The 58th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is being held from 16 to 20 June 2006 at the St. Kitts Marriott Resort and the Royal Beach Casino in Frigate Bay, St. Kitts, West Indies. The website “Kujira Portal” will broadcast the IWC meeting’s highlights and press conferences starting from this Friday, 16 June 2006.
So if you live somewhere like Australia you have a choice, you can stay up all night watching the soccer (World Cup in Germany) or the ‘wailing’ at the IWC.
The scientific papers underpinning the discussion are available at the Scientific Committee home page of the IWC website under the section titled ‘In-depth Assessments’ (http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SC58docs/sc58docs.htm).
David@Tokyo will no doubt be blogging on the event from Tokyo.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer mentions that in the North Atlantic the whales eat lots of fish… but remember in the north near the ice fields , the minkes “only” eat krill and in the Southern Oceans the minke diet consists only of krill.
Indeed I will be blogging, although, once it’s clear who has turned up at the meeting to vote this year, ther rest will be pretty much a foregone conclusion.
Jennifer mentions that in the North Atlantic the whales eat lots of fish… but remember in the north near the ice fields , the minkes “only” eat krill and in the Southern Oceans the minke diet consists only of krill.
Posted by: Ann Novek at June 14, 2006 11:48 PM
Dear Ann,
( Hi by the way, long time no see :o)
Can you refer us to any papers documenting your claim that minkies “only eat krill in the northern ice fields ” ? I spend a good deal of time up there and can tell you that
a.) you´ll find very few minkies at the ice edge itself.
b.) I can provide photographic evidence of minkies feeding on capelin ( lodde ) outside of Isfjord on Spitsbergen ( Svalbard )which as you know is not overly far from the ” northern ice fields ” as you call them….
I await any cites you may have with interest
Regards
George
Ann is commenting on this post before I chopped it in half, which was about as soon as it went up. I will post some of the information she is referring to as a new post later today or tomorrow once I work out how to upload some tables from a document titled ‘Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem’ (by Sinclair and Valdimarsson copyright FAO 2003) with estimations of how many fish whales are eating around the world.
As Ann suggests, the document shows Antarctic Minke eat no fish, but consume some where between 42 and 64 million tonnes of ‘Crustaceans’. In the North Pacific, however, the document suggests minke whales eat somewhere between 1 and 2 million tonnes of fish as well as crustaceans. In the North Atlantic it lists consumption by minke whales as 4.9 to 7.4 million tonnes of fish. Anyways I will see if I can get the tables up at this site. They are really information dense with three estimates based on different samplying methods for a fairly comprehensive list of whale and dolphin species.
Hi George,
Actually I found this information on minke whale diet on the High North Alliance’s website:
” The minke whale does not just eat krill and plankton . Preliminary results from the Norwegian scientific programme show that its staple diet consists first and foremost of fish, particularly herring, but also cod, haddock and saithe. In the north , near ice fields, it eats lot of krill, whereas capelin is the main ingredient in the eastern Barents Sea.”
Regards,
Ann
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Hunts/Norway/th-mi-wh.htm
For those interested, the JARPA paper on prey consumption by cetaceans in the Antarctic, North Atlantic and North Pacific is here:
http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/SC52E6.pdf
They believe there is a level of competition with fisheries in the North Atlantic and North Pacific as well, but of course in the Antarctic there is no real competition.
For myself, whaling activities are perfectly acceptable so long as they are sustainable (i.e., catch limits set in line with IWC Scientific Committee advice), but given that humans wish to exploit marine resources it’s certainly prudent to improve our understanding of the ecosystem as a whole. Even where there may not be direct competition, there may be indirect effects.
Some scientists a few years back issued a study suggesting that orcas did well during the industrial whaling days, as whaling ships would throw whale carcasses – free lunch – back in the water. The orcas then had trouble when the blanket ban on commercial whaling was introduced. I don’t know how widely accepted that study was, but it was an interesting read at the time.
Hi David, the document you provide a link to appears to be a slightly earlier version of what I have. The title is only slightly different and the tables similiar. Also mine is about 3MB which makes it too big to upload at my site. But I’m wondering when was the document you link to published and how can it be cited?
Hi again Ann,
So in other words, your statement that ” but remember in the north near the ice fields , the minkes “only” eat krill ” is completely false, Do you accept that?
Jennifer, thanks for the clarification, I will look up the paper you referenced
Regards
George
Dear George,
There is a distinction between “only” and only! Here in Sweden “only” can also be interpreted as mostly.
Dear Anne,
But you are on an international forum, so it´s a good idea to be precise in your statements. Incidentally, the HNA page you quoted was from 1994, things have moved along quite a bit research wise since then.
Regards
George
Jennifer,
The ICR has it on their general info page as a IWC SC 52 document.
http://www.icrwhale.org/generalinfo.htm
So the paper would have been written in either the latter half of 1999, or first half of 2000. I’m not sure about any rules for citing it (it doesn’t appear to request permission be asked).
Actually, I think I remember once seeing the 2003 document you refer to now. It was a collection of papers from a range of people, IIRC?
It looks like Doug Butterworth references it here:
http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/maram/people/plaganyi/Buttwth53-62HR.pdf
(see TAMURA, 2003)
Just searching around, I notice that a FAO meeting on Responsible Fisheries in 2002 saw some politics over the role of cetaceans in the ecosystem. Here are some statments from the Japanese and St. Lucia delegations to the meeting:
http://www.fao.org///docrep/005/y2198t/y2198t01.htm#bm1.10.10
http://www.fao.org///docrep/005/y2198t/y2198t01.htm#bm1.10.11
George and all,
Apologies for my bad English!
George, as you correctly point out the minke whale diet probably has changed due to climate change. The capelin (lodda) have moved westwards and there’s a complicated interaction between species in the marine ecosystem.
The interactions between commercial fish as cod, herring and capelin ( and of course minkes) are still unknown( Fiskaren 14.6.2006) , fish that are prey for the minkes.
Hi Again Ann,
You mean this Quote from Harald Gjosetter (sp)?
“Nei, vi forstår helt sikkert ikke fullt ut loddas funksjon i økosystemet! Men vi vet en god del, blant annet at det er en sammenheng mellom mengde lodde tilgjengelig og torskens vekst. Dette vær særlig tydelig i Barentshavet under det første loddekollapsen på 80-tallet, mens det i senere tid har vært mer annen mat tilgjengelig for torsken, og ikke en så god sammenheng mellom lodde og torskevekst.Vi mener å vite at silda ikke fullt ut kan erstatte lodda som torskemat. ”
Amongst other things, he is saying that ” we don´t completely understand Capelins function in the Ecosystem, but we do understand a great deal ”
I´d say that we know a great deal about the interactions between cod, herring and Capelin ( lodda ) – but not all obviously … that´s hardly “unknown” … be Precise Ann …
I would suggest you have a good “trawl” through the website of the Institute of Marine research in Bergen´s ( http://www.imr.no) Lots of good up to date info to be found there
Regards
George
Hi George,
I’m quite familiar with the interactions between cod,herring and lodde, and I have checked out the Marine Research Institute of Bergens website.
The Institute’s and Odin’s website state that ” cod grow more slowly if there is a shortage of capelin”. What I wanted to point out the evidence now is not so obvious as previously thought.
I’ve just posted some info and thoughts on whales and how they eat fish: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001427.html
I must say, that as a child growing up in Australia, I was under the impression that whales only ate plankton.
Hi all,
Have you noticed St. Kitt’s official IWC banner???
The anticipated whales image is missing. One side of the banner shows the biggest FISH in the world: the whale shark.
Hello again anne,
As a greenpeace member ( albeit Sweden as opposed to the UK ) I wonder if you can comment on these excerpts from the Greenpeace UK Website.
