Japan to push wider sales of whale meat to make up financial losses

Posted on November 8, 2012 by Adam Westlake in Business, National with 60 Comments
Japan to push wider sales of whale meat to make up financial losses

If the Japanese whaling industry’s teasing of calling off their hunt this year wasn’t bad enough, this news is sure to get Paul Watson‘s blood boiling: Japan’s Fisheries Agency says it will expand its sales of whale meat, including directly to the public, in an effort to combat the financial losses of its “research” whaling program. Spiked with controversy, Japan’s yearly whale hunt in the Antarctic costs around $60 million, and with 75% of last year’s catch going unsold, that is quite a bit of money lost.

The Fisheries Agency stated this week that starting next year, whale meat will be sold to individuals by mail order and directly to restaurants. Up until now, it could only be purchased by distributors at wholesale auctions. Japan’s commercial whaling industry has been heavily criticized by the international community, as they choose to ignore bans on killing the mammals. As a result, confrontations at sea with the environmental activist group Sea Shepherd are almost expected, such as the start of this year’s campaign.

Whale meat certainly doesn’t come cheap, priced around $3.75 to $6.25 for 4 ounces or less. It is sometimes labeled as a “luxury item,” however, as one comment pointed out on our last discussion, it can be found in some restaurants. But the truth is that very few people in Japan are interested in, or have ever eaten whale meat, regardless of where or how it is sold. And the fact that 75% of it goes unsold more than proves that. While this isn’t an endorsement of Sea Shepherd or its acts that put human lives in danger, it’s well past time Japan’s whaling industry realize people don’t really want to eat whales, and stop wasting $60 million each year.

[via UPI]
POPULAR STORIES THIS WEEK:
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Share Button
DISCUSS IT
Comment Policy : Our comments section is open and welcome to anyone who wishes to participate in discussion or share their point of view, regardless of what it may be. In order to limit spam and those who wish to impede meaningful conversation, we are now requiring users to log in with an account or verify their email address. However, the following behavior will result in your comment being deleted or, if continued, permanent removal from conversations: posting under multiple names, making hateful/racist comments, or making no valuable contribution by posting the same thing repeatedly.
  • nobuko takagi

    Mmm, I cant wait to celebreate the new year by cooking up some whale meat burgers!

    • Po Cheng

      It’s illegal in the US and most other countries. If you want to eat whales best to go to Japan. But be careful and make sure nothing is contaminated by the recent Fukushima radiation disaster, and be prepared to deal with racism when you get there (some restaurants do not allow foreigners to eat there. Pretty racist right?). All in all when I went to Jaoan and ate whale it had a rubbery texture to it and wasn’t that great, beef and fish taste much better, but it’s probably because the whale meat had mercury in it.

      • ddpalmer

        What a racist uninformed rant.

        ALL seafood has mercury in it, but whale (especially from the Antarctic) has some of the lowest levels of all seafood. And since most whale meat comes from the Antarctic I hardly think Fukishima has had any effect (not that it would be expected to have any effect on the smaller Japanese catch of whales from the Northern Pacific).

        All in all when I went to Japan I was treated cordially by everyone as long as I followed the laws and customs. And most whale meat restaurants I saw catered specifically to the tourist trade.

        Finally it is not illegal in most countries because most countries don’t really care. And personally the best whale I ever had was in Norway closely followed by the Faeroe Islands, but that may be because I don’t generally like the Asian spice pallet and/or raw seafood.

  • hohoho

    wouldnt mind tasting it before it goes goners like shark fin soup….

  • sengleong

    Hey what do you know it’s whaling for profit after all.

  • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

    With 75% of last years catch going unsold Japans push to not only continue to whale in southern ocean sanctuary but to expand the indusrty is good news as the pretence that this venture was ever for scientific purposes can’t possibly be swallowed by even the most gullible now.

    It is mind-boggling to understand; the Japanese whalers plan to kill 50 fin whales which are on the endangered species list as well as 850 minke’s listed as data deficient in the south but on the “threatened” list. All from a designated sanctuary every coutry in the world recognies except Japan.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minke_whale
    http://www.iwcoffice.org/sanctuaries

    Truth and exposure was all the Free Cetacean / anti-whaling movement needed. It would be most helpful for a loud voice to be heard from within Japan, no offence greenpeace Japan and everone fighting there … but we need a positive collective conciousness coming from Japan rather than simplistic negative propaganda that is loadest today. I don’t know about within Japan but out here in the regular and social media world, the message is spreading faster than the cure for a plauge.

  • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

    Sea Shepherd looks well prepared and capable of preventing any whales from dying this year which will further financially cripple the government, the industry and sadly the people. With growing support around the world and in socia media there will be many eyes on the events this year. Exposure to the truth of the situation, such as the Japanese whalers intention to kill 50 fin whales which are on the Endangered Species List, will hopefully end this trajic situation once and for all.

    • ddpalmer

      The Japanese don’t have an intention to kill 50 Fin whales. They have a quota of 50 Fin whales, not the same thing but far too many people are too ignorant to understand the difference.

      I the state where I live everyone with a deer license has a quota of 7 deer (1 Buck and 6 antlerless), that does not mean any of them plan on taking 7 deer. In fact most will take only one or two.

      A quota is just the maximum permitted and not an intended target to be reached.

      • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

        KIlling one animal on the endangered species list or supporting that is beyond ignorant. Take ignorant add stupid, selfish and blind.
        Given the chance Japan would would fill their quota and their pockets on the way home.
        No wonder you are so blind to the issues if you think killing whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary is the same as hunting deer in your state.

        • ddpalmer

          Most of the deer in my state are in wildlife sanctuaries. And just like the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, these sanctuaries have exceptions.

          It is just so funny how you ignore reality and completely ignore what your opponent says.

          • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

            Talk about funny ! How many of those deer are on the indangered species list?

          • ddpalmer

            It is just so funny how you ignore reality and continue to completely ignore what your opponent says while wanting responses to your questions.

          • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

            You guys’ arguments are so silly I sometimes don’t realize a response in necessary: it’s like playing wack-a-mole!
            I don’t want to explain to you the difference between a national or state park and a sactuary … international or otherwise, GOOGLE it. Be warned there are also wildlife preserves.

          • ddpalmer

            Do you have the ability to read English?

            Where does this” national or state park” come from? Your whacked out imagination? Try reading what was actually written and stop ignoring reality.

          • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

            My mistake I thought deer were only protected in parks in the states but then Im not from from there.

            If you are saying they are hunting in sanctuaries my best guess is you are talking about some redneck deer hunting ranch that uses the word sanctuary in their name ( without even understanding the irony) Here’s some definitions of sanctuary for ya;

            wiki – An animal sanctuary is a facility where animals are brought to live and be protected for the rest of their lives.[1] Unlike animal shelters, sanctuaries do not seek to place animals with individuals or groups, instead maintaining each animal until his or her natural death.
            Google – A place of refuge or safety
            Oxford – 1 [mass noun] refuge or safety from pursuit, persecution, or other danger
            Mirriam-Websters – a (1): a place of refuge and protection (2): a refuge for wildlife where predators are controlled and hunting is illegal. <—- (really pay attention to that last part)

            In a real sanctuary there is no hunting.
            To argue for killing any animals that are endangered species and depriving a creature the right to a true sanctuary somewhere here on the earth … it must be an ugly place inside of your head.

          • ha ha ha

            i would sink the whalers if i could its not right to hunt them there all muppets they sould bomb the ships

          • ddpalmer

            No I am talking about sanctuaries that have allow limit hunting to manage the population and bring in money to support the continued operation of the sanctuary.

            “I thought…” LOL!

          • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

            Is it called something like “BillyBob’s Gun Emporium & Deer Sanctuary” Where kids get a free box of shells every tuesday and for every ten bucks you shoot you get to punch a fawn.
            Hunting in a sanctuary is one of them there oxymorons … palmer.

          • ddpalmer

            Your inability to understand plain English is a sad commentary on your education.

  • Henry Marx

    Great! Hopefully that will make it more affordable. Of course, it would be far better to resume limited commercial whaling. Research has established that the Minke whale population in Antarctica is large and healthy and that taking 2,000 to 3,000 whales a year is easily sustainable. So, there’s no reason not to end research whaling and start a commercial hunt.

    • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

      More Japanese pro whaling lies, here’s some science that did not involve slaughtering the subjects!

      ” … in the early 1990s, the IWC Scientific Committee agreed minkes in the Southern Hemisphere numbered 760,000 (CPII), which the Japanese whaling industry currently uses as the (2005) estimate.[citation needed] In 2000, however, the Committee withdrew this advice in light of new survey data suggesting 50% lower population than in the 1980s.[15]

      The IUCN Red List labels the northern species as Least Concern and the southern as Data Deficient. COSEWIC puts both species in the Not At Risk category [1]. NatureServe lists them as [[NatureServe conservation status|G5] which means the species is secure on global range [2]. CITES, on the other hand, lists both species in Appendix I (threatened)”

      There are many good reasons to stop whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary such as; science/marine biology, you have morality, common sense and/or intelegence. Another reason is that those of us that can see the true horror of this sadistic and selfish act have pretty much had enough. The Japanese whalers should feel relieved that a bunch of whale hugging pacifists are down there and not just us regular guys with honor.

      • Henry Marx

        In what way am I supposedly lying? At this time the IWC’s best estimates from ’85-’91 is 720,000 and from ’92-’04 is 515,000. Either way, there is, unquestionably, a large population of Minke whales in the Antarctic. Clearly, the population is more than large enough to sustain a limited commercial hunt.
        At this time Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, America and Russia also hunt whales. In fact, America is hunting Bowhead whales which the U.S. considers to be endangered.
        So, obviously, the “reasons” you listed are strictly subjective and are a matter of opinion.

        • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

          Only Japan is selfish and heartless enough to ignor the sanctuary, thats not not subjective … it is a fact. Our nativves in Canada take one whale every four years from one region and every 7 years from another, your lies only fool those that are looking for reasons to justify something so morally incomprehensable I often wonder if we are of seperate species.

          • Henry Marx

            “your lies”
            You keep saying that, yet you haven’t shown where I have told a lie. What lie have I told? About Canada hunting whales? You, yourself, just said that they killed whales. So, that’s not a lie.
            As for the SO whale sanctuary, I never once said anything about it. So, obviously, I couldn’t have possibly lied about something that I didn’t even mention.

          • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

            Not only do our natives have the good sense to respect and admire these creatures while still maintaining tradition but they have the balls to call it for what it is not some cowardly excuse like for “scientific research”.

            -Calling it research whaling is a lie.
            -Saying the Minke whale population in the southern ocean is anything but “threatened” and therefor not able to sustain a yearly harvest is a lie.
            -Comparing what any country except Norway does in regards to killing whales is a lie.
            -Saying Bowheads are endangred is a lie.

            The biggest lie though is the one you have yourself believing that says it’s ok to kill these incredibly intelligent and emotion based creatures that are at the top of the food chain in the most important and troubled eco-system on the planet.

          • Henry Marx

            In response to your claims that I have lied:

            #1 The IWC lists it as Scientific Permit Whaling, i.e. research whaling. The IWC does NOT list it as Commercial Whaling. Therefore, to call it anything but research whaling would be, in fact, a lie.

            #2 The IWC states and I quote, “There are several hundred thousand Antarctic minke whales and thus they are clearly not endangered. ” So, with “several hundred thousand” Minke whales they can obviously sustain a limited yearly harvest.

            #3 Killing whales is……..killing whales. One country kills whales, another country kills whales. How is that a lie? A comparison cannot be a lie.

            #4 NOAA lists Bowhead whales as endangered. So any lie there would be with the U.S. government. Not me.

            You can confirm point 1 & 2 at the IWC’s website. Point 4 can be confirmed at NOAA’s website.

          • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

            1- The IWC does not condone lethal research. What happens in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary is “scientific research” in the same way the ww2 sex slaves were “comfort women”.

            2- “The IUCN Red List labels the northern species as Least Concern and the southern as Data Deficient. … lists both species in Appendix I (threatened)”

            3 – Yoour answer is too pathetic to dispute refer to answer #1.

            4 – “In March, 2008, Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans stated the previous estimates in the eastern Arctic had undercounted, with a new estimate of 14,400 animals (range 4,800–43,000).[21] These larger numbers correspond to prewhaling estimates, indicating this population has fully recovered.” Fully recovered so the natives take 1.5 whales every seven years not 5 or 6 thousand or whatever barbaric number the Japanese take every seven years.
            And no one is heartless enough to take an endangered species … oh ya there is 1 !

          • Henry Marx

            #1 The IWC not only condones lethal research, it specifically allows it. Article VIII of the ICRW states:

            1. 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.

            2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.

            3. Each Contracting Government shall transmit to such body as may be designated by the Commission, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year, scientific information available to that Government with respect to whales and whaling, including the results of research conducted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and to Article IV.”

            #2 The IWC is THE authority in regards to whaling. The ICUN’s opinion is inconsequential. In any case, you say that the ICUN lists Minke whales as “least concern” and “data deficient”. It doesn’t list them as “endangered”. So, what’s your point?

            #3 Which means that you cannot refute my statement that a comparison cannot be a lie, as you claimed earlier.

            #4 You appear to be unaware of the fact that the U.S. hunts Bowhead whales, too. In fact, they killed 71 in 2010. And, as I pointed out earlier, the U.S. lists Bowhead whales as endangered. In any case, if you TRULY think killing whales is wrong. It shouldn’t matter whether you kill 1.5 or 1,000. By the way, how do you kill 1.5 whales??? Is the 0.5 left over still alive???

          • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

            Whale Sanctuaries

            Establishment of the International Whaling Commission’s sanctuaries

            SANCTUARIES

            Two Sanctuaries are currently designated by the International Whaling Commission, both of which prohibit commercial whaling. The first of these, the Indian Ocean Sanctuary, was established in 1979 and covers the whole of the Indian Ocean south to 55°S.

            The second was adopted in 1994 and covers the waters of the Southern Ocean around Antarctica. The boundaries of both of the Sanctuaries can be seen on this map and their precise co-ordinates are recorded in the Schedule at paragraphs 7.(a) and 7.(b)

            An additional proposal for a Sanctuary in the South Atlantic Ocean has been repeatedly submitted to the Commission in recent years. To date it has failed to achieve the three-quarters majority of votes needed to amend the Schedule and thus become designated by the IWC.

            http://www.iwcoffice.org/sanctuaries

          • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

            The Japanese invented the concept of ‘scientific’ whaling in 1987 as a way round the moratorium on commercial whaling instituted by the the International Whaling
            Commission (IWC). Their research is not really research. It is an excuse for supplying whale meat on the Japanese market, though that market is dying.
            Here is what those scientists that work for the IWC REALLY had to say!

            3 The management plan agreed by IWC scientists requires only information that can be obtained without killing whales.

            4 UNCED said that because of their special status under international law as highly migratory animals and as marine mammals, the management of cetaceans can be more strict
            than that of other marine species, including a prohibition on their catching. There was no “list of resources open to sustainable use and development” approved at UNCED and there was no “explicit rejection” of whales from this
            purported list.

            5 The Scientific Committee Working Group has also agreed that the data produced by killing whales is “not required for management”.

            6 Of the 5000
            minke whales stomachs so far ‘sampled’ by Japanese whalers in the Antarctic, every one has contained krill and only krill, a fact that was known long before the ‘research’ began

          • Henry Marx

            Before we go any farther. There is something that needs to be cleared up. At the start of this thread you accused me of being a liar. Seeing as you have been unable to establish that I have lied, I believe you owe me an apology.

            Now, in regards to your claim that “the Japanese invented the concept of scientific whaling”. That is totally incorrect.
            The ICRW which includes article VIII, which specifically allows research whaling, was signed in 1946 and went into effect in 1948. Well before Japan began scientific whaling.
            As to the rest of your post, it has no bearing on the population of Minke whales in the Antarctic and the fact that a limited commercial hunt is quite sustainable, which was what I said at the start of this thread.

          • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

            I do indeed owe you an apology. I was under the false belief that no one was gullible enough to believe the Japanese propaganda in regards to many thing but in this case whaling. I believed that you were regurgitating the same old tired lies and false facts that the whaling advocates have been spewing because you had an agenda … not because you really believed it!
            I see now that you are not an agent of the Japanese whaling industry but a victim … and I’m really sorry about that.

          • Henry Marx

            Ah, now comes the inevitable attempt to insult me. A rather lame attempt, I must say. So you know, I really didn’t expect an apology from you. no anti-whaling person I have yet dealt with has ever had a shred of manners or decency.
            Seeing as I have only referenced neutral sites such as the IWC in this conversation and never once referenced the ICR or any other associated source; your assertion that I “believe the Japanese propaganda” is completely absurd. Much like every other claim you have made.

          • sengleong

            @ Henry Marx,

            For many years now I keep on hearing about this scientific research by the Japanese on Whales and you also brought this topic up in this article.

            To some one like me with limited knowledge on this important topic of scientific research on whales could you please enlighten me of any significant result the Japanese had arrived at on this mammal. This would at least clear up some of my concern with regard to the Japanese intention. If my calculation is correct and based on AriesKJJ comment that this concept of Scientific Research by the Japanese on Whales started in 1987 that would be 25 years now and I would assume for 25 years one would be able to conclude its research study by now and present this to the International Committee and Public, after all this is a Research program and the international public has the right to know so that they can make a decision with regard to this precious asset of theirs. This Mammal belongs to the world citizen and the Japanese Whaling Industry have been using and consuming this asset for 25 years it is a matter of courtesy that they should gave us the finding and conclusion to their research.

          • ddpalmer

            The ICR website has a list of peer reviewed research papers published based on their research. There are too many on too many topics to even begin to summarize here.

            There is also the fact that one of their major research goals is to show the IWC that the population is large enough and healthy enough for limited hunting. The IWC keeps saying they don’t have enough data to determine if a limit hunt is or isn’t appropriate. So Japan continues to collect data so the IWC can decide one way or the other.

          • Henry Marx

            @sengleong

            You asked about any significant results. It is my understanding that due to the ICR’s research scientist were able to conclude that the Common Minke whale and the Antarctic Minke whale were seperate species. Scientists used to believe they were the same species.
            You said that they should be able to conclude their research and present this to the International Committee. To the best of my knowledge they have done this. The purpose of their research program was to determine if whale stocks were healthy enough to sustain a resumption of a limited and controlled commercial hunt. From what I understand and the information I’ve seen it appears that the ICR has provided the IWC with enough data to support that conclusion. Yet, it would seem that some members of the IWC keep claiming that there isn’t sufficient evidence and keep demanding more data. So, the continuation of the ICR’s research is due to the insistence of the IWC, not the ICR.

          • sengleong

            @ Henry Marx
            @ddpalmer:disqus

            Thank you for your comments and direction.
            I managed to check on IWC information from 1987 to 2010 whale catch by Japan and other countries a total of 14,583 were harvested and 13,744 of these were by Japan. about 94.25%. On average 598 whales were harvested every year.
            In my opinion this number does not tally well with merely for the sake of scientific research only. One would expect this number should be very substantially less for research purpose and the question of harvesting whale by killing them rather then research by tacking them would be more informative in researching their biological and feeding pattern.
            The IWC also stated that Commercial Whaling should be set at zero and Henry Marx comment that it would be better for Japan to forget about research and concentrate on commercial whaling would be more profitable fly in the face of the IWC direction.
            On the other hand I also felt that the Article VIII of the Convention should be amended to eliminate loophole that allow individual government to issue permit to allow their respective industry to harvest whale for the purpose of scientific research. This article somehow also contributed to the current sad situation for the mammal that they first tried to protect.

          • Henry Marx

            @sengleong

            You are quite welcome. Thank you for your reply. However, your response does not make it clear if you agree or disagree with my response to your earlier question.

            If the ICR’s purpose was merely for the sake of research only, then yes, the number of whales taken would appear to be excessive. However, it is my understanding that the ICR’s research is not simply for the sake of research. It is to determine if the whale stocks could sustain a limited commercial hunt. With that goal in mind, the numbers would seem to be appropriate. Due to the fact that a certain percentage would need to be studied in order to gain an overall picture of the health and makeup of the entire population.

            To my knowledge, the IWC’s decision to set the commercial catch limits to zero, was not based on science and was done against the advice of the IWC Scientific Committee. I don’t see how WHALING can “fly in the face” of the International WHALING Commission.

            The IWC could choose to amend or remove article VIII. Either way, it is neither here nor there with me.

            In short, as I’ve said earlier, from what I have seen there are plenty of Minke whales in the Antarctic. So far, I have seen no scientific reason not to hunt them. Just like any other animal. If their numbers can sustain a limited hunt, I see absolutely no reason not to.

          • sengleong

            Henry Marx

            A response is merely one’s view and whether other agree or disagree is not important but the what is important is that IWC had stated that at this stage Commercial whaling is set at zero and that’s matter.

            The second issue I have is the continuous harvesting of the whales against the IWC directive.

            After 25 years of whale harvesting in the name of scientific research Japan has merely arrived at a discovery that the common minke whale is of a different specie to the antarctic minke whale and that the number is sustainable for limited commercial harvest is basically insignificant.

            The Japanese fishery has been harvesting whale for commercial purpose for more than 25 years but to do this under the pretense of scientific research is akin to stealing a precious asset from the international community and then broadcasting to them that they did this in the name of science, this is like treating the community and its own citizen like mugs. I do find this sort of action and mentality repugnant not to say the least.

            In my opinion I believe there will come a time when and if the population of whales through relevant scientific research that it has reach a very significant number which cost an imbalance to the Ocean ecology system, and that this could affect the survival of other fishery and crustacean then some form of culling is required other than that the IWC directive stayed

          • Henry Marx

            @sengleong

            However, when you specifically ask someone to “enlighten” you and that person provides you with facts based on the information available, it is simply common courtesy to acknowledge whether you accept or reject the facts presented. Also, you would not be remiss, in the interest of politeness, to provide an explanation as to why you accept/reject those facts. Of course, if you didn’t want to hear the information provided, you shouldn’t have asked for it in the first place.

            As for the rest of your post. You most certainly have every right to your views and opinions. You have every right to voice those views and opinions, as well. However, the fact is, our opinions in regards to scientifc whaling legally carried out under the auspices of the IWC under article VIII, doesn’t matter.

            By the way, here’s a little something for your consideration. Norway has hunted 9,573 Minke whales commercially since 1987 from a considerably smaller population than is in Antarctica(approx. 81,000). In those 25 years of hunting the Minke whales have not gone extinct and there is no indication that they will. So, obviously, it IS possible to sustain a limited commercial hunt without endangering the species. So there is no reason not to.

          • sengleong

            @15b0bcd0267d7f2d75f0375c40eb4161:disqus

            I believe I did thank you for your comments.

          • Henry Marx

            @sengleong
            You did, indeed. However, merely thanking someone while totally ignoring the information they provided at your request hardly falls into the realm of politeness and courtesy.

          • http://twitter.com/AriesKJJ AriesKJJ

            How insensitive, that impoliteness is just like a harpoon through the heart … oh no it’s not.

          • ddpalmer

            I don’t think you were very thorough in you research on the IWC website. Norway by themselves have taken 9,194 whales since 1987 and Aboriginal hunts have taken 7,829. That would make Japan’s percentage about 43%.

            As to your opinion about how many whales are needed for research. If you went to the ICR website you can read their research plan which includes the statistical basis for the number of whales they take. Statistical sampling is a well understood mathematical discipline and in all the years I have been debating whaling I have yet to have a single person show anything incorrect in Japan’s statistical basis. There are even simple calculators online that will tell you how many samples are required from a given population to get a representative result and if you use the Minke whale population you will get a sample size of ~1,000. And since every year is a new set of data their goal of 850 Minke per year is well supported by statistics.

            I agree if their feeding pattern was the major research goal then tagging and tracking them would work as well or better than killing them. But feeding patterns is just one minor part of their research plan. Tracking the whales will not tell you about the levels of toxins in their internal organs, it will not tell you about the viability of their sperm and eggs, and it will not give the data for the dozens of other issues japan is researching.

            Article VIII would have to be amended to stop Japan’s right to do research whaling. But interestingly in the 26 years since the moratorium and despite all the countries complaining about Japan’s research, not a single IWC member has ever even proposed a change to Article VIII even in the late 80′s and early 90′s when the anti-whalers had the votes to pass any change they wanted. Also the IWC’s job is not to protect whales it is to manage the whales to ensure a sustainable whale hunt into the future.

          • sengleong

            @ddpalmer:disqus

            If you care to read my comment I merely stated that I have checked the information from IWC and no where in my comments that I have said that I have carried out research. All figures were from IWC and they are published in chronological order.
            Total Japan harvest was 13,744 equivalent to 94,25%.

            I take your point that certain number of whales are required to be harvested to ascertain their toxin levels and studied their internal organs. I suspect 13,744 is not just merely for scientific purposes.

            IWC has stated that commercial whaling should set at zero that was after the receipt of ICR reports. They must have a strong reason for doing so. Whether IWC is a protector or a manger of whales in this context is inconsequential. The importance is to note that commercial whaling to set at zero.

            I am not one to argue the reason for the Article VIII to exist in current form supported by those so call imminent persons. I suspect that there are a lot of politics and lobbying going on to have this Article VIII unamended.

          • ddpalmer

            So you will persist in lying?

            The figures I used where from the IWC website and show your numbers to be wrong. You obviously just researched enough to arrive at your preconceived answer and didn’t look at all the data the IWC presents.

            What you suspect is irrelevant. The pure math of statistical sample, which has been used for hundreds of years, show your opinion to be against the mathematical proof.

            More lies. The ICR didn’t exist until after the moratorium, so the IWC decision couldn’t be based on ICR reports.

            There was lots of politics and lobbying to establish the moratorium and the sanctuary (a sanctuary which was established in violation of IWC regulations) so why didn’t they amend Article VIII at the same time? It is a simple question.

          • Joe Smith

            Article VIII is quite ironclad and requires a unanimous vote for it to be amended. It can never be changed as long as there is at least ONE whaling nation (e.g. Japan) voting against amending it. That’s why nobody has bothered proposing a change.

            From “A Future for the IWC”:
            “A majority of the current members of the International Whaling Commission oppose the use of Article VIII in the form of commercial-scale ‘scientific whaling’ and most of these would not support an immediate resumption of any form of commercial whaling. However, this majority does not necessarily translate into a capacity to amend Article VIII of the Convention. To amend the Convention requires the convening of a diplomatic conference and the agreement of all parties to any changes to make them effective. This is unlikely to occur in the short to medium term.”

          • ddpalmer

            So you ignore 3/4 of my comment, to be expected I guess.

            Now did you read that document you quote from? Australia claims you can’t amend Article VIII without 100% approval and then goes on to say that they should amend Article VIII to require IWC approval of scientific permits until Article VIII can be amended. they also say that it has already been amended to require any scientific permits be reviewed (although not approved) by the IWC. So which is it? It needs 100% to change or it doesn’t, can’t be both.

            And if Article VIII is quite ironclad why has Australia filed suit against Japan in the ICJ?

          • Joe Smith

            Why should I have to comment on every one of your comments and what’s with the childish “to be expected I guess” when all I did was politely inform you of a fact that you were obviously not aware of?
            Yes I did read that document and nowhere does it say Article VIII has been amended. Why don’t you read it again. And yes, amending Article VIII requires a unanimous vote, and it has never been amended. And why don’t you use google to get the answer to your last question. Moron. To be expected I guess.

          • ddpalmer

            Ad hominem, to be expected I guess.

            The document states, correctly, that
            the IWC implemented a new procedure for review of scientific permits. Yet
            Article VIII requires no such review. So the new procedure AMENDED Article
            VIII. And Australia’s proposed changes would change the requirements of Article VIII which would AMEND Article VIII.

            Well Australia says that Japan is violating Article VIII but your
            cited document, from the Australian government, says they aren’t. So I guess the
            answer must be that Australia is wasting their time and money to keep the Green
            party happy.

            And you don’t have to comment on anything. Of course you took a month to respond to my comment so ignoring
            things could make people wonder why.

          • Joe Smith

            Man, you’ve got to be one of the biggest idiots trolling the internet. Get this fact through your thick skull and into your microscopic brain if you even have one:

            Article VIII has NEVER EVER been amended.

            Capiche? You should consider refreshing your education starting with grade school. And I’ll respond to idiots like you at any time on my own terms, maybe within minutes or even years later. Keep wondering.

          • ddpalmer

            And this time it took you 2 months to respond and that is the best you can come up with? More ad hominems and a demostration of stupidity?

            Amend – to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition
            So they ADDED a requirement to Article VIII, requiring review by the Scientific Committe, and thus by defintion the AMENDED it.
            Capiche? You should consider buying a dictionary, maybe start with one that has lots of pretty pictures.

          • Joe Smith

            Bring up the actual Convention at the IWC web site and read the last section entitled Protocol that describes in detail all the amendments that were ever made to the Convention. Why is there no mention whatsoever of Article VIII ever having been amended? Because Article VIII has never been amended. Duh. End of discussion.

          • ddpalmer

            And another 2 months to come up with another comment. Boy you are slow.

            Can you read English? How about comprehend English?

          • Joe Smith

            I understand English pretty well, but apparently you don’t. I’ve repeatedly told you Article 8 has never been amended, and you keep insisting that it has. If Article 8 has been amended as you claim, then why isn’t that amendment noted in the Convention’s Protocol? Let’s hear your answer.

          • ddpalmer

            I gave you the answer, but even with 4 months to think you haven’t been able to comprehend it. It is obviously beyond your ability. Why don’t you go back to something you can handle like playing with blocks?

          • Joe Smith

            And even after 4 months you’re still spewing incoherent garbage and since you’re obviously dodging my question I’ll answer it for you: The IWC does not consider the permits review requirement to be amending Article 8 and your claim that it was is nothing more than your layman’s opinion and unimportant.

          • ddpalmer

            “The Japanese invented the concept of ‘scientific’ whaling in 1987″

            That is a blatant lie. Scientific Permits where part of the original IWC charter in 1948 and they were issues by many countries from at least the mid 1960′s.

            The IWC statements you mention all reference management of whales, that isn’t Japan’s purpose so the statements are completely irrelevant. And why hasn’t the IWC stated that Japan’s whaling is a violation of the regulations?

            Nice strawman about the stomach contents, Oh and it is also wrong. Minke whales don’t only eat krill-”Minke whales…filter out small polar plankton, krill and small fish, even chasing schools of sardines, anchovies, cod, herring and capelin”. Diet is one small issue among dozens of others that Japan is researching.

  • EatMeat

    Sooo… from reading this all…. im guessing its alright to hunt and eat whale if we harvest them enough like all the other meat products of the world? @_@ intelligent or not, a life is a life, no discrimination.

  • Henry Marx

    @AriesKJJ
    Ah! The so-called “sanctuaries”. First, Japan lodged an objection in regards to Minke whales. So, the IWC “sanctuary” doesn’t apply to them. They are free to resume commercial hunting of Minke whales at any time.
    Second, Japan could simply drop out of the IWC, like Canada did. At which time Japan would no longer be bound by IWC regulations.