As usual, but all is not good | Home | My account

Hi,

Andrew, you say :
"This was the first time I had ever seen the whalers conducting anything like real research."

That's certainly because you have a biased view of Japan whaling research. Here's what you can read on the IWC's website (http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm#jarpa) :
"The Committee also noted that the programme is contributing useful information on the role of minke whales in the Antarctic ecosystem, particularly with information on feeding and energetics, as well as providing some information relevant to the Committee’s work on pollution studies and the effect of environmental change on cetaceans."

Anyway, Japanese whalers have been using biopsy sampling for a few years now. It's just that you never report it...unfortunately.

By the way, it would honest of you if you could stop referring to the "Southern Ocean Sanctuary", as it has no effect on special permits as defined in the article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

I hope you will publish my comment, this time.
Thank you in advance.

Thanks for trying and my love goes out to the creatures of the deep, who only want to know us.

I have met a manatee once in Jamaica.

I am so sorry and disgraced that humans are still doing this to whales.

I don't know what to do? No santions have forced the Japanese to stop. The only real way, besides physically intervening, is financial dissent of the world against the Japanese as whole.

Sorry,
Eric

Dear Isanatori,

Why of course I will publish your comment! How else would I get the chance to reply to it?

Firstly, I have never reported the biopsy sampling because I have never seen it before. Not once. And I think it is a little bit funny co-incidence that I see it for the fist time, so shortly after the whalers issue a press release saying we are interfering with their non-lethal research.

The whale killing is just to keep their industry going until they can resume full scale commercial whaling, as far as I can tell. That’s been well covered on our site - here and here and here for example.

And I didn't designate this the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, the International Whaling Commission did. Pardon me for bringing it up.

Hi Andrew,

I am pleased you plublished and answered to my comment. That's my turn now, to respond to you. ;)

You're right, research whaling is a way for Japanese whalers to keep "alive" their technics and know-how related to whaling until the moratorium is lifted. Japan has always made clear its intention to resume commercial whaling, as far as I know. As I quoted my preceding comment, IWC's Scientific Committee, which is composed of scientists from whaling and non-whaling countries, has a rather positive view on Japanese whaling research programmes.

I am not denying the Southern Ocean Sanctuary as the IWC designated it in 1994, but I just want to make clear that this sanctuary has no effect on "special permits" (under which Japan is operating whaling research) such as designated in the article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

Besides, Japan has lodged an objection to this sanctuary with regards to Antarctic Minke Whales. It means that Japan could restart the commercial whaling of this species if the moratorium was lifted.

So it doesn't make sense to me to refer to the Southern Ocean Sanctuary as far as research whaling is concerned.

Best regards.

The biopsy sampling looks very much like a ploy to get Greenpeace boats out of the way. To the civilized world, Isanatori, the behaviour of the whalers to date is not even
remotely scientific. Anyone with the most cursory exposure to
real science can see this without a problem.


Japan's pretense of science in this one area is very perplexing to me. The brilliance of Japanese medical researchers in the field of human medicine is almost without peer in the world community.
One wonders if authentic Japanese scientists are aware that Japanese government-subsidized whalers are co-opting the term for their murderous practices, and if so, how they feel about the use of their honorable profession's image as a smokescreen for unconscionable cruelty and blatant profiteering. The very projection of such vast quotas of "specimens" belies the intent of Japanese faux scientists.
Until non-lethal biopsies and other minimally-intrusive research practices characterize the Japanese' approach to cetaceans, one cannot reasonably expect the international community to regard their endeavours with anything beyond profound skepticism, cynicism, and contempt.


You are neither the first nor the only nation to seek to deceive a too-savvy world in your need to maximize profits in immoral pursuits. Most of us can recognize it for what it is at fifty meters with our eyes tight shut. You'll just have to try harder to fool us, I'm afraid. And, by the way, real scientists don't risk the lives of protesters; and they don't slam their research materials into other boats.


