Sea Shepherd ships leave to battle Japanese whaling fleet

Go get 'em!

God's speed guys

Good for them for doing what the world has not balls to do => put a end to loophole abusers.

“Sea Shepherd has engaged in repeated acts of sabotage over the years. Those actions threaten the lives of Japanese >>crew members and we cannot tolerate it,” said the official, who declined to give his name.

During WW2, German Nazis called also "sabotage" all the action made by the "resistance"...

not thumbs up or down but this is pretty futile. also sometimes doubt the motivations of some of the Sea Shepherd folks.

But maybe someone can provide me with fact-based "pro-hunting-arguments"? >

I'll give you one; they are protecting a source of protein. With little arable land in the country, in the event that Japan is unable to import its protein sources then whaling will be of vital importance. I'm not saying I agree with this by the way, you'd empty the oceans in a few years if 120 million people had whale as their primary protein intake. But that's the feeling of a large part of Japan. It's a deep rooted fear, don't underestimate it. Personally I feel it's an antiquated practice, and I also feel that the general Asian attitude to animals needs some work! (i.e. animals belong to us)

Good

"not thumbs up or down but this is pretty futile. also sometimes doubt the motivations of some of the Sea Shepherd folks." -- Not at all. The Sea Shepherds have cost the lives of many Japanese dinner tables. The Japanese whaling program flies in the face of the highest court in the world. What the Sea Shepherds do is perfectly justified. And to date, no Japanese fisherman, or Japanese ship have been harmed. The Japanese ships on the other hand, do attempt to harm Sea Shepherd volunteers with stun grenades, sharp objects and LRAD sonar devices. They even attempted to take down a Sea Shepherd helicopter with the LRAD. The Ady Gil was sunk on purpose by a Japanese ship, resulting in no consequences for the captain of the Japanese ship who attempted murder on the high seas. In the meantime, tons and tons of whale meat sit in freezers in Japan, uneaten, unwanted.

Fair winds and following seas, Sea Shepherd!

But maybe someone can provide me with fact-based "pro-hunting-arguments"? As always, I am still willing to learn more.

I'm not so much pro-hunting, as I am not anti-hunting. We don't have numbers on how many whales there are, and anti-whaling nations will not allow the scientific study on these numbers to go forward, even though it was explicitly laid out in the moratorium that this was to happen in 1990. Without knowing the actual numbers of whales, it's hard for me to say 'you can't whale' - maybe there are more than enough whales to be whaled in a sustainable manner.

A scientific study on whale stocks should happen ASAP, and then we can determine whether it's a practice that should be halted, or be regulated.

I remember there were numerous court injunctions against Sea Shepherd not to interfere with Japanese whaling ships. I also remember an international arrest warrant was issued against the boss of Sea Shepherd.

I wonder if encouraging SS to break court injunctions is court contempt.

It has a powerful water cannon and is capable of outrunning the whalers, which an official at Japan’s Fisheries Agency said would be protected by a fleet of patrol boats.

How much of the Tohoku rebuilding funds are they using this time?

Tokyo claims it is trying to prove the whale population is large enough to sustain a return to commercial hunting for a traditional source of food. But the meat from what it calls scientific research still ends up on dinner tables and is served up in school lunches.

No, it doesn't end up on dinner tables! It ends up in freezers because nearly nobody wants to eat it. It's interesting to see them also mention school lunches. They are practically giving the meat to the schools to get rid of it and virtually force-feeding it to kids. If Japan could prove there was a viable market for the whale meat I might be swayed into agreeing to a strictly regulated and controlled commercial hunt of minki whales, but without it, there is no way I can agree to this farce.

large enough to sustain a return to commercial hunting for a traditional source of food.

A traditional source of food? Yes, there were a few coastal communities eating whale prior to WW2, but it wasn't until after the war, when Japan was a desert, that large scale whale hunting became necessary as a major source of protein for its starving population. I'd hardly call this a traditional source food warranting a return to commercial whaling.

they are protecting a source of protein. With little arable land in the country, in the event that Japan is unable to import its protein sources then whaling will be of vital importance

Pardon my French, but that is sheer and utter twaddle. In the event that for some reason Japan were to be prevented from importing protein sources, it's more than likely that the same reason (lack of funds? some kind of hostile embargo?) would prevent them sending their mighty whaling fleet round to the other side of the world to raid the oceans. If the supposed lack of funds/hostile embargo prevents Japan buying the protein it needs, the same will also prevent the country buying the fuel it needs to send those ships all the way to Antarctica and back.

Yours is a false argument.

maybe there are more than enough whales to be whaled in a sustainable manner

It doesn't matter (for the sake of this argument-obviously in the bigger picture, it does matter) how many whales there are or whether they can be killed sustainably. They cannot be killed humanely, and that should be enough to make any idea of hunting them anathema to any thinking person.

Pardon my French, but that is sheer and utter twaddle.>

I never said it was logical! I agree that it would be an unlikely source in the event of what you mentioned. But doesnt make it twaddle you rude man

I wonder if encouraging SS to break court injunctions is court contempt. the Japanese whalers are in contempt of court in Australia, so why should SS take any court ruling in the US when the US courts have no duristiction in the Antartic waters. SS isnt based in the US anymore. If the J whalers wont respect Australia law , then why should SS respect the laws from the US or Japan. Australia certainly has more claim to those waters than Tokyo or Washington. Bring on the pain SS

The annual lunacy is starting....

wtfjapanDEC. 06, 2016 - 10:57AM JST

I wonder if encouraging SS to break court injunctions is court contempt.

the Japanese whalers are in contempt of court in Australia, so why should SS take any court ruling in the US when the US courts have no duristiction in the Antartic waters. SS isnt based in the US anymore.

I am wondering if you and other participants here are in the US or under the US jurisdiction.

The annual lunacy is starting I agree there is nothing logical in hunting whales 1000skm from your home , wasting taxpayer money becuase your industry cant be profitable without it. Money better spent on schools, hospitals, education. Just sheer lunacy.

cleoDEC. 06, 2016 - 10:45AM JST

It doesn't matter (for the sake of this argument-obviously in the bigger picture, it does matter) how many whales there are or whether they can be killed sustainably.

Do I need to cite once again what was agreed in the moratorium?

10 (e) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10, catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes of whales from all stocks for the 1986 coastal and the 1985/86 pelagic seasons and thereafter shall be zero. This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits

The number of whales does matter.

They cannot be killed humanely

I think "humane killing" is an Orwellian word. What it really means is "I do not want any whales to be killed, so everyone should obey me". I know you love whales. But that cannot be the bases for forcing other people not to whale.

The Japanese whaling program flies in the face of the highest court in the world.

No, it follows exactly what the ICJ (NOT the 'highest court in the world') ruling said. Which was stop JARPA II and here are guidelines for writing a new plan that will be acceptable.

And to date, no Japanese fisherman, or Japanese ship have been harmed.

The SSCS's own videos show them intentionally ramming Japanese ships and firing flares into flammable material on those ships.

LRAD sonar devices

LRADs are not sonar devices.

The Ady Gil was sunk on purpose by a Japanese ship

The Ady Gil accelerated in front of the Japanese ship. The crew admitted this and its own electronic recorded showed that it did. An electronic recorder that someone in the SSCS tried to destroy.

the Japanese whalers are in contempt of court in Australia

Can't really be in contempt of a court without jurisdiction.

when the US courts have no duristiction in the Antartic waters

But US courts DO have jurisdiction over US charities no matter where in the world they go.

Australia certainly has more claim to those waters than Tokyo or Washington.

Australia has no claim on those waters based on the treaties and agreements they have signed.

@ClippetyClop

You claimed it was a 'fact-based "pro-hunting-argument"', now you say it would be 'an unlikely source', in other words you agree with me that the argument doesn't stand up, ie it's twaddle.

