Japan announces it will resume whaling

[Tammuz]

IWC withdrawal: Japan to resume commercial whaling in 2019

Japan has announced its withdrawal from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) next year, and will resume commercial hunting in its territorial waters and exclusive economic zone from July.

It will also cease whaling activities in the Antarctic Ocean, according to an official statement released Wednesday, and hunt species with so-called "healthy" population numbers.

"In its long history, Japan has used whales not only as a source of protein but also for a variety of other purposes," the statement said. "Engagement in whaling has been supporting local communities, and thereby developed the life and culture of using whales."

The move to resume commercial whaling drew criticism from conservation groups and governments.

Much as I find Japan a fascinating country and culture and would like to visit it some day, this decision is contemptible. Not only are many whale species endangered already, global warming might make it even worse. Whales also have highly developed brains and social lives.

It appears that the Japanese are not alone in doing this. From the same article:

Iceland and Norway object to the moratorium and continue to hunt whales commercially without relying on science as an excuse.

 

[Derec]

I agree with protecting whales, but why should Indians have the right to hunt whales, but Norwegians, Icelanders and Japanese can't?

If UN or whoever is in charge of this wants to ban whale hunting, it should apply to everybody equally.

 

[skepticalbip]

Both the Inuit in Canada and the Native American Makah Tribe in Washington state also began whaling again a while back.

 

[skepticalbip]

I agree with protecting whales, but why should Indians have the right to hunt whales, but Norwegians, Icelanders and Japanese can't?

If UN or whoever is in charge of this wants to ban whale hunting, it should apply to everybody equally.

Actually the UN does not have that power. It is a decision that each country makes by trying to balance world opinion with internal cultural concerns.

 

[Derec]

Actually the UN does not have that power. It is a decision that each country makes by trying to balance world opinion with internal cultural concerns.

So it's a voluntary thing? So why did Japan need the "scientific research" fig leaf all those years?
Also, those environmentalist anti-whaling ships. If whaling is technically legal, aren't they basically engaging in piracy on the high seas?

 

[skepticalbip]

Actually the UN does not have that power. It is a decision that each country makes by trying to balance world opinion with internal cultural concerns.

So it's a voluntary thing? So why did Japan need the "scientific research" fig leaf all those years?

World opinion. Member states of the UN can certainly organize boycotts of any nation that engages in activities they disagree with but they don't have the authority to arrest them and try them in a world court, forcibly make them stop by sinking their ships, or invading.

Also, those environmentalist anti-whaling ships. If whaling is technically legal, aren't they basically engaging in piracy on the high seas?

Not piracy but it could be seen as a violation of "rules of the seas" or the open seas agreements.

 

[laughing dog]

I agree with protecting whales, but why should Indians have the right to hunt whales, but Norwegians, Icelanders and Japanese can't?

The scale of Inuit whale hunting is dwarfed by that of the others.

There is no enforcement of whale hunting. Countries agree to the International Whaling Commission quotas. Norway, Iceland and Japan have been urging the IWC to lift its ban since 2010. Countries can withdraw from the agreement at any time.

 

[ronburgundy]

I agree with protecting whales, but why should Indians have the right to hunt whales, but Norwegians, Icelanders and Japanese can't?

The scale of Inuit whale hunting is dwarfed by that of the others.
.

Is it also okay for Inuits to rape people, because the scale of the rape would be smaller than if larger groups do it?

Any argument that says the Inuits can do it, is an argument that whaling is not generally wrong and therefore general whaling bans should not exist, but rather that whaling should merely be regulated and limited in scope and to species with "healthy" numbers.

 

[Tammuz]

I agree with protecting whales, but why should Indians have the right to hunt whales, but Norwegians, Icelanders and Japanese can't?

If UN or whoever is in charge of this wants to ban whale hunting, it should apply to everybody equally.

I assume, based on other replies in this text, that "Indians" here refer to various North American native peoples, not the country of India.

I agree that these native peoples who engage in it shouldn't do it either.

 

[J842P]

IWC withdrawal: Japan to resume commercial whaling in 2019

Japan has announced its withdrawal from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) next year, and will resume commercial hunting in its territorial waters and exclusive economic zone from July.

It will also cease whaling activities in the Antarctic Ocean, according to an official statement released Wednesday, and hunt species with so-called "healthy" population numbers.

"In its long history, Japan has used whales not only as a source of protein but also for a variety of other purposes," the statement said. "Engagement in whaling has been supporting local communities, and thereby developed the life and culture of using whales."

The move to resume commercial whaling drew criticism from conservation groups and governments.

Much as I find Japan a fascinating country and culture and would like to visit it some day, this decision is contemptible. Not only are many whale species endangered already, global warming might make it even worse. Whales also have highly developed brains and social lives.

It appears that the Japanese are not alone in doing this. From the same article:

Iceland and Norway object to the moratorium and continue to hunt whales commercially without relying on science as an excuse.

Are you a vegetarian? If not, I really don't see how you can make an ethical argument against whaling without being a hypocrite.

 

[laughing dog]

Any argument that says the Inuits can do it, is an argument that whaling is not generally wrong and therefore general whaling bans should not exist, but rather that whaling should merely be regulated and limited in scope and to species with "healthy" numbers.

Whaling was banned in order to regenerate the stocks of the different species of whales not because whales were special. At the time, the argument was that the Inuit's non-commercial whaling practices were an essential part of their culture and ought to be granted an exception since their take was too small to make a difference. It was a compromise. Even though whaling was "banned", some harvesting was permitted for "research" purposes as well as to allow some people to continue their cultural practices.

The issue at this point is that there is a debate over whether some species of whales have a sufficient population size to permit harvesting. I believe an advisory group to the IWC made such a recommendation and it was rejected.

 

[Tammuz]

Much as I find Japan a fascinating country and culture and would like to visit it some day, this decision is contemptible. Not only are many whale species endangered already, global warming might make it even worse. Whales also have highly developed brains and social lives.

It appears that the Japanese are not alone in doing this. From the same article:

Are you a vegetarian? If not, I really don't see how you can make an ethical argument against whaling without being a hypocrite.

I'm not a vegetarian.

Many whale species are endangered.

 

[J842P]

Much as I find Japan a fascinating country and culture and would like to visit it some day, this decision is contemptible. Not only are many whale species endangered already, global warming might make it even worse. Whales also have highly developed brains and social lives.

It appears that the Japanese are not alone in doing this. From the same article:

Are you a vegetarian? If not, I really don't see how you can make an ethical argument against whaling without being a hypocrite.

I'm not a vegetarian.

Many whale species are endangered.

But if, say, the hunting could occur without threatening the endangered species, why would you care about that versus, say, the whole-sale slaughter of bovids?