“A moratorium on commercial whaling was introduced in 1986 when research showed that many species were being decimated, Japan, Norway and Iceland have exploited loopholes in the legislation to allow ‘scientific’ whaling. Between them they kill around 2,000 whales a year in the name of spurious science – although the meat from these kills is sold commercially. ”
and
“Between them Japan, Iceland and Norway are killing around 2,000 whales a year – in the name of spurious science ”
I would like to ask you why GP use the figure of 2000 whales without breaking the figure down by species, also, why they include Norway, which has had an open commercial hunt since 1993. GP also must know that it is a requirement of the relevant scientific permits that the meat etc from any hunt made under scientific permit be sold to offset the cost of the research.
If you cannot comment for Greenpeace, then fair enough, so what would be your personal opinion on GP UK publishing such misinformation?
Regards
George
Excerpts from :
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/oceans/oceans.cfm?ucidparam=20060614162704
Hi George,
It’s been argued that it’s because Greenpeace is a machine that needs fancy propaganda campaigns in order to get donations, in order to remain viable.
We can read all about Greenpeace’s motives here:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/leading-the-good-fight/2006/06/10/1149815358276.html
Essentially, the argument goes, Greenpeace is a confidence scam relying on the good-hearted nature of the uninformed people of the world.
George,
Asking Anne to comment on Greenpeace UK’s website excerpts and even her opinion of it is unreasonable. Given your tone with her, you are obviously baiting her and waiting for her to give you an opportunity to criticise, even if it is for her lack of fluent English (which I personally don’t think should be an issue here). Make sure you are addressing the real issues here, and not attacking Anne, Greenpeace, or anyone else that doesn’t agree with your point of view just for the sake of chest-thumping.
Libby,
Ok, why don’t you answer George’s question instead?
(I have no doubt that Anne is perfectly capable herself, her English is fine)
Last year, even New Zealand Conservation Minister accused Norway of coming to the Southern Hemisphere to kill whales for research.
When later challenged on the comment, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs apologised for the mistake.
Greenpeace UK should too fix their facts up. They are misleading the world, otherwise. They deserve to be criticised for failing to do so.
Don’t you agree?
David,
You are suggesting that I put myself in Anne’s spot so you and George can take pot shots at me? Sorry, but I have better things to do with my time.I am quite sure that Anne is capable of answering the questions herself, however, she is not really in a position to given that, as stated, she is not from GP UK and didn’t contribute to the information on the website (presumably).
So the NZ Conservation Minister made a gaffe. Are you suggesting that the Japanese and Norwegian ministers don’t ever make similar claims against other countries?
Why do you think the Japanese invest so much into infrastructure and aid in South Pacific nations David? Some would believe that they are “misleading the world” with vote-buying. Why do you think the Japanese research resulting from the JARPA programmes is criticised by people much more qualified than you or I? Some would believe they are “misleading the world” with their claims of scientific whaling. So you see, Greenpeace doesn’t have the monopoly on misleading the world, depending on which point of view you take.
Thanks Libby,
BTW, I met Adele from Greenpeace Australia last week. I showed her the neighbourhood and we ate lunch at a seaside resort. She appreciated your work very much!
Hi Libby,
I´m baiting Anne? Not at all.. I´m asking her opinion on the tactics of the NGO she is a member of – I could ask the same thing of you if you are a NGO member – I asked the same type of questions to myself when I was a member of an NGO – that´s why I´m no longer a member of that particular NGO. Apart from that, I´ve had some tasty swedish coffee with Anne many moons ago ( lets see If you remember where anne 🙂 and would not dream of baiting such a nice swedish woman … and in addition, I could just as easily ask anne in Swedish – but then most of the folk reading this would not be able to understand the conversation….
No Libby, no baiting, no pot shots, just simply asking personal opinions of tactics that GP uses – It´s a moral integrity thing y´see, can you support an NGO that uses misinformation to acieve their aims? It´s kind of like the pot calling the kettle black….
If you want to discuss historical vote buying and manipulation of first and third world sovereign countries to achieve a goal, I´m game
Regards
George
OK, OK, all… I guess if you post comments on a forum you are always looking for trouble;).
Now I have this hot report from the Third Millenium Foundation on Japanese vote-buying , and yes, I know David and George will scream it is funded by IFAW, but do have a look !
http://www.brian-fitzgerald.net/3miwcreport.pdf
Hi Anne 😉
No Screaming from me … however, I´ll comment on one part here, more later.
” New Zealand’s resolution was
eventually adopted by consensus following some negotiation and re-drafting. It concludes by
endorsing “the complete independence of sovereign countries to decide their own policies and freely participate in the IWC (and other international forums) without undue interference or coercion from other sovereign countries.”
I find this statement particularly hilarious in view of the pressure anti whaling NGO´s and countries exert on countries supporting whaling ( Google Dominica and the IWC to see what I mean for example )
More to follow I imagine 😉
George
Hi George,
But it was not long ago when I read that WDCS supported whale watching journeys to Dominica.
I just read this from the BBC:
” A survey commissioned by WWF suggested there was a majority opinion against whaling in all 10 of the Caribbean and Pacific states in which they polled”.
Hi anne,
Interesting comment about WDCS supporting whale watching holidays to Dominica – I know they do not support whale watching holidays to Norway .. in fact, I even know of an english Eco travel company who were told by WDCS a couple of years back that they could not buy whale adoptions / 1 years memberships for each of the customers they sent to Tysfjord in Norway as some of the customers would be snorkelling with killer whales there and WDCS do not / did not approve of it.
Seems a bit short sighted of them but thats just a personal opinion 😉
Regards
George
Hmmm, WWF supports whale watching in Tystfjorden and in Andenes.
Regarding snorkeling or swim with the orcas in Tystfjorden, maybe WDCS dosn’t like these kinds of arrangements/programmes.Don’t know.
Sorry, not Tystfjord but Tysfjord !
Hi Ann,
Well, on the WDCS website, where they operate their own travel company, they have one trip to the Azores where ( and I quote )
“Each trip includes whale and dolphin-watching from motor launch, yacht or raft, talks by local naturalists and WDCS researchers, and a visit to a WDCS field station to learn about conservation work. You can relax and watch the experts at work or get involved yourself – on the Azores trip, those who want to dive can help collect naturally-shed skin samples from the sea for DNA analysis”
Umm oops …? 😉
Regarding WWF Support in Andenes, they used to many years ago – I´m not sure if they still do.
Regarding Tysfjord, the support they offer there is minimal financially speaking these days as well – although the support is/was from WWF Sweden 😉 and not WWF international
Regards
George
Just watching the opening speech from St.kitts and heard The St Kitts commissioner, Cedric Liburd,rejecting all allegations of bribery to the meeting – it will be interesting to see how that is reported in the media and by NGO´s depending on how the opening resolutions go.
George
Cedric Liburd’s speech was indeed fantastic. I hope to be able to get my hands on a transcript at some point.
> So the NZ Conservation Minister made a gaffe. Are you suggesting that the Japanese and Norwegian ministers don’t ever make similar claims against other countries?
Chris Carter is a special case. His predecessor was not much better though.
I’ve never personally seen a Japanese or Norwegian minister make such terrible gaffes as Chris Carter. You’d be forgiven for thinking it was deliberate, surely?
> Why do you think the Japanese invest so much into infrastructure and aid in South Pacific nations David?
For the same reasons that the Japanese invest in other places such as Sri Lanka? 150 or so countries around the world, to be fair.
> Why do you think the Japanese research resulting from the JARPA programmes is criticised by people much more qualified than you or I?
Politics and personal agendas. If you read the criticisms, often they have very little sound science behind them. Even a lay person like myself can spot nonsense when we see it.
> Some would believe they are “misleading the world” with their claims of scientific whaling.
Yes, but then the IWC Scientific Committee basically backed Japan in 1997 on their research. What do you have to say about that? Greenpeace never tells anyone this either – they only mischeivously quote a small part of the report out of context.
> So you see, Greenpeace doesn’t have the monopoly on misleading the world, depending on which point of view you take.
That’s true, IFAW, Sea Shepherd certainly aid Greenpeace in misleading the world as well.
Dear David,
I have the most wonderful story about IFAW and I will tell you all about it tomorrow.( Right now I’m sitting in our garden with some friends drinking some wine and enjoying the beautiful Nordic evening;))