SHOULD JAPAN CONTINUE WHALING DESPITE THE INTERNATIONAL OUTCRY?

[kristopher]

This special edition page by the Daily Yomiuri feature 4 points of view of the issue on one downloadable page.

"This will be the pivotal question for the people of Japan ahead of the annual International Whaling Commission meeting, which will be held Monday through Friday in Agadir, Morocco. Japan hopes to resume commercial whaling, but whaling na- tions are expected to face an uphill battle to win the commis- sion’s endorsement.
Japan has met with a barrage of international criticism for conducting research whaling, with the Australian government going so far as to file a complaint with the International Court of Justice against Japan over its whale-hunting practices.
The Daily Yomiuri invited four Japanese contributors from various sides of the issue to express their views on this con- troversial subject."

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/whaling_controversy/

[snagglepuss]

1. The Japanese need to re-assess their relationship to the natural world.

They really need to see how destructive they have been.

[kristopher]

4. did any of the opinions help you evaluate their beliefs?

I think the point of putting the piece together might have been to start a dialog. I can see and understand the perspective that all of them bring to the table even though my personal beliefs are that cetaceans are off limits because of intelligence. I think if everyone involved can understand and dredge up some degree of empathy for all of the views, then we are a lot closer to a solution than if we shout at and preach to each other.

[Blue_In_AK]

2. The only whaling I'm okay with

is subsistence hunting such as is done by Alaska's northern tribes. A limited number of whales are taken each year and one animal feeds an entire village. Nothing goes to waste.

I see no reason for commercial whaling of any kind.

[hardcover]

5. Well I dunno

I admit to knowing nothing about the whale population but they do reproduce so they are a renewable source of oil, food, bone and whatever else. There must be a reasonable amount of "take" with whales as there is with sardines or salmon.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Should the US continue whaling? Greenland, Canada, or Iceland?

I wonder how President Obama would respond if Whale Wars went after US whalers. Would the US be as patient as Japan? Whale Wars doesn't have any oil, so it's hard to predict.

[FBaggins]

6. No.

Not unless whale populations significantly recover many decades from now.

[GliderGuider]

7. This is one time I agree with Greenpeace.

I found the article by their Executive Director Jun Hoshikaw represents my position quite well. Yoshiko Yamada's position was also fairly reasonable. I had a harder time with the article by Tetsu Sato, which veers between reason and apologia.

To Sato and especially to the government hack Joji Morishita I would say that given their stance on wildlife being a consumable resource, I would expect them also to support the slaughter and sale of Japanese macaque meat. If they do not support that activity, then their position on resource usage is a hypocritical smokescreen.

Japan should give up whaling, and use that decision to rehabilitate their image in the eyes of the world.

[kristopher]

8. I think Sato's view is that all nation's are to an extent hypocritical

There is a lot of validity in the point about dietary preferences.

I'll say again that the root of the problem IMO is that we who have come to respect whales are the ones that have changed from the prevailing cultural norm. The basis of the change is found in our surplus food supply - it is an infrastructural change that allowed us to change our beliefs and in effect, become picky eaters. Japan still has living memories of extreme hunger and starvation at the end of WWII. So although their infrastructure has also changed, the change hasn't yet percolated into their beliefs.

The key to getting them to change is not to argue with them, because there is no basis on which you can prove their belief that whales are food wrong.

What we CAN do however, is put them in a box by asking them to stop based on consideration for OUR feelings. One of their most fundamental beliefs is that when a sincere petition is received and the damage to the petitioner is real, then the one being petitioned is obligated to grant it unless there is a good reason not to.
Since the only real reason to catch whales is for food,
and since the food provided by the whales is not critical for prevention of starvation,
the taking of those lives must be weighed against the emotional distress caused to those who see killing and eating an intelligent creature as a form of cannibalism.
The argument is valid under cultural theory and it would resonate with the value system that most strongly motivate the Japanese fo compromise.

But hey, what do I know?

[GliderGuider]

9. A sincere petition coupled with sincere sanctions would be my preference.

There's nothing like a penalty to convince people to change their behaviour. Would Japanese public opinion be enough to get guys like Sato and his corporate masters to change their tune? If so, we need to enlist it by any means possible. Either that, or have the head of ICR wake up with a slaughtered macaque in bed with him.

[kristopher]

11. Perhaps you should work on the concept of sincere petition.

That attitude is precisely why the efforts to alter Japanese whaling behavior have consistently failed.

[GliderGuider]

12. The moratorium was declared 25 years ago.

If the Japanese government doesn't get it by now, just telling them sincerely that we have a boo-boo isn't going to make much difference. They believe in realpolitik just as much as any other modern industrial government. It's past time for some consequences.

I believe that animal life is the equivalent of human life, so I'm pretty hard-line on this.

[kristopher]

13. You really don't see the irony in your statement do you?

"The moratorium was declared 25 years ago."


The 'moratorium'
In 1982, the IWC decided by majority vote to implement a pause or ‘moratorium’ in commercial whaling with effect from the 1986 coastal and 1985/86 pelagic whaling seasons. There were a number of factors involved in this decision. These included difficulties in agreeing what catch limits to set for non-protected species (due to scientific uncertainties in the information needed to apply the management procedure then in place) and differing attitudes to the acceptability of whaling. The wording of the moratorium decision implied that with improved scientific knowledge in the future, it might be possible to set catch limits other than zero for certain stocks.

Define: moratorium - Delay, a period during which certain proceedings or obligations are suspended.
www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/Definitions.htm

Keep trying to bully them and you'll keep ensuring the same outcome. They could have vetoed the moratorium when it was proposed. They didn't because they were led to believe it was temporary.


A sincere petition, not lies, not sneaking, not bullying. A sincere petition based on our true feelings and a mass, prolonged public plea for them to "understand" our unbearable feelings.

If you want change - then change.

[ladjf]

10. They don't need the meat and other products. There is no good

reason for them to continue to disgrace themselves over this practice.

[Nihil]

14. NO

(Uppercase only in response to the OP title! :P )

That was an interesting article that presented some very valid comments.
Thanks for posting it.

In all honesty, I would be more sympathetic to the "traditional" or "cultural"
argument if it were only to allow whaling in those traditional coastal areas
(e.g., Taijicho, Ikitsukijima) and not the industrial slaughterhouses that are
sent to the Southern Ocean. A quota of 10 Fin whales a year for the first 3 years
then 5 the following years (as mentioned by Yoshihiko Yamada) would be sustainable
and would be no more offensive than the Alaskan "traditional" hunts. I'm not
convinced about the scale of the proposal for the Minke whales but the same
principle applies and there is a world of difference between taking a "resource"
from your coastal waters and sailing thousands of miles into a conservation
area to do the same thing at a larger scale.

(Still, for both, I strongly believe that if they want to use the "traditional"
and "cultural" argument then they should be restrained to using the same
traditional & cultural hunting methods ... If they want to "modernise" to use
high power pursuit boats, harpoon guns, etc., then they can modernise to stop
hunting for purely "traditional" reasons!)

Like I said, thanks for posting that piece!
:hi:

[kristopher]

15. You're right, the traditional argument doesn't hold water.

But by their view the act of establishing an agreed upon moratorium (by nature temporary) and then using underhanded tactics to extend it indefinitely isn't legitimate either.

This is little more than a pissing contest. I'll say again, though that I think the responsibility for rapprochement lies with those whose normative values changed from the norms that governed the original agreement. They may eventually give in because of some coercive pressure or another, but it would be far better (IMO) to get them to do it as the friend they are.