JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- Full-time English Teacher - Osaka
- Epion English Language Schools, Osaka
- Salary: ¥200,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month Depending on your ability and experience
-
- Part-time English Teacher - Osaka
- Epion English Language Schools, Osaka
- Salary: ¥10,000 ~ ¥15,000 / Day Depending on how many days a week are worked
-
- 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
-2
davidattokyo
It seems the difference in view points expressed here stems from whether one believes technology is the same thing as culture or not.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
-2
davidattokyo
The American whalers had moved in to the Japan grounds prior to the 20th century.
Re-supplying their whaling vessels was one of the primary reasons the Americans wished to gained access to Japan back at the end of the Edo-era (circa 1854).
It's no sheer co-incidence that hundreds of years of stable Japanese coastal whaling started to fall into decline around this time, which is what ultimately led the Japanese whalers to seek to import foreign methods for pelagic whaling.
The constant throughout? Whale cuisine is a part of Japanese culture. The methods used to obtain whale meat changed according to circumstances, and skipping out huge chunks of historical facts such as the above does not change them.
It's more than just referencing. Biological data provided by Japan is a key input to the ongoing SCAA modeling work being done for Antarctic minke whale stock assessment (it's all in the latest IWC Scientific Committee report). Without this data from the research programme, the data series would have ended with the data from final commercial whaling catches.
The IWC scientific committee is "obligated" to use the data only in the sense that, if they didn't, they wouldn't have any data to use for their ongoing SCAA work.
The IWC Scientific Committee has a purpose, and that is to provide scientific advice to the IWC such that it may take decisions in the interest of the mandate of conserving whale stocks while making for the development of whaling industry.
There is no doubt that whaling industry in many countries flouted international rules in the IWC's early years. But as it stands, the IWC still exists, and there are still nations who wish to see it fulfil it's mandate. Mistakes made decades ago are not a valid reason to deny this, and clearly a non-zero catch quota for Antarctic minke whales is required for the IWC to be seen to be fulfilling it's mandate.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
0
davidattokyo
Dave Rideough
Well put. I can't understand why some people expect others to think that history suddenly stops at some point in time and culture ends there, for all eternity - even to the extent that years covering the working careers of two generations can be swept under the carpet like it never happened.
Indeed, I hesistated to mention it earlier, but perhaps if the Americans hadn't brought their black whaling ships along to Japan at the end of the Edo era and decimated Japan's local whale stocks, Japan may never have found it necessary to head to the Antarctic in search of new whale stocks to exploit to satisfy their cultural needs.
Bingo. If Japan toughed up and took no nonsense ala Canada Iceland and Norway SS would be out of business in a flash.
AnimuX,
Despite the claims of Sidney Holt (who has a curious history as an IWC delegate for a certain nation in the 1980's), the IWC's own scientific committee to this very day is utilising biological data from Japan's research programmes in it's stock assessement work.
Mmmm, Greenpeace Japan tried to tell the Japanese public that, but then the Japanese public (like me) generally know that whale is a type of food that can be found on the menus in Japan.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
-1
davidattokyo
Spidapig24,
Your comments about culture is already covered in my previous comment at Nov. 15, 2011 - 02:42PM JST.
Although you claim SS and Australia don't oppose Japanese whaling in the northern hemisphere, such a claim doesn't reconcile with the reality that SS is in Taiji opposing Japanese whaling and Australia notes in it's application to the ICJ that it does oppose Japanese whaling in the northern hemisphere (I can give you the link to this if you like, or you can go read it on the ICJ homepage for yourself)
The point about the IUCN listings is, if I try to put it as simply as possible, the management bodies for the SBT fishery (CCSBT) and whale fisheries (IWC) have their own scientific committees to provide advice specifically about the stocks of marine resources being exploited. The IUCN Red Listings are just generic listings that aren't relevant as far as species under management are concerned. This is why Australia exploits "critically endangered" SBT for commercial purposes in accordance with the CCSBT rules and Japan catches a few "endangered" Fin whales for research in accordance with IWC rules. If IUCN Red Listing a species as "endangered" meant it should not be hunted, then clearly Australia wouldn't be commercially exploiting SBT. Given that Australia does this, it should be obvious enough that a few fin whale catches for research purposes should not automatically be considered unacceptable without due consideration.
And you haven't offered any reason why Japan should be expected to forgoe it's rights under the whaling convention to harvest whale resources from international waters, which is in accordance with the mandate of the whaling convention, as well as Japan's culture which includes whale cuisine, other than to ignore 60 years of history including several decades in which no one was complaining about the Japanese harvesting whales in the Antarctic whaling grounds.
I have no idea what species you could be refering to. Species that Japan is looking at in the northern hemisphere number in the 10's of thousands.
You are mixing up two entirely different industries, purely on the basis of people involved in those two industries both consisting of Japanese people. This line of argumentation isn't convincing to me (and I imagine many others).
You must not have read / understood my comment at Nov. 15, 2011 - 06:47PM JST
I think this sums up where you are coming from nicely.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
-1
davidattokyo
Spidapig24,
It's not "utter bull" at all.
Being IUCN Red Listed as "endangered" is not necessarily the same as actually being endangered. This is illustrated by Australia's SBT exploitation. (As for CITES, those listings are determined by politicians, not scientists.)
"Endangered" in IUCN Red List terminology indicates only that a species falls into a particular set of criteria, that criteria does not necessarily mean that exploitation of that species will lead the species to extinction.
That's why Australia has no qualms about commercial exploitation of "critically endangered" SBT - despite this listing I recall seeing a quote from a top IUCN scientist (P. Mace IIRC) agreeing that SBT was not at immediate risk of extinction of something to similar effect, hence I don't have issues with Australia's behaviour - except for their hypocritical criticism of Japan for taking a few "endangered" fin whales for research.
But if we are concerned about conservation, if it were truly bad to harvest IUCN red list "critically endangered" species, Australia ought to stop (as well as all of them).
But as you note, SBT is managed internationally (by the CCSBT). Just as are whales are supposed to be (by the IWC).
So it's the same thing, but Australia employs double standards, commercially exploiting "critically endangered" species while criticising Japan for extremely limited research catches of "endangered" fin whales.
It was the Japanese SBT fishing industry that was found to have caught over it's quota, not the Japanese whaling industry, and that issue has already been dealt with some years ago - the SBT fisheries regulatory systems were given a big overhaul in response to it. This is exactly what should happen - where regulatory systems fail, they ought be corrected (as opposed to banning everyone from doing something forever).
SBT aren't whales though, systems ought be established as appropriate for different types of fisheries.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
-2
davidattokyo
Spidapig24,
The whaling convention was established to regulate whaling in "non-traditional" international waters, for the benefit of the consumers of whale products and the development of whaling industry, an agreement amongst various nations.
In view of this together with whale cuisine's being a part of Japanese culture, I don't see a reason why these Japan should now be expected to limit their whaling to ancient Edo-era whaling grounds alone.
Indeed from my perspective as a conservationist, the Antarctic minke whale stock is best able to support commercial harvests, so if anything the Antarctic minke whale is the first stock for which commercial whaling should be permitted. This would be the most risk averse approach that meets the mandate of the whaling convention.
Well, it's not Japan that was arguing for a blanket sanctuary in the whaling grounds - the onus was on those who were for it to stump up with science to justify it. (As we know they pushed their proposals through with numbers instead of science in the end.)
Those are the words of some scientists, but certainly not all. And it's a matter of record that biological data from Japan's programmes is utilised by the IWC's Scientific Committee for it's stock assessment work.
I don't think we can just ignore 60 years of history like that, and from the basis of the whaling convention I see no reason to.
I disagree. The IWC's moratorium indeed precludes Japanese whaling in Japan's own EEZ.
They already expanded into those areas, 60 years ago, in accordance with the whaling convention, and no one complained about it for decades. Some Japanese people spent their entire working lives involved in whaling in the Antarctic. I don't see a justification to just wind back the clock and expect everyone to forget all of this suddenly.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
-2
davidattokyo
Spidapig24
No I think we are definitely much closer. I've been following this in the IWC SC reports for some years now and the IWC Scientific Committee should definitely produce agreed estimates next year, probably in excess of 500,000, as they eluded to in their latest report.
Irrespective, a zero catch limit is clearly inappropriate - at least "1" would be sustainable, given the units in the hundreds of thousands of whales that are being bandied about. A "zero" catch limit is unjustifiable unless the mandate of the whaling convention is completely ignored (which is a breach of the Vienna convention that treaties must be adhered to in good faith)
I am hoping that the Japanese will have this point addressed at the ICJ in their defence against Australia's allegations - a recommendation from the ICJ to the IWC to do it's job to help resolve the issue would be most welcome in bringing the whaling kerfuffle to a conclusion.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
-2
davidattokyo
Generally speaking your point is true.
But specifically as for the whale meat in storage, if it were really rotted, the operators of the cold storage facilities would dispose of it, rather than hold it in storage at further cost.
Japanese cold storage facilities store millions of tonnes of various types of sea food. To describe a few thousand tonnes of whale meat as rotting (without evidence of this) illustrates an obvious bias and willingness to employ propaganda rather than fact.
I thought that poster misses the point on a number of other issues as well, to be honest.
