Glen Inwood recently sent me some books about whaling from a Japanese perspective. They are so interesting with a lot of history. Given many readers of this blog have a particular interest in whaling, I plan to post some extracts from these books over the next few months. Here’s the first installment:
“Since time immemorial, the Japanese people have been religiously taught to avoid eating four-legged animals – a teaching that has its genesis in the influence of the Buddhist faith. When Buddhism was introduced from the Asian continent well over a thousand years ago, the Prince Regent Shotoku, who ruled the nation at the time, quickly became a devoted follower of the new faith. He promoted a marriage of Bhuddism with the indigenous Japanese religion, Shinto.
After Prince Shotoku, there was a successful coup bringing Emperor Tenchi to power, and he wasted no time in declaring Buddhism the national religion. In the seventh century, Emperor Tenmu prohibited the eating of land animals entirely. The whale, however, lived in the ocean and was regarded as a fish, and therefore notably not included in the prohibition.
Centuries after this decree, in 1687, the Shogun Tsunayoshi introduced a special mercy law protecting animals. He loved dogs to the point of madness, and all animals were further protected by this law. However, even under this Shogun, whales were not protected.
Moreover, because this law made it harder to procure animal meat, the whale found itself even more sought after as a crucial source of protein in the Japanese diet. It was during this era that net whaling developed, and whale meat consequently became a more regular feature of the Japanese diet.”
(From Whales and the Japanese by Masayki Komatsu and Shigeko Misaki, pg. 54)
And here’s a link to a recent news story with Japanese surfers complaining not enough was done to save stranded melon-head whales.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen ,
I’m aware that hunting/eating whales is part of Japanese culture and history.
Similarly , flogging ,death by hanging and singing God save The King were once part of Anglo culture and history.
Isn’t the point that some whale species were almost hunted to extinction and that the Japanese have no current barriers to eating domesticated livestock?
I suspect the Japanese actions are linked more to Japanese national pride than culture.
It’s not economically feasible or nutritionally necessary to hunt whales – why do it?
Hi Jim,
1. I’ve actually heard the argument that the Japanese only started whaling after World War 2 -I think it is at this blog as a comment at a thread but couldn’t easily find it when I went looking. Someone was quoting their wife who is Japanese.
2. I don’t buy the hunted to extinction argument in the context of the Japanese – but am happy to be corrected if you/someone else can provide some detail/evidence.
3. I think it is hypocritical for the Australian government to be against whaling by the Japanese for minke whales while condoning harvesting of dugongs by aborigines?
4. I will post more from the Japanese perspective about the economic feasiblity and ecological justification .. over the coming months.
Jen,
1. I didn’t know about the post WW2 commencement. It makes the Japanese position more shaky in that case.
2.I didn’t mean to suggest that it was only the Japanese who were responsible for the threat to whales but that the Japanese continue to hunt them knowing full well that they were threatened not so long ago.
3. Absolutely agree about dugongs and other Australian fauna and have always held that position. Perhaps the decision to allow the hunting of native fauna was based more on the necessity to contrast the ( racist) romantic notion of the “communing with nature” indigene as opposed to the brutal , exploitative , capitalist European?
4. Look forward to it.
Jim
Disclosure required: this book is published by the ICR for whom Glenn is the PR mouthpiece.
Whale meat became important to meet Japanese protein requirements in the yrs of shortage after WWII – it helped them to emerge from that difficult period (they depleted whale populations in their area, hence now they go to the other side of the planet to hunt in protected waters). Prior to WWII, there might have been some isolated pockets of japanese that hunted whale, but that was a minority, definitely far from a general cultural practice.
If traditional japanese whale hunters even exist these days, how many of them partipicate in the industrial operation today, or benefit from it in anyway? It’s clearly political – to garner support for Japanese nationalism and pride by defying international institutions to show that Japan is self-determining, and trying to inculcate distinctive cultural practices.
Do these books cite any independent or scientifically supported sources? ie isn’t the Buddhist teaching against killing all animals (incl the yetis that supposedly lived in the himalayas and have 2 legs), not just against killing 4 legged animals? Perhaps this Japanese version was a peculiar variant influenced by the ruler or animalist views of the Shinto?
