Libby Eyre sent me the following letter which is really a critique of an article that I wrote for Online Opinion titled No Science and No Respect in Australia’s Anti-Whaling Campaign.
In the letter Libby asks why I put the case for whaling and also quotes some comment from me at this blog. I wrote back explaining that I write to understand issues and that I believe there is too much ‘blind opposition’ to the sustainable harvest of many plant and animal species.
But let’s read what Libby has to say. She is a researcher and museum curator at Macquarie University. She doesn’t like to be called an expert, but as been involved in cetacean research for over 20 years including with wild cetaceans and captive, and also marine mammal events such as strandings. Libby has also worked with Greenpeace including undertaking whale and dolphin surveys on board the Rainbow Warrior.
Dear Jennifer,
I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make with regards to the article “No science and no respect in anti-whaling campaign”. It would appear you are trying to put forward a balanced argument, and you state in comments that you are “motivated by a desire to understand the world around me and try, through my writing, to get as close as possible to the truth”. You also have written that you “care about whales”, and you “don’t like the idea of killing whales”. I am concerned that although you appear to want to report the truth and appear unbiased, comments such as “it is well known I am sympathetic to whaling” would suggest otherwise.
You have written that commercial harvesting uses more humane methods than aboriginal subsistence whaling. You also write later that “Whales are said to die instantly when struck by a harpoon”. There is no guaranteed humane way of killing a large whale at sea. It is difficult enough euthanasing the smaller species in a humane fashion when they are lying on a beach. Although the Norwegian scientists do research on killing techniques and time to death, the current practices used are still able to cause extreme suffering if an accurate hit is not obtained. As there are no independent observers on whaling vessels operated by the Japanese, Norwegians or Icelanders, researchers have to take information provided by these countries on face value. The Norwegians claim they kill >80% of whales instantly, whereas the Japanese instantaneous kill rate is said to be 40%. A significant number of whales in both the Norwegian and Japanese hunts require secondary killing methods, such as high calibre rifles to kill them. When the Japanese kill the 10 fin whales in the Antarctic this year (50 in subsequent years), they will use the same size explosive grenade that they use for minkes, which are about 8 times smaller in size.
With regards to the smaller odontocetes not being regulated by the IWC – the IWC has a small cetaceans sub-committee which meets when the Scientific Committee does prior to the plenary meetings. As you would know, the Scientific Committee is made up of leading cetacean researchers from around the world, who are there due to their knowledge and expertise to advise and provide facts on the state of the cetacean environment, discuss sanctuaries, model populations and work out possible sustainable quotas. The IWC has traditionally been an organization set up by whalers for whalers, however due to the lack of ability to adequately manage whale stocks, and the subsequent crash of great whale populations, a moratorium was in place, and more emphasis was given to the scientific community to model future trends in whale populations. Small cetaceans have not traditionally been viewed in the commercial whaling discussions at the IWC, but the IWC have recognised that there needs to be discussion about these animals, as many are now threatened with extinction. It should be noted that the Japanese are against discussions on small cetaceans as they have never been part of IWC negotiations.
With regards to the consumption of the pilot whale meat in the Faroe Islands, high levels of heavy metals have been found in the meat, and could possibly have severe adverse health effects on those that consume it. It would be a tragedy if these people risked the health of their children because of traditional (and cruelly executed) practices. Persistent organic pollutants have been detected in cetaceans from seemingly remote populations, and the health repercussions of eating products from small and large cetaceans should not be readily dismissed.
You have pointed out that “Norwegian whalers have a long cultural tradition of killing, eating and selling whale products”, and some of the comments on the blog have rightly pointed out that Japan’s history of whaling is mainly post WWII, when they had little else to eat. Some social commentators suggest that the Japanese hang on to the idea of eating whales as it reminds them of the hard times they went through after the War. Traditions are by their nature somewhat emotionally driven, rather than logical. Many past times and events are carried out in the name of tradition when they have been superseded by superior technology or knowledge. Certain cultures would argue that genital mutilation is traditional amongst them, but that doesn’t make it morally right when you consider the pain and suffering the individuals endure. We often hang on to traditions because they remind us the good old days and how things used to be, or perhaps because “it’s always been done that way”. These are emotional rather than logical arguments a lot of the time. Having a long cultural tradition of doing something does not justify its continuation. Using the traditional argument is an emotional tactic similar to what you accuse Senator Campbell of employing.
You wrote that “Norway resumed commercial whaling in defiance of the IWC”, and that the Norwegians maintain that the “harvest is based on scientific advice supported by the best available knowledge”. I wonder what makes their knowledge any more superior than the researchers who gather at the IWC scientific meetings each year? Would not these scientists also have an understanding of population dynamics and numbers?
Pro-whaling supporters say that we can learn a lot of information by studying dead whales. With advances in technology, we can learn more from studying whales alive than dead, including gathering follow-up data on individuals, which of course lethal techniques do not allow. Faecal studies provide the study of diet; biopsies provide a range of information on sex, reproductive state, health, population dynamics; acoustics provide behavioural and population information; photographic research provides individual life history information, migratory patterns, age and health information; tagging provides information on environmental factors such as depth and sea temperature along with acoustics of the subject and surrounds; and so on. The Japanese proposal to kill humpback whales will negatively impact on humpback whale research in areas such as the South Pacific and Australia. Some of these projects have been going for decades. The Japanese have doubled their quota of minke whales to meet the requirements of their scientific research, but do you need to kill almost 1000 animals to satisfy these research needs (or some 8000 animals since the JARPA programme was established)? Combined, other nations have killed approximately 2,100 whales for scientific research since 1952. Perhaps a more likely explanation for the increase in numbers is to use ‘science’ to advance a political agenda, namely using ex-commercial whaling vessels and equipment to kill whales to sell commercially and thus create a financial incentive to kill more whales. This mis-use of science does little to instil confidence in science or policy in the general public.
I do not agree that as a consequence of the anti-whaling campaign we have come to “venerate cetaceans”. It is my opinion, and that of others, that the oceanarium industry of the 60’s and 70’s brought about the ‘touchy-feely’ association with cetaceans. The ability to capture, house and train Orcas turned the public’s perception around enormously, along with the scientific work that was also being produced at the time on dolphin cognition and large whale acoustics (such as humpback whale song). The concern about anti-whaling likely arose from media images and a heightened awareness of the cognitive abilities and social lives of this group of animals. When I was a child, people would carve their initials in stranded cetaceans and put cigarette butts down their blowholes. There has been a massive change in opinion from fearing whales when you are in a boat to making money out of them. To suggest that Greenpeace is responsible for our change of heart towards whales is unreasonable, and to be totally honest, in Australia it was Project Jonah who led the protests in 1977 to close the Cheynnes Beach whaling station, not Greenpeace.
This forum appears to be very much ‘anti-green’, and you have already expressed “It is already well-known I have little sympathy for Greenpeace”. In an effort to try and discredit this organization, I am concerned that you yourself are not presenting the truth at times.
Are you suggesting that because we apparently “venerate cetaceans” we are biased when national and international environmental policies for the conservation of the species are developed? There is no question that cetaceans receive more positive press than stick insects. Sadly, it is human nature that makes us favour certain Orders over others. However, to claim that we are so awe-struck by these ‘mystical beings’ that scientists and policy makers can’t make unbiased and sensible decisions is plain insulting, as well as very silly.
I do agree with your comments on the need to better regulate the dugong hunting in Australian waters. Along with hunting, the species faces entanglement, boat strikes, habitat destruction, diminishing food resources and pollution. However, this is another issue altogether, and perhaps one you can make a positive contribution towards in your forum separately.
You say you support the right of indigenous communities and the Japanese and Norwegians to kill marine mammals as long as it is sustainable. Estimates of cetacean populations in the Antarctic and elsewhere vary widely, depending on who is doing the research, the techniques involved, the season and year surveys are conducted in, changes in possible ‘site fidelity’, the validity of old data such as whaling records, and the influence of factors such as predator-prey relationships and environmental dynamics. There are estimates from 1989 of 760, 000 minkes in the Antarctic (not considering stock/genetic identity), although the IWC no longer considers this number to be valid. In reality the figure could be as low as 300,000 (not considering stock/genetic identity). The numbers of minkes killed has increased for both the Japanese scientific kill and the Norwegian commercial hunt. Should commercial whaling resume by Japan and other countries, it is sensible to believe that the numbers will be significantly higher. Is it realistic to assume that the whale populations will remain at current levels (whatever they may be), and not be negatively impacted upon by other events such as global warming? The polar regions are particularly susceptible to climate change, and changes in sea surface temperature, sea ice coverage and ocean circulation are almost certain to change phytoplankton communities and all that depend on them.
The ability to honestly report numbers and species that are being killed is something that many are rightly sceptical about. We now know that the Soviets were conducting illegal whaling in a number of areas (most notably the Antarctic), after the protection of highly endangered species such as right and blue whales. Japanese researchers have also reported that sperm whale catches were under-reported in Japanese land-based whaling operations. The knowledge of the illegal Soviet catches makes it easier to understand why populations of humpbacks in the Fiji/Tonga breeding assemblages are not showing the same rates of recovery as the East and West Australia humpbacks. These populations are the ones the Japanese intend to start taking for their research under JARPA II. The taking of protected species such as humpback, fin and sei (the North Pacific JARPN II lethal research programme) whales, which are also highly migratory, demonstrates that this one nation has very little ‘respect’ for the conservation concerns and transient fauna of other nations.
Cetaceans, and in particular the large species such as the baleen whales, do not reproduce annually. They have low recruitment rates and take many years to reach sexual maturity. There is no way of telling the sex of a whale when you are standing behind the harpoon, and therefore you may be biasing the population by taking out mostly mature males or even pregnant females. One argument that is often used is that we eat (for example) cows. Cows are regular reproducers, and cows can be counted and adequately managed when they are in a paddock, even the size of one in the Top End. There is so much debate about population estimates of cetaceans that I am surprised you have not mentioned how hard it is to get accurate figures of whale stocks, be they in the Antarctic or North Atlantic. Cetaceans by their very nature are very hard to study as they spend so much time out of sight and inhabiting areas that are expensive and often difficult to survey properly. Migratory species like fin whales, although being the second largest animal on Earth, are largely unknown as a species. No one knows where the southern stocks of this endangered species winters and breeds, let alone what their numbers are. Counting the animals at sea is extremely difficult. Killing animals that we know very little about in order to gain further knowledge is irresponsible when there are non-lethal techniques available.
Of course whaling is not the only threat that whales now face. A female humpback whale will reproduce every 2-3 years. But her calf has a high risk of mortality in its first year due to a variety of factors such as predation, entanglement (maybe in Queensland shark nets), illness, its mother being compromised and so on. We know that low frequency sonar such as is used in naval exercises can cause mortality, that there is an increase in the numbers of cetaceans struck by ships (the northern right whale is highly endangered due to vessel strikes), that some 300,000 cetaceans die from entanglement in man-made fishing devices annually, and that scores are killed in pollution-triggered die-offs. That information is out there, and the numbers are often under reported. It is not a simple exercise of saying that whaling will have no impact on cetacean numbers when there are so many other factors at play as well.
You have argued that the Norwegians have a “reasoned and scientific approach” that we could “learn from”. One of their main arguments for hunting marine mammals is that they believe they are in direct competition for food resources. As far as I am aware, there is no reliable scientific evidence to support this. The dynamics of ecosystems and predator-prey relationships cannot be answered by simply taking out a single species of predator, such as minke or sei whales. Industrialised fishing is responsible for changes in composition and abundance of fish stocks. The commercial push for the resumption of commercial whaling is no different to fisheries, and fisheries statistics shows that many populations are already beyond their sustainable levels. In light of your “sympathetic” view on whaling, I see your support of Norway’s “reasoned and scientific approach” far from impartial.
Personally, my aversion to whaling is not “cultural”. It is based on the fact that there is no scientific, social or historical evidence to show me it is sustainable, in addition to it being inhumane, and unnecessary. I think you are underestimating the Australian public and most cetacean researchers, and putting your own opinions in a forum that you maintain is to be balanced, but is highly biased and also poorly researched and understood.
Libby Eyre
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
an excellent, well written letter, thanks Libby. and thanks to Jennifer for publishing it. I do share the same concerns that were expressed by Libby: “In an effort to try and discredit this organization (greenpeace), I am concerned that you yourself are not presenting the truth at times” and “putting your own opinions in a forum that you maintain is to be balanced, but is highly biased”
if Japan really is whaling purely for stomach content research purposes, as claimed, they could easily avoid all of this nasty controversy by examining the stomach contents and then returning the dead whale to the sea. Would save the high costs of running the expensive factory refrigeration ship. If Japan really is whaling for research purposes, it would wait for the results of its JARPA I programme to be completely digested (!) and reviewed (incomplete). If Japan’s concern is genuinely the preservation of cetaceans and it believes that killing whales to examine their stomach contents will ensure the ongoing viability of the species, then why isn’t it also whaling the rarest whale species and the less palatable species?
a lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on
All fair points Libby, the whales may be the losers in the battle against Greenpeace.
I think that Libby’s letter is great and is a very welcome contribution of civilised impassioned and carefully thought argument to this discussion.
I’d like to point out though, that Libby’s use of the word “discredit” in the context of Greenpeace can itself be taken as PR spin. It might imply that an effort is being made by Jennifer, or others, including myself, to deliberately smear Greenpeace for activities or acts that they did not do.
This, of course, should never be done. I expect on Libby’s part, this inference is unintended because she is assuming that Greenpeace do no harm. I disagree.
Thus the issue on the table is Greenpeace’s accountability for harms they cause, not whether they are being discredited.
We are trying to hold Greenpeace accountable for damaging consequences of actions that they do in fact carry out, not figments of the imagination. The fact that they do some good things, or do not intend to harms, or do not themselves perceive that they are doing harm is irrelevant. The fact that they might get away with possibly illegal acts or sabotage and thereby encourage others to do more so-called “direct actions” – that is punishment outside the law that do futher harm, only adds to my disquiet. This possiblity is being vividly contested in the Frech legal system already.
