I have just been reading about the High North Alliance, an organisation representing whalers, sealers and fishermen from Canada, The Faroes, Greenland, Iceland and Norway.
Their base is in Reine, Norway, which is a long way away from me here in Brisbane, Australia.
Last night I received an email from Rune Frovik from the High North Alliance with some comments in response to the letter that I published from Peter Corkeron, click here.
(Picture Copyright High North Alliance)
Here’s a picture of Rune (left) with the New Zealand Minister for Conservation, Chris Carter.
Rune responds issue by issue to the various claims made by Peter Cockeron:
1. Peter Corkeron wrote:
Minke quotas have trended upwards over time – the 2006 quota is 1052 animals. Some of this has come from carrying over untaken quotas from previous years – not a part of the RMP/RMS as far as I’m aware. Some has come from changing the “tuning level” – a multiplier built into the CLA/RMP to allow for uncertainty, and changing circumstances. Other problems with quota setting include that predominantly female minkes are taken, and (as I understand it) the CLA assumes a balanced sex ratio in a hunt.
Rune Frovik responds:
The carry-over mechanism for unused quotas is a part of the RMP. Such carry-over can take place within the five years quota periods.
The Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission recommended tuning level in the interval 0.60 to 0.72, the former calculates a higher quota than the latter. Until 2000, Norway set quotas with 0.72 tuning level. Since then various tuning levels have been used, and for 2006 Norway’s quota is based on 0.60 tuning.
The sex ratio is taken into account. Corkeron correctly points out that CLA assumes a balanced sex ratio in the hunt. But the CLA also has a mechanism in case of unbalanced sex ratios. So if the more than 50 percent of the harvested animals are female, this leads to lower quotas. This has been practiced for the Norwegian quota. If the sex ratio was balanced, the current quota could have been higher.
2. Peter Corkeron wrote:
The most recent survey series was not synoptic – the survey area was divided into 5, with one area surveyed in each of five years. These surveys are logistically difficult to run, and synoptic surveys are really hard to organize – I think the last was in 1995.
So a strong assumption (that is, an assumption that, if it’s wrong, the analysis wrong) is that whales don’t move between survey areas between years. This remains untested.
Rune Frovik responds:
Corkeron has a point. But the precautionary logic mainly goes the other way, since it is not proved that the stock is not comprised of sub-stocks, the scientists assume there could be sub-stocks.
Therefore quotas are set for smaller areas. However, scientific evidence now indicates that there is no need for sub areas. The whalers have always argued that the whales don’t respect these borders, that the whales go where there is ample food supply, something which varies between and within years.
The sighting surveys take into account that whales move between areas. But for logistical reasons not all areas are covered in one season, but in a five to six year period all areas are researched.
3. Peter Corkeron wrote:
I’ve never taken part in one of the minke surveys, but know how they work, as I’ve taken part in others elsewhere (US waters, Antarctic). Unlike virtually all other vessel-based surveys for cetaceans, the Norwegian team don’t use binoculars. They have their reasons for this, but it reduces their effective strip width, hence their survey coverage and so the precision of their abundance estimates.
Rune Frovik responds:
This is correct, except the conclusion that it reduces the precision of the abundance estimates. With binoculars you see both more and less. There are good reasons why the Norwegian whalers don’t use binoculars in the lookout.
4. Peter Corkeron wrote:
Over time (this has been going on for a little over a decade), quotas set have trended upwards, and now don’t bear much resemblance to quotas that would have been set under the way that the IWC Scientific Committee designed the RMS. So, this management procedure, developed to ensure sustainability (as far as humanly possible) hasn’t actually been implemented by the Norwegians.
Rune Frovik responds:
Norway is still using the quota calculation model developed and recommended by the IWC Scientific Committee. Only Norway has implemented this procedure.
5. Peter Corkeron wrote:
The final decision on quotas for the minke hunt is made by the Norwegian Sjopattedyrradet (marine mammal advisory board), comprised of industry representatives, based on advice from the Fisheries Directorate, who in turn receive advice from IMR.
Rune Frovik responds:
This is wrong. Final decisions are made by the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal affairs. The advisory board only supplies advise and their view to the Ministry.
6. Peter Corkeron wrote:
So in theory, the sustainable harvest of whales may be possible. As things are playing out in Norway at present, this remains theory.
Rune Frovik responds:
Well, Norway has taken more than 100 000 minke whales in this area since WWII. From the 50s to the early 80s the annual average catch was about 2000 minke whales. The IWC Scientific Committee has considered this to be a sustainable harvest in that period. While historic catch records are an indicator that this could also be a future sustainable level, it is not a proof. Current science however indicates so.
What Norway is doing is not theory, it is very hard reality.
7. Peter Corkeron wrote:
One aspect of whether Norwegian whaling is sustainable or not that gets missed completely – by both sides, it appears – is the economics of the Norwegian market for food. From an OECD report on agricultural subsidies in 2004, Norway is one of the five worst offenders internationally when it comes to overpaying their internal agricultural lobby.
Australians may be astonished to learn that one of the reasons against Norway joining the EU is Norwegian agricultural subsidies would have to be dramatically reduced to drop to EU levels.
So prices for meat in Norway are artificially high. Given the current population sizes of baleen whales in the northeast Atlantic, were a management regime for whaling that demonstrated a decent chance of being sustainable (the IWC’s RMS or something similar) ever implemented, the meat would be so expensive that it would probably price itself out of an open market.
Rune Frovik responds:
What Corkeron says about agricultural subsidies is correct, but I have some problems seeing where he is heading. I disagree with the statement that prices for agricultural meat in Norway are artificially high, I would rather say it is the opposite, that because of subsidies they are artificially low.
The seafood sector, including whaling, does not receive any subsidies at all. (In fact Norway argues strongly on the international arena that fisheries subsidies should also be removed in other countries.)
Since it has been difficult to compete with meat prices, and also because many Norwegians provide themselves with fish, the seafood industry has traditionally focused on export markets, but recently more efforts are put into the domestic market. The whale meat is currently only sold on the domestic market, and because of no subsidies, the consumers must pay the real price for whale meat.
This is certainly a challenge for the whale meat industry, but something which it tries to cope with.
8. Peter Corkeron wrote:
I’ve seen ‘fresh’ whale meat turning green as it sat on sale at the local fish market, waiting to be bought.
Rune Frovik responds:
Green?! Whale meat doesn’t like air, so it rapidly turns dark if it is not protected from air. For this reason vacuum packaging is commonly used. Anyway, you should absolutely complain if your offered poor quality meat.
9. Peter Corkeron wrote:
Sometimes at these markets, there was also a stand giving away free meals of whale meat, part of the government drive to encourage Norwegains to eat whale. Government-funded undercutting of small businesses run by enterprising migrants.
Rune Frovik responds:
The government does not encourage Norwegians to eat whale meat or not, that is not their business.
With the possible exception of the Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, who is portrayed in a new film documentary (Oljeberget), purchasing whale meat and preparing it for dinner, and smilingly exclaiming that, “whale meat is extremely good”.
The industry certainly attempts to encourage consumption and they pay their own marketing.
……………………….
For more information on whaling and the High North Alliance visit their website, click here. The site includes a collection of harpoon cartoons. One of the cartoons includes an Aussie talking to a sheep about eating whale meat, click here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thanks Jennifer, for a while I thought I was going mad under the deluge of anti-whaling hysterics.
David Tribe has the following link which demonstrates that emotions not rationale prevail in politics.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php
It must also be put on record that Norway was the first nation to implement measures to ensure the health of whale stocks, back in 1904. See the history of whaling from a Norwegian perspective at; http://www.hvalfangstmuseet.no/Default.asp?cat=64%id=215
Note also that Japan had initially decided to opt out of the IWC so it could continue with low level whaling but it was threatened with sanctions by the USA.
See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling
That is, it remained within the IWC under duress when it had every right, and specific provision for under IWC, to follow the Norwegian lead. So any blurring of the rules in respect of scientific whaling is in response to a blatant and discriminatory denial of its rights.
Yet, in common law, and just about every piece of consumer protection and trade practices legislation all over the world, ANY CONTRACT ENTERED INTO UNDER DURESS IS ENTIRELY VOIDABLE.
So Greenfarce and assorted Sea Sheep Duffers justify their own disregard for the law of the sea by claiming that Japan is acting illegally and contrary to the spirit of IWC. Yet, it is Japan who has been denied one of the core principles of natural justice.
Blah blah blah.
Let’s see if anyone is whaling in 20 years time.
Convicimng argument Phil, blah blah blah
For all you know Ian, that Wikipedia entry was edited by greenpeace loonies. The alleged event you describe happened early/mid 80’s, a looooong time ago in international events. If Japan’s behaviour could be changed simply by threat of sanctions then the EU, US & Aust etc would threaten sanctions now to end Japan’s whaling, but Japan is an important influential trading partner in an increasingly important region. Hence it invades Australian waters and Australia lets it, but hounds Indonesia vessels. If Japan is acting under ‘duress’, then it in turn is placing developing nations under duress, using ODA threats (to buy votes as it admitted, see earlier thread). And re: common law provisions oh what bushlawyer nonsense. Which, precisely, apply to the internation situation you describe and to alleged ‘sanctions’? What about sanctions of Cuba, ok under Ian’s bushlaws because Castro is a lefty nutto? Pls don’t even bother to respond to that.
This is not emotional ranting (altho emotional defensiveness occurs on both sides). There are separate issues:
1. the ethical aspect of whaling: whether it’s acceptable to kill whales for food, particularly given that it’s not necessary; and considering their sentience and complex social groups, whether it can be done humanely enough (evidence of frequent prolonged suffering, far more so than is permitted for cows or sheep)
2. whether whaling can be defended upon grounds of culture or tradition (and on those grounds, what technologies should be used)
3. whether whaling of particular species can be done sustainably over the long-term, with international consensus (not an anarchistic free-for-all) and factoring in allowances for threats from climate change (eg localised warming in the Artic?); indications that plankton stocks are declining due to warming; pollution and increased ship traffic (strikes and sonar) etc.
4. are whaling nations acting legally? Shouldn’t they observe international consensus and international conventions?
In an earlier thread, the differences between Japan’s approach & Norway’s approach are discussed. Japan’s defence is weak under all 4 points above (and it contradicts itself, whereas Norways stance is consistent). Japan would do well to take several leaves out of Norway’s book.
Norway whales in proximity to its own country, it has a long tradition of doing so, it makes cleaner kills and it has behaved relatively responsibly and honestly (monitoring populations and regulating its catch). Norway objects openly to the IWC moratorium whereas Japan lies about doing research and then invades Australian waters because it has depleted its own local whale populations. Japan also makes fewer direct kills than Norway and relies more on repeated harpoon shots and still makes greater use of secondary measures to kill the whales. Further, Japan campaigns and buys votes to end moratoriums and sanctuaries and whale freely: no indication of constraint consistent with sustainable whaling practices. And Japan isn’t just whaling the more populous minke, it’s also whaling fin whales, and from next year, Humpbacks. There’s no excuse for that.
Thinksy, I think the conventional form is to say, “This is not emotional ranting but ..” That way you can continue with your rant while conveying a veneer of civility to the comprehensionally challenged.
For the record, Japan can still opt out of IWC any time the same way Russia has.
Yes Japan can opt out of the IWC, any nation can, we’ve discussed this before. But then how would Japan excuse its whaling? At least now it can pretend that it’s doing research.
The research linked above about emotions prevailing over logic is NOT exclusive to a particular political stance. It applies to BOTH sides as I said above. If you’re attempting to deny that, then logic is not prevailing. Specifically how does listing 4 aspects of the issue and then discussing them as I did above constitute emotional ranting? You’re just trying to divert attention away from the valid points, rather than address them rationally.
You miss the point, if Japan had opted out of IWC then it would need no excuse to anyone. Norway has opted out and it continues whaling as-of-right. This is all about your point 4 which asks;
“4. are whaling nations acting legally? Shouldn’t they observe international consensus and international conventions?”
Your apparent inability to distinguish between a so-called international consensus and international law leaves me gobsmacked. An opinion poll, or even a sequence of opinion polls, do not constitute international law. Nor does an opinion poll of nations.
In fact, the overriding convention in relation to international law is that such “laws” only become binding when a sovereign state enacts its own laws to implement the international objective in its domestic jurisdiction. Beyond that is nothing more than the raw exercise of power by the strongest.
And the provisions under which Japan may opt out of IWC ARE an international convention that they can observe.
And your other 3 points have been thoroughly dealt with in other posts on this blog. Your last two paras are the standard green rant. Spare me the spittle.
Ian Mott writes:
“[I]f Japan had opted out of IWC then it would need no excuse to anyone. Norway has opted out and it continues whaling as-of-right.”
For the record, Norway is a contracting party to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). Norway has not opted out of the ICRW/IWC.
Norway did “opt out” of the moratorium decision, something which the reservation clause in the ICRW provides for. Japan did the same, but was “threatened” (or fooled?) to withdraw the reservation.
I reckon there is a legal argument that, based on the intention, structure and wording of the original provision, the moratorium on commercial whaling expired in 1990. Thus, the socalled ban on commercial whaling is not legally binding upon the IWC-members, they are all free to go ahead with sustainable commercial whaling.
Best regards,
Rune Frovik
Ian kindly don’t gob your smack, I hadn’t confused consensus with law at all. I made 2 different yet related points in no. 4 (you will note there are 2 different sentences, plus I wrote ‘consensus’ and ‘conventions’). Also note that I had Norway’s stance correct, and the 4 points were simply for consideration. Reread them. Have you honestly tried to consider each side of the issue?
I’ve enjoyed reading Rune’s comments, quite balanced (pity nothing of such quality has come from the Japanese Institute of Commercial Research). Matters undecided by law are exactly that, undecided. However it seems that Norway would have a better defence than Japan for the various reasons discussed in earlier threads. The reason I mentioned consensus above is that it is crucial to any binding and lasting international agreement as we all know.
Thank you, Rune, I am only too pleased to see the clear picture posted.
Yeah, right, Thinksy. You clearly tried to convey the notion that an implied, but untested, world opinion equals binding law.
And as far as considering both sides of the story, I had always considered myself an opponent of whaling but had not had time to consider the issue closely. However, this recent Greenpeace farce prompted me to take a good long look at the situation. And what I found was the same old green spin, invective and deceptive misrepresentation of fact.
The initial posts from Libby Eyre were all sweetness and light but, once she was contradicted, ended up dishing it out like a bullockies daughter. The way all the anti-whaling contributors on this blog run for cover once the discussion gets down to hard numbers has been particularly illuminating.
And your record of dreaming up the most extreme opinions and attributing them to me so you can appear to shoot them down as some sort of would be beacon of reason is plain pathetic.
To put it simply, Thinksy, if people like you oppose whaling then it must be OK. I wasn’t a whaling supporter before this but I am a very strong supporter now.
“dishing it out like a bullockies daughter !”
wow .. .. this is what we wussy urbanites need. A good ream out. “I feel better now”
And bizarrely I was whale neutral before this started but now I am a very strong anti-whaler on the evidence.
Jen you need to put in of those little vote polling web things of who won the argument. And Rog, Ian and Louis only get one vote too (total).
My stance on whaling has changed too and I’m now pro-Greenpeace where I wasn’t before. Ian, where exactly did I dream up extreme opinions and attribute them to you? You keep making empty claims such as this. As soon as I question one empty claim, you make more.
You say that I claim that “implied, but untested, world opinion equals binding law”. Commenters on this blog discussed legal issues relating to both the actions of the whalers and the activists. There was much debate over the legality of the protestors’ actions. Addressing your claim of untested laws, there’s one precedent that I’m aware of:
Under Canadian law, Captain Watson of the Sea Shepherd was acquitted (of intervening with drag trawlers) “by reason of colour of right” in 95. This established a precedent for using the UN Charter to defend actions of intervention against illegal fishing activities.
Nah, forget polls (the right engage in vote-buying, did you forget?), I have a much better suggestion for determining the argument. 😉 Ian will no doubt dismiss the Canadian enforcement of the UN Charter as irrelevant or extreme or whatevernonsensehecanthinkof so let’s get a REAL test case:
Let’s agree on a sum that we’ll each donate to the Sea Shepherd. They need to buy a faster vessel to keep pace with the Jap’s next year. By helping the Sea Shepherd to immobilise the whaling vessels, we’ll be laying the ground for a real court case to settle the legal aspects of our arguments. Agreed? OK then suggest an amount. How’s AUD5,000 each, too much? They accept credit card.
Dear Ian,
I tried very hard to present information to you in a factual and reasonable mannner. However despite what I presented, you either ignored things that didn’t fit your view but you couldn’t easily dismiss, or you continued on with your argument despite what evidence has been placed before you. A simple and clear example of this is your insistence that whales are cows based on your criteria.
