In addition to being racist, because Australia has actively tried to stop the Japanese taking whales from Japanese waters, the Japanese consider Australia’s anti-whaling stance to be interference in its territorial integrity

Like Japan, Australia has a long history of whaling. In 1792, Sydney Cove was the centre for the profitable whale and seal trade around the southern coasts. Numerous other coastal whaling stations were established around Australia in the late 1820s to 1830s. The whaling stations were the economic heart of communities, they brought in a cosmopolitan mix of people from around the world, and they inspired paintings, scrimshaws, and novels.

The whale’s role as an object to be consumed continued until 1978, when commercial whaling ended with closure of Australia’s last whaling station, the Cheynes Beach Whaling Company, in Western Australia. In 1979, Australia adopted an anti-whaling policy.

Today, whales are still part of Australian culture; however, the role they play reflects a degree of cultural evolution. Instead of been harvested, they are watched. Tour groups take people to watch the whales as they migrate up the Australian coast. This industry is worth an estimated $250million a year.

As well as contributing to the economy, whales also contribute to community spirit. As they swim up the Australian coast, people will flock to watch them, photograph them, paint pictures of them and give them names. Occasionally, a whale will swim into Sydney Harbour, and for days Australians will gather on the harbour foreshores to watch the whale play. The community spirit is covered in local newspapers, and on the TV news.

In order to protect the whales that migrate up the Australian coastline, in 2000 the Australian Whale Sanctuary was created in Australia’s Antarctic Territory. Should those whales be killed, then part of Australia’s culture dies with it. Japan might be deliberately targeting these waters because Australia is trying to stop the Japanese taking whales from their own waters.

The Japanese are correct that Australians have targeted them in a way that they have not targeted Icelanders and Norwegians; however, it probably isn’t for racist reasons. The Australian left can’t stand loopholes being exploited so when Japan argues that it is hunting whales for scientific reasons, the left-wingers want to expose the lie. If the Japanese simply said they were hunting for commercial reasons, as do Norway and Iceland, they would probably be ignored by left-wingers just as Norway and Iceland are ignored by left-wingers.”

I can understand the concept of “tradition” however the “scientific” expeditions that the Japanese insist on sending to hunt whales are yet to show any actual scientific findings! What is the reason for this?

It looks like the Japanese Government is simply lying about scientific reasurch in order to go against the very treaty that they signed. This is what seems to make most Australians that I know, very angry (not that whales are “cute”). Your government appears to be: a) breaking an international agreement b) lying about their true intent c)engaging in mass-slaughter of the animals, which are in severely diminished numbers as it is. Perhaps I’m wrong? I would love to hear your point of view on this.

I have no problem with a small fishing village continuing to do what they have done for centuries and continue their tradition in hunting whales in their LOCAL area. As long as it’s done in a traditional manner. Feel free to hunt all the whales you want in your little village harbour – but the problem is, they’ve pretty much killed them all, have they not? – that’s why they’re now going into international waters to hunt them.

I somehow doubt that this “small rural area” you mentioned went ahead 500 years ago and set up a fleet of giant ships for mass-slaughter of the animal in international waters. Therein lies the difference as far as I’m concerned. Much in the same way that the Australian Govenment allows Aboriginal persons to hunt endangered turtles on the Gold Coast area, as long as they do not take more than a certain amount and it is done in the traditional manner (with hunting spears etc rather than trawling nets). How can a giant steel ship, equipped for large-scale slaughter in international waters, be “continuing the tradition”??? It seems more like a blatant attempt to make $$ to me, and that need to make money at the cost of all else is, as far as I’m concerned, the epitome of arrogance.

I also must say that some of the videos are only the very last part of the whole picture. The Sea Shepherd got in the Japanese ship’s way, and the Japanese warned them and told them to stay away for more than an hour. In addition, the Sea Shepherd started attacking the Japanese ship with their laser beams first, and those beams can easily make people go blind. The Japan side obviously had to attack back (with safe methods like using water) in order to protect themselves. The fact that a few of the videos were nicely videotaped and released by the Sea Shepherd proves that it was their plan to intentionally attack the Japanese research ship, make them attack back a little bit, videotape it, and makes the Japanese look like the bad guys.

I understand those who love whales as animals and not as food, but I hope you will understand this point and respect what others eat (though they really don’t eat whales now!) as they respect what you eat. Thank you

In the meantime WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF WHALING? Who gains what? In a country like Japan, jobs is not a good answer – in fact whaling does not even make economic good sense.

As for the “sustainability” of whaling: what does that mean? There is none. There is no consensus on whale population numbers so how can it possibly be sustainable to treat cetaceans as a food source? Some species may be endangered; others numerous, but we have no way of controlling these populations other than maintaining clean oceans for all life – something that isn’t happening. The “scientific program” does not help with this – considering the lack of science and the huge number of whales killed, it is a failure and therefore serves no purpose. (Reports and findings published within Japan and the Institute of Cetacean Research lack international peer review.) There is also no evidence to suggest whaling can increase fish stocks – the loss of resources to whales/cetaceans is not even comparable to commercial overfishing and environmental effects. MAFF should concentrate on this instead of persisting in the killing of whales in the name of science or as a food source for which there is no demand.

Perhaps you will never accept this arguement as you see no problems with killing whales, whatever the reason, even if there isn’t one. “Whales exist so we should eat them – the same as cows, fish, chickens etc.” Unfortunately I don’t know what to say to that.

The Japanese woman was really intelligent and made some great points, but why maintain a part of a culture that serves no purpose for the vast majority of Japanese people? Western countries also had a culture of whaling, but in this day and age it is confined to history.

Do you demand monolithic dietary habits to Japanese people? Different peoples living in different regions naturally should have different dietary habits. If you insist that everyone should abolish a part of their culture just because of it being “a culture that serves no purpose for the vast majority of people”, then a huge number of traditions and cultures will become extinct. I think you are talking with the assumption that whaling is absolutely wrong.

Also to echo the point of Milan above, commercial fishing and the depletion of the ocean’s resources is probably an equally if not more important issue.

Needless to say, pro-whaling people also want to avoid the depletion of the ocean’s resources. They are caring the sustainability of whaling too. If it is proven that sustainable whaling is impossible, then whaling must be prohibited.

The Japanese woman was really intelligent and made some great points, but why maintain a part of a culture that serves no purpose for the vast majority of Japanese people? Western countries also had a culture of whaling, but in this day and age it is confined to history.

Do you demand monolithic dietary habits to all Japanese people? Different peoples living in defferent regions naturally shoud have different dietary habits. If you insist that everyone should abolish a part of their culture just because of it being “a part of a culture that serves no purpose for the vast majority of people”, then a huge number of cultural habits will become extinct. I think you are standing on the ground where whaling is absolute evil, otherwise your argument is completely pointless.

Also to echo the point of Milan above, commercial fishing and the depletion of the ocean’s resources is probably an equally if not more important issue. The movie ‘End of the Line’ is an excellent account of this problem, and doesn’t single out the Japanese; indeed we are all complicit.
http://endoftheline.com/

You previously suggested the Australian government stop killing cows, pigs, chickens and kangaroos, and not export the meat, which is not rational or realistic.
You’ve worded things better above,

The argument is basically the same.
It makes more sense to accuse someone of killing the whale in cruel ways when she stop farming, and killing pigs, cows, etc in equally, or more cruel ways than if she endorses the cruel farming and killing those animals.

Isn’t that rational?

Most Australians I know recognise that Australia is not a perfect country, why does that automatically mean that some Australians can’t also suggest ways that Japan can raise their game too?

Japan as regards the treatment of animals is consistent.
It endorses the killing of the animals for food.
Australian anti-whaling people who turn the blind an eye to the cruel treatment of animal while accusing Japan of the cruel treatment of the whales are inconsistent.

That is why.

I am not talking about consitent Australians who endorse the killing of animals for food equally or Australian vegetarians who blame the killing of animals equally.

Yes, two good examples of isolated incidents. Both Japan and Australia, and every other country has a similar percentage of ignorant racists.

Right both country have ignorant racists.
And I am talking about ignorant racists concerning the problem of the whales. I am saying, “please stop it”.

You may not be an anti-whalers but your friends might be.

Hahaha Classic… I think I might also possibly be friends with that guy that stole your lunch money in 7th grade?

You might be possibly be friends with that guy, But the topic of the thread is the whaling and I am taking about inconsistent anti-whalers.

And you are saying that your suggestion is actually rational and realistic? They are both ridiculous.

At the least you admit that your suggestion is ridiculous.
Now my suggestion is that it makes more sense to accuse someone of cruel treatment of animals when she does not approve of her own cruel treatment of animals than when she endorses the cruel treatment of the animals by her own country.

Isn’t that rational?

It’s unhelpful for you and that tv show to site isolated incidents

Is it isolated incidents?

Several Broome people of Asian descent have complained of racist treatment since the showing of the film The Cove, a documentary about the Taiji dolphin kill.
http://www.kimberleypage.com.au/2009/08/broome-japanese-cemetary-desecrated/

Hate mail sent to Japanese-Aboriginal councillor
http://www.kimberleypage.com.au/2009/08/broome-hate-mail-sent-to-japanese-aboriginal-councillor/

You may have missed the bit where I said I’m not a rabid anti-whaler

You may not be an anti-whalers but your friends might be.

It does appear to me that laws, perhaps not international, are being broken,

未公開映像　水産庁との電話実録！　グリーンピースのクジラ肉裁判

This is about Two Greenpeace Japan activists who were “arrested Friday on suspicion of breaking into a delivery company branch and stealing whale meat that the group claims had been stolen by crew members of a research whaling ship”
Meanwhile “Greenpeace Japan, suspecting that Nisshin Maru crew members stole the meat, submitted a criminal complaint against 12 crew members to the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office ”
So ?

We’ll go back to the debate of whale’s intelligence, cuteness, uniqueness, danger of extinction, contribution to the tourism industry, and whatever else?

I do not intend to attack people who are not objecting against small-scale whaling inherited from their ancestors in a small rural town somewhere in the world. But could someone explain me why so many protectors of whales are accusing harshly the Japanese as murderous whale killers? Am I just too nervous?

Personally I don’t like the idea of hunting whales and dolphins but that’s only because I don’t like animals being killed for meat in general. I think people throwing racist comments at Japan is a bit extreme though.

In queensland we have whales in our oceans all the time, they’re a tourist attraction and considered our neighbours. I guess Australians are protective of them because they mean so much to us here.

No more ridiculous than your suggestion, my friend.

My suggestion makes the claims by Australian government and some Australian people who oppose Japan’s whaling consistent and makes look less hypocritical.

Your suggestion just does not make sense.

I am for the friendships between Australia and Japan; Just don’t run after Japanese tourists with toy harpoon, and don’t bully Japanese Australians, sending them hate mails.

And tell your anti-whaling friends, Australian or not, to check the facts.

Legally, Japan is not breaking any international law.
(Just show us which law is Japan breaking,)
It is rather some anti-whalers who are breaking the law.

Morally, Japan is just as right as, or as wrong as any government who endorse the killing of the animals for food.
It is rather non-vegetarian anti-whalers who are morally inconsistent and who look hypocritical.

The only reasonable argument so far is that Japan’s whaling may be preventing Whale-watching which contributes a lot to the Australian tourism business.

Just show the evidences that the number of whales for watching has decreased because of Japan’s whaling and reduced the income, Then, I think, Japanese people will be more sympathetic to Aussie’s claim.

“Why is there this strange push to make it an Australia vs. Japan thing?”
Um…I mentioned Australians because, well….the people in the video were Australian, and claimed to speak on the behalf of Australia.

“Why not interview a well-spoken native Japanese staffer? Why not have on the panel?”
Because it’s not a show about discussing whaling per se it’s about asking foreigners about what they think.

No more ridiculous than your suggestion, my friend.

“But then again, maybe the Australians should stop treating their farm animals so horribly before telling the Japanese what to do.”

Why is there this strange push to make it an Australia vs. Japan thing? USA, Europe, Japan – everyone has problems ensuring the mandated humane treatment of animals for food is followed. Isn’t Rick O’Barry an American? Didn’t a previous expose video on ‘the cove’ a few years back come from the BBC? Perhaps the average Japanese person may find it more uncomfortable to see the title “Why do most of Japan’s friendly trading partners go against whaling so much?” Far less a concern if we just make it those pesky Aussies.

I’m not a rabid anti-whaler, and although I’m glad to see at least this issue is finally being raised in public awareness, I’m saddened, if not surprised, to see how it’s being spun.

Another example – in the show, why did they interview a Greenpeace Japan “Australian staffer”? Why not interview a well-spoken native Japanese staffer? Why not have on the panel? Would that make the real sponsors of the show upset? Is there any real debate on the issue going on in the Japanese media?

Any government can ‘object’ to any decision which it considers to seriously affect its national interest, provided it is done within 90 days of notification of the decision. Should this happen, further time is allowed for other governments to object. The government or governments that object are not then bound by that particular decision. This mechanism has been strongly criticised as rendering the Commission ‘toothless’, but without it the Convention would probably have never been signed. In addition, without such a right (common to many international agreements), a government would still have been able to withdraw from the Convention and thus not be bound by any of the regulations.

Your definition of illegal differs from mine because usually there have to be laws involved before something can be considered illegal. Perhaps you’d rather have Japan drop out of the IWC and start full-scale whaling operations?

Whale Population Estimates
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm

Rates of increase. East Australia: 1981-96 12.4% (95%CI 10.1-14.4%). West Australia: 1977-91 10.9% (7.9-13.9%)

That, and a table showing the number of catches under the contentious scientific permit, which shows mainly Japan whaling for almost entirely non-threatened species, but does not mention the humpback anywhere.

Catches taken: Under Scientific Permit
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/table_permit.htm

Is there something I’m missing?

The absence of evidence that Japanese whaling is causing whale populations to decline is evidence that Japanese whaling is causing whale populations to decline.

Even with minke whale populations estimated at between 300,000 and 700,000, we must assume that there’s a big risk that Japanese whalers killing one or two thousand whales a year is “driving the species to extinction”?

First off, it’s hardly a universal opinion among people who study such things. Second, the ocean is a big mostly unknown place. Sustainability for any species has numerous variables – any of which when changed can tip the balance of the equation. Since the sustainability part is made up of mostly “best guesses” and limited sample sets – it seems like wonky science to me to blatantly say “no worries – there’s plenty more where that came from”.

So I have a hard time agreeing that the risk of driving a species to extinction is worth keeping a so called tradition alive (because lets face it – it has nothing to do with tradition or culture and everything to do with commercial gain).

But without a doubt racism has a lot to do with it, and Japan just seems to attract a lot of controversy over anything because of its war past and in addition to that people resent Japan’s economic power.

Cows, pigs and chickens are all domesticated animals raised for the purpose of food

Let me quote some from the paragraph for animal rights,

global estimates put the annual number of animals raised and killed in intensive agriculture at 26 billion.・・・most animals suffer as they are being transported and as they wait in line to be killed . Most are hung upside-down on a conveyor belt and only occasionally are their throat slit cleanly enough that their death is instantaneous. ・・・intensive rearing methods used in most of the industrialized world cause extreme suffering. Most animals are confined indoors for their entire lives in areas that prevent them from moving around;they are denied species-special interactions, including being about to raise their young, who are removed at birth;they are subjected to a variety of painful procedures–tails and ears are cuts off and males are castrated without anesthesia,animals are branded with hot irons, birds have their beaks cut off with knives. The lives of animals used for food are full of suffering and the slaughterhouse often doesn’t bring their immediate relief as many linger in pain bleeding to death until they finally lose consciousness.

This is why some prefer wild animals for food to the animals raised for food, The former suffers less pain.
Wild animals lives might be sometimes peeped into by human tourists and some of them lose lives in the battles against some human hunters and they die of stress but other animals for food are raised and die of much more stress. How about asking Rick O’Barry to shoot a film; the slaughterhouse, save Australia cows, pigs, chicken, kangaroos ?

Using your logic, how about instead the Australian government stops whining about whaling as long as Japan hunts for days then kills its cows pigs and chickens with harpoons, in the same way as their whales?

Sorry but you are not using my logic, and the suggestion is ridiculous

Cows, pigs and chickens are all domesticated animals raised for the purpose of food. Kangaroos are both raised for food, or culled when their population is too great and are causing problems. Most countries have regulations dictating (but occasionally not always followed) how they should be killed humanely. How is that similar to excursions thousands of kilometres south, explosive harpoons, an increased probability of a slow and painful death for the animal, and the alleged adverse affect on a friendly neighbour’s tourism industry?

Using your logic, how about instead the Australian government stops whining about whaling as long as Japan hunts for days then kills its cows pigs and chickens with harpoons, in the same way as their whales?

If the Japanese suddenly developed a “backbone” and told the anti-whaling world to “stuff it” (like the Norwegians and Icelanders have done), they’d get vilified even more.

“Despicable Japs” can’t turn into “Cool Vikings” overnight!

From Norway with love.