Japan whaling haul at 'record low'

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't condone sabotage, especially if there's a chance that people will be hurt. But at least the people doing it to the whaling ships have the guts to stand up for what they believe in, while everyone else turns a blind eye. And they are achieving results:

The hunt netted just 103 Antarctic minke whales, less than half its tally last year and no fin whales, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi said on Friday, adding it was the lowest total since "research whaling" began in 1987.
...
During the 48-day-long whaling expedition, campaigners - labelled "pirates" earlier this year by a US judge - disrupted the hunt four times and the Japanese ships spent 21 days avoiding their vessels, the Fisheries Agency said.

Sea Shepherd committed "unforgivable sabotage", Hayashi said, according to Kyodo News, including a collision with a whaling vessel as it was being refuelled.

What's "unforgivable" is the ridiculous farce of "research whaling", which oh-so-conveniently results in no real research results but large quantities of whale meat ending up in Japanese markets. And what's even worse is how the international community does nothing about it.

"We will seek more support from other countries to conduct research whaling in a stable manner," the minister said.

They've got chutzpah, I'll grant them that much.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Notice that these pirate vessels are not damaged while interfering; Quite a bit of restraint by the Japanese whalers.

 

[Murloc]

Notice that these pirate vessels are not damaged while interfering; Quite a bit of restraint by the Japanese whalers.

that would open up a bunch of legal issues I bet.
So they just keep ramming into each other while the japanese spray them with fire hoses.

They got some balls though.

Although vigilante justice is generally not ok, no one else is enforcing the ban so I'll just abstain from judgement.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Notice that these pirate vessels are not damaged while interfering; Quite a bit of restraint by the Japanese whalers.

They have been. Actually one of them was broken in half when it was struck by a whaling vessel.

To me the Sea Shepherd people are a little goofy but I do consider them the good guys in this conflict.

 

[Murloc]

To me the Sea Shepherd people are a little goofy but I do consider them the good guys in this conflict.

they probably are because at least they're honest about their intentions and their reasons, whether you agree or not.
The japanese "research" excuse is a lie to circumvent laws, so they certainly don't have the moral high ground.

 

[EagleKeeper]

They have been. Actually one of them was broken in half when it was struck by a whaling vessel.

To me the Sea Shepherd people are a little goofy but I do consider them the good guys in this conflict.

I agree there have been some damages; is it the whalers that are going after the protesters or the protesters putting themselves in harms way.

The whalers could be doing much more than just using firehoses

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Notice that these pirate vessels are not damaged while interfering; Quite a bit of restraint by the Japanese whalers.

Yeah, they're bloody heroes.

 

[Jaskalas]

Hunting species to extinction, an interesting subject.

You see, the basic premise is if I like whale meat then what business or right is it of anyone else to say no? I don't care for seafood, too rubbery, but that's the idea - that freedom means you can't say no. That you don't have dominion over those who say yes.

Yet that's precisely what we're doing, for the preservation of species. Thankfully enough it's a democratically elected government in a position to tell us no. Thus our people have, collectively, not voted to "protect" the "right" of people to hunt whales.

• Is hunting whatever you want a right?
• Have governments violated that "right"?
• Does the virtue of simply being a Democracy grant blessing to this "violation"?

Whale hunting is not a public interest in the sense that it's not a wedge issue. No election will ever be won or even swayed by it, would they? No...

As we're a representative democracy we're not voting on all the issues. The public really has no say in whale hunting, our representatives do. The problem is that we largely elect them on other issues. Whale hunting isn't enough of a public interest for our representatives to be decisively chosen over.

So I raise the question of our democratic system. Is it good enough to decisively tell you that our people have spoken on this issue, that they're accurately represented? Should our representatives have the power to restrict the freedom of others without a direct vote of the public?

Whatever they choose, and whatever the public wants, it's too small an issue to ever become a wedge issue like abortion. It's overshadowed and so I think our people do not actually have a voice on the matter. On restricting the freedom of others. That concerns me.

• I find that, as a representative democracy, no one is elected on this issue.
• As such, without being a wedge issue, our voice is mute. The public will / choice is inconsequential.
• Something as important as restricting freedom may need a more direct vote.
• I'm not certain that our system suffices.

 

[Craig234]

Hunting species to extinction, an interesting subject.

You see, the basic premise is if I like whale meat then what business or right is it of anyone else to say no? I don't care for seafood, too rubbery, but that's the idea - that freedom means you can't say no. That you don't have dominion over those who say yes.

Yet that's precisely what we're doing, for the preservation of species. Thankfully enough it's a democratically elected government in a position to tell us no. Thus our people have, collectively, not voted to "protect" the "right" of people to hunt whales.

• Is hunting whatever you want a right?
• Have governments violated that "right"?
• Does the virtue of simply being a Democracy grant blessing to this "violation"?

Whale hunting is not a public interest in the sense that it's not a wedge issue. No election will ever be won or even swayed by it, would they? No...

As we're a representative democracy we're not voting on all the issues. The public really has no say in whale hunting, our representatives do. The problem is that we largely elect them on other issues. Whale hunting isn't enough of a public interest for our representatives to be decisively chosen over.

So I raise the question of our democratic system. Is it good enough to decisively tell you that our people have spoken on this issue, that they're accurately represented? Should our representatives have the power to restrict the freedom of others without a direct vote of the public?

Whatever they choose, and whatever the public wants, it's too small an issue to ever become a wedge issue like abortion. It's overshadowed and so I think our people do not actually have a voice on the matter. On restricting the freedom of others. That concerns me.

• I find that, as a representative democracy, no one is elected on this issue.
• As such, without being a wedge issue, our voice is mute. The public will / choice is inconsequential.
• Something as important as restricting freedom may need a more direct vote.
• I'm not certain that our system suffices.

So, you're arguing that democracy should only be able to legislate a tiny number - presumably 2 or 3 issues - that 'elections are decided on', and no other issues?

Funny you think that's a problem, but not the real problem - that democracy is ineffective at defending the public good because one side cares a lot more about an issue.

So, the drug industry will really really want a ne wprovision that will make them billions, at the expense of the public interest, e.g., that provision in Medicare Part D prohibiting the government from negotiating drug prices. Wall Street will really want that deregulation bill that will let them profit at the expense of risking the stability of the economy. An energy company will really want a bill profiting them billions at the expense of the environment.

Now, the public in polls might be 90% on the opposite side of those things, but they don't donate nearly as much money over, the public doesn't hire papers to be written arguing their side and hire a team of lobbyists to do the right thing, but the industries who have far greater interest will, and get a huge political advantage.

That's an actual problem with democracy, why strong protections are needed for the public interest, protections being gutted by our right-wing court allowing money in politics.

Rachel Maddow's show made a good point recently - for the first time in history, our Supreme Court has no members with elected office experience. So the 'real world' understanding of their rulings is gone, and ideologues without real world experience can rule instead, which explains how rulings like Citizens United with Kennedy saying how all the money he's allowing to come into politics won't cause any problems.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Notice that these pirate vessels are not damaged while interfering; Quite a bit of restraint by the Japanese whalers.

Yeah, they're bloody heroes.

There have every right to use force to continue.
They do not. The protesters have no issue destroying property.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There have every right to use force to continue.
They do not. The protesters have no issue destroying property.

I find it rather.. interesting.. that the only thing you feel worth commenting on is that the Japanese sailors -- who are lying their asses off and violating international law -- didn't take aggressive action against the Sea Shepherds.

They're not doing it because they are nice people. They are doing it because taking aggressive action against the protesters would be horrendous from a PR perspective.

 

[Craig234]

There have every right to use force to continue.
They do not. The protesters have no issue destroying property.

I remember some people who destroyed equipment and records of concentration camps in WWII. Immoral bastards had no respect for property.

No, that holocaust isn't the same as this issue. It's used to illustrate the point you're missing that property rights aren't the end all and be all total story here.

Are you so morally blind that you can't understand any moral issue more than to say that there is nothing that justifies property-attacking protest? Just follow the rules. That's it.

 

[Agent11]

Depends on whether you view whales as dumb animals or intelligent creatures who got the short end of the stick evolution wise, comparatively.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

There have every right to use force to continue.
They do not. The protesters have no issue destroying property.

I do not understand this mentality one iota. To me it's like siding with the Selma and Montgomery police during the civil rights movement.

 

[Newbian]

Depends on whether you view whales as dumb animals or intelligent creatures who got the short end of the stick evolution wise, comparatively.

The problem is almost all cultures eat some kind of animal that can be considered smart.

An example are pigs as they are one of the smartest animals out there yet they are delicious so honestly I really don't care if the animal is smart or dumb but how it tastes.

The only problem I have is they hide behind what they do by calling it "research" when everyone knows it's a complete lie.

Also as a Asian culture they probably eat more parts of the animal then what most western cultures eat of other types of animals so at least they have that going for them so less goes to waste.

I don't see who gets the right to say what they can't eat however I would love to see them do some sort of conservation for certain species of whales that are endangered and eat more of the ones that are doing fine.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Whales aren't being protected because they're smart. They're being protected because they are in danger. Pigs are not.

These "researchers" are thumbing their noses to everyone's faces and nobody does anything about it. I've seen articles where they brazenly defend what they are doing on the basis that it's "research" and at the same time defend it on the basis that they are providing whale meat because it's an essential part of Japan's culture.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I do not understand this mentality one iota. To me it's like siding with the Selma and Montgomery police during the civil rights movement.

You know, the real hero in the Rosa Parks bus story is James Blake, the bus driver, because he didn't pick her up and throw her out onto the street.

He should have statues erected in his honor.

Those lionizing the Japanese whalers for their "restraint" might also want to read this. Obviously the allegations may not be true, but it certainly flies in the face of any contention that the whalers are pure as the driven snow.

 

[Newbian]

Whales aren't being protected because they're smart. They're being protected because they are in danger. Pigs are not.

These "researchers" are thumbing their noses to everyone's faces and nobody does anything about it. I've seen articles where they brazenly defend what they are doing on the basis that it's "research" and at the same time defend it on the basis that they are providing whale meat because it's an essential part of Japan's culture.

I agree with the research part but I was making the point about them being smart because it was brought up and that is one of the biggest issues many have as some of the species they hunt are not in danger.

Also Japan is far from the only country that goes after whales or eats it as people even in the states hunt and eat it so if you want to stop it make it less valuable to kill whales for meat.

 

[beachchica]

Let's be honest about the American whaling industry (if you can call it that). It's comprised of Alaskan natives going on (mostly) traditional hunts. They take 50+/- animals a year and they use them for food. They aren't taking them under the false premise of research. They actually harvest, butcher, eat and use the animals like they have for centuries. Same thing with most every other country listed as a 'whaling nation' with the exception of Norway who also harvests for commercial purposes.

The Japanese are hunting whales commercially, plain and simple. They are doing it under the false pretense of research. Whale anatomy is pretty well known now. I can see taking an animal or two if there are biological/anatomical experiments that need to be done but anything more than that is just wrong.

There is a small part of me that admires Japan for telling the rest of the world to fuck off as they conduct their business (as we do from time to time... ok... ALL the time) and I do think that whaling can be managed the same way that fisheries are managed to preserve the populations for future consumption. But I don't think that Japan has given any thought to the management of the species they are taking.

If they put forth the effort and research to establish real population numbers of the whales they harvest along with real population growth estimates and a real estimate of how many animals they could harvest without a significant negative impact on the growth of the population, in other words, demonstrate a sustainable whaling industry that takes into account all of the above, then I really don't have a problem with them whaling.

But those things need to be taken into account. Otherwise they're just out buffalo hunting.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Depends on whether you view whales as dumb animals or intelligent creatures who got the short end of the stick evolution wise, comparatively.

I think the difference is irrelevant when the species in question is struggling for survival. If whales were plentiful this would be an entirely different discussion, but what right does one country have to irradiate a species from the earth just to satiate their appetites?

Once the whale (or whatever species you want to talk about) is gone, that's it. No more. If we as a planet collectively decide that whales are useless and shouldn't be here, well good hunting. Until then a country that represents only a small fraction of the global population shouldn't get to decide that for us.

 

[Murloc]

the fact that they're intelligent/cute or stupid and ugly isn't relevant at all imho. Pigs are intelligent like dogs and they get eaten in western countries. Horses are cute and smart too but they're too tasty for their own good.

A problem exists if the animal is being put at risk of extinction by the excessive hunting. It's also wrong to bypass international law by using doublethink.

 

[Eureka]

I hate to be the bad guy, but I have to bring up a question that's been bothering me. What right do we have in protecting species for survival? If another country wants to hunt an animal to extinction, what right do we have to stop them? Why do they not have the right to hunt? What ground do we have, in the first place, to even regulate hunting?

 

[Kelvrick]

I hate to be the bad guy, but I have to bring up a question that's been bothering me. What right do we have in protecting species for survival? If another country wants to hunt an animal to extinction, what right do we have to stop them? Why do they not have the right to hunt? What ground do we have, in the first place, to even regulate hunting?

I think the main thing here is that they are not hunting whales on their own sovereign territory. They're doing it in "international" waters. If you're going to bring up their "rights" to do something, wouldn't anyone else have the "right" to do something (try to stop) them too?

I think a comparable situation was if the Chinese loved eating panda bears or another country had an appetite for whatever endangered species that only lived within their borders . I don't think we'd have much success going into their territory and sabotaging their hunts. It is like how North Korea does their own thing within their borders. We yell and threat and don't really let them get outside of their borders, but other nations can't really tell them what to do inside their nation.

 

[JTsyo]

So how many papers have be published with all this research the Japanese does?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I wonder how those praising the Sea Shepard for it's efforts/tactics will react if it or one of the ships/ boats associated with it goes too far and it results in a death or deaths of a Japanese sailor/s.