The next International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting is planned for St Kitts in the Caribbean from June 16 to 20. Rumor has it that the meeting will mark a change in the balance of power at the IWC from the antiwhaling to the prowhaling nations.
This would likely result in an eventual lifting of the ban on commercial whaling.
Given the IWC was established to manage whale stocks, and the whaling industry, rather than close it down, so the change may bring the Commission closer to its original purpose.
Interestingly, a recent essentially pro-whaling opinion article in the New York Times, suggested that having the IWC manage whaling was like having ‘the fox guarding the chicken coop’. The article went on to suggest that the responsibility for looking after the world’s whales should be transferred to the United Nations (1).
In the review of a book titled ‘Marine Mammals and Northern Cultures’ (2), Ian Stirling from the Canadian Wildlife Service asks the question:
“How did whales of all species become “a global resource”, thereby giving the international community license to tell local people what they could or should do (or not do).
Regardless of one’s personal views, this is not a trivial question and it applies to more resources than whales. Although not discussed [in the book], that question might also raise a parallel question about whether the international community should have a significant influence on the regulation of harvest of whales, cod, krill, large predatory fish, or a host of other marine species, especially given what the fate of many has been at the hands of various users, both commercial and non-commercial.”
What has the international community been good at managing? Where are the success stories in wildlife management and at what level were the programs developed and implemented?
——————–
References
1. ‘ Save Your Whale and Eat It, Too’ by Philip Armour, published May23, 2006, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/opinion/23armour.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
2. ‘Marine Mammals and Northern Cultures’ by A. Kalland and F Sejersen, with contributions from H. Beyer Broch and M. Ris. ISBN 1-896445-26-8. ($CDN $35.00 – see website for specifics on shipping costs). Canadian Circumpolar Institute Press, University of Alberta, Edmonton. 349 pp.
http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/polar//pdfs/CCIPress-Kalland-MMNCFlyer.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
That is an interesting article, in that it’s another example of a “western” media source publishing an argument making a case for whaling. Nonetheless the author makes some statements that I find somewhat disagreable:
1) “loopholes”. Norway and Japan do everything exactly by the rule book. The rules are not “loopholes”, although they may be “inconveniences” for those who oppose all whaling.
On the other hand, it is a “loophole” that nations with no interest at all in cooperating for the goals of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling can sign up and then attempt to skuttle the IWC. That certainly wasn’t intended by the drafters of the ICRW.
2) He states that minke numbers are healthy, so minke whaling is thus sustainable.
Of course, before whaling commenced, whale numbers were healthy, but that didn’t mean whaling was sustainable then – and history showed us what happened with stock after stock getting depleted.
But yes, the Norwegian minke hunt is sustainable (given that they use the RMP to set quotas), yet it’s sustainable only because the number of removals by humans is less than the natural rate of increase.
This seems to be a constant point of confusion for some in the west. Last year a NZ politician made a silly statement along the lines of “at 20 whales a year, they will soon be gone forever”, ignoring the reality that whales reproduce just like cows and other mammls.
So it’s not healthy numbers that can make whaling sustainable – it’s sustainable hunting that makes hunting sustainable 🙂
3) The author says the IWC is not for conservation – you only need to read the ICRW to know that this is not true. The author is more likely confused between “protection” and “conservation”. Anti-whaling nations wish to preserve whales. They wish to see none of them killed at all. On the other hand, conserving is what you do when you moderate your exploitation such that future generations too can benefit.
The pro-preservation / anti-use proponents have done a good job redefining this language.
4) “Whales need at least 50 more years to repopulate before hunting of larger species should resume.”
The western and eastern Australian humpback whale stocks are forecast to return to their pre-whaling level estimates within the next 10-15 years. The IWC has recognised them to be on the increase at rates of around 10% a year for the last 2 decades.
Certain minke stocks are of course healthy, as are various others.
Also of interest is that the RMS discussions are going to be put on ice:
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/business/news/20060524p2g00m0bu043000c.html
Another agenda item is that Japan has indicated that it will seek a resolution or recommendation against the “protest” techniques of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, which I think should find wide support, given that even Ian Campbell spoke out against their methods.
Something else to look out for will be this year’s publicity stunt by members of the IWC Scientific Committee delegated from the 16 hard-core anti-use nations and other NGO affiliated scientists. This should be in the news over the next few weeks, or just prior to the IWC meeting itself. Like last year’s effort, I expect to see these scientists speaking lots of politics rather than lots of science. We’ve already seen NZ scientist Baker publish a report for the IFAW making very political statements, and I expect to see something from his Aussie counterparts too.
