I didn’t expect Greenpeace Expedition Leader Shane Rattenbury to hesitate for so long and then to be so coy, when he was asked by Michael Duffy on ABC Radio Counterpoint (23rd January 2006) whether he would have blamed the Japanese if one of his men was hurt or killed in the Antarctic.
The text follows (for full transcript click here), but to hear the really long pause from Rattenbury, listen to the full interview (click here).
Michael Duffy: What if something went wrong? What if one of your people was killed or seriously injured? Would you blame the Japanese for that?
Shane Rattenbury: That’s something we desperately hope to avoid. We do place a real paramount on safety. All our activists are well-equipped, and you mentioned someone heading into the water…we did have that happen just last week and we were in a situation there were we were able to quickly retrieve that activist. He was suitable dressed for the occasion. I guess we do rely a certain amount on the whaling fleet in this case having a level of respect for human life as well and that they would not place…or take actions that would bring even greater risk upon our activists.
Rattenbury was not so coy when the Nisshin-Maru and Arctic Sunrise collided, click here. But that was perhaps just damage to a ship – not a life.
The Radio National interview is fascinating and includes Glenn Inwood explaining how and why the Nisshin-Maru was moving before the collision occurred, click here for my first blog on the issue.
The radio interview was just a few days after Greenpeace decided to leave the whales, the whalers, and the Antarctic, click here for Greenpeace’s summary of their campaign (20th January 2006).
That was only a few days after one of the Greenpeace campaigners ended up in the freezing waters of the Antarctic coloured red with the blood of a recently harpooned whale. The campaigner had maneuvered a small inflatable between whale and ship and then clung to a taut harpoon line. The Japanese version of events with a link to the Greenpeace video is at the end of this blog post, see below.
There is no denying the bravery of these righteous Greenpeace activists.
I say righteous, because they are so sure of themselves.
But I am not so sure.
They have left the Antarctic but will continue their campaign focused on whales and whaling.
But why not campaign for Sun Bears? It would seem there is much more real need here with the bears dwindling in number and being held in the cruelest of conditions. The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)claims about 7,000 bears are kept at more than 200 farms across China in excessively cruel conditions,
click here.
There has been a fair amount of arguing at this blog about how special whales are. All life is special.
As long as we eat meat, some animals are going to be slaughtered, but I like the idea that they have the opportunity to ‘stretch their legs’ and feel the sun before they are slaughtered.
To quote from the High North Alliance website:
…obviously, it is extremely difficult to compare the whale’s relatively short-lasting, but intense pain when being killed, with the other more long-lasting but less intense forms of suffering experienced in cattle farming. Personally, I have no problems in making such a comparison. The conclusion of this comparison is that,
I would rather be a minke whale living in freedom until the final few minutes of pain, than a …pig or hen [or a sun bear].
………………………………………………………..
ICR Media release about Greenpeace Activist in Water:
Greenpeace claims that their activist was thrown into the cold Southern Ocean by a taut harpoon line are shown to be false in new video released by the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) today.
The version of the story by Texas Joe Constantine that the harpoon line fell onto their inflatable, became taut and threw him out of the boat has been placed on their website:
http://tvyil.greenpeaceweb.org/default.asp?loadfilm=59&loadcat=10
Texas Joe said:“The harpoon line came down onto our boat trapping us between the whale and the catcher. The line came tight at that point and threw me from the boat into the water. It was a few minutes before our boat was able to come around and pick me up out of the water.”
The ICR has today placed video footage on its website that shows the line was slack on the Greenpeace inflatable for some time while Japanese crew members told the activists to throw off the line before something dangerous occurred.
ICR Director General Dr. Hiroshi Hatanaka said, “Our crew were concerned about their safety and urged them to throw the line off their boat. This can be clearly seen by the video. They kept the line on their inflatable so long that eventually it became tight. The Greenpeace activists deliberately held onto the rope while they decided how to get the best PR from it.”
Dr. Hatanaka said that when you view the edited Greenpeace video it appears the event happened in a matter of seconds, but there was plenty of time available to throw the rope off. “This slick manipulation misrepresented what happened, and Greenpeace must come out and admit their man had enough time to avoid being thrown into the sea.”
