There has been a lot of interest in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting this week in St Kitts in the Caribbean. Japan has tried to focus the world on the original objective of the IWC which it claims is to “to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry”.
Australia’s Environment Minister Ian Campbell has been leading the anti-whaling lobby, which wants a total ban on whaling. Almost every vote has bee reported here in Australia as either a win for us and the whales, or a win for Japan and the baddies.
There has been some discussion at my last blog post about who gets to attend the IWC and who gets to vote. There has been some discussion about the inclusion of many small island nations and also questions as to why Switzerland and Israel get a vote.
Clearly the IWC has members who have no real understanding of whaling and who could not usefully contribute to the conservation or sustainable harvest of whales.
I suggest the IWC be completely reformed and membership be limited to whaling nations, perhaps members of the World Council of Whalers.
The International Community perhaps through CITES would ask the IWC to present its whale ‘management plan’ each year showing how the agreed quotas are based on the best science and are sustainable.
In this way the whalers might be held accountable for their activities.
The world community would still need organisations like Greenpeace. They could bring to the attention of the international media nations operating outside of agreed management plans and quotas. They could name and shame nations condoning or ‘turning a blind eye’ to the harvest of marine mammal without a quota system in place.
The Australian government, for example, condones the harvest of about 1,000 dugongs each year. There is no quota system in place and this is estimated to be about ten times the sustainable harvest (click here to read a my OLO article on the issue).
This is the sort of unsustainable, and some say inhumane harvest, that should be brought to the world’s attention by organisations like Greenpeace and Australia’s Environment Minister Ian Campbell should be asked what monitoring and management plan Australia is going to put in place for the conservation or sustainable management of dugongs .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Excellent OLO article Jennifer, thanks for bringing it to my attention …
Hi Jennifer,
I think that even the whaling nations wouldn’t think that a new IWC or another new organisation exclusively for whaling nations would be a good idea. They want the approval to whale from anti whaling nations and people.
I read somewhere on a Norwegian site today that the Norwegians were glad that they haven’t left the IWC( maybe George can double check this ;-))
.
As we know Japan threatens every year to leave the IWC, but they don’t dare because they would be considered as a “pirate nation”.
Ann,
How come noone cares abou the unsustainable harvest of Australian dugongs?
Hey Jennifer I care , but frankly I hardly know what a dugong is;-). And regarding Greenpeace and the dugongs I hardly don’t think they have the resources to campaign for the dugongs since they are not an animal rights organisation.
Jennifer suggests putting the foxes in charge of the hen house. No thanks. Not on their track record.
Fascinating how the Whalers’ web site spruiks of the historic and spiritual association with whale hunting. With huge steel ocean-going boats, satellite navigation and high power harpoons? Yea sure. What b/s.
Yes – stop dugong harvesting too. Write the Minister.
Ann
Its not about animal rights – rather the survival of the species. There are lots more minke whales than there are dugongs. The Japanese agree with the concept of quotas, but indigenous Australians don’t necessarily and there is no proper monitoring of populations.
I reckon Greenpeace picks issues that can be clearly framed in terms of ‘a victim’ and ‘a villain’ and its OK to frame Japan as the villain … but Greenpeace would feel uncomfortable framing Australian aborigines as villains.
Of course villains know fullwell what they are doing. Indigenous Australians may not.
Jennifer,
I did a quick read-up. No, it is not an animal rights issue. Well, I guess Greenpeace primarily are cautious with any clashes/confrontations with aboriginal hunters, they learned that lesson in Greenland in the 70′ and 80′ regarding the seal hunt.For example they don’t support aboriginal whaling nor do they oppose it.
What is needed is sure a high profile campaign to save the dugongs.
Ashley, So ignorance is a defence? And Minister Campbell is ignorant too!
In fact the Minister is fully aware of the dugong issue, but there are perhaps more votes strutting the world stage being righteous and arrogant.
He cares nothing for whales or dugongs.
Interesting comment regarding Greenpeace and aboriginal whaling Anne – I wonder though, if all whaling other than aboriginal whaling stopped tommorrow, what GP´s position would be then – we´ll never know though, will we…
No – ignorance may not make the aborigines villains is all I am saying. Unhelpful and wrong but not villains. They may be unaware of their impacts on populations. Of course if they are aware that’s different.
Above I said stop dugong harvesting and appeal to the Minister.
The basis that you assert the Minister is arrogant is because you differ in opinion. Why you want to support this cruel harvest in whales yet protest about dugongs is beyond me.
It’s incredibly arrogant to take a species-ist view that survival of a species is all that is important. You think drowning whales over 15 minutes is nice? But that’s the sort of arrogance a PhD conveys. Mathematically right perhaps but morally wrong.
What are you actually saying – if the Minister is actually not doing an appropriate job on dugongs he should also not do an appropriate job on whaling. I dare suggest that he is well fulfilling wishes of the vast majority of Australians on the whaling issue. So two wrongs would make a right ??
Jennifer you said “The world community would still need organisations like Greenpeace.” (!!!??!?!)
Am I hallucinating – you really said this? Must be the gold-top mushie ice-cream.
Jennifer,
Again you bring up an issue and make a point that nothing is being done about it. So… do something about it. For a start, write to someone that knows about the isses of abundance and harvesting of dugongs in Australia, like Helene Marsh (sorry Helene!). There are a number of people in Australia working on this species, but Helene is the long-running expert. Ask them about the issues involved, and what they think can be done. That way you can get some facts straight, and feel like you have done something constructive towards perhaps addressing the issue.
Ashley’s point about you seemingly supporting whaling but not dugong hunting confuses me too.
Bear in mind that in this country we let our indigenous people sniff themselves into oblivion and do little to curb the effects of alcoholism and domestic violence. These people are an endangered species themselves, and no one here wants to address either them or the dugongs.
Problem with dugongs is that they are too lazy, they dont breach, they dont eat mega tonnes of food, they dont touch souls, nobody listens to dugong song, nobody called Ahab became obsessed over a dugong called Dick, their willies dont have to be freed, there is no money in watching them as they just dont do anything except eat grass, nobody feels the need to save them – poor ol’ dugong – why does Greenpeace actively discriminate against dugongs?
I for one think dugongs and manatees are fabulous. They probably remind me of our politicians perhaps? Perhaps GreenPerfect needs to take a wider view of saving the world. We need Doug Dugong and Marilyn Manatee ! One TV series should do the trick.
Oh dear – moral dilemma time for Rog & Jen
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/greenpeace-calls-for-dugong-re
It matters not a whit what the original purpose of the organization might have been, only what its purpose is now. And the purpose of the IWC at this point in time is to state the collective moral judgment of the world, that whaling is inhumane, immoral and illegal.
Whether or not Australia kills dugongs or Canada clubs baby seals makes absolutely no difference at all. These are not the issues.
The issue is, for 20 years a global community of nations has expressed its will and for 20 years Japan, Norway and iceland have decided to behave as petulant little children who don’t get their way.
I agree that the IWC should be scrapped. It has outserved its purpose. It should be replaced with a simple legal statement from the ICJ that declares all whaling in international waters an act of piracy.
Ashley,
Your got it wrong on both counts.
The link you provide reinforces the point I made earlier … that Greenpeace likes to pick on Japan, it gets involved where it can frame the Japanese as “villains”. … no moral dilemna for Rog or I.
As regards my condoning whaling… if you read the OLO piece I say that I don’t like the idea of killing whales or dugongs, but I respect the rights of others both Japanese and Australian aborigines … provided the harvest is sustainable.
The ICJ, being a creature created by the UN, is essentially entirely corrupted and therefore incapable of a “simple legal statement”
Jennifer,
The link Ashley provided talks about a US air base in Japan. Greenpeace were not “picking on Japan”, but rather the US.
Libby
I thought Greenpeace was having a go at both in the link. the link certainly didn’t suggest they care about Aussie dugongs and doing anything about key threats to them.
I see it over and over again with enviornment groups, groups like Greenpeace don’t priortize issues, they just go after organisations, industries and countries they don’t like.
I watched Drew Hutton from the Australian Greens pick on the sugar industry in 1998 – pretending the industry was a risk to dugongs in Australian waters. The real risk is from fishing, particularly indigenous hunting, but Hutton was only interested in beating up on the sugar industry. I got the impression he really cared nothing for the dugongs… yet he claimed to be a spokesperson for the environment.
BTW. I once sat on a state-based ministerial advisory council with Helene Marsh, so I do know her and have read her work. I tried to contact her about a year ago, but she never returned my call or replied to my email. It was about the time OLO published the piece I link to in the above post.
The GP link is an old one and has not been updated, the issue was resolved and the dugong is safe.
The real issue is US foreign policy.
The only reason Campbell is so big on whaling is because it has nothing much to do with the Australian businesses his govt cares about. He can bang on about how bad whaling to his hearts content to try and salvage his reputation to some extent with those who are disappointed with his other environmental policies. I wonder if its working?
No – the point is simply that dugongs can be an issue for Greenpeace.
Greenpeace should beat up its share on Japan – given the nation’s exploitation of global resources e.g. Oceania and Canadian timber resources – they can cope with some scrutiny.
On aboriginal use of dugongs – fair enough if you’re using traditional methods – canoes & spears. But we have some pretty rampant pot shotting with 303s in Torres Strait and using aluminium boats with outboard motors. Turtles included. Then add in the supermarket food etc. You can’t have it both ways.
If you don’t use traditional hunting methods it’s far too easy for hunting success on every single animal.
We’re all Australians surely at this point. And we have some considerable responsibility in protection of our natural resources including marine ones.
And I completely empathise with Libby’s point about petrol sniffing and other indigenous health issues. So please don’t see this a racist swipe.
Time to get serious on local marine mammals.
Ashley
You, Greenpeace and the Minister have been playing the racist card… picking on Japan.
As I said, I respect the rights of aborigines and the Japanese to hunt and kill marine mammals – provided the harvest is sustainable.
Available evidence would suggest the aboriginal harvest is not sustainable.
Ann has suggested in the above thread Greenpeace avoids issues of indigenous hunting and you have suggested we make excuses for Australian aborigines because they don’t know any better.
I can only conclude that your approach to environmental issues and the protection of marine mammals is very much influenced by your attitude to different racial groups.
Jennifer,
Greenpeace playing the racist card… picking on Japan?
You tell me ONE nation or Ministry of Environment that GP haven’t been picking on!
Ann
If Greenpeace don’t see whaling as an animal rights issue (as you suggest above), and if Japan wants to work within quotas i.e. harvest sustainably, why is Greenpeace against whaling? I reckon it is because Greenpeace has NO respect for others, no respect for cultures that see things differently, for cultures (eg the Japanese) that want to hunt large marine mammals.
Greenpeace practices a form of cultural imperialism.
We used to send missionaries overseas to tell people what was morally right and wrong … now we send environmental activists?
A national survey of recreational and indigenous fishing in Australia was conducted during 2000-01. It reported that indigenous fishing harvested 1,600 dugong, 6,000 saltwater turtles, 14,000 freshwater turtles and 40,000 turtle eggs. These numbers seem remarkable in view of the alleged “threatened” status of these animals and the high level of concern expressed over their occasional accidental catch by commercial fishermen. This harvest is permitted as a “traditional hunting” practice although the use of firearms and fast outboard boats is clearly not traditional and devastatingly more effective than genuine traditional methods. Sale of the catch in local markets is also not traditional and it creates an incentive to take much more than would be the case for subsistence needs (which in any event are fully provided by government welfare). For the indigenous people it’s just something to do plus a bit of extra beer money. For government it’s a low cost demonstration of political correctness, somewhat like posturing at the IWC in that regard.
Jennifer,
This issue could really run in circles and I am just leaving home… but in short. As I have mentioned GP doesn’t oppose aboriginal or subsistence whaling like Faroe Island whaling or Greenland whaling.
On Greenland even some whaling communities did ask Greenpeace for help against climate change, which btw is the biggest threat to the whales and whalers.
Japanese, Norwegian and Icelandic whaling is commercial whaling and not subsistence whaling .
And I do understand that some coastal communities don’t like foreign NGOs protesting in their country, GP has experience of that from Norway , a country that is especially nationalistic and anti whaling protests were counter productive,yes, anti whaling protests only gathered people together against foreign NGOs.
“I reckon it is because Greenpeace has NO respect for others, no respect for cultures that see things differently, for cultures (eg the Japanese) that want to hunt large marine mammals.
Greenpeace practices a form of cultural imperialism.
We used to send missionaries overseas to tell people what was morally right and wrong … now we send environmental activists?”
Strong and emotive words there Jennifer. What about cultures that don’t want to hunt large marine mammals but have them breeding in or migrating through their waters? What happens with respect there? What is “cultural imperialism” in this case?
It never ceases to amaze me how much of a Greenpeace-bashing blog this is. There are other environmental organisations. Why should it be up to GP to try and deal with every environmental issue? What are WWF doing about dugongs, or Sea Shepherd, or Ocean Defenders or Humane Society, or IFAW? Is the issue for you here dugong hunting, whaling, Greenpeace or something else?
Much needs to be done about the harvest and management of dugongs. No one is disputing that I don’t think. I’m not sure what you would like us here to do, but perhaps you are simply venting your frustration. Perhaps by all of us simply reading your blog and passing comments we are just as at fault as governments and NGOs?
There is a lot more research taking place on dugongs now compared to 20 years ago. As a trained entomologist, I am sure you would agree that in order to do research, you generally need funding, and unfortunately not many are keen to provide funding unless (for example) the insect is a pest species or specifically useful to humans. Even endangered insects and invertebrates get little attention. Getting funding to work on dugongs in remote coastal communities or doing aerial surveys is incredibly hard as well. The issue of dugong hunting in Australia is tied up with our inability to address indigenous people and what they have become. And that is a problem not just of governments and environmental organisations. It is woven in the fabric of non-indigenous culture in this country, and no one seems to be able to change it.
Jennifer – I can see you’ve been well trained by the elites at spin-school.
You are reforming what I am saying.
I said (without full knowledge) that aboriginals MAY be unaware of the full extent of their actions. I also said we should tighten up severely on dugong harvests.
As for Greenpeace having no respect – well your position is TOTALLY hypocritical – on one hand you say you don’t like whales being killed but on the other hand dedicate acres of forum space on the issue with that precise slant.
Greenpeace has many campaigns – not just on Japan. There is no racism – we’re not called them slanty eyed gooks or suggesting we take action against them as a race. And perhaps we’re not even arguing with majority of Japanese. We’re arguing with their goverment here. Their goverment who wants to add more to their uneaten whale corpse mountain.
As for cultural imperialism – what does a bloody big steel ocean vessel and high tech harpoons with modern explosives have to do with any cultural history. It’s a bullshit argument.
Dear – you don’t give a shit about whales or dugongs either by your actions. If you are soooo concerned – get Pearson and the Australian to pen a major article this weekend. Do something useful instead of furthering the death of whales unnecessarily so you can get the drop on Greenpeace for ideological/political reasons.
None of these articles touch on whale ecology, populations or marine management – it’s just droning on about blowing these wonderful animals away. Defending some other nations right to do so. What a waste of effort.
P.S. Walter – I assume you disagree with Jen then that the catch is unsustainable. Good to see some dissent and confusion on your side.
Anne,
They ( the indigenous whalers) asked Greenpeace for help against global warming????
From the Arctic Sunrise’s weblog in Greenland 2005:
” All people ( the hunters, which means the whalers, sealers , fishermen) we’ve met are unanimously in favour of Greenpeace’s work in Greenland. Many have said they hope Greenpeace can amlify their voices so that the industrialized countries can hear the message that climate change is an urgent problem and requires immediate action. Climate cahnge is a threat to their very existance.
The vice major of Ilulissat provided great testimony on video about this impact of climate change on his community and on Greenlandic culture, and started out his interview by explaining how grateful he was that greenpeace was here for work on climate change.
Another statement from Greenland’s National Museum director:
” Since farming is not much of an option here, the culture that developed was largely dependant on hunting for wood. If hunters cannot catch what is needed to keep the economies of their communities going, people will have to move elsewhere. Mostly they will move to cities as climate refugees.”
Jim,
I would rather call the whaling community a hunting community since they were not only hunting whales.
The hunters are dependent on strong ice, which is rapidly shrinking.
Of course I mean : … hunting for food”
Apologies for my spelling errors but I was in a hurry!
trying to keep a straight face…its OK for indigenes to hunt threatened species because of climate change …irrespective of the ‘sustainablity’…and/or where farming is not much of an option?
> The world community would still need organisations like Greenpeace.
We do need such organizations, but the Greenpeace model is not a good one.
Greenpeace and co succeeded in their mission of raising awareness of overfishing of whale stocks way back in the 1970’s. Even before then some whale stocks had been protected.
The problem is that Greenpeace works on donations. It needs donations in order to keep operating. And in order to get donations, it has to find something to complain about.
With whaling, Greenpeace has been feeding the western public with misinformation to support themselves for years now. Greenpeace is no longer a constructive member of the whaling debate.
We need a better model than the Greenpeace organization.
Ashley complains about putting foxes in charge of the hen houses.
It’s important to acknowledge that the IWC is a group of NATIONS who have signed the ICRW.
The people who conduct the whaling are NOT these NATIONS. These people are private operators.
The governments have the responsibility to ensure that their whalers abide by the rules that have been decided at an international level.
> I reckon Greenpeace picks issues that can be clearly framed in terms of ‘a victim’ and ‘a villain’ and its OK to frame Japan as the villain …
Jen, you should read Eugene Lapointe’s book “Embracing the World’s Wild Resources”.
http://www.iwmc.org/
He notes exactly the same thing in his book.
On the “cultural” defence of whaling, I’ve been thinking about this, and decided that whaling isn’t actually about culture.
Culture is a close fit, but it’s not quite right.
This struck me because I’m a kiwi, yet I support whaling, and vice versa some Japanese people actually oppose whaling.
My thoughts on what it is that drives us is here:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/sustainable-use-why-do-we-support.html
I want to develop this idea a little more, so feel free to comment here or at my blog.
David,
I don’t know so much about Greenpeace in Japan, got to ask GP’s Norwegian Campaigner about, he was recently in Tokyo as a whale’s campaigner and he sure knows everything about this “cultural” side of the debate, debating with Rune Frovik and co.
In Norway Greenpeace is a very well accepted organisation, working closely together with Norwegian authorities regarding for example pirate fishing. Just check out GP Norway’s site and watch how GP is handing out a sherff’s badge to Helga Pedersen , the Minister of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs!!! She is accepting this sheriff’s badge, which is meant for protecting the Oceans with a great smile.
I have mentioned this as well previously that even prowhaling media , like Fiskeribladet writes about Greenpeace in a positive way, and I have personally contact with a journalist on this paper, who helps me with some fishing issues.
Regarding Iceland, even the speaker of the Parliament welcomed Rainbow Warrior to Iceland in 2004 or was it 2005?. I also think this speaker was the president of the Iceland Whaler’s association.
So indeed Greenpeace is a very accepted organisation in those whaling countries.
Ann,
Greenpeace is an international organization, and I guess it’s true that there is a variation in quality amongst different chapters.
I rate the chapters based in Austraia, New Zealand, and the UK, at least, very poorly.
Don’t get me wrong. Greenpeace may do good work on some other issues, but I think it’s clear the ongoing anti-whaling campaigns are about milking the cash-cow rather than raising environmental awareness.
The racists are out in force:
“Japan Whaling Science Like WWII Unit 731 Science”
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.whales/browse_frm/thread/a3d69d67a1a656d9/e23667b34b1d8373?hl=en#e23667b34b1d8373
In an attempt to meet somewhere halfway on the issue of sustainability – would it not be worthwhile discussing the global position with marine resource more holistically and comprehensively.
For example we have longlines to debate with consequent bycatch issues. Dugongs as Jen robustly suggests and their manatee cousins. We also have depletion of large predator fishes across the world such as swordfish, tuna, marlin and the like.
Walter has confused us with saying sea turtles and dugong are OK – is he right?
Who gets a say on these issues? Does Mongolia get a vote etc.
And is there an ethical/spiritual position which makes drowning whales and blowing their brains out with grenades abhorrent or just all population ecology – maintain the species stocks and blow the animal welfare etc.
It seems a major conflict of values – of one nation’s will versus anothers and the usual tragedy of the commons type arguments.
Lastly if dugong management is really up to shit in Australia Jen should blow the lid on it.
Why dwell obsessively on Greenpeace – they aren’t going away any time soon.
David,
Just don’t listen to all comments, like Frode Pleym, the GP Nordic’s Whale Campaigner stated in an interview in Norwegian media that ” the whales debate is a circus debate”. And he is a Norwegian.
Hi anne,
We have discussed this before but 😉
” And I do understand that some coastal communities don’t like foreign NGOs protesting in their country, GP has experience of that from Norway , a country that is especially nationalistic and anti whaling protests were counter productive,yes, anti whaling protests only gathered people together against foreign NGOs”
I do not understand why Greenpeace then still insist on actions in the southern ocean? – they themselves say it is counterproductive in norway … do they think that Japanese and norwegian whaling is different? One is hunting minkies commercialy ( Norway 1052 ) and the other is hunting minkies under permit ( Japan 845 or so ) like David, I believe that Greenpeace do a lot of good in some areas but in the whaling question, they are not consistent …
feel free to pass those questions on to Brian wotshisname… I ( and I am sure others ) would be interested in any explanation of the difference in policies – simply explaining it as Greenpeace Nordic does´nt believe in direct action on whaling and Greenpeace international does, simply does not cut the mustard..
Libby, If you want to discuss seashepherd, WWF, IFAW and other NGO´s, I will oblige you – I´m sure others will too – I´m critical of a number of aspects/policies of each, not just greenpeace – GP is taking most of the stick here probably because there are a couple of GP members posting – if anybody owns up too beíng a member of another NGO, I am sure questions/comments will come too 😉
Ashley,
You wrote:
“As for Greenpeace having no respect – well your position is TOTALLY hypocritical – on one hand you say you don’t like whales being killed but on the other hand dedicate acres of forum space on the issue with that precise slant.”
You see Ashley, I have great respect for other people and their opinions and this blog for me, is at least in part, about giving a voice to opinions that are not often reported, shunned by the mainstream media … even if I find them a bit offensive.
Ashley, following on from my previous post… My approach is perhaps borrowed, I’ve previously written:
The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to contradictions. It was designed to force one to examine his own beliefs and the validity of such beliefs. In fact, Socrates once said, “I know you won’t believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others.”
For some context read: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001312.html
George,
I have no answer nor am I in any position to comment why Greenpeace is involved in direct actions in Southern Oceans and not in Norway.
This document has been circulated among Greenpeace members, an analysis written by Keiko Hirata:
“Why Japan supports whaling”.
http://www.csun.edu/~kh246690/whaling.pdf
This scientists final comment is : ” Militant actions against the Japanese Government , through the physical blockage of whaling vessels or shaming campaigns may backfire…”
This document is also available on Greenpeace’s discussi0ons forum.
Hi Ann,
I think long term, Greenpeace will lose this battle, because in the 21st century there is recognition of a growing need for our actions to be sustainable.
This does not mean no actions at all. If that’s the plan then all humans should just kill themselves.
We are a part of nature. We just need to ensure that our interactions with nature are sustainable. Japan has this argument in it’s favour, so eventually anti-whaling groups too will soften their stance.
Even the US is today talking about compromising to allow commercial whaling (not right now, but sometime – that’s a a start).
The Nihon Keizai Shinbun noted in it’s page 2 editorial yesterday morning that WWF is actually not totally opposed to commercial whaling, but it will only accept it under very strict controls.
This is the continuation of a trend, I believe.
David,
You wrote “The racists are out in force”
I guess you have read some of the comments from regulars on your blog? Would you not agree that some of them are racist towards anti-whaling nations? Personally, I have found some of their comments quite confronting.
Travis,
Which ones?
If any of them were offensive, I would certainly delete them. Please let me know. I deleted two posts just this morning for foul language, racism is certainly worse.
Speaking of racism, did you see my posts about CDNN? Racists if ever there were some:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/02/iwc-2006-western-medias-racist.html
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/iwc-2006-cdnns-racist-underbelly.html
Paul Watson too:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/05/iwc-2006-sea-shepherd-extremism-4.html
Filthy.
4500 tons of unwanted dead meat is sustainable?
George,
You are talking about GP UK’s misinformations, but read this from Norwegian paper Lofotposten:
“… I Norge fanges det i år över 2000 vågehval???”
Roughly translated: Norway is hunting over 2000 minkes 2006!!!!
Am I drunk or not?
http://www.lofotposten.no/Innenriks/n_ringsliv/article2156042.ece
Afternoon Anne,
Can you tell me the difference between a multi national environmental organisation with a moral obligation to get their facts right and a tiny local newspaper?
The newspaper obviously made a mistake – I´m sure if you point it out to them, they will correct it – I´m not so sure GP UK will though, but you never know…
Have another glass of wine anne 😉
Now you have first hand evidence how easy it is to do some mistakes when you write articles or comments;)
Ashley,
I presume you are refering to the “stockpile”.
Actually the “stockpile” if it can be called that is at 6,000 tonnes or so as of a few weeks back, after the JARPA II progamme by-products of around 3,400 tonnes went on sale just the other day.
Last year before the JARPA II programme started the peak “stockpile” size was 4,800 after a shipment of meat was brought into the country.
My estimates indicate that consumption was around 4,000 tonnes last year. This year it will be up for sure, as a new company has been formed to actually market it actively.
The stockpile, I should note, stood at 22,000 tonnes in 1980, when commercial whaling operations were still going on.
When yearly consumption is not far below the peak stockpile size, I’m really not to sure what people are jumping up and down about. The fact is that Japan has been increasing the number of whales it kills since the moratorium was imposed, and the stockpile size is still not that far different to consumption.
Regarding this suggestion of Jennifer’s:
I suggest the IWC be completely reformed and membership be limited to whaling nations, perhaps members of the World Council of Whalers.
Here’s a link to a recent aricle on Norway’s harp seal hunt off the West Ice.
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/05/31/467752.html
Perhaps George or Ann will be so kind as to translate in full, but the guts of the article are:
Reiber, who buy and process seal skins, is being paid by the Norwegian government to burn them. According to the article they’ve been paid 2 million kroner to do so.
Norway paid a total of about 16 million kroner in subsidies this year (including the burn money) to a hunt that brought in about 15,000 seals. So just over 1000 kroner (about $AUS215) per seal, for nothing (other than some smoke, some dead seals and a trip out to the ice for a few Norwegians).
Do we really want people like this “managing” other marine mammals without oversight? I’ve been like a broken record on this blog, pointing out that people need to look at how other marine mammal hunts are managed if they want to get a sense of what could happen if the whalers manage whaling all by their little selves.
Now folks, do you start to get the point?
I’m just dying to see someone try to justify this hunt. Points offered based on stupidity.
Peter
Hi Peter,
I did a rough translation for GP’s discussion’s forum when this article was published. I will do a recheck of the article since I know George is picky. One of the replies ” justifies” the Norwegian Government’s position on this as well.
And if you read my previous article from Lofotposten today, the whalers wanted to hunt sperm whales, fin whales and humpacks as well in Norway in the near future, accusing the whales to deplet the capelin fisheries.
http://ctk.greenpeace.org/discussions/message-view?message%5fid=2188260
Hi anne – peter …
One thing you missed out was that there is/was a guy/company in Norway willing to pay 1,000,000 NOK for the skins – and he was refused .. he´s now in Greenland trying to buy skins there …
Anne, me picky? ;op
Hi George
I saw that bit, which is why I said that the guts of the article was….
If Reiber can get twice as much from the government for burning the skins as they could for selling the skins to someone else, then they’re just being smart businesspeople aren’t they? Quite why the Norwegian taxpayer should be paying for this is the question.
Interesting approach to wildlife management.
Peter
Peter, George,
I also believe this company Rieber is the major buyer of harp seal pelts from the Canadian seal hunt!
Hi Peter – Anne,
I´m not defending it – something that struck me as particularly nutty was just that – “it was not economical for the sealing boats to sail from Tromso to sunnmore with the skins ” … nutty economics but also typical and common within the EC countries as well – sure, Rieber are being smart businesspeople but it´s wasting a resource – which I don´t particularly agree with – I´d much rather that they let the guy buy the skins for the 100 lappe each and make up the funding difference – on the other hand, Greenland benefits from the guy buying his raw materials there ….
Minor correction to my post above – most of the seals were killed on the East Ice.
Peter
Another small note from the article: from a quota of 31,000 seals on the west ice, only 900 were taken. The owner of the Ship Polarsyssel reckons he lost money on the west ice hunt..
Reading through the article again ( I won´t translate it all though .. )
Norwegian sealers recieved 2,500,000 kroner in “skuddpremie” ( Shot bonus? ) for the hunt of 10,000 seals in the east ice fields.
Six boats took part and delivered 15,000 seals. The state has put aside 16,000,000 kroner in support to the hunt, landing/ recieving station and destruction. The destruction started at the begiining of may and will continue till the end of june. Fiskaren newspaper reckons it out to a bit over 1000 kroner per seal
Blah blah blah .. one part points out that some of the sealers are not happy with the level of state support
One point peter, they don´t say if they are destroying meat as well – the article only mentions sealskins — I was in Tromso the day one of the sealers came in – they sold 3 tons of seal meat from the boat at the harbour in a day …
2.5 tons of skins a day for 60 days – 150 tons of skins – looks like they are not burning any meat – at least not at the Senja plant according to the article
Interesting point re meat George
If it’s 15,000 seals and 150,000kg of skins, then yep, that’d be about right if they were mostly adult, or if immatures, they had some blubber attached. Your point about meat then begs another question.
The East Ice hunt is usually a mix of adults & pups. From some data that I have (from West Ice seals, but the argument holds), adult weights averaged ~125 kg, pelts with blubber attached averaged 58kg (let’s round that up to 60kg for discussion). Leaves bones and meat mass of about 65kg. I don’t want to overestimate here, so lets say 20kg for meat?
Figures for immatures are 50kg and 23kg for mass & pelt + blubber. Leaves 27kg, so maybe 10kg of meat?
Even if all the 15,000 animals hunted were immature, that’s somewhere in the vicinity of 150 tonnes of meat, isn’t it (unless there’s a lot of discarding going on out on the ice)?
Even if only 5kg of meat is brought in from each animal, and they’re all immature, that’s still 75 tonnes of meat.
Three tonnnes from a ship (and there are only six ships)in a day doesn’t seem much then, does it? I saw a piece in Fiskeribladet (I think it was) about the 3 tonnes sold in one day. The sale from the ships is a Tromsoe ritual, but when I was there, I don’t recall seeing much meat for sale around town after that intial rush.
So where’s the rest of the meat, I wonder?
And I can change “for nothing (other than some smoke, some dead seals and a trip out to the ice for a few Norwegians)” to
for nothing (other than some smoke, some dead seals, a bit of meat for some folks in Tromsoe and a trip out to the ice for a few Norwegians).
To return to the initial point – do we want to see the people who manage this hunt get control over international management of whaling, because that’s what Jennifer’s suggesting…..
Hi peter,
thanks for the figures – saves me the hassle of looking them up 🙂
Where is the rest of the meat? assume say maximum 5-10 tons in tromso would still leave 65-70 tons or so? ( I think I read another article about the 3 tons in Nordlys BTW ) I would also assume that it´s not just Tromso that meat is sold but I´ll try and look it up to confirm that.
Back to your original point – Governments or the relative fisheries departments are the ones making decisions on national use of marine mammal resources in their EEZ – hopefully following the advice of the relative scientific departments. Politics however, as we both know, heavily influence the science whether we like it or not.
I personally would like to see an IWC with some bite / clout , to enforce regulations that are made based on the science – decisions/recommendations of the scientific committee, and not on the political hot air that most of the Plenary meetings have consisted of for the last decade or so – I doubt, however, if that will ever come about due to the entrenchment of both sides in their respective positions.
I do not really agree with Jennifer that only whaling nations should be members of a body to police themselves – that´s how the IWC got into the position it did in the past – but on the other hand, nations who are in the IWC simply to stop any form of whaling and refuse to envisage any form of whaling/sustainable use have no place there.
I thought it was a crying shame that the “Irish proposal ” was derided as much as it was – WWF even supported it – IMO, the Irish proposal ( with some mods ), or something similar is the only way out of the current impasse.
and for those of you who do not know of the irish proposal, it was this :
1) The Revised Management Scheme should be completed and adopted. The scheme must be conservative and provide in particular for inspection and observation procedures that will engender public confidence.
2) Where quotas are justified under the RMS, these should be restricted to coastal areas only and to nations who are now whaling. This would result in a de facto sanctuary over the oceans of the world.
3) Quotas should be issued for local consumption only. This would avoid the pressure on whaling which would arise from international trade.
4) Lethal scientific whaling should be phased out over a period.
5) Regulations for whale-watching should be prepared to minimise the impacts of disturbance on whale populations.
Ashley said:
“Walter has confused us with saying sea turtles and dugong are OK – is he right?”
I clearly did not say or even suggest anything in regard to either the status of the animals or approval of their harvest level. This statement by Ashley is entirely his own fabrication.
Walter – no it doesn’t.
What is your comment “These numbers seem remarkable in view of the alleged “threatened” status of these animals ” supposed to imply then ?
the Japanese desire to kill whales has nothing to do with whales at all, and never has.
The public company that owned a majority of the whaling fleet divested itself because it wasn’t profitable. The whaling fleet is now a whole and wholly subsidized offshoot of the Japanese Government.
Every poll and independent review shows that there is virtually no market for whale meat in Japan. It’s a speciality niche, a rare on at that, and the glut of meat is now being shoved down the throats of school-children and dogs.
The reason Japan wants to kill whales is simply that they hate being ignored, neglected and treated like the 3rd Grade Doofus they are. They are not big, they are not important, and as nations such as India modernize, Japan is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
And Japan hates the West, because they believe that their decline and neglect is a result of our domination and dismissal. They view our culture as one being thrust upon them at the expense of their own traditions. They see are views on humanity and compassion as being at odds with their own nationalistic impulse to rape, pillage and plunder at will.
They hate the fact that there never has been, and never will be, a male Japanese Porn Star.
Most of all, they hate that whenever a really big issue comes to the attention of the world, they don’t rate anything more than a late night phone call from some deputy secretary of State for I couldn’t get a better job affairs.
Japan is a nation that thinks they are great but in reality is nothing more than Jan Brady.
And they bribe small, poor nations that resent us Westerners for being rich to poke a stick on our eye so the Japan can feel that they actually matter.
Peter, George,
So for how long will actually the whaling and sealing industry survive up in the North? My guess is that the next generation will be involved in the oil drilling industry.
And regarding sealing in Norway and elsewhere , NGOs and most people have been concerned about the cruelty issue , but if NGOs are worried about cruelty then they should really go to Russia… where seals pups meet the most gruesome death…
Mike, thank you for the revealing comments.
IF Mike were correct, and Japan just wants to keep whaling because the West thinks it should stop … then surely my proposal is the way to go? Leave Japan to hunt whales within strict quotas and they will get bored and stop whaling?
I also sometimes get the impression that whaling nations whale because we are protesting and people gather together …
Anyway, in my opinion this whaling and sealing industry is only for some old men, doing a nostalgy trip, dreaming about the glorious past, when a gunner was the national hero and made a fortune, his salary was as high as the Prime Ministers.
Actually, how many people are employed full time by the whaling industry in Norway, about 100 people according to Greenpeace Norway. And it is not better in Japan.
I must also point out that a skillful gunner who made a fortune was also every women’s dream, haha!!!
There is a semblance of truth in what Mike says, in that I dont see what there is to gain, economically or socially.
Given their history why would they that want to persist with a barbaric method of killing a mammal to gain access to a product they dont need, and cant sell, and the price of which is falling. Doesnt make sense.
Neither does the way the IWC is organised.
Either it is all maritime nations, or the whole lot are in. But this grab bag of convenience,and the corruptly supsceptible, has no credibilty at all.
If the Japanese Govt is the owner of this fleet the it should pull the plug on the whole thing.
Ashley:
It seems remarkable that such high numbers are permitted to be killed for so little need or benefit when they are classified as “threatened”. It also seems remarkable in view of the concerns expressed and measures imposed on fishermen who might at worst accidentally kill less than 1/100 that number. It is further remarkable that you could somehow derive an implication of approval from the statement “These numbers seem remarkable in view of the alleged “threatened” status of these animals”.
Anne Said :
” Peter, George, So for how long will actually the whaling and sealing industry survive up in the North? My guess is that the next generation will be involved in the oil drilling industry.”
Anne, Norwegian whaling was dying out many years ago – as you know, all of the whaling boats spend only a part of the year whaling, most of the year is spent fishing. The rise of the anti whaling movement and in particular, actions and protests galvanised the small type whaling community in Norway. I know quite a few whalers personally and many would quite happily buy any Greenpeacer they met a beer as they see them directly responsible for the resurgence in Norwegian small type whaling ( which fits in just fine with your own thoughts )
It´s not going to go away anytime soon in Norway anne – maybe a 2-3 generations in the future – possibly – the political decisions to eventually allow quotas of 1800 or so are simply political decisions – if Norway manage to take the 1052 quota this year I´ll buy you a beer – there simply is not the market to accomodate an 1800 quota – As far as I can remember, approx 400 animals of the current quota are reserved for the Jan mayen zone – one boat has gone there the past two years and not had much luck with the weather ( the area is notorious for fog amongst other things ) add that to the current bunkering costs and that´s not going to change anytime soon.
If, and only if, some kind of export is allowed, then you should start to look at the export very closely – until then, you have what is basically a local market that is satisfied with current quotas. Norway is defending a principle with their Minke whale hunt – and all the protests and actions and threatened boycotts have not changed their defense of that principle one iota – in fact, they have told the rest of the world to get stuffed ;o) I do not see that changing anytime soon …
OK George, this was only my very own opinion and I also think that strong foreign protests are counter productive, just met two young guys , whose fathers were whalers and these both guys supported Greenpeace and were anti whaling but I guess this is very uncommon…
And what does IFAW funded Norwegain animals rights organisation “Dyrebeskyttelsen2 state?
This organisation used to have lot of anti whaling campaigns but they have declined… now they talk about saving cats…
They even published a pro whaling article on their site today from Bergens Tidende:
http://www.bt.no/meninger/leder/article277873.ece
In summary the article states that the anti whaling movement takes focus away from more important environmental issues.
Truls Gulowsen , spokesman for Greenpeace Norway did a similar statement last year.
Ashley.
Regarding your comments on indigenous Australians hunting traditional foods with non traditional methods. I think I can clarify the situation here.
The right to hunt traditional foods takes precedence over the method used. It is recognised by (Australian)law courts that cultures and technologies can evolve/adapt/change over time. So indigenous hunting of tradional foods using modern technology is legal.
The right to hunt takes precedent over the method used.
> Given their history why would they that want to persist with a barbaric method of killing a mammal to gain access to a product they dont need, and cant sell, and the price of which is falling. Doesnt make sense.
1) Whale meat meets a need, a need for food.
2) It is being sold. The price is very high compared to other types of food available
3) The price is falling because of increasing supply
The reason for Japan’s insistence on this is not so much because of whaling perse, but because the government of Japan believes that it is sticking up for an important principle. If it caves once, that will send a very dangerous signal.
Helen – I agree that is the case. However if access modern technology means hunting without restraint then we should change the law.
How to reform the IWC?
Do we really need a meeting every year?
The arguments put forward by the anti whaling group border on the ludicrous; they say that whalers are anti whaling, indigenes except Japanese indigenes are allowed to hunt whales, the harvest of whales is for a market that does not exist and whalers are acting out their frustrations of not being porn stars.
Hey rog,
Don’t you think the Japanese claim that their whaling is “scientific” is ridiculous, despite our friend David’s efforts . I give David credit for all his efforts and passion and position but still he can’t convince me… hey, even norrbaggarna ( the Norsemen ) don’t believe in this, at least they have the decency to call their whaling what it is – commercial!! Regarding this whaling issue , personally I’m not totally against a very small harvest of minkes if I did know that they were humanely killed.
And rog, who has ever said that whalers are anti whaling ? Can you explain please?
Hi Anne,
imteresting comment – what do you consider to be a small harvest? A fixed figure or a fixed % of the population?
Anne,
another question for you 😉
I read on the Greenpeace website that you posted this :
“Cruelty in whaling unveiled
Prowhaling Norwegian paper ” Lofotposten” has today published an report by animal welfare organisation WSPA , that declares they have filmed the whaling vessel ” the Brandsholmboen” off the Norwegian coast the previous month. They declared they have shocking footage from the hunt.
It took 2,5 minute for the whale to die a gruesome death. 2,5 minutes maybe doesn’t seem to bad compared to the time to death for whales in the Japanese hunt that Greenpeace witnessed in the Anatctic recently.
However, even prowhaling paper Lofotposten finds this unacceptable.
Despite good weather conditions it it impossible to kill a whale in a humane way , states WSPA.
Posted by Ann Novek 06/13/06 11:53 AM ”
If it is this article – ” http://www.lofotposten.no/Innenriks/article1633273.ece“
This is from 2005 and not last month – and if it´s the same video as from the WSPA from 2005, the time was over 14 minutes I believe ….. you´ve quoted a time that Klepsvik commented on in the same article … ( I´d avoid quoting Klepsvik if I was you – it´s 0-2 with your Klepsvik quotes so far 😉 )
If of course it is a new video you are describing then my apologies in advance 😉
Hi George,
No I haven’t done any evaluation.
I just grew up learning that all animals are equals and since I’m not a vegetarian I don’t want to be hypocritical, I just don’t want to see animals suffering.
No one gives a shit about the moose hunt in Sweden that is the biggest land based mammal hunt in the world, no one cares about the seal pups in Russia or factory farmed animals.
I think some Norwegian NGOs have a sound policy on the environment and they believe that a small hunt of marine mammals is better for the environment than eating factory farmed products, NGOs like Bellona and Naturvernforbundet.
“And rog, who has ever said that whalers are anti whaling ? Can you explain please?”
Why you did Ann, June 22 2006 04:57 PM
“…just met two young guys , whose fathers were whalers and these both guys supported Greenpeace and were anti whaling”
Hi George,
No there have been two documentations, I did a double check before I posted the article. Going to find the link and the name of the vessels.
Do you mean the sons of whalers were anti – whaling?
Sons-of-a-gun were just feeling rebellious.
Hey, hey , hey rog,
You don’t suggest that I’m lying on an international forum, the guys signed under the GP petition and their fathers were whalers, anyway that is what the Norwegian guys told us.
Ha,ha rog ,
Maybe the sons were rebellious…
Anne Said :
“Hi George,
No there have been two documentations, I did a double check before I posted the article. Going to find the link and the name of the vessels.”
Thanks anne, I looked on the WSPA website and found nothing – look forward to the link 😉
Found it anne ( or another link ) … here ..
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article756030.ece
and here
http://www.wspa-international.org/news.asp?newsID=295&type=2
No mention of which boat though – the lofotposten article refers to 2005
here it is : http://www.eia-international.org/cgi/news/news.cgi?t=template&a=310
My apologies anne ;O)
Hi George,
Here’s the article from 2006:
http://www.lofotposten.no/Utenriks/article2145305.ece
George,
You better stop acting like an Internet police, soon you will own me a bear;-)
Anne,
I´ll buy you a beer anytime, anyplace 😉 … the bear you´ll have to find yourself though ;op
David@Tokyo:
According to reports, the warehouses in Japan are full of whale meat that cannot be sold, and it is more than a seasonal thing.
In addition to the irresponsible acts of plundering the hard wood forests of SEAsia to feed an construction industry, this is the same nation that does an annual dolphin kill by beaching them in a bay, and beating them to death.
If the reason this nation needs to persist with whaling is just because they are sticking with a principle,as you suggest, then obviously they are too immature to recognise that principles are indeed the last refuge of scoundrels.
If this mob prevail in commercial whaling then I for one will cease buying Jap products.I dont know anyone in my immediate circle of friends who doesnt feel the same way.
GP say that whale product is in demand, in Japan blubber fetches $410/kg and meat is even more.
For Norway the domestic market is saturated and Norway wanted to export but its meat was found to be contaminated by PCBs and banned from Japan.
Iceland also conducts ‘scientific’ kills, will you toss your Nokia away?
The US are anti-whaling so Ford is good.
Rog,
There are plenty of competitor products to what the Japanese, Norwegians et al produce. Particularly the former.
It is of course idiot logic to say that because USA is anti whaling, then Ford, or whatever, must be good.(I didnt know Nokias were made in Iceland, and in any event I dont have a Nokia)
The way to stop the Japs, or anyone else for that matter from whaling in the southern oceans is to boycott their products.
That is irrespective of the goodness or badness of those products.
My point is that this nation has a history of plundering products from outside their national bounds, and coming down to the southern oceans to catch and drown whales is yet another.
Most nations “plunder products from outside their national bounds”, its called trade.
If you want to boycott Japanese products you could start by tossing away your PC, TV, radio, car, etc and then there are all other products that use Japanese products in the manufacture or distribution
Malcolm,
What I am suggesting is that the reports you have seen (like the one from WDCS last year) are manipulating the facts to make it seem like it is not a seasonal thing.
For your consideration: the JARPA II programme put 3,400 tonnes of meat on sale recently. Recently I did some analysis based on “stockpile” movements, and it indicated that around 4,000 tonnes of meat were consumed last year.
With the 3,400 tonnes, the stockpile was up to about 6,000 tonnes.
Last austral summer the JARPA II programme caught more than twice the number of whales in recent years.
I think by this time next year we’ll have a good idea of whether there is a consumption problem or not. I am predicting that the stockpile will be around 6,000 – 7,000 tonnes then.
> principles are indeed the last refuge of scoundrels.
I always thought that being principled, rather than unprincipled, was an admirable thing.
Perhaps it’s just me though.
> If this mob prevail in commercial whaling then I for one will cease buying Jap products.
