South Korea to restart whaling

[Thanas]

...and plans to hunt specifically endangered whales.

Seoul, South Korea (CNN) -- South Korea is considering hunting whales in the waters off its shores for what it says are scientific purposes, drawing criticism from environmental groups and countries around the Pacific Rim.

Citing calls from fishermen for a resumption of limited whaling, the head of the South Korean delegation to the International Whaling Commission, Kang Joon-suk, said Wednesday that Seoul was working on a proposal to hunt minke whales migrating off the Korean Peninsula.

Korean fishermen complain the whales are disrupting their fishing activities and eating fish stocks, Kang said at the commission's annual meeting in Panama. Nonlethal measures are not enough to assess the whales' numbers and feeding habits, he said.

But environmental organizations were skeptical about the South Korean explanation.

"We believe this move is a thinly veiled attempt by Korea to conduct commercial whaling under the guise of scientific research, similar to hunts conducted by Japan in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary," said Wendy Elliott, head of World Wildlife Fund's delegation to the whaling commission.

Japan hunts whales each year despite a worldwide moratorium in place since the 1980s, utilizing a loophole in the law that allows for killing the mammals for scientific research.

Environmental activists like the organization Sea Shepherd track the Japanese hunters, facing off with them in a high seas drama that has led to collisions of ships, the detaining of activists and the firing of smoke bombs.

South Korea intends to pursue a similar approach to Japan by submitting a proposal to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission.

Other countries in the region reacted to Seoul's plans with dismay.

"I am very disappointed by this announcement by South Korea," Prime Minister Julia Gillard of Australia said Thursday. "We are completely opposed to whaling; there's no excuse for scientific whaling."

Gillard said she had instructed the Australian ambassador to South Korea to take the matter up "at the highest levels of the Korean government."

New Zealand intends to take similar action over the situation, Foreign Minister Murray McCully said, suggesting that South Korea's plans could undermine the standing of the International Whaling Commission.

The announcement "will put further pressure on an organization that already has significant difficulty sustaining itself as a credible international institution," he said.

The minke whales that would be the target of South Korea's proposed hunt are considered endangered by the whaling commission's Scientific Committee, WWF said in a statement.

But Seoul is suggesting that the number of minke whales in the north Pacific has "recovered considerably."

In his statement to the whaling commission, South Korea's Kang said that his country's "whaling history dates back to prehistoric times, and whale meat is still part of a culinary tradition of some of Korea's local areas such as Ulsan."

Before the international moratorium came into effect in 1986, Koreans were catching about 1,000 minke whales each year in the waters around the peninsula, he said.

But his claim that the whales were now making life difficult for fishermen failed to impress environmental groups.

"Blaming whales for declining fish populations is like blaming woodpeckers for deforestation," Greenpeace said in a statement. "Whales do not cause declines in fishing stocks, over fishing and mismanagement by humans do."

I also find it quite arrogant to say "scientific research" is the reason and then declare with a straight face "Oh, and btw, we have always eaten whale meat so we may just as well start".

South Korea: Scumbag nation.

[AniThyng]

I'm surprised "So you want to be like JAPAN??" isn't appearing to work on the Koreans in this case


Especially with

"In his statement to the whaling commission, South Korea's Kang said that his country's "whaling history dates back to prehistoric times, and whale meat is still part of a culinary tradition of some of Korea's local areas such as Ulsan.""

No weaseling out and saying it was something introduced by the Imperialist Japanese

[Grumman]

But Seoul is suggesting that the number of minke whales in the north Pacific has "recovered considerably."

This would be the same government that warns its citizens that electric fans kill people? Yeah, I'm going to want a second opinion on that.

[Sidewinder]

I'm surprised "So you want to be like JAPAN??" isn't appearing to work on the Koreans in this case :D

I second that. It's one thing to emulate what deserves to be emulated, like the German work ethic. But emulating THIS is like emulating the Germans' anti-Semitism during the 1933 to 1945 time period (no offense intended, Thanas).

[Patroklos]

I think preventing this is a good use for our rather large Navy.

[Sidewinder]

I think preventing this is a good use for our rather large Navy.

Which navy? If you mean the US Navy, you can forget it- Japan and South Korea are too important as military allies and trade partners, for the US government (by extension, its military) to piss off for something relatively trivial- well, trivial compared to North Korea's general lunacy.

[Bright]

Gods damn it, the comments of the news story are infuriating. "Ha ha, serves the whales right! Fuck the planet! Nothing that happens after I die matters!"

[Skywalker_T-65]

Yeah, people like that are the reason the enviorment is in the dumpster. Very annoying when people pull out the 'who cares! After I die it doesn't matter anymore!' card.

On topic: Whale hunting...not just for Japan anymore! On a serious note though, whaling is the reason these whales were almost wiped out in the first place...so SK is going to push them down again? Really?

[Skywalker_T-65]

Double post...can a mod delete this?

[MarshalPurnell]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18719512

Somewhat enlightening commentary from the BBC. Of course the Koreans want to be allowed to hunt whales for food. And when the international moratorium on whaling was passed, it included a provision specifically calling for the progressive reconsideration of the ban as whale stocks improved. A majority of countries on the IWC have made it clear they have no intention whatsoever of reconsidering the ban under any circumstances, thereby violating the spirit of the international agreements that led to the moratorium. That is all well and good, as democratic governments must bow to public will that is adamantly against any whaling compromises at all, but it should be recognized the Koreans are using the existing legal mechanisms to protest against the understanding being de facto abrogated by the West.

And if the whale stocks have recovered enough to allow sustainable hunting I see nothing wrong with establishing a conservative whaling regime of national quotas. Conservation should be based on scientific management, not knee-jerk reactions on any side. When one side has already committed to a maximum position ("no whaling under any circumstances, ever") then there is already no room for compromise and the other side will do whatever it can within the framework it has to maneuver.

[Bright]

And if the whale stocks have recovered enough to allow sustainable hunting I see nothing wrong with establishing a conservative whaling regime of national quotas. Conservation should be based on scientific management, not knee-jerk reactions on any side. When one side has already committed to a maximum position ("no whaling under any circumstances, ever") then there is already no room for compromise and the other side will do whatever it can within the framework it has to maneuver.

I don't really see any point in - in the best case scenario - ping-ponging species around between being endangered and not being endangered. Furthermore, there's good reason not to engage in whaling even when it's not about preventing their extinction. In the words of one user in the comments section of the CNN article:

There is no humane way to kill a whale. And I mean there is *no humane way* to kill a whale. Methods right now range from butchering alive (as done by whaling villages in Norway and Japan, which drive dolphins and whales into shallow water before stabbing them repeatedly until they bleed to death or drown) to harpooning (which involves firing a sometimes-electrified harpoon into the whale and then firing rifle shots into its head until it bleeds to death or drowns). Cattle, horses, pigs, and other large mammals can be killed with a single blow to the head. Chickens, turkeys, and other fowl can be decapitated. These methods of slaughter are instant and humane. There is no equivalent for whales.

[Metahive]

Between this and the christian fundamentalist mindset that has taken root in South Korea I'm glad that my parents emigrated from there.

[Guardsman Bass]

In Japan, I've heard the political support for whaling comes from a couple of prefectures where it's a source of (heavily subsidized) jobs. Where's the support for whaling in South Korea coming from, particularly after it was dormant for years? I don't buy the "fisherman are annoyed that they're eating the fish" excuse.

[Thanas]

And if the whale stocks have recovered enough to allow sustainable hunting I see nothing wrong with establishing a conservative whaling regime of national quotas. Conservation should be based on scientific management, not knee-jerk reactions on any side. When one side has already committed to a maximum position ("no whaling under any circumstances, ever") then there is already no room for compromise and the other side will do whatever it can within the framework it has to maneuver.

Regardless of your attempt to equivocate the two, the fact of the matter is that South Korea decides to start commercial whaling. Not traditional whaling with a few boots etc. Also, nobody has ever provided evidence of South Korean stocks being high enough anyway. In fact, your own article points out that the stocks are already severely depleted.

[MarshalPurnell]

And if the whale stocks have recovered enough to allow sustainable hunting I see nothing wrong with establishing a conservative whaling regime of national quotas. Conservation should be based on scientific management, not knee-jerk reactions on any side. When one side has already committed to a maximum position ("no whaling under any circumstances, ever") then there is already no room for compromise and the other side will do whatever it can within the framework it has to maneuver.

Regardless of your attempt to equivocate the two, the fact of the matter is that South Korea decides to start commercial whaling. Not traditional whaling with a few boots etc. Also, nobody has ever provided evidence of South Korean stocks being high enough anyway. In fact, your own article points out that the stocks are already severely depleted.

Do kindly point out where I stated or implied that what the South Koreans wanted was equivalent to "sustainable aboriginal" permits. Because I know I did not post anything like that, so I'm curious as to how you came to such a conclusion. (Hint: I'm not. I expect knee-jerk reactions on this forum.)

No, the South Koreans are threatening to use the same loophole the Japanese are because the IWC has made it clear it will never reconsider the moratorium on commercial whaling under any circumstances. This is a violation of the understanding that led South Korea to sign on to the moratorium. The South Koreans may very well be wrong that their particular subpopulation of Minke Whales has recovered sufficiently to make quota-based fishing permissible (but Minke Whales are most definitely not endangered as a whole), but the opposition of countries on the IWC was not based on the scientific evidence. It was a flat-out refusal to reconsider the moratorium under any circumstances, expressed quite clearly by Australian, American, and other representatives on the Commission.

This is of course bad because where countries will not share a Western perspective on the inherent value of cuddly animals we have taken an arbitrary interest in, they can be convinced to join conservation regimes in their own self-interest. Scientific management including sustainable national quotes on commercial whaling following a lengthy moratorium to allow populations to recover is one thing. A flat out ban is another. The South Koreans were sold the former and have been told they are getting the latter. So unsurprisingly they will assert what rights they do have under the existing framework, and will probably be a lot more skeptical of any more conservation initiatives.

[Bright]

This is of course bad because where countries will not share a Western perspective on the inherent value of cuddly animals we have taken an arbitrary interest in, they can be convinced to join conservation regimes in their own self-interest. Scientific management including sustainable national quotes on commercial whaling following a lengthy moratorium to allow populations to recover is one thing. A flat out ban is another.

Because, as I pointed out, whaling is inherently animal fucking cruelty. If you think this is just about an arbitrary Western perspective on "cuddly animals," then there's a whole lot of other despicable practices you can defend on the basis of cultural differences.

[Thanas]

Do kindly point out where I stated or implied that what the South Koreans wanted was equivalent to "sustainable aboriginal" permits. Because I know I did not post anything like that, so I'm curious as to how you came to such a conclusion. (Hint: I'm not.

The article you linked to and called enlightening commentary however does.

I expect knee-jerk reactions on this forum.)

Oh, poor widdle you.

No, the South Koreans are threatening to use the same loophole the Japanese are because the IWC has made it clear it will never reconsider the moratorium on commercial whaling under any circumstances. This is a violation of the understanding that led South Korea to sign on to the moratorium.

So what? They still have to yet produce a legitimate reason to hunt whales.

The South Koreans may very well be wrong that their particular subpopulation of Minke Whales has recovered sufficiently to make quota-based fishing permissible (but Minke Whales are most definitely not endangered as a whole), but the opposition of countries on the IWC was not based on the scientific evidence.

It does not matter if Minke whales as a whole are endangered or not. The minke whale populations they intend to hunt are endangered as per the IWC.

[MarshalPurnell]

The article you linked to and called enlightening commentary however does.

He did not "compare" or "imply" that what South Korea wanted was indigenous whaling rights. He noted the irony that an indigenous population in the Caribbean, taught to hunt by Yankee whalers 130 years ago, could go whaling but that the Koreans, with an attested whaling tradition of thousands of years could not. There was no comparison as to the methods or what the South Koreans wanted, and this tendency to call out anyone who presents a nuanced argument and doesn't immediately go full-out in a rage and make his stance on the the issue of the moment crystal clear in alignment with the prevailing board trend makes this forum an objectively worse place.

Oh, poor widdle you.

Yes, how dare I point out the only thing this forum is good for of late is holding fifteen-minute hates.

So what? They still have to yet produce a legitimate reason to hunt whales.

The point is that they don't have to produce a legitimate reason to use the "scientific whaling" loophole, they can go ahead and do it anyway and no one can stop them. And that they are doing this pretty much to spite the Western powers that refuse to consider an end to the moratorium under any circumstances. When I have felt myself injured I have done stupid things to spite the person responsible, and nations are not any more rational than people.

Now, perhaps if the Korean proposal had been seriously considered, met with the scientific evidence, and rejected on the grounds that the specific populations they wanted to whale had not recovered yet, perhaps met with some counter-proposals to step up monitoring to establish a timetable for when the population is large enough to consider some limited whaling, the Koreans would be more patient. If they felt that the IWC actually did intend to reconsider the moratorium and establish a regime of cautious scientific management based on rigorous evaluation of data, they wouldn't feel the need to assert their national rights as keenly. Indeed, if the day came that commercial whaling could be allowed on a sustainable basis with assigned national quotas, it is very likely they would do some whaling for a few years and then wind up operations once it became apparent just how profitless and pointless it was.

Instead the arrogant white people lied to them, so they're going to go harpoon some whales because fuck you. And telling them that they are cruel barbarians for doing so, unsurprisingly, does nothing to convince them to not harpoon whales. And why should it? The future belongs to Asia, not to Europe.

It does not matter if Minke whales as a whole are endangered or not. The minke whale populations they intend to hunt are endangered as per the IWC.

Criticism of the Nordic countries for hunting Minke whales suggests the problem is not with whaling endangered populations but with whaling, period. The delegates from Australia, the United States, etc made clear they had no intention of taking the South Korean proposal seriously or of allowing commercial whaling ever, again, under any circumstances. If it had been rejected on purely scientific grounds, with the caveat that whaling could be allowed once the evidence showed the populations had recovered sufficiently, the South Koreans would probably be willing to wait. That's a compromise.

Instead they were told the promises made at the start of the moratorium were null and void and that was that. So yeah, they're going to take unilateral action to assert their rights and independence because they can. This was wholly predictable, and unavoidable because Western governments are not capable of compromising due to domestic opinion, but the end result is that the South Koreans feel they have a legitimate grievance and will act on it. Perhaps if we hadn't bought their acquiescence to the ban with false promises they wouldn't feel so injured by the failure to actually reconsider it, at least.

[Thanas]

He did not "compare" or "imply" that what South Korea wanted was indigenous whaling rights. He noted the irony that an indigenous population in the Caribbean, taught to hunt by Yankee whalers 130 years ago, could go whaling but that the Koreans, with an attested whaling tradition of thousands of years could not.

Thereby comparing the situations. Also, let us look at the passage:

South Korea mustered other arguments too.

On Tuesday, IWC governments voted to allow the Bequians of St Vincent and the Grenadines to continue hunting whales under "aboriginal subsistence" rules, designed for peoples with an established tradition.

The Bequians' tradition dates back about 130 years, to the time when Yankee whalers taught them how to do it.

Korea's, meanwhile, dates back 8-9,000 years - the oldest documented anywhere on the planet - with ancient rock art showing the unmistakeable coming together of harpoon and whale, and piles of bones testifying to their consumption.

But Koreans, unlike Bequians, aren't allowed to hunt anymore.

righto. Nope, no comparison. No argument using this exception to justify SK whaling. Right. That's why he starts with "South Korea mustered other arguments too" and then spends half the remaining space in the article on this comparison.

Or you might look at the statement by SK itself:

To start with, I wish to remind you that the Republic of Korea has been endowed with a very long history of active whaling. Korea’s whaling history dates back to prehistoric times, and whale meat is still part of a culinary tradition of some of Korea’s local areas such as Ulsan. Historically, Korea’s whaling took place in the form of subsistence fishing for food, similar to Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW).

Righto.

There was no comparison as to the methods or what the South Koreans wanted, and this tendency to call out anyone who presents a nuanced argument and doesn't immediately go full-out in a rage and make his stance on the the issue of the moment crystal clear in alignment with the prevailing board trend makes this forum an objectively worse place.

Yes, lie some more and then blame it all on other posters.

The point is that they don't have to produce a legitimate reason to use the "scientific whaling" loophole, they can go ahead and do it anyway and no one can stop them.

Which nobody is disputing. Everybody so far has been noting the hypocrisy of their position and that they have no moral right to do so.

Now, perhaps if the Korean proposal had been seriously considered, met with the scientific evidence, and rejected on the grounds that the specific populations they wanted to whale had not recovered yet, perhaps met with some counter-proposals to step up monitoring to establish a timetable for when the population is large enough to consider some limited whaling, the Koreans would be more patient.

They have been told that the populations are not strong enough. The IWC itself is monitoring the situation and considers the populations to be endangered. What more scientific process do you want?

The future belongs to Asia, not to Europe.

Might makes right, eh?

[Simon_Jester]

Because, as I pointed out, whaling is inherently animal fucking cruelty. If you think this is just about an arbitrary Western perspective on "cuddly animals," then there's a whole lot of other despicable practices you can defend on the basis of cultural differences.

So, if a sovereign nation is doing something inherently evil (like killing whales*), is it right to trick them into signing an agreement not to do it?

Because first you say "OK, we'll let you start doing it again once the environment can handle it and there's no danger of the whole species going extinct." Then you say "Ah-ha, we will never let you start doing it again, because it's evil!"

That won't sit well with a country that didn't mean to sign away its right to make policy decisions on the issue. Even if we're all on the same page about "never hunt whales," I have to agree that there's a worrying dishonesty there.

And there's a cost to that kind of dishonesty. If we treat international law as a machine for making other countries do what we want, and we don't care about original intent and the reasons treaties were signed in the first place, why should anyone else respect it? Why would you honor a treaty knowing that it's all a cynical ploy and that the treaty will remain in force long after the original rationale for signing it is irrelevant?

*Or presumably like having fishing nets that kill dolphins by accident. Or subsidizing mass shootings of wolves to depress their population; wolves are pretty intelligent too...

righto. Nope, no comparison. No argument using this exception to justify SK whaling. Right. That's why he starts with "South Korea mustered other arguments too" and then spends half the remaining space in the article on this comparison.

Or you might look at the statement by SK itself:

To start with, I wish to remind you that the Republic of Korea has been endowed with a very long history of active whaling. Korea’s whaling history dates back to prehistoric times, and whale meat is still part of a culinary tradition of some of Korea’s local areas such as Ulsan. Historically, Korea’s whaling took place in the form of subsistence fishing for food, similar to Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW).

Righto.

Thanas, would you support the right of South Koreans to engage in whaling if they did it with rowboats and spears, like their ancestors?

The point is that they don't have to produce a legitimate reason to use the "scientific whaling" loophole, they can go ahead and do it anyway and no one can stop them.

Which nobody is disputing. Everybody so far has been noting the hypocrisy of their position and that they have no moral right to do so.

Is there any validity to the South Korean claim that it is also hypocritical for nations which promised to reconsider a whaling ban to say "we are permanently opposed to commercial whaling?"

One may reasonably say that saying that is not evil, since it kills no whales. But is it realistic to expect the good guys to be able to act hypocritically and go back on their word, and still be respected and taken seriously? If you want everyone else to walk the path of righteousness and begin with hypocrisy, aren't things like this a predictable outcome?

If you want to enforce absolute morality on the world, you have to be able to at least impersonate a neutral and honorable figure. If you want to say "you have to care what we think but we don't have to care what you think, and we don't feel bound by any promises we make to care what you think," expect to be ignored a lot.

[MarshalPurnell]

Yes, lie some more and then blame it all on other posters.

No, you are the liar. Your original post said that despite attempts to "equivocate" what the South Koreans wanted was not the same thing as indigenous fishing rights.

Regardless of your attempt to equivocate the two, the fact of the matter is that South Korea decides to start commercial whaling. Not traditional whaling with a few boots etc.

Nowhere in that article does anyone say that South Korea wants indigenous fishing rights. Nowhere did I say such a thing. It makes an ironic comparison to the decision to grant the Bequins whaling rights with the decision to shoot down the South Korean proposal. The South Koreans did not ask for the same rights and no pretense was made that their proposal would have the same impact as indigenous whaling exceptions. It served only to highlight why the South Koreans considered the process unfair, which is not a judgment that the author endorsed as such. It is not an argument for allowing the South Koreans to whale, it is a simple illustration of the South Korean perspective.

But I guess failing to rabidly denounce them in the most heated language available is "sympathizing" and perhaps even some kind of duplicitous advocacy. Like that thread over Haidt's article some time back.

Which nobody is disputing. Everybody so far has been noting the hypocrisy of their position and that they have no moral right to do so.

And what hypocrisy is that? The South Koreans want to assert their rights and will do so. They shouldn't, but their actions in no way betray their professed values. And they have the express right to hunt whales for scientific reasons under IWC rules. Meanwhile the West has hypocritically abrogated pledges that it made to bring the moratorium about in the first place. Which is the objectively duplicitous behavior?

They have been told that the populations are not strong enough. The IWC itself is monitoring the situation and considers the populations to be endangered. What more scientific process do you want?

They were told "fuck you, we're never lifting the moratorium." That's why the South Koreans are pressing forward to do what they can within IWC rules. There was certainly more room to set up timetables and push for more studies that would keep the particular populations protected without giving the Koreans the finger. Australia, the US, Germany, etc opted instead to make it clear that they would never approve the proposed hunt even if the populations had fully recovered.

Might makes right, eh?

Generally, tearing up agreements with other people and denouncing them as barbarians when they react badly to the fact does nothing to convince them of the superiority of your moral position.

[Ralin]

Glad to see the South Koreans standing up to the environmentalists in the West and asserting their right to resume whaling. Here's hoping the animal rights people choke on their veggie burgers over this.

[Simon_Jester]

I disagree; this is an unnecessary and bad thing, especially if the whale population they're targeting is still fragile.

Just because I don't think the IWC's conduct is above criticism, that doesn't mean I'm a fan of commercial whaling.

[Ralin]

It serves a very necessary purpose: Showing that South Korea and Japan are sovereign nations who will no longer be bullied into accepting an asinine ban on whaling because Americans, Europeans and Australians think that whaling is 'cruel' and that we should give a fuck about whether whales suffer when we kill them.

[Serafina]

Sure, let's wipe out entire species just to show westerners that we don't care about the environment!
Because there isn't even an economical incentive to hunt whales, given that its not profitable and not a way to guarantee a steady food supply for a nation.