I'm not a rude man by the way, I'm a rude woman.

And I'm only rude when faced with unadulterated, bare-faced twaddlery. Please note that my insult was directed at your argument, not at you personally.

@CH3CHO

I know you love whales

No, you don't. You have no idea what relationship if any I have with whales in general or any individual whale in particular. I wouldn't submit a nasty, filthy disease-carrying cockroach to the kind of treatment the whalers dish out to the whales, and I certainly do not 'love' cockroaches.

The word 'humane' is not Orwellian; it simply means 'showing or having compassion'. Maybe your rejection of the word says more about your attitude than about mine?

I am wondering if you and other participants here are in the US or under the US jurisdiction. I personally am not in the US or am a US citizen. SS boats arnt registered in the US and many of her crew arent American, vast majority of SS funds/donations come from outside the US. So the US and Japan really dont have a pot to p** in containing SS, especially since many more countries are friendly to their cause.

clippety clop - "...they are protecting a source of protein. With little arable land in the country...."

As Cleo stated - twaddle.

Japan has vast areas of fallow land in perpetuity. Japan has a huge problem with millions of rogue deer and boar that need culling and if managed would supply easily any protein shortfall, while enhancing and protecting wilderness and farm areas.

The essential reasons (whether stated or not) for the continuation of the Antarctic program are pride, vote sourcing, amakudari and other vested interests by Inc and Govt. The expenses and logistics of this research whaling really puts the venture into the debacle basket. The money consumed by the program is beyond huge.

Sea Shepherds tactics - although questionable at times - simply is a means to get a point across that otherwise would attract zero publicity. Whaling Inc will need to fathom this and realize that it (SS) won't be going away soon. If it comes down to a financial war of attrition - Japanese Tax Payers money vs SS world wide unlimited donations, then I'd be extremely naive to believe Inc will come out on top.

Factory whaling in the Antarctica will never garner world wide acceptance. Better to stick to traditional coastal whaling in Japan if the industry has any hope of surviving at all.

wtfjapan - the Japanese whalers are in contempt of court in Australia

Mike O'Brien - Can't really be in contempt of a court without jurisdiction.

Mike O'Brien, you are wrong on this point. The whalers are in contempt of the Australian Federal court. If they are ever arrested by Australian authorities (and that is admittedly a big 'if'), they will not be able to successfully argue that Australia's claims in the southern ocean are invalid because of the Antarctic Treaty (which I think is your point). Australia recognises their own jurisdiction over the area and that is all that matters here. You can argue that Australia hasn't lived up to its obligations under the Antarctic treaty, but that is not an issue for the Federal Court. The Antarctic Treaty is not part of domestic legislation in Australia as far as I'm aware.

Still baffles me that there has been a "moratorium" on commercial whaling for 30 years, even though the seas in the southern ocean are teeming with minke whales.

Baffles me too that western raffle groups would be funding this SS outfit. Not a good look, over a mere matter of essentially what other people want to be able to eat.

Mike O'Brien Can't really be in contempt of a court without jurisdiction. well if thats the case then the same can be said for the US charges against SS, US have not jurisdiction in the southern oceans so SS has no need to follow their rulings, same goes for Japanese courts.

The tittle is misleading. They are not "battling", they are protecting.

what about the dolphins?. Think of the dolphins........

The vast majority of Japanese citizens have no idea that it is their tax dollars propping up the industry. I'm sure they could all give plenty of ideas where they think the money could be better spent. The only reason the gov't keeps throwing money at it is to save face. Just plain stupid.

Let the Better people win go sea Shepherd . why is Japan so hellbent in Killing whales if its not for Human consumption is it pet food and perfume

Ganbare Sea Shephard!

Cleo, correct on ALL counts.

fxgaiDEC. 06, 2016 - 12:47PM JST

Baffles me too that western raffle groups would be funding this SS outfit. Not a good look, over a mere matter of essentially what other people want to be able to eat.

No, it's about conservation of a wild animal.

Hey SeaShepherd, Have you seen what China is doing, dumping sand and building airstrips on atolls and reefs in the South China seas? Why don't you get on protecting the ecosystem by hassling them? I donate to that effort.

well if thats the case then the same can be said for the US charges against SS, US have not jurisdiction in the southern oceans so SS has no need to follow their rulings, same goes for Japanese courts.

No it can't. Even the SSCS admits that their US based charity IS subject to US jurisdiction no matter where in the world they are operating.

The vast majority of Japanese citizens have no idea that it is their tax dollars propping up the industry.

That might have been true a decade or more ago, but with all the years of controversy, the TV shows, the movies, the trials, it is hard to believe that it is true any more.

However, I don't see any need to kill or better slaughter hundreds of them!

You don't see that the IWC's moratorium requires research so the reviews can be perform, even now almost 30 years overdue? And if your concern is the number taken, a simple search of statistical data collection will give you equations to calculate required sample size which for the Minke population is well into the hundreds.

No, it's about conservation of a wild animal.

And that wild animal is doing just fine. Stable population for the past 30 years of Japan taking hundreds almost every year.

tajDEC. 06, 2016 - 05:22PM JST

Hey SeaShepherd, Have you seen what China is doing, dumping sand and building airstrips on atolls and reefs in the South China seas? Why don't you get on protecting the ecosystem by hassling them? I donate to that effort.

Ah, what makes you think they aren't ? You think there whole operation revolves around Japanese whaling just because that's all you see in the news?

No it can't. Even the SSCS admits that their US-based charity IS subject to US jurisdiction no matter where in the world they are operating. Yes their US based charity SS has a global branch that is financially separate to SS US. SS global get a lot of their donations from lotteries in the UK , Sweden, Netherlands, if these same countries were against SS do you think they'd be registered or be able to collect monies from those countries. The fact remains SS global is entirely separate from SS US apart from the name, which is why the US courts can do sweet F all to police their rulings. Dont forget the US has an extradition treaty with these countries yet no SS member in those countries has been extradited yet, why because SS global has broken no US laws.

Go Japan.

I think "humane killing" is an Orwellian word. What it really means is "I do not want any whales to be killed, so everyone should obey me". I know you love whales. But that cannot be the bases for forcing other people not to whale.

It can. What right do we have to hunt whales? Apart from (in Japan's case) a handful of oyajis who want to keep this barbarism alive what purpose is there in hunting them? The amount eaten in Japan is a fraction of what is 'harvested' by these ruthless hunters.

Just stop it, then let Sea Shepherd move onto the arctic hunts.

Whaling and messing up with oceans is equally bad. If Sea Shepherds are vegetarians, I support them.

What right do we have to hunt whales?

The same right we have to hunt and eat any animal of course.

Good luck, Sea Shepherd.

Thunderbird2, As I said before, you stop bird hunting in your country first, then come back to Japan. You've said you didn't like bird hunting either, so you can't stop it in your own country.

you don't want your country to stop hunting whales,

It will stop when there will be no demand. I don't like to tell others what to do. I don't like to be told what to do. I eat whales when I find it in a menu in support of whaling.

tinawatanabeDEC. 06, 2016 - 10:36PM JST you don't want your country to stop hunting whales,

It will stop when there will be no demand.

How well do you really know the facts around this issue? It is common knowledge that there is no demand for whale meat beyond what is caught around the seas surrounding Japan. It is stockpiled in refrigeration.

It is common knowledge that there is no demand for whale meat beyond what is caught around the seas surrounding Japan.

It is not common knowledge.

It is stockpiled in refrigeration.

I believe almost all seafood are stockpiled in refrigeration even raw fish for sushi. It is a Japan's high tech to keep freshness..

-10 for my comment huh, tough crowd, tough crowd!

igloobuyer,

No, it's about conservation of a wild animal.

Catching whales on a sustainable basis is conservation per se.

