Comments

Posts

U.S. looks for a compromise over Japanese whaling

yummy

William Hogarth, U.S. Commissioner to the IWC, is trying trying to convince Japan to accept a compromise that would allow limited coastal whaling but reduce the number of whales killed by Japan’s antarctic whaling fleet:

The draft proposal, which does not specify how many whales could be killed under the plan, would allow Japan to engage in “coastal whaling” off its shores in exchange for a cut in the number of Antarctic minke whales it takes each year in the Southern Ocean. Several anti-whaling nations have pushed for the creation of a whale sanctuary in the Southern Ocean, the site of the current whale hunt. The coastal whaling provision would apply only to Japanese coastal waters, and it is unclear whether it could be expanded.

In an interview, Hogarth said he knew it would be controversial to condone a new form of whaling, but he argued that it probably is essential to reach an agreement with Japan.

“Even though we might not like this specific aspect, it’s better than what we have now, the status quo,” he said. “Everyone would like to see that there are less whales killed.”

The animal rights activists who dominate the anti-whaling movement obviously do not agree with such a plan.

—-

Akihabara News – Gadgetry from Japan (Subscribe)
dannychoo.com – Your portal to Japan (Subscribe)
Kirainet.com – A geek in Japan (Subscribe)

84 comments - What do you think? Posted by James - January 26, 2009 at 7:31 am

Categories: Japanese Food Tags:

Concerned Filipino

The Japanese can fish all they want in their home waters, but they have to accept limits on how much they can fish/whale in the Southern Ocean for reasons other than whales being endangered.

The seas around Antarctica are part of international waters. As such, any nation should be able to fish in them, yet countries with massive fishing fleets, like Japan, obviously have an advantage. I think there’s an imbalance here.

The issue of Japan whaling in Australia’s territorial waters is another thing entirely.

The Overthinker

“yet countries with massive fishing fleets, like Japan, obviously have an advantage. I think there’s an imbalance here.”

You know, I really can’t stand it when all those geniuses win Nobel Prizes. They have an advantage because they have massive IQs. I think there’s an imbalance here….

Concerned Filipino

That was weird.

Now where do you get off comparing people and countries? @_@

LB

The seas around Antarctica are part of international waters. As such, any krill-feeder should be able to eat to their heart’s content in them, yet animals with massive mouths and huge appetites, like whales, obviously have an advantage. I think there’s an imbalance here.

Concerned Filipino

So Japan is hunting whales because they have an unfair advantage compared to other animals? That’s really kind of them, being so concerned about other krill-feeders. Who knew the Japanese were such environmentalists?

Comments like this are where we say “irrelevant and immaterial.”

The Overthinker

No, comments like this are where we say you should reconsider your stance that:

The seas around Antarctica are part of international waters. As such, any nation should be able to fish in them, yet countries with massive fishing fleets, like Japan, obviously have an advantage. I think there’s an imbalance here.

Sure there’s an imbalance – so what? Any electronics company is free to make TVs, but they shouldn’t get upset that Sony or whoever dominate the market, and shouldn’t demand that the big players hold back.
Concerned Filipino

Overthinker, can you use “Microsoft” and “antitrust” in the same sentence?

No, comments like this are where we say “You still haven’t answered why one would equate whales and people with countries.” Irrelevant and immaterial. >_>

I guess you’re saying that we shouldn’t be concerned about some countries (such as Japan) being better at killing whales than others, since we all know that these countries got ahead fairly, not by colonizing, plundering and enslaving other peoples, spreading lethal diseases to them, etc.

“but they shouldn’t get upset”

The difference is that we do get upset. Modernization theory is a good theory, but it places all the blame on developing countries, and like all good theories, it has very little to do with reality. Globalization and capitalism have had decades to improve our lives, and last I heard, half the human race was still living in poverty.

But I digress. In any case, it is you who misses the point. I don’t even have to argue the above, because I wasn’t merely saying that Japan should accept limits because its fishing fleet is larger. Even if all countries had identical fishing fleets, Japan should accept limits on its whaling in international waters precisely because they are international waters. For Japan to think they’re above international law is the height of arrogance. Sorry, guys, but the Americans already occupy that spot, at least for now.

International waters appear not to be enough for them either, as Japanese fishing boats have been spotted in Philippine territorial waters.

http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=14153

Now, really. The Japanese should consider themselves lucky it was just butyric acid the last time; at the rate they’re going, it might be 20mm next time.

And of course, I haven’t even included the arguments against whaling simply because they are endangered. Japan’s reason that its whaling is for scientific purposes really sound like a poor excuse to me. If they want to whale commercially, they should at least be honest about their intentions. As kabocha noted, even the Japanese say that much of their current research is in preparation for the resumption of commercial whaling. (they’re optimistic)
The Overthinker

Even if all countries had identical fishing fleets, Japan should accept limits on its whaling in international waters precisely because they are international waters.

Why? Exactly what international law is Japan breaking? They may be exploiting loopholes like there is no tomorrow, but have they actually broken international law?

I guess you’re saying that we shouldn’t be concerned about some countries (such as Japan) being better at killing whales than others, since we all know that these countries got ahead fairly, not by colonizing, plundering and enslaving other peoples, spreading lethal diseases to them, etc.

Fairly? What does fairness have to do with it? My entire point is that this has nothing to do with fairness whatsoever. Whether countries or people, some are always better (stronger). That is the point.

Globalization and capitalism have had decades to improve our lives, and last I heard, half the human race was still living in poverty.

Which is a huge step up from the 90% a few centuries ago.
Concerned Filipino

Why? Exactly what international law is Japan breaking? They may be exploiting loopholes like there is no tomorrow, but have they actually broken international law?

I wasn’t aware that they were exploiting loopholes. If they were, that makes things even worse. They are not breaking international law or agreements for now, because the current limits imposed by the IWC are acceptable to them (imagine being allowed to hunt whales while there is a whaling moratorium?), and also with the US putting pressure on them to comply so that Japan can continue fishing in US territorial waters. They will no doubt leave the IWC, as other nations have done, the moment the terms become unsatisfactory to them.

“Fairly? What does fairness have to do with it? My entire point is that this has nothing to do with fairness whatsoever. Whether countries or people, some are always better (stronger). That is the point.”

And there’s the rub. My entire point is that this has everything to do with fairness. Are you seriously saying that “might makes right” here? Because that is what the above amounts to.

On the other hand, capitalism as the ruling economic doctrine places no value on fairness, so I can see where you’re coming from.

“Which is a huge step up from the 90% a few centuries ago.”

Too slow, considering that globalization proponents use as a mantra “a rising tide lifts all boats.”
nigelboy

I don’t know why people label it as loophole when IWC specifically states that it’s OK to catch a limited # of whale for research purpose and to use the meat for sale proceeds. The term “loophole” would be applicable when IWC does not address the latter.
The Overthinker

“Too slow, considering that globalization proponents use as a mantra “a rising tide lifts all boats.””

You really do not want global prosperity to happen too fast. It would be a massive social and economic revolution, and if you think we are putting stress on the environment now, wait until all seven billion of us are living first-world lifestyles.

butakun

The territorial waters which Australia accuses Japan of fishing in are in fact the seas around Antactica which Japan considers international waters. So the issue is not really another thing at all.
stereo

Concerned Filipino, it seems you know nothing about IWC or research whaling.

“The seas around Antarctica are part of international waters. As such, any nation should be able to fish in them.”

Of course, not. IWC prohibits commercial whaling in international water as well as in territorial waters.

Japan operates its research whaling under scientific permit reviewed by IWC. So, what is wrong?
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm

“Japan obviously has an advantage.”
OK. What and to whom does that advantage cause problem? You mean Japan has an advantage over competing whaling countries in Antarctic Sea and monopolizes whale meat market? Or you mean Japan has advantage over whales? But the number of whales is increasing in spite of research whaling.

“The Japanese can fish all they want in their home waters, but they have to accept limits on how much they can fish/whale in the Southern Ocean for reasons other than whales being endangered.”
Japan does accept catch limits. What are you talking about?

Anti-Terror Performance

Japan should keep hunting where ever they want and scrap this proposal by USA. As long as Japan hunts in international waters there is nothing other countries can say.

Trufax

As long as Greenpeace messes with Japan in international waters there is nothing other countries can say.

http://www.hormel.com Vonskippy

Zing!!!!!

Concerned Filipino

“Wherever they want?” Isn’t that a bit much?

Precisely because it is in international waters, other countries can say quite a lot. You’ve got it backwards, my friend.

Japan’s intransigence on the whaling issue is similar to the US’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol or the Ottawa Treaty. And for what? Nostalgia? Japan only started scientific whaling after they were prevented from practicing commercial whaling, which should tell you about their true intentions.

I wonder if Japan is willing to be expelled into the darkness outside the community of nations, where there will be whaling and gnashing of teeth? )

Mika

I’m Japanese and I don’t support Japan’s research whaling at all. The program itself is a dismal failure and a waste of tax money. It only protects bureaucrats within the Fisheries Agency.

stereo

Thanks for yelling. Next time you talk, yell logically.
Why do not you support whaling? Why do you think the program is a failure? Why does it protect bureaucrats only?
Without research whaling, we really do not have any data about the number of whales and the age distribution of them.

http://www.zdwonline.de Haf

Some other countries have shown results on the research of whales without killing them. Impressive, isn’t it?

Roger

I think you misunderstand the point. The whole point of research is to find out how the eco system reacts after you have killed the whales. The point of the reseacrh is not so that people can go on a whale safari but what kind of impact whale hunting will have for the eco system. It is impressive that you haven’t figured out the difference.
Concerned Filipino

It seems that stereo’s definition of “yelling” is “saying things I don’t agree with.

“Without research whaling, we really do not have any data about the number of whales and the age distribution of them.”

Yet another mouther of the official party line. Do you really believe this nonsense? I really don’t see why whales have to be killed in order to count them. If it’s true, Japan doesn’t appear to have heard of RFID tags. Hmm – we need to count how many whales there are, so we kill them? Does that make sense to you?

More likely, they perform autopsies on the whales to find out about their anatomy, for example. And the reason they need to catch 100 of a species every year is because, you know, they, uh, have to account for physical differences in the whales. Age and gender differences, for example! And why every year? Because, maybe, whales are evolving very quickly and they have to take account of that. And of course, once the “research” is completed the whale meat is sold to the general public so that it won’t, er, be wasted.

Sheesh.

The only research that could possibly be justified here would be trying to find out what happens when whales go extinct, although I don’t know whether Roger was being sarcastic or if he actually thought that is a valid research goal when he said that.
kabocha

Straight from the whalers’ mouth:

The Tokyo-based Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) maintains that the animals must be killed to obtain data, such as age and stomach contents, needed to develop management plans for the resumption of commercial whaling. (not to simply count them)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5885/26b
kabocha

Here’s another written in 2000 by the same author that talks more specifically about the research (last half), plus a selected quote to expose my bias:

Although researchers agree that the work is scientifically rigorous, its focus on providing data for managing whales as a sustainable marine resource has generated data of marginal interest to the mainstream marine mammal community.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/289/5488/2264
Concerned Filipino

I guess it’s literally hunting whales to learn how to hunt them better, then.

kabocha

“Without research whaling, we really do not have any data about the number of whales and the age distribution of them.”

On the whaling vessel:

OK, we got one whale, I repeat, one more whale! Got that? And it’s about 4 years old…. er… I mean, well, it WAS 4 years old… Ummm, ok, so that WAS one more whale which WAS 4 years old…. heh, guess it’s not gonna get any older. Oh, well, let’s keep counting….
Mika

>Thanks for yelling. Next time you talk, yell logically.

I just stated my opinion. Stop insulting people who happens to disagree with your personal opinion.

>Why do not you support whaling?

I said I don’t support the “research” whaling.

>Why do you think the program is a failure?

After over 20 years they still can’t accomplish their research goals. So what’s the point of continuing the same program? Most Japanese people even don’t know what they have been doing.

>Why does it protect bureaucrats only?

A former diplomat Naoto Amaki has declared it.

“捕鯨にこだわる真の理由が、農水省の省益、天下り利権の温存から来ている事を私は知っている。だからどうしても日本の捕鯨外交を支持する気にはなれない。”
誰のための商業捕鯨か（水産庁の大いなる欺瞞）
http://www.amakiblog.com/archives/2008/06/14/#000933

leitmotiv

“After over 20 years they still can’t accomplish their research goals. So what’s the point of continuing the same program? Most Japanese people even don’t know what they have been doing.”

Yes this is a particularly embarrassing point for the Japan whale research. The supposed “fruits” of their hard work was reviewed recently – only 43 papers published over 18 years. This is a dismally low publication rate and some 7000 whales killed. Also some of the research topics were, to be polite, odd. Like fusing cow and sheep embryos to whale embryos. Real frankenstein stuff with no discernible value. Japan has a long scientific research tradition – so its surprising that this fake whaling research euphemism is tolerated at some expense to Japans scientific credibility
stereo

Mika, you really need to behave yourself. If you want to say something in a public forum like this, you should show your reasoning also. And if someone asks for the reason, you should not say that the questioner is “insulting” you.

Again, you showed your reasons very much vaguely. What kind of conversation do you like to have in this forum?

The aim of the research whaling is to find out the number and the age distribution of whales so as to figure out the catch limits of sustainable whaling.

Thanks to the research whaling, we all know the probable number of whales. But the problem is the anti-whaling lobbyists do not admit those figures, saying, “Since the sample is not large enough, there are chances that the real number is less than the probable estimate.” OK, so the Green Peace wants Japan to kill much more whales so that we can get a more accurate estimate of whales, or does it?

GP is also against counting whales by sight, since the whales swim around and can be double counted. Actually, GP is against any kind of estimate number of whales, because by admitting estimates, it becomes very clear that whales are not endangered species and sustainable whaling is feasible.

Mika, if you do not like research whaling, come up with a method of counting whales that everyone can agree. Otherwise what you are doing is same as hiding the facts, just like anti-whaling lobbyists are doing.
Helly

If Japanese are “conducting scientific research” then where is ONE SCIENTIFIC PAPER produced from this research?

The sale of whale meat should be made illegal. Also if people want to stop whaling, all you have to do is boycott Japanese products until they get the point. It is kind of messed up for some of you weenies out there to say you don’t like whaling, then you sit back and play your PS3 on your Sony big screen, or drive to the store in your Nissan.
The Overthinker

Yes, we all know that despite their pretensions to be totally separate private companies, Sony, Nissan, and co are all involved in whaling by simply being Japanese. Hell, why not just go up and spit in the face of the next Japanese person you see? That would send a message. Come to think of it, I think the Iraq War is a mistake, so I better boycott Disneyland….

Oh, and take a look at the list at:
http://luna.pos.to/whale/icr_papers.html
I don’t know the impact factor of where these papers are published, but there is certainly more than ONE SCIENTIFIC PAPER, at any rate.
stereo

Helly,
“where is ONE SCIENTIFIC PAPER produced from this research? ”

Here you go.
http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPApaper.htm

Do not believe anti-whaling activists easily, for there is a lot of misinformation produced by them.
leitmotiv

“Here you go.
http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPApaper.htm”

These all appear to be unpublished.
kabocha

“These all appear to be unpublished.”

