According to German historian Klaus Barthelmess it is “Pure presumptuousness!” to suggest that world opinion is against whaling. He writes:
“This opinion [against whaling] is almost exclusively found in densely populated urban Western societies, where people have become alienated from nature and where care for pet animals compensates for weakened family ties and social bonds. These societies – perhaps 20% of the world population – may be the most outspoken and influential, but by no means do they represent ‘World Opinion’.”
Barthelmess has just updated a brochure entitled ‘Whaling – Con & Pro’ that he wrote 12 years ago for the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Puerto Vallarta.
Judging from the content of the brochure the arguments for and against whaling have not changed or progressed much over the last 12 years.
The brochure now available online, passionately argues the case for whaling and is illustrated from Barthelmess’s collection of ‘whaling-related art’ including pictures of what he describes as the ‘fastest-killing device ever invented’, the Norwegian penthrite harpoon grenade.
[Norwegian penthrite harpoon grenade, prototype parts and models. Photo Barthelmess 2005]
————-
Apologies to those who unsuccessfully tried to post a comment at this blog over the weekend. We were all (me included) accidentally ‘locked’ out over the weekend when some files on the server where ‘cleaned up’ on Friday. All is working again now.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Indeed, little has changed.
Every year the hardright anti-whaling politicians come and and declare that they are fighting to save the whales from extinction. And every year the pro-whaling politicians come along and talk about limited sustainable whaling. The argument goes nowhere, because the arguments aren’t based on the same foundations – both sides don’t agree with the ICRW convention, even though both sides are signatory to it. But who ever seriously expected politicians to behave honourably?
The only thing that has changed is the composition of the IWC membership. Perhaps progress may occur next year. The US appears more likely than ever to seeking to allow limited hunts, and other less extreme anti-use nations are also likely to follow this leadership.
PS, does anyone know of any good FAQs from anti-whaling sites? Ann?
The key phrase is,”These societies – perhaps 20% of the world population – may be the most outspoken and influential, but by no means do they represent ‘World Opinion'”
I’d like to see “world opinion” on this topic portrayed according to personal income. Do the Zambians worry about whales? There are lots and lots of Zambians.
Zambians engage in personal combat with *baboons* over “indigenous property rights” to roots and tubers during the annual starvation season, and I bet the Zambians would be glad to try some whale.
For balance, the picture of what people shoot at whales should be juxtaposed with what people shoot at each other. The caliber is different, but the principles and basic design are pretty much the same. In either case, one hopes the design is optimal.
Schiller.
David,
A FAQ on whales for Australians:
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=21940
Schiller,
Regarding starving Zambians doubt they will eat whale meat, some years ago they refused to eat GMO seeds that were offered them through some aid -programme, deeming them as some kind of devilish food, yes, they would rather starve.
And offering whale meat to starving people is not the solution to starvation. As we all know there is food in the whole world that could support twice the world population right now, but it is unequally distributed.
Schiller,
I guess the Zambians aren’t likely to get any whale meat themselves, but in Nigeria it seems they are happy to eat whale meat if it is on offer:
http://www.highyieldconservation.org/articles/plus_conservation.html
Ann,
Dunno about there being enough food to support twice the world population – really? Is that in theory or actually in practice as well? It’s one thing to have food, but not much use if you can’t get it where it is required.
Thanks for the link! I’ll add that to my whaling faq page later. If you have any from Greenpeace / IFAW, that’d be good too.
David,
Can’t keep my face straight when I read this from the IWMC site:
” Would it be such a bad thing , if a whaling nation brought in a load or two of minke product to port?”
So this Lapoint guy suggests that the Norwegians for example should dump all their unwanted blubber and meat in Africa?
Do you really think that is ethically and morally right to dump whale products in developing countries after Japan and domestic markets have refused to buy the products due to contamination and bad quality?
Have you fgorgotten that the Japanese market is closed for Norwegian blubber due to toxics?
Have you forgotten that the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries don’t want pregnant women to eat whale meat?
Ann,
I think you kind of miss the point of the article – although I do note that it seems people did actually consume whale meat despite your claim that they would rather starve (I’d rather eat whale meat than starve too, if I had to make the choice – I think most people on earth would as well)
Ultimately, I think people should be able to make their own choices about what they eat. That includes hungry people in Africa. I don’t think foreign people have any business telling people what they can and can not eat.
Self determination, and all that.
Regards,
David,
I think it was OK that the Nigerians ate the whale carcass if they wanted to, but I don’t think we should dump unwanted food to developing countries, this was the case with the GMO seed in Zambia. Regarding Nigeria, I personally know a guy from Lagos who is anti whaling and a Greenpeacer. The solution to end poverty in Nigeria( Africa) has nothing either to do with whaling,the problem has to do with corruption etc. Don’t you think a country such as Nigeria with all that oil should be able to support their own population with proper food?
Here’s my anti whaling friend, Tomakint , from Nigeria:
http://www.africanconservation.org/tomakint/
David,
FAQ from IFAW:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_5090000/newsid_5095000/5095016.stm
It is not a matter of oil or no oil if the political structure is not free there will be an improper distribution of wealth. Similarly if business and trade is not free there will be political problems and instability. Until there is free elections and free trade they will have to rely on charity to assist with poverty.
Ann,
There are anti-whaling people from all over the world, even Japan.
You probably saw my blog recently about how whether you are tolerant of whaling or not ultimately has more to do with your principles than your nation of birth (although your cultural background can effect your principles, this is not absolute).
And so, you know a Nigerian who is anti-whaling. So what (he seems a little confused about what “conservation” means if you ask me). Apparently a fair number of Nigerians are happy to eat whale meat. A single blue whale has a lot of meat on it, but it apparently got snaffled up quite quickly.
I don’t know anything about the GMO seed, but again, it’s up to people to eat what they want. Here in Japan it’s generally acceptable to eat whales, but people here are also very big on organic foods. GM stuff isn’t popular at all. Whale meat is organic after all. We need to clean up the oceans to ensure the health of our organic marine foods.
Thanks for the IFAW link! I’ll include that one at my whaling FAQ also 🙂
Regarding Tomakint and Greenpeace’s anti whaling campaign in Iceland and Jennifer’s post, it is interesting to notice why Tomakint won the competion to sail with the Esperanza to Iceland. He was the person in the whole world that collected most anti whaling signatures( in Nigeria).
Well,in Faroe Islands, at least for some years ago, “Whales were killed for sport, in a blood frenzy or out of murderous lust”. Maybe not exactly but very close to this statement.
In a Viking frenzy, yes, the whalers are often drunk( the mayor of Torshavn, the Faroe Island’s capital has admitted this)on beer, like many of the citizens , the Islanders in motorboats drive the whales into a bay . The bay is soon pink or red of killed pilot whales.
The Faroese celebrate the butchery of their whales in a carnival atmosphere of entertainment.
Children are often given a day off from school to watch the “fun”. Children can also be seen playing upon dead pilot whales.
Maybe this seems like really anti whaling propaganda but even the mayor has confessed there are too many drunk people enjoying this butchery.
Sorta like an RSL club isn’t it? Or a long weekend on highway 1.
Ann Novek,
It’s not often that I call somone an idiot. Now you wear the designation. Zambians have engaged in unarmed combat with government soldiers and overwhelmed them in order to get access to “poison GM grain” in government warehouses. The same “poison grain” that people eat in countries where life expectancy reaches 70-80 years.
As a greenie you likely wants long-term studies showing that people who eat GM food live to 140 years. Will that be a “healthy” example for people lucky to reach the age of 40?
Naw… not long-term enough for you is my bet.
I’ve changed my mind. “Idiot” isn’t the proper term. “Cretin” is more accurate.
Schiller.
Schiller,
You want a debate on GMOs, you are game…
I don’t spout Greenpeace policy 24/7 but this is a fact:
Zambia , whose government controversially rejected food aid (GMO), during a draught a few years back, had a glut of maize last year and exported their excess to Angola.
Regarding the draught in 2002. Zambia issued an all out ban on GM food aid, with its president comparing GM seeds to poison. And you are quite right there were some riots regarding this GMO seed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2412603.stm
That’s funny Schiller, cretin is a word that constantly springs to mind when reading your comments. However, some of us have common decency.
Aren’t you both confusing Zambia with Zimbabwe where Mugabe sent 50,000 tonnes of GMO grain back to port while his people were starving?
I guess some would say they dies for the highest ideals.
After seeing what was on the menu in Gweilin, I doubt that too many of the 1.5 billion chinese would vote with their stomachs against the consumption of whale meat.
If its OK for Orcas to eat baby whales then what is wrong with humans eating surplus adult males and post breeding females?
As Shiller and I have mentioned there were some riots concerning this GMO food in Zambia. But I have also read that the common man was angry that the US was dumping unwanted GMO feed in Africa that Europe had refused to touch. Actually the Zambians asked for non GMO-feed.
That was why I responded to David’s comment regarding whale meat, is it right to dump unwanted food in developing countries, when there actually are abundant food in the world.
Regarding “exotic” dishes, in Iceland during the Viking fesivities during February, the “Thorrablot”, they eat rotten shark , ram’s testicles and soured whale blubber. And yes, I have eaten whale meat.
I can guarantee most people that whale meat tastes very badly, sure can understand why the demand for whale meat is low in Norway.
> is it right to dump unwanted food in developing countries, when there actually are abundant food in the world.
I think the Nigeria case shows that whale meat is not neccesarily “unwanted food”, and again, if there is abundant food, tell that to the starving people. And stop whinging about whaling.
Ideally, if people in those nations can find ways of sustainably feeding their population, that’s a good thing for them. They need not rely on foreign nations for their food security that way, nor need to waste money importing food. Sustainable use of natural resources has a role to play in all of this.
> I can guarantee most people that whale meat tastes very badly,
I can’t.
I’ve had whale on several occasions now:
1) minke steak twice (nice meal, and the meat was fine)
2) black and white sashimi style (blubber plus red meat) – I’d skip the blubber if presented with it again, it wasn’t nice
3) “tataki” style (basically kind of raw red meat minced up – this is my favourite way so far, had both as sushi and “yukke style”.
I’ve not tried bacon yet, but a restaurant down the road from my place has it, so I’m sure I’ll get to it sometime or other.
Everyone has their own taste Ann, and ultimately that is a side issue anyway. In Japan, lots of people think Natto is disgusting, but foreigners here have never suggested that consumption of the stuff be banned – because that would be silly.
The primary concern should be sustainability, that’s something we should all be able to agree on – if we are honest! (Did you see my blog on the almost total uselessness of the moratorium?)
Of course, I know you think whaling is cruel, and accept that, but I wish you’d stop trying to find other reasons to oppose it as well. Your cruelty reason is perfectly fair enough if you ask me.
David,
This is a bit off topic, but a Chinese woman and a Japanese/American man told me that the Japanese don’t learn English in school. And that most Japanese don’t speak English. Is this true?
David,
I think you should ask John Frizell himself “about the almost uselessness of the moratorium” – you are a wellknown person in Greenpeace! I have asked him myself some questions – now you don’t want me to say that you don’t dare to ask him;-) Go ahead:
http://ctk.greenpeace.org/discussions/message-view?message%5fid=2236808
ANN,
do you know about the mercury levels in that whales that people consume?
Tönsberg festival in northern Norway, will not serve dishes made of whale meat and shark this year after critic last year from NGOs.
This year we are going vegetarian…
Famous rock groups take part in the festivities.
Hi Flavio,
Norway’s Whale Meat Toxic, Too
WWF reports that whale meat and blubber sampled in Norway recently were found to contain heavy metals, PCBs and pesticides.
The toxic whale meat crisis now faces Norwegian consumers as well as Japanese. Will the Norwegian government, like Japan, shirk its responsibility to protect its citizens? Will Norway put the financial health of a handful of whalers (who already make a fine living fishing most of the year) ahead of people who are consuming contaminants that cause cancer, sterility and other woes?
Twenty samples of whale meat and blubber collected in Norwegian markets in recent weeks were analyzed by scientists hired by WWF. Preliminary results show that more than 50 PCB congeners were identified, some of which are dioxin-like PCB’s. Also, 25 metals were identified in whale blubber samples, including organic mercury. In addition, several organochlorine pesticides were detected, including aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, and DDE and DDD (which are breakdown products of DDT).
Norway should not be surprised that its minke whales are contaminated. The marine mammals are subjected each summer to the chemical and radioactive soup pouring into the Barents Sea from Russia’s polluted rivers and military bases. Similar toxic exposure is faced by the whales when they winter in the North Sea and Irish Sea.
Ironically, the children, men and women of Norway may be saved from this tainted food by Gro Brundtland, the pro-whaling former Norwegian prime minister who now heads the World Health Organization. WHO is aggressively attacking tainted food.
Ann,
Regarding your offtopic comment,
no, it is incorrect that Japanese people don’t learn English in school. Every Japanese person has 6 years English lessons, and they have done for decades now.
However, because the curriculum is crap, Japanese people can rarely ever speak well just by going through the system.
It was similar in my case, learning Japanese though. You need to practice heaps out of class to get any good.
And if John wants to talk about why he thinks the Moratorium is useful, he is more than welcome to. I’m a little too busy for John right now. Plaese direct him to my blog 🙂
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have studied with keen interest here the tone of the various topics here and I must confess to you all that “Whaling in this modern age should be discontinued” it is not only unjustifiable but an ignoble action that betrays our supremacy over other higher animals we share this planet with. Think about what would have been the global positions of whales now had it been that oil was not discovered in the Middle-East way back in the year 1908.
I am actually referring to the age when the oil gotten from the blubber of whales was predominantly useful and when the consumption of whales meat has not assumed the status of Commercial stage. Whatever we put down as online activities mean a lot to these people (those who see nothing wrong in hunting whales), hence, let’s cultivate the habit of hammering, drumming and ringing it into their ears and hearts that “WHALING MUST BE STOPPED” our committment to this goal is TOTAL as Greenpeace Cyberactivists!
David, believe me, I love your contributions here especially your arguement regarding what happened sometimes in Nigeria regarding the whale issue, but you still need to understand the fact that when poverty is the order of the day in any society, the human mind, soul and body can unite together as one and evoke an unimaginable actions that would constitute ABSOLUTE MENACEto such society, that’s the exact picture of what happened then in Nigeria, trust me it was an action i will live to rememeber for the rest of my life. And just like my fellow Cyberactivist and a good friend has stated that, “Don’t you think a country such as Nigeria with all that oil should be able to support their own population with proper food?” Indeed, we that oil in a very large quantity, yet bad governance coupled with visionless leaders will not allow the proceeds from the oil to better the lots of the masses, exactly the point David. But….the case of Iceland, Norway and Japan (the three most notorious whaling nations is different in this case) do you still think Commercial whaling should continue….we all know that the IWC endorsed the commencement of “Subsistence whaling” in Alaska. Since we know that subsistence whaling pulls no threat why allow Commercial whaling in a super rich economy like that of Japan, in a very rich country like Norway and a comfortable economy like Iceland?….Don’t you think it is unnecessary?
Tomakint,
It’s a pleasure to be able to read your comments directly.
> do you still think Commercial whaling should continue…
I base my opinions on whether activities are sustainable or not. Not by who is conducting those activities, or how their complex their human social structures are.
If it’s sustainable, I’ll accept it.
Hi Tomakint,
Thanks for contributing to this thread!
Ann
David my friend, are you aware that, Japan is likely to provoke the biggest diplomatic clash over whale hunting for years when it proposes doubling the number it is allowed to kill for “scientific research”.
Now the gist: we all know that, “Scientific hunts are permitted under IWC regulations”. But critics say they amount to a resumption because 2,000 tons of meat from the culls is sold in restaurants and supermarkets, fetching an estimated £28.4m. Also, trade in whale meat is not illegal: under IWC regulations countries may use the byproducts of scientific hunts as they see fit. In Japan, that means “eating them”. This week (5/26/2005), the Australian prime minister, John Howard, said Australia would work with the US, New Zealand and Britain to persuade Japan to reconsider, although he did not support blocking Japanese whaling ships, (well thatz not good enough, to me he should have supported that). Japan insists hunts are necessary to monitor changes in the makeup of the whale population, although it admits they are a precursor to a return to commercial whaling.
Listen to these, Japanese wants to go into full-bloom commercial whaling, but under the aegis of Scientific research, with the belief that they want to manage whale resources, which includes determining a whale’s age.
Now the danger: Already pro-whaling Japanese are saying banning whaling is an attack on their ways of life, but we all know whaling is never a culture or tradition but an habit that can be corrected just the same way a drunkard can quit excess booze, just the same way a pathological liar can quit lying, just the same way a serial killer can turn over a new life, hope you grab this. Scientists say that the most reliable way of determining a whale’s age, for example, is by examining wax from its inner ear, a procedure that means killing the animal first.
If that should be the case then the purpose of conducting researches on whales is already defeated. Hellbent in commencing the killing business, Tokyo has repeatedly threatened to leave if the IWC continues to block a resumption of even a limited form of commercial whaling. The fact is this, some whales species are threatened and may be lost forever and if we all as humans start claiming that we have the rights to decide how to live based on our culture (including whaling as claimed by the Japanese) then we have missed the point totally. Most of what we abuse in this life are privileges and not rights. Japanese should note that they are only privileged to be where these creatures are plentiful and then shouldn’t start to claim absolute rights on what to do with these creatures. If all humans were to be like the Japanese then as an African we can as well start destroying the beauty Mother Nature had bequeathed us in the area of Trees, rich and abundant wildlife, the Australians can do away with their rich reefs, the Asians can zero in on the abundant supplies of forests and animals life, the Americans can also resume the hunting of their limited number of Bisons and other threatened species in the jungle of the Amazon, the Europeans can resume absolute destruction of their rich biodiversities and the question is: What then will be our GAIN? of course we will lose!
Now the conclusion: Commercial Whaling should be vehemently resisted, there is more to preserving these whales than just killing them to enrich few purses of a few individuals. MY POINT!
Ann, you have been a buddy, my cyberactivist friend, I have been following your contributions here and I must confess you have not disappointed me in any way like I use to know your stand regarding this hotly debated topic,….COMMERCIAL WHALING!
