Outrage over Japan's plan to slaughter humpback whales

No, this does appear to be an up to date list. Updated 8/06/06:

http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/members.htm

0 Replies

Check the dates they joined. I find it interesting to check out the newest members. Then work out why they've suddenly joined. :wink:

0 Replies

Japan defeated in new whaling bid
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, St Kitts

Pro-whaling nations have lost another vote on the second day of the International Whaling Commission's annual meeting in St Kitts.
Japan had tabled a proposal to allow some of its coastal communities to hunt minke whales for local use, but anti-whaling nations defeated the plan.

However, this time Japan lost by only one vote, as the late arrival of some delegates boosted support for them.

On Friday Japan had lost two key votes by a slightly wider margin.

But there is a widespread view that the future of whales and dolphins should not be a political game of numbers.

Dutch whaling commissioner Giuseppe Raaphorst presented a proposal which would bring ministers together to reform what he says is a failing organisation.

"It's working very badly. It's very bad governance," he said.

" Normally with governance you take decisions and go forward. We haven't moved forward, we are going backwards.

"We are going back in time so I think it's a very bad organisation. The only thing you can do - get the ministers together to solve it."

Even this proposal saw the commission divided. Anti-whaling countries supported it, but pro-whaling nations preferred instead another proposal from Japan.

This would see countries prepared to contemplate a return to commercial whaling come together outside the IWC to plan their future strategy.

Neither proposal was put to a vote.

The stark divide between the two camps was summed up by the comments of one Japanese delegate, who said the philosophy of anti-whaling nations in trying to prevent the hunting of whales and dolphins is somewhat akin to that of German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/5091552.stm

0 Replies

Quote:

Japan had tabled a proposal to allow some of its coastal communities to hunt minke whales for local use, but anti-whaling nations defeated the plan.

I am not so sure that this should not be allowed.

1. Minke whales are colloquially known as the rabbit of the sea. The breeding cycle of northern minke whales is faster than that of the great southern whale species.

2. If indeed the use was "local use" the take would/should be small.
Japan should be allowed to harvest within its territorial waters unhindered. It is the harvesting in international waters that needs to be fully dealt with.

There are a number of proviso in my current stance.

Minke whales appear to have a population base that would allow a harvest without adversly affecting base stock, this may be because the species was largly ignored during the heyday of whale hunting because it was considered an uneconomic proposition. Should uncontrolled harvesting adversly affect populations of minke whales i would expect there to be real trouble (as there is now) in winding back an industry based on this harvest. Current technology should however allow us to monitor populations to ensure the threat of extinction/over harvesting is negligible. The big problem is greed and the need for growth as in any industry. Much like the Australian dependance on live export.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Wilso wrote-

Quote:
Spendius. Do you want to know the reason why nations like Japan must be kept in check? Because they would strip the oceans bare. And then we would all suffer.

I dealt with that point the other day. They would not strip the ocean bare at all because there would come a point when the cost of finding whales would be more than the price they could get for them. It is a matter of simple economics. The habitat of the whales is not threatened as it is for some other species such as bears in N America or buffalo.Obviously the number of whales is a key factor in the argument. You seem to be placing whales into a similar category as the Hindu places the cow.

I don't think you have been respectful enough with the posts in this thread before blurting out your facile interruption.

I think "suffer" is much too strong a word to use there. Are you suggesting that not being able to see whales blowing off is suffering?

After whales, they would simply move to something else. The Japanese are environmental terrorists.

Suffering is what would happen when there's nothing left in the ocean. Or are you under the illusion that the ocean contains an undending supply of whatever anyone wants to take from it? That is a philosiphy that was held before humans could contemplate the idea of satellites which are able to trace ocean currents and feeding patterns and gave humans the ability to round up sea life like mustering cattle in a yard.

0 Replies

This is getting ridiculous.

What is the motive of those on here who wish to stop Japan? I think it would be best to clarify that. Is it moral, is it economic or is it just a preference?

