cleo, it is the sampling method. Whale does not answer question if one asks "how old?", "pregnant?". You refuse whaling, anyway. Why you pretend to discuss scientific research?
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Let us be serious here.
I am always serious.
Japan is an advanced technological nation. It is capable of deploying technology to "mark" and track whales
The tracking and data collection is done with other species, and can be successfully done with whales.
It seems the fantasy of anti-whalers. Which technology does any nation have for it?
Whale is big powerful animal, and mostly is out of sight in the ocean. Also, whales do not wear the leash as do dogs. Where is the efficient technology to tag so many whales, and technology for long lasting tag which can transmit data for many many years, and not fall off whale?
However, lethal method has provided data since long ago. It works.
ICRW does not require the non-lethal research. ICRW says Japan can decide the number of whales to catch for it. This is simple legal question. ICJ can not deny right of any ICRW nation to do it.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Wow, how many whales have to be slaughtered for the sake of research? And what is the scientific output or product of this research?
It is one of the time series analysis. Here you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_series
If Japan stops the research whaling, data series would end. Then, it means less knowledge of current condition of whale numbers. It is not appropriate for the sustainable use of the whales, which is purpose of ICRW. (Already, Sea Shepherd is causing big problem for research.)
I would suppose ICJ case starts today. Maybe anti-whalers can not have good understanding of Japan's research, however they accept judgement of ICJ, maybe that is the best way?
0 ( +2 / -2 )
There should be no treaties which countries join but then opt out when they don't like it or try to find another way to overcome the ban. The ban should be permanent and cover all countries.
However, whaling countries would never join such "ban" treaty in first place.
Problem is countries do not like whaling anymore, but rather than quit IWC, they abused IWC to try to make it such "ban" treaty, after whaling was already agreed as in ICRW.
ICJ can not deny ICRW is whaling agreement. If ICJ were to deny it, whaling nations can leave. I do not think ICJ would want it. In terms of law, Australia is wrong one.
then I can only hope Australia wins the court case.
I wish you luck, cordially.
There is no need for any whale hunting in the fragile Antaractic and Southern Oceans.
Under ICRW agreement, whaling in Antarctic is basically accepted in principal. Until entire world agrees that Antarctic and Southern Oceans should be totally protected areas, ICRW will not change, although you may wish so.
Only way for Australia is to seek to disrupt operation of IWC. It's bad behavior. Maybe Australia thinks its OK for the purpose of whales, though.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
Even the killing of all the whales in all the oceans won't be able to feed the world
It is off-topic.
Sustainable whaling means NOT kill all the whales in all the oceans.
I expect by at least 2050, the sea will be so polluted, people won't be able to eat anything from it.
Off-topic as well, and I also think your prediction is wrong. Humans will never allow such a thing. They will prevent it. It is same as whaling. Although there was unsustainable whaling in past centuries, now there is sustainable whaling. We humans can do it.
With world's population likely to increase by 3-4 billion by the end of the century, people need to start thinking about how the world could feed 11-11 billion people.
Stopping sustainable whaling does not contribute to solution to this problem.
Maybe the IWC could decide just how many whales and which species could be killed each year, and then divide the quota between all the member countries of the IWC.
Divide between whaling nations is better idea. Not all the nations would use their part of quota, which is wasteful, in potential.
As for whaling or for that matter any kind of activity in the Antarctic and Southern Oceans, I made my point clear with my first comment, that the entire area should remain free of any activity by any country, except for the scientific work on the ice pack.
It is change of international rules. I don't think it happens, ever.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Mike O'Brien, wonderful comments.
But here is the funny part. If Japan does lose, all they have to do is quit the IWC and then they are free to hunt all the whales they want.
Such outcome would be unfortunate, but likely. If ICJ agrees with Australia that ICRW is not agreement for whaling, then IWC has no purpose for whaling countries any more.
I hope ICJ will respect purpose of ICRW. Australia should leave IWC, rather than whaling nations. It is the proper way.
4 ( +7 / -3 )
Commercial whaling has been banned around the world since 1986 under an International Whaling Commission moratorium. But various exceptions are allowed, including whaling for scientific research which Japan says is the motivation for its annual hunt.
This is key point. I do not see that Australian politician understand it.
Whales slaughtered for research can legally be sold as food, which Japan does.
