Real World Event Discussions

Japanese Whalers.....

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Friday, June 12, 2026 18:00
VIEWED: 19782
PAGE 2 of 24

NIKI2

Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:00 PM

Mike, from one report I read, they had just started their engines when they were hit, which might explain what you see at the last minute. Yes, by the time they were hit, their engines were running, hence the ability to pull back--which, also, looks like more than it is because the Japanese vessel then veered away from them. Nonetheless, there is no question that they were reversing. I could be wrong, of course.

Gino: Everything you said, and more. I think it would be LOVELY, but I'm not holding my breath. Since the IWC has no "teeth", they can only try to get nations to pressure each other (via IWC membership) and issue "guidelines", sadly.

Yup, Rue, you nailed it. As a member of the IWC, Japan has exemption to take whales for "research", but they don't try to hide the fact that they're actually taking them for commercial purposes. Hence it IS a business, and despite the IWC having no way of stopping them, they're playing footsie by being part of the IWC and then finding ways around the moratorium.

So I guess it's both "yes" and "no" in a way. What they're doing isn't "illegal", since there are no international laws to stop them, but at the same time it's not "legitimate" because, as members of the IWC, they should abide by the moratorium.

KWICKO

Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:05 PM

Also, I'd like to point out that the Ady Gil is also the very same boat that was purpose-built and set a speed record for circumnavigating the globe. It does seem that if they WANTED to get out of the way, they easily could have.

I think they deliberately put themselves in harm's way for a laudable goal, and they lost their boat as a result. But I *don't* necessarily agree that they were attacked or that they were completely blameless in the whole cock-up.

Now, if you can get nations to sign on to a plan like Gino proposed, more power to ya. I'm right there with you, and I'll fully support that.

As or whether or not there is such a thing as legitimate "business" when it comes to research, I'd say you're opening a door you really might not want to walk through, Rue. Are research and business mutually exclusive? Are there NEVER times when you might privately contract someone, for pay, to go out and gather research subjects for you? If you do so, aren't you "in business" with them?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NIKI2

Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:23 PM

Yes, I know about the Adi Gil...but IF they saw the ship coming and realized it was going to ram them while their engine was off, and just had time to start the engine before being hit, speed doesn't come into it. I think your theory that they did it deliberately is fallacious. I'd find it hard to believe, given how careful they've been in the past, plus the fact that they're not a violence-oriented organization, and the loss of the Adi Gil is a major blow.

I don't think there's any question about the "legitimacy" of Japan's actions. Hunting whales for research is one thing; hunting them for profit is entirely different. And when it comes down to it, while the Japanese put on a face of doing it for research, they're don't try to hide the fact that they make a profit off it. They just found a convenient loophole. There's a big difference between hiring people to go out and gather research animals being "in business" with them and hunting whales because they're popular as food in Japan. I see no correlation whatsoever.

Japan resisted the IWC for a long time, and still takes the highest percentage of whales of the IWC member nations. Norway and Japan were, at the time I was involved, the two nations most bent on going against the IWC. They're still at it, as far as I'm concerned..."selling" whales between one nation and another is a pretty fair indication of lack of need for "research" subjects, if you ask me.

Also, just 'cuz:

Quote:
SYDNEY (AFP) – A militant animal rights group locked in a bitter high seas battle with Japanese whalers have the support and funding of a Hollywood A-list including Sean Penn and French screen siren Brigitte Bardot.

One of the world's best known and more extreme marine activist outfits, the not-for-profit Sea Shepherd Conservation Society prides itself on "innovative direct-action tactics" to confront so-called "illegal" activity on the high seas. Related article: Probe into whaling protest collision

It was established in 1977 in Canada by environmentalist Paul Watson who claims in his biography to have co-founded Greenpeace but said he parted ways with the the group over arguments about protest tactics.

In its 30-year history the group has used acoustic weapons, water cannons and stink bombs against whalers, trailed seal hunters and fought campaigns for sharks and dolphins, as well as regularly patrolling the Galapagos Islands.

Longtime patron Bardot sits on its board of advisers, along with Penn and fellow US actors Martin Sheen and Pierce Brosnan.

Sheen, Darryl Hannah and US soap star Richard Dean Anderson have all accompanied Sea Shepherd on protest actions.

Its diverse and high-profile benefactors include rock legend Mick Jagger, Red Hot Chili Peppers frontman Anthony Kiedis, surfing champion Kelly Slater, and actors Christian Bale and Edward Norton.

Former US television game show host Bob Barker donated five million US dollars to help Sea Shepherd buy and fit out a former harpoon ship for its 2010 pursuit of Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean.

Hollywood businessman Ady Gil bankrolled a second vessel for the 2010 season -- a two-million dollar trimaran superboat originally known as Earthrace which claimed the world record for circumnavigating the globe.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100107/ts_afp/australiajapanwhalingnzeal
andseashepherd

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:30 PM

RUE

Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:30 PM

"Are there NEVER times when you might privately contract someone, for pay, to go out and gather research subjects for you? If you do so, aren't you "in business" with them?"

Researchers hire people all the time - dishwashers, technicians, data entry clerks, statisticians - hell, they even hire 'volunteers' by paying them to participate in studies and trials. If a researcher couldn't hire ANYONE and had to do EVERYTHING by her lonesome, research would be dead in the water.

But a whaling boat which bypasses even a pretense of study (which research group hired them ?, what is their experimental question ?, where is their research plan ?), takes their catch directly to commerical market - and receives larges sums of money for said catch - is clearly not doing research.

I honestly can't imagine a scenario where one could mistake hiring a research function for a for-profit commercial venture.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

PERFESSERGEE

Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
In some case I would argue against the Sea Shepherd Society, but here there are right...

What needs to happen is an international convention on economic activity in Antarctic Waters, much as there already is for land operations.

With that sort of legal base, whaling vessels could be seized, likely by interesting nations operating in their own zones of influence... Australia in this case.

Turning Antarctica into a conservation zone with no fishing, could actually boost fish stocks in all the southern oceans long term, and that would be to the benefit of all the neighboring countrys.

Gino,

There actually is such a convention - it's called CAMLR, the Convention on Antarctic Marine Living Resources. I don't know what it says about whaling, but it theortically governs all sorts of activities on land and sea including tourism and scientific research. The contracting parties meet every year, and it has detailed protocols for all sorts of things. I'm mostly familiar with the penguin parts of it, and it's quite strict. But then the scientists are acting in good faith and trying to makes sure impacts are minimized. Such is not true with the whalers. And, it has the same problem as the IWC - it's voluntary.

And Hero, if the Japanese were staying within the terms of their "research exemption" (such Orwellian terminology for an obviously commercial product), then I'd agree that what they are doing is legal, but they aren't. It has been conclusively demonstrated (via genetic testing of whale meat in the Tokyo Fish Market) that they are killing and selling everything; blue and humpback whales (both under complete harvest bans for decades before the IWC came into existence), sei whales Bryde's whales and many others. Their "exemption" includes a few fin whales (2nd largest after blues), but almost all of the exemption is for Minke whales, the smallest of the great whales. They violate the living hell out of their supposed commitments and publish very little bona fide research - and that only in a journal published in Japanese by the national fisheries agency. Legitimate Japanese biology researchers who want to disseminate results publish in English. Legal it ain't. It's a baldfaced lie.

And I should point out that though I really don't like whaling, I can't be morally opposed to it, and I believe that no one who eats meat can do so. Killing critters is killing critters. What I can oppose is grossly unsustainable harvest, which is the only term that can be applied to the whole history of whaling. Every single stock has crashed when fished in any but the lightest manner (including Minke's though they would be easiest to manage and the data on their population size aren't very good). The reasons are too complicated to explain here, but both biology and economics (investments in high seas ships) are involved, but sustanability has never been achieved.

perfessergee

eta the word "involved" in the past paragraph

CHRISISALL

Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:

And I should point out that though I really don't like whaling, I can't be morally opposed to it, and I believe that no one who eats meat can do so. Killing critters is killing critters.

I disagree. I think it's all degrees. Killing a fly & a cow are on vastly different levels.
Killing a shark is different than killing a sea lion.
And whalers can be shot like the murderers they are with no moral reservations, God told me so, and his law is above ours.
Okay, a little nuts there, but my point is that we are all animals, and that the more evolved ones should be as off limits for hunting as two year old human children are.
The only conceivable logical disagreement with this would be that we're ALL game, unless you go with that "Only humans have souls" crap.

The laughing Chrisisall

RUE

Thursday, January 7, 2010 9:03 PM

Hey Perfesser

I have one (very) small item to gloat on when it comes to people eating whale meat. It's a little like the Smothers Brothers' routine: ' White man, you smok'um peace pipe with tobacco in it. he he he ... Rot your lungs.' It's: 'go ahead - EAT your PCB and PDBE and dioxin soaked whale meat. Enjoy ! he he he ... rot your gonads.'

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, January 7, 2010 9:10 PM

HERO

Thursday, January 7, 2010 9:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If I understand Niki right, the only legitimate reason to whale is for scientific study. Therefore, by definition, there is no such thing as a 'legitimate whaling business.'

Providing whales for research is a business. They had a permit.

If you'll look at the picture you see a big clunking whaling ship with "RESEARCH" painted on the side. You also see a sleek black highly manuaverable boat with a skull and crossbones painted on it. We all know that if they wanted to get in the Jap's way and cause this accident they could and if the Jap's set out to do all they could to ram that black boat, there is simply no way it could happen if the black boat didn't want it to.

In any event, this idea of commerical whaling hiding behind a research permit is an issue for the courts, not violence on the high seas. Yes the Japs have used water cannons and such, but I note for the record that a water cannon does not shoot very far...if you were close enough to get wet, you were too close and interfering in their business. Ships also use water cannons to stop pirates.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.