Japan's whaling fleet leaves port for Antarctica

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

  • 4

    lwsydney

    These whaling wars are so juicy...I bet they could make a reality show out of this stuff.

  • -9

    OssanAmerica

    Can't wait for Sea Sheperd to be in contempt of court.

  • -4

    Greg Patrick

    I didn't know the U.S now has jurisdiction over the Southern Ocean below Australia, wow these Americans control everything/everyone now days....

    And so it begins......

  • 4

    Waxman

    Japan hunts whales using a loophole in a global moratorium that allows killing the sea mammals for what it calls “scientific research,” although the meat is later sold openly in shops and restaurants.

    Doesnt that say all....very shameful when people consuming those whales talk about animal rights....

  • 13

    plasticmonkey

    Once again the fleet is off to spend taxpayer money to 'research' a marine resource very few people are interested in consuming. The only people who really benefit from this Antarctic whaling program are the bureaucrats who keep it afloat, the yakuza who supply the crew, and the right-wingers who use the issue to prop up their insecure sense of national identity and play victim to the world's supposed ignorance of Japan's unique 'food culture'.

    The best way to stop this dumb program is for the Japanese themselves to realize how billions of yen from their taxes are being misspent on something they don't need, and to demand a halt to large scale Antarctic whaling. Extreme actions by radical environmentalists and animal rights activists only provide more cause for the Japanese people to end up defending Antarctic whaling as a 'cultural right'.

    This is one issue that will not be solved by outside pressure.

  • 4

    Christopher Blackwell

    What fascinates me is that most of the whales meat doesn't even get sold. So why dies the Japanese government subsidized a failing industry? Why bother to kill what you don't have a large market for.Last I heard the japanese government has a horrible debt, like most other governments. Drop the subsidy and let the whale business shrink back to actual market conditions. You save money and whales, a win win situation.

  • 4

    paulinusa

    "Japan's whaling fleet leaves port for Antarctica."

    Because, once again, the Japanese people are rushing to the docks to buy that whale meat.

  • -2

    Disillusioned

    It's quite odd that the headline is about the whaling fleet leaving, but the article focussed on the exploits of SS Paul Watson. It also reads from a victim's point of view. The only victims in this war are the whales and the conservationists.

  • -2

    YuriOtani

    Should of made a new organization and it is tally ho. The whalers will go to any extent to kill all of the whales and dolphins. Why because they eat the fisherman's fish.

  • -4

    OssanAmerica

    Greg PatrickDec. 29, 2012 - 07:51AM JST I didn't know the U.S now has jurisdiction over the Southern Ocean below Australia, wow these Americans control >everything/everyone now days....

    And it seems you also didn't know that SSCS is a US based organization, and that both SSCS and Paul Watson in personam accepted the US Court's jurisdiction when the suit began. Sea Shepherd can do whatever they want outside of the U.S. but they will be answering to contempt charges in the United States.

  • -8

    OssanAmerica

    "Japan hunts whales using a loophole in a global moratorium that allows killing the sea mammals for what it calls “scientific research,” although the meat is later sold openly in shops and restaurants."

    They conduct Research Whaling which is sanctioned under IWC regulation Article VIII. The same Article VIII REQUIRES them to process the meat. AFP is a totally biased news source and consistently leaves out this fact which is available on the IWC website for any idiot to see.

  • -5

    OssanAmerica

    DisillusionedDec. 29, 2012 - 11:01AM JST It's quite odd that the headline is about the whaling fleet leaving, but the article focussed on the exploits of SS Paul >Watson. It also reads from a victim's point of view. The only victims in this war are the whales and the conservationists.

    A Court of Law does not consider Sea Shepherd to be "victims" of anything, but rather the "perpetrators". And Sea Shepherd are not conservationists they are eco-terrorists.

  • -3

    OssanAmerica

    YuriOtaniDec. 29, 2012 - 11:07AM JST Should of made a new organization and it is tally ho. The whalers will go to any extent to kill all of the whales and >dolphins. Why because they eat the fisherman's

    What dolphins are being hunted in the Antarctic Yuri? And as the article specifically states 935 Minkes and 50 Fins, how do you read that as "All the Whales"?

  • -12

    CrisGerSan

    I hope their catch is successful this year. Sad that eco politics has seized on this tradditonal occupation as an easy and cheap media target. The Whales are part of nature's food chain and humans are at the top of it.

  • 5

    sf2k

    Ah yes, Antarctica, the traditional hunting grounds /sarcasm

  • -1

    Jaymann

    I hope they sink quite frankly - an end to this naked provocation from Japan!

  • 2

    zenkan

    @ChrisGerSan Just squeeze the planet dry, is that what you think? The food chain is a finely balanced mechanism which humans have systematically disrupted through greed. Be assured that any organism which exploits its environment is ultimately doomed. views all over the world are clouded by belief, tradition and misinformation.

  • 5

    smithinjapan

    "Coast guard officers will be aboard the ships to cope with possible harassment from anti-whaling activists, the coast guard and fisheries agency officials said earlier this month."

    More money that could be going to Tohoku relief (probably funelled from it again, actually) is going towards meat no one in Japan wants and that will be, as usual, forced on children.

    Ossan: "AFP is a totally biased news source and consistently leaves out this fact which is available on the IWC website for any idiot to see."

    Still kidding yourself, I see. I don't think I know anyone -- Japanese or just wannabe -- who actually believes the whaling is for scientific research. Sure sure, they turn around and say whaling is a 'cultural tradition' (and then fall back on the 'if you don't like it, leave' comment when you point out there is no Japanese tradition of whaling in the Southern Ocean), then argue about Imperialism when there's nothing left to argue, but we ALL know the main reason is not for scientific research. In fact, I'd like to know how many scientists are on the whaling ships. And no, "they test better with mayonnaise" is not science.

  • 3

    smithinjapan

    CrisGerSan: "Sad that eco politics has seized on this tradditonal occupation as an easy and cheap media target. The Whales are part of nature's food chain and humans are at the top of it."

    So you admit it's not for science?

  • 1

    wtfjapan

    GIVE THEM HELL SS LOL

  • 0

    hkitagawa

    I personally think that there is no reason to kill whales for food since they should be intelligent creatures.

  • 2

    Seiryuu_Dan

    What are the actions that the Japanese Coast Guards can take in the international waters against SSETO? I know that they can arrest and imprison those who illegally boards the whaling ships, but what else? Did they bring firearms and lethal rounds, or even non-lethal ammunition? Equipped with any lethal weapons could give a big message to SS and the world.

  • 2

    Disillusioned

    Ossan - I never said SS were conservationists. There are many more groups disgusted in Japan's so-called 'research' whaling, like every marine biologist on the planet for starters.

  • 1

    wtfjapan

    @Christopher Blackwell, its all about pride, to give up now would mean defeat for the J Gov and a waste of millions. yes outside pressure will eventually end whaling, why? because SS grows stronger every year and are prepared to put there lives on the line for something they believe in. The whalers on the other hand are driven by profit. few more years of losses and well see what they do then.

  • 3

    smithinjapan

    wtfjapan: "The whalers on the other hand are driven by profit. few more years of losses and well see what they do then."

    Well, yes and no. You're definitely right about the profit part -- no way they're doing it for science, it's for money -- but it's not like the whalers suffer personal blows when their season is cut short. They are still subsidized by the government; which is to say, our taxes still give them the same amount of pay when it could be going to getting people out of shelters in the north, and when the meat just rots in freezers because no one wants it.

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    Seiryuu_Dan: You need to stop thinking of those on the Japanese ships as Coast Guard, because it is far, far from the Japanese coast. When you argue about defending a ship as sovereign territory you enter into muddy waters, for sure. Keep in mind that Japan rams ships, uses acoustic weapons on HELICOPTERS, and other terrorist acts and seems to call it 'defense' when it is only offense. They are not coast guard, they are Mercs. If they use any kind of weapon on anyone who is not boarding the ship, they carry to potential for international incident.

  • -3

    wtfjapan

    @Seryuudan lol yeah lets see the whalers use leathal weapons the international outcry would basically kill the JGov subsidies overnight. also whalers arent the only ones who can get/carry lethal weapons on there boats. question is are the whalers prepared to kill somebody over a whale!? I think not. SS on the other hand im not so sure.

  • 1

    smithinjapan

    wtfjapan: "SS on the other hand im not so sure."

    First off, the whalers have already proven they're willing to kill, if not directly then indirectly, by ramming ships and firing acoustic weapons on vehicles in the air. Second, SS has proven they are willing to help SAVE lives (or at least look for bodies), like when the whaler went overboard a few years back and SS radioed the Japanese ships to offer to help look for the missing person. The Japanese refused.

  • 3

    KiwiJP

    As plasticmonkey mentioned, billions of yen from tax payers money has been used for this Antarctic whaling program even though it is not beneficial for majority of Japanese but bureaucrats. I have commented on this issue on another Japanese website but most of the comments I received came from Japanese who support whaling and they called me "westernised." I wonder if their criticism is a way for them to fight back to protect their pride rather than knowing what is going on underneath the issue. I also wonder why Japanese media won't bring this issue up with more specific details, people here have a right to know the truth.

  • 8

    zichi

    Japanese research whaling is of no benefit to Japan, the Japanese tax payer of whom only 12% bought any whale meat in the last year, no benefit to the people of Tohoku who this year had ¥2.5 billion of their reconstruction money diverted into whaling. No benefit to the rest of the world and certainly no benefit to the whales. Only right wing politicians seem to benefit from the whaling research.

  • 1

    WilliB

    May their "research" be as unsuccessful as possible.

  • 0

    Ranger_Miffy2

    Good luck to the whales. One good use of drones, I say.

    CrisGerSan, you are clearly missing the point. Massively. This is not traditional. As humans, we do not deserve to eat everything on earth. Whales are special. Eco Politics is the only thing saving the whales.

  • 2

    Frank Vaughn

    I keep reading about "Traditional Japanese Whaling", so I went to Wikipedia and I found this information:

    Japan has since conducted research whaling programs in the North Pacific (JARPN 1994–1999, JARPN II 2000 – present) and in Antarctica (JARPA 1988–2005, JARPA II 2005 – present). The IWC has asked its members that conduct research whaling programs to demonstrate that the research provides critical information, that the research is needed for whale management purposes, and that non-lethal research techniques are not able to provide the same information. The IWC has issued at least 19 resolutions criticizing Japan for failing to meet these conditions and asking it to stop issuing permits. In 1994, at its 46th annual meeting, the IWC established the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in a 23-1-8 vote. Commercial whaling is prohibited within the sanctuary boundaries. Only Japan voted in opposition. As the size of the IWC continued to grow, so did the influence of Japan within the commission. For example, many new Caribbean member nations voted in favor of whaling interests in 2000 including the defeat of a proposed South Pacific Whale Sanctuary. Additional support for whaling was gained in the Pacific, Africa and South-East Asia. As many of these nations received economic aid from Japan, accusations of vote buying were made by anti-whaling groups. In 2001, Japanese fisheries official Masayuki Komatsu stated Japan used overseas development aid as a tool to gain influence

    It would appear that other posters above me are correct about the apparent political corruption involved in Japan's whaling industry. But why do the good citizens of Japan allow their tax money to be used this way? And even the IWC has complained about the way Japan does it's "research."

  • 8

    zichi

    "Traditional Whaling" refers to time when whale hunters put to sea in small open boats with hand held harpoons, man against creature which limited where they could hunt and how many they could kill.

    Not today's advanced technology with ships which can sail down to the bottom of the earth with tracking systems for locating whales and steam harpoons with explosives. There's nothing traditional about any of that.

  • 1

    Mike O'Brien

    "although the meat is later sold openly in shops and restaurants."

    Because the international regulations REQUIRE the meat to be sold.

  • 2

    Ranger_Miffy2

    I hate it when I see the dark red "kujira" meat for sale in local and department stores. Feel such a sense of shame, helplessness, and despair for the whales. It's almost like seeing people flesh for sale.

  • 1

    Thunderbird2

    I hope their catch is successful this year. Sad that eco politics has seized on this tradditonal occupation as an easy and cheap media target. The Whales are part of nature's food chain and humans are at the top of it.

    Nature's food chain with us on top? That's a pretty old fashioned argument. We're meant to be enlightened, not club-carrying Neanderthals who see everything as food.

  • 2

    timtak

     Japan hunts whales using a loophole in a global moratorium that allows killing the sea mammals for what it calls “scientific research,” although the meat is later sold openly in shops and restaurants.

    It seems to me that the "although" in the above is very unfair. That scientific meat be used, e.g. for food, is stipulated as a requirement in the "loophole" (if it should be called that).

    Ah, I see that Mike O'Brien has said the same thing above. I agree with Mike O'Brien.

    It is surprising to me that this article comes from a reputable enterprise (AP).

  • -1

    hidingout

    I hate it when I see the dark red "kujira" meat for sale in local and department stores. Feel such a sense of shame, helplessness, and despair for the whales. It's almost like seeing people flesh for sale.

    Wow. This is the most over the top comment I have ever seen on JT, and that's saying a lot. Plenty of people like to eat whale ... your shame notwithstanding.

  • 4

    zichi

    @hidingout

    Plenty of people like to eat whale ...

    On a recent poll posted here on JT only 12% of those polled said they had bought or eaten whale meat in the last year. Not as popular it once was,especially with younger people.

  • -1

    cleo

    the international regulations REQUIRE the meat to be sold.

    No they don't. Article 8 does not say the meat has to be sold at all.

    Article 8 says -

    2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.

    No mention of selling at all. If the government issued directions that the whale meat should be distributed free as charity at soup kitchens or processed into fertiliser or sent as ODA to North Korea, then that would be perfectly within the bounds of the international regulations.

  • -3

    Andre Hut

    OssanAmerica: Thanks to your comments, I will be writing an even BIGGER check off to the Sea Shepherds today!

  • 1

    hidingout

    Processed would indicate "prepared for human consumption, no? So it is fair to say that to keep in line with the regulations the meat is to be consumed. Strange then that some folks are so outraged to find the meat offered for sale in grocery stores as if the Japanese are doing something wrong by selling it. The quote you provide shows that Japan is following the rules when they sell the meat.

    If the government issued directions that the whale meat should be distributed free as charity at soup kitchens or processed into fertiliser or sent as ODA to North Korea, then that would be perfectly within the bounds of the international regulations.

    Huh? Didn't you take me to task when I suggested the very same thing in an earlier thread on this topic?

  • -1

    cleo

    Processed would indicate "prepared for human consumption, no?

    Not necessarily.

    process verb perform a series of mechanical or chemical operations on (something) in order to change or preserve it

    No mention of human consumption or sale.

    it is fair to say that to keep in line with the regulations the meat is to be consumed.

    Even allowing you that purely for the sake of argument, 'consumed' is not the same as 'sold'.

    Didn't you take me to task when I suggested the very same thing in an earlier thread on this topic?

    Yes, but for different reasons. Maybe you don't remember what you were talking about then.

  • -4

    nigelboy

    Except the word "proceeds" in conjunction with the above written article clearly indicates a business transaction. To state that Japan is violating the said article is a very very looooooooong stretch for an individual with basic common sense. Then again, we are talking about anti-whalers...

  • 1

    Mike O'Brien

    No mention of selling at all. If the government issued directions that the whale meat should be distributed free as charity at soup kitchens or processed into fertiliser or sent as ODA to North Korea, then that would be perfectly within the bounds of the international regulations.

    Yes, but the government issued directions that it be sold to offset the cost of research, which is perfectly within the bounds of the international regulations. And thus to not sell it would be a violation of their permit and thus a violation of the international regulations now wouldn't it?

  • 0

    Mike O'Brien

    On a recent poll posted here on JT only 12% of those polled said they had bought or eaten whale meat in the last year. Not as popular it once was,especially with younger people

    And 12% of the population of Japan is about 15,000,000 people. Sounds like plenty of people to me, which is what was claimed.

  • -3

    overchan

    10 million japanese consumed Whale meat. The research is to find a sustainable way of harvesting whales. Nothing else. See how many of hem can be kill with their population climbing

  • -2

    OssanAmerica

    cleoDec. 30, 2012 - 01:03AM JST "the international regulations REQUIRE the meat to be sold."

    No they don't. Article 8 does not say the meat has to be sold at all. Article 8 says - 2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be >dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted. No mention of selling at all. If the government issued directions that the whale meat should be distributed free as >charity at soup kitchens or processed into fertiliser or sent as ODA to North Korea, then that would be perfectly within the bounds of the international regulations

    You're being obtuse again cleo. There is nothing in Article 8 that prohibits the sale of the meat that has been processed in accordance with that Article. Even the Inuit of the U.S. ands Canada who hunt whales under IWC permission SELL their excess whale meat. If the government by which the permit was granted directs that the meat be sold then it is in complete compliance with Article 8. I know you're trying hard to find a violation here but I don't see it.

    What are they suppose to do? Woild you be happy if they processed all the meat and ate it themselves? Gave it away to homeless shelters? Even the Inuit of the U.S. and Canada who hunt whales under IWC permission sell their excess whale meat.

  • 3

    zichi

    @overchan

    10 million japanese consumed Whale meat.

    which isn't enough to support the whaling industry which losses money year after year and woulld be bankrupt except for the taxpayers money it receives.

  • -3

    smithinjapan

    Ossan: " Even the Inuit of the U.S. ands Canada who hunt whales under IWC permission SELL their excess whale meat."

    Did they hunt them in the Southern Ocean, as is "Japanese tradition"?

    "You're being obtuse again cleo."

    I think that about sums up your credibility. What's interesting is that when stats are brought up by others comparing other nations it's always "irrelevant", but when you bring in off-the-wall comparisons that defeat your own arguments they are allowed to stay.

    "Even the Inuit of the U.S. and Canada who hunt whales under IWC permission sell their excess whale meat."

    Did you actually say that twice in the same comment?

    overchan: "10 million japanese consumed Whale meat."

    As usual no stats?

  • -5

    nigelboy

    I think that about sums up your credibility. What's interesting is that when stats are brought up by others comparing other nations it's always "irrelevant", but when you bring in off-the-wall comparisons that defeat your own arguments they are allowed to stay.

    What stats are you talking about smith?? Neither Cleo nor Ossan offered any. It's bad enough that you have proven time and time again that you have never read the scientific committee report based on your ridiculous statements, such as

    And no, "they test better with mayonnaise" is not science.

    Now, you are not only starting to imagine stuff, you bring up a lack of "stats" by pro whaling posters. Are you serious?? Do you really want to go that route??

  • 0

    cleo

    the word "proceeds" in conjunction with the above written article clearly indicates a business transaction

    Only if you want it to. 'Disposing of the proceeds' could refer to what proceeds from processing the meat, ie a mountain of processed whale meat. Or fertiliser.

    the government issued directions that it be sold to offset the cost of research, which is perfectly within the bounds of the international regulations. And thus to not sell it would be a violation of their permit and thus a violation of the international regulations

    But that isn't what you said. You are claiming that 'international regulations' require the meat to be sold. They don't.

    There is nothing in Article 8 that prohibits the sale of the meat that has been processed in accordance with that Article.

    Never said it did. See reply to Mike O'Brian above.

    I know you're trying hard to find a violation here

    No, just pointing out a misinterpretation. 'The sale of the meat isn't prohibited' is not the same as 'the meat must be sold'. Not selling the meat would not be a violation of Article 8, is all I'm saying. The pro-whalers repetitive bleat that 'Oh but we have to sell the meat, that's a condition of the research' is self-serving, unfounded baloney.

    What are they suppose to do? Woild you be happy if they processed all the meat and ate it themselves?

    You know what would make me happy. No 'research', no hunting, no whales with holes blown in them taking long minutes to die in agony, no meat.

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    nigelboy: ""What stats are you talking about smith?? Neither Cleo nor Ossan offered any."

    Wow, and in your post you talk about not reading? I asked overchan why he, as usual, never offers stats (for his 10 million number), not cleo or Ossan.

    "It's bad enough that you have proven time and time again that you have never read the scientific committee report based on your ridiculous statements, such as..."

    We all know it's not for science, nigelboy. Time to put the denial to rest. Saying you have to kill a whale to prove there will be one less is the science of a four-year-old at best.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    cleo: "You know what would make me happy. No 'research', no hunting, no whales with holes blown in them taking long minutes to die in agony, no meat."

    Exactly, and no meat rotting in the freezers that no one wants to eat after they've force-fed a portion to children, we could add.

    Japanese research:

    1. "If we kill it, it's dead!"

    2. "The Southern Ocean has more whales than we do in our own waters. Any attempt to question our whaling program is Imperialism, and even though we claim it's science, we back it up by saying whaling for food is a cultural tradition"

    3. "Wow... that one took longer than the last to die"

    4. "If we find a mom, we might be able to kill a baby, too!"

    5. "It really DOES taste better with mayonnaise!"

    They have provided no valid research and have published very few papers in the past to justify going to an area completely outside of their borders and set a 1000 whale quota every year, then say, "Well, shucks, guess we better eat it" and demand government subsidies. And I ask the pro-whalers on here again: how many scientists are on the whaling ships? How many non-scientists that come from whaling communities?

  • -1

    hidingout

    "Wow... that one took longer than the last to die" "If we find a mom, we might be able to kill a baby, too!"

    Do you honestly think comments like these have anything to do with the admittedly tenuous "research" the Japanese are conducting? If you do, I feel sorry for your shallow grasp of the culture in which you live. And if you don't, why bother typing them out other than to sensationalize the conversation?

  • 0

    Mike O'Brien

    smithinjapan

    overchan: "10 million japanese consumed Whale meat."

    As usual no stats?

    The number comes from your fellow anti-whaler zichi, who stated that a poll showed 12% of the Japanese population eat whale. From that it is simple to find the population of Japan and multiply by 0.12 and you get a number of about 15 million. Or should we not believe anything you anti-whalers claim?

  • -1

    cleo

    "Wow... that one took longer than the last to die" "If we find a mom, we might be able to kill a baby, too!"

    Do you honestly think comments like these have anything to do with the admittedly tenuous "research" the Japanese are conducting? If you do, I feel sorry for your shallow grasp of the culture in which you live. And if you don't, why bother typing them out other than to sensationalize the conversation?

    The whalers, er, researchers, do claim that one thing being researched is 'more effective killing methods', so yes, time to death does have something to do with the 'research'. Not that the 'research' appears to be doing anything to reduce time-to-death; the average time-to-death claimed by the whalers is over 2 minutes, and with the whalers claiming that most whales die in less than 30 seconds, that works out at some animals taking a totally unacceptable time to die. Analysis of footage taken by Greenpeace in the 2005-6 season found the average time-to-death to be 10 minutes.

    And the whalers, er, researchers, also admit/report that over 90% of the females killed are pregnant. So the presence of a non-pregnant mother would be part of the research (if it were really research). (They actually claim that killing pregnant females is a Good Thing - it proves, they say, that the population is increasing. No mention of the fact that by killing pregnant females and their babies they are actually killing many more whales than they report, as babies are not counted.)

    of the 503 minkes taken last season (2007), 104 were male and 349 were female. Of the females, 63 were immature, 262 were mature and pregnant, and 24 were mature and not pregnant.

    In other words, 503 reported killings, 765 actual deaths (not counting struck-and-lost, that are injured/killed needlessly and never reported).

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/killing-pregnant-whales-is-good-news-whalers/2007/07/25/1185339064854.html

  • 0

    hidingout

    @cleo

    Thanks for that information. I would hasten to point out that your article says nothing about gleefully hoping to catch pregnant whales so as to get "two for the price of one" as Smith suggested in his "summary" of Japanese research goals above.

    I admit it is disturbing to find so many pregnant whales among the number harvested. I guess because of the long gestation period there is no time during the year at which such a scenario could be avoided. That is problematic. Perhaps an outright ban on hunting female whales of a certain age/size?

    I also note that your article describes whale meat as "traditional" Japanese food, which given that you subscribe to everything else the article says, I assume you are now willing to concede is true.

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    hidingout: "Perhaps an outright ban on hunting female whales of a certain age/size?"

    Yeah, we all know they check out the junk before they fire the harpoons.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Still waiting for any pro-whaler on here to tell me how many scientists are on the whaling ships. So far no takers, which is more than indicative this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with outdated pride, and unqualified claims to 'culture' and 'tradition'. I know you pro-whalers like to avoid the obvious, but try answering. Tell us about the ancient culture of Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean. Tell us about how hundreds of years ago men (and maybe women) went out on diesel ships with explosive harpoons. Tell us about how a scientific paper on "Well, we shot one and it died" is qualified as 'research' when you turn around and say it's an attack on cultural whaling if we don't agree with it.

  • -2

    smithinjapan

    hidingout: "I also note that your article describes whale meat as "traditional" Japanese food, which given that you subscribe to everything else the article says, I assume you are now willing to concede is true."

    In the Southern Ocean? It's as traditional as the 1990s at best, and where will it be traditional next if/when those numbers become low? Will it be like blue-fin tuna that Japan has all but demanded out of existence?

  • 1

    cleo

    your article says nothing about gleefully hoping to catch pregnant whales so as to get "two for the price of one" as Smith suggested

    Unless the mod has been engaged in midnight editing of posts (not unknown), smitty has said nothing about 'gleefully hoping' or 'two for the price of one'. It looks like your use of quotation marks is unwarranted. The fact is the whalers are virtually guaranteed that every mature female they kill will yield up a foetus. There is no need for them to 'hope', gleefully or otherwise.

    given that you subscribe to everything else the article says

    ?? Half of the article is quotes from the whalers. I certainly don't 'subscribe' to what they say - merely offer their words as proof of the inhumanity of their position.

    Going down to the Southern Ocean in oil-belching fleets led by a factory ship has never been a tradition.

  • 1

    cleo

    Perhaps an outright ban on hunting female whales of a certain age/size?

    You would like the whalers to maybe carry out some kind of -er- research to determine the age, size and sex of a whale before they shoot an exploding harpoon into its body? They say the only way they can do that is by killing the whale, dragging it onto the flensing deck and cutting it into pieces of a suitable size and shape for storage in a freezer.

    If you find the killing of pregnant females disturbing, maybe you should be shifting your stance to supporting an outright ban on the killing of all whales? Welcome to the light. :-)

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    Coast guard officers will be aboard the ships to cope with possible harassment from anti-whaling activists, the coast guard and fisheries agency officials said earlier this month.

    The fleet's departure comes weeks later than expected and days after a U.S. court ordered militant environmental group Sea Shepherd to stay at least 500 yards (460 meters) from whaling vessels. The injunction was ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in the latest step in a legal battle between the anti-whaling group and Japanese authorities over vessels in the Southern Ocean. It said Sea Shepherd and Canadian militant conservationist Paul Watson, who is wanted by Interpol, "are enjoined from **physically attacking any vessel **engaged by plaintiffs."including Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research. In addition, they are banned from "navigating in a manner that is likely to endanger the safe navigation of any such vessel", said the order, issued on Monday. "In no event shall defendants approach plaintiffs any closer than 500 yards when defendants are navigating on the open sea," it added.

    It will be interesting to see if the eco-terrorist SS are going to continue their reckless disregard for the lives and vessels of anyone who disagrees with them AND RISK THEIR FUNDING IN THE U.S..

    The court is aware that the pro-violence, eco-terrorist SS brag that they have sunk ten (10) vessels and rammed many more. It's important that the court ruled that the eco-terrorist SS are banned from "navigating in a manner that is likely to endanger the safe navigation of any such vessel". Maybe the eco-terrorist toy boat Ady Gil would still be afloat if it's crew hadn't accelerated INTO the path of a much larger vessel? Then again, that was the 2nd collision involving the AG (a fisherman was killed during the 1st collision) and it's crew so maybe they would have wrecked and sunk their toy boat by now anyway.

    JCoast guard officers will be aboard the Japanese vessels to help rescue the violent eco-terrorist SS crew members and arrest Watson after the clueless eco-terrorist SS crew damage/sink ANOTHER one of their scows, IF Watson actually shows up. So far, it's only Watsons word that Watson is onboard an eco-terrorist SS vessel and his word doesn't count for much.

  • 0

    Nessie

    Still waiting for any pro-whaler on here to tell me how many scientists are on the whaling ships.

    Red herring. Data are frequently taken by non-scientists in many disciplines. You don't need a Ph.D. to measure a whale.

  • -5

    hidingout

    Unless the mod has been engaged in midnight editing of posts (not unknown), smitty has said nothing about 'gleefully hoping' or 'two for the price of one'. It looks like your use of quotation marks is unwarranted. The fact is the whalers are virtually guaranteed that every mature female they kill will yield up a foetus. There is no need for them to 'hope', gleefully or otherwise.

    Gleefully hoping was not in quotes. It was rather a characterization of the tone, an accurate characterization. "Two for the price of one" is close enough to a summary of what was said, which is why I used the verb "suggested", not "said" or "stated" etc.

    Going down to the Southern Ocean in oil-belching fleets led by a factory ship has never been a tradition.

    Did I say anything about that? I said eating whale is a tradition. I'm glad we can agree on that point.

    You would like the whalers to maybe carry out some kind of -er- research to determine the age, size and sex of a whale before they shoot an exploding harpoon into its body?

    Why yes I would. I've never been whale hunting but presumably the hunters are aware of the size (therefore rough age) and sex of a whale before deciding to target it. Mistakes might be made from time to time, and indeed the harvesting of a few pregnant whales may be necessary for the research, but I would like the whalers to avoid the kind of numbers mentioned in your article. Killing too many pregnant whales is unfair and would certainly harm efforts to conserve the population for future generations.

    If you find the killing of pregnant females disturbing, maybe you should be shifting your stance to supporting an outright ban on the killing of all whales? Welcome to the light. :-)

    Nah. I have already said I respect your vegetarian stance on this matter. Personally I like meat too much to ever give it up, and I am unwilling to be a hypocrite and say some meat is OK while some isn't.

  • 2

    smithinjapan

    Nessie: "You don't need a Ph.D. to measure a whale."

    Don't need to kill one, either.

    hidingout: "Gleefully hoping was not in quotes."

    Nah, it was just in bold.

    "It was rather a characterization of the tone, an accurate characterization."

    Not in the least. It was a pro-whaler's failed attempt at being witty, and a misrepresentation of what was actually said.

    "Personally I like meat too much to ever give it up, and I am unwilling to be a hypocrite and say some meat is OK while some isn't."

    You're not being hypocritical to say that going to the Southern Ocean for 'cultural tradition' is out of line and off the mark. And you don't need to divert funds from people barely surviving in earthquake stricken areas so that a few old men can have whale blubber while the rest rots in freezers. But go ahead and tell me how it's okay the government takes money from the relief funds for whaling, trying to justify it by saying it helps Ishinomaki's cultural tradition of whaling while at the same time saying it's for science?

  • -3

    hidingout

    Nah, it was just in bold. Quite different than a quote and up to the writer of each post to decide for themselves if they would like to bold or not.

    Not in the least. It was a pro-whaler's failed attempt at being witty, and a misrepresentation of what was actually said.

    The failed attempt at wit was on your part with your little "list" of research goals. If you would like to point out any legitimate difference between "if we find a mom maybe we can kill a baby too" and "two for the price of one", I'm all ears.

    You're not being hypocritical to say that going to the Southern Ocean for 'cultural tradition' is out of line and off the mark. And you don't need to divert funds from people barely surviving in earthquake stricken areas so that a few old men can have whale blubber while the rest rots in freezers. But go ahead and tell me how it's okay the government takes money from the relief funds for whaling, trying to justify it by saying it helps Ishinomaki's cultural tradition of whaling while at the same time saying it's for science?

    None of this has anything to do with what I posted . I said that it would be hypocritical to eat meat while at the same time calling for an end to the eating of certain types of meat by others. Its not that hard to understand.

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    hidingout: "If you would like to point out any legitimate difference between "if we find a mom maybe we can kill a baby too" and "two for the price of one", I'm all ears."

    A baby doesn't weigh the same as the mom. How's that for a legitimate difference?

    "None of this has anything to do with what I posted "

    It does. Your mocking myself and cleo, and saying whaling is okay solely because you eat different kinds of meat has everything to do with it, obviously.

    I ask you again: "go ahead and tell me how it's okay the government takes money from the relief funds for whaling, trying to justify it by saying it helps Ishinomaki's cultural tradition of whaling while at the same time saying it's for science?"

    You really can't answer it, can you. THAT is the hypocrisy! You aren't against whaling because you eat meat, but you can't answer a question about whether you're for that meat being on 12% of the population's plate (most by force) when it steals from the mouths of the desperate. And it literally is stealing from them.

    • Moderator

      Readers, enough of this nonsense. Please keep the discussion civil and be tolerant of opposing views, otherwise do not post here.

  • -2

    hidingout

    A baby doesn't weigh the same as the mom. How's that for a legitimate difference?

    A legitimate difference in meaning. The inference from your earlier statement (if we find a mom maybe we can kill a baby too) was that whalers actively search for pregnant whales in the hopes of killing the unborn calf as well. I believe that statement to be groundless.

    It does. Your mocking myself and cleo, and saying whaling is okay solely because you eat different kinds of meat has everything to do with it, obviously.

    I'm not mocking anyone. My point, and I'll try to make it again in simple words, was that this entire debate hinges on the views of some militant environmentalist types that whales are "special". This is entirely a recent and western idea which makes no allowances for other cultures or preferences. It is my view that folks like cleo who have taken the choice to pursue a vegetarian lifestyle are at least being consistent when they criticize "a few old men (eating) whale blubber". Anyone who goes to McDonalds however is imo a hypocrite if they attempt to deny others the right to eat the meat of their own choosing. This point could not have been made more clear than it was by Ranger_Miffy2 who stated that selling whale meat was akin to selling "people meat".

    I ask you again: "go ahead and tell me how it's okay the government takes money from the relief funds for whaling, trying to justify it by saying it helps Ishinomaki's cultural tradition of whaling while at the same time saying it's for science?"

    Its another red herring question (just like the one nessie has already answered for you above) because even if there were no government funds used you would still be railing away here against whaling. I don't live anywhere near Ishinomaki and I don't know if they have a strong whaling tradition there. Perhaps the people living there lobbied the government to use a portion of the relief funds to help see that some family breadwinners had employment this year.

    You really can't answer it, can you. THAT is the hypocrisy! You aren't against whaling because you eat meat, but you can't answer a question about whether you're for that meat being on 12% of the population's plate (most by force) when it steals from the mouths of the desperate. And it literally is stealing from them.

    If you can prove to me that the people affected by the disaster do not want a portion of the funds used to provide employment for whaling families then your statement might bear consideration. As it is, the only people I see ranting about a small fraction of the relief funds going to whalers are people who are a) not Japanese and don't live in the affected areas, and b) have an axe to grind with whalers no matter what.

    As to the 12% ..... since this story began getting coverage on JT I have been making it a point to ask every Japanese person I know if they eat whale. The overwhelming majority of people have said they would happily eat whale if it was available and reasonably priced. Not one single person has said anything like "eating whales is wrong", and many have voiced disgust at the militant environmentalists like SS. Also over the last three months I have checked for whale meat every time I visit a supermarket and have yet to find it on sale. When I ask the staff at the fish counter they say they can't get their hands on any.

  • -3

    cleo

    I don't live anywhere near Ishinomaki.

    Neither do I, but I do know Ishinomaki is located over 1000 km from Shimonoseki as the crow flies, while Kyodo News reported three vessels had departed from the far-western port of Shimonoseki, while environmental group Greenpeace said the whaling fleet’s mother ship had left another port, also in the country’s west.

    And this helps the whaling tradition in Tohoku and the people affected by the disaster like how?

  • -3

    hidingout

    And this helps the whaling tradition in Tohoku and the people affected by the disaster like how?

    Ships can leave from any port, and people can travel there to board them. Are any of the whalers currently on board the Japanese ships victims of the Tohoku earthquake? Are the victims of the disaster unhappy about a fraction of the relief funds being used to provide employment for whaling families? Did some of the affected areas in fact lobby the government to disperse some funds for the whaling families? And finally does it really make a difference to the discussion since anti-whaling folks would be criticizing the hunt no matter who paid for it?

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    And hidingout, an appropriate handle as such, avoids answering any questions. But I'll ask another all the same: how much from relief funds going to the coast guard being far off coast while only 40 out of more than 20,000 shelters have been built in Tohoku? Call it a red herring as an excuse all you like for not being able to answer, I'd prefer you ask the victims what they want more.

  • -1

    hidingout

    I answered your question Smith. I'm sorry you didn't like the answer.

    As an aside, I researched the issue of relief funds on the internet this afternoon. First of all the relief fund seems to be a general fund for all earthquake victims, not specifically for any certain group, or indeed for the victims of the Tohoku area alone.

    Second, the total used for whaling was an small fraction of the total fund (2.2 billion yen from a 12.2 trillion total).

    Third, the government has said there are 1200 families in the affected areas that depend to some degree on whaling for their livelihood. Perhaps it is your contention that those 1200 families do not deserve a portion of the relief funds - I disagree.

    Finally, the Japanese Ministry of Fisheries has made it clear that the largest portion of the 2.2 billion will be used to provide security for the fleet as they are sure to come under attack from eco-terrorists. In other words, the money is not being used to "prop up whaling" but rather to ensure the safety of Japanese citizens engaged in legitimate work. That kind of makes it look like its the international criminal Paul Watson and his band of thugs who are "stealing money" from the victims of the quake.

    As an aside I found many many articles written by militant environmentalist types suggesting that donations collected from abroad were used to fund the whale hunt. Shameless propaganda typical of people who are too afraid to argue their case on its merits.

  • -2

    nigelboy

    ">Wow, and in your post you talk about not reading? I asked overchan why he, as usual, never offers stats (for his 10 million number), not cleo or Ossan.

    ??? The 10 million number, is in of itself, a "stat".

    We all know it's not for science, nigelboy. Time to put the denial to rest. Saying you have to kill a whale to prove there will be one less is the science of a four-year-old at best.

    Sigh. As pointed out by many scientists, the lethal method provides population dynamics (age, sexual maturation, diet, size), which is essential to estimate the population to animals which are not census friendly. (Catch at age)

    http://luna.pos.to/whale/icr_rw_oh.html

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    hidingout: You didn't answer the questions at all, you avoided them -- that's not an answer.

    "Third, the government has said there are 1200 families in the affected areas that depend to some degree on whaling for their livelihood."

    So these people are all scientists? Isn't that what the whaling is for? :)

    Happy New Year to you and yours, all the same.

  • -2

    smithinjapan

    nigelboy: "??? The 10 million number, is in of itself, a "stat"."

    You asked me why I asked for stats in regards to cleo and Ossan, and have been yet again embarrassingly proven wrong as to whom the comment was directed. In any case, I asked overchan for stats, because he has none, for his random 10 million number. Ouch.

    "Sigh. As pointed out by many scientists, the lethal method provides population dynamics (age, sexual maturation, diet, size), which is essential to estimate the population to animals which are not census friendly. (Catch at age)"

    You don't need to kill an animal to point out how many there are in that environment. You have failed again in proving that Japanese 'science' is anything more than "is it better with mayonnaise or soy sauce". When you have to kill a bunch to make a random guess at how many are left for next year, that's not science either.

  • 2

    ramses68

    @smith "That they took away from Fukushima relief for the sake of science, or they were putting some of it towards Japan's traditional whaling program for meat?"

    I fail to see the divide. The reason they are engaged in "Science", is to provide data to support resuming whaling on a commercial basis for MEAT. Specifically whale meat. I.e. it's really all the same thing. They aren't trying to determine if whales have time machines, and cold fusion reactor technology. They are trying to come up with data to determine if a return to commercial whaling is viable, with the current stocks available for harvest. After all... The IWC is an "industry" group concerned with conserving whale stocks, in order to continue the practice of commercial whaling. They are not a"Whale Preservation Society", no matter how much you may wish it was so. Just because it has been infiltrated by whale lovers, doesn't change the original charter of the IWC. No matter how much you might prefer it be so. I can only imagine you would be outraged, if the ICR were using funds to investigate whether whales had interstellar transport technology, and with good reason. :P But seeing as how they seem to be sticking to applying their research to an area that makes sense, from an industry groups standpoint, I fail to see how your argument is anything other than an exercise in hearing the sound of your own voice. As to your assertions of statistics... Let's all agree that we're not stupid. Your choice of links left much to be desired, as the quotes attributed to the "news" articles were all from enviromentalists, or at the very best "blurbs" from people with valid points that were taken out of context.

    Perfect example taken from one of your "articles". "Junichi Sato, from Greenpeace Japan, told Australia's ABC that there was no link between the whaling programme and the tsunami recovery."

    If you choose to be argumentative, and there is nothing wrong with debating yours and others points of view. Then at least get better at it, or try harder.

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    cleoDec. 30, 2012 - 08:07AM JST

    "I know you're trying hard to find a violation here"

    No, just pointing out a misinterpretation. 'The sale of the meat isn't prohibited' is not the same as 'the meat must be >sold'. Not selling the meat would not be a violation of Article 8, is all I'm saying. The pro-whalers repetitive bleat >that 'Oh but we have to sell the meat, that's a condition of the research' is self-serving, unfounded baloney.

    I don't know who you are quoting here because you seemed to have mixed up responses to others. The IWC article VIII states that the meat must be processed. That normally means butchered, dressed, cleaned, whatever. Hell one could even argue that it has to be canned. But I think we can agree that Article VIII does NOT state that the meat "can not be sold". Nor does iot state that it MUST be sold. In fact, it doesn't touch on "selling" the meat at all. Therefore that the meat is sold or not sold has no bearing at all on compliance with the regulation. The only point is that the Article is saying is that the meat from whales killed under Research Whaling shouldn't just be thrown overboard and allowed to go to waste. The Anti-Whaling crowd including the biased media always refer to the whale meat being consumed as "evidence" that no research whaling is going on. That simply is not the case and to honestly and objectively state what the IWC Article VIII requires would eliminate that misconception.

    "What are they suppose to do? Would you be happy if they processed all the meat and ate it themselves?

    You know what would make me happy. No 'research', no hunting, no whales with holes blown in them taking long >minutes to die in agony, no meat.

    Well considering that the IWC was created and exists for the purpose of regulating the Whaling Industry I think that's a pretty tall order. And even if everyone who ate whale meat on the planet stopped you've still got all the other animals we consume so this "no meat" thing is pretty unrealistic. Best to practice it yourself and not bother trying to impose it on others I think.

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    smithinjapanDec. 30, 2012 - 06:45AM JST Ossan: " Even the Inuit of the U.S. ands Canada who hunt whales under IWC permission SELL their excess >whale :meat."

    "Did they hunt them in the Southern Ocean, as is "Japanese tradition"?

    If you actually bothered to read our (cleo and I) discussion you would have noted that the issue was not "location" or even "tradition". It was whether whales taken under IWC permits, can be sold.

    "You're being obtuse again cleo."

    I think that about sums up your credibility.

    Credibility? You still haven't answered why you remain silent on South Koreans eating whale meat but it's the end of the world for you if Japanese do.

    What's interesting is that when stats are brought up by others comparing >other nations it's always "irrelevant", but >when you bring in off-the-wall comparisons that defeat your own arguments they are allowed to stay.

    Cleo didn't bring up any "stats" and neither did I. Are you sure you actually read and comprehended what we were discussing before you decided to rudely jump in?

    "Even the Inuit of the U.S. and Canada who hunt whales under IWC permission sell their excess whale meat."

    Did you actually say that twice in the same comment?

    Does that really bother you?

  • -1

    Mike O'Brien

    So these people are all scientists? Isn't that what the whaling is for?

    How silly are you?

    Just as one example, do the people who maintain the research ship have to be scientists? Do you need a PhD to operate a marine diesel engine or tie a rope? Do research scientists need to eat and does it take a scientist to prepare food for a researcher?

  • -2

    nigelboy

    You don't need to kill an animal to point out how many there are in that environment. You have failed again in proving that Japanese 'science' is anything more than "is it better with mayonnaise or soy sauce". When you have to kill a bunch to make a random guess at how many are left for next year, that's not science either.

    How do you think experts and organization estimate the stocks of marine resources (like fish for instance) smith??

  • 0

    Tamarama

    Whaling is 'traditional' in many countries of the world, including being one of the first modern sea based industries of the 19th/20th centuries. The traditional line is a load of crap. If they want to maintain the 'tradition' then do it in the traditional way with little designer hunts that they can make TV shows out of and extoll the virtues of the wonders of traditional practice.

    I wish the fleet bad weather, high seas, lots of ice bergs and a rabid bunch of SS Eco Heroes waiting for them in Antarctica to spoil their every move and render the hunt a complete failure.

    I doubt the people of Japan will cry too much about not being able to get so much whale meat in the local supermarket this year.

  • -1

    cleo

    I don't know who you are quoting here

    Mike O'Brian when he says international regulations REQUIRE the meat to be sold. In capitals, no less. There are no regulations international or otherwise that require the meat to be sold.

    that the meat is sold or not sold has no bearing at all on compliance with the regulation.

    Tell Mike, not me.

    The IWC article VIII states that the meat must be processed.

    No, it states that the whales must be processed. Japan chucks a good 40% of each whale overboard and processes only the meat. Oh what a giveaway. No processing of the bones, the guts, all the inedible bits that could be turned into fertiliser so that 'every bit of the whale is used', as Japanese pro-whalers like to tell us.

    they seem to be sticking to applying their research to an area that makes sense

    Like injecting whale sperm into cow ova, implanting minke cells into pig and cow cells, and growing test-tube whales? I'd be intrigued to see research you thought didn't make sense.

    Happy New Year, all.

  • -5

    OssanAmerica

    TamaramaJan. 01, 2013 - 08:35AM JST Whaling is 'traditional' in many countries of the world, including being one of the first modern sea based industries of >the 19th/20th centuries. The traditional line is a load of crap. If they want to maintain the 'tradition' then do it in the >traditional way with little designer hunts that they can make TV shows out of and extoll the virtues of the wonders of >traditional practice.

    You've missed the point of "traditional" completely. What's traditional is the hunting of whales and the consumption of whale meat. Aboriginal peoples of the US and Canada are permitted to hunt whales in limited numbers as it is "traditional". But these people use snowmobiles, boats with 100 hp outboards and highpowered scoped rifles. They do not have to go out for weeks in a skin over wood frame kayak and a harpoon with a tip made of bone.

    I wish the fleet bad weather, high seas, lots of ice bergs and a rabid bunch of SS Eco Heroes waiting for them in >Antarctica to spoil their every move and render the hunt a complete failure.

    I do too. Because I's like them to face contempt of court charges and have their non-profit status pulled as well as all of their US assets frozen.

    I doubt the people of Japan will cry too much about not being able to get so much whale meat in the local supermarket this year.

    I doubt anyone in any country would cry one way or the other.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    ramses: "Your choice of links left much to be desired, as the quotes attributed to the "news" articles were all from enviromentalists, or at the very best "blurbs" from people with valid points that were taken out of context."

    I just chose the first of thousands of links. Next time I'll get a better one just for you. All the same, they proved my point.

    Ossan: "Credibility? You still haven't answered why you remain silent on South Koreans eating whale meat but it's the end of the world for you if Japanese do."

    You really have to stop bringing up South Korea and how evil they are every time someone makes a comment you don't like. South Korea SCRAPPED its controversial plan to conduct 'research' whaling. And I am just as against them doing it and eating whale as I am any Japanese, and since you brought up eating dog as an obvious stab at South Koreans as I said I am against that too. Where have I EVER supported South Korea on these things? So what else do you want to vent about South Koreans in your assumption that I support what they do but not what Japanese do? Again, credibility out the door!

    "Cleo didn't bring up any "stats" and neither did I. Are you sure you actually read and comprehended what we were discussing before you decided to rudely jump in?"

    And just like nigelboy you can't seem to read. I asked OVERCHAN for stats on the 10 million he mentioned in some random number. We already know you can never provide stats. And the credibility takes ANOTHER dive!

    Happy New Year, all!! Let's hope whaling ends this year.

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    nigelboy: "How do you think experts and organization estimate the stocks of marine resources (like fish for instance) smith??"

    By counting. Don't tell me you think they are incapable of counting whales without killing them -- they have to find one to kill it, right? They could VERY easily say, "There's one" and move on to look for more. Only a person with a four-year-old mind thinks you need to track it, harpoon it, gut it, throw the 40% or so they don't use back in the water, then say, "Hey, there's a whale!" NONE of the so-called research Japan does is necessary in any way whatsoever -- what's necessary is that the whalers get their subsidies from the government under the guise of research, and that's all.

    Tamarama: "I wish the fleet bad weather, high seas, lots of ice bergs and a rabid bunch of SS Eco Heroes waiting for them in Antarctica to spoil their every move and render the hunt a complete failure."

    I second that!

    Ossan: "Aboriginal peoples of the US and Canada are permitted to hunt whales in limited numbers as it is "traditional".

    AGAIN with unrelated references? Okay, Ossan... I'll bite: where do these people hunt the whales? In the Southern Ocean? And since you insist on bringing up this comparison (fourth time this thread?) how many do they kill, and what do they use them for?

    I don't expect a response... except for you to try and blame it on South Korea or something.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    hidingout: "If you do, I feel sorry for your shallow grasp of the culture in which you live."

    I grasp it all to well, unfortunately, unlike those who choose to put their heads in the sand. I understand full well that whaling has NOTHING to do with research and is just about the meat, and I'm aware almost no one wants to eat it -- even here! I'm aware it's forced on children in school lunches so the government can fob off some of the vast majority of the meat rotting in freezers. It needs to be sensationalized so that people are more aware of it.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Ossan: "I do too. Because I's like them to face contempt of court charges and have their non-profit status pulled as well as all of their US assets frozen."

    Ummm.... Ossan... Tamarama was talking about the whalers, not SS. Again, as with my posts, you need to try and read a little more carefully. You even QUOTED Tamarama and got it wrong! In any case, it's interesting that you agree and want the whalers to suffer every obstacle possible. You're now on the side of the rest of the world and most people in Japan.

  • 3

    Tamarama

    Ossan, I understand traditional just fine. That's why I sited the fact that many countries have whale hunting traditions. Japan does not have a special exemption to whale based on 'tradition', which suggests that their claim to whaling ad a cultural or traditional practice is about as strong as most other ex-whaling nations. And of course you are going to be very hard pressed to argue a case for them whaling in Antarctica that bares any resemblance to tradition. It's a sham. You know it, I know it. Let's call a spade a spade.

  • -3

    smithinjapan

    Tamarama: "It's a sham. You know it, I know it. Let's call a spade a spade."

    Shhhh! You're attacking culture! Oops! I mean science!

  • -2

    Mike O'Brien

    Mike O'Brian when he says international regulations REQUIRE the meat to be sold. In capitals, no less. There are no regulations international or otherwise that require the meat to be sold.

    Try using a small amount of logic cleo.

    Their permit REQUIRES they sell the meat to recoup some of the research costs. And Article VIII REQUIRES them to dispose of the processed material as directed by their permit. So using a minimal amount of logic, not selling the meat would violate Article VIII.

    No, it states that the whales must be processed.

    No, it states that the so far as practicable it must be processed.

    Like injecting whale sperm into cow ova, implanting minke cells into pig and cow cells, and growing test-tube whales?

    Yes. It is a common method to study the viability of sperm. And cow and pig ova are used because large numbers of whale ova aren't available.

  • -2

    smithinjapan

    Mike O'Brien: "Their permit REQUIRES they sell the meat to recoup some of the research costs."

    They are under no pressure to do the so-called research, which everyone knows is just a scam anyway, so drop it. You don't have to kill a whale to count it.

  • -2

    smithinjapan

    Mike O'Brien: "And 12% of the population of Japan is about 15,000,000 people. Sounds like plenty of people to me, which is what was claimed."

    How many of that number of children forced to eat it in school lunches, just out of curiosity? Why do you guys always ignore that fact?

  • 0

    cleo

    Their permit REQUIRES they sell the meat to recoup some of the research costs. And Article VIII REQUIRES them to dispose of the processed material as directed by their permit. So using a minimal amount of logic, not selling the meat would violate Article VIII.

    Oh dear. You do realise Japan writes its own permit? What you're saying is 'We decide what we're going to do, and because we decide it, Article 8 says we have to do it'. It's the logic of a three-year-old. Do you have a copy of the permit Japan writes for itself, or are you just guessing at what it might require?

    cow and pig ova are used because large numbers of whale ova aren't available.

    When they kill three times more females than males?

  • -2

    Mike O'Brien

    so drop it. You don't have to kill a whale to count it.

    Drop what? And I never said you have to kill a whale to count it, so drop the strawman.

    How many of that number of children forced to eat it in school lunches, just out of curiosity?

    Zero. The 12% was from a poll of adults. Better luck next time.

    Why do you guys always ignore that fact?

    I am not ignoring it. Why do you guys always bring in the strawmen?

  • -2

    Mike O'Brien

    You realize the ICR and the Japanese government are two different things don't you deary?

    Do you have a copy of the permit Japan writes for itself, or are you just guessing at what it might require?

    It is available online. I would expect someone who is so concerned would have found and read it themselves.

    When they kill three times more females than males?

    Yes. Maybe you should take a basic biology course. Mammalian females are only fertile at specific times and at those times they only have a small number of eggs (only one in many cases) capable of fertilization, while mammalian males typically have millions of viable sperm at any given time.

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    Mike: "It is available online. I would expect someone who is so concerned would have found and read it themselves."

    So you don't deny the permit is a Japanese permit and could be changed at any time and is something they completely control?

    "Drop what? And I never said you have to kill a whale to count it, so drop the strawman."

    You talked about Japanese science in regards to whaling, which is simply counting. You don't need to kill to count, so why do you support Japanese 'research' if you admit it? Or is it maybe you KNOW it's not actual research beyond 'it tastes better with mayonnaise'?

    "Zero. The 12% was from a poll of adults. Better luck next time."

    Hmmm... well maybe you can tell us what percent of 88% who don't want to eat it are children instead. Thanks for proving my point about how no one wants it.

  • -3

    Maria Ybanez

    CrisGerSan: If we are at the top of all living things, isn't our job to protect them from extinction and control hunting? Animals are not just food, they are the reason we can exist, and we must be grateful to them. Every existing creature is an earth treasure and we must value them.

  • -4

    hidingout

    And speaking of not answering questions Smith (something you are very good at) what say you about the 1200 whaling families from the Tohoku region? I guess you don't care that they get their lives back on track. I guess the children from these whaling families don't deserve any government help, nor their towns any portion of the relief funds. I guess you would like those folks to abandon the sort of work they have been doing for decades and retrain in something else just to satisfy the warped sentimentality of militant environmentalists.

    • Moderator

      Readers, please stop bickering. Focus your comments on the story and not at each other.

  • -3

    Mike O'Brien

    The Japanese government and the whaling company are two separate entities.

    The research isn't merely counting, there are many other issues being studied. But even if 'counting' was the only topic. it isn't as simple as you seem to think. Just the number isn't enough, the age distribution is important and to tell the age of a Minke whale you remove a plug from the ear by cutting into the skull. Hard to do without killing the whale, although Japan is working on a non-lethal method based on telomeres. Then the male/female ratio is also needed and from above there is no way to differentiate male and female whales.

    The facts clearly show that millions of people voluntarily eat whale meat. The issue of school children's lunches is a red herring.

  • -2

    nigelboy

    By counting. Don't tell me you think they are incapable of counting whales without killing them -- they have to find one to kill it, right? They could VERY easily say, "There's one" and move on to look for more. Only a person with a four-year-old mind thinks you need to track it, harpoon it, gut it, throw the 40% or so they don't use back in the water, then say, "Hey, there's a whale!" NONE of the so-called research Japan does is necessary in any way whatsoever -- what's necessary is that the whalers get their subsidies from the government under the guise of research, and that's all.

    Are you serious? Do you really think these marine species that number in several hundred thousands (like Minke) to millions for other species who are under water that that covers the regions that's several million square kilometers are physically "counted" with a guy with binoculars with a counter in his other hand? Do these marine species state their name and social security number to avoid double counting?

    Like it or not, the fishery management agencies estimate numbers base heavily on fishing dependent activities by accessing the biological data of the catch (size, age, sex, etc.) and plug in a statistical formula to derive at these numbers. There is a reason why four year olds aren't in charge of fishery management.

  • -1

    cleo

    The Japanese government and the whaling company are two separate entities.

    Yeah, right. Funny how the whaling company is financed through national taxes.

    Just the number isn't enough, the age distribution is important and to tell the age of a Minke whale you remove a plug from the ear by cutting into the skull. Hard to do without killing the whale

    That's another example of topsy-turvy whaler logic; like, 'It isn't commercial whaling, it's scientific research, honest', some bright spark reckoned, 'Removing ear-plugs to calculate the age involves killing the whale, so calculating the age by this method must be essential to our 'research', simply looking at the size of the darn beast in the water and making a rough guess isn't good enough because that way nothing ends up on the plate'. The calculating age from the ear plug thing is just a backwards excuse to kill.

    Do you really think these marine species that number in several hundred thousands (like Minke) to millions for other species who are under water that that covers the regions that's several million square kilometers are physically "counted" with a guy with binoculars with a counter in his other hand?

    It's how they do it in Alaska.

    we search for whales by naked eye and with binoculars that have compasses in them.

    And for the ones underwater, there's acoustic monitoring:

    because sound propagates so well in water, whales can be heard underwater much farther than they can be seen, which increases the range over which they can be detected.

    http://scientistatwork.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/three-ways-to-count-whales/

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Cleo,

    You are bringing up a species that are the second largest among whale with very little migration, slow swimming creature which is on the Red list.

    What I'm talking about are Minke whales.

    Guess how many bio sample of Minke whales the recent and very costly Aus/NZ non lethal research were able to attain?

    ZERO.

  • -3

    cleo

    You are bringing up a species that are the second largest among whale with very little migration, slow swimming creature which is on the Red list.

    What I'm talking about are Minke whales

    Acoustic monitoring can't be used with minke? It would seem to be ideal for covering vast ocean areas.

    Guess how many bio sample of Minke whales the recent and very costly Aus/NZ non lethal research were able to attain?

    ZERO.

    And how many whales did they blow holes in and/or hang head-down in the water till they drowned?

    ZERO.

    Sounds good to me.

  • -1

    nigelboy

    Acoustic monitoring can't be used with minke? It would seem to be ideal for covering vast ocean areas.

    Sure. They are elusive compared to other larger whales you mention so I question the effectiveness.

    Sounds good to me.

    Why? One of their mission was to get a tissue sample of Minke whales. They failed because as stated above, they are elusive.

  • -1

    Mike O'Brien

    Yeah, right. Funny how the whaling company is financed through national taxes.

    Yeah exactly right. Governments use tax money to buy all sorts of goods and services from private companies and it doesn't make the companies part of the government. Nothing funny about it.

    and these two methodologies were combined to produce a robust estimate of the number of bowhead whales passing Barrow.

    Hmmm..so they know how many whales passed a choke point in a well defined migration route. A situation that doesn't exist with Antarctic Minke whales. Did Australia use acoustic monitoring in their study of them? Did the IWC use acoustic monitoring in their study of them? Might there be a reason that even the anti-whaling non-lethal researchers didn't use acoustic monitoring.

  • 1

    JapanGal

    I am very pro whaling. There is nothing wrong with it and there are more than enough.

    I hope SS blows and engine, and limps back to a port where they can arrest the terrorist leader.

  • -1

    gelendestrasse

    Here we go again....I hope nobody gets hurt this year.

  • -1

    HokoOnchi

    Is it true that there is more whale meat that results from these scientific ventures than ever is bought and consumed in Japan in a given year?

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Sales & Marketing Staff

    Sales & Marketing Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Social Media Manager

    Social Media Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Kitchen Staff

    Cafe Kitchen Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Manager

    Cafe Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥250,000 / Month Negotiable
  • SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST

    SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST
    SCALA KK、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.5M / Year Negotiable

More in National

View all

View all