Hi Jennifer,
Since 1999 Greenpeace has not conducted an anti-whaling campaign at sea against Norwegian whalers.
According to Greenpeace, such campaigns are now considered “counter productive”.
One has to wonder then, why Greenpeace considers actions against Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean “productive”?
With this season’s Greenpeace anti-whaling campaign in the Southern Ocean almost upon us, I thought I´d look at a couple of the previous actions against Norweigan whalers.
In 1994 Greenpeace activists boarded Norweigan whaling ship the Senet and obstructed the vessel. Here’s a photograph of the Senet and Greenpeace’s Solo.
A Greenpeace activist cut loose a dying minke whale, before the whaling crew could deliver the coup de grace. Eva Egeberg, a veterinary surgeon and state inspector on board, commented, “What the activists actually achieved was to prolong the animal’s suffering”.
Greenpeace said that the cutting of the line to the minke whale was an individual action by one of the demonstrators and “not in accordance with the principles by which Greenpeace carry out their demonstrations”.
Greenpeace was sentenced in 1995 to pay 17,000 UK pounds (UKP) in damages and 11,000 UKP to cover the legal expenses of the whaling vessel skipper. The Senet continued whaling during the 1994 season and eventually took their full quota.
Whales saved = 0.
In 1999 Greenpeace conducts actions against the whaling vessels Vilduen and Kato.
During a coast guard chase of the Greenpeace rubber duckies, Greenpeace activist Mark Hardingham is seriously injured during a collision, resulting in serious breaks to one arm, a fractured pelvis and serious back injuries.
The Greenpeace ship MV Sirius is arrested by the Norwegian coast guard and towed into Stavanger harbour. A Norwegian court imposes a fine of US$35,000 dollars and a US$2000 fine for each of the activists in a rubber ducky attempting to cut loose a not yet dead minke whale next to the Kato. The whaler attempting to deliver a coup de grace to the dying Minke fires a number of shots into the head of the Minke, and a Greenpeace rubber ducky is struck by at least one of the shots.
Total value of fines and confiscations (three rubber duckies) was US$130,000. Greenpeace contest the judgements.
Kato skipper Ole Mindor Myklebust commented, “The Greenpeace inflatable then placed itself right into the side of our boat, with its bow close to the whale.
“Putting human safety first, I confirmed that nobody was close to the whale’s head. Nobody was sitting in the bow of the inflatable. I was only a few metres away from the animal when I fired three shots at it with the rifle. One bullet apparently made a hole in the bow of the Greenpeace boat because it was so close to the whale.
There is a very good reason for having a safety zone.
“This is a killing zone, not a playing zone. We are killing big animals, using heavy weaponry like explosive penthrite grenades and high-calibre rifles intended to kill Minke whales weighing up to 10 tonnes as quickly as possible.”
Whales saved = 0.
Will it take someone to be seriously injured or even worse killed in the Southern Ocean this winter before Greenpeace re-evaluates it position on battling the Japanese at sea?
Cheers, George McCallum
Greenpeace Ship Esperanza at dock in Tromso, Norway
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hi George,
George:”One has to wonder then, why Greenpeace considers actions against Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean “productive”? ”
Many people consider nowadays Norwegian whaling more “acceptable” than Japanese whaling on the high seas. Anyway, as far as the quotas are about 600-700 whales and we haven’t got any information that the minke whale population is decreasing in the North Atlantic.
From my experience it seems also that Greenpeace has ” given up” Norway, or as they say ” a good campaigner knows when to leave a campaign”.
Greenpeace supporters also ” demand ” an anti whaling action , it’s a part of Greenpeace’s image to launch the inflatables.
I think however that many supporters were a bit disappointed with Greenpeace’s action last winter in the SOS as they didn’t refuel the ships and continued their direct actions against the Japanes during the whole whaling period… for example, if they want to document the cruelty issue, it would have been important to document the killings of the big fin whales…
I just can’t wait for the Yakuza boys to show up in their rubber duckies and teach these whale molesters some real life Bushido. Now that would be a good news story.
Norway whales in its own EEZ.
Japan whales in the international waters of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
Nice straw man though George.
Hi anne,
Thing is though, it does´nt stop the NGO´s claiming that Japan is whaling in the so called Australian Antartic territory – so what is it? high seas or AAT? … As usual, the anti whaling bunch claim both … duplicious buggers would´nt you say?;)
Note also that until recently, Norway´s quotas / catches were higher than the Japanese …
Of course, Australia realises that if they tried to use legal means to stop the Japanese whaling in the AAT, they would most likely lose of course, which is why they don´t attempt it ..
Regarding :
“Many people consider nowadays Norwegian whaling more “acceptable” than Japanese whaling on the high seas.”
Do you mean the general public, regular GP supporters or the GP and other NGO fanatics?
Regarding ” a good campaigner knows when to leave a campaign”, Looks like GP´s Rattenbury falls into another category then 😉
Greenpeace is a signatory to the International NGO Accountability Charter. You can find the Charter at
http://www.amnesty.org/resources/downloads/INGO_Accountability_Charter.pdf
A signatory agrees to “take all possible steps to ensure that there are no links with organisations, or persons involved in illegal or unethical practices.”
Norway, in levying fines against Greenpeace, pointed out to the Amsterdam-based multinational conglomerate that it was breaking the law. Naturally, Greenpeace recognized its obligations under the Charter and moved on to confront the Japanese.
In so doing, the activists revealed themselves to be highly principled and sensitive to national and international laws.
Yeah, right.
Greenpeace left the Norwegian vicinity because its illegal activities got too expensive. Since signing the Charter, Greenpeace has not increased its interest in abiding by the law.
Actually, they’re behaving like what they consider the typical behavior of a multinational. Though instead of polluting where the polluting is cheap, they break the law where law-breaking is cheap.
They are, quite simply, looking for the lowest-cost alternative which they can leverage into high-level publicity.
Greenpeace has become what they campaign against.
‘Australia realises that if they tried to use legal means to stop the Japanese whaling in the AAT, they would most likely lose of course, which is why they don´t attempt it ..’ – George
Cobblers, Australian politicians simply do not have the backbone to risk incuring the economic wrath of the regional superpower by litigating on behalf of a species that can’t vote and doesn’t pay taxes.
Lamna is using the typical tactic of changing the topic.
Lamna would be well-advised to change tactics. People tend not to pay attention if you don’t change tactics. Recycling tactics too frequently is shabby and suggests a lack of attention to the media cycle. It doesn’t look “new” if you recycle too fast.
Lamna, you need to come back with something that sounds “new.” I don’t think the old tricks work here very well.
Schiller explain why Lamna is changing the topic and should change tactics please.
Lamna: “Norway whales in its own EEZ”
No, the correct statement is :
“IWC minke areas in international waters between the NEZ and Jan Mayen are CM (Jan Mayen area), EW and ES. In Norwegian these international waters are called “Smutthavet”, while “Smutthullet” is the area between Norwegian and Russian waters. Rune Frøvik, High North Alliance ”
Posted by: Rune Frøvik at November 1, 2006 11:12 PM
Geneva Convention on High Seas:
Article 1
The term “high seas” means all parts of the sea that are not included in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State.
Re. international waters adjacent to Norwegian waters:
http://www.fisheries.no/NR/rdonlyres/859F606D-51A7-4F03-9BE3-A543ACE1E6F5/56040/nez800px.gif
IWC minke areas in international waters between the NEZ and Jan Mayen are CM (Jan Mayen area), EW and ES. In Norwegian these international waters are called “Smutthavet”, while “Smutthullet” is the area between Norwegian and Russian waters. Rune Frøvik, High North Alliance
Posted by: Rune Frøvik at November 1, 2006 11:12 PM
Hi Ann,
Exactly how many minke whales did Norway take from international waters in the last ten seasons?
No ” Hi Ann” with me , Mr. Disingenous!
Hi George,
Maybe the questions you pose can be answered by the Aussie Gov’t:
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=21940#21945
It must be pointed out that the NZ and Australian Governments have ruled out any military intervention against the Japanese whaling fleet and even ruled out the possibility to win a legal case in this issue in any court.
As usual as it comes to these questions on high seas and seas in general, all international laws such as UNCLOS and the Geneva Convention on the high seas are very weak.
Why there are more protests against Japanese whaling than Norwegian whaling methink depends on the Japanese Gov’t position to increase the quotas to maybe thousands of minkes and even include species such as Humpbacks and Fin whales.
That’s why the outcry .
Norway has lobbied strongly in the US , to ” accept” their whaling policy. The whalers have won this case. The PR office in the US is now closed.
Greenpeace Nordic on the other hand has abandoned the campaign in Norway , more or less. They claim a victory as well regarding the whaling issue since the whale meat consumption has decreased and pointed out together with other NGOs the problems with the middle-hands and processings of the whale meat in Norway.
Well, regarding the statement on Shane Rattenbury, methink Greenpeace must have an ongoing anti whaling campaign somewhere due to demand of its supporters.
George:”Many people consider nowadays Norwegian whaling more “acceptable” than Japanese whaling on the high seas.”
Do you mean the general public, regular GP supporters or the GP and other NGO fanatics?
One comment that I have heard is that at least Norway is more “honest” than Japan and openly admits that its whaling is commercial, contrary to Japan with its neverending scientific programme.
ann & George you should ask where Japan ranks out of Australia’s trading partners and how deeply our pollies would bite the hand that feeds us
Hi Anne,
“It must be pointed out that the NZ and Australian Governments have ruled out any military intervention against the Japanese whaling fleet and even ruled out the possibility to win a legal case in this issue in any court.”
Quite true, specifically :
New Zealand’s delegate to the IWC and former NZ Labour Prime Minister, Sir Geoffrey Palmer said earlier this year: “We have been looking at the legal theories that are available against the Japanese for some months … and there is no legal theory that is available that can prevent, in our view, the Japanese from doing what they are doing … A sovereign government cannot undertake legal action unless it has a good chance of success.”
As well as :
” Japan’s lethal research takes place in the Southern Ocean adjacent to Antarctica. Australia regards some of these waters as Australian waters as they adjoin our Antarctic territory. However, Japan regards these waters as the high seas and does not recognise any form of Australian jurisdiction.
Any action against Japanese vessels engaged in whaling in what we regard as Australian Antarctic waters could be perceived as provocative to many other countries. It is against this reality that the Australian Government believes the best way to resolve this issue is through bilateral diplomatic representations and in international forums such as the IWC. Successive Australian Governments have taken this approach.”
As I mentioned in an earlier post, it does´nt stop duplicious NGO´s & anti-whling fanatics claiming otherwise..
Regarding :
“Why there are more protests against Japanese whaling than Norwegian whaling methink depends on the Japanese Gov’t position to increase the quotas to maybe thousands of minkes and even include species such as Humpbacks and Fin whales.”
See my earlier point, up until recently, Norwegian quotas ( and catches ) were higher than the average 440 that the Japanese took in the SO. This years Norwegian quota of 1052 is also higher than the japanese SC quota 850 +/- 10% – what are GP doing? going to the Southern ocean. Iceland just took 7 fins from a commercial quota of 9 fin whales. No Anne, that line of reasoning does´nt hold up in reality – GP sent a ship to ” visit” Iceland, breaking off from their planned voyage when Iceland recommenced SC whaling a few years back – so if hunting Fin whales was a big factor, where were they in September? … even Brian Fitzgerald of GP reckons anti whaling actions against Iceland would be counter productive.
Yes, Greenpeace Nordic claim a victory on the whaling issue – we all know how hollow that claim is don´t we? 😉
Regarding Rattenbury etc, could also be that GP are loath to let go of a good income/ donation source – it would certainly explain away their contradictory anti whaling action policies.
Regarding :
“One comment that I have heard is that at least Norway is more “honest” than Japan and openly admits that its whaling is commercial, contrary to Japan with its neverending scientific programme.”
Funnily enough, I hear this statement too quite often … at least here in Germany.
Schiller,
Regarding:
“Greenpeace is a signatory to the International NGO Accountability Charter”
They broke that charter after a mere 22 days
http://www.sunstkitts.com/paper/?asknw=view&asknw=view&sun=101842079307062006&an=274834087407032006&ac=Local&aop=374318088207032006_sunsknw
Here´s a facinating insight into how GP attempts to avoid responsibility for their actions from the court case in 1995 regarding the “Senet” :
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/Greenpeace/gr-to-pa.htm
Specifically :
“No responsibility
Enghaugen sued the four companies he recognised from the operations in the North Sea this summer , where the two Greenpeace ships Sirius and Solo were involved. These companies were Stitching Greenpeace Netherlands, Stitching Marine Services, Stitching Oxygen and Stitching Sirius. The last three of these companies own or operate the Greenpeace ships. The four companies’ solicitor claimed that they could not be held responsible for the actions against the Senet in the North Sea, neither individually nor collectively, and that none of them had had the instructive authority for the operation. Nor could the circumstance that they (the companies being sued) are members of the informal environmental movement Greenpeace imply any collective responsibility, it says in the defence litigation document. Furthermore, it says that there is no evidence of any formal decision to take action and that none of the accused had any knowledge of, nor control over, how the operation should be carried out. They admit that the campaign leader was Geert Drimann, director of Stitching Greenpeace Netherlands, but claim that he held this position as a private individual , not by way of his job in Greenpeace. They claim that the leaders of the campaign had independent responsibility for the operation, and that they represented neither the accused parties, nor any other organisations.”
and
” Such an attempt at disclaiming responsibility had been successful in a case tried by Nord Troms stipendiary magistrates court in January 1994, where Greenpeace activists who had acted against an oil rig were sentenced individually but where the Stitching Greenpeace Council was acquitted. Drilling for oil had to be stopped on safety grounds as a result of the campaign.
The basis for the acquittal was that the court was not able to identify which organisation was responsible for the campaign, and the relationship between the Greenpeace Council and the other organisations involved was diffuse. It is quite possible that one has chosen a complicated corporate structure in order to make it difficult for others to penetrate the reality of corporate litigation surrounding the environmental movement, the court noted in the grounds for judgement.”
Our own Environment Minister made it clear a few days ago that the reason no legal action would be taken was not that Australia would lose the case, which he made clear that they would.
Rather, in the course of losing the case they would give the Japanese a firm and binding ruling as to the absolute legality of their actions.
Ergo, the minister is actively avoiding any action that would give the Japanese their lawful rights to fish on the high seas. What a moral giant.
I wonder how the Sea Sheperd dudes would handle a confrontation with a boatload of starving North Koreans? Now that would make really great TV viewing.
” Japan’s lethal research takes place in the Southern Ocean adjacent to Antarctica. Australia regards some of these waters as Australian waters as they adjoin our Antarctic territory. However, Japan regards these waters as the high seas and does not recognise any form of Australian jurisdiction.’
Hmmmm that doesn’t sound like a lack of Australian legal rights, just imperialism by Japan.
Interesting to note that the Japanese Fisheries Ministry does not recognise another sovereign nations jurisdiction when it inconveniently conflicts with Japan’s commercial interests.
So Japan ignores Tuna quotas, has reservations lodged with CITES against nearly all the protected whale species and doesn’t recognise another nations sovereign rights when they conflict with Japan’s economic plans. Sustainable international commercial whaling with that record, no chance.
If Greenpeace conduct an action in Iceland or Norway’s EEZ George squeals that its illegal, if Greenpeace don’t conduct an action in Iceland and Norway’s EEZ George squeals that they should… what a muppet.
It appears that Ann does not have figures for whales taken outside the Norwegian EEZ for the last ten seasons after all despite suggesting that Norway whales outside its EEZ, all she has is a map. She is spending too much time hanging around dear George’s straw man factory.
The best counter attack against the Greenpeace propaganda that I can see for the whalers is to push the conservation aspect. They need to illustrate that whaling is not incompatible with conservation objectives.
– If Japan is taking more Antarctic minke whales than Norway is taking from the North Atlantic, is Japan’s whaling worse from a conservation perspective? The answer requires some thought, but it isn’t obvious to Joe Bloggs that this might not be the case.
– If Japan is taking less Fin whales from the Antarctic than the number of Bowheads that the Alaskans are taking, does that make the Alaska hunt worse from a conservation perspective? How come it’s OK for Alaskans to kill (or at least strike and probably kill) 60+ Bowhead whales each year but not OK for Japan to kill 50 Fin whales from the Antarctic each year? (only 10 at the moment)? There are only around 10,000 Bowheads in the stock being hunted, where as the Fin whale numbers feeding in Antartic waters is probably at least as abundant, if not more so (although admittedly I’m ignoring stock identity).
If there is only thing that the whalers can make individual anti-whalers understand it should be what is required to “conserve” a population of animals. Most people do already understand this, but for some reason have difficulty grasping it when it comes to marine based populations rather than land-based, and particularly farm-based population.
There is definitely a perception that Japan is dishonest with it’s whaling, and Greenpeace have had a lot of success in characterizing Japan’s whaling as an abuse of a “loophole”, and have to be admired from an analysis of their campaign strategy, but the problem that they have is that this is ultimately not based on a truth, and it is ultimately destined to fail because of this.
I was reading a webpage about “campaigning” that was recommended on some forum by Brian Fitzgerald of Greenpeace. The key is apparently not to educate, but to make people want to do something.
How can the whalers motivate the generally apathetic anglo-saxon public to want to think about what “conservation” really means? Maybe taking the piss out of Ian Campbell (as I frequently do on my blog) could be appealing?
Hi Ian,
” I wonder how the Sea Sheperd dudes would handle a confrontation with a boatload of starving North Koreans? Now that would make really great TV viewing.”
Going by the utterances of Watson – ” earthworms are far more valuable than people ”
They´d probably leave them to starve / sink / drown
‘How come it’s OK for Alaskans to kill (or at least strike and probably kill) 60+ Bowhead whales each year but not OK for Japan to kill 50 Fin whales from the Antarctic each year?’ – David
Yet another od David’s perpetual disingenuous attempts to compare Aboriginal subsistance quotas with the industrial scale, international commercial hunt of thousands of whales proposed by Japan if the IWC moratorium is overtuned…… pathetic.
As David freely admits the Japanese kill of protected Fin whales is ‘ten AT THE MOMENT’.
Fin whales, a species that Japan has a reservation logged with CITES over, which clearly indicates exactly what will happen if Japan feels its economic interests are not properly served by any IWC quotas; then again Japan doesn’t stick to its Tuna quotas so agreeing to an RMP and RMS wouldn’t actually mean anything anyway.
‘I was reading a webpage about “campaigning” that was recommended on some forum by Brian Fitzgerald of Greenpeace. The key is apparently not to educate, but to make people want to do something.’
– David
Straw man detector just went off again….. ‘campaigning’ quite clearly is designed to make people want to do something, it does not exclude educating. If it was purely designed to educate it would be called ‘educating’ not ‘campaigning’…
Informative that David recommends taking the piss out of others but throws a hissy fit when he is on the receiving end, eh? :o)
I recommend Patrick to hang around George a bit more, so you might understand what norrbaggarna( the Vikings)state on whaling issues …. if you check out the Marininstitutte’s or Fiskeridirektorate’s websites you should get all stats…
And Patrick, please stop making propaganda for Sea Shepherd, it’s VERY counter productive…
I also recommend you to widen you horizons and not only talking about Japanese imperialism, sounds like a real maniac…
For your information I’m sure that the UK and Australia have made more species going extinct than the whaling nations, maybe something to think about…
Regarding the tuna fisheries , in the Mediterranean it’s the EU tuna fishing fleet that is responsible for the overfishing that will make the blue fin tuna going exctinct probably in 20 years time…
Just answer the Norwegian whaling outside outside Norway’s EEZ question Ann after all you wanted to discuss it when you thought waving a map around made you an expert.
You know perfectly well that I engage in conservation in the UK, the fact you imply otherwise maybe something to think about…..
I saw what hanging around George did for your mania levels so I will pass thanks.
Patrick, I’m not the one e-mailing certain persons to tell them what a naughty person I have been…
So you can’t answer the Norwegian question and now want to discuss your mania again instead?
And Patrick, this was my last comment to you…. you even don’t amuse me anymore, just an annoyance..
RAOTFLMAO.
Lamna,
It should be said that you are likely to be mostly on your own here. Not because no one agrees with you or has something personal against you, but because we have gone over this debate so many times that some of us don’t want to bother commenting anymore. With the upcoming Austral summer, be prepared to be in for the long haul, as the Greenpeace and whaling debate is only going to get more persistent.
Hi,
To my knowledge, Norwegian whalers did not take any minke whales in international waters in 2006. I’m pretty sure this is correct. This was the first season for ages that the government permitted whaling in international waters. Depending on how the season proceeds, there might be catches in international waters next year.
Rune Frøvik
High North Alliance
Hi Rune.
Thank you for confirming that no whales were taken by Norwegian whalers from international waters in 2006. Could you be more specific on the exact ldate that the Norwegian government last permitted whaling in International waters?
Hi Rune,
Apologies, I meant to include in my last post the question of if and how many whales were actually taken in International waters the last time it was permitted by the Norwegian government in view of the fact that none were taken in 2006 and if not what date was the last whale caught in international waters by a Norwegian whaling ship?
Hi Libby,
Thanks for the ‘heads up’.
Hi,
I’m not sure. I reckon the last time must have been 1987, the last season before commercial whaling was paused. I cannot remember any specific stats on how many were taken in international waters vs EEZs, the main interest was to have the catch numbers for each stock. On the other hand, the coordinates are probably found in the whalers’ log books, and perhaps some scientists have used these data, plotting them on a map, etc? I don’t know.
Rune Frøvik
High North Alliance
Hi Rune,
Thank you for an honest answer,
Hi Rune,
Why does the Norwegian whaling industry and government feel it might be necessary to return to whaling in international waters in 2007 after 20 years when it was not necessary?
Hey George, poke poke, got any economic valuations on the ecological services provided by earthworms? 😛
Lamna, without diving in (as Libby said, as all the research and effort proved unproductive last time) but to help steam issues along, we covered all these bases (and more) in the exchanges some time back:
personal values, biases, politics & democracy (& when a means justifies an end)
modes of reasoning, types of logic, PR & framing
expert v’s non expert opinions
animal intelligence and creativity, human bias for large mammals and attractive animals, orcas
public & govt sentiment in different nations
animal suffering, kill times and methods, (comparison with slaughterhouses & GP’s effect on kill time)
ability to harpoon selectively by species, age or gender
viable sustainable populations of different species, sub populations and genetic stock
location of populations and timing of whaling
migration patterns
whaling & populations (past & current) inside v’s outside national waters, comparisons of restraint and concern for viable populations shown by different nations
whether sustainable harvesting and international co-operation to this end is achievable
private v’s public resource ownership and international resources
the need for scientific research of which type and methods by which it can be conducted, and the impact of harvesting on time-series research
international laws, regulations, guidelines & politics & economics
IWC – rules, lobbying, voting, influence
international institutions and avenues for action
conservation obligations under the UN
green NGO’s v’s industry groups – messages, fundraising, target of actions, methods, personalities
international shipping rules and commonsense
the war and national soveriegnty and modern global interdependence
market need v’s nationalistic sentiment
whale meat & by-product use, trade, stocks, promotion & distribution methods, puppy food
taste & attraction of eating whale meat
history of whaling & legacy ‘rights’ to whale
industrial v’s indigeneous whaling (& kill methods) v’s ecotourism
Oh, and Motty’s ink-stained envelope (he’s used both sides by now) where whales = bovines and whales = whales as biodiversity has zero value
Hi Pinxi,
Thanks, thats a pretty comprehensive list.
David: ” “campaigning” … Greenpeace. … not to educate, but to make people want to do something”. David, this is a bog standard marketing for sales approach, just that NGO’s, NFP’s, lobbyists etc are all catching on. (GP gets attacked for misdirecting its funds towards less effective actions so would you applaud activities by GP which motivated real actions, ie a more effective use of donations by GP?) Corporate lobbyists have been pioneers in adapting these techniques – they’ve market tested various pyschological approaches and developed framing practices.
It is a good question to ask how the general public could be brought to understand more about conservation. I agree. It’s a complex and evolving issue though, even the experts can’t all agree and no-one trusts bureaucrats and the general public has an attention deficit. We’re all bound to disagree about the positioning and delivery of the messages. Id like to see a discussion about this proposal.
Pinxi is good at lists, they just need a copy and paste without thinking. And she has a tenuous grasp on just about all of that list.
“without thinking”
Posted by: Ian Mott at November 27, 2006 11:22 AM
Exhibit A.
Tell me where I thoughtlessly copied & pasted that list from Motty. I feel so wounded. I’d so hoped you’d be impressed with my recall of the issues that were discussed. Seems most of the issues passed you by though as you kept repeating the same emotional and rabid argument and ignoring the science.
I did omit ship strikes btw, and bullocky’s daughters, and the sl-t word & other dirty insults that you hurled when debated into a corner.
It’s become apparent that support for your periodic bouts of emotion-fuelled rants runs thin even in the quarters that you claim to represent. A logger should know better than to jump up and down out on a rotting limb.
Pinxi,
GP in this instance is attacked for wasting money not on “less effective actions” but completely pointless actions, that may in fact be counterproductive to true conservation efforts.
I’d applaud GP if they stopped wasting donations on pointless campaigning in the Antarctic and poured it all towards true conservation projects. Simple.
The challenge for GP is
1) they think that opposing whaling in the antarctic is part of their identity and are afraid to give it up
2) to find a creative way of making people want to donate for true conservation causes, which is harder when there is no party such as “Japanese whalers” to villify. I don’t think villification is particularly productive in terms of finding solutions to conservation problems, so it really calls for a big change in the modus operandi at GP HQ.
> We’re all bound to disagree about the positioning and delivery of the messages. Id like to see a discussion about this proposal.
Simple but factual – that’s my proposal. The problem is that approach isn’t attention grabbing. It doesn’t sell newspapers. The GP folks seem to think that they are creative, so hopefully they could take that basic principle and add their special sauce to it for the good of true conservation.
The 15th October I wrote in Jen’s blog ” that for the first time in decades the Norwegian whalers have permission to whale in international waters.” Despite this Lamna wrote:
Exactly how many minke whales did Norway take from international waters in the last ten seasons?
I have also pointed out zillions of times that the about 540 minkes that were killed this year in Norway were killed in the Norwegian EEZ and not a single minke has been killed for example in the Jan Mayen zone.
I have as well translated some articles from Norwegian paper Fiskeribladet on this.
That was why I didn’t repeat my reply once again to Lamna.
However, we are very thankful that Rune takes part in the discussion and will give us some more interesting and important information.
In this case I must give Rune credit for doing this and not act as his counterpart from GPI , John Frizell,who would never condescend himself to respond to bloggers or as he has expressed himself ” to people who are not important enough”,
Ann,
John Frizell is only marginally better than average anyway. When he did respond to me earlier this year (see January 10 2006 at my blog), in reference to JARPA he told me that:
“There is not a cetacean scientist in the world, outside of these employed by the whaling industry, who supports this ‘research’.”
This is an outright lie. It’s a controversial topic – yes – but there are certainly plenty of cetacean scientists who aren’t employed by the whaling industry who do see value in Japan’s research (we’ll see this again shortly when the report of the JARPA review next week is revealed, I believe).
John is probably payed handsomely to tell these lies with his straight face, however.
Morning Pinxi,
“Hey George, poke poke, got any economic valuations on the ecological services provided by earthworms? :P”
In the same vein, I´ll quote misanthrope Watson :
“Just because you were born stupid doesn’t give you any right to be stupid.” ;op
that´s your “hero” Pinxi dear – whilst you are having a poke at Motty as well, here´s another quote from el capitano :
” “If you don’t know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then … make it up on the spot.”
Give Ian his due, his back of the envelope jobs are at the minimum, entertaining, and occassionally a joy to behold ;Op
Regarding Frizell, here´s a statement on the GP website regarding Iceland´s fin whale take and possible export :
“It is not possible for any country to either export or import Appendix 1 listed whales (which includes fins and minkes) unless they possess a
reservation to these listings. A CITES party which has a reservation on a species is treated like a non member as far as that species is concerned.
Iceland and Japan both have reservations on the fin whale (they are the only countries which have) and on the minke whales. So they are legally able to import and export.”
He forgot ( or ignored / did´nt know ) about Norway´s CITES reservation to Fin whales – and that´s from the GP whales ” expert ”
Pinxi,
missed this bit ;
“It is a good question to ask how the general public could be brought to understand more about conservation. I agree. It’s a complex and evolving issue though, even the experts can’t all agree and no-one trusts bureaucrats and the general public has an attention deficit. We’re all bound to disagree about the positioning and delivery of the messages. Id like to see a discussion about this proposal”
We´ve already touched on this and I agree with you ( god forbid :op) would be an interesting subject.. 😉
Hi Ann,
” to people who are not important enough” Did John Frizell say this to you?
Hi Libby,
I will be straightforward with you on this case… and I have already mentioned this to David in an earlier post.
A certain person from the GP office told me that Frizell had stated exact this comment on David, and if you want to know more I have some personal experience as well…
Ann,
Oh, it was in relation to me that he said that?
I’m honoured, or at least, laughing really, “There is not a cetacean scientist in the world, outside of these employed by the whaling industry, who supports this ‘research’.”
Ann, having worked with John on and off since 1993, I find it hard to believe that he would make such a statement. However, as I wasn’t there when it was said, one has to trust that the person who told it to you was telling the truth. If the comment was made in some casual office banter, and not ‘officially’ then sorry, I have to say I am guilty of bagging out a number of you!
But I find it odd that if the comment was about David, you seem to find it offensive. After all, David has hardly said glowing words about John Frizell. Forgive me if I am mistaken here.
David, somehow I don’t think John is paid “handsomely” at all! I find that a very funny comment.
I can only say what I think of the man from my direct dealings with him and how I have seen him treat others. I am open to other suggestions provided they are honest and first hand, as all character-assassinations should be!
Hi Libby,
I have never met John personally and I must say as well that I have heard that he’s friendly…
Personally, I don’t like to hear it either if it’s from David or John ” that a perosn is not important enough to respond to”… I find it REALLY insulting..dehumanizing, or what you English speaking persons call it…
Well Libby from GP forums as well as from blogs , we know also that zero GP campaigners bother to respond to comments…
Libby,
I’d like to be fair to John.
Do you think that this is a fair-dinkum assertion:
“There is not a cetacean scientist in the world, outside of these employed by the whaling industry, who supports [JARPA]”
?
I’d have no reason to criticise John if he was straight up and said
“Hey this is a controversial issue – some scientists believe that JARPA is crap, but others believe that it’s providing information that is of use in a whale management context”.
He didn’t tell his readers that though,about cetacean scientists that support the JARPA research, which seems to indicate that he’s not interested in genuine debate about the issue. This statement is just another Greenpeace myth like “there’s no demand for whale meat in Japan”, etc. Greenpeace seem to come up with this stuff because they know if it comes down to the question at the core of the issue that most Australians and Kiwis will be shrugging and saying “well I guess so”.
That question is: “do you accept that whaling is OK so long as it’s carried out on a sustainable basis in accordance with scientific advice from the IWC’s Scientific Committee, and that governments properly regulate whaling operators under their jurisdiction?”
I’m sick of Greenpeace sideshows, I want to see this issue put to rest like it should be, so that people will focus on what conservation means. We need good examples of sustainable use that show the way for human society in the 21st century. Properly regulated sustainable whaling could be just such a leading example, but Greenpeace are trying to obstruct it for what seems to be self-interest. Greenpeace need to start thinking about a world where there are no longer villians.
And Libby , I’m as unimportant as a person can be, just a drop out from the Uni and zero position in Greenpeace, I was just a volunteer…
But John promised me to answer some whaling questions once…. however, they were a bit tricky, and I asked if I had the permission to publish his comments in some blog, but even if he promised to reply to the questions he never did…
Ann,
John was probably just a little stroppy at the time he made that comment about me, I think we can cut him some slack. Perhaps he regretted not have spending more time on constructing his response (thought he would have had enough practice though…)
In terms of the probability of convincing me that “no whaling!” is the way to go, he probably realised that I’m less likely to start funding his lifestyle than other people out that there that he could give his attention to.
Ann,
I’m sure John was just too busy. He’s been arguing this stuff for more than 25 years now, I believe, so he must be thoroughly sick of it!
> the ICR has never argued that, that’s something they’re looking at in the North Pacific context.
Ann,
I can’t comment on John and his not answering your questions, nor can I comment on GP people not answering blogs. Most of the time I have been on the ships it was when no campaigns were taking place, hence no weblog people, etc. I do my survey and write my report/paper, and that is my professional involvement and experience with them.
David, as I mentioned above, this stuff has been debated until the sea cows come home, so no entry from me on the “fair-dinkum assertion”. I am not making excuses for what you or John have written, but simply hope that when people report that someone has said something of a personal nature, no matter whom it is about or whom said it, that it is not second-hand gossip.
And Ann, you should give yourself more credit. No one is unimportant.
“Simple but factual – that’s my proposal. The problem is that approach isn’t attention grabbing.”
David I agree. Problem, to pluck a worn thread, is that different outlooks, even among scientists and other professionals, can lead to differing ‘facts’.
David & George & others: assuming that ‘us’ and ‘them’ could all agree on the ‘facts’, does the general public (whether pro or anti whaling) want to be liberated of their ignorance? What would they do with the facts? There’s much truth in the expression that ignorance is bliss.
George we’ve agreed on a couple of things now. But you haven’t gone the full 9 rounds with Motty. Wait til yr punch drunk & he’s stabbing you in the blackening eye with the sharp edge of his crusty envelope.
Don’t tell him, but I quite like Motty. He’s forthright, robust and a constant reminder that knowledge, intelligence and judgement can come in seperate packages.
Libby,
I’ll have to go back through the archives here to see if I can find some hints about what you might think of Frizell’s assertion 🙂
Pinxi,
I would think that all parties should be able to agree on at least some basics for a start. For example, how about this:
Can we recognise that whale stocks would be susceptible of natural increases if whaling were properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks would permit increases in the number of whales which might be captured without endangering these natural resources?
I hope so, because that’s one statement from the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, to which Australia amongst others has adhered.
I wonder if the Australian government is happy to recognise that?
I don’t think the general public wish to be liberated of their ignorance – and that’s the problem right? Whaling affects well less than 1% of the world’s population by my estimation. Most people don’t care. The problem is that they are being spurred into action despite their ignorance, and that’s wrong. I worry that seriously bad stuff could one day happen (again) if we don’t stamp this sort of thing out. I really think that this sort of stuff is dangerous.
Hi David
” I would think that all parties should be able to agree on at least some basics for a start”
Where anti whaling fanatics are concerned, that´s a lost cause already… it would not matter what safeguards were in place, loopholes closed or how watertight any agreement was – they simply will not accept any whaling whether sustainable or not no matter what. SS being the obvious example, but I also notice a militant tendency rising within the GP ranks. It may very well blow up in their faces in the not too distant future …
To those folk, it´s black or white, no shades of grey allowed – It´s the “You´re either for us or against us mentality ”
” I don’t think the general public wish to be liberated of their ignorance – and that’s the problem right? ”
Yes and No 😉
Engaging in 1 to 1 personal contact goes a long way towards understanding – from personal experience, I know that, whilst I may not have changed the minds of many friends and colleagues here in Germany on their opposition to whaling, mostly their views are now markedly more moderate and they are certainly better informed as to the ins and outs of the whole debate. I do agree that the majority are simply not interested or don´t care – it´s somewhere else and somebody else is doing it and it´s nothing to do with me.. and anyway, did´nt GP stop that years ago? ( one particularly enlightening comment.)
“I really think that this sort of stuff is dangerous.”
too true..
Some comments at this thread have been edited. In particular, posts can not state that particular individuals having knowingly misled on the basis of third hand information.
re: fanatics, George you gotta admit there are pro-whaling fanatics too, with various motivations that I won’t go into right now, who don’t care about sustainability.
I reckon it’s ebbed & flowed but there’s always been a militant undercurrent in GP and always conflict between the more moderate and more radical GPers. A lot of it is driven by defiant, rebellious ‘teenage’ values. Just as was assessed among the demonstrators against the vietnam war, while espousing noble values most were protesting from a more base self-interested level.
Few are generally open to considering the whole issue and fewer have the mindspace. Trying to get a more rounded message across to a broader audience, sure, but what larger movement would try that (what incentive?) and what would the concerned citizens do then? The conservative take on an issue is always a hard sell (meaning conservative without political connotations). David suggested earlier that the concerned citizens could give to a proper scientific organisation but is that a reality and how does the common Jo sift the wheat from the chaff?
I reckon it’s ebbed & flowed but there’s always been a militant undercurrent in GP and always conflict between the more moderate and more radical GPers. A lot of it is driven by defiant, rebellious ‘teenage’ values. Just as was assessed among the demonstrators against the vietnam war, while espousing noble values most were protesting from a more base self-interested level.
What I had problems with during my period in Greenpeace were the illegal activities/actions. Really, can’t understand the purpose of those activities.
They just want to be troublemakers.
I can tell you about my last campaign in Stockholm.
Greenpeace copied “lotteries” that were intended to be handed out to the public. Of course , the public thought they were for real, that’s why they stopped and got interested for the issue…
However, the lotteries inspection told us that copying the lotteries was illegal and it was forbidden for the activists to hand out the lotteries. But Greenpeace didn’t care about this illegal activity, contrary we were told by the management to ignore the inspection and the police and regardless hand out the illegal lotteries.
Greenpeace’s defence for these illegal activities is always ” that the other side is committing even worse crimes”.
Another example during the autumn was this action against the toxic death ship the Probo Koala, which was fine by me.
What I reacted against was that we during our Oceans campaign in the Baltic Sea had campaigned for compulsory pilotage to certain harbours etc.
Still , Greenpeace broke against this rule and was fined in the Estonian harbour for not having pilotage. Amazing!
Pinxi,
” re: fanatics, George you gotta admit there are pro-whaling fanatics too, with various motivations that I won’t go into right now, who don’t care about sustainability.”
Sure pinxi, I´ve met a couple myself ( from both sides 😉 however, I´ve yet to meet a pro whaling fanatic who, commits criminal trespass, attempts to ram ships, uses firearms, pours petrol on the sea surface and try and set it alight with flares, etc etc ad infinitum -….
Sure, there´s always been a militant undercurrent in GP – I notice it more these days though…
perhaps it´s a signal of a change in GP policy – getting more militant/radical I mean – you never know, Rattenbury and Watson having a cuppa together in the SO might be coming to your TV screen in the near future – it´s getting harder for GP to say that they do not co-operate with SS after Watson´s claim that he got the position of the Nissan Maru from a GP´r on board one of the GP ships … then again, Watson claims a whole load of crap so take his claim with a barrel of salt …
theyre unlikely to be more decent George, they’re just getting their way. ie they, or others, are whaling. Perhaps not as much as they’d like but whaling nonetheless. The anti-whalers, however, aren’t getting their way so they”re on the resistance side.
I reckon some GPers co-operate with him on the side, offical line forbids it cos they’re the competition and make GP look like prissy flag wavers
But, a reflection on extreme tactics, did the US really train assassin cetaceans? (Maybe Watson could get his paws on one of those.).
Just like to apologise to our great host Jennifer for causing her troubles with some of my comments here!
With regards to John Frizell’s claim about cetacean scientists not supporting the JARPA research, I’d like to record some extra info here in addition to what I already wrote in response to Frizell on my blog back in January.
Judy Zeh spoke to the Aussie media a few years ago when she was chair of the IWC/SC:
MATT COLEMAN: How valuable are these scientific research programs that Japan carries out in telling scientists like yourself something useful about whale populations?
JUDY ZEH: Well, they certainly do provide a lot of data. They’ve been doing a lot of genetic analyses which tells us about stock structure, whether whales in a particular area mix with whales from another area or whether they don’t. And this is something that’s very important to know for management purposes. So they certainly provide good information on things like that.
MATT COLEMAN: Would you be able to get that information any other way, through a more humane or even a non-lethal research method?
JUDY ZEH: Well, many scientists are using biopsy sampling, and that works very well for humpback whales. It’s been a little less successful for minke whales, and I’m not sure that’s because it hasn’t been tried sufficiently and the best techniques haven’t been worked out, or whether – I suspect that maybe that it’s somewhat more difficult to biopsy minke whales than humpback whales.
—
Judy Zeh isn’t employed by the whaling industry as far as I can tell, she’s an academic. Her statements are corroborated by the well-known quote from the IWC/SC workshop review of JARPA in 1997:
“The review meeting noted that there were non-lethal methods available that could provide information about population age structure (e.g. natural marking) but that logistics and the abundance of minke populations in Areas IV and V probably precluded their successful application.”
Frizell wouldn’t have much luck trying to link each of the cetacean scientists who took part in that review to the whaling industry.
Then there’s this from the recent RMP workshop: “Western North Pacific Bryde’s Whale Implementation: Report of the First Intersessional Workshop”
“The Workshop considered information from several approaches, both genetic and non-genetic, as a number of studies (e.g. Donovan, 1991) have concluded that this is the most effective way to address questions of stock identity.”
Frizell refuted that Dr Ray Gambell had any scientific credentials in his response to me (demonstrably incorrect as I illustrated on my blog at the time), so I wonder if Frizell would shoot first and ask questions later by dismissing Greg Donovan, Head of Science at the IWC, for whatever reason he cares to dream up as well.
I find it very hard to believe that Frizell isn’t aware of the various cetacean scientists who have no connections to “whaling industry” (which barely exists today as it is) that also recognise value in the JARPA research programmes.
I wonder if what Frizell really meant was more along the lines of “no cetacean scientist who is against the killing of whales supports the JARPA research”.
Pinxi,
“theyre unlikely to be more decent George, they’re just getting their way. ie they, or others, are whaling. Perhaps not as much as they’d like but whaling nonetheless. The anti-whalers, however, aren’t getting their way so they”re on the resistance side.”
Actually Pinxi, I have to disagree with you there – both those that I have met were cerainly what I would call hard-core pro whaling, but two nicer folk you´ll have trouble finding – completely immovable on the whaling question, totally Pro, but nice pleasant folk. For most whalers I know, whaling is just another fishery as I´ve mentioned before.
” But, a reflection on extreme tactics, did the US really train assassin cetaceans? ”
So the rumor goes – supposedely, they were fitted with a harness with a “hypodermic” like attachment and were conditioned to poke this into divers that did not have a certain metal plate somewhere on their body ..ramming the diver triggered a gas cartidge and the diver was not having a good day.. idea behind it was to defend ships in harbours against enemy frogmen. The Us navy denies using trined dolphins in offensive roles against human beings so it remains a rumor ..
There is a current mine sweeping / finding program on as far as I recall – they´ve used californian sealions, killer whales, beluga dolphins as well as a number of other species in the program .. google the ” U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program ” if you want more details 😉
Re “Why does the Norwegian whaling industry and government feel it might be necessary to return to whaling in international waters in 2007 after 20 years when it was not necessary?”
It’s one element of our normalisation process, which to us means to remove all measures we consider unnecessary and unjustified. Of course, we do not rule out that there are different views.
More specificially this decision removes the dessert walk across the Banana hole from the coastal EEZ to the Jan Mayen area. Now it is possible to sort of stay on the line and hunt on both sides of it. It may help in making the Jan Mayen hunt more attractive.
If this decision also pleases the Japanese, in the sense that Japan is not any longer the only country to permit whaling in international waters, that’s fine with us.
Access to international waters was not the top priority, but now it was time to move ahead also on this subject.
There are also some strategic reasons behind the move, which may unfold in the years to come. Wait and see. And in the mean time, feel free to speculate wildly!!!! (However, any lack of denial from this end cannot be construed as confirmation of anything.)
Often a policy change may appear minor at first. Kind of what was the case when Norway first changed the tuning level from 0,72 to 0,70, with minimal effect, if my memory serves me right, on the actual size of the whaling quota. What took an effort was to change the tuning level the first time. The subsequent changes down to the current 0,60 tuning level didn’t really demand anything at all, it was only a question of letting things run their course with the help of time.
Perhaps these waters will not be international much longer. Norway has apparently submitted some claims to the UN today that large parts of the Banana Hole, the Loop Hole and an area north of Spitzbergen should be turned into Norwegain EEZ. Some 250 000 square kilometres. It may be out on the wires, here’s something from the Norwegian media http://www.nettavisen.no/innenriks/article816486.ece
Hi Rune,
Has this decision to take the case regarding the continentalshelf to the UN anything to do with the victory today in the Norwegian High Court re the fisheries protection zone around Svalbard and the Spanish pirate trawlers?
‘I want to see this issue put to rest like it should be, so that people will focus on what conservation means. We need good examples of sustainable use that show the way for human society in the 21st century. Properly’ – David
Yeah right David that’s why when the Japanese Tuna quota story broke you first of all wanted to claim it was false, then that it was all Australia’s fault and finally slunk off back under your rock.
“Has this decision to take the case regarding the continentalshelf to the UN anything to do with the victory today in the Norwegian High Court re the fisheries protection zone around Svalbard and the Spanish pirate trawlers?”
No. Some info in English from the Foreign Affairs Minister on http://odin.dep.no/ud/english/news/news/032081-070073/dok-bn.html
Rune Frøvik
High North Alliance
Hi Rune,
Thanks for the info and link.
“Perhaps these waters will not be international much longer. Norway has apparently submitted some claims to the UN today that large parts of the Banana Hole, the Loop Hole and an area north of Spitzbergen should be turned into Norwegain EEZ. Some 250 000 square kilometres. It may be out on the wires, here’s something from the Norwegian media
Don’t have that much clue on the UNCLOs but this turning of some of the high seas into Norwegian EEZ would probably cause conflicts with Iceland , Russia and maybe as well with other states demanding access to oil and fisheries.
Maybe this decision to turn these areas into Norwegian EEZ will be unilateral???
Has not this decision to turn part of the high seas into Norwegian EEZ more to do with oil drilling than efforts to increase whaling quotas?
What I am thinking of is that countries such as Russia will take action against such demands of the Norwegians. Haven’t they boycotted Norwegian salmon because of conflicts re the fisheries protection zones and trouble with the Electron affaire?
Yes, I know the Russians have boycotted the salmon due to contamination, but my personal opinion is that this is of political reasons…
And Rune, I know you don’t reveal the whaler’s plans but what do you think of these statements that were made by whaler’s some months ago( From Fiskeribladet):
1) Leave the IWC( yes, we have heard this comment many times)
2) Add new species to the quota
3) Only rely to advice from Norwegian scientists
4) Whalers want to whale near the coast and not sailing to ” the dessert or wilderness”
Schiller,
“People tend not to pay attention if you don’t change tactics. Recycling tactics too frequently is shabby and suggests a lack of attention to the media cycle. It doesn’t look “new” if you recycle too fast.”
Fanatics don´t care Schiller, typical tactics are to avoid the subject / questions, claim the moral high ground and make ad hominem attacks on their opponents, whilst at the same time trying to change / link the subject to a negative area that has zip to do with the discussion. Other tactics include guilt by association, attributing false points of view to their opponent/ false quotes to their opponent and a general all round attempt to bring the discussion down rather than discuss the subject at hand without personal attack.
I´ve noticed a much higher level of personal invective on Jens blog in the last few weeks ( outside of the normal rough and tumble of usual debate ) It would be a shame to see the blog continue on this level ..
and before you ask, I´ll freely admit to being guilty of some of the above myself … as for anybody else, ” if the cap fits ” …..
‘I´ll freely admit to being guilty of some of the above myself ‘ – George
George you are too modest…. guilty of all of it more like…. :o)
Still fanatics don´t care eh?….
See what I mean Schiller? LMAO
Ann,
A link from within the link Rune posted has an FAQ which may help answer one of your questions:
“Has Norway cooperated with neighbouring countries in connection with its submission?
Norway has cooperated closely with its neighbours Russia, Iceland, Denmark / Greenland and the Faroe Islands in preparing its submission. There has been an open dialogue, and data concerning areas of mutual interest have been exchanged.”
I know you didn’t ask for my opinion, but I’d like to put down my thoughts about your other 4 questions for Rune:
The only benefit that I see for any nation remaining within the IWC set up today is solely because the IWC has a Scientific Committee with a robust review process. The advice of the SC is of great value, in not only practical terms but as well as political terms – it resolves any question of partiality surrounding scientific findings.
The big question I do have about the SC is that today at least one government has allowed at least one campaigner from a very non-partial NGO to participate in the proceedings of the SC on their ticket – a saboteur in my opinion. The SC is certainly capable of rejecting phony science from such campaigner-saboteurs, but by placing these saboteurs within the SC, governments can wield the influence of preventing scientific consensus. All it takes is a few governments to do this and then suddenly you have more than just a handful of “SC members”, which to outsiders may look like a group filing a genuine scientific minority report. This then becomes a problem politically when trying to make decisions based on scientific advice (what conservation requires). We may see governments then refer to minority reports, which they themselves manufactored, and demand that the precautionary principle be adhered to.
I don’t know how this problem could be resolved – you could say “no more government nominated scientists”, but then there may be questions about the partiality of those inviting the “Invited Participants”, which doesn’t help the situation. We’ve already seen prominent NGO campaigners question the partiality of the former IWC Secretary because he dared to remain true to the ICRW.
The governments of nations that remain true to the ICRW are thus in a nasty position – they either decide to go it alone and get criticised (and quite possibly with merit if genuine scientists with something to offer are left out), or they remain at the IWC and find their interests held hostage to the governments who do not remain adhered to the ICRW in good faith.
The only solution is that all nations must act in good faith. I seriously doubt this will happen any time soon, which may ultimately be detrimental to conservation if more nations do decide to throw in the towel.
The other option is for whaling nations to remain in the IWC, lodge objections to every political decision they don’t agree with, but be very careful to comply strictly with advice of the IWC SC on management. The difficultly here is that in the past the IWC has instructed the SC not to consider certain whale stocks in a management context, and thus advice may not be made available. Again, ultimately this could be bad for conservation.
—-
In relation to what George has said, I note that I’m regularly one victim of having comments I’ve made on this blog grossly mischaracterised (as in the case I observed today), or having positions attributed to me that I have never taken (sometimes achieved by way of selective quoting or similar dishonesty). Such events may happen from time to time through simple misunderstanding or miscommunication as is inherent in text based communications, but seems to be continually occuring here is clearly well beyond the realms of such good faith and tolerance.
Despite ignoring this for quite some time now, I see that this behaviour continues, and evidently continues to be accepted (not to blame Jen as the moderator, I know how precious one’s time is – just my observation of the problem). Something does need to be done about this if this forum is to continue to be popular, and informative for participants. No one participating here should have to waste their time patiently defending themselves on every thread, nor should anyone participating here in good faith be expected to live with what I see happening to me (and I believe others).
Unfortunately I get the impression that the only practical solution to this problem is in software.
I will have a look around and see if I can see anything that might be a good candidate.
One other thing about fanatics Schiller,
It´s the ” you´re either for us or against us mentaltity ”
Fanatics don´t care if you are moderate or anywhere inbetween.
Take me as an example – I´m pro sustainable use – what does that mean? It means that, as long as a population / resource is capable of taking a sustainanable harvest / utilisation – and someone wants to utilise that resource, I agree with it. I would be one of the first trying to stop a hunt on blue whales for example, as the population could not stand a hunt at the present time. Same with Right whales.
To the anti whaling fanatics however, I´m automatically a shill for the pro whaling, commercial exploitation of the natural world raper of the environment 8O) ( all of which I´ve been called on other forums ..LMAO )…. no interest in how ecologically I may live, no interest in what I may do or have done FOR the environment, no interest in how moderate or not I may be … they don´t care … ” better dead than red ”
I find this mindset incredibly self destructive to be frank .. and if I cared about it, I´d welcome more anti whaling / anti sustainable use fanatics, simply because they drive / alienate those who may be more moderate into the opposite camp from which the fanatics come 😉
If someone is hurt or god forbid killed in an anti whaling action in the Southern ocean this austral summer .. all sorts of Sh*t will fly around .. guess where it is going to land / stick? The NGO´s and especially GP will take a serious pasting in such a case… whether they deserve it or not …
David,
Excellent post above, very astute and reasoned.
‘today at least one government has allowed at least one campaigner from a very non-partial NGO to participate in the proceedings of the SC on their ticket – a saboteur in my opinion’ – David
No names, just the usual McCarthyesque rhetoric…
In relation to what George has said, I note that I’m regularly one victim of having comments I’ve made on this blog grossly mischaracterised (as in the case I observed today), or having positions attributed to me that I have never taken (sometimes achieved by way of selective quoting or similar dishonesty). – David
RAOTFLMAO!….. when George and David are on the receiving end of sustained and justified criticism of their transparent pro-commercial whaling propaganda and they can’t use straw man rhetoric, insults, misquoting, selective quoting or similar dishonesty to weasel their way out of trouble on all the forums and threads concerning whaling David in particular likes to posture on; they disingenuously squeal unfair and David suggests censorship (no surprises there of course).
David and George are typical bullies, they like to dish it out but when its dished back then its tears before bed time.. Grow up!
‘Instead of making up excuses for things to try to twist the world in your favour, first decide on your principles.
Do you really believe in democracy, or don’t you?’
– David@Tokyo, Wavemaker’s Blog, 14th July 2006.
‘the only practical solution to this problem is in software.
I will have a look around and see if I can see anything that might be a good candidate.’ – David
Making threats in public David is very, very foolish….
If the cap fits ” 😉
See what I mean Schiller? the constant is the invective .. telling and sad really ..
The fact that George has no criticism of a threat to use malware is duly noted…. So much for David and George’s rhetoric about terrorism…..
Try intimidating someone else.
One final thing that I forgot Schiller, Rabid Paranoia 😉
David is referring to an ” ignore this user ” option in the forum software I believe , just like the one Greenpeace has/ uses on the GP forum in the control panel. I must admit to using the function on the GP forum myself – saves me being tempted to reply in kind on the GP forum to : dare I say it on an Aussie forum ? ” whinging poms ” 😉
You mean the software you and David could already be using George…that would mean David didn’t have to go ‘looking’ for ‘a good candidate’ wouldn’t it……
Lets see, just to summarise the invective list :
I´m a bully seemingly
Childish ( or not grown up ) seemingly
I can´t take sustained and justified criticism seemingly
I spout transparent pro commercial whaling propaganda seemingly ( whatever that is when it´s at home )
I use straw man arguements seemingly
I use rheotoric seemingly
I insult folk seemingly ( anybody feel particularly insulted ? speak up now.. )
I use selective quoting seemingly
I misquote folk seemingly
I use similar dishonestly seemingly
I´m a weasel seemingly ( I´d prefer to be a stoat or an ermine but whatever )
I´m seemingly disingenious ( ROTFLMFSAO .. sorry,sorry, it just burst out )
I cry when challenged seemingly
I´m Guilty ( of everything ) seemingly
I affect folks mania levels seemingly ( does that mean I make anne´s heart beat a little faster when I post? .. wow! ) ;op Sorry Anne, feel free to smack my wrists 😉
I squeal when GP and SS conduct illegal actions seemingly and when I ask why they don´t conduct actions in Iceland or Norway, it seems that I´m sqealing again .. ( it´s all so confusing you see )
I´m a muppet seemingly ( ooooh! ooooh! which one? I bag Statler )
and thats just from this thread – I´d be at it all night if I listed them all through the forum(s)
oops! almost forgot :
I´m seemingly a naughty boy for not criticising david for wishing for an ignore user option ( of course perhaps david means something else – I don´t speak for him – what did you mean david? )
I wish Jen had such a function here as well – the invective level directed at me would probably drop by 99% with just one push of the button 8op
– g´nite all
Twisted nadgers?…….. :o)
Wow, why I bother to read this blog has always been vexing. Seems that problem could be solved pretty quickly. I’m sorry George and David, but I have had a bit of trouble with your paranoid comments about people logging on to your websites and now this stuff that has appeared in the last scroll down of entries. I agree with you that there is no need for bullying tactics or rudeness. People often resort to that out of sheer frustration. I feel ashamed of the stuff I have written in response to Ian Mott. It is totally out of character for me.
I have chosen not to participate in the whaling debate because not only is it rehashed and slightly boring, but because I don’t particularly wish to be gnawed on by you two who keep pushing and pushing to get your points across and do at times resort to insults and school yard roughness. There comes across an amazing amount of intolerance for anyone who does not see the whaling issue as you two do. Sorry, but that is how I see it (which admittedly is tinged by my own character flaws). David, I admit you have softened a bit and seem to be a little more tolerant and open to other possible explanations of events, which is refreshing.
I would like to ask that Lamna ditch the “RAOTFLMAO” jargon, which means zip to non-computer types like me.
There are some opinions you just can’t change, no matter how many google searches, peer-reviewed papers, academics, government sources or teacher’s pet dogs and cats you consult. Knowing when you can’t change them and accepting that, is a feat many of us, including myself, could do well to learn. I will now don my flak jacket…
Libby, thanks for your generous comments, I know I’m not completely deserving of them, but I think this is one of the only forums out there where I’ve actually seen people from different sides of the argument have a go at each other for several rounds but then actually find some common ground. At least that is my personal experience. My “softening” is probably due to this, although I admit to still being frustrated that some are happy to ignore or downplay certain inconvenient comments from the IWC SC, as the IWC SC seems to me to be the best possible hope we have for an “impartial judge” on certain controversial issues.
Knowing when to call it a day is a skill, but what is going on here at least in my case is quite a different situation. You only need to read back in this thread as far as my previous comment to see additional evidence of this.
Hi Libby,
Point taken regarding ‘rolling about on the floor laughing my ass off’ and if its any consolation to David, having done some research on one of his posts on the last whaling thread I have a feeling there may be an opportunity for environmentalists and fishermen to do something constructive together to help the Right Whale population and the local fishermen at the same time; still working on it but I will post the details if it progresses.
Mind you David is sailing very close to the wind at the end of that last post.
Hi all,
Contrary to Libby, I find the whaling threads quite amusing but agree that the going right now is quite rough , hey seriously believe if someone told you these thing that I read hear in the forum be mentioned to anybody in Sweden, the person would hire a torpedo….
It would be a pity if we cut off the discussions as I actually believe they might be useful for all parts as persons from different camps and positions take part in the discussions…
Ann,
I’d like to be able to have constructive discussions as well, but unfortunately here I either have no choice but to waste heaps of my time correcting (what seems to me to be malicious,) persistent misinterpretation of my comments, or otherwise allow the persistent misrepresentation of my comments to stand. Either way I personally lose (possibly such a strategy has been identified, subconsciously or otherwise).
On the software solution, Jen’s Moveable Type software doesn’t appear to have functionality like I have in mind, so I’m still looking for other options – Jen is under no obligation to go out of her way to help resolve what is mainly my problem anyway. Of course, my own blog, where my problem no longer exists, is always open to discussion but of course I don’t expect all or any of the readers/commenters here to oblige me.
In an attempt to be a bit fair I must strongly point out that it’s not only David and George , who use strong words…
Back at the Greenpeace forum re one of Lamna’s first comments, one of the Greenpeace staff had to tell Lamna to cool down and not be so testosteron fuelled… actually he has bullied people since his ever first comment… it’s open to all to check out my comment on this in the Greenpeac’s archive,,,
I stress that it’s not strong language that I have a problem with – it’s the persistent misrepresentation and misattribution of statements to people and groups (me, as one victim).
Plain old barnyard ad hominem attacks are easily ignored and ultimately just reflect badly on the person making them (I think most of us are naughty in that respect from time to time – I blame the alcohol! ;-)).
David the fact that you do not like having your pro commercial whaling propaganda regularly challenged by the same individual (whoever that individual may be) and get increasingly shirty when it happens is a matter of record on all the forums you posture on.
Particularly amusing was your increasingly hectoring tone with an Icelander who was not in favour of commercial whaling (Gasp!.. that really drpped a ferret in David’s underpants) on the Greenpeace forum as you lectured him on how much better informed about Iceland you were than he was (the Icelander wasn’t even a Greenpeace supporter)…..
About 2000 whales will be killed this year and 52 billion farm animals….
‘About 2000 whales will be killed this year and 52 billion farm animals….’
And your point would be….?
Travis,
I think Ann is trying to put this issue into perspective…
She is alluding to the fact that Greenpeace and other groups make a huge fuss about a relatively small number of animals being killed (with many in the western world under the illusion that the minke and fin whales being targeted are threatened with extinction because of this), while meanwhile 1 billion animals are killed in other parts of the world every week of the year.
Even in Australia alone, something like 5 million kangaroos are authorized to be slaughtered by the Australian government each year – they are shot from helicopters as I understand, which has a lot in common with whales being shot from ships. I’d love to see TTD statistics for the 5 million kangaroos that are shot each year, for comparison with TTD statistics from modern whaling hunts.
‘they are shot from helicopters as I understand, which has a lot in common with whales being shot from ships’
No, not really much in common. There is no harpoon tow line attached which is pulling back and forth in rough seas; they are pretty much accurate head shots by very experienced marksmen for the kangaroos (who would be far easier to kill due to their smaller body mass than a whale); they use the appropriate calibre for kangaroos as opposed to say fin whales; they can get a pretty good estimate of population sizes from terrestrial populations like kangaroos; GP may make a fuss about whales, but there are plenty of groups in Australia who make a fuss about kangaroos (but they are not as fun to lay the boot into as Greenpecae are they?); Ann has mentioned farm animals which are specifically bred for human use and in the western world there are strict guidelines on the husbandry and euthanasia of these animals; farm animals are not species that have been hunted to near extinction in the past (except if you bring the auroch and other primitive strains into it)…Sorry, but it is an argument that is brought up a lot, and I have a lot of difficulty seeing the parallels.
However, I will endeavour to find out some information from people-in-the-know of TTD stats for macropod hunts and get back to you.
Given that the ideal is for instantaneous death I’m not sure what the problem is with harpoon tow lines. Feel free to elaborate.
Harpoon gunners are also pretty good shots themselves.
As a layman I personally would fancy my chances of killing a whale with a harpoon due to the bigger target size of a whale rather than the smaller head size of a kangaroo. It seems like it would require more precision. What kind of distances are involved when kangaroos are shot? I imagine that the shot would have to be very accurate indeed to take out a vital organ.
What can you tell me about the precise conditions of how fin whales are killed? As far as I know the Japanese kept details of this pretty much under wraps last time around.
What has population size estimates got to do with the humaneness of the hunt?
If you are talking about conservation, it’s a pretty mute point anyway – there is uncertainty in whale stock abundances but the numbers being killed are incredibly small relative to even the lower confidence limits of the abundance estimates.
I my previous comment I was refering to the Australian government, which (like GP) makes a fuss about whales, in addition to presiding over these kangaroo culls (I think it’s a cull, right?) which strikes me as being unneccesary – but then I don’t live in Australia so to me it probably would seem that way. I wonder how many of the killed kangaroos are eaten, like the whales are.
I don’t agree that animals born into human captivity deserve different treatment to those that are lucky enough to be born into the wild.
Have you ever been to a farm? My uncle was a dairy farmer – I’ve seen with my own eyes what is acceptable, and this wasn’t even a factory farm.
The Antarctic minke whale is believed to be more abundant today than before whaling in the Antarctic commenced.
And even for species that were once over-exploited, I see no issue with exploiting them again once they have recovered, providing that care is taken not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
> Sorry, but it is an argument that is brought up a lot, and I have a lot of difficulty seeing the parallels.
Maybe my comments above will provide you with an understanding of why it is brought up a lot.
> However, I will endeavour to find out some information from people-in-the-know of TTD stats for macropod hunts and get back to you.
Thanks. I really do wonder if such figures exist, given that millions of these animals are killed every year. I am highly suspicious that the humane death of each animal killed can really be verified. How many people does it take to kill all these animals, anyway? Are they all equally efficient killers?
‘I am highly suspicious that the humane death of each animal killed can really be verified.’
Then it dosn’t matter what I find out does it, as long as it fits with your ideal?
I have corresponded with someone regarding this issue. Hopefully he will respond soon. Don’t worry David, there is no way I am trying to change your mind. I agree whole-heartedly with what others have written above regarding going over old ground and having points pushed on you until you just can’t be bothered contributing anymore.
> Then it dosn’t matter what I find out does it, as long as it fits with your ideal?
Not at all – if you can find out about how those millions of animals die, then I’m more than happy to accept it – but it just seems like a massive amount of information – does anyone in Australia really compile such a record? That in itself will be a big surprise, especially considering that Australia was requested to provide just such data to the IWC’s working group on humane killing methods for comparison, but has to date failed to deliver. If the government can’t provide the stats I’m not sure who else could. Unless of course the government does have the stats, but … anyway, no point in speculating!
> I have corresponded with someone regarding this issue. Hopefully he will respond soon.
Great! But anyway, really, maybe I shouldn’t bother. Why don’t I just take you on your word that there is not really much in common between these hunts?
> Don’t worry David, there is no way I am trying to change your mind. I agree whole-heartedly with what others have written above regarding going over old ground and having points pushed on you until you just can’t be bothered contributing anymore.
Yes. I know just how you feel, in light of our previous discussions about accepting in advance the outcome of a review of the original JARPA programme. It’s being held next week – we’ll hear much more about it come next May I’m sure. Maybe even before then, if someone in the “no whaling!” camp manages to get their hands on it and selectively leak some parts of it 😉
By the way, if you do ever feel like letting me know your opinion on the review before the results are released, feel free to let me know – I’m always ears 🙂
It’s actually very interesting reading information from http://www.awpc.org.au versus http://www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au
A remarkably familiar contrast… The only substantive difference I can really see is that here we’re talking about Australians, not non-Australians.
This government document on Australia’s whaling stance also makes mention of the kangaroo argument made by those in favour of whaling, but doesn’t offer any defence.
http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/whaling/pubs/whaling.pdf
‘Why don’t I just take you on your word that there is not really much in common between these hunts?’
Um, because that would be out of character?
‘That in itself will be a big surprise, especially considering that Australia was requested to provide just such data to the IWC’s working group on humane killing methods for comparison, but has to date failed to deliver.’
I’m not surprised. The IWC deals with whales, not kangaroos, and the humane killing methods workshops are dealing with whales, not kangaroos. Deal with the issue at hand. Makes sense to me.
‘Yes. I know just how you feel, in light of our previous discussions about accepting in advance the outcome of a review of the original JARPA programme…By the way, if you do ever feel like letting me know your opinion on the review before the results are released, feel free to let me know – I’m always ears :-)’
in response to…
‘having points pushed on you until you just can’t be bothered contributing anymore.’
> Deal with the issue at hand. Makes sense to me.
Funny you mention that, because the IWC passed a resolution a few years ago calling on IWC member nations to provide data from other hunts to a 2003 workshop on killing methods for comparitve purposes.
Silly old IWC eh 🙂
Ian Campbell lost his nut totally when Iceland reminded him of this last year (Campbell seemed to have forgotten about it):
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2005/09/ian-campbell-goes-nuts-again.html
> in response to…
🙂
I was just reminding you in the meantime, lest you care to pass judgement on the research programmes without consideration of such reviews. I’m only doing this because I think I have a very very good point, Travis.
Travis
“I’m not surprised. The IWC deals with whales, not kangaroos, and the humane killing methods workshops are dealing with whales, not kangaroos. Deal with the issue at hand. Makes sense to me.”
David
“Funny you mention that, because the IWC passed a resolution a few years ago calling on IWC member nations to provide data from other hunts to a 2003 workshop on killing methods for comparitve purposes.”
Norway asked for TTD times from Australia for kangaroo hunts from helicopters in response to critiscm / statements that it was impossible to hunt humanely from a moving platform ( a ships deck ) for comparison purposes – Norway has provided the data from ships and Australia has NOT provided any data from helicopters.
Norway dealt with the issue at hand – australia did not …
Norway provided the data – australia still has not ( to date anyway )
Regards
Statler ( from the balcony )
Travis:”‘About 2000 whales will be killed this year and 52 billion farm animals….’
And your point would be….?”
I have zero point with this comment , was only thinking about those poor bastards that never see the daylight or roam around and whose luckiest day is the day they die…
Since we are discussing Norwegian whaling here at this thread I have read an article in Norwegian media stating comments by the Head of the Minke Whaler’s Association. ( Maybe gonna give you a full translation later) but shortly and roughly he blames the whales and seals for the decline in fish stocks in the Oceans( no, nothing new with this).
He continues that the Northern and Southern hemisphere minkes and seals consume more krill and fish than the commercial factory ships together. He also blames the IWC for poor management etc.
Luckily it seems( as I have understood this) not many professional fishermen listen to him, according the paper.
According to the paper, he will resign as well in the near future.
Hopefully, the new Head will have another view on this issue .
Now, I think we have covered the extremes here…
Now this one should go down well in Australia ..
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20850063-643,00.html
“The more you drink, the more whales you save,”
( and the prettier they become too ;op )
Hi,
Next year’s TAC for Norwegian minke whaling set at the same level as this year. This means a TAC of 1052 animals.
The main difference is that 900 can be taken in the coastal areas, while 152 must be taken at the Jan Mayen area. Respective figures this year were 609 along the coast and 443 in hte Jan Mayen area.
The quota was announced at the annual meeting of the Norwegian Whalers’ Union today. Considered good news.
Rune Frøvik
High North Alliance
Thanks for the update Rune,
Is 955 quota plus 97 ( not taken )carried over from 2004-2006 the correct numbers?
Yes, that’s how the Fisheries and Coastal Ministry puts it.
Here’s the Ministry press releasea, unfortunately only in Norwegian:
Kvote for fangst av vågekval i 2007
Fiskeri- og kystministeren har fastsett ein kvote på 1052 dyr for vågekvalfangsten i 2007.
– Kvoten er like stor som i 2006. Men det er ein viktig skilnad. I 2007 vil det bli tillate å ta inntil 900 dyr i områda langs kysten, det vil seie i Nordsjøen, langs kysten frå Stad til Finnmark, i Barentshavet og ved Svalbard. Det blir ein auke på kring 300 dyr i desse områda samanlikna med i år, seier konstituert fiskeri- og kystminister Dag Terje Andersen. Resten av kvoten kan takast i sonen ved Jan Mayen.
Modellen som er nytta ved fastsetjing av kvoten er konservativ. Kvoten er innanfor eit intervall som forskarane meiner gir fullgod tryggleik med omsyn til vern av dei vågekvalbestandane vi driv fangst på.
Kvoten for 2007 er samansett av ein årleg basiskvote på 955 og eit tillegg på 97 ufanga dyr frå fangsten i åra 2004 – 2006.
http://odin.dep.no/fkd/norsk/aktuelt/pressesenter/pressem/047041-070158/dok-bn.html
Hi Rune,
Thanks for the fast update and report.
Norwegian paper Fiskeribladet( website) states this:
” The minke whale quota for 2007 is the same as for 2006, 1052 animals, but the whalers have now access to kill another 300 minkes along the coast, and in the Barents Sea and along Svalbard.
The quota was set today during the Minke Whaler’s Associatons annual meeting in Bodö. The whalers were quite satisfied with this decision, but pointed out that the industry has problems and have low confidence in the IWC research.”
Hope Rune and George are not too dissatisfied with this rough translation from Fiskeribladet.
Personally, I’m glad that the quota has not increased for 2007. Maybe , we can talk about a compromise decision???
Takk Igjen Rune :o)
‘while meanwhile 1 billion animals are killed in other parts of the world every week of the year.’ – David
The numbers and the argument are irrelevant… the large number of privately owned, domesticated animals bred for the meat market are not wild animals in international waters, including several species which are listed by CITES, but which nonetheless Japanese whalers will kill this season in order for the ICR to report ‘scientifically’ that whales stomach contents are the same as they were before the IWC moratorium…..
Reply from person I contacted involved with feral animal control in NSW:
“Firstly, Roos aren’t taken from helicopters, they are ground based shot. NPWS is the authority responsible for managing kangaroo harvesting, and this system works by NPWS undertaking aerial surveys of populations, then setting a quota for the number of tags that can be issued to take roos. There’s basically 2 tags, the commercial harvest tag, which is only issued to commercial operators who have undertaken their Kangaroo Trappers Licence (stupid name I know), whereby they have to demonstrate their marksmanship skills. The roos shot under these tags can be sold commercially for pet meat or human consumption. Roos are head shot with centrefire rifles, an incredibly humane way to take them. Roos can also be taken under what is colloquially known as a knock down tag, which is where farmers get tags for kangaroos which are being a pest, and they must leave the animals where they are shot.
Kangaroos are usually shot in distances from 0 – 200m, though 200m would be less likely. Around the 100m mark is an average shot. Modern centrefire rifles can be sighted in to be accurate out to 200m easily.”
David wrote:
‘I imagine that the shot would have to be very accurate indeed to take out a vital organ.’
Feral animal controller wrote:
“it is not just about hitting the target, its about the performance of the projectile when it gets there. Bullets don’t simply puncture a vital organ and cause death by bleeding or organ failure, they impart massive amounts of energy that causes ballistic shock, massive increases in blood pressure etc, which completely destroys organs. For example, a bullet landed in the chest/shoulder area of an animal can be instantly lethal, not just because of the fact it has pierced the heart and lungs, but the massive hydrostatic pressure increase can completely destroy the heart and lungs, and the pressure is transmitted through large blood vessels such as carotid arteries and jugular veins to the brain, causing instant unconsciousness.”
The person I contacted did not have any stats on TTD, but did give me the contact details of some other poeple I may be able to get some info from.
David wrote:
‘What can you tell me about the precise conditions of how fin whales are killed? As far as I know the Japanese kept details of this pretty much under wraps last time around.’
What can YOU tell me about the size of the grenade used on the harpoon for killing fin whales?
David wrote:
‘…in addition to presiding over these kangaroo culls (I think it’s a cull, right?) which strikes me as being unneccesary’
I am sure Ian and Mary would be able to fill you in on how ‘necessary’ kangaroo culls are.
Ann wrote:
‘I have zero point with this comment , was only thinking about those poor bastards that never see the daylight or roam around and whose luckiest day is the day they die…’
And what off all the captive-bred animals that are subjected to scientific projects each year, or the invertebrates that get snuffed out each time a field is harvested…or…ad infinitum? I am not saying that I agree with kangaroo culls, farm animal conditoins, animal experimentation or whatever else you want to throw out as some means of justifying the statement on the 2000 whales. Otherwise do you choose the refugees in Dafur or the street kids in the Phillipines, if you get my drift.
Your dog-at-a-bone tactics (such as the JARPA review and my opinion on it) are what drives people away from trying to engage in any meaningful discourse on this blog. It wont be long until Jennifer has a truly homogenous forum each time the whaling issue is brought up (hey, maybe that is what she wants?) Good luck Lamna, but don’t get snippy as they don’t like it.
Travis,
Thanks for the info on the kangaroo killing methods – interesting stuff.
Personally, it sounds good enough by my standards, but I wonder if Senator Ian Campbell’s heart could stand it, given the way he feels that whale killing methods amount to “blowing up whales with grenades”. Apparently he does, because he thinks killing Kangaroos is about protecting the environment. His standards are totally bizarre to me though.
I can’t tell you anything about the Japan’s fin whale hunt last year, as like I said they have kept the details under wraps – JARPA II is still in it’s feasibility study phase, which is why they aren’t killing humpbacks yet, only fins.
However, there was this article in the western media:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2015111,00.html
Although at the IWC meeting I think some New Zealand jokers did a presentation based on the assumption that the same calibre of harpoon would be used – I’m not sure though, my memory could be deceiving me.
I’m not actually sure if the times article is legit.
