politics

Whaling nations sink bid for South Atlantic sanctuary

32 Comments

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

© 2016 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

“What is the most disappointing is that all these efforts are ultimately being undermined by IWC member countries (which) are thousands of miles away, not even in the southern hemisphere and some even on the other side of the world.”

What is also disappointing is that all these efforts are ultimately being supported by IWC member countries which are thousands of miles away, not even in the southern hemisphere and some even on the other side of the world.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

The environmental vandals are out again.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

with backing from a number of African, Asian and island states

"More funding for you".

5 ( +11 / -6 )

As there is a global Moratorium on commercial whaling, and Scientific Whaling is exempt from recognizing sanctuaries, and nations which raised objection to the moratorium and carry out commercial whaling don't recognize sanctuaries, What exactly would be the benefit of creating another "sanctuary"?

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Japan, under fire for its annual whale hunts in the name of science, which critics say is a cover for commercial whaling, expressed vehement opposition.

Tokyo argues that stocks of some species have recovered sufficiently to make them fair game for hunters, and that simply declaring all whales off-limits did not address environmental imperatives.

“Sustainable use of marine living resources, including whales… is perfectly consistent with environmental protection,” Japan’s IWC commissioner told delegates

And all that has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of a whale sanctuary for whale-watching, in waters where Japan neither hunts nor 'researches'. Opposing this sanctuary is sheer bloody-mindedness, and ignores the fact that whale-watching is now a much better, more sustainable, eco-friendly and humane use of marine living resources than killing them and cutting out the tasty bits for the jaded palates of a handful of old men nostalgic for their long-gone school years.

If after all these decades of 'scientific research' intended to prove that whale populations have recovered sufficiently to allow some degree of commercial whaling they cannot make a cogent argument in favour of a partial lifting of the moratorium, then maybe it's time to admit that their 'scientific research' is less than fit for purpose. Never mind whining about culture and tradition and nobody understands us, just put your well-researched figures on the table and let them speak for themselves. You can't, because you don't have the figures. Because you haven't been 'researching', you've just been hunting.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Whaling nations sink bid

Shouldn't the headline read; Whaling nationsand bought friendssink bid .

3 ( +7 / -4 )

People can thumb me down but no one can answer the question.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

OssanAmerica, I for one agreed with your comment. I don't know why you would be thumbed down for that.

If these countries want to have a sanctuary, why don't they start a International Whale Sanctuary Organization, and declare a sanctuary? No one is hunting whales there anyway, it seems. Seems to me they could call it a sanctuary if they wanted to.

If they want the IWC to have a sanctuary there, they should do a deal and allow some sustainable whaling elsewhere, in order to get their sanctuary. It'd be win-win. Why shouldn't it be this simple? Why do we even need to have a meeting for this? If you assigned a classroom of children a role play, I'm sure they'd figure this out in 5 minutes.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Absolutely selfish. Can you imagine if a presidential candidate in an election loses just because she only got 74% of the vote, and some of those of voted against her have absolutely no interest in politics and were paid to vote that way to boot?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Shouldn't the headline read; Whaling nations and bought friends sink bid

Do you really believe there's vote buying only on the anti-sanctuary side?

And enough with this "thousands of kilometers away" nonsense. There's no country that conducts ocean fishing exclusively in its own territory. And...

o. Distance between Australia and the farthest point in Japan: 6200 km

o. Distance between Australia and the farthest point of the proposed whale sanctuary: 10,000 km

So if you're wondering why Japan is whaling so far from home, you should also wonder why Australia is trying to impose extraterritorial jurisdiction so far from home.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c136/fishkiller_/whale%20post%20graphs/IWCwhalesanctuary.jpg

Signed,

Anti-whaling but anti-nonsense

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I am sure people would choose eating whale meat instead of watch whales in the ocean. All bans on whaling should be abolished asap so all of us could enjoy delicious whale meat. Whaling industry could employ many people who otherwise would not find good jobs. Whale protection has destroyed our fish stock in the process. We need to reverse the trend as soon as we could.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

good, let those australians stay mad

2 ( +6 / -4 )

If these countries don't like the results of voting, maybe they should change the rules or leave instead of whingeing. The proposal was voted down so obviously it just wasn't good enough

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Japanese money well spent in buying those votes.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

There are a lot of land-locked nations like Switzerland participating in International WHALING Commission that hadn't fished in the open sea voting for a ban which makes little sense as well.

You need to remove those nations as well if you are going to talk about buying votes.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Whaling nations sink bid

Just an anagram for:

Lo! A bad whining stinks in.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Money can't buy love, but it can definitely buy votes at the IWC.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

What exactly would be the benefit of creating another "sanctuary"?

Sorry Ossan, didn't realise it wasn't a whiny, pro-whaling rhetorical question.

If everything stays as it is, of course, there is no need for/meaning in a sanctuary.

The desire to establish sanctuaries could come from one of two possibilities:

1) After establishing the sanctuary, the next step will be to exclude 'scientific' whaling from all sanctuaries. (This sounds good to me)

2) After establishing the sanctuary, the next step will be to partially lift the moratorium on a trial basis. The sanctuaries would then be areas where the commercial killers were not allowed to operate. (This sounds not so good, but better than having whalers rampaging all over the globe).

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I doubt any of the pro whaling nations will accept a two step approach, they will only consider a one step approach in which a sanctuary is established in exchange of lifting the moratorium and restarting commercial whaling in international waters and remove non-whaling nations out of IWC as full members and develop an observer membership so they can voice their opinion when required.

The anti whaling nations can create their own International whale Observation Committee so they can continue counting the whale population with their own money for preservation purposes and stop ranting about whales are an endangered species without doing any actual scientific research in the field.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

If after all these decades of 'scientific research' intended to prove that whale populations have recovered sufficiently to allow some degree of commercial whaling they cannot make a cogent argument in favour of a partial lifting of the moratorium, then maybe it's time to admit that their 'scientific research' is less than fit for purpose.

But they can make a cogent argument in favor of a partial lifting of the moratorium. Unfortunately many IWC members out of "sheer bloody-mindedness" oppose the partial lifting and refuse to even perform the reviews required in 1990. Why not let the reviews happen? If no species is sufficiently recovered to allow partial lifting, then do the review and show the science. It is almost like they are afraid that an actual open review will show scientifically that a partial lifting is appropriate. And despite their agreeing to periodic reviews when they imposed the moratorium, they now out of "sheer bloody-mindedness" refuse to do their jobs.

Shouldn't the headline read; Whaling nationsand bought friendssink bid .

Don't you mean Anti-whaling nations and bought friends fail to get their way?

After establishing the sanctuary, the next step will be to exclude 'scientific' whaling from all sanctuaries.

First that would require a unanimous vote, which won't happen. And second why wouldn't that be a first step?

After establishing the sanctuary, the next step will be to partially lift the moratorium on a trial basis. The sanctuaries would then be areas where the commercial killers were not allowed to operate. (This sounds not so good, but better than having whalers rampaging all over the globe).

Oh I see. Establish sanctuaries where the whales are then lift the moratorium when there are no further places to whale. But if the sanctuary is a quid pro quo for a partial lifting of the moratorium, why not say so? Oh wait, I see again. They will promise to vote on the partial lifting AFTER the sanctuary exists and then refuse to do so, just like the moratorium's reviews. Also lifting the moratorium would still put quotas on any commercial whaling, so there would hardly be any rampaging. In fact there would actually be MORE control over the whalers.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Its main detractors were whalers Japan, Norway and Iceland, with backing from a number of African, Asian and island states.

Basically a measly coalition of the willing vs the rest of the world.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

If it had passed, Japan would have done what they did last time they were voted against and said "We'll ignore it" anyway (threatening to pull out money as well), so hopefully the conservationists don't listen to this and Sea Shepherd goes out in full force again as always. Just because Japan paid off a bunch of African landlocked nations and others doesn't mean the world should sit by and let them destroy the ecology CLEARLY for food (no one believes it's about science).

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan would have done what they did last time

You mean adhere to Article V of the ICRW? The document that all IWC members agreed to follow?

a bunch of African landlocked nations

There is only ONE landlocked African nation that is a member of the IWC, Mali. Not sure how they voted. Meanwhile there are 5 land locked European nations that are members; Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic and Hungary. $ of them are EU members meaning they voted for the sanctuary as all EU members vote as a bloc.

doesn't mean the world should sit by

YEAH! Who cares about democracy and following the international documents countries sign. They should only have to follow their commitments if they want to.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

destroy the ecology CLEARLY for food (no one believes it's about science).

I think the idea is that science can help us understand what is sustainable, and if we abide by that, we can have food and not destroy the ecosystem.

Certainly Japan's science directly produces some food too. Some seem to believe it is just to get around the "moratorium". But there is nothing wrong with having food, to my mind. This outdated "moratorium" was meant to stop the production of food, I gather, but actually I don't think that is serving any productive purpose. Even if Japan is using a loophole, I wouldn't blame them really. 30 years of this "moratorium" is not right.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

doesn't mean the world should sit by and let them destroy the ecology CLEARLY for food (no one believes it's about science).

It isn't really about food, either. Japan doesn't need whale meat. Most people don't eat it, indeed have never eaten it, and if it were to disappear from the few restaurants that still serve it, most people wouldn't even notice.

The reason Japan refuses to stop killing whales is money. People in a position to make decisions profit, either personally or through the influence they can exert on others, from whaling. Stop all taxes and government money going to the whaling industry sorry I mean the 'scientific research' industry, and the industry would fold immediately. There are not enough whale eaters in Japan to support the fleet without government subsidies.

Never going to happen, of course.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The government has a mandate to protect industry from unfair international pressure and is required to lodge protest and if needed fund efforts to remove prejudice and ridicule so the industry can resume normal affairs.

Once the illegal moratorium that was required to be reviewed 30 years ago is lifted and commercial whaling had been resumed, the Japanese government will cease all funding to the industry.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

good, let those australians stay mad firstly 61% of the countries voted for the whale sanctuary the majorty of them werent Australian. secondly Australians dont get mad, just even. Letting SS dock and resupply at Australian ports is just on of their ways of getting mad, oops even. LOL

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The reason Japan refuses to stop killing whales is money.

It's more about a sorely misplaced sense of pride.There are plenty of useless industries within Japan and beyond that live off the corporate dole.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

cleoOct. 26, 2016 - 12:26PM JST "What exactly would be the benefit of creating another "sanctuary"? Sorry Ossan, didn't realise it wasn't a whiny, pro-whaling rhetorical question.

No problem cleo. I usually dismiss your rabid vegan rantings as well.

If everything stays as it is, of course, there is no need for/meaning in a sanctuary. The desire to establish sanctuaries could come from one of two possibilities:

Thank you conforming my view that the creating of this sanctuary does absolutely nothing. But, it serves as a step towards furthering the goals of the anti-whaing faction In the future.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Guess more Sea Shepard types will be sailing around the Atlantic sanctuary since they don't need anybody's permission to be there too.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

A proposal by Argentina, Brazil, Gabon, South Africa and Uruguay, which needed a 75% majority, mustered only 38 votes in favor with 24 against at an International Whaling Commission meeting....

.....The proposal, backed by countries which depend on whale-watching tourist dollars, has been shot down at every IWC meeting since it was first introduced in 2001.

.....While there are no reports of hunting in the South Atlantic today.....

Apparently the animal-rights zealots have failed, once again, to buy sufficient support to create this proposed South Atlantic sanctuary. Maybe it's because there are no reports of hunting in the proposed sanctuary's area? Maybe it's because the IWC was created to regulate whaling, not ban it?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

.....The proposal, backed by countries which depend on whale-watching tourist dollars, has been shot down at every IWC meeting since it was first introduced in 2001.

Whale hunting and whale watching are not either/or propositions.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

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

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites