From http://asia.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/11/05/japan.whaling/index.html :
See also here on declining whale populations generally.
I just fail to see the justification for this.
What declining whale populations? That article certainly doesn’t mention any and AFAIK all whale populations are either at their ecological limit or increasing. Anyone knowing otherwise feel free to enlighten me.
As for the justification, isn’t food good enough? We take all sorts of fish and invertebrates form the oceans to eat, why exactly are whales any different? Providing the numbers Japan is taking are sustainable I can’t see the problem. AFAIK the IWC and associated treaties primarily exist these days to try and prevent other countires from entering the game and overexploiting whales. So long as it’s only Japan and Norway and the populations are still rising despite their catches I can’t see the problem.
Is Japan playing fair by signing the treaty and then exploiting loopholes? Certainly not but then talk to me about the US lamb market or Australia’s non-bayonet and you’ll see some real examples of nations signing treaties and then exploiting loopholes. Doesn’t make it right but we should clean up our own moral backyards before condemning Japan.
Unless someone can show me some evidence that Japan’s whale ‘harvest’ is any more harmful than America’s bison ‘harvest’ then put me down for a whale steak anytime.
[best Vera Lynn crooning voice]
“Whale meat again, don’t know where… don’t know when…”
[/best Vera Lynn crooning voice]
760,000 of them in Arctic waters and the Japanese only want to harvest 440 of them? What exactly is the problem here? If they want to eat whale and they aren’t hunting an endangered species, why not?
What really bothers me in this debate, is the amount of hypocrisy that’s coming from both sides.
First, there was the research argument, which I never understood. Uh, if it’s only for research, why can I just head down to the store and buy myself a whale steak?
Now there is this from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
IANAMB(marine biologist) but I know that the majority of whales live off krill. The document makes it sound like the whale population is gorging on the tuna stock.
I am really bugged by the Japanese government using phony excuses to justify their whale hunting.
However, I am equally tired of North Americans (and many Europeans) getting all worked up when the Japanese have some whale sashimi. Their anger is for the most part ill-informed, and I think there is a good dose of cultural bias factoring in. (And I speak as a mild ecologist.)
If we accept that killing 440 whales will not harm a population of 760,000, then the only thing the Japanese are guilty of is using a loophole in a treaty. And being kind of sneeky about it.
In a way, this reminds me of people going “ewwww” when I tell them I just had a delicious horse steak, or even worst, people protesting against the Chineseimporting and breeding dogs for food.
Well, I’m sorry, the ume and shiso-flavoured grasshoppers I had last week were fine, and I just might grill myself a good whale steak tomorrow. (BTW, I’m going to Hong Kong next month, I’ll let you know how the St-Bernard was.)
Well, to answer your question, “Why?”: For the money. As long as whale meat is fetching high prices on the free market, people will continue to hunt them and sell them. And as soon as their population drops so low that it’s not economically feasible to hunt them, people will stop hunting them.
It’s as simple as that.
[Best Michael Stipe Voice]
Eat meat, whale meat, Give yourself a treat
(Shiney crappy meaty creatures)
Pull that baby off your teat, fill it`s face with whale meat
(Smiley Jappy people nourished)
Here come the whaleing fleet. Meet. Great. Yummy treat.
(Shiney crappy meaty creatures)
[/Best Michael Stipe Voice]
*I didn’t pen this BTW
That isn’t how it works. The scarcer a delicacy becomes, the more that people are willing to pay for it, and the more endangered the surviving population becomes. Bears, Tigers and Rhinos are suffering for the sake of tradition, as well.
My understanding is that the primary reason Japan still is into whaling is that the economic livelihood of certain small whaling towns depend on it. Also, the way the Japanese political system is comprised, rural sectors have a disportunate amount of leverage.
When I lived in Tokyo, most of the Japanese I knew had never even tried whale. No one I knew at whale on a regular basis, although I certainly have seen sushi bars that served whale.
A few observations, in random order:
-
China Guy - I’ve never seen whale either, during my time in Osaka, and have never met anyone who confessed to eating whale. Of course, people were perhaps mindful of my Western sensibilities and didn’t want to shock me (though this didn’t stop someone ordering me seagull broth once).
-
Jovan - as a HK resident I can assure you that serving dog in HK is illegal. Dog flavoured soup, manufactured across the border in China, is another thing entirely, and I’ve eaten this delicacy at a traditional Chinese wedding(and it was quite good). You are welcome to look me up when you hit town and I’ll shout you non-dog meat lunch.
-
Gaspode and Badtz Maru - from Greenpeace’s website:
The International Whaling Commission’s website says:
Whale population estimates are listed here: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/iwcoffice/Estimate.htm
The key thing is the uncertainty of whale stocks. You will note that the Commission is not able to provide any reliable estimate of minke whale numbers in the Southern Hemisphere.
This from the Commission:
Aside from the personal issue I have with hunting a majestic animal such as a whale, I don’t see the sense in hunting a creature for which there is no reliable estimate of its population.
I have a certain amount of sympathy for the japanese position.
They had a sustainable fishery going for 10,000 years before the west got into the act and slaughtered populations to near extinction around the globe in a period of 100 years. Now that we destroyed the fishery we villanize the japanese for taking 400 whales from a population that can easily sustain it because we don’t need the oil anymore and have noticed that they are cute.
Meanwhile the US decides that certain aboriginal groups have the right to harvest endangered bowhead whales from stocks that cannot afford the loss of even one whale.
That’s not quite fair. The Japanese have ranged far from their position as simple fishermen, hunting using traditional methods in traditional sailboats, like Eskimos and Inuit. Japanese fishing fleets use drift net fishing techniques, which clear oceans.
i say we kill them all so liberals have one less thing to whine about.
440 out of 760,000. If they wanted to kill 440,000 out of the 760,000 I don’t think it would be horrible.
The only question I have is this: what does whale taste like? Do they eat it raw? I love sushi… anyone ever had a whale roll?
I was unaware that the japanese used drift nets to catch whales. I have my own issues with certain nations high seas fishing techniques but if you are going to pile on then why stop there, perhaps we should also discuss the american position on global warming.
Ned - drift nets catch everything. Including baby whales. But I didn’t make my point clearly (and let myself get distracted by the drift net fishing issue)- setting aside drift net fishing, Eskimos and Innuits go out to sea to catch a whale in wooden boats and attack the whale with hand held spears. They have the ability to catch one whale. Japanese vessels attack whales with high powered harpoon guns. Each has the capability to catch many whales.(US global warming has been debated to death here on other threads.)
Kalt - I’m not a liberal. I don’t want whales to disappear. Can you explain to me the long term effects of 440 minke whale deaths per year upon the overall minke whale population, and especially its breeding patterns? Why exactly is the annual cull insignificant on whale numbers? Don’t know? Funny, that - no one does.
I was being facetious.
Do you really think there is something nobel or morally superior about killing whales in a primative and barbaric manner? Should hunters return to the bow and arrow or perhaps herding animals off cliffs?
It is either ok to kill them or it isn’t, technique means nothing barring issues of excessive cruelty. Yes, we do have the ability to slaughter every whale on the planet but as long as the technology is used in a sustainable manner it isn’t an issue. They are going after 400 whales in a 700,000 population so I fail to see the relevance of your complaint.
Personally I would rather see whaling end world wide but that is due to my cultural sensativities which I am not quite prepared to impose on those who disagree. Dressing up a cultural issue as one of conservation is dishonest and hypocritical as hell given the position on aboriginal whaling.
-
I would like to see a source for the figure of 700000. I know you didn’t mention it first, and perhaps someone else could back this up;
-
I would like to see a source for the fact that 400 whale deaths per year will not affect whale long-term sustainability. Because, as far as I’m aware, no one knows, which seems reason enough to me to stop;
-
I have no problems imposing my cultural sensitivities on people, especially in respect of issues like slavery, and equally so in respect of proecting endangered species. I see nothing noble in indigenous hunting of whales - but if it is going to happen, then at least they knock off one, as opposed to 50, everytime they make a trip out to sea.
Quoting a Greenpeace site as an argument against whaling isn’t very helpful, as they are extremely biased. I imagine 99% of Greenpeace’s membership are against whaling under any circumstances imaginable. For some reason may environmentalists believe that whales are sentient and at least as intelligent as humans, even though they still haven’t learned to not surface near surface ships.
…which is why I was careful to point out that it was a Greenpeace site, and otherwise made reference to the statistics provided by the International Whaling Commission, and their views on it.
Greenpeace certainly spins their take, but generally get their facts correct. I think they are a reliable source of information although one can argue against their position/presentation.