1 & 2) Whale cuisine is a part of Japanese culture, to claim that because the "protest" is against whaling not Japanese culture is at best a semantic difference (given that whaling is the primary source of products used to supply whale cuisine).
3 & 8) The poster selectively ignored the fact that the whaling convention requires IWC Schedule amendments (for sanctuaries etc) to have, amongst other things, a scientific basis and also to take into consideration the interests of consumers of whale products and the whaling industry (obvious blanket bans on whaling fail to deliver on both these counts). The amendments were nonetheless adopted by the IWC, however the whaling convention allows the signatory states to object to any such decisions. So for this to be characterised as Japan doing "as it likes regardless" has no basis in reality, and is also well in the realm of sheer propaganda. Every nation who adhered to the whaling convention knows very well exactly what it says. It's one thing to be anti-whaling, it's another thing entirely to make out that Japan is not acting in accordance with the whaling convention.
4 & 5) This refers to behaviour by the whaling industry from years ago before I was even born. There is no doubt that there were regulatory failures in the past - but that isn't a rational reason to forever ban a legitimate activity into the future in spite of the whaling convention's own mandate.
6) The Save the Whales movement probably did have a genuine start, but today it does appear to have morphed into cultural imperialism, in my opinion also. There is no other explanation as plausible to account for the IWC's maintenance of a baseless moratorium for a quarter of a century when everyone knows that there are whale stocks that are capable of sustaining harvests.
7) Sei whales aren't endangered, Iceland's Fin whales aren't endangered. Just saying a species is endangered and saying that the IWC banned it doesn't mean it makes sense for that to be the case.
This is why the Australians are harvesting Red Listed southern bluefin tuna ("critically endangered") and exporting the fish to Japan for commercial purposes.
Examples of endangered species are the Maui dolphin around New Zealand, and the Blue whale in the Antarctic.
The whalers target neither.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
-1
davidattokyo
Animux, it's off topic, but frozen products do not "rot". Just FYI.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
1
davidattokyo
Disillusioned,
Zero is arguably sustainable, but so is one, and so is 2,000 over 5 years for starters when we calmly and rationally consider that would be but 0.4% of the population if we take the IWC Scientific Committee at their word that the estimate agreed next year will be upwards of 500,000.
Given that the whaling convention's purpose includes serving the interests of consumers of whale products and development of the whaling industry, in addition to conservation of whale stocks, clearly a zero catch limit for even Antarctic minke whales is as inappropriate today as it has been for the past 25 years.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
-1
davidattokyo
More impolite comments from cleo too, and child porn, seriously, we are talking about whaling.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
0
davidattokyo
AnimuX,
No one mentioned the word "traditional" in this post until your (what appears to be copy-and-paste) comment.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
1
davidattokyo
Brandon,
Humpback whales have died from time to time in fixed fishing nets along the Japanese coast may be sold legally.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
1
davidattokyo
Brandon, Dave,
As for minke whale numbers, the latest IWC Scientific Committee report indicates that the estimate to be agreed next year is likely to be above 500,000 (the report is on the Whaling commission's homepage).
In any case 500,000 is more than enough for sustainable harvests of a conservative 0.4% a year (e.g. 2,000 whales say), for at least the next 5 years.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
0
davidattokyo
WilliB,
Yeah, well the IWC Scientific Committee itself is using the Japanese data, so he Clancy naive, or it it the people who believe all the commercial anti-whaling industry propaganda who are naive?
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
1
davidattokyo
smithinjapan,
Because the biological samples reveal information that can not be gathered simply by spotting the whale.
The IWC's own scientific committee is using data from Japan's data as an input to statistical catch-at-age models. You can confirm this for yourself if you care to read the latest IWC Scientific Committee report (around section 10 or thereabouts).
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
-1
davidattokyo
Faceless1,
But whales are slaughtered for very good reason.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
0
davidattokyo
Brandon,
Regarding your black market claims etc, if it's illegal to sell whale in the US, then the US authorities have the responsibility to enforce their own laws. In Japan, the whale meat can be legally sold.
And it has nothing to do with research whaling anyway. The research whaling is supposed to offload the meat for full utilisation in accordance with the whaling convention.
If anything, that whale meat is in demand in places like the US argues in favourable of regulating sustainable whaling, not mindlessly banning it without basis, as has been the case at the IWC thanks to the commercial anti-whaling industry.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
0
davidattokyo
Brandon LaBeet,
Just FYI, you appear to have confused a estimates of an increase in population abundance within a specific area with an increase in the size of a biological population. Two different things.
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong
0
davidattokyo
Dave Rideough,
There's no aggression here either, you wouldn't believe the amount of this nonsense I put up with for simply posting factual information about Japan's whaling research, and the whaling convention here. It's hardly worth it, I warn you...
Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong