Whaling nations defeat proposed Atlantic sanctuary

National Jul. 03, 2012 - 04:30AM JST ( 266 )

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

266 Comments

-4

T_rexmaxytimeJul. 03, 2012 - 07:16AM JST

I dunno.. this news article is written with the preassumption that whaling is evil. I am not for whaling but I feel the article does not give a right view.
10

T_rexmaxytimeJul. 03, 2012 - 07:19AM JST

Environmentalists say few Japanese eat whale and that the country’s position is driven by its powerful fishing industry.

this is so true.. who the heck eats whales nowadays.
-4

OpinionhatedJul. 03, 2012 - 07:32AM JST

Since no whaling takes place there and probably never will, the whole thing is a sham. Why would you vote yes? It would make real whale sanctuaries look like a joke, although I am not sure they already don't! Japanese whaler need to have their face slapped, on that I agree, but I would prefer to see it done forthrightly and not sneakily.
-4

ProbieJul. 03, 2012 - 08:05AM JST

Jose Truda Palazzo, who spearheaded the proposal for the Atlantic sanctuary when he was Brazil’s representative to the International Whaling Commission, blamed nations that receive Japanese aid for scuttling the proposal.

This is where the IWC is flawed. The IWC is about WHALING. I don't know why nations are allowed to join if they are against it. Only nations who whale should be members.

“Japan doesn’t want to give an inch on anything that may compromise their ability to roam the world doing whaling as they see fit,” said Truda Palazzo, who is now at Brazil’s non-governmental Cetacean Conservation Center.

Would a guy who works for the "Cetacean Conservation Center" give any other comment?

Japan each year kills hundreds of whales in Antarctic waters that are already considered a sanctuary, infuriating Australia and New Zealand where whale-watching is a lucrative industry.

And there you have it!

“The main problem facing this Commission, in our analysis, is that its own resolutions are ignored by its members,” Monaco’s delegate Frederic Briand said, referring to Japan’s whaling in the Antarctic sanctuary.

No. Because the resolutions allow it. The only members ignoring anything are those who are against whaling.
7

AlanJul. 03, 2012 - 08:07AM JST

Jose Truda Palazzo, who *spearheaded *the proposal for the Atlantic sanctuary

A curious choice of words...
4

DoLittleBeLateJul. 03, 2012 - 08:11AM JST

Japan argues that whaling is part of its culture and accuses Western nations of insensitivity.

Again this BS? Japan's behaviour itself is a textbook example on how to insult other cultures. No wonder nobody wants to co-operate with them.
6

zichiJul. 03, 2012 - 08:22AM JST

Those countries which voted against the motion many are small nations or small island countries probably in the pockets of their Japanese paymasters. Strange though, a rare moment when China and Japan agreed on something.

Full list of for&against

http://iwcblogger.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/south-atlantic-whale-sanctuary-fails-to-pass-iwc-vote/
0

cleoJul. 03, 2012 - 08:42AM JST

Thank you for the list, zichi. It shows clearly the division between the usual suspects and their vassals on the one hand, and the rest of the world on the other.

Quote from the Japanese delegation - this proposal is being proposed even though there is already a moratorium on commercial whaling. There is no commercial whaling conducted in the South Atlantic So why would there be any objection to a sanctuary, if no whaling is being done there?

this news article is written with the preassumption that whaling is evil.

Which it is.
-13

Guy-jinJul. 03, 2012 - 08:44AM JST

HAHAHA, anti-whaling is at it again. T_rexmaxytime posts two comments back to back. The one that's neutral-- not even pro-whaling, but completely neutral-- gets thumbed down twice. The one that smacks of anti-whaling, two thumbs up. You guys are predictable if nothing else.

As for Probie's comment, it makes a lot of sense. Which is why I find it strange that it's only been negged once.
0

TamaramaJul. 03, 2012 - 09:00AM JST

Probie

This is where the IWC is flawed. The IWC is about WHALING. I don't know why nations are allowed to join if they are against it

No, it's not. It's also about the preservation of whale stocks - it's part of their charter. Check their website. Which means that we are currently in a period of allowing whale stocks to recover before we go into another period of commercial whaling, albeit probably scaled back.
1

Pukey2Jul. 03, 2012 - 09:01AM JST

Let's see. Some of the countries which opposed: Japan, Tuvalu, Nauru, China, Russia, South Korea. Excluding Norway and Iceland, these countries are nowhere near the Atlantic!

The countries which opposed are either whaling countries themselves, are small insignificant islands which are easily bribed, or, as it says above, have fishing disputes and would seem like hypocrites if they'd voted for (plus, they're hungry for resources and don't give a damn about screwing up the environment to get what they want, eg China).

Japan..... says it is technically abiding by a 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling as its activities are for research.

Yes, and I'm sure the published scientific papers are plentiful!
-1

ProbieJul. 03, 2012 - 09:05AM JST

Yes, and I'm sure the published scientific papers are plentiful!

Well, yes. Yes they are.

No, it's not. It's also about the preservation of whale stocks.

"The purpose of the Convention is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry."

Miss the last bit, did you?
6

alliswellinjapanJul. 03, 2012 - 09:10AM JST

The whaling issue has always been a major puzzle for me. Always have a hard time understanding how much of this is a scientific debate on the degree of severity of possible whale extiction or how much of this is a cultural debate on whether whale is food meat or a man's best friend we should never consider killing. Even if its is a mixture of both, the two sides unable to agree on anything leads me to believe that there may be a lack of sufficient scientific evidence to prove the extinction risk (as I can easily imagine the difficulties of counting the number of animals in the sea) and thus the anti-whalers may be more inclined to push the cultural implications which is probably a quicker way to gain international support. Meanwhile, also fail to understand how the Japanese "whaling" industry can have so much political power when the market is so small. What (or who) is the key driver behind this? Should obviously have to do with money, but who is funding this. An everyday Japanese wouldn't care less about whale meat and would only be supportive as a reaction to being told the usual story that "the ancient culture of the country is at risk of dying at the mercy of forceful implementation of self-complacent values of the West". Meanwhile, if this by any chance happens to get down to Japanese taxpayers money, it is about time someone spoke up about this and raised the important question, perhaps far more important for an everyday Japanese that what is current being debated at the IWC.
7

SpankiJul. 03, 2012 - 09:10AM JST

on 27th may Japan Today and reported.....

Japan pledges $500 million in aid to pacific islands

that is all thank you....
-3

CletusJul. 03, 2012 - 09:12AM JST

Probie

This is where the IWC is flawed. The IWC is about WHALING. I don't know why nations are allowed to join if they are against it. Only nations who whale should be members.

You do realise that the main countries against whaling in the IWC joined when they actually where whaling nations. Does that meet you approval?
6

proxyJul. 03, 2012 - 09:19AM JST

Was there somebody from Monaco complaining about other small countries voting? Just what the heck is Monaco doing at these meetings?
3

gogogoJul. 03, 2012 - 09:22AM JST

blamed nations that receive Japanese aid for scuttling the proposal.

This is why Japan gives so much money away to these small countries, to buy their votes.
4

mtwildmanJul. 03, 2012 - 09:25AM JST

“Japan doesn’t want to give an inch on anything that may compromise their ability to roam the world doing whaling as they see fit,”...Japan needs to get over this "we rule the world of whaling" mentality!
9

marcelitoJul. 03, 2012 - 09:36AM JST

Yep..with so many votes to buy no wonder Japan needs to raise its consumption tax.
2

proxyJul. 03, 2012 - 09:38AM JST

It would be interesting to see how those countries would votes if it was to create a wale sanctuary in the pacific northwest that included a ban on aboriginal hunting.
1

Christina O'NeillJul. 03, 2012 - 09:45AM JST

I would have expected that with a democratic vote that the majority ie 38 in favour of creating a whale sanctuary and 21 against, that the motion is carried. The yeas won. The sanctuary should now exist.
7

tajJul. 03, 2012 - 09:54AM JST

Land-locked Switzerland is in there voting, FFS! I'm glad Canada isn't wasting any resources sending delegates to this ridiculous body. Voting year after year for a sanctuary where no one hunts anyway? I like Norways comments:

"NORWAY: Norway supports the use of sanctuaries when they are functionally justified; there is no scientific justification for this proposal; therefore, we cannot support it."
-1

TamaramaJul. 03, 2012 - 09:57AM JST

Probie

No, it's not. It's also about the preservation of whale stocks.

"The purpose of the Convention is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry."

Miss the last bit, did you?

I think if you read your post again you will see you've just illustrated my point precisely. Domo.
3

konjo4uJul. 03, 2012 - 09:58AM JST

Corporations are whales, too.
2

smithinjapanJul. 03, 2012 - 09:59AM JST

“You can’t really believe that Nauru or Tuvalu has an interest or has studied the sanctuary. They are voting because Japan tells them to,”

Well, that, and the fact that Japan gives them thick envelopes to get them to vote in Japan's favour.
-4

ProbieJul. 03, 2012 - 10:03AM JST

You do realise that the main countries against whaling in the IWC joined when they actually where whaling nations. Does that meet you approval?

No. It still doesn't make sense. If they have no interest in commercial whaling, they should leave.
-1

arrestpaulJul. 03, 2012 - 10:03AM JST

Christina O'Neil - I would have expected that with a democratic vote that the majority ie 38 in favour of creating a whale sanctuary and 21 against, that the motion is carried. The yeas won. The sanctuary should now exist.

Not according to the rules of the Commission. If that sort of thing matters.

Thirty-eight countries voted in favor of the measure and 21 voted against, with two abstentions. Under the rules of the Commission, proposals need to enjoy a “consensus” of 75 percent support for approval.
-3

sourpussJul. 03, 2012 - 10:03AM JST

Where is the vitriol for Iceland and Norway?

And those minor countries who are in Japan's back pockets? Russia, China and Korea. Right. lol

You anti-whaling folks are losing legs to stand on by the minute.
-6

Stuart haywardJul. 03, 2012 - 10:04AM JST

Whether your "For or against" Whaling, I think most of us enjoy breathing oxygen! It's a fact that half of the earth's oxygen comes from( phytoplankton), the smallest creatures in the ocean. Whale's , the biggest creature in the ocean, control and regulate the balance between phytoplankton and zooplankton. Too much whaling,causes imbalance between these two kinds of plankton, in reaction zooplankton use up all oxygen in the water and cause (red tide), red tide, means that there is not enough oxygen in the water to (support life!). Though infrequent red tides are natural, we are getting more "very frequent" red tides, that stay for longer periods of time. Pollution contributes as well, it is just my belief that if we open the last sanctuary's, to modern whaling, we will negatively affect the largest concentrations of phytoplankton in the world.
3

TizalleymanJul. 03, 2012 - 10:06AM JST

I would have expected that with a democratic vote that the majority ie 38 in favour of creating a whale sanctuary and 21 against, that the motion is carried. The yeas won. The sanctuary should now exist.

No ma'am...If you read the article it states "Under the rules of the Commission, proposals need to enjoy a “consensus” of 75 percent support for approval." They have 61 voting members, so for a proposal to be passed they would need 46 members to vote in favour...
-1

arrestpaulJul. 03, 2012 - 10:07AM JST

Argentina, Brazil, South Africa and Uruguay put forward a proposal to declare the southern Atlantic a no-kill zone for whales, a largely symbolic measure as no whaling takes place there now.

If it's a symbolic measure, (ie nothing actually gets changed) what difference does it make if it passes or not?
-10

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 03, 2012 - 10:26AM JST

Anti-whalers are making a joke of the IWC again.

There is global commercial whaling moratorium, and also no whales are hunted in south atlantic area by current whaling nations anyway.

So yes, let's have a sanctuary there! It makes sense.

Next, anti-whalers will propose that the moon and mars be a "whale sanctuary" also.
-9

ProbieJul. 03, 2012 - 10:34AM JST

No, I will not try to understand YOU as long as YOU don't try to understand that most people would shut up if do it in your own darn waters.

Hahahaha! Are these the same people who cried and stamped their feet while watching The Cove?

The anti-whaling crowd want ZERO whaling, and nothing less. That is why they should not be allowed to be members of any organization related to the whaling industry.
9

WakarimasenJul. 03, 2012 - 10:36AM JST

Amazing how this issue drags on and on. If Japan spent half the energy and money that they waste on this cause on Fukushima or any number of other domestic issues it would be a better country.
-6

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 03, 2012 - 10:47AM JST

Probie, Wakarimasen, I agree with you both.

Japan is wasting money at IWC. It is useless, pointless organization. Why should Japan participate, if anti-whalers just wish to enjoy self-stimulation by proposing pointless "whale sanctuary"?

Japan should leave IWC, since anti-whalers will not and continue to humiliate the group as an international organization.

Japan, Russia, China, South Korea, Iceland, Norway, and other nations who wish the proper use of whales caught in high seas should make a new treaty for conservation of whale resources and development of whaling industry through appropriate regulation.

This would be very good use of Japan's limited resources.

There are 500,000 minke whales in the Antarctic, which is plenty for whaling. We should use these whales while protecting other species until they recover further. (I suppose such scientifically sensible comment as this will be voted down by JT anti-whalers club many times.)
-8

ProbieJul. 03, 2012 - 10:49AM JST

Let's see. Some of the countries which opposed: Japan, Tuvalu, Nauru, China, Russia, South Korea. Excluding Norway and Iceland, these countries are nowhere near the Atlantic!

If you have time, could you take some of those cherries you just picked and bake me a pie with them?

If you're complaining that the countries that opposed are nowhere near the Atlantic, why aren't you mentioning landlocked Switzerland who voted for? Or Australia and NZ. The last map I saw had them "nowhere near the Atlantic" too.

The countries which opposed are either whaling countries themselves, are small insignificant islands which are easily bribed

Easily bribed. Bribing was introduced to all this by the rabid anti-whaling crowd.

plus, they're hungry for resources and don't give a damn about screwing up the environment to get what they want, eg China

How is the U.S. doing on the "screwing up the environment" scale at the moment?
-5

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 03, 2012 - 11:00AM JST

Probie is right. If South Atlantic nations wish to have "whale sanctuary" in international waters of South Atlantic, they should leave International Whaling Commission, which is for whaling, and they should create "South Atlantic Whale Watchers Commission", and declare entire South Atlantic as a whale sanctuary.

I wonder if JT anti-whalers can give the reason why they would not do such a simple thing, if it is their true desire?
1

Thomas AndersonJul. 03, 2012 - 11:04AM JST

Who cares... nobody even eats whale meat. Japan is wasting millions of dollars of tax-payers' money on whaling. If they want to cut the government spending so badly then stop funding whaling. Oh wait, it was for "scientific research"...
-5

soldaveJul. 03, 2012 - 11:09AM JST

Japan could propose catching more whales, and then burning them to provide heat and energy. Thereby meaning nuclear reactors don't need to be restarted and there is a real use for the whales caught by Japanese whalers.

/sarcasm, although I'm also hoping that nobody in the J-gov sees this as they could easily implement it!
5

hoserfellaJul. 03, 2012 - 11:29AM JST

Nice to know that my hard earned taxes are going into the pockets of island chiefs so that Japan can try to save face in the international community, rather than help the people of Tohoku or something.
-2

smithinjapanJul. 03, 2012 - 11:43AM JST

hoserfella: "Nice to know that my hard earned taxes are going into the pockets of island chiefs so that Japan can try to save face in the international community, rather than help the people of Tohoku or something."

Exactly. While they spend our money on putting trying to extend their coasts around the world, they could easily use the bribe money or the money put towards protecting whalers whose meat only sells about 20% to help the nation, but alas, this is the nation we are talking about.
-1

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 03, 2012 - 12:05PM JST

Thomas Anderson,

nobody even eats whale meat.

Provocative.
-10

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 03, 2012 - 12:17PM JST

Why would Mongolia not support Japan and China and Russia?

Just as European nations such as San Marino and Swiss vote for proposals of neighboring anti-whaling countries such as France and Germany, Mongolia sides with neighboring nations which are normal and accept whaling.

Offering hospitality to officials from foreign countries is different thing to bribes.

You can check all about grease money and Greenpeace to learn of bribes at IWC.
1

IowanJul. 03, 2012 - 12:35PM JST

Where can I become a representative for a tiny South Pacific voting island who gets wined and dined in Tokyo with a spending allowance?
-7

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 03, 2012 - 12:42PM JST

Would you also put the fox on charge of the chicken coop as well? No, you wouldn't.

I do not agree with your example.

The whalers are the "fox", not the governments that are not anti-whaling.

You are ignoring how these people in Australia and New Zealand feel about you hunting in their backyard pools.

Antarctic waters are not their backyard pools.

To say it is their backyard pools is just like a disguise for the true motivation, which is to deny Japan's whaling.

You know this is true, because Japan was hunting in Antarctic for more than 30 years before Australia and New Zealand started to complain about it.

If it was not their "backyard pool" in 1950, it is not their "backyard pool" now, either.
-1

VespertoJul. 03, 2012 - 12:42PM JST

infuriating Australia and New Zealand where whale-watching is a lucrative industry.

Aw shucks, i thought they were infuriated because they thought killing whales is evil.

few Japanese eat whale

Is this true?

countries that have a cultural demand (for whaling)

What the hell is a cultural demand for whaling?! The same BS Spain uses for bullfighting?

Excessive whaling will lead to extinction, that much is obvious, and should be avoided (at the risk of leaving the tourist with nothing to see).

If whale meat isn't eaten that much, i see nothing wrong with forcing countries to only whale in nearby waters, like Norway and Iceland. Whaling quotas wouldn't be bad either, but i doubt anyone could enforce those.

That killing for science seems to be a lot of BS, how many cadavers do you need? For what purposes?

It seems to me, this gets very emotional reactions mainly because most people don't perceive whales as "regular fish" (i know they're mammals, that's not the point); no one seems to care all that much about near extinction of other sea species.
-6

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 03, 2012 - 01:01PM JST

troy,

I am sorry, but your claim does not persuade at all.

Especially your claim sounds very weak when you say Swiss and San Marino are educated versus Mongolia which is not. I think it is quite Victorian to think that lesser developed nations do not have educated people in charge of their affairs.

This attitude is actually one reason why Japan must never give up whaling. Such arrogant views must always be resisted.
2

AlanJul. 03, 2012 - 01:03PM JST

Confine it to YOUR waters instead of going halfway across the globe to do it in waters that others consider their own backyards and i will support you 100%.

When seen in an historical context, this is really a double standard. In the 19th century, British and American whalers hunted extensively in the waters around Japan, ignoring Japanese opposition. They didn't stop whaling for environmental reasons, but simply because there were cheaper alternatives to whale oil for lighting. The Australians and New Zealanders were also major hunters of whales (and seals). Today that history is conveniently forgotten, and only Japan is vilified, while America, New Zealand and Australia take the moral high ground.
-5

ProbieJul. 03, 2012 - 01:05PM JST

Horwash, Probie, look at countries like Mongolia who voted on one side and the others who voted on the other. There is an educated side on one and bribed side on the other who were either out right bought out by Japan or have some vested interested in whaling. There have been numerous reports of officials from the countries that voted for the prowhalers being wined and dined in Tokyo. Given spending allowances and all sorts of things.

It is well know that vote buying was started by the anti-whaling parties.

How is the U.S. doing on the "screwing up the environment" scale at the moment?

Your point is?

Pukey2 made the comment:

The countries which opposed are either whaling countries themselves, are small insignificant islands which are easily bribed, or, as it says above, have fishing disputes and would seem like hypocrites if they'd voted for (plus, they're hungry for resources and don't give a damn about screwing up the environment to get what they want, eg China).

My point was that saying that is silly. The anti-whaling U.S. also "doesn't give a damn about screwing up the environment to get what they want", so it has NOTHING to do with this debate.

Anyway. I'm sure we can agree that vote buying is going to continue, on both sides. I don't know why countries that don't have an interest in commercial whaling are allowed to vote, or are allowed to be members of the IWC.

Just for the record: I don't support whaling, I don't care if they whale or don't whale. What I am against is people arguing solely on emotional terms; and I'm against the likes of Sea Shepherd, who are more of an attention outlet for Paul Watson than protectors of wildlife. He goes after the Japanese because they don't fight back. Why don't the SS go to Iceland or Norway and mess with the whaling ships there? Answer: because they get their arses kicked.

If the countries don't want whaling in their waters, fine. Make the waters under their control whale sanctuaries. If whales are as smart as everyone likes to think, they'll pick up that no-one gets harpooned in those places, but to stay away from other areas.

Also, the place they want to make a sanctuary doesn't have any whaling going on there. So, it's just a useless self-satisfying gesture.
-2

madmelJul. 03, 2012 - 01:07PM JST

Whaling is socially, environmentally, economically and intellectually DUMB! To use the excuse i that its "part of the culture" is equally retarded. Lets see do you still have Katana wielding Samurai roaming the street cutting down any one who dare walk in their path? NO...take a reality pill and catch up with the last century people!
-3

ProbieJul. 03, 2012 - 01:20PM JST

Whaling is socially, environmentally, economically and intellectually DUMB

Wow.

socially

Depends on your society really, doesn't it?

Environmentally

No dumber than harvesting any other food source

Economically

Yes, I agree with that.

Intellectually

Absolutely irrelevant and has a slight tinge of social Darwinism.
1

mimitchyJul. 03, 2012 - 01:26PM JST

Japan argues that whaling is part of its culture and accuses Western nations of insensitivity.

WRONG..coastal whaling is part of Japanese culture, sending factory ships to the south seas and culling hundreds of these creatures on long expeditions is a scheme that was introduced by the American occupational authorities like other blindly accepted practices that modern Japan thinks it is part of their culture..like Christmas at KFC.
0

marcelitoJul. 03, 2012 - 01:28PM JST

@ Alan -time passes , people and nations learn from the past and move on to better , more sustainable ways of doing things. Yes, Australia ,NZ and others hunted whales almost to an extinction in their waters in the past BUT they learnt and found better and more efficient / effective ways to manage that resource in 21 st century ( yes, whale watching industry is HUGE business is Aus and NZ ). Japan is vilified as you say because this is 2012 and they prefer to keep their head in the sand in regards to this issue ( and so many others but thats another story ). Btw, welcome back to the fishing industry PR staff - arrestpaul and ihope2eatwhales ....was wondering this morning how long it was gonna take you to get to work on this article.
-4

ProbieJul. 03, 2012 - 02:04PM JST

Sorry, I don't know that. And where would that information be from?

I can't find the source. Anyway, even if I did, I doubt you'd trust it. Which is understandable...

Sorry, I don't know that. And where would that information be from? I know many Americans who are extremely interested in the environment. You are painting with a HUGE brush there.

Kyoto protocol? Carbon emissions? Gas-guzzling cars? The North American Buffalo?

Good reasoning. But, like I asked before, would you leave the fox to tend to the chickens. Thank God that anti whaling groups are allowed in the IWC. If not, we surely would have no eggs and this conversation would not be taking place.

You're not getting it, are you? Why should people not interested in the goal of the group be allowed a say in how it's run? If they don't like it, they should make their own conservation group and enforce their sanctuaries with gunboats or something.

I am totally and completely on board with you on that one! I detest those people. So, why are you so emotional when you say that Paul Watson doesn't go to certain places because he would get his arse kicked. Sounds emotional to me.

I'm not one of those whalehuggers crying because a few whales are getting killed. Anti-whaling people always say whaling is wrong because it's wrong. That's not a valid reason.

Paul Watson is a necessary evil that does the job that countries do not.

That is called being a vigilante at best, a terrorist at worst.

He goes after the Japanese whalers, and they do fight back.

Their water cannons and loudspeakers saying "please stop" are pitiful. They need 50cals and boarding parties with pick handles. Which they won't do because they're spineless.

Norway and Iceland's whaling is much smaller I believe and they do it in their own backyards not THOUSANDS of miles away in someone else's pool.

So, it's alright to kill a whale if you only kill a few then? And you'd have no problem with Japan killing whales in their own waters? Doing it in your own backyard is fine then? So, why does the SS complain about what happens in Taiji?Oh, and International waters are not "someone else's pool".

I don't think he is scared to get his arse kicked. Look how many times he has been arrested.

So, why doesn't he go after any other countries whalers then?

A gesture can go along way. You have yours and I have mine. With agreeing to such a thing. Japan could say, "Hey, we don't go hunting there. You have your sanctuary and we have ours". Gestures go along way, but the gesture that Japan made was more of the middle fingered kind. Especially since it has no whaling there.

Hey, I agree that Japan should be more open to criticism and not just use the "it's our culture" crap. It's just that I don't get why they want to make a sanctuary there when no whaling is conducted in that area. It just sounds like they're trying to pat themselves on the back.

I also agree that they shouldn't be going all the way to Antarctica. But, if the IWC rules allow that, then it's legal, and it's in international waters so other countries shouldn't have a say on what is right or wrong.

If the countries that are against whaling sent their navies to block the "research" ships this would get cleaned-up one way or the other a lot sooner. Leaving it up to Paul Watson et al is just prolonging it.
-3

ProbieJul. 03, 2012 - 02:11PM JST

Let me add something here. Even though Probie and I are on opposite sides of this spectrum, I do respect his opinion and completely agree with him on his reply to you. Retarded? Give me a break. That is just insensitive and exactly what kills it for me. That talk down your nose attitude is something that is retarded for me.

I second that. I also don't know why you got so many negs for your JUL. 03, 2012 - 01:34PM JST post. It was a lot more eloquent than most anti-whaling posters comments.

WRONG..coastal whaling is part of Japanese culture, sending factory ships to the south seas and culling hundreds of these creatures on long expeditions is a scheme that was introduced by the American occupational authorities like other blindly accepted practices that modern Japan thinks it is part of their culture

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to blame the Americans for Japanese whaling. They needed protein at the time. You could say the U.S. let them whale because there was no better option. They don't need that protein now.
-4

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 03, 2012 - 02:34PM JST

troyinjapan,

The Swiss and San Marino education systems are light years ahead of Mongolia's and the fact that you would deny that, is surprising.

Perhaps you do not know the difference between people who are educated in developing countries, and people who are able to become officials in developing countries.

But keep the comedy coming.

Maybe you will see the comedy when you learn more about the real world, rather than your Victorian preconceptions.
-4

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 03, 2012 - 02:39PM JST

troyinjapan,

I am surprised you know so little of IWC reality.

A gesture can go along way. You have yours and I have mine. With agreeing to such a thing. Japan could say, "Hey, we don't go hunting there. You have your sanctuary and we have ours". Gestures go along way, but the gesture that Japan made was more of the middle fingered kind. Especially since it has no whaling there.

Japan had offered to accept "sanctuary" in South Atlantic as part of package to also allow commercial whaling elsewhere.

South American countries never agreed to this package, but forced the vote on "sanctuary" part anyway.

You should check facts before complaining about Japan. You show your strong bias clearly. Now that you know Japan suggested same thing as you, can you continue to criticise Japan anyway? I am sure you will. It is the way of all anti-whalers.
-5

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 03, 2012 - 02:42PM JST

the whalers who are using it as an excuse to try to resume whaling at full speed.

Whalers only wish for sustainable whaling.

If we want to eat one Antarctic minke whale each year, can you not agree? There are 500,000 of them. It is whale species which is most far from endangerment. So, common sense is that whalers should eat this species of whale, before others which may be closer to endangerment.

But anti-whalers refuse even quota of ONE Antarctic minke whale.

But still we can't say such things and have to be respectful of other cultures and people's wishes.

I think proper conservation of whales is more important than such emotional thing.
0

YubaruJul. 03, 2012 - 02:44PM JST

I wonder about the irony on JT, having this article next to a picture on the top page of a female white whale being held in captivity?

http://www.japantoday.com/category/picture-of-the-day/view/whale-of-a-time-2

Personally speaking if one is going to protest against Japanese hunting of whales they should also be protesting about the one's which were taken from their natural habitat and placed in captivity.

I think that's a fate worse than death, just like an innocent person tossed into prison for life.
-5

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 03, 2012 - 02:52PM JST

Norway and Iceland's whaling is much smaller I believe and they do it in their own backyards not THOUSANDS of miles away in someone else's pool.

Norway and Iceland hunt whales that are fewer in number than Antarctic minke whales.

Also, Norway allows whaling in international waters of North Atlantic.

You have shown no reason why quota of ONE Antarctic minke whale should not be permitted by IWC.

You could say the U.S. let them whale because there was no better option. They don't need that protein now.

This can be said of many foods. Whales can not be excluded for such a reason. I do not mind not eating certain foods, but whales from Antarctic are very good food option. I would prefer to eliminate Kangaroo.
1

marcelitoJul. 03, 2012 - 03:20PM JST

" Whales are a very good food option " - but Japan claims it whales for "scientific research" not for food , does it not?

Anyway, leaving that obvious BS claim aside , would you care to explain why so much surplus "scientific research / food option" whale meat is piled up in warehouses for years and years then ? - it certainly indicates that hardly any Japanese consumers are interested in it ( apart from a few and far between adults and then kids who are forced to eat it in their public school lunch box once in a blue moon )
0

marcelitoJul. 03, 2012 - 03:25PM JST

btw , troyinjapan - some good posts from someone trying to stay neutral in this usually very emotional debate buddy.
-4

ProbieJul. 03, 2012 - 03:28PM JST

Hey, I'm not that distrustful. Give me information and I read it. Why deny yourself of truth?

I honestly can't find where I read it. I've heard ti more then once, and from "reputable sources" (i.e. ones unrelated to either side).

But the North American Buffalo??? I am not laughing at you in a negative way at all, but I am laughing.

I put the buffalo in there in jest ;)

Once again. Watch "Whale Wars". They are not spinless at all. They do some pretty risky things as well. I am not blaming them. I am just saying, they can dish it out.

Nah, I don't think I could bare to watch it.

Good to hear you're not one of the hard-line anti-whaling crowd who think that every whale and dolphin are gods or something.

So, why doesn't he go after any other countries whalers then?

He does!!! Look at the hot water he is in now? If anything the guy is brave to go to Central America and make those people angry. Every hear of a Colombian necktie?

Well, wasn't that to do with shark finning? I agree that shark finning should be stopped. I just think that it's impossible to stop it because of the money involved. Poor fishermen can get so much more money finning than by regular fishing. Until they figure out ways to stop that situation. It'll keep going on. Again, the SS shouldn't be doing this, governments should. Also, shark finning is illegal, isn't it? Whaling isn't.

True that. True that. But if I were the whalers I would say, "Okay, have your sanctuary". Lose the battle to win the war. At least you wouldn't be considered greedy and or inflexible. It just turns people off. Gestures can go mean so very much. Give the idiots what they want and let them shut up and you can use that against them.

Yeah, they could have said that. But, if they did, they probably thought that that would spur on the anti-whaling people. They also stand by the "scientific" aspect of whaling. And the "sanctuary" has no real use or scientific merit. Apparently. The Japanese said that the sanctuary had "no scientific justification for the sanctuary, and so it’s against the Convention, which states that sanctuaries have to be established on the basis of scientific evidence."
-2

ProbieJul. 03, 2012 - 03:34PM JST

" Whales are a very good food option " - but Japan claims it whales for "scientific research" not for food , does it not?

Well, no, not really. Japan says it's doing research to see if commercial whaling is possible. The IWC says the whales they catch must be used. So, the whalemeat is sold. A guise for commercial whaling? Maybe. But, it's legal; and, Japan could just leave the IWC and conduct commercial whaling as it pleased with no catch quotas etc...
0

CletusJul. 03, 2012 - 03:50PM JST

ihope2eatwhales

Norway and Iceland hunt whales that are fewer in number than Antarctic minke whales.

But Norway and Iceland do not hunt them in a declared whale sanctuary now do they?

Also, Norway allows whaling in international waters of North Atlantic.

HUH how does Norway allow whaling in international waters, dont you use that as the whole argument to allow Japanese whaling in the Southern ocean....

You have shown no reason why quota of ONE Antarctic minke whale should not be permitted by IWC.

Heres one. There should be no whaling in the IWC declared Southern ocean whale sanctuary. And as a member of the IWC Japan should abide by its rulings whether it likes them or not. Maybe the pro Atlantic sanctuary countries should take a leaf out of Japans book and complain and ignore this IWC ruling and set it up anyway.

This can be said of many foods. Whales can not be excluded for such a reason. I do not mind not eating certain foods, but whales from Antarctic are very good food option.

Its not the eating that most object to you realise. Its the underhanded deceitful way the Japanese go about it. Its the fact that they do it tens of thousands of km away in other nations back yards. You want proof of this, when Japan conducted its North Pacific hunt last month did SS protest? No. Did Aust, NZ, SA, Chile or any of those nations protest? No and why not, because it was done in Japans own area.

I would prefer to eliminate Kangaroo.

And why is that, would love to hear the logic behind this comment...
0

CletusJul. 03, 2012 - 03:53PM JST

troyinjapan

Whalers only wish for sustainable whaling.

Okay. So, you say. But fact is that man has always proven that he will do anything to get ahead financially and can not be trusted to control himself.

Exactly, like the Japanese fishing industry has a good record when it comes to sticking to fish quotas. This from the nation that overfished its tuna quota by double in Australian waters.... HEHE trust us to fish responsibly YEAH RIGHT!!!
1

Thunderbird2Jul. 03, 2012 - 04:13PM JST

Wow... pro-whalers arguing with each other.

Looks like money talks when it comes to voting within the IWC... though I don't suppose I should be surprised.

As for the subject of anti-whaling countries within the IWC... the fox in a chicken run analogy is perfect... as is putting a child in charge of a sweet shop.

The culture thing is also absolutely stupid. In the UK we banned hunting with dawgs because it was cruel. The pro-hunters bleated on about it was the country way of life. This is 2012... time to move with the times. And yes, this goes for Norway and Iceland too.
5

smithinjapanJul. 03, 2012 - 04:15PM JST

ihope2eatwhales: "Offering hospitality to officials from foreign countries is different thing to bribes."

Ummm... sorry, my friend, but in past scandals Japan was proven to have not only wined and dined the foreign officials from land-locked countries that have nothing to do with whaling, but it was proven they set them up with Japanese hookers to seal the deal. That's not 'hospitality', it's plain bribery, and crime to boot.
0

ProbieJul. 03, 2012 - 04:15PM JST

Maybe you will see the comedy when you learn more about the real world

Hey, I don't care which side you're on. Snide personal insults are out of order.
-1

mimitchyJul. 03, 2012 - 04:16PM JST

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to blame the Americans for Japanese whaling. They needed protein at the time. You could say the U.S. let them whale because there was no better option. They don't need that protein now.

I never said or implied that the Americans are to blame, Japan could've shaken it off by now but they don't.

But I'm sorry that you feel that America can only be blamed and not credited and praised for taking the initiative to feed protein to the growing kids of this country.
0

ProbieJul. 03, 2012 - 04:26PM JST

I never said or implied that the Americans are to blame,

Really? Then what did you mean to say here?:

sending factory ships to the south seas and culling hundreds of these creatures on long expeditions is a scheme that was introduced by the American occupational authorities

Were you just being facetious?

But I'm sorry that you feel that America can only be blamed and not credited and praised for taking the initiative to feed protein to the growing kids of this country.

Where did I say that?

I said:

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to blame the Americans for Japanese whaling. They needed protein at the time. You could say the U.S. let them whale because there was no better option. They don't need that protein now.

Where did I say that I blamed America?
-3

mimitchyJul. 03, 2012 - 05:45PM JST

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to blame the Americans for Japanese whaling. They needed protein at the time. You could say the U.S. let them whale because there was no better option. They don't need that protein now.

Furthermore there was another alternative to provide protein to Japan, and that was to provide SPAM meat as was done for the needy peoples of South Korea and Okinawa during the early post-war period. I dare say that Japan took the honorable route to sustain themselves with their whaling fleet rather than receive charity consisting of offal meat that few Americans considered desirable to consume. I believe that SCAP rekindled the spirit of self-sustenance for the Japanese people which lead to the unprecedented accelerated pace in industrial and economic development unmatched by any of their SPAM fed counterparts.
0

smithinjapanJul. 03, 2012 - 06:30PM JST

mimitchy: " I dare say that Japan took the honorable route to sustain themselves with their whaling fleet rather than receive charity consisting of offal meat that few Americans considered desirable to consume."

Heaps of Okinawans eat spam, my friend. It's a key ingredient in goya-champuru for those who don't want to fork out for actual bacon. As for what is 'honourable', are you serious?

"I believe that SCAP rekindled the spirit of self-sustenance for the Japanese people which lead to the unprecedented accelerated pace in industrial and economic development unmatched by any of their SPAM fed counterparts."

Is that why they sank to third below China in the past few years, and are predicted to sink to fifth in the next decade? They're sinking because they are clinging to a ship that is sinking, be it whaling or otherwise, not because they chose to kill whales over eating spam (which they eat anyway). And don't get it wrong -- Japan IS a sinking ship, so long as the people who are in charge never change their ways.
1

smithinjapanJul. 03, 2012 - 06:31PM JST

"They needed protein at the time."

What?? But when they can't argue the science they always fall back on the 'ancient tradition' crap. How is post WWII 'ancient'?
3

Thomas Michael LewisJul. 03, 2012 - 06:39PM JST

Western nations have history of whaling dating back millenia so the argument of culture is all bollocks, we gave it up, why cant they.
2

Thomas Michael LewisJul. 03, 2012 - 06:41PM JST

Heres a point to remember, Japanese waters have long been overfished, theres basically nothing left around Japan, and now they trapse further around the world taking it all from there. They do the same with timber. they cut down way to much in Japan, so they stopped logging, now they get it all from abroad moving their deforestation issue abroad as most of the Japanese supply comes from unsustainable loggers.
0

mimitchyJul. 03, 2012 - 06:45PM JST

Heaps of Okinawans eat spam, my friend. It's a key ingredient in goya-champuru for those who don't want to fork out for actual bacon. As for what is 'honourable', are you serious?

You're right, there is not much difference between getting your own food and getting spoon-fed.

Is that why they sank to third below China in the past few years, and are predicted to sink to fifth in the next decade?

For a country with less than a 1/10th of the population and 1/30th of the landmass of China, Japan *kind of * did pretty well for the last 150 years or so. I guess Japan was good at getting its act together better compared to other larger countries up 'till now.
2

OpinionhatedJul. 03, 2012 - 07:31PM JST

Has anyone even bothered to try and explain why a whale sanctuary is needed in the South Atlantic? What is the benefit? Will the benefit outweigh the costs? I mean seriously, these questions are rock-bottom basic.
-3

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 03, 2012 - 07:58PM JST

troy, Probie, I am sorry for my critical comment of troy. I was annoyed, as he described my comment as "comedy". Such intolerant comment can annoy the other person, I think you can understand.

Let me explain more.

Many officials of even developing nations have very good education. Many get education in places such as US, etc. So do not assume they are uneducated, and that is why they will support whaling.

I am educated myself. I would not eat whale if I knew whaling were a bad thing.

Condescending attitude of anti-whalers is very common. It is one of the reasons I strongly wish to keep eating whales. If they will not show humility, then I can have no sympathy for such arrogant views.

Also, high ranking people in places such as Swiss are not perfect. Recently, top official of Swiss National Bank was forced to resign over a scandal.

As for bribery claims against nations supporting whaling, I see no evidence anywhere. Only the claims of tabloid British newspaper. Anti-whaling story sells very well here.

I should have said these points plainly first, rather than reply rudely. I am sorry for that.
-3

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 03, 2012 - 08:00PM JST

Opinionhated, it is said that the sanctuary is desired for symbollic purpose.

It is one way to think, but such basis is not provided for in IWC rules.

Same applies for Southern Ocean Sanctuary.

There is commercial whaling moratorium. So sanctuary is very pointless. And Antarctic minke whale is most numerous whale. Sanctuary in anywhere but Antarctic would make more sense.
2

ProbieJul. 03, 2012 - 08:02PM JST

What?? But when they can't argue the science they always fall back on the 'ancient tradition' crap. How is post WWII 'ancient'?

Smith, here's some proof if you don't believe me, from Wikipedia, Whaling in Japan, World War II:

General Douglas MacArthur encouraged the surrendered Japan to continue whaling in order to provide a cheap source of meat to starving people (and millions of dollars in oil for the USA and Europe). The Japanese whaling industry quickly recovered as MacArthur authorized two tankers, converted into factory ships (Hashidate Maru and Nisshin Maru), with catcher boats to once again take blue whales, fins, humpbacks and sperm whales in the Antarctic and elsewhere.
-2

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 03, 2012 - 08:03PM JST

troy, also I saw another comment about no trust for whaling because of financial motive.

Many activities have financial motive. It is not the case that ban of all these activities is sought. So, it should not be the case with whaling, either. (Even anti-whalers think not many people will eat whales anyway.)
0

CletusJul. 03, 2012 - 08:16PM JST

ihope2eatwhales

Condescending attitude of anti-whalers is very common. It is one of the reasons I strongly wish to keep eating whales. If they will not show humility, then I can have no sympathy for such arrogant views.

Now that is comedy right? You want anti whaling people to show humility. Why is that? Because you Japanese pro whaling crowd are unfamiliar with humility and want to see how its done. All seriousness, you have no sympathy for arrogant views. I will explain to you the height of arrogance, that is sailing tens of thousands of km from your home to an area adjacent to other nations and conducting a slaughter in what those countries surrounding the area consider a marine sanctuary. And all the while as you thumb your nose at these nations you complain that they are being culturally insensative, racist and nasty towards you poor Japanese. Now that sir is the height of arrogance and that is the very reason l myself continue to donate to the likes of SS foundation. While they may be extreme in their approach it seems to be the only thing that gets through those thick Japanese heads.

As for bribery claims against nations supporting whaling, I see no evidence anywhere. Only the claims of tabloid British newspaper. Anti-whaling story sells very well here.

Well seriously you should look harder because it is even on record from those you have bribed in the past.

There is commercial whaling moratorium. So sanctuary is very pointless.

Yet you lot manage to ignore both the sanctuary and the moratorium. One you use a loophole to get around and the other you just blatantly ignore. Heres a term for the ARROGANT!!!!!

And Antarctic minke whale is most numerous whale. Sanctuary in anywhere but Antarctic would make more sense.

Why Japan would merely ignore it. But seriously why is the sanctuary there? Do you know? Its there because it is the whales feeding grounds. It is there for all whales because its where the feed before and after breeding. So this one small area in the worlds oceans is closed and you dont like it. The reason you Japanese want to whale there is simple, its easier and less work, the whales are all in the one area feeding. If you had to whale elsewhere it would be harder work for you.
0

SwissToniJul. 03, 2012 - 10:02PM JST

I hope to eat whales, "Whalers only wish for sustainable whaling".

Whaling can only be continued with major financing from national government. Explain how that represents sustainability? In my opinion whalers only wish to keep their jobs.

"I am educated myself. I would not eat whale if I knew whaling were a bad thing."

Destroying animals painfully and slowly is a bad thing. Doing it for financial gain is immoral. Calling it food culture and getting the taxpayer to fund it via bogus research is fraud. Where's the good in that?
-2

nigelboyJul. 03, 2012 - 10:31PM JST

You do realise that the main countries against whaling in the IWC joined when they actually where whaling nations. Does that meet you approval?

No. They should leave now that they are no longer interested in development of the whaling industry as per Charter.

Why Japan would merely ignore it. But seriously why is the sanctuary there? Do you know? Its there because it is the whales feeding grounds. It is there for all whales because its where the feed before and after breeding. So this one small area in the worlds oceans is closed and you dont like it. The reason you Japanese want to whale there is simple, its easier and less work, the whales are all in the one area feeding. If you had to whale elsewhere it would be harder work for you.

It needs to be ignored because it goes against the ICRW since there are no "scientific findings" to back it up. It's that simple Cletus.
-1

danalawton1@yahoo.comJul. 03, 2012 - 10:55PM JST

Nice job Japan.... again you've succeded in finding and greasing the palms of those in a position to vote your way.
-4

CletusJul. 03, 2012 - 11:33PM JST

Nigelboy,

Yes, yes let's all do the Japanese approach we don't like something so let's complain about it then ignore it.
-2

nigelboyJul. 03, 2012 - 11:56PM JST

The International Whaling Commission allows lethal science on the ocean giants, with the meat then going to consumption.

Am I dreaming or is this the first time that a western press didn't use the word "loophole" to describe the lethal research and the consumption of them which is clearly allowed and stated in the convention.

The only "loophole" I see is within the convention, they allow anti-whaling nations to join or anti-whaling nation to remain as those parties SPECIFICALLY goes against the charter.
0

FadamorJul. 04, 2012 - 12:32AM JST

For once I waded through 120+ comments of a an article (I usually just TL;DR and add my comment) and here's what I have come away with:

You "do not even start talking down your nose to" troyinjapan because if he thinks you are, he will break into a bad rendition of Liam Neeson's character in "Taken". Whatever, Francis.

The majority here are convinced that Japan paid-off the smaller countries in order to have enough votes to kill the sanctuary vote. Personally? I haven't a clue whether they did or not because I have no expertise in the economic interests of those smaller countries.

And finally, most everyone here (and in the IWC) seem to have missed the point that just because there isn't any commercial whaling CURRENTLY being conducted where this sanctuary was proposed, there's no reason why the whaling ships couldn't be there next season. The IWC members against the sanctuary kept saying there's no commercial whaling going on there, but how much COMMERCIAL whaling is going on now ANYWHERE?! The majority of whales taken worldwide are done under this "scientific research" clause. The addition of another sanctuary would have prevented future excursions into that area for "scientific research". This restriction on where they can hunt would not sit well with any of the countries currently whaling under the "scientific research" clause.
-2

wtfjapanJul. 04, 2012 - 12:35AM JST

the IWC is a joke the best and proven way to reduce whaling is direct action, comon "SEA SHEPHERD" going to donate some more cash to them, want to see three or four boats next season and a few dozen more protesters hurling stink bombs, this will cost the whalers much more than the IWC ever will, ($26million in security vessels and counting) LOL
0

cleoJul. 04, 2012 - 01:18AM JST

The addition of another sanctuary would have prevented future excursions into that area for "scientific research".

There is currently a recognised sanctuary in the Southern Ocean, which Japan has blithely declared is 'against the law'. Their logic is that since the Southern Ocean Sanctuary was established 'as a management measure for commercial whaling (Paragraph 1, Article V of the Convention)', it doesn't apply to them because 'measures for commercial whaling do not apply to the take of whales for scientific purposes'. Since they are quite happy to conduct their 'research' in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, they would have no compunction about killing whales in any new sanctuary. The rules apparently don't apply to them, and if they do, they'll look at them cross-eyed until they don't.

http://www.icrwhale.org/QandA2.html#a28
-1

maglev101Jul. 04, 2012 - 02:16AM JST

The countries which opposed are either whaling countries themselves, are small insignificant islands which are easily bribed, or, as it says above, have fishing disputes and would seem like hypocrites if they'd voted for (plus, they're hungry for resources and don't give a damn about screwing up the environment to get what they want, eg China).

speaking of hypocrites...you forgot to include the good old u.s. of a.
2

ProbieJul. 04, 2012 - 08:30AM JST

What are you, an english teacher? I guess the amount of taxes you pay is not that big. I feel very sorry for you.

I'm not an English teacher, and I'm pro-whaling; but, I'd rather have the tax I pay, and I pay a lot, being spent on the people who lost their homes etc in the disaster, rather than on whaling.

Am I dreaming or is this the first time that a western press didn't use the word "loophole" to describe the lethal research and the consumption of them which is clearly allowed and stated in the convention.

I was expecting it too.

The only "loophole" I see is within the convention, they allow anti-whaling nations to join or anti-whaling nation to remain as those parties SPECIFICALLY goes against the charter.

Exactly. I completely agree!
-4

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 04, 2012 - 09:08AM JST

Cletus, first arrogance is pretending that international waters are your own and telling other nations to give up their rights in those international waters. Please always think about cause of issue.

1950 - Japan is catching whales. Australia does not complain.

1980 - Japan is catching whales. Australia starting to complain, just as Australia has stopped whaling itself.

2010 - Japan is catching whales. Australia complains very much, and calls whaling area it's own sanctuary.

Australia can change. But it is arrogance to expect others to change to suit Australia.
-4

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 04, 2012 - 09:13AM JST

troy, I know also of Masayuki Komatsu's comments, and how Australian media said it was same as "bribery". But I do not think Australia view was correct one. Mr. Komatsu was talking about basic diplomacy, and of Japan's ODA to nations with which Japan has friendly and mutually beneficial relationships.

I think it is not the same as poorer European countries who care not about whales supporting their richer friendly nations. This is foreign relations.

I talk of humility in the general sense, anti-whalers lack it. I do not know you well, but please understand if you tell someone their opinion is "comedy", they will not gain a favorable impression of you.
-2

CletusJul. 04, 2012 - 09:17AM JST

ihope2eatwhales

Cletus, first arrogance is pretending that international waters are your own and telling other nations to give up their rights in those international waters. Please always think about cause of issue.

No see thats where you are wrong, arrogance is one country that is located tens of thousands away traveling all that way to conduct something that ALL the nations in that region are opposed too. If it was just Australia complaining you may have a point but when every single nation that borders the region is complaining about Japan and japan ignores that then who is being arrogant the one or the many?

But it is arrogance to expect others to change to suit Australia.

But see its just not Australia that wants Japan to stop. Its every country in the region that Japan is whaling in. I didnt see any of these nations complain last month when Japan was whaling in the North Pacific. Why would that be?
-4

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 04, 2012 - 09:19AM JST

troy, I think developing nations are MOST interested in food resource issues. Because they themselves struggle to feed their population. It is very dangerous thing to say "this animal is special to people in developed countries, so it should not be used as food". Because it will threaten food resource of developing countries themselves. Island nations have this problem severely. If ocean is "special for developing countries" and no food can be taken from it, what will island people eat for food? Do they have much foreign income to buy foreign produced food? Is it the wise way for people to continue to live? I believe it is not. They support Japan and other whaling nations because they see danger of anti-whaling philosophy for their own countries, and they have friendly relations with Japan etc.

What is wrong with science-based used of marine food? Nothing. One does not need to be bribed to believe in it.
-5

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 04, 2012 - 09:22AM JST

Michael Bonincontri,

I also see comments from people complaining of the use of their taxes. I wonder how much tax such people really contribute to Japan. I think Japanese people would be OK if people with such negative attitude to Japan would leave and pay tax elsewhere.
-4

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 04, 2012 - 09:27AM JST

Probie,

I would prefer tax to be paid for that with priority as well. But I think Japan has no choice to spend tax on whale issue. Once there is commercial whaling again, in accordance with international agreement decided long long ago, then hopefully we do not need to pay tax to fight anti-whalers any longer.
3

ProbieJul. 04, 2012 - 10:10AM JST

But I think Japan has no choice to spend tax on whale issue.

I don't agree. As you can see from my other comments on here, I am pro-whaling. But, I don't see how you can say that Japan has no choice but to allocate tax funding for whaling when there are still people suffering up in Tohoku. On the list of things that tax should and could be spent on, whaling is at the bottom of that list.
-3

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 04, 2012 - 11:08AM JST

Cletus,

I didnt see any of these nations complain last month when Japan was whaling in the North Pacific. Why would that be?

I suppose they forgot to complain this year, if they did not. They have complained before, many times.

Greenland is hunting whales in it's own waters. St Vincent too. You can find anti-whalers complaining about it in today's news. So these anti-whalers who complain show that your idea about it is not true. Maybe it is true for you personally. But you cannot speak on behalf of anti-whalers, who are reported in media today.
-1

CletusJul. 04, 2012 - 11:13AM JST

ihope2eatwhales

I suppose they forgot to complain this year, if they did not. They have complained before, many times.

They forgot did they. Really, thats the best you can come up with. And did they forget last year? and the year before? MMM seems the anti whaling nations are forgetful when it comes to Japan whaling in its own region but remember when Japan whales in their region, ignores court orders, and violates nations borders. Well guess that just shows you one thing, the Japanese are as arrogant and short sighted as ever.
-3

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 04, 2012 - 11:14AM JST

Probie,

I don't agree. As you can see from my other comments on here, I am pro-whaling.

I do not think of myself as pro-whaling, although some people would say I am. (For me, whaling is just normal thing, like farming cows for many anti-whalers. We do not call such people "pro-cow farmers" or something like that.)

But, I don't see how you can say that Japan has no choice but to allocate tax funding for whaling when there are still people suffering up in Tohoku.

I do not think it is trade-off situation. Tax funding should be used for both, given current circumstances. If IWC can be replaced with new organization to control the commercial whaling, then tax funding for current research whaling could be phased out. But this is not possible. Without government to fight for whaling, it is impossible for private sector to do anything. To fight in this way when the private sector is powerless is the purpose of government, in my view.
-2

Thomas AndersonJul. 04, 2012 - 11:16AM JST

But I think Japan has no choice to spend tax on whale issue. Once there is commercial whaling again, in accordance with international agreement decided long long ago, then hopefully we do not need to pay tax to fight anti-whalers any longer.

You're paying taxes for meat that nobody wants or eats. Think of the logic here.
-3

Thomas AndersonJul. 04, 2012 - 11:23AM JST

I do not think it is trade-off situation. Tax funding should be used for both, given current circumstances.

Why? People are not going to die if they can't eat whale meat. Priorities, ihope2eatwhales, priorities.

Without government to fight for whaling, it is impossible for private sector to do anything. To fight in this way when the private sector is powerless is the purpose of government, in my view.

Let's see, the government is already trying to make money out of this "scientific research" by selling the whale meat, yet nobody even wants it. So how do you think a private sector would fair? They would go out of business right away. Only a very few minority of people actually want to eat whale meat.

Are you really concerned about not wasting tax payers' money, or are you more concerned about saving Japan's "face"?
-1

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 04, 2012 - 01:47PM JST

Thomas Anderson,

You're paying taxes for meat that nobody wants or eats.

Very provocative, again.

I think you cannot persuade me with such an argument.

People are not going to die if they can't eat whale meat.

I do not see your point. Also, I think it is offensive to victims of tsunami to use their plight in talking of whaling debate. Japanese government funds many things, despite earthquake disaster. There is no reason to pick only whaling to complain about. You should be sincere about it.

Let's see, the government is already trying to make money out of this "scientific research" by selling the whale meat

It is non-profit operation. Tax payer always loses money by it.

yet nobody even wants it.

You say so 3 times. Very provocative. But, nothing else, just you saying it.

So how do you think a private sector would fair? They would go out of business right away.

If you are Warren Buffett, I might accept your single opinion. But, I do not think you know about real market to say.

Only a very few minority of people actually want to eat whale meat.

A minority of people in Japan can still be profitable market.

Are you really concerned about not wasting tax payers' money, or are you more concerned about saving Japan's "face"?

Anti-whalers are concerned about "face". This is why they desire symbolic "sanctuary".

I am concerned for good decisions for the world. It will not benefit you either, if crazy decisions are made with no proper reason to do so. You need to consider bad precedent of what you wish for, as it may impact your own life. Unless you wish to apply the double-standards.

If you believe private sector whaling will fail, you should agree that IWC should allow it immediately. Can you?
-2

Thomas AndersonJul. 04, 2012 - 02:11PM JST

@ihope2eatwhales

Very provocative, again. I think you cannot persuade me with such an argument.

No it is not provocative actually, just a fact. There are a lot of left-over meat that nobody wanted from the "scientific research". Again, waste of tax-payers money, waste of a killing of a whale.

I do not see your point. Also, I think it is offensive to victims of tsunami to use their plight in talking of whaling debate. Japanese government funds many things, despite earthquake disaster. There is no reason to pick only whaling to complain about. You should be sincere about it.

No it is not offensive at all. We're talking about cutting the government spending and whale hunting just happens to be one of them. How is that offensive?

It is non-profit operation. Tax payer always loses money by it.

If it's non-profit then why are they trying to sell the whale meat? lol. And you're right, tax payers are losing their money.

You say so 3 times. Very provocative. But, nothing else, just you saying it.

So did the whale meat sell or did it not? It didn't, and that's a fact.

If you are Warren Buffett, I might accept your single opinion. But, I do not think you know about real market to say.

I'm just making this assumption on the basis that the whale meat didn't sell well. It's not that difficult to understand. You can even take some random surveys among the Japanese population: Would you buy and eat whale meat?

A minority of people in Japan can still be profitable market.

Not really. If the meat doesn't sell well then you can't make a profit out of it. Besides while we're mostly talking about practicality right now, this isn't just about the money, there are also moral arguments against whaling in general.

Anti-whalers are concerned about "face".

I'm asking you this question because you seem to be vigorously defending whaling even though it actually makes little sense. Tell me who exactly benefits from whaling? You and your national pride? The fishing industry? The government? I've mostly explained my reasons for being against whaling. So why do you defend whaling?

If you believe private sector whaling will fail, you should agree that IWC should allow it immediately. Can you?

To be honest, I don't really care. I'm mostly against whaling in general and I'd prefer that people don't kill whales at all. Like I said very few people even in Japan actually eat whale meat or want to eat whale meat in the first place. There's really no demand for whale meat.
0

ProbieJul. 04, 2012 - 04:10PM JST

I think Japanese people would be OK if people with such negative attitude to Japan would leave and pay tax elsewhere.

Hahahahaha! The same old phrase, always brought out by Japanese and/or wapanese. Never get tired of it, do you?

ihope2eatwhales, you're making yourself look more and more silly with every comment.

I think it is not the same as poorer European countries who care not about whales supporting their richer friendly nations. This is foreign relations.

I think I read somewhere, BBC I think, that the EU countries or whatever have decided that they'll all vote the same, taking a very anti-whaling stance.
-3

Thomas AndersonJul. 04, 2012 - 04:33PM JST

lol @ thumb downs. What do you expect when you argue with someone named "ihope2eatwhales"...
-5

Stuart haywardJul. 04, 2012 - 04:52PM JST

Troyinjapan: " WOW" out of 160 comments you gave 48 !!! , can I have your job!
1

ProbieJul. 04, 2012 - 05:30PM JST

@Probie It was nice debating with you very much. You brought something to the table and could see where both sides lay at fault. I respect that.

Same here, buddy!
-2

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 04, 2012 - 06:25PM JST

troy,

Japanese are too rigid for their own good

Yes. You know what is good for Japanese, I am sure.

and would happily fall down a hole instead of listen to someone who tells them "Hey, there is a hole. Watch out".

I think it is a big hole for Japanese to accept emotional and scientifically baseless demands to end whaling.

I can not understand why you are claiming I am dishonest. You seem to have very active imagination.

Scroll back up to the top and look who insulted who first.

You insulted people of developing countries first, "One side is educated and concerned about environmental issues while the other side is just concerned with achieving financial empowerment."

The old way of thinking from colonial times that people in developing countries are uneducated, etc. is Victorian to me, so I said so. I apologize if you are offended that I think such thinking is Victorian.
-1

SwissToniJul. 04, 2012 - 06:27PM JST

ihope2eatwhales, "1950 - Japan is catching whales. Australia does not complain."

A little fact for you. Japan has been ignoring international whaling regulation since the 1930s.
-1

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 04, 2012 - 06:33PM JST

troyinjapan,

Hogwash again! What is offensive is that the money that Japan received from foreign countries, a large portion of that went to beef up the whalers security.

This is not true. You believe so many false things. I find it sad.
-5

Thomas AndersonJul. 04, 2012 - 06:54PM JST

Yes. You know what is good for Japanese, I am sure.

lol, you didn't even argue the validity of his point, but you just blindly brushed it off without any thought. Typical...

I think it is a big hole for Japanese to accept emotional and scientifically baseless demands to end whaling.

So what's your reason for defending whaling? I don't think that you even know why you so vigorously defend whaling, other than that "it's tradition"... Basically, the Japanese people in general want to pretend that they're perfect and flawless, so they can't accept any criticism, no matter how valid or mild, from the outside.

So how many people in Japan actually want to eat whale meat? Not many. So why do they defend whaling so much? No idea.

Anyway, I don't think that you're making any sense half of the time... You just want to blindly defend whaling just because that's what Japan has been doing in the past, and stopping that would mean that Japan was in the wrong and you just can't accept that because you'd like to pretend that Japan is perfect and flawless.
-2

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 04, 2012 - 08:44PM JST

Thomas,

So what's your reason for defending whaling?

It does not require defence. Whaling is just normal activity.

This is my belief. Arrogant people talking down their nose at me and saying different thing is not good reason for me to change my mind, I think.

Basically, the Japanese people in general want to pretend that they're perfect and flawless, so they can't accept any criticism, no matter how valid or mild, from the outside.

Whaling is not "Japanese" issue. We agree with Norwegians etc, many countries about this. Anti-whalers hide from fact by claiming Japan "bribes" other nations. They should listen with their ears, rather than listen to their own preconception, planted by anti-whaling lies.

So how many people in Japan actually want to eat whale meat? Not many.

So what is the problem with people who do want to eat, eating? Not big problem. Why is it so important thing for you to try to prevent such a thing? Is it for your cultural pride, your "face", what?

You just want to blindly defend whaling just because that's what Japan has been doing in the past, and stopping that would mean that Japan was in the wrong

If Japan stopped, it would mean that Japan has become crazy nation, like Australia. This would be worst thing of all. It would mean the start of many more bad things in Japan. And for other countries as well.

and you just can't accept that because you'd like to pretend that Japan is perfect and flawless.

You are talking at your stereotype, not me. Here we talk whaling. For non-whaling issues, if you ask me, Japan is not perfect and flawless. Even for whaling, Japan is not perfect or flawless. But general policy for whaling is basically good, in my opinion.
0

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 04, 2012 - 09:13PM JST

troy, I seem to have not read your comment as you intended it. I apologise.

if you think it does than all you are doing is saying that Japanese are too rigid for their own good and would happily fall down a hole instead of listen to someone who tells them "Hey, there is a hole. Watch out". I don't think Japanese are that dumb as you are trying to paint them.

I was not saying that. Of course, I would not say that. And, I would not say Japanese people are dumb. The opposite of all these things.

I think that is why I misunderstood your comment to mean that you were saying it I apologise again (second time maybe?) for my bad comprehension.
-8

Stuart haywardJul. 04, 2012 - 10:08PM JST

Ihope2eatwhales: doesn't matter if your for or against eating whale, but LARGE scale comercial fishing or whaling is Unsustainable, using satellite pictures from space to locate the Largest concentration's of school's of fish, or Pod's of whale, so they can maximize their catches! Also using plane's and helicopter's for spotting, once they are close, so nothing can get away! That's "not fishing or whaling"!!!. Also, America dose allow whaling, but only native American Indian's, who use canoe's and throw harpoons!, the whale's stand a chance of getting away!, and the " real fisherman, Can be injured or killed while trying! They don't waist a single piece of meat or bone from their catch. Do you even say, itadakimasu before you stuff your face!
-2

Tom WebbJul. 05, 2012 - 12:15AM JST

If countries want to stop whaling, boycott goods from whaling countries. Its simple as that. If the people want to stop Japan and other countries from whaling, put pressure on their government to boycott all goods from those countries.
-8

Stuart haywardJul. 05, 2012 - 06:55AM JST

Tom Webb: I agree with your statement, but this time " the people of Japan ", DID boycott Whale product's 70% of whale meat hasn't been eaten from last year! . The government and whaling industry have to re-invent themselves, or export their products, or buy bigger freezer's!!!.
0

OssanAmericaJul. 05, 2012 - 09:12AM JST

TamaramaJul. 03, 2012 - 09:00AM JST "Probie "This is where the IWC is flawed. The IWC is about WHALING. I don't know why nations are allowed to join if they are against it" No, it's not. It's also about the preservation of whale stocks - it's part of their charter. Check

You are grossly mistaken. I suggest you read trhe IWC charter. It supports CONSERVATION of whale stocks (Preservation is the reverse of Conservation) for the purpose of mainintaining a healthy whaling industry.
-3

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 05, 2012 - 09:15AM JST

Stuart hayward,

Unsustainable whatever is unsustainable whatever. Sustainable is sustainable. The science must decide it. Not emotion, or arbitrary judgement of what is LARGE. There are 500,000 Antarctic minke whales. It is agreed by IWC scientists, now. But anti-whalers refuse even catching one of them. One is not LARGE, at least. :)

America dose allow whaling, but only native American Indian's, who use canoe's and throw harpoons!

They do not throw harpoons anymore. They use new technology now. Makah tribe member used high power gun to kill a whale, for example.

Can be injured or killed while trying!

This is emotional argument. Whaling yes or no should be because of sustainability.

If sustainable, yes. If not, no. There is no emotion. Just simple standard for all to agree, regardless of culture.
-2

Thomas AndersonJul. 05, 2012 - 03:04PM JST

ihope2eatwhales, 75% of the whale meat in Japan was unsold and had to go to waste:

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/75-of-meat-from-japans-pacific-whale-hunt-unsold

How do you think that this is sustainable when only 25% of the meat was sold? If that was a business then it would go out of business. But thanks to the government and the burden of the tax-payers this "tradition" still lives on, for some unknown reason.
-1

Thomas AndersonJul. 05, 2012 - 03:13PM JST

ihope2eatwhales

The science must decide it. Not emotion, or arbitrary judgement of what is LARGE. There are 500,000 Antarctic minke whales. This is emotional argument. Whaling yes or no should be because of sustainability. If sustainable, yes. If not, no. There is no emotion. Just simple standard for all to agree, regardless of culture.

Actually you seem to be confused, science has almost nothing to do with it. First, it doesn't exactly take science to figure out that only a very few people in Japan actually want to eat whale meat.

So you may be surprised to find out that "science" can not be the answer to everything.
-3

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 05, 2012 - 05:14PM JST

troyinjapan,

As of January, 2010, The IWC states it is "unable to provide reliable estimates at the present time" and that a "major review is underway by the Scientific Committee."

As of July 2012, new estimates I mentioned are agreed by IWC Scientists. It was agreed by IWC Scientists just before current IWC meeting.

Shall I search for report for you? Maybe you can check by yourself. I checked other day after I saw on twitter. See Table 9 of IWC Scientist report.
-7

Stuart haywardJul. 05, 2012 - 05:18PM JST

Ihope2eatwales: the fact is (we don't know exactly) how many "minke whales" ther are in the Antarctic, your numbers, cant be proven as fact. Next thing, (if you think) a "high power riffle" is new technology, than your fact finding skill's are "second to none!". Last thing, "emotion" and "culture" was not mentioned, I would not tell someone what they (can or cant eat!), that not up to me to say!, it's just "my believe that mass production of these creature's would be harmful to us all. (Thank,s to Troyinjapan!) for breaking it down" for ihope2eatwhales!!!, with your comments. July 5, at 02:24 and at 02:27pm
-3

Thomas AndersonJul. 05, 2012 - 05:43PM JST

@troyinjapan

Could you please go into more detail about what you mean in the second part. I am missing your point just a bit.

What I mean is that "science" can only explain a certain facts about things, like how or why something works or what a species is in general. But it doesn't exactly tell us what we should do with our lives. Basically science deals with objectivity only, and it doesn't deal with our subjectivity. Whether we should hunt whales or not is mostly a subjective matter (although obviously objective facts can back up certain claims).
-3

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 05, 2012 - 05:45PM JST

Stuart, Troy, I found it for you: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2012/2012-07-04-01.html

The IWC Scientific Committee reported that total circumpolar estimates of about 720,000 minke whales were agreed for the period 1985/86 to 1990. By comparison there were 515,000 minke whales estimated for the period 1992/3 t0 2003/04, a decline of about 30 percent, which the committee said "was not statistically significant."

So, I was wrong. Not 500,000 whales. 515,000 whales.
-3

Thomas AndersonJul. 05, 2012 - 05:59PM JST

If anything is a "cultural tradition"... then Japan used to be a Buddhist nation that forbade the killing of animals or eating the meat of the animal. And whales happen to be an animal...

Maybe if they cared about their "tradition" so much, then they should go back to their vegetarian roots... It's funny that for all they accuse the "Western imperialists" for forcing their views on them and how they insist that they should stick to their "culture and tradition", they have no problem with adopting the Western meat-eating ways...
0

cleoJul. 05, 2012 - 06:01PM JST

As of July 2012, new estimates I mentioned are agreed by IWC Scientists.

If you read the text of the report instead of just looking at the numbers in the Table, you will find -

At present, the Committee is unable to exclude the possibility of a real decline in minke whale abundance.

....In conclusion, the Committee noted that after many years work it had now been able to agree on estimates of minke whale abundance within the areas surveyed in CPII and CPIII. As yet, though, there was no conclusion on whether (and if so to what extent) these numbers indicate a real decline in abundance of Antarctic minke whales between the periods of the two surveys.

http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC64docs/64-Rep1rev1.pdf

youhope, if you're going to refer to some document to back up your argument it's common manners (and strengthens your argument, assuming you have one) to provide the link. Telling people to 'check by yourself' is lazy, bad manners and suggests that you have no confidence in your sources and hope no one will be able to find them.
0

cleoJul. 05, 2012 - 06:13PM JST

I'm surprised that hehopes would use the link he cites to back up his position. It puts inverted commas around 'research' in Japanese 'research' vessel and states clearly that Japan, and now South Korea, disguise their whale hunts as "research" and Antarctic minke whale population, at least, has not recovered and has declined by about one-third in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

The Environment News Service is not your friend, you hope.
-1

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 05, 2012 - 06:52PM JST

cleo,

What you want to say?

I would suppose this is the one you wish to emphasize.

a real decline in minke whale abundance

Of course it is possible. Natural population of minke whales may go up and down, the number is not constant always.

I know IWC rules can decide catch number of whales without such information. As anti-whalers love to say, is it "not required for the management". :)
-1

cleoJul. 05, 2012 - 07:11PM JST

I took the trouble of quoting the bits I wished to emphasize. ENS is not a pro-whaling publication, and it tickled me that you would cite them in an attempt to back up your argument.

I'm pleased you noticed the bit about the decline in numbers. How anyone can consider a decline of 30% to be 'not significant' beats me - except for the fact that the earlier, higher numbers were always highly dubious dubious and Japan has been basing its 'but there are lots of whales' argument on very unreliable figures (which we all knew was the case anyway). If numbers are going down, Japan has no place taking a single animal until the reason for the decline has been ascertained.
-3

Stranger_in_a_Strange_LandJul. 05, 2012 - 07:48PM JST

@Ihope2eatwhales

Keep up the good fight!

Whales are food!
-9

Stuart haywardJul. 05, 2012 - 08:00PM JST

Ihopetoeatwhales: Did you come up with that name all by yourself?, your responce say's, (So I was wrong. Not 500,000 Whales. 515,000 whales.) Yes, you are wrong!, you obviously didn't read my first sentence, you number's don't mean a thing. It's (possible) to find (numbers and percentage's) to support either side of this issue, someone must be wrong! Plus you, only respond to one point I made, you "cherry pic", your very selective answers, maybe it's time to look at your own comments, and compare to the question's that (everyone is asking you)
1

OssanAmericaJul. 06, 2012 - 07:27AM JST

Good that this unnecssary "sanctuary" was defeated. Was the propsal based upon the finding and recommebdations of the IWC scientigfic Committee as the IWC charter requiires? Or was it proposed bybthe rabid anti-whaling faction without the Scientific Committee as the Antarctic "Sanctuary" was?
-1

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 09:22AM JST

cleo,

How anyone can consider a decline of 30% to be 'not significant' beats me

Of course. You are probably not IWC Scientist. Right? You are professional JT poster!

If numbers are going down, Japan has no place taking a single animal until the reason for the decline has been ascertained.

It is ridiculous statement. As I said, numbers go up and down. 500,000 is enough to catch one each year, at least.

Anti-whaler even should be able to admit it.
-3

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 09:57AM JST

troyinjapan,

And the claim that it is part of your culture

Whether it is culture or not, is not your business. No one needs ask other person for the permission to decide their own culture. People should tolerate other people, as basic matter of human decency.

Then, if whaling is sustainable, you can not deny with good reason. If it is sustainable, people with whaling culture decide to do or not do.

Of course, I do not think we should eat the very endangered whales. I agree we should not. But anti-whalers refuse us to eat even most abundant whales, Antarctic minke whale, which IWC Scientists agreed are estimated 515,000 whales.

Let us catch 2,000 for 5 years, then let's check again so make sure it is still safe.

I know what a freezer is for, for Christ's sakes. Was that a condescending comment?

I do not understand why anti-whalers are angry that whale would be stored in the freezer. Why should we not? Like fish and meat of other animals, it will rot quickly if not frozen. And whale is not so often coming to land, mainly a few times a year. So we must freeze it so we can eat it.

No, there is a lot of leftover whale meat. It is not in the stores as much as you might think.

It sounds like you are trying the "mind-control" on me :) I have seen the whale with my two eyes, and eaten it with my chopsticks and mouth. I do not think your experience is necessarily greater than mine.

Sometimes we can see it in the supermarket, but not enough to become a popular source of protein at all. : (

Yes. Because we have only meat from limited scientific whaling, there is no chance for it to be widespread. Just small taste here and there. This is why Japan and other countries hope for normal whaling, so called "commercial whaling".
-2

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 10:00AM JST

Stuart hayward,

you number's don't mean a thing.

They are agreed numbers of IWC Scientists. 515,000 whales. IWC scientists agreed this number, anti-whalers will still deny it?

Plus you, only respond to one point I made, you "cherry pic", your very selective answers

I am sorry for that. As you see, there are several anti-whalers who wish to argue. I reply to what I think is important. If you wish strongly to hear my opinion, ask once more. But please, do not make many many points in one comment. It will take much space to reply. Ask your strong points only, and I may reply it.
-4

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 10:04AM JST

OssanAmerica,

Good that this unnecssary "sanctuary" was defeated.

I think so too.

Was the propsal based upon the finding and recommebdations of the IWC scientigfic Committee as the IWC charter requiires? Or was it proposed bybthe rabid anti-whaling faction without the Scientific Committee as the Antarctic "Sanctuary" was?

I believe, the latter. Otherwise, troy or Stuart or cleo would tell us the scientific basis for it already.
-2

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 10:09AM JST

Stuart hayward,

Ihope2eatwales: the fact is (we don't know exactly) how many "minke whales" ther are in the Antarctic, your numbers, cant be proven as fact.

We do not need the fact. Estimate of 515,000 is enough.

If we have estimate or 515,000 real number must be close. No less 200,000 at least, I would suppose. So we can take small proportion for a few years. Then make estimate again.

If we follow prudent method such as this, how can whales become exhausted?

Next thing, (if you think) a "high power riffle" is new technology, than your fact finding skill's are "second to none!".

It is not the spear thrown by human.

Last thing, "emotion" and "culture" was not mentioned, I would not tell someone what they (can or cant eat!), that not up to me to say!

You are right. Why people keep talking of culture to me?

it's just "my believe that mass production of these creature's would be harmful to us all.

We do not produce the whales. They produce themselves. Then we catch a small number to eat. It can not be harmful. Harmful one would be to catch many thousands of whales quickly, without counting whales, or doing research to understand our whales.

I replied to everything, even though it same as other has asked. I hope it is enough for now.
-1

cleoJul. 06, 2012 - 10:39AM JST

youhope -

As I said, numbers go up and down.

The figures seem to show that they go down and down. Thirty per cent in 25 years means the minke will be practically extinct in 50 years if nothing changes. That may not bother you because you won't be here and you will have eaten all the slaughtered whale you like.

500,000 is enough to catch one each year, at least.

Let's agree for the sake of argument (and assuming that the one unfortunate creature can be killed humanely, which it can't - my main argument, that no one has been able to reply to) that it is. So you're going to send that fleet of butcher harpoon ships all the way down to the Antarctic, burning tons of fuel and months of man-hours, just to catch one whale? Fine, if you can get private enterprise to pick up the tab. Don't ask for my tax yen to subsidise your whims.

troy-

The link to the IWCSC report is in my JUL. 05, 2012 - 06:01PM post. hopey won't give it to you because it doesn't back up his argument.
-1

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 10:52AM JST

troyinjapan,

@ihope. Hogwash. 30% is a huge portion and very significant. Almost 1/3. And you acting like 30% is not significant is downright incredible.

At least, I believe cleo could understand. She is quite clever, although as non-animal eater I never agree with her on many things.

Check carefully please:

http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/meetings/panama/PRESS%20RELEASE%20day1.pdf

The first of these was the Antarctic minke whale. After several years, the Committee has completed the reanalysis of the extensive data from the long series of data from the IWC’s IDCR and SOWER cruises. Total circumpolar estimates were agreed of about 720,000 for the period 1985/86-1990/91 (known as CPII) and 515,000 for the period 1992/93-2003/04 (known as CPIII). When corrected for survey area, there is a decline of about 30% but this is not statistically significant. The Committee is now examining ways to determine IF there is a true decline and IF SO what is the cause.

If true decline, I have one idea of cause.

1) Many old whales died. 2) Then, many young whales will have much food and habitat, and produce more whales. 3) Whales may increase in number again.

Number of whales can not be constant one. Of course, it will go up and down. It is just the common sense.

Scientists should check for other possibility. It is the safe approach. Japan's research whaling must be useful for them. No one else does the research of Antarctic minke whales.

no, can't agree to you taking at least one whale. Enough whales have been taken for the time being.

Stop talking down the nose, please.
-1

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 11:16AM JST

cleo,

The figures seem to show that they go down and down.

Please check figures carefully, once again.

CPII was higher than CPIII, yes. Check CPI. It is lower than CPII.

So there was up, then down. Maybe there is true decline of whales, and estimates are showing it. But as you know of statistical estimate, there is the so-called "confidence interval". It is mentioned in report you posted. So, true number of whales could be quite stable, around 500,000 or 600,000.

So you're going to send that fleet of butcher harpoon ships all the way down to the Antarctic, burning tons of fuel and months of man-hours, just to catch one whale?

It is basic principle. Practically, of course we would not do it. But IWC does not even allow such clearly reasonable safe quota. IWC is not economic decision maker. It is just regulator, to say what is allowed and not allowed.

hopey won't give it to you because it doesn't back up his argument.

My argument is there are plenty of whales. It backs it up very much. You mistakenly thought figures show "down and down". IWC report does not show such, it shows up then down.
1

cleoJul. 06, 2012 - 11:49AM JST

true number of whales could be quite stable

-which puts us squarely back in the realms of 'we don't know'. After years of 'research' and tons of frozen data, we still don't know.

The press release you quoted also notes that the numbers of Antarctic blue whales are increasing at around 7% per year (though absolute numbers are still pitifully small). I assume old blue whales also die, and the young ones produce more baby whales. So how come the blue whale population, whose diet of krill is the same as the minke, is increasing at a steady 7%pa, while the Antarctic minke population is, by your account, fluctuating and by the iwc's account, possibly declining? Why aren't the minke also increasing at a steady 7%pa?

Japan's research whaling must be useful for them. No one else does the research of Antarctic minke whales.

One of the few papers produced from Japan's 'research' programme states that almost 95% of females 'sampled' under JARPAII are pregnant. Yet still there is a 30% drop in numbers. And let's not lose sight of the fact that every female minke Japan claims to have 'researched' represents TWO dead animals, not one - one of whom was never even given a chance.

http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/2006/07/29/japan-whaling-8/

Australia also conducts research of Antarctic minke whales. The difference is that their research does not kill, and certainly does not kill two whales with every harpoon.
0

Thomas AndersonJul. 06, 2012 - 12:16PM JST

ihope2eatwhales

Whether it is culture or not, is not your business. No one needs ask other person for the permission to decide their own culture.

It is everyone's business when their only defense is that it's their "culture".

People should tolerate other people, as basic matter of human decency.

If anything is not respecting others then it's the Japan's whaling "scientific research" program... They pretend that their whaling is for "scientific research" when they're just really just selling the whale meat. How is that respectful? They're exploiting a loop hole within rules that they have both agreed on. That is not what I call respect.

Then, if whaling is sustainable, you can not deny with good reason. If it is sustainable, people with whaling culture decide to do or not do.

A better question: Is whaling even good for Japan? Only a very few people in Japan eat whale meat. Why does it cost tax-payers so much money?
-2

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 12:27PM JST

troy,

If there is a 30% decline in the whale population than that is cause for concern.

There is 30% decline in the estimate. There is overlap in "confidence interval" of the estimates. Please read very carefully.

We need to know why.

I do not know why you think you need to know, anyway. You do not need the information.

NO! Don't ask that question again. it will not change.

You do not decide it anyway. So stop pretending you can say NO.

I tried to say thing as you have said about how it is not that available in the stores and if it were there that more people would it eat and there would not be a 75% surplus left in the freezer. Remember that?

I already told you that freezer is for storing the food. You complained I was condescending. So, how is whale product to be on sale all year, if there is none in the freezer? It is nonsense argument, to be very honest with you.
-1

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 12:28PM JST

troyinjapan,

What is amazing is that since Norway and Iceland do export some of their whale meat from their arctic and local waters hunts of fin and other large whales to Japan, you would think that the Southern Atlantic Whale Sanctuary would be exactly what the whalers would want. It gives the whales an ability to go unhunted in certain areas so that it can produce offspring and feed, so that it can go up north to be hunted.

Troy, whales of south atlantic and north atlantic are completely different.
-2

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 12:33PM JST

troy,

Plus another thing the whalers refuse to acknowledge and that is that many South American countries who wanted this sanctuary have a large population of people who depend of whale watching tours for their livelihoods. What about them?

They do not need sanctuary for whales, which no one hunts, to have whale watching.

A sanctuary is critical to their population recovery

"moratorium" is enough.

troy, you write much of sanctuary in your comment. But no scientific basis for it. This is why it was rejected.
-2

CletusJul. 06, 2012 - 12:39PM JST

ihope2eatwhales

They do not need sanctuary for whales, which no one hunts, to have whale watching.

Well if no one hunts there then why did the pro whaling nations object to it. If it isnt a hunting ground then whats the issue? Oh wait l get it.... Maybe thats the next area the Japanese want to conduct cough cough research.....

"moratorium" is enough.

The moratorium that Japan ignores as do other nations..... Yeah thats definitely enough isnt it.

troy, you write much of sanctuary in your comment. But no scientific basis for it. This is why it was rejected.

So by scientific research you mean no Japanese whaling has been conducted there yet? right?
-2

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 12:42PM JST

cleo,

which puts us squarely back in the realms of 'we don't know'. After years of 'research' and tons of frozen data, we still don't know.

Haha, so you deny the estimate, now that it is agreed. And demand the extra information, which anti-whalers say is "not required for management" for long long time.

The press release you quoted also notes that the numbers of Antarctic blue whales are increasing at around 7% per year (though absolute numbers are still pitifully small). I assume old blue whales also die, and the young ones produce more baby whales. So how come the blue whale population, whose diet of krill is the same as the minke, is increasing at a steady 7%pa, while the Antarctic minke population is, by your account, fluctuating and by the iwc's account, possibly declining? Why aren't the minke also increasing at a steady 7%pa?

Cleo, please. The natural population cannot increase in number forever. There is the environmental limitation. Minke whale seem already at high abundance (500,000 whales). So it goes up and down, as we agreed.

Blue whale is endangered, but protected as you know. It is good that it increases rapidly. But it will not increase 7% forever. Eventually, it will hit environmental limitation, like population of minke whale. Then it will also go up and down a bit.

there is a 30% drop in numbers.

Cleo, please. There is 30% drop in estimate. I already told you of confidence interval.

You talk of female pregnant whales being caught. Do maths. How many whales caught by Japan during period between CPII and CPIII? Then multiple by 1.5.

This number cannot explain 30% decrease in numbers of whales. Only very small decrease could be explained by such.
-2

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 12:43PM JST

troyinjapan,

No, it does not support your argument at all.

You think whales of south atlantic and north atlantic are same, and that sanctuary is needed for whale watching off South America.

Given such beliefs, I realise I can never help you understanding anything.

What a true waste of time it has been and I learned nothing at all.

Yes. But do not blame me for it.
-1

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 12:47PM JST

Thomas Anderson,

It is everyone's business when their only defense is that it's their "culture".

They do not need to defend anything. You are not master of the world. OK.

If anything is not respecting others then it's the Japan's whaling "scientific research" program... They pretend that their whaling is for "scientific research" when they're just really just selling the whale meat.

Even you can read cleo's report from IWC Scientists, it shows research of Japan in it. Anti-whalers can not see the information they do not wish to see.

A better question: Is whaling even good for Japan? Only a very few people in Japan eat whale meat. Why does it cost tax-payers so much money?

Because anti-whalers of the world gang up on whalers, government must step in to protect those who need protection. It is the function of government.
-2

cleoJul. 06, 2012 - 12:59PM JST

troy, I don't think your figures include the huge amounts of public money (=tax) given to the whaling industry as subsidies and/or used to provide 'security' to the butcher fleet. The 2010 balance sheet put out by the icr shows income from the sale of 'by-products' at ¥4.56 billion and various subsidies and allowances totalling ¥1.263 billion (These are figures before the addition last year of ¥2.28 billion siphoned out of disaster reconstruction funds for extra security). Total expenditure is ¥6,631,810,000. There is a carry-over of ¥7.38 billion. So, deduct around ¥3.5 billion in tax money from the 'profit' made from the sale of whale meat for a more accurate figure.

It would be cheaper just to put the whaling crews on double unemployment benefits and let them stay home.

http://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/H22syushi.pdf

http://www.news.com.au/world/japan-confirms-greenpeace-whaling-charge/story-e6frfkyi-1226216712737
-5

Thomas AndersonJul. 06, 2012 - 01:24PM JST

Because anti-whalers of the world gang up on whalers, government must step in to protect those who need protection. It is the function of government.

Yes, it's all the anti-whalers fault. Whatever the case, only a very few people in Japan whale meat and it's costing tax-payers millions of dollars for the "scientific research".

Like troyinjapan has said, maybe whale tourism will do better for Japan than killing and hunting whales, which also degrades the Japan's image. Yes you can blame the entire world and pretend that you are right, but facts are facts.
-3

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 01:31PM JST

Cletus,

Hi. Did you see complaints from Australia and New Zealand against whaling by countries in their coastal waters? You made fun of me when I supposed they forgot to complain about Japan this year. They did not forget to complain about South Korea. You said if Japan would hunt in coastal waters only, there would be no problem. I suppose you can not still say this, now.

Well if no one hunts there then why did the pro whaling nations object to it. If it isnt a hunting ground then whats the issue?

IWC rules do not allow sanctuary on such basis.

The moratorium that Japan ignores as do other nations..... Yeah thats definitely enough isnt it.

Sanctuary does not prevent the hunting of whales for research purposes. Also, nation can object to specific IWC rules by giving the notice to IWC.

So even if pointless sanctuary is imposed against the rules, nations can object to it and it will not apply. This is within IWC rules.

So by scientific research you mean no Japanese whaling has been conducted there yet?

I said no scientific basis for sanctuary. It is different from the scientific research by Japan. Read carefully. And no more fairy tales of acceptance of coastal whaling by anti-whalers, please.
-4

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 01:35PM JST

cleo,

¥2.28 billion siphoned out of disaster reconstruction funds for extra security

Money was not siphoned out, it was added on by Japanese tax payer. Thank you for your contribution to security of workers, but stop telling lies about it, please.
0

cleoJul. 06, 2012 - 01:47PM JST

Money was not siphoned out, it was added on by Japanese tax payer.

No, the money was taken out of funds earmarked for earthquake and tsunami reconstruction. In other words, it was siphoned away from where it was originally intended to go. I do not tell lies, and I would like you to apologise for that insult. I'm surprised the mod has not removed your post already, they're usually quite strict about such things.
-2

Thomas AndersonJul. 06, 2012 - 01:50PM JST

ihope2eatwhales

Sanctuary does not prevent the hunting of whales for research purposes.

Which Japan exploits when they're really just selling the whale meat...

They do not need to defend anything. You are not master of the world. OK.

And neither is Japan or any other country. Japan has no right to just go wherever they want and hunt all the whales that they want. All the seas in this world do not belong to Japan and neither do the whales. They are shared every everybody else on this planet.
0

CletusJul. 06, 2012 - 03:23PM JST

ihope2eatwhales

Sorry hit submit by mistake my post should have read:

Hi. Did you see complaints from Australia and New Zealand against whaling by countries in their coastal waters? You made fun of me when I supposed they forgot to complain about Japan this year. They did not forget to complain about South Korea. You said if Japan would hunt in coastal waters only, there would be no problem. I suppose you can not still say this, now.

I did see that and am mighty proud of my nation for doing this. For too long Japan has thumbed its nose at us, for too long Japan has ignored our wishes and now Australia is getting tough. If Japan ignores our wishes for our own region then by all means go after Japan, make it hard for them to whale ANYWHERE. If the Japanese will not listen when it comes to what we want then lets make them suffer. Simple as that. All l can say is well done Australia, NZ and all other anti whaling nations. Make the Japanese suffer. Even better start harassing their whaling fleets in the North Pacific as well. For too long Japanese arrogance has been forced on other nations now is time for payback.

Sanctuary does not prevent the hunting of whales for research purposes. Also, nation can object to specific IWC rules by giving the notice to IWC.

Actually the sanctuary is just that a sanctuary and there is supposed to be no whaling FULL STOP! You get around the commercial ban that way but it doesnt wash with the sanctuary. Please do me a favour and look up the definition of a sanctuary as your statement is factually incorrect.

I said no scientific basis for sanctuary. It is different from the scientific research by Japan. Read carefully.

You are right there is no scientific basis for Japans research whaling whatsoever apart from it being a cover for commercial whaling. Everyone knows this you just refuse to admit it. Gee even the US admits your "research" is commercial whaling in disguise.....

And no more fairy tales of acceptance of coastal whaling by anti-whalers, please.

Your right, lets protest as hard as we can against ALL Japanese whaling. They do not respect us why should we respect them. Protest every time a whaling ship puts to sea, protest every time the Japanese kill a dolphin or whale. And block EVERY single request Japan makes to the IWC. Give these arrogant whalers a taste of their own medicine.
-1

CletusJul. 06, 2012 - 03:46PM JST

troyinjapan

I am with you Cletus. And also contribute to the Sea Sheppard and other groups as much as possible until Australia and New Zealand puts their Navies to sea and blocks the whalers from entering those waters.

Exactly right. Use the navy, cuctoms etc to enforce it. They have used the military before for catching illegal fishing vessels. A few years back they used a frigate and SAS team to monitor and catch illegal fishing vessels around or offshore islands. So do it again. Or send the customs vessel to shadow the whaling fleet l would love to see the whalers play their little games with the navy or customs. Maybe they could do a Pong Su to the Nisshin Maru..... Now that l would pay to see.
-5

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 05:29PM JST

Cletus,

I did see that and am mighty proud of my nation for doing this. For too long Japan has thumbed its nose at us, for too long Japan has ignored our wishes and now Australia is getting tough. If Japan ignores our wishes for our own region then by all means go after Japan, make it hard for them to whale ANYWHERE. If the Japanese will not listen when it comes to what we want then lets make them suffer. Simple as that. All l can say is well done Australia, NZ and all other anti whaling nations. Make the Japanese suffer. Even better start harassing their whaling fleets in the North Pacific as well. For too long Japanese arrogance has been forced on other nations now is time for payback.

Because South Korea decided to start whaling in it's coastal area, you are angry at Japan, and decided Japan should be attacked in North Pacific?

Japanese and South Koreans are different thing. You know it, don't you?

I found you Guilty of pretend to accept Japanese coastal whaling as attempt to trick Japanese to stop whaling in international waters. I do not know why anti-whalers think such trick could work.

You are right there is no scientific basis for Japans research whaling whatsoever apart from it being a cover for commercial whaling.

No, I said there is no scientific basis for sanctuary. Read carefully, if you are not good at English.

Your right, lets protest as hard as we can against ALL Japanese whaling.

