Japan says it will defend whaling at int'l court

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

  • -12

    OssanAmerica

    "Canberra will argue before the International Court of Justice that Japan is exploiting a loophole"

    What Japan is doing is complying with the IWC charter and Article VIII. That compliance can only be called a loophole if one's agenda is counter to that of the IWC. Australia is going to get it's hindquarters handed to them.

  • 9

    Nessie

    although it makes no secret of the fact that the resulting meat ends up on plates back home

    The perpetual editorializing of AFP.

  • 15

    zichi

    The whaling research is to prove that commercial whaling is viable. The proceeds from sales of the meat partly pay for the program.

    I doubt that even the sale of the whale meat, which is now down to about 4,000 tons per year, compared with 6,000 tons per year, a few years ago covers the large gov't subsidies the whaling industry receives every year as well as the ¥2.5 billion it received last to refit the whaling factory ship. That money was diverted from the Tohoku reconstruction fund.

    However, a 2006 ABC investigation found that only four academic papers had been published by the Japanese that required fatal whaling practices, in contrast to an estimated 6,800 whale deaths in the previous 16 years. In other words, one academic paper per 1,700 whales killed. http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2013/03/14/antarctic-treaty-seemingly-not-for-whales-sake/

  • 9

    smithinjapan

    Yeah, Japan will defend whaling until they lose. Then they'll cry foul, say other nations are attacking Japan's tradition of taking massive diesel ships to the Souther Ocean since ancient times, then quickly stop themselves and say, "Eeerrr... I mean, it's for science! Stop attacking our tradition of whaling!"

  • 7

    HokkaidoKuma

    As much as I despise the practice of hunting whales, I really don't see that Canberra has a case here. Japan has done everything within the legal boundaries set forth by the IWC. It's not illegal for Japan to hunt whales, claim it as research, and sell the meat in the commercial market. Likewise, the IWC has put forth a never ending moratorium on whaling that Japan has complied with since the mid the 80s.

    The real question is: Why does Japan continue to hunt whales when 1) it has really damaged its image on an international scale, 2) Whale meat isn't all that nutritious and tastes awful, likewise, the oil used from whale blubber is outdated by newer technologies, and 3) it isn't profitable any longer.

  • 4

    Onniyama

    smithinjapan. Exactly. Apparently travelling to the Southern Ocean for whaling research goes back to the Edo-era. They
    were just that enlightened back then. Japan continues to completely embarrass themselves on this issue.

  • -8

    OssanAmerica

    It's a mystery as to how some people seem to know "what Japan is going to say". Especially since Japan hasd not ahnd does not have to respond to Australia's claim until July.

  • 20

    Graham DeShazo

    Defending the indefensible for a program that loses money every year, that almost no one cares about, in order to protect "sovereignty" and "culture." Yeah that sounds like something the Japanese government would do. Could they please send the "Shut up! Shut up!" guy so that we can all at least have a giggle out of it?

  • -9

    OssanAmerica

    I really wish some of you would actually read Australia's complaint. Australia does not make any reference to "culture" or "tradition, and certainly not to any financial or economic aspects of the Japanese research whaling program. Hence, Japan obviously is not going to make any reference to such in it's answer.

  • 4

    NZ2011

    Japan, this particular issue might just worth rethinking.

    It costs a lot of money, it doesn't help the Japanese public in anyway, it causes a huge amount of issues with other countries in the region, the scientific value is negligible.

    I think that the cultural and tradition excuse is a pretty lame one, not only because there wasn't traditionally modern fishing vessels going to the distant and dangerous southern ocean but because sometimes old culture and traditions are just plain wrong, should change and often do with education and a few brave people to really put the issue into the public consciousness .

  • 2

    Dennis Bauer

    Use the "bunka" card, that will work well in a foreign court.

  • 10

    smithinjapan

    Ossan: "It's a mystery as to how some people seem to know "what Japan is going to say".

    No mystery at all, given that, like the defenders of whaling who claim it's for science, Japan says but the same thing every time, and does the same whining when proven to be in the wrong, ethically or otherwise. Suggesting it's a "mystery" is about as mysterious as 'predicting' what lyrics will come next on a song you've memorized because you've heard it so many times.

    Tell me what comes next: "We wish you a Merry _____, We wish you a Merry ______, We wish you a Merry _____ Christmas, and a Happy New Year!" I'm guessing you can predict what will fall in the blanks before the blanks actually come, because you've heard it all before. So what's this mystery you're talking about?

  • 3

    rickyvee

    even if japan wins, it will lose. the whales-are-precious group will never give up and the i-must-hunt-whales group will continue hunting whales. so this is just a farce in the name of legality.

  • 6

    marcelito

    Ossan - " It's a mystery as to how some people seem to know "what Japan is going to say". Especially since Japan hasd not ahnd does not have to respond to Australia's claim until July."

    Yeah, its just as big a mystery how some people seem to know the outcome of the courts`s hearings even before they have started .... ."compliance can only be called a loophole if one's agenda is counter to that of the IWC. Australia is going to get it's hindquarters handed to them."

  • -5

    OssanAmerica

    Another mystery is how some people can say so much and still say nothing. Japan's defense is going to be showing that they are adhering to IWC regulations. Why? Because Australia is charging that they are not. Again, read the complaint.

  • 2

    marcelito

    Graham -" Could they please send the "Shut up! Shut up!" guy so that we can all at least have a giggle out of it?".. Indeed ..LOL

  • 4

    Tom Webb

    Japan will surely lose it case in the ICJ. What whale "research" is Japan doing? After years of "research" surely the must know by now why the whale population is dwindling. The same could be said about the various tuna. It is Japan that is hogging the tunas for sushi. When the world finds the grocery shelf empty of canned tuna, you will know who to blame. Going to the ICJ means that Japan has bribed the justices' home country with foreign aids.

  • 4

    yabits

    “Modern science can obtain the information we need to understand and protect whales without harming them.”

    This is the case right there -- and which exposes the phony pretense of what Japan calls "pure" research.

    Here is my question: To what extent, in its "research," does Japan make the attempt to obtain scientific information without harming the creatures under study? If the attempt is negligible, Japan's program is a sham.

    It's like asking the wolves to take care of a flock of sheep.

  • 2

    tkoind2

    The Japanese government has a profound capacity for bad PR. Whaling, mishandling of nuclear disasters, politicians with feet permanently inserted in their mouths. It is almost as if the Chinese secret services are managing Japan's global PR these days.

    This will proved to be a mistake for Japan. It will be a PR disaster for them. And for what benefit?

  • 6

    dcog9065

    I'm Australian and am largely against whaling, but I do think Australia's position on this is silly. Let them whale ffs.

  • 6

    gogogo

    So Japan loses, they will come up with something else to kill whales, alienating the entire country even more.

    So sad.

  • 2

    Heda_Madness

    AFP probably don't realise it but they've actually written something which supports Japan's argument:

    The whaling research is to prove that commercial whaling is viable

    "Having decided to conclude a convention to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry"

    Japan, according to AFP, is doing that.

  • -1

    Sofa_king

    Japan would be adhering to the IWC regulations IF they were doing valid research.

    They aren't.

    Killing SOME of the whales to prove you haven't killed ALL of them isn't a valid science project. Because, one day - "oops, well... I guess that settles it, not sustainable".

    Tag, release and track would be perfectly fine and we could see if there really was a sustainable population there. But this approach of starting with the conclusion that there IS enough there to commence commercial operations, and then working backwards to find evidence to support a predetermined conclusion is completely unscientific.

  • 1

    Probie

    "Canberra will argue before the International Court of Justice that Japan is exploiting a loophole"

    AAAAAARGH!!!

    I can't believe people in positions of power can be so stupid!!

    Like I said on the previous article: It's like saying someone parked their car using a loophole that allows cars to be parked in a car park.

    If it is explicitly written into the IWC charter, IT'S NOT A LOOPHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Australia have some real mouthbreathers in their government. I hope the court throws out the case and tells them to go back to elementary school so they can learn how to read.

  • -5

    ultradarkmelvin

    When the 1946 Convention under which we operate was signed, one of the major articles introduced by the USA was the provision for a government to be able to issue permits for research purposes. That has always been in the Convention and many governments over the years have caught quite large numbers of whales for research purposes but associated with that provision is whales are too valuable just to catch, measure and throw away. If you catch whales for research purposes, the requirement is that they are fully utilised and the products disposed of in a way that the government decides. In other words, the products have to be fully utilised and Japan is doing what every other government has done in previous years. It is using the whales for research, getting the research results which are sent to the Scientific Committee of the IWC and it´s putting the products into the market place.

    IWC secretary Dr. Ray Gambell.

  • 6

    cleo

    Japan insists its hunt is purely scientific.... The whaling research is to prove that commercial whaling is viable.

    IF the research were really purely scientific surely the scientists would know that they should be saying that the purpose of the research is to ascertain whether commercial whaling is viable, ie to discover the truth, not to back up a predetermined conclusion that suits the agenda of the people doing the 'research'. A bit like the tobacco companies doing their own 'research' to prove that smoking isn't bad for the health.

    Japan’s Fisheries Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi vowed in February that Japan would never stop hunting whales

    Mmm. Regardless of the outcome of the 'research', Mr Hayashi? Even if the 'research' were to show that the whales should actually be left alone? (Not that the 'research' would show any such thing, the outcome having been decided upon before any 'research' ever took place, see above)

    To what extent, in its "research," does Japan make the attempt to obtain scientific information without harming the creatures under study?

    None whatsoever, since the purpose of the 'research' is to put meat on plates (well, in deep freeze) and live whales don't serve that purpose very well at all.

  • -5

    ultradarkmelvin

    Australia needs to learn how to read. Anyone can read knows that Japan is following IWC rules. Australia and other whale worshippers should take IWC to court and not Japan as Japan is only following IWC guidelines. Australia needs to respect IWC. IWC stands for International Whaling Committee. It is a club for whaling. You don´t join a football club to oppose playing football.

  • 0

    Robert Roo

    ' Probie at Jun. 26, 2013 - 11:04AM JST' "Canberra will argue before the International Court of Justice that Japan is exploiting a loophole" AAAAAARGH!!! I can't believe people in positions of power can be so stupid!! Like I said on the previous article: It's like saying someone parked their car using a loophole that allows cars to be parked in a car park. If it is explicitly written into the IWC charter, IT'S NOT A LOOPHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Australia have some real mouthbreathers in their government. I hope the court throws out the case and tells them to go back to elementary school so they can learn how to read.'

    HokkaidoKuma at Jun. 26, 2013 - 08:42AM JST 'The real question is: Why does Japan continue to hunt whales when 1) it has really damaged its image on an international scale, 2) Whale meat isn't all that nutritious and tastes awful, likewise, the oil used from whale blubber is outdated by newer technologies, and 3) it isn't profitable any longer.' Better to give it a rest for a while make some overseas friends for a change and when there are a lot of whales again perhaps start eating them then.... And Cultural? Not really as there was a whaling station near to my home in Australia when I was a kid (since closed) so loophole you could say its culturally Australian to eat whales also hahaha. Japan needs to think a little more broadly and spend the government debt money more wisely. Do something constructive. for example. Help those hurt by the earthquake!

  • -8

    ihope2eatwhales

    yabits,

    Here is my question: To what extent, in its "research," does Japan make the attempt to obtain scientific information without harming the creatures under study?

    Data collected by Japan with lethal research is different to data that is collected by Japan, Australia etc, by the non-lethal research.

    I am sure Japan will give many clear statements about it to ICJ. However, western media, especially Australian media, is very biased. I do not expect the correct reporting.

    Sofa_king,

    Tag, release and track would be perfectly fine

    It is not so easy method for population of 500,000 minke whales in Southern Ocean. If it was easy method, Australia would have done so, to prove it to Japan. Australia talked much of research by gathering whale excrement. It does not help sincere research for IWC's purpose.

  • 3

    Disillusioned

    Japan is using a research permit to kill whales and to prove commercial whaling is viable. The permit was issued under the whale conservation act to protect whale populations from commercial exploitation. Can anyone else see the error? I agree that 'loophole' is not the correct word to describe what Japan is doing. They are just exploiting and abusing a privelage they were given. Japan cannot use 'tradition' in their case because that is not why they are allowed to hunt whales. Personally, I don't see Japan being banned from hunting whales, but I do see their catch quota being significantly dropped to a hundred or less. Hopefully, this will make them stop. If they drop out of the IWC and start hunting whales commercially it will make them poachers and we all know what happens to poachers in African national parks.

  • -5

    CrisGerSan

    If Japan feels whaling is important then i support them and it. There is no reason to spend so much focus and attention on such a trivial matter, Whales are big fish. They are part of nature and nature is created by reality of species competing and if they get eaten that is part of the natural food chain. And historic practices and the precedence of a seafaring nation take precedence of a tiny elite of ultra radical eco fanatics who flourish using the media and news as a way to support the radical agenda.

  • 9

    lucabrasi

    Whales are big fish.

    Kind of undermines the credibility of the rest of your post for me....

  • 8

    smithinjapan

    Only an idiot thinks killing whales to prove their are still some in existence, or that "they can be eaten with BOTH mayonnaise AND soy sauce!!" is actually valid science.

    And you absolutely have to love how Japan purports to be taking the high road by saying they agree to fight this in court but at the same time declare beforehand, "Japan will NEVER stop the whale hunt!" In other words, when they lose they will simply declare it an attack on Japan's ancient culture of sending diesel ships into the Southern Ocean for whale meat -- errr... science -- and do it anyway, like I said. Japan ONLY agrees when a decision is in their favour or if they are praised, or both.

  • -4

    ihope2eatwhales

    I do not think ICJ can tell Japan how many whales it may catch for the research purposes. ICRW says,

    "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit"

    Japan is catching quite sustainable number, and gaining important data for the research by it. ICJ can not deny it. It can only deny Australia, unless Australian and New Zealand judges of ICJ will ignore law and vote for Australia anyway.

  • -1

    budgie

    HokkaidoKuma wrote:

    The real question is: Why does Japan continue to hunt whales when 1) it has really damaged its image on an international scale, 2) Whale meat isn't all that nutritious and tastes awful, likewise, the oil used from whale blubber is outdated by newer technologies, and 3) it isn't profitable any longer.

    1) Japan doesn't care that much about its international image. Any attack on anything a Japanese person ever did is sen as an attack on all of Japan and its entire culture and history by default. See WWII denials. They're simply that thin-skinned. If foreign countries are against anything Japan does it's because, apparently, we will never understand the deep cultural complexities of Japanese society....or something.

    2) In short just because someone old them not to they do it. Like a stroppy three-year old.

    3) They keep at it because someone must be profiting. Most likely a politician or bureaucrat is receiving kickbacks from his whaling executive buddies after making sure they got government subsidies. The meat sure isn't selling that much is known.

  • 2

    letsberealistic

    Of course, the J government knows the research is weak at best and that the motives for the "research" are to simply keep the whaling industry going - not only has there been virtually no published material on this "research" (bar a couple of pseudo papers), but surely once data on population numbers and growth have been obtained, why the need to continue indefinitely?

    Surely, IOC can ask Japan for a deadline for the research. Surely, though they have all the data they could need, so why not stop now?

  • -3

    ihope2eatwhales

    smithinjapan,

    Japan said it would do as ICJ says. Hayashi comments were about the general whaling, not JARPA research project specifically.

    I think Australia will ignore ICJ, if they lose. But I hope I am wrong. However, I am sure they will allow Sea Shepherd pirates, still.

  • 1

    Ranger_Miffy2

    Knock yourself out, Kishida-san. Just start lining up the brown envelopes. That will get it done. Then, "Shut-up! shut-up! We are the most in the world!"

  • -2

    A Realist

    "Robert Roo--Jun. 26, 2013 - 08:42AM JST 'The real question is: Why does Japan continue to hunt whales when 1) it has really damaged its image on an international scale, 2) Whale meat isn't all that nutritious and tastes awful, likewise, the oil used from whale blubber is outdated by newer technologies, and 3) it isn't profitable any longer."


    You make some very definitive statements and conclusions, but why are you so sure you are correct? I fail to see where "Japan has really damaged its image on an international scale"; no doubt it has with you and other whale worshippers, but not everybody looks at things the same way. It is a fact that Australia and some other counties have no respect for other cultures and are arrogant enough to presume that they have the moral superiority to tell other countries what they should and should not do and what they should and should not eat. I am not Japanese, but in this "whaling war" my respect for Australia and Australians has gone down considerably, not only because of their irrational opposition to Japan's whaling, but because of their support for environmental terrorists and criminals like Paul Watson and his Sea Shepard Society, their arrogance and their failure to even make an attempt to understand cultures other than their own.

    How do you know whale meat is "not that nutritious and tastes awful?" Do you eat it? Do you know what nutritional value it has? Presumably it could not taste that awful, or people wouldn't eat it when there are alternatives that do not cost any more, would they?

    Are you aware that Japan is a small country and is unable to grow enough food or raise enough domestic animals to feed its population and much of its food has to be imported, and much of its food comes from the sea? Whale has been a part of the diet of many Japanese for centuries, and even today many people make a living from whaling in spite of you saying "it is no longer profitable." Whales are animals, and the type of whales hunted by Japan are in no danger of extinction and the very small number of whales harvested every year by Japan, Iceland, Norway and indigenous groups every year is perfectly sustainable . I am not sure why whales have been elevated to the rank of deities by some people, but apparently they have, and the rationale against hunting whales is based purely on emotion, not by logic, facts, or rational thought.

  • 0

    CH3CHO

    Why don't we listen to the Australian legal counsel on their prospect at ICJ?

    http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/australian-court-case-against-japanese-whaling-to-begin-wednesday-in-the-hague

    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.

    When the judgment comes out in favor of Japan, we will have less noisy comment sections here.

  • -6

    ihope2eatwhales

    CH3CHO,

    When the judgment comes out in favor of Japan, we will have less noisy comment sections here.

    I am not sure of this. I think anti-whalers will ignore result of ICJ, and deny the valuable research, even if ICJ rules against Australia's anti-whaling case.

  • -1

    Probie

    When the judgment comes out in favor of Japan, we will have less noisy comment sections here.

    No, because the anti-whaling crowd will claim that Japan bribed the judges, like they always say when their beliefs are correctly defeated by logic.

  • -1

    letsberealistic

    I am not entirely against whaling if it is necessary, sustainable and humane. What I am against is corruption (bribing to get votes), nationalised brain-washing (falsely telling Japanese whaling is part of their culture which is being attacked), wasting masses of tax Japanese tax payers money and basing government policy on pride, avoiding losing face and not appearing weak in front of China.

  • -1

    marcelito

    @ihope...."valuable research"...OFL...thats a good one.

  • -8

    ihope2eatwhales

    marcelito, I do not mind to wait until ICJ decision, but please tell your excuse for denying valuable research, even though Japan wins ICJ case?

    Which excuse will you say? Or just "through"? Maybe complain "whaling is inhumane", and just "forget" about proven value of research?

    Or, would you say "my belief that the research is not valuable was wrong"? Can anti-whaler ever admit such? Does the anti-whaler have the humility? I think not. Lack of the humility is how to become anti-whaler in first place, I believe.

  • 6

    smithinjapan

    Probie: News flash: 'logic' does not equal 'fact', especially when people like yourself illogically deny the facts to maintain the belief that Japan is somehow pure in all this. Oops!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286304/Whaling-Japan-gave-cash-girls-rig-whaling-vote-bid-end-24-year-ban.html

    There was even an article not long after this on JT and elsewhere where it was PROVEN they spent a bunch of tax money on high class hookers and bribes for land-locked African nations to try and secure votes. By hey, go ahead and stick to the idea that the sudden MILLIONS poured into fisheries of African nations just before an IWC vote and having them wined and dined here after being flown in on private jets is not bribery.

    ultradarkmelvin: You give some pretty odd examples of what you think is Imperialism, forgetting all the while Japan goes out of its way to throw its 'traditional culture' on the world under the guise of science (they don't hunt whales in their own backyard, do they?), then once they've collected their tax subsidies, which we are forced to pay despite not wanting the product, they throw it in deep freeze until they can force the meat on kids at school lunches.

  • 2

    Nessie

    There was even an article not long after this on JT and elsewhere where it was PROVEN they spent a bunch of tax money on high class hookers and bribes for land-locked African nations to try and secure votes.

    Yes, in response to anti-whaling lobbying and vote-buying in landlocked countries. The Daily Mail Article is from 2010. Switzerland and Mogolia have been IWC members since at least the 1980s, and Britain is on record as having paid off Belize in 2005 to renew its IWC membership. You don't see many whales in Mongolia, but you do see foreign "aid".

  • -6

    Probie

    Probie: News flash: 'logic' does not equal 'fact', especially when people like yourself illogically deny the facts to maintain the belief that Japan is somehow pure in all this. Oops! There was even an article not long after this on JT and elsewhere where it was PROVEN they spent a bunch of tax money on high class hookers and bribes for land-locked African nations to try and secure votes. By hey, go ahead and stick to the idea that the sudden MILLIONS poured into fisheries of African nations just before an IWC vote and having them wined and dined here after being flown in on private jets is not bribery.

    I always find it rather amusing that the anti-whaling people always mention the bribing of "land-locked African nations". Because 1) they never mention those "land-locked African nations" when they vote against whaling; and 2) anti-whaling groups bribe countries too.

    I said on the other article that since both sides use bribes, any vote is a farce.

    Also, any country that doesn't plan on conducting commercial whaling; and any country that is against commercial whaling, shouldn't be allowed to be members of the IWC. Because they IWC is about commercial whaling. They should kick out any country that is anti-whaling.

    News flash: 'logic' does not equal 'fact'

    And 'emotion' does not equal 'fact'. Anti-whaling people constantly ignore the FACT that Japan is whaling under the rules set by the IWC charter. They also have the strange delusion that those rules are "loopholes". They think that because they believe that whales are "amazing, beautiful creatures" that they shouldn't be touched, even though not all whales are endangered. They also have a holier-than-thou attitude which means they won't listen to the real facts because they are so sure their feelings on the matter outweigh those facts.

    I actually hope that the International Court of Justice is dumb enough to have Australia win. Because then Japan will surely leave the IWC, and restart full scale commercial whaling. Which means that Australia will lose either way. If they lose, Japan keeps on whaling; if they win Japan keeps on whaling.

  • 0

    letsberealistic

    @Probie

    They think that because they believe that whales are "amazing, beautiful creatures" that they shouldn't be touched, even though not all whales are endangered. They also have a holier-than-thou attitude which means they won't listen to the real facts because they are so sure their feelings on the matter outweigh those facts.

    I think you and others on this board are confusing the motivations of extreme conservationists (ie.e Sea Shepherd) with the rest of the public. Most people are against Japanese whaling for reasons OTHER than "whales are amazing beautiful creatures"; there is nationalised brain-washing (using emotive language with the Japanese public to claim that whaling is an essential part of their culture and "our culture" is being attacked by outsiders), wasting masses of tax Japanese tax payers money and basing government policy on pride, avoiding losing face and not appearing weak in front of China.

  • 2

    jumpultimatestars

    Basically what I read is "They are not commercially whaling because they are whaling to prove that commercial whaling is viable."

    WTF kind of paradox is that??

  • -1

    Probie

    I think you and others on this board are confusing the motivations of extreme conservationists (ie.e Sea Shepherd) with the rest of the public.

    No. Quite a few people on here have said that whales (and dolphins) are "amazing, beautiful creatures" and shouldn't be hunted.

    Most people are against Japanese whaling for reasons OTHER than "whales are amazing beautiful creatures"; there is nationalised brain-washing (using emotive language with the Japanese public to claim that whaling is an essential part of their culture and "our culture" is being attacked by outsiders),

    The whole "culture" argument annoys me too to be honest. So, I agree with you there.

    wasting masses of tax Japanese tax payers money and basing government policy on pride, avoiding losing face and not appearing weak in front of China.

    I agree with that too.

    I'm not pro-whaling. I'm anti-anti-whaling.

    I couldn't care less if Japan hunted whales or not. What annoys me are the people who spout off lies and ignore the facts, all the while saying the people who actually see the facts are liars and are below them in some way morally.

    I have never said anything about Japan having the cultural right to whale, because I think that is BS. I also think that the money should be used elsewhere. However, the topic is about whether Japan is doing anything illegal. They aren't. They are following rules to the letter. So, if we agree that the money for whaling could be spent better on other things, we can agree that the money for this court case could have also been used better elsewhere.

    Also, if Sea Shepherd and everyone else had left Japan alone years ago, I seriously doubt that they would still be whaling.

  • -6

    CH3CHO

    jumpultimatestars, it is not a paradox. It is called "reseach whaling" as oposed to commercial whaling.

  • 0

    Nessie

    Good stuff, Probie.

    Although my ideal outcome would be for Japan to win the legal battle, remain in the IWC but stop whaling anyway.

  • -6

    CH3CHO

    I would like people here to read the text of so called whaling moratorium, which is paragraph 10(e) of this document, before commenting the legality of whaling.

    http://iwc.int/cache/downloads/1lv6fvjz06f48wc44w4s4w8gs/Schedule-February-2013.pdf

    10 (e) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10, catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes of whales from all stocks for the 1986 coastal and the 1985/86 pelagic seasons and thereafter shall be zero. This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest 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.

    Which country is in bad faith?

  • 0

    jumpultimatestars

    CH3CHO, apparently you didn't read the whole article. it doesn't matter what you say they call it, they openly admitted to "The whaling research is to prove that commercial whaling is viable.", which is done through commercial whaling.

    It's a paradox without rival.

  • -6

    CH3CHO

    jumpultimatestars

    it doesn't matter what you say they call it

    It does matter in the court of law, especially in ICJ. The only point that Australia is trying to make is to prove Japanese research whaling is commercial whaling in disguise, and is failing to prove it just as their counsel admits.

  • 2

    cramp

    sue their pants off

  • -7

    ihope2eatwhales

    they openly admitted to "The whaling research is to prove that commercial whaling is viable.", which is done through commercial whaling.

    Of course. Whaling is the purpose of ICRW. Moratorium was introduced by anti-whalers because "there is not enough research". So Japan does the research to respond. The research shows commercial whaling is possible.

    Purpose of ICRW is NOT to ban whaling.

  • 2

    FutureJames

    CH3CHO, the reason they can't prove that it's commercial whaling in disguise is because it's blatant commercial whaling without disguise. They're commercially whaling as research.

  • 0

    Knox Harrington

    I can almost respect countries that don't bullshit and say that they do commercial whaling, but this hypocritical version of the truth Japan is so in love with is ridiculous. No one buys that. Just say it already: "We fracking luv whale meat and we want to eat it!" There, was that so hard?

    Whale meat does not taste any good, BTW.

  • -9

    ihope2eatwhales

    Anti-whalers have great freedom to say anything on JapanToday. However anti-whalers can not expect ICJ will ignore evidence of scientific data collected by Japan, which Japan will present.

  • 0

    jumpultimatestars

    Exactly what FutureJames said, it's a catch 22 in the fact that despite them doing exactly what's against the law, there is also a law which allows it. It is neither illegal nor legal technically speaking, and a revision to the law must be done.

  • 0

    jumpultimatestars

    Exactly what FutureJames said, it's a catch 22 in the fact that despite them doing exactly what's against the law, there is also a law which allows it. It is neither illegal nor legal technically speaking, and a revision to the law must be done.

  • 1

    lucabrasi

    I think the anti-whalers are wasting energy bringing cases like this. They should spend their time and money to highlight the fact that whale meat is horribly high in mercury which is potentially very damaging to the health. Get that simple message out there and nobody's going to buy it: schools, housewives, supermarkets.

    And that'll be the end of whaling.

  • -5

    Globis007

    Australian the government will be happy because they will get support, because this is the only reason they are doing this now to get people to support them, actually there is no case to win. Just A SHOW! It's like giving your friends drinks because you want them to help you clean your house but not because you care about their thirst.

    Minke whales are not endangered they got only 103 this year as said in this article. Why all the fuss everyone? OK! Red Snappers are not endangered lets fight for them too. Actually some kinds of fish were endangered and over fished to extinct to feed people like you but you did not care. I think those fish were just to small for people to fight for them yea. Minks are bigger and we are taught that whales are more intelligent than us so let's fight for them.

  • -3

    Mike O'Brien

    not only has there been virtually no published material on this "research" (bar a couple of pseudo papers),

    Well hundreds of papers actually.

    but surely once data on population numbers and growth have been obtained, why the need to continue indefinitely?

    Then why do countries keep doing a census every so often? And what if conditions, like climate change, cause the growth rate to change?

  • 1

    jumpultimatestars

    @mike O'brien Why do we keep doing a census? Because, as humans, we're sort of kind of interested in the statistics of our own species' survival rates.

  • 7

    cleo

    Then why do countries keep doing a census every so often?

    Countries need to keep track of their demographics so that they can fine-tune social welfare programmes, public works, schools, hospitals, etc. to keep their populations happy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't imagine anyone is proposing putting in place social welfare programmes for whales. All the 'researchers' want to do is kill whales, not make them happy.

  • -10

    Mike O'Brien

    Countries need to keep track of their demographics so that they can fine-tune social welfare programmes, public works, schools, hospitals, etc. to keep their populations happy.

    Are you sure those is the only reasons cleo? Sure it doesn't have to do with taxes too? And legislative representation? And don't companies get this data for marketing and product developement purposes? Doesn't the insurance industry use this data for their actuariual tables? But nice attempt at diversion, because I feel sure you know that governments and scientists also do censuses of many animal species and yet they don't seem to be puting social welfare programmes in place for them?

    A census is done to track changes in the population, there are many uses for this data. In the case of whales, along with many other species, this data is used to determine conservation status and for many species it is used to set hunting quotas. If we had counted the number of Fin whales 50 years ago and just went with that data forever after would our understanding of the species status be correct?

  • 10

    smithinjapan

    Mike O'Brien: "Are you sure those is the only reasons cleo? Sure it doesn't have to do with taxes too? And legislative representation?"

    Do you even realize how badly you defeat your own arguments and support what Cleo said in terms of the HUGE difference between consensus of human beings and the 'consensus' of whales? Or are you suggesting we also do a consensus of whales not just for social programmes, but to tax them and give them legislative representation? Or are you suggesting we start killing humans to count them in the name of science, then put them on the dinner plate and force them on kids in school lunches? I mean, in human history there IS a tradition of cannibalism, right? Who are we to stop it?

    "But nice attempt at diversion, because I feel sure you know that governments and scientists also do censuses of many animal species"

    Okay, so give us examples of animal species the government does a consensus of and insists they need to be killed to be counted, then put on the dinner plate. Back up your claims with proof.

    "A census is done to track changes in the population, there are many uses for this data."

    Doesn't need to be lethal to count. If they can see a whale close enough to shoot it with an explosive tipped harpoon, they most certainly can see well enough to count it without killing it. Stop with the excuses and claims of 'hundreds of papers' -- haven't they published something like 11 internationally in the last 20 years? -- and that it's for science. Even fools like Hayashi claim, before they say they will abide by the IWC judgement, that 'no matter what Japan will continue it's whale hunt' (ie. it won't abide by the IWC judgement if not in Japan's favour), and that it's a cultural tradition (ie. not for science).

  • -10

    nigelboy

    Okay, so give us examples of animal species the government does a consensus of and insists they need to be killed to be counted, then put on the dinner plate. Back up your claims with proof.

    Most of the marine resources' population estimates and projections are done this way throughout the world based on statistical catch at age. You simply cannot physically count these species that number from hundreds of thousands to millions.

  • 10

    smithinjapan

    nigelboy: "You simply cannot physically count these species that number from hundreds of thousands to millions."

    "Most of the marine resources' population estimates and projections are done this way throughout the world based on statistical catch at age."

    And do those nations make no attempts to hide that the 'results' end up in restaurants and the TRUE debate is whether it tastes better with condiment A or B? If they can say, "There's one!" and kill it, they can just as easily say, "There's one", and not kill it. They can't physically count the species by killing a bunch of them either -- they can only count the ones they see and kill, then PROJECT a number (which they could do with non-lethal research).

  • -10

    nigelboy

    And do those nations make no attempts to hide that the 'results' end up in restaurants and the TRUE debate is whether it tastes better with condiment A or B? If they can say, "There's one!" and kill it, they can just as easily say, "There's one", and not kill it. They can't physically count the species by killing a bunch of them either -- they can only count the ones they see and kill, then PROJECT a number (which they could do with non-lethal research).

    Like I said, these marine resources are caught by fishermen, brought to the fishing docks where on occasions, the samples are taken by scientists to measure their biological properties of the samples (which is then used to determine the estimated population of the stocks) and ultimtely end up on dinner tables.

  • 0

    afewtoomany

    Why are the Aussies taking it to the courts? Political and legal action hasn't done much to resolve this. However, the constant pressure from the Aussie boats seems to be causing the catch to get smaller and smaller, not to mention the stress it is causing the Japanese and the whalers themselves.

  • 0

    Saiaku

    I love Japan, but leave the whales alone! There are plenty of other things to eat that isn't under the risk of being exterminated..

  • 0

    jumpultimatestars

    If you don't care about peoples opinions then you sure as hell shouldn't be on a message-board news site.

  • 0

    Robert Roo

    A Realist at Jun. 26, 2013 - 01:23PM JST That all sounds very fine but I have lived in Japan for over 20 Years and yes I have eaten it and you can easily check on the Internet to see weather it is nutritious and if there are alternatibes for the oil etc which ofcourse there are. Food supply is Japan is not so desperate for your argument either. Cultural argument is also nonsense put by bums from the media to promote their view. Australia was eating whales 30 or 40 odd years ago also so it is Australian culture also? JT moderators here also delete what doesn't sound pro Japan more often then not also. Can see my comments below what Probie wrote above have also disappeared and only his statements remain?? Which I do not support at all although it appears as I though I do the way the media here have deleted my comments. I love Japan but they fight with all their neighbours so follow the politics before you comment please. Whales are not a deity but the world has to work together to ensure the survival of all populations of all species and learn from history such as what happened in Africa???

  • -1

    Mike O'Brien

    Robert Roo, you can also check on the internet and see that all seafood has mercury and you can also see that whale from the Southern Ocean is lower in mercury than most seafood.

    Also Japan never really hunted whales for oil it has always been almost exclusively for food. While Australia never really hunted for food it was almost just for oil. That is part of the reason that most countries that use to hunt whales had no problem stopping because they did have alternatives for the oil.

    I do agree that we should try and ensure the survival of all species, so it is good that none of the hunted whale species are in any real danger of going extinct.

  • 0

    zichi

    This years whale catch in both the Antarctic and Northern Pacific was the lowest so far this century. Back in 2006, the top 5 or 6 fishery companies gave away their stakes in the Kyodo Senpaku because even with the introduction of commercial whaling those fishery companies could see no future in whaling. The top 5 or 6 food supply companies also gave up their stakes in the Kyodo Senpaku.

    The company Kyodo Senpaku continues to survive and make a profit because of the charters of its whaling fleet by The Institute of Cetacean Research (I.C.R.), and makes a profit regardless of how many whales are caught in the Antarctic. But many of the crew on the fleet are seamen who sign on for a trip and sign off again when the fleet returns to port. Those seamen only receive the very basic pay which is topped up by bonus depending on the size of the catch. This year's Antarctic catch was only about 130 whales, so I think this year there wasn't much of a bonus. Many of those seamen will think twice before signing on for another trip to Antarctic.

    The chartered South Korea tanker used for refuelling the whaling fleet also makes a profit regardless of the number of whales caught. Although again, this year it was caught below the 60 degree South. No refuelling at sea, which is dangerous at the best of times, should be carried out below 60 degree South. It was also spotted leaking some oil into the sea.

    With increase fuel costs of only being able to use higher grade more expensive HFO inside the Antarctic has greatly increased the costs of The Institute of Cetacean Research (I.C.R.). The increase in costs are paid by public funds, as are all the costs of The Institute of Cetacean Research (I.C.R.), and with this years catch of only 130 whales, there will be very little new research and the sale of the meat from those whales won't even begin to cover the costs of the whale hunting trip to the Antarctic.

    At least, the change of law on the type of heavy fuel oil which can be used inside the Antarctic has also reduced the number of cruise ships visiting to less than 50% of previous numbers with the price of a basic two week cruise increasing from about $3,000 to $6,000. Even with the change of law on HFO, a tanker carrying 1,000's of tons of oil sinking would still cause pollution to the area and wildlife. Over the past few years, there many been many major events and accidents involving cruise ships, including catching fire. If this were to happen in the Antarctic, a cruise ship would be in very serious trouble before any rescue ships could reach the area.

    If the whaling fleet is accompanied by the Japanese Coast Guard, that is another cost paid by the taxpayer.

    Eating whale in Japan is less popular than a few years ago with yearly sales of whale meat down to about 4,000 tons compared with 6,000 tons a few years ago.

    Japan’s Fisheries Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi vowed in February that Japan would never stop hunting whales, regardless of the ever increasing costs and the ever decreasing interest in consuming whale meat.

    Last year, the whaling industry was given ¥2.5 billion of money diverted from the Tohoku reconstruction fund, with ¥2 billion of it being given to Kyodo Senpaku to refit its whaling factory ship.

    The Antarctic should be free of all activity, except for the research work by the scientists on the ice pack. The world is already losing the Arctic at a rapid rate.

    The myth that the Japanese whaling in the Antarctic is "research" was busted long ago.

    I would like to see Japan leave the IWC and given up its fake research whaling. If a company like Kyodo Senpaku wants to continue to hunt for Minke whales in the Antarctic, it could apply for a gov't permit and quota but it would also have to cover the full cost of the hunt instead of the tax payer.

    It would still have to also deal with the Sea Shepherd group.

  • 0

    ka_chan

    What will Japan do it the ICJ says that Japan can continue with the "research" but can not sell the whale meat?

  • 2

    Robert Roo

    zichi at Jun. 27, 2013 - 05:44AM JST Way to go - always very logical and well researched! Mike Obrian - you arguement that the west gave up whaling easily as it was mostly for oil and there were substitutes for whale oul is good so japan can do the same as there is plenty of food in Japan..

  • 0

    Al Stewart

    The proceeds from sales of the meat partly pay for the program.

    And Earthquake relief funds were used for another part.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Zichi.

    Your argument doesn't make sense. You are basically implying that since government subsidizes part of the fleet operation, they are not classified as research?

  • 3

    zichi

    nigelboy,

    I think many people realised long ago the real reason behind the very expensive fake science was to keep the whale meat on the dinner plate. Under the terms of the IWC treaty there was no other way to go whale hunting. It even manages one scientific paper for about every 1,700 whales it kills.

    Yes, it all legal and above sea level and well within the IWC treaties, no laws broken.

    Time for Japan to leave the IWC, give up on the fake science, stop giving brides to countries in the IWC to support it motions.

    If Japanese whaling companies still wish to go hunting for Minke whales in the Antarctic or Northern Pacific, they could apply for a gov't permit and quota but they will have to finance the business without the aid of public funds and at least in the Antarctic would still have to deal with the Sea Shepherd group.

  • -1

    nigelboy

    Zichi,

    I think the nations who are no longer interested in the "development of whaling industry" as per IWC convention should leave. As to your second point, I believe there are enough scientific findings to support the abundance of Minke where they could come up with a more than adequate quota. Lift the moratorium so that the government doesn't have to support it.

    Imagine a private vessels with operators who's sole interest is to protect their investments at high seas, armed to protect themselves from vandalism, piracy, and terrorism.

  • -2

    Mike O'Brien

    Time for Japan to leave the IWC, give up on the fake science, stop giving brides to countries in the IWC to support it motions.

    Why should Japan leave the IWC? Why don't the countries who no longer want to live up to the whole purpose of the IWC as stated in their charter leave instead? They can go form the International No Whaling Commission.

    as there is plenty of food in Japan..

    Robert Roo are you willing to give up all food except rice and beans. I mean there is plenty of rice and beans for you to survive so why not give up everything else?

  • 1

    zichi

    Why should Japan leave the IWC?

    Why did Iceland and Norway leave the IWC and rejoin some years later?

  • -3

    CH3CHO

    cleo

    Countries need to keep track of their demographics so that they can fine-tune social welfare programmes, public works, schools, hospitals, etc. to keep their populations happy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't imagine anyone is proposing putting in place social welfare programmes for whales.

    Just read the IWC agreement on whaling moratorium.

    http://iwc.int/cache/downloads/1lv6fvjz06f48wc44w4s4w8gs/Schedule-February-2013.pdf

    10 (e) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10, catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes of whales from all stocks for the 1986 coastal and the 1985/86 pelagic seasons and thereafter shall be zero. This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest 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.

    IWC needs to keep track of the population of the whales to set catch limits.

  • -5

    ihope2eatwhales

    Robert Roo,

    Mike Obrian - you arguement that the west gave up whaling easily as it was mostly for oil and there were substitutes for whale oul is good so japan can do the same as there is plenty of food in Japan..

    Japan has the food self-sufficiency of 40%...

    Japan will do what Japan decides in accordance with international agreement, not what Robert Roo allows.

    Basic situation with whales is as follows: - There are 500,000+ minke whales - Catching 5,000 a year is only 1% (sustainable for minke whales) - ICRW is the whaling agreement - Whales taste good - Moratorium is wrong, but anti-whalers demand science to end it - Japan continues to do the research for future sustainable whaling, until anti-whalers cease obstruction.

  • 1

    ratpack

    When it comes down to it Japan will continue with their 'cough cough....research' regardless. If the international court says 'it's OK' the Japanese will say 'see we do nothing wrong'...if the international court says 'NO it's not OK', the Japanese will say 'who cares we will do it anyway'. And the cat and mouse game continues.

  • 2

    zichi

    Japan has the food self-sufficiency of 40%...

    it wasn't that long ago when it was 80%, and then 60% but its not directly related to whale hunting and more to do with problems in the farming industry, like not enough younger people wanting to take it up.

    There are new methods of farming, like farms in inner city skyscrapers which can produce very high levels of quality produce and get it to city markets quickly and while still fresh.

    Some of these new farming methods are being built in the reconstruction of Tohoku.

    Even so the consumption of whale meat continues to fall to a current level of about 4,000 tons per year compared with 6,000 tons a few years ago.

    The country needs a radical makeover of its farming industry to raise the level of self sufficiency and also to attract younger people to the industry.

    Cool if you can farm all day and walk out of the door and into a nightclub.

    According to the Japan Whaling Association there are 750,000 Minke whales

  • -4

    ihope2eatwhales

    ratpack, Japan already said it would obey ICJ decision.

    zichi, please read second part of my comment. I do not use low food self-sufficiency as reason for whaling. Other person claimed there is much food in Japan, I simply point out it is not so.

    Even so the consumption of whale meat continues to fall to a current level of about 4,000 tons per year compared with 6,000 tons a few years ago.

    Of course. We can not eat the whale meat which does not exist. Do you not hear our ardent desire for the commercial whaling, to boost supply of whale?

  • 3

    zichi

    Of course. We can not eat the whale meat which does not exist.

    stick your head into the cold storage, they have been full of whale meat for several years, minus one cold storage which was lost in the earthquake and tsunami disasters.

  • 1

    Robert Roo

    ihope2eatwhales at Jun. 27, 2013 - 10:56AM JST ratpack, Japan already said it would obey ICJ decision' Which it is and will i am sure but twisted to its own interpretation.... 'zichi, please read second part of my comment. I do not use low food self-sufficiency as reason for whaling. Other person claimed there is much food in Japan, I simply point out it is not so.' Plenty of food in Japan everyone has a full stomach except for those on the street that the government should support instead of wasting it on whaling. Most whale meat is sold as pet food as the normal populace don't eat it. Plenty of better foods to eat including rice and beans.

  • 1

    smithinjapan

    Mike O'Brien: "Why should Japan leave the IWC?"

    Don't worry, they will once the IWC votes against them, despite the promise to abide by what the IWC rules (ie. they expect the IWC to vote in their favour, which given the bribes to land-locked African nations is entirely possible).

  • 2

    zichi

    RobertRoo my comment wasn't actually directed at you but an argument often used by pro whalers is the lack of food self sufficiency which as I said isn't directly tied into the need for whale hunting, which it isn't. The amount of whale meat currently consumed works out at less than 50 grams per adult per year which shows many people have no interest in it as a foodstuff.

  • -4

    ihope2eatwhales

    zichi,

    stick your head into the cold storage, they have been full of whale meat for several years

    Before, it was said only 4,000 tons are in storage, now. It is same as amount of consumption you said. It means consumption is same as stock. We cannot eat anymore than this.

    The amount of whale meat currently consumed works out at less than 50 grams per adult per year which shows many people have no interest in it as a foodstuff.

    It shows supply is very limited, if that is all.

    We want the commercial whaling, and whale meat from Iceland because of it.

    Robert Roo,

    Most whale meat is sold as pet food

    Most whale meat is eaten by humans, not pets, I believe. But you claim otherwise, I want to see proof.

    smithinjapan,

    Don't worry, they will once the IWC votes against them, despite the promise to abide by what the IWC rules

    You seem 100% confused. It is ICJ case, not IWC meeting.

  • 1

    zichi

    Before, it was said only 4,000 tons are in storage, now. It is same as amount of consumption you said. It means consumption is same as stock. We cannot eat anymore than this.

    No the problem was, Japan was catching more whales than the meat it could actually sell. But they had a couple of bad years down in the Antarctic, especially this past season with only 130 Minke whales in the bag, a bad season in the Pacific, only 30 Minke whales and the disaster of 2011 stopped imports from Iceland and a cold storage with several thousand tons of whale meat was destroyed. So stocks have dropped but I don't actually know the total figure of meat in storage, but yes its dropping. But don't worry you'll still get your whale meat but the prices will go up, and up and up!

  • -2

    ihope2eatwhales

    I don't actually know the total figure of meat in storage

    Maybe you can research the total figure, before making many claims about it! (It is just my way of thinking...)

  • 1

    zichi

    ihope2eatwhales

    well the last figure for storage was more than 6,000 tons with 4,000 tons consumed last year which is less than previous years....

  • 0

    Robert Roo

    Sorry Zichi I just copied from '' ihope2eatwhales at Jun. 27, 2013 - 10:56AM JST ratpack, Japan already said it would obey ICJ decision.

    zichi, please read second part of my comment. I do not use low food self-sufficiency as reason for whaling. Other person claimed there is much food in Japan, I simply point out it is not so.'' That's his post I had directly copied....

    Your name was there as he was refering to you, sorry I was refering to him - i agree with you Zichi japan has increased its self sufficiency and should do more in that field, also solar and wind tech subsidies would be more logical if it wants to be self sufficient. however Japan has more than enough food and what it doesn't produce it imports at a profit instead of subsidising whale catches which is a loss. The guy that wants to eat whales can go to the cold storage and have tabehodai!! (Eat all you can eat) Very few people like it that I know of - none. it is not tasty but yes some people eat bugs to be different so.....that's why it is in cold storage as it doesn't sell and then it is expired and becomes pet food. Internet and even Japanese newspapers themselves in the past have reported it.

    Zichi's comments are correct on past research - now u will find it hard to get information and also suddenly everyone loves whale meat and the stocks are not enough.

  • 0

    Mike O'Brien

    Why did Iceland and Norway leave the IWC and rejoin some years later?

    Norway never left the IWC and why don't you answer my question first?

    Most whale meat is sold as pet food as the normal populace don't eat it.

    Please provide proof of this claim.

    Don't worry, they will once the IWC votes against them, despite the promise to abide by what the IWC rules (ie. they expect the IWC to vote in their favour, which given the bribes to land-locked African nations is entirely possible).

    Excuse me but this statement makes no sense. What IWC ruling and what do land-locked African countries have to do with any ruling?

  • -3

    ihope2eatwhales

    zichi,

    well the last figure for storage was more than 6,000 tons

    How do you know it? Where is the number? Latest number should be in same place.

    with 4,000 tons consumed last year which is less than previous years....

    How do you know amount consumed each year? Same questions.

  • -1

    Mike O'Brien

    land-locked African nations

    There is exactly ONE land-locked African nation that is a member of the IWC. That would be Mali. So there goes another anti-whaling myth.

    Now there are at least SIX land-locked European nations in the IWC that all vote against whaling.

  • 2

    nigelboy

    well the last figure for storage was more than 6,000 tons with 4,000 tons consumed last year which is less than previous years....

    To be precise, the inventory of whale meat was 4,704 tons month ending 4/12. From 4/12-4/13, the total whale meat received in cold storage was 3,884 tons. With the ending inventory of 3,946 tons in 4/13, the consumption was 4,642 tons for the the one year period.

    http://www.market.jafic.or.jp/suisan/

  • 0

    Mike O'Brien

    Shhh, nigelboy.

    What do you mean by bring the real facts to the discussion?

  • 1

    zichi

    Consumption of whale meat has been dropping.In 2006, the stockpile of whale meat was nearly 9,000 tons and more than 8,000 tons was sold in that year. By 2012, the consumption figure has dropped to 4,600 tons

    http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.jp/search/label/stockpile%20figures

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Consumption of whale meat has been dropping.In 2006, the stockpile of whale meat was nearly 9,000 tons and more than 8,000 tons was sold in that year. By 2012, the consumption figure has dropped to 4,600 tons

    Chicken or egg if you ask me.

    Based on the link, it looks like the consumption levels are pretty much on par with the incoming supply numbers from 2001-2008. (i.e. more supplies, more consumption)

  • 0

    Robert Roo

    nigelboy at Jun. 28, 2013 - 12:11AM JST ''Chicken or egg if you ask me.

    Based on the link, it looks like the consumption levels are pretty much on par with the incoming supply numbers from 2001-2008. (i.e. more supplies, more consumption)''

    Last year only 1/4 of the catch was consumed.and I wonder how many consumers were dogs too?? In a series of auctions this year, the government organisation which markets the meat sold only a quarter of the 1,200 tons of whale hunted last year, (2012). leaving 909 tons unsold. On top of unsold meat from previous hunts, (previous years) this brings to 4,700 tons the total amount of whale stockpiled in Japan. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/article3445818.ece

  • 1

    nigelboy

    Robert Roo

    My calculations are based on the monthly refrigirated stocks figures from the Japan's Fisheries which includes the outstanding inventory, the amount that came into the storage facilities, and the amount that went out of the storage facilities. What you have in your article is the ICR decision to try the auction as opposed to directly selling them to the wholesalers/distributors in hopes of increasing the price. Hence, 75% unsold simply means that the seller did not accept the bid. This has been discussed in the article last year.

  • 0

    Robert Roo

    nigelboy at Jun. 28, 2013 - 03:32AM JST

    That's not what it says so go the link I put and read it yourself. And then show me the linc to where you got or made your figures.

    Japan’s whaling fleet, long the target of criticism by environmentalists and foreign governments, is accumulating thousands of tons of unsold meat as the country’s consumers turn away from the controversial hunt. In a series of auctions this year, the government organisation which markets the meat sold only a quarter of the 1,200 tons of whale hunted last year, leaving 909 tons unsold. On top of unsold meat from previous hunts, this brings to 4,700 tons the total amount of whale stockpiled in Japan.

    Says very clearly it was not consumed

  • 1

    nigelboy

    That's not what it says so go the link I put and read it yourself. And then show me the linc to where you got or made your figures.

    It's not what is said in your article. It's "what's not said" in your article which implies that these meat were never sold. This is false. They were eventually sold through regular wholesale which has nothing to do with the auctions.

    http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXNASDG1300L_T10C12A6CR0000/

    As to where I got my figures, I've already linked them.

    http://www.market.jafic.or.jp/suisan/

  • 0

    Robert Roo

    Says very clearly 'sold only a quarter of the 1,200 tons of whale hunted last year' The key words being 'quarter' 'sold' and 'hunted last year' Can't be more specific than that. Your links do not have the figures you have quoted and do not have reference at all to the other claims you have made.

    In the 2012-2013 Antarctic season Japan killed a reported 103 minke whales. (They are an average of 10 - 12 Tonne each which x by 103 = roughly the totals I quoted but no where near to what you are suggesting.) ( the government organisation which markets the meat sold only a quarter of the 1,200 tons of whale hunted last year, (2012). leaving 909 tons unsold)

    In 2011/2012 Japan killed some 445 whales in total.

    This figure includes 297 minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales, 2 fin whales, 95 sei whales and one sperm whale.

    In 2010/2011 Japan also killed some 445 whales.

    This figure includes the 2010 hunts in the open ocean of the North Pacific where 3 sperm whales, 100 sei whales, 50 Bryde's and 14 minke whales were killed, whilst in the coastal hunt in the North Pacific, 105 minke whales were killed.

    In Antarctica (between December 2010 and February 2011), the Japanese fleet killed 2 fin whales and 171 minke whales

    http://whales.org/en-au/node/6732

    And all the others that support killing whales should read more as to how several species are on the verge of Collapse and yet above are figures of more than just minke whales (the most abundant) being caught. The main reason for the moratorium was that much larger amounts 100,000s of tonnes so it is of course a better situation now than before is all that can be positively said.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Says very clearly 'sold only a quarter of the 1,200 tons of whale hunted last year' The key words being 'quarter' 'sold' and 'hunted last year' Can't be more specific than that. Your links do not have the figures you have quoted and do not have reference at all to the other claims you have made.

    It's because you don't have the ability to read the links and talley the monthly statistics from the Japan Fishery Agency. To add further, if these western journalist had the brain capacity to actually go into the JFA website and tally the figures instead of merely translating off the wall environmental group like IKA NET, he/she wouldn't embarass themselves. But then again, not many people within Japan actually tries to correct these "English" articles nor many English speakers check for accuracy, the type of articles you linked gets unchecked.

    The Nikkei article, again, clearly states that this was the FIRST TIME, ICR conducted an auction in hopes of increasing the price. The result was a 1/4 of the tonnage of whale meat, the buyer accepted the asking price by ICR. Those that were bid low and was not accepted by ICR were simply sold by their usual routes which is through their regular wholesalers.

    And as to your calculation of Minke whales in the second paragraph, this is yet again western journalists displaying their "what is not said" for the stocks that went into auction are catches from the Northwest Pacific Ocean which included only 94.7 tons of Minke.

  • 0

    Mike O'Brien

    Robert Roo, the article very clearly says the meat wasn't sold at auction on one day not that it was never sold. While the link nigelboy provided gives the month by month values and very clearly shows a steady market with sales every month..

    10-12 tons is more than even a large Minke whale weighs. A typical Minke whale weighs 5-7 tons.. And not all that weight is meat, there is plenty of bone and inedible organs.

  • 1

    sfjp330

    nigelboy Jun. 28, 2013 - 05:32AM JST And as to your calculation of Minke whales in the second paragraph, this is yet again western journalists displaying their "what is not said" for the stocks that went into auction are catches from the Northwest Pacific Ocean which included only 94.7 tons of Minke.

    Why don't you take statistics class in Japan. Then you can calculate the appropriate sample size for the research and for the market, just like Japan has done. I have yet to see anyone show where the bogus math and statistics Japan uses is correct. What's left, it seems that arrogance is the most likely answer, no-one is going to tell them what to do no matter what the environmental impact. Let's hope that international pressure will force Japan to cease their barbaric slaughters of these highly intelligent creatures.

  • 0

    Robert Roo

    nigelboy at Jun. 28, 2013 - 03:32AM Simply put you wrote '' Hence, 75% unsold simply means that the seller did not accept the bid'' Meaning yes 'unsold' meaning yes un consumed yes. Add the totals and it all adds up weather a minke is 5 or 12, the average is apparently 8 for a small minke and as they are dishermen they would be trying to catch the largest animals still adds up as to the roughly 1000 tonne from the 100 over whales caught. So use your figure it is even less - use a calculator. And as to the links u sent they are not at all relevant. Can u read them I doubt it as they are fish stocks and Nikkei. 4-5000 tonne in storage is more than 4-5 times the total of last years catch. And now your trying to justify the article as lies and not sold on that day but maybe the next day hahhahaha get a life

  • 0

    Mike O'Brien

    sfjb330, the Japanese already proved their maths and statistics are real and correct. The numbers were accepted by the IWC, including Australia, without any complaint about them. Probably because they use the same maths and statistics that the IWC uses in their own RMP.

    Robert Roo, it does matter whether it is 5 or 12 because it shows either you don't know enough to intelligently discuss the issue or that you are knowingly using false numbers. The average is not 8 it is closer to 6. And as they are researchers they catch whales at random no matter the size. Haven't you seen the picture that Greenpeace keeps recycling of the juvenile whales they catch. Again the data is available for anyone who wants to know the truth. The ICR gives the data on weights, along with the other data, to the IWC every year where anyone interested in truth can look at them.

  • 0

    Robert Roo

    On October 27th 2011, the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) announced that it would send 1211.9 tons of whale meat to auction. This is the byproduct of its summer research program in the Northwest Pacific Ocean, and the amount equals much of the meat for commercial distribution previously sold on a negotiation basis. (Note the word previously) (And next the word only) The only exception to the bidding is 3-tons of sperm whale meat, and 235.9 tons secured for public distribution that will be provided to rural communities and schools at low prices.

    The auction took place every month from November 2011 and ended as planned in March 2012. There were five auctions for sei whale, and four for minke and Bryde’s whale meat; separately for those who are in the industry (the intermediate wholesalers) and the general public. The auctions sold a mere 303.1 tons. Three-quarters of the available meat, 908.8 tons, is left unsold.

    http://ika-net.jp/en/our-actions/whaling-issue/251-whale-meat-does-not-sell

    Has some nice graphs and charts that may make it a little easier for you. Also very clearly spells it out that it was all sold at auction except for 238 Kilos for School lunch distribution - no doubt to continue the culture and convince those having never eaten it that it is Japanese.tradition. Note the word 'only' And these totals Also add up to my precious stated totals but this is another net site and there are dozens more net sites all with the same figures and same statements that 1/4 only was sold and as such the remainder went into cold storage to add to previous years unsold meat.

    'The only exception to the bidding is 3-tons of sperm whale meat, and 235.9 tons secured for public distribution that will be provided to rural communities and schools at low prices.'

    http://ika-net.jp/en/our-actions/whaling-issue/251-whale-meat-does-not-sell And very easy for all to read instead of posting your evidence in Japanese on an English discussion site

  • -1

    zichi

    The sales of Japanese whale meat has been dropping like a stone on a pond, down from about 9,000 tons in 2006 to about 4,000 tons last year. Its gotten so bad, that next year they have decided to offer whale meat directly on the Internet. What will they call it? iWhale?

    Also, the Icelandic quota of 184 Fin whales for this season are all destined for export to Japan which will further decrease the amount of Japanese whale meat sold and is also one of the reasons why the sales figures are dropping because the whaling company, Kyodo Senpaku no longer has a monploy on the sale of whale meat.

    It won't be long before Iceland is selling more whale meat in Japan than the meat from the fake science.

  • -2

    sfjp330

    Mike O'BrienJun. 28, 2013 - 06:33AM JST And as they are researchers they catch whales at random no matter the size.

    Seriously, set aside all debate on environmentalism versus whatever you call the other side and think: Who really believes Japan at this point in their excuse of "scientific purposes"? And nobody calls them on this? Why aren't the international authorities doing something about that? If it truly is for "scientific purpose", then how about a ban on the sale of any of those whales caught for such purpose? Can they produce this "vital research" for the world to see? Does it even exist? What are they studying, the rate at which higher mammals go extinct when hunted for rich Japanese jerks to consume?

  • -3

    zichi

    Following the 3/11 disasters, the bottom of the market dropped out for imported whale meat from Iceland and none was imported in 2011 and 2012, this year will be the first since 3/11. But even with the absence of Icelandic whale meat, domestic sales continued to drop. Some prefectures eat very little or no whale meat so its not something which is common across the whole of the country. Very little is consumed in Hokkaido. The most popular places are Tokyo with its restaurants and Sasebo and Nagasaki. Also Ishinomaki and other places in Miyagi and Iwate.

  • -2

    zichi

    Many Japanese buy whale meat not for personal consumption but for their cats and dogs but we will never know the figures on that one? Guess some group should try to make some kind of poll?

  • 3

    nigelboy

    Robert Roo

    Still at it I see.

    First and foremost, the fallacy in your argument is estimating the inventory based on catches of types of whales when the inventory tonnage are based on processed meat. To put it simply, a 10 ton whale does not equal 10 tons of marketable whale meat.

    Secondly, I never disputed Zichi's link for it comes from a pro whaling individual who use to post here quite often. What the link tells you us the incoming stock and the outgoing stock numbers are similar in numbers with very little variance. In other words, the more incoming stocks, the similar outgoing stocks resulted for that particular year. This is clearly displayed in the bar graph on the linked site under "Graph: Annual volume". In other words, Zich's link only helps the argument that the sales volumes are down because the supply has been low.

    Finally, my calculation is based on similar methods used by Zichi's link using JFA monthly incoming stocks, beginning inventory and ending inventory. Hence, the annual consumption total ending April of 2013 was 4642 tons. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

  • -1

    Mike O'Brien

    then how about a ban on the sale of any of those whales caught for such purpose?

    How about it? Go ahead and get the regulations changed. But as of now the regulations REQUIRE the meat to be processed and until that changes, to not process it would be a violation.

    Can they produce this "vital research" for the world to see? Does it even exist?

    What do you mean? They do produce it and even make available lists of all the published papers. And of course it exists unless you refuse to open your eyes.

    What are they studying, the rate at which higher mammals go extinct when hunted for rich Japanese jerks to consume?

    There are a whole slew of things they are studying. Any one can read the research plan and get educated. The raeder might even find out that the species being hunted are increasing or stable in population and not headed for extiction.

    Many Japanese buy whale meat not for personal consumption but for their cats and dogs but we will never know the figures on that one?

    And cats and dogs shouldn't eat?

  • -5

    ihope2eatwhales

    The sales of Japanese whale meat has been dropping like a stone on a pond, down from about 9,000 tons in 2006 to about 4,000 tons last year.

    zichi, I checked link from nigelboy, it shows the whale in storage is less than 4,000 tons. So, I think you are right that consumption is 4,000 tons, now. OK.

    However, it is difficult to eat more than 4,000 tons of whales, if there is less than 4,000 tons of whales to eat.

    Also, the Icelandic quota of 184 Fin whales for this season are all destined for export to Japan which will further decrease the amount of Japanese whale meat sold

    I have eaten Iceland meat. However, recently Japanese research meat is on sale instead. I do not reduce intake of Japanese meat because of eating Iceland meat. Usually, only one or other is available in my shop. I don't think you need worry about it.

    It won't be long before Iceland is selling more whale meat in Japan than the meat from the fake science.

    I am happy for more Iceland meat to come on sale. I eat less American and Australian beef, because of it.

  • -1

    zichi

    ihope2eatwhales

    the link I provided from a New Zealander blogger living in Japan and eating whale wheat and has a major interest in it is much better on figures for stockpiles and sales than the link provided by nigelboy http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.jp/search/label/stockpile%20figures

  • 1

    Robert Roo

    nigelboy at Jun. 28, 2013 - 07:50AM

    You wrote - 'To put it simply, a 10 ton whale does not equal 10 tons of marketable whale meat. And Hence, the annual consumption total ending April of 2013 was 4642 tons. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.'

    Oh really well The figures are rough based on estimates and aproximations ofcourse only the final sold tonnage after procesing will be exact ofcourse as the sales are based on per kilo charges. Also figures vary as to accidental catches and ethnic catches being added separately. Apart from several other species sometimes not wanting to be mentioned as having been slaughtered as they are more endangered than others.

    The catch was only some 100 plus animals and if you want to multiply that by even less weight you will get a smaller figure like your 5 Tonne babies for example. That's pretty Funny as you are now trying to tell me that Japan consumed more than it caught! You said 'consumption total ending April of 2013 was 4642 tons. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.' Your words not mine. So genius how does that fit in your calculator? I think u will find that that is not what was consumed but what is in storage being the total of several years left overs as the total catch for the year doesn't add up to any where near to that figure in storage. And again I will say if its in storage it's because it wasn't popular and so wasn't sold. Common sense. If it was popular there wouldn't be any in storage at all zero - and if you ate more than you had well you just solved the worlds food problems forever. Maybe it does takes more than a genius to figure that out.

  • -5

    ihope2eatwhales

    zichi, if you wish to discuss with nigelboy, please tell it to him.

    But, I look at your link, and data is old, 2009. Link from nigelboy shows data from 2009 to 2013. See this one: http://www.market.jafic.or.jp/suisan/fKoukaiMain.aspx

    And this one show amount of whale ("kujira") in "O51" cell as 3946. It is for April 2013. http://www.market.jafic.or.jp/suisan/file/reizo/2013/09syuyou2013_04.xls

    I also compared with graph from your link. 3946 tons does not seem to be big change to amount of whale in storage, since graph of old data.

    Anti-whalers would say, amount of whale is not sold. So amount should be increasing remarkably. But data does not show increase, particularly.

    Thank you nigelboy, for interesting information.

  • 2

    Robert Roo

    zichi at Jun. 28, 2013 - 07:17AM JST Many Japanese buy whale meat not for personal consumption but for their cats and dogs but we will never know the figures on that one? Mike O'Brien at Jun. 28, 2013 - 08:25AM JST And mike obrian's answer is

    'And cats and dogs shouldn't eat?'

    So Guess the cats have a culture of eating whales to? Or perhaps it's for science to see which cat likes which whale? Or how much can a cat eat? Perhaps he can eat More than is given to him? Haha have to ask the cats....

    ihope2eatwhales at Jun. 28, 2013 - 12:50PM 'Anti-whalers would say, amount of whale is not sold. So amount should be increasing remarkably. But data does not show increase, particularly.'

    Catch is way down on previous years so the storage stock has been reduced - also because of the cats.

  • 1

    zichi

    ihopetoeatwhales I know is blog isn't well organised, but if you click on the year links at the bottom he provides the data for most recent years.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    The catch was only some 100 plus animals and if you want to multiply that by even less weight you will get a smaller figure like your 5 Tonne babies for example. That's pretty Funny as you are now trying to tell me that Japan consumed more than it caught! You said 'consumption total ending April of 2013 was 4642 tons. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.' Your words not mine. So genius how does that fit in your calculator? I think u will find that that is not what was consumed but what is in storage being the total of several years left overs as the total catch for the year doesn't add up to any where near to that figure in storage. And again I will say if its in storage it's because it wasn't popular and so wasn't sold. Common sense. If it was popular there wouldn't be any in storage at all zero - and if you ate more than you had well you just solved the worlds food problems forever. Maybe it does takes more than a genius to figure that out.

    Stll at it.

    Do me a favor and click on the JFA site. Pick any month. In the statistic, there are MANY marine resources listed. It lists such items like Mackeral, Squid, and Tuna. Their inventory are well over 20 times that of whale meat. So according to your logic, those items are more unpopular than whale meat since their inventories are much larger, correct?

  • -2

    Citizen2012

    in "Commercial whaling" there are 2 words, "whaling", yes Japan is whaling , Commercial , yes Japan is making a commerce our of it and money is involved, so Japan is "Commercial whaling" => end of demonstration.

  • 1

    sfjp330

    We may not like the loopholes in International Conventions but they are there and have been used by countries in the IWC and other organizations. Some of these are now hypocrits when they condem Japan for its similar use. We supposedly live in society of laws. There are processes to deal with disagreements. While the Japanese may have been shamed by the attention brought on it by public negative reation it will not lose face and surrender. It may, however, agree to changes if the heat was reduced. If science, rational conservation objectives and international law could replace myths and emotion perhaps a solution could be found.

  • 2

    Robert Roo

    nigelboy at Jun. 28, 2013 - 10:15PM JST 'So according to your logic, those items are more unpopular than whale meat since their inventories are much larger, correct?'

    That's not the argument about any other items in inventory really makes no difference at all - you again try to evade the question and answer with some other answer same as the Japanese by claiming the catch as science. I guess birds of a feather flock together. You have given so many different even conflicting answers. Trying to say stocks and consumption are even and then stock figures are consumption figues. None of your statistics add up and now your talking about Mackeral, Squid, and Tuna stocks which are not relevant same as when you were on about kangaroos.... Not relevant so I guess intended to be but a distraction.

    sfjp330 at Jun. 29, 2013 - 03:34AM JST 'While the Japanese may have been shamed by the attention brought on it by public negative reation it will not lose face and surrender.'

    Well did u consider perhaps the right thing to do is to stop what most of the world Has Also Stopped Doing? Join the community that made the moratorium for a reason???? Then gain face by admitting wrong doing - simple really - it's already a loss making industry.... Japan loses very little and gains so much face by doing the right thing....

  • 0

    sfjp330

    Robert Roo Jun. 29, 2013 - 04:27AM JST Well did u consider perhaps the right thing to do is to stop what most of the world Has Also Stopped Doing? Join the community that made the moratorium for a reason???? Then gain face by admitting wrong doing - simple really - it's already a loss making industry.... Japan loses very little and gains so much face by doing the right thing....

    Are you saying Japan is breaking the International law? Where is the evidence?

  • -1

    OssanAmerica

    Citizen2012Jun. 29, 2013 - 01:52AM JST in "Commercial whaling" there are 2 words, "whaling", yes Japan is whaling , Commercial , yes Japan is making a >commerce our of it and money is involved, so Japan is "Commercial whaling" => end of demonstration.

    Cute but that's not how the IWC defines "commercial whaling".

  • 0

    Robert Roo

    sfjp330 at Jun. 29, 2013 - 05:29AM JST 'Technically, Japan's research programs have been legally conduct in accordance with the International Convention'

    Yes sounds like you hope so. And that's your opinion and your entitled to it.

  • 2

    nigelboy

    That's not the argument about any other items in inventory really makes no difference at all - you again try to evade the question and answer with some other answer same as the Japanese by claiming the catch as science. I guess birds of a feather flock together. You have given so many different even conflicting answers. Trying to say stocks and consumption are even and then stock figures are consumption figues. None of your statistics add up and now your talking about Mackeral, Squid, and Tuna stocks which are not relevant same as when you were on about kangaroos.... Not relevant so I guess intended to be but a distraction.

    Stop flip flopping Robert. The inconvenient link that Zichi linked to CLEARLY indicates that the outgoing stocks are in line with incoming stocks for a particular year. What's even worse is that you don't have the ability to add up the numbers for 4/12~4/13 from the JFA monthly figures yet have the nerve to criticize the accuracy. Tell you what. Why don't you come up with the figures from 4/12~4/13.

  • 0

    Robert Roo

    Not criticising their accuracy but yours and your interpretation of it. Like someone said earlier they have statistics classes perhaps you should join one. Flip flopping yes your doing a pretty good job off it and statistics as Zichi said zichi at Jun. 28, 2013 - 01:11PM JST I know is blog isn't well organised, but if you click on the year links at the bottom he provides the data for most recent years.

  • -2

    ihope2eatwhales

    I know is blog isn't well organised, but if you click on the year links at the bottom he provides the data for most recent years.

    I do not know what you want to say, but I do not see it, anyway. Last data I could see was August 2009. nigelboy gives the link with information from 2009, onwards. I also confused because it does not look like the anti-whaler blog, anyway. Did you stop being anti-whaler?

  • 1

    jumpultimatestars

    @sfjp Just because a law has a loophole doesn't mean it's ok to just exploit it. If justice is had either the loophole will be fixed, or we'll make a loophole of our own to force Japan out of whaling as we have been successfully doing with our protesting boats getting in the way.

  • -5

    Mike O'Brien

    @jumpultimatestars. Actually 'loopholes' are specifically put in laws with the expectation that they will be use them. For example, as Sea Shepherd well knows, many currents have 'loopholes' in their tax laws exempting charities from paying taxes. Are you really claiming they put that 'loophole' in their laws NOT expecting charities to use it and that Sea Shepherd is wrong for using this 'loophole'?

  • -2

    Jamez

    Did I ever say it's not alright to "use" a loophole? Try reading the first sentence of my comment again, I used a VERY different verb to describe it.

  • -2

    Jamez

    (this is jumpultimatestars)

  • -4

    Skeeter27

    Here's my take on situation, first of all if Japan want to hunt whales let them. But, let them do it in a traditional style as they so eloquently put it is Japan's long-lasting culture and tradition. However, I do not see using modern ships as tradition. Japan can use boats with sails so that the whales have a fighting chance. Use wooden harpoons... Not modern ships that can catch hundreds of whales!!! This is not tradition!!

    If Japan wishes that hot whales let it be done in a traditional manner not with modern technology,

  • 1

    hkitagawa

    They can do steam cell research and grow whales meat in laboratory :)

  • -1

    funkymofo

    Actually 'loopholes' are specifically put in laws with the expectation that they will be use them.

    Thanks for the laugh.

  • -2

    Mike O'Brien

    You welcome funkymofo. But are you implying that the people who write laws that have clauses that specifically say there is an exemption don't understand what their own words mean?

  • -1

    Robert Roo

    The Americans wrote the law with the loophole as they figured it better to slow the Japanese down and have a recorded limited kill rather than have countries like the japanese leave the IWC and go at it full speed slaughter as before. Rest of the members wanted a total ban at that same time. So yes they knew this would happen. Very hard for everyone to join as one.

  • 0

    funkymofo

    @mikeobrien,

    loophole- a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded.

    A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.

    A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.

    ie. not a "specifically put in law with the intention that they will use it", but a subversion of the intention of the law.

  • -4

    Mike O'Brien

    The Americans wrote the law with the loophole as they figured it better to slow the Japanese down and have a recorded limited kill rather than have countries like the japanese leave the IWC and go at it full speed slaughter as before. Rest of the members wanted a total ban at that same time. So yes they knew this would happen. Very hard for everyone to join as one.

    No Robert, you have all wrong. Article VIII, which allows research whaling, was part of the original IWC charter in 1946. Before Japan was a member. Before any moratorium. And it was agreed to by every country that joined the IWC. Also other countries than Japan have used Article VIII over the years.

    but a subversion of the intention of the law.

    No. Exactly why the provision was put in the law almost 70 years ago.

  • 1

    CH3CHO

    Robert Roo

    Rest of the members wanted a total ban at that same time.

    Why?

    Do you support sustainable whaling? If the answer is "yes", your opinion is not so much different from Japan's. If your answer is "no", your opinion is incompatible with that of IWC. Remember the moratorium agreement.

    10 (e) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10, catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes of whales from all stocks for the 1986 coastal and the 1985/86 pelagic seasons and thereafter shall be zero. This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest 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.

    IWC and its members are clearly for sustainable whaling. If there is a country that is taking advantage of a loophole, it would be Australia that is unreasonably delaying the process for setting new catch limits.

    Let me ask you again. Do you support sustainable whaling?

  • -1

    sf2k

    If you want to have a commercial whaling industry in Australia, fine. Just stop calling it scientific.

  • -1

    sf2k

    ...off the coast of Australia

  • -2

    arrestpaul

    jumpultimatestars - Just because a law has a loophole doesn't mean it's ok to just exploit it. If justice is had either the loophole will be fixed, or we'll make a loophole of our own to force Japan out of whaling as we have been successfully doing with our protesting boats getting in the way.

    Is there a "loophole" in some law that allows "your protesting boat crews" to continually use violence to force others to do your bidding?

    Japan is defending itself against an Australian claim that scientific research isn't scientific research unless Australia says it's scientific research.

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in National

View all

View all