Fellas,
The point is not about taking whales meat off the menu list of the Japanese but a strong warning against rendering imbalances to the balanced OCEAN LIFE!
Global food production is already sufficient to feed the worlds starving, but as Ann rightly points out, it is frequently not available to those who need it most.
There has also been a lamentable history of inappropriate aid dumping, destroying local farming communities and creating aid dependance.
If free food is available for any longer than is absolutely necessary to avert a disaster; then local farmers cannot sell their produce. Who is going to pay for food when they can get it for free?
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-363663,00.html
http://www.fao.org/news/2000/000704-e.html
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.html
http://www.vegsource.com/articles/gmo_feed_myth.html
Apologies to all, several of the links I posted do not appear to work.
If at first you don’t succeeed………..
http://www.fao.org/News/2000/000704-e.htm
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/articles/gmo_feed_myth.htm
Hello David,
=If the human population in Alaska becomes very rich in the future, I’ll not suddenly one day decide that they must give up their way of life, just because they are wealthier than they are now.
In time past, we all know that after the Russian Revolution, things turn around all over the world, especially in the area of health care, which was good though, but gave an astronomical rise to world’s population, hence the adverse effects of population pressure to world’s resources.
David you will still agree with me that if not for the check and balances that follows suit immediately in China as result of their population explosion, things would have turn around for the worst, that is common sense, that is why we are humans, that is why we are superior to other animals, now coming back to your view. I will strongly advocate for a common sense approach to take its full course whereby Alaskans will stem the hunting of whales at least to a manageable portion. So David, get this fact right, whale hunting is not a way of life but an action that can be done away with the same way, we as humans outgrow some habits and change for the better!
Tomakint,
Lots of stuff in your second comment which I really don’t have time to get in to, but let me cover a few:
> Scientists say that the most reliable way of determining a whale’s age, for example, is by examining wax from its inner ear, a procedure that means killing the animal first.
Yes, that’s correct. Such information is useful for people interested in making for the development of sustainable commercial whaling industry.
> The fact is this, some whales species are threatened and may be lost forever
Yes. No one is planning to hunt such truely endangered species.
Under IWC rules, no species would be hunted under IWC rules unless it was above 54% of it’s estimated carrying capacity.
Currently that means stocks of whales like the Antarctic minke, probably the humpbacks that breed off the west coast of Australia, some stocks in the North Pacific, to name a few, could be hunted, were the IWC to act in accordance with the international convention that created it.
But this 54% protection rule rules out hunting of truely endangered species such as the Blue whale, which is still in the very early stages of recovering from over-hunting (although is now recognised to be increasing at a rate of around 7% a year in the Antarctic – fantastic news indeed).
IWC rules would see managed stocks of whales return to abundance of around 72% of their estimated carrying capacity.
Anti-whalers want whales to be 100% of their estimated carrying capacity.
Pretty obvious which side is failing to compromise in this situation.
> shouldn’t start to claim absolute rights on what to do with these creatures.
Japan isn’t making any such “absolute claim”. Japan’s actions are fully in line with the relevant international agreements.
> What then will be our GAIN? of course we will lose!
Yes, over-exploitation and over-hunting are bad things. I agree that these things should be avoided for the sake of future generations.
As for whaling, I suggest that you read up on Agenda 21, and “sustainable development” to try to understand where pro-sustainable use nations are coming from on this issue.
There is a difference between “hunting” and “over-hunting”. I’m sure you can recognise this.
Tomakint,
Regarding your most recent comment:
> I will strongly advocate for a common sense approach to take its full course
Fantastic.
> whereby Alaskans will stem the hunting of whales at least to a manageable portion.
Presumably you think they are taking too many now, when you talk about stemming the hunting?
Would you care to give me a level of hunting of Bowhead whales that you think would be a safe amount?
> So David, get this fact right, whale hunting is not a way of life but
I’m not going to sit here and make such judgements. I have no right to tell people on the other side of the world how they should live in their environment, just as I reject know-nothings from other parts of the world telling me how to live sustainably in mine.
As I said first time around:
unsustainable -> unacceptable
—————————–
sustainable -> acceptable
There is a line that is acceptable internationally.
Please describe where you draw your line to me succinctly.
David, the topic is moving towards an interesting terrain, but first let me attend to your views.
>Presumably you think they are taking too many now, when you talk about stemming the hunting?
No David, thatz not what I meant, I guess you picked my point out of context, I was actually referring to your view here, “If the human population in Alaska becomes very rich in the future, I’ll not suddenly one day decide that they must give up their way of life, just because they are wealthier than they are now.”
My submission on stemming is this, should there be population explosion in Alaska in the future, the tendency to “bite more than they can chew” may arise (which you know), therefore I am only trying to send a word of caution across (really, Alaskans have been a perfect example of sustainable Whaling Practice.
To me Kudos must be given to the Alaskan Whalers for contributing reasonably well to how Whaling can be mildly practised. If Commercial whaling against Bowheads can reduce their populations to about 3,000 as at the time it was ended in 1910, only for it to be returned back to about 10,000 populations as at this year (2006),then such method is worth practising within such community, but not in sophisticated economies like Japan, Iceland and Norway mind you!
>There is a difference between “hunting” and “over-hunting”. I’m sure you can recognise this.
Oh common David, you know what I am talking about….anywhere you see me talking about Whaling, hunting and the likes remember to include, “commercial”,or “over” as applicable. Not to bore with you with too much talks on this issue you may read up this article: http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/pipermail/coral-list/2006-July/003397.html it is very important please!
Once again, I really appreciates your response so far!
That link is for you to draw a border line from what is unacceptable (unsustainable) and acceptable (sustainable) in your own view regarding Whaling.
Tomakint, I see that I misunderstood. I’m glad that we can both recognise that the Alaskan Bowhead hunt is sustainable.
> the tendency to “bite more than they can chew” may arise (which you know),
Yes, I agree. I don’t believe that the Alaskans (or anybody) should hunt more whales than is sustainable. They would surely recognise themselves, that if they were to increase in population, and start hunting whales as a result, they would jeopardize their food supply, this element that supports their livelyhood.
> Alaskans have been a perfect example of sustainable Whaling Practice.
Given that we both feel that way, it’s worth noting that Japan has in the past requested interim minke quotas of 50 whales a year (less than the Alaskan quota) from the north pacific ‘O’ stock of minke whales (which is more abundant than the bowhead stock the Alaskans hunt).
Despite wishing to hunt fewer whales than the Alaskans from a stock that is more abundant than that which is hunted by the Alaskans, Japan’s request for it’s small whaling coastal communities was rejected everytime.
This is interesting – clearly decisions aren’t being made based on what is and is not sustainable, and in a modern international society that is very very wrong, and has the potential to lead to discord, as some (myself included) see this as a double-standard.
This is particularly interesting given that the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling states that such decisions should be made based on scientific findings, and take interests of people who depend on whales resources into account.
Decisions such as these clearly aren’t based on science, and clearly don’t take into consideration that interests of the people wishing to utilise whale resources sustainably. The IWC has clearly violated it’s own convention (whether you agree with whaling or not, this much is a fact).
> then such method is worth practising within such community, but not in sophisticated economies like Japan, Iceland and Norway mind you!
This is where I get completely lost. I’d like you to explain your reasoning here to me further.
I’ll tell you my point of view. Alaska is part of the USA, the world’s most powerful nation. I know a guy who lives in Barrow, Alaska, and he eats whale meat, and also communicates with me over his internet connection. He does not actually hunt the whales he eats himself, he relies on others in his community to provide him with this service.
I struggle to understand why it is that “the world” has decided that it is O.K. for him to eat whales, but not O.K. for Japanese, Norwegian, and Icelandic people, amongst others, to eat whales.
Why should something that works well in Alaska not work well in other parts of the world?
Again, I have to ask where exactly the line should be drawn, and why.
> anywhere you see me talking about Whaling, hunting and the likes remember to include, “commercial”,or “over” as applicable.
Apologies, but I’m not following you. Is it your view that whether an activity is commercial or not determines whether or not it is sustainable?
From the article you linked:
> Why hunt whales if the Japanese people don’t want to eat them?
A very important point is that making generalizations about “Japanese people” is rather meaningless. The Japanese people are not homogenous. Japanese people from traditional whaling communities are far more likely to eat whale meat than other Japanese people in big cities. Even in the cities, people here come from different parts of Japan – some were raised in parts where whale meat was on school lunch menus until relatively recently, where as other people from different parts may never have eaten it at all.
My personal perspective in Japan is that some Japanese people certainly do want to eat whales. And of course, others have no interest at all. This is rather similar to the situation where some people choose not to eat beef, and others do.
Another recent story for you – “Whale bacon” was on the menu at a restaurant in my neighbourhood recently. My girlfriend and I went out to have dinner on the weekend, and I chose that restaurant as I wanted to give bacon a try (never had it before). But we were informed that they were out of whale bacon on that day. How come a restaurant in Japan could run out of whale meat if “Japanese people don’t want to eat” whales?
Is it possible that I have missed something?
Or is it possible that the western media is full of such misleading information as this?
I actually live in Japan, and know various Japanese people. It’s interesting that the western media has such a different view of things, and it makes you wonder how that came about.
> The second oddity comes from the Caribbean nations who supported the
declaration.
You can read my blog for much opinion from Caribbean nation representatives on why they see it as important to be a part of discussions at the IWC.
I find it especially odd that people like to talk about why island nations in the Caribbean are interested in such issues, while at the same time 7 European landlocked nations also take part.
> The USA allows indigenous hunters to take a few for sustenance, although witnesses report whale hunting is done in Alaska by natives, with high-powered, scoped, elaborate weapons.
Interesting, isn’t it. Refer to my comments on the double-standards, above.
>I struggle to understand why it is that “the world” has decided that it is O.K. for him to eat whales, but not O.K. for Japanese, Norwegian, and Icelandic people, amongst others, to eat whales.
Thanks a billion for your observation here. Well, I am actually against giving the same privileges handed to some countries to Japan, Iceland and Norway (the ones I called Sophisticated Economies), simply because, the idea behind rational practices of Whaling have been largely abused by these nations. My point is this; “Despite a worldwide ban, whales are still being slaughtered for commercial profit. Since 1999, Japan has killed 600 minke whales in the North Pacific and the Southern Ocean Sanctuary under the guise of “scientific research” — while the meat and by-products from the slaughtered whales is sold for profit. Norway also continues to kill whales in outright defiance of the ban; nearly 600 minke whales were slaughtered this past season.” Still more to come, Norway kills between 550 and 650 minke whales a year; Japan 440 minkes in the Antarctic, 150 minkes, 59 sei, 50 Bryde’s and 10 sperm whales in the Pacific. Already, Iceland says it intends to kill up to 250 minke and sei whales annually for sale to Japan. Wait for this; There are more than 80 species of whales, dolphins and porpoises in the cetacean family
· Ten are listed as endangered and two critically endangered
· Eleven types are still hunted
· Killing great whales, 10 tonnes and above, is prohibited by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) but around 1,400 are expected to be hunted this year
· Smaller whales, like pilot whales and dolphins, are outside the scope of the IWC. Unknown thousands are killed especially by these same three NATIONS!
I don’t intend to discuss the cruelties attached to the method of killing, probably for those who don’t know imagine this detailed presentations; killing method is a harpoon that penetrates about 1ft into the whale before exploding, killing the animal with shock waves. If this fails a second harpoon or rifle is used. Average time to death is more than two minutes.However “adaptations for diving” may make it difficult to determine whether the animals are dead. “Their sheer mass, complex vascular systems and specific anatomical features may also impede efforts to kill them swiftly and humanely.” On a simpler note, the quotations of Harry Lillie, who worked as a ship’s physician on a whaling trip in the Antarctic half a century ago will do it better, he says, “If we can imagine a horse having two or three explosive spears stuck in its stomach and being made to pull a butcher’s truck through the streets of London while it pours blood into the gutter, we shall have an idea of the method of killing. “The gunners themselves admit that if whales could scream, the industry would stop for nobody would be able to stand it.”
What are we going to say about the Faroe Island Whalers; Whales are sensitive, social animals with highly developed nervous systems. They have a profound capacity to suffer distress, terror and pain. Each year, the Faroese kill over 1,500 pilot whales. The scenes of medieval cruelty are too shocking to be shown here.
Whole families of whales – including pregnant mothers, lactating females, youngsters and foetuses – are butchered by the islanders. The whales die slow deaths, screaming in agony. Their killers are often drunk.
Islanders in motorboats first drive the whales into a bay. The chase may be lengthy. The exhausted, terrified and confused whales are eventually driven into the shallows. Here the bloodbath begins. The islanders repeatedly hammer 2.2 kg metal gaffs into the living flesh of each whale until the hooks hold. A 15 cm knife is then used to slash through the blubber and flesh to the spinal column. Next the main blood vessels are severed. The blood-stained bay is soon filled with horribly mutilated and dying whales.
The Faroese celebrate the butchery of their victims in an carnival atmosphere of entertainment. Indoctinated from an early age, children are often given a day off school to watch the fun. They run down to the bay and clamber over the carcasses of slaughtered whales.
Now the question David my friend; Is the suffering inflicted by Faroese whaling ethically justified? Or is whale-killing an atrocity that has no place in any civilised society? Or Do you think in your heart of heart that should the hunting of whales in this way still be tolerated by a civilised society?”.
> Why should something that works well in Alaska not work well in other parts of the world?
You have answered the issue yourself, the background of whaling in Alaska is distinct and different from that of the three other nations I told you earlier. The orientation is so unique that it will take Japan, Norway and Iceland 50 years back to be just like the Alaskans! But you know this is impossible based on their level of sophistications! Thank you.
Don’t you think it’s a bit strange that Greenpeace and I think IFAW as well, are not opposed to Faroe Island whaling. I have heard people say it takes about 6 minutes for the whalers to kill a grindhval or pilot whale in the Faroe Islands but the time to death in aboriginal whaling could be much more. I oppose whaling mostly on cruelty grounds.
> the idea behind rational practices of Whaling have been largely abused by these nations
As you might expect, I have a lot of problems with this 😉
Firstly, I have to point out that “nations” are not the entities that hunted whales commercially, depleting stocks.
The entities that brought about the depletion were *companies* under the jurisdiction of various IWC signatory nations (and not just those you selectively mention).
And this depletion was largely due to poor management by the IWC during it’s early years. This mismanagment was not the responsibility of those nations you mention, but was presided over by the whole IWC. Not just Iceland, Japan, and Norway – but all signatory nations – even including the USA, which is home to – you guessed it – the Alaskan people.
You seem to be happy to make an exception for the US’s people in the Alaskan north slope instance despite their contribution to the depletion of the bowhead along with others (although had they been the only ones hunting this would not have been the case). But since you are prepared to grant an exception to the Alaskan people, why not also the coastal whalers of Japan who were, like the Alaskans, certainly not large contributors to these depletions either? Depletion of whale stocks started in the 18th and 19th century, long after whaling culture appeared in Japan.
So please consider and explain why you wish to punish *all* Japanese people, when you don’t wish to punish *all* American people?
Again – there is a double standard.
Furthermore, it needs to acknowledged that while the over-hunting of whales was very bad in terms of conservation, it was not actually a crime. A mistake, certainly – but a punishable offense? What ever happened to “learning from our mistakes”?
Clearly with the development and adoption of the Revised Management Procedure, the IWC has accepted it’s past mismanagement and addressed it. Those who deny this deny science and I have no time for them.
Indeed, even before the moratorium and RMP, quotas were already regarded as sustainable. For example, John Gulland of the FAO, and one of the expanded “Committee of Four” made such remarks in 1982 (you can see what he had to say about operations at that point in time on a recent post on my blog).
> “Despite a worldwide ban, whales are still being
> slaughtered for commercial profit. Since 1999, Japan
> has killed 600 minke whales in the North Pacific and
> the Southern Ocean Sanctuary under the guise of
> “scientific research” — while the meat and by-products
> from the slaughtered whales is sold for profit.
This is incorrect.
The proceeds of whale meat sales offset the costs of the research programmes. There is no profit. The JARPA programme ran in the red for all of it’s 18 years.
> Norway also continues to kill whales in outright
> defiance of the ban;
Also misleading – Norway is within it’s rights under the ICRW.
> Japan 440 minkes in the Antarctic,
You are copying and pasting from an outdated source.
I think you get the picture on this info you are reproducing, so I’ll skip the rest.
> Now the question David my friend; Is the suffering
> inflicted by Faroese whaling ethically justified?
I’ve already noted that it’s not my place to tell the Faroese or anyone else what is and is not ethically justifiable in their country – that is for them and their people to decide democratically.
If you disagree, you need to be prepared to act on complaints about the way you live your life.
> Or is whale-killing an atrocity that has no
> place in any civilised society?
Clearly this is not the case.
All three societies you wish to punish, plus those in other parts of the world are most certainly civilised. It’s not particularly adult to suggest otherwise, to be honest. Don’t you agree?
> Or Do you think in your heart of heart that
> should the hunting of whales in this way
> still be tolerated by a civilised society?”.
I think the reality is somewhat different depending on who you ask – your views are but your own.
> You have answered the issue yourself,
> the background of whaling in Alaska is distinct
> and different from that of the three other nations
> I told you earlier.
You seem to want to group whalers together by nation – I disagree with the distinction, and even you yourself do by wishing to make an exception for the people of Alaska, while I doubt you would permit whaling operations out of New York city.
I think you need to recognise the distinct types of whaling that exist in Japan – traditional coastal whaling and modern pelagic whaling. Given that you are happy with Alaskan whaling, you can only remain consistent by agreeing to Japanese coastal whaling, but retaining your opposition to pelagic whaling (on the grounds that pelagic whaling in the past was bad, so they deserve to be punished – I disagree with that as well, since sustainability is what it comes down to for me).
> Don’t you think it’s a bit strange that Greenpeace and I think IFAW as well, are not opposed to Faroe Island whaling.
If you are not a Greenpeace skeptic, you might think so.
I don’t find it strange at all.
> I oppose whaling mostly on cruelty grounds.
Mostly? 🙂
David,
I see that you have missed the psychology classes in school!
About the IWC and ” learning from our past”.
Rule number one: ” If you want to know how a man will act in the future, just look at his past”.
Ann,
Why do you feel the need to talk about the past? You surely know by now that I am going to ask you what is wrong with the Revised Management Procedure. You know that I will point out that the IWC Scientific Committee unanimously recommended it for adoption as a safe way of setting commercial catch limits, and that the IWC agreed to it’s adoption.
You say yourself that you oppose whaling mostly on cruelty grounds. That’s a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose whaling for. You needn’t spoil it by ignoring realities such as the development of the RMP.
I am lost too.
Why do some anti whaling persons say that they have no problems with aboriginal hunting?
I have problems with their inefficient killing methods.
Why is it so horrible( yes it is) with Faroe Island whaling but not with Alaskan bowhead hunt?
The USA did not provide data on the Time of Death in the 2001 bowhead hunt, but reported that 31 of the 49 whales landed were killed using secondary killing methods, equivalent to 63,3%.
This indicates a poor efficiency rate in the primary killing methods used in this hunt and points to a very low rate of instantaneous kill that year.
In addition that year 26 whales struck were lost , 34,7%.
> Why do some anti whaling persons say that they have no problems with aboriginal hunting?
Many anti-whaling countries in fact. Ian Campbell describes whaling as “sick” and “absurd” on one hand, but when he pulls out his policy he selectively picks whaling peoples for whom it is ok to kill whales.
I agree, it’s bizarre.
> I have problems with their inefficient killing methods.
As you know I’d like for these animals to die as rapidly as possible as well.
The world is a funny place though:
– you and I would know nothing about this whaling were the world not globalized the way it is
– the whaling peoples of the world would be killing whales with far less efficient methods were the world not globalized the way it is.
The world is funny, and not perfect. I think overall it’s better for the globalization that we have though.
By the way Ann,
The anti-whaling scientists are talking about their ideals of ageing whales by their skin (again).
I’ll probably write more on my blog because I have a lot to say about it, but for now here is a link:
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060731/full/442507a.html
In brief, they really are wasting their lives with this. The goal of Japan is to resume commercial whaling, so why do they care whether whales are killed for scientific purposes? Even in the unlikely outcome that this technique does become a replacement, that doesn’t change the perception of whales as food in various parts of the world. Why don’t they put more effort into research that could actually be of benefit to real conservation?
Greenpeace , WWF and other environmental organisations have today together with High North Alliance’s member organisations Norges Fiskarlag( the Norwegian Fishermen’s Union) and Fiskebåtsredenes Forbund( the Shipowner’s Association) made a joint statement and declared to fight together against IUU- fishing, or what we call pirate fishing.
David,
what do you say about this, HNA member organisations working together with Greenpeace and WWF?
I think it is good that the anti-use groups can display common sense on at least one issue and work with pro-conservation / sustainable use groups such as the High North Alliance.
Perhaps they are finally starting to come around. I can but now wait to hear of the news that they now conceed that whaling is a feasible sustainable use of marine resources as well.
As to why they would behave in such a way, I don’t know. Perhaps there was a photo op involved.
>You seem to want to group whalers together by nation – I disagree with the distinction, and even you yourself do by wishing to make an exception for the people of Alaska, while I doubt you would permit whaling operations out of New York city.
David, you can not know too much! We can only get around this nutty issue if we give room for “listening ears to different views”, sincerely I appreciate your level of maturity on this but you still need to work on it a little bit higher. Now follow me; When you try to exonerate Japan, Iceland and Norway from the status of Culprits and hinge it on Companies (which is a fact though) that are directly involved in the killing, then what do you imagine of Lebanon that harbours the Hezbollah Terrorist Cell, Palestine that harbours Hamas, Syria-Al Queada and other countries within the Middle East, despite the fact that these terrorists cells are the major culprits these countries still bear the brunts of the offensive from the oppositions for being the ones that serve as their breeding grounds, exactly the point here, hope you got it clearer now!
As per your views on my recent posts where you made mention of me copying and pasting from an outdated source, well, let me point it out to you that as writers, ‘we are all robbers of other people’s ideas’ cause we can’t solely rely on our own views. Another thing I have come to discover here is that, our views can never come to a conclusion because I am speaking from an anti-whaling point of view while you are addressing this issue from a pro-whaling point of view…our agreement can only be partial as you and I have witnessed since we started our discussion on this thread. One thing I still don’t understand is that you seem to be defending and covering up the activities of those whaling companies (as you like it stated) within Japan, Iceland and Norway.
I have painted the hidden details of their flagrant disobedience to the IWC rules regarding whaling, more to come DAVID!
Hmn…,just on the 1st of this month (August, 2006), it was reported by The Age magazine (as covered by Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society)that: of the 391 female minke whales killed last season, about 93.8 per cent of the population were pregnant.Yet, Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) is using these results as evidence that the Antarctic minke whale reproduces consistently every year and is able to sustain a commercial hunt, others have branded it an atrocity (another erroneous doctrine being perpetrated).
Now the crux of the matter; “The whalers reported killing 853 minke whales and 10 fin whales last summer, of the 391 female minke whales slaughtered, 224 were pregnant with 227 foetuses”.
David… when I say you cannot know too much I know what I was talking about…listen to this, many of these anti-whaling agencies have the facts and figurs that you don’t have. The issue of exaggeration of facts as copiously stated in your many articles here are unfounded. Can I prove this to you that, the practise of Commercial Whaling by these 3 sophisticated economies is highly illegal why? Because, taking Japan as an example, despite the fact that she stated categorically that her hunting of whales is strictly under the guise of ‘scientific’ whaling, yet, the products of this whaling end up in Japanese restaurants and supermarkets (who is fooling who?). The fact is glaring, whaling industries perpetrate their illicit trades with “no sustainability in view” and if we keep quiet we all will be losers.
May be you don’t know… some governments of these culprit whaling companies do defend their illicit actions as stated here;”………..Demand for whale meat in Norway has fallen to such a low that the industry has resorted to selling whale meat as pet food. This summer it is even sending a “whale mobile” around the country, showing people how to cook whale meat. Sue continued, “Just last week the government had to defend its whalers killing a whale in front of a boat full of whale watching tourists”. For your information, Sue Fisher, is a whaling expert for Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society.
Mind you, the reason why Anti-Whaling Agencies are springing up virtually form everywhere around the world is that, they see IWC as a toothless barking dog and a bought-over tool in the hands of the Whaling-Gangs. MY POINT!
Hi Tomakint,
I´ll make a comment on parts of your last post, in particular this paragraph.
”
May be you don’t know… some governments of these culprit whaling companies do defend their illicit actions as stated here;”………..Demand for whale meat in Norway has fallen to such a low that the industry has resorted to selling whale meat as pet food. This summer it is even sending a “whale mobile” around the country, showing people how to cook whale meat. Sue continued, “Just last week the government had to defend its whalers killing a whale in front of a boat full of whale watching tourists”.
Can you provide a citation or source of the claim that the norwegians are selling whale meat as pet food?
Here in Germany where I live, there are a number of “wild pig” and “boar” mobiles as well as kangaroo, ostrich and ( at least I have read of )crocodile mobiles going around the country, also showing people various ways of cooking such foods/ meat. What is your point?
They all are promoting their products..
Please note, the only country commmercially whaling is Norway and the hunt is legal, despite what any NGO may claim otherwise. Even the Government of the United Kingdom ( home of WDCS and virulently anti-whaling) acknowledge this… so what do you base your claim of illegality upon? International law? The ICRW ? or what? I simply do not understand where you get the idea that Norway is hunting illegally from .. ( Or Iceland, Japan, Greenland, Russia, Canada, USA, Indonesia amongst others for that matter )
The whale “mobile” information is old stuff, I wrote about it at the Greenpeace forum already 2 years ago.
Regarding whale meat demand,sure the demand has decreased, but WDCS has not mentioned that a new “hvalmottak”,a whale meat processing factory has reopened as well in the Lofotens after 43 years. The new processing factory’s name is Lofothval, and is run by High North Alliance’s Rune Frövik.
Regarding Tomakints and my own statements in forums, they are our own views and don’t represent neccessarily Greenpeace’s views. We are not allowed to do any statements on Greenpeace’s behalf.
Tomakint,
I think Greenpeace Nordic’s position on Norwegian whaling is that the commercial hunt undermines international convention and bodies , not that it is illegal.
Hi Anne,
Regarding the legality of the Norwegian hunt it was only relatively recently that GP international stopped claiming that the hunt was illegal, after many years of misinforming the public and their supporters ( along with many other NGO´s for that matter ) Some NGO´s still claim it is illegal – I wonder why? ;op
Unfortunately the WDCS’s translations from Norwegian press releases are poor or incorrect. As far as I remember the Government did not defend the whalers, it was the Whaler’s association that made the statement.
And where from comes the statement that whale meat has been sold as pet food? I have not heard any Norwegian NGO mention this, maybe it is true, maybe not… Anyway, in 2003 Råfisklaget sold some tonnes of blubber to animal feed production…
Hi George,
Maybe the ICRW could be interpreted in different ways?
Maybe it’s all about who has the best and smartest lawyers, dunno?
Hi anne,
Yes, it´s a good example of how the public is led to believe a load of old cobblers, because of course, the NGO´s are the good guys and do not tell lies do they? ;op ( and they seldom admit to misinformation / lies / blatant untruths anyway, even when caught out )
Of course, the solution is for individuals to do careful research of both sides of the story ( pro and Anti ) to determine what is actually correct – unfortunately, in these days of the 10 second soundbite, most people don´t bother ….
As to the ICRW Anne, it´s an international agreement signed by 70 nations or so – kind of hard to believe that they all are wrong and the NGO´s claiming illegality are right dont you think? ;op
For your information.
I e-mailed Norwegian animal welfare organisation Dyrebeskyttelsen that use to work on issues like whale and seal meat dumping regarding the WDCS statement that whale meat was sold as pet food.
George, I passed on your information on the killer whale project to the horse people who had adopted a killer whale. Of course they were very sad , they especially liked to adopt a killer whale. Ok, now they are talking about adopting maybe a tiger…
Hi again,
Truls Gulowsen, spokesman for Greenpeace Norway, has made the following comment on Norwegian whaling for 3 years ago: ” A quota of 600 Minke whales poses no threat to the Minke whale population”.
Hi George,
George :”…the NGOs claiming illegality are right..?”
In the end most lies and misinformations have a tendency to backfire. There is an old Swedish proverb on this:” Lies have short legs”.
As for why they are using such claims? Maybe to say this is a bit taboo, but whales are used as cover girls or cover boys for fundraising purposes, nothing wrong with that IMO, as long as the information is correct.
Anne,
I take my hat off to you and will buy you a glass of wine or three next time I bump into you – You are the first and only GP/ NGO member I have ever heard admit that they believe that is the case 😉
Haha George,but actually many GP folks say the same thing, maybe not officially, but no campaign attracts people as much as a marine mammal campaign,personally I’m very interested in sea bottom life and I’m very frustrated that most people have no clue about this issue at all, who cares about sea bottoms and deep sea life , a world that is even more unexplored than Mars.
My point exactly anne,
No one or no NGO will admit it – even unnoficially over a beer or two – it´s why many people simply do not have any or little respect for such organisations.
If somebody such as shane rattenbury ( or whatever his name is ) admitted the same, what do you think would happen to GP´s income? Of course, it would probably drop like a rock but hey, he ( and the organisation he represents ) at least would have the respect of a lot of people – and I predict that their fund raising income would increase again steadily shortly afterwards
But what happens instead is that folk with a modicum of common sense realise that one of the main reasons GP continue with the whole anti whaling circus is simply that it´s a big money spinner – even despite their obvious contradictory actions and methods. People then instead begin to question GP´s motives in other areas such as PVC ( they took a thwacking on that one ) Brent Spar, Logging, overfishing and so on.
One day anne, it´s all going to come back to GP ( or other NGO´s for that matter ) with a vengeance and bite them on them butt…
and all because they simply could´nt admit that some of their campaigns are selected on their fund rasing capabilities .. sure, the campaign may ( or not depending on your point of view ) be worthwhile, but it kinds of leaves a rotten taste in the mouth don´t you think?
Hey George,
Brian F. from GPI wrote at his blog that icon animals such as whales, seals , elephants and polar bears are used as poster girls and boys to attract people to Greenpeace.
But you are right that some organisations leave a bad taste in the mouth, you maybe heard that the director for Amnesty Sweden, embezzled the organisations money…
BTW, I have an article for you to read here:
http://www.folkevett.no/index.php?back=1&artikkelid=1079
Hi George,
Now you maybe have to buy Brian F. a beer as well;)
Hi Anne,
Umm no, he´s not exactly shouting it from the rooftops is he? On his personal blog? tell me anne, is this so that; if GP gets bad press about it, GP can claim it was his personal opinion and not GP policy? ;op
The day that Brian F or John Fritzell admit openly in an interview ( be it TV or other media ) that GP picks causes partially based on their financial and or glamerous poster boy/girl qualities is the day they might get a pint from me – I imagine that they are going to get real thirsty first before that happens though 😉
Hi again George,
I believe Greenpeace’s policy is to attract people to the organisation through a popular campaign as the whaling issue, and then hopefully supporters would be attracted by other environmental issues as well and not exclusively focussing on whaling. A ” big picture” view is desirable.
George,
Some Greenpeace offices run with a big loss, for example Greenpeace Russia, and money is needed from other GP offices as GPI and GP Nordic to carry out work in this country.
George,
All interesting information is usually stated off-record, what did the whale watching operator really say to you?
Anne,
Here are some questions for you – lets see if you or GP can supply some answers : ( I will not hold my breath though ;op )
What is the total income of all GP offices each year for the last 5 financial years?
What is the income of each individual office by country?
How much of the total income of each individual GP office had to be paid to Greenpeace international in Amsterdam?
How much income did GP int recieve from non charitable GP entities such as Greenpeace energy, Greenpeace magazine(s) Greenpeace products etc etc?
How much income does GP recieve from sale of media ( images – footage ) to media outlets, magazines, newspapers?
How many employees does GP have worldwide? ( here is a start, GP Germany had 180 paid emloyees in 2004 with an operating budget of 41.5 million Euro
What is the average employee salary comparible to other industries?
How much tax did GP entities pay to their respective countries worlwide over the last 5 financial years?
How much did GP recieve in donations each year for the last 5 years broken down by office?
How much is the operating budget of the Russian GP office? Who provides the budget? how many employees?
How many GP offices run at a loss? what is the loss in comparison to the total GP yearly budget?
What was GP australia´s Budget in the year proceeding their anti whaling action in the southern ocean? What was their budget last year? What is their budget this year?
Have donations gone up or down since the anti whaling action? What was the total cost of the action?
How do I, as a prospective donator to GP who, lets say wants to donate to their anti bottom trawling campaign ( which I tend to agree with for the most part ), make sure that my donation goes to THAT campaign and not say, their Anti nuclear energy campaign which I totally disagree with ? ( the answer top that is simply I can´t can I? )
How many Greenpeace offices have non charitable companies in their respective countries? ( ie Greenpeace energy in Germany )How many companies worldwide?
Enough for now ;op
Anne, you asked
“George,
All interesting information is usually stated off-record, what did the whale watching operator really say to you?”
It´s off record anne ;op
It was quite funny though, that much I can tell you, especially if you know the guy and the operation up in Andenes …
Jeez George,
All those questions have to be answered by some fundraising person …. all I can tell you is that most Greenpeace employees are underpayed and overworked, it’s true …no understatement…
Glad that you are interested in the anti bottom trawling campaign, this is my favourite issue…
Btw, I have posted my guest blog post on whaling to Jennifer! It’s about Greenpeace Norway…
OK George,
Without consultating anyone from the financial departement I believe there are about 1000 employees worlwide working for Greenpeace. It seems like GP Germany is a very large office…
But, Greenpeace Nordic had most victories worldwide last year!
OK, regarding worlwide budget last year I think there was a slight decrease in profits, mostly depending on that offices in Eastern Europe run with a loss…
That is all I know right now…
Hi George, I know by now you must have seen the impending danger that looms ahead as soon the curtain behind the ban on commercial whaling is drawn….perhaps this link will appeal to your conscience depending on the way you take it! http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1357250.ece
Dear Tomakint,
Hope you will not be angry with me , but why is it wrong to eat whale meat? I know you are far from being a vegetarian, you are deeply religious and have stated that something like ” God gave us animals to eat”. I think it is even worse in Sweden, I have seen shops here selling brown bear meat! Ugh…No protests at all…
Tomakint,
What impending danger? Norway IS whaling commercially now – this moment – and has been since 1993.
Still do not see your point ( if you have one )
Anne,
Thought you might be interested in this, it´s a toktdagbok from the ecosystem surveys currently underway in the Barents sea ( only in Norwegian – there is also the old 2005 one )
http://www.imr.no/barentshavet/tokt/toktdagbok_2006
To Ann and George,
>Dear Tomakint,
Hope you will not be angry with me , but why is it wrong to eat whale’s meat?
Ann, I have never indicated here on this thread that it is wrong to eat Whale’s meat if you’ve been following my contributions so far. (if you still remember this “Fellas, The point is not about taking whales meat off the menu list of the Japanese but a strong warning against rendering imbalances to the balanced OCEAN LIFE!” exactly my point)
>I know you are far from being a vegetarian.
Thatz correct!
>you are deeply religious?
Thatz based on your opinion, I have never for once shown that to anyone, itz just a matter of calling a spade a spade-I am not a fanatic or bigot, ait!
> and have stated that something like ” God gave us animals to eat”.
thatz absolutely correct.
And to you George;
>What impending danger?
I will not be tired of letting out my voice against the danger that looms ahead, even though you claim not to see my points. Listen George, can you tell me the numbers of Bison that once thundered the great plains of America (of course they were in their hundreds of millions) but when Buffalo Bill came calling we all know what happened-they were roundly reduced up to endangered status. You still remember the case of the passenger pidgeons that once dotted the sky even to the point of blocking the sun rays when on migration (in case you don’t know they were in their billions) but what happened now – extinction! Come down to Africa, we use to boast of a sizable populations of Wildebeest (a.k.a gnu), but now their populations is being reduced at an exponential rate. Time will fail me to keep on mentioning some other affected species like the; Moa-bird, Dodo, California Condor, Great Auk,Mountain Lion, Big Horn Ship, the Pronghorn, Mongolian Saiga, including the mammals listed as endangered with the NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service)are the Blue whale, Bowhead whale, Fin whale, Western North Pacific Gray whale, Humpback whale, Northern Right whale, Sei whale, Southern Right whale, Sperm whale, Chinese river dolphin in China, Indus river dolphin in Pakistan, Dugong, West Indian manatee, Gulf of California Harbor porpoise, Western stock of Steller sea lion, Caribbean monk seal, Hawaiian monk seal, Mediterranean monk seal, and the Ringed seal in Finland.
Now the question?
If animals are being reduced at a geometrical progression rates and humans are increasing on a geometrical progression rates then what chance do the others (species of animals) stand should another round of unchecked hunting commences? I hope you get the picture now!
You may consider these links; http://marinebio.org/Oceans/ThreatenedEndangeredSpecies.asp, http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/programme,
Nobody is interested in dictating to anyone what he or she must do but as humans we are different from other animals in that their is room for second thoughts regarding all our actions…history as they say is Prophecy and whether we like it or not history has a way of repeating itself if given the chance mind you! Perhaps when all the whales are lost when all the useful species we all crave after are gone then we would all learn to live within our means, but…is there any sense in applying medication to a corpse. EXACTLY MY POINT!
Hi George,
Thanks for sending me this interesting information…do you know if the Norwegians are going to do a survey on whales in Eastern Barents Sea ( in the Russian zone), it seemed like they were not given permission by the Russians to carry out any survey in the Russian zone… don’t know if this is politically motivated(?) , regarding the Electron affair and the Fishing Protection Zone around Svalbard?
OK George, according to your link whales surveys seem to be carried out in the whole Barents Sea. Never trust the press…
Tomakint,
It is really important to note that companies from other nations such as Australia, the USSR, and the USA were also involved in depleting stocks of whales.
Firstly, catch limits set were set by the IWC as a whole. The IWC as a whole has responsibility for past mismanagement – not just today’s nations with commercial whaling industries.
Secondly, companies globally that contributed to depletion of whale stocks largely don’t exist any more, they are basically dead, yet you seem to be trying to attribute their share of the blame to whaling interests in Japan Iceland Norway, even whaling interests (small communities) that played a insignificant role in the depletion of whale stocks (coastal whaling communities in Japan), yet you let similar communities in other parts of the world (USA, USSR, Denmark) get away without the same tarbrush. You yourself posted information illustrating the modern nature of whaling in Alaska.
Your argument is not very convincing at all, giving due consideration to these facts.
My honest impression is that you are just against whaling as a pre-conceived position, and are trying to slap together something that looks like an argument to support it.
My line is crystal clear – sustainability is what counts. Very simple. The line you draw seems to be completely arbitrary, and that it happens to encircle just whaling interests in Japan Iceland and Norway betrays the true nature of your opposition to whaling.
> One thing I still don’t understand is that you seem to be defending and
> covering up the activities of those whaling companies (as you like it stated)
> within Japan, Iceland and Norway.
I don’t blame whaling companies for taking quotas that were agreed to by the IWC.
If your government tells you that it has been agreed at an international forum of governments that you may do something, then you go ahead and do it, and it turns out that what was agreed by the politicians was a mess up, is that your fault?
> I have painted the hidden details of their flagrant disobedience to the
> IWC rules regarding whaling
Today whaling conducted by people of all three 3 nations is in accordance with the ICRW.
> of the 391 female minke whales killed last season, about 93.8 per cent of the population were pregnant.
This information was presented to the IWC SC by Japan.
You only know this information because they were open with it.
Don’t forget that.
> Yet, Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) is using
> these results as evidence that the Antarctic minke whale reproduces
> consistently every year and is able to sustain a commercial hunt,
That’s exactly what it demonstrates.
This is how science works.
People may get excited about pregnant whales dying, so what?
The numbers are not a conservation issue.
The fact that pregnant whales are killed is only an issue for people who believe that whales shouldn’t be killed at all in the first place.
This information is great news for whale conservation, as I noted on my blog.
> many of these anti-whaling agencies have the facts and figurs that you don’t have.
That information was written in the IWC SC report from this year, and I had read it about a month before HSI managed to find and report it, as if it were some big secret. Amusing it was to me that an interested observer like myself was more observant than a group receiving funds to supposedly fight to stop whaling activities.
> the practise of Commercial Whaling by these 3 sophisticated economies is highly illegal why?
It’s not illegal at all, let alone “highly” so.
Even politicians in Australia, New Zealand and Britain conceed that a court case against Japan would be a loser. See whaling-faq.blogspot.com for a quote from Ian Campbell on this point.
> Because, taking Japan as an example, despite the fact that she
> stated categorically that her hunting of whales is strictly under
> the guise of ‘scientific’ whaling,
Japan doesn’t state that it is under the guise of scientific whaling, that’s what Greenpeace says.
> yet, the products of this whaling end up in Japanese restaurants and
> supermarkets (who is fooling who?).
That is essentially a requirement of the ICRW.
The proceeds of whale meat sales are used to offset the costs of the research programmes.
The JARPA programme ran in the red for all of it’s 18 years.
If you are conducting lethal research whaling with the aim of making for the reopening of commercial whaling, it’s a no-brainer that small amount of whale meat that is obtained should be marketed for full consumption. Why on earth would you throw out all the good meat.
Just want to mention that the UK and Gemany also were big actors in Antarctic whaling operations in the beginning of the last century.
I know that the UK was quite active (more active than Japan) – can you tell me more about Germany?
David,
Germany , a very big actor during the 20′ and 30′.
I think Hitler had big plans, but all whaling activities halted during the WWII.
I see. Lucky for this reason too that Hitler is no longer with us.
David,
In most legal hunting activities it is illegal to kill a female animal, double crime if she is pregnant. That is why most people are so upset with killing pregnant whales.
Anne,
Did the pork chop or steak you ate last week come from a male of female ? how do you know? How do you know if the animal was pregnant or not? How can you tell if a minkie is male or female? or pregnant? Are you trying to tell me that from the tens of thousands or so elk / moose hunted in sweden every year, they are all male?? If not, how do the hunters tell if the elk are pregnant or not? Do they ask them to pee in a jar first so they can test it? ..LOL….
Hey George,
Very good question this about the elk or moose hunt in Sweden. Well, there is a reason why there is a hunting season and a closed season.
The hunting season for moose and deers is closed in the spring, it opens only in the autumn, when the animals have had their offsprings.
Very easy to see if a moose is a he or she. The males have antlers the females none and in the autumn the females are accompanied by their calves, often two.
Well, this have to do with your most spoken about sustainability, no other ethics.
Well George, this case with pregnant minkes, are they not bigger and sometimes just hunted for that reason? I have heard that is the case, but I’m not sure. Anyway smaller minkes taste better according to Ellingsens whale meat processing factory.
Regarding male or female farmed pigs, it doesn’t matter if they are females or males … but females taste better, have to do with the hormones…
To David,
Regarding whale pooh collection, hey now Greenpeace know that fin whale pooh is pink… haha
As a hunting nation Norwegians are pale compared to Sweden that has the biggest land mammal hunt in the world, 100 000 moose are killed every season plus some tens of thousands deers, hares, foxes countless birds, but no no Norwegians shouldn’t hunt them minkes…
Hi again George,
Regarding the moose hunt this was information that I received from my neighbour that is a hunter, but you are right there is a quota of female moose as well in the autumn
George, you got to come to Sweden and watch the moose that are roaming around in the forests… instead of just counting minkes in the Barents Sea!LOL!
I have some here in my neighbourhood, hope they will survive the hunting season though that usually starts in September! Sometimes they jump into the horses’ paddocks and scare the s**t out of them!
One more information about the deer family. Reindeers are the only species where both bulls and cows have antlers…
David,
>Your argument is not very convincing at all, giving due consideration to these facts.
Indeed it is!(And yours is very convincing).
>I don’t blame whaling companies for taking quotas that were agreed to by the IWC.
Now, this is what I have been expecting you to say, yet you know many of these whaling companies use to exceed the given quotas by the IWC. Now straight to you…do you blame whaling companies for exceeding the quotas given to them? Huh!
Don’t tell me you don’t know what I am talking about that the reason why I lay claim to the term “Illegal” has to do with this point (of exceeding quota). How many whaling nations are guilty.
Hi Tomakint,
Yes in the past whaling nations exceeded quotas, hunted in closed areas and in closed season… but do they do that today?
Anyway, Norway and even Iceland has not filled their quotas for some years…
Sorry for all my gramma errors, trying to reread my comments before I post them next time!
Anne,
you said ( and I quote )
“In most legal hunting activities it is illegal to kill a female animal”
That was what I was pointing out … not in Sweden then ? ;op
RE: Elk / Moose, I´ve been chased around a car more than once by Elk in Tysfjord – I had a trio ( male, female and calf ) that used to come past my chalet every morning – I could set my alarm by them….
Re The minkies, it´s practically impossible to tell the sex of a minkie just by size alone – it´s hard enough getting close enough to dart them for a DNA sample, never mind trying to sex them at the same time – ditto for the whalers ..
Tomakint –
Since 1993, ONE – only one Norwegian whaling boat took ONE minkie over it´s quota – the boat was fined a large amount of money for breaking the rules…
I have to say that you seem to be living in the past ….
Hey Anne
Managed to find the blog of Brian fitzgerald of Greenpeace, and whilst browsing through it, came across these gems :
” With a simple majority the Japanese can:
Promote a resolution endorsing Japan’s and Norway’s “scientific whaling” programmes ”
Ummmm excuse me? Norway´s scientific whaling program?
Dear Brian, Norway has been whaling commercially since 1993 …..
If this is the guy doing GP´s “web stuff” ( his own words ), no wonder it´s full of misinformation and out and out crap :O)
From his bio :
“I have worked to apply new technology at Greenpeace since introducing the first transatlantic email account to the organisation in 1985, hacking an email connection out of the Soviet Union in 1989, and inventing the internet. I currently harumpf loudly about the state of the world while running the Greenpeace Intenrational website. ”
says it all really …. my god
By the way anne,
You also said
” Hey George,
Brian F. from GPI wrote at his blog that icon animals such as whales, seals , elephants and polar bears are used as poster girls and boys to attract people to Greenpeace.”
Care to point out to me where? Just had a good look through and did not find it anywhere on his blog (
Tomakint,
Of course I blame whaling companies that exceeded quotas for exceeding them.
That’s no reason to ban whaling “the activity” though.
Some people drink alcohol then drive cars.
No one is suggesting that driving cars should be banned, only that the drink drivers be punished.
Given that banning the activity is total overkill and completely unrealistic, what do you think would be practical means of addressing the issue of people breaking rules?
Hi George,
Here are Brians own words:
Interesting, and right in many places (don’t debate the science, e.g.) but wrong about the power of polar bears to convey the message. We’ve polled on this (has he?) and the extinction of polar bears is a “wake up” point for people who think of climate change as a harmless change in the weather. They’re positioned to be the canaries in the coal mine of climate change, and there’s a massive segment of the public, not really environmentalists, who do care about them dying out. Concern about the well being of “Charismatic MegaFauna” such as whales, harp seals, and pandas have been driving a wide swath of the public to environmental action for decades, and there’s no sign of that sloping off. There’s big symbolic value, and big psychological power, in these emblematic species.
Regarding the “scientific” Norwegian whaling programme, I have pointed out this to Brian, think it was just a mistake(?), but actually he copied this information from Remi Parmentier’s blog and that he made a mistake was probably more unfortunate than Brian making a mistake . Quite sure though this was a mistake of some kind as Remi I believe has IWC observer status and is involved with John Frizell.
Remi went to the St Kitts IWC meeting apparently.
Chris Carter from NZ last year also wrongly talked about northern hemisphere countries conducting research in the Antarctic besides Japan (see High North homepage).
George,
It’s OK if you don’t share Brian F’s views( personally I don’t do that always as well) but he’s a friend of mine and is extremely intelligent , humorous and with a great knowledge on subjects varying from religion, philosophy, modern politics to eveything that has to do with environmentalism.
Regarding his work as a webbie, I must point out that the webbie isn’t the one who composes the articles, the campaigners provide the information.
>Regarding the “scientific” Norwegian whaling programme, I have pointed out this to Brian, think it was just a mistake(?), but actually he copied this information from Remi Parmentier’s blog and that he made a mistake was probably more unfortunate than Brian making a mistake . Quite sure though this was a mistake of some kind as Remi I believe has IWC observer status and is involved with John Frizell.
You sure anne? As I have pointed out earlier. GP UK still claim Norway hunts whales “in the name of spurious science “- could it be that
a.) Both Remi and Fritzell, GP´s “Experts” on whaling are wrong
b.) Both Remi and Fritzell, GP´s “Experts” on whaling don´t know what they are talking about?
c.)Both Remi and Fritzell, GP´s “Experts” on whaling are misleading the public?
or
d.) Both Remi and Fritzell, GP´s “Experts” on whaling have made a mistake, but cannot be bothered correcting the mistake? – (and anyway it looks better on all of the various GP websites )
8op
> Regarding his work as a webbie, I must point out that the webbie isn’t the one who composes the articles, the campaigners provide the information
So anne, the GP campaigners are wrong – don´t you think it is about time they cleaned up their act and stopped misinforming the public?
Hey,hey George, usually I do’t care about spelling, but who is J.Fritzell,no German Fritzes here, it’s Frizell, without a “t”!LOL!
LOL ….
Frizell frizell …
so, a, b, c, d, Anne :op
George,
I checked out the UK site. Can’t find the quotation. Care to provide a link? Btw, all GP site’s on Norwegian whaling have not been updated for ages, especially the Norwegian site.
Maybe the statement refers to “that the whales are eating too many fish”?
I must again point out that various offices have different articles and somewhat different statements on the campaigns, in this case Norwegian whaling.
Anne,
“Between them Japan, Iceland and Norway are killing around 2,000 whales a year – in the name of spurious science”
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/oceans/oceans.cfm?ucidparam=20060614162704
Also mentioned here in asking you what you thought about it personally ..
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001423.html#comments
So are you saying that all GP´s sites not being updated for ages justifies GP misinforming the public worldwide?
I assume ( correct me if I am wrong ) that the whaling information on GP websites worldwide comes from Remi and Frizell, as they are GP´s “experts” on whaling and have observer status at the IWC – so don´t you think it is about time that Remi and Frizell sent a memo to all GP offices noting that Norway does not have a scientific whale hunt since 1993 and in fact, has been hunting minkies commercially since 1993?
( for your information, Norway had a hunt under Sc permit between I believe 1987 and 1992 approx.)
Does in fact this misinformation come from GP “experts”? and if so, why do they not correct it?
Hi anne, posted a reply with two links which has been held by the forum software – I assume it will be cleared by jennifer at some point …
but if you go to the June 14, 2006
International Whaling Commission Meeting Starts Friday in The West Indies thread,
you can find the link in a post where I replied to you in the thread
Hi George,
I checked out the article. To me it seems like it is pure negligence to mention Norway together with Japan and Iceland conducting ” scientific” whaling.
It might be explained by that an unexperienced media officer, has composed the article.
I have not seen this disinformation on ANY other GP office’s site. Greenpeace have ZERO to win calling Norwegian whaling “scientific”.
Why they haven’t corrected this? Frankly no idea.
Well anne,
It seems to be all too common on other GP sites .. the first I looked at after your reply was GP austria and noticed this :
” Mit seinem Forschungsprogramm JAPRA II will Japan in Zukunft jährlich 935 Zwergwale und 50 der extrem gefährdeten und geschützten Buckel- und Finnwale jagen”
“extrem gefährdeten ” means extremely endangered and protected humpback and fin whales …. extremely endangered??
Don´t you think this is a misrepresentation of the status of antartic humbacks and fin whales???
Here is a paragraph from the GP New zealand site on Norwegian whaling under the heading Norway( the second I looked at )
“In the last year of the whaling campaign we’ve seen a definite escalation of effort and resources by the whalers – they are not content with the status quo (i.e. the killing of 1,000 whales each year under the ‘scientific’ and objection loopholes) anymore than we are, but are seeking a return to whaling of the scale which so devastated whale populations in the past.”
One more mention of the “scientific loophole”. though at least they mention objection – do they mean Japan in the norway section or are they simply making another mistake??
Third one I looked at GP australia´s website
“An independent panel of international legal experts commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare has found that the ‘scientific’ whaling conducted by some members of the IWC (Japan, Norway and Iceland) violates the moratorium on commercial whaling, and that such whaling is “unlawful”.”
Anne, if I can find this on the first three I look at, need I look at more?? I don´t think so – there seems to be a deliberate misinformation on GP Websites worldwide –
Either that or they recieve their information from GP international from GP “experts ” on the subject …
Do you wonder why I am critical of GP ?
Anne,
and here´s a quote from the GP international website :
“Greenpeace has documented tons of frozen blubber, each block carefully wrapped and labelled in Japanese, stored in Norwegian industrial freezers, waiting for export”
enough of this … I have better things to do anne …
George, the guys who really have any clue about Norwegian whaling are the Norwegian Greenpeacers, and they even don’t upgrade their site on whaling.
Hey , there ain’t even such a thing as a Norwegian whales campaigner in the Nordic office anymore. Everyone is into pirate fishing.
I asked John Frizell a couple of week ago if Norwegian whaling still was subsidised by the Government. No , he stated. But when I asked a former Norwegian whales campaigner on this issue , he said ” sure it is”, it’s subsidised by regional funds.
Thanks for confirming that the organisation you support has pretty much no clue on Norwegian whaling anne,
but if they have no clue on Norwegian whaling, then why should anyone believe / trust they have a clue on Japanese or icelandic whaling either? ……
See where this is going ? … anyway, enough anne … we know that the GP whaling “experts” are misinformed and misinform the public via GP websites worldwide…..