With regards to the “hard numbers: you keep referring to, your back of the envelope approach to complex wildlife management issues has not been worth commenting on because you are not taking in all the issues that are at hand. I’m sorry, but I have simply given up spending time with someone who has such strong views that it doesn’t matter what I, or anyone else who may be presenting an opinion different to yours, says.
With regards to your “bullockie’s daughter” reference, why thank you. I consider that a compliment, and it further shows that you revert to what you hope will be derogatory comments. Now, if I am “packing up my ball and going home”, it is because I actually have work and research to do, and I think you would agree, there is no point in our conversations going round and round.
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FROM PETER CORKERON
Many thanks for the reasoned response Rune.
I’m going to reorganise a little in an attempt to present my thoughts more clearly. I’ve tried to keep things to the point, and like Rune, maintain a polite tone.
Some straightforward things:
A. On surveys (point 2 in Rune’s email):
Corkeron has a point. But the precautionary logic mainly goes the other way, since it is not proved that the stock is not comprised of sub-stocks, the scientists assume there could be sub-stocks.
Therefore quotas are set for smaller areas. However, scientific evidence now indicates that there is no need for sub areas. The whalers have always argued that the whales don’t respect these borders, that the whales go where there is ample food supply, something which varies between and within years.
The sighting surveys take into account that whales move between areas. But for logistical reasons not all areas are covered in one season, but in a five to six year period all areas are researched.
Peter replies:
My point isn’t one of stock delineation at all. Let’s imagine that you do a survey in Block 1 in Year 1, and most of the whales are in Block 2 that year (I’m simplifying for the sake of example). Then in year 2, you survey Block 2 but the whales have, for whatever reason, moved to Block 1. Your abundance estimate is obviously going to be biased downwards. Reverse the situation, your abundance estimate is biased upwards.
That’s the bias that I’m talking about, and it remains a problem. As far as I’m aware, no-one knows the direction of this bias. It’s a problem. I’m sure we both agree that the surveys are logistically difficult.
B. On surveys and binoculars (Rune’s point 3):
This is correct, except the conclusion that it reduces the precision of the abundance estimates. With binoculars you see both more and less. There are good reasons why the Norwegian whalers don’t use binoculars in the lookout.
Peter responds:
What I was trying to get at here is that Norwegian scientists march to a different drummer from most of the vessel-based line transect community on this. We seem in agreement here.
Not seeing animals available for sighting (due to binoculars’ limited field of view) is the main reason I’ve been given by one IMR scientist for not using binoculars. There are field techniques for dealing with this. Rune and I seem to both agree that those involved in the surveys believe that their reasons for not using binoculars are valid. I stand by my statement on precision.
C. On subsidies, meat prices and whaling (point 7)
What Corkeron says about agricultural subsidies is correct, but I have some problems seeing where he is heading. I disagree with the statement that prices for agricultural meat in Norway are artificially high, I would rather say it is the opposite, that because of subsidies they are artificially low.
The seafood sector, including whaling, does not receive any subsidies at all. (In fact Norway argues strongly on the international arena that fisheries subsidies should also be removed in other countries.)
Since it has been difficult to compete with meat prices, and also because many Norwegians provide themselves with fish, the seafood industry has traditionally focused on export markets, but recently more efforts are put into the domestic market. The whale meat is currently only sold on the domestic market, and because of no subsidies, the consumers must pay the real price for whale meat.
This is certainly a challenge for the whale meat industry, but something which it tries to cope with.
Peter’s response:
Where am I heading? How’s this:
My recollection is that lamb from New Zealand was cheaper to by in Longyearbyen, Svalbard than Norwegian lamb is in Tromsoe. Svalbard is Norwegian territory, roughly half way between northern Norway and the North Pole, for Antipodeans wondering where the hell I’m talking about. Svalbard is tax exempt (or close enough to tax exempt), hence the difference.
Were the tariff regime in place in Svalbard to be replicated in the rest of Norway, meat would be much cheaper and the whale meat industry would face greater challenges. The rest flows from there.
D. On my observation of whale meat going green (point 8)
Green?! Whale meat doesn’t like air, so it rapidly turns dark if it is not protected from air. For this reason vacuum packaging is commonly used. Anyway, you should absolutely complain if your offered poor quality meat.
Peter’s response:
I know the difference between meat darkening in contact with air, and it going green. It wasn’t vacuum packaged, and I didn’t buy it. I just noticed it. The point is that the meat wasn’t rushing out of the store.
E. On who actually sets the quotas (point 5).
Rune Frovik responds:
This is wrong. Final decisions are made by the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal affairs. The advisory board only supplies advise and their view to the Ministry.
Peter replies:
My mistake. Thanks for the correction.
From what I saw while at NIFA and IMR, the final quotas issued by the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs tended to reflect the advice given by the advisory board, even when the advisory board went dramatically against quota recommendations from NIFA/IMR scientists (e.g. coastal seal quotas in recent years). So I thought the final decision by the Ministry was a rubber stamp for the advisory board.
I guess that press releases like this (in Norwegian) http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/aktuelt/pressemeldinger/sjoepattedyrraadet_kvoter_paa_sel
contributed to my incorrect impression.
Something slightly less straightforward
F. On who pays for marketing (point 9)
The government does not encourage Norwegians to eat whale meat or not, that is not their business.
[snip]
The industry certainly attempts to encourage consumption and they pay their own marketing.
Well, I’m amazed to learn this. The Norwegian government is very generous in funding the science base for marine mammal hunts, and in funding organizations that support the Norwegian position on marine mammal hunting (more on this second point below). So I’d presumed there was government support for the whale-meat eating campaign, especially as the stalls seemed to coincide with developing a new policy on marine mammal hunts. It must have cost quite a bit to pay those folks for the weekend work.
In section 5.3.3.3 of Norway’s 2004 White Paper on marine mammal policy, http://odin.dep.no/filarkiv/207622/STM0304027-TS.pdf (in Norwegian), it says that there’s an advertising tax of 0.3kroner per kilo of whale meat, when caught and sold (I’m sure that if my translation’s way off, someone will correct it). The amounted to 465,000 kroner in 2002, about $AUS93,000 at today’s exchange rates (I’m using x-rates.com’s currency calculator, and the $AUS is because this blog’s Australian). I guess that this must cover the stalls that I saw, web presence at hvalbiff.no, and other advertising.
The industry gets support from the government in other ways. To its credit, the High North Alliance (HNA) is quite transparent about where its obtains funding.
The Alliance’s website states: “The activities of the High North Alliance are funded by membership fees and grants from the authorities in the countries represented by the organisation, together with grants from county and municipal authorities and from various funds and institutions like the Nordic Council of Ministers, the NAMMCO Fund, KNAPK’s Information and Education Fund, the Norwegian Fish Sales Association, the Regional Development Committee for Northern Norway, and the Norwegian Fishermen’s Union’s Information Fund.” (http://www.highnorth.no/about/hnatext.htm).
Table 7.1 of the White Paper shows that from 1992 to 2004, a bit over 29.5million kroner (about $AUS 5.9million in today’s money) was given to organizations that support the Norwegian management approach on marine mammal hunts. In 2004, there was discussion in the Norwegian parliament as to why funds (about 50,000 kroner per year) were given for four years to an American organization, the IWMC World Conservation Trust (http://www.stortinget.no/spti/dw-o2004120107-008.html).
During this discussion, the (then) Minister for Fisheries and Coastal Affairs made it clear that the money allocated to support NGOs went first and foremost to the HNA. The total was about 1.5million kroner in 2004 (nearly $AUS300,000). I have no idea how much the HNA receives.
This sort of support is why I assumed that there was government money behind the market stalls to which I referred. As Jennifer’s employer is a think tank renowned for its pursuit of free markets, I thought it worth mentioning.
And to forestall the more impassioned commentators on this blog re my income
Ultimately, Libby, it is the other readers who will develop their views based on what they have seen. And what they saw from you and others was a few factoids deliverd as anecdotes. I made an attempt to draw the known life cycle information together and made it quite clear that the numbers needed further work.
It is now a matter of record that neither yourself nor anyone else attempted to fine tune those numbers or add to them to produce a clearer picture.
You chose to get hung up on issues like whether whales are (like) cows but did not take the opportunity to explain why they were supposedly so different.
It is quite clear that Minke whales breed on an annual cycle (ie, a 78% pregnancy rate amongst mature females) and this, in reproductive terms, is essentially the same as for cattle. The 1 in 3 survival rate of Minke young would be somewhat similar to a herd of wild cattle. And it is the sustainable management of the latter that has improved the bovine survival rate and which illuminates the potential of sustainable whale management.