Why? So long as it is sustainable, do you really feel that strongly about it?
> I dont know anyone in my immediate circle of friends who doesnt feel the same way.
I imagine there will be no Sony, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, or various other electronic goods in Australia before too long then.
Australia signed the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling – this is the document that legitimises Japanese whaling in the Antarctic.
Malcolm, do you feel that Australia should remain party to this convention, adding legitimacy to what Japan is doing? Or do you think Australia should withdraw from the convention?
Rog – well if it’s a free open range mentality I say we brand the whales as Aussie whales (will hurt a bit … but maybe we BLUP them) anyway – if we find some Japanese or Nordic varmit messing about with our branded whales we hog-tie them and horse-whip them – the varmits that is(and continuing on the animal metaphor).
Who says they’re Japanese available whales – I say they’re ours – so back off – a typical Aussie style animal on world tour taking its time, checking out some great beaches, and having a bludge in exotic locations.
And maybe we like to watch them instead of exploding grenades in their heads and drowning them.
So here we have a right wing, free market, traditional solution. Yee haa !
If Japanese products are so universal and irreplaceable then why do they need to come down to the Southern oceans and blow up/drown more whales,when they convey such a miniscule value add.
I would have thought that the damage to their international reputation was not worth it.
Of course people are not going to throw out their existing Jap goods, but they most certainly will look at alternatives when they make incremental replacement decisions.This will go on for as long as they are plundering the southern oceans,and Green Peace keeps it in the MSM,with more images of a drowing whale thrashing about whilst strappped to the side of Jap whaler.
Disgusting stuff.
Hey,
Nokias are made in Finland an anti whaling country – it’s ok to buy Nokias and Ericssons
It is especially OK to buy Ericssons since I have shares in this company( only a few);O
Malcolm,
If you and your friends want to stop buying Japanese goods, make sure you write to the relevant companies and tell them why you are doing it, otherwise no connection will be made.
Unfortunately in Europe ( except the UK), whaling is a non.issue. People have no idea what it is about…
Swedes often ask me which countriea are whaling since they don’t like it, but when I tell them Norway, they are really surprised, like , you mean are buddies are baddies… Boycotting Norway, forget about that…
Travis,
We will be doing that anyway.
More importantly it will show up in the declining credibilty and acceptibility of Japanese products in general.
The more people are repulsed by their behaviour, the greater will be the impact. Its called the negative form of a marketing and brand image.
I never thought I would ever say this, but it is also up to Green Peace to keep publishing those disgusting images of whales slowly drowning on the side of Jap boat.
> I would have thought that the damage to their international reputation was not worth it.
Japan actually thinks it has the support of most of the world on this.
At recent CITES meetings, which has twice the membership of the IWC, Japan’s whale related proposals have actually had simple majorities there (they need 2/3rds to pass though).
All Japan is doing is applying the principles we apply to fisheries to whales as well. They are convinced that it’s not a bad thing.
> will look at alternatives when they make incremental replacement decisions.
They’ll have forgotten about this in a month or two. It’s the same every year. The Aussies and Kiwis get all excited for a few weeks, and then everyone just gets on with life. In Japan, no one hardly blinks.
> Green Peace keeps it in the MSM
Funny, I saw them in the MSM today but it was because 6 of their activists were convicted for breaking the laws of St Kitts and Nevis.
I’m sure bailing activitsts out of jail is why people donate money to Greenpeace.
I’d support WWF if I were an anti-whaler. But even they are inconsistent. They talk about sustainable use, but then talk about complete bans on whaling as well. Hard to tell what they think really.
> If you and your friends want to stop buying Japanese goods, make sure you write to the relevant companies and tell them why you are doing it, otherwise no connection will be made.
I don’t think many people are THAT concerned about whaling that they would go to such lengths. I think most people are like “yeah, that’s wrong. Now where are my car keys?”
Hi Malcolm,
Greenpeace’s images from the Southern Oceans have even been published in Norway:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/06/17/469140.html
And btw there will be some kind of a conference today at Oslo University about giving whales and big apes human rights:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/06/23/469684.html
Boycotts tend not to work and usually end up harming folk with nothing to do with reason for the boycott.
Whatever though, try doing without your car, computer, petrol and oil ( norway ) your tv, check that your steel is not Japanese, hundreds of electrical products, fish products blah blah blah etc etc … once you have eliminated all of these products from the nasty countries from your life, come back and tell us how life is without them – except you will not be able to will you? ( overseas cables, computers, modems etc ) For that matter, you will not be able to follow the Greenpeace actions in the southern ocean either ( transmitted via satelite via Norway ( Telenor) last time ar least ).
Never mind, you can drown your sorrows – but wait a second – danish beer ( damn danes voted for Japan at the IWC a number of times ) so no tuborg, Heiniken etc …
You will probably be better off without all of that crap anywway :op
George McC and David
I understand your points, and they are well made. But again I say if they have so much worthwhile industry, why spoil ones image with these disgusting images ( see above, in Ann Novek’s post).
Of course no one in their right mind will toss out everything that is Japanese, but they may be inclined to do so incrementally over time.
I also understand that boycotts rarely work, but what else can mere mortals do.?Any brighter ideas.?
I wont repeat my comments about their record in the SE Asian hardwood forests but note that in this case the whales are notionally in the “public domain” of the southern oceans.
Hi all,
I think all of you have raised very good points, and Malcolm correctly points out what can the common man do?
In the past I have been involved in boycotting, but now I ask myself who is the enemy?
I have been involved in GP’s bottom trawling campaign. I see anti whaling countries and the EU countries involved in this destructive industry.
Actually the EU subsidizes the EU bottom trawling fleet, and Australia, New Zealand( and Japan and Norway) are also bottom trawling countries that refuse to vote for a moratorium for bottom trawling on the high seas. This bottom trawling practise or activity is the most destructive fishing method in the world and is destroying the Oceans including the whales habitats.
So yes , it is very confusing who to support or not.
And I must make you all very disappointed. The Greenpeace Nordic office owns a Toyota SUV.
You will also have to start boycotting Australian goods, Japan is a very big customer of raw materials from Australia. Where will it end? just boycott everything!
For those who are recommending total ban or boycott or whatever remember this – total bans are totalitarian by nature and are doomed to fail. Totalitarianism is the antithesis of freedom of choice, is that what you are advocating? Being adverserial ensures that someone will be a loser and losers are haters.
It is far better to employ a pragmatic, commercial approach where both parties are respected and can reach an agreement that is mutually beneficial.
Malcolm,
That’s sure not a nice image, and I would not have liked to have been that whale.
But it’s a worst case.
And there is reason to believe that Greenpeace’s interference by placing their inflatables in the shooting area may have caused the harpoon gunner to take a less than optimal shot.
I feel strongly that Greenpeace’s photos are partially of their own doing, because of their obstructive antics. I don’t think these antics are helping the whales. Japan doubled it’s quota last summer, and still caught 853 minkes despite the obstruction.
What Greenpeace may have done is contribute to a more than usually gruesome death.
I would not be able to criticise Greenpeace if they stayed a safe distance away from the harpoon gun to ensure that the gunner could take his shots in an optimal environment. This would ensure that any resulting footage of bloodied whales getting dragged through the water would be entirely the doing of the harpoon gunner.
What is stopping Greenpeace from keeping a safe distance away from the shooting zone?
I get the impression that it is a desire to create gory footage for their propaganda campaigns, with which they then earn the donations that keeps their organization going:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/iwc-2006-greedy-greenpeace-to-cash-in.html
I asked Greenpeace on their blog whether they would refrain from such antics in future, but hadn’t received a response the last time I looked.
“It is far better to employ a pragmatic, commercial approach where both parties are respected and can reach an agreement that is mutually beneficial.”
Rog
This is all very noble, but how do you handle it when the process is being deliberately corrupted, by japanese brown paper bags.
Also if the Japs commence the whole sale commercial slaughter of the whales, how has that helped Australias tourism industry.? They have won, and we have lost.
Oh I know, silly me. All their electronic goods etc are now much cheaper because they have plundered a cheaper protein. Perhaps if they bought more Aussie beef they wouldnt have to.
> corrupted, by japanese brown paper bags.
The IWC has been corrupt ever since Greenpeace recruited wads of non-whaling nations to the IWC in the early 1980’s to push through the moratorium. Phony commissioners were even appointed to vote on behalf of some of the nations. This is a matter of record.
I see pro-whaling lobby groups helping their allies from developing nations to pay their fees in a much more favourable light.
> Also if the Japs commence the whole sale commercial slaughter of the whales,
Whole sale slaughter?
They’re hardly going to take any whales at all.
You’ve got 10% growth each year in humpbacks that migrate up and down the coasts of Australia.
Japan is planning to take but 50 of these each year, starting next year.
Even if the RMP is implemented, catches will be very small, and nobody running a whale watching operation would notice the difference from year to year.
> Perhaps if they bought more Aussie beef they wouldnt have to.
Food security is certainly one aspect of this for the pro-sustainable use nations.
Some Tongan people are interested in whaling, because of this as well:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/iwc-2006-tonga-whaling-interest.html
(Tonga isn’t currently an IWC member)
There was a report at the IWC Scientific Committee which has some information on the structure of the whale meat market in Japan, for those who are interested:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2006/Annex%20J%20%5BFINAL%5Dsq.pdf
“And there is reason to believe that Greenpeace’s interference by placing their inflatables in the shooting area may have caused the harpoon gunner to take a less than optimal shot.”
I grew up seeing sperm whales killed in the same manner off Western Asutralia, and there was not a Greenpeace inflatable in sight. I believe there is information on Japanese TTD in Antarctic waters somewhere amongst the latest batch of papers from the killing methods workshop (sorry for my laziness in not retrieving them for you). Blaming Greenpeace for prolonged deaths or gunner’s misplaced shots doesn’t stand up.
“Of course no one in their right mind will toss out everything that is Japanese, but they may be inclined to do so incrementally over time.”
Choosing one or two companies to ban from your own personal use would be more efficient and realistic than trying to ban all things Japanese, or Norwegian or Icelandic.
“I get the impression that it is a desire to create gory footage for their propaganda campaigns, with which they then earn the donations that keeps their organization going.”
Then why don’t they release more footage in prime time of these gory images? The images speak for themselves. A whale flopping around on the end of a harpoon line is not “created” by Greenpeace, but rather the whaling vessel. Of course GP (or whichever organisation) are going to use these images for their campaign. That is what they are actually trying to stop.
“The IWC has been corrupt ever since Greenpeace
recruited wads of non-whaling nations to teh IWC in the early 1980’s to push through the moratorium.”
Was it not WWF that “recruited” the “wads”? See the latest issue of New Scientist. But of course the IWC was doing a very good job of managing their resource before then.
“They’re hardly going to take any whales at all.”
Depends on if you are speaking about humpbacks as a species or looking at populations/stocks within that species.
“You’ve got 10% growth each year in humpbacks that migrate up and down the coasts of Australia. Japan is planning to take but 50 of these each year, starting next year.”
And how do they ensure that these whales are from stocks D and E and not stocks E2 and E3?
“Even if the RMP is implemented, catches will be very small, and nobody running a whale watching operation would notice the difference from year to year.”
Again, depends on if they actually come from the planned stocks. The Tongan ww industry may start to notice some 50 humpbacks a year getting snuffed out I think.
“Some Tongan people are interested in whaling, because of this as well:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/iwc-2006-tonga-whaling-interest.html
(Tonga isn’t currently an IWC member)”
Some Tongans are always interested in resuming whaling. The piece fails to mention that when Tonga was whaling they used a double whammy way of killing whales, and that was to kill mothers and calves.
There is an article by Orams on the value of the ww industry to Tonga. It is a little out of date now. Again it is on the net somewhere, and again, please excuse my slackness in not posting the link here.
George – Heineken’s actually Dutch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heineken
Peter
Think Carlsberg is the most famous Danish beer!
Peter, George,
You were wondering maybe what happens to the seal meat and blubber. Tons of the seal blubber and meat is stored in warehouses( nobody wants to buy it) or is dumped.
http://dyrebeskyttelsen.no/pressemeldinger/20000305.shtml
Here’s an article from 2002 from Norwegian organisation Dyrebeskyttelsen.
” How many whales are going to suffer for a product nobody wants?”
The article states that 30 tons of whale meat was dumped in 2002. I have no figures for 2005.
http://dyrebeskyttelsen.no/pressemeldinger/20021030.shtml
> I believe there is information on Japanese TTD in Antarctic waters somewhere amongst the latest batch of papers from the killing methods workshop
I heard that there was a paper based on Greenpeace data, and that it was absolutely taken to pieces at the IWC meeting, because of the biases introduced by Greenpeace’s obstruction tactics.
> Blaming Greenpeace for prolonged deaths or gunner’s misplaced shots doesn’t stand up.
Apparently there were people suggesting just this at the IWC meeting.
I’m looking forward to the report of the IWC to read about this.
> Then why don’t they release more footage in prime time of these gory images?
Ummm, what didn’t they release? I’m sure they’ve already picked out the best bits, to attract young potential donators who are apparently (according to GP) attracted by such spectacular footage.
> A whale flopping around on the end of a harpoon line is not “created” by Greenpeace, but rather the whaling vessel.
I think it is intellectually dishonest to ignore the potential for the presence of inflatables, operated by activists who are deliberately trying to obstruct harpoon gunners, to contribute to increased TTD statistics.
Yet that seems to be what you are doing.
I certainly am not prepared to discount the possibility, and on the contrary, I think the chances are high that they did contribute to elongated TTDs. The Greenpeace people at the time said that their strategy was only to get out of the way once the harpoon had been fired. They got plenty of footage of whales after getting their inflatables out of the way, so I can’t understand why they couldn’t just keep out of the way in the first place.
> Of course GP (or whichever organisation) are going to use these images for their campaign.
Why don’t they take pictures of what is actually happening, instead of making the hunt more difficult, and then claiming that such hunts are representative of what is happening there, when clearly it is not?
> That is what they are actually trying to stop.
So film it from a safe distance.
> Was it not WWF that “recruited” the “wads”?
Not according to the sources I have seen. Why, do you have information incriminating WWF as well? I actually have a little respect for WWF, as they actually are prepared to accept commercial whaling (although they seem to be sending inconsistent messages about this).
> But of course the IWC was doing a very good job of managing their resource before then.
Humpback, Fin, and Blue whales had all been given protection during the 60’s, 20 years before the introduction of the moratorium, and the IWC SC never advised the moratorium was necessary.
If anything, the moratorium worked against the anti-whalers because it led to the development of the RMP. At least with the NMP there was something to criticise. Now the anti-whalers have nothing.
Some scientists noted that they saw the moratorium as a set back for conservation (John Gulland of the FAO, for example)
> And how do they ensure that these whales are from stocks D and E and not stocks E2 and E3?
The IWC SC doesn’t discuss the E2 and E3 stocks in it’s latest assessment of southern hemisphere humpback stocks, only the ‘E’ stock (estimated at 13,300 (CV 0.20) as of 2001/02).
Suffice it to say that the SC hasn’t requested Japan to modify it’s research plans with regard to this.
> The Tongan ww industry may start to notice some 50 humpbacks a year getting snuffed out I think.
I’ve seen no such suggestion from the IWC SC reports. I think it’s far too premature to be making such statements. I’d even go so far as to suggest that it seems like FUD.
> There is an article by Orams on the value of the ww industry to Tonga.
I’ve seen a report stating that the benefits of whale-watching are greatly overstated. You’ll forgive me for not posting a link as well.
