With Sales Down, Whale Meat Flogged As Source of Strength

beaverdownunder writes "From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: 'Japan's peak whaling body has launched a new campaign to promote whale meat as a nutritious food that enhances physical strength and reduces fatigue. With about 5,000 tonnes of whale meat sitting unwanted in freezers around Japan, the country's Institute for Cetacean Research has decided to launch a new campaign to promote the by-product of its so-called scientific whaling program. Once popular in school lunches, younger generations of Japanese rarely, if ever, eat whale."

Comments

May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls

[bruce_the_loon]

The bastards and their ships need to be pulled down to the deep dark ooze of the abyss where tentacled beasties will toy with their souls for eternity.

Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls

[Big Hairy Ian]

So this research that they claim that the whaling is for would appear to be market research???

Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls

[Anonymous Coward]

And maybe the Australians should start sinking whaling ships that breach Australia's exclusive economic zone or territorial waters to hunt whales illegally against international and local laws.... not that I care about the bloody whales, only that they think they should be exempt from international law.

Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls

[Anonymous Coward]

The Kappamaki, a whaling research ship, was currently researching the question: How many whales can you catch in one week?
                -- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)

Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls

[Luckyo]

They claim they want to prove that whales are numerous enough to again allow for commercial whaling, and that such proof would be impossible to gather without research. Assuming you see whales as just another resource, like fish, this is a reasonable stance to take.

The underlying issue is that many countries want a total moratorium on whaling for cultural reasons. Japan and several other countries with long culture of whaling view this as insanity and see whales as the same as any other nautical resource. In a way they are right, many of modern fish stocks are in much worse condition then many of the whale stocks, but because many of the countries that want total moratorium have severe vested interests in fishing but no whaling, they deflect attention from painful decisions that need to be taken in regards to fishery policy by focusing attention on whaling which is essentially free for them - as they do not have a whaling fleet or culture of whaling.

Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls

[Jarik C-Bol]

No no, thats what started this shit in the first place. By the end of world war 2, they had completely stopped whaling, but MacAurther told them to start again to 'revive their economy' and 'provide food' during reconstruction. We literally encouraged the establishment of Whale meat as a nation-wide food, where before it had pretty well been abandoned.
the reason they won't back down on it now is Japan is pretty tired of the west telling it what to do.

Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls

[Anonymous Coward]

One expert's view on the matter

... Leaving aside the AAT’s status under Australian domestic law, it can be noted that sovereignty over Antarctica is a sensitive international topic and only the United Kingdom, France, Norway and New Zealand officially recognise Australian sovereignty over the AAT. Japan does not recognise Australian sovereignty, along with the United States of America, China, and Russia. Japan also renounced all claims to Antarctica at the end of World War II.

Recognition, however, is not the test of sovereignty under international law. General recognition by other states of a state’s sovereignty over a particular territory no doubt assists a state in establishing sovereignty but it is not determinative. Under customary international law acquisition of sovereignty over territory that does not already belong to another state is established by effective occupation of the territory. While some authors argue “Antarctica is not subject to the ordinary legal regime of land territory, and rather than res nullius it is res communis” and, therefore, unable to support a claim of sovereignty, there is little support for this in the principles established by courts and other bodies exercising international jurisdiction. The decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (1933) PCIJ Series A/B No 53 is particularly significant in relation to sovereignty over inhospitable, thinly populated polar territories such as Antarctica...

... If Australian sovereignty over the AAT is established under the principles of international law, even to a smaller geographic area than claimed by Australia, why do so few nations recognise this sovereignty? One answer is that the recognition of sovereignty is a political process, not merely legal. By refusing to recognise Australian sovereignty, Japan and other nations keep alive their ability to us e resources in the AAT. This ability is fettered only by the practical difficulties in operating in the hostile and remote Antarctic environment, and by the Antarctic Treaty System. This approach is contrary to The Rule of Law but explained by the realpolitik of international relations...

Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls

[ZekeSpeak]

they deflect attention from painful decisions that need to be taken in regards to fishery policy by focusing attention on whaling which is essentially free for them - as they do not have a whaling fleet or culture of whaling.

This has nothing to do with fishing stocks. For a start, whales are mammals, not fish. The whale watching industry in Australia is worth more than 31 million dollars a year, worlwide the value is in billions.

The humpback whales now travelling up the East Coast of Australia once numbered 500 and now, due to the whaling ban now number over 18,000.

Do you think that the humpbacks would come anywhere near a boat if the Japanese whalers once again start harpooning them as they've been planning to do? You'd see a multi-billion dollar industry destroyed.

Actually, Australian fisheries are in a far better condition than many around the world. They do especially well when compared to Japanese fisheries, if there are any left.

Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls

[stoploss]

What part of "sitting unwanted in freezers" and "killing whales" is part of your moronic idea of popluation study? Oh! The Bald Eagle is Endangered.... Guess What's For Dinner! Get bent you idiot.

Just an FYI: not all whale species are endangered. You can see some examples here (prepare to give your L type cones a function test):
Humpback whale, Minke whale, Southern Right whale.

As you can see, those species are listed as "Least Concern" by the IUCN, which happens to be the same category that the sewer rat receives. There have been allegations that endangered whales have been killed by the Japanese whaling industry, which is obviously reprehensible.

BTW, there have also been allegations that the "Least Concern" bald eagle (oh, also FYI: it's no longer endangered) have been killed by the Amish chicken farming industry.

I don't really have an opinion on the ethics of whaling "least concern" whale species. I consider that concept similar to the beef industry. Why is killing and eating cow acceptable if killing and eating non-threatened whale species is not? Of course, you will notice that the ethical consideration is orthogonal to the legality consideration.

I am vegetarian, so I am not faced with cognitive dissonance about the situation, but I don't care which animals that other people eat if it isn't actively promoting extinction of a species.

Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls

[Ash Vince]

Do explain which international laws forbid whale hunting the way Japan practices it. It's a completely legal practice according to IWC.

Whaling for food is illegal. But Japan has come up with some bullshit excuse that they need to conduct scientific research which is why they need to kill whales, then selling the meat as byproduct just makes good sense.

The problem with this is that there is simply no need to kill so many whales for research it's just that Japan's (ruling) older generation view eating whale as such an essential part of their culture they refuse to contemplate change on this front. You might be able to make an argument that what Japan does it legal, but it is still against the spirit of the treaty.

I also think that the individual ships flout the law because they know their is no appetite to prosecute them back home. I certainly think that the average Japanese whaling ship captain will happily follow his prey into Australian waters then lie about it later if they Australian Navy is not around to stop them.

Finally, later this year or early next year the final word on whether what Japan does is legal or not will come down from the ICJ. That will be final and binding (no appeals allowed) but until then no one really knows either way.

Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls

[Xest]

"There have been allegations that endangered whales have been killed by the Japanese whaling industry, which is obviously reprehensible."

It's not just simply allegation, some of the more endangered species are on their annual catch list.

"I am vegetarian, so I am not faced with cognitive dissonance about the situation, but I don't care which animals that other people eat if it isn't actively promoting extinction of a species."

It's not cognitive dissonance, there's sound scientific reasoning behind it all.

Whales feed on things like krill, and if you lower the whale population, the population of the likes of krill increase. When the population of krill increases the population of phytoplankton decreases, when the population of phytoplankton decreases some fish stock lose their breeding and feeding grounds and the population of fish can decline and so on and so forth - you get the idea.

We can't say well, humpbacks are overpopulated so let's just start killing them now, because the fact is the likes of humpbacks are overpopulated because they've been able to thrive on the excess of krill leftover from the depleted populations of the likes of blue whales and so forth but as blues increase in population they will start to take back their fair share and the population of humpbacks will decline back to more natural levels. Ultimately the balance of populations has been decided by evolution in that the more successful a species the greater a share of the shared food source it can devour and the natural balance of populations will be based on that - if humans leave an ecosystem alone the populations will eventually return to their natural state, but it's a long process and certainly doesn't happen overnight.

Enter humans into the equation and if we decrease the population of a successful species like blue whales the population of the likes of humpbacks increase. The problem is that what you're now advocating is that well, there's plenty of humpbacks now the blue whales are depleted so let's deplete them too, and that's not a problem if you do this sustainably such that the amount of humpbacks you remove is equivalent to the relative growth in blue whales as their population recovers but that's not what the Japanese want, they now want to start hunting the likes of humpback as fast as blues were hunted so that the net result is an overall reduction in the amount of krill eating species and such.

This is the fundamental problem, it's about ensuring there is a net amount of, I guess you could call it whale biomass, to keep things like krill at safe levels. The fact is that yes, whilst the likes of humpbacks and minke are at above natural population levels had we not hunted other species to the point of extinction that that's still necessary to maintain balance in the relevant ecosystems. Or to put it succinctly, we need the increased minke/humpback etc. populations to fulfil the role of the decreased populations of other whales.

Japan is just scared that if it just gives it up and admits it was wrong on this issue that it'll look weak and that the Chinese will start taking islands off them expecting them to relent on that sort of thing too. They'd be better off doing their population that has no interest in this meat a favour and give it up, saving their country millions that they could put towards sorting their otherwise fucked up economy out because the government subsidises the whaling industry in almost it's entirety. There's no economic benefit, there's no cultural benefit (the people have already stopped eating it), and there's no environmental benefit, it's entirely a pathetically poor political decision that, if not kept in check by the rest of the world genuinely puts many large fish stocks at risk than they already are currently due to the knock on effects.

Re:May Bel-Shamharoth eat their souls

[Immerman]

Why should humans?

On an ethical level whales demonstrate intelligence and self-awareness at least on par with the great apes, and possibly considerably superior since there's a fair argument to be made that our tests test for "intelligence like ours", which presumably works okay for our not-to-distant cousins in the other great apes, and even monkeys, but whales diverged from our own ancestors *long* before significant intelligence had evolved, and proceeded to evolve an intelligence optimized for a very alien environment.

In addition whales fill an important ecological niche in the most important ecosystem on the planet (if the oceans die the rest of the planet isn't far behind - it provides most of the atmospheric oxygen for starters), and we're doing a very good job of killing the ocean in general and whales in particular - many species of which are still on the brink of extinction, with only between a few hundreds to a few thousands of individuals in existence.

Humans on the other hand are... us? What claim do we have to special treatment other than our our presumed intellectual superiority(or at least tool-making ability) and superior firepower? We're certainly in no danger as a species except via the long-term consequences of our own actions, and we don't fill any particularly sensitive ecological niche that pigs or rats couldn't fill just as easily.

so...

[Pubstar]

Why didn't the poster just include the last sentence so that the summary is just TFA? Also, I wonder how this is being covered on slashdot.jp.

It's actually surprisingly cheap...

[antifoidulus]

one of the more popular places in Tokyo only charges 5,000 yen(about $50) per person for parties of 2 or more, complete with an all-you-can drink(alcohol, not that soft drink crap they have in the US :P). Doesn't sound very cheap, but there aren't a lot of places you can get an all-you-can-drink with food for less than 5,000 yen. Just FYI, you get fried whale, whale sashimi, whale soup, and some udon noodles for your cash. I actually had it before, not bad.

Re:Europeans

[Teun]

Yes so?

When extinction became an issue civilised nations agreed to stop whaling.
The exceptions are for indigenous populations like those living in polar regions and some scientific work.
As a result in the short term whales are no longer threatened by extinction but in the long term they still face threats.
Japan's excuse would be laughable if it weren't for the fact when all previous whaling nations would do the same the problem of extinction would surface again.

Where a great nation shows child-like behaviour.

Re:Europeans

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. Both Japan and Iceland catch Fin Whales which are classified as 'Endangered'

Again?

[Smivs]

Whale meat again,
Don't know where,
don't know when.
But I'll know whale meat again,
some sunnyyyyyyy day!

Whaling is bad

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

It'll destroy humanity. I learned it in Star Trek 4.

Little known fact about whaling

[Hans Adler]

It's not really about whales or their meat. It's about oil and similar resources.

According to international treaties, under certain conditions a country has the right to drill for oil in a certain area if it has traditionally and recently been exploiting the area economically in other ways. This explains a few things about the Japanese whaling programme that would make no sense otherwise. Why they are doing this even though they have no need for the meat, as the article makes clear. But also why they are not making a better effort to disguise the whaling as scientific. Sure, they are arguing before the IWC that it's primarily scientific. But sooner or later they will have to argue before a different body that it's primarily economic, and has always been so. The more obviously economic the programme is, the better it is for their purpose, so long as they can get away with it before the IWC.

Re:in my honest opinion

[lxs]

we are coming to a point where we can literally grow our foods

Oh dear, have I accidentally set my time machine 10000 years too far into the past? I was supposed to end up in 2013.

Ok, so if no-one is eating it, why bother with it?

[jonwil]

If people aren't interested in eating whale meat, why not just give up on the hunt and stop killing the things?
Continuing to produce a product no-one is interested in (and that large swathes of the rest of the world would rather you didn't produce) seems stupid to me, especially if they have to divert money from tsunami relief to pay for it.

Is it because of lobbying by the whale fishermen? Concerns from the government about where all the people involved in the industry are gonna get jobs if the industry is shut down? National pride? (i.e. "we have been catching whales for decades, why should we stop now just because someone else tells us to") Something else?

It has become a matter of pride in some

[SmallFurryCreature]

The funny thing is that whaling is a western thing but post WW2 the Japanese were encouraged to start whaling to augment their diet. And it sorta stuck. When the article claims "once popular in school meals" what they really mean is: once the only meat in school meals. It is like claiming "levertraan" (fishoil) was popular in Holland... it was given to lots of kids to boost their vitamin intake but it sure as hell wasn't popular.

Whaling in Japan is mostly an issue that most don't care about but for a small group it has become an identity issue. It is the same group who claim mass child rape was essential to the Japanese psyche during WW2. (See Yokohama's mayor recent claims). To most Japanese it is an embarrassment but they have trouble not getting accused of being non-japanese the same as everyone has when they are confronting those wrapping themselves in their nations flag.

You might as well post about the NRA and their antics and ask Americans how they feel about it. You get the same kind of "oh gosh, I am embarrassed but they are waving my flag so if I attack them I am a traitor".