OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

@msolga,

I doubt very much that established international maritime law will support the anti whaling folks in this instance. In general the more maneuverable vessel bears more responsibility in a collision, and a vessel engaged in fishing with lines over the side has right of way over other vesselsd in several circumstances. Finally, known harassing behavior on the part of any vessel almost always yields a finding against them.

I suspect the government of Australia is well aware of these facts and knows the case is almost certainly futile. The Japanese have a legal right to harvest the whales in that location. You and others may not agree with that right, however, that does not constitute enforcible law.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I doubt very much that established international maritime law will support the anti whaling folks in this instance

Thus, a number of us have invoked Thoreau's concept of civil disobedience.
Im sure that Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandella spent time in prisons in-part to ensure that the "prevailing law" was changed

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I suspect the government of Australia is well aware of these facts and knows the case is almost certainly futile.

The Australian government is being accused of inaction because it promised to gather information to launch a legal challenge to Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean. And it appears to be doing very little.

Quote:

The Japanese have a legal right to harvest the whales in that location.

We'll have to see, won't we? If this legal challenge ever happens.
In the meantime, you'll have to decide for yourself, George, about whether you believe it's morally right or wrong to "harvest" whales in a whale sanctuary.

2 Replies

@msolga,

I'm a relativist here. Many things can be described as "immoral". However some immoral acts are worse than others. I sometimes drive too fast, and some could interpret that as needlessly hazarding the lives of pedestrians and therefore immoral. However, I manage to forgive myself.

I'm not familiar with the "sanctuary" status of the area in question. Did the Japanese agree to it? If I am not mistaken, the Japanese government steadfastly claims it is indeed abiding by all the agreements it has accepted in this instance. Robert Gentel has outlined rather well how the variuous agreements came about.

How would you react if the Japanese became exorcised about all the mineral and natural gas extraction going on in northwest Australia - most to be exported to a rapidly growing (and polluting) industrial establishment in China ? (The Japanese buy their share too.)

In these issues, ultimately moral views are very often dependent on whose ox is being gored.

I respect your views and your right to hold them dearly. However, that doesn't give you the right to impose them on others who don't agree.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I'm not familiar with the "sanctuary" status of the area in question.

Here you go, George. This is the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

http://www.asoc.org/AntarcticAdvocacy/CampaignstoProtectAntarctica/StrengtheningtheWhaleSanctuary/tabid/91/Default.aspx

(I have to go out for about 15 minutes. Back soon.)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I doubt very much that established international maritime law will support the anti whaling folks in this instance
Thus, a number of us have invoked Thoreau's concept of civil disobedience.
Im sure that Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandella spent time in prisons in-part to ensure that the "prevailing law" was changed

I like you farmerman (and msolga too !) and share generally compatible views with yours on many issues. But on this one I do not agree - particularly with the Thoreau bit. If ever there was a worse narcissistic, useless, overbearing bore than the esteeemed Henry David, I don't know who it was.

Fijnally, I believe endangering vessels at sea in extremely cold waters is a bit more than the civil disobedience practiced by MLK or Ghandi. (BTW Mandella used different methods).

0 Replies

@msolga,

I don't know whether you're still here, George, or whether you've taken the time to read the information on the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary ... but that should give you a good idea of what our concerns are.

I mean, apart from anything else, Japan does not exactly have a great record of responsible fishing/"harvesting" the seas. (to put it politely.)

Having destroyed its own local supply of whales & other fish, by over-fishing & pollution of the sea , it has moved onto to other places.:

Quote:

Since the mid 1980s, Japan has defied every country that has tried to stop it illegally fishing southern blue fin tuna.

According to Australia's Fisheries Minister Eric Abetz, Japan has now owned up to taking well over 100,000 tonnes above its quota of one of the world's most expensive fish.

"It is substantial, it was a very very large sum of money," he said.

"Whether it's one billion, four billion or six billion it is, in anybody's language, an horrendous overcatch."

The International Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna has now ordered Japan pay the price for its years of over fishing.

Bluefin Tuna plundering catches up with Japan:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1765413.htm

Then, in defiance of the 1986 ban on whaling by the IWC (of which Japan is a member) it proceeds to "harvest" whales, as you say, in a designated whale sanctuary.

Then (as if that's not enough) , within Japan, two Japanese GreenPeace activists were jailed for "theft" a couple of years ago, when they exposed fraud in the (heavily government subsidized) whale meat industry.:

Quote:

According to Greenpeace, whalers aboard the ship have long had the right to choice cuts from the government- subsidized whaling catch, which they sell on the black market, bypassing virtually all controls. "According to our informants, some men were taking up to 20 or 30 boxes of the high-value 'uneso' whale meat, with each box worth up to $3,000," says the group's international spokesman, Dave Walsh. "That means they were skimming huge sums of money from a taxpayer-funded program. It's a scandal that needs to be investigated."

'Tokyo Two' fight to clear names:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20081209zg.html

So, in a nutshell, when outraged folk rail & carry on about Sea Shepherd's "piracy on the high seas", are upset about them being "lawless" & so on & so on .... I wonder if those same people have looked at the record of the Japanese whaling industry in any depth? To me, anyway, Sea Shepherd's "crimes" are miniscule by comparison.

2 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

I don't know whether you're still here, George, or whether you've taken the time to read the information on the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary ... but that should give you a good idea of what our concerns are.

I mean, apart from anything else, Japan does not exactly have a great record of responsible fishing/"harvesting" the seas. (to put it politely.)

Having destroyed its own local supply of whales & other fish, by over-fishing & pollution of the sea , it has moved onto to other places.:

Quote:
Since the mid 1980s, Japan has defied every country that has tried to stop it illegally fishing southern blue fin tuna.

According to Australia's Fisheries Minister Eric Abetz, Japan has now owned up to taking well over 100,000 tonnes above its quota of one of the world's most expensive fish.

"It is substantial, it was a very very large sum of money," he said.

"Whether it's one billion, four billion or six billion it is, in anybody's language, an horrendous overcatch."

The International Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna has now ordered Japan pay the price for its years of over fishing.

Bluefin Tuna plundering catches up with Japan:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1765413.htm

Then, in defiance of the 1986 ban on whaling by the IWC (of which Japan is a member) it proceeds to "harvest" whales, as you say, in a designated whale sanctuary.

I did read the link you gave me and it generally follows the description Robert Gentel gave earlier concerning the agreements establishing the sanctuary and the exceptions granted to Japan for what was euphamistically called "research" by the framers of the conventions. Moreover, it implicitly acknowledges that Japan has complied with the terms of the whale sanctuary convention (if not the separate convention on southern blue fin tuna). Instead it takes issue with Japan's supposed cultural rights because there are some subsidies involved in the Japanese fishing industry. However, that is not a part of the convention which did indeed give Japan the right to harvest whales there up to certain limits under the euphamism of research (in an agreement that was signed under the threat of economic reprisals against Japan.)

msolga wrote:

Then (as if that's not enough) , within Japan, two Japanese GreenPeace activists were jailed for "theft" a couple of years ago, when they exposed fraud in the (heavily government subsidized) whale meat industry.:

Quote:
According to Greenpeace, whalers aboard the ship have long had the right to choice cuts from the government- subsidized whaling catch, which they sell on the black market, bypassing virtually all controls. "According to our informants, some men were taking up to 20 or 30 boxes of the high-value 'uneso' whale meat, with each box worth up to $3,000," says the group's international spokesman, Dave Walsh. "That means they were skimming huge sums of money from a taxpayer-funded program. It's a scandal that needs to be investigated."

That kind of petty graft is common everywhere in the world: even in Australia. I encountered it over a decade ago when a business I was then running was doing engineering work in support of the then new LNG facilities in NW Australia. Greenpeace is uniquely able to rationalize its own crimes while denigrating those of others. I'm no fan of theirs.

msolga wrote:

So, in a nutshell, when outraged folk rail & carry on about Sea Shepherd's "piracy on the high seas", are upset about them being "lawless" & so on & so on .... I wonder if those same people have looked at the record of the Japanese whaling industry in any depth? To me, anyway, Sea Shepherd's "crimes" are miniscule by comparison.

I believe this is the essence of the issue. it depends on whose ox is being gored.

[/quote]

1 Reply

@msolga,

Well, damn.

Humans suck.

It's not like it's rocket science to know if you keep over-fishing, there won't be any fish left.

We're a crazy species.

2 Replies

@dlowan,

Quote:

We're a crazy species.

Not all of us! Wink

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I did read the link you gave me and it generally follows the description Robert Gentel gave earlier concerning the agreements establishing the sanctuary and the exceptions granted to Japan for what was euphamistically called "research" by the framers of the conventions. Moreover, it implicitly acknowledges that Japan has complied with the terms of the whale sanctuary convention (if not the separate convention on southern blue fin tuna). Instead it takes issue with Japan's supposed cultural rights because there are some subsidies involved in the Japanese fishing industry. However, that is not a part of the convention which did indeed give Japan the right to harvest whales there up to certain limits under the euphamism of research (in an agreement that was signed under the threat of economic reprisals against Japan.)

The "issue" is that Japanese "scientific research" is in fact commercial whaling. Everybody knows that & the even Japanese appear to pushing this line less often, these days. Anyway, regardless of the technicalities, this is happening in a whale sanctuary where commercial fishing is banned.

2 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Anyway, regardless of the technicalities, this is happening in a whale sanctuary where commercial fishing is banned.

True enough. However this voluntary convention, signed by soverign nations does indeed explicitly permit the harvesting of whales in the "sanctuary" nominally for research purposes, by Japan. And that is what the Japanese are doing.

The world is still an assemblage of sovereign nations. International law is simply what they willingly agree to: nothing more. For example Japan could withdraw from the Whaling Convention entirely and harvest as many whales as it wants. It would, of course be subject to the sanctions that the US. Australia and other signatories threatened. If we were very seriously exorcised over the matter, I guess we could go to war with them. However, I think you'd agree that wouldn't be warranted. Even with respect to sanctions, the signatory nations would have to consider their own economic interests in the matter.

Some folks wish for the establishment of a real international government and others inagine that the UN actually is one. In point of fact it is not: it is instead the creature of the sovereign nations that created it, and nations can withdraw anytime they choose. I certainly would not wish to see that - or any like - body have any real control over the affairs of my country.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

True enough. However this voluntary convention, signed by soverign nations does indeed explicitly permit the harvesting of whales in the "sanctuary" nominally for research purposes, by Japan. And that is what the Japanese are doing

That is clearly not the spirit of the resolution, George.

Would it be asking too much for the Japanese to honor that?

Anyone can disagree with anything, when any potential loopholes exist. That does not make their decision necessarily right.

The Japanese have have lost a lot of respect & much credibility with many people in my country because of their stubborn bloody mindedness over this issue. They constantly claim that others are "culturally insensitive" towards them. The decision to conduct commercial whaling in a sanctuary is, in my opinion, is the height of insensitivity.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

It's not like it's rocket science to know if you keep over-fishing, there won't be any fish left.

We're a crazy species.

It can be frustrating, but due to the tragedy of commons dilemma each person is acting logically and for them to act with enlightened self-interest alone doesn't actually help them or the common good.

If any one person starts underfishing while the rest do not reduce their total catch, it won't help anyone and will only hurt that one individual. This is because in such a situation the individuals derive all the benefit from the overfishing while the collective shares the detriment. So for any one individual to act to the benefit of the greater good it means that not only will this individual not be acting to his own interests, but he won't be doing anything to forward the greater good either because someone else can pick up his slack.

This is a perverse incentive that needs synchronized action to solve and this is one reason why I get frustrated with the hi-jacking of the whale conservation cause and the IWC. To solve a tragedy of the commons you need synchronized action and cooperation. We got that going for the cause of whale conservation and then the organization gets hijacked causing a split that endangers the cooperation towards the common goal.

One example of how that hurts this is that instead of stipulating its own more conservative quotas the Western cabal of the IWC prefers this stalemate where they just put off resumption of commercial whaling through whatever means possible. Given that the cooperative is no longer really cooperating Japan is using every loophole and declaring their own quotas. They are also considering withdrawing from the IWC altogether (which would completely remove any legal claims against them) and moving to NAMMCO. I think this would be bad for the common good, by fracturing the regulation of such activities and further reducing the authority of any regulatory agency.

I'd like to see strong cooperation on the conservation front, and for that I really think the sacred whale angle (which I liken to the vegetarian-level arguments hitchhiking on the conservation arguments) needs to be divorced from conservation and prosecuted separately. Cooperation is currently viable on the conservation cause.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

That is clearly not the spirit of the resolution, George.

That better describes your position. The original convention is explicitly clear that it's goals are to preserve whaling, not to end it. Japan is acting with the spirit of the original convention that created the IWC.

Quote:

Would it be asking too much for the Japanese to honor that?

Would it be too much to ask for the sacred whale group to realize that this organization's founding convention explicitly contravenes what they are trying to do? Would it be too much for them to actually see if their claims of legality hold any water at all? There's a reason your leaders only promise future legal action, and it's because there is no basis upon which to take such legal action.

Quote:

Anyone can disagree with anything, when any potential loopholes exist. That does not make their decision necessarily right.

That describes the sanctuary to a T. The transparent purpose of the sanctuary is to prevent commercial whaling of a non-endangered species for which no scientific evidence exists to the effect that they need protection from whaling.

The convention specifically stipulates how such sanctuaries should be created in Article V of the convention which states that any such sanctuaries should be "based on scientific findings" to the effect that conservation of the population is needed and that it should "take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry." In reality, what happened was that the IWC scientists quit in protest at the science being ignored for public opinion and its affinity for whales and the IWC won't process an appeal of this sanctuary because this won't stand legal scrutiny.

And this is helping nobody. Hijacking the IWC just means Japan is issuing their own quotas (because the IWC isn't issuing ones based on conservation science). The spirit of the organization was hijacked and there is no longer any real cooperation in the organization. A damn pity too.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I certainly would not wish to see that - or any like - body have any real control over the affairs of my country.

I'm all for it in principle, especially to govern the regulation of public goods like the seas, but wary of it in practice. It's one of those Devil is in the details things where the mandates would have to be very limited and specific.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert, we are going around and around in circles.

I totally disagree with you on the purpose of the Southern Whale Sanctuary. It is meant to be a sanctuary.

Just one question what compromises do you think it would be reasonable for the Japanese government/whalers to make ?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Yeah...over-fishing is one of the few conservation things Oz is kind of trying about, at the cost of a lot of Sturm und Drang, since commercial fishing licences are being revoked, allowed catches reduced...some nurseries declared no-fishing zones etc.

It's difficult not to get angry when Indonesian, Japanese and South American boats come and poach huge amounts of endangered fish in Oz waters. A little bloody historical perspective helps, of course!

In the case of the Indonesians it's subsistence stuff, of course.

The sad thing is, if they destroy the fisheries, unless global warming destroys most of our agriculture, they will suffer more than we will.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Quote:
The Japanese have a legal right to harvest the whales in that location.

We'll have to see, won't we? If this legal challenge ever happens.

Not really. This isn't one of those things where the courts decide who's right. It's one of those cases for which there is currently no court and no law.

That's why Australian leaders only talk about legal action and promise it's coming every few months. Rudd's missed at least one soft deadline (middle of last year) to finally take legal action after letting "diplomacy" run its course. The legal action promises are domestic whale theater and nothing more. Real legal action would start with trying to develop the legal framework to regulate this because if he had a legal case for it's he'd have made it by now (it'd be even better domestic political theater for one).

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

The "issue" is that Japanese "scientific research" is in fact commercial whaling. Everybody knows that & the even Japanese appear to pushing this line less often, these days. Anyway, regardless of the technicalities, this is happening in a whale sanctuary where commercial fishing is banned.

I think the lying is one of the thing that rankles the anti-whaling folk a lot...but I am also thinking that, as I understand it, Japanese culture does not value directness...sees it as rude and immature....so face-saving evasions are maybe seen as polite and acceptable for them?

2 Replies

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know