Japan Defends Scientific Value of New Plan To Kill 333 Minke Whales (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit writes with news that Japan plans on killing 333 minke whales this year as part of their whale research program in the Antarctic Ocean. "We did our best to try to meet the criteria established by the ICJ and we have decided to implement our research plan because we are confident we have completed our scientific homework," Joji Morishita, the nation's representative to the International Whaling Commission said. Science reports: "Japan has resumed its controversial lethal research whaling because it wants to determine how many minke whales can be harvested sustainably while studying the environment, Joji Morishita, the nation's representative to the International Whaling Commission (IWC), told a press conference today. 'We'd like to find out how the marine ecosystem of the Antarctic Ocean is actually shifting or changing and not just look at whales but [also at] krill and the oceanographic situation,' Morishita said.

Japan's whaling fleet last week departed for the southern seas for the first time since the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered the nation to halt its research whaling in March 2014. The court ruled that Japan's JARPA II program, which sought to take some 850 minke whales, 50 fin whales, and 50 humpback whales, was not for the purposes of scientific research as stipulated in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The convention allows countries to kill whales for research."

Comments

Destination

[Anonymous Coward]

Would any of these whales killed for "scientific" purposes happen to end up on the dinner plates of Japanese restaurant-goers?

Re:Destination

[davester666]

The way I read the summary, it amounts to "we are researching how many minke whales we can kill before it becomes unsustainable". So basically they will stop doing it once the population no longer can sustain itself.

Japan will know the minimum number of minke whales needed for a sustainable environment. Unfortunately, we won't have that minimum number here on Earth.

Re:Destination

[Razed By TV]

Whale isn't really a delicacy. This is more like a safari hunt.

Re:Destination

[Xest]

Yes all of them and the Japanese even admit that but claim it's a byproduct of the research. This is why their hunt is illegal because international courts ruled that there is no scientific merit to their programme that requires killing of the whales and yet all the meat ends up being sold for profit.

This is an illegal commercial hunt and the courts have determined it as such. Pretending there is any actual science here is nothing more than a well destroyed lie at this point.

Japan has created itself a real problem now, because it expects countries like China to respect international law over it's territorial disputes with China, whilst defying international law in the southern oceans to carry out illegal commercial hunts. At this point Japan cannot rationally complain if China does further tighten it's stance on disputed territory because it can't on one hand pretend international law governing the seas only applies to everyone else. It could just pull out of the IWC of course like Norway, but again they want to pretend they're good players in international diplomacy land and sign up to laws so that they can try and hold others to them when it suits. Essentially Japan wants it cake, and wants to eat it too.

The fact is, how much a country will listen to you when you cry international law, will depend on how many you sign up to and how well you adhere to it yourself. Japan basically now has no credibility on this front and cannot really complain when countries like China ignore it's cries. If Chinese boats fish in waters Japan claims then it's frankly tough shit, not a leg to stand on.

Re: Destination

[Etherwalk]

No one owns the oceans. It's ridiculous to say the oceans belong a country. This whole proposition is pointless.

And yet nations regulate human activity, even on the oceans, and together can make treaties and courts.

Japan is violating International Law while pretending to follow it. In effect, they are going back on their word, betraying their commitment, undermining the legitimacy of every international agreement they make.

Re: Destination

[Etherwalk]

You mean they try to.

Don't be pedantic.

Other stuff

It would seem that they violating, specifically, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Which they agreed to follow.

We could talk about how, but I'm sure the ICJ opinion is so long and explains it in such boring and long-winded detail that you would be better advised to spend your time doing anything else.

Re:Destination

[mwvdlee]

The dead whales are intended to be used as some sort of alternative medicine.
So remember that for next time somebody tells you that atleast alternative medicine can't hurt.

Re: Destination

[Flavianoep]

No one owns the oceans. It's ridiculous to say the oceans belong a country. This whole proposition is pointless.

Owning seas (not oceans) is not more ridiculous than owning land in any way, yet land ownership has been one of the pillars of most civilizations. In fact, you own land inasmuch as you can guard it. Sea "ownership" used to suffer this deterrent as seas are not settle-able, so no one would be there to guard the frontiers of it. Now, as countries can guard a sea, they can own it. Maritime territories are regulated by international treaties and may be subject to disputes, somewhat as land territories do.

However, if you were talking about owning the very oceans, that is really ridiculous, but no one has proposed it, and I didn't understand why you would bring such a subject.

Re: Destination

[Flavianoep]

Can anyone explain me what is the point of Japan agreeing to a international regulation, then not respecting it? I mean, they can leave the International Whaling Commission any time, who would impede?

Re:Destination

[dcw3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The prized tail meat, called onomi (?) or oniku (?) are two strips of muscle that run from the dorsal to the base of the fluke. The tail meat is regarded as marbled, and is eaten as sashimi or tataki. Even Masanori Hata (aka Mutsugor) a zoologist author and animal shelter operator has extolled the delicacy of the tail meat.[

Re: Destination

[KGIII]

See Unit 731 for an example of the Japanese doing just that very thing. Well, no, they were torturing/killing the Chinese for medical experiments. It turns out that vivisection is deadly. Yay! Science!

Re:Destination

[Pseudonymous Powers]

This is an illegal commercial hunt and the courts have determined it as such. Pretending there is any actual science here is nothing more than a well destroyed lie at this point

Well, sure. But in my opinion, the real reason that the Japanese keep killing whales has little to do with either science or commerce. They do it for the same reason that the U.S. still uses inches and pounds, instead of the metric system. One, they've always done it that way, and two, every other country in the world is loudly and repeatedly calling them idiotic assholes for it, in the most obnoxious manner imaginable.

So, as human nature dictates, they double down on it. Because: USA! USA! US--I mean, Nip-pon! Nip-pon! Nip-pon!

Really?

[thegarbz]

I thought we were done with this shit. No one in the world believes Japan actually cares about the research and their "research program" has been debunked by the ICJ the one time it did come under scrutiny.

Heck even Terry Prachett made a joke about it in the discworld series:
"The Kappamaki, a whaling research ship, was currently researching the question: How many whales can you catch in one week?"

Re:Really?

[LMariachi]

If only it were a joke.

> "Japan has resumed its controversial lethal research whaling because it wants to determine how many minke whales can be harvested sustainably”

Japan’s rep is pretty much paraphrasing Pratchett’s line right there.

Re:Really?

[pgfuller]

Worse than that. Suppose their research 'proves' that you can catch 333 whales 'sustainably'. Is their research then complete? Sadly no. They can come back and research a higher number. When the outcome of the research could only be to allow you to undertake an illegal activity then it should never take place. Meanwhile any whale meat that is a by-product should be incinerated. Total sham and embarrassing to see a country acting in this way.

Re:Really?

[jandersen]

Heck even Terry Prachett made a joke about it in the discworld series:
"The Kappamaki, a whaling research ship, was currently researching the question: How many whales can you catch in one week?"

It was 'Good Omens', not the Discworld, but a fabulous book. But yeah, you're right. What really pisses me off - and probably almost everybody else - is the fact that they have so little respect for the intelligence and decency of people, that they actually try to explain it away withh such a transparent lie. I would have felt less offended if they had simply stuck up a finger and said "We don't give a shit!". The expression "lying cowards" presents itself to the forefront of my mind, but let's keep it under control for now.

Where are the famous Japanese honor

[lucm]

They could at least wait until Fukushima stops leaking radioactive waste (which has now reached North America) before sending boats to kill more whales.

How many Japanese Scientists

[Tomahawk]

One wonders if one would get the go ahead to perform the same experiment substituting "Japanese Whale Scientist" for "Mink Whale"... how many would we need to cull in order to put an end to such ridiculous idea and an end to hunting and killing these amazing animals?

And, unlike them, the fruits of our hunting won't make it onto any dinner plates...

Endangered species

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why Japan is allowing this. Whales are an endangered species in Japan.

They should try this in the US, where whales are everywhere.

Re:Endangered species

[Rei]

1) Whales are not a single species

2) Minke whales are not endangered. They are classified as LC (least concern) by the IUCN. The Antarctic stock alone is estimated at over 500k.

3) Whaling is legal in parts of the US ("traditional whaling" by Alaskan natives... but as if the whales end up any less dead, or as if people are actually going out in canoes, hunting with spears, and bringing them back ashore by manpower, rather than going out in motorboats, hunting with large guns and explosive harpoons, and hauling them ashore with backhoes)

#3 is the one that really gets me when the US sees fit to lecture Iceland (where I live, which like Alaska also has a long tradition of whaling** and consumes similar whale per-capita) about the evils of whaling. Clean up your own damned backyard before you start lecturing others. Not that we really need a lecture on morality in general from a country that tortures people, or specifically a lecture on food-production morality from a country that produces most of its meat in factory farms in squalid conditions. At least whales live their whole lives free in near idyllic conditions rather than crammed in cages where they can barely turn around.

It's also counterproductive. The anti-whaling people who run all of these protests, particularly the really high profile ones (economic sanctions, hacking, violence, etc), just encourage people to want to support whaling even more. Think about it: how would you feel if some other country came in and said, "look, pigs score as well or better than dogs on most intelligence tests, yet you stubbornly refuse to stop eating them or even raise them in humane conditions"? You might have a "we'll just agree to disagree" reaction. Now imagine that said country or people from said country decided to try to force you to stop eating pork by slapping sanctions on your whole country, launching hacking campaigns against your government and businesses, sinking ships in your harbors, etc. How would you feel? How would you react? Would it make you more or less likely to eat pork? Most people would be so ticked off they'd eat more of it. Now imagine that said country that was doing all of this actually consumed significant amounts of pork themselves in one region. How would you feel?

Full disclosure: I'm a vegetarian. I just don't like hypocrisy or counterproductive actions. Let me help you out: if you really want to stop people in nations where whale is consumed from eating it, there is one tactic that is actually quite effective: health. Whale meat contains dangerous levels of heavy metals and accumulative organic toxins (dangerous to everyone, but particularly to pregnant women). The more people are aware of this, the less they feel comfortable eating it. Hence, raising awareness of this fact should be your goal. Not morality lectures and a "big stick" approach that - every time - only causes a pro-whaling backlash. Also, target the tourists. Nearly half of the whale consumed here is consumed by tourists - a lot of whom would describe themselves as anti-whaling and would never dream of eating it at home. It's amazing but for some reason when people are on vacation they act as if the normal rules of their life don't apply, as if whatever they do on vacation "doesn't count", that either their actions are insignificant or that it's okay because they're just "being like locals". The irony being that locals don't actually consume whale that often (horse, on the other hand...)

Re:Endangered species

[Rei]

** The whole concept that it's okay for Alaskans to whale because it's "traditional" but it's not okay for Icelanders just stinks of racism - that because the Inuit and Yupik are american indian peoples then their culture and history matters, but Icelanders are just white devils, so who gives a rat's arse that Icelanders have been eating whale for over a thousand years on the island, and their ancestors in Scandinavia for thousands of years before that? Who cares that it was such an important part of Icelandic life that it's even part of the language, such as hvalreki - literally "beached whale", but also used as "godsend", because finding a beached whale used to be the difference between life and death for entire towns? Meh, Icelanders are just evil white people so their cultures don't count. Icelanders, Norwegians, Russians, Faroese, Japanese... all get put into the "modern peoples" category, but Alaskans are just "natives preserving their culture" - you know, those primitives who live in modern houses, ride around on snowmobiles and fly from town to town by bushplane. It's okay if they do it, their culture and history actually matters!

Re:Endangered species

[Xest]

A large part of the reason Minke whales have such a large population are because they've had to fill the void left by the decimation of other species of whale - whale help to fertilise the oceans by spreading nutrients around, which in turn help grow fish stocks by making sure ample food is present.

Should the population of large whales increase, the population of Minke whales will decrease to a point of equilibrium determined by survival of the fittest. The problem is that populations of whales typically take decades to return to their natural levels of balance, thus it'll take a long time before blue whales and so forth can reach a population size at which they would naturally be expected to achieve.

So species such as Minke whales are able to fill the void the missing blue whales otherwise would, thus it's irrelevant that there are lots of them - you need a certain level of whale biomass to prevent problematic algae build up, and to help keep fish stocks healthy amongst other things. Hence, just because Minke whales are well populated doesn't make it okay to hunt them, it just means that as yet unrecovered populations of other previously over-hunted whale species will be coupled with reduced Minke populations and in turn will mean we end up with a level of whale biomass too small to perform it's task in the ecosystem to a suitable degree. This in turns leads to environmental problems and reduction of fish stocks.

