OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

@JTT,

Quote:

The IWC is a sham. Science doesn't drive it, 'cuddly' does. Every other creature that inhabits the oceans is done commercially, there's no reason that whales shouldn't be, again, as with any venture, sustainably.

Japan makes more use of more things from the oceans than probably any other nation on Earth. While all these "righteous" nations were using fish stocks for fertilizer or just dumping them back overboard as waste, Japan was using them for food.

Once again, JTT, if you read some of the back pages of this thread you'll see that no one who's been involved in this discussion believes that the IWC is perfect, by any means. However, currently it is the only "official" (though membership is voluntary) body responsible for the regulation of whaling. However, as imperfect as the IWC is, on the basis of voting by member countries, decisions were made to ban whaling & to establish a whale sanctuary in the Southern Ocean, amongst other things. Japan was a member of the IWC when these decisions were made (& was out-voted, obviously) & remains a member today. Since the whaling ban, Japan has continued commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean (including in the whale sanctary) on the basis of an IWC "scientific research "loophole.

No matter what you think about the IWC, you'll have to make a decision for yourself about whether you believe Japan is acting "honorably" as an IWC member. I've made it pretty clear what I think during discussions on this & the previous thread, however you don't have to agree with me, obviously.

Japan does indeed make more use of "things from the ocean" than many other countries do. Many would argue far too much use. Including severely depleting tuna stocks in the Pacific & other oceans. Many conservationists & also countries whose off-shore fish stocks have been affected by over-fishing by the Japanese take constant issue over this. Japan has been fined for over-fishing.

My understanding (& someone please correct me if I'm wrong here) is that it is the waste from fishing which supplies most of the material for fertilizers. I haven't any argument with this.
BTW, Japanese commercial whalers have been accused, a number of times now, of dumping "excess" whale flesh back into the ocean, when their "research" catch has been too large to store.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Sorry, JTT, I'm still confused about what you actually meant. But anyway, let's drop it. It isn't important, afterall.

0 Replies

@msolga,

The IWC operates by extortion and blackmail. That's not how things should be decided, MsOlga.

Japan has continued commercial whaling through what you like to call a loophole because it is the only way that it could continue a harvest that it has a perfectly legitimate right to do.

It could have simply backed out of the IWC. Is that also a dishonorable thing to do?

Japan isn't perfect. Japanese fishing fleets aren't either. But Japan hardly stands alone as the only country that has depleted fish stocks.

3 Replies

@JTT,

OK, in your view the Japanese have every right to continue commercial whaling, whatever. That's your view & you're entitled to believe anything you want, of course. I totally disagree with you, not surprisingly.

Yes, there have been voted-rigging episodes within the IWC (including by the Japanese, I might add.) As I said, earlier, it is hardly a perfect organization. However the Japanese, if they disagree with IWC decisions, can choose to leave the organization, rather than stay within it and flout its decisions. Other countries have chosen to do this.

Indeed, Japan is by no means the only nation which has depleted fish stocks. But it is by far the worst offender.

http://geociti.es/RainForest/4620/overfishing.htm

1 Reply

@JTT,

The IWC operates by extortion and blackmail.
i see no evidenc for that apart from vote buying by the Japanese to enable it to continue the illegal raping of marine life in international and other countries domestic water.

Quote:

It is the only way that it could continue a harvest that it has a perfectly legitimate right to do.

Japan has no right to continue killing whales in the southern ocean sanctuary.

Quote:

But Japan hardly stands alone as the only country that has depleted fish stocks.

WHO POSES THE BIGGEST THREAT TO FISH STOCKS?
Of all the countries, Japan poses the greatest threat to the depletion of fish in the seas. Japan is the world's biggest consumer of fish and is under pressure to play a more active international conservation role and discourage its suppliers from overfishing the high seas. Tsukiji market, in Tokyo, is an extraordinary mortuary for global sea life, of whom are provided for a national appetite for fish that exceeds all others. The Australian bluefin tuna is expected to fetch about $15, 000 each. These enormous prices influence Japanese fisherpeople to sail past the government-set boundaries of Australia's waters and illegally fish there, hoping to catch as much as possible so to make a fortune.

Not only do the Japanese pose a problem for other countries' fish stocks, but also threaten the world's fish stocks as a whole. Each day, tens of thousands of tonnes of marine life, prised from rocks and scooped from oceans by factory ships working 24 hours a day, are auctioned in the early hours. There is a vast range, including trays of tiny translucent squid, crates of oysters, clams and molluscs. Also apparent are tanks full of salmon, snapper and octupus. Varieties of bonito, tuna and marlin are high in demand and most will end up on serving plates as fastidiously prepared sushi or sashami. Japan's taste for seafood is astonishing and only appears limited by price and availability. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates Japan devours 30 per cent of the world's fresh fish, close on 80 kilograms a year for each man, woman and child. Australians manage just 18 kilos.