It is clear that some people find the notion of a mutually beneficial partnership between man and other species to be very disturbing. But the species themselves do very well out of it. Perhaps it is time we developed a misery index for wild and domesticated species. Now that would tell an interesting story.
Thanks Peter for those informative responses and the information on the discrepancies and difficulties of estimating abundances.
I agree with Libby’s mature response to Ian. Purely out of interest, I spent considerable time researching the IWC, major stakeholders, relevant UN conventions, killing methods, etc. Based on these findings, I initially presented a range of well-reasoned arguments against Japan’s whaling activities, and questioned whether sustainable whaling is possible long-term given threats to whales, historical experience, and the fact that while only several countries currently whale, many more have expressed interest in doing so. On the topic of protesters, I found a legal precedent, under UN provisions, supporting such interference. Ian has not directly addressed many of these facts, and repeatedly insists that we elevate his rough calculation over the scientifically-grounded recommendations of numerous whale biologists (and even after Peter Corkeron has provided reasons to doubt that we have reliable, accurate estimates on local populations or population structures).
Ian your post (2nd above) reveals your real motivation: you had a prior bias against Greenpeace and because my position, by extension, sides with GP, you want to defy ‘people like me’ (whatever that means -> people who wish to see the continued existence of cetaceans?). Clearly your concern is not with viable whale populations. Given that you’re not open to reason, I have only one recommendation left: Go to a big RSL club, tell the old codgers that you support the Japs invading Australian territorial waters against Australia’s wishes, then let them beat some sense into you with their walking sticks.
Many thanks to Peter for his follow-up comments (31 January).
Discussions of the scientific ins and outs can go on forever. And indeed they should. But if science is to serve as a management tool, it must also be able to conclude what is best scientific practice. I feel this describes the quota calculation model (CLA/RMP) developed and unanimously recommended by the IWC Scientific Committee.
Work to improve the details continue, and one day the RMP will probably be replaced by a completely different scientific approach.
Sighting surveys, calculation of abundance estimates, etc. of ‘Norwegian’ minke whales are conducted in full accordance with the RMP.
Then some comments about the Parliament’s unanimous request to increase the minke quota. First of all the Parliament said that the quota should be based on scientific recommendations. The official translation of the decision is (see IWC/56/22): ”The Storting [Parliament] requests the Government as soon as possible to increase the annual harvesting of minke whales considerably compared to the current level, but in accordance with recommendations by Norwegian scientists.”
The decision was made in 2004 in conjunction with a White Paper on marine mammal policy, and first implemented when the 2005 quota was set. The government must stick to such a decision. At the time of the decision, simply lowering the tuning level would yield a higher quota.
In addition, scientific findings presented by the Government to the Parliament clearly indicated that it would be scientifically possible to considerably increase the hunt. (Check out the correspondence between the Ministry of Fisheries and the Parliament’s standing committee, http://www.stortinget.no/inns/2003/200304-180-006.html and http://www.stortinget.no/inns/2003/200304-180-005.html, questions 5-9. Unfortunately only in Norwegian, but I think NGOs that do not fancy whaling as much as we do have a complete translation.)
Policy makers determine management objectives, whether they are national, as in Norway, or international, as with the IWC. The Scientific Committee developed an RMP to meet the management objectives set by the IWC, of which the most important was a guarantee to avoid stock depletion.
Scientists can recommend management objectives, they can also assist in sorting out alternatives, but in a democracy scientists do not make these decisions, and when they have been decided, then the scientists are tasked with providing recommendations on how to reach these objectives.
I feel rather uncomfortable when Corkeron at the end basically stops arguing asking people to trust his scientific merits and personal experience of the Norwegian processes (he brought it into the debate, not me). After all, he has just demonstrated that he was wrong about several rather straightforward scientific issues and the process when setting the minke catch quota.
Best regards,
Rune Frøvik
Thanks again Rune
I think Rune’s discomfort with the manner in which I ended is absolutely fair, which is why I included “for what it’s worth
I note that you appear to be selective in your approach, Thinksy. On this trail you attampt to portray all reason and logic yet, only a trai or two ago it was a tsunami of bile, sneering innuendo and spittle. Is someone watching this time?
Ian the (crank)pot is boiling over and calling the kettle black again. My usual reply to Ian’s ugly attacks: please substantiate your (unwarranted) accusations, or put a sock puppet in it.