There is never anything very subtle or civil in Australia’s approach to whaling. As a rich nation with politicians used to pandering to ‘Greens’ we are quite prepared to threaten and cajole to make our point on this issue which is simply that it is wrong to kill whales.
As a nation we never bother to explain why we believe it is wrong to kill whales or really attempt to understand why Japan, Iceland and Norway see things a bit differently.
Our media simply reports the rantings of our Environment Minister. Just today he was reported in our national daily newspaper, The Australian, telling the world that:
“countries that supported Japan would be outed and shamed”, and
Pacific Island nations that support whaling should expect tourist boycotts, and
Japan’s plan to expand its scientific program to include humpback was a “disgraceful tactic”.
There was no comment from the Japanese government in the article. I am sure it would have been forthcoming if only the journalist had asked.
Japan’s position is rarely reported in the Australian media and there is rarely any analysis of why Australia and Japan hold such different positions.
I’ve ponder why Japan, Norway and Iceland are so determined to continue whaling. On the eve of the 58th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) I will float one idea.
Japan and Iceland, in particular, are nations that have traditionally looked to the sea for their food. They are nations with research institutions that study whales and how many fish they eat. They have scientists who recognise that whales are potentially competition for food.
Consider the following statistics from the chapter by Tsutoma Tamura in ‘Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem’ published by CABI in 2003:
“Total annual prey consumption by the cetaceans of the world (whales, porpoises and dolphins) was estimated to be at least 249-434 million tonnes … fish consumption by cetaceans in the southern hemisphere including the Indian Ocean was estimated to be 18-23 million tonnes and equated to 66-120 percent of the commercial fisheries catches in 1996. In the North Pacific, fish consumption was estimated to be 21-31 million tonnes, equivalent to 67-99 percent of commercial fisheries catches in 1996. In the North Atlantic, the fish consumption by cetaceans was 15-25 million tonnes, equivalent to 87-144 percent of commercial fisheries catches in 1996.
There was probably direct competition between cetaceans and commercial fisheries in the North Pacific and the North Atlantic.”
Here’s part of one of the many tables from the same report:
The numbers refer to millions of tonne per year based on estimates of daily prey consumption from average body weight (method 1). This is the most conservative of the three methods for estimating “prey consumption”.
I am not suggesting that Japan or Iceland should be able to slaughter whales because they eat fish nor that the main reason that Iceland and Japan undertake ‘scientific’ whaling is because they see whales as competition for fish.
But let’s try and understand the potential impact that whales have within marine ecosystems and lets also try and understand how this might influence how some of our neighbours and some of our friends see whales.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
To many, the simple argument that removal of marine mammal predatos will provide more fish to commercial fishermen seems logical and this argument has therefore gained considerable support.
However, such simple relationship is very unlikely to exist in nature.
And most probable , removing predators( whales) could even have a negative impact on commercial fisheries.
Ann Novek wrote:
“And most probable , removing predators( whales) could even have a negative impact on commercial fisheries.”
Please explain!
Humans typically minimize the populations of species which compete against them for food and other resources. This includes weeds, wolves, bears and various microbes, to name a few.
If this is wrong, it behooves someone to explain why.
If this is not wrong, then at least it should be explained why whales should be a special case.
If there’s insufficient reason to make whales a special case, there’s not a whole lot left to argue about.
Schiller.
Hi Mike,
Even when marine mammals appear to overlap in diet and distribution with commercial fisheries , they are unlikely to be the controlling factor in the availability of commercial fish stocks. This is because marine mammals are typically NOT the most important fish predator. In many ecosystems predatory fish are actually the most significant predator of other fish
Removing predators could have a negative impact on commercial fisheries – for example if they are preying on predatory fish which in turn , will take more of the commercially important species.
Sorry, the previous comment needs some correction : Removing predators could have a negative impact on commercial fisheries – for example if they are preying on predatory fish, could cause increased number of predatory fish , which in turn , will take more of the commercially important species.
I agree with Ann Novek.
When I read the report Jennifer was referring to I go I remembered what I learnt in University and to check the sources and since this one was written by someone in the fishery industry and food industry I get a bit suspicious about the numbers. Of course they would blame anyone who could take away their responsibility of overfishing.
One of the reasons to take a stand against Japans whaling is that they are hunting endangered species of whales.
That make whales a special case to me, and not comparable to weed for an example. (at least in my garden the weed I pull will never come up on an endangered list;)
Hi Seagull76
I was taught at university about evidence… about stats, about samplying animal populations, about designing experiments.
What do you mean by a source? According to Bjorn Lomborg everyone has an interest, so don’t necessarily believe what they say, scrutinise the evidence they present.
Which university did you attend and what did you study?
And how many fish do you calculate are eaten by whales?
Certainly, Tamura is from the ICR, using JARPA data, yet the paper has been cited and of course appears in this FAO publication. It’s fine to question the bias of the source, but at the end of the day you have to be be able to point out the flaws in the science, as well, if you wish to actually discredit it.
Ann, you’re right that hunting predator species could have a negative effect on fisheries. It could not, too. Or it could be both good and bad, depending on the specific fishery. Research into such questions is evidently neccessary to attempt to answer such questions. I’m sure the Japanese have a better idea about this now than do other nations who conduct no research at all into such matters.
And so at last we come to the ‘whales eating fish’ discussion.
And as you’ve gone on the front foot in your answer to ‘Seagull76’, here’s some thoughts back. If we really want to ‘try and understand the potential impact that whales have within marine ecosystems’, let’s ask some other questions too. Do marine mammals do anything other than eat?
Some other random thoughts on the postings here:
Jennifer, you know about stats, sampling and design, so [to take one simple example] where’s the sensitivity analysis for the Japanese ‘scientific’ whaling program to indicate that more data on whales’ stomach contents is the primary piece of information needed now? What about whales’ residence times in Antarctic waters [certainly still contentious for humpback whales]; estimates of abundance of the species to be hunted now [particularly fins]; or detail of whales’ foraging behaviour e.g. depth at which they feed, size of krill patches? If JARPA II was designed properly the sensitivity analyses must exist. Maybe you can point us to them?