Southern blue fin tuna

Quote:

The United Nations International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg granted an injunction sought by Australia and New Zealand, barring Japan from raising its annual 6,065-tonne quota.

The injunction restricting Japan to quota catch limits agreed between the three countries,

The fact that you make these fantasy assertions of yours does not make them correct. These statements of yours are real "in your dreams stuff."

2 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Japan admitted several years ago it had illegally taken more than 120,000 tonnes of southern bluefin tuna, but the actual figure is believed to be much higher.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/27/2724880.htm

0 Replies

@dadpad,

Quote:

Japan has no right to continue killing whales in the southern ocean sanctuary.

Quote:

Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary

History

The Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was established by the IWC in 1994 with 23 countries supporting the agreement and Japan opposing it.[1]
The status of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary is reviewed and open to change by the IWC every 10 years.[2] During the 2004 meeting a proposal was made by Japan to remove the sanctuary, but it failed to reach the 75% majority required (it received 25 votes in favour and 30 votes against with two abstentions).

As sanctuaries only apply to commercial whaling, Japan has continued to hunt whales inside the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary because its whaling is done in accordance with a provision in the IWC charter permitting whaling for the purposes of scientific research.

Japan also lodged a formal objection to the sanctuary with regard to minke whales, meaning that under IWC rules, the terms of the sanctuary do not apply to Japan with respect to minkes.[3]

The catch of the 2005 season (Dec 05-Mar 06) inside the sanctuary included 856 minke whales and ten of the endangered Fin whale. In 2007 - 2008 Japan planned to take 935 minke whales and 50 fin whales.

[edit]Dispute over legality of sanctuary

Japan has argued that the establishment of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was in contravention of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) on which the IWC is based and is therefore illegal.
This view received strong support from Professor W. T. Burke of the University of Washington in his paper circulated as IWC Document Number IWC/48/33. He refers to Article V(2)(b) of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) which requires that there be a scientific necessity for the amendment to the Schedule required for the creation of such a sanctuary.[4] The lack of supporting evidence for such a necessity is problematic as the ICRW stipulates that amendments to the Schedule shall be based on scientific findings and that amendments shall only be made when "necessary to carry out the objectives and purposes of the Convention" and that "the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whale industry" shall be considered.[5]

Furthermore, Dr. Douglas Butterworth has suggested that the sanctuary in "the Southern Ocean [is] a transparent attempt to prevent the resumption of whaling on the 750,000 strong Antarctic Minke population for reasons which have nothing to do with science."[6]

As there is no settlement procedure in the IWC for this type of dispute, Japan has asked the IWC to submit its case to a relevant legal body for analysis. The IWC has refused to do so.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Ocean_Whale_Sanctuary

3 Replies

@JTT,

JTT and I almost never agree on anything. However on this issue we are apparently in agreement. The fact is the Japanese harvesting of whales in the southern "sanctuary" to which Msolga and others here and in Australia so strenuously object is being done in accordance with a voluntary convention to which both Japan and Australia are signatories. The overinflated rhetoric about the "illegality" of the Japanese whaling operations there is the product of a remarkable degree of sustained self-delusion. There is nothing "illegal" about it at all: though the activities of the self-appointed "enforcers" who endanger themselves and the Japanese at sea are clear violations of time honored international law.

Surely PM Rudd of Australia understands these points quite well, and equally surely the Japanese government has reminded him of the point. All the threats of international court action which appear to excite the activists here so much is nothing but a cynical ploy to mollify them on the part of a government that knowingly signed the agreement permitting the very whaling to which it now pretends to object.

This is not serious: it is political theater.

1 Reply

@JTT,

No one actually believes the Japanese are killing whales for "scientific research" purposes in southern Ocean whale Sanctuary. That argument is a joke & everyone knows it. Even the Japanese rarely use that argument anymore for what is blatantly commercial whaling. After years of these so-called "research" killing by factory ships, we're all waiting breathlessly for the "findings" to be published.The meat finds its way to Japanese markets.

Once again (sigh) the Japanese want the respectability of belonging to an organization, while flouting its decisions.

Apart from anything else, do you have some personal or political objection to the existence of a properly sanctioned whale sanctuary? However it came about. (Let's forget about technicalities & loopholes which the Japanese might use to justify commercial whaling there, for a minute.) Where do you stand on this?

1 Reply

@msolga,

No particular interest on my part at all. However the hypocrisy of the Australian government which now pretends to object to an agreement which it has already knowingly accepted and signed is quite obvious to me and others (including the Japanese). I am most mistified that it does not seem obvious to you.

It appears that PM Rudd has hoodwinked you.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Could you expand on that, please, George?

To be honest, I'm not sure of the point you're making.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Sorry, George this is going to have to be a very fast reply. I need to go out very soon. More later on, perhaps. I'm hoping others can contribute, too.

It certainly has been interesting to see you & JTT in such solid agreement, I agree on that.

As I see it: At core here is the validity of the existence of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. It was established by the IWC on the basis of the decisions of that organization. Japan was/still is a member of that organization.
The "over-inflated rhetoric", as you put it, is simply as a result of the expectation that this sanctuary be treated as a sanctuary. And outrage is driven by the fact that commercial whaling is occurring there, under the pretext of "scientific research".

Yes (going over ground covered over & over) I know that the IWC is a voluntary organization. And yes, technically, Japan does not have to adhere to the decisions of an organization it chooses to belong to. But then, as I've said in an earlier post, the UN is a voluntary organization, too. Member countries may choose not to go along with UN decisions when it doesn't suit them & go along with them when they do. But where does that get us all if countries choose to behave in such a way? To me (personally) it is more much more about ethical behaviour than anything else. How binding recent Australian legal decisions actually are in an international legal setting, well there's disputation about that, too.

Quote:

Surely PM Rudd of Australia understands these points quite well, and equally surely the Japanese government has reminded him of the point. All the threats of international court action which appear to excite the activists here so much is nothing but a cynical ploy to mollify them on the part of a government that knowingly signed the agreement permitting the very whaling to which it now pretends to object.

Well, as I said to you yesterday (have you actually read what I wrote?) , in quite a lengthy post, it is hardly "just activists" who are wanting our government to pursue this international legal challenge. There is wide-spread support & sympathy within the broad Australian community for the protection of the whale sanctuary. For what that's worth.

Whether such a legal challenge has any "legs to stand on" is a subject of debate, as I've said before. But personally, if all else fails, I would like it to proceed (for reasons I explained to you before).

Could you please point out exactly where in the agreement the Australian government agreed to whaling?

Anyway, sorry. I must stop. I'm running late now. Back later if I don't get home too late/

.

0 Replies

Latest update. Late Sunday night.:

Quote:

Whaling dispute could land in court: Smith
Updated 1 hour 44 minutes ago/ABC new inline

Both Foreign Ministers say the whaling issue will not damage relations between the two countries. (AAP: Andrea Hayward)

Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith says Australia could approach the International Whaling Commission (IWC) over Japan's whaling in the Southern Ocean as soon as tomorrow.
Speaking during the visit of Japan's foreign minister Katsuya Okada to Perth, Mr Smith reiterated Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's commitment to take Japan to the International Court of Justice if it does not agree to cease whaling in the Southern Ocean by November.

He says his talks with the Japanese minister were full and frank.

"As I made clear to foreign minister Okada in the course of our conversations, Australia believes time is running out," he said.

"The discussions before the International Whaling Commission's small working groups have intensified."

Mr Smith says the Government will ask for whaling to be halted in the Southern Ocean over a "reasonable period of time".

He says Australia will put forward a proposal by as early as tomorrow to the International Whaling Commission to phase-out hunting in the Southern Ocean.

"That is a position that we will put to the International Whaling Commission in the very near future, potentially as early as tomorrow," he said.

Mr Smith and his Japanese counterpart say they do not believe the whaling issue is enough to damage relations between the two countries, and maintain they are united in their strong condemnation of violence between whalers and protesters in the Southern Ocean.

But Mr Okada says the current situation is very unfortunate and has vowed his country will fight legal action.

"Should court action become a reality, then Japan will seek to represent its case to the IWC in supporting the fact that its activities are legal and within the convention," he said.

"The point I would make is I think it's very unfortunate the Australian side has indicated its intention to take action in an international court."

He says Japan will continue to push for a diplomatic solution.

"We also agreed on the point that the whaling issue should not jeopardise the Australia-Japan relationship which overall is an extremely good one....<cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/21/2825834.htm

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Another update. This time a GreenPeace video about the Tokyo Two, whose court case began on the 15th of February in Japan:

1 Reply

@msolga,

Thanks...I'll have a look tomorrow.

Edit:

I was interested to have a look at what anti-whaling feeling there is in Japan:

Greenpeace Japan:

http://www.greenpeace.or.jp/index_en_html

0 Replies

It appears that JTT , yesterday, was merely rehashing several points that were discussed previously in greater detail, and included the concept of the Japanese circular reasoning that
1They (the Jappanese)can be a good standing member of an international association, can vote against a majority proposal (which is upheld in spite of Japans vote and the vote of seberal "newbie" members whod been put on the organization just to pump up a Japanese vote count), and then go and violate the majority decision while still remaining a good member in standing> ( we call that "treaty violation" in most civilized countries)

2 Justification for "scientific whaling research" has been exclusively about improving hunting and developing "recipes" for whalemeat. NO IMPORTANT RESEARCH FINDINGS HAVE BEEN FORWARDED BY THE JAPANESE "RESEARCHERS".

3Even though the 1994 Southern Sanctuary proposal had been re-reviewed and carried by a majority in 2004, (at a vote that was called for by the Japanese who had been active at getting countries like Liberia and Niger on the IWC just so they could vote for the Japanese side). The attempt at stacking the board failed for the Japanese so the "Illegal Whale Sanctuary" continued by majority vote. (Is JTT aware that this is exactly how several other "sanctuaries" , such as ANTARCTICA, had been established?)

4 The IWC has called that there be a better way of scientfically determining the population size and sustainability of the actual target population . They called for the cessation of targeting Minkes and other finbcks until the population carrying capacity was determined by means other than "Kill to Count" .

5The minimal DNA evidence that was supplied by the Japanese(until they mysteriously quit doing it) suggested that a "genetic bottleneck" of SOuthern Minkes was happening. Loss of genetic diversity and favoring of only limited diversity indicates that the "outliers" or those whales which actually freely exchange genetic material among other worldwide populations of the same species, are the ones being killed off. Bottlenecks often preceed population crashes because a single environmental event, unfavorable to the bottlenecked community, can have serious results in the entire population.

George and JTT are seemingly wanting to apppear like free market supporters. Yet there are often some things, like species diversity and lack of reasonable scientific bases to support a market action, that must be addressed before we just allow the free market to strip the resource.

Look whats happened to sword fish , red snapper,and Atlantic Cod and Chilean "Sea Bass" The numbers of the cod alone were considered "uncountable" and until the two years before the population crashed, fishing was going on unfettered.

1 Reply

@dadpad,

Eighty kilos a year ? ! ? ! ?

Jesus wept, that's a half a pound a day. I think i'd get tired of fish rather quickly on a regime like that.

Really, that's just obscene.

2 Replies

Aren't whale and shark meat said to have high levels of mercury? I wonder what impact eating 1/2 lb. a day would have on one's health.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

1They (the Jappanese)can be a good standing member of an international association, can vote against a majority proposal (which is upheld in spite of Japans vote and the vote of seberal "newbie" members whod been put on the organization just to pump up a Japanese vote count), and then go and violate the majority decision while still remaining a good member in standing> ( we call that "treaty violation" in most civilized countries)

How do you feel about the US government's decision to pull out of the ICCJ to avoid prosecution for war crimes, FM? There is no treaty regarding whaling. There have been longstanding treaties and much law developed, indeed a great deal of it by the US on what constitutes war crimes but what's good and right and fair for the goose seemingly has nothing to do with the gander.

The IWC are a bunch of born again hypocrites who have been and still are involved in raping their own and others seas.

It's quite easy to count whales, as compared to say cod, sea bass, ... .

I don't put a great deal of faith in the free market but I put less in the machinations of governments on this global scale.

Quote:

Since the late 1970s, however, the IWC has become dominated by governments who appear to be largely opposed to the practice of commercial whaling. The result of this is most evident in the IWC's adoption of a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986, which has as yet not been lifted, and in the 1994 creation of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

Japan, Norway, Peru, and the Soviet Union (later replaced by Russia) lodged formal objections, since the moratorium was not based on advice from the Scientific Committee. Japan and Peru later withdrew their objections (Japan's withdrawal was precipitated by the US threatening to reduce their fishing quota within US waters if the objection was not withdrawn).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Setanata: Eighty kilos a year ? ! ? ! ?

Jesus wept, that's a half a pound a day. I think i'd get tired of fish rather quickly on a regime like that.

Really, that's just obscene.

I can see that your fat ass hasn't gotten tired of whatever it is that you feel is "right" to shovel down your cavernous craw.

Is it obscene that the people of the Maldives consume 187.3 kg per year. That's over a pound a day. And the people of St Helena eat 85.4 kg per year, Tokelau islanders, 200kg, Niue, 100kg, Kiribati, 75kg, ... .

If Jesus is weeping about anything, it's that a person can get to be your age and still be so appallingly ignorant.

Quote:

Country Comparisons
NOAA, in their annual Fisheries of the United States publication, reports that the total amount of seafood consumed by the U.S. in 2005 was 4.8 billion pounds, an amount greater than all national totals except those of Japan and China.

U.S. per capita seafood consumption, however, remains below many other countries due to geographic, socio-economic, and/or cultural reasons. Still, eighty percent of seafood consumed in the U.S. is currently imported, meaning that American demand for seafood has an impact on the health of fisheries worldwide.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/157

0 Replies

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know