JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- Core Developer - コアディベロッパー
- Midokura Japan K.K. - ミドクラジャパン株式会社, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥4.0M ~ ¥10.0M / Year Negotiable
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
-
- Assistant Language Teacher (ALT) in Kanto region
- RCS (RCSコーポレーション), Kanto
- Salary: ¥180,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month includes performance bonus
1
davidattokyo
It"S ME,
You're absolutely right, most people don't care about whaling, they aren't going to stop buying Japanese products because Japan catches non-endangered whales on a sustainable basis.
Besides I've heard these lame threats against Japan for years and looky here, Japan is still the world's third largest economy, and it's currency is currently considered a safe-haven while the US and European economies crumble under mountains of public debt. (At least Japan's debt is all at home :))
Whaling is a tiny little storm-in-a-teacup issue, no doubt about it. No one will ever go to war with Japan physically or commercially just because the Japanese have a long history of eating whales. Even easy targets like Iceland and Norway haven't suffered one tiny little bit even despite threats from the US empire.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
1
davidattokyo
Spidapig24,
DUH.
How about them Americans who eat whales up in Alaska?
How about them Norwegians? Icelanders? etc etc?
No it ain't, as I showed you the US government officials themselves acknowledge that Japan has the best research thanks to their research whaling. They never said it was "large scale commercial whaling in disguise" - that's your words.
Under UNCLOS and the ICRW Japan has every right to catch whales in international waters.
Don't disrespect the law that our nations have signed up to.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
1
davidattokyo
troyinjapan,
It's eco-terrorism, and he has been in the slammer.
Japan currently has a warrant out for his arrest, which is why he's too gutless to put a foot in Japan.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
2
davidattokyo
troyinjapan,
That the anti-whalers were able to buy in enough votes to act against the whaling convention doesn't mean that acting against the whaling convention was legal.
On the contrary, you've kindly illustrated a very good point by Japan that they will hopefully be raising at the ICJ.
The whaling convention is the law - whether you like it or not - and the law is what counts, not how many votes the anti-whalers were able to buy in at a certain point in time.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
2
davidattokyo
troyinjapan,
Heh, wait for the ICJ case judgement. If more than the dozen of the premier legal authorities in the world find in Japan's favour then it won't be only me who acknowledges the reality.
"Vital" has little to do with anything. The whaling convention allows for nations to conduct research "as they see fit" (read Article VIII). And the IWC Scientific Commitee has observed that Japan's research has the potential to improve the management of whale stocks such as the Antarctic minke whale, so it is useful for those who are interested in the goals of the whaling commission - sustainable use of whale stocks.
If one is not interested in harvesting whales (like you) then of course the research is not vital. But the whaling convention is not for anti-whalers. If you don't like it, tell your country to withdraw from the whaling convetion in protest. There is no need for any nation to be adhered to the whaling convetion if they don't wanna be.
And being anti-whaling and trying to obstruct those with a genuine interest in whaling is really just absolutely disgraceful behaviour. This isn't a playground, it's the international community, and if nations sign a whaling agreement then they should meet their obligations in good faith (anti-whalers haven't done so).
Hardly. The moratorium decision precludes the acquisition of biological data from commercial catches, so the only means left to obtain such data is through scientific research. Without research whaling the data that Japan has been collecting since 1987 would never have been obtained. There was no other way Japan could persue the aims of the whaling convention.
If that were true one'd think Australia would have produced the same sort of data by now. They haven't. Nothing. For example, the data that the IWC Scientific Committee is using for catch-at-age analysis is all from the Japanese research or from prior commercial whaling catches (from the USSR and Japanese catches). You can see this much if you read the IWC Scientific Committee reports.
Widely unpopular in Australia maybe. Not that that matters. The law is the law, don't like it? Pack up your toys and go home.
All of your points "against" the research are basically meaningless. Nothing in there is going to sway a judge to your side, and the Japanese will have reams of information to illustrate just how hard they have been working in accordance with the spirit of the whaling convention over the last 25-30 years.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
2
davidattokyo
troy,
Yeah - that and the development of the whaling industry. Conservation plus whaling means sustainable whaling.
When you conserve something, it doesn't mean you use none of it. Quite the opposite. Conserve means to sustainably use.
I really don't think you want to be trying to pretend the whaling commission was never intended to be a whaling commission...
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
0
davidattokyo
troyinjapan,
That's news to me. It's not my understanding that the IWC was established to "protect the whales". Maybe you'd like to tell me where you got that idea from.
The IWC homepage has the whaling convention, and it says the signatory states "decided to conclude a convention to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry".
That is the purpose of the whaling convention and the IWC. The W in IWC stands for "Whaling". Nothing in there about protecting whales - only conserving whale stocks.
And this is why research for the purpose of assisting the whaling industry is indeed entirely compatible with the spirit of the rules - but the moratorium and sanctuary are not.
So your claim that the spirit of the whaling convention and the JWC's (sic) intentions are opposite does not wash.
I'd love to read the rest of your comments and write more in response, but today is again RWC quarterfinals day and I'm not going to miss the first game today like I did yesterday :)
Are you anti-capitalist or something?****
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
2
davidattokyo
cleo,
You hoping that the eco-terrorism succeeds is not the same thing as the Japanese government "knowing" they have no chance of success. Why do you think they are sending more security this time, eh?
Statistical precision cleo, it's not rocket science.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
1
davidattokyo
cleo,
No, that's completely different. The estimate I am refering to is based on sightings survey data collected from the IWC Scientific Committee's long running IDCR/SOWER programmes (the field work of which was led by a New Zealand scientist in recent years). Japan has (generously) provided the research vessels and crews for the research, but the scientists on board have been from a range of countries. The expeditions have been led by a New Zealand scientist in recent years.
Japan's research whaling is separate with a focus on information that can't be obtained through non-lethal research as already gone over above (and with you in the past repeatedly), but as you recognise, due to eco-terrorism the utility of the data in recent years has been somewhat compromised, although the IWC Scientific Committee has also been using such data in it's stock assessment work to the extent possible. Not an ideal situation, but until Australia and New Zealand do their part to rein in eco-terrorism as they are obliged under the SUA convention this may remain the case, unless Japan's security measures are good enough this time.
Because they are scientists who have built up a knowledge of this stuff through a long history of research...
Indeed they weren't, they were a large whale and a smaller whale. But to say they were "mother and child" made for shocking (read: excellent) news for the easily excitable Australian public, who are easily duped by any comparisons of whales to human beings.
Ironically, under commercial whaling, whalers would have an incentive to avoid areas where female whales are known to predominate. A sex-bias toward females in the catch would trigger reductions in the catches for subsequent years.
But I know you'd prefer to keep issuing your self-gratifying yet futile demands that all whaling be ended, rather than accept whaling under a commercial format, so that's a mute point ain't it!
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
1
davidattokyo
Troy,
Well I enjoyed our discussion here too. I wouldn't have written so much had it not been stimulating :) Stimulting enough to make me skip watching the Rugby World Cup quarterfinals today... damn LOL
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
1
davidattokyo
OK, so tell me then how does one obtain information about natural moratlity and fertility rates in a population of whales, by killing just a couple of whales at some given point in time, as opposed to taking a population sample repeatedly over a number of years?
I know you are eventually going to agree with me on this one!!
Exactly. The research isn't done to find a cure for cancer, it's being done for the development of the whaling industry, as is the spirit of the whaling convention.
Well Japan does some non-lethal research too where appropriate (biopsy sampling, ship based counts etc), but their aim is to assist the development of the whaling industry, through better knowledge of whales stocks which will help set catch quotas better.
Nations like Australia are conducting some other types of research on whales, but precious little of it that I have seen has any utility for the development of whaling industry. Australia is free to do whatever research it likes, but Japan's reasearch is perfectly compatible with the aims of the whaling convention. We can't blame Japan for simply doing what is in accordance with the spirit of the whaling convention which almost half of the world's nations have signed up to.
What's wrong about that? How else are they supposed to get the moratorium over-turned?
Exactly right! Yes, Japan wants to hunt whales! That's why Japan joined the IWC! That's why Japan is interested in researching whale stocks!
None of this is a secret, Japan has always been open about this. It's not Japan's fault if the anti-whalers misled people into believing otherwise to make out that Japan is being sneaky here.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
0
davidattokyo
You still seem to be denying the utility of the research Japan is undertaking for our knowledge of how to go about sustainably and optimally utilising whale resources. It's as if you think I am a fool for recognising this. I've not done no research about this myself matey.
Why do you assume they will be dwindling?
The whole idea of the IWC is to NOT have "all out warfare on the whales", but to sustainably manage these stocks so that we (or people who want to) can eat whales forever, in eternity. The IWC screwed up in it's early years, but it was just getting it right in the mid to late 1970's but then whammo, the anti-whalers came along and imposed a useless moratorium and screwed it all up.
Japan's research is certainly not "all out warfare". Latest indications from the IWC Scientific Committee (if you read this year's report to the commission) suggest that Antarctic minke whale numbers were likely 500K or more as of the most recent survey (finalized estimate is due to come out next year). They are taking less than 950 of these each year, e.g. 0.19% of the mid-point estimate. 0.19% per year is extremely conservative, considering that scientists believe the Antarctic minke to be capable of reproducing at rates in excess of 5% per year.
Well it's the same kind of thing - no problem. But these concerns are precisely why we need an IWC to function properly and regulate whaling. The last thing we want is to have unregulated whaling, because then - as you fear - some whalers might go awol and exterminate whale species like almost happened back in the past. We don't want to go there again - we need to get the balance right, and it needs international oversight to help ensure this. We need the IWC to take up that function once more, before that does happen. We are just lucky that Japan, Iceland and Norway are being prudent enough right now, but we can't be sure that will always be the case in future.
I disagree - like I said, 950 is only 0.2% of the population, and if you are monitoring the ongoing status of the population to understand what levels of harvest could be sustained, then you do need to keep up this research continually.
That's a convenient side-effect really, but then one must remember that it is a whaling convention, which shouldn't have a moratorium imposed permanently anyway. The moratorium should have been lifted years ago if it were really just a moratorium. But the anti-whalers had to call it a moratorium because a "permanent ban" (what they really want) would be obviously illegal under the whaling convention.
Well like I said, the ICJ judges are going to consider Australia's case - if you want to be impartial you could take the advice of the ICJ judges when they reach their conclusion.
My view is anti-whalers circumvented the whaling convention law to impose the moratorium and sanctuary - as I noted above.
The anti-whalers started that to get the moratorium imposed in the first place, against the spirit of the whaling convention. The whalers certainly fought back with their own recruitments. I think it's clear who soiled the IWC in the first place.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
1
davidattokyo
See this is where we diverge.
From my perspective (which I think is correct), the whaling convention rules are the framework. Without this framework, the moratorium would not exist, because it was under the whaling convention framework that the so-called "moratorium" was imposed by the anti-whalers.
But first and foremost we have to remember that the whaling convention is a whaling convention, not an anti-whaling convention. Of course the rules are going to suit the whalers.
On the other hand, the spirit of the "moratorium" was indeed anti-whaling - but the whalers never signed up to that! They signed up to the whaling convention! So why should anyone expect them to go by the "spirit" of the moratorium, when they never agreed with this measure in the first place?
The sanctuary is like the moratorium - it's an abuse of the whaling convention by the anti-whalers. The whaling convention does allow for the IWC to impose sanctuaries - but only under specific conditions - this was not the case with the southern ocean sanctuary.
The sanctuary and moratorium were both imposed under Article V of the whaling convention due to majority of numbers. But here is the bit from the convention that specifies the conditions:
"These amendments of the Schedule (a) shall be such as are necessary to carry out the objectives and purposes of this Convention and** to provide for the conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale resources**; (b) shall be based on scientific findings; (c) shall not involve restrictions on the number or nationality of factory ships or land stations, nor allocate specific quotas to any factory ship or land station or to any group of factory ships or land stations; and (d) shall** take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry**."
Does either the moratorium or sanctuary provide for optimum utilization of the whale resources? I'd say No. Based on scientific findings? The IWC's scientific committee never advised in favour of either of these measures, I'd say No again. Take into consideration the interests of consumers of whale products and industry? Obviously a Big No there too.
So speaking about spirit of the law, if the law is the whaling convention (it is), then both the moratorium and sanctuary, which were established ostensibly under the whaling conventions auspices, are in violation of it. (I am hoping Japan uses the opportunity at the ICJ to push this case against Australia and really turn the tables on them.)
Here I think you are precisely correct - the masses have never actually read the whaling convention to know what it is for. But they do understand the English word "sanctuary", and even though the "sanctuary" and "moratorium" violate the spirit of the whaling convention, neither t violate the spirit of the plain English meaning of these words - and that's why people get excited and misled about it.
If they were aware that "sanctuaries" in the IWC context are only supposed to be permitted under the conditions I quoted above, I think most reasonable people would agree that the whalers have been hard done by here.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
1
davidattokyo
Dude, I already said what I said. Yes, it seems only 25% (24% excluding land-locked European nations) are against whaling.
I also said this: "If I were to make a claim, it'd be that the majority of the world doesn't care about Japanese, Russian, Inuit, Greenlanders, Caribbean islanders, Norwegians, Icelanders (and tourists to Iceland) eating whales."
The majority not caring doesn't mean they agree. Nor does it mean that they disagree. It means They, Do, Not, Care. If they did they'd join the IWC, just like land-locked Czech and Slovakia did.
You see I think there are not two types of people in the world. People who care and are supportive of whaling (like me). People who care and are against whaling (like you). People who don't care. I think most people don't care, and that's where my 25% (24%) statement comes from.
OK thanks. But I think generally Asian and African people have no issues with eating whales. They do eat all sorts of fodder themselves, and often have Europeans tut-tutting them themselves.
As far as I saw when I was there they had plenty of food - Ghana is one of the better places in Africa. But still a whale is a big lump of meat.
Precisely - but they are what they are and just because what I say is on the money doesn't mean its not a fair comparison. I'm taking issue with people claiming the "world" is against whaling when I don't see that to be true.
