world

Australia rejects proposal for limited whale hunts by Japan, Norway and Iceland

16 Comments

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

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

16 Comments
Login to comment

Great job Australia!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good job, Ausralia!! It's a shame Japan will simply ignore whatever you say and continue the 'research' (haha!) anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Last week, the IWC put forth a proposal that would allowing whaling nations to hunt without specifying whether it is for commercial or other purposes"

Should read... last week, Japan put forth a proposal to the IWC that would allow whaling nations to hunt without specifying whether it is for commercial or other purposes.

Australia rejected it... so did everybody else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Labor Government has been wasting too much money already on home insulation scheme , school building projects( money borrowing from China)... please, DON'T waste any more money on taking Japan to court.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There has been a ban on commercial whaling since 1986, but Japan, Norway and Iceland still catch whales under various exceptions sanctioned by the IWC, such as scientific research. In Japan, whale meat not used for research is sold as food, which critics including Australia contend is the real reason for the hunt.

The ban was implemented due to uncertainties in stock numbers in 1986 on conditions that this stance was to be reevaluated in 1993. In 1993 when there was enough data the IWC Scientific Committee concluded that there were enough minke whales to be hunted yet countries such as Australia voted against. This resulted in chairman of the IWC Scientific Committee, Phil Hammond resigning in protest.

According to the wording of the Convention, decisions made by the IWC shall be based on the best scientific advice. However, in 1993, the chairman of the Scientific Committee, Phil Hammond of the UK, resigned in protest, and asked "What is the point of having a Scientific Committee if its unanimous recommendations ... are treated with such contempt?"

When countries become members of IWC countries have to sign a document.

The objective of the Convention as stated in its preamble is to provide "for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry."

This means that countries are bound by working in the interest of the whaling industry. COuntries such as Australia have signed an agreement and are working against the very same agreement they have signed on. Now they say they want to take this to an international court? Australia. Put your money where your mouth is. I am sorry, but be prepared to get shredded into small bits and pieces while being educated over how childish and close minded you are. Perhaps, culture imperialism is a term you should know. Imperialism is an outdated form of a mind set.

Eating whales for food is no better or worse than eating any other animals for food as long as the animal is not endangered. This, I think is a common agreement most people have on all animals on the planet. So why take the "whale" out of the eco system where they obviously belong.

To get rid off the hassle. Norway can conduct scientific whaling in disguise and not commercial and the Inuits in Canada and USA can conduct commercial whaling in disguise while doing aborigonal and Japan can conduct commercial in disguise while doing scientific. These labels are made by close minded anti whalers who are telling people that some people can only kill whales for food under certain guidelines. It becomes silly and outright outdated. Whaling countries including Japan and every single Native American nation as well as Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Indonesia, Maoris in NZ are saying it does not matter what colour you are how your economy is. Anyone who wants to hunt whales in the world for food should be allowed to. It is not people who decide but stock numbers.

Australia. Put your money where your mouth is. Get ready to get fried in court.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What gives Australia an absolute blanket right to stop commercial exploitation of an animal species by another nation?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Doesn't matter if Australia has rejected it or not. Japan had already rejected it earlier, so it's dead in the water. It's interesting that the article fails to point that out, and instead targets just one of the several countries that have said no to this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan at 07:34 PM JST - 28th April Good job, Ausralia!! It's a shame Japan will simply ignore whatever you >say and continue the 'research' (haha!) anyway.

A remarkably ignorant comment considering that Japan has already defacto agreed to the IWC propsal which elimates all "research" whaling. But don't let facts get in the way of your J-bashing agenda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It doesn't matter in the long run if one country, be it Australia or Japan or anyone else takes a singular hardline position. It's going to be settled by a vote, not what one country wants. As far as Australia's non-negotiable hardline position, they've already fallen away from the US and New Zealand, two other very prominent anti-whaling nations. So good luck to them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More info from other sources:

"Australia and New Zealand expressed their opposition on Friday to an International Whaling Commission proposal that would allow Japan to resume commercial whaling." - It is not just Australia that has rejected this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also:

A proposal by the International Whaling Commission to reduce Japan's lethal "research whaling" programme in return for increased whaling in its own waters has been rejected by Tokyo...a suggestion that Shigeru Ishiba, minister of fisheries, dismissed as "unacceptable."

Japan was the first country to reject this deal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia and New Zealand expressed their opposition on Friday to an International Whaling Commission proposal that would allow Japan to resume commercial whaling." - It is not just Australia that has rejected this.

Allowing whaling nations to kill a limited number of the animals is the only way ensure control, New Zealand's representative on the issue has said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8598436.stm

New Zealand is sounding like Japan, in other words much smarter than Australia. Australia is embarrasing themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wish Japan could grow up and behave in a more civilised manner.Commercial whaling under the guise of research. What next?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What next?

Pretending to own/be the protector of a huge part of Antarctica.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since when did Peter Garrett join in the Taliban where it's acceptable to impose you values on the whole world and can even support violence to get their way? putthemoneywher you said it very well @10:01. I agree 100%. Australia you are looking more and more the fool and will get very little support internationally if you do this. Only the morally superior "British" decent countries want to "ban all whaling" without a thought as to if the stocks have replenished or not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia is all noise. They have extensive trade surplus with Japan that no matter what Japan does on the whale issue, Australia cannot do nothing but bark like a dog, especially in a bad economy when Australia depends on Japan for trade.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

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

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites