Hi Jennifer,
Six Japanese whaling ships have set sail for their annual hunt in south Atlantic. Japan’s fisheries agency says the fleet has a target of 850 minke whales and 10 fin whales.
As usual we are waiting for the annual outcry from anti-whaling countries against this hunt in the Southern Oceans Sanctuary.
So why does Japan support whaling? Here’s an analysis from a Japanese political scientist: http://www.csun.edu/~kh246690/whaling.pdf .
Best regards,
PS. We have a heatwave in Sweden this weekend, temperaure about 10C.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
No surprise that this blog choses to publicise the Japanese whale hunt and the pro-commercial whaling industry interests in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and ignore the situation in Canada where a significant number of the remaining critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whales are currently threatened by the start of the commercial lobster fishing season in the Bay of Fundy.
What should the AEF call members.. ‘greenwashers’ should cover the agenda.
One comment I would make about the document is that it talks about anti-whaling being a “norm”, which I find highly questionable, unless one considers that what applies in most of Europe, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and a handful of other nations as being some kind of standard (which I do not). Most of the world does not seem to care about whaling one way or the other so long as it is sustainable. That would appear to be the norm.
In response to JARPA II’s departure, we’ve already seen a bit of the annual shock and outrage from Senator Ian Campbell:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/11/ian-campbell-on-jarpa-ii-departure.html
The United States has also complained, but in less hysterical manner:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2743.htm
“These catches will only increase the growing friction within the IWC over how to deal with the expanding scientific whaling by Japan. The United States views the current Japanese research plan as unnecessary for managing the whales in question.”
The difference between the USA and Japan is that the USA is happy with the status quo, which is no commercial whaling right now, but in a worst case scenario, commercial whaling under the existing RMP.
Japan on the other hand sees the status quo as unacceptable, and would be grateful if at least the IWC would implement commercial whaling in line with the existing RMP, but in a best case scenario would like to see the RMP developed and improved further, beyond what we have now.
The USA’s position is thus easy to understand.
Japan’s position is that by continuing research they may strengthen the scientific case for an improved RMP.
The USA is thus right that Japan’s programme leads to polarization.
But is it Japan that is to blame?
The object and purpose of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is essentially to “provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry”.
Japan’s position is clearly completely consistent with this, whereas the USA’s position is clearly completely inconsistent with the latter objective of whaling industry development.
As the ICRW is an international agreement, in the spirit of goodwill there should be compromise, and it’s clear that the USA are the ones who should be acting. Japan, whose desires are in accordance with the object and purpose of the ICRW, is in no way morally obligated to budge even an inch to accomodate the domestic political aims of the USA or any other foreign administration. Despite this, Japan has been prepared to make concessions at the RMS negotiations, but it has never been enough for those who want no whaling in the first instance.
“Almost all research objectives can be achieved by using non-lethal techniques.”
This is a very debatable point, and one that is ultimately irrelevant anyway as Japan’s objective is to make for a resumption of commercial whaling and achieve optimum utilization of whale resources. The whales do not likely care whether they are killed primarily for scientific purposes, as is the case now, or primarily for food, as the case will be in future. The concern is that any whaling must be sustainable.
Readers may be interested in a new review of the now completed original JARPA programme, which will be held by the IWC Scientific Committee next month. It seems the review will be conducted by the following team of scientists:
A. Aguilar, P. Best, I. Boyd, D. Butterworth, T. Haug, R. Hoelzel, D. Palka, P. Palsboll, A. Punt / T. Polacheck, T. Schweder
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2006/Annex%20O%20-%20Finalsq.pdf
The results of the review will be available at next year’s IWC meeting, and I expect that the results will make the USA’s criticisms increasingly untenable.
No surprise that this blog choses to publicise the Japanese whale hunt and the pro-commercial whaling industry interests in the Southern Oceans..
