JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-2
davidattokyo
Osakadaz,
The important issue is how many whales can be caught on a sustainable basis.
This is what regulators ought concern themselves with.
The commercial decision of how much of the sustainable quotas to use is a commercial decision for businesses, not regulators.
Posted in: Japan walkout throws whaling talks into disarray
-2
davidattokyo
FireyRei,
Whales die for various reasons. Humans contribute to their rate of mortality in various ways. Whaling does not necessarily mean that they will go extinct, and that certainly isn't the aim.
Posted in: Japan walkout throws whaling talks into disarray
0
davidattokyo
StrangerinaStrangeLand, your read of the bias in the article is quite correct.
The article connects the two parts of the sentence with the word "though", so as to suggest that the fact that whale is food in Japan conflicts with the whales being caught for research purposes.
A non-biased article would state that IWC rules require that whales caught for research purposes also be utilised fully, rather than have meat dumped at sea as was done back in the old days of whaling for oil.
Posted in: Japan walkout throws whaling talks into disarray
0
davidattokyo
@chewitupJul. 15, 2011 - 12:53PM JST,
You have some misunderstandings about the IWC and it's rules and purpose.
The Whaling commission's rules, as described in the International Convention for the Regulation (not "banning") of Whaling, actually do make it clear that killing whales to get their meat is entirely in accordance with the spirit of the rules.
What isn't in the spirit of the IWC's rules was the so called "moratorium" decision on 1982 (adopted in the absence of, and indeed against scientific advice that it was necessary).
The "moratorium" denies whaling cultures their sovereign rights to sustainably exploit whale resources, this is against the spirit of the convention.
The "moratorium" also has the side-effect of precluding the gathering of biological data from commercial whale catches, which scientists use to advise managers about how to sustainably manage fisheries (this applies for both whales and other fisheries). Japan's JARPA programmes have been filling this data void, and biological data from the JARPA programmes continues to be used by the IWC Scientific Committee. If one cares to read this year's report one can again see that the JARPA biological data that could only be obtained through lethal research continues to be used for research purposes.
Some suggest that JARPA is just replacing commercial whaling, yet ignore the fact that JARPA catches are significantly lower than commercial catches prior to the moratorium, and indeed at around 850 minke whales a year are not unlike sample sizes used for other types of population studies.
They aren't killing whales to "save them", they are killing them so as to gain biological data which can be analysed so as to better inform decisions about sustainable use of these resources.
I suggest you check the IWC Scientific Committee reports for up-to-date information.
Posted in: Japan walkout throws whaling talks into disarray
0
davidattokyo
Well I'd not get your hopes high if you think Japan is going to just stop and give Australia that option out, just because of some temporal factor like eco-terrorists.
Posted in: Conservationists, Australian gov't not satisfied with Japan's whaling suspension
0
davidattokyo
Like you and I agreed yesterday AdamB, no one gets anywhere by all this arguing and complaining, so let's put that aside. Australia might as well, too. Everyone can save time if everyone agrees to let the ICJ court case (mentioned in the story - so you can't delete this mods) sort the issue out, and then the loser shuts up once it's all over. At the end of it all, Japan either gets to keep whaling if Australia is wrong, or if Australia is right then Japan will have to stop whaling.
End of story then, right, everyone can then move on from this issue! Won't that be a great day.
The ball is in Australia's court there. If Australia wants to ask the ICJ for an injunction against Japan's ongoing whaling activities while the case is being heard, it has the right to request that, but it hasn't. I don't know why it hasn't. Not Japan's fault - they are innocent until Australia proves them guilty. So it's up to Australia.
Posted in: Conservationists, Australian gov't not satisfied with Japan's whaling suspension
0
davidattokyo
Shrkb8,
No, it isn't.
And if you thought otherwise, you have to calmly wait for Australia's case at the ICJ against Japan to be concluded, sometime later this decade.
That's the way the international system of law works. Innocent until proven guilty. And if the guilt is not proven, you lose. Better get used to it!
Moderator: Readers, you are still going around in circles. From here on, posts that are repetitive will be removed.
Posted in: Conservationists, Australian gov't not satisfied with Japan's whaling suspension
0
davidattokyo
The Aussies should calm down. They have initiated court action. If they believe they will win the court case, why not sit back, relax and let the legal process run it's course?
The ICJ case is due to complete sometime later this decade, so Australia should stop jeopardizing it's relationship with it's good friends the Japanese in the meantime.
Posted in: Conservationists, Australian gov't not satisfied with Japan's whaling suspension
0
davidattokyo
irishosaru,
You read it wrong. It says that the research will ensure whaling is sustainable when it is resumed.
And if it is going to be sustainable then there is no reason why it shouldn't be resumed.
People arguing against the research are arguing against sustainable whaling - therefore they are arguing for unsustainable whaling? Doesn't make sense.
Posted in: Battle at sea
0
davidattokyo
theFu,
... But it is research. They are doing long-term population studies to facilitate modeling of population dynamics so as to enable us to optimally utilise these resources in future.
