The Australian Federal Court ruled last friday that environment group the Humane Society International (HSI) could sue Japanese whaling company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd to get an injunction forcing the Australian government to stop whaling within the Australian Whale Sanctuary in Antarctica.
According to Channel Nine News:
“In May last year, Federal Court Justice James Allsop refused the group permission to proceed with the case, after federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock raised concerns it could spark a diplomatic incident between Australia and Japan.
But the court’s full bench found Justice Allsop made an error in deciding HSI’s case should not have gone ahead because it might have been ignored by the company, as Japan did not recognise the sanctuary.
Chief Justice Michael Black and Justice Ray Finkelstein also said in their judgment that too much consideration was given to Mr Ruddock’s concerns.
HSI wildlife and habitat program manager Nicola Beynon said it was an important decision that allowed the group to “take the fight” directly to the company.“
————————-
Thanks Ann for sending me the link.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I have a little about it as well (Ian Campbell shrugged it off):
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/07/assortment-of-stuff.html
I have no law knowledge, but I can’t see this changing much.
At best, if HSI wins the case it would be a a symbollic victory for them, and basically an embarassment for the Australian government.
More fool the Australian government for unilaterally introducing a “sanctuary” in disputed waters. I guess they never thought the Japanese would take them seriously, so it was a safe political move domestically, but then they probably hadn’t imagined the NGOs taking them up on it!
This is only permission to take the case to court. Issues of jurisdiction will be raised in the court but Japan can still refuse to recognise any decision anyway. Just a beat up.
Wish we could have barbecued that baby whale at Cabarita this week. Parks put it down anyway but what law says they own a dead whale?
Well, this case seems really complicated, and I think you must have a degeree from Law school or be very familiar with the United Nations Convention on the Law of Seas from 1982 ( UNCLOS) to fully understand this case. And I have neither one.
As I have understood , Australia has ruled out any military intervention against Japanese whalers in the Australian part of the Sanctuary.
Is this decision based on that Japan has not recognized the Austarlian Sanctuary as a territory of Australia?
But the same thing happens in Norway almost every day.
There’s a Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard and most countries don’t recognize this, for example Spain and Russia. Still the Norwegian Coast Guard intervenes against Spanish and Russian trawlers that are fishing illegally in this zone. The trawlers are brought to Norwegian ports and fined by Norwegian authorities.
Spain has warned that they may take up the question of Norwegian sovereignity in the region to the Hague. But this has not yet happened.
So my question is if Norway can act why not Australia?
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1163451.ece
Ann,
“Articles 65 and 120 of the UNCLOS III Convention defer to the IWC on whales.”
http://luna.pos.to/whale/icr_legal_chair.html
There are some other pieces on UNCLOS and the ICRW here:
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Publications/Iceland/wh-an-in.htm
http://www.icrwhale.org/02-A-5.htm
> Is this decision based on that Japan has not recognized the Austarlian Sanctuary as a territory of Australia?
I believe that only about 4 or so nations in the whole world have recognized it. It’s not just Japan that Australia would be annoying were it to take action. Serves them right for not paying attention to the treaties that they are party to 🙂
Ian,
I’m just reading about the Vikings in Greenland and New Foundland. In our saga there is one quite big story about the Vikings eating a dead whale carcass and how sick all men became of eating it… it must have been pretty bad since this was documented…
Interesting, Ann. Wonder what killed it. If disease then it may have been transferred. Depends on how long it was dead too.
How much of the norse sagas are written up?
The whale at Cabarita, northern NSW was a baby humpback washed up on beach and the put down when there was no sign of grieving mother to refloat her to. Then all they did was bury it.
By the way, please consider a bicycle helmet, they are so much cheaper than brain surgery. And are compulsory here.
Ian,
Iceland has lots of written up sagas.
But the main sagas on the Vikings and Greenland and Canada are
1) Erik the Red’s Saga
2) Greenland Saga ( about Erik’s son Leif Eriksson’s discovery of Canada). The climate was mild in Canada but they had to leave Canada due to fights with the Indians.
Unfortunately, most sagas from Greenland have been lost.
Haha, regarding the biking helmet…. I have already had my share of falling offs from the horses, with and without helmet…
I say eating whales is un-Australian. Aussies eat steak & chops at home & roo or croc if you’re camping. This is typical of the decline in standards in this nation. Did the Anzacs hanker to get home to have a feed of whale – NO !
They had tinned bully beef – not whale. We our forebears sweating on the Kokoda track to have a feed of Jap whale – no way. All they could think about was a bloody big steak hanging over the edge of the plate.
The problem with this country is too much noveau cuisine and declining farm profits. How dreadful and how desperate Ian must be to contemplate having a feed of dead whale. Have farm forestry profits sunk so low. Where’s your pride man.
Real Aussies don’t go poncing around in bloody big boats with penis substitutes in terms of harpoons. Real Aussies shoot their own beef with a 303 and slaughter their own sheep with their bare hands. You don’t go blowing things up with grenades (except when doing John Howard proud in some country that doesn’t eat proper food).
And why are you supporting all that land clearing for grazing to whimp out for basted blubber a la sand dune. Too much cafe latte society down there in northern NSW and probably an excess of herbal substances as well.