The whole point of any criticism of Greenpeace is known or well established activities of that organisation that have clearly discernible consequences whose downsides are morally unacceptable.
I personally make no apologies for holding Greenpeace accountable for such activities. I put their deliberate and self-acknowledged sabotage and opposition to improved food technology for developing countries as clearly being in that category. Their reactions to such circumstances lead to a solid case for them to be held fully accountable. They also unintentionally harm prospects for better environmental management.
That they are not aware of the harm they are causing is not an ethical issue, but the fact that they don’t correct their stance, modify their policies and acknowledge or apologise for the clearcut the downside to their actions is a source of deep concern. They appear impervious to rational debate and just continue to rely on spin.
Unfortunately, it seems they will only be held accountable when they are made to realise that they are losing donation income because the public now understand more fully the consequence of their harmful activities. It is for that unfortunate reason that strong efforts to make them accountable are necessary, and absolutely these do not constitute an attempt to “discredit”. The circumstances are of Greenpeace own making.
And here we have it again – we can go over the Greenpeace business over and over or have a discussion on whale sustainability.
So … mmm .. let’s see – let’s get back to Greenpeace. Not the cetaceans. Let’s spend all the time on the demonstrators but not the issue.
And interestingly – I wonder if we’d even be talking about whales this summer if it weren’t for Greenpeace. Or slumbering on in ignorance? Reason – we’re given the press we deserve.
Phil, There has been a fair bit of discussion about whale numbers at previous threads on this issue. These discussions and previous posts give the impression that current whaling efforts are not significantly impacting on current population dynamics/numbers. Libby suggests we really don’t know how many whales there are, you keep suggesting whaling is impacting on population numbers but your not sure how many there are. On this whaling issue you seem to be almost taking the position you argue so strongly against when it comes to global warming – that we can’t know, that it is all too complex.
I don’t buy this argument.
You still don’t seem to get it do you Phil? You think the victim is Greenpeace, when the victims I am concerned about are poor, insecure, often starving and sick people in the developing world – eg the farmer who I have met who courageously farms on crutches (with a helpful wife). You should well know about them from all your studies of climate and the effect of unpredictable rains on crop yields.
Why can’t you bring yourself to take these rural poor seriously? Rather uncomfortable with that area eh?
And of course whales are important. But do they justify all the actions used against Japanese ships. ? Maybe yes, maybe no. I’m happy for that discussion to go on too. I have no intention whatsoever of derailling it, but every time Greenpeace expose themselves by staged publicity stunts, I’ll try and make them accountable for the consequences of their other misguided actions.
Detribe – this is about whales here not activities with GM or nuclear. Open another thread. Nice try at diversion.
And tell us how GM will help the third world in that thread.
Back to whaling we have a total failure here of the world system to deal with the whaling issue against dare I say the vast majority of international sentiment – what would you do – write someone a strong letter? Protest outside parliament house? Go on a hunger strike.
Jen – your position is illogical – Libby attests that we don’t know numbers well enough. Given we have gotten close to extinction historically and many species are still poor in numbers – simply ripping in doesn’t seem like a smart idea if the population dynamics is problematic.
The whaling issue only affects a very few who wish to eat whales, not the entire cast of humanity as with climate. If whaling was stopped tomorrow – would anyone die – would the world stock market spasm – would future generations be imperilled – nope – a few Japanese would tuck into a Wagu instead. We do have very good data with the climate issue and only one dominant hypothesis – all this muddied by a vast amount of contrarian fog and b/s.
“Killing animals that we know very little about in order to gain further knowledge is irresponsible when there are non-lethal techniques available.”
“It is not a simple exercise of saying that whaling will have no impact on cetacean numbers when there are so many other factors at play as well. ”
Let’s harvest half the hairy nose wombats in Queensland to make sure they’re healthy and see what they’re eating. Do’em good !
Greenpeace have pulled the pin on Antactica; too risky say some
Japan welcomes Greenpeace departure
Japan’s Fisheries Agency has welcomed Greenpeace’s decision to stop obstructing its whale hunt in the Southern Ocean.
The green group’s departure follows a month of anti-whaling protests and clashes with a Japanese whaling fleet.
With dwindling food and fuel supplies, Greenpeace ships Arctic Sunrise and Esperanza are heading for Cape Town.
Japanese Fisheries Agency spokesman Hideki Moronuki is pleased the whaling mission will no longer be obstructed.
“Although Greenpeace say that they’re activities are peaceful, their activities are really dangerous and illegal,” he said.
Greenpeace expedition leader Shane Rattenbury has defended the risks taken by activists during the protests.
“We feel it’s been a justifiable risk,” he said. “Somebody had to come down here and do something – politics and diplomacy have failed.”
Japan says it is too early to tell what effect Greenpeace has had on its research mission.
Phil,
What I was trying to say is that there is information on numbers of whales – you seem to deny this. I have put some effort previously into understanding numbers of minkie whales in Norweigan waters. Here it has been demonstrated that whalers can kill within a quota and numbers within the minke whale population continue to increase.
If there was no whaling off Norway, we probably wouldn’t have such a good idea of whale numbers.
Its a bit like with kangaroos. If there was no roo meat trade there would be no annual census.
And shooting roos has less impact on population numbers than the weather.
What really does impact on minke whale numbers? If we focus only on whaling and global warming – well we could miss an important variable.
PS Let us consider the situation off Norway? I have previously suggested it could be a good model for dugong harvesting. Libby might have a comment?
Libby said, “some 300,000 cetaceans die from entanglement in man-made fishing devices annually” but this is highly misleading. Almost all are dolphins, not whales, the subject of this discussion. And many of those could be classified as “sports injuries”, an entirely foreseeable consequence of surfing bow waves and following fishing boats for a free feed of by-catch.
And it is all very well to discuss the breeding cycle and infant mortality of humpbacks (of which only 50 will be taken next year) but Libby has made a serious misrepresentation by omission for failing to discuss the breeding cycle and mortality rates of the Minke Whales that are the overwhelming subject of current whaling activity.
Can she provide this information to determine its relevance to cattle or any other form of herd dynamics?
And as I pointed out to Libby in an earlier exchange of emails, faecal studies are somewhat problematic in the southern ocean. They sink quickly, and would require some very determined and continuous whale molestation in the rubber duckie to ensure that the stool, when it actually appeared without warning, was traced to the right whale (sic). Last I heard they do not broadcast it for wider perusal like a Hippo does with his tail. And it is the reconciling of dietary data with information derived from biopsy etc that gives the clearest picture of the condition of the animal and the herd.
Yes, there are a host of non-lethal means of data collection but the primary requirement of data is relevance. And it is the relevance of full autopsy data that underlines its value as a statistical sample. The alternative, some sort of cetacean colostomy bag, would founder on grounds of cost and practicality.
