Comments on: Skinny Whales, Claim Japanese

By: Ian Mott

Ian Mott — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:32:22 +0000

Gales is correct to mention the possibility of other causes of a decline in minke whale body mass. But the most likely major contributors to changes in whale body mass remain as some function of whale numbers and comparative krill supply.

The whole truth can only ever be a case of “all of the above”. But unless Gales has some hard evidence that some other factors have a greater influence on body mass then the basic, “numbers vs food supply” must remain as the default assumption.

By: david

david — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:15:08 +0000

Katy,
I find the comments attributed to him by the Aussie media rather strange, if he has something in the works himself.

By: Katy

Katy — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:00:09 +0000

“Maybe he’d like to contribute in this area.” – David

Do you know that he is not?

“After several years in the whaling debate I’m a bit severed” – Ann

Oh dear!

“Unfortunately that is par for the course when it comes to whaling “journalism” and sadly by extension reflects the calibre of wildlife reporting period.” – IceClass

Yes, “whaling journalism” when covering both sides of the debate tends to be poor, but I have read several well-written and researched articles on wildlife.

By: IceClass

IceClass — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:47:15 +0000

“Now, I’m no fan of whaling, but that woman should be on commercial tabloid current affairs, not the ABC. She might as well have just interviewed herself.”

Unfortunately that is par for the course when it comes to whaling “journalism” and sadly by extension reflects the calibre of wildlife reporting period.

Sad.

By: Bernard J.

Bernard J. — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:02:19 +0000

TheWord.

You are spot on.

Cheers.

By: TheWord

TheWord — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:17:51 +0000

The ABC journalist I heard did a hatchet job on Gales, as well. She tried a couple of times to get him to admit that the Japanese research was false. He wouldn’t say that, just that the statistical techniques they’d used were basic, that there were alternative methods they might have used and that he would like to see some further proof. He was measured and level, almost to the point of being unfair to himself.

However, this was a muck-racking journo chasing a big story. In the end, when she couldn’t get the answer she wanted from him, she just said, “OK, so you dispute the Japanese findings, now…” and just moved on to her next question (which was actually one in a series of allegations against the Japanese, as opposed to questions).

Now, I’m no fan of whaling, but that woman should be on commercial tabloid current affairs, not the ABC. She might as well have just interviewed herself.

By: Ann Novek

Ann Novek — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:43:13 +0000

More whaling news on my blog.

BTW , do you folks now that the name Antarctic , comes from anti – Arctic?

After several years in the whaling debate I’m a bit severed , and post only INFORMATION from both prowhaling and anti whaling sites , so people can make up their opinion by themselves…..

By: gavin

gavin — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 06:28:18 +0000

ABC radio has been running comments on the story all day

“Dr Nick Gales from the Marine Antarctic Division has told ABC’s Radio National the study is seriously flawed”

Also

http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=511501

what’s the truth in blubber hey

By: Ann Novek

Ann Novek — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:03:54 +0000

High Class Scientific Journal Publishes Japanese Whaling
High class scientific journal Polar Biology, has published Japanese results from the controversial research whaling program in the Antarctic.

Professor Lars Walloe , Oslo, is co- author , which suggests there are changes in the Antarctic eco-system , due to climate change ,because the minke whales have less blubber nowadays.

Anti whaling campaigners are worried that a publication in a first class journal will make whaling more acceptable.

From The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/26/whaling.wildlife

By: david

david — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 03:36:57 +0000

Actually the article did not conclude what the ABC article says it concluded.

It only asserted that “an increase in the abundance of krill feeders other than minke whales and a resulting decrease in the krill population MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A LIKELY EXPLANATION.” (my caps)

“If there is a real decline in blubber then the reasons for that are much more varied and it could be a whole range of things that have nothing to do with amount of krill and whales” — Nick Gales.

Dr. Gales is right, it could be a range of things that have nothing to do with amount of krill and whales, and this should also be considered. Maybe he’d like to contribute in this area.