Quote Originally Posted by wiegenlied View Post
I will point out some facts below but I believe some seniors who experience both Reagan’s administration and Bush’ administration will know much better than me. Apparently, the policies toward the whaling moratorium are quite different under the President Reagan’s administration and under President Bush’ administration.

First off, I do not understand why a stance in defending international whaling moratorium would classify one as ecoweenies, environuts, or tree huggers. Because, President Reagan initiated and supported an indefinite moratorium on commercial whaling. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=44097.

Japan is a member of IWC and therefore is adhered to any decisions made by the IWC. Back then in the 1980s, Japan was against the enactment of the moratorium As the United States imposed the Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen’s Protective Act of 1967 which “allowed the President to direct the Secretary of Treasury to prohibit the importation of any products from the offending countries which violate international fishery or threatened species programs,” and the Packwood Amendment to the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act which “demanded economic sanctions against any foreign countries that fishing in such a manner as to diminish the effectiveness of the decisions made by the International Whaling Commission.” Japan has chosen to withdrew its objection to the commercial whaling moratorium rather than facing trade sanctions and loss its fishing rights in the US waters. So since then, the moratorium on commercial whaling went into effect.

Yet, nowadays Japan is trying to encircle something it has agreed to by disguising its operation under “scientific or research-based” whaling operations, and they are arguing that the meat from the whales will be sold commercially to support the research. In my opinion, the Japanese is wrong in this case because the moratorium is still in effect and has not been overturned. They haven’t won the majorities of votes yet. President Reagan understood well that the next war will be on trades. If now the Japanese win the votes and the moratorium is overturned, then it means that the United States loses the trade war.
Does Japan perform scientific experimentation on the whales they harvest yes or no ?

If the answer is yes, then what they are doing is legally recognized as "Scientific research" under the IWC agreements as they presently stand.

Is it wrong to sell the meat remaining after the experiments are concluded or should it just go to waste ?

Sea Shepherd maybe condemned under Japanese law or maritime law. Still, for me, the Japanese should stop first and begin to obey the moratorium which they themselves have agreed to in 1986.
Japan has done nothing illegal here. Why should they be forced to cave into operations like the "sea shepherd" who are very much breaking the law ?

Should we allow that precedent to be set ?