I say to gain Australian citizenship you must swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth, attend Anzac Day, not blow anything up, and promise not to eat any wog food.
And while I’m there – you don’t go round riding bloody bicycles either – you attend the paddock in an appropriate V8 ute with “Licence poofters not guns” sticker fading on the back bumper.
Next you’ll be wearing silk dresses and taking your R&Ms off to eat at some table that only short arses can manage.
Pull yourself together Ian Mott. Eating whales is un-Australian. Don’t let us catch you thinking about it again no matter how bad business is.
Not sure if that’s a spoof, but…
> I say eating whales is un-Australian.
Is telling people of other cultures what they can and can not do, while ignoring the provisions of international agreements that Australia is signatory to, compatible with the “Australian Way”?
> not blow anything up
Gunning down Kangaroos is A-OK though, right.
Mate of course it’s serious. Gunning down roos is fine as there are far too many of them. There’s literally plagues of them – eating all the plants in our capital cities. They’re hopping down Pitt Street in Sydney. Take the Governor-General’s lawn down in Canberra – it’s literally overrun with them.
But at least it’s a sporting chance. They hop around and we don’t use exlosives to take them out. We count to 10 first then shoot. And roos are dangerous to children. There are more kids injured by roos in Australia every year than by hand guns. Think about that. And they’d only die in the drought anyway (the roos) so you’re doing them a favour.
And what’s wrong with telling other cultures what they can and can’t do. We’re mates with the USA and they do it all the time. Look how we’ve improved Iraq. We’ve brought them democracy. And the Japs tell the little Pacific nations how to vote so what’s wrong with that.
David you need to come home and get some rib fillet into you. Stop hanging around in sashimi bars and reading hentai mags.
Ian must salivate over roadkill too.
HSI to sue for damages under international law? Australia to prosecute a foreign company under domestic law? Will Japan become part of Australia?
Good for lawyers, there will be no blubbering in chambers and both sides will be happy with more prawns for the barbie.
I’d like to say thank to contributors. But I’ve been censored one too many times here. Sometimes I thort fairly. But on too many occassion unfairly.
Its a brave new world.
Cheers.
Japanese opposition party member said ” Japanese people don’t even eat whales or dolphins anymore but still the government is pressuring ahead with this campaign ( vote-buying).
An internet survey released last week claimed that over 70% of Japanese people oppose a return to commercial whaling on the high seas.
Whale consumption has been declining in Japan since the 1960 and is now eaten regurlarly by less than 1 % of the population.
http://www.cdnn.info/news/eco/e060624.html
Black fellas ate whales so it was only Pommie migrants who didn’t. But even those migrants burned whale oil in their humble bush shacks.
Seems to be a significant outbreak of anti-rural bigotry here. Funny how we have anti-discrimination legislation that outlaws all forms of villification except the villification of farmers. But thanks for the material, I will use it at my next public forum promoting new non-metropolitan states.
New States, for the bush, the whole bush, and nothing but the bush. We couldn’t do any worse than the clowns we are already stuck with.
Cripes now Ian has descended to wanting to live like a pre-European black fella or worse whinging Pommie migrant ! Bloody nora. Standards slipping even further. Ian – the archtypal Aussie wouldn’t even be living on the coast – they wouldn’t have even seen the ocean in 10 years. And would not have seen rain for at least 5 either.
OK I’m sorry for taking the piss. “Anti-rural bigotry” – now now – don’t be too toey – you’ve been up us city-slickers for the rent for some time. We’re just getting a bit sensitive ourselves.
You’ve got one problem with new non-metropolitan states = who’s gonna vote for it – how many. Is not the problem moreover a failure of rural leadership to engage the political debate. Before you give us the shaft totally, you may be surprised that many of us are prepared to work with you.
How many children of farmers leave the bush to work in “town”. Are we not, and should we not be, be interconnected by physical links, cultural, spiritual and aspirational.
It’s just that a few of us would like to go for a long drive without seeing clear felling from horizon to horizon. What’s the definition of a national park – a mountainous area or marginal desert land that agriculture doesn’t want!?
Sorry – this is off thread.
Ann,
Before posting your off-topic crap, why don’t you use your critical thinking ability and consider whether you could be setting yourself up?
Where did the Japanese politician party member say anything about “vote buying”? (I’ve an advantage on you here, as you are ready this stuff after it’s been translated and gone through racist CDNN’s bullshit-plusser).
Internet surveys are meaningless.
Whale consumption would have declined in Japan since the 1960’s because supply has been reduced from as much as 220,000 tonnes of whale meat in a single year to as little as a 2,000 or so tonnes, and around 5,000 – 6,000 tonnes currently.
But don’t worry Ann – I know why you never focus on the simple core issues of whether whaling is sustainable or not. You are part of the McDonalds-style “environmental” movement.
Now, since we are posting off-topic, I’ve got one that I’m still waiting to hear from you about:
——————————————
Greenpeace Just Kidding About Armageddon
The environmental activist group Greenpeace wanted to be prepared to counter President Bush’s visit last week to Pennsylvania to promote his nuclear energy policy.
“This volatile and dangerous source of energy” is no answer to the country’s energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet, decrying the “threat” posed by the reactors Bush visited in Limerick.