He added that this was the second time edited Greenpeace footage had shown the organisation to make false claims. Greenpeace claims that the Japanese vessel the Nisshin Maru collided with the Arctic Sunrise have also proved false.
The latest video footage can be seen at:
http://www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If an organisation like Greenpeace is willing to fabricate evidence for a cause, here whaling, then how much has been fabricated in other areas of Greenpeace activity.
“I would rather be a minke whale living in freedom until the final few minutes of pain, than a …pig or hen.”
Than a pig or hen in factory conditions, or than a free-range pig or hen? What’s the point, is this emotive and vacuous claim supposed to excuse whaling? It’s not feasible to domesticate baleen whales and rearing them in captivity, so it’s not as though we have a choice about giving them their ‘freedom’ before we harpoon them. Some contrasting sentences:
I’d rather be a minke whale living in freedom than a minke whale dying on the end of a harpoon.
I’d rather be a wild boar, free before I’m hunted and cured, than a factory pig who can’t lie down.
On the topic of “we eat meat, some animals are going to be slaughter(ed)”: We don’t NEED whales for meat, so can we justify the relatively cruel and delayed death that we inflict on whales? Far less intelligent animals such as beef cattle and sheep are killed instantly and painlessly, according to strict standards. Intelligent whales (who have 4 brain lobes, who navigate oceans, live in complex societies, use rhymes to remember sophisticated songs and co-operate to make fishing technologies) are made to suffer (they scream). Does the unnecessary consumption of whale meat justify the messy ways in which we kill them?
Lastly, seeing that I’m expected to make an emotive point: “I Would Rather be a Minke Whale”. Then get in the water and I’ll harpoon you. It’s a stupid thing to say isn’t it, given that you will never be a Minke whale, let alone a Minke whale on a harpoon.
Fabricated evidence, disregard for the facts, blatant deception, just another day in the brave new green utopia.
But I wonder how many mothers, if given a choice between seeing nine of her 15 children ripped apart by Orcas, or watching them all grow to maturity down on the farm, would rather get the final knock on the head after a mutually satisfying partnership with mankind?
If whales are as, or almost as, intelligent as humans, how long do the mothers grieve the loss of their babies to natural predators? And if we could strike a sustainable deal that might enable us to reduce their infant mortality, would they take us up on it? If they are that clever, they probably would.
Louis is talking about fabrication !
This has got me thinking.
How do Greenpeace decide which animals they will campaign to protect? Choice will always have to be made, but shouldn’t they carefully prioritise given they are working with other peoples money?
Are there really 7,000 sunbears in cages? Could this be an exaggeration?
i dont need moose or caribou for meat either. but id rather eat wild meat of any kind (whales included)than buy beef thats been feed all the growth hormones and who knows what else to make it more tender, marbled and flavorful. i have said before on a previous blog that a humane kill is as quick as possible. its never instantaneous. unneccessary suffering shoould be avoided as much as possible. i believe that the interference by greenpeas increased the suffering of many whales.
greenpeas new motto… never let the truth get in the way of a good sound bite! we need those donations.
les does your personal desire to eat whale justify threatening their survival? Scientists advise that whale populations have not recovered sufficiently to be hunted. Grassfed beef or organic beef is available. If you’d rather eat “wild meat of any kind” then eat bugs, worms and small rodents, they may be healthier than whale meat that has concentrated heavy metals (erodes ability to reason).
On suffering: the whalers avoid firing harpoons when Greenpeace are within range. In one instance where the Japanese harpooned a whale but didn’t kill it, Greenpeace contacted the Japanese whaling vessel and guided them to put the whale out of its misery. Whales can take harpooning more than once and then shooting or electrocuting to finish them off. The killing of whales results in a more prolonged and painful death than does the usual methods of killing domesticated livestock.
Not that les or Ian give a rat’s arse about either the suffering OR the long-term survival of whales. Hence the wilful attempts to ignore the conventions and scientific advice of the IWC and UN bodies and the expressed interests of Australia and the majority of other nations.
thinksy
what about sunbears? shouldn’t greenpeace do something about saving sunbears? where are their priorities?
it is not correct, a lie, to suggest minke whales are threatened. even Tim Flannery has said minke whales are so numerous.
