"KIDNAPPED" in "Australia" by Japanese Whalers

[Moopere]

Just imagine the diplomatic row if an Australian naval vessel tried to apprehend a Japanese coastguard vessel.

Mmm. Indeed. Still, its a ballsy action by Japan. Imagine if we sent a naval/coastguard/customs vessel to the Japanese EEZ and ran off with a few citizens?

What does it actually mean that the Japanese fleet conducts a lot (all?) of its activites at this time of year inside the Australian Antarctic Territorial waters? Is this just a fancy name for a bit of the Southern Ocean or do we (Australians) have a legal right there? I had formed the impression over many years of watching the goings on that the Japanese fleet is skating across fairly uncertain legal ground in relation to its Southern Ocean activities.

If the Aussie Navy actually had some maintained and working ocean going vessels I'm sure it would be a good activity for them to train in the area every year and keep a watch on things.

 

[medhead]

I'm all for the Japanese hunting whale using traditional methods. That would limit them to about 100NM of their coast, being the great seafaring nation that they were historically* . So no southern ocean then and no steel boats.

Oh anyone who can defend attacking another ship, either by snaring propellors or by turning towards a ship initially and then away at the last minute has no unbiased contribution to make to this discussion, IMO.

If the Aussie Navy actually had some maintained and working ocean going vessels I'm sure it would be a good activity for them to train in the area every year and keep a watch on things.

The Aussie navy is stretched chasing Indonesian fishing boats to catch a few thousand people a year and appease red necks howls.


* As in no great exploratory feats to Australia, flat out crossing the china sea and isolated themselves until the yanks turned up with gunboats.

 

[drron]

Medhead all of us are biased one way or another.The following statement reveals your bias-

Oh anyone who can defend attacking another ship, either by snaring propellors or by turning towards a ship initially and then away at the last minute has no unbiased contribution to make to this discussion, IMO.

IMHO.
Australian territorial Waters in Antarctica are claimed by us but not recognised by many nations.

 

[dfcatch]

As many of my friends and colleagues are paid up members and supporters of Sea Shepherd (there's even their propaganda at work), I'm with munitalp in spirit.... But not practice.

Most Aussies would agree.

The simple issue is that Japan is fishing for a species which we consider to be "protected" - simple.

So let's lose the language of warm fuzzy friendly defenseless animals - it's nonsense.

The issue is that we consider them protected and "no catch". Simple.

Just as if the Japanese were hunting great white sharks - same same - "protected".

Oh what's that?

Yes you're probably right - even though sharks have the same "protection" as whales, yes I imagine the Australian populace wouldn't care anywhere near as much. It would just be the Eco-terrorists that did.

Secondly - we have all read the propaganda which claims the fascist Japanese government has "stolen" all those tsunami donations and redirected them to whaling!! Shock!!

Like most educated adults with an IQ above 10 - I take propaganda with a grain of salt and encourage all other educated adults to do the same.

Just because the Australian government spends money on a project you don't like - doesn't mean they "stole" it from somewhere else! How do you spell "budget"?

Third - whilst they may have made some historical contribution to bringing the issue to prominence; there is a difference between "monitoring" and "unlawful interference" or "piracy".

I say let them feel the full force of the law - the protestors that is.


FWIW - when I have a rational discussions with my educated eco-friendly colleagues - they have no arguments once you remove the emotion from the issue.

The other ones - well hey- they believe in 9/11 conspiracies too

 

[trooper]

The way some people look at this you'd think the Japanese boarded the Sea Shepherd, grabbed those three from their bunks and forcibly took them back to their own ship...

Those three would be in no danger of being taken anywhere by the Japanese if they had not illegally boarded their vessel in the first place!

Actions have consequences. These activists are not children, and should be held responsible for their actions... as should any whaling crews who step over the line of course...

Kidnapped? Who came up with that?

Here's the thing... If the aim is to prevent the killing of whales why don't the activists just trail the catcher vessels (at a safe and sensible distance) while broadcasting underwater noise that will scare off any whales in the vicinity? I can't imagine there are any great technical hurdles in doing so... recorded distress calls? Loud irritating raw noise? Some other method?

Could it actually be, as the cynic in me suggests, that such action is not taken as it would produce no dramatic footage for the media?

"Yep.. still no whales in sight... still no hunting" Not exactly dramatic is it?

What is the real agenda? Save whales or get publicity?

My understanding is that the Japanese hunt the minke.. which is NOT listed as endangered. (classified as "Least Concern" on the IUCN Red List)

What then is the reason for making the whaling stop? Especially if (as many would) nod in satisfaction at such cessation, then go home and eat a piece of cow, or pig, or.. well - you get the idea.

The idea that "traditional" hunting is OK strikes me as odd.. For two reasons...

One - Modern hunting (described as "barbaric" in this thread) results in much quicker - therefore more humane - kills than older methods..

Traditional whaling involves harpooning the whale (usually multiple times - these are simple catch and hold weapons) in order to be able to get it close enough to the boat to then stick lances in it over and over until a critical strike or blood loss do the trick. How can someone support that, while condemning modern methods?

Two - These "traditional" hunts are nothing of the sort. They go out in fibreglass boats, with engines... Huh? If one is claiming "tradition".. where are the umiaks (or local equivalant) propelled by paddles? It's like the Inuit "traditional" hunting of polar Bears... since when was a 300 Win Mag rifle a "traditional" weapon?

Hardass about it, ain't I?

 

[nlagalle]

While I may not agree with the Japanese hiding behind "scientific research" in order to hunt whales, I do not agree with using illegal actions employed by the protesters.

If they chose to board the ship in international waters, then let the japanese legal system deal with them. If the Australian government steps in and "rescues" them, you can bet it will continue to happen.

 

[simongr]

I have no opinion on the "kidnapping" - I do however have an opinion on the whaling fleet. This fleet is illegal and I would have no issues with any action that anyone took to prevent the whaling from continuing - including active attempts to sink the fleet whilst at sea.

Whaling is a disgraceful blight on the Japanese nation and the more I see of it the more I am inclined to minimise any contribution I make to the Japanese economy.

I do not however want Gillard to get involved as that might lead to an increase in her popularity (given anti-whaling sentiment) without her actually doing anything useful.

 

[drron]

I have no opinion on the "kidnapping" - I do however have an opinion on the whaling fleet. This fleet is illegal and I would have no issues with any action that anyone took to prevent the whaling from continuing - including active attempts to sink the fleet whilst at sea.

Whaling is a disgraceful blight on the Japanese nation and the more I see of it the more I am inclined to minimise any contribution I make to the Japanese economy.

I do not however want Gillard to get involved as that might lead to an increase in her popularity (given anti-whaling sentiment) without her actually doing anything useful.

So you are also going to boycott Norway who also have a whaling fleet and whale meat is on virtually every buffet there?

 

[benhadi]

So the anti-whalers feel very strongly against whaling...

So they justify their actions, however illegal, by whatever means, for what they believe in.

Sounds a wee bit similar to the terrorists, jihadist, suicide bombers etc dont you think?

It may be against Australian laws to whale, but certainly not against theirs. If they were in international waters, then Australia (or any of it's vigilantes) can't really do much, legally at least.

Don't get confused here, there are 2 aspects to it. The legal side of things, and the moral side of things.

 

[simongr]

So you are also going to boycott Norway who also have a whaling fleet and whale meat is on virtually every buffet there?

Yes - I would. Thankfully I don't have to actively boycott them though.

 

[medhead]

Medhead all of us are biased one way or another.The following statement reveals your bias-

You've revealed my bias against both sides. Well done. Yes I'm biased towards supporting maritime law and conventions. In fact I've even argued strongly to support rescuing this round the world sailors, at vast cost to Australia, when my "friends" with redneck tendencies have seen it as a pointless waste of money.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[medhead]

My understanding is that the Japanese hunt the minke.. which is NOT listed as endangered. (classified as "Least Concern" on the IUCN Red List)

What then is the reason for making the whaling stop? Especially if (as many would) nod in satisfaction at such cessation, then go home and eat a piece of cow, or pig, or.. well - you get the idea.

The idea that "traditional" hunting is OK strikes me as odd.. For two reasons...

One - Modern hunting (described as "barbaric" in this thread) results in much quicker - therefore more humane - kills than older methods..

Traditional whaling involves harpooning the whale (usually multiple times - these are simple catch and hold weapons) in order to be able to get it close enough to the boat to then stick lances in it over and over until a critical strike or blood loss do the trick. How can someone support that, while condemning modern methods?

The Japanese mainly hunt the minke. They also take other whales - fin whale (?) the endangered ones.

Your point about breed livestock (meat animals in our house) would be valid if there was in anyway a risk the te continuation of the species and there were a vital part of the natural food chain.

The point about traditional hunting is that it is harder. They actually have to get out there and earn the kill. It also takes more time to hunt one animal so they can't kill as many. It is also dangerous the whale has a change to kill one of the hunters. Adding an element of risk makes people reevaluate how important this activity is for them. Finally, traditionally Japanese didn't sail down to the southern ocean to hunt whales. So regardless of guns, motors, fiberglass they should be hunting whales within their traditional hunting range only. i.e. Not in the southern ocean.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[simongr]

Finally, traditionally Japanese didn't sail down to the southern ocean to hunt whales. So regardless of guns, motors, fiberglass they should be hunting whales within their traditional hunting range only. i.e. Not in the southern ocean.

Would that be because of their poor whaling practices and lack of attempts to sustainably hunt they have no whales in their traditional areas?

 

[UP4014]

If the morons choose to "board" a foreign ship, then the crew onboard are entitled to do what is reasonable.

Is "detaining" (and I don't believe we have the full story) appropriate? Perhaps. Depends on other factors as well.

The anti-whaling mob are getting more and more rabid, taking illegal actions and questionable moral tactics. They put themselves further and further into risk on their crusade.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but isn't the Japanese whaling actually illegal? (certainly questionable when it come to science)

Matt

 

[medhead]

Would that be because of their poor whaling practices and lack of attempts to sustainably hunt they have no whales in their traditional areas?

That might be a consequence of poor management. It would hopefully add focus on sustainability. But of course, whales migrate so I would expect there to never be a full depletion.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[trooper]

OK.. I'll bite...

Just how is the Japanese whaling fleet.. illegal? Doesn't make sense... (are the ships unregistered?:mrgreen

So more to the point... Just how are their current actions illegal? What laws are being broken?

The moratorium by most whaling nations is a voluntary one.... it is not a legal ban..

Even if it was (and I struggle to see what laws we would be talking about, unless the whaling was within a nations territorial waters)... enforcement would be a problem...

..and I find it simply amazing that anyone would condone actual attacks on these (unarmed, civilian) ships.. simply amazing.

How illegal is THAT!

... I bet those who claim they'd like to see such action would think it also "illegal" if such an attack started... and the attacking vessels suddenly found that there was a Japanese MSDF Oyashio class submarine in the area who wished to join the argument....

And why not? What is a Maritime Self Defense Force for if not to protect the nations shipping on the high seas?

Hell of an escalation to take such violent action... or IMO.. even condone or encourage it...

And STILL wondering why the activists don't base their efforts on scaring the whales away from any catcher vessel...

Anyone?

 

[drron]

Whaling is only illegal within the territorial waters of countries who make it illegal.Commonly this will extend 200km including the Exclusive Economic zone.On the high seas neither the International Convention For Regulation Of Whaling or the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea.make commercial whaling illegal.The reason we get duped is that Australia claims part of Antarctica as our Territory.However that is not recognised so the Great Southern is mostly International waters.See here-
Whaling and international law

Also we are duped by Sea shepherd when in their promotional material show Humpbacks being killed and one I saw was a picture of a Dolphin.Also saw on tonight's news the WA group protesting outside the Japanese Consulate playing Humpback songs.Emotive but cynical.
In 2009 the japanese killed 679 minke whales and 1 Finhead whale according to Japanese press releases.The SS lot proclaimed they had saved hundreds of whales but in the papers by the Japanese research institute described 936 whales having been studied.Their quota is 850 whales + or- 10%.So it was their quota + 10%.No whales saved.
Up until 2007 this quota included 50 humpbacks.That was then eliminated.They have proposed reincluding humpbacks-I am not sure of the quota but definitely less than 50.The quota they aim for has gone up and in 09/10 they studied 1296 whales-by contrast Norway took 1286 minke whales in 2011.South Korea supposedly doesnt engage in whaling but sale of whale meat is legal so SK fishermen somehow get at least 100 whales a year as bycatch.Genetic studies suggest it is double that.
The Minke whale is not threatened in Antarctica.Estimates of the population in Antarctica is in the order of 650000 to 760000.Estimates of the population size in the early 1900s ranges from 100000 to 670000-this last figure is way above any other study.Reason-they were to small to bother with in early years.
And by the way the Japanese have been whaling in Antarctic waters since 1934-though there were probably a few missed years in the 40s.
For another comment early last year look at this article-
Whaling may be over, but don't be smug

 

[Moopere]

Just how is the Japanese whaling fleet.. illegal?

Legality is difficult to argue in pretty much any conversation once one leaves national borders (including sea EEZ) behind. There is no universal legal anything ... treaties and whatnot exist, and its sometimes tempting to think that the International Court of Justice is a global body implementing global 'law' but its just not so.

Therefore, when someone tells you that something is illegal you first have to understand under what context and assumptions they are speaking. I think its illegal for Australians to hunt whales in Australia or the EEZ, though its not clear to me if its illegal for Australians to hunt whales if contracted on a Japanese whaling vessel hunting them in the Japanese EEZ or international waters.

..and I find it simply amazing that anyone would condone actual attacks on these (unarmed, civilian) ships.. simply amazing.

How illegal is THAT!

I'm not at all sure that the activities of the Sea shepherd organisation, that can be proven anyway, are illegal either. There is long standing maritime law, pre-dating some countries existence, that gives guidance on how to deal with piracy ... and if the activities of the Sea Shepherd that are being complained about in these and other forums were in fact illegal I'm sure that Japan would have sent out some navy vessels to deal with them as they'd surely deal with pirates (or miscreants anywhere else). Assuming that the definition of piracy is this one: "Piracy is an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea"

... I bet those who claim they'd like to see such action would think it also "illegal" if such an attack started... and the attacking vessels suddenly found that there was a Japanese MSDF Oyashio class submarine in the area who wished to join the argument....

Sure sure. And this type of thing is commonly how wars do start. Each side of a predominantly civilian disagreement with no clear right on either side starts to escalate the situation and eventually the state(s) are called in to arbitrate ... sometimes this isn't done peacefully.

But this sort of brinkmanship happens globally all the time. You could equally ask, if Australia thinks it has some claim over parts of the Southern Ocean, then why not send down the Navy to patrol the claim? Yes, the Japanese might respond in kind ... but then both sides need to really think about how much they want to save whales or eat them.

And why not? What is a Maritime Self Defense Force for if not to protect the nations shipping on the high seas?

Ah yes. But the ships of the Sea Shepherd are not stateless rogues. If, in the defence of the Japanese whaling fleet from an annoying, but not proven illegal activity, a US, or Australian, or Netherlands registered vessel is boarded, or sunk, or somesuch, then that act in itself may well be viewed as an act of piracy by the country of registration. Just because they might be acting like naughty boys does not condone piracy.

Its a complex legal area, one reason why both sides are pretty much leaving it alone at the diplomatic level. Yes, I know Australia has instigated some meaningless court action and Japan regularly makes protests, but no-one really wants to tackle the meat of the argument because things could really get ugly.

Better to leave it to the two opposing sides out of sight of land and see what happens

 

[drron]

Actually Japan this year has sent an armed vessel crewed by their Coastguard-so it seems they think Sea Shepherd's activities are illegal.It was this vessel that was boarded.
PS last year the Captain of the Ady Gil boarded this same vessel(it was then a whaler).He was taken back to Japan.Found guilty of illegaly boarding a ship and got a 2 year suspended sentence.

 

[Moopere]

Actually Japan this year has sent an armed vessel crewed by their Coastguard-so it seems they think Sea Shepherd's activities are illegal.It was this vessel that was boarded.
PS last year the Captain of the Ady Gil boarded this same vessel(it was then a whaler).He was taken back to Japan.Found guilty of illegaly boarding a ship and got a 2 year suspended sentence.

Yes - I guess in the above cases the law applied was Japanese. Probably if the Ady Gil captain was returned to Australia rather than being picked up (or boarding?) the Japanese vessel he'd have been let go ... after some protests from abroad for sure.

I might be wrong, but I think a ship, much like a foreign embassy, carries the registered country's law with it ... I think this is correct. So, an Australian vessel has Australian law applied by proxy to it no matter where it is in the world ... there may be variation around this theme if a vessel is docked at a foreign port, not sure.

In any event, applying Japanese law to a foreign sailor once he was aboard a Japanese vessel is, I think, legally quite different to say firing on, or boarding a foreign flagged vessel. It may well be, for example, that if the current Japanese coastguard vessel were able to legally disable a SS vessel, and this would get disputed for sure so would still be a shaky practise, that if they then 'rescued' the SS crew, perhaps the crew could be tried under Japanese piracy law?

Its all pretty murky and plenty of room for dispute and general problems for all involved, and for both Australia and Japan at a larger level.