Okay so would you agree if the world decided okay yes Japan can commence whaling legally but, in Japanese waters only and that is all, if they breach this they will be charged?
Sister, the world already has one whaling convention, and it explicitly says that rules can not be made to discriminate against any particular nation as you suggest here.
5 ( +8 / -3 )
There are a lot of legal experts here, its enlightening.
There is a history in the US of bringing eco-terrorists to justice, including Canadian citizens, so we will surely enjoy watching developments closely.
4 ( +7 / -3 )
Alexandra Dickens, the right whale has several distinct populations globally. In the case of the northern-right whale, they do number only a few hundred, and if this population dies out that stock of whales will be gone forever. Successful conservation requires conservation of each individual stock. The Antarctic minke whale that Japan is interested in harvesting sustainably is not in anyway endangered.
6 ( +8 / -2 )
The Japanese public and tax payers deserve better from their public service, shuffling people around when they allegedly commit crimes is a practice that Japanese people, I believe, would like to see end. One wonders what a public service worker has to actually do in order to get fired? Someone in this position especially should clearly know better.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
What research does Japan has to do? Unless they provide us all findings to the world, this claim is VOID..
If you read the IWC scientific committee's latest report you'll see that biological data from Japan's research is being used in the work of the committee.
It's not reported widely in the media, that doesn't mean that there is no research.
Wait for the result of the ICJ case Australia has brought against Japan for confirmation of this.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
they need to kill a bunch to prove there's some left? and they call that 'science'??
1) Whales reproduce - they are renewable resources, providing they are properly managed. 2) Wrote the late Dr John Gulland who represented the FAO at IWC meetings:
"... the best, if not the only, way to determine the sustainable yield of a whale stock is carefully monitored harvesting. Certainly our knowledge of whale stocks is far from complete, and there can be considerable argument on just how large a catch can be sustained from individual stocks. However, these doubts are no reason for not taking moderate, and carefully monitored catches from stocks which appear to be in a healthy condition."
This is precisely what Japan is doing.
J. Govt does not realize how much Americans are against this.
I think most Americans think Watson is a douche.
-11 ( +11 / -21 )
The world is clearly against you.
Do you include most of Asia and Africa as well as the Norwegians, Icelanders in that?
This is how "hatred" towards Japan is cultivated and you do not understand the consequence in the future.
On the contrary, the anti-whaling people need to be educated to have respect for cultural diversity and international laws and agreements. That is how we can rid the world of hatred.
-5 ( +1 / -6 )
Thankfully no Maseratti was involved.
(Love all the envy comments here!!)
2 ( +5 / -3 )
Two wrongs don't make a right, and I've no love for GWB, but I'd be interested to hear what Amnesty International thinks about "9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed", too. Just for balance ya know.
1 ( +6 / -5 )
The claim that there is no scientific finding justifying the prohibition of commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean is ignorant of the last century of industrial exploitation
On the contrary, it's precisely because the mistakes of the past have been learned from that prohibition of commercial whaling is no longer justified.
There are plenty enough minke whales for conservative harvests under quotas set by modern day management procedures.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
One poster suggests that Japan is not acting in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states in Article 65.
That claim is backwards. Even Australia in their spurious complaint to the ICJ about Japan's contributions to the IWC didn't have the gall to suggest that.
There are many nations that undermine conveservation, management and study of whale stocks at the International Whaling Commission, but Japan is not one of these anti-whaling nations.
While Japan and otheres seek to aid the Whaling Commission fulfil it's mandate, their opponents actively seek to prevent it from doing so. It is those anti-whaling nations, who are also involved in repeatedly passing resolutions at the Whaling Commission calling on Japan to stop killing whales that are failing to cooperate for the conservation, management and study of whale stocks.
Everyone knows what Whaling means. Due to anti-whaling nation's intransigence, the "moratorium" is still in place after 25 years, scientifically baseless "sanctuaries" that encompass the whaling grounds themselves have been imposed, and spurious resolutions requesting nations that act in accordance with the Whaling convention cease their activities have been agreed. It is the nations who have overseen these deeds that have failed in their obligations under the Law of the Sea, the Whaling convention, and the Vienna Convention which requires adherents to international agreements act in good faith.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
JFYI people don't trust Greenepace because they commit crimes and produce frivolous & misleading propaganda for their ends. People have no problem with freedom of expression but Greenpeace have frequently abused this privilege.
-5 ( +3 / -8 )
I don't trust the government or Tepco much on this issue either, and it's great if you trust Greenpeace, but a lot of people don't trust them at all because of their various past misdeeds. That's why I suggested they should rebrand themselves, if they find something important. To lose the tainted Greenpeace name would benefit both their organization and the public.
They are claiming that the levels are safely within the limits anyway. Hopefully it stays that way.
-8 ( +1 / -9 )
The article states that GP found radiation of 47.3 becquerels versus the official limit of 500, e.g. Greenpeace seems to be claiming that the fish are safe to eat in one accepts the 500 limit.
So what are you criticising the government bodies for? What are you demanding be investigated fully and transparently?
-3 ( +3 / -6 )
Interesting. Would be instructive if comparative studies could be performed elsewhere so we know what is normal. There is natural radiation in the world.
And if they find something important, I hope their change their name because Greenpeace is regarded by many as having zero credibility. They cry wolf so often it's hard to know when to pay attention to them.
But just going by the story, they found radiation of 1/10th the limit set, so it actually sounds to me like eating the fish is perfectly safe (unless the 500 limit is not stringent enough, but then Greenpeace always believes whatever limits there are are not stringent enough).
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
arrestpaul's point was quite correct. Australia does not own international waters, by definition, although they claim otherwise.
the only nation who thinks they own international waters is Japan, one only needs to look at its actions not only in the Southern ocean but also in the Northern Pacific.
Those actions are in accordance with the Law of the Sea and Whaling convention. They are exercising their established rights, not claiming ownership as Australia has done.
What l said (and l quote)
Just FYI Spidapig24, you can type "I" by holding down the shift key and then pressing i, rather than using l all the time.
you are so blinded by your hatred that you cant even make a decent argument
That's a great rebuttal.
But l cant see the bit you claim l said, now why is that? Oh because l didnt say it, you just put those words there that actually where never said....
Is it just me, or does it reek of irony and black pots here today?
3 ( +5 / -2 )
FYI, the story is about whaling more broadly, as is the discussion.
I was merely correcting that detail.
The claim that "no one" opposes coastal whaling was what warranted correction, IMO. Thanks for your understanding.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
even some of us foreigners go to whaling restaurants in Japan.
Doesn't matter, anti-whalers only care about what their propaganda says.
No one is telling you what not to eat in Japan, no-one is trying to stop you whaling in your waters.
Are you not aware of: 1) SS being on the ground in Japan trying to stop whaling in Japanese waters, and 2) Australia's policy of "bringing about a permanent ban on commercial whaling world-wide"?
2 ( +5 / -3 )
They go on to take liberty with the history of modern whaling and suggest that American whalers took all of the whales in Japan's waters while ignoring the fact that Japan's own modern whaling industry rose at the start of the 20th century with Norwegian whaling gear
The American whalers had moved in to the Japan grounds prior to the 20th century.
Re-supplying their whaling vessels was one of the primary reasons the Americans wished to gained access to Japan back at the end of the Edo-era (circa 1854).
It's no sheer co-incidence that hundreds of years of stable Japanese coastal whaling started to fall into decline around this time, which is what ultimately led the Japanese whalers to seek to import foreign methods for pelagic whaling.
The constant throughout? Whale cuisine is a part of Japanese culture. The methods used to obtain whale meat changed according to circumstances, and skipping out huge chunks of historical facts such as the above does not change them.
It is true that IWC scientists refer to data presented by Japan as they are obligated to do so.
It's more than just referencing. Biological data provided by Japan is a key input to the ongoing SCAA modeling work being done for Antarctic minke whale stock assessment (it's all in the latest IWC Scientific Committee report). Without this data from the research programme, the data series would have ended with the data from final commercial whaling catches.
The IWC scientific committee is "obligated" to use the data only in the sense that, if they didn't, they wouldn't have any data to use for their ongoing SCAA work.
The IWC Scientific Committee has a purpose, and that is to provide scientific advice to the IWC such that it may take decisions in the interest of the mandate of conserving whale stocks while making for the development of whaling industry.
There is no doubt that whaling industry in many countries flouted international rules in the IWC's early years. But as it stands, the IWC still exists, and there are still nations who wish to see it fulfil it's mandate. Mistakes made decades ago are not a valid reason to deny this, and clearly a non-zero catch quota for Antarctic minke whales is required for the IWC to be seen to be fulfilling it's mandate.
-2 ( +4 / -6 )
Modern culture is to an extent the evolution of tradition.
Well put. I can't understand why some people expect others to think that history suddenly stops at some point in time and culture ends there, for all eternity - even to the extent that years covering the working careers of two generations can be swept under the carpet like it never happened.
Americans and Europeans are to blame for the extinction of some species of whale, not the Japanese.
Indeed, I hesistated to mention it earlier, but perhaps if the Americans hadn't brought their black whaling ships along to Japan at the end of the Edo era and decimated Japan's local whale stocks, Japan may never have found it necessary to head to the Antarctic in search of new whale stocks to exploit to satisfy their cultural needs.
Sea Shepherd only attacks Japan because they're an easy target
Bingo. If Japan toughed up and took no nonsense ala Canada Iceland and Norway SS would be out of business in a flash.
Despite the claims of Sidney Holt (who has a curious history as an IWC delegate for a certain nation in the 1980's), the IWC's own scientific committee to this very day is utilising biological data from Japan's research programmes in it's stock assessement work.
The fact is that whaling today is carried out because of bureaucrats (amakudari) who often take high paid positions in the commercial whaling industry they once oversaw, and secured tax funded subsidies, for as public officials.
Mmmm, Greenpeace Japan tried to tell the Japanese public that, but then the Japanese public (like me) generally know that whale is a type of food that can be found on the menus in Japan.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
Your comments about culture is already covered in my previous comment at Nov. 15, 2011 - 02:42PM JST.
Although you claim SS and Australia don't oppose Japanese whaling in the northern hemisphere, such a claim doesn't reconcile with the reality that SS is in Taiji opposing Japanese whaling and Australia notes in it's application to the ICJ that it does oppose Japanese whaling in the northern hemisphere (I can give you the link to this if you like, or you can go read it on the ICJ homepage for yourself)
The point about the IUCN listings is, if I try to put it as simply as possible, the management bodies for the SBT fishery (CCSBT) and whale fisheries (IWC) have their own scientific committees to provide advice specifically about the stocks of marine resources being exploited. The IUCN Red Listings are just generic listings that aren't relevant as far as species under management are concerned. This is why Australia exploits "critically endangered" SBT for commercial purposes in accordance with the CCSBT rules and Japan catches a few "endangered" Fin whales for research in accordance with IWC rules. If IUCN Red Listing a species as "endangered" meant it should not be hunted, then clearly Australia wouldn't be commercially exploiting SBT. Given that Australia does this, it should be obvious enough that a few fin whale catches for research purposes should not automatically be considered unacceptable without due consideration.
And you haven't offered any reason why Japan should be expected to forgoe it's rights under the whaling convention to harvest whale resources from international waters, which is in accordance with the mandate of the whaling convention, as well as Japan's culture which includes whale cuisine, other than to ignore 60 years of history including several decades in which no one was complaining about the Japanese harvesting whales in the Antarctic whaling grounds.
So something is endangered and there are only 2000 left in the northern hemisphere
I have no idea what species you could be refering to. Species that Japan is looking at in the northern hemisphere number in the 10's of thousands.
Ah yes and which country abides by the rules (Australia) and which country blatantly ignores the rules and takes 100,000 tonnes in excess of the quota for 1 year? That would be Japan, the same country that you argue is able to be trusted to resume commercial whaling.
