Japanese Whalers Killed 122 Pregnant Whales and 114 Babies Last Summer | Hacker News Reader

Japanese Whalers Killed 122 Pregnant Whales and 114 Babies Last Summer

livescience.com

51 pointskimsk11225 comments

How did it come to pass that only whales are untouchable among animals? In various countries, dogs, cows, pigs, and horses are seen in different lights. Why do we care so much about whales and not the above? Why isn't it like the other situations, where we choose not to eat dogs and horses, and leave those who do in other countries to their own devices? Because whales can't be bred, or because they're too smart, or something else? It's a curiosity for which I haven't arrived at an answer.

Danger of extinction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_minke_whale

Minke Whales are "Least Concern" status, not endangered at all -- so that must not be it.

But the animals in the photo aren't minke whales.

The article, however, is about minke whales, even the photo's caption is "Japan's whaling fleet killed 333 minke whales in the South Ocean last year, including 122 pregnant females."

They're not endangered, but they will be if they keep unsustainable whaling.

If they want to hunt them; good for them. But they need to set quotas, monitor the local population, train the crews to recognize different species, and enforce the legislation, not to give out fake research permits to their favourite whaling crews. There are many reasons to oppose their practices.

Some information that might help answer your questions:

http://us.whales.org/wdc-in-action/why-protect-whales-and-do...

>Why isn't it like the other situations, where we choose not to eat dogs and horses, and leave those who do in other countries to their own devices?

This is not the case. I'm not sure who you mean by "we", but there are many animal rights activist groups trying to stop the killing of dogs and horses:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/481199/Week-long-dog-ea...

https://www.habitatforhorses.org/the-horse-slaughter-argumen...

All of these animals have various levels of intelligence. Whales are very intelligent, as are dolphins.

It came to pass because they collectively were being overfished and by the mid 80's some populations were in great decline. Many have rebounded but the moratorium remains. It's one of those things which once it starts, it's hard to shut down --think of any cause-like program. Once it achieves its initial goal, and its raison d'etre disappears, it finds another reason to exist --in this case it seems mostly momentum (from public perception).

There is the wider political issue on fishing rights, namely whether fishing in international waters should be regulated. Japan have always enjoyed support for whaling from China and Russia notwithstanding their geopolitical conflicts elsewhere because their interests align. So did Norway and Iceland as both nations have significant commercial fishing industry.

Apparently the USSRs horse in that race was that it was heavily under reporting its catch by at least an order of magnitude, so it’s unsurprising they’d have common interest in that area.

One asian species extinct 2007. A second species from USA will be extinct most probably before 2020. Maybe this year. We know currently that the Japanese sea has several cryptic species and a exclusive fauna shared with pacific countries. Japanese whale Eubalaena japonica is critically endangered, (around 50 animals remain in the planet if I'm not wrong).

So yes, we have solid reasons to do it. Hunting one common species will lead to collateral damage, honest mistakes or direct abuse against critically endangered species.

And when we wipe top predators very bad things happen typically, bad for humans.

If there is a clear evidence that killing some species of whales, such as minke whales will cause severe damage to the environment, just create a new international treaty and then the Japanese government will obey the rules. The Japanese government states that they are only killing the species that aren't endangered and also little amount that will not majorly affect the environment.

One thing to notice is that increasing of whales may also affect the environment. They eat large amount of fishes that may affect humans if the number increases. Increasing or decreasing both may affect the environment and the important thing is the balance of them.

The old rethoric. Not, this is not the japanese government, is a company, one of several, and the goal of private companies is to maximize the benefits, not to care for the environment. For example killing pregnant animals (Something that is normally forbiden in the laws that regulate hunting in most countries).

Of course all affects the environment.

The private companies which are killing the whales are just a proxy of the Japanese government, which are officially allowed by the government. They aren't allowed by the government to hunt as much as they want to maximize the benefits. To build a sustainable business in such regulated field, of course it is important to obey the laws and also care for the environment.

If the killings of 122 pregnant whales severely affect the environment and if there is a clear evidence to support such claim, the company should stop killing them. But if the company is obeying the laws and it's just an emotional thing, I consider it some other people's business.

Except that this species is not a property of the government of Japan, neither lives only in Japanese waters, nor are caught (only) in Japanese coast. So the "not your bussiness" claim is incorrect here.

I stated a precondition, "if the company is obeying the laws and it's just an emotional thing". So if that precondition is not true as you might consider, then your claim 'So the "not your business" claim is incorrect here' is incorrect.

Not. Your precondition was not that. It was more like "If the company is obeying the japanese government" or the "japanese law" then is fine for Japanese to hunt this whales

in Antarctic waters

But is more complicated than that. Maybe you don't know that In 1994 the IWC (International Whaling Commission) created the SOWS (Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary). The countries in the IWC decided to forbid commercial whaling in those waters. Those are the summer feeding fields needed for a big percentage of the extant populations of big cetaceans to survive. Whales need to feed almost continuously without being disturbed in summer because they will fast later for several months when breeding. A zero catch quota for minke whales was stablished, only allowing to kill a small number for scientific purposes.

On March 2014 the International Court of Justice agreed with Australia that the number of Japanese scientific research publications were not proportionate to the number of animals killed (and sold as meat in the japanese market)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Ocean_Whale_Sanctuary

"The research conducted in the Antarctic over the last two decades under Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling has involved the killing of nearly 10000 minke whales and 13 fin whales. The majority of the IWC's Scientific Committee, and the Commission itself, have repeatedly said that this "scientific whaling" has contributed little or nothing either to information needed for proper management of any renewed whaling under Article V of the ICRW or to better scientific knowledge about whales in general. In particular, reviews carried out by the Scientific Committee have shown unequivocally that the JARPA (Japanese Whale Research Program under special permit in the Antarctic) programme has failed to attain any of its originally stated objectives"

Source: https://www.asoc.org/advocacy/antarctic-wildlife-conservatio...

>Not. Your precondition was not that. It was more like "If the company is obeying the japanese government" or the "japanese law" then is fine for Japanese to hunt this whales

Again false. The precondition of the comment you said incorrect was never like that. Next time you post any comments, please read out loud and be more careful :(

I see this common in the western culture. Some inconsistent mind western people who think they are the right ones brag about something and tries to force people in other countries to obey. One difference between whales/dolphins and others is that the main target is the Japanese people and the government. Those people are tend to be calm that is different from western people and is easy to become a target for the louder ones.

Is it normal to use baby about a whale calf in English, or is it only used in the title to trigger emotions?

Yes it is normal in fact for whales. English speakers use calf for the young, cow for female, and bull for males. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animal_names

English speakers do the same for other sea mammals such as dolphins and walruses.

I could be wrong but I think you read the comment backwards.

You are right, for me calf is the natural word to use for a young whale. So using the word baby seems to be to trigger an emotion in readers to set a state for the rest of the text. Indicating that it is more wrong to kill a whale than to kill a cow

I think that's exactly why they called it a "baby".

You are right! Misread the comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com