The shift in the balance of power, if it comes to fruition, should make this year’s meeting quite interesting for a change 🙂 Especially of interest will be what happens if secret ballots are adopted. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a heavier swing than expected towards the pro-use side if secret ballots are adopted.
Of course whales are a global resource. If we are thinking about the North Atlantic minke whales, for example still the Marine Research Institute of Iceland has no idea where the minkes wintering grounds are. The minkes are a migratory species, and don’t “belong” only to local whaling communities. They spend only a few months in the north.
Norwegian annual whale hunt yields few whales. Is the minke population declining ?
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1325197.ece
Hi Ann,
Whales are a very migratory animal, so some level of international cooperation is required for conservation, but I don’t really see what business nations like New Zealand have whinging to Norway about their whaling practices. If they had more constructive comments, it might be worthwhile.
Interestingly, this works both ways. Were whales managed on a more regional basis, rather than globally via the ICRW, the Japanese wouldn’t be in the position they are – able to go to the Southern Ocean and hunt whales. Australian media last year often referred to “our whales”, indicating that there does seem to be some discomfort with the idea that whales are the resources of the entire global community, no matter if those whales don’t come anywhere near your own waters (or indeed if you don’t even have a coastline, as is the case with 7 landlocked European nations, plus Mongolia and Mali – all IWC members).
You must be happy about the slow progress with this year’s minke hunt. First everyone complains about the quota increase, now that they aren’t getting so many people jump to the conclusion that there must be a decline in the numbers?
Hi David,
I’m indeed a little bit worried about the fact that whalers haven’t spotted any whales in the fjords and along the coast so they have to move northwards.
Usually the whalers claim the Norwegian waters are crawling with whales.
However, there could be some reasons other than a decline of minke population why hardly no whales have been spotted.
The whales could have changed their migratory patterns due to overfishing, or following some herring shoals , whose migratory patterns are unpredictable.
Jennifer, to return to your question: Who should look after the world’s whales?
Perhaps another way to look at this is to look at the marine mammal species that are NOT under IWC control and being hunted by whaling nations. Maybe that might indicate the future path management might take?
So perhaps someone rational would care to discuss how Japanese hunts of small cetaceans, or the Norwegian (or Icelandic) hunts of coastal seals, are an excellent (or, for that matter, an acceptable) model for managing hunts of marine wildlife? Could a little international discourse help out in those instances? Then, having looked at them, how does Canada’s situation differ? Ian Stirling being Canadian and an excellent scientist, the question has merit, because the Canadian approach strikes me as being different (i.e. they’ve got their act reasonably well together for species that aren’t subject to international review).
And while we’re thinking about this, and as David’s raised the recent IFAW report….. Perhaps we could get some indication of how the folks who planned JARPA II intend to be certain that humpback whales from the small Pacific populations (so I don’t mean the east Oz or west Oz populations) won’t be killed in their sampling regime, given the current state of knowledge re humpback distributions in the Antarctic? After all, whoever devised the sampling scheme must have thought very hard about this. As far as I can see, the likelihood that animals from those populations will be killed is low, but it’s not zero.
And a slight correction, the ICRW is a ‘convention to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry’. History suggests that the winner-take-all approach that’s been adopted over the years achieves neither of these. For about 40 years, from the 1940s to the early 80s, whalers won, and proper conservation of whale stocks didn’t get much of a look in, did it? Then over the past 20 years or so, conservation of whale stocks has done pretty well, but the orderly development of the whaling industry hasn’t been so successful.
Maybe moving beyond the winner-take-all approach might do some good? Or at least be worth trying, within the framework of the IWC/ICRW?
Oh, and David, re this: ‘yet it’s sustainable only because the number of removals by humans is less than the natural rate of increase.’. There’s a difference between a sustainable hunt and a maintenance hunt. It’s to do with issues of scientific uncertainty and and the process of interaction between science, management and policy. Worth understanding.
My solution is the same as its always been…
Until Japan stops killing whales, Japan can stop thinking about a seat on the UN Security Council.
They want to play with the big boys of the world, then they can start acting like it.
Until then, treat them for the backwater pseudo-power that they are.
Hi Peter,
“Could a little international discourse help out in those instances?”
A response to this would in part depend on how one defines “discourse” and “help out”.
Wishing to “help out” implies that one thinks another has a problem, or difficulty. In some cases this may be the case.
Yet at a forum such as the IWC, on the issue of small cetacean hunts, representatives from hard-right anti-whaling nations make it clear that the “problem” they see is that simply some number of cetaceans are being killed at all (regardless of how many or few). They support whichever scientific point of view is the worst case scenario (and if such a view is not expressed, just ignore science altogether) in pursuit of desirable outcomes in terms of domestic politics.
Were it the case that participants at the IWC could be satisfied that their international counterparts were participating at the forum for the same reasons (ie, to further sustainable-use / conservation goals), discourse on matters of small cetaceans might be more welcome. As it stands, the IWC is already polarized on the issue of the 13 great whale species, without adding further species to argue about.
You speak favourably of Canada. Does this praise include Canadian whaling and sealing activities? Canada copped a lot of negative press recently, from a similar set of groups that criticise Japan and Norway.
With regard to Japan’s small cetacean hunts, I don’t have the impression that there is currently mismanagement going on, based on what information is readily available. Annual catches of Dall’s porpoises for example amount to a little under 4% of the estimated population in 1989. On the face of it, this doesn’t seem like the, for example, the reckless decade prior to humpback whaling in the Southern Ocean being banned, when Australia took more than 17000 (Japan by comparison took just under 3100 in the same period).
~~~~~~~~~~
“As far as I can see, the likelihood that animals from those populations will be killed is low, but it’s not zero”
It’s a pity that his report was so full of politics that this particular issue was somewhat drowned out, as to the lay observer like myself my assessment was the same as yours. Yet, through his involving himself in the political side of the debate, he brings the scientific validity of his concerns into question. He would be making his point much more effectively if he did not dilute it with his bogus political statements of “profit” (which the JARPA programme never made) motives.
Indeed, the 5 members of the Japanese delegation who responded to Baker and the other scientists who refused to participate in the JARPA II review last year addressed this particular issue specifically.
Perhaps you had not seen this (See Annex O, Appendix 2 & Appendix 3):
http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/sci_com/screport.htm
It’s interesting to note that Baker’s latest report (funded by the IFAW) makes no mention of the points raised by the Japanese delegation in response to this concern, despite having a year to mull over it. This again doesn’t help to further the argument for his position.
As someone who cares about conservation, I seriously would like to see him to respond to the Japanese delegation’s response. Scientists should be able to compare each others findings and so on, yet he seems to only be interested in restating his personal position. This is a shame, because he clearly does have more to contribute – I’ve seen research from the ICR that refers to papers that Baker has co-authored.
~~~~~~~~~~
“For about 40 years, from the 1940s to the early 80s, whalers won, and proper conservation of whale stocks didn’t get much of a look in, did it?”
I don’t understand the criteria used for this evaluation. As I noted on a previous point, hunting of humpbacks in the Southern Ocean was banned in 1963, after being principally decimated by Australian whalers. Other large species were also by and large protected prior to the 1980’s (how many species can you name that finally got protection when the commercial moratorium was imposed?).
I don’t agree that the “whalers won”, either.
That the majority of them went out of business is evidence enough that they lost big time, if not more so than the whale stocks that they depleted, which are now recovering.
“Then over the past 20 years or so, conservation of whale stocks has done pretty well”
Your comments are interesting in that you regard conservation has having done well only in the last 20 years (which happens to coincide with a blanket commercial whaling moratorium), and not having done well prior to that (despite depleted stocks having already been given protection).
Is it your position that there must be blanket protections for all related species for conservation goals to be met?
“Maybe moving beyond the winner-take-all approach might do some good?”
I think that this is precisely what we will see at the IWC, in coming years.
As I see it, the IWC has started out failing both whale conservation and the whaling industry.
As you point out, the conservation objective has done better more recently, although the whaling industry has continued to lose.
The natural next step is for the objectives of the whaling industry to also be satisfied, along with the goal of conservation.
Representatives from anti-whaling nations describe themselves as conservation-minded, but I believe in coming years we will see gaining acceptance for the idea that conservation no longer needs to imply outright protection. Times and circumstances change.
Additionally, unhelpful and dishonest protests from groups such as Sea Shepherd that “Japan’s ulterior intention is to have an absolutely free hand on the oceans of this world – to deplete them until no whale, dolphin or tuna is left” will be recognised for what they are.
I think history will eventually look back favourably on the development of the IWC, from it’s failure during it’s infancy due to ill-devised measures such as the BWU, through it’s maturation evidenced by the development of the RMP (and subsequent improved management procedures that we are yet to see), and eventual achievement of degrees of success in it’s goals. The challenge for the anti-whaling nations is to grow up and accept this.
~~~~~~~~~~
“Worth understanding.”
…Thanks?
Both sides, the antiwhaling nations and the prowhaling nations say the IWC is dysfunctional, a toothless tiger and Japan acts like a child every year threating to leave the IWC, well in my opinion why not? They act anyway like they please!
But now they will hardly leave the IWC when they have spent millions of dollars in vote-buying.
Interesting contradictions!
My previous message in reponse to Peter hasn’t found it’s way here yet (caught in the malicious content filter I think), but in the meantime Ann, let me ask you this:
“They act anyway like they please”
Indeed, there is absolutely nothing stopping Japan from increasing it’s research programme catches even further.
“But now they will hardly leave the IWC when they have spent millions of dollars in vote-buying.”
Japan spends millions of dollars in ODAs, regardless of the existence of the IWC.
And as you point out, Japan is free to do whatever it likes and it can still remain within the rules of the IWC, using “scientific research as a cover for commercial whaling”, if they so desire.
As we know, the JARPA programme ran at a loss for it’s entire duration, with no profit being generated – all revenue from sales of whale meat were used to fund further research.
Despite this anti-whaling NGOs and western media say Japan’s research programmes are just a cover for commercial whaling and profit – if this is the case, why hasn’t Japan been catching 8000 minkes in the Southern Ocean, rather than just 850 to ensure a positive return on the deal?
Why do you think they haven’t done this, Ann?
I’ll tell you what I think: because (gasp) the research programmes are in fact primarily research operations, despite what anti-whaling NGOs and the western media like to report.
Thanks David
You appear to be suggesting that the Dall’s porpoise example – 4% of an abundance estimate that’s more than a decade and a half old – is acceptable use of science in managing marine wildlilfe. You’ve made my point for me.
Re humpbacks, yes I’ve seen the IWC papers that you refer to, and I don’t see a satisfactory answer to my question in Appendix 3.
Peter
David,
Even after the establishment of the IWC in 1946, commercial whaling was so poorly regulated and unsustainable that it inexorably drove species after species toward extinction.
For decades, a handful nations killed tens of thousands of whales illegally. Immune from punishment, or even investigation by the IWC, whose rules were too weak to ensure compliance, those nations killed protected species, hunted in protected areas and during closed seasons, and killed undersized animals.
They covered up thier violations by systematically misreporting and underreporting their catches. For example, the former Soviet-Union failed to report the killing of at least 90 000 whales over a 30-year period. Japanese whaling companies also reported only a fraction of their true catches.
The Soviets were conducting illegal whaling in a number of areas , most notably the Antarctica, after the protection of highly endangered species such as right and blue whales.
Russia revealed to the IWC that from 1948 to 1973, the Soviet Union killed 48 477 humpback whales in the Southern Oceans, almost 20 times the 2,710 whales officials reported as its catch to whaling commission. Many of those whales had been killed after the worlwide ban on hunting humpbacks had gone into effect. Much of the illegal humpback meat ended up being sold to Japan.
David,
I don’t believe Japan has ever had the intention to carry out “research whaling”.
Although Japan intended to defy the IWC decision on the 1982 moratorium and continue commercial, it met strong pressure from the USA. The US, pressured Japan and other whaling nations to accept the moratorium by threatening economic sanctions against them.
Under the 1979 Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the US threatened to end Japan’s fishing quota in the US 200-mile EEZ if Tokyo continued commercial whaling. Since Japan had substantial economic interests in the US EEZ, it reluctantly signed the Murazawa- Baldridge pact in 1987 and dropped its objection to the IWC moratorium in exchange for a quid pro quo of being allocated fishing quota in the US EEZ.
Even though Japan accepted the 1982 moratorium in exchange for the quid pro fishing arrangement with the US, Tokyo decided to begin a scientific research provision in Article 8 of the IWCR.
Why Japan doesn’t kill 8000 whales per year?
Well, yet they don’t dare due to international criticism and they think it is wiser not to leave the IWC, in that way they can legitimise their actions.
Sorry, some words were left out in my previous comment.
Read: “..Tokyo, decided to begin a scientific whaling program by invoking the scientific research provision in Article 8 of the IWCR”.
Hi Peter,
> You appear to be suggesting that the Dall’s porpoise example – 4% of an abundance estimate that’s more than a decade and a half old – is acceptable use of science in managing marine wildlilfe. You’ve made my point for me.
Well, that is a mispresentation of what I wrote. Or perhaps I need some more practice if that what it appears I am saying 🙂
I was merely stating that glancing at what information is available, the quotas I hear about do not appear to be wildly excessive (certainly nothing like the reckless whaling that saw Humpback stocks crash).
What estimate the Japanese regulators currently base their quotas on, is information that I do not have, being the lay person that I am.
That said, I personally am not going to declare that I think an activity is unsustainable simply because I’m not party to the relevant information, certainly when the information that is available does not seem to indicate any immediate concern is required.
As it happens, I think I saw somewhere that Japan is going to provide information about some small cetacean hunts to the IWC SC on a voluntary basis from this year (I think it was).
Hi Ann,
Yes, in the past, illegal whaling took place.
The IWC is a co-operative. Nations are not obliged to abide by the ICRW. Nations join voluntarily. If they intend to break the rules, there is little point in joining in the first instance. Nations therefore have an incentive to police their commercial whaling operators accordingly to avoid embarassment.
I much prefer the (ideally) co-operative ICRW option to a free-for-all, which is what we would otherwise have.
> I don’t believe Japan has ever had the intention to carry out “research whaling”.
I’m sure you don’t, Ann.
Whether you do or not is not really a point worth discussing further. Political postering for both sides is interesting until we start repeating ourselves (I’m sure you’ve read my blog), but the real reason that I care about the issue is that I want to see the goals of the ICRW met. Do you?
> Although Japan intended to defy the IWC decision on the 1982 moratorium
It’s worth recognising that the reason for this was that Japan’s scientists argued that one species in particular, the Southern Hemisphere minke whale, was too numerous to merit inclusion in the ban. The subsequent estimate in 1990 of 760,000 is a strong indication that they were right. It was no secret that the minke whales were abundant. Including them in the ban was an abuse of the precautionary principle.
Indeed, the Japanese like to remind everybody that the commercial moratorium was not adopted on advice from the Scientific Committee.
> Even though Japan accepted the 1982 moratorium in exchange for the quid pro fishing arrangement with the US, Tokyo decided to begin a scientific research provision in Article 8 of the IWCR.
An understanding of the decision making process might be useful.
Japan’s Prime Minister at the time caved to US pressure.
The Japanese Fisheries Agency on the other hand was planning the JARPA programme.
Their original research proposal called for a sample size of 825 minkes but again the Prime Minister stomped on the plan, worrying about the political implications. The sample size was subsequently slashed to 300, a situation that the scientists were not happy about.
It appears that today the political climate has changed.
> Well, yet they don’t dare due to international criticism and
Isn’t Japan being severely criticised as it stands? Don’t most western commentators already regurgitate Greenpeace claims of “for profit commercial whaling in disguise” (despite the JARPA programme winding up after almost 2 decades of running in the red, year after year?)
Given that they are criticised for undertaking a “commercial” venture, why not just do it properly and actually make heaps of money, if that is really the goal?
Does this really seem plausible??? If so, it must amaze you that the Japanese have the world’s second largest economy despite being run by a bunch of economic illiterates.
> they think it is wiser not to leave the IWC, in that way they can legitimise their actions.
What about the *possibility* that their actions *are* legit?
🙂
People may not agree with Japan’s goals, but I do not understand why there is such a stubborn insistence that research whaling is a sham, despite the fact that the JARPA programme was a big financial loser.
Is there no one out there in the world who can state that “I understand Japan’s goals but disagree with them”? If there is, they have my respect.
Hi David,
“This is a shame, because he clearly does have more to contribute – I’ve seen research from the ICR that refers to papers that Baker has co-authored.”
I hope this is not the criteria you use to make an informed decision on the value of a cetacean researcher’s work.
“I was merely stating that glancing at what information is available, the quotas I hear about do not appear to be wildly excessive (certainly nothing like the reckless whaling that saw Humpback stocks crash).
What estimate the Japanese regulators currently base their quotas on, is information that I do not have, being the lay person that I am.
