Carlos Mazal comments

Japan has all the right to hunt abundant species of whales. The moratorium was a temporary measure and the agreement at the IWC was to review it based on the best scientific evidence. However, it was not respected. The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which created the IWC, enshrines the balance between the use and conservation of whales on equal footing and it was, hence, breached and the right to protect cultural diversity and a milenary tradition a blow to tolerance. The two stocks of Minke species is estimated at 1 million individuals. Science seems to have been ignored and that creates a dangerous precedent for the management of other species. Many of us feel that species hunted and used for human consumption in different countries, should not continue but we can not imposed our values and beliefs on others. The same should apply to Japan and other whaling nation's.

Good for Norway, Iceland and Japan for choosing to maintain their traditions and consume what they please without imposing their values on others. You do not like it? You do not have to. Feed your vegan diet to your children and pets. As for the rest of us, food security through the sustainable use and conservation of all marine species is our choice.

Turnbull knows, as every leader involved in this mess do, that there are plenty of minkes in the Southern Ocean. 515 to 760.000 and thus that the Antarctic stock and the rest of the species are abundant and healthy. At the same time, pressure from some US fundamentalist NGOs which moved to Australia (IFAW, HSI, Sea Shepard and other crazies) to set camp after the fund raising in the north was falling short and aussies were naïve enough to buy their twisted story force Australia to take a decision to appease their voters. No nation may impose his/her wishes, views cultural or other subjective positions on others. Leave the Japanese alone. It seems that Japan bashing over forgets that d the postpone of the review of the moratorium ( a temporary measure by definition) after being promised exactly that in 1990 which AU, NA and US subsequently opposed to carry out knowing that the results in some species were good. If Australia wants to remain a member of the ICW it should respect and abide by the constituent agreement of the IWC convention of 1946 where management of whales is up there. If you can not stomach it or respect it, then opt out.

Mizuame. Are we on the same wave length? Nobody tells nobody else what to eat or like. I agree with Japan because I look beyond whaling and look at the principle of sustainable use on fisheries, beef, poultry and any animal that is abundant and wild. Animal rights over human rights makes me wonder about the state of society. I like animals of every sort but human beings and their rights come first and are my first priority. Maybe some prefer a docile companion. It is great. I enjoy whale meat once in while but mainly the right to decide. Japn is right on this one.

Australia decided that they would not accept whaling regardless of the eventual resumption once the moratorium is lifted. And it will as it was designed as a temporary measure which AU, NZ US under pressure from fundamentalist fund, rich in fund raining and votes, refuse to agree to a commitment to review it and back tracked. If AU does not abide from the constituent statues which govern the Convention and disagrees with its word and spirit to conservation and management, they should abandon IWC.

515 to 760.ooo thousand in the Antarctic right now and Japan is not defying anybody by hunting 333 under a new program NEWREP-A. Those who cling to the ruling by the ICJ are in a for a big surprise as they probably have not read it or interpreted. It says nothing about management of whales, nor about sustainable use of abundant marine species, nor about sanctuaries as they are not recognized by the international community. Despite close to 700 hundred scientific papers the Court remain open to a new program. Well, there it is.

And, finally yes, no country has the right to impose on others their views and values on what they eat.

Talk about biased coverage. In 1990 the moratorium was supposed to be independently reviewed but the usual suspects botched the agreement. Minke whales range from 600.000 to 1 million depending on the source and females breed a calf per year. So catching 333 or 4000 a year mean nothing to the species. You may not like the hunting of whales but you may not impose your values on others if species are abundant. Yes, pigs are also "intelligent" and we eat them too. Stop the racists undertone and hypocrisy to please fund raising NGOs and let Japan be. Eventually, you will thank them for defending the principle of sustainable use.

WTFjapan Disillusioned? What does it mean? And you say "

Japan is nothing without the resources from other countries and would starve within six months of import boycotts. This is the only way Japan can be thought that hunting whales in a southern ocean whale sanctuary is illegal and immoral" (sic)

It is not a "sanctuary" as many nations do not recognize it and Australia has no jurisdiction as they are going into international waters. It is perfectly legal and why is hunting abundant species "inmoral" or whatever you tried to say ?

Why try to impose cultural habits on other people if you would not accept them in your own country?. I would not. Science say Minkes are overly abundant so what seems to be all these adrenaline and Japan bashing over? All the best.

Nobody may impose their views on anybody else, provided species are abundant and trust me, they are. I have participated many times in IWC meeting and have been a government fisheries negotiator for many years. The are an estimated 650.000 minke whales and 125.000 newborn every year. Nobody may impose on Japan their values or even called on lawless organizations such as Sea Shepard ro ram Japanese vessels endangering lives in the high seas for hunting under perfectly legal conditions in international waters. Peoples from the world have different culinary and food intakes which show diversity. Some of us will always defend Japan's right to hunting abundant species and the principle of sustainable use of living marine resources. Good sailing and God Speed.

“We would like to remind the Japanese government that the whales of the Southern Ocean are protected by international law, by Australian law and by Sea Shepherd". I need to reiterate that quote to highlight the limitless capacity for ridicule of SS ( appropriate acronym). Australia should grow up to reality and stop behaving like a cry baby. There are abundant number of minke, they have no jurisdiction over international waters , the so-called sanctuary is not recognized and they may not impose their values on anybody. Some do not like whales to be captured, some do, some are vegetarians, some vegan, some of us are not. Some NGOs use this issue to raise funds ( fights are common between Greenpeace and SS...) some don't. Some of us eat wallaby, horse meat, cull koalas, some camels, some baby lamb, baby piglets, grasshoppers, some do not. Bottom line is cultural diversity is important and should be respected and fanatics should be out of this debate. Some tolerance is necessary and some balanced is required. Science should be respected and, yes, controls should be in place. Whales will make it. 800 million people will still go to bed hungry and 20 million African children will die of preventable diseases each year. People should have their priorities straight.