Educated by who? Me or you? But frankly I think they've got more important issues to be worried about than some clash of culture between Europeans and whalers (which includes some Europeans too, I should note).
You noted it before yourself that I said most people don't give a hoot.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
1
davidattokyo
You tell me - you are the one who brought up land-locked nations being at the IWC as an issue... If you don't want to talk about it anymore that's cool...
Irrelevant? So you mean it's OK for anti-whalers to recruit land-locked nations to the whaling commission for anti-whaling purposes, but not OK for whaling nations to recruit land-locked nations to the whaling commission for whaling purposes?
OK, let's end this. Mali and Mongolia were recruited back in the 00's, it's irrelevant to what is happening in today's world.
After all, the IWC doesn't even conduct votes anymore, not for the past 3 years or so IIRC, so talk of "vote buying" is laughable.
Nigelboy already gave you information about those dubious dealings, did you not read all the information? As for me, it's history now, I don't care about the politics myself. I care about good management of whale resources and respect for the individual freedoms of all people, even people of (gasp) culture different to the Europeans.
It may be that they don't really care, but because they are friends with other European nations who do care about the issue they decide to back them up at the IWC? You know how it is with the European Union, they all have to toe the same line. Czech and Slovakia only joined around 2004, they could have done so much earlier had they seriously cared about it.
Could have been is not a proof, just innuendo.
Think about it - Mongolia is an Asian nation - why should they be against whaling? Asia does not have Europe's culture. The Russians up north are catching whales, the South Koreans and Japanese are catching whales, the Chinese tend to side with the Japanese on the issue because they have their own difficulties with Europeans over similar issues (tiger farming etc) - could it not be that their friends the Mongolians decide to back up their whaling friends - as the Europeans do?
As for Mali - it's an African nation. African nations - due to their suffering under European colonialism - are also not especially inclined to side with their former slave masters in such issues either. On the contrary if you take a look around Africa you'll find that many nations their have trouble with sustainable utilisation of natural resources too. Take elephants. The Europeans are against the Africans sustainably utilising their elephants and selling the products to ... you guessed it - Asians. This could be a source of income for these countries, but the blasted Europeans are denying them. Don't you think they see shades of their own issues in the whaling debate?
You see - the world is bigger than just Europe. So let's not pretend that European cultures are what constitutes "the world".
Exactly. Your point? If we exclude land-locked nations, I should revise that down to 24% though.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
2
davidattokyo
cleo,
Indeed they have been having difficulties.
They are taking more than just a few, which would be useless, but certainly the failure to take full sample sizes will have had an effect on the usefulness of the data - and you yourself note above that the Japanese have complained about this...
So what's your point? Yay for eco-terrorism? Should researchers all just give up the minute some eco-terrorist attacks them? (I'm sure you would like it if they did, but I'm being serious)
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
0
davidattokyo
troyinjapan,
So? What do you have against articles before 2000?
One can never be too far right :)
The spirit of the whaling convention is whaling - not anti-whaling.
I think "most people" have forgotten or never understood the purpose of the IWC.
That sounds like a perfect brief of the whaling convention, actually.
If you read the convention, you'll discover why those who drafted it thought researching whales was important.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
1
davidattokyo
Whoops, you said "the world" again... hehe
Look the reality is you may not like the whaling convention - just because Japan doesn't roll over and end it's whaling industry (which you don't like), that doesn't make Japan a badguy. The reason we have the ICJ to abide over such disputes is to resolve them.
I think you should accept that ICJ decision when it comes out. You may not like it, but you should consider that maybe Japan has actually been in the right over this whaling issue for a long time.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
1
davidattokyo
troyinjapan,
Sure. Japan submits to the IWC lists of biological samples collected from the whales.
No, But I understand where you are coming from - I thought exactly the same way myself once upon a time. Now I understand the painstaking data-collection and research they are conducting :)
Think about it - you could kill a single whale, and learn some stuff about that particular individual whale by examining it's biological organs. Fine. But what use is that to you? What are you going to do with that information about the individual whale? It's pretty useless information by itself.
What whaling management requires, in order to be able to set sustainable and optimal catch quotas, is information about the stock / population of the type of whale in question. The way you get such a big picture view is by taking statistically valid sample sizes of those whales (rather than just a single one). Then you examine the biological samples of all of them and do some statistical analysis etc etc. This makes sense, no?
Sure. It doesn't take a year to flense a whale and extract the biological organs for subsequent examination. This flensing happens within a couple of hours. The biological samples go to the labs, the meat goes to the markets.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
2
davidattokyo
troyinjapan,
Do you understand the science behind opinion polls? Learn about that first, and then maybe you'll be able to understand.
What could they learn by just killing a few? Virtually nothing if you ask me.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling