It’s official, Norway is planning to kill many more minke whales this season. The 2006 minke whale quote for Norway was officially set last December, the season started on the 1st April. The quota is much higher than for previous years. Here are some of the reasons as reported in the Orberlin Times:
“Norway‘s Foreign Ministry rejected the protest, saying the minke whales Norway harpoons for food in the North Atlantic are plentiful and well able to withstand the planned catch of 1,052 of the giant marine mammals in 2006…
“We are following procedures to ensure that whaling is within safe quotas,” he said, adding that Norway‘s catches were based upon guidelines laid down by the scientific committee of the IWC.
The 2006 hunt represents about one percent of a stock Norway estimates at 107,000 minke whales in its hunting areas in the North Atlantic. Minkes are relatively plentiful, unlike endangered blue whales.
Norway, in a move hailed by whalers but blasted by environmentalists, is also expanding hunts into international waters in the North Atlantic from its own zone for the first time since the 1980s.
It has long said whale stocks have grown uncontrollably since the 1986 moratorium and says the whales, which eat fish such as cod, are partly to blame for falling fish stocks.”
Peter Corkeron made the following comments about the Norwegian minke whale quote in a blog post at this site on 25th January:
“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 Revised Management Plan/Revised Management Scheme 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.
On the science side, one main data requirement is an estimate of abundance with associated estimate of error. The point estimates for northern minke abundance from Norwegian surveys increased, as you note. But the two survey series weren’t directly comparable as they covered somewhat different areas. 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.
The actual surveys are vessel-based distance sampling surveys – I’m presuming that you know what distance sampling is (and if this goes to your blog, folks will read up on it).
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.
There have been technical queries in past years regarding the Norwegian surveys – double counting (i.e. accidentally recording one whale as two) is an example I recall from the 90s. These have been published as papers in the IWC journal and details can be found there. You have to read through the dry, mathematical language to get at the points being made. There are others who know far more about the machinations within the IWC than I do as I’ve only been to one IWC Scientific Committee meeting.”
While I appreciate that Peter has highlighted potential problems with the Norwegian survey method, I don’t get an appreciation for the extent to which these issues would/should change the overall minke whale quota for 2006.
Rune Frovik disputed some of Peter’s claims in a subsequent blog post, including that:
“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.”
————————–
Following comment from Peter Corkeron this blog post was changed and significantly expanded at 12noon on 25th April 2006.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“the three shareholding companies of Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha – the only firm contracted to carry out scientific whaling by Japan’s Institute for Cetacean Research (ICR) – said they were preparing to give up ownership of the fleet, apparently in a bid to distance themselves from the industry in the face of growing public opposition.” – From news item at:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025482.800-whaling-fleet-for-sale.html
Jennifer tells us that, ‘It’s official, Norway is planning to kill many more minke whales this season’ and that there was a ‘planned catch of 1,052 of the giant marine mammals in 2006’.
Actually, the season’s already started (April 1st). The 2006 minke quota was officially set in late December 2005, and I pointed out that the quota was 1052 animals in my post to this blog of 25th January this year: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001134.html
I get the impression that Jennifer has also forgotten the exchange between Rune Froevik & I on this blog: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001142.html#comments
Jennifer’s been selective in quoting from the newspaper story (which is fair enough), but exchanges on the blog demonstrate that the statement ‘Norway’s catches were based upon guidelines laid down by the scientific committee of the IWC’, while true, doesn’t quite tell the full story.
As this exchange seems forgotten, I’ll quote from it a little below.
I included the statement ‘I have no idea whether the discussions on the RMP within the IWC Scientific Committee included a multiplier for when national parliaments call for increased quotas’, pointing out that there were influences other than than science at play in the quota setting process.
Reading further through the press article that Jennifer referred to, we see that the UK’s Fisheries Minister is quoted saying ‘It is disappointing that the Norwegian government are putting pressure on their scientists to justify the wide-scale destruction of this species’, and a spokesperson for the Norwegian Foreign Ministry pooh-poohing the suggestion. Although ‘wide-scale destruction’ is purple prose, the government putting pressure on scientists is a fair point.
Remember, Rune said in response to my crack about parliamentary calls for increased quotas that ‘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’. To which I responded, ‘I agree with Rune in general terms on the role of scientists in a democracy. I also believe that scientists (even those in government employment) have a responsibility to stand up for best scientific practice, especially when ordered to work on a policy that is fundamentally flawed.
That’s why I quit over Norway’s new policy. My understanding of the state of marine science leaves me convinced that the policy’s basic premise is incorrect’. I also made the flawed science point in the letters pages of Science (again, referred to in the previous post), so it’s out in the refereed scientific literature.
Maybe this exchange suggests that the UK minister has a point?
Re the last sentence, ‘(Norway) has long said whale stocks have grown uncontrollably since the 1986 moratorium and says the whales, which eat fish such as cod, are partly to blame for falling fish stocks’
See the ICES ACFM advice on Northeast Arctic cod. It’s available through the ICES website (www.ices.dk). 1998-2004, TACs were well over recommended advice from ICES. And there’s a substantial ( in the order of 100,000 tonnes in recent years) illegal catch by Russian vessels. For Norwegian coastal cod, separate advice (i.e. separate from the Northeast Arctic cod) has been given since 2001. Advice has been for zero quotas for 2004,2005 and 2006. In 2004, the quota was 20,000 tonnes, and an estimated 33,000 tonnes were landed.
It’s pretty clear what’s really to blame for falling fish stocks.
Peter, Thanks for that information, I’m going to change at least the beginning of the post accordingly. And I’ve found this paragraph from your earlier post about the exchange in Science:
“My initial response to the policy can be found in the letters pages of Science in December 2004 (306:1891). The Norwegian Minister for Fisheries and Coastal Affairs’ response can be found in Science 308:497.The Policy Forum piece that led to my letter was by Pikitch et al. in Science 305:346-347. These give an idea of what the debate’s about.”
To be completely honest, I am not sure what your fundamental problem is with Norway’s policy – whether it is all based around the survey method or whether it is more fundamental than this? I am interested in the whaling issue and so will chase down the papers (but maybe not today).
It’s mostly about what “Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management” actually means, which in turn, leads to questions about what we want of the oceans. I suggested the Science exchange because it’s a very quick introduction and Science is an easy journal to find.
There are other issues, but this is the big one. It’s far more fundamental than the survey method stuff. It goes directly to how we’re going to manage our impacts on ocean ecosystems, and how professional scientists can influence that process.
Peter,
> there were influences other than than science at play in the quota setting process.
In the IWC Scientific Committee, I don’t believe this is true, nor could be true if the SC was to start setting non-zero quotas again.
