Japan Tsunami Funds Aid Whaling Fleet

[wautd]

Link

Japan's Antarctic whaling fleet has left port on its annual hunt, seeking to kill 900 minke whales and 50 fin whales for what it claims are 'scientific research' purposes. (The meat from the hunt is sold commercially.)

The hunt, already controversial, has attracted greater ire from critics with an admission by the Japanese government that it is using funds earmarked for earthquake and tsunami reconstruction to subsidize the fleet's operations.

Greenpeace accused the government of diverting 2.28 billion yen (US$30m) from the earthquake recovery fund to help pay for this year's hunt.

"It is absolutely disgraceful for the Japanese government to pump yet more taxpayer money on an unneeded, unwanted and economically unviable whaling programme, when funds are desperately needed for recovery efforts," said Junichi Sato, the executive director of Greenpeace Japan, to The Guardian newspaper.

Japan's Fisheries Agency stated that the money would be used for "stabilising whale research." In the words of one official: "We will bolster measures against acts of sabotage by anti-whaling groups so as to stably carry out the Antarctic whaling research."

That was a reference to the fact that last year's hunt was called off a month early, with the fleet having caught only 172 whales, which the Fisheries Agency blamed on the attentions of Sea Shepherd. Japan's Coast Guard stated that it would be sending an unspecified number of vessels to escort the whaling fleet. Some domestic news reports indicated that there would be two escorts.

Fisheries Agency official Tatsuya Nakaoku justified the use of funds by claiming that a successful whaling program would help ensure the recovery of some coastal towns devastated by this year's tsunami.

"The government will support the reconstruction effort of a whaling town and nearby areas," he told AFP. "This program can help it reconstruct food-processing plants there... Many people in the area eat whale meat, too. They are waiting for Japan's commercial whaling to resume."

However, Greenpeace sources told Discovery News that as far as they could tell, 2 billion yen was being appropriated as a straight subsidy for the Institute for Cetacean Research (ICR), the body that runs Japan's 'research' whaling program. This is on top of an existing 700 million yen subsidy. (Update: This Wall Street journal blog quotes a Fisheries Agency official as confirming that 1.8 billion yen is for "supporting whaling research.")

They also expressed confidence that the fleet would not come close to reaching its publicly-stated quota, pointing out that, two years ago, the number of 'catchers' - or harpoon-equipped hunting vessels - in the fleet dropped from three to two, and last year it dropped further, from two to one. This year, as last year, just one catcher will be used. Within official circles in Tokyo, the sources said, the target quota is much lower, largely due to a recognition that there is not enough demand for the meat.

That view was supported by Patrick Ramage, Whale Program Director for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).

"As always, it's important to pay attention, not to what is said but what actually happens," he told Discovery News. "On the one hand, the Japanese government is finding the funds to continue with this money-losing enterprise. On the other hand, all the signals - for example, at the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission - are that this may well be the last hurrah for Japanese whaling in the Antarctic. The current Prime Minister is a long-time advocate for and supporter of the whaling industry. But the number of those supporters in the Diet, and particularly the ruling Democratic Party of Japan, is dwindling."

Japan

[Thanas]

I guess the Japanese do not need aid that much if they can afford to blow 30m on an unprofitable slaughter for the sake of tradition.

[Alkaloid]

How the hell can they justify this? If the industry made money I could almost see an argument for it, albeit not one that I like, but I can still see it, but how does investing in an industry that looses money hand over fist because people flat out do not want to eat whale meat (or possibly because no actual research is done) help rebuild a town?

You know, of all the environmental activist groups, I think I like Sea Shepherd the most. I think part of it is just because I'm Australian and we are largely a pro whale fuck whalers group anyway, but I think it's mostly because if people donate to PETA their money is used by self aggrandising morons to make people look at them, and Greenpeace is making a habit out of doing things like burning GM test crops just because they hate GM and efforts to test for safety are somehow bad, apparently, but when you give money to Sea Shepherd it seems to mostly go to buying and equipping boats to stop whalers killing whales, and simultaneously make the jackasses doing the whaling look foolish. It's charmingly direct.

[Archaic`]

A few important things to remember here

1) The Japanese government has no authority over the millions of dollars of international charity donations, which are being handled by non-profit relief organizations, like the Japanese Red Cross. It's impossible for them to divert those funds. The funds for this are coming from the government's own earthquake recovery fund.
2) The Tsunami hit an area which was home to a townships which were heavily involved in whaling. The livelihood of a great many families in the region is directly (wages) or indirectly (selling goods/services to the industry or to families who work in the industry) supported by whaling.
3) "The government will support the reconstruction effort of a whaling town and nearby areas" - He's talking about rebuilding Ishinomaki city, and in particular Ayukawahama, where 29,000 residents completely lost their homes. This town has gotten no special privileges or priority in being rebuilt related to its status as the home of several whaling ships.

Honestly, what's happening here is no different to what the Japanese government has done for other regions which were devastated by the Tsunami. It identifies the industry or industries in the area which the people are most dependent on for their economic livelihoods, and helps them get back on their feet through an economic stimulus package, which is the entire purpose of the government's earthquake recovery fund to begin with. In other words, no money has been diverted whatsoever. As an important industry local to the region that was devastated by the tsunami, it had been earmarked from day 1 for a share of the disaster relief budget. Like it or not, whaling does support these local communities. Maybe that'll die out eventually (though it's not like Japan's whaling had anything to do with profitability in the first place, it's always been a loss making exercise to begin with), but for now this does more to help the people of that region get their lives back together than just building houses and not providing the jobs that people have been demanding.

[AniThyng]

How the hell can they justify this? If the industry made money I could almost see an argument for it, albeit not one that I like, but I can still see it, but how does investing in an industry that looses money hand over fist because people flat out do not want to eat whale meat (or possibly because no actual research is done) help rebuild a town?

You know, of all the environmental activist groups, I think I like Sea Shepherd the most. I think part of it is just because I'm Australian and we are largely a pro whale fuck whalers group anyway, but I think it's mostly because if people donate to PETA their money is used by self aggrandising morons to make people look at them, and Greenpeace is making a habit out of doing things like burning GM test crops just because they hate GM and efforts to test for safety are somehow bad, apparently, but when you give money to Sea Shepherd it seems to mostly go to buying and equipping boats to stop whalers killing whales, and simultaneously make the jackasses doing the whaling look foolish. It's charmingly direct.

On the flip side, the kind of environmental damage other environmentalist groups generally oppose is far more harmful objectively. Losing the whales is one thing. Losing the ozone layer, arable land, ice caps etc. are far far more destructive, but i've never seen anything close to the vehemence expressed against whaling there.

Guess giving up whale is easy. Giving up cars, meat, and plastic consumer goods? hell no way.

[Ryan Thunder]

If they arrest/sink the morons from greenpeace it will be worth it.

[LaCroix]

two years ago, the number of 'catchers' - or harpoon-equipped hunting vessels - in the fleet dropped from three to two, and last year it dropped further, from two to one. This year, as last year, just one catcher will be used. Within official circles in Tokyo, the sources said, the target quota is much lower, largely due to a recognition that there is not enough demand for the meat.

Don't overlook the important part.

[Alkaloid]

On the flip side, the kind of environmental damage other environmentalist groups generally oppose is far more harmful objectively. Losing the whales is one thing. Losing the ozone layer, arable land, ice caps etc. are far far more destructive, but i've never seen anything close to the vehemence expressed against whaling there.

Guess giving up whale is easy. Giving up cars, meat, and plastic consumer goods? hell no way.

Thats the thing though, it's so inconsistent. GM crops designed to be resistant to disease and pests are, providing they are safe to consume and we can actually kill them if we need to, objectively a good thing for the planet as a whole because for the same amount of resources you are able to produce more food. Yet Greenpeace holds the position of 'No GM Ever' and sabotages attempts to fix the problems they claim to have with GM food. The equivalent would be Sea Shepherd going 'whales are killed by ships, therefore we should burn shipyards in order to stop whaling. Its nonsensical and poorly thought out and it pisses me off to no end.

Honestly, what's happening here is no different to what the Japanese government has done for other regions which were devastated by the Tsunami

Which, if its true and I see on re reading the article no one except Greenpeace claiming otherwise, is far less annoying. (The line "We will bolster measures against acts of sabotage by anti-whaling groups so as to stably carry out the Antarctic whaling research" concerns me though) But it would make more sense to say, rebuild a town and while doing it take the opportunity to base the town on some other industry that won't inevitably result in the town having to be propped up by the government?

[Duckie]

Slightly under 30 million dollars given to an industry that supports people in a devastated region? My horror is minimal.

Japanese support for whaling is falling, anyhow. Almost no women support it or eat whale (and those that do are from weird rural places and some of those people eat fried grasshoppers so it's not like eiher of those is mainstream), it's entirely a men thing. And young people support it less on both genders significantly. Which is why it's been so slow to end the practice- most people in the diet are men, and old men at that. Although I'll note the practice is, as LaCroix quoted, winding down anyhow.

Also, ha, give money to sea shepherd? You're kidding, right? Because currently, only 11% of Japanese actually would even consider eating whale meat, but a majority support whaling (tepid numbers from women and a massive amount of men). You know why? Whaling would probably be closer to done by now if people had been adults rather than promoting a cultural siege mentality in Japan by throwing rocks at them and calling them barbarians. It hands right wing politicians a rallying cry every single time and motivates many Japanese people with no opinion onto the other side of 'I would never eat whale but fuck those guys'.

But I guess if people didn't get the obvious method of 'don't just present western mores as holy writ and demand other nations follow it or be called evil barbarians to their face' for ending something like FGM (such a technique literally got women to, after a government banned the practice, do it themselves on themselves), they wouldn't realize it for something far more trivial like Whaling that you'd push everyone into the supporting camp.

[Thanas]

2) The Tsunami hit an area which was home to a townships which were heavily involved in whaling. The livelihood of a great many families in the region is directly (wages) or indirectly (selling goods/services to the industry or to families who work in the industry) supported by whaling.

I find it very hard to find sympathy for people that only kill animals due to "tradition". I find it double hard to find sympathy for people that kill animals due to tradition, abuse scientific methods, spread propaganda, register no benefit whatsoever to the economy and persist in highly corrupt tactics against international opposition.

I also fail to see why the government should support people getting lives back together when these lives consist of the above described. Rather, they should support reeducation and other methods to get the economy back on track so that these people can actually find employment in an industry that is not so tainted.

Whaling would probably be closer to done by now if people had been adults rather than promoting a cultural siege mentality in Japan by throwing rocks at them and calling them barbarians.

Considering that the Government of Japan has tried to expand whaling at every opportunity even before Sea Shepherd came along I find that very hard to believe.

[Duckie]

The Government of Japan is primarily old guys, who as I said, support whaling in massive numbers (for some reason). But even they have to listen to public opinion. If only 20% of Japan supported whaling instead of 50%+, and even fewer people ate whale meat (although that's honestly getting hard because like nobody does), it'd be a lot more likely that whaling would end. I mean yeah you'd still have people at the fringes like Ishihara be like 'yeah kill whales!', but it wouldn't be a mainstream opinion anymore among the people, and that would filter in to the political establishment by age replacement if nothing else.

Because as things are, Sea Shepherd has basically managed to prolong the average Japanese person's support of whaling by half a generation. Good job there guys. I'm sure that won't have any negative effects on when the Japanese political establishment gives up the ghost and accedes to the wishes of its own population.

[Thanas]

Have you got anything to support that?

[Duckie]

Have you got anything to support that?

Support what?
That the government of Japan is primarily old guys? I can justify that if you really need to, but honestly just look at them.
That the Japanese political establishment is coming around to an anti-whaling position and that whaling is dying down due to a lack of popular support in Japan? Check out the article in this very thread.
That there is a massive age and gender disparity in Whaling support in Japan and a large disparity in support for whaling compared to desire to eat whale? If you'd like that, I can get you it.

The numbers like "If 20% of Japan instead of 50%, then Japan would"? Those are made up for the point of example. I'm not saying that Sea Shepherd actually made a 30 point shift.

The belief that the Japanese government eventually will reflect the wishes of its own population? (okay, technically slightly more people support whaling than don't right now, but it's falling rapidly.) That one's actually pretty hard to believe considering the Japanese political establishment , but seriously the fact that the politicians of today won't be around and the people of today will be them makes sense. It's the same logic behind the inevitability of gay rights in the US some day based on demographic trends.

Do you mean the idea that Sea Shepherd's methods and the west's "here's how to be a moral country, you asshole barbarians" sanctimoniousness is grating and a net negative at all? Do you mean the particular 'claim' of "half a generation"? I admit I don't have solid numbers on just how antagonising the terrible approach to changing Japanese whaling practices is. That was a rhetorical device. For one, a generation isn't even a real measure of time. But it's certainly not insignificant.

[Thanas]

Have you got anything to support that?

Support what?

The argument that western pushes have created support for whaling.

[Serafina]

Frankly, if the Japanese support whaling just because non-japanese are fervently against it, they are nationalistic pricks. It certainly doesn't free them of any moral responsibility just because they don't support it because they like whale-meat (in my opinion it's actually worse).

Now if you're saying that Sea Shepperd has objectively done more harm than good, i can believe that - lot's of environmentalists unfortunately have the heart in the right place, yet their actions unwillingly cause more problems.

[Duckie]

Serafina- Don't take what I'm saying to be referring to every Japanese person, any more than "real america" is the right wing establishment of politicians and their support base. There are lots of Japanese who aren't raging nationalists, or who even if they are don't support whaling. For one, like I said, a vast majority of women. This gender disparity indicates something relating to machismo or its Japanese equivalent, which makes sense because Japan is one of societies with the most distinct gender expressions in the world, and definitely first among First World nations. (Quantifiably, even, if you believe the Hofstede graphs, otherwise just intuitively).

Have you got anything to support that?

Support what?

The argument that western pushes have created support for whaling.

To be fair, it's relatively hard to do on polling "Do you only support whaling because of a sense of cultural siege and unjust persecution and post-facto create justifications for it to yourself?" because people aren't conscious of that. And it is possible that the actions of the West have created a feeling of shame that makes Japanese people more likely to end whaling because of international embarassment at being an animal rights pariah. I'd buy that for women, in particular, and maybe we could even credit the west for the low levels of support Japanese women have for whaling. But on the whole, everything I see points to Sea Shepherd being a negative factor.

But here's some evidence: One, pretty much every discussion of Japanese Whaling in Japanese news boils down to talking about Sea Shepherd doing something, framing all opposition to Whaling as people throwing rocks at average Japanese joes just trying to make a living. There is little positive justification of Whaling given, which may be part of the reason for the massive distinction in "I'd even consider eating whale" vs "We should keep whaling" in Japanese polls. Two, one of the biggest results on google in Japanese for whaling+white people or whaling+the west or whatnot is basically "Why do white people even oppose whaling?". Clearly there has not been a lot of positive engagement of Japan on that regard if the average Japanese doesn't even know why they should stop Whaling. Admittedly that's a weaker one.

But here's a book I stumbled upon that I've seen recommended rather highly in many parts, though I admit I don't have a good grasp on sales statistics for the right wing publishing industry (for which honestly I should be glad, reading one or two is enough): 白人はイルカを食べてもOKで日本人はNGの本当の理由. "The real reason why it's OK for white people to eat dolphins/small cetaceans but it's no good if the Japanese do it." (except it's snappier in Japanese). To summarize for you, the entire book is a massive character assassination piece on Sea Shepherd and filled with claims of western hypocrisy about animal rights (especially for cetaceans), like the claim (which I wouldn't necessarily endorse, mind) that the West hates Japanese whaling disproportionately compared to the massive amounts of dolphins their own tuna fisheries kill. There is nary a positive justification for whaling I can even find in that or anywhere, pretty much all Japanese justifications for whaling I've ever read is either "Sea Shepherd are assholes" or the occasional vague claim of "Whales aren't actually smart/aren't actually going to go extinct/are just dirty animals".

Pretty much every single pro-Whaling statement ever made by nationalist politicians or people alike is based around opposition to some vague sense of 'the West' for various reasons, and 'the West' in Whaling discussions is pretty much universally represented by Sea Shepherd. Yes they're nationalist idiots with a sense of machismo. Why do you think it's mostly men and older people in particular? Yes, it really really galls me to have to even sound like I'm defending them at all. But you catch more flies with honey than stink bombs and having the equivalent of PETA be the face of the West in every discussion of Whaling has basically the same effect as PETA itself does on people in the West, regardless of the rightness of its cause.

EDIT- Also, to not get the wrong meaning across, I don't mean the West's push for anti-Whaling has made Japanese support for Whaling in its entirety, or that the West should just stop talking to them at all and it'd get better on its own. But the particular condemnatory language used and the actions of Sea Shepherd in particular certainly provides a rallying point for a nationalist minority to use claims of persecution and hypocrisy and anti-foreign sentiment to support whaling just to spite the west.

What I'm saying is that positive engagement and more support and engagement with native Japanese anti-Whaling and pro-animal rights sentiment would have a far better effect, especially if the current attempts at that weren't completely drowned out by Sea Shepherd getting itself rammed and throwing noxious chemicals in the average Japanese's mind.

[Thanas]

But all honey got for several decades was Japanese attempts to enhance whaling.

There is a point where you just cannot continue on discussing with idiots. Sea Shepherd at least lets them know that it is not okay what they are doing. If you are just nice then you won't get anywhere, especially not with nationalistic idiots.

[Duckie]

EDIT- When, incidentally, did we use honey? There were periods before Sea Shepherd where we weren't throwing rocks and calling them monsters, but I've never heard of any western support for Japanese anti-whaling sentiment in a Japanese context. I admit I don't know anything about the distant past of this though.

I suppose, but if we class a large number of the pro-whaling people (the full 57% is probably too high, most of those are just 'eh never really thought about it sure why not' people since it's a poll of the general public) as intransigent nationalist idiots who no amount of dialogue will convince, only action and condemnation, what's to be done if it turns out 'nationalist idiots' are just too big of a portion of the country (especially with these methods quickly hardening their opposition by providing fodder for rhetoric)? I'd also like to note that young 'nationalist idiots' who support whaling manage to change their opinions all the time with positive engagement. It's not like there's any lack of nationalists among the youngest generation.

Basically my belief is that native pro-whaling persons basically have no positive arguments, so if we didn't keep giving them obvious negative arguments for right wing groups to use, it'd be a lot easier to oppose whaling in Japan as you wouldn't tainted by Sea Shepherd's brush (who are disliked at best even among anti-whaling people). Especially given that Sea Shepherd paints a big foreign aggressor face over actual native anti-Japanese whaling sentiment, obscuring peoples' perceptions of the actual opinion of the public and making it difficult to express anti-Whaling sentiment without effectively ending up intrpreted as 'The West is right and Japan is wrong' because that's how it gets viewed. Like I said before, no amount of shouting that will convince anyone.

[Thanas]

In the sixties and seventies there were a lot of diplomatic efforts. In response Japan bought a pirate whaling fleet (not making that up) and ignored quotas. Only when the USA threatened massive sanctions did Japan relent in the 80s, then used the "scientific" backdoor.

Japan has never really negotiated in good faith in this.


BTW, only 13% of Japanese really oppose whaling. 52% favor it, the rest is undecided. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20111004x3.html

[Duckie]

Edit- Oh dear. It looks like I misremebered the numbers for 'neutral' and 'oppose' reversed because I looked up my source and it was about the same. I guess I'll have to think about it further then.

[Archaic`]

But it would make more sense to say, rebuild a town and while doing it take the opportunity to base the town on some other industry that won't inevitably result in the town having to be propped up by the government?

That's a long term solution, and I'm sure they're putting money into that as well. But people need jobs now, not jobs they can get after a few years. Not to mention that Whale meat (which people in this region of Japan do actually eat and enjoy) would be a great help in actually feeding some of the displaced persons in the region. The Japanese government I'm sure would prefer to spend more on food and have that money actually stay within the Japanese economy, than have to spend it on importing food to feed people who used to produce it.

I find it double hard to find sympathy for people that kill animals due to tradition

Under what conditions would you have sympathy for someone who eats meat then? Because to the Japanese, eating whale is no different to us eating beef, chicken or pork.

abuse scientific methods

Want to back that claim up? They've done some rather weird research with it, like the thing about trying to cross Minke with Bovine DNA to try and improve their fertility, but I don't see how science has been abused. The point of the research is to measure whale numbers, to identify how whales can be hunted while posing no threat to their numbers, and to find ways to improve whale fertility. Now there's an obvious corporate agenda behind those goals, sure, but why does that make the goals automatically bad? I'm sure plenty of people would love it if their research actually led to there being more whales. It's win/win, isn't it?

spread propaganda

You mean like that lying son of a bitch Paul Watson? The L. Ron Hubbard of the animal rights movement, who in his 2002 book Earthforce: An Earth Warrior’s Guide to Strategy wrote that activists should use dramatic tricks to confuse your enemies and use claims of victimization to increase public support for their causes? The man who went as far as convincing a TV network to fund a show about his eco-terrorist group? The man who seems to lie more than your average politician about his actions and prior statements (eg. his claim on Japanese television that he'd never said he was shot. The network called him on it and screened the clip where he said exactly that)? It's rather ironic that he's personally profiting off the whaling more than anyone in Japan is. It's just sad that so few people seem to call him on it.

register no benefit whatsoever to the economy

Minimal benefit yes, no benefit no. Could the money be spent better? Probably. But especially in this case, where we're talking about short term disaster recovery, there's plenty of economic reasons for them to want to do this.

and persist in highly corrupt tactics against international opposition.

Such as? Bribery at the IWC wouldn't surprise me, but both sides are involved in that. What else have they done that's corrupt? Everything they've done is, to the best of my knowledge, in full alignment with relevant international laws and treaty's to which they are party.

Honestly, I've got a lot of sympathy for the Japanese on this one, if only for the fact that Western media reports on the issue have been alarmist, fail to accurately report both sides of the issue, and have at times actively distorted the issue to levels I'd normally only expect of Fox News reporting on a Democrat. I wouldn't say I'm pro-whaling as such, but if you put aside the argument that whales are endangered (see below), I'm really not certain what justification the anti-whaling side has left. That they're intelligent? We kill plenty of animals of similar intelligence levels for meat already, why are these special? That it's an economically poor decision for the Japanese to make, that they're losing money on? Maybe so, but it's a decision for them country to make. Fair enough to criticize them for it, but to support violent action being taken against it?

Have you got anything to support that?

Support what?

The argument that western pushes have created support for whaling.

The claim comes from Atsushi Ishii, Professor of Political Science at Tohoku University's Center for Northeast Asian Studies, and was published in Kaitai Shinso: Hogei Ronso ("Anatomy of the Whaling Debate"). A brief interview with him was published by the Japan Times newspaper online here.

There is nary a positive justification for whaling I can even find in that or anywhere, pretty much all Japanese justifications for whaling I've ever read is either "Sea Shepherd are assholes" or the occasional vague claim of "Whales aren't actually smart/aren't actually going to go extinct/are just dirty animals".

There's one important one you've missed. "Minke whales, which are the focus of Japanese whaling, are not endangered, and the number of whales caught each year poses no threat whatsoever to their numbers."
Now, I should probably say that while that's their argument, I'm not certain if Minke actually are endangered or not. I understand there may be some argument to that fact, at least with the southern varieties of Minke which are the focus of the Japanese whaling effort. Whatever the argument may be though, the statistics from the IWC's scientific board say that they're not endangered, and I'm more inclined to agree with them rather than an eco-terrorist with an agenda and a history of lying.

In any case, getting back to the central topic of the thread, let's put some of these numbers in perspective. The amount of money that went to the whaling industry is the equivalent of about $28 million US. This is part of an aid package for the region totaling 12.1 trillion yen (approximately $155.6 billion US). It's pretty much chump change as far as this relief effort is concerned.

[Thanas]

I find it double hard to find sympathy for people that kill animals due to tradition

Under what conditions would you have sympathy for someone who eats meat then? Because to the Japanese, eating whale is no different to us eating beef, chicken or pork.

That is a problem for the japanese then. I am sure that to cannibals eating humans is no different to us eating beef, chicken or pork either. Oh wait, do you see the difference between animals specifically reared to be eaten by people and wild animals yet?

Want to back that claim up? They've done some rather weird research with it, like the thing about trying to cross Minke with Bovine DNA to try and improve their fertility, but I don't see how science has been abused. The point of the research is to measure whale numbers, to identify how whales can be hunted while posing no threat to their numbers, and to find ways to improve whale fertility. Now there's an obvious corporate agenda behind those goals, sure, but why does that make the goals automatically bad? I'm sure plenty of people would love it if their research actually led to there being more whales. It's win/win, isn't it?

Are you freaking insane? I was told by those same scientists that whales are a threat to the fishing industry due to consuming so many fish. These guys are not respectable people and the idea of killing an animal just to study it seems right out of the 19th century biology textbook.

spread propaganda

You mean like that lying son of a bitch Paul Watson? The L. Ron Hubbard of the animal rights movement, who in his 2002 book Earthforce: An Earth Warrior’s Guide to Strategy wrote that activists should use dramatic tricks to confuse your enemies and use claims of victimization to increase public support for their causes? The man who went as far as convincing a TV network to fund a show about his eco-terrorist group? The man who seems to lie more than your average politician about his actions and prior statements (eg. his claim on Japanese television that he'd never said he was shot. The network called him on it and screened the clip where he said exactly that)? It's rather ironic that he's personally profiting off the whaling more than anyone in Japan is. It's just sad that so few people seem to call him on it.

Take your massive tu quoque fallacy and stick it where the sun does not shine.

Minimal benefit yes, no benefit no. Could the money be spent better? Probably. But especially in this case, where we're talking about short term disaster recovery, there's plenty of economic reasons for them to want to do this.

An industry that sells no wanted product, an industry that needs tax dollars to even function etc is not a profitable or beneficial industry. Might just as well give them all free handouts.

Such as? Bribery at the IWC wouldn't surprise me, but both sides are involved in that. What else have they done that's corrupt?

I await your sources how the EU is directly bribing third world countries to vote for them. If such an effort exists, it is not nearly on the same skill as japanese skullduggery.

Honestly, I've got a lot of sympathy for the Japanese on this one, if only for the fact that Western media reports on the issue have been alarmist, fail to accurately report both sides of the issue, and have at times actively distorted the issue to levels I'd normally only expect of Fox News reporting on a Democrat. I wouldn't say I'm pro-whaling as such, but if you put aside the argument that whales are endangered (see below), I'm really not certain what justification the anti-whaling side has left. That they're intelligent? We kill plenty of animals of similar intelligence levels for meat already, why are these special? That it's an economically poor decision for the Japanese to make, that they're losing money on? Maybe so, but it's a decision for them country to make. Fair enough to criticize them for it, but to support violent action being taken against it?

Ah bloo bloo bloo, those poor Japanese. Not enough that they kill thousands of dolphins in one of the most cruel and barbaric slaughters on earth, no, bad westerners want to take away their right to kill whales. Listen up. They bought a freaking whaling pirate fleet. They gave the finger to the international community until the US threatened massive sanctions.

These are not the acts of people who are willing to even give an inch on this issue without being forced.

The claim comes from Atsushi Ishii, Professor of Political Science at Tohoku University's Center for Northeast Asian Studies, and was published in Kaitai Shinso: Hogei Ronso ("Anatomy of the Whaling Debate"). A brief interview with him was published by the Japan Times newspaper online here.

I see no direct numbers from him either, but I am willing to concede that there might be a slight correlation between the demand of whale meat and nationalistic anger. However, it also is a pretty slight one, considering that the demand of whale meat is pretty low in general.

There's one important one you've missed. "Minke whales, which are the focus of Japanese whaling, are not endangered, and the number of whales caught each year poses no threat whatsoever to their numbers."
Now, I should probably say that while that's their argument, I'm not certain if Minke actually are endangered or not. I understand there may be some argument to that fact, at least with the southern varieties of Minke which are the focus of the Japanese whaling effort. Whatever the argument may be though, the statistics from the IWC's scientific board say that they're not endangered, and I'm more inclined to agree with them rather than an eco-terrorist with an agenda and a history of lying.

Your same source says: "Japan maintains that (the annual cull) contributes to science, but it doesn't at all. It says that whaling is legal, but it's not. It says there are 750,000 minke whales in the Antarctic, but that's not true at all. That figure comes from a tentative IWC assessment conducted between 1978-84."

In any case, getting back to the central topic of the thread, let's put some of these numbers in perspective. The amount of money that went to the whaling industry is the equivalent of about $28 million US. This is part of an aid package for the region totaling 12.1 trillion yen (approximately $155.6 billion US). It's pretty much chump change as far as this relief effort is concerned.

The point is that the whaling industry does not deserve any kind of subsidies whatsoever. What possible argument can you make that they should get subsidies over the long term?

[Alyrium Denryle]

If they arrest/sink the morons from greenpeace it will be worth it.

How about you fuck yourself. The Japanese Whaling industry is illegal and revoltingly unethical, and they only remain unpunished because the IWC is toothless, and blackmailed into submission by the Japanese... who incidentally are also using the same methods to cleanse the world of critically endangered Tuna.

Want to back that claim up? They've done some rather weird research with it, like the thing about trying to cross Minke with Bovine DNA to try and improve their fertility, but I don't see how science has been abused.

Because you are an idiot.

The point of the research is to measure whale numbers

ANd killing them does this how? I know how populations counts work. I do them. Killing the animals you are counting is not productive. In fact, capturing, marking, and re-releasing animals so that you can estimate the population as a proportion of recaptured animals to total captures is the typical way to do it. Killing them is the exact opposite of proper methodology for population counts.

to identify how whales can be hunted while posing no threat to their numbers

Does that not strike you as circular? "We are doing research on the commercial hunting of whales in order to justify the commercial hunting of whales"

, and to find ways to improve whale fertility.

By crossing Bovine and Cetacean DNA? No.

Now there's an obvious corporate agenda behind those goals, sure, but why does that make the goals automatically bad? I'm sure plenty of people would love it if their research actually led to there being more whales. It's win/win, isn't it?

Sure, except for the highly intelligent, communicative, culturally complex sentient creatures you are murdering. Sure! Oh, and that assumes that the research is legitimate and did not have methods that were absolute crap.

Such as? Bribery at the IWC wouldn't surprise me, but both sides are involved in that. What else have they done that's corrupt? Everything they've done is, to the best of my knowledge, in full alignment with relevant international laws and treaty's to which they are party.

Bribery, threatening to walk out and not obey quotas at all etc. They have not been negotiating in good faith within the IWC for thirty years. Hell, they even export the whale meat to high-end restaraunts illegally, in violation of both international rules, and the laws of the importing countries.

I wouldn't say I'm pro-whaling as such, but if you put aside the argument that whales are endangered (see below), I'm really not certain what justification the anti-whaling side has left. That they're intelligent? We kill plenty of animals of similar intelligence levels for meat already, why are these special?

Since when to we kill animals with the intelligence of small children?

Cetaceans are social animals which are self-aware, have a high degree of problem solving ability and a system of communication which, in some species, rises to the level of being an actual language. \

What organism other than whales do we regularly kill that has that degree of cognitive development?

[DarkArk]

I'd just like to add that eating whale was not something the Japanese traditionally did. It was looked down upon until WWII and the occupation when it was some of the only meat they could get, and then they acquired a taste for it. So really the whole: "this is a vital part of our national culture and diet" is a load of crock.

[Bakustra]

I'd just like to add that eating whale was not something the Japanese traditionally did. It was looked down upon until WWII and the occupation when it was some of the only meat they could get, and then they acquired a taste for it. So really the whole: "this is a vital part of our national culture and diet" is a load of crock.

You could say the same thing about pizza in the US, or fast food. Those are indubitably part of the American culture and diet at this point. So that's not a particularly compelling argument on its own, speaking as someone who opposes whaling.