Yes David it was the Japanese SBT fishing industry and what makes them any more trustworthy than the JWA after all they are both Japanese
You are mixing up two entirely different industries, purely on the basis of people involved in those two industries both consisting of Japanese people. This line of argumentation isn't convincing to me (and I imagine many others).
I notice you make no mention of that at all
You must not have read / understood my comment at Nov. 15, 2011 - 06:47PM JST
Japan just being Japan
I think this sums up where you are coming from nicely.
-1 ( +4 / -5 )
So after all these decades of research we are still no closer to having proper and scientifically proven numbers.
No I think we are definitely much closer. I've been following this in the IWC SC reports for some years now and the IWC Scientific Committee should definitely produce agreed estimates next year, probably in excess of 500,000, as they eluded to in their latest report.
Irrespective, a zero catch limit is clearly inappropriate - at least "1" would be sustainable, given the units in the hundreds of thousands of whales that are being bandied about. A "zero" catch limit is unjustifiable unless the mandate of the whaling convention is completely ignored (which is a breach of the Vienna convention that treaties must be adhered to in good faith)
I am hoping that the Japanese will have this point addressed at the ICJ in their defence against Australia's allegations - a recommendation from the ICJ to the IWC to do it's job to help resolve the issue would be most welcome in bringing the whaling kerfuffle to a conclusion.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
So to say they are not endangered is complete and utter bull and is typical pro whaling rhetoric.
It's not "utter bull" at all.
Being IUCN Red Listed as "endangered" is not necessarily the same as actually being endangered. This is illustrated by Australia's SBT exploitation. (As for CITES, those listings are determined by politicians, not scientists.)
"Endangered" in IUCN Red List terminology indicates only that a species falls into a particular set of criteria, that criteria does not necessarily mean that exploitation of that species will lead the species to extinction.
That's why Australia has no qualms about commercial exploitation of "critically endangered" SBT - despite this listing I recall seeing a quote from a top IUCN scientist (P. Mace IIRC) agreeing that SBT was not at immediate risk of extinction of something to similar effect, hence I don't have issues with Australia's behaviour - except for their hypocritical criticism of Japan for taking a few "endangered" fin whales for research.
Interesting point there David, yes Australia is catching SBT, it is doing so within the internationally set catch limits. Interestingly l notice you failed to mention that Japan also catches these fish as well. As do several other countries.
But if we are concerned about conservation, if it were truly bad to harvest IUCN red list "critically endangered" species, Australia ought to stop (as well as all of them).
But as you note, SBT is managed internationally (by the CCSBT). Just as are whales are supposed to be (by the IWC).
So it's the same thing, but Australia employs double standards, commercially exploiting "critically endangered" species while criticising Japan for extremely limited research catches of "endangered" fin whales.
I also note you failed to mention what country has been caught on numerous occasions catching over its quota,
It was the Japanese SBT fishing industry that was found to have caught over it's quota, not the Japanese whaling industry, and that issue has already been dealt with some years ago - the SBT fisheries regulatory systems were given a big overhaul in response to it. This is exactly what should happen - where regulatory systems fail, they ought be corrected (as opposed to banning everyone from doing something forever).
SBT aren't whales though, systems ought be established as appropriate for different types of fisheries.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
The whaling convention was established to regulate whaling in "non-traditional" international waters, for the benefit of the consumers of whale products and the development of whaling industry, an agreement amongst various nations.
In view of this together with whale cuisine's being a part of Japanese culture, I don't see a reason why these Japan should now be expected to limit their whaling to ancient Edo-era whaling grounds alone.
Indeed from my perspective as a conservationist, the Antarctic minke whale stock is best able to support commercial harvests, so if anything the Antarctic minke whale is the first stock for which commercial whaling should be permitted. This would be the most risk averse approach that meets the mandate of the whaling convention.
However it is hard to provide scientific findings to establish a sanctuary when the data Japan provides is
Well, it's not Japan that was arguing for a blanket sanctuary in the whaling grounds - the onus was on those who were for it to stump up with science to justify it. (As we know they pushed their proposals through with numbers instead of science in the end.)
in the words of the scientific community "Japan's whale 'research' program fails to meet minimum standards for credible science".
Those are the words of some scientists, but certainly not all. And it's a matter of record that biological data from Japan's programmes is utilised by the IWC's Scientific Committee for it's stock assessment work.
Can you please explain this to me as up until 60 years ago Japan did not whale in these areas. Given this point then a sanctuary hardly impact on Japans traditions and culture now does it.
I don't think we can just ignore 60 years of history like that, and from the basis of the whaling convention I see no reason to.
No-one is stopping Japan whaling in its CULTURAL AND TRADITIONAL region now are they?
I disagree. The IWC's moratorium indeed precludes Japanese whaling in Japan's own EEZ.
The nations are trying to stop Japanese expansion into non traditional areas.
They already expanded into those areas, 60 years ago, in accordance with the whaling convention, and no one complained about it for decades. Some Japanese people spent their entire working lives involved in whaling in the Antarctic. I don't see a justification to just wind back the clock and expect everyone to forget all of this suddenly.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
Generally speaking your point is true.
But specifically as for the whale meat in storage, if it were really rotted, the operators of the cold storage facilities would dispose of it, rather than hold it in storage at further cost.
Japanese cold storage facilities store millions of tonnes of various types of sea food. To describe a few thousand tonnes of whale meat as rotting (without evidence of this) illustrates an obvious bias and willingness to employ propaganda rather than fact.
I thought that poster misses the point on a number of other issues as well, to be honest.
1 & 2) Whale cuisine is a part of Japanese culture, to claim that because the "protest" is against whaling not Japanese culture is at best a semantic difference (given that whaling is the primary source of products used to supply whale cuisine).
3 & 8) The poster selectively ignored the fact that the whaling convention requires IWC Schedule amendments (for sanctuaries etc) to have, amongst other things, a scientific basis and also to take into consideration the interests of consumers of whale products and the whaling industry (obvious blanket bans on whaling fail to deliver on both these counts). The amendments were nonetheless adopted by the IWC, however the whaling convention allows the signatory states to object to any such decisions. So for this to be characterised as Japan doing "as it likes regardless" has no basis in reality, and is also well in the realm of sheer propaganda. Every nation who adhered to the whaling convention knows very well exactly what it says. It's one thing to be anti-whaling, it's another thing entirely to make out that Japan is not acting in accordance with the whaling convention.
4 & 5) This refers to behaviour by the whaling industry from years ago before I was even born. There is no doubt that there were regulatory failures in the past - but that isn't a rational reason to forever ban a legitimate activity into the future in spite of the whaling convention's own mandate.
6) The Save the Whales movement probably did have a genuine start, but today it does appear to have morphed into cultural imperialism, in my opinion also. There is no other explanation as plausible to account for the IWC's maintenance of a baseless moratorium for a quarter of a century when everyone knows that there are whale stocks that are capable of sustaining harvests.
7) Sei whales aren't endangered, Iceland's Fin whales aren't endangered. Just saying a species is endangered and saying that the IWC banned it doesn't mean it makes sense for that to be the case.
This is why the Australians are harvesting Red Listed southern bluefin tuna ("critically endangered") and exporting the fish to Japan for commercial purposes.
Examples of endangered species are the Maui dolphin around New Zealand, and the Blue whale in the Antarctic.
The whalers target neither.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
Sustainable whaling quota? Um, try zero! That is very sustainable!
Zero is arguably sustainable, but so is one, and so is 2,000 over 5 years for starters when we calmly and rationally consider that would be but 0.4% of the population if we take the IWC Scientific Committee at their word that the estimate agreed next year will be upwards of 500,000.
Given that the whaling convention's purpose includes serving the interests of consumers of whale products and development of the whaling industry, in addition to conservation of whale stocks, clearly a zero catch limit for even Antarctic minke whales is as inappropriate today as it has been for the past 25 years.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Posted in: Russia fails to pay debt but denies default