politics

IWC moves to curtail Japan's 'science' whaling

50 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2016 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

50 Comments
Login to comment

Is it at all possible for Scientific Whaling conducted solely by non-lethal means to ever produce results that would recognize the population revival of specific whale species allowing for the lifting of the Moratorium?

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

Yeah, of course. Just count. 1... 2... 3....

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Is it at all possible for Scientific Whaling conducted solely by non-lethal means to ever produce results that would recognize the population revival of specific whale species allowing for the lifting of the Moratorium?

Well after 30 years of lethal 'scientific research' and some 15,000 dead whales, Japan still hasn't been able to produce the figures they say they need. The lethal 'research' is clearly ineffective.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

cleoOct. 28, 2016 - 07:38AM JST "Is it at all possible for Scientific Whaling conducted solely by non-lethal means to ever produce results that would recognize the population revival of specific whale species allowing for the lifting of the Moratorium?"

Well after 30 years of lethal 'scientific research' and some 15,000 dead whales, Japan still hasn't been able to produce >the figures they say they need. The lethal 'research' is clearly ineffective.

That does not answer my question, Please try again. Thanks.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

Ossan, there may very well be sufficient populations of certain species of whale to support a structured commercial hunt by Japan. However, the thing that is missing from all of Japan's 'research' is proof of subsistence. It is widely known that most of the whale meat collected and bought from Iceland and Norway still sits in freezers around the country due to there being virtually no demand for it. This actually proves that Japan does not need to hunt whales commercially in the southern oceans. The three reasons for whaling are, culture (Japan never hunted whales in the southern ocean before WW2), subsistence (Japan cannot show it needs whale meat to survive) and indigenous rights (Japan definitely does not have indigenous rights in the southern oceans). Then, one could also argue the relevance and importance of Japan's 'research'. The only data they have contributed that can only be assessed by lethal methods is what the whales are eating. However, they do not need to kill hundreds (or thousands) of whales to produce this data. Japan does not have a factual reason to hunt whales, thus making their annual hunt in the southern oceans a complete sham!

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Disillusioned OCT. 28, 2016 - 08:26AM JST Japan does not have a factual reason to hunt whales, thus making their annual hunt in the southern oceans a complete sham!

Japan's whale research programs are perfectly legal. Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) specifically provides for members of the IWC to issue permits for the killing of whales for research purposes.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

Japan's whale research programs are perfectly legal. Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) specifically provides for members of the IWC to issue permits for the killing of whales for research purposes.

I never once mentioned anything about the legalities of Japan's annual whale hunt in the southern oceans. Japan's whale hunting is unnecessary and solely based on greed. It has nothing to do with subsitence, culture or indigenous rights. It is a blatant attempt to exploit a natural resource for profit, even though there is not a sufficient market for the meat to support a commercial enterprise. Therefore, it is a sham! Do you understand now sfjp330?

5 ( +10 / -5 )

DisillusionedOct. 28, 2016 - 08:26AM JST Ossan, there may very well be sufficient populations of certain species of whale to support a structured commercial >hunt by Japan.

Don't forget Norway and Icleland. But thanks for recognizing this possibility.

Japan does not have a factual reason to hunt whales, thus making their annual hunt in the southern oceans a complete >sham!

I'm afraid this and everything else you wrote does not answer the question that I posed. The question s not about Scientific whaling by lethal means, but whether non-lethal only methods could ever result in the recognition of revived populations which could lead to the lifting of the Moratorium for select species.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Got you, Disillusioned. For some it seems that legality itself is a compelling motive for doing something. Which, since it seems so facile, probably means they have some other ulterior reason for cheering on the killing. Please, what is it?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

probably means they have some other ulterior reason for cheering on the killing.

Follow the money, Moonraker. Special interest groups are vital to the one-party state.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It is widely known that most of the whale meat collected and bought from Iceland and Norway still sits in freezers around the country due to there being virtually no demand for it.

That strikes me as a wild exaggeration, and I'm not even sure the assertion is true. Nordic businesses wouldn't be exporting produce here if they weren't making money, or thinking that they'll be able to make money in future, by doing so. That's despite what you claim is "widely known".

I'd guess that the Nordic businessmen know something that you don't, or something that you think you know is actually wrong.

This actually proves that Japan does not need to hunt whales commercially in the southern oceans.

Apple doesn't need to commercially produce iPhones. Commercial activities have the potential to make the world a better place, for you and for me. Sustainable fishing should be permitted, so that people may attempt to improve their lives if they wish.

Japan's whale hunting is unnecessary and solely based on greed.

Inconsistent. If it were unnecessary, then there would be no greed.

It is a blatant attempt to exploit a natural resource for profit

What's wrong with exploiting natural resources? Food that you yourself eat grows by the power of the sun - a natural resource. And unless you are growing your own food, someone is making a profit for the product that they have produced for you.

even though there is not a sufficient market for the meat to support a commercial enterprise.

If that's true, it's up to businesses to try to build a market, and that's their business, just like it's Apple's business to decide how to market their products and create a market.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Fxgai - So, in rebuttal you compare commercial whale hunting to producing iPhones? Seriously?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

MoonrakerOCT. 28, 2016 - 09:13AM JST Got you, Disillusioned. For some it seems that legality itself is a compelling motive for doing something. Which, since it seems so facile, probably means they have some other ulterior reason for cheering on the killing. Please, what is it?

Japan is following agreement of 70 countries that are in IWC. What is your problem?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

We all know that scientific whaling is sham science, and simply commercial whaling by another name,” said the organisation’s Matt Collis

everybody does.

We will abide by the convention itself,” Japan’s commissioner to the IWC, Joji Morishita told AFP after the vote,

If you and the powers that be are half smart, you'll use this as a face-saving excuse to let a expensive, useless, barbaric, and backward practice be shelved once and for all.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

It's good there's a new committee to review scientific whaling. Maybe this time some actually legitimate concerns about Japan's whaling program will be raised

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@fx,

Nordic businesses wouldn't be exporting produce here if they weren't making money, or thinking that they'll be able to make money in future, by doing so.

C'mon mate! We had a lengthy chat this week about Hvalur of Iceland and the fact that they have stopped hunting fin whales for export to Japan.

I'd guess that the Nordic businessmen know something

Aye, and evidently that something is that hunting fin whales for export to Japan is not profitable.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why does the IWC continue to drag its feet about conducting actual research while complaining about Japan's research whaling? Are they afraid of the results?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

And the important question is: Will Japan listen now when it has not for the last many years?

And the answer: NO.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Why does the IWC continue to drag its feet about conducting actual research while complaining about Japan's research whaling?

Are you saying that Japan's research whaling isn't actual research? :-0

Why should the IWC (most of whose members have no particular interest in having the moratorium lifted) go out of its way to do what Japan says it has been doing for the past 30 years?

Either Japan has not been conducting actual research - in which case why should the rest of the IWC put themselves out? - or they have been conducting legitimate research yet after thirty years cannot produce data to back up their claims that whaling is sustainable - in which case why should the IWC take over the flogging of the dead horse?

The people who supposedly have the greatest interest in providing the data have not been able to do so. So why don't they just drop it?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

NessieOCT. 28, 2016 - 02:46PM JST Why does the IWC continue to drag its feet about conducting actual research while complaining about Japan's research whaling?

Because Japan is following the rules of IWC. Read the Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW).

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Just two days earlier, the pro camp defeated a bid to create a whale sanctuary in the South Atlantic, which had required 75 percent of IWC member votes.

While not quite the same thing, at least whales will be protected in the Ross Sea...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37789594

So at least they'll be safe.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Why should the IWC (most of whose members have no particular interest in having the moratorium lifted) go out of its way to do what Japan says it has been doing for the past 30 years?

Maybe because the 'spirit' of the moratorium requires periodic reviews. OK it isn't the 'spirit' it is the plain language that IWC members agreed to. And we 'know' Japan is the only member that doesn't adhere to the agreement they signed.

Either Japan has not been conducting actual research - in which case why should the rest of the IWC put themselves out? - or they have been conducting legitimate research yet after thirty years cannot produce data to back up their claims that whaling is sustainable - in which case why should the IWC take over the flogging of the dead horse?

There is another possibility. Japan has produced data to back up their claims that whaling is sustainable - but most of the rest of the IWC plays deaf, dumb and blind to the data for political and/or emotional reasons.

The people who supposedly have the greatest interest in providing the data have not been able to do so. So why don't they just drop it?

They have provided the data. Meanwhile the people who have the most to lose politically refuse to acknowledge reality. Or at least they do in the IWC. Meanwhile in 1986 the IUCN listed the Humpback as Endangered, but in 1990 they were upgraded to Vulnerable and in 2008 they were further upgraded to Least Concern. Quite the come-back, in 22 years a slow growing species recovered enough to be completely removed from Endangered status. At least at the IUCN, while the IWC refuses to even review the status and say scientifically yes or no to whether a sustainable hunt is possible.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

This article is clearly by the local bureau of AFP ( Agence France-Presse ) the other agencys report of a mayor whale sanctury in the southern seas accomplished by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).

1 ( +1 / -0 )

cleoOCT. 28, 2016 - 03:02PM JST

Why should the IWC (most of whose members have no particular interest in having the moratorium lifted) go out of its way to do what Japan says it has been doing for the past 30 years?

Do I need to remind you of what was agreed 30 years ago in the moratorium?

https://iwc.int/convention

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946 Schedule

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.

It is IWC's responsibility to finish the assessment of whales to set commercial catch quota by 1990 at the latest. Lifting the moratorium is the legal obligation of IWC, not just "interest". What is shameful is international legal obligations are often ignored by Europeans and Americans if the obligations are inconvenient to them.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Mike O'Brien OCT. 28, 2016 - 04:16PM JST Quite the come-back, in 22 years a slow growing species recovered enough to be completely removed from Endangered status.

What was the slow growing species recovered enough?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This article is clearly by the local bureau of AFP ( Agence France-Presse ) the other agencys report of a mayor whale sanctury in the southern seas accomplished by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).

Let's hope it's a success and they can expand it in time.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The only data they have contributed that can only be assessed by lethal methods is what the whales are eating.

The age of a Minke whale is determined by analysis of its ear plugs. This requires lethal means. Even the IWC's Scientific Committee has said some of the data Japan collects can ONLY be obtained by lethal means. The Committee has also said the data Japan provides helps them perform their function.

that conclusively persuade all parties to lifting the Moratorium

Because many parties will not accept any proof. To many IWC members the moratorium is a political and emotion issue not a scientific one. Possibly why they refuse to even hold a single review which would clearly show that their reasons for not lift the moratorium on any species is not based on science.

It's good there's a new committee to review scientific whaling. Maybe this time some actually legitimate concerns about Japan's whaling program will be raised

Yes, more committees that will solve the problem. Of course no matter how many committees exist it won't change Article VIII which clearly says "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted." It is pretty clear that Contracting Governments have unfettered rights to issue the permits and neither the IWC regulations or any IWC Committee has any authority or power to limit that right.

While not quite the same thing, at least whales will be protected in the Ross Sea

No they won't. This Marine Protected Area was established by CCAMLR and they specifically DON'T control issues about whales. Their own charter and regulations clearly state that the IWC's regulations and charter take precedence on issues involving whales.

What was the slow growing species recovered enough?

This sentence makes no sense.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Disillusioned,

Fxgai - So, in rebuttal you compare commercial whale hunting to producing iPhones?

You claimed that commercial whaling is not needed. The comparison with commercial iPhone production illustrates that what you perceive to be needed or not by others should be irrelevant to this issue. (Do you think whales are special?)

The only thing I am concerned with is sustainability. If that is guaranteed, then entrepreneurs ought be left to go about their business. Unless of course, you are happy to live in a world where other people get to tell you what to do when it's none of their business.

Yoshitsune,

We had a lengthy chat this week about Hvalur of Iceland and the fact that they have stopped hunting fin whales for export to Japan.

We did have a chat, and it's odd that you claim that is a fact, because I thought you acknowledged that the latest stockpile numbers appear to reconcile well with recent reports of Iceland exporting 1K tonnes of meat to Japan in July again.

Aye, and evidently that something is that hunting fin whales for export to Japan is not profitable.

If the export just a few months back turns out to be the last one ever, then yes you could claim that. But I think you're jumping the gun in reaching that conclusion today.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@fxgai...

(Do you think whales are special?)

They are... that's the whole point.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

They are... that's the whole point.

Why can a subjective notion like "whales are special" be the whole point? "special" has no meaning. it can not be a whole point.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Fx,

it's odd that you claim that is a fact, because I thought you acknowledged that the latest stockpile numbers appear to reconcile well with recent reports of Iceland exporting 1K tonnes of meat to Japan in July again.

It is a fact. Hvalur did not hunt fin whales this year; as we discussed, the recent export was from Hvalur's frozen stockpile from previous hunts.

If the export just a few months back turns out to be the last one ever, then yes you could claim that

Yes, it will be interesting to see.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

(Do you think whales are special?)

They are... that's the whole point.

I see. I wasn't expecting that answer! In my mind, whales are a type of lifeform, all of which are equally deserving of respect. But I guess if people think differently about that fundamental thing, no wonder there is some disagreement!

Yoshitsune,

It is a fact. Hvalur did not hunt fin whales this year;

OK, that much might be a fact. Whether they have stopped for all eternity, or next year too, we can wait and see!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

marcelitoOct. 28, 2016 - 10:37AM JST "The question s not about Scientific whaling by lethal means, but whether non-lethal only methods could ever result in the recognition of revived populations which could lead to the lifting of the Moratorium for select species." So , after 30 long years of researching " why haven,t these Japanese "scientists " using those lethal means produced >results of their "scientific research " that conclusively persuade all parties to lifting the Moratorium?

Third response to my question which again does not answer it but simply attacks "lethal methods". At least 3 posters attempted to answer, despite addressing the wring issue. Others are content to just down thumb it. Perhaps they don't comprehend my question, The anti-whaling movement among some members in the IWC started in the late 1970s, creating a" Moratorium" against the position of the IWC Scientific Committee and causing some members to walk out, Even Canada left the IWC over this, The anti-whaling action has done nothing but to fight against the charter of the IWC, even blocking any attempt to re-examine and possibly lift the Moratorium 10 years later, as was originally agreed. Rather than using Scientific whaling data to objectively look at whale stocks FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WHALING INDUSTRY, they have simply turned the IWC into an impotent meaningless organization perpetually stalemated. All IWC members should be forced to re-affirm the IWC Charter, with no additions or subtractions, failing which they should be evicted. Such nations can form their own International Anti-Whaling organization,

0 ( +3 / -3 )

OssanAmerica

Is it at all possible for Scientific Whaling conducted solely by non-lethal means to ever produce results that would recognize the population revival of specific whale species allowing for the lifting of the Moratorium?

That's kind of like asking whether it's possible to conduct medical and scientific research on human beings by none lethal means in Unit 731. The answer to both questions is YES, it is possible. If however it's not possible, then maybe don't do these "scientific researches" for the sake of, at least, the ecosystem. By the way, of all these years of these researches, what has come of it? Any theories or hypothesis about these animals at all? Serious question........kind of.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The easiest way to stop the Japanese from performing the so-called research is to go forth with the comprehensive assessment as designated in the moratorium to have happened in 1990.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

ThePBotOct. 28, 2016 - 11:52PM JST "OssanAmerica-Is it at all possible for Scientific Whaling conducted solely by non-lethal means to ever produce results that would recognize the population revival of specific whale species allowing for the lifting of the Moratorium? That's kind of like asking whether it's possible to conduct medical and scientific research on human beings by none lethal >means in Unit 731.

An exceptionally poor comparison but your choice lets your anti-Japan sentiment come out for all to see.

By the way, of all these years of these researches, what has come of it? Any theories or hypothesis about these animals >at all? Serious question........kind of.

My pervious post made it clear, I thought, that the anti-whaling faction in the IWC have subverted every occasion to re-assess the Moratorium. And naturally the position of the Scientific Committee, whose views would be influenced by data from Research Whaling would have a significant impact. Or at least it is suppose to under the IWC charter. The anti-whaling faction have spent the last several decades fighting the Research Whaling itself, denigrated the value of any gathered data and obstructed anything that could possibly re-assess and lift the moratorium. This is a fact, just ask the anti-whalers themselves. To ask if Research Whaling has produced anything of value against this backdrop is rather pointless. But to answer your specific question, it seems obvious that while certain species remain endangered (like the Blue Whales), other species have become abundant (Minke Whales). There exists sufficient data for the IWC to at least examine this with a view to a possible limited lifting of the moratorium. However, the anti-whalers are dead set on never letting that happen.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

other species have become abundant

In 1986 when the moratorium went into effect Humpback and Bowhead whales (for example) were both listed as Endangered by the IUCN. By 2008 both species had been changed to Least Concern. Obviously both species have made significant recoveries.

There exists sufficient data for the IWC to at least examine this with a view to a possible limited lifting of the moratorium. However, the anti-whalers are dead set on never letting that happen.

Despite the anti-whalers having written the moratorium and specifically included language requiring periodic reviews.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

OssanAmerica: "Is it at all possible for Scientific Whaling conducted solely by non-lethal means to ever produce results that would recognize the population revival of specific whale species allowing for the lifting of the Moratorium?"

Only a moron thinks you NEED lethal research to prove there are enough still left alive, also saying that you'll know if there aren't enough left to sustain it because they'll be dead. What do you say then? "Oops! Guess it wasn't sustainable (shrug)".

It's not science, and you know it. The only "science" Japan promotes with whaling is "mayo or soy-sauce" science.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Mike O'Brien OCT. 28, 2016 - 05:18PM JST Because many parties will not accept any proof. To many IWC members the moratorium is a political and emotion issue not a scientific one.

They will accept aid. By targeting poor developing countries and offering substantial sums of development aid in exchange for votes at the IWC, Japan has already secured the support of seven countries. Six East Caribbean states, and most recently Guinea have all been successfully recruited and speak in favour of a resumption of commercial whaling and vote with Japan on all occasions. As a result of this strategy, Japan has already assembled a blocking minority within the IWC. The primary purpose of this operation is to recruit new member states to the IWC that will vote with Japan in favour of commercial whaling.

This was demonstrated when the proposal to create a South Pacific Whale Sanctuary (SPWS) failed to achieve the three quarters majority required at the 2000 meeting of the IWC due to the votes cast against the proposal by East Carribeans. Because of the requirement for a three quarter majority, each extra vote acquired by Japan neutralizes three pro-sanctuary votes. The SPWS proposal has the support of all the range states in the region as well as the Pacific Island Forum and these countries have been effectively denied the right to determine whether whales are protected in their waters or not.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

They will accept aid. By targeting poor developing countries and offering substantial sums of development aid in exchange for votes at the IWC, Japan has already secured the support of seven countries.

And the anti-whaling countries do the same thing. That is how they got the moratorium passed in the first place.

The primary purpose of this operation is to recruit new member states to the IWC that will vote with Japan in favour of commercial whaling.

You mean Japan wants the IWC to return to what its CHARTER says is its purpose? How evil can one country be. Want an organization to do what they where founded for.

Because of the requirement for a three quarter majority, each extra vote acquired by Japan neutralizes three pro-sanctuary votes.

But Japan gains NOTHING by preventing the South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary. Article VIII is exempt from any sanctuaries and Article V allows Japan (or any member) to object to any new resolution and not be bound by that resolution. Hence why Norway and Iceland aren't bound by the moratorium. The only way around either Article would require a unanimous vote, which obviously Japan can stop all on their own.

So why would Japan supposedly spend all this money to prevent a 75% majority vote when they don't need to prevent it? The only way they can gain is if they got their own bloc of 75% votes, which would require well over 100 countries.

denied the right to determine whether whales are protected in their waters or not.

First whales ARE protected. Ever heard of the moratorium? Second countries don't need the IWC to create a sanctuary in their own waters, but they want to create one in international waters.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Japan and other Whaling countries should be resigned from IWC. Tell the IWC and anti-Whaling nation Governments, Japan, Norway, Iceland and other nations are hunting Whales for eat. Eating Whale meat is nothing wrong and not the crime. If the anti-Whaling nations don't want to eat Whale meat and then it's up to them. Japan and other Whaling nations are hunting Whales in international water.

Scientific Whaling program was not invented by Japan and other Whaling nations. It was invented by IWC. Obviously, the hunting Whaling was for meat but nothing else from beginning of IWC invented Scientific Whaling program. It was accepted and known by all IWC members and non-members.

The Whaling countries group must resign from IWC and form own Whaling Nations Council. No one and no country has right to tell others peoples you must not eat Whale meat or you must not eat beef. No country has owned Whales. They are breeding in the sea and ocean for millions of years and humans were eating Whale meat for tens of thousands of years. The Whaling nations are killing all kind of Whales or every single Whale in the Ocean. Left wing anti-Whaling activists must stop lecturing other peoples. They need to look at their face in the mirror and check whether they were better human being than Whaling nations.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The continuing controversy over commercial whaling on the IWC and the use of exemptions allowing whales to be killed show the lack of universal acceptance of such a norm and why it is not yet customary international law. Pro-whaling countries like the whale conservation norm because it supports their goal of resuming whale hunts once sustainable populations are reached. The IWC has not yet adopted it because of the disagreement among the anti-whaling members over which whale norm should prevail. This norm stalemate has neutralized the IWC as a force for wider norm change. It is unlikely to change any time soon given the fact that both sides are buoyed by other national cultural norms and moral beliefs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As stated before, the IWC needs to get each member to reaffirm the IWC charter as it stands. Those who can not or refuse to should be expelled. The lack of this kind of common sense organization is what has created the crippled IWC, an organization created to regulate the Whaling Industry filled with members who believe that no Whaling Industry must exist.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Why should the IWC (most of whose members have no particular interest in having the moratorium lifted) go out of its way to do what Japan says it has been doing for the past 30 years?

Because the IWC charter calls for the group to promote sustainable whaling. Those who say that there are too few whales to hunt and that Japan's research is bunk have the responsibility of proving the former and remedying the latter with research that will satisfy them. In other words, put up or shut up.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Japan has produced data to back up their claims that whaling is sustainable - but most of the rest of the IWC plays deaf, dumb and blind to the data for political and/or emotional reasons.

So where is this data?

no matter how many committees exist it won't change Article VIII

Maybe a committee could look at Article VIII and block the loopholes at last?

whales are a type of lifeform, all of which are equally deserving of respect.

Please explain where the 'respect' is in subjecting an animal to a terrifying chase until it is exhausted, blowing a hole in it that will likely not kill it instantly but leave it to die slowly and painfully for an average of 4 minutes (try counting out 240 seconds with a red-hot nail embedded in your shoulder....) and often much longer? (And the officially-recognised 'time to death' is the time the animal stops moving (paralysed?); there is no way of knowing when the animal is actually dead and no longer suffering). That kind of 'respect' in an abattoir on land would get your license revoked at least.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

cleoOct. 29, 2016 - 08:46AM JST Please explain where the 'respect' is in subjecting an animal to a terrifying chase until it is exhausted, blowing a hole in it >that will likely not kill it instantly but leave it to die slowly and painfully for an average of 4 minutes (try counting out 240 >seconds with a red-hot nail embedded in your shoulder....) and often much longer? (And the officially-recognised 'time to >death' is the time the animal stops moving (paralysed?); there is no way of knowing when the animal is actually dead and >no longer suffering). That kind of 'respect' in an abattoir on land would get your license revoked at least.

LOL. Emotionally charged sensationalist drivel from one who has never killed, dressed, prepared and eaten an animal. Oh its so cruel. Boo Hoo.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Oh its so cruel. Boo Hoo

Thank you for clearing that up, Ossan. So, no respect then.

'Splains a lot.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So where is this data?

In the yearly cruise reports that, as required, Japan gives to the IWC.

Maybe a committee could look at Article VIII and block the loopholes at last?

A change to Article VIII can't be done by committee. It requires a unanimous vote of all members, and somehow I don't think Japan will vote for any such change.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I am tired of the lies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites