Sunday May 27, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Whaling fleet off to Antarctica with beefed up security measures

National Dec. 06, 2011 - 05:15PM JST ( 154 )

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

Order by Time Order by Popularity

154 Comments

3

genji17Dec. 06, 2011 - 04:38PM JST

Happy Researching!
0

gogogoDec. 06, 2011 - 04:40PM JST

What sort of beefed up security measures?
-4

Spidapig24Dec. 06, 2011 - 04:46PM JST

Lets hope they mysteriously sink on the way. Maybe that will save us having to listen to the incesant whining about how they are legitimately ignoring world opinion and doing as they please.
-4

Spidapig24Dec. 06, 2011 - 04:50PM JST

gogogo

What sort of beefed up security measures?

Apparently the J government has hired vessels to act as monitoring vessels and are manning them with coast guard personal. And it seems the weak Australian government is throwing up barriers to SS by refusing their pilot a visa.
2

genji17Dec. 06, 2011 - 04:55PM JST

nothing less than 900!!! Ganbatte!
-3

DisillusionedDec. 06, 2011 - 05:00PM JST

Sent my 20 bucks to SS last week. Let the games begin!
10

NessieDec. 06, 2011 - 05:11PM JST

Sent my 20 bucks to SS last week. Let the games begin!

Sent my taxes to J-govt last year. Let the games begin!

Can I have them back? Please?
2

It"S MEDec. 06, 2011 - 05:21PM JST

Lets hope no-one dies along the way. Good chance of it happening this year.

Lets wait and see how things go before posting here.
-5

Spidapig24Dec. 06, 2011 - 05:24PM JST

Things would go a lot better and be a non issue if Japan actually listened to the opinions of nations affected by Japan's decision to recommend this action
1

MasterBapeDec. 06, 2011 - 05:27PM JST

The Japanese coast guard is going. Does that mean there will be extra ships or only coast guard aboard the whaling fleet? For all the money the govt. spends on this, it must be either big business or just a willingness to never give in. Either way, it's cruel.
-3

smithinjapanDec. 06, 2011 - 05:30PM JST

Spidapig24: "Things would go a lot better and be a non issue if Japan actually listened to the opinions of nations affected by Japan's decision to recommend this action"

Japan only listens to other nations when it's being praised. If it's being criticized they get all sulky and claim they don't need foreign opinion.

Anyway, this is an utter waste of money that could be going towards ACTUAL problems, like reconstruction in the north. Instead, they are wasting some 28 million US dollars to protect ships against other ships in international waters, only to bring back 'research' that will rot in freezers for the most part, or be shoved down children's throats against their will.

Go SS! If they do any damage to SS ships via the Japanese 'coast guard' it'll be an international incident, and all the more pressure for Japan to actually get with the times and stop committing environmental terrorism.
-1

TamaramaDec. 06, 2011 - 05:42PM JST

Woah! Here we go again. They got towelled up last year, imagine the loss to science! All that incredibly valuable data and sampling that could have been taken just left to uselessly swim around in the ocean - depleting fish stocks and making a mockery of man's right to hunt. Go Japan! The world is relying on your pursuit of truth!
-1

SwissToniDec. 06, 2011 - 05:48PM JST

Gather round, point your finger at them in unison, and in mass indignation shout "Shame on you! Shame on you!"
0

CrickyDec. 06, 2011 - 06:03PM JST

Last year a "Heat Beam" was used on a Helicopter, in International waters! Dread to think what is in store this year. Coast Guard/Navy...Research/ Commercial Whaling, I think I'm beginning to understand Japanese speak. It's not even slightly opaque just Narsastitic and bloody mindedness, and a great way to funnel cash to people who don't deserve it. I wait in eager anticipation for the thumbs down.
-2

It"S MEDec. 06, 2011 - 06:08PM JST

Cricky.

What is a "Heat Beam" and where can that technology be had by civilians?
6

davidattokyoDec. 06, 2011 - 06:11PM JST

Commercial whaling is banned under an international treaty but Japan has since 1987 used a loophole to carry out “lethal research” on the creatures in the name of science.

This report is incorrect.

Commercial whaling is not banned, there is just a zero-catch limit in place at the current time.

Scientific research is allowed to be conducted by IWC member nations as they see fit, and in Japan's case this means conducting population sampling to gain biological data which is used by the IWC's scientific committee for their stock assessment of whale stocks.

The "loophole" in the whaling convention is that it does not sufficiently protect the organization from anti-whaling forces. This was something not envisaged when the treaty was drafted, because it was assumed that nations that do not agree with an international agreement do not adhere themselves to be bound by it's rules. The anti-whaling nations are abusing this loophole, which is why there is conflict at the IWC.

Japan has claimed it is necessary to substantiate its view that there is a robust whale population in the world.

There are various robust whale stocks in the world, it's not like there is only one type of whale.

It's unfortunate that western news media articles continue to mislead the public about this issue. It's no wonder that the conflict can't be resolved in such an environment of poor reporting by the media.

Anti-whaling nations and environmentalist groups routinely condemn the activity as a cover for commercial whaling.

Everyone knows that the whaling convention is for the purpose of regulating commercial whaling, if they don't like the fact they should exit the whaling convention and complain from there.

Environmentalist group Greenpeace condemned the annual hunt, saying money spent on protecting the whaling fleet would be better directed to helping the recovery from the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan’s northeast.

And let other Japanese citizens conducting their lawful activities go un-protected from eco-terrorists?

“Not only is the whaling industry unable to survive without large increases in government handouts

Disingenuous comments from the convicted whale meat thief. Let's have the IWC set sustainable catch limits for commercial whaling, rather than "zero" quotas, and see how the industry does then.
0

davidattokyoDec. 06, 2011 - 06:25PM JST

It's odd that the anti-whalers claim that Japan doesn't listen, when it's Australia that's gone off crying to the ICJ despite knowing full well that biological data from Japan's research programmes is being utilised in ongoing research conducted by the IWC's own scientific committee.

Australia should immediately drop their ridiculous ICJ action and donate the funds allocated for that to the reconstruction of Tohoku, as well as banning eco-terrorists from using Australian ports, which would spare Japan from the need to deploy defenses to protect their innocent citizens from conducting their legal activities.

shoved down children's throats against their will.

This is Japan, not North Korea.
-1

cleoDec. 06, 2011 - 06:29PM JST

I don't hope the whaling fleet sinks. I hope the harpoons jam, the freezers fail to freeze and the factory ship's engines seize up. Then the coast guard can tow them all back to Japan and SS can spend their time whale-watching instead of getting drenched and chucking stink-bombs at people who couldn't stink more if they tried.
-1

It"S MEDec. 06, 2011 - 06:29PM JST

Cricky.

Really, interested as the only references I can find to a "Heat Beam/Ray" are from the old "War of the World" books. Based on micro-wave, etc?

Pls, post your scientific sources/references. As such a beam would be way powerful and would have military applications.
-3

Spidapig24Dec. 06, 2011 - 06:33PM JST

davidattokyo

It's odd that the anti-whalers claim that Japan doesn't listen, when it's Australia that's gone off crying to the ICJ despite knowing full well that biological data from Japan's research programmes is being utilised in ongoing research conducted by the IWC's own scientific committee.

Way to twist the facts Davie, people say Japan doesnt listen because Japan is whaling in other countries region and these countries in the region (all of them) have asked Japan to stop and Japan has ignored that. So yes Japan doesnt listen. Maybe we should start fishing in Japans region and ignore them when they ask us to stop give them a taste of their own medicine.

Australia should immediately drop their ridiculous ICJ action and donate the funds allocated for that to the reconstruction of Tohoku,

David as an Australian taxpayer l support the ICJ action. And furthermore l say bugger the reconstruction of Tohoku, why should l as an Australian taxpayer support these people when the Japanese government cant be bothered supporting them. After all how many tens of millions of dollars are they wasting supporting this whaling and you want Australia to help the Japanese people when their own government wont. NO WAY BUDDY l would sooner donate my money to SS than to Tohuko.

as well as banning eco-terrorists from using Australian ports, which would spare Japan from the need to deploy defenses to protect their innocent citizens from conducting their legal activities.

More likely they should ban the whalers from using Australian ports. Maybe say the unions could put work bans in place, people could accidently block the passage of these vessels into Australian ports etc. Just thinking out loud there
1

NuckinFutzDec. 06, 2011 - 06:45PM JST

The Japanese whalers are banned from ports in Australia and New Zealand. History has proven that the only thing Japan understands is force, and that unfortunately is the only thing that will stop them from commercial whaling in the Southern Whale Sanctuary (sorry, the whole world knows the research line is complete bull$hit!) Let Japan, the greatest polluter of the Pacific Ocean, fish in it's own territorial waters!
-2

smithinjapanDec. 06, 2011 - 06:56PM JST

davidattokyo: "It's odd that the anti-whalers claim that Japan doesn't listen,"

Not really, given that they don't.

What's odd is that Japan thinks its coast extends to the Antarctic Ocean. Odd, or just plain moronic -- take your pick.
-2

smithinjapanDec. 06, 2011 - 06:58PM JST

What would be great, and ACTUAL science, would be if they were to try and catch fish, dolphins, and/or whales off the north of Japan and see how much damage the nuclear plant has caused marine life via its poisoning of the ocean. But nah -- Japanese science here is, "with shouyuu good! with mayo ba-a-a-a-ad".
-3

Spidapig24Dec. 06, 2011 - 07:00PM JST

Smithinjapan

What's odd is that Japan thinks its coast extends to the Antarctic Ocean. Odd, or just plain moronic -- take your pick.

Didn't you know that the Japanese own all the oceans, at least this time they are imposing their will on other nations peacefully and not at bayonet point like last time but the Amis the same the mighty Japanese do as they please and damn anyone who disagrees
-3

smithinjapanDec. 06, 2011 - 07:05PM JST

Spidapig24: "at least this time they are imposing their will on other nations peacefully"

I'm not sure that aiming sonic weapons at helicopters IN FLIGHT, ramming into near stationary ships and sinking them, or bringing the coast guard to 'protect' the whaling program is peaceful, but I get what you mean.
1

cleoDec. 06, 2011 - 07:14PM JST

they should ban the whalers from using Australian ports

They have been banned from Aussie and NZ ports for some years now. When the Yushin Maru damaged its propeller by sailing into ice floes (who'd expect to find ice floes in the Antarctic??) it asked to be allowed into a port in Indonesia (16 days and 3,000 miles to the north) for repairs. And was refused.
1

davidattokyoDec. 06, 2011 - 07:52PM JST

Tamarama,

The difference between a ban and a temporary zero-catch limit is significant.

The reason the anti-whaling forces had to use a ostensibly temporary zero-catch limit measure was because if they had called it a ban would be overtly illegal, as it would obviously contravene the whaling convention's purpose.

Ironically the same people who imposed a ban in the guise of "temporary zero-catch limits" are the same people who accuse Japan of conducting commercial whaling in the guise of scientific research, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

But it would be naive to expect the malcontents of the anti-whaling movement to respect international agreements and the law. See Sea Shepherd for another example.
-2

CrickyDec. 06, 2011 - 07:55PM JST

It'S Me...

It's a non lethal weapon that can be pointed at crowds (usually) and Pirates, most big name ocean liners are now fitted with them. When in range the cells just under the skin become agitated and give off heat. Apparently the flight mode kicks in and people flee. It was used on a helicopter last year causing the pilot some distress, I saw it on future weapons ( YouTube) and read a foreign news source to avail myself of the details. I my not be correct with the name, I will check further and get back to you.

My point was the Coast Guard, in Antartica operating in a fishery exclusion zone also carry the latest non lethal and lethal (Whale wise) equipment. I will get back soon with it's name!
-3

It"S MEDec. 06, 2011 - 07:59PM JST

Cricky.

Still think you are talking about the sound weapon and that was used years ago(old tech), non offensive at that. Also still can't find anything about an actual working heat beam online.
-1
Spidapig24Dec. 06, 2011 - 08:03PM JST

davidattokyo

The difference between a ban and a temporary zero-catch limit is significant.

Um no not really its just semantics. A ban on commercial whaling means no whales can be caught, a zero catch limit means no whales can be caught. They are the same thing, as you can have a temporary ban, or a temporary zero catch limit.

The reason the anti-whaling forces had to use a ostensibly temporary zero-catch limit measure was because if they had called it a ban would be overtly illegal, as it would obviously contravene the whaling convention's purpose.

Please you go back to this and repeat it over and over and over and over and over every time this argument comes up. It really is getting tiring.

Ironically the same people who imposed a ban in the guise of "temporary zero-catch limits" are the same people who accuse Japan of conducting commercial whaling in the guise of scientific research, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What evidence David, you say this JWA mantra time and again but fail to produce a shred of proof to back it up other than statements from JWA and ICR. Most countries US, UK, Aust, SA, NZ, Chile, the list goes on all agree Japans whaling is commercial whaling in disguise. Are you saying ALL these countries are wrong and Japan is right?

But it would be naive to expect the malcontents of the anti-whaling movement to respect international agreements and the law. See Sea Shepherd for another example.

Ah so l see you are already playing the abusive card here, didnt take you long. Maybe l should do your trick and highlight it to the mods for removal of your post....
- ModeratorDec. 06, 2011 - 08:57PM JST
  
  Readers, we realize this is an emotionally charged topic. However, please be aware that neither side has the moral high ground. If you wish to post comments on this thread, you all have to be tolerant of opposing views.
-1

Spidapig24Dec. 06, 2011 - 08:04PM JST

Cricky

My point was the Coast Guard, in Antartica operating in a fishery exclusion zone also carry the latest non lethal and lethal (Whale wise) equipment. I will get back soon with it's name!

Its called LRAD.
-1

CrickyDec. 06, 2011 - 08:05PM JST

Found it http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=AU#/watch?v=dmuyLIrSjxI Active Denile System
0

NessieDec. 06, 2011 - 08:11PM JST

@smith

What's odd is that Japan thinks its coast extends to the Antarctic Ocean. Odd, or just plain moronic -- take your pick.

Australia fishes in international waters. I don't see you up in arms about that. Should Aus be banned from doing that?
0

davidattokyoDec. 06, 2011 - 08:14PM JST

Spidapig24,

Um no not really its just semantics.

Then that's equivalent to admitting that the "moratorium" is illegal.

What evidence David, you say this JWA mantra time and again but fail to produce a shred of proof to back it up other than statements from JWA and ICR.

IWC Scientific Committee reports are not "statements from JWA and ICR".

You can ignore IWC Scientific Committee reports, but doing so does not validate your position.

As I have also noted, it'll come out in the ICJ case as well. My assumption is that you will ignore that as well.

Most countries US, UK, Aust, SA, NZ, Chile, the list goes on all agree Japans whaling is commercial whaling in disguise. Are you saying ALL these countries are wrong and Japan is right?

Yes.

Wrong and right is not determined by anti-whaling nations. I respect the law - I will respect the ICJ judgment - will you?
-1

CrickyDec. 06, 2011 - 08:16PM JST

The money spent is not just for the Whaling fleet but a lot of money is spent on Coast Guard, after all Antartica is within the coast of Japan. They have acsess to lots of new toys, that costs money. Our tax money!
-1

CrickyDec. 06, 2011 - 08:18PM JST

Cheers Spidapig, don't always agree with you but that's life, thanks for clarifying what I was trying to convey...mate
-1

Spidapig24Dec. 06, 2011 - 08:20PM JST

davidattokyo

"Um no not really its just semantics." Then that's equivalent to admitting that the "moratorium" is illegal.

Nope not at all, its only illegal in the eyes of those that disagree because it impacts on its business and that would be the ICR and JWA and its JT mouthpiece David.

"What evidence David, you say this JWA mantra time and again but fail to produce a shred of proof to back it up other than statements from JWA and ICR." IWC Scientific Committee reports are not "statements from JWA and ICR". You can ignore IWC Scientific Committee reports, but doing so does not validate your position.

Hmm, funny so now you want to use the IWC to validate your position but when the IWC's requests for Japan to cease whaling are mentioned you discredit the IWC. I guess when it suits you use the IWC and when it doesnt you ignore it.

"Most countries US, UK, Aust, SA, NZ, Chile, the list goes on all agree Japans whaling is commercial whaling in disguise. Are you saying ALL these countries are wrong and Japan is right?" Yes.

Of course you do. Enough said all hail Imperial Japan and its superiority....

Wrong and right is not determined by anti-whaling nations. I respect the law - I will respect the ICJ judgment - will you?

Nope! not when Japan has been getting its pro whaling judges appointed ahead of the case. Or did you think that one would slip through the cracks hey!
-4

Spidapig24Dec. 06, 2011 - 08:20PM JST

Cricky

Cheers Spidapig, don't always agree with you but that's life, thanks for clarifying what I was trying to convey...mate

No probs, dont always have to agree. It would be a boring world if we always agreed.
1

CrickyDec. 06, 2011 - 08:25PM JST

Spidapig Agreed, on this one same page. Justifying the expense is a lost cause, justifying the loss of international value is self distructive.
3

YongYangDec. 06, 2011 - 08:27PM JST

Waste of wild life. Waste of money and resources, waste of time for... too much pride.
-3

阮天青Dec. 06, 2011 - 08:32PM JST

I love how this article attempts to point out that the whale meat ends up as food-

International Whaling Commission (which has banned commercial whaling), requires that the whale meat from scientific whaling not be wasted.
-1

NeoJamalDec. 06, 2011 - 08:54PM JST

Japanese international commercial whaling was instituted in response to the shortage of protein in the devastation of post-war Japan.

Why modern Japan must insist on its practice is like a perverse longing for those harsh years.
1

davidattokyoDec. 06, 2011 - 08:59PM JST

Spidapig24,

I will respect the ICJ judgment - will you?

Nope!

Heh. Good luck living in the real world, where you can't always get whatchoo want.

not when Japan has been getting its pro whaling judges appointed ahead of the case.

Hahaha (in fact the only nation getting a judge appointed to the ICJ panel for this case is Australia, but who cares right?)
-3

smithinjapanDec. 06, 2011 - 09:17PM JST

Nessie: Do they take the COAST GUARD with them? That was my point -- Japan thinks its coast (and hence they take the coast guard) extends to the Antarctic Ocean for defense.

"Should Aus be banned from doing that?"

If they are taking their coast guard to protect them and help them hunt whales under the guise of science, absolutely! But I notice you said 'fishing', not whaling, and I'll take it your answer to my rhetorical question on the coast guard defense in international waters to be 'No, Australia does not'. Hence, I'm not up in arms.
-5

smithinjapanDec. 06, 2011 - 09:19PM JST

davidattokyo: "Good luck living in the real world, where you can't always get whatchoo want."

A rather immature 'retort', and are you laughing at Spiderpig suggesting that you won't abide by an ICJ judgement if it doesn't go your way?
3

wanderlustDec. 06, 2011 - 09:21PM JST

Just paint a bigger 'RESEARCH' sign on the side of the boat!
0

Loose CannonDec. 06, 2011 - 09:32PM JST

This is as polorizing a topic as abortion, or gay/lesbian rights. Neither side of this belives they are wrong and the opposing side is right. Makes me belive the truth is somewhere in the middle. I would ask the "esteemed" panel here one question. Japan is not the only country left that hunts whales correct? How come you do not hear of their troubles with the IWC or the enviromental movements? Not getting any "airtime", or do they operate in some way that appeases the whale protectors? Why does the SS only attack the Japanese whalers if there are other nations operating whaling fleets?
-1

gogogoDec. 06, 2011 - 09:43PM JST

Coast guard = guns :(

All this to defend Japanese pride. Just give it up Japan, Japanese people don't even like eating whales.
-3
Darren BrannanDec. 06, 2011 - 09:59PM JST

I lost faith in this country's leadership around 7 months ago.If they want to keep on making themselves look like the pariahs of the Pacific then that is their bed to lie in, but it is the normal citizens of Japan who have largely indicated they have no interest in whale meat that will suffer the inevitable backlash.Japan whales not because of research,not out of need but for nationalism's sake.I think after announcing yet another spill of nuclear poison into our Pacific , Japan has got real gall. I would much rather the world concentrated on Tuna.Tuna will be fished out way before the last whale disappears and Japan has been the largest contributor to that unfortunate situation.
- ModeratorDec. 06, 2011 - 10:21PM JST
  
  Stay on topic please. Tuna is not relevant to this discussion.
-3

hoserfellaDec. 06, 2011 - 10:25PM JST

Way to go Japan. 9 months ago they were showered with International goodwill and an outpouring of donations from around the world. Thats largely gone now thanks to the same old tired men (and I use that term loosely) who run this country.
-2

OssanAmericaDec. 06, 2011 - 10:26PM JST

spidapig, neither Australia does not own or have any jurisdiction over the waters where the Japanese reasearch whaling fleet are operating. Everybody knows this. If they did it would be an easy matter to charge them with poaching and get them to leave. Why don't you stop constantly posting like Australia owns these waters? Let the ICJ settle this. Staying on topic, if the Sea Shepherd eco-terrorists carry out more ridicuklous acts of viloence hope the additional security measures results in their arrest and prosecution, just like any eco-terrorist groups anywhere.
-4

j4p4nFTWDec. 06, 2011 - 10:29PM JST

Hopefully this fleet can help protect the fishermen this year and ensure that Japan is able to resume its legal research activities. I don't know why other countries are so set on stopping Japan from fishing when it is our traditional sustenance and national representative food.

Japan must be careful with food security. In the past we were blockaded, and that had a negative outcome. If other countries try to cut off our food supply we need to consider a properly measured response.
-2

OssanAmericaDec. 06, 2011 - 10:33PM JST

"@smith -What's odd is that Japan thinks its coast extends to the Antarctic Ocean. Odd, or just plain moronic -- take your pick."

Another uneducated comment. JCG like other nation's coast guards are law enforcement. They are not military. Nor are they limited to the "coast" of the nation as their jurisdiction applies onboard all vessels flying the Japanese flag. Recent events suggests that the same jurisdiction may extend to vessels under charter (contractual enployment to you) to Japanese entities. JCG offers have been present onboard JMSDF vessels operating in the coaltion anti-piracy operations off Somalia over the last few years for the purpose of law enforcement and arrest authority.
0

SwissToniDec. 06, 2011 - 10:34PM JST

Loose cannon, its a fact that in a Japan news website, and in fact Japan as a whole the Sea Shepherd v Japanese Whalers idiocy gets a lot of coverage. That in no way means that Norway, Greenland and Iceland havent come in for some stick. The cruel Faroes hunt gets very special attention. Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd and other groups arguably target very fairly. The major difference between Japan and the others of course, is that the others arent trying to pull the wool over the eyes of onlookers by pretending commercial hunts are anything other than that.
0

CrickyDec. 06, 2011 - 10:41PM JST

J4p4nftw

You obviously have been given a FAX sheet to post, most posters on this site are aware of this. Towing the pro whaling line so blatantly ... Not going to work.
2

shanabelleDec. 06, 2011 - 10:42PM JST

Considering all that has happened in Japan in 2011, and the amount of international support and goodwill we have received....let alone the economic dire straits right now... this is nothing but sheer stupidity!! May their path be blocked by icebergs...all the way!
-2

OssanAmericaDec. 06, 2011 - 10:43PM JST

smithinjapan -"I'm not sure that aiming sonic weapons at helicopters IN FLIGHT, ramming into near stationary ships and sinking them, or bringing the coast guard to 'protect' the whaling program is peaceful, but I get what you mean."

Perhaps he concept of "self defense" is alien to you? One party is engaging in whaling in international waters , research or otherwise. The other party has openly declared their intent to harass and interfere with their legal (yes legal, that's what "loophole" means") operations. Everything that the whaling fleet has done is to defend themselves from these eco-terrorists. I know this arguments fits into your anti-J agenda but I hope you realize that SKoreans also eat whale and that country is eager to be allowed to resume whaling. Are you sure you're on'the right side of he fence here?
-1

OssanAmericaDec. 06, 2011 - 10:47PM JST

swisstoni- what makes you certain that the Japanese are not conducting research whaling? Part from all the anti-whalers simply saying so? Has any research data submitted by Japan to the IWC scientific comittee ever been rejected as not being autrhentic data? Has Japan ever been cited by the same committee for not being in compliance with the IWC Scientific permit program?
3

davidattokyoDec. 06, 2011 - 10:57PM JST

smithinjapan,

are you laughing at Spiderpig suggesting that you won't abide by an ICJ judgement if it doesn't go your way?

what part of "I will respect the ICJ judgment" did you not understand? If the ICJ rules against Japan, I will accept it.

Spidapig24 on the other hand already declared he won't accept it, because of some fancy allegations that Japan is putting pro whaling judges on the ICJ panel ( when in fact the only nation that has done this has been Australia)

I can't see the ICJ ruling against Japan, having analysed Australia's initial document submitted to the ICJ, which appeared to have advancing former PM Kevin Rudd's domestic political purposes as it's main goal.

That said, if the ICJ judgement were to go against Japan, of course I would accept it. What else is the ICJ for if not resolving international disputes? (Pity some kids can't recognise this)
1

Loose CannonDec. 06, 2011 - 10:59PM JST

@ Swiss then If Norway, for example, says they are hunting whales purely for their meat. Then why is there no condemnation from other European nations? Would not Sweden, or the British enviromentalists, or Ireland and Scotland try to stop the whaling near their waters ala Australia? America has its eyes turned towards the Atlantic, not Pacific ocean, yet we hear only of the Japanese activities. If Japan would drop its supposed pretext of scientific research, and said it was hunting whales for meat. Would that lessen the impact of their whaling? What would make them any different fron those Atlantic nations that continue to hunt whale. I also bring up the Inuit indian tribes who are allowed to hunt whales as per their traditions. The Japanese can show whaling has been a part of their culture for several hundred years. Are their traditions any less relevant than the Inuit?
3

davidattokyoDec. 06, 2011 - 10:59PM JST

OssanAmerica,

Another uneducated comment.

Indeed. It seems some people's comprehension goes as far as a school level dictionary, but can't grapple with the same words in the context of international laws
3

davidattokyoDec. 06, 2011 - 11:05PM JST

OssanAmerica,

Has any research data submitted by Japan to the IWC scientific comittee ever been rejected

It's good you raise this Ossan, because it is an opportunity for it to once again be noted by the anti-whalers reading these comments that the Scientific Committee reports in it's 2011 advice that data from Japan's research programme continues to be used in statistical catch-at-age analysis for the Antarctic minke whale stock assessment.

Not like those whales are dying just so they can be eaten, as the commercial anti-whaling industry propaganda machine that has fooled so many easily impressionable youngsters would have it... (but do you think they can break the shackles!)
-1

wtfjapanDec. 06, 2011 - 11:05PM JST

another reason why Japan needs to join the TPP, cheaper imported beef pork chicken seafood will just make expensive high fat whale meat even less attractive for consumers to buy.
3

davidattokyoDec. 06, 2011 - 11:13PM JST

Loose Cannon, the difference is the Japanese are weak diplomatically, where as when this stuff goes down against Canadian, Icelandic or Norwegian interests it gets dealt with and everyone moves on.

For this much, Japan is to blame.
-1

CrickyDec. 06, 2011 - 11:23PM JST

Loose cannon "Traditional" hunting is off the coast line not half a world away! I am still waiting for ancient tales of J-fishermen in Saipans battling Southern storms with their catch of meat!
-1

SwissToniDec. 06, 2011 - 11:28PM JST

Loose cannon, " try to stop the whaling near their waters ala Australia?" To date Australia has taken no action to stop whaling in its waters other than to cite Japan at the ICJ.

Britain, which includes Scotland, as part of the EU has brought considerable pressure to bear on nations that conduct whaling. Thats one of the reasons davidattokyo et al would love to see them out of the IWC. I dont know why you believe its only Japan that is taking flak for whaling, but if you do a little research you will find thats not the case. While youre at it, look at the methods used to take whales and their effectiveness as a killing method and then consider whether that level of cruelty is appropriate to a commercial operation.

The Inuit hunts arent really within the scope of this discussion (not commercial see?), I have no information indicating Kyodo Senpaku are a traditional Inuit operation taking whales to maintain an aboriginal lifestyle. Do you know otherwise?
-2

Loose CannonDec. 06, 2011 - 11:28PM JST

@ Cricky: Then do some reading because there are tales of Japanese whalers reaching Antartica in the !500's or early 1600's. What you think the Japanese can't sail well? Their an island nation for pete's sake.
2

SwissToniDec. 06, 2011 - 11:32PM JST

Ossanamerica- "swisstoni- what makes you certain that the Japanese are not conducting research whaling?"

The paucity of accepted published papers is pretty convincing evidence. I think also the fact that the IWC scientific committee doesnt rate the submitted data much either. Look it up, the info's all out there in the ether, you dont need to take anyone's word for it.
-2

jinjapanDec. 06, 2011 - 11:33PM JST

i sure hope they meet their quota this time. whale meat was a little pricey after the last catch. looking forward to some fresh meat !
0

banz10Dec. 06, 2011 - 11:39PM JST

j4p4nFTW Why is it that Japan's "traditional sustenance and national representative food" (that 95% of Japanese have never consumed) has to now be sourced at the other end of the planet? If this is not a matter of conservation then explain why Japan can no longer carry out their hunt in local waters? That's the fundamental question that Japan Whaling Inc and it's apologists seem to struggle most with.
0

CrickyDec. 06, 2011 - 11:41PM JST

Yep your right...discovered America I am told, and Colonized Tasmania too, even reached the moon, have not head back yet from Mars, it's a problem. Regrettable
3

davidattokyoDec. 06, 2011 - 11:45PM JST

SwissToni,

I think also the fact that the IWC scientific committee doesnt rate the submitted data much either. Look it up, the info's all out there in the ether

What the Scientific Committee thinks is in the Scientific Committee's reports to the IWC. In the ether is all sorts of bollocks generated by the commercial anti-whaling industry. Do you believe tobacco industry scientists too?

If you want the Scientific Committee's views, get it from the horses mouth. That means read the Scientific Committee's reports - on the IWC home page. As I pointed out, they state again this year that they are using Japan's data for the Antarctic minke whale stock assessment.

How you reconcile that with your wishful idea that the same committee that writes this report and uses the data doesn't rate it is your headache (or you could simply put the old hands across the eyes and pretend it isn't true, which would be to form)
3

davidattokyoDec. 06, 2011 - 11:49PM JST

banz10,

Why is it that Japan's "traditional sustenance and national representative food" (that 95% of Japanese have never consumed) has to now be sourced at the other end of the planet?

I doesn't have to be, but that's where the whale stock most suitable for sustainable commercial whaling is located.

If this is not a matter of conservation then explain why Japan can no longer carry out their hunt in local waters?

...? Japan DOES catch whales in their local waters.

That's the fundamental question that Japan Whaling Inc and it's apologists seem to struggle most with.

Is that something that you know, or else is it something that you believe?
-5

DotobockDec. 07, 2011 - 12:05AM JST

People should try whale meat before condemning it. It is all right. The whales are not endangered.
0

gogogoDec. 07, 2011 - 12:14AM JST

Japan must be careful with food security. In the past we were blockaded, and that had a negative outcome. If other countries try to cut off our food supply we need to consider a properly measured response.

What was the negative outcome? I hope Japan does spit the dummy and do "a properly measured response" because no one would support it and Japan would further isolate themselves from the rest of the international community.
0

Patrick SmashDec. 07, 2011 - 12:19AM JST

The reason people complain about Japan is that they take whales in a marine preserve thousands of miles away from Japan. No one complains about the other hunt that does not take place in a whale sanctuary. Yeah, more wasted tax money that could be better else where, but protecting Japanese pride is way more important than common sense or sustainable industries.
1

DotobockDec. 07, 2011 - 12:24AM JST

Minke whales are not endangered! Get your facts straight. A sustainable hunt of a natural renewable resource is the most environmental friendly form of food production for human consumption. The natural habitat does not have to be destroyed and turned into agricultural land.

According to CITES. The Minke Whales are off the red list.

Whaling is based on the principle of protection and sustainable harvesting of marine resources. Management of resources is founded on scientific advice, with the objective based on the concept of an ecosystem approach. Quotas are set on the basis of procedures developed by the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). This committee has estimated that the stocks of minke whale that Japan harvest.
1

Patrick HattmanDec. 07, 2011 - 01:00AM JST

If their primary catch is the minke whale, then I have no problem with it.

The Sea Shepherd et al. are endangering many lives on both sides in an attempt to stop Japan from hunting a type of whale that is abundant in the oceans.

There is going to be a tragic loss of human life before they are forced to stop.
-1

OssanAmericaDec. 07, 2011 - 01:07AM JST

SwissToniDec. 06, 2011 - 11:32PM JST Ossanamerica- "swisstoni- what makes you certain that the Japanese are not conducting research whaling?" The paucity of accepted published papers is pretty convincing evidence. I think also the fact that the IWC scientific >committee doesnt rate the submitted data much either. Look it up, the info's all out there in the ether, you dont need >to take anyone's word for it.

I see you are unable to back up your statement and resort to the all too common "go look it up" response so often heard from those who are caught utterly in the wrong but unwilling to accept it. As others have pointed out, you can see for yourself on the IWC webpage that your statement is nonsense.
-1

banz10Dec. 07, 2011 - 01:12AM JST

davidattokyo, of the aforesaid apologists,

I doesn't have to be, but that's where the whale stock most suitable for sustainable commercial whaling is located

So the local whale stocks which nourished the population post WWII (sorry, preserved a tradition) are less "suitable" than faraway stocks that supply only a fraction of the population now? Yeah, that makes sense. If I were a consumer I'd be irate that a product that was once affordable and supposedly part of the staple diet is now a luxury item, especially if conservation wasn't an issue.
-1

OssanAmericaDec. 07, 2011 - 01:16AM JST

"Patrick SmashDec. 07, 2011 - 12:19AM JST The reason people complain about Japan is that they take whales in a marine preserve thousands of miles away >from Japan. No one complains about the other hunt that does not take place in a whale sanctuary.

I disagree. I think that a large portion of anti-whalers are simply uneducated or in denial of reality. Anyone can go to the IWC website and read that scientific research whaling, as authorized by the IWC under Article 8, is EXEMPT from recognizing Moratoriums and Sanctuaries. It is also well known that the waters in question do NOT belong to Australia, New Zealand or anyone else. In the same way that the same IWC rules REQUIRE that the whales taken for research be comsumed is deliberately not mentioned at all in the above article in order to cast Japan in a bad light when in reality hey are abiding my the IWC rules, reality and facts are convenitently ignored for the most part by the frothing-at-the-mouth anti-whaling crowd. I won't even get into how that "sancutary" was created in violation of the IWC's own rules either.
2

arrestpaulDec. 07, 2011 - 01:19AM JST

Spidapig24 - And it seems the weak Australian government is throwing up barriers to SS by refusing their pilot a visa.

Hooray. It's about time that the Australian government did something about ridding itself of the violence-prone, eco-terrorist SS members. Now the Dutch and New Zealand need to de-register the eco-terrorist SS vessels.
1

arrestpaulDec. 07, 2011 - 01:24AM JST

Cricky - "Traditional" hunting is off the coast line not half a world away!

The whalers are operating in international water and are operating legally.

The eco-terrorist Watson and his SS represent NO legal authority or nation. They are acting on their own imaginary authority.
2

arrestpaulDec. 07, 2011 - 01:33AM JST

smithinjapan - and are you laughing at Spiderpig suggesting that you won't abide by an ICJ judgement if it doesn't go your way?

It was Spidapig who made it clear that he won't accept the ICJ judgement if it doesn't go his way.
-3

BlueWitchDec. 07, 2011 - 01:41AM JST

@arrestpaul

I was wondering when were you going to show up....tsk tsk

Did you have your blubber milk shake already? is it yummy?

I never liked whale. yucky yucky.
-3

banz10Dec. 07, 2011 - 01:54AM JST

davidattokyo

Japan DOES catch whales in their local waters

Sure, they'll grab any remaining straggler.

Is that something that you know, or else is it something that you believe?

Both, sunshine! You missed the basic point. If you truly believe that Japan hasn't harmed (let alone virtually exhausted) local whale stocks, how can apologists like you explain (without spinning the facts) why it is necessary to raid stocks a world away, at great trouble and expense, when demand has never been lower? (so much so btw that there's a massive supply of frozen whale meat sitting in storage that won't sell)
-5

DotobockDec. 07, 2011 - 02:05AM JST

banz10

Japan is not allowed to hunt minke whales in teir local waters because minke whales are IWC whales. Do some research, you sound ignorant.
0

YuriOtaniDec. 07, 2011 - 02:32AM JST

I agree with Spidapig24 and smithinjapan, Japan needs to consider the views of other nations. Someone please check the temperature in Hades, there might be a cold spell. Japans actions wants me to wear a paper sack! Am so embarrassed by the actions of my government.
-1

YuriOtaniDec. 07, 2011 - 02:35AM JST

BlueWitch, yes whale is just disgusting to eat. It has that no good taste.
-1

mike23thurgoodDec. 07, 2011 - 02:46AM JST

Well, you wrote it in your own report, I didn't imagine it, quote: "Commercial whaling is banned under an international treaty but Japan has since 1987 used a loophole to carry out 'lethal research' on the creatures in the name of science".

"Lethal research", indeed! Although in the adverse reports, it was invariably a matter that you Japanese claimed that catching mink whales was for "legal research". Perhaps whoever made the disastrous mistake knew all along that catching mink whales could lead to their extinction and, luckily for the rest of us, the cat (pussie) has finally been allowed to escape from the bag, although quite inadvertently! And I am going to write a letter to the Cape Argus about it, too, using the same quotation, to see what readers might have to comment about it!

The adverse reports that I have read over the years always consistently considered that this annual catch is helping to eliminate mink whales from the face of the earth.

Well, you might be interested to know that we have an analogous problem right here in South Africa, where China and other eastern countries want the horns from rhinos (rhinoscerouses). Killing them in South Africa is totally illegal as they are classed as a highly endangered species. Unfortunately for the poachers, many more of them now are either being caught - or killed if they try to fire back at the police hinting them down.

The horn is ground into a powder and used as some sort of aphrodisiac, as it is supposed to enhance sexual excitement, etc, etc. Never mind the fact that research workers have never identified any compound in rhino horn which would cause any such enhanced effect. It's rubbish, of course, as would be expected. But ignorance is bliss, as the saying goes.

So we have something to be thankful for to those little pussies, after all!
-2

banz10Dec. 07, 2011 - 02:48AM JST

Dotobock

Actually champion, I was responding to one of your fellow apologists who assures me that Japan does in fact catch whales locally and not once were minkes mentioned in that conversation. You are aware that there are other species that Japan catches, aren't you? I wouldn't want to assume that you were ignorant. But I do assume that you know your history and are therefore aware that Japan began looking into hunting whales in distant places with factory ships as long ago as the 30's. And the stated reason why? Local supplies were dwindling. Yes, that's right, Japan has form and it's decades old.

snooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrr, I'm off to bed
-2

SwissToniDec. 07, 2011 - 02:49AM JST

Ossanamerica - " see you are unable to back up your statement and resort to the all too common "go look it up" response"

Ossan, you well know that we've gone back and forth on this many times. I've posted, the pros have shouted loudly, the pros post their selected websites and they get debunked. Rather than repeat the same old rhetoric, why not encourage people to find the truth and decide for themselves? I know you can't shout loudly and insult that, so it scares you, but let's give people a fair go. This is a website for debating opinions, not a court of law. That'll come soon enough.
-3

banz10Dec. 07, 2011 - 03:10AM JST

Dotobock

You banz10, why are you against people eating whales for food?

Did I say that I was? I don't have a problem at all with the cultural aspects of whale consumption. My issue is entirely conservation based and I'm convinced based on Japan's history of depleting global marine stocks that it couldn't care less about the whales. And don't even get me started on the rest of your diatribe.

I'm outta here
1

OssanAmericaDec. 07, 2011 - 04:41AM JST

SwissToniDec. 07, 2011 - 02:49AM JST "Ossanamerica - " see you are unable to back up your statement and resort to the all too common "go look it up" response" Ossan, you well know that we've gone back and forth on this many times. I've posted, the pros have shouted loudly, >the pros post their selected websites and they get debunked. Rather than repeat the same old rhetoric, why not >encourage people to find the truth and decide for themselves? I know you can't shout loudly and insult that, so it >scares you, but let's give people a fair go. This is a website for debating opinions, not a court of law. That'll come >soon enough.

Encouraging people to actually go to the IWC website and read with their own eyes what Article 8 states, what it allows and what it requires participating nations to do is EXACTLY what I am doing. Why? Because far too many people are relying on heresay, outright lies and fallacies, the biased media, racist attitiudes, nationalism in believing that international waters can be owned, complete disregard for law and order in supporting eco-terrorist organizations, and the myths that all whale species are endangered, somehow "special" animals, and suffer any more or less than animals in a slaughterhouse. Yes the ICJ outcome will come soon enough and those anti-whalers who prescribed to these fallacies are going to be greatly dissappointed. But I will admit that the "wacked out" thinking process evident in their arguments is what makes participating in these whaling threads very entertaining.
0

saru_auDec. 07, 2011 - 05:12AM JST

press pictures showed

is this the transcript of a radio show? can we see the photos?
-1

アメリフセインDec. 07, 2011 - 06:29AM JST

Someone gotta stop them or else one day we won't have any more whales.
-2

SwissToniDec. 07, 2011 - 06:32AM JST

Ossan, I think your encouragement simply reflects your bias. Encourage people to go to multiple sources of information, that way they can get a balanced view and base their decisions on that. Like the Sea Shepherd or Greenpeace websites the IWC or ICR's websites have to justify themselves. People should look at all the available information, including reports from independants and national bodies.

Whales killed in a do suffer more than animals in a modern slaughterhouse, its a nonsense to say otherwise. What you see as "whacked out thinking" is no less skewed by bitterness and failure than yours. To find the remarks you make to people whose opinions are no less valid than yours "entertaining", your word not mine, reveals much about you. You're not debating are you? You're trolling.
-6

The Truth MattersDec. 07, 2011 - 06:40AM JST

Here's wishing them nothing but the worst of luck. I hope they don't catch a thing.
2

davidattokyoDec. 07, 2011 - 08:17AM JST

SwissToni, the thing is, you are saying people should go look for what the Scientific Committee thinks about Japan's research "in the ether".

That's the problem. In the ether there is loads of information that reflects the bias of the anti-whaling side.

My point is that if we are going to talk about what the Scientific Committee thinks, then reading the Scientific Committee's report - e.g. straight from the horses mouth - is the best place to go, if one is serious about avoiding those biases...

Am I wrong here? Is it biased of me to actually listen to the Scientific Committee itself, rather than what is written on the ether? Personally I don't think so at all.
0

OssanAmericaDec. 07, 2011 - 08:35AM JST

SwissToniDec. 07, 2011 - 06:32AM JST Ossan, I think your encouragement simply reflects your bias. Encourage people to go to multiple sources of >information, that way they can get a balanced view and base their decisions on that. Like the Sea Shepherd or >Greenpeace websites the IWC or ICR's websites have to justify themselves. People should look at all the available >information, including reports from independants and national bodies.

If one is going to make bold statements, such as claiming the Japanese research whaling to be a sham, or assuming that the consumption of the whales is somehow evidence that the research is a sham, then one should go to the IWC site to read what it says. What is written there clearly exposes these views as fallacies. What possible information about Research Whaling, which is sanctioned by the IWC and conducted under IWC rules, is the Sea Shepherd or Greenpeace site going to offer that has any degree of credibilkity greater than the IWC site itself?

Whales killed in a do suffer more than animals in a modern slaughterhouse, its a nonsense to say otherwise.

No that's incorrect. If you think animals such as cows aren't aware that they are being killed or going to be killed you are greatly mistaken. Have you ewer seen the eyes of a cow when the "bolt" fails the first time? And unlike whales in the sea, tjhey are bound so they cannot move? Your comment is another example of a fallacy propagated by the anti-whaing crowd, a stretch to justify their position.

What >you see as "whacked out thinking" is no less skewed by bitterness and failure than yours. To find the >remarks you make to people whose opinions are no less valid than yours "entertaining", your word not mine, >reveals much about you. You're not debating are you? You're trolling.

When you got caught unable to substantiate a statement you made, you told me to "go look it up". Now you accuse me of "trolling", a well known indicator of having no argument to present at all. Perhaps now you can appreciate why I find this so entertaining.
1

DotobockDec. 07, 2011 - 09:22AM JST

I don't have a problem at all with the cultural aspects of whale consumption. My issue is entirely conservation based and I'm convinced based on Japan's history of depleting global marine stocks that it couldn't care less about the whales. And don't even get me started on the rest of your diatribe.

I'm outta here

You need to be more specific. Whales that Japan hunts in Antarctica according to IWC guidelines are not endangered. The hunt is sustainable. I suggest you do some research before coming with your opinions which has little reality in facts.
2

davidattokyoDec. 07, 2011 - 09:38AM JST

banz10,

My issue is entirely conservation based and I'm convinced based on Japan's history of depleting global marine stocks that it couldn't care less about the whales.

Easy to blame Japan, is it? Leaving that aside, your concerns are why there is an international whaling convention - "to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry".

Anyone who truly cares about conservation ought to see the whaling convention as a part of the solution to your concerns. (As opposed to just wanting to have an irrational, scientifically baseless blanket ban on all whaling, as if that is realistic, pragmatic or necessary. I for one wish to see actual solutions!)
1

KobeGrandadDec. 07, 2011 - 09:40AM JST

My issue is with my taxes being spent on destroying the enivorinemnt, annoying other nations for a few Japanese and foreign Japanophiles (mostly with camp taches) to satisfy their whale fetish.
0

ScroteDec. 07, 2011 - 09:59AM JST

I'll be supporting Sea Shepherd again this season. I don't know if they will be able to get Japan's catch below last years levels, but I hope so.
0

DotobockDec. 07, 2011 - 10:22AM JST

Ethical standards are culturally defined. They must not be imposed upon other cultures. If any such attempts are made through political or economic pressure, this fulfils all the criteria for the concepts of "cultural chauvinism" or " cultural imperialism".
0

DotobockDec. 07, 2011 - 10:55AM JST

The quest to end whaling is at the heart of the international environmental movement. In recent years, the efforts of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society against Japanese “scientific” whaling in the Antarctic have shown that this issue is still very much alive. Inspired by this conflict, two Stanford undergraduates traveled to Norway, a country that resumed commercial whaling after a brief hiatus in the 1980s. Arriving in Sandefjord, Norway with only a camera and two registration cards for the “3rd International Symposium on Whaling and History,” they endeavored to open a dialogue with an ostracized whaling community that has grown bitter to critics as a result of the “whale wars.” During their two months in Norway, they interviewed the heads of Greenpeace Norway, the Norwegian Fisheries Ministry, and the Norwegian Whalers Union, among others. Gradually, their focus evolved from a more scientific point of view (“Is Norwegian whaling sustainable?”), to a deeply philosophical query (“What is really driving Norway to continue the hunt?”). In doing so, the filmmakers found that all parties—whalers and non-whalers alike—claim to champion the tenets of environmentalism. Indeed, they discovered a world where sustainability, environmentalism, and conservation do not mean the same thing, and where those terms are not as purely scientific as they are intensely political.

http://vimeo.com/10964829

Worth a watch to anyone interested in this conflict.
-3

the_harperDec. 07, 2011 - 11:39AM JST

For Japan to redirect tsunami recovery funds into supporting the whaling fleet is appalling and unconscionable. There's far more urgent work that needs to be done for the displaced people of Fukushima.
-3

horrifiedDec. 07, 2011 - 11:51AM JST

I'm dismayed my tax money is being used to support this project. What arrogance on the part of Japan's authorities.
-3

spudmanreincarnatedDec. 07, 2011 - 12:02PM JST

Seems like this is going to further isolate the Japanese from Japanese and Internationals

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/6101267/Japan-uses-disaster-funds-for-whaling
-3

Spidapig24Dec. 07, 2011 - 12:57PM JST

spudmanreincarnated

Seems like this is going to further isolate the Japanese from Japanese and Internationals http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/6101267/Japan-uses-disaster-funds-for-whaling

This is a sad reflection on the state of Japan, even sadder is a poster yesterday demanding that Australia give up its court case and give the money allocated to that to the people of Tohoku when the Japanese government is spending tens of millions to support this activity. Money that could be better spent and served assisting the Japanese people that are truly in need.
-2

Spidapig24Dec. 07, 2011 - 01:02PM JST

Dotobock

Ethical standards are culturally defined. They must not be imposed upon other cultures. If any such attempts are made through political or economic pressure, this fulfils all the criteria for the concepts of "cultural chauvinism" or " cultural imperialism".

Exactly right and this is EXACTLY what Japan is doing by ignoring the requests of people who live in the region that you are conducting your activities. Yes these are international waters, yes Japan is exploiting a legal loophole but morally what Japan is doing is ignoring the wishes of the people of many countries who live in this region. How would you as a Japanese feel if Japan declared a whale sanctuary off the coast of Japan (outside your eez) and another country came and whaled there. Would you sit ideally by, would you be offended. And the best bit is because of the location of the grounds Japan is legally required to assist in any emergencies. Because this is exactly what Japan is doing to Australia and New Zealand. And all the while thumbing its nose at their wishes and you wonder why their is hostility towards you Japanese, you want hostility try reading the comments in the Australian media where they are not censured by a pro Japanese moderator then you sense the full anger.
1

Patrick SmashDec. 07, 2011 - 01:23PM JST

As a taxpayer, it is ridiculous that my tax dollars get wasted every year on this idiotic expedition that upsets all the countries in the area (I know it's a big area before anyone starts) and makes Japan look like a 19th century pariah nation. Japan's own "research" insists that whales are plentiful in and around Japan's waters. There is a lot of sea between her and Antarctica, so why not take the whales from there? Why go all the way to Antarctica? Answer: because this is a cockfight. Japanese oyaji have had non-American white people tell them what to do and they don't like it. So they will do this every year, however much it costs, because wasting money is what Japanese politicians do best, especially when their pride is at stake.

Of course people being paid to post here like David will dispute this, but the fact is that hardly any Japanese eat whale, understandably enough since it is utterly disgusting. If there are people who want to eat this muck, go ahead, but make it economically viable.

The freezers are already full and the "research thing" is obvious nonsense. That leaves the only reason for this hunt as oyaji pride. This money would be better spent on researching cures for cancer in the aftermath of Fukushima.
2

davidattokyoDec. 07, 2011 - 01:25PM JST

Ahhh, the commercial anti-whaling industry and their sheep....

The government passed an extra budget, which included funding to protect it's citizens from eco-terrorists, as well as funding for the earthquake recovery.

The commercial anti-whaling industry with assistance from media in pirate outpost Australia spins this to claim the Japanese government has raided an "earthquake recovery fund" and diverted funds for whaling activities...

No doubt I'm not the only one who thinks it is despicable that the commercial anti-whaling movement would seek to profit from the plight of these people.
1

DotobockDec. 07, 2011 - 01:33PM JST

Exactly right and this is EXACTLY what Japan is doing by ignoring the requests of people who live in the region that you are conducting your activities.

Japan is not forcing anything on other people. Japan is not in Australian waters. Check your facts. I am not Japanese. How can Australians be so hell bent on stopping other people´s activities when the whale that it is being hunted is not endangered and when the hunt is sustainable?
1

davidattokyoDec. 07, 2011 - 01:42PM JST

Spidapig24,

even sadder is a poster yesterday demanding that Australia give up its court case and give the money allocated to that to the people of Tohoku

It's sad that anyone could think it's a better use of resources by Australia to push a frivolous case against Japan's legal activities at the ICJ instead of doing more to help our fellow human beings.

Not only that, Australia's laxity in preventing eco-terrorists from infesting it's ports has forced the Japanese government to make extra outlays for security for it's citizens, at a time when Japan is trying to recover from the earthquake and tsunami disaster.

One questions if anti-whaling Australians even acknowledge Japanese people to be human?

you want hostility try reading the comments in the Australian media where they are not censured by a pro Japanese moderator then you sense the full anger.

I think your comments have been moderated because they are impolite to other participants. You would do well to learn to accept and tolerate the diversity that exists in the world, I believe.

Patrick Smash,

Of course people being paid to post here like David will

When your argument is so weak that you claim everyone who disagrees with you is "being paid", you should accept that you have lost and take a second (and if necessary third) look at your own opinions.

If there are people who want to eat this muck, go ahead, but make it economically viable.

Lift the commercial moratorium and we might finally get a shot at that... As it stands, the anti-whalers have pinned the whaling industry to the ground, punched it in the guts, and are holding it there. And you are sitting complaining that the whaling industry does not stand up.

The freezers are already full and

Do you have ice-cream in your freezer at home, and if so, why?

the "research thing" is obvious nonsense. That leaves the only reason for this hunt as oyaji pride.

You're misplaced belief that the research is "obvious nonsense" suggests that the oyaji pride lies within you...

This money would be better spent on researching cures for cancer in the aftermath of Fukushima.

Tell that to Australia in light of it's destined-to-fail ICJ case against Japan.
-3
Spidapig24Dec. 07, 2011 - 02:00PM JST

Dotobock

Japan is not forcing anything on other people.

Yeah really, so the Japanese dont tell Australia what to do in regards to SS. Japanese posters here dont tell people that its non of their business when whaling comes up. Yet you are doing it at the opposite end of the earth no where near Japan.

Japan is not in Australian waters. Check your facts.

So the Japanese are not whaling in waters claimed by Australia, not whaling in a declared IWC & Australian sanctuary, not whaling in Australia's internationally recognised search and rescue area? So if anything happens to the whalers its Australia's obligation to rescue them. Why is that? because they are undertaking their slaughter closer to Australia than to Japan. They are in our region not Japans and as the people who live in this region we say turn your ships around and get back to your own country pure and simple that isnt that hard to understand is it?

How can Australians be so hell bent on stopping other people´s activities when the whale that it is being hunted is not endangered and when the hunt is sustainable?

You say Australia, you forget its not just Australia. It also the other nations who border the region that are against Japans actions you know the people that actually live in the region, they are telling the Japanese who dont live in that region that they dont want them there. Why can you not understand that.
- ModeratorDec. 07, 2011 - 02:05PM JST
  
  Readers, once again some of you are obsessed with this topic and are starting to repeat the same arguments again and again. Also, we must remind you that neither side has the moral high ground on this issue and that you must be tolerant of opposing views.
-3

banz10Dec. 07, 2011 - 02:00PM JST

Dotobock

The hunt is sustainable. I suggest you do some research... blah blah blah

Isn't that the whole crux of the matter genius? That questionable Japanese line of sustainability, which you apologists gullibly follow, is what the dispute is about. I'm no biological scientist and clearly nor are you but I'm quite confident in my knowledge of marine ecosystems. I'd sooner trust research data from scientists who don't have a vested interest in the outcome. I suggest you open your mind to the real motivations behind the Japanese government's persistence with whaling when the reality is the vast majority of Japanese people consider whale consumption a bygone tradition, resulting in unsellable stockpiles being used for dog food.
3

davidattokyoDec. 07, 2011 - 03:00PM JST

banz10,

What conservationists like myself would like to see is a return to regulated whaling using the Revised Management Procedure for sustainable whaling of baleen whale stocks, under international oversight.

If you know of any problems with potential for the devious Japanese government to corrupt the implementation process of the Revised management procedure, then by all means tell me about it. I think it's a pretty robust process myself, and the last thing we conservationists want to see is a government having undue influence over it. (This is the risk we run at present, due to the IWC failing to manage whaling activities.)
-1

SwissToniDec. 07, 2011 - 03:45PM JST

Davidattokyo, Ossanamerica, to suggest people get information on whaling only from the IWC is as ridiculous as me suggesting they should only get their information from Sea Shepherd. You've pointed out yourself that the IWC exists to promote whaling, hardly a balanced approach is it? You want to guide the debate because you're frightened people will understand what a cruel and unnecessary activity the hunt is. No wonder few listen to your rants and debunking efforts. You made me smile, thanks guys.
-1

CrickyDec. 07, 2011 - 03:55PM JST

28 Million dollars from the earthquake fund, don't mention that! Apparently one whaling port was devastated thus the funds.
2

arrestpaulDec. 07, 2011 - 04:14PM JST

banz10 - Isn't that the whole crux of the matter genius? That questionable Japanese line of sustainability, which you apologists gullibly follow, is what the dispute is about. I'm no biological scientist ........

Removing 900 Minke from an estimate 800,000 only amounts to a reduction of 0. 0011. Well below it's reproduction rate. Even assuming that there were only 400,000 minke, the reduction would only be 0.0022. Sustainability is not a problem.

The only REAL problem is the repeated acts of violence being committed by the eco-terrorist Watson and his SS. Australia, New Zealand, and the Dutch should do more to stop the eco-terrorism being carried out from their ports by vessels representing their countries. What type of headlines will be required before these countries finally see what they are condoning and encouraging? New Zealand ship rams whaler. All hands lost.
2

arrestpaulDec. 07, 2011 - 04:25PM JST

Spidapig24 - So the Japanese are not whaling in waters claimed by Australia, not whaling in a declared IWC & Australian sanctuary, not whaling in Australia's internationally recognised search and rescue area? So if anything happens to the whalers its Australia's obligation to rescue them.

It's Australia's choice to allow the eco-terrorist Watson and his SS to sail from it's ports.

Any destruction, injury and loss of life caused by eco-terroist SS actions would be a direct result of Australia's allowing eco-terrorist to operate out of it's ports.

The least that Australia can do is attempt to rescue the survivors since they are fully aware that the eco-terrorist SS has a history of sinking, disabling and ramming other nations vessels.
-1

Spidapig24Dec. 07, 2011 - 04:49PM JST

Arrestpaul,

It's also Japan's choice to go there. So it's equally on their shoulders to.
1

arrestpaulDec. 07, 2011 - 05:11PM JST

Spidapig24 - It's also Japan's choice to go there. So it's equally on their shoulders to.

When Ned Kelly left his home, it wasn't to collect butterflies. Australia knows full well what the eco-terrorist Watson and his SS have in mind when they leave Austalian ports.
-3

cleoDec. 07, 2011 - 05:22PM JST

Any destruction, injury and loss of life caused by eco-terroist SS actions would be a direct result of Australia's allowing eco-terrorist to operate out of it's ports.

In the meantime the only loss of life has been caused by whaler incompetence (exploding boilers, men overboard at night in dodgy circumstances) and last season the whalers issued a false SOS claiming they were under attack when SS were miles away - only a couple of rubber dinghies were in the water near the Japanese ships. If the whalers make a habit of crying wolf, they really can't blame anyone but themselves if a situation arises where they really do need help and no one takes them seriously. I hope that doesn't happen. I hope they break down close enough to Japan for the coast guard to be able to tow them back home.
1
kudosDec. 07, 2011 - 05:26PM JST
I've only been vaguely aware of this matter and by no means an expert but the anti whaling argument seems to be weak and too emotionally charged.

These seem to be the main points: 1. "Japan is overextending its authority and has no right to whale in international waters" These are international waters no? I fail to see what gives other countries such as Austrailia the right to even use this argument. Someone mentioned the area as "Australia's internationally recognized search and rescue area". Since when does search and rescue operations equal legal authority and jurisdiction over said area? This is what the UN and organizations such as the IWC is for.
1. "But they are whaling in sanctuary declared waters" As pointed out above, the fleet is breaking no law. Loophole or no, they are whaling under the guise of research and not commercialism.
2. "But this research loophole is just a guise for commercialism. That's dishonest and dirty!" I agree. As a biologist, I can't swallow the necessity of killing thousands of whales a year as research(for population sampling was it?). However, nothing would change if Japan formally announced it as commercial whaling. Whaling would continue regardless. From what I hear, the antarctic sanctuary has a healthy and sustainable menske whale population. It would be far better to whale here than someplace else which presumably would have a less sustainable population.
3. "Whaling is the inhumane and cruel, have you watched a whale being harpooned??" Yes I have. Pro animal rights groups should have better issues to focus on than whaling.
Even as an environmentalist and biologist, I have very very little sympathy for eco-terrorist groups such as SS. Rather than provide solutions, they just aggravate the issue. Until it dies off on its own peacefully, whaling is here to stay. I for one, want a solution, rather than knee jerk reactions and arguments that seem to permeate anti-whaling groups and countries.
-2

Spidapig24Dec. 07, 2011 - 05:34PM JST

kudos

Someone mentioned the area as "Australia's internationally recognized search and rescue area". Since when does search and rescue operations equal legal authority and jurisdiction over said area? This is what the UN and organizations such as the IWC is for.

I actually didnt say that the search and rescue area made it a legal authority. What l was refering to is Australia doesnt want this whaling to take place yet Japan ignores that and does it in an area that if anything goes wrong Australia is obliged to go to their rescue. To rescue people conducting activities that Australia has asked them not to conduct.
3

kudosDec. 07, 2011 - 05:57PM JST

International maritime law requires all ships, including military ones, to answer distress calls. It's only natural Australia should "oblige". This isn't some privilege the Australian government is handing to the whaling fleet.
-1

Spidapig24Dec. 07, 2011 - 06:01PM JST

kudos

International maritime law requires all ships, including military ones, to answer distress calls. It's only natural Australia should "oblige". This isn't some privilege the Australian government is handing to the whaling fleet.

I actually agree, what l am saying is that the Japanese have been requested by the nation who is responsible for sea safety in that area to not go there. Pure and simple. Its the same as if China decided to mine, or fish or do an activity off the coast of Japan and Japan said we dont want you to. Even though Japan must assist them if they get into trouble and the other country still did it, do you think that would cause bad feelings? Or doesnt that matter as its Japan and Japan feels they can do as Japan see's fit because that is what it looks like.
0

davidattokyoDec. 07, 2011 - 06:05PM JST

SwissToni,

You've pointed out yourself that the IWC exists to promote whaling, hardly a balanced approach is it?

That's one of two objectives, you seem to have missed the conservation part, somehow. The exact text from the convention is "... to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry"

This is obviously a balanced approach between conservation and sustainable use.

One could hardly claim that Sea Shepherd's extremist protectionist stance is even remotely balanced in comparison. All anti-whaling groups are quite extreme, except for perhaps WWF which some years ago seemed to be contemplating arguing in favour of sustainable whaling in some instances. They seem to get dragged to the far right again by some of their extremist members though, sadly.
-1

unreconstructedDec. 07, 2011 - 06:42PM JST

It's clearly a war. I think what we need here is the taut, flawless 'logic' of the chickenhawk argument the int'l left likes to deploy in arguments about war. If you are non-Japanese in Japan protesting the whaling Japan does what you need to do is rise from the armchair and go fight. Put your yen where your pie hole is.
1

kudosDec. 07, 2011 - 07:07PM JST

Spidapig24 I would agree if this was Australia's territorial waters. Australia can make all the requests she wants. National sovereignty reigns supreme, nothing new here. You don't like what other countries are doing outside of your own? Tough. It's either impose international sanctions/laws or go to war... I can't even believe this is being an issue...
-1

DotobockDec. 07, 2011 - 10:16PM JST

Yeah really, so the Japanese dont tell Australia what to do in regards to SS. Japanese posters here dont tell people that its non of their business when whaling comes up. Yet you are doing it at the opposite end of the earth no where near Japan.

I´ve never heard of angry Hindus threatning Australians to stop eating beef for that matter, I don´t hear Japanese telling Australians to stop killing kangaroos. I don´t care where it is. International waters is international waters. Japan is not breaking any laws here. SS is. Ramming boats is not legal. It reeks culture imperialism. You try to tell Japanese to not hunt a mobile source of protein? Or are you saying it is becausse they are in the southern hemisphere? So it comes down to shallow xenophobia then. Xenophobic culture imperialists.

I´ve always thought Australia to be the champions of hypocrasy when it comes to animal conservation. They tell Japanese to stop hunting non endangered whales yet are the all time leaders in winning the mammals extinction race. They have wiped out more animals than any other country in the world combined. And for each that day that passes more mammals´s population are highly threatened yet they seem to be more obsessed with Japanese hunting non endangered whales because it is in "their backyard! A dubious claim at it´s best which no sane people should take seriously. International waters is international according to every single law and agreement there is in this world. Every country except a few Japan obsessed Australians agree to this fact. Focusing on not winning the mammals extinction race would be a much more welcomed gesture to the global planet.

This has nothing to do with conservation or the environment, it is about cultural differences. Some cultures are less open for other cultures than others such as the Australian. I urge people to have an open mind by accepting that not everyone in the world think of whales as gods but as a mobile source of protein. Look at Hindus. They do not judge you for eating beef.

You say Australia, you forget its not just Australia. It also the other nations who border the region that are against Japans actions you know the people that actually live in the region,

As long as Japan hunts in international waters, there is nothing AUstralia can do. Why not shut up and put your money where your mouth is and take it to an international court? What is Australia afraid of. Let´s get this out of the way in a civilized manner and let´s see who gets fried? Australia got nothing but emotional outbursts with no law backing their claim. Did not Ruud threaten to take this to court? I wonder why he did a 180 and never lived up to his promises. He figured he´d be shredded in no time so he chickened out.
0

davidattokyoDec. 08, 2011 - 12:13AM JST

Actually no they have taken it to court (just before Rudd got the boot - funny that?), but the Americans said that it was an "uncertain gamble with whales' lives" to do so, and the New Zealanders also warned against it on the legal advice of Sir Geoffrey Palmer who knows a thing or two about international law.

Personally as a conservationist I can't wait for Australia's case to be completed as we will then be able to add Japan's victory at the ICJ to our list of facts supporting the balanced, moderate path of sustainable whaling, as opposed to extremist "no whaling" positions that have been adopted by the easily misled.
-2

arrestpaulDec. 08, 2011 - 12:28AM JST

Spidapig24 - I actually didnt say that the search and rescue area made it a legal authority. What l was refering to is Australia doesnt want this whaling to take place yet Japan ignores that and does it in an area that if anything goes wrong Australia is obliged to go to their rescue. To rescue people conducting activities that Australia has asked them not to conduct.

Australia has also request that the eco-terrorists Watson and his SS reduce or stop their repeated acts of violence and stupidity in the same area of international water. The eco-terrorist Watson doesn't care what Austalia says as long as it still allows him to continue to commit repeated acts of violence from Australian ports.
1

Annie SousaDec. 08, 2011 - 12:39AM JST

Oh, and I am going to double my donation to Sea Shepherd..................... To the Sea Sheperd crew.... good hunting!!!!
0

YuriOtaniDec. 08, 2011 - 02:41AM JST

Spidapig24, I continue to agree with you. As to davidattokyo was going to say it is not a Japanese, non Japanese thingy but Blue Witch and me come from Okinawa. We watch whales and do not hunt them. So the new Whale wars season is about to start. Go Sea Sheppard! Protect those whales from the ji ji, uninformed and no conscious people.
-3

The Truth MattersDec. 08, 2011 - 06:00AM JST

I would have a lot easier time buying the cultural and ancestral argument behind whaling if the whalers used spears and canoes to catch their whales, you know, like their culture dictates and like their ancestors did.

And just because it's part of your cultural DNA, it doesn't make it right.
-1

SwissToniDec. 08, 2011 - 08:56AM JST

Davidattokyo, "This is obviously a balanced approach between conservation and sustainable use."

Well, if all you're looking for is a reason to abuse whales and cover up the cruelty, maybe so. But that's only half the story. As I pointed out people should research the killing method via multiple sources and then take a balanced view view. Not one dictated by you.

Nice try but no cigar.
2

davidattokyoDec. 08, 2011 - 04:53PM JST

The notion of killing animals so that they can be eaten is not a form of "abuse".
-1

SwissToniDec. 08, 2011 - 07:31PM JST

No davidattokyo, but the act of chasing down an animal and killing it slowly and painfully is.
-2

OssanAmericaDec. 09, 2011 - 07:20AM JST

Hunting down any animal in the wild in it's own environment is not absue. Immobiizing it and killing it like it''s not a living thing is far closer to abuse. Killing an animal slowly through bleeding is not abuse. In fact it's the most painless method of killing any mammal as it loses conciousness through blood loss. But it's not used in the meat industry because it takes far too much time. Your attempt to characterize whaling practices as being any more "abusive, cruel or painful" than all the other methods currently in use around the world is an example of the many uninformed fallacies employed by the anti-whaling fanatics.
-2

OssanAmericaDec. 09, 2011 - 08:09AM JST

"I would have a lot easier time buying the cultural and ancestral argument behind whaling if the whalers used spears and canoes to catch their whales, you know, like their culture dictates and like their ancestors did."

Why? No one questions that the Inuits presently comnduct "traditional" whalling, even though they chase whales with high powered rifles from boats with 115 hp outboards and haul off the whale meat on their snowmobiles.
-2

cleoDec. 09, 2011 - 08:30AM JST

No one questions that the Inuits presently comnduct "traditional" whalling, even though they chase whales with high powered rifles from boats with 115 hp outboards and haul off the whale meat on their snowmobiles.

Leaving aside the 'no one questions' loss-leader, do the Inuits have up to 6,000 tons of meat in cold storage, and are they allowed to sell it for a profit to people far from and unconnected to their community?

Your attempt to characterize whaling practices as being any more "abusive, cruel or painful" than all the other methods currently in use around the world is an example of the many uninformed fallacies employed by the anti-whaling fanatics.

It would be so much better if cows, sheep, pigs and chickens were chased around a field until they were exhausted before having a couple of exploding harpoons stuck in them randomly, made to drag the butcher's truck around the field while pouring blood onto the ground, then hung upside-down in water until they drown? Or cut up as soon as they were incapacitated, never mind whether they're dead or not?
1

kazetsukaiDec. 09, 2011 - 10:29AM JST

Whaling was a part of ALL nations from Europe to Asia in the past. The Hawaiian Islands were noted for the many ships that arrived in Lahaina, Maui. Only when the hunt became efficient and the numbers of whales started to dwindle, did the hunt become a problem. (A problem primarily for the idealists who wanted to exploit it to further their own objectives and financial stability.)

With Hundreds of Millions of dollars being spent to prevent the hunt... virtually NONE of the "donated" hard earned money is going to the nations, the states, the cities, and the communities to educate the hunters and the consumers and to help them find other occupations which may "REPLACE" their occupation and related jobs which are sources of income and their livelihood. The monies fund only those who profess to be doing their best to save the whales... spending millions dollars annually (now already in the billions) on military style missions to potentially cause disasters and possible loss of lives. All that at the expense of those who donated and who rely on whaling for their livelihood.

If such monies were spent on the education and new vocational training of children of families that rely on whaling from the over 30 years of violence... what could have been accomplished? ? ?

If such huge amount of monies were actually spent on furthering the research to help the whales survive and prosper as they do in the Hawaiian Islands... where would it be now?

Have any of you though about that alternative....? I voiced this many times... and no one listens.... why? Is the circus act so fun to watch...?
-2

cleoDec. 09, 2011 - 11:05AM JST

If such monies were spent on the education and new vocational training of children of families that rely on whaling from the over 30 years of violence... what could have been accomplished? ? ?

All children born in Japan receive at least 9 years or compulsory education, almost all go on to at least high school. Why do the 'children of families that rely on whaling' need more than the education other children receive? There has been no commercial whaling now for a quarter of a century. It isn't like the industry suddenly disappeared on 3/11. Former whalers have had 25 years in which to find new jobs. If those families have spent the last 25 years ensuring that their children have no skills other than the killing and butchering of marine mammals, maybe you should be asking those parents what could have been accomplished if they had given their children an education that fitted them for life in the modern world. While you're at it, ask families that were traditionally engaged in other industries that have fallen by the wayside - sword-makers, traditional hairstylists, sedan-chair carriers all moved on, you don't hear them them complaining that they should be subsidised because Japanese no longer carry swords, wear their hair greased and piled intricately on top of their heads or ride around in sedan chairs.
1

arrestpaulDec. 09, 2011 - 02:44PM JST

cleo - No one questions that the Inuits presently comnduct "traditional" whalling, even though they chase whales with high powered rifles from boats with 115 hp outboards and haul off the whale meat on their snowmobiles.

Leaving aside the 'no one questions' loss-leader, do the Inuits have up to 6,000 tons of meat in cold storage, and are they allowed to sell it for a profit to people far from and unconnected to their community?

Everything the Inuit have is in cold storage.
-1

cleoDec. 09, 2011 - 04:20PM JST

arrestpaul - hahaha. Pity 'traditional whaling' can't be put on ice.
1

KwaabishDec. 10, 2011 - 12:14AM JST

They should take along a couple of JCG cutters armed with 20mm cannons. Bring plenty of tracers so that the pirates can see 'em flying towards them.
1

James TanakaDec. 10, 2011 - 08:23AM JST

GO JAPAN !!!.... when i visit Japan soon... i will be buying a big fat juicy whale burger !!!
-2

DotobockDec. 12, 2011 - 01:16AM JST

Leaving aside the 'no one questions' loss-leader, do the Inuits have up to 6,000 tons of meat in cold storage, and are they allowed to sell it for a profit to people far from and unconnected to their community?

Another example of imperialist mind set from the anti whale block was that they put these regulations for Inuits in order for them to hunt whales they had to prove that it was for the local community. They were not allowed to change their meat for money or export it. Complete insanity. These imperialists who made up these rules come from countries such as Australia, USA, UK. In these countries do they not import or export food to other countries? Why shouldn't people in Greenland, Alaska, Canada be able to do the same? The anti whale imperialists should butt off and do a world a favor and let go of their backward attitudes. It there is a demand of whale meat in Japan, then people in places such as Alaska, Greenland should export it. Countries do export food to Japan so why not whale meat?