Australia invests in whale research to challenge Japan

Monday 17th November, 06:45 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 73 Total Comments Show All

davidattokyo at 06:48 PM JST - 18th November

GeorgeRoper,

The research involves monitoring the health and structure of the whale populations over time. Future knowledge of these things can obviously not be based on old, out of date data from years ago. Many scientific endeavours are not once-off short term projects. This is but one of them. You can not sustainably manage whale populations without constantly updated data from recent measurements.
davidattokyo at 06:49 PM JST - 18th November

funkymofo,

Was the characterisation of 4,000 tons of meat as a "glut" yours or someone elses?

In comparison with the whale meat stockpile at the end of September of 4,209 tons, there was 80,158 tons of beef and 180,227 tons of pork in stock as of the end of August. Graph those figures and you get a stark contrast.

Additionally, the recent peak size of the whale meat stockpile was 5,969 tons in April 2006. In March of 2008 there was just 2,368 tons - a multi-year low.

It's a stockpile, it goes up and down like a yoyo as stock goes out and new stock comes in.
cleo at 06:57 PM JST - 18th November

these things can obviously not be based on old, out of date data from years ago. Many scientific endeavours are not once-off short term projects. This is but one of them.

translation - any excuse to keep killing.

Data on diet etc doesn't change so radically that you have to keep ripping whale stomachs open year after year. And you don't need to kill to count.
davidattokyo at 07:16 PM JST - 18th November

cleo, as you are opposed to killing whales in the first place I struggle to understand why you are so adamant to assert what is your obviously biased opinion with respect to the science involved. You don't seem to really know what you are talking about either, which makes it even more baffling.

Data on diet etc doesn't change so radically that you have to keep ripping whale stomachs open year after year.

1) With respect to diet, the JARPN programme has provided evidence to the contrary. Diet does change, even from year to year. 2) Your "etc" encaptures numerous other data samples that are collected, without offering proof that none of them change and don't require monitoring.

And you don't need to kill to count.

Japan doesn't kill them to count them. That's what the visual sightings surveys are for, and as the IWC has found the information from sightings surveys alone is not always sufficient to gain a proper understanding of what is happening in whale land.
Molenir at 01:04 PM JST - 19th November

I'm in favor of whaling. Yep, in favor of killing the cows of the sea! Oh, not all of them. I wouldn't want anything hunted to extinction. But managed fishing, yep, that I am in favor of. Don't see anything wrong with it at all. So long as there are sufficient numbers of the animals, why not allow limited hunting?
funkymofo at 07:27 PM JST - 19th November

davidattokyo, '

Was the characterisation of 4,000 tons of meat as a "glut" yours or someone elses?

' When supply outstrips demand- as has been found in audits of the whaling industry, a glut is the result.

Anyway, glad to see you're focusing on the arguments instead of pointless semantic quibbles. Oh, wait a minute....

And suppose I do graph the figures you quote- I might also be tempted to graph the annual consumption of the products you mentioned. Yushin, the 'flagship' whale restaurant in Tokyo is closing, citing 'high operating costs', I believe. Isn't the whaling industry also having problems paying back the loans it has been given, above and beyond the massive subsidies they receive, that is. Any comparison between this oversubsidised niche and mainstream food industries is a rather transparent attempt to give it legitimacy that it clearly does not deserve.

Anyway, I have to wonder why you don't address the health concerns I mentioned. Have you ingested enough whale to affect your memory?
davidattokyo at 08:36 PM JST - 19th November

funkymofo,

I form my opinions based on facts and figures and annecdotal evidence needs to be fair to be taken into consideration.

You refer to the "whaling industry", when it would be more accurate to talk about the "ICR, a publicly funded non-profit organization, recently suffering from harrassment by eco-terrorists". Their financial problems are no surprise - the leader of the band of eco-terrorist thugs has stated repeatedly that his aim is to keep hurting the ICR economically. So, I think the ICR's financial troubles (which seems to be linked with the proposed closure of the Yushin restaurantthat you mention) is hardly indicative of matters concerning demand for whale meat.

On the other hand, commercial whalers in Iceland and Norway (as opposed to non-profit publicly funded scientific whalers in Japan) have recently started exporting whale meat here. It's possible that they will burn themselves if indeed there is a "glut", but you'd expect them to know more about the true market situation here than you or I. Still this is just an annecdote and what comes of it remains to be seen - although it's worth noting that the commercial whalers have been trying to get access to the Japanese market for at least 5 years now.

I'd be interested to know which figures you are planning to use for your consumption graphs. I'm not aware that there are any such figures, which is why I refer to the movements of the frozen stockpile instead - it seems to be the best available indicator of consumption trends. Please do get back to me.

Re your comment that whale meat contains "200 times the safe level of mercury", this is not true of whale meat, and the whale meat that the ICR puts on the market is tested for these things. Even a well known anti-whaler admitted as much recently in a letter to the Japan Times. Small cetaceans are another issue, but as you yourself note, we're yet to hear of people dying because of a toxic dosage of dolphin. Strange indeed.
funkymofo at 12:27 AM JST - 20th November

davidattokyo,

If you are sticking to facts and figures, then I applaud you, but your posts seem to reveal evidence to the contrary. For example, the characterization of protest groups as eco-terrorists and thugs is hardly supported by evidence. While the actions of some of these groups and/or their members may not be particularly edifying in your mind, they have not been found guilty under international law. Rightly or wrongly, they have not been proven to be thugs or terrorists. Your assertion that annecdotal(sic) evidence 'needs to be fair' is again, a little bit of a furphy. It is, by definition, subjective. It is one individual or group's recollection of a situation. On the subject of protesting and it's relation to the financial situation of the restaurant mentioned earlier, surely if the demand was there, there wouldn't be 4000 tonnes left over. Maybe the ICR should thank the 'eco-terrorists' for preventing them from looking even sillier.

How much whale meat is consumed? Clues are found in the whale meat supply, released semiannually by ICR, and the whale meat inventory, compiled monthly by MAFF. The whale meat supply in FY 1987, when research whaling started, was 1,140 tons. Since then, the supply has increased together with the number of whales caught and reached 4,154 tons in FY 2006. Inventory also increased rapidly. It was at the 2,000 ton level, but suddenly increased to the 3,000-4,000 ton level in the latter half of FY 2004 and peaked at 5,969 tons, which exceeds the maximum annual supply of 5,560 tons (2005-2006) at the end of April 2006. As a CPA of a major audit corporation acknowledges, "it is unthinkable for an ordinary business entity."

The spurious attempt to link the proposed expansion of foreign commercial whalers into the Japanese market as indicative of domestic demand for whale by-products may say just as much about the foreign domestic market as it does about demand here. While I'm not au fait with the foreign situation you mention, the evidence is firmly stacked against your conclusion.

You're right, I'm not planning to make any consumption graphs, you got me. I was responding to your suggestion. I actually don't believe I need to make a graph at all. Even under duress (from those naughty 'eco terrorist thugs') the whalers slaughtered and processed more than the existing stockpile of whale by-products they still have in storage. Imagine if they caught their full quota! You should be careful who you support, David. You may have a fisherman knocking on your door after Christmas asking to borrow your freezer.

Finally, I must offer you an apology. I wrote- 'As it contains up 200 times the safe level of mercury'. While that does not equate to your assertion that I said 'whale meat contains "200 times the safe level of mercury"', it was a typo- I meant to write 'up to'. I think I read somewhere that your average piece of whale sold for human consumption contains something like 12- 70 times the recommended safe level of mercury, but it's late and I'm too tired to go looking for it- that number is much more comforting, don't you think? Dozo meshiagatte kudasai. A final quote, sorry for taking up your time, I'm off to bed.

Tetsuya Endo of the Health Sciences University of Hokkaido and his colleagues measured the mercury content of nearly 200 meat samples collected from vendors or processors of the marine mammals. The researchers determined that 137 of the samples came from nine species of toothed whales, including false killer whales, pilot whales, and several species of dolphins and porpoises. Another 62 samples came from six species of baleen whales, which eat tiny organisms filtered from water by comb-like mouth structures. Average mercury concentrations for individual species of toothed whales ranged from 1.3 to 46.9 micrograms per gram ([micro]g/g) of meat. Every sample exceeded 0.4 [micro]g/g, the maximum allowable mercury concentration in foods in Japan.
davidattokyo at 09:36 AM JST - 20th November

surely if the demand was there, there wouldn't be 4000 tonnes left over.

1,900 of that "left over" stuff wasn't even on sale as of the end of September - it had only just come in to the stockpiles at the end of this year's JARPN II programme (August and September). The stockpile goes down over the winter months until spring when the JARPA meat will arrive.

If there is "left over" whale meat, the stockpile level should keep rising continuously. The figures show that isn't the case. The stockpile peaked when supply peaked. There was less supply this year and last, and surprise surprise the stockpile is at lower levels now.

The whale meat supply in FY 1987, when research whaling started, was 1,140 tons.

It was 32,000 tons in 1985 at the end of the commercial whaling days, worth noting.

and reached 4,154 tons in FY 2006.

That seems like research whaling supply only. Additionally since 2001 by-caught whales can now be sold legally - 100+ more whales a year. It doesn't make sense that there is a "glut" and people are still able to sell by-caught whales inspite of it.

It was at the 2,000 ton level, but suddenly increased to the 3,000-4,000 ton level in the latter half of FY 2004

This correlates with increases in JARPN research whaling quotas. They catch more big Sei and Bryde's whales now than they used to, I think they increased the minke quota as well. An increase in stocks is natural when more whales are caught.

and peaked at 5,969 tons,

Similarly this figure is after the first year of the JARPA II programme, and an expansion of whales caught.

I am certain that it is not possible for supply to increase, and stock levels to NOT increase in turn. This seems like common sense to me.

As a CPA of a major audit corporation acknowledges, "it is unthinkable for an ordinary business entity."

So this is the audit you were talking about, but as with the increases in supply that I noted above, this analysis doesn't seem too thorough or well-informed (and supply from scientific whaling isn't "ordinary business" in the first place - but it's clear the meat that is supplied does find enough stomachs anyway. They also don't mention the stockpile hitting a recent multi-year low in March 2008. So I wonder which "major audit corporation" this is.

may say just as much about the foreign domestic market as it does about demand here

There are only 5 million people in Norway and Iceland, but they wouldn't be selling the meat here if they weren't getting better prices for it than they could get elsewhere.

137 of the samples from nine species of toothed whales ... Another 62 samples came from six species of baleen whales ... Average mercury concentrations

Why would they average baleen whales and toothed whales together? I don't doubt the average value could be as stated, but I suspect the average would be higher again if the baleen whales were taken out.

Every sample exceeded 0.4 [micro]g/g, the maximum allowable mercury concentration in foods in Japan.

If this includes baleen whales, then frankly I don't believe it. Other studies have shown quite different results, and it also defies common sense as well.
davidattokyo at 09:39 AM JST - 20th November

"it is unthinkable for an ordinary business entity."

I may have been unfair to the audit organization - this single comment may of course been taken out of context.
taiko666 at 01:08 PM JST - 20th November

Heda Madness: if you think throwing butter is terrorism I suggest you chat to a relative of a victim of 9/11, London 7/7, Bali etc.
sydenham at 06:08 AM JST - 21st November
A few reasonable talking points I've noticed on this topic:
1. If the whales aren't hunted in Australia's internationally recognized territorial waters, Australia has no business dictating what Japan does to them. It smacks of pure cultural imperialism.
2. If Japan is hunting whales in defiance of international laws, the crews and owners of the ships need to be punished, and the ships need to be dry-docked.
3. If Australian-based members of the Greenpeace vandalize or otherwise try to obstruct Japanese operations at sea, they are breaking international laws and need to be punished by the Australian government.
4. If whale research can be conducted without actually killing whales, Japan has no business killing whales.
And on the domestic front:
1. The Japanese government and people need to come clean about motives for whaling. Is it for science, to satisfy a non-existent consumer demand, to just thumb its nose at what it regards as cultural imperialism, or to support a relatively insignificant local tradition?
2. The Australian government people need to come clean about their motives for being against whaling. Is it purely out of concern for the well-being of whales, a righteous indignation at the flouting of international laws, a territorially-hegemonic mindset, or just more anti-Japanese sentiment?
The way I see it, both sides are wrong on many respects, and hypocritical on many points. I think both sides are acting pig-headed, so I'm not supporting either.
Gravitybrakes at 09:00 PM JST - 21st November

While I was in Shizuoka, I had whale meat, I liked it pretty tasty. If I can I will have more again when I visit there. I they want to hunt so they can eat it, I am all for it. If they are just going to store it then thats wrong.
superesonator at 01:41 AM JST - 22nd November

Oh, if it isn't davidattokyo the Japan whaling schill who spammed my blog a few years ago with some pro-whaling nonsense.

Nice to see you are still on the payroll.
illsayit at 06:24 PM JST - 22nd November

Thatd be right waste money on letting some educated peoples float around the ocean, oh for definitely several years. Indefinitely might be worth it!