The distinguished Australian biologist
“Dr Tim Flannery, director of the
South Australian Museum caused a
controversy in 2003 when he asserted
that hunting minke whales reduced
the pressure on the food supply and
allowed the southern right whales to
recover. This argument is contentious
but it reminds us that natural systems
are complex and changing one prac-
tice can have various impacts.”
http://www.enhancetv.com.au/guides/Whales.pdf
but who cares about the sunbears?
hmmm sunbears .. ..
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/uk-seize-illegal-timber
Greenpeace cares
Bill read more closely. I didn’t say that Minke whales are threatened. There is some doubt over the numbers and structures of local populations however. There are subgroups of Minke whales, and scientists aren’t confident that current activites won’t result in the extirpation of local groups. We could play a never-ending game of cherry-picking isolated quotes, questioning the validity of each source and so on but it’s futile, particularly if you have a predetermined bias towards Greenpeace which is the real motivation underlying most of the pro-whaling arguments here. I defer to the majority scientific opinion of numerous whale biologists (read the resolutions of the IWC, it employs over 200 world-leading whale biologists). Japan whales Antartic Minke (Norway, common Minke), Fin and from next year, Humpback whales. I refer you to earlier threads as this is repetitive. If you’re on an anti-GP rant, go ahead, knock yourself out.
don’t defer to the experts read the availabel information. check the evidence.
and the link Phil gave us is just about forestry. not saving sunbears.
Bill, follow your own advice – read (more closely) the available information. From Phil’s link:
“The habitat of Indonesian sun-bears is threatened by illegal logging.” – GP
(Bill – why are you bouncing off National Forum to Think.net?)
‘Don’t defer to experts’? Listen to uninformed non-experts who want to eat the things into oblivion instead?
“read the availabel information. check the evidence.” Great advice, you should take it.
I read for hours, from a variety of sources: IWC, UN, whalers, ICR, govts, protesters, pro-whaling bodies and some scientific papers. Hence I reached an informed conclusion (again I refer you to earlier discussions).
POSTED FOR PHIL WHO HAS BEEN UNABLE TO POST DUE TO A ‘QUESTIONABLE CONTENT’ MESSAGE. SORRY.
“Flap go the envelopes. From an international colleague:
I think you all know that although I have long been opposed to commercial baleen whaling (the subject of the Cambridge meeting), primarily on grounds of its inhumanity, I have also held that it would be better for the whales if there were to be a small sustainable catch permitted in principle and where appropriate, by the responsible inter-governmental organisation, in a strongly precautionary mode, rather than the free-for-all we have been seeing for the past 20 years, with escalating national catches and absolutely no international control or even monitoring. And yet we have seen recently a tremendous upwelling of compassion for a single whale that swam up the Thames, which affected the millions of people in the UK who watched the rescue effort from the river banks or on TV, and the additional millions who watched on satellite TV channels continuous telecasts, worldwide, of that, while practically simultaneous video footage disseminated by Greenpeace from the Antarctic revealed the “Scientific hunt” to be more horrendously inhumane than most of us could have imagined.
However, while I continue to believe that the RMP – specifically the Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA) devised by Justin Cooke, adopted by the Scientific Committee of the IWC and approved by the Commission itself, is by far the best management option devised to date, I do now have some doubts as to its security, in practice. These doubts arise from three relatively recent developments.
The first of these is the “re-writing” of the CLA by Norwegian scientists and authorities, in order to justify much higher current catches than would be yielded by applying the CLA as approved by the IWC – and hence greater risk of inadvertent stock depletion and other unwanted consequences. At first this manipulation involved simply changing the values of “tuning parameters”. But now, Norwegian authorities are putting about the idea that there are errors in the approved CLA and they will produce a better one.