As for the claimed low instant kill rate of the Japanese, one would be bound to conclude that the presence of a bunch of turkeys in inflatable boats, and the compounded duty of care they seek to impose on the harpooner by their presence in the firing line, may play a very big part in that statistic. And it is my recollection that spokesmen from the Sea Shepherd have justified this additional, and entirely unnecessary suffering, on the basis that the resulting delay will extend the life of the next targeted whale. And I bet they even feel warm inside.
Phil, Hairy Nosed Wombats are territorial and their stools do not dissolve and sink 6 km to the ocean floor. Their stools retain their density and composition and can be easily traced to the source animal. That animal can be tagged and biopsied easily. So 9 for red herring (as usual) but 1 for content.
The information on whale numbers is not precise, and the Norwegians have been criticised for their science.What impacts on minkes depends on which minkes and where. Remember, there are different types of minkes and genetically discreet populations.Some Norwegians will say that the minkes eat the fish, but if people have overfished (and this is what fisheries says, not just NGOs), then obviously overfishing is going to effect minke numbers if they are fish eating minkes. Sustainability is but one issue I raised.
Hi Libby,
Thanks for the comment. But hey, very little is ‘precise’. Can we get a link or reference explaining your comment that ‘the Norwegians have been criticised for their science’? How and by whom and for what?
I am interested in understanding how the Norweigians undertake their surveys and the pros and cons of their method.
I have not read about them justify whaling on the basis that whales eat fish … but others certainly have.
Hi Jennifer,
I am hoping that a certain researcher with experience in the North Atlantic gets in contact with you re the Norwegian aspect. Forgive me if he doesn’t, but he is aware of the debate here.
So has politics and diplomacy failed this issue?
And on what basis what you trust the Japanese data – the same as with cigarette companies? I’m not saying that they are the same – just how do we get around the rampant vested interest in a product that ends up as a delicacy for sale. Assure me !
After I started taking a close interest in Great Barrier Reef issues some years ago, I was most let down by QDNR and CSIRO and their approach to data collection and access to the same.
Since then I’ve always been less interested in who collected the data, and more interested in how the data was collected, what the data looks like, and what it says.
Re Ian’s comments,
In South Korean waters, the number of J-stock minke entanglements can be as high as >100/annum.For obvious reasons, many entanglements are under-reported. The comment about’sports injuries’ is confusing, as I am not too sure how many boats creating a bow wave would be going over nets thus causing bow riding dolphins to get entangled. Set nets and ghost nets (amongst others)result in many large and small cetaceans around the world being entangled. These are reported to the IWC, so there are figures for them.
Which stock are the 50 humpbacks coming from Ian? As far as the Japanese have indicated, they are coming from the western South Pacific. This includes the Tonga/Fiji stock, which is genetically distinct from the ones we see along the east coast of Australia. This stock numbers some 700 animals, due to previous commercial whaling. In Tonga, they are now very reliant on this stock for tourism. Behind a harpoon, you can not tell which stock a whale is from.
Faecal samples have been collected and studied from blue whales, and in the Antartic where the animals are gorging themselves, they are defecating all the time.You can trace the sample to the individual and get photo Id shots for size and resight data. “Molesting” whales in rubber duckies when you are trying to study them is kind of counter-productive don’t you think?
Minke whales reproduce every 2 years. They too would be subject to predation, disease, etc as natural mortality. In a paddock, cows are treated for parasites, illness, and kept in good health.
Groups of whales are not referrred to as “herds”, but pods or schools. After killing thousands of whales first with commercial whaling and now with scientific whaling, how much more would you like to find out about dead whales which can you can’t get individual follow-up data on?
And so Jen – how would access to the Japanese data help us with population dynamics ?
Phil,
Your misreading of evidence is rather surprising- how do you presume to infer my motivations for making a post, and why are you so intent on assuming the opposite to what I have clearly stated in my post, namely I am quite content to let the discussion of whales continue? I repeat – your presumption about my intentions is wrong; please correct it, if only in your own mind.
PS Phil, Libby bought up Greenpeace, not detribe
As I said about 10,000 words ago, if you want the Japs to stop whaling you will have to earn their trust and respect and then give them something, a win-win.
I dont think Greenpeace have succeeded with the Japs at all, not even a little bit, in fact they upped the ante so therefore I wonder at their real motives.
Certainly the Greenpeace pull back was tactical; they dont want to go over the top and be too radical. It might damage their “peace” emblem.
Looking back at Vietnam and the Weathermen, they were originally a student union that responded to the escalating situation and became radicalised and violent to achieve their aims. They ended up dead, or in jail, or settling down but the end result was the US did pull out of Vietnam and the US did become a less violent more comprehensive society.
So what have Greenpeace achieved? After retreating home, SFA I reckon.
Phil,
The Japanese claim they are undertaking research. The Japanese do not claim to have a system in place for sustainable harvest. And you have said you wouldn’t trust their data.
I would prefer an example where the whalers are clearly claiming they have a system in place for sustainable harvest for food – the Norwegians claim they do.
I have previously indicatd that I accept the Norwegians arguement and that here might be a good model here for the Japanese and indigenous Australians.
Libby has argued that the Norwegians do not have good data and infered their appraoch is not scientific. I would like more information to understand how and why.
What do you know about ‘Norwegian populations’ of whales and would you trust data from Norway?
Detribe – I hear you and withdraw the assertion then.
Rog – what Greenpeace have achieved is perhaps many Aussie discussing the right and wrongs of whaling.
Did Greenpeace do much to thwart the Japanese – probably not – they bounced off and got wet !! The Japanese can ignore Greenpeace every year – they’ll probably have an escort next year; the answer is in the world court of opinion and consumer action.
Perhaps the next move for Greenpeace will be to be arrested and imprisoned by the Japanese as prisoners of conscience.
I don’t think in general that the Japanese have our respect – we’re a quarry, farm and sometimes holiday destination. (Any Japanese bloggers out there?.
The Norwegians are at least, as you have informed us, in a position where they have clearly acknowledged, without subterfuge, that intend to be eating the stuff. (couldn’t they just settle for sardines 🙂 ?)
Anway I await some more advice on the situation.
What I actually said about the Japanese data – was a question. Assure me about the quality, utility, scope and intentions of their data.
Um, I brought up lots of things, not just Greenpeace!
I dont think so Phil, preaching to the converted, not a big news item at all, not even discussed much in the blog zone.
Look at current issues; Iran and nukes, AWB and Iraq bribes, Latham, Cricket, more Latham, big freeze up north, Tennis, Osamas alive!, even more Latham…..even PETA cops a bit with its cheky peek-a-boo ads
…..where’s Greenpeace?
Sorry Libby, it seems Greenpeace has become synoymous with whales.
rog, the greenpeas pullback was not stratigic at all. they were simply out of fuel to stay on station. to have stayed longer would have let them adrift on the high seas. you know if they could have stayed longer and continued their harassment of the japenese they certainly would have.
Wow – I agree with Rog on something – I’m gonna go ring my Mum – BRB !
I’m not sure it’s valid to compare the japanese whaling to that of norway. While Im not defending their activities, Norway do seem to have a better track record of whaling sustainably (restraining themselves when they feel whale numbers are declining), higher rates of direct kills, having a more valid claim to whaling being part of their culture and whaling ‘in their own backyard’ (whereas I think the Japanese depleted whale populations in their waters, hence they violate protected waters down under). As Phil said, the Norwegians at least openly whale for food. Giving them further credibility on that count, the norwegians OBJECT to the IWC moratorium and are relatively open about their activities, as I understand it. Japan however, does not object to the IWC, instead it claims to whale for scientific purposes to assess population numbers (against scientific evidence that this is necessary), it hasn’t shown restraint (taking heavily and opposing every(most?) proposal to protect cetaceans), has a dodgier record of killing whales directly (relies more heavily on secondary methods) and it targets vulnerable populations in protected waters. It also sends out mixed signals about whether it’s actually currently whaling for research purposes or food (clearly the latter given that it retains the carcass and it’s promoting whale meat to encourage its take up in Japan – apparently supported by industry and by nationalistic Japanese pollies who want to market an image of unique Japanese culture being defended against international pressures).
The issue is not one of comparing whaling by the Japanese and Norway. I have repeatedly stated that Norway claims to be sustainably harvesting whales and to the extent that I have researched the issue there claim appears to hold up. I have repeatedly been told, however, that the sustainable harvest of whales is neither possible nor desirable nor ethical.
I’ve seen that you’ve been repeatedly told that Japan’s conduct is not consistent with a sustainable appraoch to whaling, and that people generally don’t have a proven track record of whaling sustainably (hence the doubt whether we’re capable of whaling sustainably, regardless of whether or not it’s actually possible).
are you of the opinion that Japan’s approach to whaling effort is sustainable?
Libby Eyre’s views are dismissed. Just on gut feeling mind you, not rational analysis, like Ender and Philly Phil.
Maybe so Les, but they did say they were reappraising the situation after the “ramming” and the subsequent “dunking” may have impelled them to revise the risk and their management of that risk.
It seems a bit weak that they ran out of food and fuel, did they only ever plan on going down for 4 weeks? – cant they make provision, the season still has 2 months to go. After all its only a matter of more beans and bunker fuel and they do say they have a ship load of cash in the kitty.
They could have restocked and gone back down to it.
It might sound a bit tough and heartlesss but when it is all said and done – they just did not stay the course.
rog unlike the Japanese Institute for Commercial Research, the protesters did not refuel, against regulations, within a protected area! they said it 10 days each way then to restock = too expensive in terms of time and money when you can’t sell whale meat to fund your expedition
“Philly Phil” – could be “Phillet of Phil”?
Or “Frilly Philly” or “Fine Filly” or Phrilvorous Phil” .. .. hmmm
Anyway I’m really glad Libby and Thinksy have turned up. Was getting Done like a dinner. Good to see they have comprehensively and Phillophically won the debate. My “ecology” pin-ups. Sigh ….
don’t even consider retiring Phil! I did wonder how Jennifer could accuse me of attacking people after having allowed you to be the long-running brunt of personal attacks from all sides (altho you do launch enough personal attacks and parries of your own to resemble a Don quixote with 36 arms)
They started it. And they have failed to consider that I am right and they are wrong.
I am surprised that you put financial considerations ahead of the cause Think, particularly when Greenpeace Aust maintains a healthy cash surplus of +$6M.
I think one of the problems with ocean fishing and whaling share that makes them both perhaps impossible to be sustainable is that they use suer efficient modern technology (big ships, radar, weapons) makes it too efficient and powerful, and difficult to effectively police. Makes nonsense of caparing them with traditional hunting too. Sustainable fishing is part of the issue.
Hi David (detribe)
Don’t you think the Norweigan whalers respect their quota?
Despite Phil claiming he has won the debate, it seems there has been no evidence provided here against the Norweigan claim that their harvest is sustainable and that minke whale numbers are increasing.
PS I suspect a blog like mine run by a Norweigian would have a majority of comment that kangaroo numbers are on the decline and that the harvest is not sustainable – in fact the quota is not filled.
Hi Jennifer
May I hijack this whale debate for a moment. Since most of your commentators use the www as their source of great wisdom on most subjects I have done some homework too. But I also work with a number of threads in retirement.
No one is looking at the cultural differences that underline this dispute in our southern oceans. For example in looking recently at dozens of photos of meals on Japanese tables I could say they mostly eat tiny fish with great delicacy. I can also say they are highly creative when it comes to developing an industry around new art forms. In between blogs I also resell lots of odd post ww2 Japanese kitsch and because the Japanese people I meet are so polite compared to other folk around here. I make it my business to understand something about them.
Island and costal folk are adventurous with respect to the sea. We have a strong Celtic heritage in Australia so it should not seem so extraordinary that some one will hop out in a dinghy in defence of our wonderful creatures from the deep waters around us. The barbarous hunt for whale oil was over decades ago. Who dares spoil them now under our noses? Only those, whose culture has both feet in the past. I n Australia we benefit from over a hundred years of new technology. Our own whaling was a hang over from hard times.
When do traditional practices decline in the face of science? A former scientist turned teacher with roots in native America agreed with me today its more about teaching our young how to uphold the practice spatial awareness than waiting for the science to uphold our own perceptions of everything going on in our environment.
Let’s switch to Greenpeace at this point, I meet their supporters out and about. Behind the scene I watch the tactics of the activist too. Who becomes an activist is as critical to this discussion as who is behind them. From my own observation neither groups are fools and for those who make the transition the choice is easy. It’s only about making public statements and not about sabotage. But publicity stunts get in the way of higher standards including morality on occasions. But that is the case with all progress and development.
To wind up; we can learn something about modern Japan Man through his post Barbie doll culture.
Just look at those eyes!
rog I was talking about Sea Shepherd, not GP.
GBP100,000 has just been spent trying to rescue a whale that got lost in the Thames, but it died during its rescue attempt. What a topsy turvy world. Sea Shepherd could have made good use of those funds.
Phil, the fact that I may take a day off for matters real and rustic does not allow you to claim any sort of victory. In the words of the old Surry Hills prostitutes, you appear to have got off at Redfern rather than gone all the way to Central.
For example, Libby said, “Behind a harpoon, you can not tell which stock a whale is from”. No Libby, but the captain of the ship is generally expected to know whether he is in the approximate longitudes of Tonga/Fiji or those of Western Australia or South Africa and the harpooner will take his advice accordingly. Just one small gap in the rhetoric but an awful lot of nautical miles between the reality.
My point about dolphins and bow surfing was in relation to propeller strikes etc not net entanglement. Remember, you originally mentioned both net and propeller mortality.
If minke have a two year breeding cycle and only a 33% infant survival rate then 760,000 minkes with 380,000 females with an assumed 2/3rds of them (255,000) of breeding age producing 127,000 calves each year of which 1/3rd or 42,500 survive to adolescence each year.
This is a long way from the 900 odd taken each year. And it leaves ample numbers for maintaining sub-populations etc.
The only information we now need is the life expectancy, or range of life expectancies, of adult minkes. And we can put the question of succession to bed fairly easily.
And as for sustainable harvesting levels, this would require tagging of adolescents while their age can still be estimated from their size as well as sex and year of birth codes (colour) so that harvesting can ensure they take past breeding females and surplus younger males. They do the same electronic tagging to livestock all over Australia for just a few bucks.
And I choose to use the term “herd” of whales because they have intellects similar to cattle and their groups comprise of bulls, cows and calves. And whales, with wise counsel and a freedom from ecoreligious baggage, could be farmed sustainably in an expanded herd that ensures their survivability is never in question. Just like cattle.
Jeez I hate it when he does those bank-o-the-envelope jobs. Alright we’re just gonna haft do-ya then if you’re not gonna quit. Where’s Sea Shepherd’s after hours number.
Ian,
We do not know exactly what the movements of the, say, Tonga/Fiji whales are when they are on their feeding grounds. We have a rough idea, however they follow the food, and as neither the krill or the whales have enough of your “intellect” to use their little GPS’s, there is the possibility that they go into other stock’s designated areas. As I originally wrote, the Japanese have indicated that they will hunt humpbacks from this stock, and their scientists are well aware, as are their captains, of the feeding ground/breeding ground correlations. However, I am sure that the Tongans now have enough Japenese-funded infrastructure to not worry about a failing tourism industry based on low whale numbers.
The northern right whale is seriously threatened with extinction due to low recruitment rates and ship strikes. It is common knowledge that super tankers and other container vessels can pull in to port with a dead baleen whale draped over the bow bulb and no prior knowledge of having struck a whale at sea. Ship strikes are a very real cause of cetacean mortality, and again, for obvious reasons, are under reported.
Are there 760,000 minkes? Do cetaceans have the same “intellect” as cattle? I gather you are referring to mysticetes here and not odontocetes. Last I ‘herd’, whales are not cows, but yet you continue to refer to them in bovine terms, including your comments on colour coding and tagging, and your belief we can simply manage them like cattle in a paddock.
You obviously have a lot of knowledge about cetaceans Ian, and a lot of common sense when it comes to their management.
A follow up google search on minkes highlights the importance of not leaving it up to the counter arguers to supply the relevant information, especially when they start tossing in the odd Latin classification to impress the punters.
There appears to be two estimates of onset of breeding, but they are not necessarily contradictory. Some put age of puberty at two years while others refer to age of sexual maturity as 6 to 8 years. But most seem to agree that the lifespan of minkes is about 50 years.
one site, http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jaap/minke.htm suggests that pregnancy rates for mature females range from 0.78 to 0.96 but advises caution on the upper figure. They claim sexual maturity at 6 to 8 years and also point out that a single calf is the norm but twins and triplets have also been observed. A very important indicator of the potential of the species for sustainable farming. It also suggests that, as for most mammals, adolescents leave when the next young is born and, depending on dietary abundance, this can be from 1 to 2 years.
This has interesting implications for the admittedly “back of the envelope” analysis in the above post.
The reported 760,000 animals, with 380,000 females of which 7/50ths are not sexually mature, leaves 326,000 mature females. And in the absence of data on the numbers of post menopausal females (the ones headbutting supertankers perhaps) we can safely assume this to be roughly in proportion to the pre-mature population. This would leave 36/50ths (72%) or 274,000 breeding females.
But the reported pregnancy rate is 78% (presumably of mature females) and this would give a figure of 254,000 breeding females. So at an average 18 month cycle we should see an annual birth rate of 169,000 calves.
So even if we accept Libby’s claimed survival rate of only 1 in 3 reaching sexual maturity, we are left with 56,450 surviving young each year, or 28,200 females.
The annual mortality rate (the term “natural causes” is a bit ambiguous in this context) for a population of average lifespan of 50 years is about 2% of the mature age population (326,000 x 2) or 13,000 each year. This would leave total mortality at 13,000 aged whales and 113,000 young, mostly pre-adolescents taken by sharks an Killer Whales.
But the key number is the 28,200 females surviving to breeding age minus the 6,500 (13,000/2) females that would pass out of breeding age each year. This would amount to a net 21,700 additional breeders each year.
This would indicate an increase of 43,400 mature animals of both sexes each year for an annual population growth of 5.7%.
So the 900 animals taken by the Japanese represents only 2% of the probable rate of population INCREASE. And this, provided it is spread across the entire population, does not constitute the numbers involved in an unsustainable operation.
Furthermore, the sustainable management of this herd could include a substantial increase in harvesting levels by measures that could;
1 improve the survival of adolescents,
2 target surplus males,
3 target post breeding females,
4 lift the pregnancy rate of mature females, and
5 increase the frequency of pregnancy.
All of which are the fundamentals of animal husbandry which have been grasped at various levels of skill and understanding by even the most illiterate peasent farmers for at least 5 millenia. I wonder when the green movement and “Gucci Government” will manage to grasp the same.
Libby, It may well be, “common knowledge that super tankers and other container vessels can pull in to port with a dead baleen whale draped over the bow bulb and no prior knowledge of having struck a whale at sea”, but I have never heard of it.
If you would like, we could go through a detailed analysis of the number of supertankers in the world, their average sea km per annum, and their cross section of influence and compare this with the number of whales, the area over which they are spread, the depth of ocean they occupy etc, and come up with a realistic probability of a supertanker intersecting with one of those whales in any given year. We could then take a guess as to the proportion of those contacts that were serendipidous enough to drape the animal either side of the bow bulb and remain there despite various course changes that would alter the flow pattern and dislodge the aforesaid (sea)road kill.
But poor Phil’s eyes would glaze over and he may, as it were, lose his sense of porpoise(sic).
Suffice to say that the only common aspect of your statement would appear to relate to the claim of common knowledge of the event rather than the actual frequency of the event.
What we do know is that cetacean brains have very highly developed audio faculties and we can assume that a significant proportion of their large brains are devoted to the processing of a host of complex sounds from all directions, frequency ranges and distances. And in this sort of context it must be said that the sound of a very big marine engine would present a very clear and predictable signal for these brains to process and determine direction etc.
And it would seem most likely that such “sentient beings”, as you claim whales to be, would only have difficulty in identifying a threat from bow strike if there are a number of similar sounds in close proximity to overwhelm their processing ability. This would be the case in certain narrow, busy straits, sealanes and the approaches to ports.
And to this sceptical mind, there would seem a high risk that these much more visible events have been used as a basis for extrapolation to the wider oceans, with the standard justification of “underreporting”.
It would also be the case that, as with humans, the animals most likely to be hit by a ship would be those of advanced age who are less alert and slower to respond. And it is worth reflecting that they are likely to become lunch for predators shortly and a bump on the noggin may have minimal consequence to that fate. So with Minkes, some 13,000 could take a hit each year with minimal impact on the food chain.
Basically, under a continuation of the existing trends, it will be the Japanese, with their substantially diminished birth rate, that will face extinction long before the Minkes do.
Without prejudice;
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SC57docs/SC-57-BC1.pdf
“…Ship strikes with both Bryde’s and sei whales are considered uncommon. The NOAA database contains only three cases for each of these species world-wide (Jensen and Silber, 2004). Perhaps part of the explanation is that these species are among the fastest moving baleen whales (Slijper, 1979). Their smaller size, compared to other more frequently affected species, such as fin and right whales, also reduces the probability to be struck.
Vessel speed seem the most relevant factor driving ship strikes: 90% of cases in which the speed was known, vessels moved at 10kn or higher, with the highest rate of incidence between 13 and 18kn (Jensen and Silber, 2004). The cruise speed of the P&O Nedlloyd Pantanal is even higher.
A large proportion of ship strike records in the NOAA database are from carcasses of beached animals, which show signals of cuts by propellers, as well as fractures of skull and ribs (Jensen and Silber, 2004). According to Laist et al. (2001), 58 of 407 beached whales (14%) recorded in the USA East coast between 1975 and 1996 could have been caused by ship strikes. Hence, the careful analysis of whale carcasses could provide the main evidence to estimate strike frequencies and the species involved. It would be desirable that environmental authorities in Southeast Pacific and West African nations, as well as in other developing countries, issue regulations to deal with beached whales and to systematically conduct necropsies in order to determine mortality rates from shipping….”
OK we surrender – so it’s going to be Ian and Rog’s Gourmet Meats.
Our vision statement “Bringing species that were close to extinction to your table with distinction”
“All our selection are organic (except for any inevitable food chain amplification of heavy metals and PCBs).”
“If it’s rare and endangered, or cute, or just recovering we’ll bag it for you.”
“Charismatic mega-fauna is our speciality, but we will fillet Anticinus on request”
“And we don’t use nice clean namby pamby methods of dispatch – as our customers like the flavour of stress hormones and the smell of cordite lingering as marinade”
extract: Japan has acknowledged publicly that it uses overseas aid to secure support for its campaign to have the international ban on whaling lifted.
Mr Komatsu said: “Japan does not have military powers, unlike the US or Australia. You may dispatch your military power to East Timor.
“Japanese means are simply diplomatic communication and overseas development aid (ODAs). end extract
Mr Komatsu also called minke whales “co_c_kroaches of the oceans”. (2001)
Ian surely you’ll tow the Japn party line: Minke whales are co_c_kroaches not cows. Whatchya call a herd of co_c_kroaches? Mmmmmm co_c_kroach burgers, yum yum. Next japan will be invading australia for its many co_c_kies.
i couldn’t post the link above btw. it was bbc Wednesday, 18 July, 2001, 09:31 GMT 10:31 UK
Japan admits trading whale votes
(cockroaches)
Phil,
You are rebelling as a romantic against science and economics. Romantics identify with natural systems, scientists study them, some economists recognise the reality of human nature and work with, rather than against it.
Michael Archer and Bob Beale put the argument how and why eating wildlife can be about conservation – and how this approach can be potentially more effective than current paradigms. Archer is Dean of the science faculty at University of NSW and the book is called: Going Native – LIving in the Australian environment.
The same principles were applied to crocodile conservation in the Northern Territory by Grahame Webbe and numbers have increased from 5,000 to about 55,000 over 20 years. His principles are:
1. Public education;
2. A program to contain problem crocs including trying to keep crocs out of Darwin harbor;
3. Ensuring crocs had a commercial value – so landholders saw them as an economic asset rather than a pest.
The program has been successful in so much as numbers are high and about 20,000 eggs and 600 crocs are harvested from the wild each year under a permit system. Eggs sell for about $40 each while crocs sell for perhaps $500.
I’m all for natives going on our tables and being our pets, and reintroducing tassie devils into the mainland.
Do you guys really want to eat all this funny stuff or are you just arguing on principle?
I would thought Ian was steak (and a bloody big rare steak too hanging over the edge of the plate) and 3 veg man myself (and no funny wog veges either).
Rog – would obviously have a fine wine from up the road with din dins of greater culinary subtlety. But do you guys really want to eat bloody big NT lizards?
I can assure you that civilised people in Queensland wouldn’t eat this foreign rubbish – unless you’re one of those dubious types that hang around cafes down the Valley.
Phil,
As a progressive environmentalist who recognises there are limited resources while 6 million people wake each day wanting to be feed …
I often think about which food choices will minimise my ‘ecological footprint’.
So I would probably choose minke whale over grain-fed beef, if I had a choice at the supermarket.
I would definately choose GM soy over organic.
I don’t want to eat it, but I’d rather we farmed and ate natives than exotics. Better for the land and ecosystems, plus a long history of successful adaptation to climate variations (as “climate disruption ready” as you get). Also an opportunity to create niche export markets.
Going Native is an interesting read. As they argue, successfully domesticated species don’t go extinct (although old sub-species frequently do with industrial farming & monocropping of a few cultivars).
Jen – the rangelands are overstocked – we need to do our bit to munch through the problem.
Jen – Have you been hanging round Park Road or West End again?
Whale over beef !! IPA will not be pleased. Can hear the PM’s phone ringing already.
Phil,
Annerley is next to West End and I will be there next Monday night speaking to the Queensland Skeptics the details are:
The Redbrick Hotel, cnr Annerley & Stephens Rd
Annerley, Monday January 30 2006, 6pm dinner
7:30pm meeting, All welcome.
I will be speaking in Melbourne next Wednesday, details here
http://www.economic-justice.org/LF76.pdf .
Not sure what will be for dinner at the venues.
I’m sure that a venerable institution such as the Redbrick would not let me down.
Tell me Thinksy if you dont want to eat why should anyone else?
“Should I eat this, should I eat that, is is range fed, grain fed, how many carbon units has it emitted, sequested, will I emit same, should I weigh my poos, will I contribute to the next tsunami…..”
Dearie me…
A missing “it”
Phil, I am actually quite predisposed towards a good laksa, seafood of course or anything Thai or Vietnamese, especially with coconut milk. Was once chair of a group of cullinary wanderers called “The Restless Palates” who gave the roo meat industry a kick along with a public barbeque at a bayside park with Teriyaki Roo burgers.
I recommend Flying Fox in a classic French Burgundy sauce with sliced liver and bacon over a bed of baked potato, yams and pumpkin, as favoured by the up country Caldoche of New Caledonia.
And for the ultimate in sustainable agriculture for the wet subtropical hills, one cannot go past free range Padaemelon who’s ideal habitat is a mosaic of forested thickets with adjoining ribbons of pasture where they can graze in the gloaming, a vision of bucolic bliss before taking pride of place at a table set with wit, wisdom and well being.
Hi Rog,
Thanks for the posts re ship strikes.
There is other information on the web that I tried to post here, but was denied due to “questionable content”. And speaking of which…
Hi Ian,
With regards to a whale’s processing of complex sounds, we could discuss temporary threshold shifts, underwater sound propagation, cetacean (ie, dolphin, whale and porpoise) inner ear and brain morphology, and indeed whether I wrote that cetaceans are “sentient beings”, but I see little point.
Jeepers – no shortage of flash bastards and haute cuisine on the plantations in northern NSW then. Probably quaffing Rog’s Hunter wines not even good enough. Meanwhile, the troops are just slumming it here in the suburbs living our of Coles & Woolies. A kebab if you’re lucky. Even Jen is hanging around true grit suburbs like Annerley.
So you guys do want to eat everything then ? Cripes.
The alternative view for Byron – reopen the whaling station.
“Ian’s whaling tours”. Guaranteed harpoon access. Our grenades are bigger. All children get a little whale to shoot. We’ll photograph you with your catch. And this month we have special Greenpeace actors who will re-enact attempting to stop your action in Zodiacs. Boat biffing and close quarters adventure can be arranged but is P.O.A. Cheer with your friends as you sink the Zodiacs and dunk the greenies.
As one who can actually remember when “The Bay” had it’s bad karma, when just a few surfers could have The Pass all to themselves, and when the night life involved crab pots, the idea of recommencing whaling is a brilliant idea. It would get all the drop kicks, cool dudes and militant “21 month locals” out of town quicker than you can say “colonic irrigation”.
Now that, would be really good for the environment.
Libby – at this point we conclude we are dealing with silvertails, elitists and barbarians. You keep the excellent research – we will fight them everywhere – we will never surrender !!!
I would personally like to sit through a lecture on cetacean communication and see every slide you’ve got !!
Do the same principles apply to the Daintree?
Apart from the usual missionaries, mercenaries and misfits, the Daintree rainforest conceals political opinion almost as successfully as its rare and endemic fauna. Such is the social importance of Jennifer’s blog, that I can voice my philosophical opinions from the wilderness. And in any event, militant 21-month locals crave political relevance more than rainforest residency. They tend to congregate and throw their enthusiasms and meagre resources into anti-community activism, which manifests as environmental liability.
Yep – I’d see every slide Neil has as well.
Do you mean, Phil & Libby, that despite the compelling arguments embodied in the actual numbers, and in the absence of any more accurate data, you intend to ignore this information as politically inconvenient and seek comfort in less relevant detail and entrenched political positions?
Ian – not in your back of envelope at all.
Do you mean Ian, you are serious?
Ian perhaps you’re willing to present your back of the envelope calculations at the next IWC meeting. I’m sure the Japanese Institute of Commercial Research would be pleased to sponsor you as representative. I’m equally sure that the IWC would be pleased to accept your findings, particularly your concluding remarks which no doubt would go along the lines of “whales are cows and cows live in herds, not pods like peas, and cows grow on farms and we eat cows and I like milk and therefore Japan should kill as many whales, I mean cows (or did I mean peas?), as it damn well wants and NO-ONE DARE TELL ME ABOUT SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY DAMN YOU ALL”.
How unusual, Thinksy reverts to derision based on his own over simplifications, as if enlightenment came to him on the perfection of his sneer.
You were all invited to find fault in any of the numbers or any of the assumed birth, mortality, life cycle parameters but you have declined. And the most telling point is that, regardless of the actual population of Minkes at present, the underlying capacity of the species to expand its population remains. The current harvesting rate remains as a statistically irrelevant level.
This, once again, demonstrates the green movements extreme reluctance to consider questions of sustainability in full context. Libby would prefer to impress the punters with her grasp of irrelevant factoids on inner ear morphology while the key considerations of adolescent survival rates etc, are tossed in without context, and often for the wrong species.
Add to this a propensity to assume that elements of mortality are mutually exclusive and cumulative and thereby induce the gullible to believe that all boat strike and net casualties are critical to the survival of the species. Yet, the simple statistical reality is that a very large proportion of mortalities fall within the natural mortality rate of young and aged. They just got a bump on the head before the Orca’s took them, as they were going to anyway.
Once again Ian, you have shown your extreme ignorance and arrogance on this debate. No one has commented on your numbers because they simplistic and naive. There is no point on commenting on anything you write because it is either derogatory or full of your own self importance, and you are so fixed on your own petty opinion that you would have us all believe the world was flat. “Invited” or not, I think many have simply lost interest in you and your opinions, myself included.
Libby, Numbers can often be simple but they are rarely diminished by additional information. The ones posted above were the basic parameters of the minke whale population and anyone who seeks to discuss questions of sustainability without reference to the basic population dynamics is displaying a fundamental lack of respect for all who might read that discussion.
And I have gone back over my statements above and cannot identify derogatory statements. One or two borderline criticisms are general in nature with nothing directed specifically at you. But that’s OK, anger is a fairly standard frustration response exhibited when one is about to take their ball and go home.
But don’t be too discouraged, you have tought me how much people can immerse themselves in detail without comprehending the constantly moving picture.
Ian I prefer to follow the scientific findings of a group of hundreds of eminent whale biologists than your simplistic non-expert scribblings that start by assuming whale = cow.
Over.
I live in 60738 Las Vegas, Nevada. Have you been here before?
> This is telling David, and not about my views,
> but about your ability to interpret something
> and present it in such a way.
Your statement gave me the impression that your view is more similar Greenpeace’s position than of other scientists who I have seen criticising the minke whale research.
> Are you going to tell me that the scientific work
> of the Japanese is not politically-driven?
No, it’s certainly politically motivated – Japan has a policy on the sustainable use of marine resources, and without it the ICR would not exist.
This is a far cry from papers containing political opinion which happen to be written by cetacean scientists.
I would prefer it if scientists left the politics over to the politicians, and yes, that does go both ways.
> Are you going to tell me that every member
> of the SC thinks favourably of the Japanese
> research?
No, I didn’t suggest that. Seems I’m not the only one failing to express myself clearly, eh?
There are certainly SC members who think poorly of the ICR’s research. I think I’m more prepared to recognise that than people on the other side of the fence are with regards to the vice versa.
> One would imagine that the recent review will
> also have differing opinions from the SC committee,
> and as long as that is the case, then no, I dont
> feel “totally comfortable with it”.
Excellent!
I’m glad to read that Libby 🙂 (honestly, I am).
I’ll be careful to put that away in the back of my mind the next time you mention minke whale research with skepticism, and think to myself “but I also know that Libby recognises that other scientists disagree with her view, and probably decided not to mention it to get a rise out of me”.
> Be up front David and name the paper you
> are talking about. If not for my benefit
> then for the others here.
Which paper it was is not the point. The view was expressed – I was asking you about the view. Do you think that the Japanese feel they have the right to “unlimited access” to the world’s marine resources? You can ignore the fact that this view was also expressed by a scientist in a paper that was published. I promise I won’t use your response against you or the scientist who expressed it. I’m just wondering what you think, because (believe it or not) I have respect for your political view.
> And which certain people would that be David?
It wasn’t you if you are concerned about that Libby, and if you take a guess on that basis I think you will probably hit the right button.
> David, you are looking for an argument and
> being typically bullish. If you are having
> a bad Greenpeace week or whatever, don’t
> take it out on us.
It was more your refering to the minke whale research that did it to me Libby. Although I’m very glad to hear that you recognise that differing opinions are likely to come out of the recent SC review.
bugger! posted in the wrong thread!
Great work, it really made me think!!