“” George – Heineken’s actually Dutch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heineken
Peter “”
So it is … remind me to stop drinking it … ( Not that I notice – it does´nt touch the sides on the way down in this weather )
Libby wrote :
“” The IWC has been corrupt ever since Greenpeace
recruited wads of non-whaling nations to teh IWC in the early 1980’s to push through the moratorium.” Was it not WWF that “recruited” the “wads”? See the latest issue of New Scientist””
Libby – Two names, both at the IWC 34th Annual Meeting in July 1982 at Brighton..
Commissioner for Antigua and Barbuda – one Mr. R. Baron..
Alternate Commissioner for St Lucia, one Dr. F. Palacio
I´ll leave Mr.P. Gouin out of it for the moment and will not even bother with Roger Payne.
Their Greenpeace links are very well documented –
Read this link :
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1594/is_n6_v6/ai_17847913/pg_4
It describes GP´s “influence” in the early 80´s -as well as the debunking of Gudmundsson´s films by ( eventually )Norwegian, danish, german and icelandic courts – However, if you check the court records of each case, you will find that each court found against Gudmundsson in only parts of both films – one part specifically, that he had spliced two bits of film – one asking him how much greenpeace used to bribe IWC officials, and another where he replies to a question saying ” millions of dollars” … reading the full court papers and summaries is enlightning to say the least –
I particularly like the quote from a un-named “” former high-ranking Greenpeace official in the linked article
” That’s partly true and you didn’t get that from me,” says a former high-ranking Greenpeace official. “In the early 80s, David McTaggart went on a diplomacy tour to get nations to join the IWC and vote against whaling. I don’t know if any money changed hands, but the Japanese used the same tactics later, doling out no-interest loans to countries with five-figure populations. Japan never admitted it but there was pretty clearly a quid pro quo. So McTaggart did it first, and Japan did it later with far more money.”
Hearsay? we may never know – but I believe it was Dr M.F. Tillman, USA Adviser, who commented that it was common knowledge that GP and other NGO´s were manipulating and ” buying ” votes as well as stuffing smaller countries with delegates from their own people ( Palacio, Gouin, Baron and so on ) ( I´ll try and find a link to the comment ) – Apologies to Dr. Tillman in advance if I have attributed the quote to him by mistake )
Of course, all of the above ´may ´ be hearsay or circumstantial evidence – but it is the same kind of circimstantial evidence and ´hearsay´ that is being used to condemn Japan today –
Here´s the link – it´s in an interview with Tillman
http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=98-P13-00019
( Carribean Nations Selling out Whales to Japan? / John Rudolph )
Hmmm …. the long post I made previous to the one above has not shown up .. oh well, not to worry , the link basically covers the meat of it …
The English version of Anns link is here;
http://dyrebeskyttelsen.no/english/press_release20021030.shtml
The reason given for the dumping of blubber is that Norway only eats whale meat and is restricted from exporting whale meat by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
Until Minke whales were listed as endangered Norway was allowed to export blubber to Japan.
So it is not exactly “whale meat” that is being dumped.
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Publications/M-hunter/br-pr.htm
Historic victory to whaling nations
High North News 18.06.2006
For the first time since ages, the pro-whaling nations won an important victory at the International Whaling Commission today with the adoption of the St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration.
Importantly the IWC says that the moratorium on whaling is “no longer necessary” as scientists agree that many whale species and stocks are abundant. The 1982 moratorium decision, in effect since 1986, is the basis of the extremely contentious situation in the IWC.
The IWC today declared its “commitment to normalizing the functions of the IWC”, in essence that means to work towards the normalisation of commercial whaling. This includes the IWC resuming its regulatory role with respect to the management of whaling, such as deciding catch quotas based on best available scientific knowledge.
The Declaration also points a finger at extremist anti-whaling nations such as Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom, noting that their position is “contrary to the object and purpose of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling”.
The St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration was adopted with 33 votes in favour, 32 against, and one abstention.
“This is historic. For the first time in more than two decades the Whaling Commission expresses support for commercial whaling,” says Rune Frovik, secretary to the High North Alliance.
http://www.highnorth.no/read.asp?which=366
Gee – what a MASSIVE mandate – what a landslide – by one vote (pre-purchased) and one abstention.
Yes a mighty mandate and obviously only 3 extremists nations voting against.
Full marks to the speech writer for sheer audacity.
“many whales species are abdundant” – can any poster define “many”
Rog
The article states:”… The dumping of 30 tons of whale meat comes in ADDITION to all the whale blubber which has been thrown into the sea.
The reason why Norway doesn’t export blubber to Japan is that the blubber is too contaminted, the Japanese don’t want to buy it.
“I think it is intellectually dishonest to ignore the potential for the presence of inflatables, operated by activists who are deliberately trying to obstruct harpoon gunners, to contribute to increased TTD statistics.
Yet that seems to be what you are doing.”
No David. I am suggesting that without Greenpeace’s presence, whales would still not die instantaneously. And you can drop the assessment of my intellect.
“and then claiming that such hunts are representative of what is happening there, when clearly it is not?”
Out of curiosity, what “clearly” is happening there? Ignoring GP’s presence for a moment, what should be representative of what is happening there?
“I’ve seen no such suggestion from the IWC SC reports. I think it’s far too premature to be making such statements. I’d even go so far as to suggest that it seems like FUD.”
I assume you read pubications other than the SC reports? The SPWRC meets annually to consolidate research regarding whales (primarily humpbacks) in the South Pacific. The recent CA of SH humpback whales had numerous papers outlining abundunce estimates of populations such as E3 (amongst other things) and there has been concern amongst researchers about how the JARPA II take will effect E2/E3 stocks. If they do effect these populations, would it not be reasonable to assume that the ww industry in Tonga would be compromised, given the low population of animals? Why is is too premature to being making such statements David? Why is it FUD?
“I’ve seen a report stating that the benefits of whale-watching are greatly overstated.”
Is this report regarding ww in Tonga?
“do you have information incriminating WWF as well? I actually have a little respect for WWF, as they actually are prepared to accept commercial whaling (although they seem to be sending inconsistent messages about this).”
If you had read what I wrote, I mentioned the latest New Scientist. “Incriminating” is your word, not mine.
Ann, I can see there are many opinions and few facts on the issue eg
“NORWAY’S WHALE MEAT MARKET WEAKENS: GRENPEACE REVEALS DUMPING AT SEA
17 June 1999
Amsterdam/ Oslo — There is no Norwegian market for the tons of whale blubber stored in freezers in Norway. Now, the whaling industry is finding that even whale meat is a hard sell. Petter Kjölleberg, director of the whale meat depot in Lista, the only depot in the South of Norway, admits that it is difficult to sell the meat, and wants the export ban on whale meat to be lifted. The Norwegian government is also working actively to lift the ban.
“Norway says it only wants small scale coastal whaling but at the same time is trying to open an export market. This demonstrates that the whaling issue is not about Norwegian whaling in isolation, but about the consequences that arise when other countries choose to do as Norway does”, says Greenpeace spokesperson Frode Pleym.
In the past few days, Greenpeace has documented the vessel Villduen dumping the greater part of whales back in the sea.
“Norway says they want the whales for food but we have photographic evidence that most of each whale taken is dumped into the sea after the parts that sell the best have been removed’, said Pleym.
In 1986 the IWC (International Whaling Commission) introduced an international moratorium on commercial whaling to put an end to decades of uncontrolled whaling and collapsing whale populations. This is also supported by The Law of the Sea (in article 65) which requires all countries to cooperate with the IWC for the conservation of whales.
Norway restarted commercial whaling in 1993, openly flouting the IWC moratorium. Every year since, the IWC has condemned Norway for continuing to hunt whales – and every year the Norwegian government has ignored that ruling.”
and
” Norway may dump worthless blubber… Following reports that the blubber from North Atlantic minke whales caught by Norwegian whalers is too contaminated for human consumption, the price has plummeted to 10 ore per kilo (less than a penny).
The leader of the Norwegian Small Type Whalers Association, Jan Kristiansen, is so displeased with the price of whale blubber that he has threatened to dump it into the harbor – calling it garbage. However Johann Williams, an official of Norway’s Fisheries Department said that Kristiansen would send out bad signals if he dumps the blubber into the ocean.
Norway has over 1000 tons of frozen whale blubber stockpiled in warehouses. There is no market for it in Norway and the Government had hoped to export it to Japan, but its contaminants levels were so high the Japanese Government rejected the proposed export last year.
Dumping of toxic substances is illegal under several regional and international agreements. Neighboring governments will be watching Norway’s next move closely. NRK and Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society”
and
“Norway kills 634 whales, admits to dumping majority of blubber…
Norway’s whalers killed 634 whales out of a quota of 671 in 2002, the biggest catch since the nation resumed commercial whaling in 1993 under a legal objection lodged against the IWC’s moratorium.
892 tons of minke whale meat will be sold onto the domestic market, but only 63 tons of blubber will be kept. There is no market for blubber in Norway and this year’s haul will be added to a frozen stockpile in anticipation of export to Japan, or perhaps Iceland – to which exports resumed earlier this year.
Norway agreed last year to permit exports of whale meat to Japan, but concerns that Norwegian whale meat contains high levels of toxic industrial chemicals has prevented the exports from proceeding.
Reuters reports “about 200-300 tons of blubber is stacked away in freezers around Norway, waiting to be exported to Japan”. Previous estimates placed the stockpile at 1000 tons, but much has apparently been burned, leaving only blubber less than two years old in storage.
Per Rolandsen from the fisheries interest group, Norsk Raafisklag confirms, “Most of the blubber is dumped in the sea off Norway”. This violates Norway’s commitments under the 1992 OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, which prohibits the deliberate disposal of waste at sea.
The 634 whales caught this summer could have yielded as many as 1000 tons of blubber. If only 63 tons have been stored, many hundreds of tons may have been illegally dumped at sea in recent months.
The hunting season was originally scheduled from mid-May to end-August, but was extended until September 20 in the North Sea area, since the 34 whaling boats off Norway’s coast had failed to fill their quota. Reuters, WDCS”
From the ABC;
Last Update: Thursday, June 15, 2006. 11:22am (AEST)
Australia should soften anti-whaling stance, expert says
An international law expert says anti-whaling countries, including Australia, should be more willing to compromise and allow some whales to be killed.
The International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) annual meeting begins tomorrow in St Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean.
University of Western Sydney Associate Professor Steven Freeland says he expects the stalemate between anti-whaling and pro-whaling nations to continue.
He says anti-whaling nations should instead agree to allow some regulated whaling in order to reduce the number of the mammals being killed and protect endangered species.
“The alternative is that the anti-whalers will continue to decline any request for whaling for any reason, and the pro-whalers will take advantage of those loopholes that exist under the whaling convention and go ahead and whale anyway,” he said.
Ashley,
“Many whale’s species are abundant” according to HNA.
I guess they mean humpbacks, fin whales and sperm whales.
Whalers in Norway have recently expressed views that they want to hunt these species since they believe they are a threat to the capelin fisheries!!!
Personally I have had mixed feelings about this Greenpeace’s new expedition to the Southern Oceans since I believe that a change most come within countries like Norway and Japan but I do hope they will have some footage from the killing of humpbacks and fin whales . I dare not think about how much these much bigger whales suffer when the Japanese are using the same harpoons as to hunt the much smaller minke whales. This will be a very, very cruel hunt.
Even the Norwegian IWC Commissioner has stated that a time to death of 14 minutes is unacceptable. A time to death that was witnessed last year during a minke hunt in Norway .
So, a question or two for the anti whaling folk contributing to this thread..
What´s your personal opinion of Tillman´s comments imcriminating Greenpeace, WWF and other NGO´s in view of the vote buying accusations made against Japan in recent times?
Do you find the accusations hypocritical?
Do you still condemn Japan for vote buying?
George,
Do you think you can fix this article, from Norwegian paper Dagbladet?
” Japan buys yes-votes. Japan has spent billions on vote-buying”.
http://www.dagbladet.no/tekstarkiv/artikkel.php?id=5001060058959&tag=item&words=hvalfangst
Dog needs to go out for a walk! Birds need some tending , horses wanna go out to the fields…
“” Japan vil ha slutt på hvalfangstforbudet. I fjor brukte landet milliarder på å sikre seg forbundsfeller. Japan har sikret seg viktig støtte fra 21 utviklingsland i kampen for å oppheve forbundet mot kommersiell hvalfangst.””
Fix? do you mean translate? If so ..
Japan wants a stop to the moratorium. Last year, Japan used billions to assure themselves ( forbundsfeller ? ) Allies?
Japan has assured themselves important support from 21 developing countries in the fight to reverse the moratorium …..
or words to that affect … not sure about ´forbundsfeller ´ though
George,
I think the vote buying by the Japanese govt ( which according to the data in this blog,owns the whaling fleet), is a completely different kettle of fish to the antics of GP and WWF.
The Japs are represented by their sovereign govt and reflects the will of all the people, whereas GP and WWF are secretly funded,with minimal ownnership and minimum issues.
One can understand the role of the latter, and how they play it.
But for a sovereign govt to engage in bribery and corruption in the manner exposed, reflects on the whole country. But to do so to perpertuate a barbaric and unacceptable practice is the pits.
Using brown paper bags of cash to pay entrance fees just adds to the scorn/disgust, because it says that they think we are all idiots, and wont notice.
They dont win too many points with me, and the more I learn the less I like it.
Hi George, Malcolm,
Thanks for the translation, and yes, forbundsfeller is allies in Norwegian.
I and Lisa( Greenpeace webbie) asked Greenpeace International if they ever had been involved in vote-buying and their reply can be found in Jennifer’s post:
” Norway to kill more whales” , 2 May, 2006, 01:23 AM
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001326.html#comments
They denied all vote -buying accusations and found those accusations totally un-founded and virulent.
I have also first hand evidence from Greenpeace International that GPI is neither interested in nor involved in any vote-buying. They don’t want to be accused of this and for example refuses to pay Kenya’s, Peru’s or Costa Rica’s IWC fees , despite pressure for example from Sea Shepherd.
Hi Anne,
So, we have Japan denying any suggestion of vote buying / influence / manipulation and we have Greenpeace denying any suggestion of vote buying / influence / manipulation … ( anybody know if WWF deny vote buying / influence / manipulation ? )
We also have circumstantial evidence of such ´skullduggery ´ by all concerned ….
Who has more to lose from hard evidence of vote buying / influence / manipulation surfacing?
Japan? ( supposedly the bad guys ) or the NGO´s? ( supposedly the good guys )
Who has the moral high ground?
Malcolm, you seem to be saying that it is OK for GP to buy votes but not OK for a sovereign to do the same.
That is not how the game is played. The sovereign will always win, as you say it has the support of the majority of people (ipso facto GP does not)
“buying votes” is just what losers say when they have lost an election, how dare those voters not vote for the candidate who will do them less good?
What do you propose as an alternative, ban all voting?
As a commodity “high moral ground” has lost intrinsic value, I blame it on the excessive production of “high moral ground” and the decreasing need for it.
Hi George,
“Who has the moral high ground?”
The NGO’s of course since they obviously want to follow international rules.
Hi anne,
So if the NGO´s have the moral high ground, should they not be above the morally dubious practice of vote buying / influence / manipulation ?
George,
At least they are not undermining international organisations like the IWC as Japan does.
Anne,
That does not answer my question – and anyway, if the NGO´s DID buy votes/influence/ manipulate the IWC, then they are just as guilty as Japan ( if they did / do it ) of “undermining international organisations”
Or?
do you see it differently ?
Dear George,
I don’t think Jennifer wants many comments from the same persons, maybe we can have this discussion over a beer , not a bear, in Norway;O)?
OK, and I know that NGOs such as HSUS and IFAW also refuses to pay IWC fees.
FWIW, A representative from the high north alliance and a representative from IFAW will be discussing whaling in an hour long program ” talking point ” on BBC world on Sunday ( 4-5pm CET )
Rog,
“Malcolm, you seem to be saying that it is OK for GP to buy votes but not OK for a sovereign to do the same.”
No,I am not saying anything like that. It is not OK for anyone to buy votes. Lobby yes, but buy no.
BTW in a previous post I did make a suggestion as to how it should be organised, it is either all maritime nations are in, or all nations are in. But not this grab bag of the corruptly susceptible and convenient.
I also depends upon what one means by buying. For States it can mean the promise of more aid.This makes even more important that it is not just a select few that are on the IWC
But, according to information in this blog the Japanese were providing the cash for other States to pay their entrance fees. Thats what I thought was sleezy/inept.
I am not a fan of GP or WWF but I would of thought that if either of these organisations was caught out Vote buying, they would lose immense credibilty. I might be a bit naive, but I cant see that happening.
A simple sting operation would expose them straight away.I am sure that Pro Whalers would be aware of that as well.
Seems impossible to bridge the gap between anti whaling countries and pro whaling countries.
George is mentioning this Irish proposal as a solution, but I saw that included the statement “phasing out scientific whaling” , a position with which Japan vehemently disagrees.
Looking forward to the debate between IFAW and HNA today( Thanks George for the information). I’m also looking forward to the announcemet of Icelandic whaling quotas that should be official soon. Guess their quota will be about 50-60 minkes.
> I am suggesting that without Greenpeace’s presence, whales would still not die instantaneously.
I’m not disagreeing with you there – what I’m saying is that with Greenpeace’s presence, the ***RATIO*** of animals that die instantaneously is likely to be worse, and the Time-To-Death statistics are likely to be worse.
The world is not black and white. There are lots of shades in between.
Greenpeace is not helping the 850 whales that will be harpooned each year. They saved exactly none last year, yet they likely contributed to more suffering than would otherwise have been necessary.
The solution is simple – film the whaling from a distance where there can be no doubt that Greenpeace inflatables did not contribute to sub-optimal strikes.
This is good for the whales as well.
The only thing it isn’t potentially good for is Greenpeace’s propaganda campaigns.
> And you can drop the assessment of my intellect.
I was not assessing your intellect, I was assessing your intellectual honesty – and you’ve reinforced my assessment with this particular comment.
Well done.
> I assume you read pubications other than the SC reports?
The IWC Scientific Committee is without a doubt the world’s most diverse group of cetacean biologists.
Are you telling me that I should not listen to them because they are telling me the full story, instead of just the side of the story that you wish to hear?
Please.
> there has been concern amongst researchers about how the JARPA II take will effect E2/E3 stocks.
Those concerns have been noted, and there has been no agreement about this issue at the SC. The JARPA proponents noted that “if whales show some degree of site fidelity to feeding areas, some differences should be detected among small sectors in Area V. This has not been observed.”
I am yet to see the scientists who raise the concerns about these humpback stocks (or populations, as the anti-whaling scientists seem to like to call them) address that issue – I did however see one of the scientists who holds the concern reiterate his concerns in a subsequent paper for the New Zealand government (i.e., a political document). In that document he did not mention that information counter to his argument exists.
I believe this is dishonest, but hey, when you are writing documents for the world’s second most fanatical anti-whaling government, I guess your hands are tied.
> If they do effect these populations, would it not be reasonable to assume that the ww industry in Tonga would be compromised, given the low population of animals?
If that was true, that may be the case, but current evidence does not appear to support the hypothesis.
> Why is it FUD?
Because there is certainly no agreement about the hypothesis, and current evidence seems to refute it.
> Is this report regarding ww in Tonga?
Here it is:
http://www.worldcouncilofwhalers.com/publications/News/Bio_economics_whale_watching.htm
Ann,
*Japan* is undermining the IWC?
Even Ian Campbell of the world’s most fanatical anti-whaling nation, Australia, recognises that Japan is doing nothing illegal:
http://whaling-faq.blogspot.com/2006/04/faq-2.html
And if you are refering to NGO allegations of bribery, I have to ask whether you’ve seen my growing collection of statements from representatives so-called “bribed” nations?
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/iwc-2006-voices-of-developing-nations.html
I had a letter published the other day regarding these offensive allegations, of which I will reproduce a little here:
———-
Is it not enough that these nations have to suffer the annual economic threats of tourism boycotts without accusing them of perpetual corruption as well? Have we lost sight of the possibility that these nations vote the way they do each year because they actually believe in the principle of sustainable use?
People of in two of the Caribbean nations accused of taking bribes (St Vincent and the Grenadines and St Lucia) actually consume cetaceans themselves, just as some people in the Solomon Islands consume small cetaceans on a sustainable basis.
It would be a wonderful day when the peoples of the world can support each other without repeating the offensive allegations made by powerful self-interested NGO groups based in developed western nations.
———-
On the other hand, the anti-whaling nations at the IWC do not even believe in the goals of the ICRW – proper conservation of whale stocks and making for the development of the whaling industry.
It is most certainly those nations and the NGOs that they house who undermine the IWC be refusing to vote in accordance with the rules of the ICRW and by slinging mud at small vulnerable nations who do not toe the line.
“I was not assessing your intellect, I was assessing your intellectual honesty – and you’ve reinforced my assessment with this particular comment. Well done.”
LOL, quite frankly David I couldn’t give a toss!
“Are you telling me that I should not listen to them because they are telling me the full story, instead of just the side of the story that you wish to hear? Please.”
I don’t believe I said anything about you not listening to them. That is your interpretation. What I questioned was your reading of literature outside of SC reports. What was that about honesty?
“I am yet to see the scientists who raise the concerns about these humpback stocks (or populations, as the anti-whaling scientists seem to like to call them) address that issue – I did however see one of the scientists who holds the concern reiterate his concerns in a subsequent paper for the New Zealand government (i.e., a political document). In that document he did not mention that information counter to his argument exists.”
I assume you are referring to Baker. There was general consensus at the CA SH humpbacks workshop ( a diverse group of humpback whale biologists) that feeding site fidelity was in question, and little was known about movements of individuals /stocks (a pro-whaling term?)/populations in Antarctic waters. I believe (from my contacts) that the CA group was not completely done with looking at SH humpbacks, and therefore I would question strongly whether all the information ‘was in’ on what this diverse group of biologists and their peers conclude about SH humpback whales.
“I believe this is dishonest, but hey, when you are writing documents for the world’s second most fanatical anti-whaling government, I guess your hands are tied.”
He raised these concerns in a number of mediums. Perhaps you only listen to the side of the story you want to hear.
Thanks for the ww paper link. I am particularly impressed with whom they acknowledge. I did not find that the paper had much concrete to say at all, but I will be following up on the state of the ww industry when I am Tonga in a couple of months. I can tell you that one company who runs purely whale swimming tours has had a 195% increase in her clientele this past year.
> I assume you are referring to Baker.
Yes, he was the author of the political document released by the Government of New Zealand as a “stunning rebuke” of Japan’s JARPA II plans.
> Perhaps you only listen to the side of the story you want to hear.
I read to his side of the story when he told it at the IWC meeting last year in June, and then again last year in December when he repeated it. I’ve heard it from you and Peter Corkeron as well.
What I’m questioning is not his side of the story – I’m questioning why he wouldn’t acknowledge that evidence exists that runs contrary to his hypothesis. That doesn’t take the debate about the issue anywhere. It polarizes the debate when one side refuses to listen to the other, and that’s not good for conservation.
But like I said, he was commissioned to write a political paper, and as Greg Donovan notes at the BBC, there is “always the problem that politicians on all sides ‘selectively’ quote only the scientific advice that suits there predefined political position.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5103378.stm
Is this the reason for the notable absence of acknowledgement of doubt about this hypothesis in the New Zealand government paper? I do not know, but as Greg Donovan suggests, I’ll continue to read the IWC Scientific Committee reports with my own eyes rather than getting information through a filter.
Anyway, there is still time before Japan starts killing 50 humpbacks from next year for clarity on this issue. I’m sure Japan would revise their research plans if an agreed risk to these pacific “populations” was recognised.
> I did not find that the paper had much concrete to say at all,
Although they did conclude that “Whale-watching is a new and potentially valuable industry, but proponents have over-estimated its benefits. Because whale-watching is often linked to a ban on alternative uses of the resource, realisation of the full value of whales for developing and developed nations alike is inhibited” etc
> I can tell you that one company who runs purely whale swimming tours has had a 195% increase in her clientele this past year.
Whale swimming tours? Is that legal? I guess it must be.
Incidently, did you see the report about unsustainable dolphin-watching tourism in New Zealand?
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SC58docs/SC-58-WW6.pdf
I was shocked that my government could preside over this.
David,
“…Are you refering to NGO allegations of bribery..”
No. I’m refering also to Norwegian media that has stated ” Japan buys yes-votes for billions”.
Wish you had more inside information than just some letter to editors.
Ann,
Simple question.
Do you recognise the possibility that the nations that stand accused of selling their votes may in fact actually believe in the principle of sustainable use, or not?
Consider the information:
– people in the Solomon Islands actually utilise dolphins
– St Vincent and the Grenadines is the only nation in the world that actively hunts Humpback whales.
– people in St Lucia actually utilise pilot whales
If you honestly believe the “bribery” allegations, what about these three nations? Do you include these three nations amongst those nations that you believe have been “bribed”?
Because that’s what the accusations are. And to be honest, I don’t see how any rational human could believe that nations that actively harvest cetaceans themselves would need to be bribed to support whaling. I simply can not understand this, because it does not make sense.
Can you help me to see the light?
David,
I can’t do a reasoned statement on these three particular countries that you have mentioned since I have never visited them nor do I have any political information on these countries.
However, the Solomon Islands ( I don’t want to be disrespectful) seem /seemed? to have a shaky democracy and have been involved in shady wild dolphin trades to Mexico apparently against CITES regulations( however, Solomon Island is not a signatory to CITES).
David,
Simple answer.
Wasn’t one of the reasons for the recent unrest in the Solomons that public perception there(i.e. of voters in the Solomon Islands) that local politicians were corruptable, and people had hoped the last elections would result in change?
Doesn’t that suggest that, in that particular instance, there’s a local public perception that political corruption is a problem? Therefore, a rational human being could accept the possibility that these folks might be bribed on the whaling issue?
Or are those people of the Solomon Islands wrong?
You’re a Kiwi, you must have heard of RAMSI.
Does that help you see the light at all?
Peter
Ann,
Well, I’m telling you that cetaceans are hunted in both St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines – you know that much, at least, right?
Isn’t it fair to conclude that, at least these two nations probably wouldn’t need to be “bribed” in order for them to want the world to respect the rights of people who wish to … you know … hunt cetaceans… ??
Peter,
Yes, that’s a possibility, but then, like St. Lucia and St. Vincent, the Solomon Islands is also a nation that is home to people who kill small cetaceans…
On the balance of it, I still think they’d support the rights of people who wish to kill cetaceans because they have people in their own country who wish to do so, rather than because someone “bribed” them…
Or am I insane? Hmmm.
OK, time for a different question 😉
I, David, support people who wish to harvest cetaceans (providing that they do so sustainably).
I don’t actually harvest cetaceans myself, and although I’ve tried whale meat before, it’s not really important to me.
But, like all the “bribed” nations at the IWC who also don’t harvest cetaceans or get any direct benefit from it, I still support the people who wish to partake in this activity on a sustainable basis.
So, who here thinks I have been “bribed” by the Japanese government (or offered some other form of financial incentive or whatever) to believe this, and how much do you think I managed to pocket?
Looking forward to all your guesses!!
🙂
(but there is no prize for the person who guesses correctly)
David,
I saw back at your blog that you wrote “… the idiots from Greenpeace…”.
Note you’re talking about my best friends and as such I need to defend them…so it’s my time to be nasty, and I’m not a person who usually talk in an offensive way!
So to your question” if you have been bribed by the Japanese government to voice out your opinion on forums or on your blog, the answer is NO!. I know that at least Greenpeace think that you are not an important enough person to reply to,I know you have wondered why they don’t give you any replies.
Solomon Islanders kill small cetaceans and sell to dolphinaria. We are talking about smalll cetaceans caught in local waters. We are talking about a poor country with a lot of problems who could probably use the money for fees and trips to IWC meetings in better ways at home, and who quite possibly don’t really care about IWC meetings. Why is it unreasonable that a poor cetacean killing country could have financial incentives to join the IWC. It may not be their attitude to cetacean issues that is in question here, but rather that to take that big step of joining the IWC, they have been ‘encouraged’ to do so with words and money.
From The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 July, 2005.
‘Former Solomon Islands officials have admitted Japan paid for the island’s pro-whaling vote, as investigations gain pace into the loss of millions of dollars in cash to the troubled country.
They said Japan met the Solomon’s costs of attending International Whaling Commission meetings, and provided goods for local politicians at election time.
The Solomon’s Government said yesterday it was also thought that millions of dollars in cash paid by Japan and other countries for fishing rights made its way into the hands of some island officials….
Last night a former Solomons IWC commissioner, Albert Wata, detailed the payments on the ABC’s Four Corners program. “The Japanese pay the government subscriptions,” he said. “They support the delegations to meetings, in terms of meeting air fares and per diem(expenses).”
His claim was backed by a former Solomon Islands fisheries minister, Nelson Kile, who said Japan had been paying the fees for a decade…’
Ann,
It wasn’t me who said that Greenpeace are idiots, it was some Australian bloke. I forgot to stick the link on my blog – it was late at night when I was posting that. I’ve fixed it now.
You can read the full article here (from an Aussie newspaper):
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,19592803-5001032,00.html
For the record, I don’t think Greenpeace are idiots.
I think they are acting in a deliberate and premeditated manner to ensure that they can keep the funds pouring in. That’s because of what the Chief has said:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/iwc-2006-greedy-greenpeace-to-cash-in.html
Greenpeace is just in it for the money – but they aren’t stupid.
> the answer is NO!
Correct! You win!
Now the corollary is:
If *I* haven’t been bribed and *I* support the principle of sustainable use, *why* is it that you refuse to accept the possibility that various other peoples around the world might also support the principle?
> I know that at least Greenpeace think that you are not an important enough person to reply to,I know you have wondered why they don’t give you any replies.
Actually, John Frizell replied directly to me once earlier this year, as I’m sure you remember. I can’t think of that many bloggers who get a direct response from John.
🙂
Libby,
> Why is it unreasonable that a poor cetacean killing country could have financial incentives to join the IWC.
Oh oh oh… I’m not arguing that.
What I’m arguing is the “bribery” allegation, which is a different kettle of whales.
I think indeed many nations have joined the IWC because they have developed very friendly relations with Japan, who is actually quite a popular world citizen in general (compare Japan to the US and Australia for example). As Masayuki Komatsu said a few years back, Japan’s ODA programmes are useful in this respect, as they open up opportunities for the development of good relations with these nations. He described it as getting an appreciation of Japan’s position. The western media totally twisted this into some admission of bribery, which was really totally typical of the pathetic inability to comprehend plain English.
That is a definite advantage that Japan has because of it’s ODA programmes. But the US has lots of power as well. Israel only joined the IWC because the US asked them too. They are close friends, so what’s wrong with that?
It’s not “bribery”. This is mutual back-scratching in the international arena, amongst friends.
Japan and Brazil are also friends, with Japan sending lots of aid to Brazil. But they don’t agree on whaling, so there is no back scratching on this issue.
When it comes to nations that, like Japan, are dependant on fisheries or other examples of sustainable use of natural resources, clearly there is common ground between these nations, and it is in their common interest to support each other at international forums.
But this is not “bribery”. Bribery is when you give someone money to make them do something that they wouldn’t otherwise do, as far as I recall. If it’s already something you can support, and your friend is in need of help, of course the proper thing to do is support them. That’s what being friends is all about.
> they have been ‘encouraged’ to do so with words and money.
Words, certainly I would imagine so, but I don’t think the Japanese government has directly funded any nation to join the IWC. I think these nations have joined because of the friendly relations that Japan has established with them. In cases, these relations have most likely been established in part because of Japan’s ODA programmes.
On those Solomons people with their statements about funding from “Japan”, there was never any link between the *Government* of Japan and those funds.
There are certainly pro-whaling lobby groups in Japan who’d possibly be happy to lavish people with money however.
And again, there’s nothing in that that says “we are only voting for sustainable use because we got money from Japan, and otherwise we wouldn’t be voting for sustainable use”.
If the Japanese government wanted to, it could pay all the fees, easily. Instead what they have been doing is trying to change the fee structure at the IWC to make it more accessible to developing nations.
Here’s the transcript of the Four Corners episode:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1417263.htm
Reporter: “In the neighbouring island of Grenada, Michael Baptiste, the IWC commissioner from 1997 to 1999, freely admits that Japan bought his country’s vote with aid.”
Really?
“MICHAEL BAPTISTE: Japan gives assistance to Grenada to help develop their fishing, their fisheries industry, fishing industry.”
Oh… he means AID… they give them AID…
“So that would be one of the reasons that we would vote that way, and I’m sure if we were getting assistance from – that kind of assistance from other – from any other source, we would probably vote that way too. But it’s simple: you vote based on your common interests.”
Common interests 🙂
Here’s the reporter again: “The Japanese have been buying the loyalty of fisheries in the Solomons for more than 30 years. Much of their aid has been directed towards fisheries, and the Japanese have spent millions of dollars training and developing fisheries officers like they did with Nelson Kile.”
Ummmmmmmm, where is the problem? This is exactly what I’m talking about. Friendly relations have been established, and these guys are helping each other out.
Oh, and before you bring up Atherton Martin, please note that he is a member of the Dominica Hotel and Tourism Association, which has links to IFAW.
Hi David,
Thanks for the correction.
I must point out for you and the readers that in Greenpeace’s office in Stockholm, all campaigners have a degree from some University either in political science, biology, toxicology, marine biology ,from law school etc. etc .They also speak a couple of languages.
And our Secretary General was one of Sweden’s most respected party leader’s, no not the Greens, but actually a center/conservative party.
Ok, and regarding John Frizell, I do know that he once did reply to you, but according to my friend at Greenpeace International he didn’t bother to give you a second reply.
David,
I know that Japanese reps have threatened some East European countries with trade sanctions if they join the IWC, threats that however eventually were ignored.
You’re welcome Ann.
No, John didn’t give me a second reply. I didn’t expect he would have anything to say in response. All he managed in his first response was “oh well any scientist who says that must be paid by the whaling industry”, or some such intellectually dishonest nonsense. Good enough for Greenpeace supporters perhaps, but not so convincing for the rest of us.
Isn’t what you quote John as saying very close to what you argue that people like Baker do, with IFAW ties? There’s that term ‘intellectual dishonesty again’, tsk, tsk….
Correction:
Japan has threatened some East European countries with trade sanctions if they join the anti whaling camp in the IWC…
Libby,
Scientists other than those employed by the whaling industry clearly believe that sustainable whaling is possible.
You can read my response to John Frizell here and see for yourself:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/01/response-to-greenpeaces-john-frizell.html
It *is* intellectual dishonesty to claim that commercial whaling is not possible. Whether you agree with it or not is entirely a different matter.
Ann,
Is that right? How come all of the EU nations (including the 7 landlocked ones: http://whaling-faq.blogspot.com/2006/05/faq-3.html) all vote against sustainable use and have always voted against sustainable use?
Got a cite?
OK, a short summary from today’s Norwegian local paper “Lofotposten” in the middle of “whaling country”.
” Probably our profit so far is very little”, states a skipper onboard a whaling vessel.
We have had heavy expenditures on fuel , ammunition etc. The expenditures so far have been about 1 million NOK.
About 297 minkes so far have been killed this year compared to 547 in 2005 by this time.
The whalers claim their bad luck on bad weather conditions.
But I really wonder if it’s only about bad weather conditions?
http://www.lofotposten.no/lokale_nyheter/article2166422.ece
Well, I’m posting this before Jennifer has kindly approved my last post, but I thoguht it best to note that we aren’t going anywhere here.
Clearly somebody is guilty of “intellectual dishonesty” with regard to scientific issues. I’m convinced that my side is assessing all the information available, and yet I’m sure that you feel you and your Greenpeace side is fairly and fully assessing all the information as well (I assume?).
At the end of the day, someone in this discussion is sticking to a position based on their desire to do so regardless of certain information – we could argue about who that person is, but it’s boring and pointless to do so.
That’s enough of this for a while 🙂
Hope you guys enjoy the break 🙂
“”But I really wonder if it’s only about bad weather conditions?””
Anne, you live in Stockholm, but probably have access to weather reports in Norway – check them for the areas concerned
Here´s a tip for you… go to http://theyr.net/index.html ( Icelandic )and register, pay the 300 kroner or so yearly fee and have access to the best weather forecasting service in the Northern hemisphere – thats the one that many norwegian fishermen use rather than NRK, TV2, or the norwegian weather service…
Report back here once you have done your research on weather in the Norwegian sea / barents sea for the last two months. then match that to boat positions for the last two months…
Hi George,
Interesting weather planner, didn’t know that Michael Schumacher and other F1- teams used this planner:) as well as the fishermen .
No I have no positions on the whaling ships but it’s a little bit tiredsome to hear them talking about bad weather all the time, usually we hear the whalers claim that the Norwegian waters are swarming with whales. Haven’t we heard this bad weather excuse for bad whaling quotas for years?
And yes I know coastal weather in Norway is awful with them low pressures sweeping in from the Atlantic, who would like to live in Bergen,the city must be even worse than Seattle;-)?
Anne,
Whether you like it or not, hunting minkies ( at least from the smaller boats that most norwegian whalers use ) is heavily weather dependant – .. so what´s it to be? either you accept that they need good weather, or you do not… it´s also tiresome to hear the same old NGO accusations/insinuations year after year as well…..
Regarding quotas : the 2006 quota is 1052 animals – 400 or so of which are in the Jan mayen zone – guess what? nobody is / has ( yet ) gone to Jan Mayen … so, it is most likely that the actual number taken will be between 500-700 .. pretty much in line with catches over the last decade
Year Quota catch
1994 319 280
1995 232 218
1996 425 388
1997 580 503
1998 671 625
1999 753 591
2000 655 487
2001 549 550
2002 671 634
2003 711 646
2004 670 541
2005 797 639
2006 1052 ??
As mentioned before, high bunkering costs and historcally unstable weather conditions in the Jan mayen area make it unlikely that the 400 or so Jan mayen quota will be taken – the North sea quota / catch varies from year to year dependant on weather also…
Bergen´s a beautiful city when the sun shines ( as reflected by housing prices there ) and still has it´s charms even during the inevitable rainy weather it endures … Stockholm was not exactly a tropical paradise in the year that I lived there anne … ;op
Hey George,
Yes I know Bergen is a beautiful city when it is not raining, actually Bergen is every marine biologists dream city, everyone has some relation or relative connected to the Marine Institute.
And no Stockholm is NOT my favorite city but actually I don’t live in the city but in the countryside.
Some suggestions for keeping whaling on the front page of my blog:
George, what about writing something for me to post about the very recent history of whaling in the northern hemisphere?
Ann, what about writing something controversial about Greenpeace and whaling?
Libby, Something about whaling by pacific islanders?
David, What about why you live in Tokyo OR whaling by pacific islanders?
…or just a summary of this long thread by someone?
send your few paragraphs to jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
Jennifer,
I´m off in a few days on another survey – so it will be sometime in August before you get it – but I´m game 🙂
Hi Jennifer,all,
I say as George,I’m game too… I think discussing whaling here at your blog is very interesting and well, amusing as well, hey I kinda like this mix of different opinions!
Jennifer,
In between work, finishing my MSc, continuing on with my other two research projects…sure! I will see what I can do, but it probably wont be until August/September, if that is OK. You’ve got better luck getting the endangered small cet’s out of me!
Jennifer,
After-thought is a wonderful thing…Why do you want to keep whaling on the front page of your blog?
Hi David,
Here’s an article that may interest you, yes, it is a Greenpeace article but please have a check:
http://www.greenpeace.cz/zpravy.shtml?x=180257
So maybe we can drop the statement that only big NGO’s and the UK, the US , Australia and NZ is pressuring other small nations?
Regarding these East European countries I think however Western countries like the US have much more influence than Japan on domestic policy making.
Anne,
“” Representatives of the environment ministries of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland expressed their intention to access to the International Whaling Comission (IWC) and join the pro-conservation, anti-whaling, camp already in spring last year in the Slovak town of Košice. They were called on to take the step not only by the environmental organisation Greenpeace, but also by top-level officials from the US, the UK and other countries. Last week, however, Hungary became the first country to back down amid Japanese pressure and promised that it would not become active in whale protection.””
Are you saying that it is ok for “the good guys ” to exert pressure and that it´s not ok for ” the bad guys ” to do the same? …. surely not ..
Note that the article is from 2004 incidentally…
George,
No, I just want to point out that BOTH parts are putting pressure on some nations, and I think which nations may be under pressure in the near future from the anti whaling camp,probably the new EU countries with coastal line. They fully support US policy in foreign affairs and may join the IWC since they are interested in environmental issues.
Anne,
With all due respect, do you really believe
” and may join the IWC since they are interested in environmental issues.” ??
In one word … ludicrous… need I point out the environmental deficiencies of the countries you mention? If they are so concerned with environmental issues, then why are they considering joining the IWC long before their own environmental house(s) are in order?…
Do you really belive that?
George,
Are we thinking about the same countries?
Anyway, I can point out one of these new countries that have now developed a quite decent environmental policy, for example it’s banned to cut trees during the bird’s nesting period, from May to the middle of June, quite advanced I guess, especially when this country is heavily dependent on forestry.
Well, this thought of mine has also been expressed by the anti whaling camp .However I could also be totally wrong asuming that these countries will join the IWC, but if we think that the Chech Republic is a member, why not these countries/country?
And George,
Need I point out that in these areas the last unspoilt regions in Europe is to be found….
Hungary
Rapid industrialization in Hungary following World War II contributed significantly to a number of major environmental problems, including air, water, and soil pollution. Emissions from automobiles and electric power plants have created most of the air pollution. A significant percentage of the country’s forests, waterways, and buildings suffer damage from acid rain, which is caused by sulfur dioxide in the air. Winds carry Hungary’s polluted air into neighboring countries, where it has caused similar problems.
River, lake, and groundwater pollution in Hungary are the result of industrial runoff, much of which is untreated when it enters the water. Insufficiently treated sewage also contributes to water pollution, as a large percentage of the country’s population does not have access to adequate sanitation facilities. Hungary’s Lake Balaton, the largest lake in central Europe, is severely polluted. Soils are also susceptible to pollution from chemical runoff from local industries. Because Hungary shares its major waterway, the Danube, with other European countries, pollution problems affecting neighboring countries often affect Hungary, as well, and vice versa.
In the worst environmental disaster since the Chernobyl’ nuclear accident in 1986, more than 100,000 cubic meters of water contaminated with cyanide burst through a dam at a mining works in northern Romania in January 2000. The water traveled 1,000 km (620 mi) through Yugoslavia and Hungary, where it entered the Danube and Tisza rivers, polluting drinking water in all three countries. The toxic cyanide wiped out the Tisza’s entire ecosystem in a matter of days—everything from microbes to otters.
Reforestation efforts have allowed the country to steadily gain forestland. About 6.8 percent (1997) of Hungary’s land was protected in parks and other reserves, preventing development but not the ill effects of acid rain and water pollution.
Poland
In 1991 Poland designated five official ecological disaster areas. Of the five, the densely concentrated heavy industry belt of Upper Silesia had suffered the most acute pollution. In that area, public health indicators such as infant mortality, circulatory and respiratory disease, lead content in children’s blood, and incidence of cancer were uniformly higher than in other parts of Poland and dramatically higher than indicators for Western Europe (see Health Conditions , this ch.). Experts believed that the full extent of the region’s environmental damage was still unknown in 1992. The situation was exacerbated by overcrowding; 11 percent of Poland’s population lived in the region. With 600 persons per square kilometer, Upper Silesia ranked among the most densely populated regions of Europe. In 1991 the region’s concentrated industrial activity contributed 40 percent of Poland’s electrical power, more than 75 percent of its hard coal, and 51 percent of its steel.
A variety of statistics reflect the effects of severe environmental degradation in Upper Silesia. In 1990 the infant mortality rate was over 30 deaths per 1,000 births, nearly five times the levels in some countries of Western Europe; some 12,000 hectares of agricultural land had been declared permanently unfit for tillage because of industrial waste deposition; and between 1921 and 1990 the average number of cloudy days per year had increased from ten to 183. Average life expectancy in southern Poland was four years less than elsewhere in the country
Water and air pollution affect the entire country, however. A 1990 report found that 65 percent of Poland’s river water was so contaminated that it corroded equipment when used in industry. After absorbing contaminants from the many cities on its banks, the Vistula River was a major polluter of the Baltic Sea. River water could not be used for irrigation. In 1990 about half of Poland’s lakes had been damaged by acid rain, and 95 percent of the country’s river water was considered undrinkable. Because Polish forests are dominated by conifers, which are especially vulnerable to acid rain, nearly two-thirds of forestland had sustained some damage from air pollution by 1990. In 1989 Polish experts estimated total economic losses from environmental damage at over US$3.4 billion, including soil erosion, damage to resources and equipment from air and water pollution, and public health costs.
In 1988 about 4.5 million hectares, or 14.3 percent of Poland’s total area, were legally protected in national and regional parks and reserves. But all fourteen national parks were exposed to heavy air pollution, and half of them received substantial agricultural, municipal, and industrial runoff.
A special environmental problem was discovered when Polish authorities began inspecting the military bases occupied by Soviet troops for forty-six years. Uncontrolled fuel leakage, untreated sewage release, noise pollution from air bases, and widespread destruction of vegetation by heavy equipment were among the most serious conditions observed when inspections began in 1990. The government of Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki was late in pursuing the issue with the Soviet government, however, and in 1991 the Soviet Union continued its longstanding refusal to pay fines and natural resource usage fees required by Polish law. In 1992 the Poles dropped all demands for compensation as part of the withdrawal protocol.
