Japan says it will try again with scientific whaling program

Lethal research should also lead to a better understanding of the Antarctic marine ecosystem, Japan maintains.

Ludicrous. What's the point of understanding it by extincting it?

And... let the world see the worst side of Japan, again. So so sad!

They should stop saying they want to kill whales for research and state the truth. They want to 'harvest' them.

As much as I love Japan and the Japanese, some things they do just drives me crazy.

Sea Sheppard needs to be placed on alert for deployment. Same old lies from the Government of Japan. They kill whales for food not research.

This is such the typical response by the politicians and bureaucrats. The kabuki drama of Japanese politics. It is like they think real life works like a kabuki show.

"They say we must stop whaling."

"No, no, no! We will work harder to convince them we are the pure people and their thinking is corrupted by their imperialist minds."

And then ... everyone commits seppuku.

Commodore Shmidlap (Retired)

What's the point of understanding it by extincting it?

They aren't "extincting it", they are catching just a tiny fraction of these whales for this research. The IWC itself says there are 500,000 minke whales, and Japan has never caught more than 1,000 in a year (e.g. less than 0.2%). It's more likely an asteroid hits earth and drives them and us to extinction than it is that such a trivial amount of whaling does it.

Disillusioned,

They should stop saying they want to kill whales for research and state the truth. They want to 'harvest' them.

Did you read the article? "It argued in its proposal to the IWC that knowledge gained by the research killing would help the IWC calculate sustainable levels for hunting."

So, one can deduce that Japan's interest is in facilitating sustainable harvests, and that's what the aim of the research is related to. The IWC is the organization that nations are supposed to join if they want to hunt whales, so Japan's behaviour is 100% compatible with it.

On the other hand, can someone explain why on earth the IWC doesn't currently set even a single whale as the catch limit for these 500,000 minke whales? At least one should be safe... but the limit is ZERO! Very strange indeed. You'd think there was some cultural issues at play here, discriminating against those countries that want to catch whales according to the rules...

People need to stop blaming an entire country on actions of a few people.The government approving this hunt is not the opinion of Japan's majority who could care less about the science of whales.

Try again? Why not just give up, and stick to coastal whaling. I would even be content for Japan to leave the IWC if they stuck to what they call their "culture", in their own waters.

500,000? Well, that's all right then. I'm sure Japanese marine biologists will produce some revolutionary studies on Arctic ecosystems after they kill these whales, the kind of thing that will turn the world of oceanic studies on its ear. Or, much more likely, a cookbook.

Christopher Glen,

I would even be content for Japan to leave the IWC if they stuck to what they call their "culture", in their own waters.

Yeah, but the IWC is the "international" whaling commission. It's making rules for catching whales outside one's own waters, which is why Japan is a member methinks.

Commodore Shmidlap (Retired),

500,000? Well, that's all right then.

That's what I think too.

I'm sure Japanese marine biologists will produce some revolutionary studies on Arctic ecosystems after they kill these whales, the kind of thing that will turn the world of oceanic studies on its ear. Or, much more likely, a cookbook.

I love sarcasm as much as the next person, but as the article noted, the Japanese purpose is to get data that will help setting sustainable catch limits for these whales. I would guess that a limit of "one whale" is sustainable, but I think the Japanese idea is to get scientific data that could enable the IWC to permit higher catches than that, with confidence that it wouldn't be unsustainable.

the Japanese purpose is to get data that will help setting sustainable catch limits for these whales.

The Japanese government has no interest in sustainable catch limits. Look at how bluefin tuna are being hunted to extinction in the Mediterranean and elsewhere to supply Japan. The heavily subsidised commercial whaling carried out under the bogus research banner is itself not sustainable since nobody wants to eat the stuff. The IWC has provided a great excuse for Japan to quietly exit this industry, pleading gaiatsu. The Japanese government would be very well advised to avail itself of this fortuitous opportunity.

dont know about you but being continually lied to by this research whaling BS is one reason why Im totally against whaling, if they just came out and said we want to kill them for food and a make a profit then that wouldnt be as insulting to somebodies intelligence as "research whaling"

The Japanese government would be very well advised to avail itself of this fortuitous opportunity.

An excellent point indeed

They should realise the whaling hurts the reputation of Japan but also the economy, so why are they so insistent on continuing a culture that was not even widespread and rich as the others.

why are they so insistent on continuing

For food.

On the other hand, can someone explain why on earth the IWC doesn't currently set even a single whale as the catch limit for these 500,000 minke whales? At least one should be safe... but the limit is ZERO!

I completely agree. Let's say a sustainable catch is calculated to be 1% of the population, or 5,000 whales a year. To be fair, this quota must be assigned to countries based on their population. Now, seeing as Japan compromises 1.76% of the global population, Japan's quota would be 88 whales per year.

Of course, Japan might be permitted to purchase quotas from other countries by auction - America would likely hold on to theirs for conservation, China and India, and Russia might well send out their own fleets, but a number of African countries might be tempted to sell. This example shows what a ridiculously great deal the Japanese have going for themselves compared with legalization.

This is why I support limited legalization of whaling under the above equitable model.

Japan's quota would be 88 whales per year.

Limit that to coastal waters, and the hub-bub would disappear

The heavily subsidised commercial whaling carried out under the bogus research banner is itself not sustainable since nobody wants to eat the stuff.