The IUCN simply ranks species based on how at threat they are from extinction - this isn't simply a question of population, for example, some plant species have healthy population numbers in the hundreds of thousands, but only grow on rocky outcrops that are tagged for potential mining - in that case the population numbers are good, but the threat of extinction is still high. What the IUCN does not do is take into account the impact of hunting a species, thus it's not true that a least concern ranking on the IUCN list correlates with "Okay to hunt". It's possible for something to be near extinct, but fine to hunt to extinction because it has little relevance to it's ecosystem, just as it's for something to be least concern, but still a bad idea to hunt as in this case. Suggesting that because something is ranked as least concern that it must be okay to hunt is a completely invalid way to interpret IUCN rankings because that's not what they measure - it's a measure of population health and NOT a measure of population value within the ecosystem.

There has been a particular focus on whales over the years for precisely the fact that they have a high ecosystem value, more recently the same is beginning to be realised for sharks also having long been characterised as evil pointless predators. Contrary to what the Japanese, Icelanders and so forth will tell you, the IWC itself, and the ICJs rulings are as they are not because of emotion, but because they're important to help make sure we can maintain healthy oceans. This something we're already struggling to do as is with over-fishing in general, much more so if we end up with even greater reduced fish stocks due to ecosystem problems due to whale over-hunting.

Re:Endangered species

[Wycliffe]

So species such as Minke whales are able to fill the void the missing blue whales otherwise would, thus it's irrelevant that there are lots of them - you need a certain level of whale biomass to prevent problematic algae build up, and to help keep fish stocks healthy amongst other things. Hence, just because Minke whales are well populated doesn't make it okay to hunt them, it just means that as yet unrecovered populations of other previously over-hunted whale species will be coupled with reduced Minke populations and in turn will mean we end up with a level of whale biomass too small to perform it's task in the ecosystem to a suitable degree. This in turns leads to environmental problems and reduction of fish stocks.

I don't think it's completely irrelevant. If there is a huge number of minke whales then they are competing with the "actually endangered" species and thinning them out a little might actually help the other endangered whale species.

That being said, I think Japan's premise is laughable and an insult to the rest of the world. I would much rather them say "we believe that reducing the minke whale population will help other whale populations recover" or even "we believe there are plenty of minke whales and are going to harvest some just because". 333 whales out of 500k is not going to hurt the minke whale population but they shouldn't claim it is scientific research.

Re:Endangered species

[UnknowingFool]

#3 is the one that really gets me when the US sees fit to lecture Iceland (where I live, which like Alaska also has a long tradition of whaling** and consumes similar whale per-capita) about the evils of whaling.

First, some of the agreements that the US has with natives on whaling predate the whale moratorium by a century. Second, it isn't commercial whaling which Iceland is doing. The whaling done by natives are families and tribes in small boats. It is predominantly subsistence whaling in that the tribes hunt the whale as food source. Third, the total amount of whales taken by nine tribes in the US: 40-60 whales per year. This is nothing compared to the hundreds of one species that Japan, Norway, or Iceland each hunt. Lastly, some people in the US have a problem with this whaling despite the low impact.

Re:Endangered species

[xrobertcmx]

Not sure you've been to the same Alaska I was in. It wasn't igloos, it was an impoverished dirt village that didn't even have reliable running water. They didn't hunt whales there, but they also didn't a Walmart or other grocery store within 100mi. What food did come in from outside was priced out of reach for most people. Try $14 for a 12pack of Pepsi, if Pepsi was in stock, if it wasn't winter because it would explode in the can.

Re:Endangered species

[Rei]

You don't have the slightest idea what life is like there, and you hardly even have the experience required to imagine it.

Oh that's rich. You have no clue what life is like in Iceland but you see fit to lecture me on it. And most of your whole bloody nation sees fit as well when most of them couldn't even point to Iceland on a map.

And you're bitching because people in Reykjavik can't buy whale meat at the supermarket.

Where'd you get that idea? You absolutely can. It's just not that commonly eaten, due to price and health reasons.

Icelanders shouldn't have hunted whales to near-extinction

Icelanders have never hunted any whale species to near extinction. That was Americans who did that. *coughs and stares in your general direction* Learn your whaling history. At one point 735 of the world's 900 whaling ships were American.

Icelanders primarily hunt minke whales, which are an incredibly abundant species (rated LC/"Least Concern")

The whale population in Northern Alaska is substantially bigger than the human population

As is the Icelandic minke population.

But hey, come on, lecture me some more about not talking about places I know nothing about!

Not igloos, but the buildings do look a little silly what with the stilts

Really, you're going to lecture someone who lives in Iceland about silly-looking buildings?

The money from the government doesn't make up for the insane costs of food and fuel

Oh PLEASE, you're going to lecture someone in Iceland about expensive prices? You know that half of all children's clothing here was bought overseas because it's cheaper when parents are expecting to take an overseas trip and come back with a suitcase full of clothe then to buy them here? I recently bought a printer that retails in the US for $200. I had to buy it from Europe for $250, pay $40 to have it shipped overseas, then $70 in customs fees. But that still saved me $100 over buying it locally. A month ago I bought a small item on ebay. The purchase price was $1. Shipping made it $5. Customs charged me $11 on top of that. $17 for a $1 item. Don't lecture me about "high prices". :P

And the key point is you get money from the government *and* you don't pay state taxes. You only pay US federal faxes. Do you know what the tax rate on a person working as a contractor is here? It's about 60%. As a salaried employee I pay over 40% of my salary in income tax. Now factor in those purchase prices / customs fees on top of that. Oh yeah, those poor impoverished natives and us rolling-in-the-cash volcano dwellers...

And it is subsistence hunting -- the meat obtained cannot be sold.

That's not what "subsistence hunting" means. Look up the definition of subsistence in the dictionary. Subsistence hunting means "hunting for survival". Nobody in Barrow is going to starve if they don't get whale.

And FYI, Americans in general don't give a rat's arse whether whale is sold or shared, they just care whether it's "indians" doing it or not, because only indians have "cultures" and "history", everyone else is just white devils or evil japs or the like out to destroy the world. If they actually gave a rat's arse about sharing then they wouldn't be raising such a fury over the Faroese whale hunt (they share it too).

Re:The results?

[Kagetsuki]

Fail. There is no 'v' in Japanese. Had you written 'belly' or 'welly' it would have been semi-accurate. Regardless, fuck you.

Re:Bigger picture of opposing whaling per se

[alexgieg]

If they don't want to eat whales or use their skins - that's fine - but they don't have the right to ram down their viewpoints down everyone else's throats, particularly other countries. It reminds me of abortion - if you don't like it, then don't have one but leave other people alone.

Precisely. And the same should be applied to laws against animal torture. If you don't like to slowly rip the flesh out from living kittens, then smashing their toes with hammers, and finally setting their bloodied bodies in fire, then just don't do it. As for those who enjoy hearing the screams of tortured dying kittens, let them. /sarcasm

Re:There should not be any **DOUBLE STANDARD**

[jimtheowl]

"This has nothing to do with one wrong / many worngs"

This has everything to do with it and how you put forward your argument defending Japan in this "scientific research" hypocrisy scheme. I am not condoning any country breaking international law, and in the case of Japan, every indication is that they are getting away with it as well, so no "DOUBLE STANDARD" here.

"Just because the Japs ain't 'whites' ..."

No one is mentioning skin color except you so that should tell you something.

Re:Bigger picture of opposing whaling per se

[Junta]

Yeah, the argument seems to be a weird one in this case. It's one thing to make that sort of argument about drugs/alcohol (those that do it hurt themselves, and that's their prerogative until they do something like drive). If you are opposed to killing animals or abortions, it's because you see it as victimizing a helpless victim, so an argument of cultural relativism doesn't really work.

Now another perspective would be whether the stance is inconsistent with the treatment of other sealife or land mammals. Whaling isn't that dissimilar to a lot of hunting that happens all the time on land.

Of course hunting *does* get restricted in scenarios involving migratory birds, and perhaps this is the relevant comparison point...