Perhaps it could be true in Norway alone – although I doubt anyone in blogosphere can tell one way or the other. I would note that Norway’s main scientific advisor, Lars Walloe did lament the political criticism that had been leveled at him.
But back on point – the SC has a rigourous peer-review process, with up to 200 scientists participating these days – many scientists from anti-whaling nations. The SC does not provide advice by taking votes, it provides advice by consensus. Even a single anti-whaling scientists’ voice can have a significant impact.
I would thus argue that the IWC member nations would be better off permitting whaling rather than continuing the status quo – at least in that way the anti-whaling nations would have some influence over the quotas being set through the influence of their scientists, should they choose to use those scientists to further their political objectives. I’ve seen evidence in the past year that leads me to believe that nations such as New Zealand and Australia are more than prepared to do that.
I refer specifically to the case where scientific committee participants from about 15 nations all refused to participate in a review of the JARPA II research proposal last year. It seems to be too much of a coincidence that politicians from those same 15 nations also participated in a demarche protesting against the JARPA research earlier this year in January. 12 of those nations again participated in the recent demarche against Norway.
There seems to be a clear link between the behavior of the scientific representatives of the anti-whaling nations and the politicians of those nations. I could only find two cases where this didn’t hold true – the US did not participate in the demarches, as of course the US is itself a whaling nations. And one other nation, which I forget the name of.
It seems clear that the anti-whaling nations have selected scientists to attend the IWC meetings who will advocate a politically correct scientific viewpoint.
On the other hand, the IWC SC does invite recognised scientists to participate, so even those scientists who do not toe the national political line may still get to attend.
Douglas Butterworth from South Africa is one example. South Africa is in the anti-whaling camp, but Butterworth frequently colloborates with the Japanese scientists. Martin Cawthorn from New Zealand was another, although I’m not sure if he has been participating of late.
In summary, I believe we can have confidence in the advice of the IWC SC because of the diversity of scientific opinion it represents – both politically driven and otherwise. And for this reason I believe it wise for the IWC to introduce non-zero catch limits sooner, rather than later, and ensure that catch limits can be set with full consideration given to international scientific consensus.
David-in-Tokyo
I went to your blog, clicked on the very first link under “Norway hits back”, and read the Reuters story that it links to. Towards the end of the article, I read this: ‘Both Walloe and Klepsvik said, however, that Norway was working on a new way of setting quotas. Parliament has said it wants catches back to higher historical levels, of about 1,800.’.
This is an example of an influence other than science at play in the quota setting process in Norway. That’s what I’m talking about. I’ve mentioned the unanimous Storting vote previously on this blog.
The RMP’s CLA testing process included lots of different model runs, but I don’t think anyone has yet tested the process that we’ve seen play out in the Norwegian application of the CLA/RMP – changing the tuning level to raise quotas, deciding to carry over ‘unused’ quotas from year to year while changing the tuning level, and having the parliament call (unanimously) for increased quotas. Have they? What is the RMP multiplier for when national parliaments call for increased quotas? Where’s the source code for it? The ‘guidelines laid down by the scientific committee of the IWC’ seem to be being stretched more than just a little here.
I used to be Principal Scientist at the Norwegian (government) Institute of Marine Research, where I worked on seals and did some cetacean work (not on minkes). I think that makes me not just someone on the blogosphere.
Here are a few thoughts on your comments on the IWC SC. I’ve only been to one IWC SC, as an Invited Participant, so I’m aware of the concept of IP (and yes, I know Doug Butterworth). I agree that there’s a big problem with the politicization of science at the IWC SC. But if you think anti-whaling nations are cherry-picking politically correct scientists and that bugs you, check what happened to Toshio Kasuya. Pots calling kettles black?
I agree completely with your comment ‘I would thus argue that the IWC member nations would be better off permitting whaling rather than continuing the status quo’. The point as to why those who might oppose whaling for whatever reason should take this seriously was well made in a comment written by ‘an international colleague’ and posted by Phil Done on January 31, follow the thread here:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001146.html
Anyone who looks at the way that whaling nations manage some of their hunts of marine mammals that don’t fall under the IWC jurisdiction, say Japanese huts of small cetaceans, Norwegian and Icelandic hunts of coastal seals, will see just how things could go.
I too read with interested the Norwegian parliament’s desire for an increased quota, and my reaction was “if you can get it”. I believe such a quota might be possible – but whether the level of risk of depletion associated due to uncertainty is acceptable or not is another issue.
I’m not sure how the parliament tasked their scientists.
“We are asking our scientists whether it’s possible to set a quota of 1800”, is fine by me.
“We are asking our scientists to make up an argument in support of a quota of 1800”, is of course not fine by me, and I don’t think the politicians would make such statements in public if that were their intention. You obviously have personal insights in to this that I do not have.
Ultimately scientists are employed by others to solve problems. The scientist puts their scientific integrity on the line if they allow themselves to be used. What I do note is that Lars Walloe took the unusual step of commenting in the media on the matter, rejecting the political criticism of his country. I have seen no evidence to suggest that Lars Walloe is not a reputable scientist, and on the contrary I have seen information that leads me to believe that he is. And at the end of the day, the parliament wants a quota of 1800. Despite this, the quota this year was only 1052. We can each make of that what we like.
I’m not party to detailed information about the RMP, so I can’t make an informed comment one way or the other on how the Norwegians are applying it as opposed to how the IWC SC originally tested it back in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Rune may drop by again to comment further, who knows.
I don’t know much about Prof Kasuya, but I don’t personally trust him much at all, as he’s been widely reported in the media making statements along the lines of Japan’s research being a “commercial operation”. In my view, this argument totally conflicts with logic as the research programmes have been running at a deficit for 20 years, only continuing because of subsidies from the government, and further, commercial interests have now announced that they’ll be devulging themselves of shares in Kyodo Senpaku. On the other hand, the IWC’s own home page states quite clearly that the ’97 SC review at the half way point in the JARPA programme said that the research had the potential to improve the IWC’s management procedures (Greenpeace and co. only report the part which says the research isn’t required under the RMP, never mentioning the management improvement potential). The whale meat sales also go back in to further research, and indeed Japan does contribute significantly to non-lethal international research efforts in the Antartic.
So, because he makes such statements, I trust Prof. Kasuya about as much as I trust Greenpeace and NGO groups who invented such claims of commercialism despite the incovenient realities. Prof. Kasuya was also involved in a breach of IWC rules last year (http://www.iwmc.org/whales/iwc57/050622-03.htm).
But I’m glad that we can agree that the it’s in the best interests of whale conservation to see the IWC start fulfilling it’s management role. That’s what is important at the end of the day. I wish more of the general populace could be informed enough to understand this.
And it’s very nice to be able to have a discussion with someone with such experience and knowledge as yourself. I appreciate your comments on previous blog posts and the discussion they brought about.
Best regards,
David
Why the quota was “only” 1052? According to Norwegian prowhaling newspaper ” Fiskeribladet”, some people in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are totally against Norwegian whaling.
“Only” because as has been mentioned here, the parliament “wants” 1800, but the scientists have set the number at 1052.
David, I think that your answer speaks for itself.
You give the impression that politicians micromanaging wildife/fisheries management is appropriate. I think we can agree to differ on this. It certainly speaks to the original point made in the British press release.
And I couldn’t agree more with this statement: “The scientist puts their scientific integrity on the line if they allow themselves to be used.”.
You dismiss Kasuya because he expresses opinions with which you disagree. You haven’t checked his scientific backgruond, his track record, or what happened to him. This speaks eloquently of itself.
Thanks for the input.
Peter
This has been mentioned many times but hardly anyone eats whale meat in Norway nowadays…so why are they whaling at all, probably many people think ( are brainwashed) that the whales eat too much fish, actually I have heard whalers say that whales eat more fish than all illegal Russian trawlers in the Barents Sea!
If you guys claim that you understand Norwegian culture I can inform you that Norwegians ( and Icelanders) are the biggest pizza eaters in the world, and I don’t mean whale pizza! Now, I don’t care so much about eating a whale or a cow , what I’m opposed to is the waste of natural resources, have you heard about the stockpiles of blubber and whale meat in Norway?
Anne Novek Said
“If you guys claim that you understand Norwegian culture I can inform you that Norwegians ( and Icelanders) are the biggest pizza eaters in the world, and I don’t mean whale pizza! Now, I don’t care so much about eating a whale or a cow , what I’m opposed to is the waste of natural resources, have you heard about the stockpiles of blubber and whale meat in Norway?”
Anne, why do you keep repeating this blubber mountain rubbish when you know it no longer exists? Do you believe that if you say it often enough, somebody might believe it? Or do Greenpeace Sweden still claim this BS?
Hi JM,
Actually me too thought this blubber mountain was destroyed, but I did a research and found out that part of the mountain was made to dog food , to animal activists annoyance and that part of the stockpile still exists. Simpy put, it is too expensive to destroy, you have to use special incinerators.
Anne N Said
”
Actually me too thought this blubber mountain was destroyed, but I did a research and found out that part of the mountain was made to dog food , to animal activists annoyance and that part of the stockpile still exists. Simpy put, it is too expensive to destroy, you have to use special incinerators.”
References please to this alledged blubber mountain…
Link is here:
http://www.nrk.no/redskap/utskriftsvennlig/2741582.html
here’s the translation:( short version)
Contaminated whale blubber made to animal food.
Norwegian authorities are permitting toxic whale blubber to be made to dog
and animal food. 700tons of the stockpile of blubber has been made to animal
food says Råfisklaget( association for whalers and fishermen).
This is totally unacceptable states animal welfare group Dyrebeskyttelsen.
There still remains 600 tons of the stockpile. The Fisheries Ministry paid
last year 4million Kroner on the destruction of blubber. The stockpile is
uselesss for human consumption. It’s Råfisklaget that has administrated the
destruction.
The Norwegian animal welfare group Dyrebeskyttelsen wants to stop all
Norwegian whale hunt , and is focussing the destruction of the blubber
with the whole ethic issue connected with the whaling industry.
Ann
Anne,
Thats from May 2003, – three years ago – do you have any references from today? this year? 2006?
In other words, do you have any proof that any blubber is left other than that media comment from three years ago?
Yes, Ellingsens whale meat processing factory and Arntsens have whale blubber and meat stockpiles according to Lofotensposten( March 2006)
Peter,
I have no trouble trusting scientists who do not involve themselves in political arguments.
Any scientist who runs around in the media making blatant politically based assertions about “commercial whaling in disguise” disregarding a number of plain realities, in addition to breaking IWC SC rules (as I documented in my previous post) will lose all their credibility as a neutral, balanced source of opinion in my eyes.
I do not see what is unreasonable about that. How much proof do I need that a scientist has a political bias? I believe that Prof. Kasuya has displayed more than enough bias – and we’re talking about an anti-whaling friendly western media here.
I have searched for information about Prof Kasuya, and “what happened to him” but all I have been able to find are media reports where he promotes his politically anti-whaling arguments, or reports about it.
If you have information that you believe might make me reconsider my impression of him, you are more than welcome to share it.
Regards,
David
Only one tenth of a whale is utilized in Norwegian whaling- the rest is dumped, all blubber but it has happened that meat has been dumped as well.
To JM , all blubber seems to be dumped nowadays in the killing fields, and Norwegian NGOs have expressed fears that this toxic blubber will contaminate the seas and seabeds. And it seems like it is forbidden to dump the old blubber mountain.
http://www.sft.no/nyheter/brev/hvalspekk230802.html
“all blubber seems to be dumped nowadays in the killing fields, and Norwegian NGOs have expressed fears that this toxic blubber will contaminate the seas and seabeds”
Really? What on earth do these NGO´s think happens to the carcasses of the hundreds/thousands of whales that die from natural causes yearly? Using the NGO´s logic, the whalers are doing the seas a favour by removing a few hundred tons of ” toxic whalemeat ” from the seas every year then aren´t they? I´ve heard some good ones from NGO´s in the past but that one takes the cookie
Yeah, this is what we Swedes call a ” Norge historia”, but remember that NGOs in Norway are PROWHALING.
For those who dont know what a ” Norge historia” is I’ll explain. Norwegians have ” Sverige historier” and we have ” Norge historier”, we point out how stupid Norwegians are and they point out how stupid Swedes are in the most fantastic and crazy stories!
Some years ago Mr Walloe did this statement” Each Minke Whale we kill gives 5 tons more fish to the Norwegian fishermen”.
Is this science or politics?
David
In a series of IWC working papers over the past few years, Kasuya and coworkers demonstrated that, post-WWII, there had been substantial under-reporting of catches by some Japanese coastal whaling operations. The abstract of a paper that’s been published in the IWC journal says this:
Kasuya, T. 1999. Examination of the reliability of catch statistics in the Japanese coastal sperm whale fishery. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 1(1):109-22
Catch statistics are important for the assessment of whale stocks. This paper reviews earlier questions over the reliability of statistics from the Japanese land based sperm whale fishery, and presents some new information for the periods 1959-65 and 1983-84. The available data suggest that aspects of post-World War II statistics are unreliable to an unknown extent in terms of total numbers, length and sex ratio. The level of unreliability appears to vary by month, year and whaling company. Suggestions for future work to try to determine the likely levels of unreliability are presented. This is important to enable an accurate assessment of the status of North Pacific sperm whales.
These finding are of direct relevance to the implementation of the RMP/RMS. Kasuya no longer works as a government scientist. Readers with an open mind can make their own assessments as to what this says about being a whistle blower in the world of whale science in Japan.
Re your link to Lapointe’s comment on the Nature paper – my personal opinion is that the authors made a blunder in publishing the paper prior to the IWC that year. It allows people like Lapointe and yourself to focus an issue of IWC rule breaking while ignoring the much larger issue of how “scientific whaling” is a corruption of the scientific process. (Matthew 7:3 [the King James version] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?)
By the way, Lapointe’s organization gets money from the Norwegian government to support whaling, as I noted here (scroll down until you reach it): http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001142.html#comments
‘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)’
And please, before anyone responds by saying that some of the IWC SC says scientific whaling’s fine, go read up a bit on what’s been going on in marine mammal foraging ecology over the past few years. If you don’t have access to a University library, a nice start could be the abstracts for Marine Ecology Progress Series. The past decades’ worth are available on line at: http://www.int-res.com/journals/meps/meps-home/
Peter
Both ;O)
Anne
http://www.lofotposten.no/lokale_nyheter/article1547192.ece
Comment from May 2005 about the destruction of Ellingsens Blubber
I see no mention of any March 2006 article from Lofotposten, care to provide a link?
I guess you’re not satiisfied with this article but it states that “…de har lagre av våghvalekött”
http://www.lofotposten.no/lokale_nyheter/article2013233.ece
And does it really matter if the blubber mountain is on land or on the seabottom?
The Ellingsen guy did a really funny statement in the article as well, stating that ” det var försvinnende små mengder bly i spekket”. So why the hell did they need special incinerators then to destroy the blubber” ????
Anne N Said:
And does it really matter if the blubber mountain is on land or on the seabottom?
The Ellingsen guy did a really funny statement in the article as well, stating that ” det var försvinnende små mengder bly i spekket”. So why the hell did they need special incinerators then to destroy the blubber” ????
Using that Line of Logic Anne, Does it really Matter if the blubber is swimming around on a whale either?
So Anne, Do you now agree that this statement you made :
” Yes, Ellingsens whale meat processing factory and Arntsens have whale blubber and meat stockpiles according to Lofotensposten( March 2006)”
is false, and that in fact, no “blubber mountain” exists? You ( and via you,Greenpeace sweden ) really seem to be reluctant to let go of Noregian blubber, I wonder why?
Could you also explain to us why the Esperanza crew in Lofoten in 2005 stated that direct action against whaling boats does not work, and then 5 months later, performed direct action against Japanese whaling boats ?
Could it possibly be that Greenpeace does´nt know what Greenpeace is doing? Or to put it simply, they don´t have a clue?
Regarding the dirct actions against whalers, both in Norway and Japan, there are many different opinions, some wants direct actions some are opposed to them.
We in Greenpeace are now recommended to read,
“Why Japan supports whaling” by Keiko Hirata and
” Japans rejection of an international norm”, discussing for example
high profile actions on the high seas ,( and why Japan still defies international opinion)
http://www.csun.edu/~kh246690/whaling.pdf
http://www.csun.edu/~kh246690/beached.pdf
I must also point out that when I’m posting comments in forums I don’t express Greenpeace’s opinions, they are my own, and sometimes they differ from Greenpeace’s.
Hi Peter,
Thanks a lot for your comments here, they are really valuable.
I must say that I’m shocked to learn that the Norwegian government supports an organisation like Lapointe’s, that encourages bear-bile farming,shark-finning , ivory-trade and so on. This organisation is also Exxon-funded, and this makes it even harder to understand why Norwegians fund an organisation that is a sceptic to climate cahnge. As we know that the Norwegian government position on this is quite the opposite.
Peter,
Thank you for the additional information about Prof. Kasuya, and elaborating on “what happened to him”.
Your hints prompted me to do some more searching on my own, and I found that he “was dropped from the Japanese delegation to the International Whaling Commission in 1993 for his criticisms of dolphin fishing.”, according to anti-whaling source http://www.usagainstwhaling.org.
I do not know about how Prof. Kasuya feels about the Japanese government position that Dall’s poiposes and other small cetacean species are, and should remain outside the IWC’s competence, but at any rate it’s clear that his research in 1999 about under reported sperm whale catches by land-based fisheries decades ago had nothing to do with his being dropped from the IWC delegation in 1993, as you seem to be implying.
According to the IWC’s homepage the RMP includes factoring in uncertainties including “Errors in historic catch records (including underestimation by half)”, so I don’t see any new negative implications his research has for the implementation of the RMP either, especially when you consider that Prof. Kasuya was a member of the IWC SC that unanimously recommended the RMP. Nothing new with regards to the RMS either – monitoring / compliance is a recognised issue that needs to be addressed.
Given that today Prof. Kasuya finds himself consorting with representatives from the likes of IFAW and Greenpeace (literally – http://homepage1.nifty.com/IKAN/eng/news/awcj.html), it seems most likely to me that his former employers at the Fisheries Agencies found some aspect of his person incompatible with the official government position, which “is to keep the principle of sustainable use … related to the management of wildlife and marine living / fishery resources.”
If the principle that guides the government position is not the same as the principle that guides the scientist, then it’s only natural for there to be a parting of ways.
More than his association with extreme anti-whaling / anti “principle of sustainable use” groups, his criticism in the media of scientific whaling as being a commercial operation is his biggest downfall – a blunder, as you put it – something that he’s done one more than one ocassion, I’d note. Particularly careless when he himself notes in the media reports that the proceeds from whale meat sales do not even fully cover the cost of the research programmes, and that they programs are subsidised. Yet he still draws the conclusion that the research programmes are an “economic” activity.
If, as the anti-whaling camp would have us believe, there is no scientific benefit from the programmes, then the JARPA programmes are clearly a waste of money. This is a huge obstacle in convincing me to believe that the programmes are conducted for the cash, as opposed to the programmes being a genuine R & D effort. And regardless of your suggestion that I ignore the IWC SC, the reality is that the SC did agree in 1997 that the programmes had the potential to lead to improved management.
I have no reason not to trust the full IWC SC of 1997 in their assessment.
As you can see, I’m certainly not ignoring the scientific whaling issue(*), and while you may be a marine mammal scientist, I am not, and would be foolish to put my faith in one scientist rather than the entire IWC SC (no offence intended at all).
I don’t think it’s fair to say that Eugene Lapointe of IWMC ignores the scientific whaling issue either.
In my view, the anti-whaling groups have taken their mantra of “commercial whaling in disguise” as far as it can go.
These groups should stop ignoring and distorting the Japanese position and simply recognise it. As JFA spokesperson Hideki Moronuki has widely been reported, the Japanese are driven by this concern: “If we allow whaling to be banned on the basis of unscientific reasons and value judgments, the [restrictions] may extend to other fisheries as well”.
To me, this is a reasonable position and it’s perfectly understandable. I can but speculate as to why extreme anti-whaling groups choose to ignore this position and instead choose to portray the Japanese as dishonest, having had their avarice get the better of them.
(*) Anti-whaling proponents refer to scientific whaling as a “loophole” in the ICRW. Interestingly enough, the Convention on Migratory Species includes a clause stating:
“Parties that are Range States of a migratory species listed in Appendix I shall prohibit the taking of animals belonging to such species. Exceptions may be made to this prohibition only if:
a) the taking is for scientific purposes; ”
I’m a kiwi, and despite my government’s continued characterization of Article VIII of the ICRW as “outdated” and a “loophole”, the government became a signatory to this new convention in 1999.
One wonders why these governments keep signing up to conventions which they believe contain loopholes.
Ann, you hauled out your tired allegations of the IWMC being a front group on my blog previously.
Is it not possible for you to simply be honest and recognise that there are groups of people in the world that genuinely support the sustainable use of wild resources?
You also mischaracterize the IWMC’s position on sharks. Guided by the principle of sustainable-use, applicable to all forms of wildlife, IWMC supports sustainable use of sharks. But to suggest that the IWMC encourages shark-finning is outright dishonesty, if not ignorance.
From the IWMC’s page:
http://www.iwmc.org/sharks/000721-7.htm
When such actions occur, they certainly must be condemned. However, the deliberate and misleading manipulation of public, press and policy-making opinion by NGOs must also not be allowed to go unchallenged.
It’s clear for all to see that the IWMC does not encourage shark-finning in any way. I hope you have the decency to acknowledge your mistake.
Anne N Said :
“I must also point out that when I’m posting comments in forums I don’t express Greenpeace’s opinions, they are my own, and sometimes they differ from Greenpeace’s.”
Sure Anne, that´s the standard Greenpeace reply – they also used it when Greenpeace activists attempted to cut a minke loose from a Harpoon a few years back ( Senet AFAICR )
Anytime a Greenpeace member and Field activist
does anything that may give Greenpeace bad press, then ” they were acting on their own, not for Greenpeace”
I wonder if anyone actually believes that anymore?
Hello JM,
If the Norwegians didn’t dump all the blubber, we all know there would be a huge stockpile.
In Iceland unsold whale meat from 2003 was still sitting in cold storage in spring 2005, I don’t have the numbers but I think the situation is the same for Norway.
Anne, is there or isn´t there a stockpile of norwegian blubber? Do you still claim there is?
There are stockpiles of various products all over the world, from cheese to butter to kangaroo meat .. what is your problem with stockpiles?
As for your Icelandic and Norwegian stockpiles of unsold whale meat, not knowing the numbers doesn´t cut much mustard – cite sources instead of repeating unverified claims… I´m sure Norway has whalemeat from the 2005 in Freezers, I have around 3kg in my own freezer ..
and BTW, don´t you think it is Kind of Hypocritical and even possibly racistic for an official Greenpeace spokesman on Esperanza to State that direct action against whaling ships does not work and four months later, Esperanza is conducting a useless direct action in the southern ocean? ( By saying useless, I mean that it did not stop Japan from reaching their stated objectives of 850 minkies +/-10% and 10 fin whales – about the only thing Greenpeace managed to achieve seems to be increased suffering and longer times to death of a number of minke whales when they were blocking the gunners )
Can you explain to me what official Greenpeace policy is on direct actions against whaling vessels worldwide? Or do individual Greenpeace offices make it up as they go along?
JM: ” What’s your problem with stockpiles? ”
Of course there are stockpiles of various foods including whale meat..
But this whaling issue is so infested and political and most whalers and retailers incorrectly state that whale meat is sold out.
JM, are you trying to shock me mentioning that you have whale meat in the freezer? 😉
Hey, don’t forget that I grew up with the Norwegians and that my former boyfriend was Norwegian! And yes, I have eaten whale meat, btw not a delicacy in my opinion, sorry Norwegians;))
JM, you mix things up. Truls Gulowsen from Greenpeace Norway never stated that direct actions against whaling ships doesn’t work in Norway. It was me who told you that, referring to former Whales CampaignerFrode Pleym and Greenpeace Nordic’s statements.
As I have already mentioned, it’s not surprising that in a big organisation as Greenpeace , there are different opinions even in the whaling issue.
David,
OK maybe I trust you that Lapoine’s organisation doesn’t encourage shark-finning, but they support the extremely cruel practise of bearbile farming.
This bearbile farming was something that the Chinese and North Koreans invented in the 80′.
This has nothing to do with tradition or sustainable use of natural resources as many bears die under this extremely cruel procedure. I mean the lucky ones die!
http://wspa.org.uk/index.asp
I’m not opposed to some people or hunters using natural resources to survive. For example, I eat moose steak from the annual hunt rather than burgers made from factory farm animals and I support reindeer herding. What I oppose is CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, and my position on whaling is for example, that if I knew they could be killed fast and without pain then why not kill a few minkes. But the numbers of killed minkes are to big today and I don’t believe most of them die humanely as the authorities claim.
Ann,
Thank you for recognising that the IWMC does not encourage shark-finning.
I must admit to having very little knowledge of bear bile farming and what the IWMC’s stance on it is (I am mainly interested in sustainable use of wild resources, as opposed to farm techniques), so can’t really comment one way or the other without first getting interested in, and secondly without reading widely about it.
I appreciate your clarification about your opposition to cruelty, rather than opposition to resource use.
I certainly oppose cruelty as well myself, but perhaps not as strictly as you.
This is just my own personal interpretation, but for me, “humane killing” simply implies killing the target animal as quickly as is possible using the methods that are available at that current point in time. Striving to do better, is also important.
To fail *to try* to kill an animal quickly is most certainly inhumane. No human should ever try to draw out the time-to-death for killing an animal.
On the other hand, *to fail* to kill an animal quickly is not inhumane, if you did your absolute best but simply failed to acheive the goal.
For example, I do not believe that cavemen from prehistoric times were cruel when they clubbed and stabbed animals to death for food.
I do not believe whalers hundreds of years ago before modern whaling techniques were inhumane when they too used the best implements available at the time.
Nor do I believe whalers today are inhumane, as they too use the best implements available, and indeed achieve instantaneous death in many cases.
What I do believe is irresponsible about the Greenpeace organization is that they have recently taken actions which may lengthen the time-to-death for the whales in the Antarctic. The harpooners are already charged with striking the whales in such a place as to not damage the internal organs required for biological studies, as well as aiming for instantaneous death, and the job is not made easier when you have inflatables with human beings obstructing you.
I believe Greenpeace’s actions in the Antarctic are probably simply childish and stupid, but the result is apparently that time-to-death statistics showed worse results when the inflatables were present than when they were not. I do expect to hear more about this at the IWC meeting later this year.
What I expect Greenpeace to do in future is to refrain from their placing inflatables in front of the harpoons, but simply observe and record the hunting from a safe distance. I have no problem with Greenpeace recording the hunting, but I do have a problem with Greenpeace obstructing the harpooners, and then broadcasting images around the world saying “oh look what the nasty whalers have done”. If Greenpeace continues this year’s tactics again in future, it serves no real positive purpose and can only open up Greenpeace to further criticism such as this.
Truls Gulowsen or Frode Pleym, both are official Greenpeace spokesmen or? So tell me Anne, What is official Greenpeace policy? Is it that Direct action against whaling boats does not work or not? Who decides? Greenpeace international or individual Greenpeace offices? Whom owns Esperanza and arctic sunrise? Greenpeace international`? Do individual ofices ” rent ” the boat(s) out?
In other words, who or what office is directly responsible for any actions by these boats?
I think Greenpeace International ultimately is responsible for all activity with advice from local offices.
As Brian Fitzgerald from Greenpeace International already has pointed out , Greenpeace doesn’t believe in direct confrontations with whalers in Norway. They were counterproductive.
I know you will now say that Greenpeace’s confrontations in the Antarctic were also counterproductive, maybe they are, but there is a whole new generation out there who knows nothing about whaling and they need to know the whaling issue , without those actions nobody wouldn’t know anything. I do hope Greenpeace’s actions didn’t prolong the whales sufferings though.
David,
Are hunters bad or good? It is impossible to do a generalization. Personally, I would find it very difficult to kill an animal, but being just an human I don’t mind or ctitize those who eats meat, absolutely not those who eat free range animals. I’m a strong opponent to factory farming.
I don’t like this ” hunt-for -fun” mentality, but I can give you good examples of hunters here in Sweden. When the winter is very long and cold, it’s the farmers and hunters that give the additional feed to wildlife, like roe deers and hares.
Regarding “blood-thirsty Norwegians” I can mention that Norway has banned all dolphinariums on cruelty grounds and Norway has maybe the world’ strongest laws on horse welfare issues.
Israel will join anti-whaling camp:
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_060429_1.html
Strong anti-whaling protest
Norway is used to be criticized for its whaling policy, but this time the anti-whaling protest alliance was unusually strong and on a broad front.
Neither the Forign Ministry or the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs can recall such a strong demarche from anti whaling countries , according to Norwegian TV2 Nettavisen.
http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/verden/article615624.ece
Excerpt from Norwegian newspaper ” Dagbladet” ( 17.4.06)
The Foreign Ministry and Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs have funded international lobbyorganisations with very bad and unthrustworthy reputation.
Organisations included:
– EBCD ( European Bureau of Conservation and Development) that supports Norwegian and Greenland whaling.
– IWMC, an organisation with very bad reputation and deemed unthrustworthy and which has strong commercial interests.
– Africa Resources Trust, an organisation that supports elephant hunting.
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/04/17/463729.html
Dear Anne,
If Norway and Japan are now using tactics previously used by NGO´s such as Greenpeace to “fill” the IWC with like minded commissioners – then you know who to blame don´t you?
Ann,
Despite your claims of opppsing cruelty to animals as opposed to sustainable use per se, I’m confused as to why you label certain groups as “international lobbyorganisations with very bad and unthrustworthy reputation[s]”.
I’d like more details.
What is wrong with groups supporting Norwegian and Greenland whaling?
With regards to the IWMC, what is this “very bad reputation” you talk about, and by who is it “deemed unthrustworthy”? And what specifically are the “strong commercial interests” you talk about? To give a bit of perspective, you might like to include a comparison with Greenpeace, a group that rakes in millions each year (check it’s annual report). Note also that with those millions, Greenpeace did not save a single whale this year, and indeed whaling has been on the increase for 2 decades since the zero catch limit ammendment to the ICRW was imposed.
And lastly, what is wrong with supporting elephant hunting? Would you rather see Elephants outgrow their ecosystem, potentially putting biodiversity at risk? What is your realistic solution to these issues?
Interesting that you refer to Elephants, since you have previously raised the issue of Eugene Lapointe being sacked from his position at CITES. He was sacked by the UN under pressure from groups such as the IFAW who attacked him as he campaigned against the ivory trade ban. Let me quote you a little extract:
His “crime” was advocating a sustainable use philosophy that allowed for scientifically directed hunting of whales, elephants and other animals, especially in situations that respect local cultural values.
Thirty months later, a panel of judges of the United Nations described Lapointe’s dismissal as “capricious and arbitrary,” resulting from “… the worst case of character assassination in the history of the United Nations.”
In a unanimous decision, the judges vindicated Lapointe, awarded him financial compensation, ordered his reinstatement and forced the UN secretary general to write a letter stating, “Mr. Lapointe had fulfilled his duties and responsibilities in every way and in a highly satisfactory manner.”
I’d note again here Ann, that Eugene Lapointe was standing up for the principle of sustainable use – a concept that you have stated you are not against. It’s apparently cruelty that you are against. Or is this just a smokescreen stance? Do you avoid denying the principle of sustainable use, but oppose use anyway on grounds of “cruelty”?
As for the IWMC’s funding, Lapointe is quite open about it:
“Lapointe says his funding today comes from Japan, Norway, China, Canada, and “two small European countries.” (http://www.dickrussell.org/articles/ecologist1.htm)
Big surprise? Where is the hidden evil, Ann?
Feel free to elaborate, rather than spout ad hominem attacks about those you oppose. They have already been through enough, and they even had the UN recognise that they were not treated fairly.
You ought to consider why it is that you find yourself on the same side of the argument as those groups which perpetrated the character assasination of Lapointe, and the organization that recklessly carries out propaganda stunts potentially increasing time-to-deaths for whales.
At any rate, if it’s truely cruelty that you are opposed to, I suggest you set up a new NGO, because I don’t think your views have good representation at all.
