Japan kills 680 Antarctic whales, below target

[Coventina]

Source: Reuters

TOKYO, April 13 (Reuters) - Japan's whaling catch in its latest Antarctic hunt fell far short of its target after disruptions by anti-whaling activists, the Fisheries Agency said on Monday.

Japan, which considers whaling to be a cherished cultural tradition, killed 679 minke whales despite plans to catch around 850. It caught just one fin whale compared with a target of 50 in the hunt that began in November.

Some ships in its six-ship fleet have returned home after clashes with the hardline group Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, including a collision that crushed a railing on one of the Japanese ships.

A Fisheries Agency official said ships could not carry out whaling for a total of 16 days because of bad weather and skirmishes with the activists.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUST40784

---

:-)

[Deep13]

1. If sea monsters were real, I would be rooting for them right now.

shithead whalers :grr:

[belpejic]

9. The irony

From what I understand there is extremely limited demand for whale meat in Japan. It all seems utterly pointless. There must be some incestuous tie between the whaling industry and the government. It would be cool to hear from anyone who really understands the situation.

[jmondine]

14. There is also a certain amount of elitist arrogance in the Japanese culture

It leads to a sort of "We're not going to stop whaling and you can't make us" mentality.
Actually, it's something that they have in common with our culture.
At least with the Japanese, once you get down to the personal level, that arrogance tends to give way to individual modesty.

And yes, I know I'm making generalizations.

[kristopher]

17. We've made it politically impossible for them to back down.

The ultra-nationalists in the country have made it a "cause" that demonstrates the arrogance and high-handed attitudes of the West. They are a small but powerful voice on some issues and this is one of their favorites. People like Watson feed the propaganda machine yearly and just make the situation increasingly bad. You just saw the nationalistic sentiment that pirates attacking a US cargo ship engenders; why would you think the Japanese would respond with any less a degree of anger and intent to resist?

[ensho]

2. the Japanese need to WAKE UP and help heal the earth

not continue the damage and death.

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. According to some DUers, those Japanese boats should be pirated

...and held for ransom. In contrast to the shithead fantasy that the Somali pirates are protesting overfishing, the Japanese are ACTUALLY overfishing. So, pirate away.

[The Stranger]

4. The difference is that the Japanese are violating international law.

If someone is comitting a crime, and another interdicts that crime, those actions may be protected under law.

[kristopher]

5. That isn't correct.

The Japanese actions, while undesirable, are legal. You get nowhere by spreading lies.

[The Traveler]

7. Actually, it is quite unclear

There are layers of law (Australian, New Zealand, and international) that strictly limit whaling activity in what is considered to be sanctuary waters. The Japanese do not recognize these laws, and for political reasons Australia and New Zealand are inconsistent in the enforcement of their laws in their "economic zones". The UN also has not dispatched enforcement to the region.

It really is quite complicated. Sea Shepherd exploits a provision in the UN charter that gives private groups the right to enforce environmental protection laws if cognizant civil authorities can or will not. This is the legal basis for their activities in the Galapagos and their anti-whaling campaign in Antarctic waters.

It is unclear that written law really is sufficient to stop the Japanese, or to give Sea Shepherd the right under the UN charter to interfere with their activities. On the other hand, is is unclear that written law is NOT sufficient ... it really is a matter for international courts.

But thus far, international courts have steered way clear of the matter.

Sea Shepherd has some high powered legal advice and their strategies are governed by a detailed understanding of these ambiguities.

Does their anti-whaling campaign in Antarctic waters violate international law? I don't know! And neither do you! As near as I can tell, no one has figured that out conclusively.

Indeed, we live in interesting times.

Trav

[kristopher]

11. it is very clear

This has been hashed over many times, here is one:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/kristopher/245

[The Traveler]

13. Interesting but unconvincing

For if indeed the legal position against Sea Shepherd's activities were so clear, then undoubtedly by now the Japanese government would have INTERPOL engaged in the apprehension of the perpetrators of the alleged crimes. I have also over the past few years encountered equally detailed counter arguments. Your article also does not address international conventions limiting industrial (e.g. fishing) use of Antarctic waters ... like I said there are many layers of law to be considered here.

IWC agreements regarding quotas and such are a separate matter. The IWC of course established the Indian Ocean and Souther Ocean whale sanctuaries. Commercial whaling is altogether banned in those areas. The Japanese dodge this by calling it "scientific research". The scientific value of lethal research is, of course, highly questionable ... but this was a legal dodge opened by the IWC to placate the Japanese. Still, the IWC is not the only legal convention or influence over the use and access to these waters, nor the only legal influence on the treatment and use of endangered species and pressured ecosystems.

I am not convinced the Australian and New Zealand claims to control over those parts of these southern waters are as easily dismissed as you assume. This is a rapidly shifting area of law, it looks like ... and the increasing accessibility to Arctic waters due to northern icecap melt is really putting some pressure on the subject.

Now, I am definitely not a legal scholar. (My academic training is in physics and engineering.) But I have read enough about this over the years to conclude it is at best a very muddled situation. And, again, were there not significant legal ambiguities there is little doubt that Sea Shepherd would have faced criminal charges for their actions in the area by now. (Of course, Sea Shepherd personnel are probably best advised to not go touring in Japan where they would be charged with "interfering with business activities" ... the horror ... but they seem pretty safe everywhere else, at least insofar as their Southern Ocean adventures are concerned.)

So this is your take on the matter ... and it may very well be correct. But neither you nor I can definitively establish that or deny it. These matters are in dispute, and the legal system may be incapable of resolving the issues without further development of treaty and law.

That being said, with regard to Japanese "scientific whaling", my personal preference would be to sink the bastards.

Trav

[kristopher]

15. You don't know wtf you are talking about.

That is nothing but a regurgitation of sea shepherd propaganda (for example the scientific whaling bullshit you are asserting is specifically contradicted by the IWC conventions). You are EXACTLY like a Bushy getting their information from Fox. If you had a proper understanding of the situation, you'd know the history and details of why scientific whaling is legitimate and you'd know that under the Law of the Sea treaty, Japan needs to send a military mission to confront the Watson. If you knew anything about the Japanese you'd be able to put that requirement together with their history of constitutionally rejecting the use of military force as a means of resolving international disputes.

In other words, you really don't know what you are talking about. It my be murky to you, but that is the result of ignorance because the facts of the situation are very clear. If Watson continues his actions, the upshot is going to be that the Japanese are going to resign membership in the IWC (as many countries already have) and resume full commercial whaling. This is an act that I suspect will be accompanied by a commitment of naval forces to the defense of their fleet.

You can only push people so far...

[The Traveler]

20. What the hell are YOU talking about

Scientific whaling ... see the Wikipedia article at Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary

Here's an excerpt (emphasis added).

Establishment of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was agreed upon by the IWC in 1994 with 23 countries supporting the agreement and only Japan opposing it.

The status of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary is reviewed and open to change by the IWC every 10 years.<1> During the 2004 meeting a proposal was made by Japan to remove the sanctuary, but it failed to reach the 75% majority required (it received 25 votes in favour and 30 votes against with two abstentions).

As sanctuaries only apply to commercial whaling, Japan has continued to hunt whales inside the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary because its whaling is done in accordance with a provision in the IWC charter permitting whaling for the purposes of scientific research (Japan also lodged a formal objection to the sanctuary with regard to minke whales, meaning that, in accordance with IWC rules, the terms of the sanctuary do not apply to Japan with respect to minkes).<2> The catch of the 2005 season (Dec 05-Mar 06) inside the sanctuary included 856 minke whales and ten of the endangered Fin whale. In 2007 - 2008 Japan planned to take 935 minke whales and 50 fin whales.

So ... what were you trying to say about "lethal research"???

And while you are certainly adept at sputtering outrage at people who disagree or contradict you, you have not specifically addressed the salient observable. No charges have been brought against Sea Shepherd in the appropriate international or maritime jurisdictions. Ergo, the illegality of their actions is far from being established. (Of course, in Japanese law they can and I believe have been charged with the heinous crime of "interference with business activity". The horror. The horror.)

As I pointed out, I am not an expert on matters of law. I just read a lot, and while I think you have put together some interesting material (and much of it consistent with other things I have read on the subject) I do not believe it to be a complete description of the pertinent legal arguments. I think counter arguments are quite possible, and indeed counter arguments have been made. And if that disturbs your inner peace, well, you do have my sympathy.

Japan joined the IWC only to placate international opinion at a time when they were busily penetrating markets ... like the automotive market in the US. Whaling was bad public relations back then. (In 1975 as a reporter for the Technique --- Georgia Tech's little newspaper ... I interviewed the Japanese consulate on the subject of whaling, and believe me they were really concerned about resistance to Japanese products stirred up by environmentalist types. Nice guy. Presented his case well.) They have been bitching and moaning and about it ever since. I have little sympathy for their position, and I seek no forgiveness for mine.

The oceans are under calamitous stress. Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace (though they disagree on tactics and there is much personal melodrama behind the scenes) deserve my humble contributions because they try, at least, to do something about it.

Trav

[kristopher]

21. I asked you first, you've answered with Sea Shephard claptrap again.

From your prior post: " The Japanese dodge this by calling it "scientific research". The scientific value of lethal research is, of course, highly questionable ... but this was a legal dodge opened by the IWC to placate the Japanese."

From your most recent post: "Japan joined the IWC only to placate international opinion at a time when they were busily penetrating markets ... like the automotive market in the US." Your ignorance is only exceeded by your embrace of that abysmal condition.

You say "counter arguments have been made" - again in the manner of a right wing whack-job asserting that climate change is a ruse designed by college professors to enhance their chances of getting government funding. It is the same claim to false equivalency that permeates the press and does such damage to informed debate. You aren't interested in the facts, you've labeled Japan the enemy and there is nothing else that matters.

It is statements like those that give lie to your claims of being informed. You are only informed in the same sense a neocon is informed by watching Fox news and reading right wing web sites. Ask them about an isue and they'll insist they are informed and proffer the fact that they read all the time. They do, the problem is that the sources they prefer are limited to parroting their preconceived notions, sources where critical thinking is as alien as the life forms hovering around a jet of superheated water streaming from the earth 8000 feet below the sea.

This "dodge" was part of the original convention drafted and signed in what year? In what year did Japan become a signatory? What was Japan's status as a "market penetrator" at the time they signed? You don't even have a grasp of the most basic facts involved in the matter; how is it possible that you are informed on nuances involving legal issues?

Pathetic.

http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/iwcmain.htm#history

[The Traveler]

24. Hey ... you're right about one thing

Japan actually signed onto the IWC in 1951. I thought it was in the 60s. Mea Culpa.

Still, they really were worried about the influence environmentalist anger might have on market penetration and political pressures do erect trade barriers. (Or at least dude I interviewed back in 75 was certainly concerned about it.) Reasonable concerns, really. They just recognized it was a hot button issue in some spheres.

I stand by the "scientific research dodge". I know a lot of biologists. I don't know any who think that is a necessary or even useful research method at this point in history. And it appears that Japan exercised the scientific research loophole only after the US backed out of an agreement to allow them access to fisheries off the coast of Alaska in exchange for relenting on the 1982 moratorium ... that was kind of crappy of us. Point is, their "scientific research" is hardly motivated by a thirst for knowledge, and if you want to believe it is then you are an idiot.

Yep, it is a tangled history and I am by no means an expert on all the legal details.

But then, that's what courts are for. And, again, so far the courts have taken precious little concrete action to decide the matter. Until they do, the matter is legally ambiguous. Which is all I am trying to point out. (At some point, a civil or criminal action must be initiated against Sea Shepherd. And at that point, things will get really messy ... but a decision will be made in a year or three.)

You can call me any names you like, but it does not change that fact.

I must say, though, it has been kinda of fun watching your blood pressure elevate. It's pretty safe to say you are better informed than I on this topic. But that doesn't mean you have all the answers, bud. And it doesn't mean you are standing on the right side of the line.

We probably should stop this bickering, but I did learn a few things and reviewed a few other things I had gotten muddled in the memory cells. My thanks to you.

Still, I'd prefer to sink the bastards. :evilgrin: But then, I've been known to over react ... :shrug:

Trav

[The Stranger]

8. Allright, then let's see it.

Give me the argument, cites and links.

I need to take a look at this myself.

[kristopher]

12. YOU asserted it was illegal.

That makes it your obligation to support that claim.
hint: 1) for status of scientific whaling read the IWC treaty in full and 2) make sure you understand the legitimacy (or lack of) Australia's claim to 1/3 of the Antarctic. They don't pursue that claim because they know it isn't legitimate and they don't want a definitive ruling.

[The Stranger]

18. Well you said I was "spreading lies."

What parts of the IWC treaty support your statement that the Japanese hunting these specific types of whales is permitted?

Citation and verse.

Let's start there.

[kristopher]

19. Why don't you read the damned treaty for yourself.

[The Stranger]

25. I wanted to see how I was "spreading lies."

Come on.

:shrug:

[Liberal Veteran]

6. 679 whales for "scientific research"

Bastards.

[Mudoria]

10. 680 too many

[eppur_se_muova]

16. Well, there's always next year. nt

:sarcasm:

Hope they don't run out of dog food in the meantime.

[rollingrock]

22. Japanese pirates!

I wish someone would blow those pirate whaling ships out of the water.

[kristopher]

23. Too bad you don't understand your own sig line

[Jack_DeLeon]

26. I'm betting Sea Shepard had something to do with that...

:)