This is key point, too.
Dreyfus said Japan had killed more than 10,000 whales since the moratorium was declared.
Japan would say so, too. It is not secret thing.
Australia initiated proceedings against Japan in The Hague court in 2010 alleging the “large-scale” whaling program breached Japan’s international obligations, including for the preservation of marine mammals and the marine environment.
ICRW is not for preservation of marine mammals. It is for WHALING.
Don Rothwell, an Australian National University expert on international law in relation to whaling who has advised the Australian government, said Australia’s case would be difficult to make.
Anti-whalers will deny it is so, however.
Rather than end whaling, the court could potentially decide how many whales Japan could take for legitimate scientific research reasons, Rothwell said.
I expect court to deny Australian complaint, completely.
2 ( +6 / -4 )
I asked you if you we're intimating the stated countries were whaling commercially.
I think only group who cares about distinction of "whaling" and "commercial whaling" is anti-whalers, for their propaganda purpose. Such distinction can be attractive to appeal to the left-wing people who think to make money for providing service to others is a wrong thing.
Non-anti-whalers only care about distinction of sustainable whaling, and unsustainable whaling. We prefer the former, and against the latter.
As for the whales, they do not care at all, I am sure.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
It is a fact that Japan's whaling industry receives subsidies from Japan's taxpayers
Article is about Iceland commercial whaling, not Japanese activity. Of course Japan's research activity is somewhat funded by taxpayer money, it is obvious. It is not the commercial whaling. It is the research whaling for public good. Money for it does not fall from the sky.
I do not wish it be so. We hope that Japan would be allowed to do the commercial whaling again, as soon as possible. It is already shown clearly that there are more than 500,000 minke whales in Antarctic ocean. Japan should be given the sustainable quota. Maybe soon, if it does not happen, Abe will have Japan quit IWC and create new IWC for non-anti-whaling countries.
Misaka Shoji (Misaka Trading). “This has given Loftsson the opportunity to sell hundreds of tonnes of Icelandic fin whale already, profiting a Japan-based import company he helped establish by as much as US$8m.”
It is quite big investment. I suppose he would not invest such money if he did not have better understanding of marketplace than the crazy anti-whalers, who invest nothing.
-2 ( +4 / -6 )
Truth: To keep the prices as low as possible and try and maintain some kind of market demand, the prices of whale meat are subsidized by the taxpayers living in the country.
It is make-believe fantasy.
Iceland whalers do not get subsidy from taxpayers in Japan. Japan often has the trade barrier for overseas produced food, this is truth. You claim the opposite with no proof.
It's sad when the debate becomes this obvious.
Why is it sad for you? You feel sad to play the make-believe?
-1 ( +4 / -5 )
If you don't believe anything anti whaling folks say, then I guess I would be wasting my time informing you how toxic whales have become.
Yes, you would waste your time, as I am not gullible fool, thank you.
The livers are too be avoided at all times. It shouldn't be eaten by pregnant women and young children.
I do not eat liver, am not pregnant, and am not a child, either. Thank you.
Currently, the WHO does not have any guidelines regarding the consumption of whale meat
It's a relief. WHO is not a crazy anti-whaling organization, I suppose.
While I, like millions of others pay taxes, which is also used to give massive subsidies to the whaling industry then I feel that I have a right to object how those taxes are misspent.
It is more off-topic anti-whaler's propaganda. Iceland is conducting the commercial whaling. You pay nothing, only I.
-1 ( +5 / -7 )
you might be surprised to discover that not all Icelandic people support the hunting and killing of Fin whales.
There are some anti-whalers even in Japan, no surprise.
You don't know if anyone is thankful for having a job unless you yourself are an Icelandic and living and working in Iceland
They just quit if they are unhappy. Then no whale meat would be supplied.
The workers of Kristján Loftsson didn't get their cost of living pay increases, so you think that would make them happy?
It is off-topic. But I know nothing of such details, but I do know not to trust anything anti-whalers say.
-1 ( +5 / -7 )
Iceland whalers who have jobs are all thankful. They are not slaves. Iceland had big financial crisis. Whaling is one of the good opportunities for them now, it is sustainable economic development. This can not be denied, only by the anti-whaler who is dishonest.
I suppose I should change my name to idonthavetoeatwhales?