0 Replies

Wilso, I'd be careful in the use of "environment terrorists" aimed at one country when looked at the macro environment.

0 Replies

Resolution #4

Japan's resolution to abolish the Southern Ocean Sanctuary was lost - 33 votes to 28. Just 5 votes! A win would have removed protection of humpback whales at the sanctuary. And of course, allow the Japanese whalers to hunt them "legally". This is really worrying. Japan has said time & time again that it wants the IRC to return to it's initial brief ofcommercial whaling, & to leave conservation issues alone. This just reinforces my view that we need an alternative to the IWC, with teeth (!), to protect whales.

Last Update: Monday, June 19, 2006. 6:27am (AEST)

Japan fails to abolish Southern Ocean sanctuary

An attempt by Japan to abolish the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary has failed to secure majority support at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in the Caribbean.

The proposal by Japan would have allowed it to conduct so-called scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary and abolish protection for minke and humpback whales.

Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell described the plan as mind-boggling.

"It is quite bizarre and is entirely out of character with Japan's otherwise superb contribution to international global environmental initiatives," he said.

When it came to a vote, 33 opposed the plan and 28 supported it, delivering anti-whaling nations yet another victory at this year's IWC meeting in St Kitts.

"This is the fourth vote Japan and the pro-whalers have lost in a row, another good result for the whales," Greenpeace spokesman Mike Townsley said.

Despite the defeat, Japan led pro-whaling nations in a new attack on the 20-year moratorium on commercial hunting.

A non-binding resolution circulating at the annual meeting invites member states to declare the moratorium was a "temporary" measure which is no longer valid - thanks to rising whale stocks.

A cherished victory for the environmental movement, the moratorium is not itself in danger, as it must be opposed by a currently unobtainable super-majority of 75 per cent of IWC members to be overturned.

But passage of the so-called St Kitts and Nevis declaration would hand Japan a political weapon, and allow it to argue that more states than not on the 70-nation IWC body believed the moratorium should be overturned.

Fierce debate was expected on the issue, with Japan apparently given a chance of finally lining up a simple majority of pro-whaling states.

-ABC/AFP

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1665832.htm

0 Replies

Why a South Pacific whale sanctuary?

53rd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission Fact sheet (
Department of the Environment and Heritage (Australia), 2001

The nations of the South Pacific strongly support the establishment of a sanctuary to protect great whales in their region. A South Pacific Whale Sanctuary will complement existing whale sanctuaries in the Southern and Indian Oceans.

The South Pacific is home to all species of great whales found in the Southern Hemisphere. They are blue, fin, sei, southern right, humpback, Bryde's, minke, pygmy right and sperm whales. There are many good reasons to protect these marine creatures, which are still being killed for commercial gain under the guise of 'scientific' whaling.

A South Pacific Whale Sanctuary will:

protect whale populations dramatically reduced by whaling in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Some species of whales, such as the southern right whale, were hunted almost to extinction and only in the past 20 years have their numbers shown any signs of recovery.

protect great whales from commercial whaling within their feeding and breeding grounds and migration routes in the Southern Hemisphere. It will extend protection from the feeding grounds of the Southern Ocean to the breeding grounds in the South Pacific, which are used by many great whales for mating, calving and calf rearing.

ensure greater protection for migratory whale species in areas where they are known to be vulnerable to whaling activities, such as in breeding grounds where they concentrate in larger numbers.

strengthen the effectiveness of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary by protecting whales as they leave its boundaries on their annual migrations.
provide economic benefits to many South Pacific nations through whale watching. The industry is worth an annual $US1 billion worldwide and attracts nine million participants in 87 countries, according to a report published by the International Fund for Animal Welfare. In comparison, Japan's and Norway's commercial whaling activities are worth just $US60 million each year.

foster long-term research on whale populations and the ecosystems in which they live. Whales live for many years and information essential for their long-term global management is still needed.

http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/iwc-sanctuary.html

0 Replies

It seems Japan & the other pro-whaling nations are determined to have their own way, whatever is decided at the IWC!:

....Despite the defeat Japan led pro-whaling nations in a new attack on the 20-year moratorium on commercial hunting.

A non-binding resolution circulating at the annual meeting invites member states to declare the moratorium was a "temporary" measure which is no longer valid - thanks to rising whale stocks.

0 Replies

Humpbacks face a slow death by explosives
Andrew Darby in St Kitts
June 19, 2006/SMH

HUMPBACK whales will suffer lingering deaths in Japan's scientific hunt, where they will be harpooned with equipment little different from that used on much smaller minke whales.

Doubts about the humaneness of the humpback hunt emerged when Japan refused to release details of its trial kill of fin whales to the International Whaling Commission meeting in St Kitts in the Caribbean.

Now delegates at the meeting have told the Herald that Japan plans to use the same 75-millimetre cannon used for minkes, albeit with a slightly larger explosive charge, on the much bigger humpbacks.

The little evidence publicly available about Japan's current minke hunt shows that fewer than half the whales die instantly, and some can take more than half an hour.... <cont>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/humpbacks-face-a-slow-death-by-explosives/2006/06/18/1150569211575.html

0 Replies

Ms Olga-

I asked-

Quote:

What is the motive of those on here who wish to stop Japan? I think it would be best to clarify that. Is it moral, is it economic or is it just a preference?

We do need to know. An economic or preference motive often masquerades as moral.

0 Replies

spendius

I responded as best I could to this question quite a few pages back. My belief is that it's a moral/ethical response to whaling.

0 Replies

Last Update: Monday, June 19, 2006. 10:01am (AEST)

Japan wins symbolic pro-whaling vote

Japan and other whaling nations for the first time in two decades have won support for a motion criticising a global whaling ban at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in the Caribbean island state of St Kitts and Nevis.

The approval of a non-binding, pro-whaling declaration by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) does not immediately threaten a 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling - which is credited with saving whales from extinction and which Japan would like to overturn.

(Australian) Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell has criticised the declaration, saying it was an empty victory for pro-whaling countries.

"I think a few countries were pretty keen to hand a win to the small island states," Senator Campbell said.

"But luckily for whale conservation it's not binding, it doesn't achieve anything, it doesn't do anything."

In backing by 33 votes to 32 a statement that said the whaling ban was no longer valid, that whales were responsible for depleting fish stocks and that non-governmental and environmental organisations were a "threat", the IWC boosted Japan's hopes of chipping away at the ban.

There was one abstention.

"This is a huge disaster," Kitty Block of Humane Society International said.

"This is now going to be their propaganda."

Japan has abided by the moratorium on commercial whaling since it came into force two decades ago, but along with Iceland, uses a loophole in the ban to conduct scientific whaling.

Norway is the only country that ignores the ban. ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1665918.htm

0 Replies

Heres a compromise. Lets issue total whale allocations to all the member nation. Instead of Japan getting the right to murder 300 Minke whales, we divvy up the 300 minke whales among the IWC members. Then Japan , Iceland et will get a smaller allocation. The remaining countries can then pledge to not use their allocations as a pro bono conservation trick.

I sent my check into the Sea Shepherds I hope they re-outfit the"Farley Mowatt" with a heavy duty ram prow. Or buy a decommissioned Russian Icebreaker.

0 Replies

farmerman, Sounds like a fair way to allocate Minkie whales; divvy it up with all nations. Japan and Iceland will end up with a smaller pie. Wink

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

This is getting ridiculous.

What is the motive of those on here who wish to stop Japan? I think it would be best to clarify that. Is it moral, is it economic or is it just a preference?

For me it's moral.

Spendi, have you ever seen a whale up close. I'm not talking about on the television or some tacky sea park show, but in ocean, so close that you could touch it? I have. Anyone who'd hurt those creatures needs a harpoon put in them. And let's not forget that they're intelligent. You keep referring to cows. Cow's are f@cking morons. All they do is eat grass, ****, piss, burp and fart. What other use have they got besides food?

Now, do you have an opinion yourself? Or do you just sit on the fence like a friggin' coward who never has to explain their position?

0 Replies

My position is easy to explain mate. I am a vegan but not on moral grounds. I can't see how you have a sentimental freak out over a whale and disallow anybody having a similar response to cows or to wasps for that matter. I'm not prepared to get my head into the tangle you have got your's into.

I would support a ban on whaling simply because it looks impossible to kill them in a humane way just as I would support a ban on animal experimentation and any other use of animals which causes them suffering.

I think you are the coward here because you take a position which you have reason to believe is socially acceptable and will make you popular with those sections of the community which love whales and hate cows simply because the former makes them feel morally superior and the latter allows them to continue eating their juicy steaks which often derive from animals which suffer for the whole of their short lives.

It makes not the slightest difference that you have fallen in love with a whale.

I also think it cowardly to have a fast view on such a complex ethical question. It is such an easy option. Anyone who has a moral position on whale hunting has a duty to argue the case properly and not concede the moral grounds as you do just so you can continue eating meat. If your arguments are put forth in that sentimental mush you have so casually trotted out you will get shredded and discredit those who fight to ban whale hunting,and I count myself in their number, and we don't want the likes of you on our side because you are a hopeless advocate.

Not only do Hindus love cows but many country folk do as well and have stroked them and give them pretty names.

So it would be better for whales if you kept you infantile trap shut.And it might be an idea if you read the thread properly too before jumping in with crap. I suggested bombing the Emperor's palace. I'm not interested in being popular with half-baked slop. My position has been made clear a few times.

0 Replies

Last Update: Monday, June 19, 2006. 12:03pm (AEST)

Pro-whaling lobby hails vote win

Pro-whaling nations say their winning vote at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) this morning is a turning point in the struggle to change the organisation's agenda in their favour. .....

....... Joji Morishita from the Japanese delegation says it is an historic victory for pro-whaling nations.

"Anti-whaling countries might see this as an ending," he said.

"This is the beginning of a new time for the IWC." .....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1666145.htm

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

My position is easy to explain mate. I am a vegan but not on moral grounds. I can't see how you have a sentimental freak out over a whale and disallow anybody having a similar response to cows or to wasps for that matter. I'm not prepared to get my head into the tangle you have got your's into.

I would support a ban on whaling simply because it looks impossible to kill them in a humane way just as I would support a ban on animal experimentation and any other use of animals which causes them suffering.

I think you are the coward here because you take a position which you have reason to believe is socially acceptable and will make you popular with those sections of the community which love whales and hate cows simply because the former makes them feel morally superior and the latter allows them to continue eating their juicy steaks which often derive from animals which suffer for the whole of their short lives.

It makes not the slightest difference that you have fallen in love with a whale.

I also think it cowardly to have a fast view on such a complex ethical question. It is such an easy option. Anyone who has a moral position on whale hunting has a duty to argue the case properly and not concede the moral grounds as you do just so you can continue eating meat. If your arguments are put forth in that sentimental mush you have so casually trotted out you will get shredded and discredit those who fight to ban whale hunting,and I count myself in their number, and we don't want the likes of you on our side because you are a hopeless advocate.

Not only do Hindus love cows but many country folk do as well and have stroked them and give them pretty names.

So it would be better for whales if you kept you infantile trap shut.And it might be an idea if you read the thread properly too before jumping in with crap. I suggested bombing the Emperor's palace. I'm not interested in being popular with half-baked slop. My position has been made clear a few times.

So your answer is not have a view? My position is not based on what's socially acceptable. That sort of tripe coming from a vegan doesn't surprise me. Your brain doesn't get the necessary protein to function. F@ck you!

0 Replies

Outrage over Japan's plan to slaughter humpback whales

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know