Need I continue? and thats just a quick google search – visit both countries anne and come back and tell me you still believe your statement
Regarding ” last unspoilt regions in Europe ” , I suggest you visit parts of Finnmark, Lofoten and or Svalbard ;op
Haha George,
No we are NOT thinking about the same nation(s), please continue your Google search:) I will provide you with more info and links tomorrow, but a tip, this country has a HUGE population of wolves, bears and lynx-
Anne,
Did you or did you not add these comments/statements
” Representatives of the environment ministries of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland expressed their intention to access to the International Whaling Comission ” ??
“”and may join the IWC since they are interested in environmental issues “”
I have given you some quick google references from two out of the four – you want me to look at the other two? no problem ..
incidentally, I suggest you read this link
http://www.rec.org/REC/Publications/StratIssues/FeeBased/Poland.html
Or are you suggesting some other country entirely? you only mention the 4 above
First two google hits
http://www.wisc.edu/epat/.energy/.The-Czech-Republic–Environmental-Proble1/.Document-divided-by-Chapter-with-Search-1/.The-Czech-Republic–Environmental-Proble1.html
http://www.riskworld.com/Abstract/1996/SRAam96/ab6aa324.htm
Hey George,
I know it is not always easy to understand everything that I write but actually I was not thinking about those countries in the link but on the coastal nations Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.These countries are also former Soviet States with bad environmental reputation but they are into fisheries and regarding Estonia I know personally they are keen on to improve the environment. This winter I helped IFAW to come to Estonia to help out with a oil spill accident in Gulf of Finland. Here’s a link:
http://www.sea-alarmnet.org/
I’m the one they are refering to as e-mail from Sweden. As I mentioned just a thought from me:)
Ok,
So are Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania joining the IWC? have they been asked to ? by whom?
No anne, I´m afraid that they have nothing to do with whaling do they?
Maybe we should just have the discussion in Svensk – would make life easier ;O )
Libby,
It would be great to post something from you on the small cetaceans. I would like to better understand the situation in rivers in Asia.
And as regards your question about whaling and the front page… it was really just a way of ‘framing an offer’ to post stuff from you guys as a new thread.
Ann & George, August/September is fine.
Ann,
> I just want to point out that BOTH parts are putting pressure on some nations
I agree that this is the case, and I think that the only way to ensure that nations can vote in line with their own interests without external influences from powerful lobby groups in foreign nations is by expanding the use of secret ballots at the IWC.
Secret ballots already do exist. People oppose the expansion on the grounds of “transparency”. Shouldn’t they be requesting that the secret ballot be completely wiped out of the IWC rulebook then?
Jennifer,
Why I live in Tokyo doesn’t have anything at all to do with whaling, but if you’d like to hear my life story, where I came from, how I got here, and how I came to support whaling peoples I’d be more than happy to oblige sometime.
If you are looking for new content, you can always pinch something from my blog! Yesterday I re-raised the question of whether the pro-sustainable use nations may take the IWC to court in near future. That might result in a more lawsy discussion than an environmental one though, and I’m not so familiar with how international courts work.
Jennifer,
On small cetaceans, New Zealand apparently has a big problem in Fiordland now with unsustainable dolphin tourism. As I mentioned to Libby:
> did you see the report about unsustainable dolphin-watching tourism in New Zealand?
> http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SC58docs/SC-58-WW6.pdf
> I was shocked that my government could preside over this.
I mentioned this on the blog of the New Zealand Green party as well, but the last time I looked, no one had so much as commented.
Are “Green” people not interested in entertaining the thought that ecotourism does harm to small cetaceans?
Or are they just not interested in small cetaceans?
Are only the mega-fauna charismatic?
Indeed, it’s a shame that so much time is wasted arguing about the larger species, which for the most part are in good shape, and those that aren’t are not threatened by whaling activities but by ship strikes and entanglements in fishing nets, from what I have seen. I’ll have to look into what actions the governments presiding over all of this are taking to address these issues.
Greg Donovan, Head of Science at the IWC:
“In general,” he says, “I would say that small cetaceans are probably more at risk than large whales.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5088132.stm)
OK George, svensk will do fine, no misunderstandings….
Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia already are IWC members.
And the Austarlian and the UK IWC Commissioners were talking about recruiting new EU member states to the IWC, leaves you with Poland, the Baltic States, Malta and Cyprus…
Sentiments in Estonia are quite similar to those in Sweden and Finland, which means whaling is a non -issue, but the common man does not like whaling but neither don’t want to hassle with Norway.
I posted a link yesterday from Norwegian paper Lofotposten that stated they had killed a record low number of whales so far.
This is confirmed by other media today. George and the whalers mention bad weather is the cause but “Fiskaren” also states that a temperature change in Barents Sea may be one of the reasons why soo few whales are sighted. The Norwegian fishermen and whalers are really worried about a climate change and higher temperatures in Barents Sea have been measured.
http://www.fiskaren.no/incoming/article110747.ece
Anne,
You are starting to have a habit of selecting what you want from articles / comments and ignoring the rest ..
pretty much like Greenpeace actually ;op
Firstly, I mention bad weather as ” a ” cause, not the cause..we already discussed prey in anothr hread I believe
Next, the article states
” Væreforhold, beite og temperatur i havet kan være noen av årsakene til at kvalfangerne ikke er kommet på skuddhold”
Weather, prey and temperature of the sea CAN be some of the reasons……
Also:
” De fleste kvalene er tatt i områdene fra Vesterålen og opp til Bjørnøya. Ingen av fangerne har luktet på Jan Mayen, hvor kvoten er på 443 dyr.”
Most of the whales have been taken in areas between vesteralen and Bjornoya – none of the hunters have gone to Jan Mayen, where the quota is 443 animals ..
“Kostbart
Kostnadene, blant annet bunkers, står ikke i forhold til det man kan påregne av kval. Vær, vind og høg sjø samt skodde som ligger tett i dagevis, gjør at turen til Jan Mayen blir et rent sjansespill.”
Costs, for amongst other things, fuel, make in uneconomical in relation to income from “possible” whales – weather, wind and heavy seas, as well as fog that can be tight for days on end make the jan mayen trip a real gamble ….( possible is my translation – it does not say that in the article – that seems to be what he means though in view of what he writes afterwards )
“Et par fartøyer gjorde gode fangster ved Svalbard i forrige uke. Til Skrova ble det mandag levert et 20-talls kval”
A Couple of boats have had good hunting near Svalbard last week, deleivering 20+ whales to Skrova on monday …
“Stor etterspørsel
Ifølge Rolandsen er det nå stor etterspørsel av kvalkjøtt”
According to Rolandsen, right now, there is a large demand for whalemeat
The rest is smaller stuff about Rolandsen being worried that large numbers of whales towards the end of the season can cause problems for the landing producers and at the start of the article, saying that this years hunt is going lousy at the moment …
So anne, According to the fiskaren article, whalemeat is in high demand due to a shortage – what happened to a “saturated market” and all these “unsold whalemeat stocks in storage ( stockpiles ) “….
PS.. missed a bit
” I hovedsak er det syv aktive mottakere i Lofoten og Troms. Men uten at de får en jevn tilførsel kan markedet miste interessen for kvalkjøtt, sier Rolandsen. ”
Mainly, there are 7 active recieving companies in lofoten and troms – but without them getting supplies, ( tilforsel? ) the market can lose interest for whalemeat says Rolandsen…
Just for info anne, I am not a whaler and nor do I have anything to do with HNA or any such other organisation – as you say yourself, my opinions are my own ;O)
I have to concur that Greenpeace and people who echo their views do have a terrible habit of being very selective.
One of the best examples at the moment is the way these people refer to the Antarctic minke estimate being appreciably lower than the last estimate of 760,000 from CPII.
This has been repeated so often that now the BBC reports it as fact:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456973/html/nn1page1.stm
“There are no agreed current estimates of the population size of Antarctic minke whales, although it is believed to be considerably fewer than the 1980s estimate of 760,000.”
Oh really? Is that what the Scientific Committe has said?
From the latest report, on page 32:
“In summary, results calculated using ‘standard’ methodology continue to indicate an appreciable decline in Antarctic minke whale abundance estimates between CPII (1985/86 – 1990/91) and CPIII (1991/92 – 2004/05).”
This is where the Greenpeace, IFAW, and other anti-whaling people stop reading.
That’s exactly what they want to hear, and it’s good enough for their propaganda purposes. But what does the SC say straight after that?
“However, analyses presented to the meeting have confirmed the potential importance of two factors not taken into account in this previous methodology:
(i) a decrease overall in g(0) from CPII to CPIII related in part to a decrease in mean school size as observed in these surveys; and
(ii) an increase overall in the extent of sea-ice coverage from CPII to CPIII which correlates negatively with abundance estimates, and may reflect a greater proportion of minke whales within the pack ice that are not included in the survey estimates.
It was noted that quantification of both these factors should be completed by the time of next year’s meeting. The Committee agrees that it is thus premature to advise on the extent of any possible appreciable decline in the abundance estimates of minke whales between CPII and CPIII at this stage.”
Premature indeed, yet that hasn’t stopped the anti-whaling NGOs abusing this science in an attempt to further their cause. Disgraceful and intellectually dishonest indeed. 🙂
Hey, hey guys,
Are you accusing me to be selective???
Just check out this short article that I posted at the Greenpeace forum:
http://ctk.greenpeace.org/od-en/discussions/message-view?message%5fid=2188244
Regarding George comments I will be back soon… even if I’m on holiday got some business to do…
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I´m off shortly on a field survey, so I will not be able to participate for the next month or so.
More important things are on my personal agenda such as how to pack 20kg+ of digital equipment into a bag so that it only looks like 8kg hand baggage …
Í wish you all a good July ;O)
Anne, basically, yes… ;op
Hi again George or should I say Mr. Gramma police;)?
But thanks a lot for pointing out all my mistakes, this helps me to hone the discussions skills as well as to improve my poor English( btw English is only my third language).
So you want to discuss the whale meat issue again?
OK, there is obviously a demand right now on the local market in Tromsö etc. for whale meat as well for seal meat. Rimi sells whale meat. This is also the grilling season and whale beef is advertised as an excellent choice.
But have you forgotten my previous articles on this ?
The Ellingsens whale meat processing factory, the biggest in Norway, run almost at a deficit last year, the only reason why they didn’t was that they sold some warehouses/buildings AND Ellingsen has a stockpile of whale meat according to Lofotposten(May 2006).
To everyone: ” Wish you all a good July”. I will be away next week for a cross country competition( horses). Probably I will finish last;O)
Anne,
It´s not a question of grammar, it is a question of you only selecting the bits that support your arguement / cause … ( actually, I mentioned to somebody recently that you need to hone your discussion skills a tiny bit 😉 Glad if I can help ..hehe…) If you are going to quote newspapers, then quote all the relevant parts, not just the ones that reinforce your point.. ( something I myself need to do more )
What you have to remember anne is that quoting newspapers does not neccessarily mean that what the newspapers print is fact – case in point, your quote from Lofotposten above and the quote from Fiskaren .. which is it – large demand for whalemeat or large stockpile of whalemeat?? you cannot have both or?
Anne, I am very sure that if we were having this discussion in svensk, you would be the one pointing out my mistakes ( and svensk is my 4th language – ;op I speak 3 more or less fluently and two so-so .. svensk being one of the so-so´s )
Good luck with the cross country and don´t break a leg 😉
George,
Wish you were as thorough as you want me to be…
If you check out my post from Lofotposten, it is dated from May 2006, they are refering to frozen whale meat and the demand right now is for fresh whale meat I guess…
And George we all know what happens in the end of the hunting season… they end up with “överfulla valköttslager”, roughly translated they end up with a big surplus of whale meat in their warehouses.
Anne,
no time to go into it, but don´t guess – get facts – call Ellingsen and ask – I´m sure GP´s budget stretches to a phone call ;op
Thanks for wishing me good luck, Kaprifol the horse I’m riding needs all good luck, she is a heroine jumping like a god despite only one eye! A one eyed horse!
George,
Regarding Ellingsens and Greenpeace, frankly Greenpeace Nordic don’t care much about Norwegian whaling anymore… probably I’m one a the few persons who do. For example, if you check out GP Norway’s site, it has not been updated on Norwegian whaling for years.
On my first day at the Office the Oceans Campaigner asked me “Are you one of those save the whales people, oh no, we are tired of them”…you see here we look at the big picture what really happens to the Oceans, wish people cared more about IUU fishing( illegal, unregulated and unreported) fishing , bottom trawling, longlines, driftsnets , RFMO’s etc.”
But I guess like Libby mentioned in a previous post that the poor cod ain’t sexy enough compared to the whales!
When we all come back from our respective businesses here’s another article to discuss:
http://www.fiskeribladet.no/default.asp?lesmer=4288
Hello Ann,
I heard the other day that Greenpeace doesn’t support boycotts of nations who vote for sustainable use at the IWC. I was pleased to see this.
Unfortunately, it seems that some Greenpeace members may not have heard about this:
http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000021/002161.htm
I guess her opinions are her own, but hmmm, is her language appropriate? Not a good look for Greenpeace, really.
Follow-ups:
http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000021/002164.htm
http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000021/002165.htm
Hi anne,
a quick reply…
As you can read from the article, Norway are quite happy enough with the status quo, and even if the anti whaling block magically aquired a 3/4 majority in the IWC, they would probably simply fall back on NAMMCO as a local regulatory body rather than the IWC itself – and you really do not want that to happen, do you?
Regarding GP Nordic, well, that´s one of the reasons why I personally have problems with GP´s anti whaling policies – one branch says one thing – another branch says another and GP international do what they want regardless of the positions of the national branches – occassionally contradicting the position of the national branch(es). If they had a consistant policies thoughout GP, they might actually have the support/respect of more folk than they actually do today.
Hi ,
David,
the links were good…but don’t think personally the GP member’s comment was a flamer…
George,
Indeed there are two camps in Greenpeace regarding whaling, firstly you are a bit confused but now I find it kind of dynamic and refreshing…
I have asked the Nordic Campaigner why we don’t have any more anti whaling actions in Norway. He said Greenpeace had already won the whales war in Norway, it was not a fast and visual victory, but the whale meat demand had decreased, there is no export market, people at least in the cities support Greenpeace as well.
But who has really won the whales war in Norway? Is it Greenpeace or the whaler’s? Frankly , I have no answer.
Anne,
Just to make it clear, I am not in the slightest bit confused about GP´s anti whaling policies / statements – many of which are hypocritical, misinformation and or simple tactics – I hope you are clear on that.
As to the “whaling war” in Norway – Norway is hunting minkies commercially, legally and in line with their stated objectives of many years.
Greenpeace may claim what they like – but they are largely irrelevant in Norwegian whaling – shame that GP don´t realise that they are heading in the same direction as regards to Japanese whaling as well
Ann,
I see.
Personally, talk of “blood money” and “whaling scoundrels in Japan” doesn’t attract me to the Greenpeace cause.
But then I’m biased perhaps?
David,
Now , can we take all comments seriously, or what.. the internet is full of loonies!
Anne,
out of interest – is this you looking for me?
IP removed .telia.com
29 Jun, Thu, 11:20:13 http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=george+mccallum&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta=
If you want information, all you need to do is ask – I have nothing to hide ;o)
George,
Actually this is the second time I do a George Google, was looking for the whale’s pics but your site is still under reconstruction!
Thought it was .. you also had a look on sunday at 13.27 ;op
for whale pics – look here
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-search-results.asp?st=0&lic=6&lic=1&ns=1&qt=george+mccallum+whales&go=1&a=-1
My website will be offline for a while – too many other things to do before I get to it ….
Hi George,
Nice pics !!!