Arianne

Hi Andrew, thanks for stopping by my blog and straightening out my analysis of the collision of Arctic Sunrise with Nisshin Maru.

Your experience regarding the very limited number of times you have witnessed whalers taking biopsy samples speaks volumes about what these jokers are doing. This certainly doesn't look like research- it looks more like a crime scene.

I've always wanted to know why killing over 1000 whales is even remotely necessary to conduct 'research.' Humans have known what is inside the skin of whales for a millennium. All research has a stated hypothetical goal. What reasonable hypothesis requires a mass slaughter of an endangered species to prove or disprove it?

The sign placed on the stern of the Nisshin Maru which reads "GREENPEACE MISLEADS YOU" is positively Orwellian. "Hate is love," "war is peace" and "slaughter is necessary for preservation" all fit in the same basket of official government lies.

Best wishes for smooth sailing, Andrew.

Sorry, I try again. It seems my latest comment didn't go through :

Hi Andrew,

I am pleased you published and answered to my comment. That's my turn now, to respond to you. ;)

You're right, research whaling is a way for Japanese whalers to keep "alive" their technics and know-how related to whaling until the moratorium is lifted. Japan has always made clear its intention to resume commercial whaling, as far as I know. As I quoted my preceding comment, IWC's Scientific Committee, which is composed of scientists from whaling and non-whaling countries, has a rather positive view on Japanese whaling research programmes.

I am not denying the Southern Ocean Sanctuary as the IWC designated it in 1994, but I just want to make clear that this sanctuary has no effect on "special permits" (under which Japan is operating whaling research) such as designated in the article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

Besides, Japan has lodged an objection to this sanctuary with regards to Antarctic Minke Whales. It means that Japan could restart the commercial whaling of this species if the moratorium was to be lifted.

So, it doesn't make sense to me to refer to the Southern Ocean Sanctuary as far as research whaling is concerned.

Best regards.

"stop referring to the "Southern Ocean Sanctuary", as it has no effect on special permits as defined in the article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling."

I wish people would stop referrring to the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which was signed over 50 years ago and a lot has changed since then!

Objectives of the convention are protection of all whale species from overhunting, establishment of a system of international regulation for the whale fisheries to ensure proper conservation and development of whale stocks, and safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by whale stocks. The primary instrument through which these aims were followed was the establishment of the International Whaling Commission. The commission has made many revisions to the schedule that makes up the bulk of the convention, reflecting changing economical, ecological and commercial standards.

The special permission you refer to, that the Japanese have is because they FAKE the fact that they are killing whales for research. The only reason they are down there doing "research" is to keep the whaling industry ticking over so that when they do manage to bribe enough countries to vote for them at the IWC they are ready to open up commercial whaling and hunt the great whales towards the brink of extinction once again and you can bet your ass that they'll be doing that in the sanctuary too because if they don't care about international law now why will they care later?

Japan is currently violating international conservation law, which can specifically be summarised as:

1. The Japanese are whaling in violation of the International Whaling Commission's global moratorium on commercial whaling. The IWC scientific committee does not recognise this bogus "research" that the Japanese are using as an excuse.

2. The Japanese are killing whales in the Southern Whale Sanctuary.

3. The Japanese are killing whales unlawfully in the Australian Antarctic Territory.

4. The Japanese are targeting Fin whales this year and Humpback whales next year. These are endangered species and thus this is a violation of Cites, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna.

5. The Japanese are in violation of IWC regulation 19(a). The IWC regulations in the Schedule to the Convention forbid the use of factory ships to process any protected stock:

19. (a) It is forbidden to use a factory ship or a land station for the purpose of treating any whales which are classified as Protection Stocks in paragraph 10.

Paragraph 10(c) provides a definition of Protection Stocks and states that Protection Stocks are listed in the Tables of the Schedule. Table 1 lists all the baleen whales, including minke, fin and humpback whales and states that all of them are Protection Stocks.

6. In addition, the IWC regulations specifically ban the use of factory ships to process any whales except minke whales: Paragraph 10(d) provides:

(d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10 there shall be a moratorium on the taking, killing or treating of whales, except minke whales, by factory ships or whale catchers attached to factory ships. This moratorium applies to sperm whales, killer whales and baleen whales, except minke whales.

Hello Isanatori,

Have you considered what would happen if there were 100 ships in the Southern Ocean catching this free feed in the name of science? After all, if it’s OK for the Japanese to conduct “research” then it must be OK for everybody. Perhaps it wouldn't even need much technology, after all whaling existed before the technology now in use and it is not beyond the bounds of reason that other rank amateurs might consider this a free-for-all, which is what it looks like to me.

Yours

Marine - Melbourne

Hi Andrew,

Speaking as a humpback whale researcher...
Two possible explanantions:
It may be a ploy to make themselves look as though they are actually doing research or; they may be collecting humpback samples for comparison with samples from Antarctic Area Groups I to VI collected on the calving/breeding grounds. This is done via sequencing (mitochondrial DNA) and genotyping (microsatellites), mitochondrial DNA will give you information about the maternal lines and evolutionary relationships whilst microsatellites help establish relatedness between individuals and groups of individuals.
So they may be collecting samples on the feeding grounds to compare future results of DNA analyses with already established data from whales sampled on the calving/breeding grounds (carried out by the various researchers for each Antarctic Area Group, or Stocks A to G as they are now called).
For example, for Antarctic Area Group IV (Stock D) humpbacks, we believe there may be an eastern and western feeding ground and that this could be reflected in the genetic structuring. This is something I would have liked to have addressed in my study. However, it would have meant not only sampling humpbacks in Western Australia (which we did from the North West Cape) but also sampling humpbacks in the eastern and western parts of Antarctic Area IV. For me, this was a financial and logistical impossibility.
So we may have to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one...

Incidentally, which Antarctic Area did this occur in? Also, have you been moving throughout various Antarctic Areas during the campaign? I have the lats and longs for each area if you're not sure.

Stay safe

Muriel:)

Hi Guys,
I think you are doing a great job so keep up the good work, there are alot of us watching and cheering you on, I wish I could be there.

What I dont understand regarding what ekkaia said - "The Japanese are targeting Fin whales this year and Humpback whales next year. These are endangered species and thus this is a violation of Cites, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna" is why arent the Japanese whalers being prosecuted like poachers in Africa etc are with elephants and rhino and all the other poor animals who are mutilated for financial gain? Because thats what the whalers are: poachers. And we all know its for money not "research".

Gods I dont know how some people live with themselves.

I say again keep up the good work and be safe...

Where can I read the research results based on the killing of these whales? Are there any available?
Are there any at all?
I want to hear from the Japanese regarding this issue.

To ekkaia,

I'm sorry to say that the ICRW may have been signed more than 50 years ago, it is still in force, and all member countries in the IWC have signed it.

Now, I believed you have a very biased reading of the Convention's objectives. Here's what I read :
"(...) to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry". (See here : http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm#convention)

I see you quoted Paul Watson's misleading arguments. They are easy to refute.

- You just need to read carefully the ICRW, specially articles I and VIII, to demonstrate that points 1, 2, 5 and 6 are false. And The IWC Scientific Committee does recognize the Japanese whaling research programme, as "(...) contributing useful information (...)".

- Point 3 doesn't mean nothing as Japan doesn't recognize Australia's Antarctic territory. That's the reason why Australian government can't do anything and isn't doing anything against Japanese research whaling in Antarctica.

- Point 4 has no meaning either, as Japan is not going to sell the by-products of its research whaling to another country. That's not international trade.

Isanatori -

It *almost* sounds like we agree. It is clear that the whalers are exploiting a loophole or legal technicality to justify their hunt. Whether their actions are technically "legal" I will leave to the international law and policy wonks. However, the International Whaling Commission has asked them to stop, and to honour the sanctuary.

Commercial whaling has a long and consistent history of irresponsible overexploitation. The fact that the current whaling industry continues whaling in the Sanctuary despite the express wish of the international body that regulates whaling tells me that little has changed.

Thanks again Andrew for more of this real Love you seem to have so much an abundance of. I hope one day isanatori, ...that you will cross that bridge of Love, from yourself and your personal needs, ...to go outward and to feel for others, ...as Andrew and the others that post here have done so long ago. They have pain and sorrow, ...and it hurts, ...but they also have joy and passion in their otherwise empty lives. Knights of the sea with this Love glowing within them. Finding this Love they were meant to. God help you to understand the pain of others, ...and the joy to know and feel this miracle selfishness never can. ...I did happen to find an old Greenpeace music video, so I'm going to run it for a week in place of 'Onward', ...with the same page. ...I don't know what to say, ...I know you all have to do this, ...but please be careful - http://www.gratefulchild.org/projects/gcweb/gc/html/onward/

Dear Andrew,

I guess it *only almost* sounds like we agree. To me, article VIII is not a loophole, it is a right that any member country who signed the ICRW may use. Even if what Japan is operating under the names of JARPA2 and JARPN2 may look to you like commercial whaling in disguise, it is very legal by the terms of the ICRW, in my opinion.

You do know that all these resolutions the IWC has adopted urging Japan to stop issuing special permits under article VIII, are not binding.

I agree though with you that whaling has had a long history of overexploitation. Most countries who oppose whaling nowadays (the so-called "like-minded group") used to take part in the overexploitation of whales ressources, and they didn't stop because they realized it, but because their whaling industries were not profitable anymore (less whales, cheap substitutes for whale oil, etc.).

However, you have to admit that Norway is conducting commercial whaling (legally, of course) since 1993, using the Revised Management Procedure the IWC/SC designed, and Minke whales stocks near Norway's coast are not getting less abundant.
It shows that carefully managed commercial whaling can be sustainable.

Let's be honest. There are enough whales for Japan to harvest some every year in the Southern Ocean, under the rules (quotas, traceability, etc.) and scrutiny (observation, inspection) of IWC of course.

The only forseeable future as things are evolving actually, is that most whaling countries will the sooner or the later exit the IWC, leaving the commission powerless. Instead, these countries will make their own whaling management regimes (such as the NAMMCO) and we will go back to the same situation as when the IWC was founded : whaling management will be under the rule of the whaling industry...which is very probably not sustainable.

The anti-whaling camp have the ability to enforce the purposes of the ICRW (that is "to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry"). That would not only serve the whaling issue, trust me, but the management of all natural ressources.

I sincerely hope you will respond to this message.

Regards.

Isanatori - I stand corrected. I didn't realise those were Paul Watson's own accusations. I read that in a New Zealand Hearlad article (I think) and the laws that Japan were apparently breaking seemed part of the news article rather than Watson's own words. Guess I was mistaken. For what it's worth - I knew that the CITES bit was wrong (since there is not international trade as you rightly point out) and didn't mean to copy and paste that bit.

Anyway - ditto what Andrew says.

Dear Andrew,

I guess it *only almost* sounds like we agree. To me, article VIII is not a loophole, it is a right that any member country who signed the ICRW may use. Even if what Japan is operating under the names of JARPA2 and JARPN2 may look to you like commercial whaling in disguise, it is very legal by the terms of the ICRW, in my opinion.

You do know that all these resolutions the IWC has adopted urging Japan to stop issuing special permits under article VIII, are not binding.

I agree though with you that whaling has had a long history of overexploitation. Most countries who oppose whaling nowadays (the so-called "like-minded group") used to take part in the overexploitation of whales ressources, and they didn't stop because they realized it, but because their whaling industries were not profitable anymore (less whales, cheap substitutes for whale oil, etc.).

However, you have to admit that Norway is conducting commercial whaling (legally, of course) since 1993, using the Revised Management Procedure the IWC/SC designed, and Minke whales stocks near Norway's coast are not getting less abundant.
It shows that carefully managed commercial whaling can be sustainable.

Let's be honest. There are enough whales for Japan to harvest some every year in the Southern Ocean, under the rules (quotas, traceability, etc.) and scrutiny (observation, inspection) of IWC of course.

The only forseeable future as things are evolving actually, is that most whaling countries will exit the IWC, leaving the commission powerless. Instead, these countries will make their own whaling management regimes and we will go back to the same situation as when the IWC was founded : whaling management will be under the rule of the whaling industry...which is very probably not sustainable.

The anti-whaling camp have the ability to enforce the purposes of the ICRW (that is "to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry"). That would not only serve the whaling issue, trust me, but the management of all natural ressources.

I sincerely you will respond to this message.

Regards.

well well well

diplomacy has failed in Australia, so what i suggest happens now is we boycott products that are owned by whaling companies- lets repliate argentinas success. for example "sealord" fish products are half owned by Nissui (japenese company) which supports and markets whale products around the world (among other things).

why not begin media campaigns in australia and new zealand that target the surburban shopper? financial blows cut deep and results in immediate response from profit obsessed organisations.

what have we got to lose?

I hope my comment gets published....this time ;)

Dear Andrew,

I guess it *only almost* sounds like we agree. To me, article VIII is not a loophole, it is a right that any member country who signed the ICRW may use. Even if what Japan is operating under the names of JARPA2 and JARPN2 may look to you like commercial whaling in disguise, it is very legal by the terms of the ICRW, in my opinion.

You do know that all these resolutions the IWC has adopted urging Japan to stop issuing special permits under article VIII, are not binding.

I agree though with you that whaling has had a long history of overexploitation. Most countries who oppose whaling nowadays (the so-called "like-minded group") used to take part in the overexploitation of whales ressources, and they didn't stop because they realized it, but because their whaling industries were not profitable anymore (less whales, cheap substitutes for whale oil, etc.).

However, you have to admit that Norway is conducting commercial whaling (legally, of course) since 1993, using the Revised Management Procedure the IWC/SC designed, and Minke whales stocks near Norway's coast are not getting less abundant.
It shows that carefully managed commercial whaling can be sustainable.

Let's be honest. There are enough whales for Japan to harvest some every year in the Southern Ocean, under the rules (quotas, traceability, etc.) and scrutiny (observation, inspection) of IWC of course.

The only forseeable future as things are evolving actually, is that most whaling countries will exit the IWC, leaving the commission powerless. Instead, these countries will make their own whaling management regimes and we will go back to the same situation as when the IWC was founded : whaling management will be under the rule of the whaling industry...which is very probably not sustainable.

The anti-whaling camp have the ability to enforce the purposes of the ICRW (that is "to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry"). That would not only serve the whaling issue, trust me, but the management of all natural ressources.

I sincerely you will respond to this message.

Regards.

Dear Isanatori,

I have responded to you point for point below. Sorry for the delay, but I have replied to you point by point below.

Isanatori said: "I guess it *only almost* sounds like we agree. To me, article VIII is not a loophole, it is a right that any member country who signed the ICRW may use. Even if what Japan is operating under the names of JARPA2 and JARPN2 may look to you like commercial whaling in disguise, it is very legal by the terms of the ICRW, in my opinion.

Now I know that we disagree - at least on the definition of the word "loophole". I am using this one:

Loophole - A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.

An industry with sales of over 50 million US dollars a year, that does not go through the normal scientific peer review process, that has been criticized by international whale researchers and by the IWC itself - if that sort of thing doesn't count as a loophole in this context, I don't know what does.

To quote Dr. Toshio Kasuya, a marine mammal specialist formerly of the Japanese Fisheries Agency, now a Professor at Teikyo University of Science and Technology and participant of the IWC Scientific Committee:

The research plan was designed so that it would require years of effort and make it possible to catch enough whales to cover the research cost. I regret that I carelessly lent a hand with launching scientific whaling, a legal loophole in the ICRW. Source: The Mainichi Shinbun Newspaper, October 3, 2005 [via WDCS]

Isanatori: You do know that all these resolutions the IWC has adopted urging Japan to stop issuing special permits under article VIII, are not binding.

This is exactly part of the problem. The whaling industry is basically making its own rules - barely held somewhat in check for the moment by world opinion and a prohibition on international trade.

Isanatori: I agree though with you that whaling has had a long history of overexploitation. Most countries who oppose whaling nowadays (the so-called "like-minded group") used to take part in the overexploitation of whales resources, and they didn't stop because they realized it, but because their whaling industries were not profitable anymore (less whales, cheap substitutes for whale oil, etc.).

In a time where everything from krill on up the food chain is being hauled out of the ocean and turned into various food products it is absurd to imply that other nation's don’t want to start up whaling industries. Although it's not regarded as tasty I expect it would be regarded as marketable. And the whaling industry working hard on its marketing.

Isanatori: However, you have to admit that Norway is conducting commercial whaling (legally, of course) since 1993, using the Revised Management Procedure the IWC/SC designed, and Minke whales stocks near Norway's coast are not getting less abundant. It shows that carefully managed commercial whaling can be sustainable.

I'd point out that the Convention allows any member state to exempt it self from any IWC decision simply by lodge an objection to it. Another gigantic loophole. Effectively, whaling countries only have to obey the rules they don't object to. 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 - link">http://www.eia-international.org/cgi/news/news.cgi?t=template&a=258&source=">link, EIA">http://209.40.104.24/multimedia/norway.mov">EIA footage (Quicktime .mov).

IFAW page disputing the substance of your point.

Isanatori: Let's be honest. There are enough whales for Japan to harvest some every year in the Southern Ocean, under the rules (quotas, traceability, etc.) and scrutiny (observation, inspection) of IWC of course.

The only reason minke whales are still relatively abundant is that they were spared intensive commercial hunting by the IWC's moratorium. This is because they are the smallest of the great whales and not targeted until the larger ones had been hunted to near extinction. The whaler's consistently show a flagrant disregard for the normal scientific peer review process, the international regulatory body that is supposed to control whaling, the suffering of these animals, and the safety of their fellow humans here in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

They've done nothing to show they can be trusted with a resumption of whaling. Quite the opposite. Everything I have witnessed down here has only re-enforced my position that the Sanctuary should be honoured and the moratorium on commercial whaling upheld.

Isanatori: The only forseeable future as things are evolving actually, is that most whaling countries will exit the IWC, leaving the commission powerless. Instead, these countries will make their own whaling management regimes and we will go back to the same situation as when the IWC was founded : whaling management will be under the rule of the whaling industry...which is very probably not sustainable.

Actually, I suspect Japan will stick with the IWC while continuing its costly vote buying scheme in an attempt to subvert the IWC by bartering foreign aid for votes. This is why we have turned to a consumer based strategy - asking people to contact companies like Nissui and Gorton's that are linked to the whaling industry to help put an end to it.

But thank you for acknowledging that the whaling industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself.

Isanatori: The anti-whaling camp have the ability to enforce the purposes of the ICRW (that is "to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry"). That would not only serve the whaling issue, trust me, but the management of all natural ressources.

Thank you for the strategic advice, but you will pardon me if I regard it with some small scepticism - seeing as it comes from someone who is such a sincere supporter of whaling, and that the end result would be more whaling.

Isanatori: I sincerely you will respond to this message.

Of course. Always a pleasure. Sorry for my delay in responding to this one.