David @ Tokyo

David-san,

>I have a cold.

Take care of yourself,please.
I hope you will get better
as early as possible.

I am always surprised to see the media of NZ & AU regard us as devils.

In spite of the fact,we are willing to import lamb,kiwii fruit,and beef as we want to.

I have no choice but to think we are basically poor.I mean we are lacking of resources.

That is why we have to reinforce the sustainable use of them.
Is this incorrect?

>ニュージーランドは母国ですが、週末にIWCの総会の場面を見て、恥を感じてたまりませんでした。僕には自分一人ニュージーランド国民として、できることだけはやっていきたいと思います。<

I feel you should not be ashamed.
It is ourselves whom we must be
ashamed of,because we are informed of much info by you,not by us!

I strongly believe whaling issue is something all the Japanese should give attention to and discuss in our country,but the reality is the reverse.

I am not hostile to anyone of your country.I have a cooking book
how to cook lamb.My wife is reading it and in the near future,she will serve nice lamb dish for me.The dish will bridge the gap between your counrty and Japan.

YES! New Zealand is also the important country to us.

Y/H(Japan)
 

Here's another voice from NZ: My name is Tim Selwyn, I am an editor and freelance writer not employed in any form directly or indirectly by the Anti-Whaling industry or any Government.

Is your name really "Dave" and are you employed in any form directly or indirectly by the Japanese Whaling industry or Japanese Government?

The main problem with the Japanese stance in the minds of New Zealanders is that Japan insists on coming down into the Southern Ocean and killing large numbers of whales. If Japan was limited to only taking small numbers off its own shore (along the lines of an "indigenous" quota) then it would probably be acceptable to most people here. The NZ Govt. stance is that even that is not acceptable, therefore NZ and Japan's official positions are at polar opposites.

Do you acknowledge, "Dave", that Japan sending factory ships into the Southern Ocean to slaughter whales in large numbers is not traditional whaling in any sense of the word?
 

Hello Tim,

I took the liberty of responding on your blog in length, but here I'll just stick to the important bits, and skip the stuff that my regulars are probably sick of hearing:

1) The Southern Ocean is not the property of New Zealand, or Australia, as people in both those nations appear to think. That area of ocean where Japan is conducting it's whale research programmes are international waters. Whaling in those waters comes under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Both New Zealand and Japan are signatory to this convention.

2) Japan isn't killing large numbers of whales. The numbers they are killing is incredibly small. For example, the common Antarctic Minke stock was estimated at 760,000 in 1990, and even if the population had suffered a major disaster that he gone undetected in the past decade, the 850 whales that Japan plans to take each year does not even approach a single percentage point of the stock estimate. Again with the Humpback population, the IWC Scientific Committee recently agreed that there are around 40,000 in the Antarctic during the summer. Again, 50 whales does not even approach a single percentage point of this figure. I respectfully question the grounds on which you characterise the number of whales that Japan plans to take as "large".

You are quite correct to point out that there is not much traditional about the whaling in the Southern Ocean, but that's not the justification for it.

There are two types of whaling in Japan:

1) Whaling based in coastal areas around Japan where communities have developed because of the abundant whale resources that were present in those areas.

2) Pelagic whaling which is not traditional, but is completely consistent with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which nations including Japan and New Zealand have all put their name to. This agreement was signed to ensure that whale populations would be conserved, such that whaling industries could develop. Of course, the whales that New Zealand liked to kill were all protected by 1964, when our industry collapsed, due to a big failure on the part of the IWC in it's early days. Since 1964, the New Management Procedure, and most recently, the Revised Management Procedure have been developed, reflecting advances in scientific understanding.

I look forward to further comments from you.
 

dave, nice attempt at sidelining the actual issue at point, you still dont answer why the japanese refuse to whale exclusively in their exclusive waters, and why they have to venture into the southern waters to conduct their research. surely if the whale stocks are as high as you say then whaling in the japanese area would be no problem would it not? All you do is copy and paste, and a poor job at that . are you or are you not employed directly or indirectly by the japanese government or the whaling industry?
 

> you still dont answer why the japanese refuse to whale exclusively in their exclusive waters

I did answer that. Perhaps you didn't understand the answer? For your benefit:

The waters in which Japan is conducting it's research programmes are international waters. Whaling in those waters comes under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Both New Zealand and Japan are signatory to this convention. That is, New Zealand has explicitly agreed to the very rules that Japan justifies it's research programmes with. New Zealand has it's signature on the international agreement that covers whaling in the Antarctic. New Zealand has nothing to complain about.

> surely if the whale stocks are as high as you say then whaling in the japanese area would be no problem would it not?

Yes. Japan has requested the IWC to let it hunt minke whales in it's own waters, given advice from the IWC's Scientific Committee that one of the minke stocks in the area is robust enough to sustain a regulated hunt. Led by nations such as New Zealand, the IWC has refused Japan this luxury. Japan could just quit the IWC (as could New Zealand), and catch the whales anyway. It has chosen not to do so.

> All you do is copy and paste,

I wish :-)

> are you or are you not employed directly or indirectly by the japanese government or the whaling industry?

You can visit T selwyns blog for that answer.

I look forward to additional comments from you.
 

ffs sake david, we have had military exercises in the gulf of mexico, doesnt make it ours. just because the scientific program is extended into our waters doesnt make it any more legitimate at all. you just dont understand this, as another posted, that there is no market for whale meat. plus there are many more sustainable alternatives. just because whales are there doesnt mean that it is a resource that HAS to be hunted and used. we humans already have a dominance of nature, why not let an endangered (yes, compared to other species, whales (the many different varieties of whales) are endangered. Under 1 million is endangered to me, doesnt make it any less plausible to say no to whaling. all you are trying to do is make excuses as to why whaling should be allowed, when it is quite clearly not wanted nor needed in society.
 

> ffs sake david,

Please calm down.

> doesnt make it ours.

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is an agreement amongst nations to ensure that whale stocks are conserved and so that whaling industry can develop.

It's not about stamping onwership on the international waters in which whaling takes place.

> just because the scientific program is extended into our waters doesnt make it any more legitimate at all.

a) no research programme extends into New Zealand / Australian waters
b) the ICRW legitimises research whaling (New Zealand itself has issued scientific permits over the years), and a number of other international agreements recognise this fact.

> that there is no market for whale meat.

a) I don't agree based on what I've seen with my own eyes and ears and because of historical facts about consumption
b) I don't care either way, because what matters is whether whaling is sustainable or not.

> plus there are many more sustainable alternatives.

Whaling is equally an alternative to importing thousands of tonnes of beef from Australia / USA, and scientific evidence supports the belief that it is sustainable.

> just because whales are there doesnt mean that it is a resource that HAS to be hunted and used.

There is no need for New Zealand to conduct fisheries.
We could just cut down more trees and farm more cows and sheep.
Perhaps once New Zealand abandons it's fisheries whaling nations will be happy to abandon whaling.

> we humans already have a dominance of nature,

It's not about dominating nature. It's about getting food.

> Under 1 million is endangered to me,

If you want to create your own definition of "endangered" to suit your own argument, that's up to you, but don't expect other people to argue on your non-standard terms.

> all you are trying to do is make excuses as to why whaling should be allowed, when it is quite clearly not wanted nor needed in society.

a) It is not clear that it is not wanted
b) Whale meat is no less needed than other types of food such as fish. We could simply replace these activities with other less sustainable ones such as land-based farming.

I look forward to additional thoughts from you, although I reserve the right to ignore arguments based on your non-standard definition of "endangered".