Impact factor: 0

Awesome.
stereo

Those papers that are submitted to IWC are publicly available. You can buy one from here.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/publications/doclist.htm

Here is an additional list of published papers.
http://www.icrwhale.org/03-A-a-08a.htm
leitmotiv

Interesting list. How many of the studies have genuinely useful findings that could not have been arrived at without lethal sampling I wonder? Some 7000 lethal samplings at that? The basic genetic analyses reports that are listed can be accomplished with simple biopsies (no need to kill). Others seem self-evidently to not require killing, such as:

Matsuoka, K., Pitman, R. and Marques, F. 2005. A note on a pigmy right whale (Caperea marginata) sighting in the southwestern Pacific Ocean. J.Cetacean Res.Manage 7(1): 71-73.

(They probably killed it anyway)

Others obviously rely on killing whales, but with some sort of intrinsic circular logic, such as this gem:

Ishikawa, H. and Shigemune, H. 2005. Improvements in More Humane Killing Methods of Antarctic Minke Whales, Balaenoptera bonaerensis, in the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic Sea (JARPA). Jpn. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 10(1): 27-34.

LOL….”Yes we kill them for research purposes to learn how to kill them better.”

I did note one curious group who have been trying some positively frankensteinian stuff – but to get the material for this study (whale sperm) – yes you would also have to kill the whale.

Wei, H., and Fukui, Y. 2000. Fertilizability of ovine, bovine or minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) spermatozoa intracytoplasmically injected into bovine oocytes. Zygote 8(3): 267-274.

All you biology majors out there can appreciate from the title that the esteemed authors have (apparently) tried to combine minke sperm with cow and pig eggs in some sort of bizarro in vitro fertilization. Hey, maybe they hope to somehow grow 4-legged cow-whales on farms and avoid all the expense and fuss of hunting in the Antarctic?

Who approved this grant? It sounds like a plot for a schlocky j-horror flick …..

C-r-e-e-p-y.

The point is a lot of this research seems of marginal utility at best. Yes, the data may be solid, but the research goals appear to have been decided as an after thought once the samples have been collected. If you have a few dozen gallons of whale sperm and a half ton of whale glands sitting around, its not going to take long for some prof and his grad student to cook up with some BS experiment to do a comparative DNA analysis or lipid composition analysis to get some grant money (from JARPA?) and crank out another easy cookie cutter PhD thesis on a topic no one has touched before.

If Japan wants to do the whaling, they should stop trying to create these BS “research” loopholes that are painfully obvious and crying racist victim when they are called on the fact. Their scientific tradition (outside of whaling “research”) is better than that.
stereo

leitmotiv, cannot you just get the simple fact that the main purpose of the research whaling is to find out the population and age distribution of whales to set catch limits for commercial whaling?
Please read this.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/rmp.htm

All the related zoological findings are just bi-products of the main purpose.

If you do not like research whaling, just propose an agreeable non-lethal method of estimating the population and age distribution of whales. Japan is happy to stop research whaling once such consensus is reached.
kabocha

I don’t get it, why does simply counting whales require that you kill them? What do they have to do, kill the whales to make sure they don’t resurface so that they’re not counted twice? As I understand it from your link, stereo, population information for catch limits will be provided primarily by sighting surveys (and catches if any).

As for age, I guess that’s another thing. The article in that second link I pasted (way up above) suggests that in order to reliably determine a whale’s age you need to know the buildup of protein in the whale’s ear, so you do have to kill it. But you shouldn’t go around killing so many just to know their age, because then you’re killing off the very thing you want to conserve. Maybe we can develop some sort of mega-ultrasound to measure tissue contents in these big animals without chopping them up….

It seems to me that once they do figure out non-invasive ways of monitoring stock, Japan will have to find a way to make non-research (commercial) whaling unequivocally legal, or else they’re going to have to stop. But I now know that they would be happy to do so.
leitmotiv

“Japan is happy to stop research whaling once such consensus is reached.”

Really stereo – you’re a spokesperson for Japan now?

No, in order to demonstrate that that the Japanese and non-Japanese people who disagree with the whaling have a point that should be recognized, I don’t need to – as you say – “just propose an agreeable non-lethal method of estimating the population and age distribution of whales”. This is a conveniently absurd bar for you to smugly insist upon – and its equally valid for one to require you to simply “propose an agreeable lethal method of estimating the population and age distribution of whales” which you certainly cannot, nor can the Japanese whaling “researchers” for that matter. Just drop that nonsense already.

As pointed out elsewhere – ad nauseum – Japan, a member of the IWC, disregards the moratorium and carries out a commercial whaling program under a fairly obvious pretense of whaling “research”. It’s faily accepted among the community of marine ecologists that this research is in large part a sham. There are JARPA attempts to paint a harmonious face by listing lots of “research” that seems often of marginal value (unpublished or just friggin’ creepy – which bothers me because it is deeply counter to Japan’s scientific tradition). This pretense, quite predictably, ignites moral outrage around the world as there some indications that many whale species that are hunted may indeed be endangered. The final population numbers are not definitively known due to gaps & disagreements in methodology (obviously) – but many rational marine ecologists (Japanese and non-Japanese) will posit that a the best way to get a good census is not necessarily kill as many as you friggin can (>7000) as de facto commercial whaling program while pretending its some sort of crucial, irreplacable contribution to understanding the ecosystem.
Roger

All countries which conduct a comercial hunt conduct a scientific research program first. It is amazing how people still don’t get it. It also is amazing how people can be so close minded to other people’s choice of food and to be so irrational.

Whales is just food. A mobile source of protein. If some people think whales are the second coming of Jesus Christ then, fine. You can believe that. If someone think whales are simply a mobile source of protein then, fine people can think that too.

Sustainable use and proper management of all marine resources should be based on scientific findings. To get as much scientific data as possible countries do a scientific research program. Once countries get data and scientific findings then countries can start a comercial hunt on whales. Criticism of Japan’s whale research program are based on irrational emotional reasons. They ignore science.

Despite Japan’s hunt of whales each year the number of whales are increasing year after year proving that Japan’s hunt is sustainable.

For more info go here.

http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Hunts/Other/ja-qu-an.htm

People still misunderstand what IWC is and so do countries especially such as Australia. Australians are the most clueless fanatical peoples when it comes to whales.

Quote:

The objective of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling states that it shall ・.. provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.・ Furthermore, it states that depleted stocks are to be preserved, but that ・.. increases in the size of whale stocks will permit in-creases in the number of whales which may be captured.・All decisions made by the Whaling Commission are to provide for the conservation, development and optimal utilization of the whale resources, …shall be based on scientific findings

End Quote.

This means when countries join IWC they have to agree with this statement. If they don’t then they don’t join IWC and sing the agreement. Honest people honour treaties. All international cooperation is totally dependent on respect for agreements. When countries oppose Japan they are not respecting their agreement which they have signed under on.

Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Japan are adhering to the principle of sustainable utilisation, in accordance to IWC. Australia and others is adhering to the principle of no utilisation, for what they on a cultural basis consider as special animals・ Japan’s position is modern and sophisticated. The cultural imperialism practised by others is a concept of the past.

Countries who vote against Japan’s request at IWC is not doing their jobs at IWC.
stereo

leitmotiv, cannot you see the obvious?
“Japan is happy to stop research whaling once such consensus is reached.” As Roger correctly points out, once such consensus is reached, and estimation of population and age distribution of whales is finalized, catch limits will be set and commercial whaling shall be resumed. Therefore, Japan is happy to stop research whaling.

Remember why we have moratorium of commercial whaling in the first place. This is what IWC says.
“When, at its 1982 meeting, the IWC agreed to a pause in commercial whaling (or to use popular terminology, a ‘moratorium’) from 1986, the amendment to the regulations included a clause that ‘the Commission will undertake a ‘comprehensive assessment’ of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits’.”
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/catches.htm#comm

“In 1982, the Commission took a decision, which came into force for the 1986 and 1985/86 seasons, that catch limits for all commercial whaling would be set to zero. That decision also stated that by 1990 at the latest, the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effect of the decision on whale stocks and consider modification of the provision and establishment of other catch limits – See Schedule Para 10e.

Subsequently the Scientific Committee has developed and the Commission adopted the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) for commercial whaling. This has not been implemented, awaiting agreement from the Commission on the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) which includes additional non-scientific matters including inspection and observation.”
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/catches.htm#comm

You see? The moratorium should have been ended by 1990, which is way over due. Japan agreed on the moratorium, believing it will last only for 5 years. And what do we see today? Anti-whaling activists are unfairly delaying the procedure, using all kinds of BS as pretexts.

This is just unfair. Just unfair as when Europeans stole lands of all other people on earth.
Mika

Roger

>All countries which conduct a comercial hunt conduct a scientific research program first.

How many whales are killed per year for Norwegian scientific research?

>Sustainable use and proper management of all marine resources should be based on scientific findings.
To get as much scientific data as possible countries do a scientific research program. Once countries
get data and scientific findings then countries can start a comercial hunt on whales.

After 20 years researching in the Antarctic Ocean, they still can’t figure out the catch limits of sustainable whaling. So when will this scientific research program end? What’s the point of wasting a tax money on it when there is no company demanding the commercial whaling in the Antarctic Ocean?

ダビ

I agree. If consumers really want whale meat the whaling industry should be able to get by without lots of subsidies. Otherwise the industry should disappear.

butakun

I don’t disagree with that. But in order for the market to decide, the moratorium on commercial whaling has to be lifted.

Mika

The reality is that there is No company in Japan that is demanding the commercial whaling in the Antarctic Ocean. Maruha, Nissui, and Kyokuyo, which were the
main companies in the commercial whaling industry have already stated that they would not re-enter to the whaling industry even if the ban is removed. So what’s the point of the research whaling in the Antarctic Ocean?? As I said in my previous post, it’s a waste of tax money.

Matt

The white people of Norway and the Nordic nations kill and eat the most whales. Nobody says anything about them.

Roger

I think this is also due to Japan’s incompetence in the negotiating process. I can’t remember the exact details beecause there is lots of politics here. While Norway and Iceland filed an objection to an international ban on hunting whales Japan did not. So Norway and Iceland was not bound by IWC regualtions. Since Japan did not file an objection the only way for Japan to be able to hunt whales was through the IWC Scientific Research program. Japan should have filed an objection when Norway and Iceland did but they were afraid that woud back fire on them but by not filing the objection it backfired on Japan even more.

