the rest of the world is stupid. They take advantage of a loophole, and that is pathetic. Don't call it research whaling, for it is NOT!

Second why continue to do whaling anyway, if everyone wants you to STOP???? Sell cars and computers. Don't do something that is going make someone in a foreign country not buy your product. Whaling is not that important.

Culture? Give me a HUGE BREAK! That is a coop out excuse used by the whaling commission to make normal people feel like it is the "Japanese" against the ugly "Foreigner" who is trying to destroy their culture, and believe it or not there are quite a few knuckleheads who believe that malarkey. Stop the whaling.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I kind of like Paul Watson. He is taking a stand and not being bought off. He is trying to stop the whaling from happening and that is what most of us want, but the almighty yen has fogged the dignity of many and that is why whaling continues. Paul Watson is doing something commendable.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Japan how about whaling in your own radioactive water?

-1 ( +6 / -6 )

The Ady Gil was sunk by it's own captain putting it into the path of an oncoming whaler. At the time I thought it had been sunk by the whalers but the captain admitted to his actions. He was also expelled from Sea Shepherd.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

What a controversy topic! This is one of the popular articles. Everybody is interested in the condemn from NZ and Australia. I've never ever eaten whole since I was born in Japan as Japanese. When I went traveling in Niigata prefecture, I saw some meats of whale. It was not so expensive but the news in Japan today prevented me from eating them because I would be condemned by the people in NZ or Australia some day.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Whales =FOOD!!!

For you maybe but not for everyone.

For a long time I have wondered why the rights of people (such as whalers) who wish to grab beautiful animals should trump my right to have animals left alone, to live their natural lives.

Why is the resource grabbers right more important than my right?

I accept that existing agreements allow the resource grabbers to take almost anything they want, but why should it be like that?

I don't think it has to be like that. I think we can demand the right to have natural areas left alone, where the animals can live without rapacious humans slaughtering them.

Frankly speaking, I'm sick of us humans raping this beautiful earth, greedliy hoovering up all its resources without a thought for tomorrow. With this in mind I want large areas of the seas to be made into no take zones.

Given the disaster that is currently facing our oceans, where more and more stocks face collapse or extinction, and ever more high-tech fleets catch more and more of the remaining species until they too face collapse, well, I think many people will come to think like I do.

Let's assert our "right to have nature left alone" against the hateful "right to grab whatever we want."

0 ( +5 / -6 )

Japan's activities are legal under the terms of the UN Law of the Sea and the whaling convention.

Yes because they bribe small, poorer countries to vote for them. Countries which don't eat whale meat or have any interest to do so. The Aussies & Kiwis are voicing there opinion I'm sure many other countries also support and yeah, its great the US are doing their bit too. Each country in this world has it's bad points. If the majority thinks strongly that something is wrong then that country should consider looking into it. Also, Japan is straight out lying about scientific research right? They eat the whales. How many people out there trust a liar?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Japan is crazy to go to the Antarctic with a huge Victorian-era style fleet, burning huge amounts of gasoline to grab beautiful and mysterious creatures from a pristine wilderness area on the other side of the globe.

And for what?

If you have ever heard Japanese people speak about whaling, the first thing they always mention is "culture".

Apparently Japan has a very very important "food culture".

"Our Japanese food culture is so important, unique and historical" you will hear them say.

In fact Japan's "food culture" is so important, that they demand to grab whales from the furthest reaches of the globe to support it.

What I want to ask is... "Since when did Japan's culture stretch all the way round the globe to include the Antarctic?"

If my country claimed a culture for which we demanded resource grabbing at the far ends of the earth, well, I would disown that culture. I would want nothing to do with any such claimed culture.

Because it's not culture... it's greed and arrogance.

There are other factors too.

People are wringing their hands about the dangers posed by Sea Shepherd.

The only people who have died in the Antarctic have been the Japanese themselves, with sailors tragically killed by what seems like dangerous operating practices.

In fact, the big factory ship, the Nisshin Maru, had a big fire which left it dead in the water. One poor man died and the whole mess posed a near disaster to the pristine Antarctic wilderness.

It's very easy to imagine the fire getting out of control and the final result being a massive oil spill into that wonderful natural environment. Would the Japanese be sending a clean up operation? Of course not. There is no clean up operation.

I think this dangerous fleet should go nowhere near the Antarctic.

4 ( +9 / -4 )

This topic burns my butt BIG TIME!!!!! JAPAN THUMBS ITS NOSE AT THE REST OF THE WORLD ON THIS ISSUE and so does NORWAY AND FINLAND!!

When, in 2006, the IWC passed the pro-whaling "St Kitts Declaration", two-thirds of the countries voting for it had received fisheries aid from Japan.

These 22 countries have together received 56.4 billion yen (about US $470 million) since fiscal year 2004.

While it cannot be proved beyond doubt that the Japanese government has used its aid money to get votes in support of its position in the IWC, there is a strong link between the votes for Japan and the aid money some of the members in the IWC received.

This is fact and when Japan does this it acts just like China. CRIMINAL. It makes voting ridiculous. I don't care who this posts bothers one bit. Right is right and wrong is wrong. And bribery is CRIMINAL.

I don't understand why Japan continuous to ask other countries to be sympathetic to it and its issues while completely ignoring how the rest of the world feels about the BOGUS SCIENTIFIC WHALING MALARKEY. When Japan does this it makes everyone in the world think that Japan thinks that the rest of the world is STUPID.

DO THE WHALING IN YOUR OWN WATERS. Stop traveling half way around the world to someone else's backyard to do whaling. THE JWC is supported financially by Japanese taxpayers yen. The ships that are aging are replenished through Japanese yen. And most of the people in Japan don't even eat whale because it is either not so often on the shelves or is too damn expensive to buy.

Furthermore, I really don't think that most Japanese are aware of the high amount of dangers chemicals that are even in whale meat. The JWC will not tell them any different. That is how much the JWC cares about its fellow citizens. It would rather you eat dangerous whale meat than go out and do other kinds of work.

Japan, if you want the world and your neighbors to honor and respect you, then don't travel half way around the world to hunt whales. Understand this/ You are disrespecting what the whole world except for you and two or maybe even three other whale hunting countries just for something that you don't even eat or need to eat. YOU want other countries to respect you. Then you need to respect how the rest of the world feels as well. You are not a planet. You are JUST ONE nation among more than 199. Respect is a two way street and every year that you let this happen you get less and less. That is sad but understandable. Whaling is not going to help the economy. Selling cars and stuff like that will. So, do you want to sacrifice what the rest of the world thinks about you for whaling which will not aid you in your economic fight for financial supremacy again?

Think about it. The world is not stupid. Consumers have a very good memory. When someone goes to buy a car and they see you hunting whales which they love, they just might pass on buying that car and go and buy a KOREAN ONE.

So, make the choice. Support an industry that draws the disdains of people most of the world over and influences people to not buy your products or show the world that you respect them the same way they want you to respect them. And above all don't go to someone else's backyard to do your hunting. Imagine if a European was off the coast of your waters doing something that your people hated. YOU would call them INSENSITIVE! Most Japanese would me mad as hell. You need to understand and respect how the Australians and the New Zealanders feel about you hunting in their backyard at minimum.

LIke my father used to tell me. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should! Respect others and how they feel if you want the same thing.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Oh my country embarrasses me on this issue. This will be my only post. I put myself in quiet time sitting on my stool in the corner with a paper bag on my head.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

troyinjapanOct. 05, 2011 - 10:35PM JST... AND FINLAND!!

Why Finland? No commercial whaling here:

http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=187227&lan=EN

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And by all means, stop with this, "It's our culture and you are robbing us of that" malarkey. It is irrelevant to say the least. One, it is of a culture that has long ago gone to the exit. Two, culture has changed and I don't see it on your plates often enough to call it a culture anymore. If it were a culture then you would be buying it at the high costs that it is sold for and it would all be sold out, which it is not. Three, so what? Just because something is in one's culture does not mean it should be continued. Four, the whaling culture has dwindled down so much that it is a non factor as a viable business and is being supported by the your taxpaying yen in hopes that everyone will one day change their minds and that whaling will be allowed, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Five, if you want to keep up your so-called whaling culture than just hunt within your own waters. But be quiet about it and have your military protects the whalers from the Sea Sheppard if they come into YOUR waters. Japan has every right to do whatever it wants to do in its own waters and I support that. But above all, stop going half the world away to do the dirty work that the rest of the worlds doesn't want you doing in ITS waters. Remember, they might be international waters but you are thumbing your nose at what the rest of the world wants you doing in ITS WATERS. Those are our waters as well. Not just yours!

YOU are putting the interest of the few (That would be you Japan) ahead of the interest and the desires of the rest of the world. You have bought off tiny countries in the IWC to vote for you and that is criminal. In fact, it is JUST LIKE CHINA. You complain about China this and China that and how unethical they are but buying off votes is the same damn thing! Is the interest of JUST YOU more important than the world's??? Those are our waters too and we don't want to see them hunted in because you can buy people off!

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

seriously? what scientific research is that? will it help rebuild japan from the disaster? i think they must focus on that first before this gibberish scientific crap... no... poor whales... stop them from hunting whales for good

2 ( +6 / -4 )

In 1999, 11% of Japanese adults opposed whaling, while only 14% supported it. What happened to the other 75%? In different I suppose? In another poll by Asahi Shimbun in Feb. 2008, a telephone poll of 2,082, 56% were in favor of eating whale meat, and 26% opposed it.

I think more older Japanese support whaling and more younger Japanese oppose it?

From the 2008 poll, the 56% which supported whaling were men in their 40's and above. Younger Japanese - particularly women - were opposed to the practice.

In a WikiLeaks document shows the U.S. and Japan conspired to legalize whaling and take down Sea Shepherd. President Obama supported Japan's effort on this, so the shame is not only on the heads of the Japanese.

In a November 9, 2009 cable, Japan says that once a compromise with the U.S. is reached, the U.S. government "would then work hard to make sure the EU and Australia do not block a compromise" to legalize commercial whaling.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

zichiOct. 05, 2011 - 11:22PM JST ... In a November 9, 2009 cable, Japan says that once a compromise with the U.S. is reached, the U.S. government "would then work hard to make sure the EU and Australia do not block a compromise" to legalize commercial whaling.

This will not be free of charge, of course.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Konsta,

There's no free breakfast, or somethin'!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

troyinjapan,

Japan does hunt for whales in it's own waters and backyard too! And lets not forget the dolphins too.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The international moratorium is just a "big joke" or at best a cloak and behind which countries like Japan, and even America, are doing their own wheeling and dealing. It should be scrapped and whaling should be called for what it is, hunting and killing of whales for consumption by humans, and cats, and not washed off as scientific research.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There is a very easy solution to this issue, all anti whaling nations in the southern hemisphere which is most of the major countries should close their ports to any japanese whaling vessel or support vessel. Much like the Japanese closed their ports to greenpeace vessels. This would severely hamper their ability to operate.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The whaling ships are already banned from Aussie and NZ ports. Last season the government of Chile was apparently ready to take action if the fleet tried to pass through Chilean waters carrying whale meat.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Japan does hunt for whales in it's own waters and backyard too! And lets not forget the dolphins too.

@zichi I am very much aware of this. The Cove. But I really don't have a problem with what Japan does in its own waters. As far as I am concerned that is a different problem. Of course I am against it, but at worst it is an internal problem. I would love to stop it, but feel this is an issue that is a Japanese one only whereas the Whale hunting in international waters in an international problem and just as much MY business as the Whalers love to tell us that it is JUST their business and not OURS.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@KONSTA Ooooooooops. I meant Iceland, not Finland. I don't know why I wrote FInland. Sorry, all.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

"“It is also entirely disrespectful of the strong concerns expressed by Australian and New Zealand people for whom the Southern Ocean is our neighborhood.”

Yes, but is it NZ or Austr territory? Or is it even NZ or Austr EEZ? Is there any basis for national jurisdiction over these waters?

"McCully also said he was concerned at Kano’s assertion that Japan would boost security for its whaling fleet to guard against harassment by environmental protesters"

Why? Isn't it normal for people to defend themselves from violent attacks by eco-terrorists? If these were US Flag fisheries ships SS would be toast.

"“The New Zealand government has consistently urged all parties to act responsibly during the whaling season, and to avoid actions that may put their lives, or the lives of others, at risk,” McCully said."

But NZ like Austr does not bar Sea Shepherd ships from entering their ports for refueling and replenishing provisions for the sole express purpose of conducting harassment activities which clearly put their and others livers at risk.

-1 ( +6 / -8 )

"smithinjapanOct. 05, 2011 - 10:59AM JST Once again Japan ignores pretty much the entire world and when criticized calls it 'an attack on culture'. I always find that 'logic' amusing -- Japan imposing its so-called traditions on the world and claiming they are being attacked."

When's the last time Japan forced anyone to eat whale? The argument that certain countries are attempting to force THEIR culture on Japan is quite correct. Or does the logic escape you?

0 ( +6 / -7 )

Japan can rationalize whaling as part of their culture all they want but the fact is everybody else sees the practice as savage and senseless. Whales are beautiful, majestic animals and killing them is like killing off the last of the dinosaurs. Get with the times Nippon.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Whaling is indeed part of Japan's culture. There are little shrines called "kujirazaka" all over Japan that pays homage to the whale that serves to feed the people. Those who state that "Whaling is not part of Japanese culture" don't knw their hindquarters from their elbows. As far as "everybody else" let's ask the Noregians and Icelanders, and Danish Faroe Islanders and Inuits if the practice is savage. What's savage or not is subjective and a matter of cultural background. Killing nonendangered whales is not like killing off the last of the dinosaurs, an absurd comment. Get a clue people.

-1 ( +7 / -9 )

Ossan: The MAJORITY of the world condemns killing whales. Japan is in the minority along with Norwegian, Icelandic, Danish. Likewise, Japan is a member of the global community and that global community can condemn that practice. Even the Japanese populace hardly eat whale or dolphin meat but because of some twisted national pride, whale killing is subsidized by the government.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

"troyinjapanOct. 05, 2011 - 10:35PM JST When, in 2006, the IWC passed the pro-whaling "St Kitts Declaration", two-thirds of the countries voting for it had received fisheries aid from Japan. This is fact and when Japan does this it acts just like China. CRIMINAL. It makes voting ridiculous. I don't care who this posts bothers one bit. Right is right and wrong is wrong. And bribery is CRIMINAL."

Are you aware that bribing members on the IWC is a practice that was first started by the anti-whaling faction?

"I don't understand why Japan continuous to ask other countries to be sympathetic to it and its issues while completely ignoring how the rest of the world feels about the BOGUS SCIENTIFIC WHALING MALARKEY. When Japan does this it makes everyone in the world think that Japan thinks that the rest of the world is STUPID."

The IWC Scientic committee doesn't seem to think the research is "bogus". Australia will have to prove that before the ICJ. Just being excitred and calling it "bogus" doesn't make it so.

"DO THE WHALING IN YOUR OWN WATERS. Stop traveling half way around the world to someone else's backyard to do whaling."

Whose backyard? Are those waters owned by New Zealand or Australia? Are they in either of their EEZs? How about stop claiming parts of the ocean as yours when it obviously isn't.

"Furthermore, I really don't think that most Japanese are aware of the high amount of dangers chemicals that are even in whale meat. "

That's a Japanese problem for them to solve. Not of aby concern to outsiders except for those who want tp use any argument possible against whaling of any kind.

"Japan, if you want the world and your neighbors to honor and respect you, then don't travel half way around the world to hunt whales."

They already do, I dare Australian and New Zealand to cut off diplomatic and economic relations with Japan. Won't happen. Not in our collective lifetimes.

" Understand this/ You are disrespecting what the whole world except for you and two or maybe even three other whale hunting countries"

So this is a global dicatorship by majority?

"Think about it. The world is not stupid. Consumers have a very good memory. When someone goes to buy a car and they see you hunting whales which they love, they just might pass on buying that car and go and buy a KOREAN ONE."

Koreans eat whale. Don't kid yourself. In fact they resisted the last IWC failed compromise because they weren't included in the list of countries that had a right to resume whaling!

"So, make the choice. Support an industry that draws the disdains of people most of the world over and influences people to not buy your products or show the world that you respect them the same way they want you to respect them."

Most of the people don't care, think whale huggers are retards who need to grow up and get a life, and have bigger problems and responsibilities to worry about. Whaling has abosultely zero influence on consumer buying choices.

"And above all don't go to someone else's backyard to do your hunting."

Back to "owing" a part of an ocean.

"LIke my father used to tell me. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should! Respect others and how they feel if you want the same thing."

I think your father is.was very wise. When you are able to respect their right to legally conduct scientific research whaling within a sanctuary as authorized by Article VIII of the IWC then you will be in a position to discuss this and perhaps negotiate an amicable solution.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

We live in a world of political farces.

The Chinese lay claim to small rock of an island, tere's international public outcry about China threatening the world. Australia and New Zealand lay claim to the Southern Ocean, about 7.8 million sq miles of sea, and nothing is said. That is twice the size of America.

There are 89 member countries of the international moratorium on whaling, including Switzerland which does not even have a sea. The anti whaling countries pay for other countries to vote in favor of their proposals and the pro whaling countries like Japan does the same. Other countries like Canada left.

Because of hatred for Sea Shepherd, America conspires with Japan to overturn the ban on commercial whaling. One exception to the moratorium is for scientific research. Under this exception, the whale meat must be used after the scientific data has been collected. The fact that the whale meat ends up on the market is a requirement of the treaty to ensure that resources are not wasted.

Because Norway objected to the IWC moratorium from the beginning, they are not bound by the moratorium and can set their own catch limits. Norway has been hunting whales continuously, despite an IWC resolution asking them to stop. Norway kills approximately 600 minke whales each year.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@smithinjapan

If Australia and/or NZ really are sore about this issue, it would be the perfect time to point out how dysfunctional the J-government is

Don't know about NZ but I can tell you the current Australian government is not a model of efficiency either, and the opposition is probably worse.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@OssanAmerica

Are you aware that bribing members on the IWC is a practice that was first started by the anti-whaling faction?

Don't really care. It has nothing to do with it and is irrelevant who started it. If you want to talk about bribery I think that started in the Neanderthal era. Big whup?

The IWC Scientic committee doesn't seem to think the research is "bogus". Australia will have to prove that before the ICJ. Just being excitred and calling it "bogus" doesn't make it so.

That is because they have have been bribing 22 countries since 2004 to see it their way. Hardly a point that you should be discussing because it doesn't work for your argument. Bribery is criminal.

Whose backyard? Are those waters owned by New Zealand or Australia? Are they in either of their EEZs? How about stop claiming parts of the ocean as yours when it obviously isn't.

Ahhhhh, see there is the problem. You say my waters, while I said OUR waters. International waters are OUR waters. And, yes the majority opinion should be respected not just your small minority. Are you saying that the waters that are thousands of miles away from you are yours to do what you want? No, they may not be in Australia's and New Zealand's EEz but they are still near enough to cause major irritation. Furthermore, I am American. It is not near my waters but I still care about it just the same.

So this is a global dicatorship by majority?

Hopefully!!!! That was democracy is all about.

"Think about it. The world is not stupid. Consumers have a very good memory. When someone goes to buy a car and they see you hunting whales which they love, they just might pass on buying that car and go and buy a KOREAN ONE."

Koreans eat whale. Don't kid yourself. In fact they resisted the last IWC failed compromise because they weren't included in the list of countries that had a right to resume whaling!

Please read more carefully. I said that people would be inclined to buy a Korean car instead of a Japanese one.

Whaling has abosultely zero influence on consumer buying choices. Very incorrect. I know quite a few people who think differently. Don't be naive.

And above all don't go to someone else's backyard to do your hunting."

Back to "owing" a part of an ocean.

As much as you feel the need to own it and do whale hunting in it it is my right to own it to and as you said earlier global dicatorship by majority is how things should be. But since Japan does not show respect to the world's feeling on whaling in international waters there is no need to show respect to Japan's feelings on a variety of issues.

Respect others and how they feel if you want the same thing.

This is something that Japan should understand!!!

When you are able to respect their right to legally conduct scientific research whaling within a sanctuary as authorized by Article VIII of the IWC then you will be in a position to discuss this and perhaps negotiate an amicable solution.

First of all there is no need to respect that because it has been bought. Secondly, it flies in the face of what the international community wants. Those are my waters as well, and I don't think Japan's legal loophole jumping and bribes trumps my rights to have that as a whale sanctuary which is what most people want.

-1 ( +7 / -7 )

choiwaruoyaj / imacat,

Everyone is not being asked to eat whales, only to respect the freedoms of their fellow human beings to make their own decisions.

You seem to be against the principle of respect and reverence for individual freedoms.

You are free to leave "beautiful animals" alone, that's your right.

But it's not your "right" to be able to veto the rights of others to use select bounties of this earth unto which we were born.

-4 ( +5 / -8 )

lordmanji,

Ossan: The MAJORITY of the world condemns killing whales.

No. Only around 25% of the world's nations seem to be against whaling. That's a minority.

Besides, if a majority wished to deny a minority their rights, would that make it OK, anyway?

Even the Japanese populace hardly eat whale or dolphin meat

The majority have an interest in eating whale to varying degrees, as revealed in the recent AP poll.

but because of some twisted national pride, whale killing is subsidized by the government.

The research is subsidized because there is a temporary pause in commercial whaling, thanks to the anti-whaling nations that have infested the international whaling commission.

Once the IWC starts to fulfill it's purpose and commercial whaling starts up again there will be no need to subsidise any longer.

-4 ( +6 / -9 )

troyinjapan,

The IWC Scientic committee doesn't seem to think the research is "bogus". Australia will have to prove that before the ICJ. Just being excitred and calling it "bogus" doesn't make it so.

That is because they have have been bribing 22 countries since 2004 to see it their way.

The Scientific Committee takes bribes? That's a new one... on the other hand, I guess you are confused about the difference between the politicians of the IWC (who are alleged to take bribes, because they have no problem with whaling - like myself and Ossan), and the scientists of the IWC's scientific committee.

Besides, like Ossan says, Australia needs to prove at the ICJ that the research is in fact not research, but commercial whaling in disguise. This despite the provisions of the whaling convention that require whales that are caught for research purposes be utilised to the extent possible, because it is a whaling convention that is supposed to make for optimum utilisation of whale resources, rather than waste them.

The silence of the anti-whalers after the ICJ releases it's judgement is going to either be very very silent, or very very noisy. My guess? The anti-whalers will ignore the ICJ's decision, or claim that the Japanese bribed all the judges :)

Anything but consider the possibility that it might be the anti-whalers themselves who are W.R.O.N.G...

International waters are OUR waters.

Under the UN convention on the Law of the Sea and the Whaling convention, nations have the right to harvest whales from these waters, so I don't know what you are complaining about...

Maybe you don't like the law, that's fine, but the law is what it is, even if you don't like it. Wanting to believe the law suits all your whims is just wishful thinking, I'm afraid...

Hopefully!!!! That was democracy is all about.

Democracy is not about denying rights of the minority. In modern times, minorities have their rights respected, it's barbaric to deny rights of minorities.

-3 ( +6 / -8 )

Member countries of IWC have been bribed and it is, as I earlier posted quite easy to follow. The 22 countries that have received financial aid from Japan are all on Japan's side. The countries that have received no aid are opposed. You do the math for yourself.

Prove that the whaling is not actually research. Well, that shouldn't be too hard to prove one would think. I have seen many cases where the so-called whale meant was suddenly on the shelves the next day after the ship came in. Also why would Japan have over 7,000 tons of whale meat in cold storage? Research? Why is it that other countries do research without KILLING ONE WHALE? But Japan kills them and that is research? HAH! Look, DAVID you can be naive all you want. You can go with them on their loophole jumping as well. But poop is still poop even if you dress it up, cover it with perfume and put flowers on it, it is still POOP.

No. Only around 25% of the world's nations seem to be against whaling. That's a minority.

Who said? Where is your PROOF?

The research is subsidized because there is a temporary pause in commercial whaling, thanks to the anti-whaling nations that have infested the international whaling commission.

TIT-FOR-TAT. So it is okay for Japan to bribe other countries in the IWC and that is not called INFESTING???? Convenient don't you think? LMFAO at the hypocrisy of this statement!!!

The silence of the anti-whalers after the ICJ releases it's judgement is going to either be very very silent, or very very noisy. My guess? The anti-whalers will ignore the ICJ's decision, or claim that the Japanese bribed all the judges.

YEP! Because Japan bribed its votes.

Under the UN convention on the Law of the Sea and the Whaling convention, nations have the right to harvest whales from these waters, so I don't know what you are complaining about...

REALLY???? YOU don't get it? WOW! As I have said before, if Japan clearly states that it is going to hunt whales and not use the "Research" loophole than I can actually support it, because it is being honest in its intentions. But not under a lie. As you yourself said, "Harvesting whales". That is exactly what it is doing, so stop with the research malarkey.

Wanting to believe the law suits all your whims is just wishful thinking, I'm afraid... So, now I have WHIMS????? No, I have a problem with circumventing laws to suit one's goals. A dislike for dishonesty is not a WHIM. It's called having morals.

Democracy is not about denying rights of the minority. In modern times, minorities have their rights respected, it's barbaric to deny rights of minorities.

Yes and no. MInorities have their right and should have, that is true. But I would hardly classify these people as poor innocent victims though. This is strictly for financial gain. Don't make them out to be helpless innocent victims here. MONEY is the issue here. Culture is being used by the JWC as an excuse to continue whaling, and that is all there is to it.

Furthermore, most Japanese who I know, laugh when I talk about research whaling. Even they know it is not research. Now you can be against us "Anti-whalers" all you want. And that is your democratic right, as is my right to be against whaling. It is my right to be against someone going 11,000 nautical miles away from their shorelines down to what most would hope was a sanctuary for the whales. It is my right to protest. And I will protest.

I believe that food is food. I don't like people who say that whales are majestic, beautiful, intelligent creatures. I don't care. It has nothing to do with it. And I am tired of hearing it. Those people are a bunch of knuckleheads if you ask me and they don't help the cause. Fact is food is food. Now, if the JWC wants to openly admit to whaling I would respect it. But bribery and claiming it is something that it is not, is something that is detestable and should be stopped. I will never agree to whalers traveling 11,000 nautical miles to do whaling in that area. If it wants to in its own, I fully support that. Fact is, they don't need that much whale meat in the first place because they have enough stored away in cold storage anyway. Do the whaling in your own EEZ and I will fully support Japan.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

You are free to be personally against whaling, but really you're just using excuses to try to justify your pre-conceived position, ignoring international law, and illustrating misunderstandings / lack of knowledge of the research that Japan is conducting.

That you reckon the ICJ will be bribed by Japan so as to ensure a favourable outcome in the case also illustrates that you are unprepared to entertain the possibility that you may have been misled on this issue. In your circumstances, there is little I can say.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Very good David. Lots of people open and say things without any back ground knowledge of the facts and situations.

-1 ( +6 / -6 )

Ha-ha-ha-ha "There is little I can say" is just a coop out! There is nothing you can say because you have no proof. But I understand your line of thinking. It is right in line with the whalers themselves. As long as the law can be circumvented you are okay with it. That is how they think as well, which is why so many people are against whaling.

Hey, let's talk about that "only 25% of the people are against whaling" stuff that you handed us here? Where did that information come from. I really would love to know because that might change my view on the issue.

Here is my favorite part to your rebuttal;

That you reckon the ICJ will be bribed by Japan so as to ensure a favourable outcome in the case also illustrates that you are unprepared to entertain the possibility that you may have been misled on this issue.

First of all, you reckon that the JWC will not bribe the IWC although history shows otherwise? Once again you have been had. Why wouldn't they? 22 countries have received financial backing from Tokyo. Those same 22 have voted in favor of Japan. The other countries that did not receive financial support from Japan voted against. Why would the next time be any different? If the vote turns out the way I wouldn't like does not even come close to meaning that I am unprepared to entertain the possibility that I may have been misled. One has nothing at all to do with the other. How could it? It has nothing to do with the anything whatsoever.

The sad fact is that you have nothing further to say, because there is nothing else that you can provide. You sure had a lot to say yesterday.

lack of knowledge of the research that Japan is conducting.

The only research Japan is conducting on the whales is which sauce tastes better with whale meat? Ajinomoto's "Yakuniku" or "Shoyu". There is no research and if there was why haven't we heard about it. The only research we ever hear from the JWC is that there are more whales and that whales are threatening the balance of the oceans ecosystems. LMFAO. Did you hear about that one? I did. That is like the fox telling the farmer that the sheep are eating too much of the pasture which will threaten the Apple tree's existence in the middle of the farm". Please!!!! i hope you are not referring to "THEIR" research because if you are, man, HAVE YOU BEEN HAD.

Ignoring international law? Well the whalers have aright to do their research. And the anti-whalers also have a right to do what they want within limits. It is international waters. Mine, yours and theirs. So, what of it?

Illustrating misunderstandings? WHAT? There are no misunderstandings. There are the informed and the uninformed, those who have jumped through loopholes to get what they want and then there are those who just don't care. No misunderstandings here at all.

Once again, I ask, is whaling that important? Only a fraction of the population eat it. Only a fraction of the population depend on it for their livelihood, but every taxpayer pays for to keep the business afloat. Is it worth harming the image of the Japanese any more than has already been harmed? Which is more important to Japan? Hunting whales or selling good cars and electronics to the world? I think whaling should be scrapped. Japan doesn't need any more of a negative image than it already has from this issue. Such scenes we often see on TV in the west can eventually serious repercussions economically.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

@japangirl Sorry to burst your bubble there. There is lots of facts that can be given. I gave some facts earlier. But have not seen any from David or you.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Whale wars will be interesting this year which ship is going to sink this time.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

choiwaruoyaj / imacat, Everyone is not being asked to eat whales, only to respect the freedoms of their fellow human beings to make their own decisions. You seem to be against the principle of respect and reverence for individual freedoms. You are free to leave "beautiful animals" alone, that's your right. But it's not your "right" to be able to veto the rights of others to use select bounties of this earth unto which we were born.

I can't follow your logic.

We are talking about an area that belongs to neither party.

Group A claims a right to grab resources there. Group B claims a right to have the area left alone.

Whose right will prevail?

Why should the grabbers' right trump everything? Why can't we claim a right to have the area left alone?

Well, the simple fact is that we can claim a right. I claim the right to have large parts of the oceans left alone. I want them to be designated as no-take zones. I think this is a very reasonable idea given the disaster that our oceans are facing.

As things stand, of course, in many/most cases the greedy resource grabbers always trump everyone.

However, I don't think it has to be that way.

If enough people assert a right and enough people accept it as reasonable then things can change.

I think this can happen in the future when people wake up to the disaster staring us in the face.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The majority have an interest in eating whale to varying degrees, as revealed in the recent AP poll.

I always find these polls almost meaningless.

If you ask a Japanese housewife is she is planning on or even interested in putting whale meat on the family table almost every single one will look at you like you're a nutjob for even asking such a ridiculous question. This reaction is more pronounced the younger the housewife.

The simple fact is whale meat is a niche food now in Japan. It's a weird food, like ostrich meat or crocodile meat.

People might try a tiny bit now and then but then it will be back to the delicious staples of chicken, pork, etc.

And the simple fact is that it will become even more of a weird food as the current crop of ojisans die off.

In fact, from what I observe, as the younger housewives come through to make up the main bulk of homemakers then whale meat will probably move from being a weird food to being a pariah food.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@Ossan

Whose backyard?

It's perfectly natural for South Africa, Chile, Argentina, NZ and Oz to think of the Antarctic as part of their backyard. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

These are the countries nearest to the Antarctic. No other country is nearer than they are.

Let's make a simple metaphor that you can understand:

Imagine a village. A well is situated outside the village, let's say 10 minutes walk through the forest. As you walk to the well you pass a solitary house, much closer to the well than any other house. Of course the guy in that house will feel a special affinity with the well, even if he doesn't live right next to it. And everyone in the village will call him the well guy.

It's perfectly understandable for South Africa, Chile, Argentina, NZ and Oz to think of the Antarctic as part of their backyard and every single one of those countries is opposed to Japan's whaling there... every single one! How arrogant and selfish of Japan to ignore the lot of them.

It seems that for Japan, a few oyajis smacking their lips over a piece of whale bacon in an izakaya is more important than making good international relationships.

We can think of other comparisons to see how ridiculous Japan's Antarctic whaling is, and how ridiculous it is making Japan look on the world stage...

Imagine if Aussies demanded polar bears for their barbeque culture and sent a huge fleet up to the Arctic every year to grab those polar bears, against opposition from Japan, Russia, Canada, etc. Could you imagine it... how ridiculous and unimaginable it is... there... there you have Japan's Antarctic whaling...

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Member countries of IWC have been bribed and it is, as I earlier posted quite easy to follow. The 22 countries that have received financial aid from Japan are all on Japan's side. The countries that have received no aid are opposed. You do the math for yourself.

The math indicates that those who voted against received aid from Japan as well.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/oda/shiryo/kuni/10_databook/pdfs/05-42.pdf http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/oda/shiryo/kuni/09_databook/pdfs/08-06.pdf http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/oda/shiryo/kuni/10_databook/pdfs/06-23.pdf <<http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/oda/shiryo/kuni/10_databook/pdfs/04-07.pdf>> http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/oda/shiryo/kuni/10_databook/pdfs/04-07.pdf http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/oda/shiryo/kuni/10_databook/pdfs/04-07.pdf

Since it appears there is a limit on how many links I can post, Japan has given aid to Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Chile, Czeck Republic, India, Mexico, Oman, Panama, Slovak Republic, and South Africa all whom voted against the St. Kitts declaration. Aid given to India alone overwhelms any aid given to those "22 countries".

"Vote buying" was basically initiated by the anti-whaling nations.

"Dr. Tillman and others claim that, in the years just before the vote on the worldwide moratorium, conservation groups paid some small island nations to join the Commission," he said.

"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," Dr. Tillman stated on the program. Dr. Tillmann was the acting head of the U.S. delegation at many of the IWC annual meetings.

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

In any case, let's put this "vote buying" pi$$sing contest to a rest and focus on the "facts" which is clearly lacking on the anti-whalers side.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

choiwaruoyajiOct. 06, 2011 - 11:34PM JST @Ossan Whose backyard? It's perfectly natural for South Africa, Chile, Argentina, NZ and Oz to think of the Antarctic as part of their backyard. To >say otherwise is ridiculous.

Just as it was natural to consder all of Europe as Hitler's backyard and all of Asia as Imperial Japan' s backyard? I believe there are treaties in existece designed to prevent territoral claims and control over antarctic waters. No country has any exclusive jurisdiction over them. Want proof? When has the Austr or NZ maritime authorities ever chased the Japanese scientific whalking fleet out of those waters? Never.

-3 ( +3 / -7 )

Nigelboy, I recently saw something quite different to what you are saying and shall need to look around to find it. Plus there were some stories about Japan flying in member of the IWC into Japan, giving them a free first class flight here, a suite for free in an upscale hotel in tokyo, a two thousand a dollar day spending spree, huge buffet meals and wining, dining and girls at ht end of the evening. I saw this personally on CNN about a year ago. A few of the delegates openly admitted it. There was a big stink over it. You must have seen it. The vote buying pissing contest is not over. Just stated. Ahhhh fact are lacking on the anti-whalers side. Than shows some facts to support why whaling should continue and that Japan has not been using a loophole to do its whaling. Also it would be good if those reports you just gave us were in English, since this is basically an English language magazine and I doubt most dedicated readers can read what it is all about.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Here is a good story that was in the newspaper; I think this new story sheds some light on the bribery claims that I am so many have made.

Moderator: The URL will suffice, thanks.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Here is a link good story that was in a newspaper: I think it may shed some light on the bribery claims that I and some other have made.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7149091.ece

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Of course you 100% ignore.

That some of those countries are pimping themselves to the highest bidder. Many countries that took money from japan turned around(as the wind changed or not) and said we will turn anti-whaling if you can make a better offer and they were taken up on it. Reminds me of Italy during WWII.

Read the whole history, no-one is clean here. In short those countries are after financial aid and will sell it to the highest bidder, they are neither pro nor anti-whaling.

So how did Japan, etc bribe them when they offered it in the 1st place.

Like they say follow the money and you will get a shock and an eye-opener from all sides.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

troyinjapan,

The only research Japan is conducting on the whales is which sauce tastes better with whale meat?

You don't appear to have a clue about the research, and I guess you couldn't understand what I already told you about it.

You also seem to not understand the difference between the IWC and the ICJ.

you reckon that the JWC will not bribe the IWC although history shows otherwise?

Read more carefully, I'm talking about the ICJ, and I have no idea what you are talking about when you talk of a "JWC".

I already responded to your "bribery" at the IWC stuff before - did you miss it?

The sad fact is that you have nothing further to say, because there is nothing else that you can provide. You sure had a lot to say yesterday.

I gave you more credit yesterday than I do now :)

-5 ( +3 / -7 )

troy,

The News Limited story (not a great source, all considered...) is full of innuendo and shows no real evidence of bribery.

"The governments of St Kitts and Nevis, the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Grenada, Republic of Guinea and Ivory Coast all entered negotiations to sell their votes in return for aid", claims the article, without any specific information to support the claim.

As noted elsewhere, other nations that receive aid vote against Japan at the IWC.

Why anyone thinks ODA would be linked specifically to voting at a specific organization such as the IWC is beyond me. Furthermore, in recent years the IWC has not even been conducting any votes, anyway.

But for people looking for excuses to justify their preconceived ideas against whaling, it makes for a good story I guess.

Also note that Australia's case against Japan at the ICJ has nothing to do with these nations receiving aid, if you care.

-2 ( +5 / -6 )

Well, David I give you no credit. JWC means Japan Whaling Commission. And you really haven't given as much as you feel you have. There will be more from me later.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

@david I am going to pick your lame argument apart one piece at a time.

You don't appear to have a clue about the research, and I guess you couldn't understand what I already told you about it.

What you said about the research:

The research is subsidized because there is a temporary pause in commercial whaling, thanks to the anti-whaling nations that have infested the international whaling commission.

This is all you have said about the research!!!! When I said that the only research being down was which sauce tastes better, I was right and you haven't shown any proof to argue that.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

troyinjapan,

Good link to the article about Japanese vote buying. Unfortunately some posters here are so rabidly pro whaling they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of this occurring. These are the same posters who will give details to support their argument then when the full source is reviewed it becomes apparent that they have selected one or two quotes from a 30+page report that effectively damns Japanese whaling. Isnt that right Davidattokyo.

Davidattokyo made a statement in an earlier post "You don't appear to have a clue about the research" l would actually say he is one of the few who actually believe the rubbish about japanese whale research. Most countries view it for what it is, using a loophole to continue commercial whaling.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@david

I already responded to your "bribery" at the IWC stuff before - did you miss it?

What you said?

The News Limited story (not a great source, all considered...) is full of innuendo and shows no real evidence of bribery.

Okay, let me if I get this. You are so full of yourself that you are going to say that they conducted an investigation and you are saying that they are full hooey! WOW! That is rich on your part. Did you conduct an investigation? Where is evidence that you can prove otherwise. I would love to see it. I have no problem with admitting I am wrong so Please go ahead and show me something different.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Here is some more malarkey for you.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/HF29Dh01.html

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

@Spidapig I COMPLETELY AGGREE WITH YOU. And it is sad that so many people bury their heads in the sand to ignore the obvious.I believe I have been called a japanophile by a few posters on this website, but most likely David has taken that away from me. But I must admit he argues just like the same poster who called me a japanophile. Same arguing style.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@david

Also note that Australia's case against Japan at the ICJ has nothing to do with these nations receiving aid, if you care.

Has absolutely nothing to do with it. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALl.

What is your next point? I would love to read it.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@Daivd By the way, where is the proof that only 25% of the people are against whaling? I haven't heard a peep about that? What, there is no proof of a poll? Please show me this information. I really would like to change my mind. Change is good.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

troy,

My apologies, it looks like a comment I thought posted yesterday wasn't posted correctly, so you're right I haven't told you much about the research.

So let me do so :)

In "proving" that the research whaling is "commercial whaling in disguise", you said, "I have seen many cases where the so-called whale meant was suddenly on the shelves the next day after the ship came in."

This is not a robust proof. The fact is that not every single gram of the meat on a whale is utilised for scientific research. If you take a look at the list of biological samples that the ICR extracts from each whale, you'll see that it includes a whole load of stuff which isn't generally edible.

For example - ear-plugs. These are used for the purpose of aging the sampled whales, and this age data is then subsequently used in population modelling by the IWC's scientific committee. This research is regarded very highly by the IWC's scientific committee.

However, besides extracting biological samples such as these, the whaling convention requires that the other parts of the whales taken be used to the extent possible. Obviously with regard to edible parts, in Japan that means that the meat is used as food. And that's why you can find fresh whale on the menu after research whale catch is brought in and processed.

This is also why there is whale products kept in storage as well.

As I said - "... the provisions of the whaling convention that require whales that are caught for research purposes be utilised to the extent possible, because it is a whaling convention that is supposed to make for optimum utilisation of whale resources, rather than waste them."

You asked "Why is it that other countries do research without KILLING ONE WHALE?", and the answer to that is that other countries are not providing the same type of data as Japan. There are many types of research, and just because whales are sampled (like in other fisheries assessments) doesn't mean that it isn't research.

As for the 25% statement I made, that is very straightforward. There are around 190 nations in the world. Only around half (50%) of those have made the effort of joining the IWC. Of those, around half of them (25%) are against whaling.

Therefore as I said, "only around 25% of the world's nations seem to be against whaling. That's a minority."

I don't think you are able to show me statements from a majority of nations of the world that illustrates they are in fact against whaling. I think the best you could do is probably less than 50.

As for the ICJ case, it's very relevant. Australia is claiming at the ICJ that Japan's research is "commercial whaling in disguise". I am certain that the ICJ will not find in favour of Australia, e.g. Japan will win the case.

The whaling convention requires whales to be used to the extent possible, so unless Australia can prove that no research is being conducted - which they can't, since Japan can provide convincing evidence to the contrary - Australia will lose the case and Japan will win.

0 ( +5 / -4 )

Davidattokyo,

Australia, New Zealand, US, South Africa, Chile to name a few all say Japans research is a front for commercial whaling yet you expect us to believe you.

Not a chance!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@David Thank you for your information. On the whole it seems quite useful, (especially if you side with the whalers). If you had been able to provide such information I may not have been so verbose against you in the first place. I do understand your side quite well, now. But still remain on the other side for various reasons.

There are around 190 nations in the world. Only around half (50%) of those have made the effort of joining the IWC. Of those, around half of them (25%) are against whaling. Therefore as I said, "only around 25% of the world's nations seem to be against whaling. That's a minority."

Just because only half of the countries are part of the IWC does not necessarily translate at all well. First of all some countries have joined the IWC at Japan's request. Even landlocked ones. I earlier provided this forum with some links that showed that there were some officials who didn't care one way or the other but were just looking for aid. Please read it more carefully. Another problem is that I wouldn't say that only 25% of the world is against whale hunting simply because there governments simply because their governments did not join the IWC. To say, so is reaching at best. I am sure you are fully aware that most governments in the world often times do what its populace finds disdainful. Many countries lack democracies. Many people lives are spent working and they have little time to go out and protest their governments lack of involvement in the IWC and there are so many other reasons as well. You can hardly say that the number of governments who have joined the IWC directly translate at all to what the world's people actually think on this issue. No, I am sorry, that is reaching WAY TOO MUCH.

I don't think you are able to show me statements from a majority of nations of the world that illustrates they are in fact against whaling. I think the best you could do is probably less than 50.

Really now? Well I don't think you could on your side either. But i would love to see you try. Go for it. Show me where most of the world supports the whalers. You just can't.

Hey, I am not going to disagree with you on the research at all. I am fully aware that Japan does research on whales. It has to in order to try to fool everyone else into believing that the meat doesn't just end up on the shelves in the supermarket. But, come on now, you seem very intelligent. You know that the real reason is done to keep the whaling industry alive, right? No, if not than you are just being naive. The sole purpose of the whaling is to keep whaling alive until Japan can get its way. The scientific malarkey is not that important to them. Furthermore it is unnecessary to kill 1,000 whales to conduct research on them. Heck, even the whalers and the JWC openly says that they do it to keep the industry alive and well and that it is a part of their culture and that we should all shut up about it. Touting their horn on research is hardly an acceptable argument. There is contradiction that is so loud and clear.

To the Japanese public; THIS IS OUR CULTURE. DOn't allow the foreigners to take our culture from us.

To the international community; We are just doing research.

Using an ulterior motive to hunt whales, that is all the research whaling is about. It is completely unnecessary. You feel that the IWC thinks it is very important research for them. Why don't other countries do the same thing? Really? I have never heard that before. Sorry, if I am wrong. Please provide me with that information. I would love to take a look at it.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

@david Please look at the statements below. This is the message given nationally and internationally. Which one is it? To the Japanese public; THIS IS OUR CULTURE. Don't allow the foreigners to take our culture from us. To the international community; We are just doing research. And if they get really angry the whalers and their supporters go back to the first statement.

Whaling is being done simply for the whalers and that is all there is to it.

Is it necessary to kill 1,000 whales to research them? KInd of redundant wouldn't you think? I don't think anyone would get angry if they killed a few in the name of research at all. But a thousand? Seems like overkill to me.

Yes, Japan might get its way in the IWC, but it would have bought its way. It has asked countries to join the IWC who have no interest in the subject at all unless it can get aid. It would vote one way or the other.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

However, besides extracting biological samples such as these, the whaling convention requires that the other parts of the whales taken be used to the extent possible. Obviously with regard to edible parts, in Japan that means that the meat is used as food. And that's why you can find fresh whale on the menu after research whale catch is brought in and processed.

Interesting point you made here David. I have some questions. Do you believe that every whale is researched on? If so, don't you think it is a bit of overkill. If not than the whales were killed for hunting purposes, wouldn't you agree? So, all of those stores that are selling whale meat that just came in are selling meat that has ALL been researched on?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

As for the ICJ case, it's very relevant. Australia is claiming at the ICJ that Japan's research is "commercial whaling in disguise". I am certain that the ICJ will not find in favour of Australia, e.g. Japan will win the case.

Yes, I am sure that JWC has greased a few palms of the IWC and plus it HAS done some research, but this is the same kind of loophole jumping, bribery and stretching the truth that turns everyone off. Yes, technically, Japan has done some research. But mostly in name only. Most of it was done for a different purpose. They admit it. YOU know it. I know it. Most Japanese know it and so does the world. It is this very sneaky type of behavior that most people detest.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

I can't believe that people actually buy into the whole "research" garbage. What a load of garbage.

@davidattokyo Wow, you are really trying to cover for the pro-whalers, aren't you? I mean, I have heard of going out on a limb, but your limb is ridiculously long. It is amazing that you would actually support the "Living Lie" that research whaling is. It might be legal but it is steeped in lies, bribery and deceiving anyone and everyone and you are falling for it hook line and sinker.

@troyinjapan Some good posts, man. Informative and realistic. I see you have been battling for a while on this issue, but don't worry about it. The Japanese have bought the votes. The IWC will conclude that the Japanese are right and that's it. They have the money and are passionate about it, where most of us should be ashamed of ourselves and make our voices heard. But we don't. Anyway, there are those out there who just lack moral fiber. Those who support the whaling are either numb in the head or lack moral fiber. NO matter how much we show them, they will always live in denial. Nice fight, Troy.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Readers, please keep the discussion civil. Neither side has the moral high ground on this issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nigelboy, I recently saw something quite different to what you are saying and shall need to look around to find it.

And the link I provided also gives translated articles of how the anti-whaling supporters used threats, coersion, and monetary payments to nations to support their stance. It also states that some of these nations appointed Commissioners who were not even citizens of the country they were representing.

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

The fundamental problem in your argument is that there are in fact many nations who received substantial aid from Japan who voted against St. Kitts Declaration. Secondly, those who voted against St. Kitts Delcaration without Japan's aid are all "developed" nations. Thirdly, those "poor" nations who voted for St. Kitts Delcaration have received aids from those "developed" nations as well. Hence, the articles you cite is just pure allegations with weak arguments to support it.

Than shows some facts to support why whaling should continue and that Japan has not been using a loophole to do its whaling.

When the IWC specifically states that a state can condcut research and harvest those materials for consumption, it is not a "loophole". It can only be a "loophole" when the convention doesn't state what to do with those harvested samples. The only "loophole" I see in the IWC is allowing states to join the Convention who are not interested in the "orderly development of the whaling industry". This goes for both anti and pro whaling nations that entered since the 80's.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Well, Nigelboy, I have to say I was extremely disappointed with what you gave us. Most of the writers in it are Japanese who support whaling and could be said to spin a very good tale. The articles are before 2000. The one article of any substance could be the one from Forbes but we also know that they have a strong dislike for Greenpeace anyway, They are too far right. The only thing that was really said was that the anti-whalers asked countries that were no way involved in the issue to join the IWC just like Japan did. Oh, and some of the countries could have received some money for their votes but there was no investigation into it. Just hearsay, I am afraid. Sad part is most of the articles were ancient. There were definately more than enough whale hunting leaning Japanese in there.

I don't get why you would give us that. I read it over three times, trying to find out where i had failed, but no investigations, just a he said kind of thing. Disappointing. I will read it again in the morning but I really don't see a point. It seems to me you just want to believe one side, because if that is all you are going on than you surely tenuous grasp on the issue at hand.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

YOU actually believe a JWA article? My, my. Hey, I guess the farmer should just believe the fox when it tells him that the sheep are eating all the grass and if the fox doesn't put a stop to it that the apple tree in the middle of the field will collapse on the man's house. WOW. Everyone one of those articles was from a pro-whaler. A lot of innuendo with no factual proof. And even the things that can be proven are hardly anything to get worked up over at all. So, what if some members weren't from certain countries. (Personally I haven't seen any information to prove otherwise and I did I would say, "So, what?") Nothing that was written in those articles was proven. Nothing can be proven. Just a lot of innuendos.

Personally I think these two links are much better. < http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7149091.ece> http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/whaling/ending-japanese-whaling/japan_vote_buying/

I have to say I am really disappointed. No facts, just innuendos from pro-whalers. No investigation. No ability to prove authenticity at all. Just nothing.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I do have to agree with your last paragraph. That is something that should change. But if it did, it would just work in the whalers behalf. This should be a global issue. Personally, I think it should be voted on by the UN if that can be done ethically. But I doubt it can be.

There is nothing wrong with having a whale sanctuary though. It should be something that we allow to happen.

You have your definition of loophole and I have mine. As one poster said, and I am sorry to see it was taken down earlier. The whalers may very well be following the "letter of the law". But most people care about the "Spirit of the Law". Which brings me back to my original post and what makes so many people angry. The law was not meant as a "go hunting for whales on a limited basis and put it in the store shelves" . No, it was more for researching whales. Or that is how most people see it. This trickery or slight of hand is not being lost on anyone. It stinks. I guess you, Nigel have fallen for it.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

One more thing Nigel, give us something relative to TODAY or in RECENT times. Not 1981. That is thirty years ago. The most recent was more than 11 years ago. That is ancient. Something current, please.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Spidapig24,

Australia, New Zealand, US, South Africa, Chile to name a few all say Japans research is a front for commercial whaling yet you expect us to believe you.

I don't expect you to do anything, indeed I believe you have an inflexible, pre-determined position against whaling because of your cultural programming, and no amount of fact reason logic (or even torture probably!) could make you think anything other than What You Want To Believe.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Just because only half of the countries are part of the IWC does not necessarily translate at all well. First of all some countries have joined the IWC at Japan's request. Even landlocked ones.

Like Switzerland? :) Or Austria? Hungary maybe?

All 3 countries are land-locked members of the IWC, and none of them ever vote with Japan. Oh wait, there's more...

Luxembourg... San Marino... (Small nations with big voices... )

Would you believe it, all 5 of these land-locked countries had been recruited to the whaler's commission by the anti-whaling bloc back in the 1980's and 1990's....

Oh but wait there's still more!

The Czech Republic? Slovakia? They used to be a single country too, so because they split up instead of one vote they now get two - as well as being land-locked.

On the other side of the ledger there are 2 land-locked nations that vote with Japan at the IWC - Mali and Mongolia. They both joined in the 2000's, so if recruiting land-locked nations for votes is a trick, then it's one that they and Japan must have learned from the anti-whalers after all those land-locked European states joined back in the 80's and 90's...

I wouldn't say that only 25% of the world is against whale hunting simply because there governments simply because their governments did not join the IWC. To say, so is reaching at best.

Hey, I said I can accept that 25% "seem" to be against whaling. I see no evidence that the rest are. The onus is not on me to show that only 25% are against - the onus is on those who make the reaching claim that the rest / majority of the world was against Japan, to back it up themselves.

What I think is that anti-whaling people often forget that the rest of the world includes places such as the continents of Africa and Asia... The world is larger that the cultural relm of the west.

I am sure you are fully aware that most governments in the world often times do what its populace finds disdainful.

Sure, but that doesn't provide any proof that they are all closet anti-whalers. I think most people don't give a hoot about it, from what I've seen. I remember a story a while ago about a dead whale washing ashore in coastal Ghana. Now, when this happens in Australia, they give the whale a burial as if it were one of their own (!!).

Can you guess what they did with the dead whale in coastal Ghana?

(I've been to coastal Ghana by the way - fascinating place and I recommend it)

I suspect people don't have places like Ghana in mind when they make sweeping claims about what the world thinks.

Many people lives are spent working and they have little time to go out and protest their governments lack of involvement in the IWC and there are so many other reasons as well.

Yeah, they probably don't care or know what IWC stands for in the first place, and if they did would perhaps wonder why a whaling commission currently doesn't regulate whaling? (Oh the enlightened western world...)

Really now? Well I don't think you could on your side either. But i would love to see you try. Go for it. Show me where most of the world supports the whalers. You just can't.

I never claimed a majority supports the whalers.

If I were to make a claim, it'd be that the majority of the world doesn't care about Japanese, Russian, Inuit, Greenlanders, Caribbean islanders, Norwegians, Icelanders (and tourists to Iceland) eating whales.

Hell I only support them because I believe in the principle of individual freedom for each and every human to the extent that it does not infringe upon the recognised rights of their fellow human beings. And with respect to whaling, to the extent that the whaling is sustainable, that's why I want the IWC to do it's job, or things might turn to custard one day.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

troy,

Hey, I am not going to disagree with you on the research at all. I am fully aware that Japan does research on whales. It has to in order to try to fool everyone else into believing that the meat doesn't just end up on the shelves in the supermarket.

Well, even if that characterisation were the true, it'd still be legal. The whaling convention rules allow for this, and indeed recommended nations to gather such biological data, exactly as Japan does (I'd quote the convention text directly but these posts are long enough as it is - but it's a very short convention and if you haven't read it I encourage you to do so.)

You know that the real reason is done to keep the whaling industry alive, right?

Scientific research is also of benefit to the whaling industry as well. You've heard of fisheries research in general, right? They aren't doing that just for fun either, it does actually serve a purpose.

But to your point, sure, the whaling industry in Japan to survive and prosper (as well as research...) also needs whale meat products and indeed a good chunk of the products available are from the research whaling - no doubt about it. (Whale meat also comes from Iceland and Japan's other non-IWC cetacean fisheries, plus accidental by-catch - so there'll still be some whale in Japan even if they stopped research whaling).

And this is entirely within the whaling commission rules, so what's your issue?

I see where you are coming from, but I think you started out from the "wrong place". The whaling commission rules were never intended to be used to ban all whaling. Yet it seems to me that banning whaling is your starting point, and because Japan is able to use the whaling convention's research whaling rules, you feel they are "getting around the moratorium", have I got you right?

The reason I think thats starting from the wrong place is because without the whaling convention rules, there would BE no moratorium. The whaling convention rules were there first - in 1982 the anti-whalers exploited them to impose a "moratorium", which directly conflicts with the purpose of the rest of the whaling convention rules. Yet the anti-whalers now complain about the whalers using the whaling convention rules (which existed before the moratorium) to get around the moratorium. Uh, that's backwards, right? Clearly it is the moratorium that is the problem, not the whalers using the whaling convention rules to do as was envisaged in the first place.

Sure, be it through dirty tricks or whatever, the anti-whalers did get the moratorium imposed.

But now the anti-whalers are like Goldfinger saying, "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!".

But, do we seriously expect Mr. Bond to just die?

Of course not. The whalers have the whaling convention rules on their side, and a) would you expect them NOT to use them? and b) do you expect them to just end whaling because they have an enemy that wants them to?

Using an ulterior motive to hunt whales, that is all the research whaling is about.

It's a whaling convention with rules both encouraging and allowing for research whaling to further the goals of the convention. Please read the convention! The ulterior motive here was in the imposition of the moratorium - putting a "temporary" measure in the IWC's catch quota schedule that says "zero" whales can be taken, and then trying to keep it that way forever by recruiting (even land-locked) nations etc to the IWC to out-number the whaling nations.

You think that's all well and good, but Japan is naughty for a) using the rules and b) not just doing as Goldfinger expects? c) fighting back?

You feel that the IWC thinks it is very important research for them.

The IWC Scientific Committee, not the IWC. The IWC is the politicians, not the scientists who advise them.

Why don't other countries do the same thing? Really?

Lots of reasons I can think of: 1) The moratorium precludes commercial exploitation at the moment, so why would you bother to do any research, unless you thought your research would help get the moratorium lifted? 2) Japan is conducting such research, so why duplicate their effort? 3) Research whaling (particularly in the Antarctic) is costly and requires technology. 4) Norway and Iceland currently conduct commercial whaling, so they can obtain biological data from their commercial catches. They are making do with that rather than spend extra money catching whales for the same purpose. They are killing two whales with one harpoon, you might say. Both have conducted research whaling in the past though and may do so again if their research needs requires it. Other countries too have issued research catch permits in the past. South Korea is reportedly looking at doing some research whaling itself.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

troyinjapan,

Is it necessary to kill 1,000 whales to research them? KInd of redundant wouldn't you think?

Do you understand the science behind opinion polls? Learn about that first, and then maybe you'll be able to understand.

I don't think anyone would get angry if they killed a few in the name of research at all. But a thousand? Seems like overkill to me.

What could they learn by just killing a few? Virtually nothing if you ask me.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

troyinjapan,

Do you believe that every whale is researched on?

Sure. Japan submits to the IWC lists of biological samples collected from the whales.

If so, don't you think it is a bit of overkill.

No, But I understand where you are coming from - I thought exactly the same way myself once upon a time. Now I understand the painstaking data-collection and research they are conducting :)

Think about it - you could kill a single whale, and learn some stuff about that particular individual whale by examining it's biological organs. Fine. But what use is that to you? What are you going to do with that information about the individual whale? It's pretty useless information by itself.

What whaling management requires, in order to be able to set sustainable and optimal catch quotas, is information about the stock / population of the type of whale in question. The way you get such a big picture view is by taking statistically valid sample sizes of those whales (rather than just a single one). Then you examine the biological samples of all of them and do some statistical analysis etc etc. This makes sense, no?

So, all of those stores that are selling whale meat that just came in are selling meat that has ALL been researched on?

Sure. It doesn't take a year to flense a whale and extract the biological organs for subsequent examination. This flensing happens within a couple of hours. The biological samples go to the labs, the meat goes to the markets.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Yes, I am sure that JWC has greased a few palms of the IWC and plus it HAS done some research, but this is the same kind of loophole jumping, bribery and stretching the truth that turns everyone off. Yes, technically, Japan has done some research. But mostly in name only. Most of it was done for a different purpose. They admit it. YOU know it. I know it. Most Japanese know it and so does the world. It is this very sneaky type of behavior that most people detest.

Whoops, you said "the world" again... hehe

Look the reality is you may not like the whaling convention - just because Japan doesn't roll over and end it's whaling industry (which you don't like), that doesn't make Japan a badguy. The reason we have the ICJ to abide over such disputes is to resolve them.

I think you should accept that ICJ decision when it comes out. You may not like it, but you should consider that maybe Japan has actually been in the right over this whaling issue for a long time.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

troyinjapan,

Well, Nigelboy, I have to say I was extremely disappointed with what you gave us. Most of the writers in it are Japanese who support whaling and could be said to spin a very good tale. The articles are before 2000.

So? What do you have against articles before 2000?

They are too far right.

One can never be too far right :)

The whalers may very well be following the "letter of the law". But most people care about the "Spirit of the Law".

The spirit of the whaling convention is whaling - not anti-whaling.

I think "most people" have forgotten or never understood the purpose of the IWC.

The law was not meant as a "go hunting for whales on a limited basis and put it in the store shelves" .

That sounds like a perfect brief of the whaling convention, actually.

No, it was more for researching whales. Or that is how most people see it.

If you read the convention, you'll discover why those who drafted it thought researching whales was important.

0 ( +4 / -3 )

The way you get such a big picture view is by taking statistically valid sample sizes of those whales

What could they learn by just killing a few? Virtually nothing if you ask me.

Yet for the past five years, is it? Japan has complained that it has not been able to take that 'statistically valid sample size' because of the ministrations of Sea Shepherd. So either (1) the research data for the past five years is statistically invalid and therefore useless, all those whales that did die, died in vain: or (2) the self-set Japanese quotas are way in excess of what is needed to take statistically valid samples, ie gross overkill.

Which is it?

you should consider that maybe Japan has actually been in the right over this whaling issue for a long time.

Whatever the verdict of the ICJ, there is no way that subjecting animals to the kind of pain and suffering that whaling necessarily involves - even more so whaling carried out in the name of statistically invalid 'research' - can be 'right'.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@cleo GREAT POINTS.

@David Let us begin the dance.

Would you believe it, all 5 of these land-locked countries had been recruited to the whaler's commission by the anti-whaling bloc back in the 1980's and 1990's....