Lamna,excuse me, I think you sound a bit paranoid here…
I got Keiko Hirato’s analysis from Greenpeace International some months ago…
I believe it is the most interesting information to both camps…
Regarding the Northern Right whales I recall that George wrote about them already this summer…
One comment I would make about the document is that it talks about anti-whaling being a “norm”, which I find highly questionable
David,
I find it questionable as well …. Japan has one norm , some other Western countries have another norm… impossible to make a generalization.
BTW. Read about the riots in Tonga and the unstable political situation in the country , seems like the country live in a half feudal system, just wonder if somebody ( Libby) knows how this unstable situation in the country might affect Tongas policy on whaling and whale watching?
Maybe a very tricky question…
Ann,
Apparently Tongans used to hunt and kill whales, taking around 10 humpbacks a year but the recently deceased King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV banned it in 1979.
I’ve seen allegations in the past that some NGO group had some influence in the decision (note the timing).
A Tongan official recently rejected the idea of them joining the IWC, because it was too political:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/04/iwc-2006-tonga-thumbs-nose-at-nz-and.html
I should take the opportunity to point out that “Japan is the top donor to Tonga and the largest export market for Tongan products”
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/tonga/index.html
Hi Ann,
A very shocking situation. Not sure they are thinking about whale watching or whaling at the moment! According to someone I know who took the new king out on a day trip recently, whaling is not on the agenda. Who knows? We do know that the riots have formed a new Tonga, be it politically and/or socially, and that things will change in some capacity. Hopefully it wont involve the humpbacks.
Humans eating fish
Lions eating humans
White Pointers eating humans
Maggots eating dead humans, (not fish since no one has seen a fly land on a fish to lay an egg to produce a maggot in the sea).
Gee, life is interesting, no?
I wonder if he humpbacks email some of the loonies here to put their view forward.
Hi Anne,
“No surprise that this blog choses to publicise the Japanese whale hunt and the pro-commercial whaling industry interests in the Southern Oceans..Lamna,excuse me, I think you sound a bit paranoid here…I got Keiko Hirato’s analysis from Greenpeace International some months ago…
I believe it is the most interesting information to both camps…
Regarding the Northern Right whales I recall that George wrote about them already this summer…”
No surprise either that Greenpeace, with the Espy roughly a week at maximum away from the Bay of Fundy, chooses instead to head for the Southern ocean and resolutely ignores any threat to right whales on Greenpeace websites or PR releases.
Strange that a multi hundred million dollar organisation dedicated to saving whales ( amongst other things ) ignores any right whale situation don´t you think? Could it be that, of course, GP has its own priorities and that and any percieved current threat to a truly endangered whale species is not high on their agenda? Or even on their agenda?
Hypocricsy at it´s finest would´nt you say?
Hey George,
Let’s try giving Greenpeace the benefit of the doubt for a change. Maybe Greenpeace is actually satisfied with the efforts made by local fishermen and authorities. Last I heard, the season opened on Wednesday, and only 8 whales were spotted, down from the higher numbers the previous week. Haven’t heard of any entanglements yet so far… fingers crossed.
The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.
The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.
Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.
Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.
If there are no gaps there is no emotion.
Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.
When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.
There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.
People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.
Emotion ends.
Man becomes machine.
A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.
FAST VISUALS /WORDS MAKE SLOW EMOTIONS EXTINCT.
SCIENTIFIC /INDUSTRIAL /FINANCIAL THINKING DESTROYS EMOTIONAL CIRCUITS.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY CANNOT FEEL PAIN / REMORSE / EMPATHY.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS/ TREES/ AIR/ WATER/ LAND AND TO ITSELF.
To read the complete article please follow either of these links :
http://www.planetsave.com/ps_mambo/index.php?option=com_simpleboard&Itemid=75&func=view&id=68&catid=6
http://www.earthnewswire.com/index.php?option=com_forum&Itemid=89&page=viewtopic&t=11
sushil_yadav
” Hey George,
Let’s try giving Greenpeace the benefit of the doubt for a change. Maybe Greenpeace is actually satisfied with the efforts made by local fishermen and authorities. Last I heard, the season opened on Wednesday, and only 8 whales were spotted, down from the higher numbers the previous week. Haven’t heard of any entanglements yet so far… fingers crossed.”
Could be David, Perhaps GP has got out from under the ” sky is falling ” mind set — fingers crossed indeed..
Forbidding reservations is common practise in some fisheries agreements, for example CCSBT, FFA,and MHLC.
The only way to prevent abuse of the RMS is to amend the Convention to remove the right of Governments to take Objections or Reservations to any of its parts or provisions.
“I wonder if he humpbacks email some of the loonies here to put their view forward.”
Louis I don’t believe anyone who has commented here so far has ever made a derogatory comment towards you and what you have written in other threads. Perhaps you would like to contribute something more worthwhile and polite in the future, particularly if you have a point to make.
“I’ve seen allegations in the past that some NGO group had some influence in the decision (note the timing).”
Hi David, a researcher who had been working in Tonga for many years advised the Tongans that their practices (killing mothers and calves) was not good ‘management’. As for the NGO group, I have not heard this.
“Let’s try giving Greenpeace the benefit of the doubt for a change.”
Thanks for being reasonable David!
Considering those points about GP George, at least SS is consistent in its policy on cetaceans and its targeted use of donations. (These points about NGOs are commonly attacked on this blog).
While criticising norms & assumptions in that csun whaling doc: they assume expectations that Japan whales out of materialism. Despite the relationship between business and govt that might not be a valid assumption. It’s one aspect but not the thrust of previous reviews I’ve read.
Pinxi,
It´s quite clear why GP made an about turn and will actually be in the Southern Ocean again shortly, despite their admittance that anti whaling actions at sea are counter productive – If GP think the Japanese are any less nationalistic than the Norwegians and icelanders, then they must have some serious morons on their decision board. As for the SS ( Apt name for a bunch of violent thugs ), I would´nt pee on an SS supporter if he / she was on fire.. The only thing consistent with SS is their racism and use of violence and intimidation. If a whaling boat was struck by lightning, SS would claim credit for it .. I´m not a big fan of GP, but at least they are ( mostly) not AR rights thugs… Take a look at SS´s IRS submissions one day when you have the time ..then come back and tell me about SS´s targeted use of donations…
Ann,
It cannot be emphasized enough that the ICRW is an agreement amongst sovereign nations. It’s supposed to be about nations co-operating together for a common goal.
Until such a time as the IWC can be guaranteed to make all decisions in accordance with the object and purpose of it’s own convention, I see little possibility of the convention being amended to remove the objection procedure. Indeed, an ICRW with no objection procedure would not be worth adhering to at all – we’d certainly see more nations quiting and not coming back like Canada.
but a boat smashing intervention of the SS was upheld in canadian court under UN obligations. So perhaps similar obligations under UN, to which our nations subscribe, are upon us all!? Un convention makes it clear the obligation is on every single individual & group. Just challenging you… did you ever read that SS court story? Last time I looked for it the website was down with the whales or somesuch
(the case wasn’t over whales, btw)
Libby,
Given that Tonga was only killing around 10 humpbacks each year, I think at such levels killing mature females and their calves is not such a big deal. The real problem at the time was more likely illegal soviet whaling going on behind peoples backs, perhaps?
I imagine that killing a mature female and calf probably has less effect on a whale stock than killing two mature females.
I have been trying to find the specifics of the allegation about NGO deception in Tonga’s decision, but can’t locate it right now. If I recall correctly, the allegation said that somebody of somebodies claiming to be from the “IWC” had some influence in the decision. The “IWC” they were from was not the IWC that we all know and love, but some other NGO group that had chosen a name that would give it the same “IWC” acronym. Quite devious if true. But that’s all I remember, and of course it could be a bunch of lies. Made up, like pretty much everything Greenpeace says about whaling!
On the other hand, in one news source I read that “Tonga’s reputation as a tourism destination may take 20 years to recover.”
Tonga’s (the Friendly Islands) reputation as a tourist destination has gone from not much to absolutely zero – death and destruction by “pro democracy forces” has put paid to that. Same as Solomons and Fiji, investors are scarce on the ground.
Sea Shepherd are the maritime equivalent of al Qaida and derive support from various over paid and under brained dimwits such as Pierce Brosnan and Sean Penn (who also support Fidel Castro and other petty tyrants – must be in the genes)
rog,
Not only famous dimwits, but australian dimwits at the “Gold Coast Whale Watch and Conservation Association” also support Sea Sheperd as well:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/09/whaling-anti-whalers-support-violence.html
I was amazed to be honest.
David how do you recommend that concerned cetacean admiring citizens make their little contribution to conserve whales instead? (pls don’t say ‘do nothing’)
rog supports capitalism but not democracy?
apparently the US tracks donors to SS
SS say themselves to be acting under UN convention which is binding on our nations and us as citizens, so if you *can* put yr bias aside for a moment to entertain their explanation, (and put aside momentarily the insiders’ debate over which species in which localities are threatened) and just consider the legality of the issue, it’s an interesting argument that’s put forward very coherently. A nutter with areas of lucidity I suspected. But it’s an argument that was upheld in a canadian court too. (I haven’t given SS any $$ btw)
Pinxie,
No other animals get such support as marine mammals… there are many, many marine mammal organisations, other animals should really envy marine mammals for all their support they get from concerned citizens…
Well, this is the famous panda factor…
Regarding the panda factor, I wonder what Finnair has to do with pandas? Their new advertisment is a panda…
Pinxi,
As a general guideline I’d recommend cetacean admiring citizens first confirm that they understand what “conservation” actually means, as in some nations there unfortunately seems to be a huge amount of confusion, even at the government level (Senator Ian Campbell of Australia being a prime example of someone evidently with no clue at all, see my comments in the new thread on right whales).
As a second general guideline, which has my first guideline as a prerequisite, I recommend supporting scientific research that aids conservation or otherwise support sustainable use of whales where possible / applicable.
As a third general guideline I’d recommend cetacean admiring citizens try to spread my first two guidelines amongst their fellow human beings.
” David how do you recommend that concerned cetacean admiring citizens make their little contribution to conserve whales instead? (pls don’t say ‘do nothing’)”
Pinxi,
David has answered this one himself, but I´d like to comment on it as well.
“Concerned cetacean admiring citizens ” would do well to work towards their respective governments finding a solution – Work towards political change in both the whaling and anti whaling countries to actually have the IWC as a functioning body – both sides need to find a compromise which satisfies their respective political masters back home – be it Australia, Japan, Norway or wherever.
The average Joe or Joette on the street does not really give a toss or is woefully uninformed for the most part .. Polls over the last decade reinforce this.
Whaling in one form or another has continued since the so called moratorium and for two decades now, nothing has stopped this – if anyone thinks the whaling countries will give up after two decades of fighting for their right to utilise marine resources, especially within their own EEZ as in the case of Norway and Iceland, then I have a bridge for sale .. going cheep 😉
I´m quite sure that whaling in Norway would have almost died out by now if it was not for the actions of NGO´s in turning Whaling into a nationalistic matter ..
( Hypothetical scenario – A modified version of the Irish proposal is adopted where countries can whale within their own EEZ under IWC quotas as set by the RMP and any Scientific quota / program has to be approved by the IWC scientific committee )
Even assuming such a scenario could be agreed upon and adopted, with the relevant changes in the ICRW to close so called ” reservation loopholes”, thing is Pinxi, no matter what if any compromise could be agreed upon – there are those who oppose whaling on any grounds .. Australia is just one prominent example- AR NGO´s such as SS is another …
Working towards a “solution” involves compromise by both sides and all parties involved… that´s what your “Concerned cetacean admiring citizens ” would do well to work towards –
“Given that Tonga was only killing around 10 humpbacks each year, I think at such levels killing mature females and their calves is not such a big deal. The real problem at the time was more likely illegal soviet whaling going on behind peoples backs, perhaps?”
Tonga was not always only killing 10 whales a year David. In the fifties there was a marked increase in whaling gangs throughout all the main Tongan islands. These gangs (as they were called) used dynamite as well as more traditional hunting techniques. Here is what Dr William Dawbin wrote in a report to the Tongan Government: “Many of those killed were lost at sea and others were very incompletely utilised even for meat. The total number recorded as killed was nearly 100 and the whalers themselves told me that they had passed on no record of some of the whales they killed and lost. The total killed in 1956 probably exceeded 100 at least. However, only about 6 whales were used even partially.
“In 1957 dynamite was prohibited, but all continued killing calves and injuring a proportion of large whales which may later have died. The destruction of calves for such a minute return of meat compared with the amount of meat and blubber it will produce even as a yearling when it is about 30 feet in length, or as a full grown whale, is appalling waste and one likely to endanger the breeding stock. To protect the stocks for continued use in Tonga, it is vital that the destruction of calves and uncontrolled expansion of whaling gangs comes to an end..
“The whales in Tonga may be from the same stock that pass NZ and which are also being caught in large numbers each summer on the feeding grounds in the Ross Sea. If they are of the Ross Sea, NZ group which is already being tapped at 2 places on the migration route, further catching especially on a breeding ground, such as Tongan waters, might well upset the balance. This is stressed because of what has occurred in similar circumstances elswehere”.
This was written in 1958 David, before the species was protected in the rest of the world. The revelation of the illegal Soviet catches came to light in 1994, and as we know, those killed came mostly from the Australian and South Pacific stocks. Ten whales, including mothers and calves, may not seem like such a “big deal” by itself, but how can you possibly ignore past exploitation of this stock by not only the Tongans, but also other parties such as NZ? The killing of whales under 35 feet, calves and cows with nursing calves was also prohibited under what was then International Whaling Regulations.
“I imagine that killing a mature female and calf probably has less effect on a whale stock than killing two mature females.”
Depends on the sex of the calf and the age of the mature females.
David and Libby,
I have discussed this topic earlier, but in almost all legal hunts( other than whales) the ratio of female animals is less than males.
It is especially bad or even illegal to kill a pregnant animal, or an animal still nursing its offspring.
That’s why the hunting season is usually closed during springtime.
A bit off topic, but Iceland Review was writing about traditional Icelancic cuisine and was not mentioning whale meat or blubber.
They have usually depended on certain cod and other fish dishes, eating all parts of a sheep( even eyes and ram’s testicles) and they eat lot of horse meat as well.
During Thorrablot, the traditional Viking festival in February, however soured whale blubber is a speciality.
Now Icelanders prefer pasta and pizza…
Hi George,
George:”I´m quite sure that whaling in Norway would have almost died out by now if it was not for the actions of NGO´s in turning Whaling into a nationalistic matter ..”
Well, I think this is possible in the case of Norway anyway…
I recall one Norwegian Greenpeacer telling me the story when German activists had protested against whaling in Norway… hey, the Norwegians had shouted ” Go home, bloody Germans!” Hey, almost WWII sentiments here…
Libby,
To be honest I wasn’t ignoring the other parties that contributed to overhunting at all – as I understand it Tonga last killed Humpbacks in 1978, and as we know the IWC had officially protected Humpbacks after the 1962/63 season, which (as far as we know) everyone abided by except for the russians, who’s unreported catches of humpbacks alone were something in excess of 40,000, if I remember correctly. I think we’d see a fairly different picture today if they had not been ignoring the ban, particularly considering the robust recovery of humpbacks in other parts of the world in recent times.
My point was simply that whether Tonga was doing what they were doing or not, the stock would have been depleted regardless, and Tonga’s activities would have made a rather bad situation a little bit worse.
As far as I can tell Tonga doesn’t seem to ever have adhered to the ICRW, so wouldn’t have been bound by any length restrictions. At any rate, such restrictions don’t seem to apply in the case of “subsistence whaling”, which I imagine is how Tonga’s whaling would be classified. St. Vincent and the Grenadines also target mother/calf pairs as well, and seems to be accepted (although of course various groups accuse them of selling their vote to Japan despite it).
Hopefully if Tonga does decide to re-commence whaling at some time in the future they adhere to the ICRW first and make sure it’s conducted in accordance with the AWMP, or whatever management procedure has taken it’s place by that time.
Regarding under reporting of humpbacks and other species , don’t know really how much we know about this under- reporting in the past.
Starting in the 1950s three of Japan’s five major whaling companies under- reported catches to the IWC.
Bryde’s whales were under reported (1981-1987),
also Baird’s whales and sperm whales.
Korea under-reported whales. Btw, their “whaling” activities today are very controversial, are their whale caught by accident in nets or is it by purpose?
Norway, according to a seniot IWC scientist whalers often reported two small whales as one big one.
> Btw, their “whaling” activities today are very controversial, are their whale caught by accident in nets or is it by purpose?
Who knows. I think they have a fair incentive to make sure any whales that do get entangled in nets do end up dead and products put on the market. Especially if you find that your fishing nets have been damaged to some extent and you’d like to offset the cost of the damages.
This is one more reason why I think the IWC should agree to cost-efficient regulation standards for commercial whaling, rather not agree. The IWC can either turn a blind eye and neglect it’s conservation mandate or it can attempt to fulfil it.
This comment was posted by a Greenpeace supporter at the GP forum:
“Is the strategy of human shields for the whales still in order, or has that changed? I seem to remember that last year, the “researchers” has shot the harpon while there were still humans on the way, so besides the risk of having activists killed, the strategy might just not work anymore… ”
Brian F. from GPI stated they were going to use some new strategies and was looking for suggestions from supporters…
David:” Especially if you find that your fishing nets have been damaged to some extent and you’d like to offset the cost of the damages”
I guess most developed countries compensate fishermen for damages to fishing nets and fishing gear , of course I’m unsure if this is also the case in Korea.
Fishermen in Europe are anyway often compensated for damages made by seals…
It is also remarkable that entanglement incidents are hundred fold bigger in Korea than elsewhere in the world…
I hope they take into consideration
a) the “RESOLUTION ON THE SAFETY OF VESSELS ENGAGED IN WHALING AND WHALE RESEARCH-RELATED ACTIVITIES” from IWC 58
b) the welfare of the whales that selected to be killed
I also expect them not to hinder non-lethal research efforts, but obviously that’s expecting too much.
> I guess most developed countries compensate fishermen for damages to fishing nets and fishing gear
I don’t know if any government is so rich that it can afford to increases costs as whale populations rise. Especially when whale meat is generally considered edible in those two countries.
> It is also remarkable that entanglement incidents are hundred fold bigger in Korea than elsewhere in the world…
Could be Ann, could be. Time for the IWC to do it’s job.
david : “…whale meat is generally considered edible in those two countries.”
Do we have any information on whaling or whale meat or entanglements from North Korea???
I did a two week survey in South Korean waters last year. No idea what the anthropogenic threats in North Korean waters are, but I am surprised there is anything living in South Korea’s waters. Whilst I was there there were at least three minkes caught in nets from the one area, all ending up in markets and fetching a pretty profit. It is worth noting that these minkes are of the J-stock, which is deemed to be facing extinction if the rate of by-catch doesn’t ease.
Last I saw (IWC 56) there was suggestion that the J-stock is actually increasing.
That was in the annual report though, I’m not sure what the SC actually said.
At any rate, as I keep saying, it’s time for the IWC to pull off the blindfold and take it’s fingers out of it’s ears and do it’s job.
Ann: “Norway, according to a seniot IWC scientist whalers often reported two small whales as one big one.”
My understanding is that if this happened, it was mostly the other way round when the vessel quota was set in tonnes. The reason being that meat from smaller whales would fetch better prices, according to the old whalers. Perhaps in the relatively short period without a water tight control scheme and vessel quota in individual animals, it was as you have been told.
Rune Frovik
High North Alliance
Hi Rune,
It is not from Greenpeace that I have heard this story…
This is a quote from a joint work by WDCS, HSI and Pro wildlife regarding underreporting and the current talks on the draft RMS.
Excerpt from the document:
” In the mid 1970 , when only a small fraction of Norwegian whaling operations was covered by national inspectors , the senior Norwegian scientist at IWC argued that quotas should limit the weight, not the number, of whales hunted.
According to his statements, Norwegian whalers often reported two small whales as one big whale.”
[ Carter,N& Thonton,A, (1985); Pirate whaling 1985 ” Environmental Investigation Agency (ed), London)
http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/RMS_confidence_report.pdf
OK thanks Rune for the clarifycation…
However, one more point…
I read in Fiskeribladet that Ellingsen’s whale meat processing factory, wanted back the old system with quotas limited by tonnes. As I understood it , I might be wrong in this case, Ellingsen’s stated that the meat of small, young minkes would fetch a better market price .
As it is today in Norway the whalers sell the big whales to the processers and keep the small better quality whales fof consumption for themselves.
http://www.fiskeribladet.no/default.asp?lesmer=1145
He also stated it should be enough to hunt 1000 smaller minkes than the today’s quota of 1800 minkes.
It seems like the whalers ignore to kill the smaller minkes today and concentrate on big animals…
Finally, reading the Norwegian fisheries media , it seems like some of you want back the old system with quotas limited by tonnes…
Libby,
It seems like not only minkes are intentionally caught in nets, in Taiwan it is also believed that pink dolphins are illegally caught in nets and are seriously threatened.
There seems only to be left about 120…
Pollution of the sea is another reason of the decline…
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39080/story.htm
“WDCS”
That’s the group that tried to tell everyone that the Japanese are turning good whale meat from JARPA into pet food, isn’t it. Deceptive indeed.
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/05/iwc-2006-whale-meat-stock-pile-and-pet.html
“Environmental Investigation Agency”
That’s the group who recently tried to characterize the minke whale hunt from JARPN II as “killing almost every whale in sight” isn’t it. Veeeery deceptive indeed.
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/08/whaling-jarpn-ii-fleet-returns-only-eai.html
The real problem I have with these groups is that they are so full of crap that I’m not sure when – if ever – to take them seriously. These days I don’t bother, as is probably the case with many others as well. And if they do actually have something worth hearing, that’s a shame…
Hi Ann,
The TAC will certainly continue to be set in numbers. With respect to the vessel quotas, there’s been a discussion. It’s conceivable to have TAC in numbers and vessel quotas in tonnes. The main argument put forward for vessel quotas in tonnes is that the effect would likely be an average of smaller whales harvested. In general the meat quality from smaller whales (up to about 1200-1500 kg) is considered to be of better quality than the old cows (e.g. 2500 kg).
When the whalers fetch the same price per kilo meat, when sold to the processors, whether it is a small or a big whale, it’s not surprising that the big whales are not simply ignored. In particular so in a situation with pretty small fixed vessel quotas.
Since the vessel quotas have increased, this is not the biggest problem now. Also the average size is going down.
When maximum vessel quotas with significant over-allocation is used, one can acieve the same dynamics as with vessel quotas in tonnes.
No offense, just a clarification of terms used:
Fixed vessel quota: When you add up the vessel quotas, the amount equals the TAC.
Maximum vessel quota: When you add up the vessel quotas, the amount is higher than the TAC.
Rune Frøvik
High North Alliance
Hei Rune,
Thanks for the explanation as I am not very familiar with this terms, I have only heard about them regarding cod fisheries. Need to study the dynamics you mentioned…
BTW, how is Lofotshval running?
Hi again Rune,
OK, your clarification makes some sense of Ellingsen’s statements in Fiskeribladet. I was a bit confused by his statements:
1)” The expanding whale hunt is the best thing that has happened to increase the quality of the whale meat…”
and this IMO contrary statement
2) ” It’s not necessary to kill 1800 animals to increase the quality… we need a shift in regime (or should I say management?).
Ellingsen’s is the biggest whale meat proceesing factory in Norway and the management states it is necessry to increase the quality of the whale meat that reach the market, if not it would have ” fatale” consequences for the future demand of whale meat.
Please, correct me if I misunderstood this article in Fiskeribladet.