Could illegal whale meat make Japanese whaling illegal?

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by smilodon

 

Thanks for your response, jam321, I agree it is good to be fair.

Your welcome. I must apologize. I posted the source because it was relevant to this great thread you made, not as a Japanese defense.

I see now, jam321, very kind of you to explain. (I read the link by the way, offering the perspective of the Japanese whaling industry: interesting fersure!)

For instance the Research Plan of JARPNII (stands for Japanese Research Program under Special Permit in the western North Pacific, running from approx. 2000 and onward), is meant to show the scientific merits of sampling/killing whales.

Is it just me, or is there some strangeness in there...

Once processed aboard whaling ships, the whale's stomach get weighed, and stomach content analyzed for selection of prey. One recurring theme is that whales are eating fish targeted by fisheries (like Anchovy), implying that whales may be harmful to Japanese Fishery. No clear proof is provided (referring to 'complaints' by fishermen), instead the importance of protecting fishery (from ravenous whales!?) makes it necessary both to kill whales to guard against overpopulation AND to continue research into possible competition with Japan's fishing fleets. Keep weighing/analysing whale stomachs like.


Bizarre and poignant understatement: the Plan remarks on whalers experiencing few problems with sampling mother/calf pairs. I remember reading criticism by Australians regarding hunting suckling moms: easy as pie to shoot the slower, easier to exhaust young first, since whale mothers tend to stay with their dying baby, in a futile attempt to protect it from a steel ship. The mother is harpooned second.

i217.photobucket.com...


Finally, the Plan reports on the sea grids, designated areas for scientific sampling of whales. This is how the Research Whalers, sailing from one grid/area to the next taking samples, learn about whale migration and population. The whistleblower talking to Greenpeace observed that once out at sea the fleet disregards area sampling, reverting to 'thar she blows' tactics instead, a commercial (prohibited) practice aimed at max number within a quota. (See - hunt - kill)



smilodon

[edit on 16/6/10 by smilodon]

[edit on 16/6/10 by smilodon]

reply to post by vox2442


Thanks vox2442 for taking the time to read my linked info. In view of your superior access to Japanese language media, I'd like to specifically ask you again (did so twice already in topic!) if you could provide links (with English translation) to the Tokyo Prosecutor's investigation into the alleged 'embezzled whale meat'. Here's what I'm really curious about:

The box of 'unesu', 23.5 kilos est. value $1.100 to $3.500 high grade meat for whale bacon, was one of 47 labeled as crew belongings, getting shipped to their addresses. The merit of Greenpeace's claim: obvious these were crew belongings. Kyodo Senpaku (whaling company) too claimed to own it (bought at sea at previous year's rate). The captain as well, supposedly gifting 9.5 kilos to each crewmemer under 'Captain's Privilege'! Most of all, the entire catch is owned by the taxpayer, its price to be officially set only when back in port. So I'd like to know what records of sale/ownership any Japanese investigation managed to unearth, proving how these meats were removed from stock, ending up as boxes labeled 'personal' and 'cardboard' and the like.

Originally posted by vox2442

...the Greenpeace accusers were arrested on charges of theft and illegal entry. Their case, coincidentally, should close this week. Odd how this story surfaced just in time for that...

I never answered to this remark. I got involved after reading a recent report about the collision and sinking of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society boat Ady Gil, even signed a email petition protesting Lethal Research whaling, and have been reading/clicking/googling on the subject ever since.

On a purely emotional level I simply wish Cetaceans to get a fair deal. Let them swim the oceans, bring up their young ones in relative safety.

That said, I now fully realize you and I, everybody straying into online topics like mine, unwittingly is wading into a bloody conflict. Greenpeace AND Sea Shepherd are fearful of their employees ( Junichi Sato, Toru Suzuki, CPN Pete Bethune) getting railroaded in Japanese trials, imagining a judicial system overly sympathetic to the big business interests of whalers. I believe their cases are being concluded presently.

Furthermore the International Whaling Commission is gathered these very weeks to decide on allowing commercial whaling once more. Both whalers and Greenpeace (+many other anti-whaling activists) are reaching out to the world, sharing their info and defending heartfelt beliefs about the pros and cons of the whale hunt. This is not a nice theory we discuss here. Whales are in the water every day, fighting to survive, while conservationists, whalers and the public today are trying to decide whether we PROTECT or KILL whales.

I'm on the side of the big fellers.



smilodon



[edit on 17/6/10 by smilodon]

Originally posted by smilodon
That said, I now fully realize you and I, everybody straying into online topics like mine, unwittingly is wading into a bloody conflict. Greenpeace AND Sea Shepherd are fearful of their employees ( Junichi Sato, Toru Suzuki, CPN Pete Bethune) getting railroaded in Japanese trials, imagining a judicial system overly sympathetic to the big business interests of whalers. I believe their cases are being concluded presently.

That's mildly offensive. And mildly amusing.

I'm curious: what has led you to the conclusion that Japan - a modern democracy, with a modern, independent judicial system - would have a legal system that could be so easily swayed by a relatively small business interest?

After all, the courts have ruled against companies with revenues in the billions of dollars - Toyota, NEC, Toshiba, Hitachi, and on and on - why would they suddenly be willing to scrap everything for an industry that *might* *someday* with the resumption of commercial whaling and all things in their favour, be worth a single percentage point of Toyota?

It's like suggesting that the courts in Holland are controlled by the wooden shoe lobby, or the tulip grower's association.

What led you to this irrational fear? Because you're certainly not alone in it.

When I decided to look into this issue a few years ago, I discovered that the anti- side of things tends towards three arguments (when viewed as a whole, be it on an ATS thread or responses to a news story):

1) Emotional commentary on the perceived beauty/intelligence/spirituality of whales
2) Uninformed comments on the nature of the whaling program
3) Irrational statements tinged with racism.

I'd suggest that your argument falls into the latter. The Japanese are untrustworthy, driven by greed (two posts in this thread have mentioned those points), and therefore their courts must not be trusted. The deck is stacked, The "Tokyo Two " and Pete Bethune are being railroaded, we're right and the Japanese are wrong.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Peter Bethune has plead guilty to 4 of 5 charges. He is no longer a member of Sea Shepherd. They kicked him out. If he's being railroaded, I'd suggest it's not by the courts.

As for the Greenpeace trial, I'd suggest that they too are being railroaded by their organization. The chance that they would not be held accountable for theft - regardless of the outcome of any police investigation - were minuscule, because the theft involved stealing mail. The entire action seems to me to have been contrived as a way to get a court commentary on the whaling program - to drive the Greenpeace campaign. The Tokyo Two are patsies. they've been set up to take a fall. They'll be martyrs to the cause, coming soon to a Greenpeace flyer near you.


Ah, well. Good luck on the 19th. Hopefully they've banned the Vuvuzelas by then.

Originally posted by vox2442

Originally posted by smilodon
That said, I now fully realize you and I, everybody straying into online topics like mine, unwittingly is wading into a bloody conflict. Greenpeace AND Sea Shepherd are fearful of their employees ( Junichi Sato, Toru Suzuki, CPN Pete Bethune) getting railroaded in Japanese trials, imagining a judicial system overly sympathetic to the big business interests of whalers. I believe their cases are being concluded presently.

That's mildly offensive. And mildly amusing.

I'm curious: what has led you to the conclusion that Japan - a modern democracy, with a modern, independent judicial system - would have a legal system that could be so easily swayed by a relatively small business interest?

You are misrepresenting my stated position (see quote overhead), pointing out that Greenpeace are imagining the Japanese judicial system to be overly sympathetic to the big business interests of whalers. Not my conclusion in there, but the acute concerns of the Greenpeace organization.

Originally posted by vox2442After all, the courts have ruled against companies with revenues in the billions of dollars - Toyota, NEC, Toshiba, Hitachi, and on and on - why would they suddenly be willing to scrap everything for an industry that *might* *someday* with the resumption of commercial whaling and all things in their favour, be worth a single percentage point of Toyota?

It's like suggesting that the courts in Holland are controlled by the wooden shoe lobby, or the tulip grower's association.

What led you to this irrational fear? Because you're certainly not alone in it.

When I decided to look into this issue a few years ago, I discovered that the anti- side of things tends towards three arguments (when viewed as a whole, be it on an ATS thread or responses to a news story):

1) Emotional commentary on the perceived beauty/intelligence/spirituality of whales
2) Uninformed comments on the nature of the whaling program
3) Irrational statements tinged with racism.

I'd suggest that your argument falls into the latter.

I take the strongest exception to being labeled 'racist', as my posts show this is totally baseless. As a matter of fact, I've said nothing against Japan's courts for the simple reason I'm not familiar with them.

Originally posted by vox2442The Japanese are untrustworthy, driven by greed (two posts in this thread have mentioned those points), and therefore their courts must not be trusted. The deck is stacked, The "Tokyo Two " and Pete Bethune are being railroaded, we're right and the Japanese are wrong.

Not so, I've referred to evidence/testimony that whalers have strayed into commercial whaling practices, which would be in breach of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

Originally posted by vox2442Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Peter Bethune has plead guilty to 4 of 5 charges. He is no longer a member of Sea Shepherd. They kicked him out. If he's being railroaded, I'd suggest it's not by the courts...

According to Sea Shepherd, Pete Bethune has only confirmed the facts of the case (boarding whaling vessel, rancid butter bottles lobbed on deck, attempted citizen's arrest), yet holds to his innocence of the charges brought.

Although you emphatically referred to a 'police investigation', or Tokyo DP's finding Junichi Sato/Toru Suzuki's complaint without merit, you have sofar not provided links to the investigation into embezzled whale meat. If you keep avoiding the issue I might begin to suspect no such info exists, perhaps because the Japanese investigation into alleged illegal whaling did not happen after all?


smilodon

[edit on 18/6/10 by smilodon]

Originally posted by smilodon
You are misrepresenting my stated position (see quote overhead), pointing out that Greenpeace are imagining the Japanese judicial system to be overly sympathetic to the big business interests of whalers. Not my conclusion in there, but the acute concerns of the Greenpeace organization.

Perhaps I have misrepresented your personal position. Apologies. In that case, my comment still stands, albeit directed at Greenpeace.

I take the strongest exception to being labeled 'racist', as my posts show this is totally baseless. As a matter of fact, I've said nothing against Japan's courts for the simple reason I'm not familiar with them.

There is a difference between calling someone a racist and pointing out that what they have said is tinged with racism. Everyone in the world, at one time or another does the latter - usually in the form of stereotyping. If its true that you are just repeating what others have said, I guess that would make me guilty of shooting the messenger. However, the point still stands.

Not so, I've referred to evidence/testimony that whalers have strayed into commercial whaling practices, which would be in breach of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

Again, referring here to other posters in the thread, as well as the greenpeace documents you posted.

According to Sea Shepherd, Pete Bethune has only confirmed the facts of the case (boarding whaling vessel, rancid butter bottles lobbed on deck, attempted citizen's arrest), yet holds to his innocence of the charges brought.

According to the courts and the rest of the media that isnt sea shepherd, he has entered a guilty plea. Which to believe?

Although you emphatically referred to a 'police investigation', or Tokyo DP's finding Junichi Sato/Toru Suzuki's complaint without merit, you have sofar not provided links to the investigation into embezzled whale meat. If you keep avoiding the issue I might begin to suspect no such info exists, perhaps because the Japanese investigation into alleged illegal whaling did not happen after all?


smilodon

As far as the Police investigation goes, not sure what you expect from me. If you are expecting me to produce a copy of the original police report, I doubt I could get that. Such things are not usually public in Japan.

However;

Using Greenpeace sources we can piece together the following:

The District Prosecutor initially agreed to investigate but then, suddenly on June 20th, the case was dropped.

(link)

If the case was dropped, it must have been opened. Logical?

The allegation was that there had been embezzlement from an organization (the ICR, ultimately).

Party A (Greenpeace) makes the allegation that Party B (whaling crew, employees of KS) embezzled from Party C (ultimately the ICR in this case).

A is telling the police that wrong has been done to C.

In this situation, the police can only make arrests if the claim of embezzlement is verified by Party C - because they are the alleged offended party.

For a .pdf of the ICR statement regarding the closure of the internal investigation (translated to english), please see "trial footnote 2" on the Greenpeace trial page here.

The Greenpeace comment on this:

5. An official investigation was started, but dropped on the basis of a short, unsubstantiated explanation from the whalers that they had investigated themselves and found themselves innocent

Unfortunately for Greenpeace, the ICR has the right to such an internal investigation, and also the right as the alleged offended party to decide to proceed to prosecution or deal with it s an internal matter. The police do not have the power to force them to press charges, which seems to be what Greenpeace wanted.


(end note: my seven/apostrophe key died suddenly this morning, so if this sounds a bit formal it is because i have lost the ability to use contractions. I mourn the loss of another keyboard)

Due to limit on post length, I couldn't insert source links/quotes above.


Pete Bethune, questioned on tresspassing charge, confirming his boarding of whaler Shonan Maru 2 to the Japanese Court:

"I admit that I boarded the Daini Shonan Maru, but I believe I had good reasons to do so."

On a total of five charges mr. Bethune admits to real events and facts of the case, yet maintains his stance of Not Guilty. The distinction may have been lost on Japanese media and part of the public, because of some differences in Japanese and western judicial systems.

For vox2442: Sea Shepherd's decision to exclude Pete Bethune from future service at sea is more complex than mere dismissal. Formal reason: Bethune had brought bow and arrows aboard the Ady Gil, violating a non-violence clause enforced by Sea Shepherd.

Stategic considerations may well include Sea Shepherd trying to emphasize they do not condone endangering/harming whaling crews. They also eliminate Pete Bethune as a future threat to whalers, thus hoping to give grounds for leniency by the Japanese judges. On the other hand however, his last-minute exclusion from Sea Shepherd could backfire, taken as added condemnation by the court.
Source

Finally, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has continued to provide CPN Bethune with top notch legal representation throughout the case. They keep fighting to have him exonerated from all charges.


smilodon




[edit on 18/6/10 by smilodon]

[edit on 18/6/10 by smilodon]

Originally posted by smilodon
Due to limit on post length, I couldn't insert source links/quotes above.


Pete Bethune, questioned on tresspassing charge, confirming his boarding of whaler Shonan Maru 2 to the Japanese Court:

"I admit that I boarded the Daini Shonan Maru, but I believe I had good reasons to do so."

The first paragraph of your link:

A Sea Shepherd activist pleaded guilty Thursday at the start of his Tokyo trial to trespassing onto a Japanese research whaling vessel in the Antarctic Ocean in February but denied trying to hurt a crew member.

Pleaded guilty.

On a total of five charges mr. Bethune admits to real events and facts of the case, yet maintains his stance of Not Guilty. The distinction may have been lost on Japanese media and part of the public, because of some differences in Japanese and western judicial systems.

Your source says he plead guilty. The distinction you note is irrelevant, because the trial is taking place in a Japanese court, where he has plead guilty on 4 of 5 charges - and offered his explanation for his actions as a plea for leniency.

For vox2442: Sea Shepherd's decision to exclude Pete Bethune from future service at sea is more complex than mere dismissal. Formal reason: Bethune had brought bow and arrows aboard the Ady Gil, violating a non-violence clause enforced by Sea Shepherd.

From your JT article:

Bethunes wife:

She claimed Sea Shepherd was aware of the bow and arrows all along.

"They filmed him with them on the boat, so they must have known about it," she said.

All this about violating non-violence clauses is utter nonsense. They knew all along. He got caught, and they canned him.

Stategic considerations may well include Sea Shepherd trying to emphasize they do not condone endangering/harming whaling crews. They also eliminate Pete Bethune as a future threat to whalers, thus hoping to give grounds for leniency by the Japanese judges. On the other hand however, his last-minute exclusion from Sea Shepherd could backfire, taken as added condemnation by the court.
Source

Finally, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has continued to provide CPN Bethune with top notch legal representation throughout the case. They keep fighting to have him exonerated from all charges.


smilodon

How can they have him exonerated of charges he has plead guilty to, under their supposed legal council?

Hi vox2442,

I hope you have found a replacement keyboard to your satisfaction. Apologies accepted, and to get clear, I confidently maintain my remarks aren't racist, 'tinged' with racism or even anti-Japanese. I've met only one Japanese in my life, a very well mannered and impressive man, who mostly threw the people he met (including myself at a seminar decades ago), the son of Morihei Ueshiba. So if I have any irrational biases, they probably include thinking of Japanese folks as friendly/friends!

To your query who to believe, the Japanese media referring to Pete Bethune pleading guilty to 4 out of 5 chargers, or the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society claiming a distinction between mr. Bethune's confirmation of (potentially incriminating) facts like boarding a whaling ship, and his continued position of Not Guilty. Answer: both.

You see, the confirming facts by Pete Bethune in his plea include both the actions he's charged with, AND facts he and his lawyers believe exonerate him: the substance of his defense. I have insufficient understanding of Japanese courts to predict how this will play out, but (significantly) the defense side wishes to show evidence of crime (commercial whaling, sinking of CPN Bethunes boat 'Ady Gil') by whalers as migitating factors. If as you say this is irrelevant, you yourself appear biased against Japanese Justice: I will wait and see, independent judges usually are mighty curious about the defendants' case.


I read your link (pdf) detailing the investigation into alleged whaling irregularities. Worrying problems in there, vox! Apparently Kyodo Senpaku passed on to the police their own internal investigation, asking crewmembers (in un-sworn testimony) whether they had resold souvenir whale meats to restaurants. A 'yes' would have harmed their livelyhood, and their company, so unsurprisingly no wrongdoing was reported, and Kyodo Senpaku whaling company could reassure the authorities everything was done 'fairly and properly'. This account shows that although as you say an investigation was 'opened' and 'dropped', it wasn't carried out by the police or the Tokyo District Prosecutor. Moreover Kyodo Senpaku seems to admit these gifts of 'unesu' whale meat had no written records. This could support Greenpeace's claims of 'embezzlement', precious meats removed from official stock effectively ripping off the Japanese taxpayer.


smilodon

[edit on 21/6/10 by smilodon]

Originally posted by smilodon
I read your link (pdf) detailing the investigation into alleged whaling irregularities. Worrying problems in there, vox! Apparently Kyodo Senpaku passed on to the police their own internal investigation, asking crewmembers (in un-sworn testimony) whether they had resold souvenir whale meats to restaurants. A 'yes' would have harmed their livelyhood, and their company, so unsurprisingly no wrongdoing was reported, and Kyodo Senpaku whaling company could reassure the authorities everything was done 'fairly and properly'. This account shows that although as you say an investigation was 'opened' and 'dropped', it wasn't carried out by the police or the Tokyo District Prosecutor. Moreover Kyodo Senpaku seems to admit these gifts of 'unesu' whale meat had no written records. This could support Greenpeace's claims of 'embezzlement', precious meats removed from official stock effectively ripping off the Japanese taxpayer.

Care to practice your Japanese?

Japanese news sites dont tend to archive their news for some reason, so here is the entire story for posterity:

捕鯨船員は「不起訴相当」＝鯨肉持ち帰り、検察審が議決

　調査捕鯨船「日新丸」の乗組員が鯨肉を不正に持ち帰ったとして、環境保護団体「グリーンピース・ジャパン 」が業務上横領容疑で告発した問題で、乗組員の「共同船舶」（東京）社員１２人を嫌疑なしで不起訴とした東 京地検の処分について、東京第１検察審査会は２５日までに、「不起訴相当」を議決した。議決は２２日付。
　検審は議決書で、乗組員が持ち帰った鯨肉は土産や投棄する分、食料分だったと指摘。共同船舶が各乗組員に 贈与または持ち帰ることを認めたもので、業務上横領には当たらないとした。（2010/04/25-15:02）

Greenpeace lodged a complaint over how the prosecution handled the case. As a result (as per Japanese law) a Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution was set up, to determine if the Prosecutors had erred in not pressing charges.

This committee was made up of 11 random, independent civilians (similar to a Jury). Upon review of the case, their conclusion was that the prosecution (specificaly the 東京地検, the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor Office) had not erred in their decision to drop the embezzlement investigation as without merit.

So to recap:

The police investigated, and the charges were dismissed. Upon receiving a complaint, an independent review of the handling of the case and the actions of the District Prosecutor was held, and they too found that the case was without merit.

Oddly enough, despite the fact that this inquest was held at the request of Greenpeace, here we are two months later... and Greenpeace hasn't changed their tune. If anything, they are being more vocal about the issue. Lying by omission, or outright lying?

Doesn't matter. Keep sending those cheques, don't think about it.

Originally posted by vox2442

Originally posted by smilodon
I read your link (pdf) detailing the investigation into alleged whaling irregularities. Worrying problems in there, vox! Apparently Kyodo Senpaku passed on to the police their own internal investigation, asking crewmembers (in un-sworn testimony) whether they had resold souvenir whale meats to restaurants. A 'yes' would have harmed their livelyhood, and their company, so unsurprisingly no wrongdoing was reported, and Kyodo Senpaku whaling company could reassure the authorities everything was done 'fairly and properly'. This account shows that although as you say an investigation was 'opened' and 'dropped', it wasn't carried out by the police or the Tokyo District Prosecutor. Moreover Kyodo Senpaku seems to admit these gifts of 'unesu' whale meat had no written records. This could support Greenpeace's claims of 'embezzlement', precious meats removed from official stock effectively ripping off the Japanese taxpayer.

Care to practice your Japanese?

Japanese news sites dont tend to archive their news for some reason, so here is the entire story for posterity:

捕鯨船員は「不起訴相当」＝鯨肉持ち帰り、検察審が議決

　調査捕鯨船「日新丸」の乗組員が鯨肉を不正に持ち帰ったとして、環境保護団体「グリーンピース・ジャパン 」が業務上横領容疑で告発した問題で、乗組員の「共同船舶」（東京）社員１２人を嫌疑なしで不起訴とした東 京地検の処分について、東京第１検察審査会は２５日までに、「不起訴相当」を議決した。議決は２２日付。
　検審は議決書で、乗組員が持ち帰った鯨肉は土産や投棄する分、食料分だったと指摘。共同船舶が各乗組員に 贈与または持ち帰ることを認めたもので、業務上横領には当たらないとした。（2010/04/25-15:02）

Greenpeace lodged a complaint over how the prosecution handled the case. As a result (as per Japanese law) a Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution was set up, to determine if the Prosecutors had erred in not pressing charges.

This committee was made up of 11 random, independent civilians (similar to a Jury). Upon review of the case, their conclusion was that the prosecution (specificaly the 東京地検, the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor Office) had not erred in their decision to drop the embezzlement investigation as without merit.

So to recap:

The police investigated, and the charges were dismissed. Upon receiving a complaint, an independent review of the handling of the case and the actions of the District Prosecutor was held, and they too found that the case was without merit.

Oddly enough, despite the fact that this inquest was held at the request of Greenpeace, here we are two months later... and Greenpeace hasn't changed their tune. If anything, they are being more vocal about the issue. Lying by omission, or outright lying?

Doesn't matter. Keep sending those cheques, don't think about it.

vox2442,

Good post. I'm happy with it since it finally addresses my serious concerns about Japanese SELF-REFLECTION on Greenpeace charges of whaling irregularities. Sofar any Japanese official investigations were unpenetrable or at least unclear to me, so the panel of citizens looking at the question is very elucidating. I'll consider carefully and answer when I can.

Relevant to our discussion is this month's meeting of the International Whaling Commission, I believe in Morocco, dealing with the possible lifting of a 1986 ban on commercial whale hunts, as well as indigenous whaling people's right to take whales for food.

Eskimos, Inuits and Greenland's traditional whalers won out, allowed to take Minke, and even (protected) Humpback and Fin whales at strictly controlled quota.

Iceland, Japan and Norway, hunting from 1987 onwards under Lethal Research exemption from the ban were put on hold for another year. They were offered a lifting of the ban for 10 years, at limited catch quota, with the provision that over time whaling would be totally eliminated.

(continuing my answer to vox2442, due to size limitations in previous post)

The latter was too much for the three whaling nations Japan, Norway and Iceland, thus whaling status quo continues, basically Lethal Research. The IWC decided on a one-year pause in negotiations, returning to the question of ending/amending the commercial whaling ban next year. Apart from this, some other nations (including Canada and Russia) have conducted hunts 'under objection' meaning they reject IWC's regulatory role entirely.


smilodon



[edit on 26/6/10 by smilodon]

Originally posted by smilodon
The latter was too much for the three whaling nations Japan, Norway and Iceland, thus whaling status quo continues, basically Lethal Research.

Status quo?

Not quite. There are a few major differences between whaling today and whaling in the decades preceding the moratorium.

Modern whaling sees the whales as a food resource, first and foremost. Oddly enough, the whaling carried out by indigenous groups also serves the same purpose, as did global whale hunting pre-industrial revolution.

In the middle, though - the industrial revolution through to the seventies (ie the period that necessitated both the creation of the IWC and the implementation of the moratorium) the primary goal was whale oil and whale bone. Candles and lamp oil, margarine, certain industrial lubricants, cosmetics, raw wool treatments, and the myriad uses of whale oil were replaced by petroleum and its derivatives, plant oils and electricity - but not before species were decimated.

Critical to understanding this debate is this: Nations that were, once upon a time, major whaling nations (such as Australia and the USA) got out because whaling was no longer a commercially viable way of getting the oil as a raw material for industry, not because of any kind of environmental sensitivities. Nations and groups that continue whaling are primarily concerned with continuing to utilize whales as a food resource, as they have done for centuries.

Modern whaling is not for industrial purposes (meaning the scale is significantly smaller), nor is it being carried out without regard for the stability of the species being targeted. Japan has spent two decades carrying out research on that topic. Not all of that is lethal research - see the IWC SOWER program, heavily backed by Japan both financially and logistically- which has been incredibly successful in determining the health of whale stocks in the Southern Hemisphere.

That SOWER is a virtually unknown program is not coincidental. It seems to be some kind of an inconvenient truth, avoided by the media, supported in practice by the relevant academics, and quietly supported in theory (but not backed with cash or ships, when push comes to shove) by anti-whaling governments. It tends to be ignored altogether, unless a direct question is asked in the press - and no one ever seems to.

There is a pattern here. I see it, anyway. Take your greenpeace case. Greenpeace international maintains quite vocally that the Tokyo prosecution failed to investigate the embezzlement claims - despite the fact that their claims *were* investigated, and furthermore their complaint against the Tokyo Prosecutor Office was investigated months ago.

These two events are ignored. This is not rational.

In a nutshell, that would be the pattern I see. Irrational arguments presented in the press, never investigated, and rarely questioned. Its almost as though the entire media storyline is being maintained by a PR company.

Originally posted by vox2442

Originally posted by smilodon
The latter was too much for the three whaling nations Japan, Norway and Iceland, thus whaling status quo continues, basically Lethal Research.

Status quo?

Not quite. There are a few major differences between whaling today and whaling in the decades preceding the moratorium.

Hi vox2442,

'Fraid you missed the (vital) context:

Originally posted by smilodon

Iceland, Japan and Norway, hunting from 1987 onwards under Lethal Research exemption from the ban were put on hold for another year. They were offered a lifting of the ban for 10 years, at limited catch quota, with the provision that over time whaling would be totally eliminated.
The latter was too much for the three whaling nations Japan, Norway and Iceland, thus whaling status quo continues, basically Lethal Research.

My statement of fact did concern the period of Lethal Research (exemption loophole from whaling ban) after 1986, under the IWC moratorium. This status quo neccessarily continues after the unproductive June 2010 meeting of the International Whaling Commission.

Originally posted by vox2442

Critical to understanding this debate is this: Nations that were, once upon a time, major whaling nations (such as Australia and the USA) got out because whaling was no longer a commercially viable way of getting the oil as a raw material for industry, not because of any kind of environmental sensitivities.

More like moral fudging on the issue, vox! My topic alleges that modern Japanese whaling could be illegal (see links to embezzled whale meat in topic starter). So the question is: are they doing wrong or not? European exploitative whaling practices of the past, greed-driven, uninformed by scientific knowledge, were plain wrong, no two ways about it! Logically, the attrocities/stupidities committed by nations in the past don't make any of today's wrongs right. If it turns out Japan has been hunting Cetaceans commercially, that breaches the IWC whaling ban, =Wrong, period.

Originally posted by vox2442

Modern whaling is not for industrial purposes (meaning the scale is significantly smaller), nor is it being carried out without regard for the stability of the species being targeted. Japan has spent two decades carrying out research on that topic. Not all of that is lethal research - see the IWC SOWER program, heavily backed by Japan both financially and logistically- which has been incredibly successful in determining the health of whale stocks in the Southern Hemisphere.

I have to smile at that one, really, the SOWER program 'generously' funded by Japan and other whaling nations provides abundance estimates for whale stocks. The program is SO obviously designed to justify increased catching quota, even of off-list species of supposed endangered whales. A rather self-serving program, wouldn't you say.....?

Originally posted by vox2442

...Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution was set up, to determine if the Prosecutors had erred in not pressing charges.

This committee was made up of 11 random, independent civilians (similar to a Jury). Upon review of the case, their conclusion was that the prosecution (specificaly the 東京地検, the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor Office) had not erred in their decision to drop the embezzlement investigation as without merit.

Based on your sources the Greenpeace COMPLAINT (Tokyo Two case) was given to the 11 civilians, yet the investigative info was handed by Kyodo Senpaku whaling company, to police, to the 11. It is clear the investigative info comes from an intensely interested party (whalers). The findings of the (honest) committee cannot be 'independent', relying heavily on info from whalers! Greenpeace feels the prosecutor 'dropped' the case.



smilodon



[edit on 27/6/10 by smilodon]