So, what? Many European countries have been against whaling for the longest of time. Back in the 80's and 90's is irrelevant to what is happening in today's world.

if recruiting land-locked nations for votes is a trick, then it's one that they and Japan must have learned from the anti-whalers after all those land-locked European states joined back in the 80's and 90's..

So be it. So, what if anti-whaling groups were able to get land-locked countries involved in the fray. Are you trying to say that they were "bought" in. I wouldn't suspect such a thing because they are European and the Europeans for the most part have been against whaling. However Mail and Mongolia, now there are two countries that could have been influenced the the almighty yen, no?

Hey, I said I can accept that 25% "seem" to be against whaling. I see no evidence that the rest are. The onus is not on me to show that only 25% are against - the onus is on those who make the reaching claim that the rest / majority of the world was against Japan, to back it up themselves.

Your exact words:

No. Only around 25% of the world's nations seem to be against whaling. That's a minority.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Let me highlight it for you. THAT'S A MINORITY. Indicates that you believe that only 25% of the population are against whaling. Those are your words!!!

That's a minority

No, actually I believe the ONUS is on both sides. Your side seems to be reaching ridiculously. Are you actually going to sit there at your computer and type that most of the world agrees with whaling? REALLY? ARE YOU ACTUALLY GOING TO SIT THERE AND SAY THAT MOST OF THE WORLD SUPPORTS THE WHALERS? If you can do that I will lose all respect for you. It will mean that you have your head in the sand. We both know that you are not that naive, and if you are I feel no need to continue this debate with you at all.

What I think is that anti-whaling people often forget that the rest of the world includes places such as the continents of Africa and Asia... The world is larger that the cultural relm of the west.

For once I have to agree with you. But I still doubt that most of Asia and Africa supports whaling. But very good point. I like that. Touche!!!

Sure, but that doesn't provide any proof that they are all closet anti-whalers. I think most people don't give a hoot about it, from what I've seen. I remember a story a while ago about a dead whale washing ashore in coastal Ghana. Now, when this happens in Australia, they give the whale a burial as if it were one of their own (!!).

Can you guess what they did with the dead whale in coastal Ghana?

(I've been to coastal Ghana by the way - fascinating place and I recommend it)

Touche again. Really earning points, but still I wouldn't expect people in Ghana to waste a meal either. Plus there is a bit of an educational and worldly gap between the two countries. I doubt if people in Ghana really care about anything like this kind of an issue. So, it is hardly a fair comparison. AS you said, most people don't give a hoot. But one has to wonder if they were educated on the issue, that they might feel differently.

I never claimed a majority supports the whalers.

Oh, but with every post you IMPLY it very well.

Scientific research is also of benefit to the whaling industry as well. You've heard of fisheries research in general, right? They aren't doing that just for fun either, it does actually serve a purpose.

OF COURSE IT IS! It is for their benefit. Now, I will give you much more credit than before. You put up a very good argument until a certain point, which I will address alter. All your rules writing, I know very well of and completely agree with you. I have read the reports, all the documents, the moratorium and everything else on the subject. I am in agreement with you on just about everything. But, the problem is that most people have problems with going by the "Letter of the Law" and not the "spirit of the law". And another thing, what does sanctuary mean? That is what that place is called "Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary". Obviously the intent of to have a place where whales could go to be safe. I have never heard of a place called a sanctuary where people went to get killed. Nor have I ever heard of a sanctuary for any kind of animal that hunting has been allowed at. I could be wrong. But this is what excites the masses. Using the "Letter of the Law" and ignoring the "Spirit of the law".

Do you understand the science behind opinion polls? Learn about that first, and then maybe you'll be able to understand.

Don't talk down to me. I know very well about opinion polls and I would love to bet that if you did a real opinion poll your side would lose miserably.

What could they learn by just killing a few? Virtually nothing if you ask me. LMFAO That is a biased opinion to say the least. Year after year after year after year thousands of whales are killed under the guise of "RESEARCH". How shoveling bull here?

What whaling management requires, in order to be able to set sustainable and optimal catch quotas, is information about the stock / population of the type of whale in question. The way you get such a big picture view is by taking statistically valid sample sizes of those whales (rather than just a single one). Then you examine the biological samples of all of them and do some statistical analysis etc etc. This makes sense, no?

How condescending. Like I just woke up yesterday and decided that I was against whaling without doing any research of my own. Let me make something clear. I am opposed to people who say, "Whales are beautiful and majestic. They are intelligent creatures, blah, blah, blah, blah. Trust me, these people don't do service to the argument at all. FOOD IS FOOD. I understand this. Research whaling has to be done so, in order to fool a select few that they are doing research in order for them to keep whaling alive until the IWC changes its ruling. Then it is all out warfare on the whales until we come to a certain point where we discover as we did before that whales numbers are dwindling. Kind of like the tuna problem today. We let the fisherman monitor things until we have run the species into an endangered position. But that is besides the point. Sorry. Anyway, it does not take thousands upon thousands of whales to be killed year after year to find out what is going on with them. That is just used to continue whaling. If you don't believe that than there is nothing i can tell you and you have been hoodwinked by the whalers.

You may not like it, but you should consider that maybe Japan has actually been in the right over this whaling issue for a long time.

I usually support Japan as many posters know very well. I have been called a Japanophile by a number of people. But I will never accept Japan on this issue as being right because I have seen way to much to prove otherwise. And it is not the Japanese that I have a qualm with. It is the whalers and the amount of propaganda that they spew out. I don't like how they play one way but act another. I, like my most people detest those who circumvent laws. People who bend the laws to suit their financial gain. Yes, they have the law on their side and quite a few bought off countries on their side as well. But most people are tired of unscrupulous people who go by the letter of the law instead of the spirit of it.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It does not take thousands of whales killed year after year after year to find things out. Once again, why doesn't any other country do it? Because they don't have interest in whale hunting, that is why. I think YOU under estimate how much other countries do in researching whales and their enviornments. All of them do this without killing one single whale. But the JWC does it in the thousand year after year to obtain results that they hope will get the IWC to change its opinion on whaling. Not necessary unless you want to hunt whales.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@David

I have to say that even though you and I are at odds, I greatly appreciate your opinion and voice on this matter. I don't agree with you on some issues and kind of on others. But the good thing is that I have looked at a couple of things that i think and thought that I might need to rethink them. They weren't big issues though. I do hope that I have provided you with the same. It is good to debate someone who provides facts. I have given some as well as you. It is a lot better that way than debating with someone who just goes, BARK, BARK, BARK, BARK. Anyway, I know that you feel that i must be brainwashed as I do you. But I think it is good that two can disagree, argue but more importantly learn things from each other. I hope that you have learned something as I have. I have done more research on the issue these past few days than I have for a while on this issue, so it is nice to reeducate myself with the issue.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Remember, I didn't just wake up and decide I was against the whalers. It has taken a lot of research to be against the whalers.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

cleo,

Yet for the past five years, is it? Japan has complained that it has not been able to take that 'statistically valid sample size' because of the ministrations of Sea Shepherd.

Indeed they have been having difficulties.

So either (1) the research data for the past five years is statistically invalid and therefore useless, all those whales that did die, died in vain:

They are taking more than just a few, which would be useless, but certainly the failure to take full sample sizes will have had an effect on the usefulness of the data - and you yourself note above that the Japanese have complained about this...

So what's your point? Yay for eco-terrorism? Should researchers all just give up the minute some eco-terrorist attacks them? (I'm sure you would like it if they did, but I'm being serious)

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Would you believe it, all 5 of these land-locked countries had been recruited to the whaler's commission by the anti-whaling bloc back in the 1980's and 1990's....

So, what?

You tell me - you are the one who brought up land-locked nations being at the IWC as an issue... If you don't want to talk about it anymore that's cool...

Back in the 80's and 90's is irrelevant to what is happening in today's world.

Irrelevant? So you mean it's OK for anti-whalers to recruit land-locked nations to the whaling commission for anti-whaling purposes, but not OK for whaling nations to recruit land-locked nations to the whaling commission for whaling purposes?

OK, let's end this. Mali and Mongolia were recruited back in the 00's, it's irrelevant to what is happening in today's world.

After all, the IWC doesn't even conduct votes anymore, not for the past 3 years or so IIRC, so talk of "vote buying" is laughable.

Are you trying to say that they were "bought" in.

Nigelboy already gave you information about those dubious dealings, did you not read all the information? As for me, it's history now, I don't care about the politics myself. I care about good management of whale resources and respect for the individual freedoms of all people, even people of (gasp) culture different to the Europeans.

I wouldn't suspect such a thing because they are European and the Europeans for the most part have been against whaling.

It may be that they don't really care, but because they are friends with other European nations who do care about the issue they decide to back them up at the IWC? You know how it is with the European Union, they all have to toe the same line. Czech and Slovakia only joined around 2004, they could have done so much earlier had they seriously cared about it.

However Mail and Mongolia, now there are two countries that could have been influenced the the almighty yen, no?

Could have been is not a proof, just innuendo.

Think about it - Mongolia is an Asian nation - why should they be against whaling? Asia does not have Europe's culture. The Russians up north are catching whales, the South Koreans and Japanese are catching whales, the Chinese tend to side with the Japanese on the issue because they have their own difficulties with Europeans over similar issues (tiger farming etc) - could it not be that their friends the Mongolians decide to back up their whaling friends - as the Europeans do?

As for Mali - it's an African nation. African nations - due to their suffering under European colonialism - are also not especially inclined to side with their former slave masters in such issues either. On the contrary if you take a look around Africa you'll find that many nations their have trouble with sustainable utilisation of natural resources too. Take elephants. The Europeans are against the Africans sustainably utilising their elephants and selling the products to ... you guessed it - Asians. This could be a source of income for these countries, but the blasted Europeans are denying them. Don't you think they see shades of their own issues in the whaling debate?

You see - the world is bigger than just Europe. So let's not pretend that European cultures are what constitutes "the world".

Your exact words:

No. Only around 25% of the world's nations seem to be against whaling. That's a minority.

Exactly. Your point? If we exclude land-locked nations, I should revise that down to 24% though.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Are you actually going to sit there at your computer and type that most of the world agrees with whaling? REALLY? ARE YOU ACTUALLY GOING TO SIT THERE AND SAY THAT MOST OF THE WORLD SUPPORTS THE WHALERS?

Dude, I already said what I said. Yes, it seems only 25% (24% excluding land-locked European nations) are against whaling.

I also said this: "If I were to make a claim, it'd be that the majority of the world doesn't care about Japanese, Russian, Inuit, Greenlanders, Caribbean islanders, Norwegians, Icelanders (and tourists to Iceland) eating whales."

The majority not caring doesn't mean they agree. Nor does it mean that they disagree. It means They, Do, Not, Care. If they did they'd join the IWC, just like land-locked Czech and Slovakia did.

You see I think there are not two types of people in the world. People who care and are supportive of whaling (like me). People who care and are against whaling (like you). People who don't care. I think most people don't care, and that's where my 25% (24%) statement comes from.

I still doubt that most of Asia and Africa supports whaling. But very good point. I like that. Touche!!!

OK thanks. But I think generally Asian and African people have no issues with eating whales. They do eat all sorts of fodder themselves, and often have Europeans tut-tutting them themselves.

I wouldn't expect people in Ghana to waste a meal either.

As far as I saw when I was there they had plenty of food - Ghana is one of the better places in Africa. But still a whale is a big lump of meat.

Plus there is a bit of an educational and worldly gap between the two countries. I doubt if people in Ghana really care about anything like this kind of an issue. So, it is hardly a fair comparison. AS you said, most people don't give a hoot.

Precisely - but they are what they are and just because what I say is on the money doesn't mean its not a fair comparison. I'm taking issue with people claiming the "world" is against whaling when I don't see that to be true.

But one has to wonder if they were educated on the issue, that they might feel differently.

Educated by who? Me or you? But frankly I think they've got more important issues to be worried about than some clash of culture between Europeans and whalers (which includes some Europeans too, I should note).

I never claimed a majority supports the whalers.

Oh, but with every post you IMPLY it very well.

You noted it before yourself that I said most people don't give a hoot.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

But, the problem is that most people have problems with going by the "Letter of the Law" and not the "spirit of the law".

See this is where we diverge.

From my perspective (which I think is correct), the whaling convention rules are the framework. Without this framework, the moratorium would not exist, because it was under the whaling convention framework that the so-called "moratorium" was imposed by the anti-whalers.

But first and foremost we have to remember that the whaling convention is a whaling convention, not an anti-whaling convention. Of course the rules are going to suit the whalers.

On the other hand, the spirit of the "moratorium" was indeed anti-whaling - but the whalers never signed up to that! They signed up to the whaling convention! So why should anyone expect them to go by the "spirit" of the moratorium, when they never agreed with this measure in the first place?

And another thing, what does sanctuary mean? That is what that place is called "Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary". Obviously the intent of to have a place where whales could go to be safe.

The sanctuary is like the moratorium - it's an abuse of the whaling convention by the anti-whalers. The whaling convention does allow for the IWC to impose sanctuaries - but only under specific conditions - this was not the case with the southern ocean sanctuary.

The sanctuary and moratorium were both imposed under Article V of the whaling convention due to majority of numbers. But here is the bit from the convention that specifies the conditions:

"These amendments of the Schedule (a) shall be such as are necessary to carry out the objectives and purposes of this Convention and to provide for the conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale resources; (b) shall be based on scientific findings; (c) shall not involve restrictions on the number or nationality of factory ships or land stations, nor allocate specific quotas to any factory ship or land station or to any group of factory ships or land stations; and (d) shall take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry."

Does either the moratorium or sanctuary provide for optimum utilization of the whale resources? I'd say No. Based on scientific findings? The IWC's scientific committee never advised in favour of either of these measures, I'd say No again. Take into consideration the interests of consumers of whale products and industry? Obviously a Big No there too.

So speaking about spirit of the law, if the law is the whaling convention (it is), then both the moratorium and sanctuary, which were established ostensibly under the whaling conventions auspices, are in violation of it. (I am hoping Japan uses the opportunity at the ICJ to push this case against Australia and really turn the tables on them.)

I have never heard of a place called a sanctuary where people went to get killed. Nor have I ever heard of a sanctuary for any kind of animal that hunting has been allowed at. I could be wrong. But this is what excites the masses.

Here I think you are precisely correct - the masses have never actually read the whaling convention to know what it is for. But they do understand the English word "sanctuary", and even though the "sanctuary" and "moratorium" violate the spirit of the whaling convention, neither t violate the spirit of the plain English meaning of these words - and that's why people get excited and misled about it.

If they were aware that "sanctuaries" in the IWC context are only supposed to be permitted under the conditions I quoted above, I think most reasonable people would agree that the whalers have been hard done by here.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

So what's your point?

That either the so-callled 'scientific findings' from the 'scientific research' are based on a statistically invalid sample size and are therefore useless (less than useless, considering the harm that has been inflicted in obtaining them); or that the Japanese are trying on a yearly basis to take more than they need for their 'scientific research'. Why would they do that?

Yay for eco-terrorism? Should researchers all just give up the minute some eco-terrorist attacks them?

I don't see the point in them repeating the same fruitless and expensive exercise over and over again when they know they have no chance of producing valid results. Then again they do keep claiming that they are 'doing research' with their drastically reduced sample sizes and want us to believe that their results are valid and important, essential even. So if it's possible to get useful results with fewer dead animals, why not just set the quota at the lower level in the first place? Why kill more animals than you need? In any land-based research programme, you have to submit applications to justify the use of animals in scientific research; why is there no oversight of this particular 'scientific research'?

Dont bother to answer, I'll tell you why; because the purpose isn't research, it's hunting, is why.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Research whaling has to be done so, in order to fool a select few that they are doing research in order for them to keep whaling alive until the IWC changes its ruling.

You still seem to be denying the utility of the research Japan is undertaking for our knowledge of how to go about sustainably and optimally utilising whale resources. It's as if you think I am a fool for recognising this. I've not done no research about this myself matey.

Then it is all out warfare on the whales until we come to a certain point where we discover as we did before that whales numbers are dwindling.

Why do you assume they will be dwindling?

The whole idea of the IWC is to NOT have "all out warfare on the whales", but to sustainably manage these stocks so that we (or people who want to) can eat whales forever, in eternity. The IWC screwed up in it's early years, but it was just getting it right in the mid to late 1970's but then whammo, the anti-whalers came along and imposed a useless moratorium and screwed it all up.

Japan's research is certainly not "all out warfare". Latest indications from the IWC Scientific Committee (if you read this year's report to the commission) suggest that Antarctic minke whale numbers were likely 500K or more as of the most recent survey (finalized estimate is due to come out next year). They are taking less than 950 of these each year, e.g. 0.19% of the mid-point estimate. 0.19% per year is extremely conservative, considering that scientists believe the Antarctic minke to be capable of reproducing at rates in excess of 5% per year.

Kind of like the tuna problem today. We let the fisherman monitor things until we have run the species into an endangered position. But that is besides the point. Sorry.

Well it's the same kind of thing - no problem. But these concerns are precisely why we need an IWC to function properly and regulate whaling. The last thing we want is to have unregulated whaling, because then - as you fear - some whalers might go awol and exterminate whale species like almost happened back in the past. We don't want to go there again - we need to get the balance right, and it needs international oversight to help ensure this. We need the IWC to take up that function once more, before that does happen. We are just lucky that Japan, Iceland and Norway are being prudent enough right now, but we can't be sure that will always be the case in future.

Anyway, it does not take thousands upon thousands of whales to be killed year after year to find out what is going on with them.

I disagree - like I said, 950 is only 0.2% of the population, and if you are monitoring the ongoing status of the population to understand what levels of harvest could be sustained, then you do need to keep up this research continually.

That is just used to continue whaling.

That's a convenient side-effect really, but then one must remember that it is a whaling convention, which shouldn't have a moratorium imposed permanently anyway. The moratorium should have been lifted years ago if it were really just a moratorium. But the anti-whalers had to call it a moratorium because a "permanent ban" (what they really want) would be obviously illegal under the whaling convention.

I will never accept Japan on this issue as being right because I have seen way to much to prove otherwise.

Well like I said, the ICJ judges are going to consider Australia's case - if you want to be impartial you could take the advice of the ICJ judges when they reach their conclusion.

I, like my most people detest those who circumvent laws.

My view is anti-whalers circumvented the whaling convention law to impose the moratorium and sanctuary - as I noted above.

Yes, they have the law on their side and quite a few bought off countries on their side as well.

The anti-whalers started that to get the moratorium imposed in the first place, against the spirit of the whaling convention. The whalers certainly fought back with their own recruitments. I think it's clear who soiled the IWC in the first place.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It does not take thousands of whales killed year after year after year to find things out.

OK, so tell me then how does one obtain information about natural moratlity and fertility rates in a population of whales, by killing just a couple of whales at some given point in time, as opposed to taking a population sample repeatedly over a number of years?

I know you are eventually going to agree with me on this one!!

Once again, why doesn't any other country do it? Because they don't have interest in whale hunting, that is why.

Exactly. The research isn't done to find a cure for cancer, it's being done for the development of the whaling industry, as is the spirit of the whaling convention.

I think YOU under estimate how much other countries do in researching whales and their enviornments. All of them do this without killing one single whale.

Well Japan does some non-lethal research too where appropriate (biopsy sampling, ship based counts etc), but their aim is to assist the development of the whaling industry, through better knowledge of whales stocks which will help set catch quotas better.

Nations like Australia are conducting some other types of research on whales, but precious little of it that I have seen has any utility for the development of whaling industry. Australia is free to do whatever research it likes, but Japan's reasearch is perfectly compatible with the aims of the whaling convention. We can't blame Japan for simply doing what is in accordance with the spirit of the whaling convention which almost half of the world's nations have signed up to.

But the JWC does it in the thousand year after year to obtain results that they hope will get the IWC to change its opinion on whaling.

What's wrong about that? How else are they supposed to get the moratorium over-turned?

Not necessary unless you want to hunt whales.

Exactly right! Yes, Japan wants to hunt whales! That's why Japan joined the IWC! That's why Japan is interested in researching whale stocks!

None of this is a secret, Japan has always been open about this. It's not Japan's fault if the anti-whalers misled people into believing otherwise to make out that Japan is being sneaky here.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Troy,

Well I enjoyed our discussion here too. I wouldn't have written so much had it not been stimulating :) Stimulting enough to make me skip watching the Rugby World Cup quarterfinals today... damn LOL

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Latest indications from the IWC Scientific Committee (if you read this year's report to the commission) suggest that Antarctic minke whale numbers were likely 500K or more as of the most recent survey (finalized estimate is due to come out next year).

That would be a finalised estimate based on Japan's useless data from statistically invalid sample sizes?

scientists believe the Antarctic minke to be capable of reproducing at rates in excess of 5% per year

And why do they believe that? Because roughly a third of all the whales caught by Japan in the Antarctic - roughly 70% of all the females caught - are pregnant or lactating. Killing one pregnant female also kills its unborn baby; killing one lactating female leaves its new-born baby alone in the water to die of starvation. It's disgusting.

A couple of years ago Japan got all upset about the Australian press publishing a picture of one female and one baby being hauled onto the butcher ship together; they weren't mother and child, claimed Japan, so no need to make a fuss. If they weren't, odds are that the female was either pregnant or leaving a baby in the water to die. The Australian press didn't know the half of it.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

cleo,

Latest indications from the IWC Scientific Committee (if you read this year's report to the commission) suggest that Antarctic minke whale numbers were likely 500K or more as of the most recent survey (finalized estimate is due to come out next year).

That would be a finalised estimate based on Japan's useless data from statistically invalid sample sizes?

No, that's completely different. The estimate I am refering to is based on sightings survey data collected from the IWC Scientific Committee's long running IDCR/SOWER programmes (the field work of which was led by a New Zealand scientist in recent years). Japan has (generously) provided the research vessels and crews for the research, but the scientists on board have been from a range of countries. The expeditions have been led by a New Zealand scientist in recent years.

Japan's research whaling is separate with a focus on information that can't be obtained through non-lethal research as already gone over above (and with you in the past repeatedly), but as you recognise, due to eco-terrorism the utility of the data in recent years has been somewhat compromised, although the IWC Scientific Committee has also been using such data in it's stock assessment work to the extent possible. Not an ideal situation, but until Australia and New Zealand do their part to rein in eco-terrorism as they are obliged under the SUA convention this may remain the case, unless Japan's security measures are good enough this time.

scientists believe the Antarctic minke to be capable of reproducing at rates in excess of 5% per year

And why do they believe that?

Because they are scientists who have built up a knowledge of this stuff through a long history of research...

A couple of years ago Japan got all upset about the Australian press publishing a picture of one female and one baby being hauled onto the butcher ship together; they weren't mother and child, claimed Japan

Indeed they weren't, they were a large whale and a smaller whale. But to say they were "mother and child" made for shocking (read: excellent) news for the easily excitable Australian public, who are easily duped by any comparisons of whales to human beings.

Ironically, under commercial whaling, whalers would have an incentive to avoid areas where female whales are known to predominate. A sex-bias toward females in the catch would trigger reductions in the catches for subsequent years.

But I know you'd prefer to keep issuing your self-gratifying yet futile demands that all whaling be ended, rather than accept whaling under a commercial format, so that's a mute point ain't it!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

cleo,

I don't see the point in them repeating the same fruitless and expensive exercise over and over again when they know they have no chance of producing valid results.

You hoping that the eco-terrorism succeeds is not the same thing as the Japanese government "knowing" they have no chance of success. Why do you think they are sending more security this time, eh?

So if it's possible to get useful results with fewer dead animals, why not just set the quota at the lower level in the first place?

Statistical precision cleo, it's not rocket science.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

davidattokyo

So if it's possible to get useful results with fewer dead animals, why not just set the quota at the lower level in the first place?

Statistical precision cleo, it's not rocket science

What a laugh David. Dont you mean less numbers would mean less commercially harvested whale meat to sell. You seem to be one of the few who actually buy this whole whaling for research garbage and you say everyone else is sold on the anti whaling propaganda. I think you spend too much time on the JWA website either that or you have a vested interest in the matter i.e. you work in the industry????

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@David

I know you are eventually going to agree with me on this one!!

You know what? Not going to happen. I'm sorry, I just don't buy that it takes a thousand whales over a period of time to conduct adequate research to find out vital information. Plus nobody else is doing it. Just the JWC. Oh, and in the name of research. Yeah, it needs to kill a thousand whales just to find out things about it year after year. hehehehehehehe!" Are you laughing? I just told a joke.Come on, now. Seriously. It takes yearly slaughters of thousands of whales to do important research? YOu know, if you have to kill a thousand of something in the name of research, you might want to step back and ask yourself, "What is all this for?" You know the answer right? So, they can continue whaling. La la la la la la. That's it.

Exactly. The research isn't done to find a cure for cancer, it's being done for the development of the whaling industry, as is the spirit of the whaling convention.

The spirit of the whaling convention and the JWC's intentions are quite opposite. The IWC was set up protect the whales from extinction. The JWC's intentions are FOR THE HUNT. Money! MONEY! MONEY! Yipee!

Well Japan does some non-lethal research too where appropriate (biopsy sampling, ship based counts etc), but their aim is to assist the development of the whaling industry, through better knowledge of whales stocks which will help set catch quotas better.

Hmmmm. I could almost buy that if I were a bit naive. Come on. Once again. The samoling is done for two reasons. One, to keep the whaling industry alive until a change in the IWC can come about. Two, in order to show the IWC that whale counts are up and that it is time to go whaling again. Would you take the word of the fox if you were the farmer? hehehehehehe I think not.

Nations like Australia are conducting some other types of research on whales, but precious little of it that I have seen has any utility for the development of whaling industry. Australia is free to do whatever research it likes, but Japan's reasearch is perfectly compatible with the aims of the whaling convention. We can't blame Japan for simply doing what is in accordance with the spirit of the whaling convention which almost half of the world's nations have signed up to.

That is your opinion on Australia. I have seen other information that shows otherwise. Plus, why would Australia want to aid in getting the whalers "back in the saddle" again? They would not. Oh, you say the spirit os the law. Nooooooooooo, That is not the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is to let these animals alone and reproduce in a safe sanctuary. Why would they call it a "Whale Sanctuary" of they meant for the whales to be killed tested and sampled with Yakiniku sauce. I have to admit, you are busting me up here. Almost half of the nations have signed up to. Well, according to you and the pro-whalers, the anti-whaling factions have bought up their fare share of voting countries. And I have said the same thing about your pro-whaling faction. So, that is hardly anything to go in than is it? I think not. Plus, didn't you say that the majorities opinion was not the only thing that mattered and that the minority should be able to do what it wants, or something along those lines? I find your last sentence to be a great contradiction to your earlier comments and majority and minority.

It's not Japan's fault if the anti-whalers misled people into believing otherwise to make out that Japan is being sneaky here.

Ahhhh, that is truly where we disagree. When I see signs on whaling ships saying, "We are collecting samples" and other signs like that I know that something smells. The JWC loves to scream, "RESEARCH" but the true intention is to further its own agenda. Who is trying to mislead who? I would respect them if they put up a sign and said, "HEY, WE WANT TO HUNT WHALES. WE ARE GOING TO DO SOME SAMPLING TO FURTHER OUR AGENDA AND THAN IT IS OFF TO THE LOCAL SHOP TO BE SOLD". That would be cool. I would respect them for just being honest and not trying to pull the wool over our eyes. More to come....

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Irrelevant? So you mean it's OK for anti-whalers to recruit land-locked nations to the whaling commission for anti-whaling purposes, but not OK for whaling nations to recruit land-locked nations to the whaling commission for whaling purposes?

OK, let's end this. Mali and Mongolia were recruited back in the 00's, it's irrelevant to what is happening in today's world.

Maybe you didn’t read what I posted earlier, so let me rephrase it for you, but this time try better to understand what I am writing. European countries have for the most part been against whaling, so I doubt there was any buying them out. As for Mali and Mongolia who are landlocked that is whole different issue. One, landlocked. Two, uneducated population that could probably care less about the issue. There, in desperate need of aid. For me, that spells, B-O-U-G-H-T O-F-F. Yes, it happened in the 00 which is relevant to the problem. Anything in the 80’s and 90’s for me is irrelevant.

Vote buying is not laughable when the next vote comes up and you have two countries who were just bought off that have not interest in the subject at all. Comparing Mali and Mongolia to Europe is unfair. And as for your opinion on European supporting each other, well so what? Good for them. Sounds like they weren’t bought even in your own words than. And that is fine with me. At least it was honest and not paid for. Like I said before, Europeans have cared about this issue for the most part and were not really in need of too much aid as far as I can see. So, I really don’t see them being bought off. As for your opinion on the Asian partnership as far as Mongolia knows, I would seriously doubt that. They are and have been in much need of foreign aid.

Ahhhhhh, Nigel’s information. Innuendo and ancient is the only way to describe it. I could use laughable as well. Most of the stories are from pro-whalers in the first place. And one is from the JWC itself. Once again the fox telling the farmer he has too many sheep. You can not view the JWC as a reliable source, as you have said before, there are agenda is to restart whaling, therefore whatever information that is provided by them needs to really be gone over in great detail.

As for Mali - it's an African nation. African nations - due to their suffering under European colonialism - are also not especially inclined to side with their former slave masters in such issues either. On the contrary if you take a look around Africa you'll find that many nations their have trouble with sustainable utilisation of natural resources too. Take elephants. The Europeans are against the Africans sustainably utilising their elephants and selling the products to ... you guessed it - Asians. This could be a source of income for these countries, but the blasted Europeans are denying them. Don't you think they see shades of their own issues in the whaling debate?

No, once again you are reaching my long armed friend. Africa receives a lot of aid from Europeans, Americans and most recently the Chinese. Oh, but don’t get me started on the Chinese. I don’t see it that way, especially after reading reports of some being wined and dined in Tokyo with some Caribbean reps as well. I think that is how it went. But also, I do know that there are close ties between Japan and Mali.

You see - the world is bigger than just Europe. So let's not pretend that European cultures are what constitutes "the world".

Well, since I am not European I can’t take offense to that, but in reality, I never heard anyone say that Europe constitutes the world. Hardly. I don’t even know where you are going there. But remember Asia nor Africa constitutes the world either. So, what of it?

No. Only around 25% of the world's nations seem to be against whaling. That's a minority.

No no no no no. That is what YOU SAID. I followed it up with; WHO SAID? WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? Scroll back up and you will see that you have made a mistake.

You see I think there are not two types of people in the world. People who care and are supportive of whaling (like me). People who care and are against whaling (like you). People who don't care. I think most people don't care, and that's where my 25% (24%) statement comes from.

Well, you may have that right about where you and I stand, but I think your figures of 24/25% are 1) extremely convenient 2) unrealistic. 3) is a gross underestimate. A lot of people don’t have the power to protest what their countries do in the first place.

As far as I saw when I was there they had plenty of food - Ghana is one of the better places in Africa. But still a whale is a big lump of meat.

So, I have heard. Would love to go there one day myself.

I'm taking issue with people claiming the "world" is against whaling when I don't see that to be true.

Yes, I clearly see your point, but feel the other way around about that issue. Just two polar opposites.

Ahhhhhh, yes, Article V of the whaling convention. Touche again, my whaling friend. I know it well, I know it well, I know it well. Damn thing. I will give you that one. I honestly can’t argue that, neither can anyone else. That is a killer, but it still spits in the face of what most would call a sanctuary and it does burn my butt when people do not realize or are aware of this in the convention. I want to yell at them, "READ MORE. Your ignorance of the law is not helping a damn thing in this issue". But a sanctuary is supposed to be just that. It still spits in the face of the letter of the law, and you know it. The law was not meant to be made for whaling nations to go out and hunt whales. It was meant for research. I think if they had their choice they would have worded it a lot better.

The international oversight that you think is important, for me is true. But I am not in favor of IWC. There are too many ways to get around things. Too many ways for both sides to get their votes. I do wish people were more informed. Personally, I would do away with the IWC which seems infested with money and bribery and really has not served its intended purpose. YOU can’t call a place a sanctuary when there are animals being killed there.

When I meant “all out warfare” I meant once whaling resumes. It has been hard to stop the over fishing of tuna and the impact on the species has been devastating. I don’t want the same thing for the whale species, but if whaling is allowed to continue it will be damn hard to stop the next time. Just like the tuna problem. Too much money to be lost once the wheels get moving and you know it.

You may support whaling and I will give you credit, you have done your research as have I. We just it see it differently. But I do respect a mind that is at work and not too lazy to research reality. I have a huge problem with Article V of the convention. It allows whaling countries to hunt whales under the guise of research. That is something that most are not aware of. That is true. But for me and a lot of others who do know about it, we scream foul because we know for sure that it is not supposed to be meant for whaling countries to go out and do their whaling in the "research whaling" guise. It was just not meant for that. Or that is how the public sees it for the most part.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

And no, whaling should not have been restarted a few years ago. Noooooooooo. There needs to be a comprehensive study of the whale population, without spearing 1000's them (Overkill to say the least), collecting a few insignificant samples that are meaningless, calling it research and throwing them on the table. All research should be done without harming the whales. And there needs to be a NO TOUCH zone where the supposed SOUTHERN OCEAN WHALE SANCTUARY is presently at. Outside of that, do your thing, but in your own waters.

And another thing, the promotion of whaling by you and others like you is only going to give Japan a black eye in the end. YOU will see. If whaling is allowed to restart you will see millions around the world stop buying Japanese products. They will be boycotted and Japan will have to give up whaling anyway to save its financial life. Since I live here, and have my business here, I have to admit, I am selfish and want the country to flourish, but that will not happen when the ban is lifted and it will be the short-sighted who will hurt this country the most with their, "Pro-whaling" agenda. Mark my words. The economy will go kaput! I have concern for this country. I live here. My family is here. My business is here. And if something like that should occur, there will be hell to pay financially.

Now, I will tell you once again what my father always told me to you and your whaling supporters to think about very carefully.

Just because you can does not mean that you should. Is the economy going to be better off or worse once whaling restarts? If you said, worse off, than you are right. If you said better than you are misleading your own self. There are too many people in the world who are against whaling and the anti-whalers will do a huge media push on Japan, and she will suffer, which is something that I don't want to see. I have been here for twenty years so it is like a home to me.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Remember,

Just because you can does not mean that you should

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

troyinjapan is absolutely right on all his points.

It's great that we have good people here to provide the counter arguments to the propagandists who seem to work for Japan's whaling industry (maybe they do!)

The simple fact is... all this research whaling is a complete nonsense! Why would anyone want to spend all this time and effort to research a tiny tiny niche market?!

Whale meat is a weird food in Japan. You may have some nationalistic ojisans who make a big deal about it (and why anyone would want to be on the same side as those nutters is beyond me)

But apart from the crazy nationalist ojisans, for the great majority of Japanese people, whale meat is weird food... strange food... bizarre food... let's try a bit of this weird food... oh! it doesn't taste too bad but no way that I'll be eating this on a regular basis...

get the picture? that's how most Japanese people view it.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If you want a good laugh, google this: isana + whale

You will get a collection of the most ridiculous articles written mainly by nationalistic Japanese ojisans who have got their underwear in a twist about the whaling issue.

Some hilarious quotes:

Various factors are woven into the anti-whaling attitude of western countries, such as the fear and wariness against Japan, a maritime nation, and the envy and antipathy against Japan's success as an economic power.

Every night, I make it a habit to busy myself with cataloging my insect collection...

Thank you, Whales!

It always makes me chuckle how the Japanese make a big deal about their statues and shrines to dead whales. What do they think? That the whales are popping their heads out of the sea and seeing these statues and thinking "Oh, that makes our suffering and slaughter so much easier"...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

McCully also said he was concerned at Kano's assertion that Japan would boost security for its whaling fleet to guard against harassment by environmental protesters.

He also expressed alarm at recent statements from environmental activist group Sea Shepherd - which forced Japan to curtail its whaling hunt earlier this year - suggesting its vessels could use life-threatening tactics to stop whalers.

McCully has every reason to be concerned. Everywhere the eco-terrorist SS operates they bring acts of violence with them.

If Australia and New Zealand are truly concerned about violence, they should never have registerd eco-terrorist vessels or allowed them to operate out of their ports.

The whalers, on the other hand, have every right to DEFEND themselves from SS eco-terrorist violence.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"Whaling is for wimps"- Derek Trotter- UK whaling specialist - Nov 11 1989.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

troyinjapan - Remember, Just because you can does not mean that you should

Maybe McCully should tell that to the eco-terrorist SS.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"It always makes me chuckle how the Japanese make a big deal about their statues and shrines to dead whales. What do they think? That the whales are popping their heads out of the sea and seeing these statues and thinking "Oh, that makes our suffering and slaughter so much easier"."

Chuckle all you want but to anyone with half a brain that's pretty solid evidence that Whaling is in fact a long standing part of Japanese culture, something that mindless anti-whalers are constantly denying.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@arrestpaul LMFAO Fist of all, I wouldn't call the SS eco-terroris at all. The SS is doing something that most people who don't what, I believe they have the right to do. The whalers want to go down and hunt whales, people don't like it so they have as far as I am concerned every right to go down there and protest.

FACT: I have seen the whalers you EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TACTICS against the SS that was well beyond defending themselves. The pro-whaling propagandist love to ignore this point and call the SS terrorists and that is just not right.

Hey, if the whalers don't like the SS their than they should remember this; Don't start anything and there won't be anything. If they weren't there in the first place than nothing would be happening. Stay in their own waters to do their whaling, don't ignore the feelings of people who oppose it by traveling 11,000 miles to do it in another part of the world, than nobody can complain. That is fact; arrestpaul!! It is because the whalers are traveling so far away to another part of the world and ignoring who people feel, to do their whaling that gets people angry. If the JWC would show a little more restraint and not do this than the Sea Sheppard would not have a reason to protest against them. Clearly, it is the pro-whalers who should remember Just because you can does not mean that you should and don't start anything and there won't be anything. Don't just ignore people's feelings and do what you want thousands and thousand of kilometers away in the name of science. But like David said, they are doing research and that is only to further their cause that there are enough whales there to be harvested.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@choiwaruoyaji Thank you for your support. I hate to say this but go back and read the "battle royale" between David and I and you will see that I had to cede him a very important point of which I was aware, but was never going to mention. Hey, this is chess. I am sure that David would have done the same thing. He is not going to give me my trump card either. But here are two very important points in the IWC convention.

Article V (1) The Commission may amend from time to time the provisions of the Schedule by adopting regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization of whale resources, fixing (a) protected and unprotected species; (b) open and closed seasons; (c) open and closed waters, including the designation of sanctuary areas; (d) size limits for each species; (e) time, methods, and intensity of whaling (including the maximum catch of whales to be taken in any one season); (f) types and specifications of gear and apparatus and appliances which may be used; (g) methods of measurement; and (h) catch returns and other statistical and biological records.

(2) These amendments of the Schedule (a) shall be such as are necessary to carry out the objectives and purposes of this Convention and to provide for the conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale resources; (b) shall be based on scientific findings; (c) shall not involve restrictions on the number or nationality of factory ships or land stations, nor allocate specific quotas to any factory ship or land station or to any group of factory ships or land stations; and (d) shall take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry.

Now, according to this Japan is not in violation at all. They are just using this to hunt whales and further IWC knowledge that the whaling population is abundant enough to hunt. What we call a "loophole" even if the pro-whalers want to call it differently. (Sorry, David) I will not cede you that. The true purpose of the convention was to provide a sanctuary. A sanctuary is a place where people or animals can go to be safe and free from killings for any reason at all. Furthermore, your belief that it is necessary to kill 1,000 whales a year is just bogus and overkill. A hundred would suffice.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@choiwaruoyaji

The simple fact is... all this research whaling is a complete nonsense! Why would anyone want to spend all this time and effort to research a tiny tiny niche market?!

In order to convince the "incompetent" and "bribe infested from both sides" IWC that whale stocks are abundant enough to restart whaling full scale. Sad, but necessary to the whalers to ATTEMPT to prove their point. A sad lot, if you ask me whose success will have a very negative impact on Japan's sales of goods in many parts of South America, all of North America and Most of Europe.

Once again thank you for your support, but I really have to say that I am a little disappointed in your logic and it is this that hurts us sometimes.

Whale meat is a weird food in Japan. You may have some nationalistic ojisans who make a big deal about it (and why anyone would want to be on the same side as those nutters is beyond me)

But apart from the crazy nationalist ojisans, for the great majority of Japanese people, whale meat is weird food... strange food... bizarre food... let's try a bit of this weird food... oh! it doesn't taste too bad but no way that I'll be eating this on a regular basis...

Hey, we are not to judge what is weird in this case. You have to be understanding of other cultures. People eat everything under the sun on this planet. From pigs, cows to rats and insects. Who is to say what is weird and what is not. These kinds of comments are what irritates me. These kinds of comments do not help on the Pro-whaling side, they show that we are indifferent and trying to enforce our beliefs on others. This kind of logic, please forgive me, gains us no ground at all in countries where the population may in someway support whaling. Hey, my wife said she used to eat in her school lunches in elementary school and they loved it. She doesn't really want to eat it that much now, but she said it did taste good.

Sorry, choiwaruoyaji. I can't agree with you if you use that kind of logic.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@OsssanAmerica

Chuckle all you want but to anyone with half a brain that's pretty solid evidence that Whaling is in fact a long standing part of Japanese culture, something that mindless anti-whalers are constantly denying.

Give me a break. In a only a few local areas is this even a culture. You would have us think that all people in Japan have this cultures, which is far from being true.

The mindless are those who have provided nothing to the forum but have labeled others as mindless.

It always makes me chuckle how the Japanese make a big deal about their statues and shrines to dead whales. What do they think? That the whales are popping their heads out of the sea and seeing these statues and thinking "Oh, that makes our suffering and slaughter so much easier"...

He is entitled to think that way. And I agree with him. Or have I been debating this issue for so many hours because I am mindless? Even though I ceded David a very valid point I wouldn't say he won. I provided info as well. I came from an informative side also. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they are mindless.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Here is how it stacks up. I have never been in support of the IWC because of Article V Sections 1 and 2 and feel that another organization needs to be set up to independently gather information about whales and that a sanctuary that fully protects whales and does not allowing whaling of any sort needs to be set up.

People want and believe that the sanctuary protects whales from any and all kinds of whaling and the letter of the law says differently. Sadly, most of us go with the spirit of the law and what the original convention was all about that somehow seems to have gotten screwed up. If we have a problem with that we need a better organization to promote that goal.

Both sides of the house have their dirty laundry. Although I tend to think that the other houses laundry is far dirtier.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

troyinjapan, I think you've misunderstood choiwaruoyaji's point. He isn't saying that he thinks whale is weird food; he's saying that's the way most Japanese see it; their take on their own 'culture'. He isn't making judgements, just pointing out that the typical Japanese approach to whale meat is let's try a bit of this weird food... oh! it doesn't taste too bad but no way that I'll be eating this on a regular basis...

And I think he's right.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Personally I would love to hear Steve weigh in on this one. Good mind, whom I often disagree with.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Personally, I have a lot of respect for David and his opinion even though it is opposite of mine. In the beginning I didn't at all, because he didn't provide any facts. And all though his view to me seems a bit warped as I am sure mine does to him as well, he started to providing info. Not just an emotional outburst. David believes some things that are just amazing to me. Opinions from the "foxes" perspective, whom I believe is never trustable, at all. I would love it if more posters could provide information on both sides of the house, not just arrogant, look down your nose emotional outburst, but real hardcore facts. This is an important issue. If you provide information that somehow assist those interested in this issue than great. The more info the better, (No David that does not mean that I support hunting 1,000 whales) If you are right, great. If you are wrong, so what? Admit it. Lick your wounds and come back for more. Nothing wrong with being wrong, if you can admit it. But if your pride gets in the way, then you are exactly that, WRONG

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Oh, and the propagandist are equally distributed on BOTH SIDES of this issue, choiwaruoyaji. Sorry about that, but is a fact.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The Japanese people are free to hunt whales in their own waters, but if they travel halfway around the world to do it then others have a right to protest.

This argument almost sounds reasonable, but is ridiculous on further examination.

Pretty much every fishing country fishes outside its own waters, often traveling halfway around the world. Why should Japan be restricted from fishing outside its waters when other countries do the same thing?

Also, if territoriality is a consideration, then why does the IWC include LANDLOCKED COUNTRIES with no stake in whaling?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Cleo and I stand corrected. My apologies to you and choiwaroyaji. You might be right. I might have taken it as if he was attacking their taste in food. I will try to read better next time.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Yep, you are right. I completely misread. Sorry about that.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@cleo. I would love to hear more of your opinion on the whaling subject, especially as it pertains to the rules that were set up that has got us all arguing. Any input would be great.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

troyinjapan, my take is pretty straighforward, I think. As far as the 'rules' go, it is blindingly obvious that Japan is carrying out commercial whaling under a very thin veneer of 'research'. It's also blindingly clear that what little research they do do is irrelevant and fatally flawed - by their own admission, their sample size is woefully inadequate thus making any data and results invalid. The only valid result is the meat on the plates.

A further objection is that this commercial whaling is heavily subsidised, more so than ever this year with the increased 'security' out of public taxes, at a time when the politicians are telling us that they need to raise taxes. Cut out the waste - including this pork barrel - before taking more money off people who have no interest in supporting this junket.

But my biggest objection to whaling, and one that cannot be overcome by any amount of rewriting rules or juggling with finances, is the fact that it is impossible to kill a marine mammal humanely. While the pro-whalers claim that the majority are killed instantaneously (which independent observers state is simply not true), they also admit that the average time-to-death according to their figures is in excess of 2 minutes, which means that far too many animals take much, much longer to die. I don't see any way around this, and so see no way that I could ever be reconciled to the continuation of research whaling or the resumption of legal commercial whaling, no matter how they fiddle the rules.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

troyinjapan,

Exactly. The research isn't done to find a cure for cancer, it's being done for the development of the whaling industry, as is the spirit of the whaling convention.

The spirit of the whaling convention and the JWC's intentions are quite opposite. The IWC was set up protect the whales from extinction.

That's news to me. It's not my understanding that the IWC was established to "protect the whales". Maybe you'd like to tell me where you got that idea from.

The IWC homepage has the whaling convention, and it says the signatory states "decided to conclude a convention to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry".

That is the purpose of the whaling convention and the IWC. The W in IWC stands for "Whaling". Nothing in there about protecting whales - only conserving whale stocks.

And this is why research for the purpose of assisting the whaling industry is indeed entirely compatible with the spirit of the rules - but the moratorium and sanctuary are not.

So your claim that the spirit of the whaling convention and the JWC's (sic) intentions are opposite does not wash.

I'd love to read the rest of your comments and write more in response, but today is again RWC quarterfinals day and I'm not going to miss the first game today like I did yesterday :)

The JWC's intentions are FOR THE HUNT. Money! MONEY! MONEY! Yipee!

Are you anti-capitalist or something?****

0 ( +4 / -3 )

Actually, I just might be anti-capitalist. Come to think of it. Capitalism does kill democracy. Even though I tried to give you some credit for the "letter of the law" I have to fully agree with Cleo on the issue, fully. She didn't attack you, by the way. But reality is the origins of the IWC were for the conservation of the whale population. It was not originally set up as guise to protect the whalers, as you have so pointed out it has turned out to be doing just that. YOU seem to enjoy a line or two of that for your own benefit, something lawyers love to do and which makes them so popular with the masses.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Excuse me, I meant spidapig. I don't think he was trying to insult you at all. He was just being honest, you seem to be the only one who has bought into all of this research business. Oh, I know there is research done but a) I doubt it is as vital as you seem to think b) is just used as guise for whaling c) is overkill d) really doesn't provide that much info e) can easily be done without hunting the whales in a so-called sanctuary f) is widely unpopular although you want to say differently. Sometimes I respect your opinion but times likes these makes me feel otherwise.

YOu go ahead and buy into all the malarkey that the FOX has thrown out. You will never get me on that side though. I don't like manipulative people and that is what the pro-side is more of than the anti-whaling side.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

In fact how about this;

Japan has argued that the establishment of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was in contravention of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) on which the IWC is biased and is therefore illegal.

So the very group that Japan was against it now supports. The very group in the beginning obviously does not seem to be pro-whaling.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@Cleo I completely agree with you. It is a facade.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

troyinjapan - LMFAO Fist of all, I wouldn't call the SS eco-terroris at all. The SS is doing something that most people who don't what, I believe they have the right to do. The whalers want to go down and hunt whales, people don't like it so they have as far as I am concerned every right to go down there and protest.

You obviously don't know the history of the eco-terrorist Paul Watson and his SS. Foreign Minister Murray McCully does and that's why he's concerned.

1977: Paul Watson, one of the founder members of Greenpeace, was EXPELLED from the organisation after a campaign against sealing. His actions temporarily cost Greenpeace their tax-exemption status in the US.

1977: Paul Watson establishes the "Sea Shepherd" organization.

1979: Paul Watson filled the bow of a Sea Shepherd vessel with cement and then rams the whaler "Sierra". Twice.

1980: The "Sierra" is sunk in Lisbon harbour with the help of limpet mines. Sea Shepherd claims responsibility.

1981: Sea Shepherd sinks the two whaling vessels, Ibsa I and Ibsa II, in the Spanish harbour of Viga.

1986: Sea Shepherd activists shoot at Faroese police with a line rifle and try to sink their rubber dinghies. The vessel "Sea Shepherd" was ordered to leave Faroese territorial waters after attempting to obstruct the Faroese pilot whale harvest. The vessel ignored the order, and Faroese police tried unsuccessfully to board the ship. In the police report of Oct. 7,1986, it says: One of the rubber dinghies was attacked directly by a so called "Speed Line" line rifle. The attack is considered to have endangered the lives of the police crew members seriously ... also, signal flares containing phosphorous (a substance which both burns and cauterizes) was thrown at the police. At a later stage the Sea Shepherd used so called "toads" (i.e. rotating iron spikes, pointed and sharp at both ends), against the rubber dinghies .. petrol was poured over the side of the ship ... whereupon signal flares were thrown from the "Sea Shepherd" in a miscarried attempt to set the petrol on fire. Sea Shepherd accused the Faroese police of having shot at them with rifles. The police emphasize in their report that they only used tear gas and gas cartridges from shotguns.

1986: Sea Shepherd claims responsibility for the sinking of two whaling vessels in Reykjavik, Iceland, and for malicious damage to the whaling station not far from the town. The act was carried out by two US citizens, one of them, Rodney Corronado, is now wanted in the US for several incidents of serious animal rights terrorism.

Currently, Watson has ten (10) national flags painted on the side of his ships representing the 10 vessels he's claiming the eco-terrorist SS has sunk over the decades.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

troyinjapan - Hey, if the whalers don't like the SS their than they should remember this; Don't start anything and there won't be anything. If they weren't there in the first place than nothing would be happening. Stay in their own waters to do their whaling, don't ignore the feelings of people who oppose it by traveling 11,000 miles to do it in another part of the world, than nobody can complain.

Paul Watson is Canadian. Is that more that 11,000 miles away? He's kinda far from home, isn't he? The eco-terrorist SS has NO legal right to attack, sink, or disable any other vessel anywhere. They have no legal authority to attack fishermen or whalers. He only claims he does.

The whalers are in international waters and not breaking any laws.

How should I interpret your, "Don't start anything and there won't be anything" statement? Sounds like a threat. Maybe just intimidation. If the eco-terrorist SS objects to someone or something they should be free to attack and sink them. Laws mean nothing. Jurisdiction means nothing. Only the word of Watson the pirate should be obeyed???

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Whaever. He is a necessary evil. But don't fool yourself. I am fully aware of who he is. But for all his so-called terrorist actions, why hasn't he been arrested and thrown in the slammer? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm? But thank you for the update on his profile. I hate to say this again, but it seems you pro-whalers think we all just woke up, rolled over and said, "Hey, I'm against whaling and support Paul Watson" without researching anything at all.

Don't start anything and it is obvious. There wont be anything. Take it as you want.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

troyinjapan - Whaever. He is a necessary evil

Are you promoting eco-terrorism and violence?

New Zealand on Wednesday condemned a Japanese plan to resume whaling in Antarctica, labeling it an "entirely disrespectful"

Legal whaling in international waters is "disrespectful" but encouraging violence is OK???

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

arrestpaul

Legal whaling in international waters is "disrespectful" but encouraging violence is OK???

Lets just get one thing straight, the only people who think that the Japanese whaling is ok is you, David@Tokyo (and he has his agenda), the Japanese and those who the JWA and ICR bribe to support their whaling. Australia, New Zealand, US, Chile, South Africa and numerous other countries and groups believe what the Japanese are doing is flouting the law and spirit of the whale sanctuaries. Even in US government meetings the Japanese action is described as large scale commercial whaling in disguise.

So disrespectful, definitely.

Think of it this way if you like, how would Japan react if Aust, NZ, or the US sent fishing boats into areas bordering Japan and fished for fish that Japan had declared protected and not to be hunted. How would Japan feel if Australia started fishing in the waters around Senkaku islands?

Its simple Japan should keep their whaling vessels in Japans own region, does Australia or these other countries voice concern when the Japanese hunt whales in the northern hemisphere? No they dont. Do they voice concern when the Japanese whale in the Southern hemisphere? Yes. Now why is that l wonder

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

What you call an eco-terrorist I believe is incorrect. I would not call him such. I would call him ambitious and well backed by a large number of people who are tired some countries' actions. If you want to talk about violence than you should closely at the JWC and their actions on the high seas as well.

Nobody encourages violence, but if you watch carefully you see violence on the JWC side as well, if you want to call it violence. 

I am done talking with you. YOU have one motive. And will not think anything different than what you believe. I Closed off.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Here, here, keep the whaling ships in Japan's EEZ and you give people less to complain about, but go down to a place that is more than 11,000 kilometers away from you to do your work in a place that most people consider to be a whale sanctuary and of course, you are going to encourage resentment. I don't understand why you can't do in your own backyard. It is not going to bright the image of Japan at all, and can only lead to people boycotting your products, which leads me to a question that I posed earlier on this forum.

Which is more important selling your goods to the world or your whaling?

You can't have both, and if you seriously consider what I call the "real reality" it is that the image of Japan will be severely hurt if the IWC goes ahead with allowing Japan to do its so-called research whaling in the Southern ocean.

Unfortunately there are those who believe in what I like to call the "Common reality" which goes that you can do your whaling because by your reasoning, you are right, and there will not be severe backlash from your consumers if you go ahead with whaling.

I find that most people are stuck in the "common reality". Everybody around them believes the same things, so it must be true. Lack of research and just believing what you believe because that is what others around you believe and that is what you want to believe, plus you go to any lengths at all to find information to support that belief system.

Whereas the "real reality" is exactly that. REAL. And it is hard for most to accept the REAL reality and that does go for both sides of this issue. But, you pro-whalers are stuck in the common reality, which for me seems extremely short-sighted and if successful will do more damage than good.

Therefore, I say again, Just because you can do something, does not mean you should.

If I were prime minister of Japan I would stomp whaling out because I am aware that the same smear campaign of the 60's and 70's will come in full swing again by the anti-whalers, but the effects will be much more devastating to this country, due to today's technology. People in the west will be buying Samsung over Sony. Kia over Toyota and than the Chinese will be laughing their butts off at Japan floundering in another economic crisis of which it will not be able to recover its somewhat good image in the west. You might not like it but that is what is going to happen.

I will be off to watch the NFL so no posts from me after midnight until the next morning.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Sorry, troyinjapan.

You are way off here as are many other posters on various topics.

Issues like this are NON_RELEVANT when it comes to economies and how much people spend on buying products from x-nation. Sorry, thinking it will have an impact and punish the bad people and is just so much mental-mast.....ion. Korea hates japan sooo much that they welcome the japanese tourists, love to buy japanese products and vice-versa. That is the true reality, regardless of which side of the argument are on.

Financial and economics ties are stronger than world wars, etc as history shows or some people and politicians disagreeing for their own benefits.

Sure overseas companies will bankrupt themselves by NOT buying japanese components needed for their goods, etc.

Those threads of anti-whalers disrupting the japanese economy are laughable to anyone that knows a smidgeon about commerce.

Nuff said.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan needs to send more ships down there. Those evil eco-terrorists must get arrested.

0 ( +3 / -2 )

IT's ME. Believe what you will, but I know a good deal about commerce as well, and very aware of the damage that can be done by smear campaigns, but you keep thinking that way. I doubt if you know anything about commerce and how negative campaigns influence consumers to not buy certain products. Now, that is what is laughable. Live in your world if you will. More power to you. Try providing something more for the forum on the subject please. It is my opinion that Japan will suffer. It is a hypothetical situation and I am entitled to think about what will happen if I want. So, there.

@Foxie Yeah, that would be stupid for Japan to do. Send ships down to get the so-called evil terrorists. And that will not cause an uproar and highlight the issue even more than need be? FOXIE; Japan does need any attention to it. It needs to be stealthy.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Nuff said,

yeah right!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I see many consumers boycotting "Sony, Panasonic and other such products once whaling presumes. If YOU don't feel so than the burden is on you to show me where I am wrong. Not just blow hot air at me. Come with some of substance instead. I respect that. I will not reply to your posts anymore unless you do so, because you have nothing to prove except popping off.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Hold a sec, here. You made a statement and I asked for proof but it is up to me show your statement is wrong. DOH! Pull the other one it hatheth bells on.

So what consumers? How much of real impact do they have over companies that spend billions in trade?

You are talking a minor impact(Consumers) and I haven't heard anything about japanese companies losing sales overseas or sushi, etc places closing down. Quiet the opposite Japanese goods and culture seem to have quiet a boom overseas(granted dampened due to the high yen) with many businesses making more and more profits overseas. Just read the business news here and worldwide.

Stop wiggling out and supply what I asked for, which I know you CAN'T.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Why am i paying taxes every year to subsidise Mr and Ms Tanaka's whale eating fetish? If the hobby is really so popular, make a co-op and run as a profitable business.

For those using the tradition argument. in the old days whaling did not have to be subsidised, the meat was eaten due top other protein rich foods and meat did not have to be stored for years due to lack of demand.

0 ( +1 / -2 )

troy,

reality is the origins of the IWC were for the conservation of the whale population.

Yeah - that and the development of the whaling industry. Conservation plus whaling means sustainable whaling.

When you conserve something, it doesn't mean you use none of it. Quite the opposite. Conserve means to sustainably use.

I really don't think you want to be trying to pretend the whaling commission was never intended to be a whaling commission...

2 ( +4 / -1 )

troyinjapan.

Give me figures how many people boycotted japanese products and how much the financial impacts was due to your 'Consumers". You would know the prices of the goods they didn't "buy" or is that just hearsay from people saying I won't buy x-brand?

Got a reality check for you when a good is in an overseas shop it has already been bought and payed for from the manufacturer, so no-one loses anything in japan(sell or not). The loss is at the local shop hiring local staff, etc and quiet likely the good was build by local labour.

And the few foreigners in Japan that refuse to by local will have no impact besides making themselves feel better.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Readers, you are drifting off topic. Please focus your comments on what is in the story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

troyinjapan,

you seem to be the only one who has bought into all of this research business.

Heh, wait for the ICJ case judgement. If more than the dozen of the premier legal authorities in the world find in Japan's favour then it won't be only me who acknowledges the reality.

Oh, I know there is research done but a) I doubt it is as vital as you seem to think

"Vital" has little to do with anything. The whaling convention allows for nations to conduct research "as they see fit" (read Article VIII). And the IWC Scientific Commitee has observed that Japan's research has the potential to improve the management of whale stocks such as the Antarctic minke whale, so it is useful for those who are interested in the goals of the whaling commission - sustainable use of whale stocks.

If one is not interested in harvesting whales (like you) then of course the research is not vital. But the whaling convention is not for anti-whalers. If you don't like it, tell your country to withdraw from the whaling convetion in protest. There is no need for any nation to be adhered to the whaling convetion if they don't wanna be.

And being anti-whaling and trying to obstruct those with a genuine interest in whaling is really just absolutely disgraceful behaviour. This isn't a playground, it's the international community, and if nations sign a whaling agreement then they should meet their obligations in good faith (anti-whalers haven't done so).

b) is just used as guise for whaling

Hardly. The moratorium decision precludes the acquisition of biological data from commercial catches, so the only means left to obtain such data is through scientific research. Without research whaling the data that Japan has been collecting since 1987 would never have been obtained. There was no other way Japan could persue the aims of the whaling convention.

e) can easily be done without hunting the whales

If that were true one'd think Australia would have produced the same sort of data by now. They haven't. Nothing. For example, the data that the IWC Scientific Committee is using for catch-at-age analysis is all from the Japanese research or from prior commercial whaling catches (from the USSR and Japanese catches). You can see this much if you read the IWC Scientific Committee reports.

f) is widely unpopular although you want to say differently.

Widely unpopular in Australia maybe. Not that that matters. The law is the law, don't like it? Pack up your toys and go home.

All of your points "against" the research are basically meaningless. Nothing in there is going to sway a judge to your side, and the Japanese will have reams of information to illustrate just how hard they have been working in accordance with the spirit of the whaling convention over the last 25-30 years.

2 ( +4 / -1 )

troyinjapan,

So the very group that Japan was against it now supports. The very group in the beginning obviously does not seem to be pro-whaling.

That the anti-whalers were able to buy in enough votes to act against the whaling convention doesn't mean that acting against the whaling convention was legal.

On the contrary, you've kindly illustrated a very good point by Japan that they will hopefully be raising at the ICJ.

The whaling convention is the law - whether you like it or not - and the law is what counts, not how many votes the anti-whalers were able to buy in at a certain point in time.

2 ( +4 / -1 )

troyinjapan,

for all his so-called terrorist actions, why hasn't he been arrested and thrown in the slammer?

It's eco-terrorism, and he has been in the slammer.

Japan currently has a warrant out for his arrest, which is why he's too gutless to put a foot in Japan.

1 ( +4 / -2 )

Spidapig24,

Lets just get one thing straight, the only people who think that the Japanese whaling is ok is you, David@Tokyo (and he has his agenda), the Japanese and those who the JWA and ICR bribe to support their whaling.

DUH.

How about them Americans who eat whales up in Alaska?

How about them Norwegians? Icelanders? etc etc?

Even in US government meetings the Japanese action is described as large scale commercial whaling in disguise.

No it ain't, as I showed you the US government officials themselves acknowledge that Japan has the best research thanks to their research whaling. They never said it was "large scale commercial whaling in disguise" - that's your words.

Under UNCLOS and the ICRW Japan has every right to catch whales in international waters.

Don't disrespect the law that our nations have signed up to.

1 ( +4 / -2 )

It"S ME,

You're absolutely right, most people don't care about whaling, they aren't going to stop buying Japanese products because Japan catches non-endangered whales on a sustainable basis.

Besides I've heard these lame threats against Japan for years and looky here, Japan is still the world's third largest economy, and it's currency is currently considered a safe-haven while the US and European economies crumble under mountains of public debt. (At least Japan's debt is all at home :))

Whaling is a tiny little storm-in-a-teacup issue, no doubt about it. No one will ever go to war with Japan physically or commercially just because the Japanese have a long history of eating whales. Even easy targets like Iceland and Norway haven't suffered one tiny little bit even despite threats from the US empire.

1 ( +4 / -2 )

troyinjapan,

Hey, I don't have any figures about Japan (although I do know Japan has the world's strongest currency right now, if that counts for anything), but I do remember well that when Iceland was threatened with tourism boycotts after they resumed commercial whaling, their tourist numbers actually went UP, not down that year.

You know why?

Because most people don't care about whaling. It has negligible effects. People who want to go to Iceland are not your typical sofa-spuds wringing their hands about people eating some different type of animal. (The tourism boost to Iceland at that period was probably because their currency weakened relative to the Euro, nothing to do with whaling at all - indeed it's well known that tourists in Iceland often eat whale meat themselves!)

It's got to the point that the anti-whalers are begging whale-eating tourists to change their behaviour: http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/international-fund-for-animal-welfare-ifaw/article/ifaw-new-campaign-urges-tourists-visiting-iceland-to-avoid-e

So unless you can show me why we should believe that some boycotts will have an effect all of a sudden, after years and years of ongoing whaling, then I'm sorry but I, Do, Not, Believe, You.

2 ( +4 / -1 )

Readers, please keep the discussion civil and do not be impolite toward one another.

steve@CPFC,

Why am i paying taxes every year to subsidise Mr and Ms Tanaka's whale eating fetish? If the hobby is really so popular, make a co-op and run as a profitable business.

Unfortunately the needless "moratorium" imposed by the anti-whalers through devious means at the whaling commission precludes Japan from conducting whaling business (except for certain species not covered by the IWC).

For those using the tradition argument. in the old days whaling did not have to be subsidised,

It's not Japan that decided to impose a moratorium which forced Japan into research whaling to obtain data to help push the aims of the whaling convention.

If you are arguing for the moratorium to be lifted so that it can once again be a normal business and employ more people and make a greater contribution to society generally, then you're with me I take it?

the meat was eaten due top other protein rich foods and meat did not have to be stored for years due to lack of demand.

Stored for years? Proof? If you want to try to show me a proof, then please be sure to include first-hand data, not data crunched through the commercial anti-whaling corporations' BS factories.

1 ( +4 / -2 )

Davidattokyo; I provided facts. whaling is subsided, due to low demand. Large amounts of whale meat is stored frozen due to low demand, these are facts . Don't try to make me come across as some activist as i am not, just a concenred tax payer who does not like seeing his had earned taxes spent on a ridiuclous food fetish for a small group of mainly ancient Japanese and a handfull of Japanophiles.

1 ( +2 / -2 )

davidattokyo

Spidapig24, Lets just get one thing straight, the only people who think that the Japanese whaling is ok is you, David@Tokyo (and he has his agenda), the Japanese and those who the JWA and ICR bribe to support their whaling.

DUH. How about them Americans who eat whales up in Alaska? How about them Norwegians? Icelanders? etc etc?

Well let me see the Americans in Alaska would be the natives wouldnt they? You know the native people that are allowed to catch a small quota to eat each year (not stockpile) its called indigenous subsistence whaling. But you know that already dont you? Yeah the norwegians and Icelanders they also whale but last time l checked they stayed in their own hemisphere to whale and didnt travel to the Antarctic to do it. They also dont whale in whale sanctuaries like the lovely Japanese do. But again you know that. So your point is?

No it ain't, as I showed you the US government officials themselves acknowledge that Japan has the best research thanks to their research whaling. They never said it was "large scale commercial whaling in disguise" - that's your words.

Sorry David but again you distort the truth the actual quote from the hearings is "And yet, the Japanese are conducting there large-scale industrial type whaling activities there". If you care to check your facts try page 29 of the "U.S. LEADERSHIP IN THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION AND H.R. 2455, THE INTERNATIONAL WHALE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION ACT OF 2009" You know the one you incorrectly keep citing.

Oh and yes one person did say the Japanese do have good scientific data from whaling l agree with that but he also in the next sentence that Japan was not doing the right thing by their actions. Maybe if you could be honest and admit that the rest of the document is actually damning of Japanese actions.

Under UNCLOS and the ICRW Japan has every right to catch whales in international waters.

Fair point, however they have no right to whale in a whale sanctuary that was voted into existence by the IWC to which Japan is a signatory. But hey too much to expect Japan to respect anything it signs as has been shown many times through history.

Also just like China and Taiwan have every right to fish in the waters around Senkaku islands after all they are not internationally recognised as belonging to Japan yet Japan uses its military to stop that. Maybe Aust should grow a set and do the same in waters that they have claimed

Don't disrespect the law that our nations have signed up to.

Thats hilarious, after all Japan signed up to IWC, and IWC created the whale sanctuary which Japan now ignores and hunts in. So who doesnt respect the laws that they signed up too? JAPAN thats who

0 ( +2 / -2 )

davidattokyo

Heh, wait for the ICJ case judgement. If more than the dozen of the premier legal authorities in the world find in Japan's favour then it won't be only me who acknowledges the reality.

And if they lose it will just be yet another ruling or treaty or law that the Japanese ignore. No doubt they will claim racism like they do now in regards to objections to their whaling in Antarctic waters. Oh and before the mod puts a note about this having nothing to do with racism try going to the JWA (Japan Whaling Assoc) website they plainly state racism as one reason for the objections to Japanese whaling

"Vital" has little to do with anything. The whaling convention allows for nations to conduct research "as they see fit" (read Article VIII). And the IWC Scientific Commitee has observed that Japan's research has the potential to improve the management of whale stocks such as the Antarctic minke whale, so it is useful for those who are interested in the goals of the whaling commission - sustainable use of whale stocks.

Thats funny David. Can you tell me this, prior to the ban on whaling how many whales a decade did Japan take for research? Less than 500. After the ban how many whales a year does Japan take for research? Over 500. So they went from minimal interest in research when they could catch for food but when the ban on commercial whaling came into effect they switched from hundreds of whales a year for food to hundreds of whales a year for research. Funny that, maybe you would care to explain that one?

This isn't a playground, it's the international community, and if nations sign a whaling agreement then they should meet their obligations in good faith (anti-whalers haven't done so).

Thats right it is a international community and the countries whose region that Japan conducts its whaling in dont want them there doing it. So how about Japan respecting those countries and containing its whaling to its own region afterall when was the last time Aust, NZ, US, Chile, South Africa to name a few complained about Japans coastal whaling?

The law is the law, don't like it? Pack up your toys and go home.

Thats funny the Australians are at home its the Japanese that are in their region. True?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

davidattokyo

Stored for years? Proof? If you want to try to show me a proof, then please be sure to include first-hand data, not data crunched through the commercial anti-whaling corporations' BS factories.

Wow David you walked into this one chin first. Try the JWA website (you know the Japan Whaling Association) they actually say that part of their stockpile of whale meat actually predates the moratorium. So you want proof there you can go to the site yourself and read it. Oh and l dont think they are a "commercial anti whaling corporation, they are the ones who support the Japanese whaling industry.

So before putting other posters down one should think first....

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Personal observation from today.

Was with son at local kaiten-sushi shop for lunch, and like at all sushi-shops(cheap and up-market) the offered us basashi(raw horse meat), kujira(whale), etc.

We opted for 2 helpings of basashi, but obviously Whale seems to be in demand as it is offered often and sold also via lunch-time TV-shopping.

Granted observed today that basashi sold better than whale.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It's ME; Yeah whale is so popular it is made into pet food, sold to schools and hospitals and still has massive amounts in storage, and that is with them catchinbg much less than quotas. My taxes subsidise this joke.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Spidapig24 - Think of it this way if you like, how would Japan react if Aust, NZ, or the US sent fishing boats into areas bordering Japan and fished for fish that Japan had declared protected and not to be hunted. How would Japan feel if Australia started fishing in the waters around Senkaku islands?

Aust, NZ or the US vessels can operate legally in INTERNATIONAL waters. Australia's claim that they control international water has not been recognized by 198 of the 203 nation members of the UN, so you'll have to qualify your "areas bordering Japan" statement.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

troyinjapan - What you call an eco-terrorist I believe is incorrect. I would not call him such. I would call him ambitious and well backed by a large number of people who are tired some countries' actions. If you want to talk about violence than you should closely at the JWC and their actions on the high seas as well.

Nobody encourages violence, but if you watch carefully you see violence on the JWC side as well, if you want to call it violence.

Eco-terrorist Sea Shepard was dismissed from the IWC - After the sinking of the Icelandic whaling vessels in 1986, Sea Shepherd lost its status as observer at the IWC. The organisation claims that it is merely enforcing IWC rules. In February 1994, IWC Secretary, Ray Gambell, declared to NTB (the Norwegian Telegram Agency) that the IWC and all its member states ardently condemn Sea Shepherds acts of terrorism.

I'm sure that Foreign Minister Murray McCully is aware that even Greenpeace refuses to have anything to do with the eco-terrorist SS. Zero, zilch, nada. Greenpeace objects to the eco-terrorist violence.

This is probably a good place to add a few more concerns of McCully.

1988: Paul Watson arrives in Iceland demanding to be held responsible for the sinking of the whaling vessels in Reykjavik in 1986. He is arrested and held for questioning. He realizes that he can risk facing several years imprisonment. In a press release from the Icelandic Ministry of Justice it says: "At questioning Paul Watson has admitted that he has given some remarks that connect him with the sabotage, but in spite of this he now claims that he neither took part in the planning nor the execution of the sabotage." There was no evidence incriminating Watson. He was ordered to leave the country and declared persona non grata in Iceland

1991: Mr A. Ferreira, A US crew member on a Mexican fishing vessel, reports to his senator that Sea Shepherd rammed his vessel causing considerable damage. Some of Sea Shepherds crew were armed with rifles.

1991: Scott Trimmingham, president of Sea Shepherd quits in protest. "We had rules about not hurting anyone, about not using weapons. I left because those rules and that philosophy seems to be changing," he said to Outside magazine (Sept. 1991). Paul Watson admits that there are arms on board "Sea Shepherd". "We confront dangerous people. As the captain, it is my responsibility to protect the lives of my crew ... Therefore, I have prepared myself for the possibility of defending my crew in a situation that could go never occur, but if it does I will use firearms to first intimidate and then to defend," said Watson to the Los Angeles Free Weekly (April 24, 1992).

1992: Sea Shepherd makes unsuccessful attempts at ramming three Costa Rican fishing vessels. In a written complaint to the local authorities the fishermen report that the Sea Shepherd crew shot at them with bullets containing a red substance, hitting two of them and causing them great pain.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

arrestpaul

Aust, NZ or the US vessels can operate legally in INTERNATIONAL waters. Australia's claim that they control international water has not been recognized by 198 of the 203 nation members of the UN, so you'll have to qualify your "areas bordering Japan" statement.

To qualify my statement for you, Australia claims the territorial waters off its Antarctic claim area (an area claimed that predates the Antarctic treaty be decades) the area claimed is considered by Australia as part of its EEZ. Now agreed only a handful of countries recognise this area. My point was Japan is whaling in this disputed area, how would Japan feel and react if Australia started fishing in Japans declared EEZ around the Senkaku islands. After all Australia hasnt recognised Japans claim to this area just as Japan hasnt recognised Australia's claim. My point is Japan defends this unrecognised claim with its military and coast guard, maybe Australia should do similar for its unrecognised claim and chase out Japanese whaling vessels after all if it is good enough for Japan to do this surely they would understand if other countries followed their own lead.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Spidapig24 - My point was Japan is whaling in this disputed area, how would Japan feel and react if Australia started fishing in Japans declared EEZ around the Senkaku islands.

I don't know. Maybe Australia should try it and find out. Of course, Australia will have to be prepared to deal with China. Maybe Australia should just stay home, instead.

Australia can CLAIM anything they want to but unless they are willing to defend their claim, either in court or on the battlefield, their claim doesn't really amount to much more than talk.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

arrestpaul

Maybe Australia should just stay home, instead.

Thank you you made my point exactly, and this is the answer to the whole issue, if Japan just stayed in their own region this issue would go away. Afterall when was the last time Aust, NZ, Chile etc complained about Japan whaling in its own region? Never. They only complain when the Japanese travel to these countries region to do their hunting. Maybe if the arrogant Japanese actually listened to what was being said then the issue would go away. But l guess thats to hard to understand.

Australia can CLAIM anything they want to but unless they are willing to defend their claim, either in court or on the battlefield, their claim doesn't really amount to much more than talk.

You are right and l think its time Australia started taking the Japanese approach when dealing with the whaling issue namely chasing them out of the claimed waters and impounding the vessels. Afterall that would be inline with the court decision from a couple of years ago.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Spidapig24 - You are right and l think its time Australia started taking the Japanese approach when dealing with the whaling issue namely chasing them out of the claimed waters and impounding the vessels. Afterall that would be inline with the court decision from a couple of years ago.

Australia isn't willing to go to war over such a minor issue as whaling in disputed waters. The Aussies have to first prove in court that they have a legal claim to what the international community still considers international water.

Only the eco-terrorist SS chose to resort to violence to force their views on others.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

arrestpaul

Australia isn't willing to go to war over such a minor issue as whaling in disputed waters.

Correct, why would anyone go to war over this issue. However enforcement is a different issue, as Australia has claimed the waters as part of their EEZ they could patrol these waters and remove any violators if they wished to. Much as Japan does around Senkaku islands. Both areas mentioned are disputed and unrecognised EEZ's so my point is if its good for one to do (Japans actions around Senkaku) then its good for the other too.

The Aussies have to first prove in court that they have a legal claim to what the international community still considers international water.

Hmm funny, much like Japan does with its disputed waters. Oh wait they havent done this either they just use their military to fire on and force foreign vessels out of the area. And there has been a court case regarding this in Australia and the outcome was that the government should start removing the Japanese whalers from the area.

Only the eco-terrorist SS chose to resort to violence to force their views on others.

Ok, so the Japanese dont use military weapons (LRAD, stun grenades) on the protestors, the Japanese didnt recently use a massive police presence to stop people monitoring the dolphin slaughter. Japan doesnt send military personal on its whaling ships, Japan doesnt conduct illegal surveillance flights from Australian territories to spy on protesters. Yeah its all the protesters fault of course. Again maybe if the Japanese contained themselves to Japans region there would be no issue. But as we know Japan has trouble just staying in its own region it likes to encroach on the rest of the world.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Spidapig fails to realize that its the SS committing crimes, not the Japaense.

Its not illegal, they arent endanagered so it should not be a problem. SS are criminals, they should be arrested or sunk.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

genji17

Spidapig fails to realize that its the SS committing crimes, not the Japaense.

Good one genji17, so exactly what crimes are the SS group committing. Please specify exactly what crimes they are committing? They throw things wow, they harass the whalers, wow.

What do the Japanese do? They are hunting whales in an IWC declared whale sanctuary, they are hunting in another countries declared EEZ, they are illegally refueling at sea in the Antarctic waters, they are illegally dumping waste (whale remains) into the waters in violation of the Antarctic treaty, they use military grade weapons in response to protests, they conduct illegal spy flights from Australian territory. They have rammed vessels and endangered lives.

So who is breaking more laws and breaching more treaties.

Its not illegal, they arent endanagered so it should not be a problem.

Try again, yes the majority of the whales hunted in the whale sanctuary (see the irony there) arnt endangered but they do hunt whales that are endangered and on the CITES list. Oh and the sanctuary they hunt in was founded by the IWC to which Japan is a signatory. But since when has a minor thing like a treaty stopped Japan acting as Japan does.

SS are criminals, they should be arrested or sunk.

So you complain about SS being violent yet you call for violent action such as sinking them. HMMM OK.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Whales have the last laugh; their fatty meat is laden with heavy metals in toxic quantities. Like the pristine forests of Japan....Why cut down your own when you can destroy someone else’s. Why hunt your own whales for science when you can traditionally travel around the globe to Antarctic waters and hunt in a marine park for food. Japan Sea Sheppard is on your tail! Oh here is an idea, cut the whaling program and spend money on the thousands of displaced people from Fukushima or the thousands that have no jobs. I am Australian and we HAVE launched legal action against Japan in the International court and we will win!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Most of the toxins are concentrated in the organs or the blubber, basic chemistry/biology. The meat is fairly clean.

Hence why non-violent/etc research methods give off false data as they don't breach the 30-40cm blubber layer.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Spidapig really??? what crimes? Assault, attempted murder per the costa rican government, destruction of property...all sound like crimes to me.

And for the promoting of violence against the SS, i am merely promoting the idea of Self Defense...which is not illegal.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

genji17

Spidapig really??? what crimes? Assault, attempted murder per the costa rican government, destruction of property...all sound like crimes to me.

Sorry genji17 but you were referring to crimes committed against the Japanese whalers not the Costa Ricans. After all l dont believe the Costa Ricans are whaling in Antarctica are they? So l ask again exactly what crimes have the SS group committed against the Japanese? Or are you saying the Japanese should sink SS because of what they did to the Costa Ricans?

And for the promoting of violence against the SS, i am merely promoting the idea of Self Defense...which is not illegal.

Ah l see, your promoting the usual Japanese approach of if in doubt ram them....... I see thanks for clearing that up.

I find it hilarious though you protest SS actions yet promote sinking vessels and putting lives at risk not to mention the environmental damage it would cause. Interesting

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

When i doubt ram them? please. Not sure what videos you watch, but the SS are the rammers. Also take out the Costa Rican crime committed by this group, answer to the assault, and destruction of property crimes committed by the SS against the Japanese.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Spidapig24 - So who is breaking more laws and breaching more treaties.

That would be the eco-terrorist SS.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

genji17

Also take out the Costa Rican crime committed by this group, answer to the assault, and destruction of property crimes committed by the SS against the Japanese.

Again l ask, what assaults have been committed by SS against Japanese whalers, and what property has been destroyed. Sounds like you have brought into the whole evil SS viewpoint but have no proof. Please enlighten me when has SS assaulted a Japanese whaler? Specifics please.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

arrestpaul

Spidapig24 - So who is breaking more laws and breaching more treaties. That would be the eco-terrorist SS.

Oh those evil eco terrorists. Again there is an easy solution and one that l would whole heartedly support. The Japanese fish their own waters. They can do as they please there l do not care, but when they sail 11000 km to fish in my countries backyard then if you dont like the treatment you get stiff. Pack your stinking boats up and head home simple.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Ok Spidapig, start throwin bottles of buric acid at people and see if you dont get arrested for assault. Just try it for a social experiment...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Spidapig24 - Correct, why would anyone go to war over this issue. However enforcement is a different issue, as Australia has claimed the waters as part of their EEZ they could patrol these waters and remove any violators if they wished to. Much as Japan does around Senkaku islands. Both areas mentioned are disputed and unrecognised EEZ's so my point is if its good for one to do (Japans actions around Senkaku) then its good for the other too.

Wrong. There is an established chain of possession for control of the land formation known as the Senkaku islands. Japan then the US and then Japan again. Australia simply claimed international "water" as there own. Basically on a whim. 3 or 4 nations recognize their claim while 198 don't. Australia's claim is on pretty shakey ground, internationally-speaking.

Several years ago Australia would send a ship into the area to monitor the situation. Their job was to not interfere with the whalers or eco-terrorist. The Aussie vessel did have to take on board 2 SS eco-terrorist who had ilegally boarded a Japanese whaler. The eco-terrorists were held until a eco-terrorist vessel retrieved them. Australia hasn't sent a vessel into international water to watch the eco-terrorists act like fools for several years.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

arrestpaul,

Wrong. There is an established chain of possession for control of the land formation known as the Senkaku islands. Japan then the US and then Japan again. Australia simply claimed international "water" as there own.

Actually they didnt, maybe you should actually look it up. Australia declared the EEZ in the Antarctic waters based on its territorial claim of a part of Antarctica (which predates the Antractic treaty). So Australia has a territorial claim for part of the land mass below the Australian continent (and has since 1933, prior to that it was a British claim since 1841). As a land mass claimed by a Australia, then they have every right to also claim an EEZ around their land mass as the definition of a EEZ states "Generally, a state's EEZ extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km) out from its coastal baseline."

Basically on a whim. 3 or 4 nations recognize their claim while 198 don't. Australia's claim is on pretty shakey ground, internationally-speaking.

So on a whim hey, l guess that whim started 170 years ago and continues to this day. That is a very long standing whim wouldnt you say?

Several years ago Australia would send a ship into the area to monitor the situation. Their job was to not interfere with the whalers or eco-terrorist. The Aussie vessel did have to take on board 2 SS eco-terrorist who had ilegally boarded a Japanese whaler. The eco-terrorists were held until a eco-terrorist vessel retrieved them. Australia hasn't sent a vessel into international water to watch the eco-terrorists act like fools for several years.

True and what was the reason that they stopped the vessel going there? Wouldnt have anything to do with it being retasked to border surveillance duties and apprehending illegal immigrants. Oh wait thats exactly the reason they stopped it. However interestingly there is a push by New Zealand political groups to have a navy vessel sent this year to monitor the whalers. Now that would be an interesting development.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Spidapig24 - Again l ask, what assaults have been committed by SS against Japanese whalers, and what property has been destroyed. Sounds like you have brought into the whole evil SS viewpoint but have no proof. Please enlighten me when has SS assaulted a Japanese whaler? Specifics please.

Launching glass bottles of acid for one but you already know that. Firing red phosphorus flares at the whalers for another but you already know that too. Illegally boarding whaling ships, disabling and attempted disabling of whaling vessels with draglines, repeated rammings of Japanese whalers, shooting water up and into the exhaust stacks of the whalers in order to destroy the engine(s). All these are known to you.

But the Piece de Resistance was when Bethune's SS toyboat tried to scrape the paint of the bow of a whaler and because of the incompetence of the SS crewman at the helm, ended up cut in half.

It's a good thing that Australian authorities search the eco-terrorist scows before they leave port to make sure Watson isn't carrying any firearms.

These are the reasons that McCully is concerned.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Spidapig24 - Oh those evil eco terrorists. Again there is an easy solution and one that l would whole heartedly support. The Japanese fish their own waters. They can do as they please there l do not care, but when they sail 11000 km to fish in my countries backyard then if you dont like the treatment you get stiff.

Maybe eco-terrorist Watson should stay in Canada. Oh, that's right, Watson has been arrested in Canada and had his ship, the Farley Mowat, seized for ramming a Canadian Coast Guard vessel.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

arrestpaul

Ok lets look at these claims indiviually

Launching glass bottles of acid for one but you already know that.

So glass bottles of acid, wow that sounds dangerous. But if you say glass bottles of a harmless foul smelling butter derivative just doesnt have the same horrendous connotations. Your emotive use of acid lends people to believe they are throwing dangerous flesh eating / burning acids. When in fact they are throwing nothing more than a stinky smelly product that will not hurt anyone. In fact its that dangerous you can buy a product similar that is a practical joke product so dangerous hardly.

Firing red phosphorus flares at the whalers for another but you already know that too.

Now why did they fire that flare? Oh thats right because the Japanese vessel was on a collision course and refused radio messages warning of the danger. Wasnt that vessel also operated by the Japanese coast guard at the time? So the fact the vessel broke maritime law by coming up behind a slower vessel and not allowing sufficient maneuvering room is irrelevant to you. All you see is someone firing a flare at a ship, enough said. By the way you see more flares let off at soccer matches than SS fired at the offending vessel.

Illegally boarding whaling ships,

Yeah l agree with that one they did in fact board a vessel no argument here.

disabling and attempted disabling of whaling vessels with draglines,

Yep and the Japanese have been doing exactly the same to SS so SS does it its terrorism. The whalers do it and your response....

repeated rammings of Japanese whalers,

Again both sides do this. As in the case mentioned above when the ship operated by the JCG approached the SS vessel from the rear and nearly caused a collision.

shooting water up and into the exhaust stacks of the whalers in order to destroy the engine(s).

So you know anything about ships? Obviously not.... What is shooting water into the air going to achieve it will not damage the engines at all. Have you ever thought what happens to these exhausts when it rains. Water goes into them. By design the water will not get into the engine. So apart from pathetic your point is meaningless. But it does go to show you gullibly believe everything the ICR and JWA say. Maybe you should try thinking for yourself.

But the Piece de Resistance was when Bethune's SS toyboat tried to scrape the paint of the bow of a whaler and because of the incompetence of the SS crewman at the helm, ended up cut in half.

Funny thats the Japanese side of events, the independent New Zealand report found the Japanese ship at fault and the Australian report found both parties at fault yet you seem to ignore this and go with the Japanese view as per usual. Guess thats why you cant see beyond the Japanese propaganda hey.

It's a good thing that Australian authorities search the eco-terrorist scows before they leave port to make sure Watson isn't carrying any firearms.

Yeah yeah, thats exactly it. Not that the Australian government is just trying to keep the whining sooks in Japan happy. Maybe they should tell the Japanese where to go and next time one of their whalers wants to put into an Australian port it should be refused entry much like the Japanese do to greenpeace vessels.

These are the reasons that McCully is concerned.

Funny l thought this was a more fitting comment "The New Zealand government described the seas around Antarctica as its neighbourhood, and called Japan's whaling plans "entirely disrespectful" or this one "It is also entirely disrespectful of the strong concerns expressed by Australian and New Zealand people for whom the Southern Ocean is our neighbourhood," Mr McCully said."

Oh and just out of curiosity given you like listing SS supposed dangerous activities lets look at some of the Japanese actions.

There was the us of LRAD against a low flying helicopter, the attempt to cause the crash of a helicopter by closing on the rear of the SS ship and using high pressure water cannon on it as the helicopter was attempting to land, use of military weapons namely concussion grenades against civilians, David@Tokyo's mate Glenn Inwood illegally chartering spy flights out of Australia to track SS. Illegal refueling in Antarctic treaty waters. Violating Chile's eez and laws by transporting whale meat through its waters and the list goes on.

I hear you saying but but but they throw acid..... Good for them. Maybe they should sink a few whalers now that may get the message across. Heres hoping.....

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So glass bottles of acid, wow that sounds dangerous. But if you say glass bottles of a harmless foul smelling butter derivative just doesnt have the same horrendous connotations. Your emotive use of acid lends people to believe they are throwing dangerous flesh eating / burning acids. When in fact they are throwing nothing more than a stinky smelly product that will not hurt anyone. In fact its that dangerous you can buy a product similar that is a practical joke product so dangerous hardly.

Go do it in public. Its assualt. Tell the judge your whole its harmless foul smelling whatever argument and enjoy your sentencing.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

steve@CPFC,

I provided facts. whaling is subsided, due to low demand. Large amounts of whale meat is stored frozen due to low demand, these are facts .

Would you keep a product in storage if there was low demand for it - e.g. if you didn't think you could sell it?

That doesn't make sense to me, so I gotta question your "facts".

Don't try to make me come across as some activist as i am not, just a concenred tax payer who does not like seeing his had earned taxes spent on a ridiuclous food fetish for a small group of mainly ancient Japanese and a handfull of Japanophiles.

Like I said, if you want whaling to stand on it's own two feet then you ought to be with me in thinking the whaling commission should do it's job and regulate commercial whaling, rather than fail miserably to fulfil it's mandate. They don't call it a whaling commission for nothing...

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Spidapig,

they have no right to whale in a whale sanctuary that was voted into existence by the IWC to which Japan is a signatory.

They DO have a right. Read the convention!! Or do I have to teach you everything?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Spidapig24,

And if they lose it

They aren't going to lose. Read the Wikileaks - even Australian government officials think their case has little chance of success at the ICJ, it was just a big PR stunt to try to salvage Kevin Rudd's popularity.

The US called it an "uncertain gamble with whales' lives". NZ warned against it too.

will just be yet another ruling or treaty or law that the Japanese ignore.

I think it's going to be the Australians who will ignore the judgement, because they are the ones who aren't going to like it.

How come you find it so hard to believe that the Japanese have the law on their side?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Thats funny David. Can you tell me this, prior to the ban on whaling how many whales a decade did Japan take for research?

That's a silly comparison. Before the "ban" (wasn't it supposed to be a temporary "moratorium"? hello..) it was possible to obtain biological samples from the commercial catches. So no need to separately catch whales to get even more biological samples.

The "ban" however precluded such collection of biological data - which the convention itself acknowledges is indispensible for the commission's work. So the only way left to get the data because of the "ban" (which was against the spirit of the whaling convetion) was to get it through special permit research whaling.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Thats funny the Australians are at home its the Japanese that are in their region. True?

Australia doesn't own international waters.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

davidattokyo

There's a stockpile of over 6,000 tons of whale meat.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

steve@CPFC,

It's ME; Yeah whale is so popular it is made into pet food

How much is made into pet food huh steve? Got any facts?

sold to schools and hospitals

So? If Schools and hospitals choose to buy it, it seems to go against your argument...

and still has massive amounts in storage,

Massive amounts? Facts please steve, facts. How much? And can you put the amount in storage into context?

and that is with them catchinbg much less than quotas. My taxes subsidise this joke.

I kind guess you aren't paying a lot of them...

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

davidattokyo

Would you keep a product in storage if there was low demand for it - e.g. if you didn't think you could sell it? That doesn't make sense to me, so I gotta question your "facts".

As pointed out to you yesterday these fact come from the JWA. So are you questioning the Japan Whaling Associations own facts. Maybe you should go to their website, l know your familiar with it you seem to recite it word for word.

Or do l have to teach you everything?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Spidapig24,

To qualify my statement for you, Australia claims the territorial waters off its Antarctic claim area (an area claimed that predates the Antarctic treaty be decades) the area claimed is considered by Australia as part of its EEZ. Now agreed only a handful of countries recognise this area. My point was Japan is whaling in this disputed area,

Well gee, if Australia had a problem with nations hunting whales in those international waters, why did they agree to join the whaling commission that legitimises the rights of nations to hunt whales there? Hmmm?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Spidapig24,

this is the answer to the whole issue, if Japan just stayed in their own region this issue would go away.

No I think Australians should be properly educated about the international agreements their nation has adhered to, that is a solution to the problem.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Spidapig24,

They are hunting whales in an IWC declared whale sanctuary

Legal under the whaling convention - you don't know what you're talking about.

they are hunting in another countries declared EEZ

No they aren't.

they are illegally refueling at sea in the Antarctic waters

Illegal?

they are illegally dumping waste (whale remains) into the waters in violation of the Antarctic treaty

Illegal?

they use military grade weapons in response to protests

No they don't they use LRADs in response to violent eco-terrorist actions.

they conduct illegal spy flights from Australian territory.

That's not illegal either.

You are just calling all sorts of stuff that you don't like "illegal".

Legality is NOT determined by whether YOU like something or not. Understand?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Spidapig24,

Again there is an easy solution and one that l would whole heartedly support. The Japanese fish their own waters.

That's not a "solution".

Japan has the legal right as does every nation party to UNCLOS to harvest marine resources on the high seas in accordance with their treaty obligations.

Japan is doing this.

Australians are just playing double-standards.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Please do not be impolite to other posters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Readers, you are starting to go around in circles and be repetitive. If you have nothing new to post, then please take a break.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DavidinTokyo; Actually the meat sold to schools and hospitals is sold cheaply and to "captive victims". The schools and hospitals do not have menu choices on the whole so the patients and kids eat what they are given.

The foold is in storage as Japan is obliged not to throw it away and make use of the meat, somehin an "expert" should know. In storage due to lack of demand. hey want to it to sell out fast to boost their claims that the public want to eat whale, but it doesn't and the meat is of low demand.

1 ( +4 / -2 )

When the whale meat in cold storage reaches it's sell-by-date, it's sold on for cat food.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

davidattokyo

"they are hunting in another countries declared EEZ" No they aren't.

Actually they are. Try picking up a map sometime. The area in question is near the big white land mass at the bottom, if you look carefully you will see an area label Australian Antarctic Territory.

"they are illegally refueling at sea in the Antarctic waters" Illegal?

Yeah illegal, Im sure you have heard of the Antarctic treaty and the IMO. The Japanese have been caught before refueling their vessels in an area that refueling is not allowed. Which is why the refueling vessel was de-registered and fined. But you know that as its been discussed before.

"they are illegally dumping waste (whale remains) into the waters in violation of the Antarctic treaty" Illegal?

Yes David, try reading the IMO rules regarding operation in Antarctic treaty zone waters. The same rules that forbid the Nisshin Maru from operating in Antarctic waters this year due to its fuel oil.

"they use military grade weapons in response to protests" No they don't they use LRADs in response to violent eco-terrorist actions.

So you say, so they use LRAD and hand grenades against unarmed protesters. OK

"they conduct illegal spy flights from Australian territory." That's not illegal either.

Actually it is, jump on twitter and ask your mate Glenn about it. There was a massive stink created by him chartering these flights out of Australia. Oh and while your at it ask him about his impersonating a New Zealand MP, he doesnt seem to answer me. You are just calling all sorts of stuff that you don't like "illegal".

Legality is NOT determined by whether YOU like something or not. Understand?

Correct its decided by countries, organisations etc. Unlike you who seems to advocate and support the use of loopholes to get around laws and treaties that dont suit your purposes. Understand!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

davidattokyo

Well gee, if Australia had a problem with nations hunting whales in those international waters, why did they agree to join the whaling commission that legitimises the rights of nations to hunt whales there? Hmmm?

Um could it be that Australia was one of the original members of the IWC, long before Japan! And l could ask you why would a country (Japan) join an organization when it has no intention of following the decisions of the organization, bribes other members to get its own way and generally goes off sooking and complaining of racism when things dont go its way.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

steve@CPFC,

Actually the meat sold to schools and hospitals is sold cheaply and to "captive victims".

Ummm well gee, the schools and hospitals decide to put whale on their menus and buy the stuff...

The schools and hospitals do not have menu choices on the whole so the patients and kids eat what they are given.

Like any other day of the week...

Really you are grasping at straws with this stuff. Whale is just another type of food, get over it.

The foold is in storage as Japan is obliged not to throw it away and make use of the meat

Wrong - once the food is in the market place it is up to the market participants to decide what to do with it. They wouldn't be storing it if there was not demand proportinate to the costs of storing it.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Spidapig24,

could it be that Australia was one of the original members of the IWC, long before Japan!

Ridiculous, Japan joined as soon as it could after world war two.

Australia itself was busy hunting whales until 25 years after that.

Give it up already, you are putting the anti-whaling side of the argument to shame!!

And l could ask you why would a country (Japan) join an organization when it has no intention of following the decisions of the organization

Japan is following the rules of the whaling convention to a tee. What don't you understand about the "WHALING" in "International Whaling Commission"????

generally goes off sooking and complaining of racism when things dont go its way.

Sounds more like Australia bitching and moaning about it's stoopid Antarctic claims which no one takes seriously - even Australian government officials themselves.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Spidapig24,

Would you keep a product in storage if there was low demand for it - e.g. if you didn't think you could sell it? That doesn't make sense to me, so I gotta question your "facts".

As pointed out to you yesterday these fact come from the JWA.

I haven't looked at the JWA page in yonks but according to you it says there is "low demand" for whale products, huh?

I guess you are joking... If not show me a URL.

Maybe you should go to their website

I don't give a hoot about the JWA website any more than I give a hoot about the Greenpeace website.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

davidattokyo

"could it be that Australia was one of the original members of the IWC, long before Japan!" Ridiculous, Japan joined as soon as it could after world war two.

Australia joined 10/11/48 as a founding member, Japan joined 21/04/51. So ridiculous you say, maybe you should check your facts before making statements.

Australia itself was busy hunting whales until 25 years after that. Give it up already, you are putting the anti-whaling side of the argument to shame!!

Indeed Australia was whaling at the time, but at least they woke up to what they where doing. I guess Japan is just a few decades behind the rest of the civilised world in whaling as well.

"And l could ask you why would a country (Japan) join an organization when it has no intention of following the decisions of the organization" Japan is following the rules of the whaling convention to a tee. What don't you understand about the "WHALING" in "International Whaling Commission"????

Yeah really, l thought the IWC declared part of the southern ocean a whale sanctuary, l thought there was a moratorium on commercial whaling. Seems many countries and groups (Aust, NZ, SA, US, Chile, EU, and many others see Japans research as commercial whaling in disguise and have actually said as much)

Sounds more like Australia bitching and moaning about it's stoopid Antarctic claims which no one takes seriously - even Australian government officials themselves.

Funny but its not just Australia complaining or dont you read the news.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

davidattokyo

"As pointed out to you yesterday these fact come from the JWA." I haven't looked at the JWA page in yonks but according to you it says there is "low demand" for whale products, huh?

Funny you seem to constantly recite it!

I guess you are joking... If not show me a URL.

You already have the URL, you just said you havent looked at the website for ages. OOPS....

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Readers, you are going around in circles. If you can't post anything new, then please take a break.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spidapig,

Indeed Australia was whaling at the time, but at least they woke up to what they where doing.

Woke up? They went crazy, that's what happened. No need for everyone else to jump off a bridge just because crazy Aussies decided to.

Aussies don't make the rules by themselves.

Rules are made by agreement. Japan for one never agreed that the whaling commission shouldn't be a whaling commission. Simple stuff no?

Don't like it? Take your toys and go home, this is the international community we are talking about.

I guess Japan is just a few decades behind the rest of the civilised world in whaling as well.

Australia is representative of the civilised world?

Yeah really, l thought the IWC declared part of the southern ocean a whale sanctuary,

Illegally, it did so, yes. Japan exercised it's right under the whaling convetion to not be bound by this illegal sanctuary. What don't you understand about that?

l thought there was a moratorium on commercial whaling.

What don't you understand about Article VIII? Haven't you already had it explained to you?

You already have the URL, you just said you havent looked at the website for ages. OOPS....

Even when you have the same information as me you tend to look at it through the blinkers...

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Spidapig24 - Yeah yeah, thats exactly it. Not that the Australian government is just trying to keep the whining sooks in Japan happy. Maybe they should tell the Japanese where to go and next time one of their whalers wants to put into an Australian port it should be refused entry much like the Japanese do to greenpeace vessels.

I hear you saying but but but they throw acid..... Good for them. Maybe they should sink a few whalers now that may get the message across. Heres hoping.....

So you promote violence to force your will on others.

What is a "whining sooks in Japan" ?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Spidapig24 - Ok lets look at these claims indiviually

Launching glass bottles of acid for one but you already know that.

So glass bottles of acid, wow that sounds dangerous. But if you say glass bottles of a harmless foul smelling butter derivative just doesnt have the same horrendous connotations. Your emotive use of acid lends people to believe they are throwing dangerous flesh eating / burning acids. When in fact they are throwing nothing more than a stinky smelly product that will not hurt anyone. In fact its that dangerous you can buy a product similar that is a practical joke product so dangerous hardly.

Yes, glass bottles of acid are dangerous. Glass bottles alone would be dangerous. Launching them out of a pneumatic launcher makes it more so. Filling those glass bottles with liquid increases the bottles kenetic energy at impact. Filling those bottles with buteric acid, not rotting butter as claimed by the eco-terrorist SS, can cause burns and eye damage. Small amounts of buteric acid can found in rotten butter but rotten butter is not what the eco-terrorist SS are firing at the whalers.

Firing red phosphorus flares at the whalers for another but you already know that too.

Now why did they fire that flare? Oh thats right because the Japanese vessel was on a collision course and refused radio messages warning of the danger. Wasnt that vessel also operated by the Japanese coast guard at the time? So the fact the vessel broke maritime law by coming up behind a slower vessel and not allowing sufficient maneuvering room is irrelevant to you. All you see is someone firing a flare at a ship, enough said. By the way you see more flares let off at soccer matches than SS fired at the offending vessel.

The eco-terrorist have fired many red phosphorus flares at various whaling ships.

Illegally boarding whaling ships,

Yeah l agree with that one they did in fact board a vessel no argument here.

3 eco-terrorists have illegally boarded 2 whalers.

shooting water up and into the exhaust stacks of the whalers in order to destroy the engine(s).

So you know anything about ships? Obviously not.... What is shooting water into the air going to achieve it will not damage the engines at all. Have you ever thought what happens to these exhausts when it rains. Water goes into them. By design the water will not get into the engine. So apart from pathetic your point is meaningless. But it does go to show you gullibly believe everything the ICR and JWA say. Maybe you should try thinking for yourself.

I saw the eco-terrorist SS own video on the violence-promoting whale wars show which showed black smoke coming from the whalers exhaust stack after the eco-terrorists used a water cannon to pour salt water into the stack. Ask an engine mechanic if black smoke coming from an engine is a good thing.

But the Piece de Resistance was when Bethune's SS toyboat tried to scrape the paint of the bow of a whaler and because of the incompetence of the SS crewman at the helm, ended up cut in half.

Funny thats the Japanese side of events, the independent New Zealand report found the Japanese ship at fault and the Australian report found both parties at fault yet you seem to ignore this and go with the Japanese view as per usual. Guess thats why you cant see beyond the Japanese propaganda hey.

I saw the video showing both engines of the Ady Gil increase speed pushing the AG into the path of a much, much larger ship. Oops. I guess the helmsman should have put the AG in reverse first.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Keep hunting, Japan!

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

davidattokyo: "Aussies don't make the rules by themselves."

Show me which countries are pro-whaling and I'll show you countries that have either been bought out by Japan (using everything from cash-padded envelopes to wine and hookers, as was revealed earlier this year... or was it last), including LAND-LOCKED African nations that have absolutely nothing to do with whaling, or nations that fish in or slightly off their own waters.

Bottom line is that Japan claims it's doing it for science, when the world knows it is not, and pretty much the entire world condemns it. At least the 'crazy Australians' you talk about don't have to buy others to side with them.

SpidaPig: "Indeed Australia was whaling at the time, but at least they woke up to what they where doing. I guess Japan is just a few decades behind the rest of the civilised world in whaling as well."

Shhhh!! don't say that! You'll be attacking Japan's centuries-old tradition of hunting whales in the Antarctic on massive diesel ships... I mean... for science, of course!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Smithinjapan.

Russia and Korea spring to mind as pro-whaling as they want to resume commercial whaling, quiet a few more nations(Iceland, etc) that never received any monies from japan.

Of course open to proof that shows the contrary.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

davidattokyo

Woke up? They went crazy, that's what happened. No need for everyone else to jump off a bridge just because crazy Aussies decided to.

Oh so Australia, UK, US, and others are crazy because they realised that what they where doing was unsustainable and that if it continued it would result in the extinction of a species. If thats your definition of crazy then l completely understand you inability to grasp logic.

Aussies don't make the rules by themselves. Rules are made by agreement. Japan for one never agreed that the whaling commission shouldn't be a whaling commission. Simple stuff no? Don't like it? Take your toys and go home, this is the international community we are talking about.

Indeed they dont make the rules by themselves. As a member of the IWC they have as much input as Japan, therefore the rules and recommendations coming out of the IWC are a collaboration between all parties. It seems that Japan is the only nation that has trouble following these without having to resort to using loopholes to continue their commercial activities. Oh and as for taking your bat and ball and going home, just a little geography lesson, Australia is at home its the Japanese that travel halfway around the world to do their hunting.

Illegally, it did so, yes. Japan exercised it's right under the whaling convetion to not be bound by this illegal sanctuary. What don't you understand about that?

Oh so the multinational IWC illegally decided to adopt a sanctuary, Japan had a vote in this too didnt it. It seems Japan didnt like the majority rule and has started whining because it didnt like the group decision. Oh by the way the introduction of the whale sanctuary is perfectly legal, the only ones who believe it isnt is the Japanese wow wonder why that would be. I am sure you are aware of Article 5.1 of the convention. The part where it says "The Commission may amend from time to time the provisions of the Schedule by adopting regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization of whale resources, fixing (a) protected and unprotected species; (b) open and closed seasons; (c) open and closed waters, including the designation of sanctuary areas; " So as its written in the convention in black and white David please stop twisting it to suit yourself. l thought there was a moratorium on commercial whaling.

What don't you understand about Article VIII? Haven't you already had it explained to you?

Oh l understand Article 8, what l find laughable is with the introduction of the moratorium Japans commercial whale kills suddenly became research kills. Funny how the numbers taken for research now are very close to the numbers taken as commercial kills. However it is you that seems unable to accept the convention in particular Article 5 about the legality of the sanctuary.

Even when you have the same information as me you tend to look at it through the blinkers...

Wow thats hilarious, you ignore article 5 of the convention and focus on article 8 yet there it is in black and white. You focus on the point in the US hearings where 1 comment is made that Japan does good research yet ignore others like that Japan conducts large scale commercial whaling, etc etc. You seem to pick out the points that suit yourself and ignore the rest and when mentioned you damn the person making the statements even though they are the same person that made the statement you support. David you are losing this argument so give up and l will see you next time there is a whaling story.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@David I really don't have any more to say to you at all because you are obviously are a staunch supporter of whaling. I tried to be cordial to you, I gave you a point here and a point there and you went the other way. So, you have your opinion and I have mine, but I think I have wasted enough time and feel that anymore debate with you would be pointless of me to endure myself to. Your message seems to be very clear.

BAD ANTI-WHALERS. Who do EVERYTHING wrong and are ignorant of all.

GOOD WHALERS. Who do everything right and are all knowing of the subject.

I say there is bad on both sides, you disagree. Do you see? There is no talking to you. You are set in your ways. I have better things to do and people to influence who have an ear to listen. There is no use beating a dead horse.

To all. Many pro-whaler supporters have stated that downing SS ships would be good and have advocated violence towards them but claim the SS violent and criminal when it resorts to less than peaceful ways to stop the whalers from their deeds. I do hope that the Australian and New Zealand governments do the very same thing that Japan does in regards to the Senkaku Islands. Japan would not and does not like when the fisherman from other countries come into what it calls it territory, even though it is claimed bu other countries, chases them out with force or arrests them. Hey, What is good for the goose is good for the gander and Japan needs to benefit from its own medicine. It claims that other countries don't respect the feelings of its people, while going down out of its way to do something in someone else's backyard even though it offends them.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I love whale meat!! Whale meat is tasy and very nutritious, I think we Japanese should do a better job introducing our unique whale eating culture to the entire world. Every non-Japanese friend of mine who have tried it with me not knowing what it was liked it (Chinese, Korean, American, Austrailian, French, British, etc.,) Especially the tasty fluke area, that is the best part!!! I do admit some where non too happy that I tricked them lol..!!! But most after tasting it polish it off anyway. Some of the granola types sure got mad though!!! lol... Meat is meat... Most Japanese support sustainable whaling, we sure wouldn't want to hunt them into extinction, we are actually quite the environmentailist traditionally speaking. If there are a million+ Minke whales out in the Antarctic, I don't see what the fuss is. It's not like we are killing indescrimanately every whale species even the endangered ones. Actually, I read somewhere that the overpopulation of Minke whales maybe causing other more rare species of whales to decline as they compete for prey. If that is the case, I don't see why culling a few thousand out of a million that could be enjoyed on our dinner tables is such a sin especially in the light that it may help save other more endangered whale species. Whaling! Whaling! Whaling! Yeah, love whale meat!!!! lol....

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

NihonRyu

Most Japanese support sustainable whaling, we sure wouldn't want to hunt them into extinction, we are actually quite the environmentailist traditionally speaking.

Oh sure just look at all the other species your countrymen have hunted into extinction. And l love your environmental efforts in other things like the dolphin hunt. World class environmentalists for sure.

If there are a million+ Minke whales out in the Antarctic, I don't see what the fuss is.

Um the fuss is there is less than a million, depending on who you believe it could be as low as 500,000 oh and the fuss is you are killing them in a declared whale sanctuary. And you signed up to the convention and committee that proclaimed it a sanctuary but that doesnt stop you now does it?

It's not like we are killing indescrimanately every whale species even the endangered ones.

Actually you do hunt endangered whales as well in violation of several treaties including Cites

If that is the case, I don't see why culling a few thousand out of a million that could be enjoyed on our dinner tables is such a sin especially in the light that it may help save other more endangered whale species.

Maybe you should finish your stockpile off before hunting more so you can deep freeze them. Oh that and maybe stay in your own region to hunt rather than travel halfway around the world to do your dirty work.

;-)

0 ( +4 / -3 )

If there are a million+ Minke whales out in the Antarctic...

Humungous IF. The inflated number quoted by the Japanese government is 760,000, a number from the 1990s which the IWC Scientific Committee rejected in 2000 in the light of new survey data suggesting a 50% lower population than in the 1980s. As of January 2010 the IWC states that it is 'unable to provide reliable estimates' of southern minke population. At present the IUNC Red List labels the southern Minke as Data Deficient.

I read somewhere that the overpopulation of Minke whales maybe causing other more rare species of whales to decline as they compete for prey

Yeah, you read that somewhere on a pro-whaling site, probably the ICR. In real life things are more complicated and the balance of nature much more delicate. Scientific research shows that when a predator at the top of the food chain is removed, eventually the species it preys on also declines, which in turn affects other species in ways we do not yet fully understand. The best way to protect 'more rare species' of whale and anything else in the sea is to keep the boats in port.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

smithinjapan,

Show me which countries are pro-whaling and

I don't need to show you anything. The rules are clearly stated in the whaling convention.

Australia etc could quite the whalers commission if they don't like the rules and no longer wish to be associated with the legitimisation of various whaling nations' activities.

Bottom line is that Japan claims it's doing it for science

Everyone who understands and accepts the whaling convention can see that it is.

when the world knows it is not, and pretty much the entire world condemns it.

Sheez we go with "the world" statements again... Anti-whaling arrogance is never ending.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Spidapig24,

You don't seem to get it. The whaling rules were decided before any nation was a member of the IWC. Subsequently nations (like Japan) that agree with the rules can sign up. And any nation that is a member of the IWC but then suddenly does not like the rules has the right to quit the organization, so as to no longer be bound by the agreed rules.

Australia should exercise it's rights and leave if it doesn't like the rules. That is the only honourable action (instead they are going to shame themselves with a ridiculous case at the ICJ, talking about losing face).

The whaling convention is not a loophole. The whaling convention IS the rules. You are backwards talking about something written explicitly into the convention being a "loophole". By definition the convention is not a loophole.

Oh so the multinational IWC illegally decided to adopt a sanctuary, Japan had a vote in this too didnt it.

It has other rights under the convention which it exercised and is thus not bound by the illegally adopted sanctuary as a result. What don't you understand about that?

the introduction of the whale sanctuary is perfectly legal, the only ones who believe it isnt is the Japanese

False, the Japanese are not the only ones who believe it isn't. Why does the anti-whaling rhetoric always try to make out that Japan is isolated when that is anything but the truth?

I am sure you are aware of Article 5.1 of the convention.

Sure, and I am also familiar with the Article 5.2 and 5.3 as well. If you were too, you'd understand why Japan is not acting illegally, and also why the "sanctuary" was illegal. Article 5.2 and 5.3 states the conditionality that applies to 5.1. Now do you understand?

Oh l understand Article 8, what l find laughable is with the introduction of the moratorium Japans commercial whale kills suddenly became research kills. Funny how the numbers taken for research now are very close to the numbers taken as commercial kills.

LOL, check your facts. Before the "moratorium" minke whale catch quotas each year were around 5,000. Now unless you think 5,000 is very close to what Japan takes under research permit (850) then you are wrong.

If it were commercial whaling in disguise they'd be hunting at least 2,000 a year. They aren't, smell the coffee?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Japan must never, ever give in to an idealogical difference regarding the whaling issue as long as it is sustainable and legal. The whaling ships of Japan are in internationally recognized waters, not in Australia's territorial waters. Partaking in some of nature's abundance and bounty be it whales, fish, etc.. need to be managed collectively but having an idealogical/emotional problem for harvesting a certain species at a detriment to another is something that should not be tolerated especially if it condones violence as a means to accomplish it.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

I am no longer a part of this conversation! If you have any criticism of my opinion on this subject I will not be replying to it.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

troyinjapan,

BAD ANTI-WHALERS. Who do EVERYTHING wrong and are ignorant of all.

Unfortunately, that is a good summary of my general impression.

GOOD WHALERS. Who do everything right and are all knowing of the subject.

Well there are some things about whaling that non-anti-whalers do know better than anti-whalers. This isn't really surprising, as anti-whalers have no interest in learning about how non-anti-whalers thing.

But please note that whalers have in the past - up to the 1970's - failed to appropriately conduct their whaling operations.

This is why I believe it is important that the IWC (or replacement organization) fulfil the mandate laid out under the whaling convention.

Think of it like this: One extreme: All-out unregulated, unsustainable whaling. Another extreme: No whaling at all

I am moderate - I support regulated, sustainable whaling. I don't see it's all that bad...

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

davidattokyo

You don't seem to get it. The whaling rules were decided before any nation was a member of the IWC. Subsequently nations (like Japan) that agree with the rules can sign up. And any nation that is a member of the IWC but then suddenly does not like the rules has the right to quit the organization, so as to no longer be bound by the agreed rules.

Actually l do get it. But thanks for pointing it out again.

Australia should exercise it's rights and leave if it doesn't like the rules. That is the only honourable action (instead they are going to shame themselves with a ridiculous case at the ICJ, talking about losing face).

Well lets see Australia is abiding by the IWC, Australia isnt using loopholes to continue whaling, Australia didnt chuck a hissy fit like Japan when the members voted to create a whale sanctuary. The only country who seems to struggle with the IWC is Japan so maybe they should just pack their little bags and head home. As it seems they dont like it when the consensus goes against them.

The whaling convention is not a loophole. The whaling convention IS the rules. You are backwards talking about something written explicitly into the convention being a "loophole". By definition the convention is not a loophole.

Yes the convention isnt a loophole but Japan is exploiting one portion and using it to its advantage while ignoring and complaining about the rest of the document in their usual Japan the victim mentality.

the introduction of the whale sanctuary is perfectly legal, the only ones who believe it isnt is the Japanese

False, the Japanese are not the only ones who believe it isn't. Why does the anti-whaling rhetoric always try to make out that Japan is isolated when that is anything but the truth?

Sure, and I am also familiar with the Article 5.2 and 5.3 as well. If you were too, you'd understand why Japan is not acting illegally, and also why the "sanctuary" was illegal. Article 5.2 and 5.3 states the conditionality that applies to 5.1. Now do you understand?

Yes i understand, the Japanese dont like the fact that in an ocean of tens of thousands of square kilometers a portion is off limits. But l guess you are refering to the piece that says amendments shall be based of scientific findings right? Well guess what, science said there where dwindling numbers of whales so they introduced a sanctuary. Japan doesnt like it so they do their own thing. They also dont like the fact that other countries voice a differing opinion stiff....

Oh and David maybe you should drop the condescending attitude, it doesnt win you any prizes. And guess what people are allowed a different perspective to yours yet every time there is a whaling story heres Davidattokyo berating and belittling everyone who has an opposing view. I understand you and your little buddy have an agenda but maybe you can go pedal it someplace else because l for one am getting sick of hearing you recited JWA, ICR lines.

I will not be discussing this thread with you anymore as it is a pointless venture. So as you like to win and get the last word in its all yours.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Spidapig24,

Oh sure just look at all the other species your countrymen have hunted into extinction. And l love your environmental efforts in other things like the dolphin hunt. World class environmentalists for sure.

Sustainable use is environmentalism.

Unsustainable use and no-use are both extremist ideas and are best avoided in the real world of which we humans are a part.

depending on who you believe it could be as low as 500,000

Plenty enough for a modest, conservative, sustainable harvest. It's extremist to say that zero whales is the only appropriate catch limit.

And you signed up to the convention and committee that proclaimed it a sanctuary but that doesnt stop you now does it?

They signed up to the convention, and later some members went feral and illegally proclaimed a sanctuary, to which Japan lodged an objection under Article V.3. So no, it doesn't stop them

Actually you do hunt endangered whales as well in violation of several treaties including Cites

Japan is not violating CITES either. Geez you gotta read the rules before making these wild allegations.

Maybe you should finish your stockpile off before hunting more

But that'd mean there would be no supply until the next harvest is brought it.

That's hardly good management, is it?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

cleo,

Scientific research shows that when a predator at the top of the food chain is removed, eventually the species it preys on also declines,

You mean, if we stop eating whales, the whales will decline?

You probably wanna be careful about which science you selectively choose to believe...

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

DavidatTokyo: Very well said! Couldn't agree with you more.

Regulated sustainable whaling is always better. I think it is a fair comprimise to "no whaling at all what so ever just because I disdain the thought of killing cuddly whales."

Imagine a scenario where China, Japan, Korea all started indescrimanate unsustainable whaling in international waters..!!! Yeah, that is what I thought... You anti-whaling extremists would really have a handful if the Chinese had a tradition of eating whale. lol..!!! Let's hope the Chinese masses don't develop the taste of eating whale like they have with Maguro sashimi and sushi.. The whales would be in big trouble... lol..

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Readers, you are still going around in circles, posting nothing new.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

david,

Considering the number of humans who eat whale and the number of whales taken (you keep telling us it's only a few, right?), we're hardly at the top of that particular food chain. Even your friend NihonRyu seems to understand that.

Plus let's not forget that predators in nature take only what they need. It's only humans who think it's a good idea to sweep the oceans clean of all life regardless of whether it gets eaten or not.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

troyinjapan,

Thanks for the comments, you also put up a good fight. And yes it is pointless, and like you l didnt just wake up one day and go oh heres something l can be against. Believe it or not l wasnt always against whaling, it was through reading and learning the reasons behind it that converted me and contrary to belief l like many anti whalers are not SS stooges but learn and think for ourselves separate of those types of groups.

After a bit of research l think l do understand why David is like he is, after reading his blog and twitter posts it seems he infact has a strong prowhaling agenda and with mates like New Zealands infamous whaling promote Glenn Inwood l guess its a loosing battle so l too give up and will not address David on this thread anymore.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Spidapig24,

lets see Australia is abiding by the IWC, Australia isnt using loopholes

Australia is not abiding by the IWC, and it is using loopholes. It voted for both the moratorium and the sanctuary, which are both against the spirit of whaling.

The major loophole in the whaling convention is that anti-whalers can abuse their membership to push through measures against the spirit of whaling. That's not what the whaling convention was imagined to be used for.

Australia didnt chuck a hissy fit like Japan when the members voted to create a whale sanctuary.

Australia has taken a frivilous case to the ICJ to complain about a whaling nations acting in accordance with the whaling convention... if that isn't a hissy fit I don't know what is.

As it seems they dont like it when the consensus goes against them.

There is no "consensus" against Japan.

Yes the convention isnt a loophole but Japan is exploiting one portion

It's in the rules, what's wrong with using the agreed rules in the spirit of whaling?

while ignoring and complaining about the rest of the document

Japan doesn't complain about the whaling convention, it complains that anti-whalers don't respect and honour the rules that they agreed to.

in their usual Japan the victim mentality.

Huh? Sounds like you have some nasty preconceptions about Japan...

Yes i understand, the Japanese dont like the fact that in an ocean of tens of thousands of square kilometers a portion is off limits.

A portion? That's nice spin. The sanctuary covers the ENTIRE whaling grounds. It's obviously not in the spirit of the whaling convention

But l guess you are refering to the piece that says amendments shall be based of scientific findings right? Well guess what, science said there where dwindling numbers of whales so they introduced a sanctuary.

There was already a "moratorium" on whaling since 1986, no need for a new sanctuary in 1994. If there is a "moratorium" already then there is thus no need for a "sanctuary". And there was never any such science advice in favour of the sanctuary from the IWC's Scientific Committee, indeed an independent review of the "sanctuary" found that it was entirely useless. It was just a political trophy, and a propaganda trophy. You see, now that they established a "sanctuary", innocent people are misled into believing that Japan is being naughty by catching whales.

And guess what people are allowed a different perspective to yours

Sure, but this is a forum where commenters engage in an exchange of ideas. If you don't like having your ideas challenged then perhaps a) your ideas have some issues or b) you are too fragile.

I understand you and your little buddy have an agenda but maybe you can go pedal it someplace else because l for one am getting sick of hearing you recited JWA, ICR lines.

So maybe you can imagine how the whalers feel about Australia being a whaler's club member?

So as you like to win and get the last word in its all yours.

Cheers.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

NihonRyu,

Cheers :) Your comments are very agreeable to me too.

The whales would be in big trouble...

Yes indeed... that's why we have to get regulated whaling established as soon as possible. Those of us who are serious about conservation of whale stocks see the need, but I think the rest are anti-whaling just for self-gratification more than anything...

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

GOOD FOR YOU SPIDAPIG. It is an exercise in futility.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

And I wasn't always against whaling either. Personally I like to hear the other side of what I think. It helps me to grow and learn. But while I feel that way, the same cannot be said for the other side. They just feel ONE way is right, theirs. And as you said, belittle, berate, and condescend to anyone who is against them. This type of thinking doesn't help one to grow. Personally i don't believe that any side on most issues is completely right nor completely wrong. But the other side for the most part, is just, I am right, you are wrong. Sad.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

cleo,

Considering the number of humans who eat whale and the number of whales taken (you keep telling us it's only a few, right?), we're hardly at the top of that particular food chain.

Gee, then that must be the problem... You've already referred to research that says if we stop eating whales, they'll decline, so what must be required is surely for more of us to eat them. That way we can secure whale stocks, because without us they'd be goners.

I think you're right - there's some sense to that.

But it is contingent upon us conducting whaling on a sustainable basis - by doing so we can ensure a supply of whale products and thus ensure we have a vested interest in the ongoing conservation of whale stocks, so we have a nice positive feedback loop.

But without whaling, the whales will likely die, as your research says. Doesn't fit so well with your animal rights agenda though..

Plus let's not forget that predators in nature take only what they need.

Humans are predators in nature, and if the meat wasn't needed it wouldn't be stocked. It'd be converted to pet food instead.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

troyinjapan,

They just feel ONE way is right, theirs.

I don't see what is wrong with respecting the agreed rules established by the international community as laid out in the whaling convention. Indeed I am certainly firmly adhered to this principle, and I'm not going to move an inch...

Nonetheless, I do believe some whaling in the past was unsustainable, and I don't support that. I'm for a moderate level of whaling on a sustainable basis. What more do you want me to give?

You and Spid on the other hand are both wedged firmly at the extreme "no whaling" position, and haven't moved an inch from your own "zero quota" whale harvest position, so far as I can tell.

Maybe you feel I'm being too hard on you, but maybe it's you who should relax your extreme position and join me more in the centre, where we are comfortable with modest, sustainable whale harvests?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Davidattokyo,

I know l wasnt going to respond but l will say this as my final summary. If you bothered to read my posts you would see that l am actually not against whaling full stop. I am against whaling in the Southern ocean whale sanctuary, if Japan wants to whale in its own waters or in the North Pacific l have no issue with that. My issue extends to the areas around my home country.

As for being unmoving let me say this, at home in Australia l am a mad fisherman. I fish every weekend and chance l get, when the government decided to make large slabs of coastline marine parks with no fishing allowed l was peeved and even went to protests to stop it. However the parks went ahead, the scientists and government said it was in the best interests of the fish and would also benefit us fishermen and it has. The areas they declared marine parks are teeming with life and the fishing around the areas is now better. The logic behind the parks (sanctuaries) is give the animals a place they can breed, feed and be left alone. This reduces stress and allows the populations to recover. So now l have gone from adamantly opposed to agreeing with the idea.

The same goes for whaling, with all the water in the world and whaling grounds does it really hurt to give the animals an area they can be unmolested, where they can breed, feed and not be hunted. Really is it that bad.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

My sentiments exactly Spidapig, I have also said that I am NOT completely against whaling. But there are those who want to believe what they want.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Spidapig24 - I know l wasnt going to respond but l will say this as my final summary.

troyinjapan - I am no longer a part of this conversation! If you have any criticism of my opinion on this subject I will not be replying to it.

Spidapig24 - Well lets see Australia is abiding by the IWC, Australia isnt using loopholes to continue whaling, Australia didnt chuck a hissy fit like Japan when the members voted to create a whale sanctuary. The only country who seems to struggle with the IWC is Japan so maybe they should just pack their little bags and head home. As it seems they dont like it when the consensus goes against them.

And I'm not responding either. This post only looks like a response. The whining about loopholes is absurd. The operations and proceedures are part of the IWC. You're objecting to someone using the rules and claiming they're not abiding by the rules. That doesn't make any sense.

If Japan was the "only country who seems to struggle with the IWC" then the IWC votes wouldn't be deadlocked. The animal-rights zealots can't get their way by stacking the IWC vote so they chose to support the violence of the eco-terrorist SS. One way or another, by hook or by crook, they intend to end all whaling. If they injure or kill human beings in the process, well, I guess that's just too bad.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I was in Nagasaki this summer and managed to grab a Kujira Karaage Bento for my train ride back to Hakata. It was very good. I recommed everyone here try it if you have a chance.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

You've already referred to research that says if we stop eating whales, they'll decline

I've done no such. Please don't try to be cute, it doesn't suit you.

if the meat wasn't needed it wouldn't be stocked. It'd be converted to pet food instead.

But they're not whaling for the meat, right? It's for the research, right? With a huge stockpile even when the 'necessary' numbers of whale have not been killed in years tells reasonable people that it's stocked because it doesn't sell, not that it's stocked because there's a huge demand. If there were a huge demand there would be no need to force the stuff on schools and hospitals at cut price. As for it becoming pet food - I guarantee there will be/was not any announcement when the decision is/was made to sneak it into the diets of the nation's cats and dogs. One reason I never buy any kokusan pet food that doesn't list specific ingredients. Any contents list containing vague 'meat' is probably disguising whale, radioactive beef, euthanised pets and/or byproducts from the vivisection industry.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

My point has been proven. Some see what they want to see. Read what they want to read. Hear what they want to hear and the rest is just noise.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I feel for Spidapig and troyinjapan, but put up good arguments but seems to have been drowned it out by pro-whalers who just like troy said:

there are those who want to believe what they want.

Neither Spidapig nor troyinjapan ever said they were for a full stop of whaling. Both made it very clear that they were just against whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Both said, "Do it in your own waters or the Northern Pacific" and be respectful of how others feel, but it seems to me that David@tokyo and arrestpaul have just gone off on their own fits and did not listen to a word either of them said. Both, just like Spidapig said have berated, belittled and been condescending to others who hold different opinions. I am sure happy I didn't waste my time talking on this forum.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What i don't get is there are so many of us who are not totally against whaling, we just don't like it being done where it is currently taking place. Japan asks others to respect it's legal rights. Acceptable. Respect its culture. Acceptable. But it does not show respect to the Aussies and New Zealanders when they ask Japan to try to respect their wishes as well. Australian claims some part of that ocean and does not like Japan to come in their to do their whaling. But Japan does. Now, doesn't Japan have the same problem with a chain of Islands that is also claimed by three other countries as well. When those countries enter that disputed area, Japan screams foul, and claims that those states are being provocative and aggressive. The TV stations are filled with video after video of this intrusion or that intrusion. Japan asks other countries to not be provocative by allowing its other vessels to go in there for fishing and or other means. But Japan does the same thing. Maybe it is just me, but Japan wants to be respected by other countries, shouldn't it also be respective towards other countries and their feelings as well?

You can whale, I agree with Spidapig and Troyingjapan on that, just be respectful of others, do in your own waters or the Northern Pacific and don't go 11,000 kilometers away to do it near a place where people don't like it. You are disrespecting their feelings as well. If you want respect you have to give respectful. I like what troyinjapan wrtoe the other day.

Something along the lines of "Just because you can do something, does not always mean that you should". I believe I got it right. Now, I promise the whaling advocates, if you try to bate me with your logic I will not respond. I mean no disrespect to others, but judging from all that I have read, I am not interested in getting in a debate with you because it doesn't look like it will serve a purpose, you guys seem to believe what you want to, even when the opposite has been written quite a few times by Spid and Troy. I don't debate with people who are stubborn so, I will refrain from any more posts on this subject. Good luck in your campaigns anti and pro.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I forgot to mention another reason that I wont debate either it is because I noticed that the people who support whaling can be quite disrespectful, and there is no use being disrespectful to others in this type of debate. Nothing good comes from it. I would have liked to join the fray but I believe that maturity, lack of aggression and an open mind are what is necessary for such a debate.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Spidapig24,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against sanctuaries per se.

The problem with the whaling convention "sanctuary" is that it encompasses the entire Antarctic whaling grounds.

The equivalent in Australian fishing would be for the government to call Australia's entire fishing grounds a "sanctuary".

This is obviously extreme, and not good for fishermen like yourself.

does it really hurt to give the animals an area they can be unmolested, where they can breed, feed and not be hunted.

The problem is that with a "moratorium", coupled with a "sanctuary", there is no hunting, anywhere.

If we have a sanctuary in the whale's breeding grounds, but no moratorium, thus allowing hunting in only the whaling grounds, then I'd be happy. How about you? Sounds like we can strike such a balance?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

cleo,

But they're not whaling for the meat, right?

Correct.

It's for the research, right?

Yes.

With a huge stockpile

Tiny, more like.

even when the 'necessary' numbers of whale have not been killed in years tells reasonable people that it's stocked because it doesn't sell,

Market participants don't stock products that don't sell. They stock products that do sell.

If there were a huge demand there would be no need to force the stuff on schools and hospitals at cut price.

There is no such forcing. The education boards are the ones that approach the whale meat sellers looking for a good deal.

As for it becoming pet food - I guarantee there will be/was not any announcement when the decision is/was made to sneak it into the diets of the nation's cats and dogs.

But I guess you are certain that such a decision has already been made, right ;)

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

By the way, does it seems strange to anyone but me that the Japanese say that there are enough whales and that the population is at levels that would allow for commercial whaling, but goes all the way down south to do its whaling in disputed waters? Why can't it respect how Australia, New Zealand and other countries in the region feel and just do its whaling outside of those waters? Why can't we have a body of water that leaves the whales untouched by humans, as someone else on this forum mentioned? I am sorry. I just don't understand the push to do something that is so unpopular and offensive to others.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

mousetime,

Both made it very clear that they were just against whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

That sanctuary takes in the entire Southern Ocean whaling grounds.

That's not a moderate position.

Both said, "Do it in your own waters or the Northern Pacific"

Every nation has the right to harvest marine resources from international waters, and if we go that route then we don't need an International Whaling Commission...

What i don't get is there are so many of us who are not totally against whaling, we just don't like it being done where it is currently taking place.

I think you're a minority. Australia's national policy is to oppose whaling the world over.

But it does not show respect to the Aussies and New Zealanders when they ask Japan to try to respect their wishes as well.

Japan isn't catching whales in Aussie and NZ EEZs.

I think the problem is that people in Aussie and NZ are confused about what are and are not their waters.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The other thing with the southern ocean whaling is, if Australia etc didn't like it in the first place, why did they sign up to the whaling convention that was envisaged specifically to manage whaling in the southern ocean?

If Australia wants concessions from Japan, it really has to be more respectful towards Japan. They've gone and taken them to court, but what they should have done if they wanted to show good faith is to 'fess up and say "Yes, we know we said we agreed to the whaling rules with you, but we admit we've had a change of heart. We know that you are right in expecting under the whaling rules to be able to catch whales in the international waters of the southern ocean, and that we were wrong to pretend otherwise, but please let us talk about it again from scratch - we are prepared to be flexible for our part"

Or something like that. Unless Australia can convince Japan to renegotiate the whaling convention this won't be a starter.

But like I said, Australia's national policy is to oppose whaling everywhere, take Japan to court, accuse them of lying (when everyone knows they are acting in accordance with the spirit of the whaling convention) and I suspect some of those nasty SS clowns harassing Japanese fishermen in Taiji are from Australia too.

This is the challenge for those who want whaling to end in the southern ocean only (for some reason). Can you rein in the extremists such as the Australian government and other Australians, etc?

Personally though, with so many Antarctic minke whales in the Antarctic, if we are going to have sustainable whaling anywhere, that's where it should be concentrated, so as to minimise the risk to whale stocks. That Antarctic minke whale stock is the best able to sustain a harvest. So I'd not be for renegotiating the whaling convention myself...

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Ok, listen up. This isn't about ANYTHING at all except for this one simple truth:

The reason that Japan continues to engage in whaling is very simply "Amakudari" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amakudari

retiring high-ranking government officials move to lucrative jobs in a private or semi-private corporation. This is largely why whaling continues to exist. A handful of selfish greedy rich old men who care nothing about anything outside of their own bubble.

This is not about Japan or Japanese people supporting whaling, scientific research, culture or anything else. You can get yer dander up about all of these and other unrelated issues but if you really want the whaling to stop, you need to find some way to end what is really going on with Amakudari running rampant in the JFA.

The fat cats who continue to make whaling a part of Japanese culture are decieving their own people, the scientific community and could not care less about what anyone from other countries thinks about it. They are in it for them and whaling brings them mad coin. Simple as that.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

That Antarctic minke whale stock is the best able to sustain a harvest.

According to the IWC, The Commission is unable to provide reliable estimates at the present time for Minke in the southern Hemisphere. So how can you possibly claim that the population can 'sustain a harvest'?

I take it you're going on the estimates put forward by Japan in the 1990s. You'd probably be happy asking the fox to estimate how many chickens can be taken from the hen coop without anyone noticing, so long as it means you get your plateful of chicken.

I guess you are certain that such a decision has already been made, right ;)

I'm certain that unspecific 'meat' is not prime grass-fed steak, or organic free-range chicken.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

mousetime - Neither Spidapig nor troyinjapan ever said they were for a full stop of whaling. Both made it very clear that they were just against whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Both said, "Do it in your own waters or the Northern Pacific" and be respectful of how others feel, but it seems to me that David@tokyo and arrestpaul have just gone off on their own fits and did not listen to a word either of them said. Both, just like Spidapig said have berated, belittled and been condescending to others who hold different opinions. I am sure happy I didn't waste my time talking on this forum.

It's a good thing you're not wasting your time repeatedly posting on a public forum. It's my belief that anyone who supports the eco-terrorism of Watson and his SS want to end all whaling. That's the claim that Watson is using to draw financial support and naive volunteers. Come risk your lives on the high seas. Come die for Admiral Watson.

Attorney general Robert McClelland said the case against its traditional ally was not taken lightly, but Australia wanted a permanent end to whaling in the Antarctic and commercial hunting more broadly

McClelland can't get the IWC to do the bidding of a few members of Australia's government and the pending court case has little hope of getting a ruling favorable to Australia. Can I assume that's why some in Australia allow the eco-terrorist scows to repeatedly commit acts of violence out of Austalian posts?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

mousetime - Something along the lines of "Just because you can do something, does not always mean that you should". I believe I got it right. Now, I promise the whaling advocates, if you try to bate me with your logic I will not respond. I mean no disrespect to others, but judging from all that I have read, I am not interested in getting in a debate with you because it doesn't look like it will serve a purpose, you guys seem to believe what you want to, even when the opposite has been written quite a few times by Spid and Troy. I don't debate with people who are stubborn so, I will refrain from any more posts on this subject.

Maybe you should tell the eco-terrorists SS that, "Just because you can do something, does not always mean that you should". It might save someone's life.

I'm sad to hear you say you won't be posting on this subject any more any more any more.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

mousetime - I am sorry. I just don't understand the push to do something that is so unpopular and offensive to others.

I feel the same way about eco-terrorist Watson's repeated acts of violence against fisherman and whalers. Why do you suppose he continues to use violence to force others to do his bidding?

McCully also said he was concerned at Kano's assertion that Japan would boost security for its whaling fleet to guard against harassment by environmental protesters.

He also expressed alarm at recent statements from environmental activist group Sea Shepherd suggesting its vessels could use life-threatening tactics to stop whalers.

"The New Zealand government has consistently urged all parties to act responsibly during the whaling season, and to avoid actions that may put their lives, or the lives of others, at risk," McCully said.

Australia and New Zealand could prevent the eco-terrorist group from committing any more acts of SS violence by refusing to allow eco-terrorist from using their ports.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

davidattokyo

Both made it very clear that they were just against whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. That sanctuary takes in the entire Southern Ocean whaling grounds. That's not a moderate position.

David, just a little fact for you to ponder the worlds oceans cover in excess of 335,258,000 sq km. The whale sanctuary covers a little over 50,000,000 sq km. So that leaves a tiny 335,208,000 sq km for whaling. And you call that not a moderate position. Ok fine, based on those figures alone one can see who is being a little greedy.

Both said, "Do it in your own waters or the Northern Pacific" Every nation has the right to harvest marine resources from international waters, and if we go that route then we don't need an International Whaling Commission...

YAWN, you just cant see the forest for the trees can you. I will try and explain it simpler for you as you seem to have some difficulty grasping this. Yes they are international waters (claimed by Australia), Australia objects to Japan whaling in waters it considers its own. Japan has difficulty understanding this. Yet Japan claims waters in its region that others dont recognize and and when other countries enter these waters Japan complains and chases them out using its military. Yet you, your alter ego Arrestpaul and Japan cant seem to see the hypocrisy of this attitude.

What i don't get is there are so many of us who are not totally against whaling, we just don't like it being done where it is currently taking place. I think you're a minority. Australia's national policy is to oppose whaling the world over.

That may be national policy we are talking about personal opinions here mate so dont cloud the issue as per usual. And if you read the comments in Australian papers l would say a very healthy majority state the objection not as to whaling as a whole but whaling in our region. And the damage that is being done to the Japanese image in Australia amongst the public is huge. If you want an interesting read go and read the comments posted on any Japanese story in the Australian media. There are always a chorus of bad comments that are related back to whaling no matter what the story. i.e the tsunami, the travel offer. Go read any of these and see what people think of Japan because of its whaling.

But it does not show respect to the Aussies and New Zealanders when they ask Japan to try to respect their wishes as well. Japan isn't catching whales in Aussie and NZ EEZs.

Yes Japan is catching whales in Australia's claimed EEZ, please try and get your head around that. Its like saying Taiwanese and Chinese fishing boats around the Senkaku's arnt fishing in Japans EEZ. Japan has declared it only a couple of countries recognise it yet Japan gets upset when its encroached on. Yet they are doing the same to Australia and cant see it.

I think the problem is that people in Aussie and NZ are confused about what are and are not their waters

Same could be said for the Japs.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

cleo,

how can you possibly claim that the population can 'sustain a harvest'?

Yes, excuse me, I should provide some information to back my point up. Please refer to the IWC Scientific Committee's latest report (from IWC 63), section 10.1.

The summary conclusion:

"In conclusion, while the Committee regrets that it has not been able to provide reliable final estimates for the Antarctic minke populations this year, it should be possible next year. From preliminary calculations, the Committee agrees that the final estimates for each Area (see Fig. 3) will most likely lie between the numbers given by the two methods in Table 5 and be probably closer to the OK estimates."

If you read the report, you'll see in Table 5 the numbers from the two methods referred to. The OK method numbers refered to are 612,000, versus 421,000 for the SPLINTR method. As the report says the final estimate next year is likely to be between the two, and closer to the OK numbers.

Therefore we can conclude that a finalised estimate will be around 500K or more.

This is by far the most abundant baleen whale population, and 500K is certainly enough to sustain a harvest better than any other whale stock.

That other whale stocks are being sustainably utilised elsewhere only goes to drive my point home.

I take it you're going on the estimates put forward by Japan in the 1990s.

No, and I apologise for not pointing you at this latest information more sooner.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

crustpunker,

The reason that Japan continues to engage in whaling is very simply "Amakudari"

Mmm, that and the fact that the majority of Japanese people have some degree of interest in eating whales, as illustrated by recent polls conducted by western news media.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

davidattokyo

The other thing with the southern ocean whaling is, if Australia etc didn't like it in the first place, why did they sign up to the whaling convention that was envisaged specifically to manage whaling in the southern ocean?

You do understand that as part of a management program this can include suspending activities or placing restrictions on activities. You arnt to familiar with managing programs obviously from this comment.

If Australia wants concessions from Japan, it really has to be more respectful towards Japan.

David, what an insulting childish, pathetic statement. I think you have been in this country to long and caught the victim mentality. Australia should be more respectful to Japan, WHY? Who is offending who? You still dont get it do you David, Japan is offending Australia, New Zealand and other nations in the region. It is Japan who needs to learn some respect. Afterall they demand respect from their neighbours when they fish in their imaginary EEZ.

But like I said, Australia's national policy is to oppose whaling everywhere, take Japan to court, accuse them of lying (when everyone knows they are acting in accordance with the spirit of the whaling convention)

Wow, yes Australia accuses japan of lying. So does Chile, New Zealand, EU, UK, US, South Africa and many others, the only countries that support Japan are the nations it has brought out. But dont let the truth get in the way of your little story buddy.

This is the challenge for those who want whaling to end in the southern ocean only (for some reason). Can you rein in the extremists such as the Australian government and other Australians, etc?

What is your definition of extremists someone who doesnt agree with your view obviously. I would say the only extremists (apart from SS) are yourself and Arrestpaul (and l would call you zealots) and the Japanese.

.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

arrestpaul

It's a good thing you're not wasting your time repeatedly posting on a public forum. It's my belief that anyone who supports the eco-terrorism of Watson and his SS want to end all whaling. That's the claim that Watson is using to draw financial support and naive volunteers. Come risk your lives on the high seas. Come die for Admiral Watson.

Paul, it seems you have difficulty understanding that not all people who are anti whaling support SS. People can have similar goals without actually supporting others with the same desired outcome. Try to get a grasp on that, l know it may be a stretch for you but please try.

Can I assume that's why some in Australia allow the eco-terrorist scows to repeatedly commit acts of violence out of Austalian posts?

YEAH, thats why every year when the poor little jap whalers complain the Australian federal police investigate. How many years in a row has it been now and no charges have been laid. Oh maybe its all a big conspiracy to protect SS. Yeah and maybe Elvis lives too. Your eco terrorist speeches are getting old. Maybe you view yourself as the Joe McCarthy of modern days, where he saw reds under the beds you see eco terrorists.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Spidapig24,

I can't accept your comparison of the Southern Ocean sanctuary with the entire surface of the world's ocean.

Whales aren't distributed evenly across the surface of the earth.

The reason why whaling happens in the Southern Ocean is because that's where a lot of whales can be found during the austral summer when they go there to feed. That's why those are the whaling grounds. Your proposal is kinda like me suggesting "let's ban fishing around Australia, but you can catch any fish you find in your bathtub".

An alternative is to go hunting whales on their breeding grounds (which are outside the sanctuary), is that satisfactory to you? I don't recommend it myself.

Yet Japan claims waters in its region that others dont recognize and and when other countries enter these waters Japan complains and

That issue has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I don't care about Japan's territorial claims and associated issues, I care about sound management of whaling.

That may be national policy we are talking about personal opinions here mate so dont cloud the issue

Sorry but it does get confusing - sometimes I get the impression that people are actually just saying they'll agree to let Japan catch whales in the Northern Hemisphere if they give up the south, as part of a "given an inch, take a mile" strategy... Perhaps I'm overly cynical? You are fully in support of whaling in the Northern Hemisphere?

the damage that is being done to the Japanese image in Australia amongst the public is huge.

I think that's a two way street. Australia has earned itself a bad reputation in Japan due to it's negligence toward eco-terrorism.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

<>davidattokyo, could you supply a link to these "recent polls conducted by western media"?

here is a poll that I found that states:

Favor/Oppose whale hunting (COMMERCIAL) Favor: 52% Don't Care: 35% Opposed: 13%

Interested in eating whale meat: Very: 12% Moderately: 21% A Little: 26% Not at all: 41%

and a link to the source: http://theinconvenienttruthonwhaling.blogspot.com/2011/09/opinion-polls-on-whaling-within-japan.html

anyway, the point is really that if you look hard enough I'm sure you can find many polls that support whatever you are trying to say. However, the general trend is (as stated in the link) that while most people in Japan are not interested in eating whale meat, they support it because they are Japanese who live in Japan.

another very keen observation by the author is that:

Japanese aren't been brought up with a need to find something to rebel against in order to feel relevant

that is, they don't care one way or the other but will go along with the status quo. So, along with amakudari practices in the Japanese Fishing Assoc. perhaps we can also chalk the so called "support" of whaling as nothing more than apathy/not wanting to rock the boat/going with the flow. Japanese people are NOT suddenly going to come out and say "whaling is wrong and we are against it" When they have been told (duped) into believing that it is part of their culture/for research, etc.

whaling makes a handful of rich, priveleged old men a lot of money. They and the orginazations that they head and represent are the ones that perpetuate the status quo of whaling being a cultural right.

THE VAST MAJORITY of Japanese mostly don't care or are against it but will never put it in these words.

Everyone who wants whaling to end needs to understand that it is not the NATION of Japan that you are fighting against. It is a small group of people who want to keep making insane amounts of money FOR THEMSELVES.

That's it.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

davidattokyo,

Nothing new from you just more negatives no surprise really.

I can't accept your comparison of the Southern Ocean sanctuary with the entire surface of the world's ocean. Whales aren't distributed evenly across the surface of the earth.

Ah so it would make it harder and more work to actually catch them, oh how terrible. The fact is there are whales located elsewhere. You are complaining about 50 million sq km being closed off when it leaves 335+million sq km.

The reason why whaling happens in the Southern Ocean is because that's where a lot of whales can be found during the austral summer when they go there to feed. That's why those are the whaling grounds. Your proposal is kinda like me suggesting "let's ban fishing around Australia, but you can catch any fish you find in your bathtub".

What a rubbish analogy. Unless my bath is 600 times as big as the Australian coastline that is.

"Yet Japan claims waters in its region that others dont recognize and and when other countries enter these waters Japan complains and" That issue has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I don't care about Japan's territorial claims and associated issues, I care about sound management of whaling.

Actually it has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion. Maybe if you opened your eyes you would see that, in both cases a country has declared an EEZ that isnt recognised. Japan gets upset to the point of using its military when others encroach on their declared EEZ. Yet when Japan does exactly the same and encroaches on a declared Australian EEZ they cant see that it and say Australia is being disrespectful. Can you see that?

Sorry but it does get confusing - sometimes I get the impression that people are actually just saying they'll agree to let Japan catch whales in the Northern Hemisphere if they give up the south, as part of a "given an inch, take a mile" strategy... Perhaps I'm overly cynical? You are fully in support of whaling in the Northern Hemisphere?

As l have said numerous times now and if you listened you would know this. I am not fond of whaling, however if Japan conducts whaling in its region so be it. I get offended when they do it in my region simple as that. While l dont agree with it if they choose to whale in the Northern Hemisphere thats up to them and the other countries in the region to deal with.

"the damage that is being done to the Japanese image in Australia amongst the public is huge." I think that's a two way street. Australia has earned itself a bad reputation in Japan due to it's negligence toward eco-terrorism.

So what, who needs who more? Japan can stop importing from Australia and others will gladly pick up the slack. Fact Japan needs Australian exports. And frankly who cares if the Japanese are upset at Australia's attitude, many Australians are upset by Japans attitude.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

crustpunker,

Indeed that poll you referred to is the exact same one that I referred to.

Interested in eating whale meat: Very: 12% Moderately: 21% A Little: 26% Not at all: 41%

Precisely. As I said, a majority of Japanese people have a degree of interest in eating whales.

However, the general trend is (as stated in the link) that while most people in Japan are not interested in eating whale meat,

I think you must have misread the information. Only 41% have no interest, and the rest do, to various degrees. So most people in Japan do have some interest. E.g. 60 million people or more.

Glad we cleared that up.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Spidapig24,

Ah so it would make it harder and more work to actually catch them, oh how terrible.

Do you think they will agree to having their work made harder like that? How are you gonna convince them to agree that this is better than the status quo when you know yourself it's worse?

The fact is there are whales located elsewhere.

Sure but that's like looking for a needle in a haystack. It's more optimal to hunt them where they are most densely located, which is close to the ice edge off the Antarctic coast (that integral part of the Australian outback, lol!).

Unless my bath is 600 times as big as the Australian coastline that is.

Not really - you could have a big bathtub but that's no good unless there are any fish in it, right? That's my point. It's not the size of the harvest area that matters, it's what that area yields. If there's nothing to catch, it's not a workable, realistic solution.

I get offended when they do it in my region simple as that.

I'm a New Zealander myself and I never once considered the Antarctic ocean to be my region. I do however recall anti-whalers starting to use this sort of argument around 10 years ago, all of a sudden. (Strange co-incidence I guess.)

To be honest, the way it sounds to me is as if you are just using the proximity of those international waters to Australia as an excuse. If there weren't catching whales but something else instead I wonder if there'd be all the fuss.

Japan can stop importing from Australia and others will gladly pick up the slack. Fact Japan needs Australian exports.

So Australia, if they really cared about their whales issue, could stop selling to the Japanese. I guess after 32 years of being an anti-whaling country, this is about to happen any day now.

And frankly who cares if the Japanese are upset at Australia's attitude, many Australians are upset by Japans attitude.

Like I said - two way street. And last time I looked, Japan's economy is larger than Australia's.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

davidattokyo,

Interested in eating whale meat: Very: 12% Moderately: 21% A Little: 26% Not at all: 41% Precisely. As I said, a majority of Japanese people have a degree of interest in eating whales.

So if we look at the figures 33% have a moderate or higher interest in eating whale. 41% no interest at all. And 26% little if any interest. How exactly do you get a majority from that. Distorting facts AGAIN l see

And before you start lumping a the group a little in with the figures l think as would any reasonable person that this group should be removed as the survey only offered 4 options Very, Moderate, Little, None at all. There is no "no opinion" option so l would suggest some of the "a little group" could fall into this category, all in all the answers lend themselves to a biased survey.

Glad we cleared that up.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

davidattokyo

'Ah so it would make it harder and more work to actually catch them, oh how terrible." Do you think they will agree to having their work made harder like that? How are you gonna convince them to agree that this is better than the status quo when you know yourself it's worse?

So you finally admit it thanks David, it took a while but you just answered my thoughts of you. You dont care one bit about whale conservation, its purely business to you. Thanks for clearing that up

Sure but that's like looking for a needle in a haystack. It's more optimal to hunt them where they are most densely located, which is close to the ice edge off the Antarctic coast (that integral part of the Australian outback, lol!).

Hey David check a map buddy Antarctica isnt in the outback, but the whaling grounds are in the EEZ off the coast of the AUSTRALIAN ANTARCTIC TERRITORY. Ya now the territory that has been subject to British and Australian claim for over 150 years. Much longer than traditional Japanese factory fishing.

Not really - you could have a big bathtub but that's no good unless there are any fish in it, right? That's my point. It's not the size of the harvest area that matters, it's what that area yields. If there's nothing to catch, it's not a workable, realistic solution

Go back to me comment on marine parks David, yes it makes it a bit more work to catch but at least you know there will be fish around. If you hunt and kill in the feeding grounds then you will affect the whales ability to feed, and breed and therefore their sustainability. To sustain a species you need to protect it in some way but as you have eloquently pointed out in this post you dont care for sustainability just business and ease of the kill. PS Thanks for clearing up that perspective for us, l look forward to your backpedalling attempts.

I'm a New Zealander myself and I never once considered the Antarctic ocean to be my region. I do however recall anti-whalers starting to use this sort of argument around 10 years ago, all of a sudden. (Strange co-incidence I guess.)

Yes l know your a Kiwi, as is your mate Glenn and he's the biggest drop kick pro whaler going around. Also funny that when l was at school 20 years ago we learnt about the Southern Ocean and how its part of Australia's region after all Australia does have several small islands in that region.

To be honest, the way it sounds to me is as if you are just using the proximity of those international waters to Australia as an excuse. If there weren't catching whales but something else instead I wonder if there'd be all the fuss.

YAWN, mate try reading for once. Whales, tuna whatever Japan should fish in Japan's region. You dont see Australian fishing boats fishing in the Senkaku's or around Japan now do you?

Like I said - two way street. And last time I looked, Japan's economy is larger than Australia's.

So what, as l pointed out how many raw minerals does Japan get from Australia, l am sure there is a small country by the name of China that would pick up the slack.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan has never made any whale species extinct. They have been aware of controlling numbers for many centuries. We western people are the ones that made several whales species including Steller's Sea Cow (Hydrodamalis gigas) but many western people behave as if they have been protecting them all the time. Anyway, Australia used to be a leading nation in whale research and had scientists like R Allen, Chief of CSIRO Div of Fisheries and Oceanography. Unfortunately the whaling issue has corrupted the science of the management of whale populations. It is instructive to read the Letter of Resignation of the Chairman of the Scientific Committee of IWC, Dr P. Hammond in 1993. When the Blue whales were decimated from about 230,000 to its present population of 2,500 the Minke whales increased in the Antarctica. According to IWC data there are more than 500,000 Minke. Bad luck for the Blue and Minke whales the krill population has declined due to global warming and this has been documented by Atkinson and Team and published in Nature 2004. The only way we humans can help prevent the extremely endangered and largest of whales the Blue whales from going extinct is to cull the Minke whales, which Japan did. Any Australian farmer can tell you what to do in the management of two species competing for the same food when one species has declined and the other has increased. Sadly our leaders do not understand Science or Farming.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Spidapig24,

before you start lumping a the group a little in with the figures

Absolutely I did. Why shouldn't people who answered "a little" be included? They gave that answer.

This was a poll by a professional polling group, I don't know what grounds you have for questioning their methodology, other than that you don't like the findings.

that this group should be removed as the survey only offered 4 options Very, Moderate, Little, None at all.

Why does there being 4 options mean that one of them should be discluded?

If this was a survey about "potatoes" or "iphones" would you be saying the same thing?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

It"s Me: "Russia and Korea spring to mind as pro-whaling as they want to resume commercial whaling, quiet a few more nations(Iceland, etc) that never received any monies from japan."

About Russia and SK, they may WANT to start whaling again, but they're not doing it now, are they? As for the other nations, like Iceland, if you read my comment a little more carefully you'll see that I said "countries that Japan has bought for votes OR that are fishing in or around their own waters" (in regards to pro-whaling nations, which davidattokyo refused to list).

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

davidattokyo

"before you start lumping a the group a little in with the figures" Absolutely I did. Why shouldn't people who answered "a little" be included? They gave that answer.

In a leading poll yes they did as there was no other alternative.

This was a poll by a professional polling group, I don't know what grounds you have for questioning their methodology, other than that you don't like the findings.

You dont read so well do you David. I disagree with there findings because if as you say this is a professional polling group then they have either done aa pi** poor effort or where trying to offer a skewed answer. As l have already pointed out they offered 4 possible solutions "Very, Moderate, Little or not at all. In other words you are dead against it or for it there is no middle ground. No "no opinion", so you can have no opinion but not be dead against it so by default you have to pick a little. Which skews the figures. Surely someone of your intelligence can see that.

If this was a survey about "potatoes" or "iphones" would you be saying the same thing?

Indeed l would, no matter what the survey is about this is a lazy weak excuse at a survey that is either put together by incompetent people or people after a skewed result.

Lets look at it this way what if the question was :

What is your interest in eating whale and the possible answers where, Definitely, Wouldnt try it, No interest or Never.

That is also a skewed poll that will give a pre determined answer. A fairer more unbiased and professional poll would be Very, moderately, a little, no interest, never, no opinion.

Afterall that is the most common type of poll to get an accurate representation of your demographic. Maybe now you can see how leading this poll and its results are. Doubt it though

0 ( +2 / -2 )

davidattokyo: "If this was a survey about "potatoes" or "iphones" would you be saying the same thing?"

Last I checked neither of those were endangered or killed inhumanely by hunters far away from their own nation.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

look, " a little" is not an answer that is consistent with demand for whale. If you live or have lived in Japan for any length of time, you would clearly understand that the general populace is not clamoring for whale.

a quick observation of what is available at any conibi/supermarket should be enough to tell you the kind of foods that are usually consumed that is, in a MAJORITY.

I think I made it clear but here it is again....

Generally when people say "moderatly" or"a little" in response to the question of having any intrest in eating whale, they are probably saying that they might try it if it was on a menu but aren't actively looking to buy it in preparation for a meal at home.

I have NEVER in 15 years had whale at any other venue than a restaurant and usually that is just because someone is curious to try it, or trying to show off some sort of cultured palate..

simply put it used to be consumed as a cheap way to get protein. Now there are alternatives and most Japanese people, though they may say they are moderatly or a little curious to try it are not eating it regularly or even once a month. THEY ARE GOING WITH THE STATUS QUO.

saying you are moderatly interested in something is NOT akin to fevereishly displaying unyielding support for it. clearly you can see this no?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Spidapig24,

You dont care one bit about whale conservation, its purely business to you.

That's yet another unfortunate statement for you to make...

The whaling convention is for conservation of whale stocks AND development of whaling industry.

It's not one or the other, but both. Maybe you overlooked this?

Conservation is guaranteed not by how hard it is to catch whales, but whether the number of whales caught or not is sustainable. If 2,000 whales is a sustainable quota, 2,000 whales is sustainable, regardless of how efficiently or inefficiently you catch them.

You are asking that the whalers be forced to catch them inefficiently, rather than efficiently. This particular aspect has nothing to do with conservation, but much to do with the whaling industry side of things.

Business is good for human society - it creates jobs and wealth and products for consumers to enjoy. When it is done sustainably, then it is a wonderful thing that should be embraced.

You are rejecting it because of your personal dislike of whaling, I think that's really selfish and wrong.

Go back to me comment on marine parks David, yes it makes it a bit more work to catch but at least you know there will be fish around.

We already don't catch whales on the breeding grounds, there's your marine parks there. We can't protect whales everywhere lest we preclude whaling entirely, which is against the spirit of the whaling convention.

If you hunt and kill in the feeding grounds then you will affect the whales ability to feed, and breed and therefore their sustainability.

Sustainability is determined by the rate of anthropogenic removals over time not exceeding the stock's propensity to naturally replenish it's numbers. To get a harvest at all, you have to catch some of them somewhere - it's better on the feeding grounds than in the breeding grounds.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

davidattokyo

"You dont care one bit about whale conservation, its purely business to you." That's yet another unfortunate statement for you to make...

Unfortunate no, factual yes. Afterall it is based on what you said and l quote "but that's like looking for a needle in a haystack. It's more optimal to hunt them where they are most densely located, which is close to the ice edge off the Antarctic coast" So basically you are saying dont worry about conservation lets make it as easy as possible to kill them. That is a great statement for a person who claims to believe in sustainability. And as predicted you are already backpedalling away from your statement. Let me guess next l will have misunderstood or be misrepresenting your words. I eagerly await that David you are getting predictable buddy, you make a gaffe, then retract then blame the other person as is evident all through your discussions. Oh and then when you realise you lost the point you dont mention it for a few days then come back and start at the beginning again.

The whaling convention is for conservation of whale stocks AND development of whaling industry. It's not one or the other, but both. Maybe you overlooked this?

Completely agree and the Japanese are free to whale in the 335 million sq km outside of the sanctuary. Surely in that vast amount of ocean they can catch a whale or two for their research. Or do they want everything their way. Dont bother answering that the answer is self evident.

Conservation is guaranteed not by how hard it is to catch whales, but whether the number of whales caught or not is sustainable. If 2,000 whales is a sustainable quota, 2,000 whales is sustainable, regardless of how efficiently or inefficiently you catch them.

Are you dense or something. If you hunt whales in their feeding grounds then you can affect the balance, you stress the animals and can scare them off from their food supply. This will then affect their breeding which will decline numbers. It isnt rocket science.

You are asking that the whalers be forced to catch them inefficiently, rather than efficiently. This particular aspect has nothing to do with conservation, but much to do with the whaling industry side of things.

But But But your interested in sustainability isnt that what you always say. I guess you couldnt say anything other than this otherwise your employer would get upset hey.

Business is good for human society - it creates jobs and wealth and products for consumers to enjoy. When it is done sustainably, then it is a wonderful thing that should be embraced.

Ah the truth, so its now whaling is good because its good for business. Wow how you have changed tact, originally it was because it was Japans right, then it was because it was traditional, then it was conservation, now its good for business. Grasping at straws hey David or was the rest a smokescreen and all along you just cared about the money. And you claim that we can trust the Japanese to responsibly whale when even you admit its just about the money.

You are rejecting it because of your personal dislike of whaling, I think that's really selfish and wrong.

David can you please actually bother to read what is written before wasting my time with tripe like this. I have said already several times l am opposed to whaling in Antarctic waters. I disagree with whaling in general but what is done in Japans region is Japans and the neighbouring countries business. I am only concerned when it occurs in my region. This is the 10th time l have said this maybe it will sink in now and you wont repeat the same stup*d comment again

We already don't catch whales on the breeding grounds, there's your marine parks there. We can't protect whales everywhere lest we preclude whaling entirely, which is against the spirit of the whaling convention.

We are talking an area that comprises 1/600 of the oceans in the world so l dont understand how you can say that means precluding whaling entirely it leaves 335 million sq km for the Japanese to hunt in. So please enough of your distortions

Sustainability is determined by the rate of anthropogenic removals over time not exceeding the stock's propensity to naturally replenish it's numbers. To get a harvest at all, you have to catch some of them somewhere - it's better on the feeding grounds than in the breeding grounds.

Actually sustainability in simple terms is more (or equal) births compared to the number of deaths. Sustainability also advocates the taking of males over a certain age and not taking females of calf bearing age or under developed animals that are the future of the breeding stock. Not that hard to understand.

Also if you continue to hunt in feeding grounds you will affect the animals as they will be stressed and not eat which will affect the reproduction and therefore the numbers. Anyone with half a brain understands that, maybe you should go talk to a farmer and as them where they cull their animals. You never do it near their food supply as it spooks the rest of the animals.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Spidapig24,

You dont read so well do you David.

You're the last person who should be saying such a thing to me :)

I disagree with there findings because if as you say this is a professional polling group then they have either done aa pi** poor effort

Other than your dislike of the results, what grounds do you have to make such an allegation? Sounds like you're attacking the messenger...

Associated Press GfK - this is who did the poll. Maybe you have a conspiracy theory to explain why you think they are trying to skew results rather than simply investigate reality (or otherwise explain why an organization like this could be so useless at their own job, but still good enough to have their poll results reported in the media...)

As l have already pointed out they offered 4 possible solutions "Very, Moderate, Little or not at all. In other words you are dead against it or for it there is no middle ground.

They were asking people about their interest in eating whale meat, not their "opinion". You either have an interest to some degree, or you don't at all. (There may have been some no responses in the results anyway, but I hardly think it would have been a large number.)

By the way, in the same poll there was another question asking them about commercial whaling I think. I seem to recall seeing some "I don't cares" in those results, but it looks like some of those folks had some degree of interest in eating whales.

Maybe now you can see how leading this poll and its results are. Doubt it though

Sorry, I do think you are just shooting the messenger. Hey, 41% had no interest! That's still millions of people for your side, even if it is a minority!

Don't take it so hard.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

crustpunker,

they are probably saying that they might try it if it was on a menu but aren't actively looking to buy it in preparation for a meal at home.

I agree.

But you've still got a majority with no problems with the idea of whale as food, and maybe 10 million hard core fans, so to suggest it's "Amakudari" that keeps whaling going is pushing it I think.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

davidattokyo

"You dont read so well do you David." You're the last person who should be saying such a thing to me :)

Whats wrong Davie having trouble with the truth, let me see you have misrepresented documents in the past (the US hearings on whaling) and numerous other items. You ignore the fact you have been told something in excess of 10 times and still make the same ill informed statement so yeah l stand by my statement. SOunds like l have hit a nerve there buddy

"I disagree with there findings because if as you say this is a professional polling group then they have either done aa pi** poor effort" Other than your dislike of the results, what grounds do you have to make such an allegation? Sounds like you're attacking the messenger...

See once again you quote a section of a statement and put it out of context deliberately. If you going to quote something quote the whole thing but you never do do you. And l have already pointed out legitimate reasons for making these allegations. I suggest you look up how a professional poll should be conducted then look up a leading poll and you will see this is an unprofessional leading poll. But l have already explained that to you. I guess you just cant accept critisism

Associated Press GfK - this is who did the poll. Maybe you have a conspiracy theory to explain why you think they are trying to skew results rather than simply investigate reality (or otherwise explain why an organization like this could be so useless at their own job, but still good enough to have their poll results reported in the media...)

I dont care who did the poll. The poll was leading and unprofessional in the options for opinions. Anyone can see this and l have pointed this out to you already but you dont want to hear it.

They were asking people about their interest in eating whale meat, not their "opinion". either have an interest to some degree, or you don't at all. (There may have been some no responses in the results anyway, but I hardly think it would have been a large number.)

Yes David it is called an OPINION POLL. Those two little words give it away its about peoples OPINIONS on an issue. And to be conducted in a thorough impartial manner it should not have been done this way. As it didnt allow for a full range of opinions. You effectively had 2 options yes or no. A proper poll should also have an undecided or no opinion and not force people into an answer that doesnt adequately fit their feelings.

By the way, in the same poll there was another question asking them about commercial whaling I think. I seem to recall seeing some "I don't cares" in those results, but it looks like some of those folks had some degree of interest in eating whales. Maybe now you can see how leading this poll and its results are. Doubt it though

What a ridiculous statement you expect me to believe you when you say " l seem to recall". And by the way if they did say they didnt care about whaling then answered if they chose to eat it or not wouldnt logic also say that they would answer i dont care (about eating it) oh wait they didnt have that option now did they they had to answer yes or no. But you wont see that will you

Don't take it so hard.

Im not taking it hard, l have enough brains to know a leading poll when l see one. And at least lm big enough to admit it. But you wont because it leans in your favour but thats typical David for ya

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Spid,

You can find the poll questions here.

http://marketing.gfkamerica.com/pdf/AP-Gfk%20Poll%20Japan%202nd%20release.pdf

Indeed 1% of the respondents to the question gave a "don't know" answer, so your criticism is off the mark, I feel.

Only 13% were totally opposed to whaling, which suggests that people who personally have no interest at all in eating whales are mostly respectful towards people who feel differently.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

davidattokyo

Indeed 1% of the respondents to the question gave a "don't know" answer, so your criticism is off the mark, I feel.

Ok lets get a few things straight here, the poll ask 1000 people. That is hardly representative of the entire population so in reality it could be even more or less that support whaling. It is subjective at best, what age groups where asked, what is the break up by age group (older Japanese would be more inclined to support whaling), what areas do they live (country or fishing communities would answer different to city people), education levels, etc etc. So at best l would say it doesnt prove much either way. I certainly wouldnt go around shouting from the rooftops about it. But interestingly they grouped the answers into 2 categories and based on the website those in the affirmative to the question of eating whale was 33% and the negatives 66%. And that David is how the polling people have presented the data. So there goes your claim of a majority. Unless you manipulate the data. But as presented those are the results.

Only 13% were totally opposed to whaling, which suggests that people who personally have no interest at all in eating whales are mostly respectful towards people who feel differently

So 13% totally oppose, 52% are in favour and 35% have no feelings at all.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Readers, you are still going around in circles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spidapig24,

So basically you are saying dont worry about conservation lets make it as easy as possible to kill them.

No that's not what I saying "basically". What I said was what I said, not your extrapolated and incorrect version, obviously produced to vilify those who don't share your whale hugging tendencies.

If you hunt whales in their feeding grounds then you can affect the balance, you stress the animals and can scare them off from their food supply. This will then affect their breeding which will decline numbers.

This theory hasn't played out in reality, but you should tell this to the IWC Scientific Committee, and post the response you get, back here. Should be good for a laugh!

Ah the truth, so its now whaling is good because its good for business.

What's wrong with sustainable business?? We need more sustainable business in the 21st century - not less.

We are talking an area that comprises 1/600 of the oceans in the world so l dont understand how you can say that means precluding whaling entirely

Because we already don't hunt whales anywhere except the whaling grounds.

it leaves 335 million sq km for the Japanese to hunt in.

It would be bad to allow whaling on the breeding grounds from a conservation perspective. At least, this is the predominant knowledge. Your idea of protecting on the feeding grounds instead of the breeding grounds is novel, but I think it'd be rejected by all serious whale conservationists.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

davidattokyo

"So basically you are saying dont worry about conservation lets make it as easy as possible to kill them." No that's not what I saying "basically". What I said was what I said, not your extrapolated and incorrect version, obviously produced to vilify those who don't share your whale hugging tendencies.

David l used your exact wording. I actually quoted you word for word so how is that extrapolating or incorrect. Unless you are denying saying what you said at 1:55 which was why should the whalers work harder to catch whales when they all gather in the sanctuary. Maybe you should go back and reread your own posts. But then you also said

"You are asking that the whalers be forced to catch them inefficiently, rather than efficiently. This particular aspect has nothing to do with conservation, but much to do with the whaling industry side of things. Business is good for human society - it creates jobs and wealth and products for consumers to enjoy. When it is done sustainably, then it is a wonderful thing that should be embraced.

So l am only repeating what you said, word for word. No extrapolating there.

"If you hunt whales in their feeding grounds then you can affect the balance, you stress the animals and can scare them off from their food supply. This will then affect their breeding which will decline numbers." This theory hasn't played out in reality, but you should tell this to the IWC Scientific Committee, and post the response you get, back here. Should be good for a laugh!

You obviously have never worked with livestock have you David. I have and l know for a fact that this is what happens. If you would like l would be happy to show you (may involve you taking a trip though). Alternatively go talk to anyone who works with livestock. That would be good for a laugh in itself.

It would be bad to allow whaling on the breeding grounds from a conservation perspective. At least, this is the predominant knowledge. Your idea of protecting on the feeding grounds instead of the breeding grounds is novel, but I think it'd be rejected by all serious whale conservationists

David please tell me where exactly l said not to protect the breeding grounds. Please show me that sentence where l said that. I said feeding grounds should be protected at no point did l ever say not to protect breeding grounds. So whose extrapolating or making up stuff now?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Spidapig24,

please tell me where exactly l said not to protect the breeding grounds.

Oh sorry, my bad... I assumed that you're talking about one or the other. So you actually meant to protect whales on the feeding grounds AS WELL AS their breeding grounds... (the whaling industry will be even less happy...)

That leaves the migration routes between the feeding and breeding grounds... So can we catch whales on the migration routes between the feeding and breeding grounds? (I'm guessing your answer is no, but if yes then maybe we still have something to talk about)

David l used your exact wording. I actually quoted you word for word so how is that extrapolating or incorrect.

You extrapolated what I believe about conservation based on my comments about not making it needlessly difficult for business to operate. In my comments (which you quoted) I didn't refer to conservation explicitly, and you exploited this by inserting some completely outrageous statements to me to the effect that I don't believe in one half of the whaling convention's mandate.

But I know that you won't end this until you have vilified me into submission, so on that note, I now leave the final word to you (unless you want to explore that giving the OK to whaling on the migration routes topic, that is):

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

lets get a few things straight here, the poll ask 1000 people. That is hardly representative of the entire population

spidapig, don't forget you're arguing with someone who thinks meaningful data can be obtained from research based on only a fraction of the numbers initially considered essential for obtaining accurate data. Next thing you know he'll be claiming the need to shoot those being polled so that their ear plugs and stomach contents can be examined.

What's wrong with sustainable business?? We need more sustainable business in the 21st century

But we no longer live in a world where 'anything goes' just so long as someone is making a buck out of it. There are laws governing how food animals are to be treated before and during slaughter.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

davidattokyo

"please tell me where exactly l said not to protect the breeding grounds." Oh sorry, my bad... I assumed that you're talking about one or the other.

So you where assuming that l meant something that l hadnt actually said. You seem to do that a lot hey.

So you actually meant to protect whales on the feeding grounds AS WELL AS their breeding grounds... (the whaling industry will be even less happy...) That leaves the migration routes between the feeding and breeding grounds... So can we catch whales on the migration routes between the feeding and breeding grounds? (I'm guessing your answer is no, but if yes then maybe we still have something to talk about)

As l have stated before David l am opposed to whaling full stop in the Southern Ocean. If Japan cares to restrict its whaling to the northern hemisphere then you would not here for me one peep. As it then becomes an issue between Japan and the countries in the region. If this means whaling on the migratory routes and its controlled so be it. However l will not accept anything less than a complete stop to whaling in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary. I cant say it any clearer than that now can l.

"David l used your exact wording. I actually quoted you word for word so how is that extrapolating or incorrect." You extrapolated what I believe about conservation based on my comments about not making it needlessly difficult for business to operate. In my comments (which you quoted) I didn't refer to conservation explicitly, and you exploited this by inserting some completely outrageous statements to me to the effect that I don't believe in one half of the whaling convention's mandate.

David l merely used your own words, its not my fault you flip flopped about your beliefs and said what you did. l merely quoted what you have said if you dont like it or dont agree go back and read what you wrote its there in black and white. Also go back and read your posts on previous whaling topics and you will see the change you have made. As lm sure everyone will see if they care to look.

Sorry but if your mad at someone it should be yourself for saying what you did. Simple

But I know that you won't end this until you have vilified me into submission, so on that note, I now leave the final word to you (unless you want to explore that giving the OK to whaling on the migration routes topic, that is):

Actually it will end because you are unwilling to see anyone elses point of view. You ask the same questions over and over and do not listen to the responses you get and still ask the same question again. You arguments get shot down one at a time and yet you blame the other person for taking you out of context. So until the next whaling story comes up. See ya

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Spidapig 24 and davidattokyo: You continue to go around in circles and repeat the same old arguments. From here on, posts that are repetitive will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

l am opposed to whaling full stop in the Southern Ocean.

Yes, I know this already. So it's established that you don't want whaling in the Southern Ocean, or as in your prior post, in the breeding grounds either.

If this means whaling on the migratory routes and its controlled so be it. However l will not accept anything less than a complete stop to whaling in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary. I cant say it any clearer than that now can l.

Let me confirm... are you saying you'd live with regulated whaling on whales during their migration from the breeding grounds (outside the Southern Ocean) to the feeding grounds (the Southern Ocean whaling grounds / illegal "Sanctuary")?

What do you mean by "controlled"?

David l merely used your own words, its not my fault you flip flopped about your beliefs and said what you did. l merely quoted what you have said

I never said anything about conservation in my statement, you quoted it for yourself but then took it to mean something about what I think about conservation. You are accusing me of flip-flopping when you put words into my mouth in the first instance!

That's why I am taking much care above in my question to you about your beliefs about hunting whales on their migratory routes between their breeding and feeding grounds... I don't want to assume anything - I want to hear it from you first, and I'm giving you every chance to clarify what you mean by "controlled".

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

davidattokyo

"l am opposed to whaling full stop in the Southern Ocean." Yes, I know this already. So it's established that you don't want whaling in the Southern Ocean, or as in your prior post, in the breeding grounds either.

So why do you keep asking. Memory issues?

Let me confirm... are you saying you'd live with regulated whaling on whales during their migration from the breeding grounds (outside the Southern Ocean) to the feeding grounds (the Southern Ocean whaling grounds / illegal "Sanctuary")?

Yes l would live with that as long as there was NO whaling at all in the whale sanctuary or in the breeding grounds or any other declared waters (including EEZ's) and with one other condition as well no whales to be taken if they are mother and calf together. I would prefer that Japan not whale south of the equator but l think if they stop whaling in the Southern ocean and abide by quotas then that is a reasonable compromise.

What do you mean by "controlled"?

I mean with quotas set by the IWC, and with independent monitors from non whaling nations (scientists etc). Thats what l mean by controlled.

I never said anything about conservation in my statement, you quoted it for yourself but then took it to mean something about what I think about conservation. You are accusing me of flip-flopping when you put words into my mouth in the first instance!

Yes you are correct in that particular statement you didnt but you have on numerous occasions in the past. So based on previous statements you have done a complete 180 degree turn in your opinions it seems.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

cleo

His answer would have been revealing, and more interesting I'm sure than this merry-go-round about migratory routes and pin-pointing exactly where it's OK to commit slaughter on the high seas. An exploding harpoon in the guts hurts just as much whether it's in the breeding grounds, the feeding grounds, or any point in between.

Cleo l agree with you that the outcome is the same no matter where it occurs. However the likelihood of the Japanese stopping full stop is minimal. If compromises could be found that provide protected areas and conditions for whales then it is a step in the right direction. Not ideal but still heading the right way.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Spidapig24 - it seems you have difficulty understanding that not all people who are anti whaling support SS.

It's still my belief that anyone who supports the eco-terrorism of Watson and his SS want to end all whaling.

You seem to have misunderstood what I said.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

After reading the back and forth, tit for tat of both sides I thought I might add a couple of things since there doesn't seem to be anything new added here.

@arrestpaul As I have stated before, People believe what they want to believe and your last statement just highlights that. Many people have stated differently on this forum but you have chosen to simply ignore it. Personally, I support Paul Watson and his SS but I am not against whaling at all. And I will explain why I support Paul in his mission later.that later. But I think you are to the extreme side. You are 100% anti-whaling and believe that anyone who dares to go against it in any way, shape or form is WRONG! Let me tell you something. There are many shades to right and wrong. Personally I don't believe that either side is right or wrong. Just varying degrees of reality and bull.

Personally, I support the SS. If not for them than there would not be very much attention to what is going on down south. For me they are necessary in order for us to gain some balance in this issue. The Whale Wars show has been seen by a great many people and one could say that the show is bent towards the ani-whaling group. But it is a very good show because it brings attention much needed to the issue. As one very verbose personality on this forum as often said, "most people in the world don't give a hoot about whaling one way or the other". Therefore Paul Watson and his Sea Shephard are quite necessary in order to bring this subject to the masses who have TVs and the Discovery Channel. His, as you would probably call them, "antics" bring the subject to the forefront. People become more interested in the issue. There is nothing wrong with that, except that it gives the whalers a less than "glowing" image. Yes, this kind of TV show is devastating to the whalers. They hate the attention and want to do their deeds as quietly as possible without the world knowing much about it. I bet if the IWC would allow full whaling that the whalers surely wouldn't jump up and down in public or in the media and scream "Hip, Hip HOORAY". You see, they want to do their business in a quiet fashion. Under the radar. But shows like this get people upset, as they should be. So, I am for the Paul Watson and all that his people do because THEY ARE a necessary evil. Without his efforts I believe that the Whalers will go free and do whatever they like. Whalers are no different from fisherman and are not going to be that honest when stocks are dwindling as we have seen time and time again form both groups. They have to be held in check. Paul and his group are necessary because we need to have a middle ground where you and your whaling buddies can do what you do without hurting the environment. An extreme side is a necessary element in order to control the other extreme. Without that people will just buy what the whalers say. If they had there way there would be no attention brought to their whaling activities in the south. For the most part, the public abroad believes that whaling is not allowed. Now, of course, they may not be sure of the convention and how it gives countries the right to do their biz in the south with the IWC's blessings, but this needs to be brought to their attention. The more people know about it the more better off they are of making an informed decision. So, Paul Watson, love him or hate him is providing a very good service. He is getting people to take a look at what is going on which I bet you pro-whalers just HATE. Too bad.

Now, let me make this clear, A number of people who have added their comments to this forum have said that they are NOT AGAINST WHALING, just in the south. I am not against it at all. People eat all kinds of different things and even though I love whales and dolphins I understand that for some, they are FOOD. Personally, I don't think I could ever eat it. Don't want to try it. But it is not up to me to decide what people can eat. I think you believe that we are all against whaling and want it to completely STOP. But let me say again, that is not the case. I simply want a sanctuary where the whales can go and be untouched by humans. Out of those waters, go ahead and do your biz as long as it is monitored. The fishing industry has shown that it can not be trusted and has over fished in a large number of regions around the world and this has proven fatal to many areas. I don't trust the "fox" either as one person put it in this forum. Both whalers and fisherman need to be seriously monitored and so do the stock of whales and fish alike. There are many cases where governments have put a ban on fishing in certain areas and that has been very successful in replenishing the stock in those areas. And that is all that most people are asking for on the side of the anti-whalers.

Once again, most are not against whaling. I keep saying that because I want you and DAVID and Ossan to understand that because it seems that many people have said the same thing but have been pummeled with belittling and condescending comments directed at them and their views by you guys and this has caused some people to leave the forum. You and your kin may take this as a victory but it is not. When people stop communicating that is when the damage is most done. If you want to take a little you have to give a little. If you want respect, than you have to give a little. That is why I didn't join this fray, because you guys seemed to be too gung- ho and didn't seem to listen to what others were saying. In fact, I remember that there have been a few times when my side gave your side credit on this point or that point, but it was a one-way street. When this side made very strong points like troy and spid did on many occasions you guys just seemed to ignore those points or come up with condescending views of your own.

This is not a ONE SIDE IS COMPLETELY RIGHT issue. Instead there are many degrees of right, wrong and just plain opinion. Now if you want to be condescending towards my opinion, than let me remind you of this. I will not respond if your response is condescending, belittling or berating.

One more time: I am not against whaling and feel that people have the right to eat what they want. I am for having a REAL sanctuary, not like the one down south that makes a mockery out of the word SANCTUARY. No, I am not for research whaling and I am sorry but I can not except it no matter how many ways David puts it. Sorry, David. It is just not necessary in my opinion. I am for having areas allocate for whaling and having the whalers monitored by an independent group, which is neither pro or against whaling.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

can not accept not except,

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

mousetime - I forgot to mention another reason that I wont debate

That is why I didn't join this fray

Personally, I support the SS.

For me they are necessary in order for us to gain some balance in this issue. The Whale Wars show has been seen by a great many people and one could say that the show is bent towards the ani-whaling group.

Therefore Paul Watson and his Sea Shephard are quite necessary in order to bring this subject to the masses....

I see you're still not debating this issue or joining the fray. The eco-terrorist Watson and his SS chose to use violence to force their will on others. You support the eco-terrorist SS. Therefore, you support the violence of eco-terrorism.

I like the Whale Wars show also. It's done more to show the world the violence, incompetence, and repeated lies of the eco-terrorists SS than any written description. Many people see the repeated attacks of the eco-terrorist followed by the lies of Watson. People also see that the whalers are DEFENDING themselves from eco-terrorists violence.

The IWC is what it is. Australia's "claims" are just that, "claims". Why would anyone chose to accept "your" version of how things should be when you can't back it up. Talking about a subject is not the same things as proving you're right.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Why would anyone chose to accept "your" version of how things should be when you can't back it up.

LMFAO. And VICA VERSA

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

How do you know "people complained about THEIR ways"? Are you suggesting that there is a coordinated effort by the anti-whaling crowd to prevent the anti-violence posters and those in favor of legal whaling from posting here??????????

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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