I need to get some work done 😉
George,
What I meant with my last statement is that maybe we don’t know the whole thruth about Norwegian whaling, is it subsidised , or not? According to High North Alliance and the Gov’t this is not the case anymore .
Do Norwegian whalers recieve money direct from the goverment to go whaling ? No
Do Norwegian whalers recieve money direct from the Kommune(n) to go whaling ? No
Do Norwegian whalers recieve money direct from the fylke to go whaling ? No
Do they recieve cheaper boat diesel? Yes – like all other boat owners that use marine diesel.
Each whaling boat is a private business anne, usually a family business – each has a concession .. there are no new consessions issued.
Do Companies like Ellingson who process and sell whale meat get subsidies? no idea – why don´t you ask them? …
But I can assure you that the whalers ( the owners of the whaling boats and their crews ) do not. In fact, they have to fork out quite large sums of money out of their own pockets in order to be able to go whaling in order to conform to governmental regulations. Perhaps if Rune Frovik of HNA is still around the forum and reads this thread, he can confirm this.
Whaling in Norway and Whaling in Japan are two totally different kettles of fish anne….
” Maybe we don´t know the whole truth ” anne? Who´s we? Greenpeace or you? and if it´s Greenpeace ( and it is plain to see they know little about norwegian whaling judging by their “experts” and websites )why don´t they actually find out the facts instead of publishing a whole load of crap?
So if the HNA and the norwegian government say there are no subsidies, you do not believe them?
Who will you believe anne?
Hi George,
Sure(?) that neither Remi nor Frizell are responsible for GP websites. Actually, don’t know if Remi is still actively involved in GPI.
The website misinformation and lack of updating of the sites is very unfortunate that MANY GP supporters have noticed and reminded.
And simply put , Norwegian whaling is no issue right now, maybe if the quotas rise even more to premoratorium levels(1800) minkes, it will be in focus one more time…Icelandic whaling is as well not in focus…the quota this year is about 50 or 60 minkes, GP see this as a victory.
Who to trust? Haha,,,but just only some years ago the files that mentioned that the Government funded some organisations as IWMC were branded secret, and were released after Greenpeace and Naturvernförbundet had succeeded in to get a court order to look at them.
I know you like to kick around GP folks and complain about their misinformations but the prowhaling camp have at least equal misinformations, such as the ” the whales eat too many fish”, ” if we don’t cull minkes and seals they will cause havoc in the ecosystem” , “increased whaling is needed to save fish stocks” etc, etc…
Ann,
Those last three statements that you make are ones that I don’t personally believe the sustainable use proponents are making (we’ve had that discussion before).
I believe that those statements are Greenpeace misinterpretations and manipulations.
So anne,
You say that neither Remi or Frizell are responsible for GP websites – but as GP Whaling “experts” they are responsible for GP whaling campaign information ( or not? ) – or do the individual offices just make it up as they go along??
Simply put anne, Norwegian whaling has gone on regardless of any greenpeace actions or campaigns and continues each year – Greenpeace has had ZERO effect upon it – I suspect that the large fines and confistication of equipment ( zodiacs etc ) inflicted upon GP has due to their actions in Norway had an effect on their so called “victory” there. ( it other words, it was getting rather expensive )
Current quota is a 2/3rds of premoratorium levels anne, so I guess the taking of 600 to 700 minkies a year by norway ( current take ) is a victory for Greenpeace? give me a break… Norway takes approx 3/4 of the number of minkies that the Japanese do in the southern ocean and thats a victory for greenpeace? what are you guys smoking? can I have some? ;op
RE: misinformation anne,
Greenpeace paint themselves as the guardians of our environment anne and as such, have a moral and ethical responsiblity to be completely above board and transparent – and as they take the moral high ground, they have a responsiblity to disseminate factual information on any or all of their campaigns – including whaling.
As we see however, they fit none of the above – at least on the whaling question – they disseminate false information, they are most certainly not transparent and their ethics on the whaling question are dubious to say the least.
Anne, you seem to think I like ” kicking around ” GP folks – not at all – I´m critical of many NGO´s policies on various subjects / campaigns – I´m as concerned about the environment as you are – however, the 10% or so of my income that goes to charity goes directly to projects I approve of.
Who to trust anne? I find it amazing that you trust GP on their whaling campaign
Dear David,
You seem to see just what you want to see..
Yes, I recall we have had this discussion before and that you were rude to Peter Corkeron and his article in National Geographics.
I have many documents in Norwegian and on parliament sessions on whaling , where politicians state that increased whaling quotas are needed because whales pose a threat to fish stocks…
Here’s an article direct from the horse’s mouth as you have expressed yourself:
Norway’s Parliament called on Tuesday(2004) for a three-fold increase in whale hunting quotas in a move it said would protect cod stocks and other fish eaten by the gigant mammals:
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/world/article793337.ece
Anne,
Regarding Remi Parmentier, he ( officially anyway ) seems to no longer be involved with GP – he is now director of the Vardo Group consultancy.He was formerly Political Director of Greenpeace International.
What I find particularly distasteful is the disclaimer used on the GP Int website regarding an article by Remi on icelandic whaling published between 25th Sept and 9th October 2003
“The views expressed in this article are Rémi’s; they do not necessarily reflect all aspects of Greenpeace’s current policy.”
If the guy was political director and worked for GP for 27 years until recently, why do they find the need to distance themselves from any article published on the GP Int website?
They trusted him for 27 years and now that he has left, his opinions are his own? …
When exactly did he leave GP Internationals employ?
One last comment anne,
Remi Parmentier is still a special advisor to GP International according to the internet sources I have read. I assume that GP hires his consultancy services from the Vardo group.
Hi George,
You still continue to use strong words as “distasteful” regarding GP or GPI. Are you sure this is not just about ” kicking some GP a**es?”
And regarding Greenpeacers , we are not just hippies or a rebel crew drinking beer on the high seas! LOL!
So what’s wrong with this GPI disclaimer? Remi probably just was a ” guest writer”. Jennifer has the same disclaimer for her ” guest posts”.
Regarding Remi he still works with/for Greenpeace as far as I know…
Anne, This is my last post on this thread – I simply do not have any more time to waste on this discussion
You said a few posts ago :
” Actually, don’t know if Remi is still actively involved in GPI.”
Last post you say :
” Regarding Remi he still works with/for Greenpeace as far as I know…”
Which is it?
and if he still does, then his blog stating :
” ” With a simple majority the Japanese can:
Promote a resolution endorsing Japan’s and Norway’s “scientific whaling” programmes ” ”
is pretty much ridiculous seeing as he is / was GP Int´s political director – or?
Anne, Remi works / worked for GPI – an employee responsible for the political direction of GPI .. Guest writers to Jennifers blog are guest writers, not political directors of a multi million dollar NGO – can you see the difference between them?
If you are a spokesperson working 27 years with a multi million dollar NGO and are responsible for the political direction of that NGO anne, you would expect to have the backing of that NGO – especially on an article on that NGO´s website – However, GPI does not back him up regarding that article anne – they specifically distance themselves from the words/opinion of their current / former political director in that article … and that I find distasteful – do you see the difference between the weight of the words/ opinions of the political director of GPI and the weight of the words/opinions of a guest post on this forum anne?
I surely hope so…
OK George, David,
Even if I enjoy discussing whaling with you , I also found it emotionally draining, I need to recharge my batteries, it will probably take some time…
Hi George,
=Since 1993, ONE – only one Norwegian whaling boat took ONE minkie over it´s quota – the boat was fined a large amount of money for breaking the rules…
>Hmmn, even though I am new on this thread, I have watched, studied many of the articles posted here and I must confess your views seem to be of a confused, notorious whaler that have been discomfited off his beloved trade now seeking vengeance under the spirit of “I know it all”….look my friend, I am not trying to pick on you… whether you disagree with or agree with anyone here nobody is interested. And trust me on this one, your views here are solely yours allow others to air their views distinctly, and succintly, the day you realise that your views are nothing to many silent watchers and even visible watchers, may be you will learn to let others be.
>As to your above stated views could you please supply the source of this statement.Or should we assumed that you know it all again perhaps you were with the whalers then to know the detailed reports of their daily hunting catches! Indeed, George knows a lot of……!
It is either “brilliant George” is correcting one person and dissing the other, at least some writers have been quoting from some sources and even providing the url links to their arguments just to substantiate their points, these we all know is happening, listen Chief…nobody is here to change anybody’s view here, permit me to tell you this straight off…You have not in anyway with your rhetorics appeal to my concsience ’cause most of your argements here are just too ambiguous to be understood. To help you, just tune into useful links regarding the hotly debated topics; “Whale-Watching and Commercial Whaling” then juxtapose their advantages and disadvantages may be you can come out to be a better analyst.
Strictly I am not against whaling but believe me I am strictly against human actions lacking decorum. Do you think if other silent or dormant whaling nations resume back to this trade just like what Norway, Iceland, Russia and Japan had planned to do, that the whales still have a chance of survival you just wait for the next 20 years ( I pray for life), definitely you will be singing another nursery rhymes then no doubt! Thanks!
Yes yes,
Just to add a little of my contributions here, Japan are fond of laying claim to the fact that they are doing developing nations a favour by hunting more whales since cetaceans are fond of depleting the number of fishes in the ocean on a very great and perhaps, according to them threatening level. Whalers say that whaling is an essential condition for the successful operation of commercial fisheries, and thus the plentiful availability of food from the sea that consumers have become accustomed to. This argument is made particularly forcefully in Atlantic fisheries, for example the cod-capelin system in the Barents Sea. A minke whale’s annual diet consists of 10 kilograms of fish per kilogram of body mass (Sigurjonsson and Vikingsson, 1997), which puts a heavy predatory pressure on commercial species of fish. Thus, whalers say that an annual cull of whales is needed in order for adequate amounts of fish to be available for humans. Anti-whaling campaigners say that the pro-whaling argument is inconsistent: If the catch of whales is small enough not to negatively affect whale stocks, it is also too small to positively affect fish stocks. To make more fish available, they say, more whales will have to be killed, putting populations at risk. Additionally, often whale feeding grounds and commercial fisheries do not overlap. But let’s wait for this brilliant arguement regarding the views of Professor Daniel Pauly, Director of the Fisheries Center at the University of British Columbia,When he granted an interview with the BBC; “The bottom line is that humans and marine mammals can co-exist. There’s no need to wage war on them in order to have fish to catch. And there’s certainly no cause to blame them for the collapse of the fisheries. It’s really cynical and irresponsible for Japan to claim that the developing countries would benefit from a cull of marine mammals. It’s the rich countries that are sucking the fish out of the poor countries’ own seas.” The facts are their for all to see, whales have a future except we all agree to this the future of these giants of the deep is bleak and will continue to be. Thanks!
>As to your above stated views could you please supply the source of this statement.
” In 1994 there was an incident where one whaling vessel exceeded its individual quota by one minke whale. The total quota set for that year was, however, not overfished. The owner of the vessel was taken to court and ordered to pay a fee of NOK 10.000 (app CHF 2.500). Furthermore the owner is barred from whale hunting for 3 years (in effect 5 years as he was not allowed to participate in the whale hunting until the court had finished its proceedings).”
Source :
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of flora and fauna (CITES)
Tenth meeting of Conference of the Parties, Zimbabwe, 9 – 20 June 1997
“Whale-Watching and Commercial Whaling”
Source : CRREP57.pdf ( IWC Ulsan Korea )
12.2 Commission discussions and action arising Japan noted that IWC was established for the conservation and sustainable use of whale stocks and the sound development of the whaling industry. It therefore viewed whalewatching as being outside the competence of IWC and urged that the limited resources be used on what it considers to be the primary functions of the organisation. Norway noted that its experience is that there is no conflict between whalewatching and commercial whaling, one reason being that these two activities mainly target different species. Unlike sperm, right, gray and humpback whales and some dolphins such as killer whales, Norway noted that minke whales are not well suited to whalewatching as they are difficult to see even if in high numbers near whalewatching vessels. It also indicated that both activities require whale stocks to be well above the maximum sustainable yield level for them to be profitable. Brazil saw clear conflict between whalewatching and whaling if done on the same species, and was surprised that Norway did not consider minke whales to be a suitable target for whalewatching as this is not the case in the Southern Hemisphere. Australia agreed. The UK thanked the Scientific Committee for its work. It believed the proper regulation of whalewatching to be of considerable importance and whalewatching to be the only way to use whale resources sustainably. The Commission noted the report of the Scientific Committee and endorsed its recommendations. WHALEWATCHING IN NEW ZEALAND AND GENERAL COMMENTS ON WHALEWATCHING New Zealand, who believes firmly that whalewatching is within IWC’s competence, introduced a recent IFAW report (May 2005) titled ‘The Growth of the New Zealand Whale Watching Industry’. Among the report’s conclusions were the following: (a) the whalewatching industry continues to make a significant contribution to New Zealand’s economy, with expenditure on whalewatching tourism in 2004 totalling almost $NZ 120 million; (b) since the previous assessment in 1998, whalewatching tourism continues to expand and is growing faster than the overall rate of tourism in New Zealand and at a rate that would appear to place it among the fastest industry growth sectors in New Zealand; (c) a significant portion of whale and dolphin watching takes place in the peak tourist season, but in some regions, the industry does help to extend the season outside of the peak months; (d) many communities involved in whalewatching are outside the major economic centres of New Zealand and continues to provide an alternative and growing source of income in these areas; and (e) there is potential for more growth as land-based whalewatching appears to be in its infancy. It reported that whalewatching is also an expanding activity in other parts of the South Pacific such as Tonga, New Caledonia, French Polynesia and Nuie. Finally it reported that an assessment in 2001 estimated that by 2000, whalewatching had become a $US 1 billion industry attracting more than 9 million participants in 87 countries and territories around the world. Iceland noted that whalewatching, including minke whale watching, forms part of its tourism and is a growing activity. In its view, whalewatching and commercial whaling can and do co-exist. As mentioned earlier by Norway, both activities require healthy and abundant whale stocks, thus sustainable whaling is not a problem for whalewatching. Japan clarified its earlier remark regarding its reasons for believing whalewatching to be outside the mandate of IWC by referring to Convention Article I.2 which indicates that the ‘Convention applies to factory ships, land stations and whale catchers under the jurisdiction of the Contracting Governments and to all waters in which whaling is prosecuted by such factory ships, land stations and whale catchers’. Whalewatching vessels are not mentioned. Mauritania noted that IWC is not a body for tourism and had other more important matters to attend. to than whalewatching. The Republic of Guinea did not condemn nations wishing to promote whalewatching, but did condemn the position where whalewatching is promoted at the expense of sustainable consumptive use. Senegal and Cameroon made similar remarks. Australia considered that the claim that there is no competition between whalewatching and whaling to be an untested assumption that should be tested. It noted that as the RMP is designed to allow whaling to below natural levels of abundance, this would reduce the numbers of whales available for whalewatching. With respect to Japan’s comments on competency, Australia believed that there is an interesting discussion to be had at some point on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Dominica indicated that although it believes whalewatching to be outside the competency of IWC, it subscribes to whalewatching and to the consumptive use of whales and agreed that the two activities can co-exist. However, it disagreed with Australia’s views on competition. While it acknowledged that as soon as there is more than one user of a resource, competition between users will follow, it suggested that the issue is how managers of the resource allow for such competition to be minimised to the extent that both can co-exist in a manner that is sustainable for both whalewatching and whaling. The Republic of Korea reported that national demand for whalewatching is increasing but that the activity is not yet industrialised. The Government has encouraged and supported the activity, but no economic benefits have yet been seen. Given the importance of Korea’s fishing industry, it saw whalewatching as an activity that should co-exist with others. Chile reported that it has reliable information on 11 different species along its 5,000 km coast and that it is trying to develop a whalewatching industry in the same way as is being done by other countries such as Brazil, Argentina and New Zealand. It considered whalewatching to be an environmentally-friendly activity that would become an important future activity of IWC. Ireland recalled that it supports subsistence whaling but that it has difficulty with the taking of whales from stocks not shown to be robust. It therefore believes that whalewatching is an alternative way of developing the economic and social aspects of coastal communities. In its view, the IFAW report indicated strongly that whalewatching is an important economic tool to exploit and believed that this is a powerful message to those countries currently involved in whaling that there is an alternative. Ireland reported that it had distributed DVDs on whalewatching activities in Ireland, noting that one of its characteristics is that as the activity is land-based, there is no disturbance to the animals. Spain acknowledged that although it was still a whaling nation in 1982, it had voted for adoption of the moratorium on commercial whaling. It reported that it has a whalewatching industry that each year is attracting an increasing number of people from both inside and outside Spain. Germany associated itself with the remarks of New Zealand, Australia, Chile, Ireland and Spain, believing that whalewatching is a good example of non-lethal sustainable use. It too considered whalewatching to be within IWC’s competence. Mexico and Argentina made similar remarks.
>Do you think if other silent or dormant whaling nations resume back to this trade just like what Norway, Iceland, Russia and Japan had planned to do, that the whales still have a chance of survival
Back to work …
If you wish any further discussion, real name ..
Despite it being a hypothetical question (who do you seriously think would rejoin the whaling nations?), yes.
The IWC has a highly conservative management procedure, and even if there was some level of illegal whaling it would be very unlikely to threaten stocks with extinction. Furthermore, the management procedure would reduce catches quickly if new abundance estimates showed unexpected decreases.
Japan is the only nation remotely interested in allowing it’s people to harvesting whales in the Antarctic today for commercial means.
On “whales depleting fish”: As whale populations increase, it’s common sense that their influence in the ecosystem as a whole is likely to increase – and this may not be of benefit to human populations if we were to decide that whales are not for eating. We may limit the net food available from the ocean by such a decision. Japan doesn’t have that issue of course, as they generally have no aversion to eating whales.