As for kangaroo culls, you know, I’m actually happy to accept Australia’s cull because they say it’s sustainable (my concern). My real problem is when the same people complain about whaling which is also sustainable, albiet on a much smaller scale, and the meat is actually consumed by humans. After all, I imagine Australia’s environment was in some kind of equilibrium before the white man arrived and decided that kangaroos need to be culled. This is one of the arguments we hear against humans killing whales – the seas were fine without us right. Of course, such arguments ignore that we are a part of the ecosystem.
And finally Travis, if you don’t want to hear about the JARPA review anymore – fine. Promise I won’t mention it to you specifically again, but do be aware that I’ll take that back if you decide to pass judgement on the results of the research again without recognising the outcome of the review. I’ve no problem with people who are against whaling, but I do have a problem with people who justify their opposition with dubious statements about the quality of Japan’s research programmes, the data of which, like it or not, is used by the IWC’s Scientific Committee.
Hi Travis,
Thanks for the information and your input into the discussions.
I’m afraid that I’m repeating myself here again, and that would annoy some persons but methink you have misinterpreted my statement a bit.
Travis:”
And what off all the captive-bred animals that are subjected to scientific projects each year, or the invertebrates that get snuffed out each time a field is harvested…or…ad infinitum? I am not saying that I agree with kangaroo culls, farm animal conditoins, animal experimentation or whatever else you want to throw out as some means of justifying the statement on the 2000 whales. Otherwise do you choose the refugees in Dafur or the street kids in the Phillipines, if you get my drift.”
Do you mean that I justify the hunt of 2000 whales?
No, I’m not especially keen on to kill ANY animal, that was why I mentioned the farm animals as well, but I am sick and tired of all people complaining it is so terrible to kill a whale and not a farmed animal… to me all animals are equals, OK, if they are endangered , they of course have a special position.
And to all those people that are complaining that I am pro whaling, I must point out that I’m the ONLY person in Sweden , who has written , yes, anti whaling articles in major Swedish media and got published, no, it was not Greenpeace who wrote those articles, but me.
However, after all those years I have a certain understanding or shall I say I’m realistic and understand that some coastal communites in Norway want to hunt minkes and as far as the numbers are not too high ( about 600-700) I am not making any greater fuss of it. This is also Greenpeace Nordic policy.
Hmmm..
Seems like Brumbies don´t have it so good –
http://www.savethebrumbies.org/
“It would seem nothing was learnt by the Government after the public outcry over the horrific Guy Fawkes River slaughter in 2000. 1300 brumbies were shot from helicopters right in the middle of breeding season by Army snipers, and there are plans to cull the remaining horses underway”
Hi George,
They also cull horses in the Kaimanawa back home in New Zealand. I had heard that the cull was “humane” and never looked into the details of it, but hey what do you know?
http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/002~Animal-Pests/Kaimanawa-Wild-Horses/002~Kaimanawa-Horses-Plan/013~Appendix-Five.asp
“Aerial shooting.
Description:
Helicopter(s) carrying experienced shooters approaches a band of horses with the intention of culling all animals in the band.
* The intended outcome is an “instantaneous” death. There is a slight risk that a “clean kill” may not occur but effecting a rapid follow-up is easy due to the high mobility of the shooters.
* As aerial shooting allows all horses in the band to be targeted, there is little possibility that the other horses will suffer trauma.
Recommendation:
Aerial shooting is preferable over ground shooting due to the shooters ability to target all members of the band and conduct rapid follow-up if necessary. There is little risk of stray bullets using this method due to the angle of shooting.”
Of course, that’s the (anti-whaling) Department of Conservation’s take on it.
The only thing I’m uncomfortable with respect to whaling methods is that for hunts under scientific permit the hunters have an additional requirement not to damage important internals, like the earplugs. I imagine this is why we see some of them getting drowned as opposed to finished off with a rifle when instantaneous death doesn’t occur, to avoid the risk of the death being in vain.
Regarding the culling of horses that you have mentioned , I’m sure that a follow-up is absolutely necessary as from my own experience it doesn’t always occur that a horse dies from a first shot even if it is a shot between the eyes.
I have a scary example. One of the horses where I worked in stable broke the leg. An unexperienced person wanted to put the horse out of misery and used an apropriate rifle and shot the horse between the eyes.
The horse went down and appeared to be dead but after 40 minutes it staggered up all bleeding from the wound , it was really disgusting and one of the staff in the stable almost puked and fainted…
Anyway, the vet arrived as fast as possible and gave it a lethal injection…
When the slaughterhouse staff discovered how the horse was killed , they really got pissed..
IMO, the only way to humanely kill a horse is to use a stungun… those cases that I have witnessed have been quite “undramatic”. A stungun is better than a lethal injection…
Dunno exactly what criteria is used to determine if a whale is finally dead…
In a veterinary clinic anyway you always check out the heart beat with the stethoscope to decide if an animal is dead…
Hi Travis,
some comments / observations on the info from your contact
“”Firstly, Roos aren’t taken from helicopters, they are ground based shot. NPWS is the authority responsible for managing kangaroo harvesting, and this system works by NPWS undertaking aerial surveys of populations, then setting a quota for the number of tags that can be issued to take roos. There’s basically 2 tags, the commercial harvest tag, which is only issued to commercial operators who have undertaken their Kangaroo Trappers Licence (stupid name I know), whereby they have to demonstrate their marksmanship skills.”
Same with Norwegian whalers, they have to undergo yearly tests ( at their own expense I believe ) to qualify for a licence as a gunner.
“Kangaroos are usually shot in distances from 0 – 200m, though 200m would be less likely. Around the 100m mark is an average shot. Modern centrefire rifles can be sighted in to be accurate out to 200m easily.”
In Norwegian whaling, 30m or under is the usual distance ( perhaps Rune can correct me on this if I am mistaken )
“it is not just about hitting the target, its about the performance of the projectile when it gets there. Bullets don’t simply puncture a vital organ and cause death by bleeding or organ failure, they impart massive amounts of energy that causes ballistic shock, massive increases in blood pressure etc, which completely destroys organs. For example, a bullet landed in the chest/shoulder area of an animal can be instantly lethal, not just because of the fact it has pierced the heart and lungs, but the massive hydrostatic pressure increase can completely destroy the heart and lungs, and the pressure is transmitted through large blood vessels such as carotid arteries and jugular veins to the brain, causing instant unconsciousness.”
Informative, and very similar to the basic principles behind some of the effects of a penthricite harpoon grenade on Minke whales
So lets see what we might all agree upon.
All hunts should be as humane as possible?
Comparing hunts on Kangaroos, horses and whales etc is flawed / specious, as one is no better or worse than the other?
Hunting should be regulated, and participants/ hunters should need to pass rigorous practical tests of ability yearly?
Exact population counts of species hunted
are not strictly neccessary in determining overall population sizes?
That no hunt anywhere can claim a 100% instantaneous death rate, but that all effort should be made to approach such a target?
Feel free to add, disagree or comment …
On an aside .. it´s quite interesting to see that Jen´s blog is possibly the first to note/mention Norway´s 2007 quotas outside of Norwegian Media sources, no mention of them so far by GP, WDCS, EIA, HSUS, IFAW or SS …
I guess they are busy with other stuff 😉
George: “On an aside .. it´s quite interesting to see that Jen´s blog is possibly the first to note/mention Norway´s 2007 quotas outside of Norwegian Media sources, no mention of them so far by GP, WDCS, EIA, HSUS, IFAW or SS …”
Both Reuters and AP filed stories on Friday afternoon. Lack of media coverage probably due to the timing. Same TAC as last year isn’t very newsworthy either.
Ann: “Personally, I’m glad that the quota has not increased for 2007. Maybe , we can talk about a compromise decision???”
Since both you (Greenpeace?) and the whalers are happy with the quota, it seems to not only be a compromise decision, but rather a perfect decision!!
Hi Rune,
Yes, I saw that Reuters run the story, and that Brad Smith from the Norwegian Greenpeace office had made a statement:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39289/story.htm
I must point out that I have never acted as a spokesman for Greenpeace when I post comments on the forums and here at Jen’s blog.
However, I have worked together with every single Greenpeace campaigner and Whales/Oceans campaigner and know all 5 Greenpeace staff in Norway personally.
I must also point out , as I have already mentioned previously, that it is a whole continent between some Greenpeace Nordic staffs opinion on whaling and people from Greenpeace International. But I guess you already have noticed this as the Greenpeace Norway’s website on whaling has not been updated for years.
As a Swede, I have of course a special understanding for Norwegians and their whales/ whaling, even if we are anti whaling. Mostly, Swedes just sigh and say ” Norwegians and their whales”!!! Haha…
Well, it will be interesting to see, if the actual catch will increase next year due to more coastal whaling.
OK Rune, trying to be realistic, understand that you are not abandonding whaling very soon, but hope you will keep the quotas in low levels. Think as well that would be the best for Norway in general. Just my personal opinion!!
So long as the quotas aren’t set in a way that would get completely panned by the IWC/SC, I imagine the Norwegian position is a pretty sustainable one in every respect.
hey,
Greenpeace chases whales because global market research dictates that is the most fundraising friendly campaign.
Greenpeace is not radical anymore, fundraising call the shots, and those people are not radical. They are businesspeople.
Watson plays up the battle with greenpeace because it gets him media.
hey,
Greenpeace chases whales because global market research dictates that is the most fundraising friendly campaign.
Greenpeace is not radical anymore, fundraising call the shots, and those people are not radical. They are businesspeople.
Watson plays up the battle with greenpeace because it gets him media.
Don’t know if anybody is following this thread anymore, but lately(?) , I have trouble with to believe all what media states.
This autumn Greenpeace made the statement that ” whale meat isn’t trendy anymore in Norway”. This was also published in the Guardian.
Today I read at Norwegian website Fiskaren that ” whale meat is trendy among young people , especially in Black Metal circles”.
Secondly, this site states that Lars Wallö, senior IWC delegate, made the comment that ” Japan will reopen the market for Norwegian whale products”. What’s really true??
Thirdly, WDCS, has published an article on the Norwegian whaling quota. They write that whalers may find difficulties with selling whale meat from coastal areas as the meat this summer was fatty and of low quality from these areas.
However, Ellingsen’s whale meat processing factory has stated that whale meat from coastal areas are better than whale meat from areas up in the north, due to lower fat content!
Ann,
The media is full of crap, everywhere 🙂
They are after all just journalists, trying to make a living, and if they have something that can get them a headline easily they’ll use it, more often than not, without checking their facts.
That’s why I’ve been enjoying looking at official whale meat stockpile statistics lately. When you have the raw figures in front of you, and you can see how different people have been manipulating them, it’s all very very interesting.
More whale meat stockpile figures will be available early next week, I believe. I’ll have the figures at my blog 🙂
Hei Rune,
It’s not every day that you find whale meat “propaganda” in Swedish media, but the latest issue of ” Motor” describes a holiday in Lofoten and states” den som inte har moraliska invändningar mot valkött måste prova valkött, mörare finns inte” !!!
[url=http://skuper.ru]вагонка только лучшее[/url]
[url=http://skuper.ru]ламинат низкие цены[/url]