That said, I personally am not going to declare that I think an activity is unsustainable simply because I’m not party to the relevant information, certainly when the information that is available does not seem to indicate any immediate concern is required.”
My understanding is that abundance estimates on the two forms of Dall’s porpoise found in Japanese waters are not available in part due to a reluctance by the Japanese to conduct them or collaborate with other researchers. Some reports estimate almost 18, 000 Dall’s porpoise are killed annually in Japanese hunts. Research into abundance, stock identity, and the impacts of fisheries, incidental catch and pollution is lacking.
If you are not going to declare that you think an activity is unsustainable simply because you don’t have the relevant information, what do you base your decisions on?
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on why you think the Japanese feel the need to increase the numbers of animals taken to support their scientific research programmes, and what you think the benefits to their research will be.
Hi David,
> I hope this is not the criteria you use to make an informed decision on the value of a cetacean researcher’s work.
My issue is that the scientist in question, who is quite clearly capable, appears to have ignored responses to his concerns, and simply repeated himself (in a paper funded by the IFAW). This does not serve to advance the scientific debate on the issue. How can it be advanced if one side does not even acknowledge the points raised by the other?
Reading through other documents from IWC SC meetings reveals similar instances of such behaviour.
> My understanding is that abundance estimates on the two forms of Dall’s porpoise found in Japanese waters are not available in part due to a reluctance by the Japanese to conduct them or collaborate with other researchers.
That’s not my understanding.
> Some reports estimate almost 18, 000 Dall’s porpoise are killed annually in Japanese hunts.
No need to rely on “some reports” for “estimates” when actual figures are available.
As you may not share my advantage in having Japanese ability, I can note that at least actual figures for 2003 are available in English:
http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/whale/document/2003progressreport.pdf
Reports revealing “estimates” are not so impression when the information is basically already public.
> Research into abundance, stock identity, and the impacts of fisheries, incidental catch and pollution is lacking.
Do you have proof that it is lacking, or are you just unaware of it? I’d like to be clear on the distinction.
> If you are not going to declare that you think an activity is unsustainable simply because you don’t have the relevant information, what do you base your decisions on?
Well, for a start, I am not the person making the decisions… but perhaps you meant my “opinion”?
I will declare that I think that an activity is unsustainable when I do have relevant information, and it indicates such a conclusion.
But I’m not going to declare anything one way or the other without being party to the relevant information. Would you?
> I would be interested to hear your thoughts on why you think the Japanese feel the need to increase the numbers of animals taken to support their scientific research programmes, and what you think the benefits to their research will be.
You can read the rationalle for the JARPA II sample sizes in the research proposal. My thoughts on the JARPA II research proposal are largely irrelevant, as the people who are best qualified to judge are the 200 or so members of the IWC SC committee.
As for the benefits of the research, obviously firstly it is a continuation of the JARPA research, regarding which the IWC’s homepage itself notes:
“The Committee also noted that while JARPA results were not required for management under the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), they had the potential to improve it in the following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios considered in RMP Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure). The results of analyses of JARPA might allow an increased allowed catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere without increasing the depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing Implementation Simulation Trials for these minke whales.”
I’m sure you agree that it’s thus clear that JARPA was contributing to the goals of the ICRW (even though the objectives of the ICRW may be highly objectionable to people who think there should be no whaling at all).
You can read about other objectives of the JARPA II research directly for yourself.
Interestingly, of the 63 SC members who refused to review JARPA II last year (against IWC rules), I tried to find instances of scientists amongst those who were not either
a) representing a hard-core anti-whaling nation
b) representing or associated with an anti-whaling NGO.
I couldn’t find a single one out of the 63 scientists that did not meet one of these two criteria. Should this strike me as a strange coincidence? Does it seem like a coincidence to you? I think you should be able to excuse me for being highly skeptical.
Killing whales is barbaric.They are part of the eco system and this is 2006.Human race should have been evolved by now.It is shocking that cultures like Japan(who claim to be civilised because they have high tech trains and robots)
are still living like hunting-gathering societies.
Please..Have some mercy for mother nature,for the future of our planet,for the future of our kids.
Enough is enough..
Mark,I agree with you,how are we going to explain this massacre,this genocide to our kids?
who will stop these barbarics?Whales are harmless,smart mammals.They live in their own world with harmony.
These people will realize their mistake when it is too late to do something.
mark, sibel – are you guys different people? 😉
no,we are one identity in parallel universes david.