Even South Korean whaling. It's funny for me. :)
-5

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 05:47PM JST

Exactly right. Use the navy, cuctoms etc to enforce it. They have used the military before for catching illegal fishing vessels.

I'd pay to be there to be there to watch a government finally stopping it.

Yah. Scary Australians and New Zealanders. Get tough with us! Wage war on whaling countries! This is the enlightened people of Australia and New Zealand!
-1

CletusJul. 06, 2012 - 05:47PM JST

ihope2eatwhales

Because South Korea decided to start whaling in it's coastal area, you are angry at Japan, and decided Japan should be attacked in North Pacific?

No l made that statement because of this:

PANAMA CITY — Japan has appealed to resume whaling along its coasts but faced heated opposition from Western and Latin American countries, which accused it of trying to end a moratorium on a commercial hunt.

Japanese and South Koreans are different thing. You know it, don't you?

Really? I would never have know thank you for pointing out that for me. Much appreciated.

I found you Guilty of pretend to accept Japanese coastal whaling as attempt to trick Japanese to stop whaling in international waters. I do not know why anti-whalers think such trick could work.

Sorry, you found me guilty! Are we in court or something. Believe it or not until very very recently what Japan did in Japans waters and Japans region didnt bother me one bit. What changed my mind was numerous things, Japans attitude, Japans behavior in violating Australian territory earlier this year, and most of all the arrogance of the Japanese and of the pro whaling crowd so now l have changed my opinion from one of you do as you please in your region but get out of ours to l will support ALL steps to stop ALL Japanese whaling regardless of where it occurs.

Now as you mention South Korea are resuming whaling, l am not bothered if they whale in the northern hemisphere but as soon as they venture below the equator then l will take the same view of them as l do of Japan but until they do that l am not fussed in the least

No, I said there is no scientific basis for sanctuary. Read carefully, if you are not good at English.

Im sorry but there is no need to be rude and resort to petty slanderous statements. I am merely pointing out that if you claim there is no scientific evidence to support a sanctuary it just means that the Japanese havent been in their "researching" yet.

Even South Korean whaling. It's funny for me. :)

Nope not South Korea, l say go for it South Korea start coastal whaling just do not head down to the southern ocean simple as that.
-5

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 06, 2012 - 06:24PM JST

Cletus,

Now as you mention South Korea are resuming whaling, l am not bothered if they whale in the northern hemisphere but as soon as they venture below the equator then l will take the same view of them as l do of Japan but until they do that l am not fussed in the least

Australia criticized Korean whaling in local waters.

Don't you feel Australia is being very very arrogant to Koreans?

I praise you for personally accepting Koreans whaling, though. But you have double standard against Japanese, which is wrong.

I am merely pointing out that if you claim there is no scientific evidence to support a sanctuary it just means that the Japanese havent been in their "researching" yet.

Anti-whalers need Japanese research before they can have scientific basis for sanctuary? They should not propose sanctuary if they do not have scientific basis for it.

No one is suggesting waging war.

Attacking Japanese vessels doing legal whaling on high seas is same as waging war.
-8

Stuart haywardJul. 06, 2012 - 06:32PM JST

Ihope2eatwales: Thank you for responding, You can keep talking about the numbers of whales, witch are "just estimate's", it's not just about how many whales there are, but also the health and strength of their Pod's. We used to think that whales live about as long as human's, up to 85 years, now we no some whales can live to be 200 years. You can check these facts from Sripps Insititute of Oceanography, or National geographic news. Japan only officially killed 266 whales in one year, but wanted to kill 900 if they didn't have to deal with the Sea Shepard. Start adding all the other countries who kill whales, and the numbers start to become more problematic. Remember when you kill MOM you also kill the baby, baby whales can't survive without there mother, that's just one more reason " your number" don't apply! . I wish I had more time, but I do have a job and a 7 year old boy who deserves quality time, I will try to finish responding to you soon. Thank's for your time, Ihope!
0

SwissToniJul. 06, 2012 - 06:36PM JST

ihope2eatwhales, "The natural population cannot increase in number forever. There is the environmental limitation. Minke whale seem already at high abundance (500,000 whales)."

The figure of 500,000 Minkes comes from the IWC's 83-89 estimates counted following centuries of over exploitation. The IWC cannot give good figures now, they suspect numbers are falling but are unable to give reliable estimates. Can you scientifically justify the above statement that would seem to indicate Minke have returned to their naturally sustainable peak population?
1

CletusJul. 06, 2012 - 06:51PM JST

ihope2eatwhales

"Now as you mention South Korea are resuming whaling, l am not bothered if they whale in the northern hemisphere but as soon as they venture below the equator then l will take the same view of them as l do of Japan but until they do that l am not fussed in the least" Australia criticized Korean whaling in local waters.

Im sorry maybe l wasnt clear enough in my statement when l used the term "l" to describe what l was talking about. In the particular part of the post you quote l use the term "l" not Australia but "l". If Australia decides to protest the South Koreans the thats ok let them "l" personally do not have an issue with the South Koreans unless they come to our region and conduct their activities. Now remember l said "l"....Meaning me personally

Don't you feel Australia is being very very arrogant to Koreans?

Nope they are expressing an opinion. Opinions are allowed and they are good and maybe the South Koreans and Australians can have dialog rather than the Japanese / Australia issues afterall they seem to have a more mature approach to things.

I praise you for personally accepting Koreans whaling, though. But you have double standard against Japanese, which is wrong.

Nope not a double standard, there is a rule l live by and that is you leave me alone and l leave you alone. In other words unless South Korea does something that offends me (like Japan has on numerous occasions) then l am not fussed with them one bit. You see Japan has constantly provoked and been arrogant in their approach to Australia and the rest of the Southern Hemisphere nations that oppose its whaling so Japan reaps what it sows. It oozes arrogance then it receives hostility in return.

Anti-whalers need Japanese research before they can have scientific basis for sanctuary? They should not propose sanctuary if they do not have scientific basis for it.

Look l know this will be hard to accept but you do not need to kill an animal to count it. The IWC scientific committee agrees, most scientists agree. There are non lethal methods of conducting research and Japan has been asked for years to adopt these. And lm sorry but Japan isnt the only country conducting research on whales they are just the only ones who kill to count.

"No one is suggesting waging war." Attacking Japanese vessels doing legal whaling on high seas is same as waging war.

Actually boarding Japanese whaling vessels in violation of Australian law as decreed by an Australian court is not declaring war it is merely upholding the law of the country. We have a territorial claim for the area that you whale in, we have declared a EEZ that is recognised by a couple of other nations so we can enforce our laws in this area as we do in any other part of our EEZ. Much the same as you do in your self declared Senkaku EEZ. Or are you saying that Japan wages war when it seizes or forces fishing boats out of its self declared EEZ? Interesting point you make there. And given the JCG recently rammed a Taiwanese CG vessel in this self declared EEZ is that an act of war?
0

Thomas Michael LewisJul. 07, 2012 - 12:36PM JST

The Japanese should stay out of the Atlantic and North sea, they are massively overfishing the tuna there. They depleted their supplies already and just like with deforestation and logging theyve simply moved the problem overseas.
-1

nigelboyJul. 08, 2012 - 12:00AM JST

It would be cheaper just to put the whaling crews on double unemployment benefits and let them stay home.

It would be cheaper if the moratorium is lifted and the sale of "by products" exceed the expenses thereby none of the tax money would be subsidized. Seems like a win win situation to me.

That being said, I see a compromise for some anti-whalers are asking Japan to conduct their catches outside some other countries' EEZ. I believe Japan will welcome scientific base quota catches on Minke whales within "INTERNATIONAL WATERS".
0

cleoJul. 08, 2012 - 12:14AM JST

It would be cheaper if the moratorium is lifted and the sale of "by products" exceed the expenses thereby none of the tax money would be subsidized.

As it is they can't sell the vastly reduced self-awarded 'quota' they manage to get past Sea Shepherd. Whaling cannot exist in Japan without subsidies; not enough people want it at the price it would cost with an unsubsidised commercial hunt.
-1

nigelboyJul. 08, 2012 - 12:27AM JST

As it is they can't sell the vastly reduced self-awarded 'quota' they manage to get past Sea Shepherd. Whaling cannot exist in Japan without subsidies; not enough people want it at the price it would cost with an unsubsidised commercial hunt.

I believe this issue was discussed in another article in this site about the bogus 75% "cannot be sold" BS propaganda from anti-whaling writer. As the government stats indicate, there were over 6,000 M/T sold during March 2011 to 2012.

My argument was

"Another deceptive reporting by Junko Sakuma who has been known to highlight the peak volume inventory figures to make her case while completely dismissing how those inventory are consumed throughout the year. And of course, AFP with their bias, reports quotes that are very questionable and unsubstantiated.

Using the latest figure, according to MAFF, the ending inventory for whale meat as of March 2011 was 4,896 tons. As of March 2012, 3,953 tons. Hence, if people want to use the inventory level as a barometer, it's evident that people are consuming.

http://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/kouhyou/suisanryutu/reizouryutu/index.html

Secondly, this is the first time that the ICR decided to try the auction as opposed to directly selling them to the wholesalers/distributors in hopes of increasing the price. Hence, 75% unsold simply means that the seller did not accept the bid."
0

JohhnyGlitterballJul. 08, 2012 - 12:47AM JST

@Nigelboy

Did you take into account the amount of wahle meat available is much lower than was bargained for due to much lower catches ?

For such a rare meat and one that is a cherished tradition it surprises me that there is any unsold.Surely buyers would eb flocking to apy at any price as they do with premium fruits and wines as we often see in Japan. Ita ll strikes me as rather queer.
-2

nigelboyJul. 08, 2012 - 12:55AM JST

stevepcfc

As I stated on the above comment, 6,000 M/T were sold during March 2011~March 2012.
Don't know what you mean by "unsold" since you still need carry inventory.
1

cleoJul. 08, 2012 - 01:04AM JST

75% unsold simply means that the seller did not accept the bid.

In other words, people aren't prepared to pay the asking price.
-2

nigelboyJul. 08, 2012 - 01:10AM JST

In other words, people aren't prepared to pay the asking price

Yep. Nor would I expect 100% to be sold at once for the asking price.
-1

eyeonwarsonJul. 30, 2012 - 03:54AM JST

The figure of 500,000 Minkes comes from the IWC's 83-89 estimates counted following centuries of over exploitation. The IWC cannot give good figures now, they suspect numbers are falling but are unable to give reliable estimates. Can you scientifically justify the above statement that would seem to indicate Minke have returned to their naturally sustainable peak population?<

Nope - the SC gave figures this year ( 2012 ) of 515,000. If you can scientifically justify that the SO Minke population was substantially above that in the past then be my guest. Note that the figures are based on dedicated sighting surveys financed by Japan and also note that the planned surveys for the last antarctic summer were called off due to interference by uknowho - The IWC isn't overly happy as Japan is the only country supplying the shps and financing the surveys.
0

eyeonwarsonJul. 30, 2012 - 04:11AM JST

We have a territorial claim for the area that you whale in, we have declared a EEZ that is recognised by a couple of other nations so we can enforce our laws in this area as we do in any other part of our EEZ.<

Nope, read article 4 of the Antarctic treaty :

Article IV — Territorial sovereignty Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as: a renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica; a renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica which it may have whether as a result of its activities or those of its nationals in Antarctica, or otherwise; prejudicing the position of any Contracting Party as regards its recognition or non-recognition of any other State‚s rights of or claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica. No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.

Here's the take from an international lawyer on another forum regarding Oz's Antarctic claims as well as the upcoming ICJ between Austraila and Japan

Australia’s proclamation of the EEZ constitutes an extension of an existing claim (contrary to article 4 of the Antarctic treaty) Most of the sub-Antarctic islands are not controversial and they all have EEZs (including those held by Oz like MacDonald and Heard). Oz can do what it likes regarding whale sanctuaries in those waters; it's "only" the huge tract off the Antarctic continent that is controversial. Australia’s strongest argument is that Japan has not applied International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), Article VIII in good faith. Australia will claim that the principal objective of JARPA II is not science but commercial gain (compare Schedule 7(b)&10(e)). Evidence includes the quantity of whale meat on the Japanese market and the profits enjoyed by the industry – thus meeting the definition of “commercial”. To win on this point, Australia must overcome Art VIII(2) which requires the carcasses of whales scientifically taken to be “processed” and explicitly acknowledges “proceeds.” The case may hinge on factual submissions regarding: industry profits; research funding; and alternative, cost-effective, non-lethal means of obtaining the same scientific knowledge. Japan will counter that true commercial whaling would be on a much larger scale. It is unlikely that the Court will second-guess Japan’s motives. Australia’s alternative arguments on sustainability of stocks and on the Convention on Biological Diversity are weak, since there is no imminent risk (let alone damage) to minke stocks from JARPA II; nor will the Court dare open the door to assessment of other marine stocks. Japan does not take humpback whales and there can be no claim based on a hypothetical violation (application para. 12) and only the humpback is CITES listed. International Whaling Commission resolutions are not binding and cannot be the basis of a legal claim.

Note that JARPA in all it's forms has never made a profit ever - thus weakening the Oz case considerably, if not fatally - the downside for Oz being that, when they lose this case, it seriously weakens their soverignty claims in the Antarctic