They could lie and say that they aren't doing research, but what would be the point of that? Just to placate the ignorant people who don't understand what they are actually doing?
Posted in: Battle at sea
0
davidattokyo
Dealing to eco-terrorists is always worth it, and always will be worth it. Governments should never give in to eco-terrorism.
Posted in: Battle at sea
0
davidattokyo
I think what he means is that "I have no leadership qualities, but I was born and raised a rich-boy".
Posted in: Hatoyama blames bureaucrats for his failure on Futenma issue
0
davidattokyo
Potsu, I read it is straight out of his comment that dolphins should not be eaten.
Shrkb8, just posting stuff repeatedly over and over and over on JT isn't going to save any dolphins. Just FYI. But if it makes you feel good about yourself doing so, then I guess it's OK if you continue.
Posted in: Sting meets dolphin advocate Ric O'Barry; advocates debate
0
davidattokyo
Zenny11,
Absolutely spot on, but the killing method complaint is just a smokescreen. If they really cared as you say they'd offer realistic improvements.
What it all comes down to is that some people, including Sting apparently, think that:
That's his pre-conceived conclusion, and any old excuses to "justify" it will be employed.
His intolerance and lack of respect for cultural diversity is the source of this problem.
thekeykeeper,
Absolutely... how about you?
I disagree, I think farmed animals deserve respect too... Why should they be regarded as "different" just because some humans have locked them up? It says more about the humans that do that than it does about the animals themselves.
Posted in: Sting meets dolphin advocate Ric O'Barry; advocates debate
0
davidattokyo
Uh, so? Is the article inferring that minority groups and cultures don't count, or should not be tolerated and respected?
People who use this argument ought to think about the implications...
As for Sting, yeah I think one of my Uncle's likes some of his music so I guess Sting is OK, but if he wants to use his celebrity to bring change to the world I suggest he ought to make sure he's properly informed before rushing into things. The Cove for example was misleading "propaganda", from even just the short sequences that I have so far bothered to watch. If that is the basis of his opinion then he has been sadly misled.
Anyway, maybe Sting is against farming of animals too, in which case I can accept his viewpoint as being consistent at least, rather than just bigoted. But good on him for preferring a more respectful approach to his idea of bringing about change, as opposed to the lowlifes who made The Cove etc.
USAkuma,
I have never seen anything labeled as dolphin, but I have seen "kujira" that I believe was dall's porpoise meat. I can find canned whale products and bacon in my local (Tokyo) supermarkets.
cleo,
The reality is that a lot of people whinging about cetacean eating do turn a blind to how food gets on their own plates, that is what is really disturbing. That's what I'd like to hear Sting's opinion about, before we start picking on and discriminating against minority groups and cultures.
Posted in: Sting meets dolphin advocate Ric O'Barry; advocates debate
0
davidattokyo
The research provides useful information for establishing the status of whale stocks so that they may be better utilised going forward.
Not useful if you are an anti-whaler, but then the whaling convention was never intended to be useful for nutcase anti-whalers.
Posted in: Japanese whalers, activists clash off Antarctica
0
davidattokyo
Congrats to Air-K!
Posted in: Nishikori sends Cilic packing in first round of Chennai Open
0
davidattokyo
dontpanic,
I was just joshing, chill man. And I provide My Perspective on whaling, I don't pretend that it coincides exactly with Japan's. Indeed I think Japanese governments are partially responsible for the mess this issue has become due to a failure to properly assess the political situation at certain critical points over the years.
That's not what the Australian government ministers and officials were saying in the Wikileaks with respect to Australia's chances of winning the ICJ case against Japan. Just FYI.
illsayit,
Um, what Japan does in it's own waters doesn't concern Australians at all, anyway, so who cares whether Aussies think they could "put up with it"? Same situation with high seas whaling. Australia doesn't own the Southern Ocean. Australians control only Australia's internationally recognised territories, which doesn't include waters where Japan is conducting it's ICRW compliant research activities for the benefit of the goals stated in the ICRW.
Posted in: Japanese whalers, activists clash off Antarctica
0
davidattokyo
genkimark, that's a good point. In fact it has been overlooked in this discussion that the IWC actually told Japan in a 1986 Resolution that meat eventuating from special permits should be used for consumption. Of course these Resolutions are non-binding, but the whaling convention itself does require that the meat not be wasted, so if it weren't being auctioned off in the markets and ultimately consumed it's not clear how else Japan could legally conduct the special permit research.
Posted in: Japanese whalers, activists clash off Antarctica
0
davidattokyo
Shrkb8, the other thing for you to consider is why a bunch of anti-whaling nations remain adhered to the international convention for the regulation of whaling, when they clearly have to intention of ever acting in good faith with respect to the object and purpose of the convention. They want no whaling at all, not regulation of it.
Posted in: Japanese whalers, activists clash off Antarctica