In your attempt to ‘understand the potential impact that whales have within marine ecosystems’, perhaps you might like to read Peter Yodzis’ paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2001 (16:78-83), Must top predators be culled for the sake of fisheries?
And I thought that the reason given for the Japanese and Icelandic ‘research’ programs that involve whaling was because they’re interested in the ‘role’ of whales in ecosystems – so the main reason given for Iceland and Japan undertaking ‘scientific’ whaling is precisely because they see whales as competition for fish [unless the main reason that Iceland and Japan undertake ‘scientific’ whaling is because it’s a sham, and really about just going whaling].
On this: ‘As a nation we never bother to explain why we believe it is wrong to kill whales’ – what about the report of the Frost inquiry into whaling, published in 1979? Or what about the 1997 publication ‘A universal metaphor: Australia’s opposition to commercial whaling’, available online at http://deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/whaling/index.html I’m not saying I agree with everything in those government reports, but they look like an explanation for why Australians believe it’s wrong to kill whales, don’t they?
As to the issue of countries supporting Japan at the IWC: in 2001, Masayuki Komatsu of Japan’s fisheries agency admitted that Japan used overseas development aid to influence voting patterns at the IWC, see: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s331666.htm And the argument that some larger nations that receive Japanese aid vote against Japan, ergo the vote-buying allegations are untrue, misses a basic issue in logic. No-one (to my knowledge) is saying at all Japanese overseas development aid goes to buying votes at the IWC, just that some specifically targeted aid does.
Tho’ rantings is a good descriptor for the utterances of the Environment Minister.
That’s probably enough for now.
Peter
One small addition –
There’s been a document by Sidney Holt published online recently through the WDCS website, “Whales Competing”, that addresses Tamura’s work. It’s available at: http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/72153D540567218B8025717E002FCF0C
There’s another [much shorter] paper in a similar vein by Holt in the recent refereed literature – Holt (2006) Propaganda and Pretext. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52:363-366
As Jennifer says, scrutinize the evidence.
Peter
I find it curious that we have such “concern” for the nation of Japan who have profligately squandered much of the world’s natural resources for their own selfish ends. A classic example being Mitsubishi Corporation destruction of primary forests in Canada and Oceania.
Why are we interested in protecting a sham of scientific effort in cetacean research.
Why are their mountains of uneaten unwanted whale meat in Japan.
I wonder what the young Japanese think of their older generation’s handling of this issue.
Perhaps it’s not the greens who are unimpressed – it’s most of the western world.
In terms of “traditionally looking to the sea for their food” – have they been “traditionally” using modern steel ships, global positioning systems and harpoon cannons for hundreds of years all over the worlds oceans – I think not.
How did all the whales survive through the millennia I wonder before we helped them by killing them and sending the close to extinction. Now having brought some species back we wish to start again? Humpbacks indeed – what a disgrace.
Why are they determined to continue whaling – “machismo nationalism” perhaps or just anything for sashimi cultists?
Why cave in to indulge a few of their populace’s need for bizarre boutique cuisine when this blog spends so much time beating up on indulgent organic. Why don’t they genetically engineer some soy beans to make their unused whale meat stockpile?
So more of the same old / same old. More resource exploitation by bushido businessmen.
Hi Peter and thanks for the thoughtful and informative comment with links.
And one question, in a ‘nutshell’ are you making two points:
1. that the ‘scientific whaling’ is because Iceland and Japan see whales as competition for fish, and
2. the data doesn’t show whales as competition for fish?
heh the irony is that there is very little domestic demand for whale meat in japan. the only way they shift it is put it in kid’s lunches. the japanese government spends money trying to promote the consumption of whale meat because demand is so low. whale meat was never really a part of japanese traditional diet. it only became ‘popular’ in the war years because there was so few sources of protein around. in japan whaling has become more a matter of pride or resistance to foreign demands.
> Why are their mountains of uneaten unwanted whale meat in Japan.
Ashley, this is not really a fair statement.
In 1980 the whalemeat stockpile was more than 22,000 tonnes (according to TRAFFIC).
The other day, after putting 3,500 tonnes of whale meat on sale (from the Antarctic JARPA II hunt earlier this year), the stockpile was at just 6,000 tonnes.
Last year the stockpile peaked at 4,800, as reported by WDCS at the time.
So roughly a year later, the stockpile has only increased by 1,200 tonnes. Is it because demand has decreased? Or is it because supply has increased?
Consider this: the latest JARPA II hunt doubled the research take from 400 to 850 minkes, and added 10 fin whales (which are much much larger than minkes).
=> That’s a clear supply side effect.
I can tell you all from living in Tokyo that whale meat is available on quite a few menus. I know of two restaurants in my own neighbourhood that sell it, and another two near my old workplace in downtown Tokyo, and another in trendy Shibuya (a teenager mecca, although most patrons there are adults).
You can take my word for it that people here in Tokyo are eating whale meat.
You might like to consider who it is that is trying to tell us that whale meat is not being consumed in Japan, and why those people might be trying to give the western public that impression.
So there is an excess stockpile of 4800 tonnes. I really cannot believe you’re writing this as some sort of improvement. That’s appalling. How many animals is that?
I didn’t say it was not offered on menus and eaten. But how many – what demographics – and how much.
But it does not need to be so. It’s simply indulgent, as per the Japan’s ongoing national attitude to other scarce global resources.
It’s just squandering wildlife pandering to global minority. This blog slates organic producers – this simply more of the same arrogant nonsense to supply boutique products for people with more money than morality.
But we won’t label it as indulgent will we – as it’s simply indulging the far right line of “doing whatever you feel like as a consumer” to the natural environment as a political/philosophical objective.
Hi Peter,
Is that WDCS webhosting Dr. Sidney Holt’s research the same WDCS that last year tried to give the western public the impression that whale meat from the Antarctic was being turned into dog food, when in fact the dog food in question was produced from the small intenstines (not consumed by humans) of baird’s beaked whales, which has nothing at all to do with Japan’s research programmes?
I think it is, isn’t it?
The pet food section of the whale meat homepage:
http://www.hakudai.com/pet.html
Mark Simmonds – WDCS:
“We have heard many arguments from Japan over the years about why whaling is necessary to them but they have never stated that they needed to kill whales to feed their dogs!”
Interesting also to note that the Holt paper has “International League for the Protection of Cetaceans” emblazoned on it’s title page. Who would ever have thought that a scientist belonging to a whale *protection* outfit would find issue with the research of Japanese scientists?
But we’ve discussed scientists with agendas before.
You believe that scientists on the pro-whaling / pro-conservation / pro sustainable-use side of the debate have an agenda set for them by their political leaders.
I believe that scientists on anti-whaling / pro-protection side of the debate also have an agenda set for them by their political leaders, and many have their own personal agendas as well, like Dr. Sidney “cetacean protection” Holt.
Lay people such as myself can see that this issue has become highly politicised, and while we may not be marine mammal experts, we do have the ability to judge the character of those in the debate. What I personally look when making my judgements is for scientists who don’t go wading into the political debate at every opportunity.
In the case of Dr Sidney Holt, given that he once, “set the tone with his attack upon Japan’s ‘opulent wining, dining, and other entertainment of targeted individuals, and the flashing of corporate credit cards'”, I don’t have so much time for his science.
Since you mentioned the “bribery” allegations, I’d note with interest, that
– Apparently Guatemala may not turn up to vote this year.
– Other new African nations failed to show, last year.
– The Solomon Islands has said it is going to abstain on some resolution votes, because it doesn’t want to upset Australia.
Perhaps Japan’s “bribery” experts need some more practice? Or perhaps, just perhaps, we should consider that “bribery” is a mischaracterization of the way in which Japan uses ODA grants to develop friendly relations with other countries. But as you are a scientist yourself, I don’t want to ask you to join such a discussion. You are free to do so, if you wish, however.
Lets get this clear, again, as it was already dealt with in past posts. The whale hunts take place over a short time each year so the stocks go up just after the hunt and then decline with market damand. It is not a product that is suited to “just in time” warehousing.
The main beneficiaries of past whaling have been other whales. When the Northern and southern “Right Whales” were fished out the resulting oversupply of Krill must have produced an increase in the birth rate and survival prospects of Blue Whales and other Baleen species. With changes in technology, the expanded population of Blue Whales was then over exploited, to the benefit of other Krill eaters like Minke Whales, Crab Eater Seals and Penguins.
And it is most likely that the expanded population of these smaller Krill feeders, which do not migrate as far as their larger predecessors did, is feeding on Krill stocks before they reach maturity.
This earlier predation is also likely to be fragmenting the really large Krill formations on which the Blue’s, in particular, were dependent on. That is the most probable cause of the Blue population’s failure to recover as fast as other species have.
So if you really want to restore whale populations then we need to encourage the Japanese and others to eat more Crabeater seals and penguins to get back to the original equilibrium.
But at this stage, the bimboscenti are still refusing to recognise that whaling produced an initial increase in whale numbers. They still maintain the “static resource assumption” that the original stock of animals was equal to the total numbers harvested.
Ashley, I don’t understand what is appalling about a stockpile of 4,800 tonnes. In the days of commercial whaling, it was more than 22,000 tonnes, and this was towards the *end* of commercial whaling, when people were actually making money out of whale meat. Today the government subsidises the research programmes, the stockpile is relatively small, and not much larger than the amount consumed annually. I can not understand the shock. Does 4,800 tonnes just sound like a big number? The stockpile will largely have been consumed by this time next year.
Demographics? The percentage of Japanese people that eat meat is very hard to judge, because it depends on who is you ask, and how you ask them. Some reports say “less than 1% of people eat whale meat”, others say “13% of people eat whale meat”.
No, there is no need for people in Tokyo to eat whale meat, but then our food consumption habits are not solely based on need. The vegans of the world have shown us that most of us can get by fine without eating any animal.
As for Japan’s “ongoing national attitude to other scarce global resources”, you might like to consider that in recent years Japan reduced it’s Tuna fishery capacity by 20%, in an attempt to ensure sustainability. In the meantime, other nations have gone on and increased their capacity, undermining Japan’s efforts. Japan’s leaders have in recent times illustrated that they are aware of the needs for marine resource utilization to be sustainable. They understand that if they screw up, Japanese cuisine will die. This is not in Japan’s interests.
Again, with whaling the idea is not to endanger these resources. The idea is to utilise the surplus. Whales are a renewable resource.
“Pandering to global minority”?
Out of interest, which other global minority groups do you propose be wiped off the face of the earth?
Ian, thank you for your comment, it is was very interesting.
I have noted too that the anti-whaling groups have been talking about 2,000,000 whales being killed last century, as if those numbers represent how many whales there used to be.
On the Blue Whale, I’ve seen reports that IWC Scientists have confirmed that the Antarctic Blue is finally starting to make a strong recovery, increasing at rates of something like 7% a year, although overall numbers still remain very low. Paul Ensor of New Zealand led the latest IWC cruise conducting this research, and interestingly, it was the Japanese government that provided him and his research team with the research vessel for the work. The Australian and US governments have been asked to supply vessels for research as well, but haven’t come to the party.
I’m glad to know that for the money I did pay for the small amount of whale meat that I have consumed is helping to fund just such research.
Isn’t the Aurora Australis, the research vessel used by the Australian Antarctic Division, Australian? Didn’t it just come back from a research trip to Antarctica where oceanographic and climatic conditions, krill, sea bird, pinniped and cetacean dynamics were studied? The Japanese government is obviously quite capable of assisting with non-lethal Antarctic research, and there should be no big deal made about it. Quite a number of countries conduct non-lethal research down there.
“That is the most probable cause of the Blue population’s failure to recover as fast as other species have.”
Some references from peer-reviewed journals would be welcome.
“So if you really want to restore whale populations then we need to encourage the Japanese and others to eat more Crabeater seals and penguins to get back to the original equilibrium.”
Eat more Crabeaters and penguins? What countries are currently doing so?
Jennifer, to answer your question, also in a nutshell:
>And one question, in a ‘nutshell’ are you making two points:
>1. that the ‘scientific whaling’ is because Iceland and Japan see whales as competition for fish, and
Two of the four aims of JARPA II, from the ICR website: http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/SC57O1.pdf
‘It will be a long-term research program with the following objectives 1) Monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem, 2) Modelling competition among whale species and developing future management objectives’…
Also, from the a pamphlet on the ICR website: http://www.icrwhale.org/04-B-jen.pdf
‘Data are also collected on the feeding habits of whales, since their numbers have increased considerably in recent years and they consume a large amount of marine animals. This situation has led to competition with fisheries and could be affecting the balance of the marine ecosystem.’
And on the Icelandic research program, from Iceland’s Marine Research Institute’s website: http://www.hafro.is/undir_eng.php?ID=15&REF=2
‘The main objectives of the research that now has been decided to conduct is to collect basic information on the feeding ecology of minke whale in Icelandic waters. In addition to studies on the diet composition by analysing the stomach contents, other data that is essential for estimation of minke whale predation on various prey species will be collected. These include research on the energetics, food requirements and seasonal and spatial variation in whale abundance. The multispecies model that is being applied at the Marine Research Institute and includes cod, capelin and shrimp will be further developed by incorporating minke whales for estimation of the ecological interactions of these species.’
>2. the data doesn’t show whales as competition for fish?
Tamura’s work, that you cite, is on consumption estimates, which (imho) pile supposition on conjecture. See Holt’s recent work for more detail on this. This is a problem with consumption estimates that’s not altogether uncommon, although there’s also some pretty good work out there for some species (Antarctic fur seals, Steller’s sea lions). Consumption estimates, of themselves, don’t demonstrate competition, do they?
To give two quick examples on cetacean-fisheries interactions: on a global scale, Kristin Kaschner’s PhD work is appearing in the refereed literature soon, and her models suggest very little competition between cetaceans and fisheries. On a very local (Brisbane area) scale, the work Louise Chilvers and I did suggests that marine mammal-fisheries interactions can prove to be more complicated than things first appear (Chilvers & Corkeron 2001, Proc R. Soc. Lond. B 268:1901-1905; Chilvers et al. 2003 Can. J Zool. 81: 1947-1955).
There’s a really good review of cetacean-habitat modelling techniques recently published in MEPS (Redfern et al 2006 MEPS 310: 271-295). Useful for an introduction to the stats and design issues in understanding some aspects of cetacean-fisheries interactions.
Peter
David, you can shill for the Japanese all you want, but every economic study indicates that the demand for whale is miniscule compared to the supply.
The simple fact is that Japanese politicians, like most Asians, have this useless concept of “face”. Japan like to think of itself as a great power and a great people, when in reality they are neither. They are denied a seat on the UNSC because the big boy of the region, China, says “uh-uh”.
So, like the impotent man who beats his wife, the Japanese hark to whaling and the IWC as the one International Body where they cannot only be relevant, but dominant.
It is sad. Almost as much so as a Westerner shilling for them.
Travis,
“On behalf of the IWC, Donovan reiterated the Commission’s considerable appreciation of Japan’s most generous provision of two vessels in previous years. He recognised the financial difficulties currently encountered by the Japanese Government in maintaining that level of support, but both as a scientist and as one closely involved in planning IDCR/SOWER cruises over many years he was saddened by the reduction to only one vessel. However, he noted that even one vessel is one more than that provided by any other nation.”
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SOWERPlanMtgSep05.pdf
Like Australia, Japan conducts independant research in the Antarctic. But Australia does not provide research vessels to the IWC for IWC research, as noted above by Greg Donovan of the IWC Secretariat.
I think the reason that Australia does not help out is because Australia does not agree with the goals of the IWC, which are to provide for the conservation of whale stocks and the development of whaling industry. Australia has failed to contribute constructively towards these goals, and should have withdrawn from the ICRW as is their right years ago, considering it’s political stance.
If Australia wants to talk with other nations about whale protection measures, avoiding ship strikes etc, they should start up another international convention for that cause, rather than trying to overrun the IWC that has conservation (as opposed to protection) and the regulation of whaling at the heart of it’s founding document.
Mike,
Rather than resort to childish insults, why don’t you address the facts?
Consumption last year was roughly equivalent to at least 75% of the stockpile at it’s peak size.
I don’t know of any credible economist who would describe such demand as “miniscule” in comparison to supply.
But, believe what you will, it will not change the reality.
Which other global minority groups “wiped off the face of the Earth” – mate who pays your rent – what a classic ! Your mates which you’ve sold your soul to took these animals down to extinction levels. Japanese cuisine can adapt to a whaleless future I’m sure. What if they wanted tiger and panda on the menu too – you’d be shilling for that too I imagine.
And what enlightening information has been found by all this research – do we not know what they eat by now?
Whale on the menu is simply boutique indulgence for those with more money than morality.
> Your mates which you’ve sold your soul to
I have not sold my soul to anybody. That you are suggesting otherwise suggests that you have no argument.
> took these animals down to extinction levels.
Australia killed 17,000 humpbacks in the decade prior to humpback whaling in the Southern Ocean being banned (Japan for comparison killed less than 3,100).
I certainly don’t receive money from Australia, either.
> Japanese cuisine can adapt to a whaleless future I’m sure.
I’m sure Australian culture could adapt to a beefless future, as well. Look at the vegans.
> What if they wanted tiger and panda on the menu too – you’d be shilling for that too I imagine.
Commercial whaling under the IWC would only target stocks of whales that are at least 54% of their pre-whaling estimated size.
Whereas tigers and pandas are quite endangered in some regions, certain species of whales in parts of the world are abundant. This is a fact, which you are going to have to accept. Even anti-whaling scientists such as Dr. Sidney Hoyt, who Peter quoted above, has agreed with this.
> And what enlightening information has been found by all this research – do we not know what they eat by now?
Amongst other things. Japan’s research in the Antarctic is designed to answer questions about changing biological characteristics of whale stocks (particularly the minke, as it is of immediate commercial relevance). Japan believes that such information will be of use to the IWC Scientific Committee in future enhanced management techniques for whale stocks. For example, the IWC Scientific Committee itself agreed that Japan’s research had the potential to allow for increased levels of catch without increasing the risk of depleting the minke stocks when it reviewed Japan’s research in 1997. This information is on the IWC’s homepage.