Conserve means to use something sparingly, not to not use it at all. Some people want the option to be able to eat whales. That's fine from a conservation perspective so long as they catch them sparingly

It's hard to think that there could be huge commercial demand in this day and age (with the shale oil/gas revolution going on) that demand for whales would be so high as to demand unconservative levels of catch. These days the main use for dead whales is food.

In any case, the IWC is supposed to make sure that the numbers to be caught are below a conservative threshold, so even if demand were so high the IWC ought not allow overly high levels of catch.

But the IWC has done nothing for 30 years, keeping an out-dated 'moratorium' in place. The IWC has been a huge waste of public resources for 30 years, Japan should withdraw from it temporarily until it reforms itself and does its job properly.

Also, tinawatanabe is correct regards to the stockpile. Some of us looked at this some weeks back and found that the whale stockpile in Japan has actually decreased in recent years. A single shipload of whale meat from Iceland seemingly almost doubled the size of the stockpile. Compared with other types of seafood in frozen storage, there was less whale on hand than virtually every other product in the data. (This is intuitively obvious, considering that there is a commercial fishing "moratorium" for whales alone, resulting in limited supply).

tinawatanabe: "It is not common knowledge."

Yes, it is. Not our fault you're out of the loop.

"I believe almost all seafood are stockpiled in refrigeration even raw fish for sushi. It is a Japan's high tech to keep freshness.."

News flash -- frozen is not fresh. The current stockpile of whale that is FROZEN is actually ROTTING because they simply cannot sell it. Hence they have to force-feed it to children in school lunches. Oh, and in case it's "not common knowledge" to you, frozen food still rots... just more slowly.

fxgai: "Also, tinawatanabe is correct regards to the stockpile. Some of us looked at this some weeks back and found that the whale stockpile in Japan has actually decreased in recent years."

Wow... so, a surplus went down in size and you call that high demand? That's not a lot different than saying all of Panasonics stockpile of 3-D televisions are in "high demand" because they sell a few units of what never sold when they mass produced them. There is no need for the whale they are currently and whaling under the guise of science as long as there remains a stockpile to rot in the freezers. The import of meat from Iceland was not because it was needed, but was a childish knee-jerk reaction to the UN not allowing Japan what it childishly demanded.

Smith, do you have something to indicate that the few thousand tones of whale in storage is rotting, including the fresh shipload of a thousand times from Iceland, is, actually rotting, any more than the other millions of tones of frozen marine foodstuffs held in Japan? Frankly, it sounds like a bit of rhetorical propaganda that opposition groups might claim, but is it actually real? Smells very fishy to me.

Also, I didn't claim 'high demand', nor did tinawatanabe. Those words are yours, so any argument you make about that is a straw man.

Facts are Iceland whalers just exported nearly to Japan, and theirs is unequivocally a commercial operation. It's their business, but common sense suggests that commercial operators would only export a product when there is some level (non zero) of demand in a foreign market. it is not correct to anyone assume that this wouldn't be the case where whale is concerned. To do so just indicates a strong prejudice about the notion of people eating this type of meat. Not rational.

tinawatanabeDEC. 07, 2016 - 10:52AM JST

It is not common knowledge. Okay, so why is it if you search 'Japanese demand for whale meat' all the articles state demand is low and falling!? http://tinyurl.com/h67gwur

I believe almost all seafood are stockpiled in refrigeration even raw fish for sushi. It is a Japan's high-tech to keep freshness

Firstly, I so not think refrigeration is a Japanese invention and it is certainly not 'high-tech' since it's been around for more than 100m years. Secondly, you don't seem to understand the meaning of 'stockpile' - (a gradually accumulated reserve of something). That means there is more meat in storage than is necessary for current consumption levels.

why is it if you search 'Japanese demand for whale meat' all the articles state demand is low and falling!?

Important to recognise that articles asserting something to be true is distinct from it actually being true.

The actual market is the only source of information on this topic approaching anything remotely close to accuracy. And facts from the actual market include the information that Iceland's commercial whalers actually export their product to Japan, most recently in summer. The implication of that is that the Iceland whalers see some level of demand for whale meat in Japan. How much more they could supply and still find a viable market is guess work by everyone, including them - business is always risky because of uncertain information.

In the first place, there is no need for anyone to even concern themselves with "how much demand there is" and whether "it is decreasing" or not. Who really cares, except the actual producers and consumers?

The resolution to this matter is simple - the IWC ought make an exception for minke whales to this outdated "moratorium" , set a minke whale catch limit, and then everyone can forget about it and let the producers and consumers go about their business.

Market forces would determine how much of such an IWC catch limit actually gets caught - and if it's the case that demand is low (as some have a bent to assert), then the catch would be below the catch limit. If demand were high relative to the catch limit, the catch limit would be caught in full. Either way, so long as the catch limit is abided by it would be sustainable and conservation based - and that's the only concern, I should think.

Secondly, you don't seem to understand the meaning of 'stockpile' - (a gradually accumulated reserve of something). That means there is more meat in storage than is necessary for current consumption levels.

No, a stockpile of any product is certainly required in order to be able to supply consumers. Without a stockpile, it would imply that a product would need to be produced instantaneously any instant that a consumer demands it. If you want to supply whale meat, or tuna, you clearly can't make these products appear out of thin air. So you must have a stockpile of the product. (The supply chain constraints are presumably more acute with whales, since there are limited suppliers as compared with tuna, what with the useless 30-year "moratorium" having an obvious negative impact on potential supply chains, where as with tuna you've got everyone including those nations with policy against whaling eager to sell tuna to Japan).

Short story: Markets rule. Let's do it that way.

@fxgai

No, a stockpile of any product is certainly required in order to be able to supply consumers. Without a stockpile, it would imply that a product would need to be produced instantaneously any instant that a consumer demands it. If you want to supply whale meat, or tuna, you clearly can't make these products appear out of thin air. So you must have a stockpile of the product. (The supply chain constraints are presumably more acute with whales, since there are limited suppliers as compared with tuna, what with the useless 30-year "moratorium" having an obvious negative impact on potential supply chains, where as with tuna you've got everyone including those nations with policy against whaling eager to sell tuna to Japan). Short story: Markets rule. Let's do it that way.

Still think you are writing without actually taking the effort to research what you are saying is true or not - read any news article or academic paper on the topic (including Japanese govt. influence news sources) and they all agree the following:

Demand for whale meat has been on a steady decline for decades Whale meat stores are building up to way above future demand.

Demand for whale meat has been on a steady decline for decades

How can they possibly grasp "demand" though? What "demand" is might be represented as information about how much the "market" (made up of who knows how many consumers) is willing to pay for a given amount of product. But this information is published nowhere.

Furthermore, "demand" is not static - it can be increased through advertising campaigns or special sales and what have you.

I suspect that the sources claiming "demand" is in decline must be referring to actual consumption levels, based on what supply is actually available in the market. But saying that consumption has declined is just a 'well duh' statement. It is impossible for consumption to have markedly increased, because the supply side is constrained by the "commercial whaling" moratorium. And therefore, so what that consumption has decreased?

Whale meat stores are building up to way above future demand.

On prior whale related news comments, myself and some other commenters have already checked this for factuality, and the data doesn't support the assertion.

Here are some figures from 2010 and 2016. I've picked the oldest and newest figures I can find at the site where this data is available. http://www.market.jafic.or.jp/suisan/file/reizo/2010/09_syuyou_2010_01.htm http://www.market.jafic.or.jp/suisan/file/reizo/2016/09_syuyou_2016_09.htm

The 2010 figure was 4,080 tonnes of frozen whale, and the equivalent recent 2016 figure is 2,538 tonnes. So whale meat stores clearly aren't "building up" - they have actually decreased (no surprise, due to supply constraints).

Again, the solution to this issue is to have the IWC set a safe sustainable and conservative catch limit to be abided by, and then leave market forces to take care of the production decisions. The government can't manage the butter supply in this country, let alone have a clue about what is currently a niche delicacy market like whale.

What "demand" is might be represented as information about how much the "market" (made up of who knows how many consumers) is willing to pay for a given amount of product. But this information is published nowhere.

In 2012 the ICR tried to sell off its stocks of whale meat by auction. 75% remained unsold: The ICR found that the bids submitted by wholesalers and food manufacturers were often lower than the lowest price it had set for bids or that no bids were submitted.

The ICR itself also admits that the demand for whale meat is poor; the aim of the auction was to increase consumption of whale meat and generate more sales to pay for the hunts, which is a round-about way of thinking whichever way you look at it: They demand the right to kill whales to fill the demand for whale meat, and at the same time they need to increase the demand for whale meat to fund the killing of whales.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/06/14/national/75-of-whale-meat-unsold-at-auction/#.WEjo8WXAVwg

Even if a story from 2012 about the report released by the freelance journalist released by some "action network" is true, it doesn't even state the price level, and even if it did that, it still doesn't tell the full picture (how much sold by alternative methods and Icelanders), and even if it did that, demand is not static anyway, as noted in my prior comment.

Snippets of incomplete information don't provide a basis for the assertions made, and the inferences drawn don't reconcile with agreed facts such as Iceland's commercial operators exporting thousands of tonnes of meat to Japan on an ongoing basis.

No one knows the full reality, and reality itself can change in response to various factors. full stop!

Let's have IWC set a sustainable quota, and leave it to the market to figure it out how much to produce, and then we can have our taxes spent on the kids and worthwhile causes like stopping deforestation!

Even if a story from 2012 about the report released by the freelance journalist released by some "action network" is true

It's the Japan Times, Kyodo. There are direct quotes from the ICR.

it doesn't even state the price level

It states that bidders were not prepared to offer the lowest price the ICR were ready to accept.

it still doesn't tell the full picture (how much sold by alternative methods

The ICR are quoted as saying sales are lower than they want.

No one knows the full reality...

...but even so you're willing to leave everything up to market forces?

Let's have IWC set a sustainable quota

At the same time let's have abattoir regulations regarding animal slaughter and animal welfare properly and strictly applied to the factory ships; every worker involved in the process to hold a Certificate of Competence, all animals to be treated in such a way as to minimise suffering, all animals to be restrained and stunned prior to killing, all animals to be checked for signs of consciousness and unconsciousness by a qualified animal welfare officer prior to killing, no animal to be lifted while conscious by the head or tail in a way that would cause pain or suffering.

Impossible on the high seas.

Ha ha ha and the saga continues......wonder if Animal Planet is still making money of this show.....

It's the Japan Times, Kyodo.

Not sure if they are regarded by all as reputable sources of information, but they aren't my bible. The first paragraph of their article ending in "..., an activist group says" tells me where the assertions are coming from. (On the contrary, could there be a worse source of unbiased information on a given topic than an activist group?)

There are direct quotes from the ICR. The ICR are quoted as saying sales are lower than they want.

As edited by a report from an activist group, or a journalist who thinks a report from an activist group is newsworthy?

It states that bidders were not prepared to offer the lowest price the ICR were ready to accept.

So yes, the report doesn't include the actual price level. I read a fair bit of market news and am acquainted with getting to read prices, rather than just taking the reporters word about what is going on!

..but even so you're willing to leave everything up to market forces?

Not "everything" - the IWC is supposed to determine the safe catch limit - the maximum number of whales that producers be permitted to catch, should they wish to. But it has been setting an obviously ridiculous upper limit of "zero" for the last 30 years. (Come on, this is crazy.)

What is left to market forces is the determination by producers about how much to produce, and it's their business. Note carefully that the lack of information about demand at different price levels is precisely why this should be left to market forces, as this method invariably produces better results than alternatives such as central planning.