That's a false statement. Some people do want to eat the stuff. And it seems Japan is running out of whale supplies.

How much demand there is, no one knows precisely. But that's why we usually have free markets. Free markets allow buyers and sellers to send price signals to each other, and the necessary supply is produced.

As for whales, we should at least have governments figure out an upper limit of whales that can be caught (which is why I thought we had the IWC). But having set and enforced that limit, how many to catch should be entirely over to the market.

I don't see what the concern is, I doubt there is demand to eat 5,000 minkes a year as Laguna suggests. It's probably better to worry about global warming (more like to kill the whales than whaling) or something else that what some people like to eat.

What's the point of understanding it by extincting it?

The Antarctic Minke whale is in no danger of extinction.

It's making rules for catching whales outside one's own waters, which is why Japan is a member methinks.

Actually a non-member of the IWC can legally commercially hunt whales in international waters as well as their own countries waters. While an IWC member can't legally commercially hunt whales anywhere, including their own countries waters, without a permit from the IWC.

If Japan really just wanted to commercially hunt whales all they would have to do is quit the IWC and they could legally hunt whales in the Antarctic.

Look at how bluefin tuna are being hunted to extinction in the Mediterranean and elsewhere to supply Japan.

But Japan is not doing that hunting and they aren't forcing anybody to do it either. Put the blame for the overhunting of tuna where it belongs.

To be fair, this quota must be assigned to countries based on their population.

Why? Most of the world isn't even members of the IWC.

But having set and enforced that limit, how many to catch should be entirely over to the market.

Totally agree. A good example is Canada's seal hunt. The quota is more than 10 times the number that are actually taken because the quota is based on the number that can sustainably be taken while the actual take is based on the number that the market will economically support.

One big thing this article fails to mention is that the IWC's statement is just a recommendation. IT IS NOT AN ENFORCEABLE RULING. Despite the IWC's statement Japan could still fully implement their plan with NO CHANGES. The IWC has disagreed with all the previous Japanese plans (JARPA, JARPA II, JARPN and JARPN II) yet Japan legally implemented them. Any challenge to them implementing their plan would require a new case in the ICJ.

If Japan really just wanted to commercially hunt whales all they would have to do is quit the IWC and they could legally hunt whales in the Antarctic.

Yeah that's true. The problem with Japan is, given it's past history of getting into trouble after quiting international organizations, it doesn't want to do things that way anymore (personally I think they would be more than justified in doing so in this case of the IWC, which is just a total shambles and waste of time and money).

One big thing this article fails to mention is that the IWC's statement is just a recommendation. IT IS NOT AN ENFORCEABLE RULING. Despite the IWC's statement Japan could still fully implement their plan with NO CHANGES. The IWC has disagreed with all the previous Japanese plans (JARPA, JARPA II, JARPN and JARPN II) yet Japan legally implemented them. Any challenge to them implementing their plan would require a new case in the ICJ.

I think they'll want to get some scientific support for their proposal from somewhere though. Personally I totally get it, I agree with the 4 judges who sided with Japan at the ICJ. I really think the whole issue comes down to the perspective that people start out from, with regards to whether whales are food or not. If Japan takes 333 or 900 for science, I don't really care. So long as the number is sustainable.

But I don't like the Japanese government being cornered into having to keep spending money on this. I'd much prefer commercial operations could be resumed as quick as possible. Japan's finances can't handle all these little side projects, even in this case where I sympathize with their position. Japan is to blame for this as well, as they could just balls up and quit the IWC like we discussed above.

What does this research really provide? I would think that the Japanese know about everything they need to know about whales by now and don't need to kill them to conduct research. This is and always has been some scam and needs to be stopped once and for all.

Maybe what needs to be stopped is the BS moratorium that's less for scientific purposes than to please the subjective, narrow sensibilities of the West.

I would think that the Japanese know about everything they need to know about whales by now and don't need to kill them to conduct research.

The issue isn't when Japan knows 'enough'. It is when the IWC says THEY have enough data to perform the review they are required to do under the moratorium. The review they were required to do by 1990 but have yet to perform.

If the IWC would do their review then no more data would be needed. And either the IWC would find that Minke whales can sustain hunting and set a quota, OR they will find that Minke whales can't support a sustainable hunt.

Some people do want to eat the stuff. And it seems Japan is running out of whale supplies.

Not enough to jusify the millions of dollars is taxpayer money that's being used to fund "scientific research" expeditions to the Antarctic to research the viability of resuming commercial whaling (which is no longer sustainable due to lack of demand) So again, stick to coastal whaling - or even better, stop altogether. A few oyajis will whine, but the amount of respect Japan will gain will be worth it

which is no longer sustainable due to lack of demand

Is that an opinion or are there some facts to back that up?

More importantly, if we accept the premise that there is not enough demand, then it must also be agreed that commerical whaling cannot be fatally detrimental to the whale population. The correct method then is to lift the moratorium that should have been lifted as soon as it can't be proved that either we stop whaling or the whales die out. Let the commercial whalers set whatever price they see fit, and if some people still want to pay for the delicacy, so be it.

amount of respect Japan will gain will be worth it

Respect generally implies being able to do, within reason, what you want. Ending whaling due to foreign pressure may end the criticism, but won't actually gain respect.