But even their original re-tuning has never been examined and tested by the IWC scientists, and that is the nub of my concern.. Although under international law the minke whale is a Highly Migratory Species the management and conservation of which is wholly the responsibility of the IWC, Norway has been behaving as if the minke whales, when in waters under their national jurisdiction belong to them to do with as they please, and to them alone.
There has been remarkably little challenge of Norway’s actions, either at the legal level, or scientific.
Second, during the development and testing of the CLA, and even after its adoption, some scientific-style criticisms were being made of it. However, none of those, as far as I know, have been found by the scientists concerned to be legitimate.
But in the last twenty years there has been great debate among fisheries and wildlife scientists about the existence of a phenomenon called “the Allee effect”. What was put forward essentially as a hypothetical process by Allee and others, more than fifty years ago, has become the subject of growing research interest (especially at a time when one fishery stock after another has collapsed, and then recovered – if at all – very slowly), although the “effect” remains very difficult to pin down.
In “classical” population dynamics there is a universal assumption that the highest rate of increase in an animal population (more precisely relative rate of increase, the absolute rate divided by the populatiuon size) occurs when it is very small. This assumption has important consequences, one of them being that in management models based on them, of the kind used by the IWC, the likelihood of extermination of the population is also quite small.
(The RMP does not directly use a population model or models, but the artificial “data” that are used to test the effectiveness and robustness of the CLA are derived from such models; although the IWC Scientific Committee went to considerable lengths to generate “data” from a wide range of different models, none of them incorporated the Allee effect.
The Allee effect (called more generally in the scientific literature
“depensation”) has several consequences of interest and concern for the management of whaling (and fishing). First, if exploitation of a depleted stock continues even after it is known to be depleted (or, of course, when depletion is not known) then the likelihood of extermination is greater Second, the is a point at which depletion is such that the stock will continue to move towards extinction even when exploitation ceases. Third, a depleted stock that is then “protected”, will recover at first more slowly than would be expected from the “classical” models.
The CLA seeks to avoid such undesirable consequences, without explicitly modelling the Allee effect, by providing that catch limits go to zero long before the stock has been reduced to a low critical value. But how low that subjectively decided value is depends entirely on the tuning level chosen.
With the Norwegian trick of lowering the tuning level (and especially with no testing results on the table) the likelihood of a runaway depletion of minke whales in the North Atlantic will be enhanced.
For this reason alone, in a rational world, the Scientific Committee of IWC would be looking at “data”-generation models that include the Allee effect.
A third matter of concern with regard to the CLA is the consequence of entirely different classes of population models put forward in recent years notably by Dr Lars Witting, and applied by him to the grey whale of the north-eastern Pacific. Witting’s models, based on sound evolutionary considerations, have some characteristics entirely different from the “classical” approaches. Among other things they lead to long-wave length oscillations in population size (quite different from the well-understood oscillations that may arisen from delays in reproduction, or inter-specific interactions among predators and their prey). That raise serious questions about what we mean by “sustainability” and stability. The application to the grey whale let to completely different advice about sustainable catch limits, for example, from those specified by the Scientific Committee on the basis of “classical” theory. According to Witting, this population, which is now much bigger than can be explained by classical theory, will quite soon begin to decline of its own accord. Consequently, instead of having a current sustainable yield of several hundred whales, as the Sci. majority claims, the SY would be zero or, more precisely, negative.
I suggest that before any further consideration is given to the possible implementation of the CLA, even with its original tuning, the implications of these recent developments and findings in population theoory should be examined by the IWC. Of course, the Norwegian re-tuning process must be rejected out of hand. Apart from there having been no visible tests of the re-tuned algorithm, the Norwegian intent is not merely to increase current catches, but, beyond that , using the “whales-are-eating-our-fish argument, to move into deliberately unsustainable whaling operations, thus consciously repeating our experience with the blue, fin, sei and humpback whales of the southern hemisphere This has repercussions far beyond the utilisation of whales, since it is a serious challenge to the very idea of sustainable utilisation that guides much international effort for environmental protection and resource use.
POSTED BY JENNIFER, FOR PHIL DONE.
Did I just hear a pin drop?
A new report has found timber imports sourced by illegal logging are entering Australia.
