Japan, West clash over 'cultural' whale hunts

“There is this perception that we are asking (for the) total lifting of the moratorium, that is not the case,” Japan’s commissioner to the IWC, Joji Morishita told delegates .

It makes me wonder why he has the job and how effective he is if he has failed to clearly make Japan's case. It could be that Japan doesn't have a clear position because the whole whaling fiasco just exists to support him and other bureaucrats who have their budget to protect. And they will use anything at hand to shore up their position when it suits.

And now he has come to a well-ploughed furrow; that Japanese are victims of uncomprehending dolts from the outside, in this case, some villagers with a long tradition of motorised boats and exploding harpoons that a clueless Russian has been convinced has gone on for 5000 years.

Weirder and weirder. One side wants a 'sanctuary' in a place where no whales are caught anyway. And the other side wants to keep a 'moratorium' that has exceptions already and add more exceptions to it.

Why would an international organization be voting about culture anyway? I thought the world was expected to have cultural diversity. Shouldn't they just stick to sustainability?

This organization needs reorganization.

He urged other nations to look beyond their “principled position against whaling....“It’s not like one side is bad and one side is good. This is not a dichotomy

Yes it is, when one side is clearly asking the other side to give up a well-founded, principled objection..

It could be that Japan doesn't have a clear position because the whole whaling fiasco just exists to support him and other bureaucrats who have their budget to protect.

This.

Along with Norway and Iceland, which argued the IWC was “held hostage” by anti-whalers, Japan’s position was also supported by Russia.

“I think that we all have to remember that those four communities in Japan that have been asking for quota, they have a 5,000-year history of whaling,” said Russia’s deputy IWC commissioner, Valentin Ilyashenko.

“Our task is not only to conserve biodiversity but also to conserve culture and traditions.”

The International WHALING Commission was created for the REGULATION of whaling, not to see it banned. The animal-rights zealots have failed to buy enough support to fully control the IWC, but they have managed to create a stalemate that prevents the IWC from operating effectively.

Demand for whale meat in Norway and Iceland is falling so most of their catch gets exported to Japan where the whalemeat demand is also falling. Makes perfect commercial sense indeed.

It's remarkable to me that among people who comment at Japan Today are some who appear to believe that they have good knowledge of the national "demand" for a niche product like whale meat. I don't think this can be easy to gauge accurately at all for any individual, least of all those who have nothing to do with it! (I'll take this back if anyone posting here has actually caught a whale and exported it to Japan before?)

The operators in both Iceland and Norway that are said to be exporting meat to Japan surely have a better idea about the viability of their exports than anyone else. They also know their costs and can actually get price data from their revenues. Unless they are running a loss-leader strategy, one tends to think they must be making money. (If they were running a loss-leader, they wouldn't be running it forever - no business operates to lose money in the long term.)

In any case, sink or swim, it's their business. Let the free market handle it. So long as they aren't so successful as to generate such great demand that would require them to catch whales at unsustainable rates, there is no problem here.

Japan, West clash over 'cultural' whale hunts

cultural my BUTT

Anyone who seriously believes this is about culture is not familiar with the wilful destruction and loss of Japanese "culture" over the decades. It is expandable, from Kyoto cityscapes blighted by ugliness to scenic views for the sake of concrete and native forest replaced by monocultures. Meanwhile no one can surely believe Japan has much cultural tradition of mechanised whaling that has more right to be preserved than any of the things already destroyed. Anyone who believes it is about diet, obviously doesn't know that few people eat whale and couldn't care less. Anyone who believes it is about science must surely wonder where this science is published and why lethal methods need to be used when viable alternatives are available and world standard.

No, people who want to believe these things have their own agenda. Probably ideological. And I suggest they examine them so they can be true to themselves. And then tell us why they really want to believe this slaughter is right.

No, as we know, Japan is very pragmatic in many senses. There are few ideals. It's mostly about what works. But there is another pragmatism. A famous exponent was William James who summed up his Pragmatism in "What is the cash value of this idea?" "Science" and "tradition" have cash value to the village of bureaucrats supported by taxpayers and they use them to justify their existence. Anyone who believes otherwise is deceived or self-deceived and I doubt they can really give a good reason for this continuing farce.

Whale Hunting?

Next we will hear of corn and mayo pizza been classified as Japanese cuisine......

All whaling other than for aboriginal subsistence or for scientific research is banned under an IWC moratorium introduced 30 years ago.

I don't see the issue. Minke whales aren't endangered in the areas to be hunted are they?

"Japan pleaded with the world’s whaling watchdog Wednesday to allow small hunts by coastal communities, arguing that for three decades these groups had been unjustly barred from a traditional source of food."

I thought it was all for science.

cleoOct. 27, 2016 - 09:56AM JST "He urged other nations to look beyond their “principled position against whaling....“It’s not like one side is bad and one side is good. This is not a dichotomy" Yes it is, when one side is clearly asking the other side to give up a well-founded, principled objection..

The proper management and sustainable utilization of any non-endangered marine resource for human benefit is a well founded principle. The belief that all cetaceans are somehow above the natural order of living creatures on this planet and must be idolized disregarding any scientific basis is not. It is basically a mixture of ignorance and psychosis, driven not by objective thought but by emotion,

The blah blah blah blah blah is a well founded principle.

Lovely. The whale killers can hang on to their filthy principles, but they urge other nations to abandon their principles?

The belief that all cetaceans are somehow above the natural order of living creatures on this planet and must be idolized disregarding any scientific basis is not.

Oh grow up. Saying it's wrong to subject any animal to a slow, agonising, avoidable death is not putting that animal above any natural order. It's not idolising anything. It's simply acting like a mature, 21st-century adult.

It is basically a mixture of ignorance and psychosis

No, the belief that it's OK to engage in any kind of barbarism and inflict any kind of horror on any living creature, whether for the sake of a jaded palate or to protect some non-existent, outdated 'tradition' or 'culture', is based on ignorance, psychosis and a total lack of empathy. It's sick.

I thought it was all for science.

No. The small coastal whaling is a different issue than the Article VII research whaling.

c>leoOct. 28, 2016 - 12:03AM JST

The blah blah blah blah blah is a well founded principle. Lovely. The whale killers can hang on to their filthy principles, but they urge other nations to abandon their principles?

Is "whale killers" something like "baby killers? Sustainably utilizing marine resources is a "filthy" principle? What did I say about emotionally driven arguments,

Is "whale killers" something like "baby killers?

Thank you for pointing that out. The count last season was 210 unborn babies killed by the - what would you prefer they were called? - 'scientific researchers'? I wonder if they researched how much more tender the meat is.

Sustainably utilizing marine resources is a "filthy" principle?

Spitting on the spirit of an internationally-agreed convention that Japan signed up to, issuing bare-faced lies to sustain a tax rip-off and keep a few well-filled pockets filled, and inflicting unspeakable pain and suffering to back up those lies, is certainly filthy.

As for 'emotionally driven arguments' - but it's our culture! It's our tradition! No one understands us! Whaah!

Beautifully said, cleo!

Spitting on the spirit of an internationally-agreed convention that Japan signed up to,

You mean the convention that says "Recognizing that the whale stocks are susceptible of natural increases if whaling is properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources;"

Or maybe you mean the moratorium that required review in 1990 and periodically thereafter, yet has yet to be reviewed even once?

Or maybe you mean Article V which says "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.". Yet even the IWC's own Scientific Committee study said the Southern Ocean Sanctuary has no scientific basis. And the proposal for the South Atlantic Sanctuary provided no scientific findings to justify its establishment.

Are those the kinds of spitting on the spirit of the convention you mean?

Mike O'Brien OCT. 28, 2016 - 04:05PM JST Or maybe you mean the moratorium that required review in 1990 and periodically thereafter, yet has yet to be reviewed even once?

Why don't you ask the 70 countries that are in the IWC? Japan is following the rules.

Why don't you ask the 70 countries that are in the IWC? Japan is following the rules.

There are 88 countries in the IWC. And I know that Japan is following the rules.