Right: some indigenous peoples still hunt whales for food, but commercial use of whale oil and baleen was decreasing around the time this photo was taken, with petroleum products, including plastics, providing alternatives that were cheaper and, it should be said, less risky.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of Japan resuming commercial whaling
1. Commercial whaling can be conducted without threatening the survival of whale species
Critics of the prohibition of whale hunting claim it is not based on data, but on an absolute resolve to ban whale hunting permanently, irrespective of whale numbers.
In November, 2011, Glen Clancy noted in Japan Today, 'The IWC 1982 moratorium stipulated that: "This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest, the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision."
The political strength of IWC anti-whaling nations has ensured that a scientific review of the moratorium has never taken place.'
Japan claims that one of the reasons it has conducted scientific whaling over many years has been to conduct research intended to ensure the sustainability of commercial whaling.
Arguing in favour of whale consumption, Australian commentator, Michael Evans, noted in July, 2013, 'Today it's estimated about seven of the 13 species of great whale, including the blue whale and the bowhead, are endangered. But some fin and Bryde's whales and minke whales are abundant...
I'm not talking about allowing hunting of endangered species. Iceland, Norway and Japan have argued they want to hunt only abundant species of whales.'
This point has also been made by Justin Rose, Adjunct Fellow, Australian Centre for Agriculture and Law, University of New England, in December, 2015.
Rose has stated, 'Certain whale species were hunted close to extinction. The International Whaling Commission was formed in 1946, but failed at initial regulatory attempts, so parties agreed to a moratorium. The species under threat were saved from over-hunting.
Now, armed with better data, is an opportunity for the international community to agree to a tightly-controlled commercial harvest of non-endangered whales, alongside a range of universally-supported conservation programs.'
It has even been claimed that allowing the resumption of commercial whaling might actually reduce the number of whales being caught by Japanese whaling fleets. Currently, Japan conducts what it refers to as scientific whaling for research purposes, with the catch being offered for sale, supposedly as an incidental consequence of this activity. Quotas are set each year. In 2013, a typical year, quotas were fixed at 935 minke, 50 fin, and 50 humpback whales in the Antarctic.
Japan's scientific whaling has been overseen by the non-profit Cetacean Research Institute since 1987. The Institute receives tens of millions of dollars annually in government subsidies - more than $50 million in the 2013-4 fiscal year. The whale meat it offers for sale is substantially unsold, with some 5,000 tons of whale meat being stored in taxpayer-funded warehouses in 2014.
Critics of whaling have argued that consumer demand would not make the practice commercially viable on the scale of the current scientific whaling. Thus, if it were to be reintroduced on a commercial basis, so long as the subsidies were withdrawn, numbers of whales caught based on demand would fall and the enterprise would be likely to fail.
2. Whale meat is a valuable food source in Japan
Supporters of extending Japan's access to whale meat note that this would constitute a valuable supplement to Japan's food sources. In an article published in The Christian Science Monitor on March 24, 2016, it was noted, 'Japan has just over 1.7 percent of the world's population but consumes six percent of the world's fish harvest. The island nation imports more seafood than any other country.'
Kyoshi Ejima, a member of the Upper House who voted in favour of the legislation, said Japan could become a self-sustaining food nation if commercial whaling was allowed to resume.
Mr Ejima has stated, 'This resource exists out in the world. There are minke whales down in the Antarctic Ocean that are of a body weight of around 5,000 to 10,000 kilograms. These are a great source of food and my position is that we should harness this for food.'
The director of the whaling affairs office at Japan's fisheries agency, Shigeki Takaya, has stated that the country would soon recommence commercial whaling. Mr Takaya has indicated, 'Basically, we believe whether it's whales, sharks or tuna, all marine resources should be used sustainably based on scientific research.'
Though whale meat has declined in popularity in Japan, it has traditionally been a significant food source. At the turn of the 20th century, Japanese coastal whaling received a boost with the introduction of steam ships and grenade-tipped harpoon guns.
Whales helped keep Japanese citizens fed both during and after World War 2. In 1947 whale meat made up almost half of all animal protein consumed by the country. Nearly 20 years later, whales continued to make up nearly one-quarter of the Japanese diet.
Supporters of whale meat consumption as an important protein source for the Japanese population hope that dietary education, especially of children, will encourage renewed acceptance of the meat and result in a restoration of its popularity.
3. Those opposed to Japanese whaling display culturally-based hypocrisy
Japanese supporters of whale hunting point to the hypocrisy of those who oppose whale hunting. They argue that other marine and land-based animal species are either hunted or farmed for human consumption. They further claim that outlawing the hunting of whales displays a culturally- or ethnically-based bias.
On July 2, 2000, the Japanese IWC representative, Minoru Moritomo, accused Australia of double standards regarding whale hunting, highlighting the millions of kangaroos killed in Australia each year.
Mr Moritomo stated, 'Perhaps if we renamed minke whales the "kangaroos of the sea", the Australian public would support their sustainable use.'
Western commentators have made similar comments regarding the inconsistency of many of those who oppose Japanese whaling. In a comment originally published in The Huffington Post on April 1, 2016 and then updated on April 2, 2017, Katherine Ripley stated, 'There is essentially no difference between hunting non-endangered whales for food and hunting any other species of non-endangered animal, such as deer, for food.' Ripley concluded, 'There is a very deep hypocrisy behind our criticism of Japan's whaling programs.'
Ripley further noted, 'Just as the West looks with disgust upon eastern countries that eat dogs, we malign whaling because whales hold a special place in our hearts. All the while, we sit around our tables eating chickens, cows, and pigs-which studies have proven are actually more intelligent than dogs.
We create arbitrary differences between animals to criticize the practices of other cultures, while continuing to justify our own, but the reality is that if you disapprove of Japanese whaling, you have to disapprove of killing all animals for food.'
4. Japan regards a ban on whaling as an attack on its cultural traditions and national identity
Whaling is a sensitive issue in Japan, regarded as an assault on Japanese tradition and identity.
Many Japanese politicians and much of the Japanese population are slighted by international opposition to Japanese whaling. In February, 2013 the Japanese Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Hayashi Yoshimasa, stated, 'I don't think there will be any kind of an end for whaling by Japan...we have a long historical tradition and culture of whaling...criticism of the practice is a cultural attack, a kind of prejudice against Japanese culture.'
In 2015 the Japanese Whaling Association stated, 'Asking Japan to abandon this part of its culture would compare to Australians being asked to stop eating meat pies, Americans being asked to stop eating hamburgers and the English being asked to go without fish and chips...'
Critics of the Japanese position argue that contemporary Japanese tend to exaggerate the extent of their country's cultural connection with whaling; however, some analysts note, the issue is not the historical reality of the cultural importance of whaling, but the political and popular perception of whaling's significance.
In an article published in the Asia-Pacific Journal on April 15, 2016, Chris Burgess stated, 'The Japanese government's position on whaling rests on...premises which are not always consistent with the historical record...' Burgess further notes, 'Whaling has become a symbol of Japanese national identity, an explanation which might help to explain Japan's resistance to international pressure.' The same point has been made by Kazuhiko Kobayashi, an agronomy professor and the co-author of Japan's Dietary Transition and Its Impacts, who has stated, 'The strong condemnation of whaling by the foreigners is taken as harassing the traditional values.'
Opposition to what many Japanese regard as an international attack on the traditions of their country may help to explain popular support for whaling despite the fact that few Japanese eat whale meat. A survey conducted in 2014 found that over 60 percent of the Japanese population supports the country's whaling program, even though only 14 percent consume whale meat.
5. Countries other than Japan hunt whales
Some Japanese authorities have objected to international criticism of Japan's whaling activities, claiming that there are other nations that also hunt whales without attracting the opprobrium that Japan does.
Nori Shikata, the spokesman for the Japanese delegation to the International Court of Justice, has stated, 'It's not only Japan that is engaged in whaling. It's almost nearly 10 countries in the world, including the United States, Canada, Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Russia among others
Commercial whaling is conducted by Norway, which has consistently objected to the moratorium since its introduction, and Iceland, which initially conducted a scientific program following the introduction of the moratorium but has since returned to commercial whaling.
A number of countries with indigenous populations claim the hunting and killing of whales is integral to their culture. Whaling that the IWC terms 'aboriginal subsistence whaling' is not subject to the moratorium.
The IWC allows Denmark (including Greenland), Russia, the United States and the Caribbean nation St Vincent and the Grenadines to conduct aboriginal subsistence whaling.
Greenland, for example, is permitted to hunt bowhead, minke, humpback and fin whales claiming a cultural connection. The whale products are distributed within the hunter families, and some of it is also legally sold on the local open markets. Furthermore a smaller part of the hunt is processed, according to EU veterinary standards, in two localities in Greenland, in order to cover the needs of those local communities, not having access to their own whaling vessel or those communities having a meat deficit.
There are also countries that are not members of the IWC that conduct whaling in line with cultural practices. Canadian Inuit communities hunt bow and beluga whales for food.