I would change my name to youdonthave2eatwhales-butwewill And I need not get permission from arrogance intolerant anti-whalers to do it.
-4 ( +5 / -10 )
Whaling in Iceland help to employ Icelanders, and also help to satisfy demands in Japan. Well done to Iceland whalers. Icelanders are part of international trade. I am happy to pay for their whale meat, so they may enjoy nicer life in their homes in Iceland. We are both happy for it, I am sure. It is culture in Japan to eat whale meat, and fin whale is popular. Iceland's whalers are very welcome to become richer by providing service. It is the sustainable economic development.
I think you do not have a point. You just show that you are anti-whaling. What is the point of it? Who do you write it for? Only yourself, I think.
-4 ( +2 / -7 )
Thunderbirds, if it depresses you that Sea Shepherd does not commit piracy against Iceland's whalers, I do not think it helps you to write anti-whaling comments on Japan Today.
zichi, Iceland does not claim ownership of fin whales. They are free animals swimming in ocean, and they hunt some, by rules of sustainable whaling. You post many anti-whaling propaganda points, but I do not think you have a logical reason to oppose Iceland's sustainable whaling, and import of it by Japanese interests. It has nothing to do with you.
750,000 Fin whales have been killed, is that already not enough?
Sustainable whaling is whaling forever. Infinite whales can be taken, no problem. 750,000 whales killed in past was problem, because western nations took too many at once for industrial purpose. They should have learned sustainable whaling from whale eaters first.
-4 ( +3 / -7 )
Thunderbirds, whales are a type of animal. They are not aliens.
0 ( +5 / -5 )
I do not accept to be said such a thing by an anti-whaler. It is always anti-whalers who incite arguments and are insensitive.
Do you not acknowledge the fact that whales as intelligent life forms deserve to be left alone
I don't acknowledge it.
Do you even accept that they are sentient?
Many animals that are eaten in Japan and abroad are sentient, of course I accept it.
Do you not acknowledge the fact that people of different cultures each different type of food? Do you even accept that whale eaters deserve same tolerance as eaters of other animals?
Every Fin whale killed takes more than 30 years to replace.
New fin whales are born each year. The number is enough to replace those caught by sustainable whaling operation by Iceland.
-4 ( +4 / -8 )
Fin whales are protected under both the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
US may decide the law for it's people.
As for Iceland, it is 100% legal for Iceland's commercial whalers to catch these whales, which are not endangered in Iceland's waters.
It takes between 25 to 30 years for a Fin whale to reach full physical maturity and will live to around 90 years.
Less than 1% a year is sustainable.
its a cruel practice, that brought the populations of these creatures to near collapse.
Some people who think it is cruel have their opinion, however, Iceland should not pay for unsustainable whaling of centuries past by the other nations.
Iceland's sustainable whaling is model whaling for the rest of the world.
It's simply ridiculous to treat any creature to this much fear and pain so some dogs and few selfish people can get their expensive treats.
So do not catch any whales yourself, then, if you think it is ridiculous.
-4 ( +4 / -8 )
The Fin whale is a listed endangered species.
There are 20,000 whales in North Atlantic. Anti-whalers say it is "endangered", but 20,000 whales in North Atlantic is not the endangered one. It is the one which can be hunted sustainably, for economic development of Iceland.
But on the point of whale consumption, the population of Iceland can't eat the whales they kill so the Fin whales are exported to Japan
It is important point for you to understand.
where demand for whale flesh is in strong decline
Down to about 4,000 tons from about 6,000 tons a couple of years ago.
Such decline would mean strong demand, or weak supply. Important point is commercial whalers of Iceland see economic benefit by exporting whale for sale to Japan. It shows there is a demand, although you deny it.
BTW, 4,000 tons of whale meat would work out at less than 50 grams per year per adult.
Thank you. It shows how tight supply of whale in Japan is, against what anti-whalers claim.
So much public funds spent for so little.
Iceland's commercial whaling is not public funds. It is commercial activity, in response to the demand.
-6 ( +3 / -9 )
There are only about 60,000 remaining in the all the oceans.
60,000 large fin whales is very big number. Of them, there are 20,000 in oceans around Iceland. Such number is similar to historical number around Iceland.
Iceland would catch less than 1% of them each year.
There is no problem with it.
The Japanese too try and hunt for Fin whale in the Southern Oceans but didn't catch one this year because there are so few down there.
The Icelanic whalers have to leave Its own waters to hunt and catch the Fin whales
Make-believe. Iceland catches whales in Iceland's waters.
whose meat is destined entirely to be exported to Japan.
What is wrong with international trade? It is beneficial to people of Iceland and Japan, and less than 1% of Iceland's fin whales is sustainable number.
Iceland continues to defy world opinion on hunting the Fin whale.
-6 ( +8 / -14 )
One cannot be surprised by current volatility. Nikkei gained so much so rapidly, and yen also weakened unambiguously so rapidly. Now, the yen weakness trend since Abenomics began has ended. Volatility in markets is natural, as speculators who gained profits must buy back yen to confirm their gains.
Markets will settle again, shortly, I am sure.
Speculation is not bad thing. It is necessary for speculators to exist in a market, to ensure the liquidity for other users of a market. Without the speculators, markets would be more volatile always, and costs for users of markets would be higher.
Speculation is not just grabbing of money. Speculators also risk their money. Potential of profit for speculators is price required for offering the liquidity to the market.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
The Japanese hunt whales to research the viability of commercial whaling and the IWC was set up to stop commercial whaling. A five year old can see the contradiction there
I hope Australia takes your argument to the court.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
I hope they do rule against Japan in this case
No one would doubt you hope so.
However, ICJ is a court. Court deals with Law, not with your hopes. Anti-whalers should understand that whaling agreement and laws made long ago would not magically change just because they wish it would be so.
-3 ( +4 / -7 )
Asked whether that would mean a ruling before Japan’s hunt, conducted under a “scientific research” loophole in the international moratorium on whaling, could resume in December in the Southern Ocean she said: “That’s our hope.”
I hope Australia will cease complaining about legal activity of Japan once the ICJ makes such decision. How can Japan lose? Even IWC scientific committee itself uses data collected by Japan. Such data cannot be proved to not exist by Australia. Unless Australia can prove IWC scientific committee is not doing scientific activity, Japan can not lose.
Australia can finally learn what IWC stands for. The W is Whaling.
According to the latest figures reported to the Senate Tuesday, Australia has already spent almost A$20.5 million on its international court case against Japan.
For domestic political purpose. Waste of Australians' money, and they waste Japanese taxpayers money by doing so. Shameful.
-4 ( +4 / -8 )
cleo, page 7 also would show increase in numbers of whales caught between those years, as Japan introduced wider scope research projects during the time. I suppose recent years size is decreasing, due to Sea Shepherd, although much meat is imported from Iceland.
-4 ( +5 / -9 )
Existence of whale meat inventory is proof of demand for whale meat, actually. Iceland's whaling business would not export whale meat to Japan if they would only bear costs of storing meat in warehouse.
They can't sell it all.
It is backwards. They can't sell whale if they have no inventory at all.
And while the IWC may find some token data useful I doubt it too a hundred dead whales to produce.
You have many doubts, and I am sure you will have many surprises in your life as well.
-7 ( +4 / -11 )
That's just it... Whales aren't the same as other wild animals. Tests have proved that they are self aware and highly intelligent.
Oh really. I thought whale was just slab of meat floating in the ocean.
I really hope Australia don't drop the ball on this and we can get some sort of ruling from the ICJ and send a clear signal that whaling is wrong.
Your culture and the law do not necessarily match. This will be the lesson of the ICJ ruling for anti-whalers.
-10 ( +2 / -12 )
No one would store whale meat from Iceland in Japanese warehouses in if there was no market for this product.
Again, who is correct? People who run Japanese warehouses, or marcelito and budgie?
the government and the industry are stubbornly trying to keep an unsustainable business afloat.
It is not unsustainable, although anti-whalers are seeking to make it so. If anti-whalers would cease to interfere, of course it could be the sustainable business, like Iceland's business of exporting whale meat to Japan.
the industry runs at a loss
Research whaling is not commercial whaling, it is not intended to make profit. If it would make a profit, of course then it would be the commercial whaling, and you would complain, anyway. Either way, anti-whalers always find something to complain.
They use their control of the media and political discourse to convince the population as a whole to go along with it in the name of 'culture'.
It sounds like anti-whaling NGO behavior in Australia.
-7 ( +2 / -9 )