Hi David,
Just a short comment here, I’ll be back later!
I’m just referring to (word by word ) what Norwegian Paper ” Dagbladet” has published. If you don’t trust me ask Rune or JM;).
Actually David, I checked out this IWMC website today and I salut them for their condemning of the building of the Shell pipeline in Sahkalin that threatens the very endangered Western gray whale population.
Have a nice day,
Ann
PS. But I still don’t support them in other issues:)
Hi JM,
I have the permission of Brian Fitzgerald from Greenpeace International to publish this letter to me:
Greenpeace has never bought a vote. The idea that we could afford to make it
worthwhile for a country to vote with us on whales is pretty absurd.
What Greenpeace spends in a year, General Motors spends in 4 hours. I’d have to
do some digging to see what the expenditure of the Japanese government might be
by comparison, but I reckon they probably spend that in about 4 minutes.
Greenpeace doesn’t have the resources to buy a country if we wanted to. Japan on
the other hand has been caught red-handed.
There were accusations of vote-buying by Greenpeace in a film called “Man in the
Rainbow” which was funded by the High North Alliance. This was a hatchet
propoganda job: at one point they asked Francisco Pallacio, who used to work as
a consultant for Greenpeace, how much Conservation organisations had spent on
whale conservation over the years. He replied, correctly, “millions of dollars.”
But when they cut the film, they changed the question to “How much did
Greenpeace spend bribing commissioners?” — we got a court order to produce the
original footage of the interview and transcripts, Palacio himself sued the
filmmakers, and judges in Germany and a couple other countries agreed that this
was libel, and forbid the showing of the film.
This film, and the High North accusations, are the only sources I know of for
the fiction that Greenpeace paid for votes. They’re unfortunately very
virulent, but completely unfounded.
–b
The vote buying allegations that GP sends up are frankly ridiculous.
Japan has a strong foreign program, and supports developing nations.
This “support” is then declared to be a “bribe” by Greenpeace.
Even in cases like St. Vincent and the Grenadines, where that nation itself kills whales!!
Can you really imagine a whaling nation bribing another whaling nation?
Perhaps GP should simply accept that these days Japan is a fairly popular world citizen, and as it bases it’s stance at international forums on well endorsed principles, finds plenty of support for them in international fora.
David,
I don’t think this thread is about elephant hunting and ivory trade.
Frankly, I don’t know that much about the elephant hunting issue, so I can’t do a reasoned and balanced comment. However, I do know the positions of IWMC and IFAW on this issue.
Once again, we can’t do a generalization.
Elephants are threatened by poaching, the demand for ivory is increasing in China and Japan. The elephants seem to be especially threatend in regions like the Virunga , where they are killed by rebels.
In other parts , like the Kruger Park, there could possibly an overpopulation. The main reason for this seems to be elephant habitat loss by increased human population growth, simply put, people are moving into elephant land and elephants are moving into farmland and causing conflicts between human vs wildlife.
Regarding establishing an NGO of my own. No thanks, right now I support Greenpeace and an Estonian NGO that works against bottom trawling and oil spills in the Baltic Sea.
Actually it seems like Norway harpoons minkes not for food but for eating too much fish. This is just plain culling or what the government says “regulation”.
In whaling debates in the Parliament(Stortinget) for example , politicians have claimed that the minkes in the North Atlantic eat 200 000 tons cod /year plus the same amount of other fish.
On the other hand official numbers for illegal trawling in the Barents Sea( that is a big issue in Norway) is 100 000 tons of cod.
Numbers how much minkes eat are from Fiskeriforskning in Tromsö.
> Once again, we can’t do a generalization.
I agree!
This is why I’m constantly confused by your comments.
For some reason you previously wrote about “elephant hunting” as if it were something bad, to be ashamed of.
David,
You don’t need to be confused. You trust IWMC , I trust IFAW, haven’t they found out a solution for this overpopulation issue?I believe all nature reseves are fenced in, one solution seems to be open up areas in different countries so the elephants can migrate between differtent countries, another solution is to transport elephants to other regions, I have seen that in a documentary. Countries like Kenya are opposed to elephant hunting and ivory trade.
Ann,
Sorry, but your statements do confuse me 🙂
Countries like Kenya are more than welcome to manage their elephants how they see fit.
However, they campaigned to have a ban on the ivory trade put in place because they had failed to manage their elephant populations, consequently suffering from poaching etc. The problem was, when the ban was imposed in 1989, it led to other nations being forced to abide by the ban even though their circumstances were different.
While Kenya had failed miserably to look after her elephants, nations in Southern Africa had been doing a fine job, and their elephants were in good shape. Here’s the thing – there is a demand for elephant products. Rather than ban this trade, why not permit it, make money from it, and with those funds manage and regulate the industry for the good of conservation?
Read about Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE approach to conservation here:
http://www.unsystem.org/ngls/documents/publications.en/voices.africa/number6/vfa6.08.htm
“While economic incentives are indispensable, the programme preaches and practises sustainable consumption as a vehicle for development. This is the language the Zimbabwean people and their ancestors have been practising since time immemorial.”
Unfortunately, NGO groups from the Western world seem to care more about African elephants than they do about African people.
Remembering that all parties agree that conserving elephants is a priority, which do you give more importance Ann? African elephants or African people?
As for relocation, nations in Southern Africa should be under no obligation to relocate their (valuable) elephants to Kenya, a nation which has failed abismally to look after theirs (unless Kenya wishes to pay?).
Even in Kenya, the elephant levels are growing these days – but for how long will the ecosystem be able to sustain continued growth?
Then what? Ship elephants to Sweden perhaps? 🙂 Westerners seem to love them so much, let’s see how they enjoy having them overrunning the local neighbourhood.
David,
Unfortunately, I have no time to do a read up on this issue right now- what I know is that in 1979 , there were 1,3 million elephants in Africa, today there are between 300 000 and 600 000.
And there are discussions on trans-boundary elephant management plans between South Africa and Zimbabwe. South African elephants used to travel to Zimbabwe before 1989 , when the border was fenced in due to poaching.
Ann,
I’ve heard that total elephant numbers in Africa have decreased as well.
But why should people who manage their resources responsibly suffer because of poor management by people in other areas?
Why not treat each population on a case by case basis, as would be the case with catch limits for whales stocks?
By the way, I found an article I linked to on my blog from last year that might interest you 🙂
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/article_1003234.php/Protests_subside_over_Norwegian_whaling
Hi David,
I read about this news too in a Norwegian paper some months ago, the headline was “Victory” or something like that, but I must point out it’s not really a victory because attitudes among young peole , especially in the cities have changed, they are opposed to whale hunting and the demand for whale meat have decreased , the meat is not especially healthy and this may be very confusing but the anti-whaling movement think THEY are winning the battle, but it’s not a fast and visual victory.