> Whale on the menu is simply boutique indulgence for those with more money than morality.
The same goes for juicy cow meat, sweetheart.
Aren’t there any Disney movies on TV for you to be watching?
What a load of cobblers – 1% of Japanese affected – come on. They’d hardly notice the gastronomic impact – it’s all about a dimming world power trying to re-assert. More show than need.
David,
Don’t you think that it is in the Japanese government’s best interests to have a vessel involved in research in Antarctic waters? After all, they want to be able to use abundance estimates to support their call for a resumption of commercial whaling. The results of the Australian research in Antarctica are usually submitted to the IWC’s Scientific Committee, and therefore are contributing to the IWC in providing scientific data on whale abundance, along with other information that may be useful to take into consideration.
“Australia killed 17,000 humpbacks in the decade prior to humpback whaling in the Southern Ocean being banned (Japan for comparison killed less than 3,100).” But what is Japan’s tally for hunting in her own waters? How well has she managed these stocks, historically?
“Whereas tigers and pandas are quite endangered in some regions” And fin and sei whales are likewise considered endangered, as are J stock minkes.
Ashley,
1% was the minimum mentioned. 13% was the sum mentioned by the Asahi newspaper of people who eat whale meat at all. 86% don’t eat it any more but may have when they were younger. Of course, it’s important to consider supply when interpreting these results.
Interestingly, 1% is 1.26 million people, or more than the population of New Zealand’s South Island. I know South Islanders, and they sure as hell won’t be told what they will and will not eat.
Travis,
I absolutely think it is in the Japanese government’s best interests to have a vessel involved in research in Antarctic waters, but I also think that that is in the best interests of whale conservation as well, given the reality that Japan is interested in resuming commercial whaling in the Antarctic.
My point is though, that without the research vessel being supplied to the IWC for research purposes, the IWC would not be able to obtain the data it currently requires for management under the RMP. Were it not for the Japaense government, the IWC would have to rely solely on data from the JARPA programme, which of course Australia would complain about.
> But what is Japan’s tally for hunting in her own waters? How well has she managed these stocks, historically?
1) The IWC sets catch limits, not Japan (except in the case of scientific whaling)
2) Whales migrate, so talking of whaling in Japan’s waters isn’t much use. Other nations were also hunting the same whales as Japan, just as Japan was hunting the same whales as Australia.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying Australia deliberately went out there are decimated humpback stocks. I think the whalers of the past were simply misguided in their belief that whale stocks were infinite. The IWC itself failed in it’s early years to set safe catch limits in line with the scientific advice. It’s a matter of historical record that the IWC ignored the scientific advice in it’s early days, and set catch limits in line with what the whalers requested.
Later, the IWC changed tack. Instead of listening to the whalers, it started listening to the anti-whalers. So still today, the IWC does not set catch limits in accordance with advice from it’s own Scientific Committee!
🙂
This situation may be only a few years away from changing though.
Anyway, what does whale taste like? (hopefuly not like chicken)
In Australia there are what are called ‘hoof and hooks’ competitions, breeders present their best cattle to be judged on confirmation, they are then killed and boned and the meat is then judged on its taste and texture. No room for sentiment in the beef industry.
Hi rog,
I ate whale meat as a child in Norway. It was long before I was aware of the whaling issue. Anyway, don’t remember exactly how it tasted, maybe a bit like very bad liver and I found whale meat as very, very bad tasting.
Hi rog,
I’ve had whale meat on probably less than 10 occassions, trying steak form, blubber form, and another form which I can’t really describe – I don’t know exactly how they process it. This latter form is the tastiest way that I’ve had it in.
I will probably never eat the blubber again (not my bag at all), and the steak meak was quite nicely done, but the meat was slightly on the chewier side.
As I understand it, the best part of the whale is from the tail, but I haven’t tried that (as far as I am aware).
meak -> meat
David@tokyo
“I’m sure Australian culture could adapt to a beefless future, as well. Look at the vegans.”
I am sure that if the only way to kill cows was a shot in the stomach and they were left to die for a couple of hours in agony, then cut up for meat and these pictures were freely available to the average Australian then I am sure that most would have second thoughts about eating meat. I am absolutely sure 100% that if this was what happened in abbatiors then there would be huge public outcry and the practice would be stopped. However this is what happens with whales – there is no way to humanely kill them without suffering.
“Ann, you’re right that hunting predator species could have a negative effect on fisheries. It could not, too. Or it could be both good and bad, depending on the specific fishery. Research into such questions is evidently neccessary to attempt to answer such questions. I’m sure the Japanese have a better idea about this now than do other nations who conduct no research at all into such matters.”
None of this research need involve killing whales. Researchers in just about every form of natural science DO NOT kill the subjects that they are studying. They find other ways to do it – are you suggesting that Antartic reserchers should kill penguins to see what they are doing?
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-3568(199304)43%3A4%3C219%3ATKCIEA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0147(196601%2F02)100%3A910%3C65%3AFWCASD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-3820(199210)46%3A5%3C1269%3AOOPCAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E
A very cursory examination of google scholar yielded 19 800 hits with the subject “removal of predator species” with the first 2 listed above. There is a lot of research going on. From what I read there are keystone species that are vital to an ecosystem. How do you know the whale is not one of them?
The program Catalyst recently did an article on whale ‘science’. This was the conclusion of the examination of the output of JARPA:
“Prof Archer: Alright, that’s it. And from that whole pile of papers we’ve got a total of one, two, three, four papers that can be said to be peer reviewed, that have some relevance to developing or managing a whaling industry and also would require lethal sampling of whales to get that information. Just four papers.
Nick Gales: So with the eighteen year program and sixty eight hundred whales divided by four papers – that means 1700 whales killed for each one of those four papers.
Mike Archer: Extremely depressing. Nick Gales: It wouldn’t pass an ethics committee. Archer: No it would not.
Dr Jonica Newby: So – the verdict – science or smokescreen?
Mike: I have to say, having seen it all it’s more like a smokescreen than science.”
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1657789.htm
David,
A friend of mine was on the 2004/2005 IWC-SOWER cruise.He spoke less than glowingly of how it was managed, and vowed he would never do it again.
Do you think the IWC would not take in to consideration surveys done by the likes of the AAD? You make it sound as though the Japanese are the only ones doing worthwhile abundance estimate/management-based research there according to the IWC.
With reference to Japan managing her own stocks, were there not problems with off-shore whaling operations combining numbers with coastal ones and catch totals being under-reported, along with lactating females being caught, under-sized animals commonly being caught, and sexes being wrongly tallied to make the books look better (so to speak)? This was done before IWC observers were involved in the industry.
Yes, whales migrate to some degree (depending on species) and that is part of the argument currently taking place. Lethally research Area V humpbacks and it effects those that make a living from non-lethal research in areas such as New Caledonia and East Australia. Humpback whales are found in Japanese waters, but these are also Mexican and Hawaiian animals. Wouldn’t want to upset them now would we?
Dear Jennifer
I will answer your questions:
“I was taught at university about evidence… about stats, about samplying animal populations, about designing experiments. What do you mean by a source? According to Bjorn Lomborg everyone has an interest, so don’t necessarily believe what they say, scrutinise the evidence they present.Which university did you attend and what did you study?
And how many fish do you calculate are eaten by whales?”
I studied Human and the Environment at Lund University in Sweden and did a Master in Environmental Science at Malmo University.
I have never done a calculation on how much fish who are eaten by whales, sounds like something for a big bunch of biologists. We learnt how to read and use Scientific Biological and Sociological research. It’s funny you would use Bjorn Lomborg as an example as we often used his texts in how to analyse how an Industrial think tank greeenwashes industry. He is not seen as serious in the Scientific debate (at least not in Sweden) not even the economy classes uses his texts anymore. ( Even if a lot of right wing danish politicians uses his arguments)
We learnt to read stats and whales are very hard to put into statistics since they do not live in a small limited space and on top of it all spend most time underwater.
Here is one example on how easily we are fooled by stats. The X country estimated the future population of a certain animal by calculating how many of this certain animal there are now and multiplying this with the breeding quota.
The result showed that this certain animal would not be endangered.
What they did not say was that, had they counted the numbers correctly and only multiplied the animals in a fertil (able to have kids) age with the breeding quota the numbers would have been much, much lower and the animals would be in risk of being endangered.
I hope I have answered your questions…
There is no question that the market for whale meat is extremely limited. There is no question that immense quantities of whale product is never harvested and simply dumped in the ocean.
And there is no question that in an effort to boast their international prestige, the Japanese are resorting to the immature tactics of a semi-retarded 3rd grader by openly saying if they don’t get their way they will pull out of the IWC.
When the overwhelming majority of mankind have all agreed on moral dictum, it is incumbent upon those who wish to participate in global decision-making to respect the moral code of that majority. The Japanese refuse to do this.
The solution, in my mind, is simple. Limit whaling only to domestic waters, and make any act of whaling in international waters or sanctuaries an act of piracy. The upshot of which is simple.
Any NGO or Government would then have the legal right to sink the Japanese fleet by any method of their choice.
Problem solved.
The Swiss take on all this can be found at http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/top_news/detail/Swiss_prepare_for_stormy_whaling_meeting.html?siteSect=106&sid=6813532&cKey=1150468379000.
Their position is that IWC decisions should be taken on a strictly scientific basis.
A key extract …”Switzerland would only support limited commercial whaling in restricted geographical areas if it can be proved scientifically that capturing whales in their natural environment does not harm their long-term survival or their ecosystem.
“The Swiss delegation will also be endorsing the creation of new whale sanctuaries, on condition that they are backed by countries neighbouring them and are based on scientific arguments.
“It will also be pushing for more research into the harmful affects of the environment on whales and is ready to contribute to anti-pollution initiatives.”
Their position seeems very sensible to me.
Well it’s all very nice for the Swiss – but I bet the need for more and more access to whaling stocks keeps coming.
And you would trust the whalers not to fiddle the books – I think we’ve seen enough Japanese business practices with natural resources now to wake up.
When’s the last time we saw a level playing field ?
I find that the almost exclusive focus on the Japanese in this thread quite telling, in view of the other countries whaling today – especially when you consider that the 2006 Norwegian quota of 1052 is higher than the recent Japanese catch ( the chances of them taking all 1052 is practically zero though – the final catch will probably be between 5-700 as usual )
I believe many people have no idea that Norway is a whaling nation, and it also seems like Norwegian whaling is more “accepted” than Japanese whaling.
George is right about that the Norwegians will not take the full quota this year, anyway the whalers claim that.
Regarding George statements that there are not so many minke observations near the ice edge , that is a correct observation, the minkes (anyway this year) are mostly southwards in the Norwegian Sea( Norske havet) because the herring shoals used to be concentrated in this area, especially this year.
Anne,
The observation is correct for many years in the Barents and Northern Greenland sea ice edge areas dependant on prey availability.
The comment in Lofotposten ( was it lofotposten ? ) refers to two ecosystem surveys conducted by G.O.Sars and Johan Hjort covering the Norwegian sea and Southern Barents sea respectively in April/May/ June. ( See the Havforskningsinstituttet website for a detailed survey plan for 2006 ) More surveys will be conducted In July/ August/ September in other areas and may very well give a different picture ( or may not )
OK thanks George,
I will check out the Havsforskningsinstituttet’s website. But as you know I am just a novice or layman in the whales issue. I read some stuff from Norwegian papers and talk with the Norwegians , but nowadays in the Swedish GP office , we are not focussing so much on the whaling issue but work more on “the big picture” regarding our environment and oceans.
Yes, Frode, you know him??? is back in the office after working in Tokyo for Greenpeace but now he is involved in pirate fishing as myself.( and in this particular case we are not in conflict with the whalers and fishermen;).
I know a LOT of Frode´s 😉 which one do you mean?
If you look under the ships on the IMR website, you should be able to find “toktplan 2006” or something similar on the left hand column – that opens an excel file detailing which IMR ships are doing what and where in 2006
Do species compete?
More than 30 years ago Paul Colinvaux wrote a text book called Introduction to Ecology and has since published a series of smaller paperbacks one of which was ‘Why Big Fierce Animals and Rare’.
In his first book he systematically explained the evolution of ecology as a science and took a critical look and the various dead ends ecological research has reached and through critical analysis of the research, especially the data used and showed how often scientists, (indeed all people), see what they want to see.
He provided a compelling well supported hypothesis that prey control predator numbers, not the other way around. Further it was intra species competition that drove evolution, not inter species competition which is characteristically short lived. Pigs verse Dodos for instance.
If a predator could catch its prey at will it would until there was no prey. Prey vastly outnumber predators and can evolve behaviour faster that predators can. Classically with the big predators their territories are large and their diets surprisingly diverse – from lions to white pointer sharks.
The notion of predators controlling fish numbers and competing with commercial fishermen is an emotional one that is contradicted in Bass Strait. In late 2000 at the Bass Strait Forum in Launceston a researcher revealed that since they were protected – in the mid eighties when unofficial hunting stopped – fur seals had increased their population sixfold.
He showed the catch of the South east Non Trawl fishery and then the seal diet and showed that seals ate the same species of fish and preferred them around the same size. Like the Japanese researchers referred to in this debate, he predicted conflict. He estimated that the population had gone from consuming 60.000t of fish per annum – but didn’t offer the figure for the sixfold increase – 360,000 tonne per annum. ABARE the total Australian catch as 240,000 tpa. The Bass Strait total possible catch under ITQs and including state boats is less than 40,000 tpa.
The figures are rubbery. The seal counts are likely to be underestimates (Waranke pers. comm.) but it is clear from observing the colonies growth that they are within the general ball park andthere has been a massive increase in seals in Bass Strait. .It is generally agreed however that Australian fur seals consumer around 2.5 tonne per seal per annum.
There has been no affect on fishing from this increase in seal numbers – none. For quota fisheries with set catches the affect is hard to distinguish but there is no story of ups and downs in fishing other than the norm. For the non quota species like snapper and trawl whiting this year has been excellent, one of the best ever.
When a school of herring is chasing sprats and a whale or a fisherman catches 20% of that school the other 80% eat their share and there is possibly no net loss of biomass.
Whale poo has been vital to the Tuna fishery, especially from large baleen whales. When the whales poo the anchovy sized fish boil on the poo, attracting herring and the like to feed on them which in turn attracts tuna which are the sort species. There is little possible net loss of biomass given that the whale poo includes vast amounts of non fish marine species it is likely that whale poo create far more fish biomass than whales consumed.
The data presented by Walter Starck on the comparative productivity of coral reefs across similar ecotypes also show no relationship between the fish caught commercially and the productivity of the reefs – the catches likely determined by the market/politics.
If seals and whales do not diminish the biomass of fish species then neither does the commercial fishing industry. If accepted as true then this could well lead to the mass production of poo by tens of thousands of marine scientists who make their living out of stock assessments and commercial industry regulation in a massive industry based on the assumption the commercial fishing regulates fish stocks – but poo that is unlikely to enhance fish production.
George,
High North Alliance folks and the whalers are well aware of Frode Pleym, they have had many discussions officially.
I will post an article later that maybe you can explain regarding this years minke whale hunt and the whereabouts of the minkes.
Anne,
I´m not a.) A Whaler b.) With the HNA –
Amongst other things, I´m a photographer ( http://www.whalephoto.com ) I have a UK passport by the way – so I think you may be confusing me with someone else???
Frode Pleym? Yes, I´ve met him in the past – nice enough guy I believe .. Re – the article, I´ll do my best 😉
Where were the minkes? Anyway the herring shoals and capelin seemed to have migrated more to the west.
http://www.fiskeribladet.no/default.asp?lesmer=4149
OK, going to chewck out your website!!
Quick answer Anne as I´m on the way out of the door.. Without passing on information I´m not allowed to ( NDA ) many minkies were concentrated in parts of the norwegian sea with high concentration of prey ( herring in this case ) and large parts of the western Barents sea at the time of the surveys had large plankton blooms and low prey concentrations … ergo – why swim 100´s of miles north when grub is sitting in front of you 😉
more later
George
PS.. the website is closed/ offline temporarily for redesign – just follow the link to alamy 😉
Hi Anne,
In addition, not all areas were covered by the recent surveys, could very well be that concentrations were to be found in the areas not surveyed. The eastern Barents sea in the russian zone is also a possibility – it´s a historically good area for minkies. As to Dahl´s comments, As he says, the numbers landed in May / june varies from year to year according to wind and weather and location, as well as numbers of boats involved in the hunt. There are still a number out fishing. Also, bear in mind that there was only one boat in the Jan mayen zone each of the last two years – with Oil prices being as high as they are, I don´t see that changing this year to be honest… I believe the boat that was there last year sat for almost a month in crappy weather and or Fog – the area is notorious for it.
Thanks George for this information, you don’t happen to have the latest nubers of minkes killed?
Last figure I heard was around 200 but that was a week or two ago I think…but don´t quote me on it – it could be more or less – the Rafiskelaget should have that info..
Jennifer , i would have thought that whales can’t “impact the eco system ” as they are a natural part of it .
It is we humans that are doing the impacting, not them .
Ashley (and others),
You said “Well it’s all very nice for the Swiss …”. Perhaps someone will tell me what they think is wrong with the Swiss position on whaling (ie. killing whales if the science shows there is no danger to the species and conservation areas by agreement with neighbouring countries).
It seems to me that the Swiss position is far more objective than many here.
(The Swiss arguments are more objective than Environment minister Ian McLachlan who seems to have only subjective reasons for his opposition to whaling. He seems to think that whale watching is more viable but forgets that some farms are “exhibition” farms for animal-watching tourists and others are farms where animal are either killed or sold for slaughter.)
John – I have major difficulties believing anything the Japanese say of this issue scientifically – otherwise their position would be more transparent e.g. harvesting easily monitored by international observors on-ship, taking no more than what can be sold – no stockpiles, going nowhere near endangered or recovering species, pioneering methods of non-lethal study, studies of how whales interact holistically with the entire marine ecosystem.
We are not that long removed from a world wide decimated population of many species. The Japanese position is like listening to a reformed drunk who assures you they’ll handle it better next time around.
Their science IMHO is shonky as is their philosophical and ethical position. Do the Swiss want to help out and eat the whale meat mountain?
Ashley,
Why should they have to have observers on their research ships? Just to satisfy your paranoia?
For goodness sake, the Scientific Committee has noted their research has the potential to aid the goals of the ICRW:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm#jarpa
Please stop ignoring this fact. The discussion will go nowhere while people refuse to display any integrity.
>taking no more than what can be sold – no stockpiles
The point of scientific whaling is not to catch as many whales as you can sell. The point is to catch however many are required to answer your questions with statistically meaningfulness.
And the “stockpile” size you talk of is not significantly different to the amount of meat sold in a year. Note also that the price of whale meat is very high (it’s often noted as a delicacy in the western media). Most people in Japan do not eat it because of this. A whale steak meal will cost me twice as much as a chicken meat based meal.
> going nowhere near endangered or recovering species
The Fin whale classification of being “endangered” is being challenged, because it apparently no longer meets the scientific requirements.
And why do you believe that recovering species should not be the subject of scientific research?
Worth nothing that the Blue whales are recovering at rates of 7% a year now, but they are not being targetted by the Japanese because they too recognise that with only 1,400 or so individuals, the time is still not right.
> pioneering methods of non-lethal study
Like collecting whale pooh, yes. Do you think that such methods are a ready substitute for lethal methods, still able to meet the goals of Japan’s research? I believe that you do not even know what the goals of Japan’s research are.
Not to mention that there is still accepted method of determining whale age besides examination of earplugs. Australian scientists have started to try to develop such methods, but they are still very very primitive. Japan needs data now, not in 10 years time when the techniques might finally be ready for the mainstream.
This will all be moot by then, anyway. I think we’ll see commercial whaling resumed within the next 5 years, and the contiuation of the JARPA II programme will show the doubters like you that not only does the IWC Scientific Committee believe their research has value, they themselves believe so as well (duh).
Researchers on research ships would be useful in so far as killing methods (TTD) could be recorded, species ID confirmed and so on. It would offer some transparency.
The quotas are going up each year, so one wonders about their statistical design.
Out of curiosity, why is the price of whale meat so high? It is a ‘byproduct’ of their research.
Given the paucity of data on Southern Hemisphere fin stocks, it will be intersting to see if they are reclassified soon. Of course there are the species that are hunted under JARPN too.
1,400 individuals – does this mean that they think the numbers are too low? Do they take genetically discrete stocks into consideration?
How much research was carried out into growth and development and longetivity from pre-moratorium whaling? How accepted is the Japanese scientifc research in the wider scientific community? What happens to the long-term non-lethal research being conducted by other nations when Japan dispatches with the study animals in the name of lethal research?
Don’t forget that photo-ID can also provide information on a whale’s age. The other age-dating techniques you are referring to may well be “ready” much sooner than you (or the Japanese) think.
JARPAII is not about research, it is about continuing to kill whales until commercial whaling resumes. Dressing it up in the name of science is an insult to the honest work done by cetacean researchers around the globe who use non-lethal techniques, as well as being a devious way of manipulating the general public about scientific techniques and hidden agendas.
Since humans account for the continuing destruction of most of the World’s species, including other humans, I can only suggest that we start eating each other, then all of the other species could live “happily ever after”.
ionolsen23 Your home page its great
I have only come across this discussion on the first day of the IWC meeting in Alaska, although I am not attending it this year. I see my “Whales Competing?” paper being quoted, and am of course pleased, although david@tokyo simply chose to attck me personally instead of reading and criticising my paper-. Yesterday the on-line paper American Prospect (www.prospect.org) published my evaluation of the present whaling crisis that some of the participants in this debate here might care to look at. I have concluded that the authorities and commercial interests in Japan do not wish the moratorium on commercial whaling to be lifted, because conducting commercial whaling under Special permits for ostensibly scientific purposes is more convenient. The overwhelming evidence now is that Japan intends to indefinitely expand its unregulated whaling, as the major whale populations recover. The argument that whales are eating “our” fish, and that some of them are now competing with the others and hampering thier recovery are purely devices to justify future unsustainable whaling, which is the only kind that can be profitable. The argument about meat stockpiles is interesting because it is really not about selling the current catches but rather preparing the consumer base for the planned increases in production in the coming decade.. Look at it that way and then consider the discussion now going on in the technical press in Japan regarding the projected design of a new and bigger factory ship, and increasing the numbers of catcher boats in order to fully use the factories processing capacity.
“The overwhelming evidence now is that Japan intends to indefinitely expand its unregulated whaling, as the major whale populations recover.”
Leaving aside the “unregulated” rhetoric, the above statement is essentially correct. As whale populations recover, we can expect that whaling will be expanded (as long as markets for products can be found). This point is made in preamble of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling itself.
But just add in the extra spice of “unregulated” (which is due to the IWC’s failure to do otherwise, something Mr. Holt could tell us more about), and those who know little of the issue have now had negative images implanted into their consciousness. It’s fantastic propaganda – 10 out of 10.
“I have concluded that the authorities and commercial interests in Japan do not wish the moratorium on commercial whaling to be lifted, because conducting commercial whaling under Special permits for ostensibly scientific purposes is more convenient.”
This part is not very clever at all, unless of course the intention is simply to reinforce the negative image created by talk of expanding “unregulated whaling”. This propaganda is less effective as it’s likely that this theory will be unceremoniously relegated to the dustbin, and the anti-whalers will revert to other methods of vilification. 5 out of 10 for good short term impact, but ultimately propaganda that will in time become obsolete will only shatter one’s analytical credibility.
People who wish to learn about the true intentions of the Japanese can think for themselves about where they might get a genuine, accurate perspective. One thing is for certain – it won’t be through reading commentary from one of histories most prominent and evidently still dedicated anti-whalers.
I think its odd. Anyway for my science coursework GCSE I need to gather infomation I want a pie chart or graph to show the amount of whale meat eaten compared to other meats eaten during 1955. Anybody have any or know any sites/links?