> whalers say that an annual cull of whales is needed
Of course, whalers actually want to sell the whale meat for profit. it’s ridiculous to talk about a cull of whales when Japan (and others) are potential markets for whale meat. 220,000 tonnes of whale meat was consumed in Japan in a single year back in the 60’s. Today consumption (restricted by supply over many years) is only 5,000 tonnes or so. Lots of potential for growth in whale meat consumption – the other upside is that were people to eat more whale meat products, human tuna demand and consumption might fall away, as tuna prices are rising at the moment, and as we know many stocks are not at their most productive levels:
http://www.oprt.or.jp/eng/e_news_060616.html
Of course, reduced tuna demand wouldn’t be good for Australia, who wishes to sell their product to the Japanese market.
> Anti-whaling campaigners say that the pro-whaling argument is inconsistent: If the catch of whales is small enough not to negatively affect whale stocks, it is also too small to positively affect fish stocks.
That doesn’t make much sense, does it. I suppose it is because the anti-whaling groups wish everyone to believe that whales are endangered, and refuse to recognise the healthy status of various stocks.
The idea with no whaling is that you get:
– whales at their carrying capacity in the ecosystem, and consuming lots of marine resources
– no whale meat for humans
– perhaps less fish available for humans than might otherwise be the case due to the large role of whales in the ecosystem (FOOD HERE)
The idea with whaling is that you get:
– whales below their carrying capacity, being harvested at (ideally) the maximum productive level (maybe 70% of their natural levels)
– whale meat for humans (FOOD HERE)
– perhaps *more* fish available for humans than might otherwise be the case due to the lower dominance of whales in the ecosystem. (FOOD+ HERE)
Looking at such ideas is one of the goals of Japan’s research.
Of course, humans must take actions to restore fish stocks to more productive levels, as well. Interesting that Australia was happy to implement and maintain a moratorium on all whaling in the interests of “conservation”, but is not prepared to do so in the case of threatened fisheries where Australia is still active. Interesting view of what “conservation” means, don’t you think?
> To make more fish available, they say, more whales will have to be killed, putting populations at risk.
Killing whales does not put populations at risk.
Killing whales at unsustainable rates puts populations at risk.
This difference needs to be recognised by the anti-whaling groups – it’s a scientifically recognised fact that it is possible to take a sustainable harvest from healthy whale stocks.
> Additionally, often whale feeding grounds and commercial fisheries do not overlap.
Right, like in the Antarctic.
There there argument is:
– we have krill
– we have whales
Humans don’t eat much krill at all, but by utilising whales, humans can actually tap into that krill resource indirectly and benefit from it. Again, Japan is one nation that is a potential market for such food.
By wise use of such resources, we can hopefully reduce pressure on other resources, and see conservation benefits for our future generations.
> “The bottom line is that humans and marine mammals can co-exist. There’s no need to wage war on them in order to have fish to catch.
Of course – I agree. I think it’s silly that anti-whaling people think whalers are saying otherwise. It’s a shame that extremist anti-whaling people seem unable to honestly listen to and interpret the arguments of their counterparts in the whaling camp.
I mean, let’s appeal to common sense for a second:
Without whales, what on earth are the whalers going to catch to make money?
Yet despite this, anti-whaling people still tell us that whalers interests are to kill all the whales.
???
Huh???
> And there’s certainly no cause to blame them for the collapse of the fisheries.
Indeed. So it’s interesting to note that that is how the anti-whaling groups have tried to interpret the whaling nations’ talk of ecosystem approaches in this way, despite whales are considered a part of the wealth of the oceans to be benefited from by humans, rather than something we *share* the wealth of the oceans with, as seems to be believed by some people and scientists, including one who sometimes posts comment on this blog.
Again – very important to note that whaling nations see whales as a part of the marine resources to be exploited by humans as food. Not JUST as competitors for fisheries, as the anti-whaling groups tell their donors.
> The facts are their for all to see, whales have a future except we all agree to this the future of these giants of the deep is bleak and will continue to be.
That’s a statement I can’t fathom at all.
Humpbacks were protected in the Southern Hemisphere back in 1963, 43 years ago, when numbers dwindled. Yet today recent IWC estimates put the species at more than 40,000 in the Southern Hemisphere, and in some case still increasingly rapidly towards pre-whaling abundance.
Do you not recognise this and other successes in whale conservation?
Ann,
I don’t believe I was particularly rude to Peter. Those comments were attributed to him, I found them to be very *interesting* – of course, he is welcome to his opinion.
At the end of the day, he is a scientist but his view of whales as something that we humans should share the world’s marine resources with is something that isn’t a scientific view, it’s just an opinion.
I don’t feel insulted that he disagrees with my view, so I don’t see why he should be insulted that I disagree with his.
G-E-O-R-G-E,
Interesting to know that you can really come down to this level of revealing where you get your hmn..hmmn…f-a-c-t-s from. Well, I have taken time to go through your source, and my humble suggestion to you is; respect the views of these NGOs and don’t be like another carbon copy of yours (david@tokyo) who once boasted he knows more than many of those NGOs employees.
Well George my friend, there is no need to shout on top of your voice that Commercial Whaling is good, bla bla bla nad all that or Whale Watching is weak at least from the source you quoted above it is crystal clear that whale-watching is still more better, economical, enterprising,benefitting than Commercial Whaling.
So keep it up with your I don’t see anything wrong in wasting whales, if you still cares consider these:
Extinct: Grey Whale
(American Atlantic population)
(around 1700 AD)
Grey Whale
(European population)
(in Palaeolithic times)
Lower Risk
(Near Threatened): Minke Whale, if you care for the source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling
I will wait for your response!
Sunshine, you are not my friend, no name, no discussion – bye bye now …
( Wikipedia for gods sake !! LOL )
“De Watcher” –
NGO groups find little respect for their views amongst I and others because they clearly misrepresent and misquote information, repeatedly, and incessantly.
One example for you: the IWC Scientific Committee JARPA review in 1997.
Greenpeace, IFAW and so on selectively quote the words “not required for management” from the review.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Greenpeace+%22not+required+for+management%22&btnG=Search
Using these 4 words quoted out of context, they inform their potential donors that the JARPA research programme is a front for commercial whaling.
Reading the review details in their entirety gives quite the opposite picture:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm#recent
“…while JARPA results were not required for management under the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), they had the potential to improve it in the following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios considered in RMP Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure). The results of analyses of JARPA might allow an increased allowed catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere without increasing the depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing Implementation Simulation Trials for these minke whales.”
Elsewhere:
http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=359915
“Greg Donovan, editor of the IWC’s research journal, says that scientific opinion about the legitimacy of Japan’s research programme is split, although there is agreement that it has led to a “substantial improvement in knowledge.” ”
Considering that you are “strictly against human actions lacking decorum”, I’m sure you can look at this example of misrepresentation of reality by the NGO groups and understand why people feel that they are untrustworthy and counter-productive to true conservation efforts.
Given that you purport to be new here, I’m sure you will be willing to illustrate your credibility by acknowledging the clearly devious nature of such misquoting by anti-whaling NGO groups that I have outlined above.
According to local paper , Lofotsposten, in the middle of whaling country, the whaling season is over in Norway.
The self-allocated quota was 1052 minkes , 443 were to be hunted in notorious Jan Mayen zone, but none was killed in this bad weather area.
The rest of the 609 minkes were allowed to be hunted in the EEZ and 521 minkes were killed.
The hunting season is over. Even if some whalers had asked for an extension of the season, the market has no demand for more whale meat, stated Norwegian Råfisklaget( Association for fishermen and whalers).
http://www.lofotposten.no/lokale_nyheter/article2241060.ece
The bad whaling quotas were blamed on bad weather conditions and high fuel expenditures.
521 whales seems roughly the same amount of whales killed every other year, nothwithstanding the fact that they were permitted to kill more.
Of course, we actually know that whalers will go out of their way to over-exploit and cheat the system, and commercial whaling will “spiral out of control” (as stated by John Frizell, HSI, and even the Australian government) ultimately driving “whales” to extinction.
Or then again, perhaps such talk is just a (quote Greenpeace) “ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID” from our friends at fundraising headquarters?
🙂
David,
If I were you I would be very careful to critize Greenpeace …. think just what nonsense you post on your blog sometimes. Do you remember this excerpt from the Democrat?
“…there are thousands of killer whales and like killer sharks can become a physical threat ( see article on killer whales inside) to our fishermen and their boats”.
Hard to beat…
Ann,
I don’t agree with every word of everything I reproduce on my blog. The basic gist of the article that you refer to
(http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/iwc-2006-st-kitts-and-nevis-pam.html)
is that scientifically based use of marine resources is desirable, and that’s why I posted it, not for the characterisation of killer whales as a physical threat to fishermen.
On the other hand, it was Greenpeace themselves who spoke of “ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID”s in their mistakenly released press statement. This was their own statement – not something they reproduced but didn’t necessarily agree with every word of.
I’m not really very scared of criticising Greenpeace for this at all. I don’t really understand why you think I should be careful. I guess I will keep mentioning this in other places on the net. The search engines will be full of it by the end of the year.
George,
Minkes are classified as near threatened according to IUCN Red List definitions,
Well, to participate in whaling threads and discussions certainly ain’t about popularity contests!
Anne,
I would imagine that most of the folk with any serious interest in the whaling debate know how the IUCN red list classify minkies – I simply found it hilarious that I was being asked to cite my sources from ´someone ´ quoting wikipedia of all sources.
By the way ann, earlier in the thread you posted this..
“”Hi Flavio,
Norway’s Whale Meat Toxic, Too
WWF reports that whale meat and blubber sampled in Norway recently were found to contain heavy metals, PCBs and pesticides.
The toxic whale meat crisis now faces Norwegian consumers as well as Japanese. Will the Norwegian government, like Japan, shirk its responsibility to protect its citizens? Will Norway put the financial health of a handful of whalers (who already make a fine living fishing most of the year) ahead of people who are consuming contaminants that cause cancer, sterility and other woes?
Twenty samples of whale meat and blubber collected in Norwegian markets in recent weeks were analyzed by scientists hired by WWF. Preliminary results show that more than 50 PCB congeners were identified, some of which are dioxin-like PCB’s. Also, 25 metals were identified in whale blubber samples, including organic mercury. In addition, several organochlorine pesticides were detected, including aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, and DDE and DDD (which are breakdown products of DDT).
Norway should not be surprised that its minke whales are contaminated. The marine mammals are subjected each summer to the chemical and radioactive soup pouring into the Barents Sea from Russia’s polluted rivers and military bases. Similar toxic exposure is faced by the whales when they winter in the North Sea and Irish Sea.
Ironically, the children, men and women of Norway may be saved from this tainted food by Gro Brundtland, the pro-whaling former Norwegian prime minister who now heads the World Health Organization. WHO is aggressively attacking tainted food. ”
First of all, this comes from an Eco publication ( remember them? ) prior to the IWC53 meeting in 2001 – it´s actually word for word.
Note that they insinuate that both the whale meat and blubber are heavily toxic … however, I cannot seem to find the actual paper that WWF published – just the media and press reports … so I looked a little bit further and instead found a more recent paper published by of all people, your very own Greenpeace in 2002.
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/evaluation-of-contaminants-in.pdf
Feel free to read through the complete paper, but to cut to the chase, here are the conclusions 😉
Conclusions:
Whale blubber is contaminated with various halogen-organic contaminants.The most conservative guidance value for tolerable intake of PCB is exceeded by consumption of only 0,05 g of the highest contaminated blubber. Even the least conservative value is exceeded by consumption of only 16 g of the blubber of the highest contamination level. Food limit values for PCB are exceeded up to 90-times.The most conservative guidance value for tolerable intake of DDT is exceeded by consumption of only 2,3 g of the highest contaminated blubber. Even the least conservative value is exceeded by consumption of 45 g of the blubber of the highest contamination level. Food limit values for DDT are exceeded 3-times (WHO, FDAvalue) to 333-times (EU-value for fat). The contaminations in whale meat (only data for CPs and PBDE) do not exceed guidance values for tolerable intake. These values are also not exceeded by CPs or PBDE in blubber
Hmmmmm .. ” The contaminations in whale meat (only data for CPs and PBDE) do not exceed guidance values for tolerable intake. ”
looks conclusive to me ann, what do you think?
Just for the sake of fairness though, I´ll compare the Greenpeace results in 2002 to the WWF results in 2001 ( that is, if the paper actually is available )
Note however, that in 2003, Norway itself issued a warning .. ” “Our advice is that pregnant women and mothers who are breast feeding should not eat whale meat,” Janneche Utne Skaare, deputy director of the National Veterinary Institute” as well as
” The tests showed that whale meat contained an average 0.25 microgram of mercury per kilo (2.2 lbs) and ranged from 0.01 micrograms to 0.80. A microgram is a millionth of a gram (0.03527 ounce).
Levels were highest in the North Sea and lowest in the Arctic Barents Sea. For fish, Norway has considered 0.50 micrograms of mercury as a safe limit.”
Interesting, Norways results as to where the most toxic samples are found are completely the opposite from WWF going by these two statements -Norway says the North sea samples are the most polluted and WWF says that ” Norway should not be surprised that its minke whales are contaminated. The marine mammals are subjected each summer to the chemical and radioactive soup pouring into the Barents Sea from Russia’s polluted rivers and military bases.”
Who to believe ann? It seems like Greenpeace are not the only NGO to use the “ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID” when it suits them …
Hi George,
Today I wouldn’t believe in any of those studies, and I have not the stats where the most contaminated meat and blubber are to be found , is it in the North Sea or far up in the Arctic and the Barents Sea.
I have seen a study by a PhD student at the University of Stockholm on a study on whale meat blubber, meat, fish and sea bird egg contamination last year.
The conclusion was that children had developed neurological sympthoms in Faroe Islands after their mothers had consumed those sea foods, ZERO to do with NGOs and anti whaling propaganda. The contaminants were, mercury, DDT, PCB,and other POPs ( I don’t have the study right here now).
Another study from Greenland seems to show that POPs( like DDT and PCB) bioaccumulates the more north you come. The research on this subject is quite new, yes, we have known for quite a time that contaminants bioaccumulate in whales( especially killer whales blubber) but now there are also indications that humans are affected the Arctic people).
Well ann,
If you do not believe in any of these studies, why did you quote the WWF / eco press release to Flavio? Were you using an “ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID” ? ;op
If you are really interested, Look up Doreen Bloch´s PHD on Pilot whales in the Faroes and further work since then .. all good info ..I also read a paper just recently on accumulated toxins in humans in arctic areas – I´ll see if I can dig it up for you ..
here it is ann-from 2002
http://www.inchr.org/Doc/April05/HH_C07.pdf
George,
Maybe I’m just older and wiser today, anyway older…
Thanks for the info…
George,
>Sunshine, you are not my friend, no name, no discussion – bye bye now …
( Wikipedia for gods sake !! LOL )
=Oh common, lighten up, don’t be like that, you know I so much respect your views here. Tomakint, Flavio and Lamna Nasus are other fellas I enjoy reading their updates. I am only against you on one thing, “trying to lord your views on others” and that is not going to happen here! As for you wanting to know my name, I don’t know what you want to achieve with that? I don’t think it’s needed, what is paramount here on his thread is simply our coming together under one unique voice of open dialoque and balancing our anti-whaling and pro-whaling views in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion on the need for acquiring real conservation ethics.
And if I may ask you, what is that that is wrong with Wikipedia and that is not wrong with where you shop for your own info? Tell me!
I’m back aagain on the contamination issue…
In my opinion it is pretty absurb that some people wish that the whales should be as contaminated as possible , to prevent humans from consuming them…
Sure, the Norwegian export market to Japan crashed due to this reason, but it would have been better if there had been another reason than contamination…
To George, Ann, David and others,
Obviously, the Ocean remains the World’s Last Frontier and it is our collective responsibility to save it from being lost forever. To be frank, the 200-mile economic exclusive zone (EEZ)of each coastal nation represent Earth’s true last frontier – a vast, unexplored, and virtually lawless region that covers about 64 percent of the world’s oceans. Scientists (Marine Biologists)once said that, humans have only been able to explore a fragment of what the oceanlife has to offer but we all know that with the level of daily exploitations in the oceans it won’t be long before the level we now put our forest to and other land species will be the sorry state of the OCEAN LIVES.
No matter what may be the level of surveillance technique used by the Regulatory Bodies, their is little that can be done to monitor the untold destructions ocean lives is subjected to everyday by dozens or more of fleets from nations that scour the deep oceans. It is in my own candid opinion that, whatever is done to this fragile planet with no sustainability in view is nothing but a farce! Whatever may be our action now can only be judge by posterity—this is nothing but a word of caution!
Our many discussions here is just a preparation to the real issue, the real thing is acting out what we have penned down. I will imploy all in this thread to think on what is right from what is wrong when the issue of conservation is raised for discussion.
Does anyone here knows something to back up with the topics on the desalination of the oceans and its impacts, and also the acidification of the oceanlives, i found this but not enough; http://discuss.conservation.org/content/interview/detail/775/
Sorry for my typo on the EEZ, I actually meant Exclusive Economic Zones. thanks!
Tomakint:” The real thing is acting out what we have penned down”.
Right, the only way to make a difference is to go vegetarian or at least cutting down on meat and fish and not make fuzzy statements. And Toma, please spare us the talk that “God created animals for human consumption”, gays are animals and abortion is murder etc. You have made those statements at the Greenpeace forum…
Hi again Tomakint,
Sorry for bitching but
You have copied Dr.Earle’s statements on high seas bottom trawling in your post on a whaling thread…. unfortunately I don’t follow you in this case, can you maybe explain your train of thoughts?
For your information the EU countries , especially Spain are the main bottom trawling countries, New Zealand and Australia as well as Japan, Iceland and Norway are bottom trawling on the high seas( the territories outside the EEZ)
Ann,
> “God created animals for human consumption”, gays are animals and abortion is murder.
Yeah you have a point here Ann, but can you change me from what I already believe in? What I feel is morally wrong may not appear that way to you and the same goes with what is morally right. Hence, my statement then. I hope you realise it’s my personal opinion.
What I believe in is most important to me ’cause the way I relate with my fellow human beings will actually determine the level of my belief in what I lay claim to. Everybody have his or her own life to live just consider the issue we brainstorm here on daily. Killing whales means nothing to some people while killing these same species mean a lot to some people on the other hand some don’t even know what to support hence, they are neutral. Like I use to say; “I can only take my horse to the river, but can’t force my horse to drink water” it’s a matter of concsience, ethics, and mannerism.
In Africa, logging is as popular (or do I say notorious) a trade as whaling in Europe and Asia, yet the major culprits (Commercial logging and Slash and burn agriculture) is still being practiced on a dangerous scale. I wish to bring my own idea about all what I know about what is not sustainable to the fore and see how to effect a positive change through that. Thanks!
Ann,
> “God created animals for human consumption”, gays are animals and abortion is murder.
Yeah you have a point here Ann, but can you change me from what I already believe in? What I feel is morally wrong may not appear that way to you and the same goes with what is morally right. Hence, my statement then. I hope you realise it’s my personal opinion.
What I believe in is most important to me ’cause the way I relate with my fellow human beings will actually determine the level of my belief in what I lay claim to. Everybody have his or her own life to live just consider the issue we brainstorm here on daily. Killing whales means nothing to some people while killing these same species mean a lot to some people on the other hand some don’t even know what to support hence, they are neutral. Like I use to say; “I can only take my horse to the river, but can’t force my horse to drink water” it’s a matter of concsience, ethics, and mannerism.
In Africa, logging is as popular (or do I say notorious) a trade as whaling in Europe and Asia, yet the major culprits (Commercial logging and Slash and burn agriculture) are still being practiced on a dangerous scale. I wish to bring my own idea about all what I know about what is not sustainable to the fore and see how to effect a positive change through that. Thanks!
Ann,
> “God created animals for human consumption”, gays are animals and abortion is murder.
Yeah you have a point here Ann, but can you change me from what I already believe in? What I feel is morally wrong may not appear that way to you and the same goes with what is morally right. Hence, my statement then. I hope you realise it’s my personal opinion.
What I believe in is most important to me ’cause the way I relate with my fellow human beings will actually determine the level of my belief in what I lay claim to. Everybody have his or her own life to live just consider the issue we brainstorm here on daily. Killing whales means nothing to some people while killing these same species mean a lot to some people on the other hand some don’t even know what to support hence, they are neutral. Like I use to say; “I can only take my horse to the river, but can’t force my horse to drink water” it’s a matter of concsience, ethics, and mannerism.
In Africa, logging is as popular (or do I say notorious) a trade as whaling in Europe and Asia, yet the major culprits (Commercial logging and Slash and burn agriculture) are still being practiced on a dangerous scale. I wish to bring my own idea about all what I know about what is not sustainable to the fore and see how to effect a positive change through that. Thanks!
Hi Ann,
>You have copied Dr.Earle’s statements on high seas bottom trawling in your post on a whaling thread…
Sorry don’t seem to understand what you mean here, can you be more explicit. I guess may be you’re suggesting its wrong to speak on bottom trawling when the issue at stake is directly towards whales, may be I am wrong…can you just let me know more?
Hi Toma,
I just can’t see that whaling and high seas bottom trawling have very much in common..
Firstly, bottom trawling on the high seas takes part OUTSIDE the EEZs. Norwegian and Icelandic whaling take part (mostly) INSIDE the EEZs.
Secondly, high seas bottom trawling takes part either in RFMOs( regional fisheries management organisations) or outside such(75%). If HSBT take part outside a RFMO , there is no government oversight or regulation at all, it’s a lawless area.
In whaling we have at least the IWC and some regulation.At least in Norwegian whaling , there are the ” blue boxes”( electronical inspectors).
High seas bottom trawling is the most destructive fishing method in the world, destroying everything that comes in its way…very unselective, wiping out whole sponge communities,coral reefs etc. that is nursery grounds for juvenile fish etc, etc…. meanwhile how much we despise whaling we can at least say it is selective…
> In whaling we have at least the IWC and some regulation.
Of course, were the anti-whaling camp not so politically motivated in their desire to support the extremist “zero whaling” policy, we could have a whole lot more international regulation.
> meanwhile how much we despise whaling we can at least say it is selective…
It’s certainly very environmentally friendly.
David, Toma,
Really don’t want to make any prowhaling statements here, but some Norwegian NGOs ( with similar politics on many issues as Greenpeace) have made the comment that ” if fisheries were as well regulated and managed as whaling, there wouldn’t be any crisis in the fisheries”.
Well, this topic can of course be discussed…
I think the high profile of the whaling issue has meant that it has to be very defensible if it is ever to have a chance of reopening commercially.
From the scientific perspective, if similar criteria were applied to many fisheries as to the RMP for whales, pretty much all of them would be shut down, apparently.
From the regulatory perspective, DNA databases have been established for whale meat in both Japan and Norway, which should make it easy to detect any illegal sales.
Clearly scientifically it is possible, and in terms of regulation there would be some appropriate level of controls that would discourage illegal activities.
Ultimately today we all know that whaling restarting is mainly an issue of whether one thinks whales are suitable for harvest as food, or not. The other issues raised are just trying to make this simple argument sound more sophisticated, and to confuse the issue. Many people would not be opposed to whaling were they fully aware of the factual information about the state of whale stocks today. These floating people are the ones who both sides of the argument are trying to win over. The anti-whaling side is well financed and well organized in terms of the media. I’m trying to expose this on my blog, and get out the other side of the story, of course.
>As for you wanting to know my name, I don’t know what you want to achieve with that? I don’t think it’s needed,<
In response to a private email I have recieved asking my position on the above comment . read on
It´s quite simple, there are a number of folk who have the moral and ethical backbone to stand behind their beliefs and opinions, you can see who they are on this forum as they either use real names and or are identifiable. ( tomakint, Ann N, Peter C, David@tokyo libby, jennifer etc )
Those who use screen names and or nicknames in order to conceal their identity ( without good reason ) tend to be ( mostly anyway as far as I can see )what I can only describe as ” trolls ” who have little interest in discussing the subjects at hand, and are more usually interested in discrediting the person, rather than tackling the arguement.
I choose to discuss the subjects at hand with those who have the honesty to identify themselves with their opinions …
I hope that answers the question 😉
Hi George,
I support you in this case, especially if you just want to bitch you better use your real name…
btw, is your site still under reconstruction?
> btw, is your site still under reconstruction?<
Yes, and probably will be until October / december – I simply do not have the time to deal with it until then ann … it´s not just a case of a few adjustments. the whole thing has to be redone from scratch 🙁
David,
>It’s certainly very environmentally friendly
There you go again David, this is where I get confused easily about your arguments, tell me, prove to me, hit me with your points that says Killing of whales is environmentally friendly and I will respect you!
Tom,
Killing whales for food is “environmentally friendly” as it does not require destruction of the environment to obtain meat.
You seem to recognise this in the case of the Alaskan people (for example), who have of course been hunting whales since well before the world knew of globalization.
Harvesting nature’s surplus from the ocean does not require environmental destruction.
Toma, David,
Don’t want to make any prowhaling statements here, but it is good to know what both camps are stating regarding ” environmentally friendly whaling”. High North Alliances statement here, that I believe all NGOs in Norway support , except Greenpeace and WWF:
From an ecological standpoint, it is surely better that the Faroese, Greenlanders and Norwegians hunt whales rather than import meat from the factory farms of Europe. The sustainable, energy-efficient and non-polluting use of local renewable resources is an ecological ideal. To the whale rightist, however, the killing and eating of whales is, as we have seen, quite out of the question. They would rather recommend importing beef or pork. As for animal rightists, their ideal of vegetarianism is hardly a practical option given the climatic conditions of Greenland, the Faroes and northern Norway.
Indeed, a problem with sofa environmentalists in urban areas is that they generally have no concept of why people in different parts of the world have different food culture to them, and it’s simple because the environment in which other people developed was different to their own. Showing them pictures of the terrain where whaling communities sprouted usually seems to shut them up for a bit.
In modern times food culture has spread with the movement of people, but so long as these cultures remain sustainable (the whole point) I see no reason such cultures should only be permitted in their places of origin. It’s ridiculous to suggest so, really.
By the way, I saw that Kenyans enjoyed a feast of elephant flesh the other day. Authorities apparently came along and conviscated the tusks though.
David,
>Killing whales for food is “environmentally friendly” as it does not require destruction of the environment to obtain meat.
No no no David, Killing whales for food as practised by the Japanese, Norwegian and Icelandic Whalers is not but as practised by the Eskimos it is. The imbalances rendered could be costly, now follow my judgement; The last wolves survived in the Scottish Highlands and the legend is that the last individual was killed there in 1743 by a character called MacQueen. Of course, the resultants effect was catastrophic as hares, and other small animals were increased in their land numbers so great that they became pests rendering big destructions to the eco-system. Based on the level of the imbalances, an increasing number of influential people are calling for a wolf reintroduction to Britain so that wolves can once again live in the Scottish Highlands (eg BBC News 1999; New Scientist 2001; The Scotsman 2002). Australia was not spared we all know that when Dingoes and other predators were nearly wiped off the numbers of rabbits surged greatly to the extent that governments were determined to pay booties to hunters that can decrease their numbers through shooting. The list goes on, to me, if commercial whaling can be practised with sustainability in view then fine, let’s not forget that these practises (of unchecked killing) took centuries before it unfolds. David, with the rate of commercial whaling now, do you still think it will render sustainability on the long run?
>You seem to recognise this in the case of the Alaskan people (for example), who have of course been hunting whales since well before the world knew of globalization.
David, I have already told you my mind that the rate of killing in Alaska is quiet different and distinct from that of Japan, Norway and Iceland.
>Harvesting nature’s surplus from the ocean does not require environmental destruction.
Oh no David, there you go again, who told you Whales are in their surplus, if killing of whales (that control the number of smaller fishes)are not checked now don’t you think the population of their preys will greatly surged thereby disrupting the eco-system since their will be no enough whales to keep their populations in check? Have you considered the fact that in wildlife, Predators are always in their minority while preys are in their majority and what do you think will happen to the populations of preys if the Natural quota expected of predators are tampered with by humans? Have you considered that whales are mammals that reproduce just like humans and that they are not that prolific, unlike their preys. Fishes reproduce faster and more than whales so what will happen to these countless number of fishes if all the whales are gone (if you have an alternative let me know). Already you know the answer-IMBALANCE!
I will not advocate for a total stop to killing of whales but my stand is; let a reasonable quota (obviously not this latest quota) be taken . We can always learn from history (extinction and endangered status of lost and almost lost species)or else history will keep repeating itself. My Point!
Toma,
> David, I have already told you my mind that the rate of killing in Alaska is quiet different and distinct from that of Japan, Norway and Iceland.
The Alaskans kill more bowhead whales (> 60) than the Icelanders do abundant common minke whales ( The imbalances rendered could be costly
Under the Revised Management Procedure, quotas are almost negligible. We are not talking about massive slaughter like in the past. We are talking about very very conservative precautionary quotas that would typically start at low levels such as only 0.5% of a managed stock, and only increasing if the stock abundance continues to increase despite the harvest.
> the last individual was killed there in 1743 by
Again, if we are talking about whales, we are talking about management under the Revised Management Procedure, and as such talk of the “last individual” is a completely different ball game.
The RMP will not even allow hunting on any stock below 54% of it’s estimated carrying capacity, and over the long term a managed stock would be maintained at a level of more than 70% of it’s estimated carrying capacity.
So talk of “last individuals” in the context of modern day commercial whaling is not realistic.
The last individuals of whale stocks that are truely threatened today are threatened because of entanglement in fishing gear and boat strikes, not whaling. Whaling is only relevant where generally abundant whale stocks are concerned – antarctic minke, humpback, and fin whale stocks, north pacific Bryde’s, Sei, minke, Sperm whale stocks, and the north atlantic minke stock, and so forth, for example, but certainly not the Western Grey whale stock or the Northern Right whale, both of which are in serious danger of extinction.
> if commercial whaling can be practised with sustainability in view then fine,
Absolutely – this is what I’m talking about, and this is what the government’s who wish to allow a resumption of commercial whaling under the RMP are talking about.
> let’s not forget that these practises (of unchecked killing) took centuries before it unfolds.
No one has forgotten past mistakes at the IWC. This is precisely why the Revised Management Procedure was designed by the IWC Scientific Committee, and why even the IWC, rife with anti-whaling governments, adopted the RMP as the IWC’s official management procedure for commercial whaling.
> David, with the rate of commercial whaling now, do you still think it will render sustainability on the long run?
Norway’s commercial whaling? It’s managed using the RMP, and as such is sustainable indefinitely. The whalers aren’t even taking the full quota set.
You might like to note that the FAO observer at the IWC meeting in 1982 stated that: “Where commercial whaling is still being carried on, the catches are, by and large, within the productive capacity of the stock and should be sustainable indefinitely.” http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_fao82.html
Whaling was carrying out at levels 5 times higher than it is today when those statements were made.
Incidentally, the FAO Observer was John Gulland, one of the “committee of four” that was responsible for scientific advice leading to protection being given to various stocks of whales in the 1960’s.
> Oh no David, there you go again, who told you Whales are in their surplus,
Many whales stocks are currently increasing naturally, or are already at levels close to their carrying capacity. It is a scientific fact that such stocks can sustain a harvest of whales (nature’s surplus). This principle is the foundation of sustainable development and use of natural resources that are so important to countries such as yours.
The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling itself recognises “that the whale stocks are susceptible of natural increases if whaling is properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources”
http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm#convention
> Have you considered the fact that in wildlife, Predators are always in their minority while preys are in their majority and what do you think will happen to the populations of preys if the Natural quota expected of predators are tampered with by humans?
Ecosystem approaches to management are required precisely so that humans have a hope of understanding such consequences. I support the development of such models.
In past days of massive whale overhunting, we did not see any catastrophic consequences of this besides depletions to whale stocks, but at any rate, under the Revised Management Procedure, quotas are be extremely conservative which should ensure that impact on the ecosystem is limited.
> Have you considered that whales are mammals that reproduce just like humans and that they are not that prolific, unlike their preys.
Of course. Slower reproductivity just means that lower rates of harvest must be allowed. No one is trying to use fisheries management techniques for whales. Again, I urge you to read about the RMP.
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Management_Regimes/IWC/th-in-wh.htm
After reading this, (from Greg Donovan of the IWC Secretariat) I feel that you would likely have a much better understanding of what the pro-whaling nations are hoping for.
By the way, are you aware of the scientific fact that many whale stocks are currently increasing at rates of more than 5% each year, and as much as 10% in some cases?
Given these natural rates of increase, I hope you can agree that people talking about taking 0.5% of the estimated abundance of such stocks for human requirements is not a huge cause for concern.
> Fishes reproduce faster and more than whales so what will happen to these countless number of fishes if all the whales are gone
Whales don’t eat fish in all cases, but yes, again like I said, I support the development of ecosystem models for fisheries management.
> I will not advocate for a total stop to killing of whales but my stand is; let a reasonable quota (obviously not this latest quota) be taken .
Great – at least we are both talking about “reasonable” quotas now.
Having agreed to this, what are the scientific criteria that you personally would use to decide whether a quota is “reasonable” or not? How do we define “reasonable”? What are the terms on which we should define this? I’ll let you share your ideas with me first, before giving you mine. This last point here is really the crux of the discussion. I hope we can focus our further discussions on a definition of “reasonable”.
My comment seemed to be corrupted.
-> The Alaskans kill more bowhead whales (more than 60) than the Icelanders do abundant common minke whales (less than 40).
I was confused as to how you could think the Alaskan hunt was environmentally OK, but the Iceland hunt not.
The Scotsman has made these comments on the slow Norwegian whaling season:
“Opponents of the hunt said the 2006 shortfall indicated Norwegians were losing their taste for meat despite internet based campaigns with recipes including whale wok, whale burgers and whale pasta.
” People don’t want to eat whale meat anymore and it’s role as a nationalistic food is fading” said Truls Gulowsen, Greenpeace Norway.
Norwegian Fiskaren has cited the Scotsman but continues: ” On a political level there are discussions to reopen the Japanese market. We hope to find a solution soon, states a spokesman for the Whalers’s and Fishermen’s Association.
The spokesman agrees there is no demand for whale meat during the autumn because the meat is too fat.
My Norwegian is quite fluent but I don’t know how to interpret the following comment. Maybe George can help out?
Re: the poor quality meat. ” Slikt kjött selges kun innad i Norge”. Does it mean that the poor quality meat is sold for animal feed production???
Norwegian Fiskaren URL:
http://www.fiskaren.no/incoming/article114154.ece
The Scotsman article:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1216682006
Interesting that they think there is an export market in Japan. After all, all the green groups tell us there is no demand in Japan.
Worth to notice is the comment by the whale meat factory Ellingsens two(?) years ago.
The spokesman commented the new whale meat products that were introduced into the market and was 100% sure that they would become a success and made the following comment:” If the products will not become a success I will close down my whale meat processing factory”.
Regarding Icelandic whaling , personally I don’t want to make a too big affair of their 60 minke whale quota…. and I’m not personally too keen on protesting against such a small and independant country.
Icelandic magazine Icelandic Review that is usually anti whaling made a statement some weeks ago,” Mr and Mrs Greenpeace should not tell Iceland what to do or not”… they had also some quite funny comments about the burger bar that now obviously stands in front of Hvalur, the old commercial whaling (ghost) whaling fleet…
> ” If the products will not become a success I will close down my whale meat processing factory”.
Is he still operating?
> Regarding Icelandic whaling , personally I don’t want to make a too big affair of their 60 minke whale quota….
It’s apparently 50 for this year. While it is less than the US quota, I don’t really want to make an issue out of it either.
I hope to hear about what Tomakint thinks about the criteria for determining “reasonable” quotas for whaling though, given that he believes the Alaskan hunt of 60 bowheads is OK.
> Re: the poor quality meat. ” Slikt kjött selges kun innad i Norge”. <
Hi Ann… “such meat is sold only inside Norway” you should take into account what he says afterwords ” Men det jobbes på politisk plan for at vi skal komme inn igjen på markedet i Japan. Vi håper på at det skal bli en løsning på dette snart, sier Rolandsen”
I would imagine that the meat wll be processed as ” biffsnadder” for pizzas and the like ..
Re: the Scotsman ( and other media ) article, looks like they are simply repeating the GP spokesperson´s comments as well as the same old rubbish … nothing new – sloppy journalism as per usual …
Got to ask you about this comment ann ;op
>” Regarding Icelandic whaling , personally I don’t want to make a too big affair of their 60 minke whale quota…. and I’m not personally too keen on protesting against such a small and independant country. ”
hmmm.. population 296,737 according to the CIA with Norway ..population 4,593,041 .. also a small independant country by most standards …
Hmmm … Iceland -103,000 Sq Km iceland is about the size of Kentucky….Norway 155,000 Sq miles, Norway is about the size of California
what do you define as a small independant country ann? Population under a million? or how many? seems a strange way to define which country to protest against .. 😉 ( Jeg bare tuller 😉 ….
Japan is a more profitable target George 😉 I think that’s the real reason.
David,
No, the Icelandic quota is 60 minkes, the Marine Research Institute raised the quota last week with 10 minkes.
Haha, Ellingsens still runs …
George,
You can kick around some Norwegians
and Swedes as well, you know them aloof Scandinavians, a flamer here and a four word here have never hurted any Norwegian or Swede, aren’t the Norwegians always singing ” we are tired of all those gold medals that we win in the
Olympics”?LOL!
I have a personal warm feeling against Iceland, why I don’t protest against them has nothing to do with whaling but politics. They know how it is to be a small country… they were brave enough to be the first country that recognized the small Baltic countries to be sovereign nations, I take my hat off for them for that reason…
Hi again,
A short comment here…
I once wrote that the anti whaling camp would try to recruit the Baltic States to the IWC, but I am sure even if they are anti whaling they wouldn’t vote against Iceland and Norway.
Ann,
coming from a small country myself, I quite understand your sentiments ;O)
Interesting aside though ann, most ( but not all ) whaling boats are from the North of Norway, population a mere 400,000 or so – worth thinking about don´t you think? ..LOL…
When Norway last had a referendum on whether to join the EU or not in the 90´s, there was a lot of talk and discussion in the north about whether the north of Norway should seceed from the south if the vote was yes – 😉 If you think the jokes between swedes and norwegians are bad, you should hear the jokes between the north and south of Norway!
> the Marine Research Institute raised the quota last week with 10 minkes.
Do you have a link or something?
All I can find is a quota of 50. Are you sure that extra 10 is not on top of the 39 they took last year?
David,
Here’s a link, however I’m uncertain about the correctness of the statements on the fin whales and sei whales…
http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=225472
George,
Thought I knew everything about the Norwegians but obviously not, never heard about the south -north jokes!!!
George,
What do they call each other? The last I heard were that a soccer club in Sweden called the Norwegians ” selemördere i lusekofter”!
Got to go out and fix the fence, a moose calf has jumped into the horses paddock and ruined the fence, all horses were on the run…
Thanks Ann.
Yes, I’m uncertain about those statements as well. Why would they permit 60 minkes instead of 50?
Strange.
200 fins and 100 sei is also double the previous proposed takes that never eventuated.
There was some concern over the status of the fin stock used by Greenlanders recently, I’m not sure but I think it might be the same stock as that which would be located in Iceland’s waters.
I guess time will tell on this.
Interesting article from Dyrebeskyttelsen , an anti whaling organisation:
Excerpt:
” Norway signalled in 1986 that it would phase out its whaling, but did not do so. Instead whaling continued in various forms. In 1992 came the breakthrough when Prime Minister Bruntland, Minister of Foreign Affairs Stoltenberg, Lars Walløe and another adviser decided that Norway would start whaling again. No other government officials were informed about the decision until the news went public. This led to a storm of protests from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but to no avail.
Recommended reading:
http://www.dyrebeskyttelsen.no/english/report_sea.shtml
David:” Why would they permit 60 minkes instead of 50? ”
I know it was decided long ago that the quota was going to be around 50-70 minkes in 2006.
Maybe there is some political pressure to increase the quota.
David, unfortunately I have not much info on Icelandic whaling. I know I should follow the media better but my Icelandic is quite poor, but I know that a minke is a hrefna!
Originally they had proposed to catch “100 common minke whales, 100 fin whales and 50 sei whales in each of two years” in a two year feasibility study.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm#iceland
They cut it down to just 38 minkes. Perhaps it was a little brinkmanship on their part, although I doubt anyone here can know what their original true intentions were.
Maybe Japan could try the tactic out as well.
JP: “We’re going to unleash our whalers on the seas and destroy the whale stocks of the world! We’ll kill hundreds and thousands of them!!”.
AUS, NZ, UK: “Just as we suspected all along! You must stop this evil!”
JP: “OK In the spirit of the Convention, then, we will settle for a quota advised as safe by the scientific committee, say, starting at 2000, and managing further takes under the RMP – how about that?”
Of course, it’s already clear to some of the public that the Japanese stance is not an unreasonable one.
Wao David,
You really jolted me with your recent response to my recent post. I will express my reactions to you regarding those convincing and elaborate postulations of yours. I must confess, you will fit in perfectly (permit me to use that phrase for now) as a good whaling analyst. Now follow me:
>Under the Revised Management Procedure, quotas are almost negligible. We are not talking about massive slaughter like in the past. We are talking about very very conservative precautionary quotas that would typically start at low levels such as only 0.5% of a managed stock, and only increasing if the stock abundance continues to increase despite the harvest.
Really, this is where the term “reasonable” fits in perfectly well. I totally agree with you on this.
>The RMP will not even allow hunting on any stock below 54% of it’s estimated carrying capacity, and over the long term a managed stock would be maintained at a level of more than 70% of it’s estimated carrying capacity.
How I wish this is completely the case in every pro-whaling nations of the world.
>So talk of “last individuals” in the context of modern day commercial whaling is not realistic.
Agreed David, but on one note, if the Revised Management Procedure is fully practised= “not realistic”, but if the Revised Management Procedure is not practised= “realistic”.
>The last individuals of whale stocks that are truely threatened today are threatened because of entanglement in fishing gear and boat strikes, not whaling. Whaling is only relevant where generally abundant whale stocks are concerned – antarctic minke, humpback, and fin whale stocks, north pacific Bryde’s, Sei, minke, Sperm whale stocks, and the north atlantic minke stock, and so forth, for example, but certainly not the Western Grey whale stock or the Northern Right whale, both of which are in serious danger of extinction.
You got lots of stuff here, indeed, I am learning more things regarding this hotly debated issue from your points. I wish to state here that those examples of whales specified in different categories are correct.
>Ecosystem approaches to management are required precisely so that humans have a hope of understanding such consequences. I support the development of such models.
Me too!
>By the way, are you aware of the scientific fact that many whale stocks are currently increasing at rates of more than 5% each year, and as much as 10% in some cases?
Oh! I don’t know, I wish to know more about this.
>Having agreed to this, what are the scientific criteria that you personally would use to decide whether a quota is “reasonable” or not? How do we define “reasonable”? What are the terms on which we should define this? I’ll let you share your ideas with me first, before giving you mine. This last point here is really the crux of the discussion. I hope we can focus our further discussions on a definition of “reasonable”
Obviously, we (as humans) have instincts that are subjected to fallibility, hence, we make many mistakes even though we try as much as possible to be perfect. “Reasonable” approach to whaling as agreed upon by you and me and as viewed from my own perspective hinges on two pivotal points. One; Individualistic approach and two; strict adherence to the rules.
1) Individualistic Approach: Individuals Approach that really craved after reasonable whaling practises wouldn’t want to go beyond the elastic limit of hunting, he will be poised to carry out the ethical practises attached to the rules without any form of compromise to bend the rules. I think many of the whalers who fall into this category will discourage the bad eggs amidst them from unethical practises.
2)Strict Adherence to the Rules: This depends on how efficient the enforcers of the laws are, somehow you need to coerce human beings at such a time like this in order to enjoy full compliance to the stated rules, this is where a little push is needed from the makers of the law so that a maximum, required, ethical and reasonable practises of whaling can be achieved, once again, Thanks DAVID!
George,
There are two interesting articles in today’s Fiskeribladet on whaling that might interest you.
http://www.fiskeribladet.no/default.asp
David, Tommy,
Are there some kind of an unholy alliance between you?
Ann,
> Are there some kind of an unholy alliance between you?
May be!
Ann,
I’m still waiting for my last response to Tomakint to be authorized, but at the end of the day you have to remember that my position on the issue is not an extreme one, but a moderate one in which limited hunting is permitted but it does not threaten the conservation of the environment.
It’s a good thing if Tomakint and I find some common ground here 🙂 I get the feeling that you don’t disagree with all that much of what I say either. After all you said your opposition to whaling is mainly because you think it is too “cruel”.
Tommy,
Hopefully Frode never will read this thread… Frode is the former GP Nordic whales campaigner in Tomas photo gallery, who looks like as he has partied all night…
Haha, Frode is the blonde guy…
Tommy has posted this comment recently:
“… mammals listed as endangered with the NMFS( National Marine Fisheries Service) … Bowhead whale, Fin whale, Humpback whale, Sei whale, Sperm whale…”
A reply by David:
The last individuals of whale stocks that are truely threatened today are threatened because of entanglement in fishing gear and boat strikes, not whaling. Whaling is only relevant where generally abundant whale stocks are concerned – antarctic minke, humpback, and fin whale stocks, north pacific Bryde’s, Sei, minke, Sperm whale stocks, and the north atlantic minke stock, and so forth, for example, but certainly not the Western Grey whale stock or the Northern Right whale, both of which are in serious danger of extinction.
Tommy continues:
You got lots of stuff here, indeed, I am learning more things regarding this hotly debated issue from your points. I wish to state here that those examples of whales specified in different categories are correct.
I am truly lost…
Ann,
I’m guessing my post which I thought was quaranteened for all the links to information about increasing humpback, blue whale and southern right whale stocks has just maybe vanished into the ether, but I can’t be bother re-writing it all just now … 🙂
Basically I linked to growth rates for humpbacks around australia (10% growth ballpark), southern hemisphere blue (7% growth), southern right whale (also something like 7% growth – it’s on my blog from a few months back). I’d link again, but it’ll just get stuck in quaranteen 🙂
> “… mammals listed as endangered with the NMFS( National Marine Fisheries Service) … Bowhead whale, Fin whale, Humpback whale, Sei whale, Sperm whale…”
Bowhead is known to be growing steadily, and there is no question the alaskan hunt is sustainable.
IUCN classification: “lower risk”
The Fin whale species is in no danger, although there have been uncertainties about some stocks.
IUCN still has this species classified as “endangered”, although this is in question.
The Humpback whale is only listed by the IUCN as vulnerable now, as it is showing some of the best growth of all whale species right now.
The Sei whale is listed as endangered by the IUCN, but this is apparently because they were hunted to about 50% of their pre-whaling abundance, and this was concentrated more in the southern hemisphere. JARPN II surveys are actually spotting more Sei whales than minke whales. There is the possibility of this being revised to “vulnerable” as well with more data.
That the Sperm whale could be considered endangered at all is ridiculous really, considering that it is the most populous today of all the great whales, with the global estimate in excess of a million. Any list that wants to claim the species is endangered lacks credibility, imo.
So when looking at such classifications one needs to ask:
1) what does “endangered” mean?
2) is the listing politically motivated rather than scientifically motivated?
Personally I buy more into abundance estimates with confidence limits and stats about growth rates as true indicators of the health of these species.
David,
No time to make any comments but as far as the bowheads there are four or five stocks , and I know the Spitsbergen stock is classified as critically endangered. Actually I believe only ONE individual has been spotted for decades. This was a spotting last month of a Grönlandshval in Spetsbergen.
Anne,
there were six spotted in May …
Also ann, a few years back, whalers documented a northern right whale west of spitzbergen – I cannot remember the number but I do remember it was one called “porter” or something similar in the catalogue – it had dissapeared for a few years from the eastern US coast and turned up near spitzbergen.
Hi George, David, Toma, all,
There is a rough translation on WDCS website on the article that I posted to George from Norwegian paper Fiskeribladet.
.
Fiskeribladet doesn’t mention the contamination issue but this is mentioned in the WDCS article.
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/4C11F5272C70C4A6802571D5002C786C
Thanks George for the information on the bowheads and the northern right whale.
PS. Actually, I don’t know now why there is no export market to Japan. Is it for CITES restrictions or is it for the contamination issue( the blubber was too contaminated according to Japanese authorities). George do you know?
Hi Ann.
Contamination issue? what contamination issue – I see no link to any study – simply a claim by WDCS that whales closer to land are more contaminated … quite funny really, in view of other past claims. I notice they still make the pet food claim as well – would be good if they would provide documentation..
The export was called off due to higher toxic levels in the blubber ann – the toxic levels in the meat are under recommended limits according to studies. ( Even greenpeace´s own study showed this )
Last post from me ann – I´m off to the arctic monday for a month or so .. have fun…
OK thanks George,
The WDCS article is a bit confusing IMO, you get the impression that the export market to Japan is closed due to CITES restrictions, but I have always thought it was because of the contaminated blubber…
I quite envie you for going up to the Arctic to do the whales surveys…Good luck, maybe we can have that beer next year when I’m going to Norway! LOL! Seems like all the herring will stay out of the fjords…
The pet food claim is just another ridiculous piece of propaganda that sounded crazy enough for the whaling debate, and so it stuck.
Reality?
The hakudai.com website that sells the product is a whale meat retailer, not a pet food supplier, but they have a page for pet food produced out of small intestines of Baird’s beaked whales caught off the coast of Chiba, not too far from where I am here in Tokyo. Small intensines aren’t otherwise consumed by humans.
WDCS’s “scientist” Simmonds used the “opportunity” to say that he’d never heard the Japanese need to research whales in the Antarctic to provide dog food before.
Of course, the Baird’s beaked whale hunt has nothing at all to do with the Institute of Cetacean Research. It’s a coastal hunt on a whale species that isn’t managed by the IWC. Good on them for putting even the small intestines to good use.
JARPN II has returned, but nobody noticed, except for the people at EIA. Read about their attempt at deception here 🙂
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/08/whaling-jarpn-ii-fleet-returns-only-eai.html
It’s original!
David,
Unfortunately I have no more information on this pet food claim . However , it seems possible that a small amount of whale meat waste have been made to pet food.
From Norwegian Governments website on whales and sealing( rough translation) from 2004:
” Norway has little or no tradition of using products from whale to animal feed. However, this has a potential like sealproducts to be made to animal feed. Waste from whale for human consumption goes in a small amount into the market for kennels and fur animals. This is more of a solution to take care of the waste than economical profit.”
The original claim about Pet Food from WDCS regarding Japan’s whaling was in relation to the pet food sold at Hakudai.com’s website (made from Baird’s Beaked whale intestines).
I’ve no idea about Norway, but at least in Japan’s case they don’t turn good meat into pet food – it wouldn’t be getting “stock-piled” if that was the case 🙂
Since JARPN II came back recently, it’ll be interesting to see what the stockpile size peaks at. The new company that was set up aims to sell 1,000 tonnes of the by-product annually, presumably this amount is equivalent extra product that will be available under JARPA II.
Iceland is resuming whale meat exports after a gap of more than 15 years with sales to the Faroe Islands despite objections from environmentalists that the shipments undermine a global trade ban.
” We have created a joint trade area between Iceland and the Faroe Islands”, Iceland’s Whaling Commissioner Stefan Asmundsson told Reuters last week.
However, the export will be very limited, about a tonne of whale meat.
Martin Norman from Greenpeace Nordic (Norway) also said the Icelandic exports reflected a lack of demand in Iceland. ” Iceland has always had problems selling whale meat in Iceland”.
Asmunsson said Iceland’s whaling research was coming to an end – about 160 minkes have been caught of a planned total of 200 set in 2003.
He said that there were no current plans for a new research programme. Compare this to Japanese statements!!
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/38028/newsDate/11-Sep-2006/story.htm
Above story from Planet Ark.
Sheez Ann, is anyone still reading this besides you and I? I only came back because I saw you access my blog from here 🙂
I take it you read my translation of the asahi article at the top of my blog right now. I spent some time on that, so I hope you found it interesting and informative 🙂
David,
Gonna check out your article…
I have some news from Norway.
The whalers only succeeded in to kill about 530 minkes.
Now the whalers and the scientists and gov’t are at loggerheads with each other.
A senior gov’t official stated it’s difficult to defend the Norwegian official aggressive policy internationally on marine mammal hunts if the whalers only manage to hunt about 530 minkes.
This has angered the Head of the Minke Whaler’s Association , who stated that the Norwegian Gov’t chief advisor on whaling issues is not welcome to the Whaler’s annual meeting if he is only to spout IWC stats.
The IWC wants a hunt that is spread out in all sea areas and not concentrated only to coastal areas. This year no minke was killed in ” the wilderness” eg the Jan Mayen zone because of bad weather and expensive fuel costs.
The Head continues” the Gov’t and scientists may succeed in what Greenpeace didn’t work out, namely to stop Norwegian whaling. ”
The whalers are afraid that the IWC regulations will force the whalers out of coastal areas.
Already two young whalers have quit the whaling business.
The head continues” there are enormous amounts of humpbacks and Fin whales out in the capelin and herring grounds, that must be culled to ” save the fisheries”. Too much attention is payed to overfishing and pirate fishing. So the whalers plans for the near future is :
1) to leave the IWC
2) increased minke whale quotas
3)hunt Fin whales and Humpback whales
4) Whaling only in coastal areas
5) Norway will not follow international advice on whaling( the IWC) but rely on their own scientists
Posted by: Ann Novek | September 2, 2006 11:41 AM
The above comment is a summary from Fiskeribladet.
There might be some translation errors…
http://www.fiskeribladet.no/default.asp?lesmer=4454
Ann rather than continue here (threads die off once they fall off the main page) you could write a guest piece for Jennifer, summarising the exchanges above. at least ask her, if you want, I reckon she’d be into it
Or Ann, you could start your own blog. I’d happily link to it (once I figure out how to get links back on my blog) so we could start up a little “whaling debate” blog ring 🙂
Hi David,
Yes, maybe, it could be fun to have regular whaling discussions.