That’s the most frustrating thing about it, for me.
In the world today we have a load of sofa-environmentalists living in cities, sitting in front of their computers or TV’s, handwringing about how the silly people who actually live close to the resources aren’t doing things “the right way”.
I too am a sofa-environmentalist living in Tokyo, but my views are different.
I don’t think for a second that I know better about whales hunted in Norway by local whalers, or about elephants in Southern Africa utilised by southern africans.
Should I?
Does living in a highly developed modern city automatically make me more knowledgeable about the environment from which I far far detached, than those people who are actually living in that environment?
Apparently, by reading a Greenpeace / IFAW webpage or newspaper advertisement, suddenly I know everything, and by giving money to people who too, know everything, we can stop the sillybillies of the world from messing up conservation of their resources.
I wonder if the whalers of Norway, or the people living with elephants in Southern Africa believe that they know how best I can conserve my eco-system?
Or does one have to live in a city to understand that utilization of wildlife is not the correct way to conserve resources?
Globalization has brought many benefits, but the “know-everything about everything” attitude that pervades western thinking is for me, one of the biggest drawbacks of it.
David,
You are correct that many so called “environmentalists” are sofa-environmentalists. It could lead to misunderstandings.
It is very good that they have joined NGOs and are interested in enviro issues but as in my case I have met many activists with a total misunderstanding of rural life. I am a supporter of small scale ecological farming but many activists despise everything that has to do with farming. They think cows are pesky critters that destroy the Amazonas and so on. In certain cases that is true but for us here in Sweden , some farming is good for the nature . That keeps the landscape open as we say and promotes biodiversity. And I have been called animal abuser by animal rights activists who think that horseback riding and owning a horse is really a crime.
If you think Greenpeace believes that people who live in the cities are more informed in enviro issues you are wrong. I’m sure they would value support from fishing/whaling and forest communities immensely.
I would also like to point out that the indigenous Sami people, a reindeer herding people, that live on hunting and reindeer herding strongly support Greenpeace.
I certainly don’t think Greenpeace believes city people are more informed, and I’ve consistently got the impression that Greenpeace is quite happy to keep that situation as the status quo 🙂
I can’t imagine whaling peoples ever supporting Greenpeace, however. At least with respect to whaling, Greenpeace appears to be opposed to it regardless of who is doing it, on two counts:
1) it’s too cruel apparently. Japan uses the latest technology, and whales don’t die quickly enough. In subsistence hunting, equipment is not likely to be as advanced, and thus the whales are likely to die more slower in those hunts
2) Greenpeace believes that commercial whaling is not actually possible.
If Greenpeace wanted to come to the table with the whaling people I think they’d first need to take a less extreme stance.
David,
Since you are very interested in the whaling issue and Greenpeace is a big part of that you need to know some basics:
1) Greenpeace is not an animal rights organisation, they are an environmental organisation. They don’t deal with issues like animal cruelty, the statements of cruelty on this thread are only my own opinions. IFAW on the other hand are concerned with whale’s welfare issues, Greenpeace is more concerned about populations and how endangered some whale populations are.
2) Greenpeace is not opposed to ALL whaling, as you may think, we don’t oppose Faroe Island whaling and subsistence whaling. We oppose commercial whaling and lethal “scientific” whaling.
I must say that I really don’t trust statements like ” safe quotas” , despite what the scientists and computer models say.
We have seen errors before.
And why do some Norwegian politicians do statements like ” the minkes eat more cod than all illegal fishing in the Barents Sea” and are referring to statistics from Fiskeriinstitutet i Tromsö ( Marine Research Institute in Tromsö), that states that minkes are eating 200 000 tons of cod annualy plus the same amount of other fish. This statistics seem to imply that cod is the staple diet for minkes. On the other hand High North Alliances website say that minke’s staple fish diet is herring. And what’s the problem with minkes eating herring, there is an abundance of herring in the North Atlantic.
So can some experts tell me what minkes staple diet consists of , is it cod or herring???
> I must say that I really don’t trust statements like ” safe quotas” , despite what the scientists and computer models say.
I don’t really share your mistrust, but since you have noted that you do not believe in “safe quotas” you may like to tell us how you feel about statements like this:
“The major policy mechanism for commercial [form of marine resource exploitation] is the Quota Management System. Each year, a Total Allowable Catch, based on sustainable harvesting limits, is set for each [marine resource] stock in the system. Management plans have been developed for some [marine resource exploitation industry] under the Quota Management System and there are some voluntary codes of practices.”
That’s about New Zealand’s approach to fish and fisheries.
http://www.un.org/esa/earthsummit/newze-cp.htm#ch17
Essentially, the whaling peoples of the world make similar statements, but instead of filling the gaps above with “fish”, they fill them with “whale”.
Although, I suppose you could well believe that New Zealand is incapable of responsibly managing it’s fisheries.
> We oppose commercial whaling and lethal “scientific” whaling.
I don’t believe either of those objections are justified on scientific grounds.
The PRIME consideration must always be sustainability.
Greenpeace claims to oppose commercial whaling because it’s unsustainable, yet some subsistence operations target endangered species.
Greenpeace’s objections are therefore clearly not scientific at all.
Presumably Greenpeace accepts that subsistence whaling is sustainable. Therefore, they must logically accept that certain levels of commercial catch too would be sustainable.
David,
Greenpeace is not opposed to subsistence whaling, nor do they support it.
Grrenpeace is opposed to commercial whaling because everywhere it has been performed, it has led to overexploitation and depletion of whale stocks. On the other hand subsistence whaling has never depleted any whale stock.
But indeed some subsistence whaling is controversial, since endangered species are targeted and subsistence whaling is ” commercial whaling in disguise”.
I can hardly mention any country that manages its fisheries with responsibility.
FAO reports that 75% of the world’s major fish stocks are over-exploited, fully exploited, rebuilding or depleted.
Big fish stock( cod, mackerel , tuna, shark) has fallen 90% since 1950.
And I do condemn New Zealand for bottom trawling .
Payday Loan http://www.nfspaydayloan.com
buy xanax
purchase ultram
order valium online
mortgage valium
side effects ultram
ultram sale
valium line
valium
ultram
valium dosage
valium dosage
valium
ultram
ultram online order
valium
valium
purchase ultram
valium line
valium
valium
valium
valium
ultram
ultram
order valium online
ultram
valium
valium
valium vicodin
valium sale
ultram
ultram
valium
valium
ultram
buy cheap ultram
valium
valium