My new hero: Hideki Moronuki

Photograph of Hideki Moronuki

Hideki Moronuki (pictured) is the Japanese Fisheries Agency’s chief of whaling. While I’m reasonably sure I’m not in favour of whaling, and certainly not if people are fibbing about its true purpose, you’ve got to admire his ballsy, direct language.

In a lengthy opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald last Monday, Moronuki defends Japan’s “scientific whaling” with the observation that to commercially manage forests, fisheries and other “natural living resources” but not whales makes no sense. He dismisses as a “fallacy” that there must be one [commercial activity] (whale watching) to the exclusion of the other (whaling).

There are enough whales for both those that want to watch them and those who want to eat them.

I fully respect the right of Australians to oppose whaling for some “cuddly” reasons, but this does not give them the right to coerce others to end a perfectly legal and culturally significant activity that poses no threat to the species concerned.

And on Wednesday, with two of Sea Shepherd’s unruly wankers aboard his ship, he said the pair would be given an opportunity to try whale meat while aboard the ship.

Hat-tip on that last quote to The Road to Surfdom.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

Tags: , ,

He’s lying — both about the “enough whales for everyone” and about whaling being culturally significant. I wonder if he knows he’s lying or if he’s just gullible.

Those two protesters, however, need to be prosecuted for piracy. Doesn’t matter what your intentions are: if you forcibly board a ship in international waters, you’re a pirate. And not a cuddly parrot-and-eyepath Cap’n Jack Sparrow type, or a pointlessly-misnamed downloading-the-latest-Torchwood type, but a real, live, throw-them-in-the-brig-and-let-them-rot type.

@Eric TF Bat: I don’t know enough about the ecology of whales to know whether the claim of “sustainable” is right or wrong. But as for Moronuki, well, he’s the whaling commissioner — it’s his job to promote Japan’s cause. Though I suspect his words were written by a good PR firm.

Agreed about the piracy of Sea Shepherd. “Taking the law into your own hands,” charging about like yahoos and endangering the lives of yourselves and others in remote, dangerous waters is fuckwittedness of the first water.

He makes some good points, IMHO. People (outside Japan anyway) have a overwhelming tendency to get misty-eyed about the “cuddly” whales to the extent that all reason is thrown overboard. I find this attitude quite annoying. The natural world is not a beauty pageant. (More here).

Then let ‘em hunt for whales that venture into Japanese territorial waters, not our (Australian) declared ocean sanctuary inside *our* Antarctic territorial waters.

We chased, arrested and summarily dealt with Uruguayan-flagged fishing boat toothfish poachers, with the help of the Kiwi, French and South African navies back in ‘04, so why should Japanese whale pirates be treated any differently?

What’s good for the goose is good for the whale blubber, I say!

And no, I’m not a “misty eyed” greenie. I accept “cultural” tradition; only get upset with the Taiji Dolphin slaughter because dispatch of the hapless beasts seems needlessly cruel sometimes, nor do I rail against the the aboriginal whale hunts by Arctic circle first nations who have IWC permits to do so, but the “scientific whaling” being conducted by Japan is neither sanctioned by the IWC, nor legal in our sovereign waters.

IMO, the Iced VoVos should have sent a Collins Class sub down to do a few exercises, and sent the fleet packing.

I say good on Sea Shepard and their crew.

@Alastair: Ta for that link. More for me to read…

@Cassie ST: I thought the whole point was than the Japanese whaling is within IWC rules? Apart from their justification of “scientific”, perhaps, but doesn’t the burden of proof fall on the prosecutors to demonstrate that it’s not being scientific?

[Note to the hard of thinking: This is called the devil's advocate technique, and does not necessarily indicate that I support any particular position which you might imagine hold by inference or assumption from what I ask.]

On the other hand, we’ll have to agree to disagree about Sea Shepherd. A RAN submarine is one thing — a vessel belonging to a legally-constituted navy acting under the valid orders of a constitutional government. But a bunch of vigilantes with an adrenalin addiction boarding a ship on the high seas and interfering with its operation — and sometimes even sinking them — is nothing but piracy.

As Eric TF Bat said, they should have been locked up, not returned to the Steve Irwin.

It’s appropriate that Sea Shepherd’s ship is called the Steve Irwin: they’re both loud, attention-seeking wankers who get far more media oxygen than their importance warrants.

Hey Stil,

All “Devil’s Advocacy” aside (methinks you’re just trolling….) I reiterate, the hunt is neither sanctioned (i.e wasn’t voted in favour of, by a majorty of IWC members at the last meeting) nor is it legal (per the recent Federal Court ruling) in Australian Territorial waters.

Sheesh, what part of NO!, is it that people don’t seem to understand?

;-)

@Cassie ST: I’m genuinely angry about Sea Shepherd’s piracy. When Oceanic Viking collected their boarding team (Benjamin Potts and Giles Lane) from the Yushim Maru No 2 they should have been detained pending charges being laid, not returned to the Steve Irwin.

Wikipedia discusses the problems with the International Whaling Commission — which was founded in 1946 to protect whale stocks for hunting, as it happens. It was only in the 1970s that its focus turned to conserving whales for the whales’ sake.