Jennifer on your pt 3 – what’s the basis for your charge of hypocrisy? ie considering:
a. strength of historical cultural argument (do the japanese have a long or widespread cultural history of hunting minke whales?)
b. the scale and nature of the activity (small-scale traditional hunting v’s large-scale govt subsidised, mechanised, industrial operation for commercial reasons)
c. reason provided for harvesting (eg traditional practice for culture and food v’s fake research)
c. scientific consensus on the harvest considering population dynamics, resistance & vulnerability.
Jim,
The point I was making is that while there may be a perception that whaling is a post WW2 activity – it appears to date back to the 6th century. If others want to dispute this time frame. Then I welcome guest posts at this blog.
Thinksi,
We know all about Glenn Inwood, but we have no idea who you work for.
Nevertheless, if you have some information about the history of whaling in Japan, I invite a guest post.
I’ve already given you honest answers but if you don’t want to believe me, feel free to assume that I work for every organisation that you despise. It doesn’t reduce the validity of my comments.
I read from sources on all sides of the whaling debate earlier this year in order to develop an informed, balanced opinion. In doing so, I read of the history. I’m disinclined to do your work for you, (I’m not a paid writer) but I’ve posted information with some links in previous comments if you care to revisit them. The information is easy to find on the internet if you care to write your own informed post.
If not, then at least refrain from trying to pass off a book that’s published by the ICR and sent to you by its PR hack as a reliable source.
You haven’t explained the basis for your charge that it’s “hypocritical for the Australian government to be against whaling by the Japanese”. I posed several important considerations to help you think it through (an opportunity to show that you haven’t simply made yet another ill-considered, baseless accusation).
Yes, I can’t see the logic of the Australian Govt allowing dugong harvesting whilst protesting against whaling unless its for purely political reasons, which then makes it logical.
Whaling may be a position on which they could give some ground, in exchange for another concession. Politics is all about compromise with all sides making gains.
Thinksi,
Where is the “hypocritical for the Autralian government to be against whaling by the Japanese” line?
Net whaling was basically for right whales and humpbacks, not minkes. Mind you, the South Koreans have a very efficient minke net whaling program in place.
Can anyone rule this out for me.
Westerners eating cow flesh is not as important to an Indian as a Japanese eating whale flesh to an Australian Greenpeace supporter.
The little ICR books on the history of Japanese whaling have some interesting stuff in them. I suspect anyone could get copies by emailing ICR and requesting them.
And there’s nothing in what you’ve presented, Jennifer, that says Japanese were whaling in the 7th century
Joe – Greenpeace supporters only have traders on toast.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1602713.htm
Last Update: Tuesday, March 28, 2006. 2:20pm (AEDT)
Counter-productive: The study shows scientific whaling is a sham. [File photo] (ABC TV)
‘Scientific’ whaling a con: study
The Federal Government has released a study which it says shows whaling for scientific purposes is a sham.
The 10-week study, which covered more than 1 million square kilometres, has been done by the Government’s Australian Antarctic Division scientists in the Southern Ocean.
The scientists have carried out extensive whale surveys, including deployment of more than 140 sonobuoys to record whale sounds as well as sightings of whales conducted from the bridge of the research ship, Aurora Australis.
Environment Minister Ian Campbell says he will be taking the research to the June meeting of the International Whaling Commission.
Mr Campbell says it shows Japan does not have to kill whales to study them.
“If you’re doing science on the Antarctic ecosystem, you don’t go down there and blow off the face of the planet these threatened species and a crucial part of the ecosystem,” he said.
“The so-called science is in fact working against the interests of science.”
Sixty-two scientists from 14 countries participated in the survey.
Is a whale more intelligent that the bos inducus strain of cattle?
Bos indicus are reputed to be the most intelligent and require special handling.
It has been suggested that Jersey cows contain some bos indicus, trials in Darwin of milkers put Jersey as the most resiliant to heat stress.
Why should a whale be exempt from harvesting whilst the cow (sacred to some) and the dugong (sacred to some) remain exempt?
Are Australians also becoming animist?
Seems Ian has adopted another email identity.
Cows are less intelligent. Bos indicus pains in the neck to handle but tolerate northern Australia really well. Unfortunately yaks don’t have the decency to die before the landscape does like your wussy Bos taurus.
Beef cattle (including yaks) are only there as we have developed domesticated varieties and farm them.
Eating them is a good thing as it protects the rangelands from their overgrazing.
No on dugong hunting.
Yes we are already animist – but selectively on charismatic fauna – usually mammals and birds – we don’t care as much about reptiles, amphibians and really don’t care about fish, insects, fungi and bacteria. However, I personally apologise to each insect that strikes my windscreen.
Dear Phil
I respect your views on AGW and your robust arguments in supporting your stance. But your statements re Bos indicus would not stand up to your own scientific principles.
1.”Bos indicus pains in the neck to handle”
True when they were introduced under the managment regimes operating in the 50s and 60s.
The advent of weaning practices etc changed all that.. after all you don’t see many Bos indicus running riot in India.
2.” Unfortunately yaks don’t have the decency to die before the landscape does”
As you are no doubt aware the expansion of Bos indicus in the north Australian herds also coincided with the introduction of molasses/urea licks which enabled livestock to survive in “dry” periods without the need to destock or die. Irrespective of the cattle strain, pressures would still have been applied to the grazing landscape.
For sure the introduction of our bovine friends changed the landscape of northern Australia.
But I ask you has the introduction of Bos Tauras and later Bos Indicus been of net benefit to Australia? Unless you put a massive value on preserving the environmental/ecological landscape as it was pre the arrival of cattle then you would have to agree it has been a plus.
Surely the discussion should be all about examining in the year 2006 what are the best policies re future productivity of our rangelands.
All the arguments/discussions re global warming are (correctly) about the future. Shouldn’t they also apply to grazing practices?
Blair
Blair – yes but they’re now running Bos indicus x Bos taurus crosses e.g. Droughtmaster to get the best of foraging ability, heat tolerance and tick resistance. Bad sides are temperament, fertility and meat quality which are addressed by the Bos taurus genetics. Northern Australian graziers have benefited from superb animal genetics and their own local improvements in animal husbandry such as urea/molasses, salt, rumen bullets.
But these are tough beasts, particularly if supplemented. They will virtually live on sticks. The Burdekin is in a disgraceful condition from overgrazing – even on recent surveys. So the vastly improved production systems has a lot to answer for in terms of grazing pressure.
Soil export to the inner reef is 5x pre-European.
Stocking rates are too high and unresponsive to seasonal conditions and climate variation. Some producers have decided to “return to their grandfathers” stocking rates. Debt to the bank make it difficult to be sustainable.
Australian graziers are most excellent at animal husbandry. However, the toll on the resource base – soil loss, increases in woody weeds, decreases in levels of perennial palatable grasses towards annuals and inedible species – leaves much room for improvement.
I haven’t even gotten to biodiversity – at this point I’m simply agruing to save the resource base which sustains the industry. Soil running down the Burdekin in flood is kg of beef in lost grass production.
My analysis above is a little tongue in cheek.
I think the industry itself realises the issue. But is much happening. “I cannot afford to be sustainable !” is the response.
P.S. Bill Burrows taught me to say yaks.
Sorry guys – this thread was about whales.. ..
Whales and PR to be more accurate.
What will the ICR’s response be to Australia’s scientific condemnation of its fake scientific whaling programme I wonder – more denial and fabricated cultural excuses?
It’s also reported here:
Japan whale kill ‘a sham’
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/japan-whale-kill-a-sham/2006/03/28/1143441137134.html
“The Australian government says it now has concrete evidence that proves Japan’s so-called scientific whaling program, under which thousands of the mammals are killed, is a sham.
The evidence is the result of a 10-year research program conducted in the waters off Australia’s Antarctic territory.”
Gee Thinksy. I couldn’t find any research. All I got was a press statement from Ian Campbell saying what they did, but provided no findings at all. All I found was PR about it being a sham, but no proof they found anything out at all.
http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/env/2006/mr28mar206.html
Oh for heavens sake.. .. a boat load of international marine biologists and they haven’t done anything? Let’s at least see the report. You guys were marvelling at their krill research a week ago citing good news. They clearly have population data.
What do we learn from our Japanese friends – that whales take 20 minutes to drown when you harpoon them. And gee they did 10 years ago too. And before that. Whaling is just a political need for them to assert themselves. They don’t even like eating the stuff.
Peter C makes some good points.
I would probably like to do the next post on whaling on earliest records of whaling for Japan and other countries. If anyway has some good information on this could they please email me before the weekend.
I would also be really interested in a guest post from Peter C around his quote: ‘None of the other whaling nations was in any doubt that the real reason for declining stocks was the ruthless catching undertaken by the Japanese, starting as they did four to five weeks before the others, ignoring the ban on the catching of humpbacks or minimum size limits. Germany, Britain and Norway despatched notes to this on Japan at the same time’ (p 469).
It would be good to get some supporting evidence for this in terms of how many whales were being caught where and by whom?
The Japanese seem to blame the Americans for the decline – suggesting they caught the larger numbers and discarded most of the carcass.
Discarding the carcass could lend some support to the japanese whaling-for-scientific-purposes-not-consumption ruse. It would also eliminate the high (tax-payer funded) subsidised costs of running factory processing ships and storing the growing stockpiles of whalemeat in Japan. Where are the vociferous free marketeers when you need them to argue against govt spending? (Their party line is inconsistent.)
It appears that I need to clarify my last post. Here goes……….
I used the quote from Toennessen & Johnsen’s book in an attempt to make several points. These are:
1.It’s a really good source of information on modern whaling and well worth reading if you’re interested in the topic. It’s generally unbiased, as far as I can see.
2.Contrary to popular belief, Japanese whaling expeditions were working in the Antarctic prior to the outbreak of World War II.
3.Also contrary to popular belief, whaling nations were making efforts to instigate international controls on whaling prior to the IWC coming into being post-WWII. These efforts were frustrated in several ways, one being Japanese intransigence.
4.There was a perception amongst whaling nations in the latter part of the 1930s that ongoing declines of Antarctic populations were being driven by the approach that the Japanese were taking to whaling – killing species that other nations had agreed shouldn’t be being hunted, killing lactating blue whales, starting their season earlier that what others had agreed to, things like that. Given what we now know of the population biology of baleen whales, the perception that the Japanese were solely responsible for ongoing declines was probably wrong. That they were primarily responsible for the ongoing declines in the latter 1930s may well be right.
5.The actions of Japanese Antarctic expeditions was considered so bad that three whaling nations (the UK, Norway and Germany) worked together, using diplomatic channels, to object to the Japanese actions. This is despite the diplomatic tensions existing between the UK and Germany – World War II broke out a couple of months later. Clearly folks engaged in international negotiations on whaling management back them thought something was going wrong.
6.An additional point, as there seems some confusion as to what I was getting at: the original declines of humpbacks and blues (the first species well & truly nailed in Antarctic whaling) were mostly due to Norwegian and British whaling expeditions.
Then, I made a crack about how there was a Japanese tradition of being obstructionist at international whaling meetings. I thought that the question that this raises – is tradition, of itself, a sufficient justification for peoples’ actions – was self evident. Maybe it isn’t.
Hopefully this clarifies things.
Re this comment of Jennifer’s:
I would probably like to do the next post on whaling on earliest records of whaling for Japan and other countries. If anyway has some good information on this could they please email me before the weekend.
Read the appropriate entry in the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Should be a good start.
Hi I am a student teacher wanting to create a social studies unit where children make up their own mind about weather it is right or wrong and what (if anything) needs to be done. Can you provide some links, books and other resources for the pro whaling side of the argument thati can use?
Hello, Nick here
I’m doing an assignment on Japanese whaling and the JARPA 1 & 2 programs. i was wondering why it is necessary for the whales to be killed to study them. surely you can gain a greater insight into the lives and habits of these animals by observing and tracking them instead of killing them. research i found says that tissue samples are needed to determine the age of the whales, which i can understand, but you dont have to kill the whale just to get a tissue sample surely. and there is also the question of how useful the data that is being gathered really is, for whale age isn’t exactly of vital importance is it. if i am wrong or have been mislead on any of these points i am happy to be corrected, and would appreciate the help additional information provides for my research assignment. i would also like to repeat my request for imformation about the necessity of killing them to study them. thanks
STOP WHALING YOU BASTARDS
ive been learning about whales at school as a project and ive found some information that makes me ask , , they kill the animals for reseach but if there are no animals left , how there gone , they say they use the money from there food restanunte , to scienceist to put towrads there reaseach on whales but if there are no whales left they wont be able to do there reseah , there behavour is rong and nasty , over years the population haS GONE down thousand for whales soon they be all gone so japness not saying it all of you but the ones that go out for jobs of whatever the case thInk about what you are doing and if you reaLLY need to do this becuase from where im standing you dont ,. i come from australis and would love something done about it if you dont u should thankyou and i wanna undersatnd why people hunt whales for the reall reason not the exsuce thanks bree