But after that assertion, the Greenpeace authors were apparently stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.
“In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world’s worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE],” the sheet said.
The Greenpeace spokesman who issued the memo, Steve Smith, told the Web site that a colleague was making a joke in a draft that was then mistakenly released.
The final version did not mention Armageddon; instead it warned of plane crashes and reactor meltdowns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/01/AR2006060101884.html
————————————————–
How do you feel about your favourite fanclub making such a huge mockery of themselves in this way?
Hmmm – let’s see whose side has the most wrongs. So we can bang on about WMD and Bush’s staff who edited global warming documents to water down. Don’t think it will get us far !
David – a nation who buys votes in the whaling game and who has hunted these animals previously to the brink of extinction has ZERO street creds. ZERO. And to pile on a mountain on uneaten product for a small minority of indulgent gastronomes.
Hey David,
I think it is meaningsless to discuss this vote-buying circus anymore… I think Luke did a good point. Anyway, it is encouraging that local politicians in Japan have brought up the issue.
David, how can I ever take you and your idol Lapointe seriously, after reading what crap they are promoting. Didn’t you previously provide a link from IWMC that stated something like “…bring into port some shipsloads of minkes to starving people?”
As most people with some education know this in not a solution to poverty and starvation. All international bodies such as the World Bank, UN , aid organisations know that food aid is NOT the solution to poverty.
Why don’t you write to the Norwegian authorities asking them to ship over all their blubber that is dumped and all the seal meat to Africa , wouldn’t that be in acccordance with the Lapoint line?
You are promoting commercial whaling in a big scale…. rant, rant, rant… whales eating too much fish etc. BTW, do you know that whalers recently in Norway claimed that the humpbacks, fins and sperm whales posed a threat to the capelin industries, but a survey released just the other day showed that herring and cod were the capelins most dangerous enemies not the whales.
Regarding nuclear power accidents. Why are all people just talking about Chernobyl? There have actually happened many environmental disasters with nuclear power reproccessing plants etc in Russia, you guys ever heard about the Mayak?
http://bellona.org/english_import_area/4119
Luke,
Evidence of vote buying please?
Of course we’ve covered Greenpeace here on Jennifer’s blog before (maybe you missed it), and recently Sea Shepherd’s Paul Watson suggested on his site that Greenpeace ought to be doing it again.
You sure look like you know about that though.
You are also miles off target accusing Japan of hunting whales to the brink of extinction.
Take a look at the Humpbacks. Australia killed 17,000 in the 10 year period before 1963. I leave it as an exercise for you to find out how many Humpbacks Japan killed during the same period.
I highly suggest that you do a little bit of independant reading (no, that doesn’t mean to read Greenpeace’s site) before you type such misinformed statements into your keyboard.
Also, on your “Uneaten product” thing, it’s worth considering that more than 220,000 tonnes of whale meat was consumed in the days of peak consumption. Today’s stockpile is less than 0.5% of that amount.
You only need to be in the dark as long as you wish to be.
David,
The survey on capelin was not conducted by Greenpeace or IFAW. It was conducted by Fisheries High School in Tromsö( Norway) , the departement of aquatic biology
Ann,
> I think it is meaningsless to discuss this vote-buying circus anymore…
I agree, so can I take it that I have your word not to bring up the issue again, as you did here? It’s obviously much more for Greenpeace and it’s supporters to be embarassed about, after all.
> You are promoting commercial whaling in a big scale…. rant, rant, rant… whales eating too much fish etc.
Did I say that whales eat “too much” fish?
You seem confused, Ann. Perhaps you’ve been reading so much Greenpeace propaganda that you are no longer capable of reading and understanding what the pro-sustainable use proponents are saying?
Finally Ann,
FILL ME IN WITH AN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE <——–
(why don’t you want to talk about this?? still struggling to believe that you are being played like a fiddle?)
Ann,
Take a look at the picture, and tell me what you see:
http://www.icrwhale.org/08/s/08-A-01-10.htm
Do you agree that it is the stomach contents of a Bryde’s whale?
Do you agree that it is full of fish?
I suppose you do – you are that reasonable, at least.
Given this, don’t you think that humans who are interested in sustainable use of marine resources would be wise to research the extent of this consumption by whales, to ensure that human interactions with the ecosystem can be adjusted as necessary to ensure the sustainability of our catches?
The fact is Ann, humans are interested in catching fish. Another fact is, Ann, that whales are also eating fish. It would be utterly reckless for humans to keep catching fish without paying due attention to changes in the ecosystem, such as increasing whale numbers, that might affect the long term sustainability of those fisheries operations. We owe it to our desire to preserve biodiversity. You seem to have very little interest in protecting biodiversity in the North Pacific, but you should be honest enough to accept that the Japanese have a great interest in this.
David,
Here’s an excerpt from the Japanese Government’s postion on ” competition between whales and fisheries”:
Competition between whales and fisheries
Research by Japan’s Whale Research Program in the Northwest Pacific has revealed that whales eat huge amounts of fisheries resources.
It is estimated that whales consume approximately three to five times as much marine resources as the world’s yearly marine fisheries production volume. (The exact amount varies depending on the yearly marine fisheries production output).