Now hunting and killing whales is not a pretty business. But neither is hunting kangaroos, goats, tuna, octopus… Even farm animals meet a messy end. I didn’t exactly enjoy the first time I chopped off a chicken’s head when I was about 8 years old — and since I was a kid and not skilled with the tomahawk it was a very messy end indeed! But I still had chicken for dinner that night.

If whales can be hunted sustainably — I’m not saying they can be, there’s an “if” there — but if they can be, then I really don’t see the difference between hunting them or any other critter that walks, swims, flies, wriggles or crawls. It’s all a matter of taste. Westerners don’t eat dog; others are not so fussed.

Now the IWC faces legal problems enforcing its rulings because, as Wikipedia explains:

First, the IWC is not based on international treaty, and therefore, any member countries are free to simply leave the organisation and declare themselves not to be bound by it if they so wish. Second, the IWC’s power to “legislate” a moratorium or quotas is very restricted, because any member state may opt out of a quota or moratorium simply by objecting to it. Third, the IWC has no authority or means to enforce any quotas, even on states that voluntarily put themselves under them.

In brief, the IWC is a talk-fest where anyone who’s a member can just say “Screw you!” Which is basically what Japan has done.

As for the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, it’s not actually in Australian territorial waters. It’s in waters off Australia’s Antarctic Territory. Now Australian courts have asserted that we have the right to stop the Japanese actions there. Whether that’s actually enforceable under international law, particularly the Antarctic Treaty System, is another question.

This one will run and run…

Personally, I like whales. It’d be a shame for them to disappear. I think there’s probably other, yummier things we can eat. But the legal grounds for stopping Japan from doing what it’s doing are much, much shakier than the zealots of Greenpeace and the pirates of Sea Shepherd make out.

Why, may I ask, do the Japanese (or anyone, for that matter) need to hunt whales in the first place?

It seems quite obvious to me that the whole “scientific research” line they throw out is pure garbage - does anyone actually believe that anymore?

And when they have tonnes of whale meat sitting around in warehouses because no one is eating it, to the point where they either are or were considering using it as pet food in order to reduce the stocks in said warehouses, why do they need to go and hunt even more? What on earth is wrong with these people?

As for the claim of whaling being a “culturally significant activity”, why should that give them a free pass? An abhorrent activity is still abhorrent, “cultural” or not.

(I find it quite despair-inducing that all manner of horrific acts worldwide continue to be perpetrated in the name of “culture” - such as (so-called) honour killings, female genital mutilation, and whaling, to name a few. Time to grow up, people.)

I’m sure I could add plenty more to this, but I’m mad enough as it is, and I don’t want this to devolve into incoherence.

Why, may I ask, do the Japanese (or anyone, for that matter) need to hunt whales in the first place?

Probably the same reason why humans hunt *insert any other animal here*

I fail to see why whaling is so specifically horrific as opposed to the numerous other animals in nature we hunt and farm.

@Snarky Platypus: Maybe because they are/were hunting animals that are either endangered, or nearly so? We aren’t likely to run out of (for example) cows in the near future, are we? Come on, do we really have to hunt everything to extinction just because we can?

And, as I said earlier, why do they need to hunt more whales when no one is eating the ones they’ve already killed?

I’m finally catching up on comments from last week. The Heath Ledger Experiment was overwhelming! OK, so let’s try and unravel the threads… Here’s my list of the arguments being proposed.

  1. “Whales are endangered, so we should not hunt them.” Some whale species are endangered, others not. If a species is not under threat, should it not be huntable? Or is hunting itself the objection? Would farming be OK? (Don’t ask me how big a whale farm would be! Battery-farming is a option then, I guess.)
  2. “Japan’s whale hunters are breaking the law.” Questionable, given the information in my previous comment.
  3. “The ‘research’ being done by Japanese whalers isn’t ‘proper’ research.” Currently (on this website at least) that’s an assertion without evidence. More information please.
  4. “Hunting whales is cruel and ugly.” Yep, and so is hunting kangaroo, goat, crocodile… The only difference is that we don’t have Greenpeace showing us pictures of a roo hunt every second weekend. Cluster-bombing Iraqi army recruits wasn’t pretty either.
  5. “Japan already has more whale meat than they need.” Then they’re idiots, or have some other agenda for propping up an uneconomic industry. Any suggestions?

Have I covered all the bases?

@Fnord Prefect: You ask: “Come on, do we really have to hunt everything to extinction just because we can?” Who’s talking about hunting being “to extinction”? Straw man. Already crossed that off the list. So if that’s the objection, we’re in “furious agreement”.

Steve Irwin is an idiot for allowing pirates to use his name.

@bob moreno: I think you’ll find that Steve Irwin himself was somewhat dead at the time. The MV Steve Irwin was originally the Robert Hunter, but re-christened on 5 December 2007 — well after Irwin’s death on 4 September 2006.

Finger-pointing should presumably be directed at his widow who seems quite happy to have family members exploited for profit, dead or alive. A pity she doesn’t grant them the same sanctity as the whales.

Finger-pointing should presumably be directed at his widow who seems quite happy to have family members exploited for profit, dead or alive.

FREE BINDI