But yes, I do agree there seems to be a whole lot ot anti Japanese sentiments regarding whale hunting. For instance USA has been an anti whaling whaling country for years. This is double morals. It is much easier to criticize the Japanese for whaling than a Native American or a Inuit in Greenland. This also smells like imperialism and reverse racism. They look at these “poor people” from the north as “primitive” so they should be able to hunt whales but not Japan because Japan is “modern”

Trufax

私はコメントをしたのですが削除されてしまいました。
何故私のコメントは削除されたのでしょうか。
ディベートを避けるためでしょうか。

http://www.japanprobe.com James

Trufax/Underthinker/other names you use,

Please read the site discussion policy:

No use of multiple names for the same user. [Sockpuppetry will result in almost immediate banning.]

Trufax

Fine, I used two names. Way to avoid the issues.

1) Why did you bring race into this article with your “white” comment? I’ve never seen anyone talk about “yellow Japanese whale hunters.”

2) Why is Overthinkers comment unmoderated? He’s contributed nothing to the thread other than to insult another poster for having an opinion on the news article?

3) Could you kindly share your resources to support your statements about Nordic whale hunters? Do they hunt in international waters or their own sovereign territory? Do they hunt in violation of an international agreement they have made?

Trufax

My apologies, it was Matt that made the racist comment about Nordic whale hunter. I guess it is up to him to support his statements and possibly retract his racist subtext.
http://www.japanprobe.com James

2) Why is Overthinkers comment unmoderated? He’s contributed nothing to the thread other than to insult another poster for having an opinion on the news article?

I don’t see any insults in Overthinker’s comments. He just seems to be making a remark about a certain argument being made in the comment.

I suggest you address your other questions to the people who actually made those comments.
The Overthinker

Precisely. My point, for those that cannot see it, is simply that to condemn Japan merely for being good at catching whales is to condemn anyone with greater ability.
Trufax

Then I can presume you have never condemned America for their greater ability at waging war than Japan, during WWII?

My point is that your little analogy was completely pointless and didn’t address the issue. It was an insulting response to a legitimate question. It was spam!

Just because someone can do something doesn’t mean they should. Just because Japan can mobilize a huge whaling fleet and drive whales to extinction, doesn’t mean they should. Just because America built the nuclear bomb first didn’t mean they should have demonstrated it on civilians….

Personally I would never try telling my Japanese fiance that America was correct for dropping nukes on civilians. But maybe if I used your analogy she would be ok with it? Still think your snide analogy is a good one?
Concerned Filipino

Trufax, Wikipedia shows that Nordic countries only hunt more whales than Japan annually if they are taken together. Japan has the highest annual quota of any single nation – 1300 whales a year. Norway has 1000, and Iceland just several hundred.

As for Overthinker’s comment – well, they don’t call sarcasm the lowest form of wit for nothing. Oh well. >_<
The Overthinker

Filipino, it is usually punning that is called the lowest form of wit:
http://puzzles.about.com/od/wordloverssites/a/puns.htm
At any rate, if it is the lowest it is able to undercut anything.
I wasn’t actually intending to be witty or funny, but to make a point that it is silly to condemn those mor able than yourself simply for being better.

Trufax:
“Then I can presume you have never condemned America for their greater ability at waging war than Japan, during WWII?”

Yes, I have never condemned America for their greater ability at waging war than Japan during WW2. While on the whole I think it is better that they were better, I never judge history: I merely analyse it. Dragging bombing into the debate is a cheap trick, however, as any argument can be made to look absurd when taken to extremes.
Concerned Filipino

Nope, it’s sarcasm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Oh, I forgot, you don’t like Wikipedia, do you?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/big-questions/why-is-sarcasm-the-lowest-form-of-wit/2005/08/18/1123958169522.html

Apparently, sarcasm’s intention is “to belittle or hurt someone.” You weren’t trying to belittle or hurt me, were you? If you were, I’d be quite disappointed.
The Overthinker

It seems that both puns and sarcasm have been labelled the lowest form of wit. And no, I was not trying to hurt you, merely pointing out by analogy the flaw in your argument.

Roger

If the Inuits in Alaska wants to hunt whales off the coast of Australia in international waters they should be allowed to. The reason they do not is because it is not profitable. Japan has a stronger economy and can afford sending whaling boats to the other side of the world and still make a profit so I don’t think countries should have a right to tell Japan where they can hunt or not. I know that the Maoris have a whaling culture, why not let them hunt whales and export it to Japan for instance? Norway, Denmark and Iceland is now exporting whale meat to Japan. There is a demand for whale meat, and thats the reality. What is good is that the demand for whale meat is not anywhere as near as tuna. Therefore the chances of over hunting is smaller than for instance tuna. Strict monitoring will be needed. It is crucial that countries and peoples do not hunt more than what is sustainable for the stock. If countries and peopels can guarantee that I have no problem with whaling where ever the whale is hunted.

Mika

>Japan has a stronger economy and can afford sending whaling boats to the other side ofthe world and still make a profit so I don’t think countries should have a right to tell
Japan where they can hunt or not.

They can’t make a profit. That’s why they have been using our tax money to conduct the whaling. The reality is that there is No company in Japan that is demanding the commercial whaling in the Antarctic Ocean because it can’t make a profit.

Roger

I do think you do have a point here. I think the research program is probably subsidized actually but the people hunting whales and the whaling ships make a profit from hunting whales. Wether Japan can make a profit or not from whaling is up tp the whalers to decide and not some outside country because they see whales as some sacred animal symbol. Countries already fish Krill in the Antarctic they do this because there is profit. If countries and companies can make a profit from Krill I don’t see why people can’t make profit from whales. But what I am afraid of is the human nature of greed. Humans have a tendency to be very greedy. Now the world wide tuna stocks is seriously decreasing and instead of doing something about it countries argue what they should do about it without being able to do anything. So I am in favour of whaling ONLY if we can guarantee some strict monitoring.

The Overthinker

“If countries and companies can make a profit from Krill I don’t see why people can’t make profit from whales.”

Krill is not in any danger of extinction. The issue with whaling is how sustainable it is. There seem to be a decent number of minke, but many other species are far from safe – and it debatable exactly what ‘safe’ is.

Matt

White people of Norway and the Nordic nations kill and eat the most whales. Nobody says anything about them.

International or not ???? I have seen on CNN: white people come to Japanese water/beaches and sabotage the Japanese whale huntings.

I would hate it if the Indian people command us white people not to eat cows.

Trufax

I don’t think cows are on a biological precipice of collapse. Neither are dogs in China. But hey, we can debate the extinction of food sources when there is no more tuna to be eaten at all and whales are also gone.

RMilner

The point about whaling is that like much seafood production it was done in an unsustainable way. This is how we have run out of cod, and tuna is getting low, and other fish such as anchovies are also getting into danger. We cannot afford to let this kind of fishing go on.

Norway whales a sustainable amount from stock in its own territorial waters. Secondly, it has a legal right to whale, having taken an exception to the moratorium on whaling proposed by the IWC in the 80s. Norway also sustained their cod stocks by careful management in the 20th century.

Roger

A sustainable hunt of a natural renewable resources is indeed one of the most eco friendly form of food production for human consumption. Energy use is low in relation to yield and the natural habitat does not have to be turned into agricultural land and no pesticides is used. Norway hunts whales in international waters too. I don’t think Norway is any better or worse than Japan they were just a bit smarter in the negotiation process than Japan.

The problem with this whaling hysteria is that it focuses on irrelevant issues, really stupid issues when it should be focusing on stocks. Numbers allowed to be hunted should be calculated from the various stock estimates.

If there are 10,000 in a stock then from that stock you can take 100. If there are 100,000 in a stock you can take 1000 and so on. Thats basically it. Who ever wants to hunt whales should be allowed to.

RMilner

The difficulty in fishing for an allowable take is monitoring the stock and the catch.

The reason why Norway has been successful in preserving their cod and whale stocks is because they restrict fishing in their own territorial waters.

In the open ocean it becomes more of a free for all.

butakun

Norway whales definitely in international waters. Territorial waters only extend 12nm, EEZ 200nm.

KokuRyu

What if atomic whales were dropped on Japan to end a war? And not once, but twice (presumably a large “fatman” humpback and a cute (but still tasty) “littleman” dolphin)? Would the end justify the means?
Matt

Okay, someone on this forum acknowledged: white people of Norway and the Nordic nations kill and eat most of the whales.

I am not a racist person, but white people have to protect white people’s interests.

Such as genocides: genocides were/are okay in Asia and Africa, but it was not tolerable in Europe (former Yugo, where it was only a fraction).

Jesus Christ was a dark skin Middle Eastern man, but the white people have him as a white man. You Asian/Japanese people agree with that. You should also agree: only the white people can kill and eat whales.

leitmotiv

“I am not a racist person, but white people have to protect white people’s interests.”

wtf?

Matt – Thanks for the KKK/skinhead perspective on the matter.

Anti-Terror Performance

Japan should say no to US shallow imperialistic compromise. Japanese eat whales thank you very much, and there is nothing you can do about it. Japan is not telling others what not to eat so others should not tell Japan what not to eat. Anti whale is culture imperialism. Imagine Hindus blowing up Mc Donalds. Anti whalers should be ashamed of themselves. Say no to racism, say no to culture imperialism, say no to anti whale.

leitmotiv

LOL – Playing the persecuted victim race card again. Cheap and easy…..and utterly false.

…yawn….

Anti-Terror Performance

Americans are not telling the French to stop fishing i the Indian Ocean so why is US trying to tell Japanese to stop hunting whales off the coast of Australia in international waters? You who do not get it is either a culture imperialist or live in denial.
dumpmatsumotorevisited

Just leave the whales alone! What harm are they doing you? Ah, they’re not people, therefore we can do what we want! It almost reminds me of the mindset of the second world war. But whales have a right to live which cannot be taken from them.
I hate the fact that the Japanese authorities seem to be in a perpetual war against that same nature they claim to be so touch with through Shinto. Trees, cut them down, or better still mutilate them and just leave the trunk. We can control concrete, but trees, who knows what they might do!
Having finished that rant, I do believe that most Japanese (like Mika) would be against the slaughter of whales, despite the way right-wing element manipulates opinion. Sadly, a few gaijin (some of the above for example) try to curry favour by
mimicking with their masters!　Whales might not be people, but by my account, their murderers are further from that status.
Why just destroy? Profit does not seem to be the sole motive; there must be something major lacking in their respect for life. Very sad.

ponta

In general the Japanese are neither against nor for the slaughter of whales in my opinion.

But I think they understand that if the whales are really in danger of extinction, people need to stop whaling.

A moratorium is a temporary prohibition of an activity and when the conditions are met, it should be lifted, in other word, when the sufficient number of whales are confirmed, the commercial whaling should be restarted.

What anti-whaling people need to do is to demonstrate scientifically that the whale is really in danger of extinction, so much so that we need to keep the moratorium and unlike other living creatures in the sea, we need to create a whale sanctuary.

Emphasizing the cruelty of killing the whale while turning a blind eye on the cruelty of killing other animals smacks of hypocrisy—That, I think, is what many Japanese react against.
To avoid misunderstanding, anti-whaling people who emphasize the cruelty of killing the whale should declare that they are also opposed to killing animals, want to shut down the death merchants like Mcdonalds, Burger Kings etc and propose the reduction of the number of killing cows, pigs, chicken etc for their right to life.

ponta

In a nutshell, we shouldn’t confuse an ecological argument in view of preserving the species with the argument from animal right.

dumpmatsumotorevisited

@Ponta “To avoid misunderstanding, anti-whaling people who emphasize the cruelty of killing the whale should declare that they are also opposed to killing animals, want to shut down the death merchants like Mcdonalds, Burger Kings etc and propose the reduction of the number of killing cows, pigs, chicken etc for their right to life.”

I couldn’t agree with you more! I’ve been vegetarian for 36 years and would love to see McDonalds shut down!! I’m against the killing of cows, chickens and pigs too. That cruelty is unnecessary as we do not NEED meat and fish to live. Moreover, Japanese people certainly can survive without slaughtering whales.
I hope I’ve avoided misunderstanding on that score.

ponta

Thank you. That clarified the misunderstanding and makes sense.

I think it is important for anti-whaling activists to make that clear.

Otherwise, lamenting Japanese research on, for instance, how to kill the whale in humane way while eating beef,pork greedily, farming and killing cows, pigs, etc in inhumane ways looks C-r-e-e-p-y to the Japanese public.

Note however, unfortunately, that is how some governments against whaling look to the Japanese public.
stereo

dump, you need to answer 2 questions.
1. You are free to be a vegetarian. But can you force others to be vegetarians? If not, why? If you think it OK for others to eat beef, why is it not OK to eat whale meat?

2. Is eating vegetable free from harming animals? We all know a lot of animals were killed and extinguished because of human cultivation. What kind of wild animals can you see in the vegetable fields? Even worse, if you want to eat organic foods, you need an extra large piece of land on this starving planet, thus driving animals and poor people to death. Whaling, on the other hand, does not drive anyone except whales to death. Why don’t you reduce the vegetable you eat every day and increase whale meat in your diet to prevent unnecessary animal death due to cultivation?

dumpmatsumotorevisited

@Ponta I’m not an activist by the way. The cruelty just seems so senseless to me. Once again my point is that you can survive perfectly well without slaughtering whales. So why bother to do it?

ponta

I don’t disagree with you.

There is no good reason to produce pain and suffering by killing animals just because we want to eat the meat just for fun, and when we can survive without it, we are killing the animals and eating the meat just for fun.
So there is no good reason to bother to slaughter the animals for food.
I for one find the argument strong.

On the other hand, there are people who contend that animals don’t have rights in the first place because basically they are not moral agents (and unlike human infants they are not potential moral agents). they don’t deserve the kind of protection argued above.
This is also convincing to some extent.

I can do without meat, at least without animal meat, but when an international organization must decide the issue, it needs to reach the agreement on a fair basis. Since both sides are convincing to some extent, the issue cannot be settled. A compromise is necessary. For instance, it would be fair to reduce the amount of killing animals by half but by no way is it not fair to stop killing the whale only.

My contention is that the government and the people that object to killing the whale based on cruelty while endorsing the killing of other animals are inconsistent, cultural biased, and smack of hypocrisy, and therefore sounds unconvincing.
The Overthinker

How about we kill both humanely?

Pingback: Obama wants tougher US stance on whaling | Japan Probe

U.S. looks for a compromise over Japanese whaling

Recent Comments

Further Reading

South Korean Government Demands That International Hydrographic Organization Use “East Sea”

Japanese Documentary About Sea Shepherd’s Protest Activities in Taiji (English Subtitles)

Babies Born on March 11th Receive Special Present

Washington Times Freelancer Slams Former Employer, Fails to Ethically Disclose Relationship?

Christopher Johnson Attempts to Silence Criticism of His “Gaijin Gulag” Article (Legal Threats!!!)

Tabloid Reports About Yu Darvish’s Love Life: Kirara Asuka & Miho Koga?

Does K-Pop Group KARA Have Ties to North Korea?

Tokyo Gate Bridge

Sara Errani Admits She Avoided Tennis Tournament in Tokyo: Feared Radiation

Chinese Workers Who Survived March 11th Tsunami Return to Tohoku

Categories

Archives

Subscribe

Japan Blogs

Korea Blogs

Linkroll

Other Asia Blogs