Ecological debate on the sustainability of whaling.

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Kim

Here for my friends.....
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
13,224
Reaction score
86
Location
Kyushu, Japan
Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
It's not a moral debate. It's an ecological debate. Dang, it's pretty darn simple! Stop trying to cloud the discussion.
.
I completely agree it should only be an ecological debate. Go back and read the posts though - you'll soon see who brought the moral issues into it.
In the several threads on this issue I have tried very hard to support my statements with facts. Now if you dispute those facts that's fine - please provide some evidence to support your position. That has been sadly lacking by those who claim that whaling in it's present form is unsustainable. That has also been more or less admitted by those on that side of the debate who have then used words like 'it's just wrong', 'I follow my heart' etc as the arguments to use in place of evidence. This is is purely emotional perception and while it is certainly genuinely felt by some, doesn't win the ecological argument.
So I challenge you - come with facts and so will I - and let's debate this ecological issue on reason and evidence alone, and leave guesswork out of it.
 
Japanese whaling 'science' rapped
By Richard Black
BBC environment correspondent in Ulsan, South Korea



Science is supposed to be at the core of the IWC's decisions
The annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has condemned Japan's plan to increase the scale of its catches in the name of science.

Tokyo's proposal would see Japanese research vessels take more than 1,000 whales each year in Antarctic waters.

Its delegation said Japan would continue with its scheme, called JARPA-2, as it can under IWC rules.

Conservation bodies said the huge expansion planned by Japan had ensured opposition from anti-whaling nations.

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling dates from 1946, and states:

HAVE YOUR SAY
The IWC meeting in South Korea is a clash of 'food' cultures

T. Joensen, Faroe Islands


Send us your comments

"...any contracting government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorising 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..."

In other words, any country can decide to hunt however many whales it likes in the name of science, whatever other nations think, and whatever the reservations of scientists.

Data doubts

After the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling came into force in 1986, Japan embarked on the Japanese Whale Research Programme in Antarctica, or JARPA, under which it takes 440 minke whales from the Southern Ocean each year.

We will implement JARPA-2 according to the schedule, because the sample size is determined in order to get statistically significant results

Akira Nakamae, Japan's alternate commissioner
Under another programme, JARPN, Japanese vessels catch 100 minkes, 50 Bryde's, 100 sei and 10 sperm whales per year from the north-western Pacific Ocean.

Before this meeting began, Japan had circulated in scientific circles its intention to end JARPA, and initiate its successor JARPA-2 which would take 935 minkes, 50 fin whales and 50 humpbacks from the seas around Antarctica.

Sixty-three scientists working with the IWC on the issue issued a statement condemning JARPA-2.


Divided opinions in Ulsan


In pictures

"It is scientifically invalid to review the JARPA-2 proposal before the IWC has had a chance to conduct a full review of the results of the original 18 years of investigation," they wrote.

"With the new proposal, Japan will increase its annual take... to levels approaching the annual commercial quotas for Antarctic minke whales that were in place prior to the moratorium.

"Consequently, we... feel unable to engage in a scientifically defensible process of review of the JARPA-2 proposal."

Push ahead

In the usually polite nexus of scientific debate, this is strong language.

It's time for Japan to respect an international forum which has said for the 41st time in 18 years that there's no justification for this research programme

Patrick Ramage, Ifaw
Into discussions here at the IWC meeting, the Australian delegation pitched a motion asking Japan to withdraw or switch to non-lethal methods of research - which Japan maintains is impossible if it is to get the data it needs.

The resolution passed by 30 votes to 27 - a narrow majority, and one which would probably have fallen the other way had all the developing countries which traditionally support Japan turned up.


Find out about the different endangered whale species.


In graphics

"We're delighted that the Australian resolution passed," the British whaling commissioner Richard Cowan told BBC News.

"It showed that a majority of those in this committee consider that the Japanese proposals should not go ahead until the work of the original 18-year survey has been reviewed."

But the vote appeared to have no impact on Japanese intentions.

"We will implement JARPA-2 according to the schedule, because the sample size is determined in order to get statistically significant results," said Japan's alternate (or deputy) commissioner Akira Nakamae.

Move to reform

Speeches by other Japanese delegates spoke of an intention to reverse the vote next year, by bringing to the meeting more countries which would side with Japan.


Conservationists claim scientific whaling is a cover to get meat into Japanese restaurants
For conservation groups, the fact that neither the vote nor the scientists' criticisms will change anything is a huge frustration.

"It's time for Japan to respect an international forum which has said for the 41st time in 18 years that there's no justification for this research programme," Patrick Ramage of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw) told BBC News.

"We are encouraged by the vote, but dismayed that more than 1,000 whales will die later this year on Japanese harpoons in a region that's supposed to be a sanctuary."

Some western delegations are now calling for a high-level political forum to reform the whaling convention and the commission, and block what many observers regard as unacceptable loopholes.
 
Here's the thing, Kim. NOT hunting whales has no potential to do harm. Hunting whales has the potential to do a great deal of harm if your facts prove to be wrong, as the facts of so many hunters have been wrong in the past. In the case of whales, I tend to err on the side of conservatism. In other words, I don't buy the arguments that whaling is sustanible. And, in the end, what does it hurt to cease whaling when nobody really wants it anyway?

In other words, it shouldn't just be done for the hell of it because you can drum up some numbers that say it won't do much harm. It shouldn't be done at all unless there's a very good reason.

I find it amazing that you spend so much energy defending the rights of the Japanese to whale when they do so under the guise of "research" via a loophole in an international treaty. And they no longer even want to consume what they harvest. To me, such a practice is indefensible. Why don't they just bow out of the International Whaling Ban and admit what their real purpose is?

The current state of whaling in Japan smacks of special interest groups who don't want to find another job and have the ear of the government. Believe me, as an American, I am all too familiar with it. Everything I have read you post to the contrary has been purely speculative. If Japan isn't using whale meat, then why does the government subsidize it? Why does the government try to encourage Japanese citizens to consume something they have no interest in and that virtually every other civilized nation finds abhorrent? And why does the government and whaling industry of Japan insult our intelligence by claiming they harvest whales for research?
 
By Jonathan Head
BBC Tokyo correspondent


This is the final week of the International Whaling Commission's annual conference, and, as in previous years, Japan will be applying strong diplomatic pressure to ease the ban on commercial whaling, and expand the species it is currently allowed to hunt for scientific purposes.




Q&A: IWC meeting
Schoolchildren in the western coastal district of Wakayama are now being offered an unusual addition to their lunch menus. Whale.

The Wakayama education board is supplying whale meat to around 280 schools, to try to promote awareness of the region's whaling traditions.

"We've been practising whaling since the beginning of the 17th century," Tetsuji Sawada, a local education official told the BBC, "but the tradition is dying out."

To make the dish more appetising, the whale is being fried in breadcrumbs, or minced into burgers.

The board had to lobby the government to bring down the price to keep it within their budget.

'Scientific experiment'

All of the whale meat sold in Japan comes from the 400 whales or so that Japan kills every year for "scientific purposes".

The Wakayama initiative underscores an awkward problem confronting the whaling lobby here.

How would they feel if we told Americans they couldn't hunt deer, or if we told Australians to stop hunting kangaroos?

Hideki Moronuki
Fisheries Agency
For all of Japan's success in winning support from other countries for its campaign to ease the restrictions on whaling - especially smaller countries which receive Japanese aid - the Japanese people are losing interest.

Whale meat is only served in a few specialist restaurants, and occasionally appears on supermarket shelves. Younger people almost never eat it.

So why does Japan exert so much diplomatic effort on this issue?

The official line is that whaling is an integral part of Japanese culture, a practice dating back hundreds of years.

That isn't quite true. A few coastal communities, like Wakayama, have been hunting whales for centuries, traditionally with hand-held harpoons.


Find out about the different endangered whale species.


In graphics

But the rest of Japan only became familiar with eating whale during the 20th Century, as modern ships with harpoon-guns became available.

Whale meat was especially widespread in the difficult years after the Second World War, when it was seen as a cheap source of protein.

But as incomes rose, people switched to imported beef, or fish like tuna and salmon. With such an abundance of high-quality protein available these days, few Japanese see the point in eating whale, which doesn't taste that special.

There are other reasons for Japan's determined campaign.

"If the current ban on hunting whales is allowed to become permanent," says Hideki Moronuki, at the Fisheries Agency, the government department leading the campaign, "activists may direct their efforts to restricting other types of fishing."

As Japan consumes more fish than any other nation, it worries about possible curbs on its fishing activities in open seas for species like tuna.

Outraged

Officials also like to claim that whales damage fish stocks because of the quantities they eat, although this is largely dismissed by scientists in the rest of the world.

But perhaps the biggest factor is resentment of being told by other countries what Japan can and cannot do.

"Why do people in the west make such a big deal about our very limited hunting of whales?" asks Hideki Moronuki.

"How would they feel if we told Americans they couldn't hunt deer, or if we told Australians to stop hunting kangaroos?"

He argues that Japan has always relied on the sea for its food - pretty much everything that moves in salt water can be found on sale in Tokyo's famous Tsukiji fish market - so why single out whales for exemption, provided they are hunted sustainably, like every other fish?


For many Japanese, whale meat is considered a delicacy
The counter-argument by conservationists is that whale populations are still too vulnerable for any hunting to be sustainable.

They are outraged by Japan's plan to start killing a few humpback whales as part of its "scientific" cull.

At the moment that cull includes mainly smaller minke whales.

The World Wildilfe Fund has described the scientific research carried out by Japan on the whales it kills "a sham".

It says it is possible to get information about the whales' diet and health from skin samples, without killing them.

"Japan's whaling programme is about business and politics, but not sound science," says the WWF.

Other activists agree. John Frizell, an anti-whaling campaigner at Greenpeace, believes much of the impetus behind Japan's efforts to re-start commercial whaling comes from bureaucrats within the Fisheries Agency, who fear losing influence or even their jobs if the issue dies away.

Some activists suspect the pro-whaling campaign is being driven by nationalists within the government, who see it as an opportunity for Japan to be seen to be standing up to pressure from other developed countries.

"As long as officials present the issue as one of Japan being bullied by the rest of the world", says John Frizell, "they can probably keep the Japanese public behind them."
 
Certainly a hunt for certain species of whales may still be sustainable. I can't argue with that from an ecological perspective, in part because it is highly dependent on the species involved. However, I also think one must address the ethical (or moral if you prefer) issues in addition to the ecological ones... although no harm in focusing strictly on the ecological ones in this thread since that is the subject.
 
Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
NOT hunting whales has no potential to do harm.
The Japanese would disagree with this. They believe that whales are reducing fish stocks, and they have some evidence to support that as well.
Japanese ICR:
Much has been learned about the feeding habits of whales through analysis of stomach contents. The research has found for example that whales are consuming 3 to 5 times the amount of marine living resources as are caught for human consumption. In the waters around Japan we have a situation of declining catches in certain fisheries while at the same time the sampling from our research program reveals that minke whales are eating at least 10 species of fish including Japanese anchovy, Pacific saury, walleye Pollock and other commercially important species.
This is obviously of some concern to them.


Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
In other words, I don't buy the arguments that whaling is sustanible.
Then come with some evidence to support that. I don't buy the argument that hunting less than 1% of a population annualy isn't sustainable.


Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
And, in the end, what does it hurt to cease whaling when nobody really wants it anyway?
I've already said several times that I believe this lack of demand will see the eventual demise of whaling. I see no justification for it for other purposes than research or human consumption - unless the Japanese can fully prove their position vis-a-vis reduced fish stocks due to whales.


Humuhumunukunukuapua'a:
The current state of whaling in Japan smacks of special interest groups who don't want to find another job and have the ear of the government. Believe me, as an American, I am all too familiar with it. Everything I have read you post to the contrary has been purely speculative. If Japan isn't using whale meat, then why does the government subsidize it? Why does the government try to encourage Japanese citizens to consume something they have no interest in and that virtually every other civilized nation finds abhorrent? And why does the government and whaling industry of Japan insult our intelligence by claiming they harvest whales for research?
While this is largely speculative there is probably some truth in it. I believe that the core of what they are doing is in the name of maintaining a cultural heritage. The idea that an actual whaling industry needs to be supported is erroneous as the only whaling fleet in existence is tiny. It is maintained by government by subsidy and judging from the present situation and lack of demand for the product it's hard to see a real industry developing again. As for the Japanese reasons for doing what they do, you can find a lot here:
http://www.icrwhale.org/QandAjapanresearch.htm
I don't necessarily agree with everything in that link personally - I'm just saying that it's their point of view. Blanket statements though that they do no research at all are erroneous. Many scientists would agree that they do, although some would question if it is being done in the most effective way possible.
 
cdiver2 - could I ask you to provide the links for stuff you are quoting so it's possible to see how current it is, and where it's from? I'm reading it but it's hard to put into context like this.
 
Kim:
cdiver2 - could I ask you to provide the links for stuff you are quoting so it's possible to see how current it is, and where it's from? I'm reading it but it's hard to put into context like this.

Sorry I did not provide the links I just copied and paste, but if you search japan whaling there are thousands of hits.
 
hard data (I presume you're requiring peer-reviewed data published in recognized scientific journals) to back our opposition to whaling is a nice tactic. But, the onus should be on Japan and other pro-whaling factions to be the ones to provide incontrovertible data.

As someone already pointed out, not harvesting does zero harm to cetacean populations. So, there's some pretty solid statistics for you. If the pro-whaling factions wished to demonstrate a spirit of true conservationism, they could agree to a 25-, 50-, or preferably a 100-year moratorium to let all species continue their recoveries and then conduct exhaustive studies to demonstrate that harvesting is sustainable.

Letting populations reach only minimum thresholds (which may or may not be accurate based on present censusing techniques) of harvestibility before racing back to commercial-level whaling reeks of hubris and a poor approach to resource management.

The suggestions that Japan is fighting the whaling issue to divert criticism of their other examples of marine resource mismanagement (look at data for declines in numbers and sizes of blue-fin tuna), and that government ministers are simply trying to save their jobs at the expense of whales don't sound far-fetched either.
 
There were some very good points made at the end of the last thread that I would like to ask people to read. As soon as the points were made, there was this sudden desire to move the thread again which for me , is making the entire topic hard to follow. If you keep chopping it up like this, no one will be able to know the evolution of the discussion. I find the little piece you have roped off as fair for discussion "sustainability of whales" like they are some cash crop disturbing. Basically every component of the discussion you have lost, just gets eliminated.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom