Unless dolphins in Taiji and whales in Antarctica are different arguments, but you seem to be equating them.
I am equating them only on the issue/comment that I was responding to, hence why I quoted it for context. The claim was that if Japan would only stick to their own waters then they would have less problems. Dolphin hunting is in their own waters and they get as much grief and problems because of it as they do over the whale hunting not in their own waters. Seeming to indicate that the claim is false.
IWC is a democratic organisation
Actually it isn't. To join you have to pay and some are required to pay more than others. Paying for the privilege to vote isn't democracy and charging different countries different amounts isn't democratic either. SO the IWC doesn't represent an international consensus.
name me one larger ocean mammal or fish that Japan catches commerically that is sustainable or hasnt been over fished
Antarctic Minke whales.
1 ( +7 / -6 )
Leave the IWC and become poachers.
They wouldn't be poachers. Do you consider Canada poachers and should their vessels be scuttled? Because they left the IWC in 1981 and now they issue their own permits every year allowing whale hunting.
Japan is the IWC's biggest benefactor?
It is true. The IWC annual budget is about $2.5 million.
Perhaps they should stick to their own waters, then others wouldn’t have so much of a problem.
You mean like the dolphin hunting from Taiji that causes international outrage every year? Sorry, but if Japan moved any whaling to waters near Japan they protests would just shift. And the IWC hasn't authorize Japan's request for whaling near Japan either.
Bolivia ( a land locked country)for their vote.
Bolivia STILL isn't an IWC member as was explained days ago.
if they cant abide by international consensus
There are 88 members in the IWC. There are ~200 countries in the world. Even with a unanimous vote the IWC does not represent an international consensus
0 ( +7 / -7 )
IWC soon to be the IAWC should also police the conservation areas as it moves into full conservation mode and block Japanese ships. If Japan wants to hunt it will have to do it elsewhere
If Japan leaves the IWC then the IWC has no authority to block them and doing so would be a violation of at least the UNCLOS. Also the IWC doesn't have any provision, mandate or the money to police any areas.
What about the feelings of majority of the members in IWC? After all the vote was defeated 41-27!
The IWC has 88 members. 41 is not a majority.
leave the IWC and try and continue trying to buy smaller nations votes
If they leave the IWC why would they care about smaller nations votes?
Make a Southern fisheries as a non fishing zone. And sink any vessel that encroach on that. God lord
So become pirates and/or declare war on Japan? Yeah that is a logical reponse.
-5 ( +8 / -13 )
The whole "right to bear arms" argument is a joke from its premise - as if citizens can take on the army
Except the people that wrote the Constitution had just gone through citizens taking on the army...and they won. So it wasn't a joke, it was reality.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
No problem with the second amendment, it was talking about black powder Flint lock rifles. Not military grade weapons or seni auto handguns.
No problem with the 1st Amendment, it was talking about face-to-face talking, newspapers and books. Not radio, TV or internet.
I thank my lucky stars I don't live in the US.
The US population agrees with you and asks that you please stay where you are.
2 ( +5 / -3 )
If this is true then this commission is nothing more than a club. Is it really fit for purpose?
Well since its purpose when formed was to ensure whaling could continue and that purpose has been perverted, you may be right that it isn't fit for its purpose any more.
Bolivia voted against this, as they have no access to any ocean why are they even there? Ahhh Japanese cash.
Bolivia ISN'T a member of the IWC. So no vote and no Japanese cash.
In the meantime Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovack Republic and Hungary ARE all members and they voted for this, as they have no access to any ocean why are they there? Ahhh anti-whaler cash.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
The International Whaling Commission does not look like a very democratic organisation to me. I tend to regard democracy as fifty/fifty (51% - 49%) not 75% - 25%.
Who ever said it was a democracy? But at it's basic a democracy means - a system of running organizations, businesses, and groups in which each member is entitled to vote and take part in decisions. Nothing about votes being decided by a simple majority 51%-49%.
Also the 75%-25% rule was agreed to by each and every member. Requiring more than a simple majority to approve some proposals happens in many democratic systems. For example, in the US a constitution amendment requires a 2/3 majority.
Is this a secret ballot or do we know who was for and who against?
It is not a secret ballot. I don't know if anyone has reported the vote breakdown yet, but it might be on the IWC website.
9 ( +9 / -0 )
Where is the profit in whaling ?
I never said there was a profit, so why not address what I said instead of something I didn't say?
Whale watching is a multi-billion dollar business that attracts millions of people every year already.
Never said it wasn't. But that doesn't mean that government funded expansion will result in more business.
And it would help bring more tourists to Japan, as the government wants, and boost its image
And we are back to unproven theories stated as fact. Maybe the whale watching industry is already saturated and expansion will not bring more tourists or more profit.
But bringing back commercial whaling is useless, as the already available meat can't be sold.
> And with the other points above, it makes zero sense to continue protecting this business.
Then bringing it back wont matter. If it wont be profitable companies wont engage in it. And sorry but stating unproven theories and opinions as facts aren't points, they are inane hand-waving.
That's like saying that because North Korea is not a UN signatory that they can freely test their nukes around the world TOMORROW.
No, it isn't. The UN has made clear that there are issues on which it will intervene whether the country involved is a member or not. While the IWC has made clear that its regulations only apply to members. This was made clear when Canada left the IWC and continues to issue whaling permits. Haven't heard of a single resolution in the IWC about Canada's whaling permits or a significant protest about it by any NGOs.
and has been violating them since it signed the agreement by killing more whales than it is allowed to do.
Really? Care to share some proof?
as Iceland did
Iceland is a member of the IWC.
If Japan leaves the IWC tomorrow and commences commercial whaling in the southern ocean sanctuary, which they choose to ignore, they will be considered poachers and treated as such by the 40 odd countries that support the sanctuary.
No, they won't. They already kill whales there and by the IWC's own regulations the sanctuary does not apply to Japan. Also their own Scientific Committee has produced a report that says the sanctuary was established in violation of the IWC's own procedures.
Lethal research may very well be necessary. However, it is not necessary for hundreds (previously a thousand) whales to be killed every year to obtain the same data over and over again.
Yes, it is. The whale population, health, etc. changes over time. So data has to be collected year after year to track and detect those changes. Do countries take a census once and then stop or do they repeat the process on a regular basis?
However, Japan would struggle to create a whale watching industry due to the fact the local species of whales have already been hunted to near extinction.
Japan HAS a whale watching industry. And since they hunt around Antarctica it has no impact on local whale watching.
However, Japan has killed over 30,000 whales since the IWC was created.
The IWC was created in 1948. Since then Japan has killed hundreds of thousands of whales.
The minke whale may very well be abundant (at present), but there is no evidence to prove it will sustain a commercial cull every year. In 30 years of BS research Japan has failed to prove this point
But they have proved that point. For 30 years hundreds of Minkes have been culled and the population remains steady with no problem. So obviously a commercial quota of at least 300 has proven to be sustainable.
-1 ( +5 / -6 )
But....if they lift the ban on commercial whaling, won't that mean there will be fewer whales to catch for scientific research? Surely this is something Japan should care about deeply, given its extensive whaling research program.
But....whales caught commercially can still have samples taken for continued research, which is what was done before the moratorium. So Japan's extensive whaling research program could continue without any problem even if the moratorium on commercial whaling is lifted.
-1 ( +6 / -7 )
many whale populations are still vulnerable
Japan acknowledges this and the moratorium (it still isn't a ban despite some media insisting on calling it one) also acknowledges that different species are different. Hence why Japan's proposal is for a limited number of specific species and why the moratorium was written to apply on a species by species basis.
Some, however, contend the research program remains a cover for commercial whaling because the whale meat is sold for food.
While others, having read the regulations, understand that those regulations require the whales caught for research to be processed to the extent practical.
Australia says that non-lethal research techniques actually reveal more information about whales than can be learned through killing them.
Meanwhile, the IWC's own Scientific Committee has stated that some data can only be obtained by lethal means.
The japanese government could also give its subsidies to whale watching businesses, promote it, attract more tourist and actually turn a profit.
First, that is a theory with no guarantee of profit. Second, doing so does not preclude commercial whaling.
Is it research or a cover for commercial whale hunting?
It is research to provide data to show that commercial whaling can be resumed with appropriate quotas.
The only part of their research that needs to be lethal is analysing the stomach contents of the whales.
Well that and the ear plugs which give age, and samples of various internal organs.
There is no need to kill 333 whales or previously a thousand whales every year just for this purpose.
Actually the well understood science of statistics says that based on the Minke population hundreds have to be sampled to achieve a reliable data set.
Here is a news flash for you pro-whalers: Japan will NEVER be allowed to hunt whales commercially.
Here is a news flash for you anti-whalers: Japan could quit the IWC and resume hunting whales commercially TOMORROW.
They don't have more or less rights that any other country which also agreed to join the whales preservation agreement.
The 'whales preservation agreement' states right in its charter that its purpose is to maintain whale stocks so as to ALLOW continued commercial exploitation of the whales.
-7 ( +6 / -13 )
But quotas must be set independently of any ideas about consumption.
A good example is quotas for deer in most US States. The quotas aren't based on how many people want deer meat or how many hunting licenses they issue. It is based on a scientific formula using population data, sex distribution, average age, etc. If more people want to hunt than there are quotas then some don't get a permit. Conversely if fewer people than the quota want to hunt then the excess permits don't get used.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
If Japan's proposals were accepted it would once again be open season on whales
The Japanese delegation argues that stocks of Minke whales and other species have recovered, and proposes setting new catch quotas "for species whose stocks are recognized as healthy by the IWC's scientific committee."
Hmm, sure doesn't sound like Japan's proposals would make it open season on whales.
which states that commercial whaling is no longer a necessary economic activity, favoring increased investment in whale watching.
Whale watching isn't a necessary economic activity either. So should it be banned? Or how about the thousands of other things that aren't necessary economic activities, like professional sports or amusement parks?
If Japan keeps at it, this annual tourist whose lengthy vacations in Japan cost upwards of $10,000, WON'T BE BACK!
So, finally after 30 years you are going to put your foot down?
We can do without whale meat.
And that can be said about lots of things, but it isn't a reason to ban those things.
If they do so and continue to hunt whales in the southern ocean whale sanctuary it will make them poachers.
No it won't. The sanctuary is a creation of the IWC and hence only applies to IWC members. If Japan quits the IWC the sanctuary doesn't apply to them.
This is because Japan cannot buy 3/4 of the votes. The last time they attempted such a thing at the IWC they bought around 30% support.
That was because the anti-whalers bought the other 70%.
However Japan has a desire to return to unrestricted whaling, and they've shown that they cannot be trusted to do so responsibly.
How does asking for a quota on certain species indicate a desire for 'unrestricted whaling'? And they offered a proposal for neutral observers on all whaling vessels, DNA sampling of all whales caught and random sampling of whale meat sold to check against the DNA data.
What proof do you have the fishery is sustainable?
Well the fact that Japan has been catching hundreds of Minkes a year for over 30 years and the population remains stable based on the IWC's research is kind of proof.
What's the point in doing the hunting sustainably, if the hunting is pointless to begin with ?
Sustainable is a scientific question, while whether to hunt or not is economic. The two decisions are separate things and the sustainable questions answer is not affected in any way by the economic answer.
2 ( +6 / -4 )
Please tell me again how nuclear power is cheap and safe.
Now, all the savings they had planned on purchasing new fuel for standard plants will be going to overseas companies to make MOX fuel.
So your own comments says the cost has nothing to do with nuclear power, per se, but with a decision to not reprocess the fuel domestically.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
If I recall, Japan's Fukushima disaster did not result in a meltdown, as the rods were cooled by water.
3 of the reactors at Fukushima did meltdown.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
I think that should be 0.0097%
Thank you for the correction.
It was late and I was tired, forgot to multiply by 100 to make it a percentage.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
26,000 kW 365 days 24 hrs = 228 million kWhrs per year and that is if they operate at rated capacity all the time, which doesn't and won't happen. Throw in a generous capacity factor of 40% and it becomes 91 million kWhrs per year.
91/934,000 or 0.000097% of the electricity used in Japan
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Really? Do you mean that if commercial whaling is allowed the whalers will catch more whales than the know they can sell, driving supply well above demand, causing the price to drop, eliminating their profit and causing their business to fail? That would be "ridiculous logic", believing that they would knowingly destroy their business.
whalers want to increase supply
Ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim. They know there isn't an increased or unmet demand, so increasing supply would be cutting their own throats. To claim that they want to destroy their livelihood is inane.
For research they should check mercury, cesium and strontium
I know there have been a number of studies that have measured mercury. I don't know of any that have looked at caesium or strontium but it may have been done for Northern Hemisphere caught whales.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
In a lot of different places. The ICR website has a list of the papers with the journal they were published in.
with penalty for violation being equivalent to whaling for profit not science.
And do you know what the penalty is for whaling for profit not science? Nothing. The IWC has no penalties associated with violations of its regulations. They are a voluntary organization. Japan could quit today and start hunting thousands of whales a year commercially without breaking a single law or facing a single statutory penalty.
Then why do nobody eats it ?
You don't have to participate in an activity or use its product to support it. I don't drink or smoke but I am against smoking bans and prohibition.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
Sec... checking: do you believe that it is ACTUALLY for scientific research?
Yes. They collect data, they publish peer reviewed papers and the IWC Scientific Committee thanks them for the data that they say helps them with their own research.
In fact the moratorium requires that the status of whale species be reviewed. Obviously this review requires data. Not only is Japan's ICR one of the few major collectors of data, but the IWC has yet to do a single required review despite over 30 years and the plain language of the moratorium requiring the first review by 1990.
But this scientific research has been going on for a long time, and nobody seems to know what the conclusion is. In fact, I sometimes wonder if any scientific research is even going at all.
> While I realise that Japan (in my experience) does not have a very transparent system, surely after all this time the results of this research should be published.
It has been published. And reading the published research would reveal the conclusions. Also research into the long term status of a species never really concludes, it is ongoing. But your view seems to align with the IWC who refuses to look at the data collected and do their required job under their own moratorium of coming to a conclusion on species status.
2 ( +8 / -6 )
@Do the hustle-
So today you are making baseless accusations because that is all you have? If 'Everything in my post is completely deniable' then why no reasoned denial?
The only thing that needs to be done by lethal research is examining stomach contents. However, this can be concluded with a handful of whales, not a few hundred.
No. A whales age is determined by ear plugs - requires lethal research. Toxin levels in organs - requires lethal research. Also it takes much more than a handful of samples. A simple computer search about statistical sampling will bring up equations that have been proven and used for well over a century to determine required sample size, and it is a few hundred. And that few hundred has to be repeated over the course of years.
to the hundreds of nations who gave up whaling for conservation purposes
There were never hundreds of nations conducting whaling. Heck there are barely 200 nations on the whole planet and the IWC has never had even 100 of them as members. The number probably never exceeded 20 and most of them whaled for oil not meat and they gave it up because of economics when other sources of oil became cheaper.
Whalers even shamefully took $30 million from the fund created to rebuild coastal areas in Tohoku.
You mean an industry partially based in coastal areas of Tohoku applied for and recieved money from a fund designed to rebuild industries? That is what the fund was for.
Resuming commercial hunting will lead to several things... This is basic supply and demand economics.
No, basic economics and supply and demand says if there isn't a demand no one will bother creating a supply and the industry will die. Except for maybe a few niches you don't see anybody supplying napped flint. In the distant past it was a highly desired commodity with a large demand, but the economics changed and people stopped producing it. If there isn't a demand for whale people won't produce it hoping that someday people will change their minds, or if they do they will quickly go bankrupt and either way the industry will fade away.
1 ( +8 / -7 )
And so, they need to kill them, because...?
Because even the IWC agrees that to gather some of the data requires lethal sampling.
World opinion has actually had some effect. It has driven the whaling fleet back into the northern hemisphere.
What? The fleet never left the Northern Hemisphere. They have always conducted a hunt in the Northern Pacific around July and a hunt in the Southern Ocean around December, nothing has changed in that regard.
if they really wanted to study them, there was no need to kill them in the first place.
> I wouldn't trust any of their findings. I'm sure there will be tampering of data in case said species are still endangered.
Lethal means are required for some of the data. And they made an offer to the IWC to allow neutral observers on all the ships and to establish a DNA database of every whale taken to allow for random sampling to ensure only registered catches were being sold. The anti-whaling faction rejected the offer.
the materials gleaned from dead whales could be replicated from other sources much more cheaply
And just how do you replicate whale meat from other sources?
Ah the old argument about them not being endangered.
Just because an argument is old doesn't mean it isn't true.
What I don’t understand is why catch so many if so few people are eating whale meat these days?
It is basic statistics. For the data to mean anything requires a sufficient number of samples from different individuals. Just like when taking a poll they don't just ask one person.
The market for the meat is insufficient to support a commercial whale hunt.
Then lift the ban and allow commercial hunting. If you are right no one will do so and the industry will cease to exist.
5 ( +14 / -9 )
You have to actually 'apply' for a safety check? Shouldn't government safety checks be standard throughout the construction process? What if a reactor is built but then fails the application process? Am I missing something here?
I believe the safety checks they talk about are the new checks put in place for every reactor after Fukushima. There are regular checks during construction but they are essentially the same as done on any construction project, to ensure following building codes and wiring codes and fire suppression systems are in place; things like that which apply to any large commercial construction.
If a reactor is built and fails the new safety checks then they must either fix the problems or never start the reactor.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Suspend FTA with Japan.
Penalize Japanese businesses in Australia
Go after Japanese whaling ships and prosecute its crews under Australian law.
So Australia should hurt their own economy and violate international law because Japan is legally doing something they don't like. Yeah, that makes sense.
6 ( +15 / -9 )
Yes they will, because while it may not be viable (the term "dead in the water" has been used) it is heavily subsidized, to the tune of Y2.28 billion in 2011. Entirely consistent with the LDP's MO of propping up zombie industries in politically important rural areas.
So then nothing would change if a commercial quota was issued. So, I am back to the question why the big worry about a commercial quota?
It is research whaling that is subsidized, with a goal of getting the moratorium for some species lifted. If the research works and the moratorium on some species is lifted then there is no longer a reason for the government to subsidize the whaling. Not saying that the wouldn't continue to subsidize the new commercial whaling, but there would be less of a reason and their political opponents would have a better chance of fighting the subsidies.
7 ( +14 / -7 )
they choose to ignore the sanctuary
I assume you mean the sanctuary that was established in violation of the IWC's own rules.
by over 150 countries
What 150 countries are you talking about? There have never been 150 countries that participated in whaling or have been members of the IWC.
a ban on commercial whaling
There is no ban on commercial whaling.
13 ( +18 / -5 )
"We strongly support the 30-year global moratorium on commercial whaling and will vehemently oppose any attempts to undermine the processes that support it," she said.
If she truly strongly supports the moratorium then shouldn't she support the part of the moratorium that REQUIRES periodic review of whale stocks and removal from the moratorium of any species found to be at safe levels?
"The science is clear, you do not need to kill whales in order to study them," she said.
Depends on what data you want. The IWC's own Scientific Committee has stated that much of the data collected can only be obtained by lethal sampling.
Japan makes no secret of the fact that meat from the expeditions ends up on dinner tables
And the ICRW makes no secret of the fact that it requires processing of whales caught for research.
7 ( +17 / -10 )
Extremely rare in Canada, and no doubt the nutter got the gun illegally through the US.
Yeah, any gun use anywhere in the world is the fault of the USA, Trump and the NRA. It is a proven fact.
1 ( +6 / -5 )
Thank you NRA for another senseless gun killing.
And I suppose the NRA is also responsible for the mass shooting in Toronto, right?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )