My world in a corner | Home | Empty words

Yeah some discussion...
I would 'understand' if they were taking 30 whales a year and the research was actually proving something... But when they are taking nearly 1000 and the research is 'discredited' by other scientists then it makes you wonder why they are taking so many... Also the fact that the research is Lethal makes a big difference... Many other countries do research by non lethal means and achieve much better data... So I pose this to the person above... (and any other prowhaling out there)
1. Why does Japan have to kill the whales when other scientists do not?
2. Why do they have to kill so many?

An absolutely excellent post!

I salute Jonn for his reply!

I also want to mention that some nations do "research" work on fish species as well, that has nothing to do with "research", but only commercial profit.

Greenpeace has targeted many times the notorious fishing company, Grupo Oya Perez, whose fishing vessels are not only involved in pirate fishing , but also engaged in "research" fishing. One of its fishing vessels, the Lootus II, is doing "research" work on Greenland halibut, a very valuable commercial fish, but according to the Norwegians no valuable "research" work has never been done and the information received is totally useless.

Hmmm, most whaling supporters have stopped using the cliché "Research" argument anymore and are being a bit more open and honest, i.e we kill whales to eat. The small minority still using this argument just insult the intelligence of both parties.

The cultural argument is also worn to bits. Here in NZ I know some Maori people would still dearly love to eat the native pigeon (Kereru) but have the good sense to know they have been hunted to extinction. They are fully supportive and active in it’s conservation.

Lets' really get down to it. Who eats the stuff? Is this the food of only the really super wealthy? (i.e. 1% of the population). What proportion of the Japanese population actually eat whale meat?
Without being judgemental lets hear from the consumers at the end of the food chain, so to speak. Also be good to get some price comparisons with other foods.

An other question for John Frizell AND for any other pro- or contra-whaling: can you cite publications (scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals, or technical reports available to the scientific community) based on the lethal research program (JARPA-2)conducted by Japanese institutions? Could those scientific discoveries - if there are some - have been achieved through non-lethal sampling methodology ?

Another perspective on the whaling debate- One aspect of this debate that you don't hear much about, but what I think is the key to the whole debate is this: Whales swim in international waters. As such, they are a "common resource" to be shared by all people of the world. The citizens of Japan do not own the whales they hunt. People may protest against Koreans for killing dogs to be eaten, but the fact is those dogs live in Korea. Whales are different, they live in international waters and migrate to countries where they are valued alive. The same whales that the Japanese hunt in Antarctica, especially the Humpbacks that the Japanese plan to eventually hunt, migrate to Australia, New Zealand and Hawaii, where they support whale watching tour businesses. The Japanese are doing nothing other than robbing- yes, stealing money from- whale watching businesses in Hawaii. Even if they don't kill all of the whales or they find a way "to manage the stock" or make whaling "sustainable," still, every time a whale watching tour boat goes out and the paying customers don't see a whale, the Government of Japan should be held financially liable.

The past 60 or so years have seen a change in the way the majority of the world see whales. Before much was known about them, they were valued for oil and as a cheap food source (contrary to the Japanese cultural/ culinary argument, whale meat IS NOT an important part of the Japenese diet, rather, the older generation in Japan developed a taste for it after WWII when all other meat was scarse and the U.S. occupation force allowed whaling.) Now, most people, who give it a thought, know that whales are: 1. the largest creatures on earth, 2. (at least) somewhat intelligent and social animals, 3. important to the ocean ecosystem and 4. endangered. Because of this, the majority of the people in the world value whales more alive than dead. And since whales live in international waters, the majority opinion of the world should over-rule any argument on the pro-whaling side.

Someone once said, you can watch and be inspired by a whale many times but you can only kill it once. The whaling debate and the efforts of the whale conservationists needs to refocus it's attention and efforts on the key to this debate- that whales belong to everybody and the Japanese (or anyone) do not have the right to kill any of them. The IWC needs to be disbanded completely and the issue of competing economic interests between a few hungry whale meat connosseiurs and the multi-billion dollar a year and growing whale watching industry needs to be addressed at the appropriate committees in the U.N.

Keep up the Good Fight, Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd!

Greg Martin
Residing in Okinawa, Japan

What's wrong with whaling? What's wrong with it, is the civilized world is shocked at your behavior and wants you to stop this inhumane and barbaric suffering to helpless, Loving, and yes, ...feeling creatures. You have no right to destroy such Love or to cause this kind of suffering for your pleasure and preference of taste. It is a sickness, and the sickness is insensitivity and greed. This is the same kind of insensitivity that causes us to send our children to their slaughter in Iraq. When will we ever begin to feel their suffering and end this forever? Perhaps this is the precursor to evolution, ...when we all become vegetarians we will begin to understand that all life is precious. Do yourself a favor and go vegetarian. Primates don't, and were never meant to eat meat. God and the universe are waiting for us to find the meaning of Love. But it's really the thrill of the hunt isn't it. Grow up and teach your children it isn't necessary to hurt God's creatures for your pleasure. ...and guess what, ...your children will live a better life both physically and morally. This human race is failing, and you'd better get it together soon. Stop taking from this planet, and start contributing something. We have so little time left...

An excellent post! Greenpeace should report details like these for every campaign! It answers a lot of questions that people ask me about Greenpeace's actions.

A follow-up to provide some information - excerpts are from Report TROUBLED WATERS: A Review of the Welfare Implications of Modern Whaling Activities. This is a well-researched report and is available for download in PDF format from WDCS.
In 1998 a resolution was passed requesting that the Secretariat of the IWC conduct a comprehensive review of ethical considerations applied in other international scientific organisations (IWC 1999a). The Secretariat’s review led to the general conclusion that existing international ethical guidelines stress that research should aim to cause “the minimum of stress and distress, suffering and pain, and at the same time considering if the research results can be achieved using fewer animals or by other (non-lethal) means” (IWC 1999b).

A number of non-lethal methods are regularly used to address questions similar or identical to those proposed in the permit whaling programmes. Non-lethal biopsy sampling is widely used to collect small plugs of tissue from live cetaceans. A technique for ‘scrubbing’ a cetacean’s skin is also used to collect skin samples, without the need for any more invasive procedure. These techniques enable rapid and comprehensive collection of samples without killing the animals and call into question the justification for killing whales to assess population genetics. Techniques now exist to collect faeces from a whale as it swims, using a net to scoop up the sample near the water surface and to carry out DNA amplification to analyse the species composition within the samples and hence in the diet (Jarman et al 2003). This technique is very valuable as it enables repeated sampling of the same individual and construction of dietary profiles over time. Such techniques bear no welfare cost to the animals being studied.
Pollutants research can be carried out using biopsy sampling,
using samples from stranded cetaceans and by analysing incidental catches. PLICA T.

The ‘special case’ of special permit whaling. Japan continues to issue special permits for the killing of whales in scientific research programmes. However, there has never been unequivocal approval of any of these research proposals by the IWC’s Scientific Committee. Furthermore, the Commission has expressed considerable concern through several resolutions on scientific whaling, including, most recently, a call on “the government of Japan to halt the JARPA program, or to revise it so that it is limited to non-lethal research methodologies” 4. A critique of one such programme, the ‘JARPN’ programme, by a number of scientists from the Scientific Committee during the 2002 Annual Meeting (IWC 2002b) revealed that: • there are no meaningful quantifiable measures by which to judge the research; • lethal sampling is not essential to the research, as biopsy sampling could provide genetic and dietary information; • Japan describes JARPN II as a “multi-species modelling approach to whale management”; yet no such approach has been agreed by the Commission.

It's really hard for a vegetarian to respond to a carnivore on this issue. I don't eat my fellow creatures because it's not good for me...or them. I'm very healthy and I don't have to kill anyone to stay that way.
But with particular regard to whales: Have you ever met one? Each is extraordinary and unique. Their beauty is the beauty of the ocean.
I know carnivores have a problem being told that living creatures have certain rights and that not ending up on your plate really should be one of them. But really...really!

Hmmmm, interesting that when David is pretending to be a scientist, that he stifles his insults -

'You Greenpeace guys are filthy greedy devils.Tricking people into wanting to give their hard earned money to you is just downright dishonest.You disgust me......donating you scum money....You disgust me, you conman'
David - 2/12/2005 - Greenpeace USA Discussion Board.

It seems that David is just a 'Billy No Mates' Kiwi living in Japan (maybe) with a massive chip on his shoulder against the environmental movement, who when he is not sounding off on his personal soapbox; is wasting space here or programming add-on software for a 'Moon Clock'. No, I didn't make that last bit up. :-)

'IWC: And here's Captain Watson...
All the anti-whalers in the world need to sit back and think that they are on the same side as a scumbag like this guy.'
David goes on to describe pirate fishing vessels, illegaly fishing as 'vessels of private citizens'
David - 28/11/2005 - David's Blog.

It would be fantastic to see a homegrown kiwi company in Sealord go toe to toe with the donation thirsty "conservationists". They had better too - because if they ever succeed in getting whales off the menu, guess what's next?
- David's blog.

Same tired nonsense, but this is obviously a new strategy for the Anti-sustainable use bunch - try to create more controversy in those nations where the "conservation" groups are strongest, thus inducing more donations.
David - 02/12/2005 - David's blog.

Poisonous little crittur ain't he! :-)

- Lamna nasus

The first Antarctic "scientific" whaling program was not short -it started 1987 and ended 18 years later in 2005.

However, the new program, Japan says in its submitted research proposal, will be "a long-term research program of undetermined duration."

In direct language, this may very well mean forever. Is this "research" ?

Another point of view in the whale killing issue is that the human presumption of other living things, and minerals, as resources, here for our taking, is merely opinion.

While every living cell is involved in sustaining its life and reproducing, a vital baance through diversity occurs across the history of the evolution of life. This process of balance in ecosystems occurs at a pace far slower than advances in human technology, and more importantly in human proliferation, in the most recent century.

Humanity's population explosion and competition for resources is eliminating species which it cannot domesticate, except for higly adaptable commensal species of humans - cockroaches, certain viruses, rats, a number of adaptable flora, as well as domesticated animals and plants, all of which we regard as pests or resources.

In self-servingly defining species as resources and pests, we severely impact species which flourish without our presence. Through acting on our definitions, we are bringing to extinction species and ecosystems which throve before our appearance, and which, being in richly diverse ecological balance, allow sufficient diversity to create conditions which allow all, or any, life to continue.

The concept of resources presupposes pests.

The extinction of species high on food chains, resources such as whales, pests such as coyotes, wolves, bears, assists in the rapid rise of unchecked populations of species which can result in destruction of other species, modifying that ecosystem, with unforeseen cascading effects.

In addition, as most of the world's biologists will agree, the uncontrolled harvesting of certain species (as those we term as trees) produce catastrophic imbalances worldwide (as in global warming, now affecting Arctic ecosystems and some temperate regions - for instance the insect infestation destroying forests on the Kenai Peninsula, which seem to be pest infestations, but are results rather than isolated pest occurrences. You will notice that this results in a cascade toward global warming by further reducing carbon sequestration).

You are aware that the Japanese whaling research is purporting to investigate whether fish-eating species of whale are limiting the food supply of krill-eating species. The human economic presumption of pests vs. resources is implied, if not explicit.

The arguments against preservation are always economic. No argument for preservation will succeed with those who define prosperity or health as human increase.

Hi guys,
Just a wee request to please avoid personal attacks of any sort and stick to the debate topic! I'm not going to censor you but it would be more productive :)
Thanks
Your local friendly web editor

Hi Adele,

I withdraw unreservedly the comment that 'maybe' David did not live/work in Japan, since I have now found the picture of him sitting on a motorcycle at a Japanese motorshow. :-)

To David in Tokyo:

It may be true what you say, that "...proceeds for whale meat sales amount to less than the total cost of the research programmes," in the same way that all Hollywood films lose money -- on the books. It's an accounting gimmic to dodge taxes and every good businessman knows about it.

Now, let's talk about culture...

As for historical, aboriginal, and "cultural" authenticity you need a longboat, a hand-thrown harpoon -- minus grenade -- and a buncha guys to row like crazy. That's because it's only partly about the meat and mostly about the honor of the face-to-face hunt -- that which is notably absent in the southern whale sanctuary slaughter. World consciousness is evolving to embrace a new kind of honor -- that of peaceful coexistence. Time to let go and move on with us, David.

As an advertising and PR pro, I can say confidently that a $50M campaign couldn't make up for the international loss of face Japan suffers for its whaling. Japan, fast becoming a global exporter of both popular and traditional culture, should be the first to realize that whaling is contrary to nihonjinron -- the Japaneseness that's so admired.

The true cost and loss of Japanese whaling can be measured non-monetarily in more meaningful ways: in blood, in life, and in our reverence for the environment such as that which inform Shinto beliefs. To much of the world, whales are kami -- they inspire awe. NOW do you understand?

Peace be with you.

In regards to the vegetarian side of the arguement... Here is the point from a carnivore...

Ok so I'm not going to say whether eating meat or not is correct and all that sort of thing... That's your free choice... But we have to remember that the animals we eat (cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc...) are breed to be eaten... We don't go into the wild and hunt them and kill then... Now sure some animals - deer, pigs and some others are hunted... But that is for personal use... Not mass production... So there is a slight difference between that and whaling where they go and kill a wild species and bring it to near extinsion... So even though I eat meat I don't agree with going and killing wild animals... Like also look at the way that they are killing whales... It isn't exactly 'humane'... How would you like a big 'arrow' jabbed in your side and then being bleed and drowned... I guess that we can compare this whole saga to how people poach elephants, cheetahs etc... in Africa...

And with the way that they kill the whales and then 'discet' them on the factory ship all the descent scientific data is destroyed anyway!

I would love a prowhaling person to come to this 'discussion' and tell us what they really think!

IMO whaling stinks and so does factory farming...
Even if I am a vegetarian I think it is acceptable to eat meat from free range animals , which are farm slaughtered ( no long and painful transports to the slaughterhouse) but the superior meat must come from the halfdomesticated reindeers that really live a good life...

Hi again,
A reply to David. David says in his blog that most people in the world don't give a sh* t about whaling or are prowhaling, referring to a survey conducted by the "conservation" organisation IWMC( the World Conservation Trust).

Why don't I believe him?

This "conservation" group, is a very notorious one.

The IWMC's president Eugene Lapointe is a former CITES dismissed Secrtetary General. His organisation actively supports whaling, sealing, bear-bile farming, ivory trade , shark -finning , you name it.

This Eugene is also an Exxonfunded climate sceptic.

So, David, I DO believe that the majority of all people are against whaling, I can see proof of that everyday.

Hi,

David. I would like to post this comment especially for people like you. You seem to support this so called research that Japan seems to be doin on whales. I have one thing to say. There are lots of diseases that we human beings have still not found out a solution for. And for that matter the human population is still growing at a fast pace.

How would you feel if one day these so called scientists took away one of your kids to do their research on. Will you or your family or for any one for that matter allow such kind of things to happen. Will you still support that kind of research thinking that even if one or two people are killed in that process, there will still be billions of us left in this world?

The world has not been created for us. It is important that we remain humble and enjoy the beautiful things that God has given us not kill and eat. It is not at all necessary to kill such beatiful animals just to fill our stomachs.

When such things happens to one of our own near and dear ones we understand the pain and hurt it causes. You might not bother about the mother who loses her calf to some greedy people but I am. I want this world to remain beautiful for my future generations not an isolated place.

Hi,

I'm sorry to say Frizell's answers are not really answering David's questions.

Certainly, article VIII was not intended to allow nation-scale whaling, but then article V precises that all ammendments to schedules should be based on scientific findings...which is not the case for the moratorium and the southern ocean sanctuary.

You also need to explain to peoples that the moratorium was adopted by the IWC in 1982 on the grounds of "uncertainty" on data about whale stocks. This is why Japan, Norway and Iceland started scientific whaling when the moratorium came into effect.

Let's also say that Japan has objected to the southern ocean sanctuary regarding Minke whales in 1994. It means that Japan could resume commercial whaling of this species once the moratorium (which should have ended in 1990) is lifted.

It is easy to say that whaling is not sustainable when you are basing your judgement on the past. IWC, which was then a "whalers' club", has been using biased regulations such as the Blue Whale Unit and global quotas for almost 20 years. This is the main reason why many great whale species came to the brink of extinction.
Fortunately, this shall not happen again as the majority of member countries in the IWC are non-whaling countries (and are more interested in the conservation of whales).

If both parties could cooperate a bit more positively, whaling would be an excellent example of sustainable use of natural ressources.

Dear Webmaster,

If you are interested, I have posted more comments on my blog at:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/01/response-to-greenpeaces-john-frizell.html

Regards,
David

Halooo... team

I salute.... your action...to stop ship to killer whale...

I'm support you all the time

From : Budi Cahyono / Indonesia

"Lets' really get down to it. Who eats the stuff? Is this the food of only the really super wealthy? (i.e. 1% of the population). What proportion of the Japanese population actually eat whale meat?
Without being judgemental lets hear from the consumers at the end of the food chain, so to speak. Also be good to get some price comparisons with other foods."

I'd like to address this question quickly by saying that today at the Japanese school that I work in, all 350 students and 25 teachers each got about 8 chunks of whale meat as part of their school lunch. I did not eat it, but I also know from friends teaching around Japan that many, if not all, the schools serve whale at least once or twice a year. I teach at a junior high school. The three elementary schools that I work at usually have the same lunch menu as the junior high school. So, no, it is not reserved for a few wealthy citizens.

"Lets' really get down to it. Who eats the stuff? Is this the food of only the really super wealthy? (i.e. 1% of the population). What proportion of the Japanese population actually eat whale meat?
Without being judgemental lets hear from the consumers at the end of the food chain, so to speak. Also be good to get some price comparisons with other foods."

Guig is right about this. It is not wealthy people who eat whale meat. In fact, apart from a few restaurants that serve whale dishes in the big cities, the consumption of whale products mainly occurs in places such as Taiji, Ayukawa (Ishinomaki-city), Shimonoseki, Northwest of Kyushu, Abashiri or Kushiro where people have a long tradition of whaling.

The Institute of Cetacean Research sells whale meat from its research programmes at a cheaper price to these local communities.

Some might argue that places like Ayukawa, Abashiri or Kushiro don't have a long tradition of whaling since whaling only began in early 20th century there, but it was done through the migration of whalers from the Southwest (Taiji, Kyushu, etc.) who little by little settled there and transmitted their whaling culture.

It's not any news that the government is trying to promote the consumption of whale meat by serving it in schools, and lowering the price.

But whale meat is still not in big demand, and could easily be done without.

this is so sad tell them to stop killing the animls in the ocean cause they are also kiling the ocean and we dont like that we love the animals in the ocean and if you are goinh to keep doing it you will go to gell cause my dad is the presdent and if you want to talk talk to him call *82-259-6589 and if you do not be live me or call me or even email me you will see me on tv with the precent so you better or jail