Halting Arctic whaling in Japan, my thoughts on this.

I read today in the Guardian that Japan is to halt Arctic whaling because they are not actually slaughtering whales for 'scientific research' as they had previously stated. The reason they are killing the whales according to Japan is because it is "necessary to examine the age, health, feeding habits, exposure to toxins and other characteristics of whale populations, with a view to the possible resumption of sustainable commercial whaling" and could not gather this research with non lethal methods, however this seems rather suspect as many campaigners have pointed out, the data they get from these methods are limited and not of real benefit in the long run anyway. Campaigners here have called this a dramatic victory and have been campaigning for this to stop for over four years, so there is much cause for celebration it seems even if the ban is only temporary and the Japanese will probably continue to advocate whaling in the future.
In my honest opinion, I believe that whaling should be stopped, I am definitely leaning towards the view of the campaigners even though in all fairness, the article seems to not have any defined slant, it has tried to lay out the facts that have been given without any sentiment shown such as giving both sides of the argument. This is typical of the Guardian and a thing I believe is the right way to go in terms of presenting the hard facts, and allowing users to give their opinion in the comments section. I am trying to justify whaling but even with my limited knowledge on the subject, I cannot. Many may agree and disagree with me on this subject, I would welcome comments on your own personal thoughts and any other statistics found as I have not delved deep enough into the world of whaling to make complete, definitive statements on this.

It was also interesting to read the comments from users below, I have picked out a select few that I thought warranted attention:
"Nine years, 3600 whales slaughtered and only two papers?
You're rubbish at science fellas - go and find another hobby."

Another stated:
"Sure this is progress but sadly, there's a weasel word in the following statement:
The International court of Justice on Monday ordered a temporary halt to Japan's Antarctic whaling programme,
The whale in the room is "temporary".

There was not many opposed to the ruling however one user stated:
"They have been carrying out good work for decade - in the interest of all. They can, and they should, publish the outcome of their scientific research which will surely result in universal agreement that they continue to hunt down whales."

I am not saying that all whaling is completely wrong, I do try to give a fair judgement on this long debated argument; however I do not see what real merit there is slaughtering these animals for scientific research, much better methods could be researched, in my opinion. The impact this has on the environment and ecosystem must be thought about as well, even if this whaling is contributing to scientific research, what damage is it doing to the ecosystem and population of whales? Both sides of the argument have some merit, I mean there could be some scientific research that is worthwhile, but as I have stated before, I think the consequences of whaling way outweigh the merits and thus I think the ban is a worthwhile thing that should be upheld indefinitely if possible.

The article is here if anyone wants to read further/contribute to the debate:
www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/japanese-whaling-halt-antarctic-international-court