Besides eating Krill, which is also food for fish, whales eat a large amount of Anchovies, Mackerel, Sauries, Salmon, Squid and Walleye pollack. Furthermore, it has become clear that whales feast on certain types of fish during their most prolific season. Japan as a fishing nation cannot overlook this issue.
If you have a different position on this it would make me really dazed and confused;-)
Ann,
No where in what you posted does it say that whales eat “too many” fish, as you are your Greenpeace buddies keep alledging. I guess it’s that tried and proven tactic of repeating nonsense ad infinitum until people start thinking it is fact, just like the nonsense that “whales are endangered”.
I urge you to read what the Japanese Government is saying very carefully, without trying to miscontrue their statements into what Greenpeace tells you that they are saying.
The Japanese Government isn’t trying to place blame on whales for eating fish. Eating fish is no crime anyway (does Greenpeace think otherwise?). Whales eating some fish is to be expected. They aren’t eating potatoes and carrots, that’s for sure.
The Japanese Government is simply stating the fact that whales do eat marine resources, and a significant amount of resources at that. The FAO published the Tamura paper that conservatively put forward these estimates, and many scientists are taking this seriously. The IWC itself (that’s right, the politicians) takes the issue seriously as well. See resolution 2001-9::
http://www.iwcoffice.org/meetings/resolutions/resolution2001.htm#9
What do you think about that resolution, Ann? I really do want to hear what you think about this resolution.
The Japanese Government is also drawing attention to what they have found in the North Pacific – that in some cases there is direct competition between whales and humans for some fish species. Anyone who cares about conservation should therefore be interested in this competition, and quantifying it properly. It would be very foolish indeed for humans to try to manage their fisheries in a vacumn, ignoring the evidence that shows that humans aren’t the only predators of the target species. How could we hope for fisheries management to succeed if we were to make such erroneous assumptions? Why even bother trying, if we aren’t going to do it properly?
I sincerely hope that the FAO and other organizations succeed in furthering development of ecosystem approaches to fisheries management, despite the powerful rich western NGO groups that refuse to acknowledge that whales are even part of the ecosystem.
David,
Dude, had a quick look at your post and laughed… hey , what are we arguing about?
The whales don’t eat too much fish according to the Japanese, Norwegians and Icelanders???
Hey, the last time I checked out the sources, the Norwegian Government claimed the whales needed to be regulated since they ate too many fish. There are much more statements on this from Lars Wallö for example, the Norwegian Gov’s chief scientists on whales.
And why do we argue about a ” ecosystem approach to fisheries management”? That is exactly what Greenpeace wants to achieve!
David , I’ll be back later and do some more comments.
Ann,
I just spent a whole post explaining to you the position, and yet you still prance back along here with your “too much fish” line… I hope that one day you and I will be able to have a proper discussion. You know – where *both* sides listen…
http://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=en&q=whales+eat+too+much+fish&btnG=Google+Search
Funnily enough, all the results coming back here are not from the ICR or Norway, but from Greenpeace.
Again, Ann, I have to urge you to stop contributing to Greenpeace’s dishonest assertions that the whaling nations say whales eat “too much” fish. If you refuse to listen, do you have any reason why I should bother discussing anything with you at all? Are you actually looking for a discussion, or just to regurgitate your nonsense in the hope that Greenpeace will get another $25 donation from some gullible fool?
Regarding ecosystem approaches, Greenpeace wants everyone to believe that whales are endangered, few in number, and not eating anything that could impact the ecosystem. So I wonder how serious they are about ecosystem approaches to fisheries, and whether they aren’t just talking about it a little bit to try to establish some semblance of credibility.
As you know, I have even less respect for Greenpeace now than ever before after their media blunder – which you are very very silent on indeed.
Hi Ann,
Just reading something from HSUS:
http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/marine_mammals_news/new_report_repudiates_japans_claim_that_whales_eat_too_many_fish.html
> Japan and its allies routinely claim that marine
> mammals eat millions more tons of food annually
> from the world’s oceans than humans do. Which is
> technically true.
So HSUS conceeds that the conclusion of the Tamura paper is correct 🙂
> What these countries neglect to
> mention, however, is what type of food.
Right – Japan never says that whales eat 3-5 times as much *fish* as humans. It always refers to marine resources.
> This
> report shows that most of the food consumed by
> whales consists of prey species that fisheries do
> not target.
a) Most of the resources consumed by marine mammals are indeed not resources directly consumed by humans, but “most” does not mean “all”. If we are interested in proper management, we must quantify this properly. It’s silly to talk about “most” and assume that the quantity of resources consumed is therefore insignificant to humans.
b) It’s one big interconnected ecosystem. I thought you “environmentalists” were interested in considering the ecosystem as a whole, and not just individual predator-prey relationships?
Japan is clearly a few steps ahead of the “Humane Society of the US” here.
David,
I have had this discussion before with people much more familiar with this issue than you, like Icelanders and Norwegians.
My English is far from good, but I sure know what ” hvalarna spiser för mye fisk” means ( the whales eat too much fish) in Norwegian.
Once I told an Icelander that in my opinion the whales were a gift from heaven. His reply was” we don’t think so, the whales eat too many fish”.
Numerous Norwegians have made the same comment to me… just open a Norwegian paper. I think both dr Peter Corkeron and George can confirm this.
OK Ann,
I don’t know exactly what the Icelanders and Norwegians are saying, and it seems to me that if you ask a fisherman in any of those countries whether they are happy that whales eat fish, of course they will say that they’d rather they weren’t, because on that basis, someone who is directly involved in the fishing industry would not like to see his livelyhood diminished by increasing numbers of whales.
But at the government level? Governments have an interest in all of their citizens (in theory! I think this is the case in Japan and probably Norway and Iceland as well), not just the people who want to make money off fishing. Governments of whaling nations have to keep their whaling peoples happy as well. These Governments would not be popular at all amongst their whaling communities if they said “sorry folks, but the fisher people say your whales are eating their fish, so that’s it for all the whales – they’re gone, three strikes! No more money for you from whaling activity!”
It’s in the best interests of Government to ensure that the ecosystem is managed properly, and keep everyone reasonable satisfied, rather than alienate one particular sector or another.
The counter side of this is that in anti-whaling nations no one benefits from whales being killed (right now) so the government doesn’t push that point of view for fear of being unpopular (even though this may not be best for the ecosystem – if the people are happy, then the politicians don’t care).
Anyway, I hope we can agree that whales do eat some level of fish, and that it is a good thing for humans to try to understand exactly how much through scientific endeavour. This is in the best interests of conservation, not pretending that whales are innocent little critters that don’t indiscriminantly munch up any forms of marine resources that could potentially impact the ecosystem.
I can’t see much about “too much” fish on Iceland’s govt homepage either.
http://www.fisheries.is/issues/index.htm
“The main objective of the research is to gain knowledge on the role that minke whales have in the marine ecosystem, especially their interaction with fish stocks.”
Maybe their research will show that there is no competition at all, and whales are in fact Aliens that don’t kill thousands of other lifeforms to support their massive greedy bodies. You’ll be looking forward to that 🙂
david, I normally don’t see much point in buying into these comversations, but as I’ve been mentioned……….
Yes, I certainly heard the “too many fish” line in Norway. I resigned my permanent position as a principal scientist at the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research over Norway’s 2004 policy on marine mammals – I think that it is misapplication of the ecosystem approach to fisheries. See my letter in Science in Dec 2004 or my recent paper in Conservation Biology for more if you’re interested.
Re the HSUS report – why not read the actual report & see what it says? Japanese science clearly ahead of Pauly’s lab’s work? Interesting perspective.
Re humpbacks – in the 60s and 70s – illegal Soviet whaling – did they hunt to pass the time or for hard currency? Who bought the product? Care to guess?
Peter,
I had figured you had decided that I was a lost cause 🙂
Don’t have too much time to search for what you mentioned, but I can see some comments from you here about it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0622_040622_whalefisheries.html
“To nations with whalers, or to those currently reviving whaling, whales are no longer natural resources to be managed sustainably, but are competitors for fisheries.”
I’ve not heard any whaling nation suggest that their whaling policy is to kill off the whales to support their fishing peoples (that seems kind of backwards, to be frank). Whaling nations, ummm, having whaling peoples too, after all, right. So while I do accept that fishing people are worried that whales eat fish, and that if the whales only were protected, this could have a negative impact on fisheries, my humble impression is that you take it too far to suggest that whaling nations thus no longer have any interest in sustainable whaling.
It’s as if you think the whaling nations don’t actually care about whaling itself, they just want to kill whales. Is that your impression?
“The logical extension of this idea is that whales should not be allowed to recover to environmental carrying capacity, but rather are in need of culling in the name of ecosystem management”
Under the Revised Management Procedure, or indeed any management procedure for whales, of course the whales won’t be maintained at their carrying capacity. In order to obtain whale meat, you need to kill whales, thus reducing the stock below it’s carrying capacity. I don’t understand why you talk about “culling”. I know you are aware that people actually eat whales. Again, do you have the impression that people are just eating whales as an excuse to justify killing them?
“As our impact on the oceans grows and fish disappear, our perception of how to share the reduced wealth of the oceans with whales is changing.”
Share the wealth of the oceans with the whales? I’d have thought that whales usually be considered a part of that wealth, not seperate from it on a par with us.
All very very interesting and enlightening comments indeed, Peter.
Re the HSUS report – I’d read it if it weren’t putting me off with ridiculous assertions from the outset. The paper does not give me the impression that it is designed to seriously address the question – it very much appears designed to debunk the idea that there is any competition between whales and fisheries, because HSUS’s agenda is to stop whaling. It’s like WDCS telling Japanese people that “oh your whale meat is toxic”. So good of the whale-huggers to worry about Japanese people’s health.
Re Pauly’s lab work, here’s another mention of it:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4983.html
> “Last Sunday I ran the full model for the first
> time, and it was like, Oh my God,”
Wow man. Cowabanga. Who would ever have thought?
Mental note for scientists – if you want to appeal to the wider public (as opposed to the converted), don’t get yourself quoted as a surf-punk.
> Kaschner admits her analysis is fairly crude
> and abstract. “These are like weather maps,”
> she says. “It’s a best guess.”
But it supports the desired conclusion, and you seem confident in it Peter, so I guess it must be right.
It’s an interesting contrast with the very favourable comments passed on Japan’s research by the IWC Scientific Committee in 1997 (which I know you are fully aware of). You, like Travis and others, must really be looking forward to the next SC review of JARPA this December.
Humpbacks – I’m sure they hunted for financial gain, just as did the Aussie whalers who slaughtered 17,000 in the decade before their protection, and indeed everyone who hunts whales, catches fish, farm sheep cows and pigs.
I don’t know who bought the product – perhaps you would care to provide me with some factual information about it, as speculation isn’t my favourite pasttime.
Thanks david
Love your comments. Keep up the good work.
Peter,
Thanks for commenting.
David,
Here’s a statement from Ragnar Dahl, a Norwegian whaler in Norwegain media:
http://www.nrk.no/programmer/radio/norgesglasset/3849666.html
Btw, this whaler is a friend to JM back at your blog.
Ragnar Dahl:” To devoid an environmental disaster – kill/ cull the whales! If we don’t kill the whales and the seals this would lead to the biggest environmental disaster Norway ever has encountered”!
Even pro whaling JM found this statement ridiculous but unfortunately such train of thoughts are vey widespread and virulent.
Ann,
While I can’t read Norwegian, I’ll take your word for it (just this once!! ;-)) that that’s a fair translation.
But I don’t have the personal impression that such thoughts are “widespread”. They are certainly less “widespread and virulent” than misleading “common knowledge” such as
– “whales are endangered”
– “the moratorium has saved whales from extinction”
– “commercial whaling will drive whales to extinction”
…etc
I don’t doubt that there are extremists in this world, but I don’t accept that there’s more extremists over here on my side of the argument than there are over there on yours.
That’s my perspective from here in Tokyo, from knowing and talking with Japanese people, etc, although admittedly not with any whaling people. Apparently you have a different impression from your sofa in Sweden.
I’ll have to see if I can organize myself a trip to a little local whaling town sometime, eh Ann. Maybe then I’ll have my eyes opened to the same reality as you!!
David,
You always seem to be in a bad mood – makes me wonder what you have for breakfast?
And oh David,
regarding this sofa environmental thing… it was not long time ago when a GP Oceans campaigner asked me if I was interested to join the anti whaling campaign in Antarctica….
I’ve actually been in a very good mood lately 😉 I’d tell you why if this wasn’t the public Internet.
When you rejected the anti-whaling offer for your sofa, what did you say?
“No thanks, I want to at least allow the whalers can take a clear shot to ensure as swift a death as possible”?
😉 Just teasing Ann! Don’t mind me 😉
But I’m serious about seeing if I get to one of those little whaling communities, and better understand the issues that my fellow human beings are facing.
David,
The last year I have rejected many offers because I have realised that I’m not a teenager anymore;)
GP have offered me to take part in actions in the Lofotens, Barents Sea and the Baltic Sea, but nowadays I know what can happen to older people… stiff legs and I’m not an athlete anymore:)
Physical protest is really a big waste of time anyway, it’s never actually acheived anything other than getting media coverage. For someone like you, who claims to oppose whaling on cruelty grounds (I think that’s right, isn’t it?), it’s better not to get involved in such things. You do plenty on the net as it is. I’m sure lots of willing Greenpeacers must read and be encouraged by your comments.
I thought I heard my name, but then realised there was an annoying little mosquito buzzing around…
Travis, let me know when you feel like telling me whether you are prepared to accept the findings of the SC review of JARPA this December upfront, as I am (^_^)
For those interested, there’s more from HSI here:
http://www.newswire.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=328303&catid=3008
A Japanese Government report has revealed that 70% of whales killed by the Japanese whaling fleet in the Antarctic over summer were pregnant.
The report reveals that 224 of the 391 minke females and two endangered fin whales killed in the hunt were pregnant.
Nicola Beynon from Humane Society International (HSI) told the ABC they also have evidence that the mammals were killed in Australian waters.
“Approximately 90% of all the whales killed in [the] Antarctic were killed within the Australian whale sanctuary,” she said.
“Japan is blatant – they openly admit to killing whales in Australian waters, that Australia considers to be its own territorial waters and has declared a whale sanctuary”.
HSI will take the Japanese whaling company to the Federal Court in October, hoping for the so-called scientific research cull to be stopped.
———-
Typical pathetic reporting. Do the maths and infact only 25% of whales sampled by the Japanese whaling fleet in the Antarctic over summer were pregnant, not 70%.
70% of females being pregnant? As we know, anti-whaling groups like to compare whales to humans. Up here in Japan I personally know only 1 pregnant Japanese woman. The human population has just started to decline here.
Here’s HSI’s blurb about it:
http://www.hsi.org.au/news_library_events/press_releases/N392_Whale_Hunt.htm
Just went back to the IWC 58 SC report, and it’s already noted on page 70 that the pregnancy rate in mature females was 93.8% over the whole research area (!!!).
Nothing like re-revealing public information to get a headline 🙂
Gasp! Even more, this time from Ian Campbell:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1696692.htm
“It’s clearly a breach of a decision made by the International Whaling Commission,” he said.
“And you can’t on the one hand support the IWC and its continuation and its legality and on the other hand go there and wantonly kill lactating whale mothers and pregnant mothers,” he said.
—-
Article VIII?
“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention.”
Ian Campbell is quite a character. On one hand he says that he can’t take Japan to court because he doesn’t think a case would be successful “at this time”, and on the other he’s whinging like a baby about the very convention that his government remains signatory to, of it’s own volition.
Someone please tell Ian to stop procrastinating, and do something…
Govt calls on Japan to respect whale sanctuary
The Federal Government has called on Japan to respect the Australian whale sanctuary after a report found 90 per cent of its whale catch was taken from Australian waters.
The report also found more than half of the female whales caught under Japan’s scientific whale cull were pregnant.
Humane Society International now plans to take the Japanese fishing agency to the Federal Court to try and stop the whaling.
The Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, says Japan has clearly breached its international obligations.
“It’s clearly a breach of a decision made by the International Whaling Commission,” he said.
“And you can’t on the one hand support the IWC and its continuation and its legality and on the other hand go there and wantonly kill lactating whale mothers and pregnant mothers,” he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/s1695746.htm
Here’s another comment from Norwegian paper Dagbladet ( 23.06.2006) on the topic that “whales eat too many fish”:
– Norske myndigheter sier det er nødvendig Ã¥ beskatte hval fordi den spiser fisk som mennesker trenger for Ã¥ overleve.
Roughly translated: ” Norwegian authorities state it is neccessary to regulate/ cull whales because they eat fish that are needed for humans to survive”.
Ann,
It’s not much use in reporting stuff second hand. Greenpeace tells me that the Japanese blame Fin Whales for depleting fish stocks as well, which is obviously baloney.
I’ll take it from the horses mouth thanks.
Straight from the “horse’s mouth” would be who? You yourself have just provided information from media sources. Even research published in peer-reviewed journals and comments made by people with more knowledge on the subject than you are continually being dismissed, simply because they don’t fall in with your way of thinking. I find it incredibly rude the way you constantly find fault with others for things you yourself are guilty of. You criticise Ann for her translations and sources and basically say you don’t believe anything she has to offer. Last I looked, this wasn’t your website (although it can be hard to tell, as you are constantly cross-promoting it here).
If you don’t agree with someone else’s views, that’s fine, but drop the attitude and don’t be hypocritical. Otherwise you are just making an ass of yourself, rather than a horse whisperer.
Travis,
Not often I have to give other native speakers English lessons, but “Straight from the horses mouth” means government sources, rather than NGO sources and standard newspapers. For example, http://www.fisheries.is/ is what I would consider “straight from the horses mouth” (how you think this is a media source is beyond me). Otherwise direct quotes from such credible sources are usually OK, but even then people can be misquoted. In the case above, it’s a media source telling us their interpretation of what officials have said, and that’s basically what Greenpeace does (and gets wrong) all the time.
What’s the big deal anyway Travis? It’s just an argument of whether the whaling nations are blaming whales for eating “too much” fish or not. I don’t really understand why people like Ann and Greenpeace are so desperate to make such (what I consider) mischaracterisations. It’s not helping conservation efforts as far as I can tell. Not good for blanket whale protection efforts though of course. Maybe that’s the reason for it.
I am not a cetacean scientist, Travis, but that does not make me a fool. I have no problems in questioning the statements made by people who are qualified in this area when they say things that don’t appear to make a lot of sense. Peter Corkeron himself as said on this blog that readers can look at his credentials, and make what they will of his statements. His comments give me the impression that he believes whales should not be killed at all, which is why he talks about “sharing” the wealth of the oceans with the whales, rather than considering whales to be part of that wealth, as is, I believe, the case with the whaling nations. Peter may not actually think that, and he just can’t be bothered correcting me on that point – that’s up to him. If you think I misinterpreted his comments in some way, please tell me about it.
> “dismissed, simply because they don’t fall in with your way of thinking”
That’s rich coming from you, Travis. Or does it mean that you are now ready to accept the results of the upcoming JARPA review by the SC as an unbiased scientific review that should put the matter to rest once and for all?
Just a note for you here Travis – it’s not me calling people an “ass”. You might want to think about that, and why it is that you are calling me such things. I’m sure it’s quite obvious to any 3rd parties reading this discussion.
‘Gasp! Even more, this time from Ian Campbell:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1696692.htm‘
As you would know David, the ABC is a media source, and this was in your post of 25 July. You seem to be able to use different sources depending on what point you want to get across. Perhaps a press release directly from Ian Campbell would have been straight from the horse’s mouth in this case.
‘Or does it mean that you are now ready to accept the results of the upcoming JARPA review by the SC as an unbiased scientific review that should put the matter to rest once and for all?’
An example of you flogging a dead horse David. I am not interested in engaging with you about it, particularly at this point, but for some unknown reason, you seem to have the bit between your teeth and pushing the point at every given opportunity. Strange. Give it a rest, perhaps out to pasture.
🙂
Ann and I were discussing the claim that whaling nations blame whales for eating “too much” fish. I was suggesting that rather than listen to media sources telling us what they think officials have said, listening directly to officials would be more likely to give an accurate version. After all, there does seem to be a discrepancy between what Greenpeace says the whalers are saying and what the whalers themselves are saying – the Iceland fisheries link is one example.
I’m surprised that I need to explain that, but then perhaps you just enjoy engaging yourself in such nonsense in your free time. I’d much rather discuss the merits of the JARPA programmes with you, were you willing to.
The reason why I am harping on about it, Travis, is because despite your past willingness to refer to criticism of JARPA research, you show no interest about future reviews that will put the matter to rest once and for all. I’ve drawn my conclusions about why you behave in this manner, and am keen to make sure others have the opportunity to think about it as well, even if it makes you uncomfortable. So now, hopefully this is no longer an unknown reason to you.
David wrote “upcoming JARPA review” “future reviews”
Travis wrote “at this point.”
I see little point in discussing the review now, when it has not occurred. No David, it does not make me uncomfortable, I simply don’t see it as productive right here, right now.
I am sorry you can’t quite get my point on the sourcing of information, but trust me, I have plenty of better things to do with my time than engage in “nonsense” (couldn’t have put it better myself). Giddy-up.
> I see little point in discussing the review now, when it has not occurred.
> I simply don’t see it as productive right here, right now.
On the contrary, what I see as very unproductive is the current situation where we have:
a) The IWC Scientific Committee review in 1997 generally passing favourable comment on the JARPA programme at it’s midpoint, noting that non-lethal methods would probably not be feasible etc, along with other favourable comments from various non-Japanese scientists over the years (Judy Zeh, Ray Gambell, Martin Cawthorn as a few off the top of my head).
b) Other scientists (you know the ones) criticising everything about the JARPA programmes and denouncing it as a sham, “commercial whaling in disguise”, etc.
Where does this leave us?
We are in a situation where both sides of the debate can point to scientists who support their position. We are supposed to be talking objectively about science. Either the JARPA research is useful, or it isn’t and it’s just a sham. It cannot be both – someone is not being objective in this. How can there be a productive, forward looking debate on this topic with the hope of a conclusion, while this is the case?
What the review in December provides is a unique opportunity for a review to which both parties *should* be able to agree, as the review steering committee consists of both IWC SC members who have publicly denounced the lethal research programmes, as well as SC members who accept that lethal research methods have the potential to provide useful information. You can find the names of these members of the steering committee in this year’s IWC SC report, IIRC.
The problem I see is that if both sides of the debate are not prepared to accept the outcome of the review upfront, then after the review findings become available we will be left in the same situation as we are in now – and *that* is what is unproductive. This is why I’m asking you whether you are prepared to accept the findings upfront. It’s a waste of time even having a review if you and others are just going to turn around and say “oh well those scientists are all full of it and biased, probably bribed by the evil depraved Japanese anyway”.
Even if you can’t see my point, I’m certain that others can.
It’s a waste of time even having a review if you and others are just going to turn around and say “oh well those scientists are all full of it and biased, probably bribed by the evil depraved Japanese anyway”.
Get this in your head David, I do not the view the Japanese as “evil” or “depraved”. Don’t even suggest that I do.
Travis – glad to hear that. It’s tough sorting out the extremists from the rest of the anti-whalers 😉
David: ” What do you think about that resolution , Ann?”
Here’s Greenpeace’s position on the St. Kitt’s declaration:
By a vote of 33 to 32 with one abstention, the IWC adopted on Sunday something called “The St. Kitts Declaration” which lays out the whaler’s case for a return to whaling, and declares a commitment to “normalize” the functions of the IWC. Aside from, de facto, declaring a commitment to end the moratorium on commercial whaling, its most significant implication is that it will be used to say that the IWC has accepted that the consumption of fish by whales means that the resumption of whaling is a matter of food security for coastal nations. We say the idea of whales being responsible for fisheries depletion is the equivalent of blaming woodpeckers for deforestation.
And David btw, regarding official standpoints. The Norwegian Government and High North Alliance state that Norwegian whaling is not subsidised anymore – only the whale surveys are, but according to my Norwegian sources whaling and even the whale meat industy are subsidised by regional fundings.
Ann,
I was asking about resolution 2001-9, where the IWC gave notice that “it has decided to make the study of interactions between whale and fish stocks a matter of priority”, not the St. Kitts and Nevis declaration.
The IWC agreed to res. 2001-9 even despite the anti-whaling nations having a significant majority back then. So even anti-whaling nations voted for that resolution to push it through.
That’s kind of why I was asking you about it.
And what is so different about it? In 2001-9 the IWC agreed to make investigation of interactions a priority – in the St. Kitts and Nevis declaration the IWC agreed that it’s a matter of food security…
Different words, same underlying concept, don’t you think?
I don’t care what Greenpeace says about it. Greenpeace don’t base their position on science, they base it on gimmicky catchphrases that will attract donations.
By the way, does it scare you that in 2001 the anti-whaling nations would vote for such a resolution? It looks like quite a number of them are just “following the leader” so to speak. If the US jumps ship and compromises next year (as it should, as the world leader it is), you can say bye bye moratorium I think.
Ann,
On subsidies, as you know the Japanese government also subsidises the JARPA and JARPN research programmes as well.
I don’t really care what these governments do (in terms of subsidies) so long as their activities are sustainable, which even you don’t seem to want to argue about.
what er talkin bot thats there food let them whale but jus set a limit