The report called “Overview of Illegal Logging” has found $400 million or 9 per cent of Australia’s timber imports, including wooden furniture, could be illegally harvested: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1557009.htm .
I wonder how much is sustainably harvested?
There is a lot of hardwood furniture for sale in Brisbane from Malaysian forests.
Jennifer, you just dragged that forestry red herring across the trail to provoke me didn’t you? We all know that most Malaysians and Indonesians don’t donate as much to Greenpeace as us sensitive and caring western types (because we have guilty conciences and enjoy a bit of conspicuous compassion). So why worry about their forests? Ours are soooo much more important. Each individual Australian possum and koala is worth as much as 102 orang-utans, 173 sun bears and 0.65 minke whales. I’ll cite the reference when I find it again.
Can’t help with the dropping pin Thinksy, sorry. We’re three hours behind and I had ear plugs in at 10:48pm eastern summer time.
Did you just drop a thin Pinksy?
thinksy,
i do give a rats arse about the sustainability of harvesting wildlife. when numbers are low i dont hunt them and i try not to shoot females. except maybe caribou cause theres just so many of them. and they are better eating. i also care about their suffering. i have felt deeply for every single animal that i have personally killed to put on my table as food for my family. i make every attempt to make it as fast as possible. i have passed many a shot because conditions werent right. just because i dont enjoy killing the animal doesnt mean i dont enjoy eating it. i simply would rather harvest it myself than abdicate and let someone else do the “dirty” work for me. people loose the connection of where their food comes from when they buy it wrapped in styrofoan and cling wrap.
i dont believe that all species of whales are threatened with extinction as you may believe. the minkes survival is not threatened by the limited harvest by the japenese. if they were chasing blue whales it would be a different story.
oh and i have eaten bugs and rodents before and other non traditional (to white folks anyway) foods too. so is a rats arse edible?
Les – the issue is that we are dealing with a class of animals that were close to extinction. Surveying numbers is problematic. And it seems that harvest numbers and also variety of species can keep ratcheting up and up. They won’t stop with Minkes in my opinion.
Anyway my very short point previous is do we all think that future generations of humans will continue to hunt whales?
A lot of time and space has been devoted to whales, whaling and Greenpeace on this blog. Why not devote more time to sunbears and the issues facing them, since they have been brought up? In fact, isn’t it hypocritical not to use this forum to produce articles that could possibly help make a difference to this issue, now that it has been brought up? Maybe it is because whales and Greenpeace get the media attention, and it works to their advantage as well as Jennifer’s?
Travis,
I agree that we have spent a lot of time on whaling. I have learnt alot reading perspectives from Rune and Peter and Libby and others.
I would like to know a lot more about sunbears.
Who has worked on them? Who can point readers of this blog in the direction of useful informaton and links?
Jen – I think there are major issues with habitat destruction, bush meat, medicinal trade etc with gorillas, chimpanzees, lemurs, orangutans, tigers, sun bears and so on. I agree there is a wider theme here with complex problems.
Phil said, “it would be better for the whales if there were to be a small sustainable catch permitted in principle and where appropriate, by the responsible inter-governmental organisation, in a strongly precautionary mode, rather than the free-for-all we have been seeing for the past 20 years, with escalating national catches and absolutely no international control or even monitoring”, and in so doing blew his credibility right off this blog.
Which part of the word “moratorium” do you not understand. A moratorium with limited whaling of a species not subject to earlier whaling is hardly a “free-for-all”. You appear to have entered a cognitive space where just about any word can have just about any meaning.
It is all very well to mention the highly theoretical “Allee effect” but it is nothing but voodoo without specific reference to actual population dynamics. The very same dynamics that Phil ran a mile from in earlier posts.
The allee effect is the official label for what happens when people believe that the only way to remedy a man made disturbance is to exclude any and all further action by man. It is the natural consequence of the “lock it up and throw away the key” method of environmental management.
But I do thank you for raising this issue, Phil, but a full response will have to wait.
highly theoretical “Allee effect”
Voodoo
ran a mile
hmmm.. ..
Well – species of whales previously hunted close to extinction and collapse of large predatory fish in oceans across the world, major fisheries on the brink. And you want my confidence in your envelope and honesty of the parties involved.
I wonder how the whales survived through the ages before we started to help them by killing them.
More to the point, how can whales help us to survive?
Rog – good point – the global benefits from knowledge of functioning of marine ecosystems may be more important than a whale sanger.
“More to the point, how can whales help us to survive?”
Precisely. Do we understand this yet? (In earlier threads we touched on some of the complexities of ecosystem dynamics). We can’t even estimate population numbers of these massive creatures clearly let alone form a clear picture of their ecosystem role. The scale of the systems in which they interact makes it particularly difficult for us to assess.
phil, to answer you question. i dont believe that future generations will eat whale meat. in my experience with the indegineous people of alaska its the elders that primarily eat the traditional foods. the younger generations would prefer to go out and have a coke and a pizza. so i can see where there will not be a market in the future for whale meat anyway.
Jennifer said “I would like to know a lot more about sunbears.”
Perhaps you could invite Greenpeace to submit a post on them?
“But why not campaign for Sun Bears?”
Why specifically Sun Bears, Jennifer, rather than bears in general? Earth Trust has a lengthy page on the subject (including Sun Bears):
http://www.earthtrust.org/bear.html
Since you started this post in relation to Greenpeace – the fact that GP do not appear to have specifically addressed Sun Bear issues does not detract from their efforts. One of GP’s earliest and defining campaigns was against whaling. No doubt they would recognise that there are many other worthy campaigns deserving of their efforts, but like for any individual, organisation or corporation – practical limits apply.
Greenfarce concentrates on the issue that will maximise media coverage and donations. End of story.
Who’s Greenfarce – couldn’t find in phone book?
It’s no conspiracy that Greenpeace focus on the specific species that their individual donors (not exclusively profit-driven corporations) support them to because they otherwise don’t get enough attention. This is democracy in action: people are voting with their hard-earned dollars.
There are loads of organisations campaigning for sunbears (& bears in general as Richard pointed out). Plus, the sunbear problem is part of a broader habitat destruction issue, which Greenpeace is addressing. The whaling issue requires somewhat different treatment due to a number of factors such as their location, size, habitat, social organisation, the industrial whaling methods and the specific conventions, etc. But Ian is just pointing his flamethrower at Greenpeace again because to him all activists and issue-based organisations represent a potential threat to his sacrosanct notion of exclusive, far-reaching, unpartitioned private property rights.
Ian – you’ve got me wondering – why is it that “Greenfarce (sic) concentrates on the issue that will maximise media coverage and donations”?
Is it because they are actually an evil corporation masquerading as an NGO, and they want our money to buy luxury yachts and villas in Tuscany?
Is it because they are egomaniacs that like seeing themselves in print?
Or is it because they understand the way media works, and that they use that understanding to increase the effectiveness of their campaigns? Sort of how big business uses the media. Hmm, is that fair? Is it fair that Greenpeace could use the media in a similar way to corporations and governments? Or should they be gagged, Ian?
Research reveals amorous whales’ marathon singing efforts
Queensland researchers have shed new light on the courtship rituals of humpback whales.
The University of Queensland has spent three years studying the whales during their annual migration past Peregian Beach on the Sunshine Coast.
Researcher Joshua Smith says the study showed male humpback whales can sing continuously for up to 23 hours to woo potential partners.
“They’re singing most often when with the females. The males singers are actually attracting other males as well and when other males are present in these interactions, the singers will stop singing and this may lead on to sort of competitive behaviour between the males,” he said.
“It’s made up of components of chirps and barks and moans and growls. On average I guess they’d be singing for three hours but they can certainly sing for up to 23 hours and this is continuously.
“They are singing more with females when they are singing and so we’re suggesting that it’s more for a courtship display.”
Mr Smith says the whales’ relationships are often short-lived.
“The thing is the interactions and associations are fairly quick, so it’s not like they’re singing these songs for a particular female for a life-long partnership – it’s more of a one-night stand sort of thing,” he said.
Apaprently the Japanese have found that when you harvest whales that they don’t sing anymore. Going to write that up as an international journal paper.
I read that the Japanese have discovered that whales eat krill. In fact, they haven’t yet published a single peer-reviewed paper, despite many years of (pretend) research.
I wonder if the males feel embarrassment so stop singing to a sexy cow when another guy comes along and starts smirking.
Jennifer,
I would love have a look at both your checkbook and medicine cabinet.
Its obvious you’re whoring for somebody. Be curious to know how many clients you take at a time.
Mike
You would be dissapointed – my medicine cabinet is bare and I don’t take cash for comment.
As hard as it may be for some to accept – I have a genuine interest in all things environmental and a real belief in the need for more open and honest discussion on a range of issues including whaling.
Thinksy,
You wrote the ICR has “never published a single peer-reviewed paper” … how did you come to that conclusion?
I have been sent a heap of papers by Dan Goodman who works for the ICR. I haven’t read many of them but they look like reprints from ‘proper journals’.
Here’s a link to one: http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/RoleandProb.pdf .
I should have said that the ICR hasn’t published a peer-reviewed paper based on the scientific results of their research. The paper linked discusses the role of whaling but not the scientific use of the research itself. I’m not aware that they have a credible academic paper on the scientific value of the research.
So rather than just publish research, the ICR should published research that explains the value of their research? You are making as much sense to me as Humpty Dumpty in ‘Through the Looking Glass’.
Jennifer your response is just plain silly. Can the ICR legitimately claim to be doing years of valuable and important research (now onto research programme no. 2) without publishing their findings? What is nonsensical about expecting them to publish (with peer-review) the results of their research?
You’ve stated that the ICR doesn’t publish research in peer-reviewed journals. I’ve suggested they do, and given you an example. Now, on what basis do you claim they haven’t published anything?
I’m not claiming “they haven’t published anything” at all. I already clarified my ealier statement: my point was “that the ICR hasn’t published a peer-reviewed paper based on the scientific results of their research”. In case you missed it a 3rd time, the key point is >>based on the scientific results of their research<<. The paper you linked to was a general discussion on the politics within the IWC. What credible peer-reviewed journal article have they published on the scientific results of their ‘research’?
The only point that matters is that the Science Committee of the IWC explicitly and repeatedly says they don’t need, want nor have any use for the “research” the Japanese are conducting.
If the AMA says they don’t need my research on organ desaturation, do I still have the right to continuously harvest kidneys?
The Japanese position on this issue is convoluted to the point of insanity. They conduct research nobody wants to promote a commercial whaling program nobody supports to provide whale meat that nobody eats, and do all of this while paying off “Europeans” like Jennifer and Goodman to counter the globally held moral conscience of the world which calls them out for being the useless, barbaric cretins they.
And as long as they stay barred from the UNSC, I think its a fair trade and money well spent
Mike, your sleazy accusations against Jennifer on this trail are highly defamatory (ie illegal)and without any defence in either law or community standard. Get off the blog or have the guts to give your full name.
Geez Ian Who made you policeman? Give his full name or what? Of course you would never write anything against anyone that was defammatory or nasty! Please, try not to make it too obvious how you hang on every word Jennifer writes.
Calling anyone a whore and asking how many clients they take at a time is totally out of order, Travis. Perhaps you had best crawl back into the hole with Mike.
Frankly, I would rather be an Orca. Then I could eat baby Minkes every day of the week.
Ian the Orca might find himself in a small pool doing tricks with plastic rings for tourists to earn a dinner of smelly sardines, no yummy minke. Enough to make anyone’s erect appendages droop.
I was surprised Jennifer just didnt delete Mike’s offensive post rather than reply to it.
Jennifer’s reply demonstrated a level of maturity, and the ability to deal with the situation herself. I wish Constable Mott were an orca too, then he may actually have a degree of intelligence.
These are not simply my standards, they are community standards as enshrined in law for more than two centuries and in common law back into Celtic Britain. They are standards that also apply in Judeo-Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Islamic and Animist belief systems. But apparently not so at the bottom of certain pond structures. Jennifer and everyone else has the right to be protected from the tongues of foul mouthed grubs.
Sup