Thinking caps at the ready | Home | 17 against whaling

Can Mr. Carter please tell me what's so cultural with the WHALEBURGERS?

Interesting that the Washington Times should have an even remotely favorable article; they're a conservative paper, and their articles are almost always biased in favor of the Bush administration and its anti-environmental policies.

What bothers me about reporters in general is that they don't seem to remember that there's this thing out there called Google, and you can use it to do searches - imagine that! In other words, the author of the article should have done a little fact-checking to see if Carter knows what he's talking about or not.

This blog should be one source/reference that reporters should use, since you guys have so many important research-oriented links on the left sidebar.

Anyway, as always, thanks for all the work you're doing!

An msnbc vote is encouraging. 76% of respondents indicated that nations opposed to whaling should take strong actions to pressure Japan to stop.
24% felt Japan's research whaling was okay.

Dear Andrew,

I'm sorry to say that the article you refer to is not so nice, in my opinion. It is full of misleading information Greenpeace has been spreading for sometime.

First of all, Japanese research whaling is not illegal. You DO know that research whaling conducted under special permits as designated under article 8 of the ICRW are perfectly legal, even in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary.

Maybe you need to read article 8 once more :
"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.
4. Recognizing that continuous collection and analysis of biological data in connection with the operations of factory ships and land stations are indispensable to sound and constructive management of the whale fisheries, the Contracting Governments will take all practicable measures to obtain such data." (my emphasis)

I don't think that taking the debate about whaling into an issue about the necessity of traditions is a good thing. Anyway, as Ian Campbell said a few days before, "whaling will come to an end when the people of Norway and the people of Japan tell their governments unequivocally (...) [it] needs to come to an end". (Yes, I changed the quote a bit, to remove the part of unnecessary feeling from it)

However, since there are many (hundreds of thousands) Antarctic Minke whales in the Southern Oceans and that the IWC scientific committee created the Revised Management Procedure, which is a very reliable way to set quotas without endangering whales stocks, Japan, Norway and Iceland certainly don't need to give up their RIGHT to whaling.

Japanese whalers may not be using the "whole thing", but it is certainly almost everything in a whale carcasse that is processed and consumed in Japan. If Mr Carter was to read your weblog, I guess he would be even more misled than he may have been by the Japanese whalers.

As for the survey you commissioned with IFAW, I think it doesn't have anymore value than any survey commissioned by the whalers. You shouldn't put all your argumentation on this.

I hope you will have the honesty to publish this comment and to respond to it.
Thank you in advance.

CBC Radio One broadcast this morning. Providing the link and text.
You can listen to audio - interviews at this website.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2006/200601/20060118.html

Whaling – Greenpeace
Save the Whales is a slogan we don't hear much any more. But back in the early eighties - it was common to see cars across North America sporting that ubiquitous "save the whales" bumper sticker. And it seemed like Greenpeace was always making news with its aggressive wrangling of yet another whaling vessel. But the movement was a success and a moratorium against whaling was called in 1986.

Well twenty years later, environmentalists are saying it's time to whip out those stickers again. Commercial whaling, and whaling for research purposes, is at an all-time twenty-year high. Countries such as Norway, Iceland and Japan are slaughtering upwards of 2000 whales a year. And the International Whaling Commission - the very body that put forth the 1986 ban - has seen almost half of its country members pushing for commercial whaling to be reinstated.

And this time around the fight is gearing up to be as nasty as it was in the past. Two days ago, the hard-line environmental group the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society claimed a Japanese whaler knocked an activist into the icy waters of the Southern Ocean.

And last week - Greenpeace's boat the Arctic Sunrise and the Japanese whaling ship the Nisshin Maru collided. It made international headlines with each claiming the other side was responsible. We heard from Greenpeace expedition leader Shane Rattenbury commenting on the incident. (Audio with Shane)

The second Greenpeace boat in the waters off the Antarctic is the Esperenza. It too has been making life difficult for Japanese whalers in the area. One of its crew members is Canadian, Paul Ruzycki. We reached him off the coast of Antarctica. (Audio with Paul)

Whaling – Norway
We've been hearing about efforts to stop a Japanese whaling expedition. But Japan is not the only country to participate in modern day whale hunts. Norway also has never agreed with the International Whaling Commission's moratorium on commercial whaling.

That country has had a long tradition of whaling and to discuss this culture and why it still exists, we were joined by Norway's ambassador with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Karsten Klepsvik. We reached him at his office in Oslo. (Audio)

Whaling – WWF
As we mentioned, the International body that monitors both commercial and research whaling is called the IWC or the International Whaling Commission. Right now, there are sixty-six member countries - from all seven continents.

But tensions within the group have been rising. In fact, a split is emerging between those who feel the 1986 moratorium should be cancelled and those who still want to see whales protected.

To discuss the rise in whaling and which countries are behind it, we were joined by Dr. Sue Liberman. She's the director of the World Wildlife Fund's Global Species Program and we reached her in Rome. (Audio)

NOTE: This lady was well-spoken - provided very convincing arguments against whaling.

Audio also contains interview with IWC Director Niki Grandi - not impressed with her comments.

In reporting on one of your campaigns a few years
ago, a journalist made a claim to the effect that
support for Greenpeace, and by implication
opposition to whaling in Japan was negligible.
Whether he had evidence for this or was
merely perpetuating statements by supporters of
whaling I don't know. Either way, he added to the
perception of the issue as a conflict between
Japan, Norway and the rest of the world, rather
than as one between the commercial interests
lying behind whaling and the growing movement
everywhere for ecological sustainability and
environmental protection.

I am sure your supporters in Japan are extremely
busy, but where they get opportunities to be
interviewed by the international media they could
help to correct this conception of the issue and
counter the arguments about cultural
significance. Likewise when you're working on
Norwegian activities.

Thanks Echo, I've passed that on to Paul. Sounds like it turned out well.

A WWF page about Cetaceans can be found here. If you're wondering about their possition, it states:

It's illegal, but it still happens: commercial whaling Despite a moratorium on commercial whaling and the declaration of virtually the whole of the Southern Ocean as a whale sanctuary, each year over 1,000 whales are killed for the commercial market.

Dear Isanatori,

In response to points 1 - 4, please see my definition of the word "loophole" posted today in response to your earlier iteration of this same argument. My apologies for not getting it up earlier thus forcing you to repeat yourself.

And again, I could almost swear we agree where you say, "I don't think that taking the debate about whaling into an issue about the necessity of traditions is a good thing." Yes, I quite agree that all of this talk about culinary cultural values is only so much baloney put out by the whaling industry. Framing an industrial operation thousands of miles from Japan as a matter of culture is pretty silly.

Absolutely, let's stick to the main points: commercial whaling is unsustainable, and impossible to do humanely. Those are my two main points anyway.

For anyone curious, Ian Campbell's full quote was, "And that is that whaling will come to an end when the people of Norway and the people of Japan tell their governments unequivocally that the slaughter of whales needs to come to an end."

I think the unsustainability of commercial whaling, and criticism of Japan's so called "research" has been well covered on this blog and elsewhere already (here, here and here for starters) - so I won't bore people with repetition.

If you have another survey about Japanese attitudes towards whaling, you are welcome to post it. In my weblog I noted both who conducted the survey, and who financed it so that people can make up their own minds.

Also I would note that the whales in question are not in Japanese or Norwegian territory. They are highly migratory and are being hunted in international waters off the coast of Antarctica. The whales belong to the world if they belong to anyone. We all have both a "RIGHT" and an obligation to see to their welfare.

As for Mr. Carter, my point is that the whalers' media machine will apparently say absolutely anything, however easily proven false, if they think it will garner them some advantage. Personally I think this is a shortsighted strategy on their part, but they seem to be sticking to it.

Hi Andrew,

I think you forgot to put your links.
Here's the definition of the world "loophole" as found in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionnary :
"a MISTAKE in the way a lawa, contract, etc. has been written which enables people to LEGALLY avoid doing sth that the law, contract, etc. had intended them to do". (my emphasis)

So, if Japan was using the article 8 of the ICRW as loophole, it would mean their research whaling would be LEGAL. But since you pretend it is illegal, then it is not a loophole...isn't it? Or is it just that all your propaganda is just rhetoric ?

Besides, I can hardly believe there was a mistake in the ICRW. If there was one, then most countries opposed to whaling would reject it, wouldn't they?

"As for Mr. Carter, my point is that the whalers' media machine will apparently say absolutely anything, however easily proven false, if they think it will garner them some advantage. Personally I think this is a shortsighted strategy on their part, but they seem to be sticking to it."

In my opinion, you're pretty much doing the same.

One more thing, Norway has been commercially whaling for almost 13 years now, using the RMP and without depleting the Minke whales stocks that migrate near to its coastline. So we can say that it is sustainable, can't we?

I'm waiting for your response.

Isanatori -

So we agree that IF it is legal it is definitely a loophole? Perhaps this is a breakthrough.

Some people think it is illegal, while others (such as yourself) think it is legal. As I said in reply to you http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/archive/2006/01/something_i_hav.html ">before, I will leave the question of legal minutiae to those better schooled in it.

The reason I personally am here doing my best to protect these whales is that commercial whaling is unsustainable and inhumane. The legality of it, to me, is a moot point.

As for Norway, as I also said to you in a previous reply:

Norway objected to the moratorium and uses that justification for its continued whaling, and in fact increased their self appointed quota by 30 percent last year. I've never worked on the issue of Norwegian whaling, but many groups (including Greenpeace) object to it.

More information:

Greenpeace page about Norwegian whaling.

Environmental Investigation Agency documented a whale shot by the Norwegian whalers taking almost 15 minutes to die - http://www.eia-international.org/cgi/news/news.cgi?t=template&a=258&source=" rel="nofollow">link, http://209.40.104.24/multimedia/norway.mov" rel="nofollow">EIA footage (Quicktime .mov).

IFAW page disputing the substance of your point.

And you are of course free to form any opinion of me you wish. However, I will point out that Mr. Carter's falsehood was refuted with photographic evidence. This is, I think, substantively a different sort of thing than the differences of opinion we continue to have. I would appreciate it if you would at least acknowledge that much.

As a courtesy, I should let you know that it is well after midnight here. I am going to bed - and so will not be waiting for your reply. Please feel free to formulate your response in a leisurely fashion. See you tomorrow.

Alan here. ( I live in Kyoto,Japan but I am currently visiting my home in New Zealand.)

Some ideas which I recently posted on Japan Today's threads on whaling.
There are several points which I hope add to this
campaign.

Title
'Australia, New Zealand say they can't stop Japanese whaling'
http://www.crisscross.com/jp/news/361440
(Jan 19 2006 )

-But the Japanese People, through the Japanese Government CAN !
"Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted."
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm#notes
.......................................................
When is a law not a law?
When it is the IWCs' regulations:
"it is the member nation that ultimately decides whether or not to issue a permit, and this right overrides any other Commission regulations including the moratorium and sanctuaries."
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm

It could also be useful for the Anti-whaling lobby to focus on lobbying IWC member states to revoke this ridiculously liberal clause at the IWC meeting in May 2006 in (hard to get to) St.Kitts.

A simple majority is all that is needed to change the commission's procedure but a failing of that is that the vote is not taken by secret ballot.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/procedure.htm#procedure
Ironically, the Japanese are calling for secret ballot too.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/06/14/1118645791548.html
.........................................

"The purpose of the Convention is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry."

-so really it is a waste of energy for the conservation lobbyists to even be dealing with them.
Alternatively , all member states whose goal is the conservation of cetaceans should withdraw from the IWC and transfer the resources that they are wasting there to the International Ocean Institute ( http://www.ioinst.org/ ) to give that body more clout as an internationally recognised forum and legislative body. ( Japan already is a member : http://www.ioi-japan.org/ )

....................................................
For the anti-whaling lobby to be successful in achieving their goals,it would be more constructive if we were having this debate in Japanese.

Interestingly, Greenpeace Japan's English page only reports on the whaling fleet's departure back in November 2005 : http://www.greenpeace.or.jp/index_en_html
but the 日本語 page ( http://www.greenpeace.or.jp/ ) is making NO MENTION of it .

Greenpeace Japan , where are you on this issue?
................................................

As for business in general, growth and competition are essential for the whaling industry.
If we are to trust the assertions of the whaling industry as to the quantification of the resource and verification of what species they are marketing ,it is an inevitability that whale populations will be depleted until their scarcity brings about the end of the industry .

There are 6,500,000,000 people on Earth now.
To sustain the eco-systems that we depend on ,it is essential that governments start leading the way to minimising the harm our lifestyles and economies are causing.

As individuals we should be looking at changing our consumption habits.
..............................................
Next, from:
http://www.crisscross.com/jp/news/360664
Eat whale , lose face.
An observation.
Over the last month I've been hitch-hiking around in New Zealand and generally meeting a wide cross-section of people and from what I've been hearing I'd say that the issue of whaling by the Japanese in the Southern Oceans is doing the worst P.R. job the Japanese Government could ever have done for its people even to the extent of endangering those who are coming here as tourists (among whom,ironically whale-watching is popular ), on working holiday visas or on business .
I have been quite shocked by some of the opinions I have heard expressed here about the issue and wouldn't like to be a Japanese person trying to exonerate myself from the whole nasty business.

Surely the Japanese Government could not be have got itself in this deep this just for 'the right'to eat whale meat ?
-Totally off the wall perhaps but could this whole thing be a double edged sword instigated by the right-wing of the Japanese power clique to incite an atmosphere of animosity abroad in order to stem the flow of young Japanese to our fair lands?
One can only conjecture as to why they would do this but one of the raisons d'être of the ultra-rightists is the fear that Japan is losing its spirit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihonjinron )through the insidious adoption of western values.

And while I'm out on a lateral....
It must be miniscule but does anyone know if any studies have been carried out to quantify the extent to which the tonnage of 'free' whale meat has on the trade-balance its trading partners countries from which it would otherwise be importing other protein sources from ?

And from http://www.cdnn.info/news/eco/e050704.html
"Thanks to the internet, we are learning in real time that Japanese citizens oppose the whale killing coalition of extreme right-wing politicians, 'yakuza' organized criminal gangs, fishing industry bosses and Japan's whaling puppets including Palau and a half dozen increasingly unpopular dive destinations in the Caribbean."

Isanatori -

I really cannot believe you are still harping on about the legality of whaling. Are you in truth not aware that laws are manmade and therefore can err? Cutting down rainforrests is legal - does that make it any healthier for the planet? Dumping waste in the ocean is still legal in places all over the world - do you consider it a good - because legal - thing that that waste ends up in the whale meat you have for dinner? Sorry, but it is beyond me to comprehend how the mere sad legality of something should make that a good or even just defensible thing.
Secondly, as in your entries you have been pointing to the century old tradition of eating whale meat, I would be much interested in your reply to Ann N.'s question on the top of this page: "Can Mr. Carter please tell me what's so cultural with the whaleBURGERS?"
Thirdly, from the mere fact - in so far that it is one - that the Norwegians haven't managed to deplete the minke whale populations in their waters yet, it does NOT follow that whaling is sustainable. For all we know the numbers of minke whales in the North might be in decline, or will be soon, if the quotas continue to be raised at the rate they have been. If you look at the IWCs site, their last population estimates are up to 1995, which was quite a long time ago. So the Norwegians might be in for quite a bit of a surprise a few years from now, if they continue the way they do. Sincerely, Pavlos