It seems the most endangered mammal on earth, a species of freshwater dolphin from the Yangtze River in China, is now extinct. That’s the conclusion from a group of specialists who recently spent six weeks searching for the dolphin, also known as the baiji, along the Yangtze.
The extinction of the baiji has taken place at a time of unprecedented interest and concern for their large relative, the minke whale. We have know for some time that there are probably over a million minke whales, but perhaps no more than a dozen baiji. Yet so much money has been spent campaigning to “save the minke whale”. Where are our priorities when it comes to conservation? I wrote on this issue in the last IPA Review in a piece entitled, “The Loss of the Baiji’.
This picture is from www.baiji.org.
Click here and you can listen to a recording of the baiji’s whistle.
So beautiful.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If rich countries can’t save their critically endangered whales and dolphins, I find it impossible(?)that developing countries can save some species.
The US is evidently not willing to save the Northern Right Whale.
And what about the Sahkalin Gray whales? That should really be a Greenpeace issue with their ships, involving Shell, Mitshubishi etc. Seems like Greenpeace mostly is interested in Exxon Mobile.
The Baltic Sea stock of harbour porpoises is as well endangered, there are only about 500-600 porpoises left in the Baltic, and last month two died in entanglements.
Still the EU hasn’t banned drift-nets in the Baltic, only surrounded by rich and very rich countries.
In the case of the porpoises, right whales and the river dolphins we have a more diffuse enemy or threat, it’s so easy to target a whaling ship and whalers.
Jennifer,
The Baiji is ( was ) not a poster species for most NGO´s –
Some titbits surrounding the Baiji ..
“The expedition has been led by the Ministry of Agriculture and brought together world-class experts from institutes such as the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hubbs-Seaworld Institute from San Diego and the Fisheries Research Agency in Japan”
” The disappearance of the baiji holds up a mirror with a tragic reflection, a reflection of humanity’s inability to effectively prioritize on the basis of needs. While millions of dollars flowed into exchangeable «Save-the-Whales»-Programs, the fate of the Baiji – and the other freshwater dolphins in Asia – remained unheard”
Simply put ( in context of your and August Pfluger´s minke whale comments ) the Baiji was simply not part of the larger issue under current GP policy- neither are right whales and Sahkalin Gray whales or any other truly endangered cetacean species.
Any GP´rs reading this are welcome to dispute this assertion
here is a comment from one of GP´s oceans webbies on the GP Forum in reply to our very own David@tokyo .. ( Note that anything posted in that forum is personal comment and not neccessarily official GP policy – the usual get out clause )
( Full post on thread )http://forum.greenpeace.org/int/showthread.php?p=6349#post6349
” Why not focus instead on other more endangered species? It is now widely accepted among the scientific community that conservation at the species level is not the most effective approach in the fight to preserve global biodiversity. Conservation initiatives are more effective if they take into account the protection and sustainable management of whole ecosystems and this is a major focus of Greenpeace oceans campaigning. We are lobbying for a global network of marine reserves that should in theory protect thousands of species from extinction. Many scientists agree that marine reserves are the best way to focus efforts on sustaining our oceans. It is shame that the Chinese river dolphin is now functionally extinct but I don’t think this was through any lack of prioritising. Scientists have known for some time that this dolphin was in trouble but as it says on the website you provided David – they simply couldn’t agree on how to save it.
Quote:
The baiji was for more than 20 years among the most disputed conservation issues between Chinese and western scientists. There has been especially in the nineties endless arguments and disputes about strategies how to save the species :Unquote
I don’t think lack of press or funding has anything to do with this species becoming extinct. Sometimes the protection of a species is very complex and I believe this dolphin was subject to threats imposed on it by the construction of the Three Gorges Dam and this is something that did get a lot of press and attention. It has been a very controversial issue and several NGOs have campaigned against it – unfortunately unsuccessfully. I don’t think that any more press or funding would have brought about U-turn in the Chinese government’s decision to build the dam. Over 1 million people were also displaced by the dam. It was a huge humanitarian issue in addition to an environmental one. I believe that the WWF was involved in the opposition to the dam.
Many species such as the North Atlantic right whale are getting plenty of attention despite what you may think. Scientists (including me!) and NGOs succeeded in getting shipping lanes moved to reduce the number of fatalities due to ship collisions (their biggest threat). A HUGE amount of money is spent on saving individual cetacean species like the NA right whale every year. Government agencies use planes, helicopters, satellite systems, hi tech equipment, ships, small boats and many highly paid scientists in order to find the best way to protect these species …. meanwhile the government of Japan is able to get away with bribery and corruption and the expansion of an industry that is unsustainable and unnecessary.
Personally – I can’t see any reason why environmental NGOs should re-focus their efforts. Of course there is a lot left undone but we don’t have the resources to do EVERYTHING!
I hope that this post goes at least some of the way to addressing the points you have raised. I am really busy but I will try to address any further concerns you may have. ”
Make of that what you will…
I guess George is quoting the GPI webbie.
She has been ranting for years about her pending Ph D in Animal Behavior and calls herself an cetacean researcher.
Still she does’t have basic knowledge in cetacean physiology and anatomy.
Once she was asked what to do with a trapped Northern bottlenose dolphin in a fjord.
She replied that a tranquilizer dart should be used , not knowing that this would cause drowning of the cetacean.
Ann, what’s the basis for this statement?
The US is evidently not willing to save the Northern Right Whale.
Do you have any idea of the resources that the US (government and NGO community) is putting into attempting to save North Atlantic Right Whales? And North Pacific Right whales, for that matter. They’re doing a damn sight more than any other range state.
The issues with northern right whale species are difficult, and perhaps intractable, but I think to state that the US “is evidently not willing to save” is over the top. It’s certainly possible to argue that there are things that could be done better, but that seems to me rather different from unwillingness to save.
After all, the US has the Endangered Species Act – are other range states applying comparable national legislation?.
But nearer the original point (I think): Jennifer, if the actions of NGOs – concentrating on minkes, ignoring other species in greater trouble – bother you so much then why not lead by example?
As the baiji’s probably gone, why not leverage IPA’s connections with the Big End of town to get something done about conserving Oz’s own little dolphin – the snubfin?
still optimistic
Peter
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the reply and highlighting the issue.
I think I saw a statement on the WDCS’s website that the Congress had cut down fundings for Right whale research . Actually did a short Google on this but found this info:
http://takeaction.worldwildlife.org/results/esa.asp
Glad if you have more info.
Ann, your link points to how the Bush administration is trying to gut the ESA – not exactly news, and how does this equate to the US being not will to save the North Atlantic right whale?
My understanding is that funding’s been cut through a stack of US govt programs, given the fiscal climate here. But for North Atlantic right whales – the aerial surveys are still running, the acoustic-based detection program continues, the photoID goes on. The basic science to inform management is there – far more so than for most other cetaceans, worldwide.
See http://www.rightwhaleweb.org/
But Jennifer’s post seemed ot be on conservation priorities, and I feel like this might be drifting off-topic.
Peter
Hi again Peter,
I know big efforts are taken by NGOs and different Institutions to try to save the right whales.
However, despite this the biggest danger is ship lanes and entanglements in different fishing gear.
My point was that it is difficult to have an impact on environmental issues if there are bigger financial or commercial interests at play.
Seems like bureacracy is playing a major role in delaying a plan to save the right whales.
This is the link where I found some info:
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/2F32139B276ADB538025723A003D46CC
Ann
Ann, I agree with this:
My point was that it is difficult to have an impact on environmental issues if there are bigger financial or commercial interests at play.
Peter
There is another way to approach this topic.
By now, everyone has probably heard of how Greenpeace accidentally posted a not-fully-edited version of a press release, which read, in part:
“In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world’s worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE].”
See, e.g., “You Sorta’ Suspected It, Didn’t You?” The Agitator, http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026634.php
Okay. Now, assume that you’re Greenpeace. You’re working up a campaign. This is what you have so far:
“In the last twenty years, biodiversity among water-dwelling mammals has dwindled dramatically. Consider the plight of [FILL IN AQUATIC MAMMAL HERE].”
If you’re Greenpeace, which aquatic mammal would you choose? Why? You can’t say, “all of them,” because a complete list would be burdensome, and “all of them” might be interpreted by some as humans who go spearfishing.
By scratching our heads, we might verge on an explanation why Greenpeace inserted “minke whales” instead of “baiji.”
I’ll go first. If Greenpeace saved the baiji, they wouldn’t get massive quantities of money from the Chinese. After all, Greenpeace has financial problems and is letting staff go redundant. (“Laid off,” in USA parlance.)
Any other theorists out there? Obviously, there’s other candidate whale species to choose from.
Although the situation for the Baiji doesn’t look good it is prudent not to jump to hasty conclusions on the basis of surveys by biologists.
A widely cited NSW Fisheries survey in 1995-96 reported that: “A telling indication of the condition of rivers in the Murray region was the fact that, despite intensive fishing with the most efficient types of sampling gear for a total of 220 person-days over a two-year period in twenty randomly chosen Murray-region sites, not a single Murray cod or freshwater catfish was caught.”
The national Recreational Fishing Survey conducted for 12 months in 2001 and 2002 estimated that during the survey period recreational fishers caught 483,284 Murray cod of which 374,932 were released and 108,352 weighing 144,222 Kg were kept.
The inability of biologists to find an organism may have more to do with their ability than the abundance of the organism.
Bob Pitman from NOAA Fisheries was involved in the baiji survey. His ability to spot cetaceans is famous throughout the marine mammal survey world.
Of couse it’s possible that a baiji or two was missed, as the co-organizer of the expedition said. But it seems the point is that if there are any left at all, they’re dead dolphins swimming.
Peter
Obviously there are other environmental organisations you could be laying the boot into as well, not to mention government agencies, etc, etc.
Money has been spent trying to save the baiji and a lot of money has been spent trying to save minkes, vaquitas, northern right whales, other river dolphins, and so the list goes on. It is how that money is used and how much co-operation you get from local communities,governments and industries that counts, as well as how easily that species can recover given its current circumstances (and that is being incredibly simplistic). One hundred years ago saving any large species of whale would have been laughed at for exactly the same reason Jennifer has given for the minkes, they were seen as plentiful and there were other terrestrial species to save.
Greenpeace’s actions concerning the minke whales are also extended to other species. They are addressing whaling, not a particular species. Their anti-whaling campaigns when only minkes were being killed were because the next logical step for those involved in killing whales would be to start targeting other species. But that isn’t happening is it? I think it would be fair to say that an organisation like Greenpeace is more concerned with addressing encompassing issues (for want of a better word), rather than a single species, for example driftnetting vs sea turtles.
I could ask why isn’t Greenpeace saving the Queensland lungfish. Mind you, I haven’t heard too much from ANY large environmental NGO on this matter. After all 380 million years of history on this planet looks set to be snuffed out no thanks to threatened species legislation in this country and international condemnation from top scientists around the world. But then again, at least if you are a lungfish you get some PR, if you are a Mary River cod or turtle, no one cares.
Libby,
Maybe you could answer me this: how can we rescue environmentalism? Nobody makes money off of baiji or lungfish.
Ann,
I personally hope Greenpeace stays away from Sakhalin. Their getting involved would only upset the situation. I’m glad that the NGO involved is WWF and not them. WWF, although inconsistent in some areas (whaling at least), does have what I consider to be a sound set of principles guiding it.
There is reason for optimism with the WGW – apparently the 2006 population assessment was an upward revision on the previous one from 2004, and further growth is forecast. So unlike the Baiji, it seems there is hope, and thankfully related parties are working together on this one.
Libby,
Greenpeace is the most well-known of the bad bunch, that’s why they get criticised so much (not to mention the “ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID” incident, which Schiller reminds us of).
Greenpeace’s self-description is in itself a description of the problem with them:
“Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems”
What counts on the other hand, As you noted, is “how much co-operation you get from local communities,governments and industries”.
Greenpeace is into confrontation, not co-operation. They aren’t about working to finding solutions, they are about working to achieve what they said they would set out to achieve, which is often a non-solution. They appear to have no guiding principles. They simply invent problems, portray someone as the villain, attack them, and then raise funds through this to do more of the same.
On the other hand, here’s some stuff from WWF:
“WWF is not against people using the oceans and their resources. However, we believe this use must be sustainable and must not damage marine ecosystems …”
“WWF recognizes that for conservation to be truly successful, the issue of peoples livelihoods has become central to our mission…”
“The goals and objectives of our engagement are to promote programmes that take global issues that have local solutions and where possible share the lessons learnt.
“We realize that WWF alone cannot hope to achieve it’s mission and we therefore promote working with partners at the international and local level.”
Back in the Greenpeace world, Greenpeace campaigns make good for headlines, which results in the general public being poorly informed about true conservation. Many for example seem to believe that banning whaling is equivalent to whale conservation, or at least a necessary element – this is in contrast to WWF’s recognition that people do actually utilise the world’s resources, and that this is acceptable if “sustainable”.
Saving the Baiji and the western gray whale certainly require a little bit more than simply not killing them, where as killing minke whales in the Antarctic isn’t necessarily going to drive them to extinction, either.
Greenpeace is an effective publicity group – it would be nice if they’d put their talents towards worthy causes only, rather than superfluous non-issues (profitable as they might be).
Interesting that fellow bloggers, including Jen, are worried about a boutique piece of DNA. Lots of species have gone extinct in geological time. What’s a few more matter? I mean can we make money out of the Baiji – if not is it tough luck?
Would not we be better focussing on the greater cumulative suffering of minkes or protecting entire ecosystems.
Or is the game to find out anything that Greenpeace is not involved with to prove they’re not as holy? i.e. we’re holier than thou?
The Baiji is exctinct due to economic growth in China….
Sadly , the majority of people , including me , had hardly ever heard about the Baiji’s fate until it was too late…
Can we learn anything from this tragedy? What about the Mekong and other river dolphins? Will governments or authorities act now?
Personally, don’t think so. People are more interested in material matters and are not willing to sacrify economic growth and higher living standards if they are to be choose between conservation issues or economic growth.
Yes, people are interested in conservation issues as far as they don’t need personally sacrify anything.
Maybe I’m cynical now. Maybe Western anti whaling countries are anti whaling just because it doesn’t mean anything economically for them???
Sweden has right now a quite hard right wing government, which has offically stated that environmental matters have low priority. . The Prime Minister has also refused to talk to Greenpeace on a certain occasion .
Still this same Government was jumping up and down when Iceland killed 7 Fin Whales. Wish they were as concerned about other enviro matters as well. Doesn’t mean that I disliked this protest, but it seems easy to protest, if your own country is not involved economically, like is the case with the harbour porpoise issue, where almost zero is done. 25 km long drift nets are still allowed etc.
Think as well that NGOs and people in general are more keen on to save species that you actually can spot.
Who has ever seen a Baiji or a Baltic Sea harbour porpoise?( They are extremely shy and avoid ships). Seamen who has been on the sea for 40 years have never spotted alive Baltic Sea porpoises.
Morning Libby .. Some comments on your post ..
“Obviously there are other environmental organisations you could be laying the boot into as well, not to mention government agencies, etc, etc. ”
My impression is that August Pfluger was doing just that – making a pointed comment ( or laying the boot in as you so aptly put it ) to all NGO´s etc … the fact that GP is one of the most successful NGO´s ( raising donations that is ) in the anti whaling industry is neither here nor there .. I find it kind of ironic that on the GP international Website you can find this comment in relation to the Japanese whaling fleet leaving Japan ..
” Greenpeace is calling on the Japanese government to keep the fleet in port, stop their fake research program and commit to protecting endangered species instead of hunting them.”
and looking at part of the Baiji team
” the Fisheries Research Agency in Japan ”
ummm oops?
Regarding this :
” Money has been spent trying to save the baiji and a lot of money has been spent trying to save minkes, vaquitas, northern right whales, other river dolphins, and so the list goes on. It is how that money is used and how much co-operation you get from local communities,governments and industries that counts, as well as how easily that species can recover given its current circumstances (and that is being incredibly simplistic)”
Quite agree with you on this – it is how that money is used that is crucial ( simplistically put )
However, I disagree with you strongly on this :
” Greenpeace’s actions concerning the minke whales are also extended to other species. They are addressing whaling, not a particular species. Their anti-whaling campaigns when only minkes were being killed were because the next logical step for those involved in killing whales would be to start targeting other species. But that isn’t happening is it? .”
Bollocks, they are addressing Japanese whaling – Iceland is a relatively low priority and they simply have given up with the Norwegians.. now if thats based on the latter pair whaling more or less in their own EEZ, whatever… methinks otherwise..
Iceland took Fins in September, Japan takes Brydes and various other species – Greenland takes a whole swathe of species ..the only ones not taking anything but minkies are the Norwegians ( yet )
Regarding this :
“I think it would be fair to say that an organisation like Greenpeace is more concerned with addressing encompassing issues (for want of a better word), rather than a single species, for example driftnetting vs sea turtles.”
Exactly Libby – to quote Lisa the webbie – “it´s a shame about the Baiji ”
but lets face it Libby in view of the larger picture, the baiji simply was not important enough to come up on many of the NGO´s radar and ” already” a lost cause or?
Now I feel like putting the boot in though Libby 😉
…but in the meantime, lets have a 1,000,000 Euro plus jaunt to the Antartic to take care of the ´bigger picture´ lets get some more REAL gory footage ( how much gory footage do you need to show the public before it reaches saturation point? the point where folk don´t react? )Lets not save a single whale for the second year running, lets pray that nobody gets injured or killed this year and lets really pray that nobody links us with anything Watson and his bunch do..
Who cares really? it´s their money to throw away Libby or? It´s not as if there is anything better they could be doing with it 😉
Like anything else, priorities are priorities – the baiji wasn´t a high priority – too little, too late and more than likely it´s now gone
On the other hand, folk could always buy a case of whats it Called .. blue tongue beer? and at least get pissed whilst they donate…
Drifting a bit off-topic here.
Greenpeace’s official policy on aboriginal whaling is neutral, but during the Arctic Sunrise’s expedition to Greenland 2005 , Greenpeace actively supported the whale hunting/ seal hunting communities.
They were afraid of experiences from past anti sealing campaigns.
The Greenland quota for Fin whales is 19 Fin whales. No opposition from Greenpeace regarding this quota. Not a peep… they needed the support from the hunting communities for their climate change campaign……is this double standards???
Double standards? Greenpeace has standards at all?
Kind of funny to watch a Greenpeace docu and hear them state poor whalers can’t harpoon any whales and featuring an old Norwegian(?) whaling boat and harpoon in Greenland….
Hi anne,
” They were afraid of experiences from past anti sealing campaigns.”
Too true, it´s kind of funny really how NGO´s tip toe Politically correctly around what is in effect, commercial whaling by various inuit communities … especially in view of GP´s role in ruining the inuit sealskin market a few decades ago ..
Regarding this ..
” The Greenland quota for Fin whales is 19 Fin whales. No opposition from Greenpeace regarding this quota. Not a peep… they needed the support from the hunting communities for their climate change campaign……is this double standards??? ”
An interesting aside about the 19 fin whales, at the last IWC meeting, I recall watching the Greenland / ( danish? ) commissioner acknowledging that the 19 fin eastern Greenland quota may be unsustainable as there was no reliable stock determination and that they would happily not take them if they could make up the X hundred tons of meat by taking Bowheads and other species …
Libby ( or anyone else ),
Back to the Baiji and other truly endangered species – what do you think could be done to highlight those species that are much more at risk ?
A snubfin awareness month? How´s about some of the major NGO´s devoting some time and resources to promoting projects and species? If anything, the Baiji case illustrates that the ” big picture ” approach seems to be lacking in actually getting ´enough ´ done ….. think about the effect if say ALL of the major NGO´s ( GP, WWF, etc ) campaigned for a month or more solidly to the US government regarding Right whales for instance .. does anybody think that might have an effect? … would it make a difference?
Why bother saving the Baiji – why does it matter?
“Why bother saving the Baiji – why does it matter?”
Indeed Luke, which in a way goes back to Schiller’s comment (which I will take out of it’s original context)
“Nobody makes money off of baiji or lungfish.”
Non-humans can not longer simply exist on this planet, they must serve a purpose to humans.
In the greater scheme of things to most people it doesn’t matter? Humans are the dominant species and the planet wont stop spinning if we lose these or many other species. I wonder how many of those here actually did something to help the baiji, or are these just hollow comments looking for scape goats in NGOs because they are the ones who should have used other’s money and goodwill to do something and they are focussing on all the wrong issues. Charity begins at home and one individual can make a difference are cliches used on Christmas cards and to wrap up Disney movies.
The way the world is going, I can’t actually see any future for endangered species. George, your putting the boot into me is not at all surprising, but as you say, it is up to the NGOs how they use their money. My comment about “that isn’t happening is it?” was tongue in cheek, because sperm, sei, fin, Bryde’s (and in future humpbacks) are all taken in non-indigenous catches, not to mention the smaller species of dolphins, porpoises and beaked whales.
“Back to the Baiji and other truly endangered species – what do you think could be done to highlight those species that are much more at risk ?”
George, I suggest you use your expertise in photographing cetaceans and take pictures of snubfins and their Mekong distant-relatives and hold an exhibition which raises the plight of these species and donate all the money to…damn, there woud be no one worthwhile so I guess you’ll have to keep it! 🙂
Libby:” Non-humans can not longer simply exist on this planet, they must serve a purpose to humans.”
How true….
But regarding the whales, both the whaling industry and the NGOs have already put a price on the whales.
According to WSPA a living Fin whale is worth $ 180,000 on the market in Iceland and they try to collect monet so they can save some individuals and buy them out. Dunno, if this is the right strategy or approach…
In case in the trade in other endangered species that is NOT recommended by NGOs. No individual is encouraged to by an endangered falcon on a bird market in Egypt etc.
Greenpeace has as well put up a price for the whales, comparing how much money the whale watching insustry generates in comparison to the whaling industry.
Yes I agree, let the animals live just for their own sake and value, but guess I’m very naive…
Hi Libby,
Apologies if it came across that way, but the intention was not to put the boot in to you personally, rather the NGO´s in general – I see the coming SO circus as just that – a circus, doing no good whatsoever and possibly serious harm – but thats just my opinion, and it´s worth what you paid for it… 😉
One of the problems with non – verbal communication on the internet – I took your tongue in cheek comment at face value .. hence my reply
Regarding supporting NGO´s Libby, through my particular expertise – I have done in the past but am loath to currently in the future due to experiences with said NGO´s .. that´s another story entirely for maybe another day – it´s kinda late ( early )here ..
I´m perfectly serious about asking for suggestions as to how we or anybody else could really make a difference, be it via a concentrated, directed campaign or other means …
As for the exhibition comment, good idea ( if you were serious – just checking 😉 ).. it´s something I´ve done before in another form to raise funds for a project – If you are serious, lets talk about the possibilty of an exhibition of prints from a range of species to raise funding directly, for example, a local ( aussie ) Snubfin project – I´d quite happily donate prints and do my best to arrange for colleagues to do the same – I assume you have a good idea of who´s doing what in that area .. so how´s about it?
G
Given Greenpeace has obviously let the side down I guess it falls to the very serious researchers in the game – what budget does the Institute for Ceteacean Research expend on river dolphins?
On doing “something to help the Baiji”, as a kid growing up in New Zealand what I heard in the media was that we need to “save the whales” and that Japanese whalers were hunting them in the Antarctic.
On the other hand I don’t remember exactly when I first heard about the Baiji, but it was certainly long after I become interested in the whaling debate. A lot of people reading the news about the Baiji extinction probably were not even aware of the existence of that species. Yet more people have probably neither heard of the existence of that species, or it’s having gone extinct.
I wonder how many people who have donated money to “save the whales” campaigns would be included?
We need a better approach:
1) We need to recognise (like the WWF, at least in principle if not practice) that abundant natural resources may be utilised by humans, with the provision that we take care to ensure they are not over-exploited (this end bit should be the only sticking point, as different people have different levels of risk tolerance), and have mechanisms in place that tell us what to do when things go wrong (adaptive management).
2) We need to focus the glossy campaigns on species that need it, not maybe in 20 years time when commercial interests are hypothetically supposed to have gone on an over-exploitation rampage (see above), but *right now*. I want to be able to go to Greenpeace’s homepage and find out about a whole bunch of species that I have never heard of before. Kind of like I can with this blog:
http://my.opera.com/chthoniid/blog/index.dml/tag/endangered%20species
(apologies, but Greenpeace gets the boot there as well – it looks like a whole lot of people would like to see them change their approach – perhaps they should …. listen? just a thought…).
George, if you’re serious about doing something, check out the Smith et al paper in this years’ Marine Mammal Science. There’s an old North Atlantic right whale feeding ground in Norway that needs investigation. Something for you to spend some time on, pretty straightforward for you with your field skills. Perfectly serious suggestion.
On snubfins George, if you’re serious, email me. I’ll give you some pointers.
And maybe David would like to couple his unending energy and his Japanese language skills with his desire to see work “on species that need it”, and try to do something to ensure that gray whales aren’t being caught in nets off Japan – as they have in recent times. Baker et al had a paper on it a couple of years ago (again, in MMS as I recall). Something straightforward, clear-cut and right now. Might help West Pacific grays……
On NGOs and where they put their money re endangered species conservation, some brief thoughts:
IFAW has done a lot on North Atlantic rights in recent years – they ran a program to replace lobster fishos’ floating lines with sinking ones, thereby reducing the likelihood of rights getting entangled, and without the fishos losing money. IFAW also ran surveys for Baltic harbor porps (to address two of Ann’s animals).
WDCS supports research and conservation action on several species that need it, including work on Irrawaddys.
Cetacean Society International support work on species that don’t get a lot of air time but need conservation, and are particularly strong on capacity building in Central and South America.
And to follow on from Luke’s question – What’s ICR’s budget for work on finless porpoises in Japan? Or the Japanese government’s? Conservation issue, home waters – I guess they’re pouring money into it.
Typing and sniping is easy. Doing stuff takes a little more guts and determination. You don’t like what NGOs are doing but are really worried about cetacean conservation? Fine, do better yourself.
Still waiting on IPA’s leadership here……
Hi Peter,
I have good experience of IFAW, however in this particular case it was not about cetaceans but on an oil spill response in the Baltic/ Finnish Gulf last winer during extreme winter conditions.
Their capacity/skills/financial situation was impressive.
I have not heard anything about the IFAW survey in the Baltic. Going to check it out. I’m especially interested in the issue of drift-nets and bottom set nets that are the major cause for their deaths in entanglements.
Does anyone of you cetacean guys know anything about pingers?
I have to conclude that nobody can tell me why the Baiji is important. Why is it worth saving – I don’t know. But you can tell me why Greenpeace isn’t any good. Over and over again.
But you’re not interested in telling me about the Baiji.
I couldn’t see anything about river dolphins worldwide on the ICR web site but lots about why whaling is an important issue and why Greenpeace are bad.
Maybe they need to have their name changed to the International Whale Harvesting Justification Institute.
Greenpeace gets lots of attention but average people do also quietly give to other less known appeals with conservation measures paramount. e.g.
http://www1.bushheritage.asn.au/
http://www.australianwildlife.org/aboutAWC.asp
You’d have more credibility informing me about your involvement in conservation campaigms for rare and threatened river dolphins than trying to keep flogging Greenpeace.
If one was totally cynical you might be forced conclude you don’t really give a stuff about the Baiji and the whole issue is simply political.
I suppose we’re lucky that the ICR isn’t heavily involved in river dolphin research as they’d have to kill them all to assess their population trends.
Luke,
My personal opinion…
I would rather see a live Baiji than buy some plastic junk made in China…but guess I’m just a spoiled Westerner…maybe a question of ones personal philosophy
Same thing at home…one of my greatest joys are the homecoming of the migratory birds to my garden every year, especially the whiptails.
Hi again Luke,
Haha, this flogging of Greenpeace will just help them to improve themselves…some constructive criticism of Greenpeace is very good according to Greenpeace( I know , the GP folks told me that).
Another thing about the flogging of Greenpeace, the GP folks also say that your enemy is your best friend. This according to same statement by some Chinese warlord in martial arts or was it a Japanese samuraj? The enemy points out your weaknesses!!!
IFAW have been criticised of late in Australia. It seems a lot of their time and resources have gone into cetacean issues and not the other creatures down here. This seems to have been a management problem (personal preferences), rather than prostituting cetaceans to get funds.
Peter, Godot will arrive before IPA’s response does.
There are a lot of branches of the bigger NGOs and small, local NGOs that pitch in with research projects and raising awareness. For example WWF in Pakistan with the river dolphins there, and a local South Korean environmental movement (whose name escapes me)I worked with whilst there doing a cetacean survey and trying to find out more about Western Grays and other species and their threats.
George, thanks for the offer of ideas. I am currently working with a photographer who is producing life size images of threatened marine mammals in order to have them exhibited in high traffic places throughout the world. His profits go to a variety of NGOs, including the Baiji one. But there is more we could talk about there. If you go to the old Norwegian right whale feeding grounds, let me know!
Luke, you raise valid points, but dinner is ready and I am afraid the gustatory takes precedence over the intellect.
I had a look at the website Jen linked at the head of the blog.
The survey methodology looked pretty good to me. I agree with Walters general observation that biological sampling does not always produce a reliable outcome, but surely within a finite space, a survey of this type, for an organism that has to surface regularly to breathe, should have found the animal. I note with some sadness that the lead article on the website admits that chinese and western scientists have argued for 20 years over the strategy that should be employed to save the baiji. Perhaps the lack of consistency in advice on what to do contributed to the official lethargy of the chinese government over this species. Although it must be recognised that conservation is not a high priority for the government.
The question now is what to do for the finless porpoise, which is still present, but with rapidly declining numbers? Can it be saved? Should it be saved? If so how? In my view the future for all freshwater cetaceans is bleak. Either they will end up extinct in the next couple of decades or, they will only exist in reserves. Extinction is the price many species have paid, over the millenia for moving up an adaptive peak -becoming so highly specialised that they are restricted to a particular habitat that is in relatively short supply. While the habitat is there, they are supremely adapted to it and thrive, but if something changes, that’s it. This is a familiar scenario that has played out for eons on this planet -sometimes on a grand scale. However, this time is different because now there is a sentient species that can recognise these passings. That species is slowly beginning to understand it has had a significant role in at least some of these events, and is collectively pondering whether or not it could/should actually prevent them. While I think we have the technological capacity to intervene to prevent some of these losses we do not yet have the collective will. This is primarily because we do not yet have the philosophical, moral and ethical maturity to place a species interests above our own selfish goals.
From an evolutionary biologists perspective those selfish goals are entirely justifiable if we are moving toward an evolutionary bottleneck – a mass extinction event. The fossil record suggests its not a question of if, but rather, when, and if you accept that, then what is the best strategy for a species approaching such a bottleneck? The answer would appear to be – to have as heterogenous a gene pool as possible, and to have as much of it extant as possible. That seems to fit our current strategy of turning all possible biomass on this planet into ourselves.
However, is that our best strategy? We are sentient, so lets start using that facility ask ourselves …. is our current approach really the best we can do?
To me, in an ideal world we recognise that we, as the sentient beings here, have a responsibility to acts as stewards for all life on earth, because we are all, in a biological and evolutionary sense, relatives. Once you start looking at it from that perspective then the viewpoint on moving towards the inevitable bottleneck changes from a narrow self-focussed view, to a pan-specific view, which suggests the maintenance of biodiversity is vitally important in raising the chances of life on this planet making it through the next mass extinction event.
Could we ever start thinking that way?
If we continue on our current merry way, then heaven help the rest of the Galaxy if we ever get off this little blue orb in any great numbers before we mature.
Regarding IPA leadership. The IPA doesn’t purport to be about saving the world’s cetacean, Greenpeace does.
Greenpeace collects millions and millions of dollars … on the basis it is saving the world’s mosty needy animals particularly animals like whales. Last time I looked Greenpeace had an annual budget in excess of $300 million and hundreds of staff for this purpose.
On the other the IPA has a fulltime staff of about 5 and “collects money” for its work in defence of economic and intellectual freedom with a focus on Australia. Last time I looked we had a budget of just over $1 million.
I think the IPA does a good job given its focus and modest funding… can’t say the same for Greenpeace.
Luke,
As George noted way back at the top of the thread, the Fisheries Research Agency of Japan has been involved in the Baiji project… Can you not guess where the FRA and ICR get their funding?
Refreshing your understanding of the word “organization” will perhaps be instructive.
Dr. Corkeron,
Yes, unfortunately 3 grey whales were killed last year off the Japan coast. Given your critical tone I imagine you are have some suggestions as to further actions the authorities could take on top of what they have already done. I suppose you have some constructive advice for the fisheries researchers who killed a humpback whale off Alaska some weeks back as well. As for the former case, I’d be happy to translate your wisdom into Japanese and send it off to the relevant authorities, and fix whatever it is that is missing from the official stranding manual.
http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/whale/document/041227zasho%20manual.pdf
I’ll leave the Alaskan case over to you, since as I recall the Americans speak English.
As for the finless porpoise, plenty of information about the research being conducted is available, I guess the problem for you is that you can’t read most of it, as it’s in Japanese. Japanese is the functional language here in Japan, of course. Thankfully English speaking foreign scientists are always so understanding of that fact.
Oh, and based on your comments I guess you’d be surprised at who’s involved in that finless porpoise research, but I’m really not looking to score petty points so I’ll spare you the details.
—
In the meantime, minke whales still aren’t endangered yet, are they?
Today I see 27 developed nations taking part in a demarche (including those 6 marine resource management titans of Switzerland, Austria, Luxembourg, San Marino, Czech Republic, and Hungary) to try to score some political points against Japan.
“New Zealand wanted to send a very strong message to the Japanese government before the start of its scientific whaling programme,” says Chris Carter.
Well, too late mate, they are already killing whales, and have been for probably at least week already. Perhaps a more appropriate time to protest the research would be before the ships left port, back in November? Oh, silly me. It has to be timed to coincide with the media generating Greenpeace/Sea Shepherd obstruction (if they can find the fleet on time).
“Adequate data for whale-management purposes can be obtained using non-lethal techniques, there’s no need to kill whales to study them,” says Carter.
Never mind the fact that the ultimate goal is to kill them and turn them into dinner anyway.
“We consider that Japan’s scientific whaling undermines international efforts to conserve and protect whales,” he continues.
No matter that whaling nations don’t want to “conserve and protect whales”, they want to conserve and EAT them. How hard is this to understand?
Naturally, no mention of the Baiji from Minister Carter. New Zealanders obviously have more important things to concern themselves with, such as what Japanese people may and may not eat for dinner. (sigh)
Pfffft. Yay for the New Zealand “Minister of Conservation”
Oops, just realised that I posted the link to the wrong manual. Then again, I guess it *really doesn’t matter*…
Let’s not talk about the diversionary GP or NZ – let’s talk about you and the ICR.
Why are you interested in the Baiji? I still don’t know. You are obviously critical of GP’s efforts but maybe they have their reasons. I’m interested in yours.
A brief review of the ICR site provides me no information of its concern for river dolphins – why not? They have no trouble translating anti-GP rhetoric do they?
So I have to conclude that they have no interest in river dolphins really and neither do you.
Otherwise we’d be seeing some re-education of we westerners into more important conservation issues.
Hi again Luke,
Back again to the issue why it is important to save ALL kind of species.
Some superfiscial bla bla from me…
Methink and most scientists dealing with ecosystems , consider that every species play a vital role in the ecosystem. Losing ONE species affects the whole ecosystem and bla bla in the end humans as well.
One example, losing some tree species in Amazonas( this propaganda not from Greenpeace) affects the photosynthesis. The trees I mention release some chemicals, don’t recall the name now, something with hydroxy acids,which clean the atmosphere and are a vital part as well in the photosynthesis.
So this losing a species is not only about nostalgia…
But Jennifer, it’s already been established here that Greenpeace don’t care about the Baiji, and yet this is about the fourth article you have posted on this little creature. If they don’t care, then why should they donate their millions, but if you care….?
David, as I can’t open the Japanese stranding manual, I have to assume that the Japanese reduce the risk of entanglement of Western grays by removing the threatening processes (ie nets) during the migration period? If not, why not? One humpback vs three grays? Arent there now enough humpbacks to start killing some for scientific research? Hopefully the same rigorous scientific scrutiny was applied to the dead grays before they were consumed as would be applied to the minkes!
Ho hum – where to start?.. Peter ..
“George, if you’re serious about doing something, check out the Smith et al paper in this years’ Marine Mammal Science. There’s an old North Atlantic right whale feeding ground in Norway that needs investigation. Something for you to spend some time on, pretty straightforward for you with your field skills. Perfectly serious suggestion”
In the winter of 1995-1996 I spent a month around Dahkla bay in southern Morocco on an italian boat Amy Knowlton was along for a week or so as well ..we were looking for right whales on the old feeding / calving grounds between southern Morocco and Mauritania … there had been a reliable sighting … nothing found .. Re: the Norwegian feeding Ground Peter, sounds interesting, gimme sone time and I´ll see what I can do….
Re Snubfins, Yes, perfectly serious, If I can help raise funds directly to a worthwhile project, I´m in…I´ll email you
Re WDCS.. quite laudible too Peter – Note that ( at least until recently anyway ) they would not fund any project that had biopsy sampling as part of the project )
They also do not fund any norwegian projects any more, ( last one was in the 90´s in Tysfjord )
as well as do some othe politically motivated rubbish that I´ve mentioned on the blog in the past but you´re right – at least they do actually support some projects
” Typing and sniping is easy. Doing stuff takes a little more guts and determination. You don’t like what NGOs are doing but are really worried about cetacean conservation? Fine, do better yourself. ”
Precisely what I do … many others don´t have the qualifications and or experience to do that though – and if you´ve ever been involved with eco-volunteer programs, you´ll know that unexperienced volunteers are in general more of a hindrance than anything else.. but at least they get / got to have a warm rosy feeling about having made a difference …
one last comment Re IFAW Peter – I find it kind of strange that you are heaping praise upon IFAW, who plainly use political priorities to decide how and where and field research by their associated scientists is carried out … something you are kind of strongly against regarding scientists and science in Norway or? I admit to being puzzled by this ..
Apologies in advance if I am reading this the wrong way…
Libby!
” George, thanks for the offer of ideas. I am currently working with a photographer who is producing life size images of threatened marine mammals in order to have them exhibited in high traffic places throughout the world. His profits go to a variety of NGOs, including the Baiji one. But there is more we could talk about there”
Certainly, I´ll email you – however, any profits of anything I would be involved in I would insist go straight to a particular project(s) rather than an NGO…
Luke !
Like Libby, my gut takes Priority and sunday brekkie takes even higher priority – so I´ll get back to you once I´ve communed with the Fourcelices of bacon and three egg omlett young skywalker
Libby,
Yes I do care. So much.
I thank you for drawing my attention to the plight of the baiji a year or so ago. I am so sorry that the species is likely now extinct. So sorry.
I also care that so much emotion, time and effort is collected and wasted by some organisations in the name of the environment.
I do the work that I do, and I keep this blog in the hope that organisations like Greenpeace will one day go broke or reform themselves. It’s my little contribution in the hope that in the future there will be better environmental stewardship.
I also put a lot of effort into the Australian Eenviornmental Foundation (AEF) … as an alternative, solution focused environment group … just starting up.
But it’s not for the IPA to change its focus … the IPA has a niche and a mandate and a small budget to do what it does and it is at least honest to its role and honest to its ideals.
Luke ..
” I have to conclude that nobody can tell me why the Baiji is important. Why is it worth saving – I don’t know. ”
What do you wish to know Luke? be specific
“But you can tell me why Greenpeace isn’t any good. Over and over again.”
Practice makes Perfect Luke …
But you’re not interested in telling me about the Baiji.
” I couldn’t see anything about river dolphins worldwide on the ICR web site but lots about why whaling is an important issue and why Greenpeace are bad ”
Funnily enough, you can say the same for the GP international website – bugger all on the Baiji but plenty plenty on why the ICR are bad …. must be one of those unexplainable coincidences huh ?
” Maybe they need to have their name changed to the International Whale Harvesting Justification Institute ”
Low blow Luke – well below the belt – it´s the kind of thing I´d expect from Greenpeace actually – you are´nt a copywriter for them perchance? If so, don´t give up yer day job..
“Greenpeace gets lots of attention but average people do also quietly give to other less known appeals with conservation measures paramount. e.g.”
Glad to hear it Luke … the more of this the better IMO … cut out the middlemen ie – GP, etc .. give direct to the projects etc… all for it ..
” You’d have more credibility informing me about your involvement in conservation campaigms for rare and threatened river dolphins than trying to keep flogging Greenpeace.”
Read back through the archives in my case … I walk the walk Luke.. which pretty much gives me the right to talk the talk and point out what I see as lets just say – inconsistancies in GP´s methodology and or information dissemination… as well as ……….. nah enough ..
then again, I´m just an individual expressing his views … I have no political agenda – though I admit the GP are quite high on my shit(s) list this week ..
” If one was totally cynical you might be forced conclude you don’t really give a stuff about the Baiji and the whole issue is simply political.”
Luke, I am cynical and am forced to conclude by your absence from such cetacean threads in the past other than to recover from some drongo chewing yer leg off on an AGW thread, that you´re actually just stiring shit … a worthwhile pastime admittedly on occassion.. are you?
”
I suppose we’re lucky that the ICR isn’t heavily involved in river dolphin research as they’d have to kill them all to assess their population trends.”
now that was funny …..
RE :
” You’d have more credibility informing me about your involvement in conservation campaigms for rare and threatened river dolphins than trying to keep flogging Greenpeace.”
Missed the river dolphins comment – my answer above was based on cetacean conservation luke..
Hi George,
Meanwhile you have promised Libby and Peter to carry out some work maybe I have another task for you that is possibly easier to carry out???
According to Norwegian scientists the Spitsbergen stock of Bowheads is the most threatened big whale population in the world:
http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2003/mai/1053360597.47
Despite this it seems like the scientists don’t get enough money to carry out their research.
Maybe this has changed lately?
I think this might be as well a case that should be highlighted by George and Peter, with their experiences from Norway.????
Maybe I’m asking for impossible or overhuman tasks?
George – as previously stated I’m not a member of any NGO and I’m speaking for myself as a citizen (which we’re allowed to do in Australia).
No I’m not shit stirring – but I do read the whaling threads and they do shit me – I have at least one punched out desklamp – I find the whole issue of the Baiji debate as simply indulgent and crocodile tears. 90% of the space is devoted to Greenpeace/NGO bashing.
The philosophical basis for caring about a single species extinction isn’t clear here among you rough and tough logical guys. Russel has an admirable go.
Is there is an emotionalism in it – Jen’s sad – well lots of people might be sad for grenaded whales and drowned whales too. Regardless of whether they are endangered or not. We can either be ruthlessly logical or get a bit emotional.
I’d be more impressed that you’re all serious if NGOs didn’t get a mention and what is required to save other river dolphins is not discussed. Add Sumatran Rhino and Sun Bears for that matter too in same blog context. Political pressure can also be applied to Greenpeace and WWF to get more focussed.
If ICR were serious we would see a pro-active range of conservation methods on a whole range of cetaceans as front page their web site.
I see the whole Baiji discussion as simply a checklist defence item to be higher than thou in yet another tiresome Greenpeace bash.
Meanwhile little changes.
Anyway now that I’ve shat you all I’ll leave you to get back to GP bashing and go poon some newbs or old codgers on AGW. (Motty wants to block plankton production by covering the oceans in aluminium cladding so I’ll have to get up him – anyway he likes it.)
erratum – sorry – “other river dolphins species was discussed”.
OK something cheerier .. ..
Incidentally we have now spent considerable amounts of money improving the Brisbane River water quality (trying to at least).
This week we have plain old vanilla dolphins for the first time in a long while in an upper reach of the Brisbane river near a famous inner suburban public bar called the Regatta.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/1b/300px-Regatta_Hotel.JPG – note the colonial iron work on verandah – good for a beer – river floods go through the ground level
If you have Google Earth check out …
27°28’56.98″S, 152°59’46.59″E
Where the dolphins were seen. (Impressed me anyway).
Luke,
The fact that the ICR has to spend it’s resources addressing and exposing Greenpeace’s misdeeds in the Antarctic rather than highlighting their contributions in other areas illustrates my point perfectly. Of course, if you could read Japanese you’d know more than you evidently do.
Libby,
Guess you missed the point – accidents happen, and someone mentioned, cooperation is required for successful conservation, rather than the confrontational approach that Greenpeace is so fond of. As I posted the link to the stranding manual, no it doesn’t cover procedures for freeing whales from nets. But what do you say? Shall we write a letter, send it off to Greenpeace Japan and ask what they are doing about this problem? Then shall we send the same letter to the authorities and see what they have to say? I don’t think anyone here will surprised about who is more active in working to address this issue. (I already know part of the answer, and I also know that Japanese authorities took it upon themselves to make further efforts in this area – doesn’t seem that Greenpeace Japan has any input to offer other than repeating the propaganda of their western counterparts).
And yes, the carcases of the whales were investigated by scientists.
http://www.sanriku-kahoku.com/news/2005_07/i/050717i-kujira.html
Finally, are you really so blinkered that you believe the Greenpeace propaganda with regard to the minke studies? What’s the difference between Greenpeace’s opinion and yours on the matter? Please, don’t go embarassing yourself.
Luke,
> If ICR were serious we would see a pro-active
> range of conservation methods on a whole range
> of cetaceans as front page their web site.
The ICR is just one part of the “organization” thing that I mentioned to you earlier – the Japanese government (i.e., me through my taxes) funds the lot of them (well I also fund the ICR by eating whale meat – something I do with pride and recommend to others). Like George mentioned, a different arm of the “organization” thing that I mentioned to you earlier was involved with the Baiji. Stop ignoring this. Your criticism is like saying “oh f**k the ministry of welfare for not doing anything about global warming”, yes an extreme example but *hopefully* it helps to enlighten you a tad.
Didn’t take long for David to get back to GP bashing did it? Gee Davo – I thought cetaceans included more than whales and research would be sought of inclusive and self-evident. I think the Japanese Institute for Blowing the Heads off Whales to Check their age and health is the new name based on available evidence.
Posted by: Luke at December 17, 2006 09:24 PM
“George – as previously stated I’m not a member of any NGO and I’m speaking for myself as a citizen”
me too – that includes criticism of whatever I choose 😉
“No I’m not shit stirring – but I do read the whaling threads and they do shit me”
In what way? – because a whole bunch of folk put the boot into GP? or what? personally, I´d wonder why folk were putiing the boot in – but thats just me ..
“I have at least one punched out desklamp – I find the whole issue of the Baiji debate as simply indulgent and crocodile tears. 90% of the space is devoted to Greenpeace/NGO bashing.”
Quite possibly, and as GP are those most active and or publicised in their save the whales campaigns without actually doing anything or very little ( you could actually argue that GP and their ilk are professional shit stirrers but thats another story ) they tend to get most of the flak in the whaling / cetacean threads … I´m not surprised … are you? …
Think about it Luke – if a private individual like me, albeit involved with cetaceans takes the time and energy to participate here on the subject – be it GP bashing or GP criticism or whatever – it´s probably either because I have an agenda ( I don´t ) or that I do actually care …
“The philosophical basis for caring about a single species extinction isn’t clear here among you rough and tough logical guys. Russel has an admirable go.”
Perhaps because the rough and tough logical folk here actually do something for conservation of individual species? Libby and her humpys – peter at Woods hole – me with killer whales currently .. anne via her animal rescue work .. and so on …could it be because we prefer to do our bit and philosophise(sp) later ..?
you tell me … I often wonder why I bother with continuing to argue or discuss the ” bigger picture ” .. perhaps I´m still idealistic enough ( god forbid ) to believe that some good might come out of it? .. i dunno – really …
“Is there is an emotionalism in it – Jen’s sad – well lots of people might be sad for grenaded whales and drowned whales too. Regardless of whether they are endangered or not. We can either be ruthlessly logical or get a bit emotional.”
Quite true – tell me, which is better for the truly endangered species? being ruthlessly logical about it or a bit emotional? are they mutually exclusive?… I have more than a soft spot for killer whales but it would not stop me from making tough management decisions if neccessary… ( not that they are endangered in norway )
“I’d be more impressed that you’re all serious if NGOs didn’t get a mention and what is required to save other river dolphins is not discussed.”
whats this –
I´m perfectly serious about asking for suggestions as to how we or anybody else could really make a difference, be it via a concentrated, directed campaign or other means …
That does not neccessarily exclude NGO´s – I´d personal prefer that the bigger bunch were not involved simply as they usually require their pound of flesh – frankly put – and all too often use individual projects for wider political purposes … gets on my nadgers basically ..
“Add Sumatran Rhino and Sun Bears for that matter too in same blog context. Political pressure can also be applied to Greenpeace and WWF to get more focussed.”
I´m all for it – concentrate PUBLIC pressure on NGO´s such as the ones you mention to be more focussed as well as governments for truly endangered species ..
“I see the whole Baiji discussion as simply a checklist defence item to be higher than thou in yet another tiresome Greenpeace bash. ”
and do you see the GP / SS Southern ocean campaigns to be somethiing else? …
” Anyway now that I’ve shat you all I’ll leave you to get back to GP bashing and go poon some newbs or old codgers on AGW. (Motty wants to block plankton production by covering the oceans in aluminium cladding so I’ll have to get up him – anyway he likes it.)”
not so easy young skywalker – you have been touched by the dark side now – you will have to come up with a back of the envelope job as to how to make a difference before the dark lord lets you go .. ;op
Posted by: Luke at December 17, 2006 09:24 PM
Opps – the above was posted by me – not luke … crappy cut and paste work .. ;Op
Jennifer wrote:
“I do the work that I do, and I keep this blog in the hope that organisations like Greenpeace and CSIRO will one day go broke or reform themselves. It’s my little contribution in the hope that in the future there will be better environmental stewardship.”
and
“But it’s not for the IPA to change its focus … the IPA has a niche and a mandate and a small budget to do what it does and it is at least honest to its role and honest to its ideals.”
This sounded eerily familiar. A disturbing echo … such an uncenny similarity with this rare syndrome:
George, I got the impression from the posts here that people thought no NGOs were doing anything re endangered cetacean conservation. So I thought I’d point to work that some NGOs did. The IFAW example was just one that sprung to mind – tho’ I think their work with lobster fishos was good.
As for IFAW’s priorities and their scientists – they’re an NGO, not a national government.
I don’t think my post says that I agree completely with NGOs’ priorities re research tho.
Jennifer, fine change IPA to AEF then. Otherwise, the claims that the baiji is being used as a poster child for Greenpeace-bashing will haunt you, won’t it?
And Luke – one short answer to your excellent question lies in your sighting from the Regatta – endangered species can be used to push for habitat recovery. Many places don’t have a population as enlightened as Brisbane (I can’t believe I just wrote that), and need some charismatic species to invoke environmental improvements.
An aside – it was probably a humpback dolphin.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the clarification – though I might argue the point that both may be directing science for political ends – buts thats another kettle of fish…
I agree that some NGO´s do sterling work as regarding truly endangered species – few and far between though as I´m sure you are aware.. it´s unfortunate ( in my opinion ) that those with the best or largest resources choose to take on the ” bigger picture ” and the direction they do .. which I believe was also August Pfluger´s point reagrding the Baiji
Luke,
This blog is a real Sunday school class if you compare what people say about Greenpeace in the real life.
Well, Motty and Pixie call Greenpeace for Greenpeas and Greenfarce, but excuse me for my language, in real life you hear the whole spectrum from Greenpigs to Greenpiss!
Do they deserve this? Maybe IMO. Actually Greenpeace attracts a lot of people that are just looking for trouble. Are the Che Guevara t-shirts really interested in the Baiji issue?
Regarding my last comment, I will point out that Greenpeace’s official policy was that they were unpolitical, and I really didn’t like the Greenpeace Nordic’s media officer telling me that” remember were are a left wing organisation”.
My what a lot of crocodile tears for the Baji and the North Atlantic Right Whale from the Greenie bashers here.
Shame that while claiming to be ‘conservationists’ they are always too busy to do anything constructive about these problems….
There will be a lot more species like the Baiji and each time it happens there will a variation of the same weasel words from the usual suspects…. just before blaming Greenpeace and other NGOs….
OK, Lamna, you live near London or any other Greenpeace office? You ever voluneered in the GP office???
My,
How constructive Mr. Batty is … thank you so much for your input as usual –
and as usual, Mr Batty is incapable of seperating what someone does for the environment from someone criticising the percieved lackings of the organsisations he supports .. what a tosser..
Peter your comment,”Jennifer, fine change IPA to AEF then. Otherwise, the claims that the baiji is being used as a poster child for Greenpeace-bashing will haunt you, won’t it?”.
I didn’t change IPA to AEF and the organisations are very different … not interchangable.
Are you now retracting your previous misguided comments denegrating the IPA?
And claims about Greenpeace and the baiji won’t haunt me.
I have always worked hard and worked honestly for conservation and for the environment… beginning with my seven years in Africa as an entomologist.
“Finally, are you really so blinkered that you believe the Greenpeace propaganda with regard to the minke studies? What’s the difference between Greenpeace’s opinion and yours on the matter? Please, don’t go embarassing yourself.”
Nope David, not listening to GP’s opinion here. I don’t read their web stuff. I do however read journals and papers and ‘propaganda’ produced by cetacean scientists. If I am embarrassing myself here, I am in good company.
Regarding Luke’s participation in cetacean issues. Luke’s Master was a wise old man who lived out beyond the Dune Sea. He used to comment on cetacean issues, back in the old days, before the Empire. He passed on much knowledge to young Luke, but I suspect Luke is very wary of regular participation after what happened to his Master. However, he makes valid points, and perhaps came across as “shit stirring” because no one was addressing his queries. So what he wrote was in line with the debate, from a certain point of view. Now, did you ever hear the story of Darth Plaguis the Wise….
Why Tionne Solusar, do you defend your master? ;op
So now we have to go Expanded Universe heh?
Bloody hell – OK George (or anyone else) – what’s our checklist of endangered fauna that NGOs are doing a ratshit job on.
Then we at least do some letters to GP and others
“Dear philosophically-bankrupt, crap, politically motivated, well funded, poorly managed NGO,
We the undersigned members of Australia’s most aggressive environmental blog who don’t agree on anything (even what time it is)do agree that your lack of effort on the attached list of interesting and deserving endangered species have all of us peeved and it will spare us a lot of work lobbying against you if you acknowledge the said list and state a specific plan of action for conservation of these species using your tax dodged, ill-gotten, duped from innocents, wasted on administration, Colombian drug money associated funding pool.”
We could also have it as a blog “standing item” with updates.
AEF could campaign against the other NGOs on that basis.
“So now we have to go Expanded Universe heh? ”
We go where we must to bríng young Luke over to the dark side 😉
Hi Lamna,
What’s your take on the demise of the Baiji? Do you think that perhaps the Chinese powers that be had some responsibility, or should there have been more input from international NGOs? I am not being facetious by the way.
Hi Luke,
I’ll start typing those letters straight away. We’ll start with Greenpeace and go through them all. Just make sure we get those bloody idiots who keep pulling that possum out of the freezer. Not a single one will be left standing and soon Jen’s 101st bloggers will be in complete control and the environmental movement shall be theirs. Nooooooooooooo…..!!!!
George,
Bringing in the captivity debate is bold of you, although I realise it was Lamna who sort of brought it up. Not really relevant here, but another polarising issue. Of course we could talk about Qui Qui, the lone Baiji who stayed in a facility all those years but could not have a mate stay alive long enough in order to possibly give the species a chance.
I found this interesting commentary page on the building of the Three Gorges Dam, with posts from people around the globe. Baijis get a look in. http://www.pbs.org/itvs/greatwall/talkback.html
See, I knew there was something in common with QLD lungfish – concrete walls and extinction!
Hi Libby,
I think the mixture of pollution, hydro electric
projects, heavy river traffic and hunting / bycatch meant that nothing environmental NGOs could have done would have made the slightest difference…
I think the Ganges River Dolphin will go the same way…
There is a slim chance the Amazon Boto might survive; however since this belief mainly rest on the sheer size of the Amazon, I am not taking bets…
Very often the larger the endangered species is, the more difficult it is to ensure humanity’s rapacious consumption of resources (which is the fundamental cause of the problem in many cases) does not outstrip that species survival requirements. You will not hear much talk of re-introducing the brown bear, wolf and lynx etc. to the UK, because there simply isn’t enough viable habitat left.
It is tough enough to manage endangered species on land, where it is relatively straightforward to see what is required for even quite small species like the Spix Macaw.
The fact is that for the many fresh water and marine species our current level of scientific knowledge is woefully inadequate and even in the case of some commercial species (in particular deep water species) much of the data – apart from how and where to catch them – is virtually non-existant.
Jennifer, rather than retraction, clarification – your previous title was Director of the Environment Unit of the IPA, so I didn’t realise that the IPA was so tiny.
Nor did I realize it was focussed tightly on defence of economic and intellectual freedom. I don’t get that impression from the IPA website, but you’re one of the few employed at IPA, so you know.
My point re AEF was simply that maybe it’s something the AEF would take up, if it’s outside the IPA’s purview.
Returning to earth, can you enlighten us on Luke’s question on “Why bother saving the Baiji – why does it matter?”.
I’m assuming that internally, AEF have thrashed out issues like whether to focus on processes or particular species/places. Does AEF have a position on trying to save animals teetering on the brink of extinction?
Given how wrong my previous assumption (re IPA) was, I hesitate to suggest that AEF has definitely gone through this process.
Btw Luke, in case there’s any confusion (there’s a bit of vitriol flying around) here – my (I can’t believe I just wrote that) crack was meant as a joke. I’m from Brisbane originally. RE rather than Regatta tho.
Thanks Peter.
To clarify, I was given a title when I first started with the IPA which wasn’t my choice … but I’ve never been one too worry too much about titles. When I signed with the IPA again in July this year (end of my original 3 year contract), I negotiated to have my title changed to ‘Senior Fellow’ which I think is more reflective of what I do etcetera. I don’t think anyone was intending to mislead with the original title and they did wish to give me some real support … but it didn’t happen. It may next year, fingers crossed.
As regards the AEF, the group is very new and still finding its way. We have had much discussion on the issue of whaling, with the membership divided even on whether it is legitimate for the Japanese to hunt minke. Though as a group we are generally pro-sustainable harvest as promoted by Michael Archer etcetera.
We embrace difference of opinion and healthy robust discussion and debate … so the lack of consensus on whaling is not seen as a problem.
We have a consensus on some other issues e.g. are keen to support waste water recycling, support sustainable native timber harvest, and are keen to see nuclear power in the mix of possible greenhouse neutral energy solutions for the future.
There is no AEF position on saving species on the brink of extinction … we never discussed the baiji.
But I imagine, like me, most AEF members would be very sad to think that at the beginning of this new millenium, with such global concern about conservation and the environment, we could lose such a magnificant species. Lost forever.
I seek answers to environmental issues through science, but I wouldn’t look to science to explain my sadness at the loss of this species.
Libby,
> I do however read journals and papers and ‘propaganda’
> produced by cetacean scientists. If I am embarrassing
> myself here, I am in good company.
Interesting, as I have read Greenpeace propaganda as well as some reports from cetacean scientists, but the impression you’ve given me is that your views seem closer to those of the Greenpeace propaganda than cetacean scientists, but of course I don’t know exactly which papers you are refering to.
Anyway, as I’m sure you are capable of recognising, some cetacean scientists actively publish political opinion in addition to their scientific work. I’m sure when you noted your opinion regarding the minke research that you were refering to the scientific papers of those scientists, and not their political work, right?
At any rate, so long as you’ve reconciled their arguments with the reports of reviews conducted by the IWC Scientific Committee (such as the one held at the beginning of the month for which we’ll see the report next May (unless someone kindly leaks it to you)), I’m sure you’re totally comfortable with it all, right?
Also out of curiosity… in one recent paper which you may have heard about, a scientist put forth his view he believes Japanese policy is based on his belief that the Japanese think they have a right to “unlimited access” to the world’s marine resources. I wonder what your thoughts are on that view.
I also wonder what you thoughts might be on another scientist, who in attempting to develop non-lethal research methods of obtaining a certain type of biological information about whales (a concession in itself that no such non-lethal method currently exists, despite claims to the contrary by his political master), acknowledged that the real motivation for the work is to be able to “apply more political pressure”.
Also interesting that such scientists as those I am refering to above have deliberately broken IWC Scientific Committee document confidentiality rules in the past as well, in publishing one of their political papers.
… so many mysteries (!)…
Ultimately though, what I wonder about most is what you think about the core argument. We know of course that the goal of the whaling nations (Japan included) is to be able to put whale meat on plates. Those nations conducting scientific research programmes with lethal components in recent times have the ultimate goal of putting whale meat on dinner plates (here, whether it’s an indirect consequence or the direct purpose is not the point). In the meantime as we know, the meat from these programmes does end up on dinner plates anyway, as I confirmed last week on Tuesday night and Friday night (despite recent anti-whaling propaganda claims that it ends up in stockpiles forever). Of course, when commercial whaling resumes, the meat will still end up on dinner plates, which is the goal of commercial whaling.
Thus, in terms of the use of whales, they are currently put to *at least* as much use (under “scientific whaling” and I even put it in quotes for you) as they would be under pure commercial whaling. Consequently, while some may wish to argue about the necessity of lethal methods, at the end of the day that what these arguments decompose down to is the debate about whether or not putting whale meat on dinner plates is an appropriate use of whales.
I imagine discussions about the relative merits of research programmes employing non-lethal methods only versus programmes employing a combination of non-lethal and lethal methods would be more productive if proponents from both sides of the debate would make their views on putting whale meat on dinner plates 100% clear at the outset.
‘if proponents from both sides of the debate would make their views on putting whale meat on dinner plates 100% clear at the outset.’ – David
I agree it should be made 100% clear at the outset that the discussion is not about whale meat feeding the hollow eyed, starving, anti-personnel mine amputee, third world orphans…. but the Japanese Fisheries Ministry providing cheap whale burgers and sushi for developed world Japanese.
To be achieved by re-introducing international commercial whaling (including CITES listed species) in international waters and a whale sanctuary… assisted by two other developed world countries, who need to have an international market because their cultural consumption of whale meat is greatly exceeded by their hunt quota.
David of course sees absolutely no point in non lethal research… Where’s the profit margin in an empty hold by crikey?!
Interesting aspects to what David says and Jen’s sadness.
I’d like to think that if the Baiji was endemic to the Brisbane River we would have made a bigger attempt (or am I having myself on – we didn’t save the Brisbane River Cod in the 1930s and aren’t exactly “red hot” on saving the Mary River Cod just up the coast to the north.)
Yes it is a great pity that we have lost another cetacean to extinction primarily as a result of our industrial activities. I have personally thought about it for days. But on an economic basis one you quite easily rationalise it away as “cost effective”.
But as soon as emotionalism enters the argument you’re philosophically gone and in difficult terrain. Like many in the west I simply don’t like the idea of destroying whales for what appears to be “exotic tastes”. And yes they do appear to be sentient beings, magnificent, and in general charismatic mega-fauna.
The fact that humanity has hunted many species to the brink of extinction doesn’t fill me with hope for sustainable resource management in the future. Why should we trust reformed alchoholics? Does a rare whale species taste that little bit better than your common garden variety minke. Why should we trust the industry again.
So I guess I just don’t see whales as a floating protein source.
Not sure how we reconcile that. As soon as we introduce human qualities like “sadness” we’re in some other ethical debate.
And yes I’d ban indigenous dugong hunting too.
Ann,
Interesting what you said about Greenpeace as a “left wing organisation”.
Greenpeace’s opposing bad nasty “commercial whaling” while saying nothing about “aboriginal subsistence” whaling (which sees whale meat end up in Nuuk supermarkets anyway) has always given me the impression that they are more about such politics than true conservation – as is also evidently the case with certain other people who post here.
Hey wasn’t this thread about the Baiji?….
That David eh?.. what a card eh?.. sees a thread about a cetacean species… any cetacean species…. and JARPA II propaganda just flows out in an uninterrupted slick…. its as though he hadn’t even paused for breath from the last cetacean thread….
:o)
‘Greenpeace’s opposing bad nasty “commercial whaling” while saying nothing about “aboriginal subsistence” whaling’ – David
Here we go again…… poor impoverished Japan only wants equitable rights to slaughter thousands more whales than those nasty Aboriginals with their global economic powerbase…
‘more about such politics than true conservation – as is also evidently the case with certain other people who post here.’ – David
Really David? Is that why your still on about JARPA II on the Baiji thread….
:o)
Luke,
We can but speculate is to whether the Baiji would have survived if it was Australians who were living in the geographic region that is China and not another people.
Perhaps a look at the case of New Zealand’s North Island population of the Hector’s dolphin might give some clues as well. A lot of efforts are being made there also, although the signs do not look good, unfortunately.
It’s realities such as this that really get up my nose when we hear such vociferous anti-whaling propaganda from New Zealand’s “Minister of Conservation”. A little more humility would be in order.
On “exotic taste”, it seems to me that what is “exotic” depends on the environment in which various cultures developed.
On “hope for sustainable resource management in the future”, hopefully the fact that many whale populations that were overexploited in the past are now recovering is some comfort, along with scientific and economic developments since such times.
On reconciling your desires with those of others, the difficulty with the whaling issue is that people from whaling nations actually want to eat whales, which requires *some* level of killing. They accept that killing whales can increase the risk that such stocks might be depleted to such a degree that irreversible consequences occur. As long as the risk is minimal, they are OK.
For Australians, there is no desire to eat whales, and thus *any* increase in the risk is unacceptable.
Mutual understanding of these different positions is required as we are considering a shared resource, access to which is governed by an international agreement, which needs to be adhered to in good faith.
My ideas?
1) The whalers need to understand that Australians are very risk intolerant, and might do well to look for areas to compromise. For example, perhaps it would be a good move for the ICR to put aside plans to start killing humpback whales from IWC area V in the 2008/2009 season, unless of course concerns over stock structure can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction (something that I suspect may not be likely, but anyway).
2) The anti-whalers need to understand that whalers are not as risk intolerant as they are, and should be willing to accept that low levels of risk should be tolerated in at least some areas. After all, when Australians walk across the road, there is the chance that they may be hit by a car, and killed. It happens. But people are still permitted to cross the road, while of course every effort is taken to reduce the risk of this. Same with people choosing to fly in airplanes, despite the low risk of the plane actually crashing and everyone on board dying. As such, to my mind Australians should be prepared to accept commercial whaling *at least* in the Western North Pacific.
So there needs to be compromise regarding acceptable levels of risk, otherwise eventually this is going to blow up, and it’ll be bad for whale conservation. Scientifically, the IWC has already adopted the RMP, so in those terms everyone should already be happy. All that we are left with is to agree to regulatory measures to ensure that scientifically set quotas are abided by. People can argue and argue about how trustworthy the evil Japanese government is, but it’s all rather unproductive. Once agreements based on good faith discussions have been reached, perhaps we can finally start to focus more on species that are actually at risk of extinction, as researchers from the University of Tasmania suggested recently.
So are the Japanese willing to host international observors on their whaling vessels?
‘After all, when Australians walk across the road, there is the chance that they may be hit by a car, and killed. It happens. But people are still permitted to cross the road, while of course every effort is taken to reduce the risk of this. Same with people choosing to fly in airplanes, despite the low risk of the plane actually crashing and everyone on board dying.’ – David
RAOTFLMAO! David, you are not seriously trying to move from your favoured disingenuous comparisons between domesticated farming and whaling… to transport accidents and whaling??!……
‘otherwise eventually this is going to blow up, and it’ll be bad for whale conservation.’ – David
No it is not, the Japanese are already indulging their cultural interest in cetacean cuisine and the Japanese Fisheries Ministry needs the ligitimacy of the IWC to continue whaling of any kind in the Southern Ocean…
‘how trustworthy the evil Japanese government is’ – David
Yet another ridiculous straw man for David’s never ending claims of racism… which of course doesn’t apply to an expat Kiwi who spends a whole lot of time waffling about Japanese cultural rights but not about Maori land rights on his blog….
The cold hard facts are –
The Japanese government has registered reservations to the CITES listings of a number of cetacean species including the Blue Whale, that no one argues is endangered.
The Japanese government has admitted that its Tuna fishery has broken its quotas.
The Japanese government does nothing to stop the import of over quota tuna from other countries and countries that do not recognise international quotas.
David is not the slightest bit interested in focusing ‘on species that are actually at risk of extinction’ as demonstrated by his hijaking the Baiji thread to repeat his usual tired propaganda about JARPA II….
The AEF has no position on saving species on the brink of extinction
Surely the AEF will soon develop a position on Australian animals which are most vulnerable? How could it not? As an enviro scientisted interested in conservation and an honest agent for reform Jennifer I expect you must be pushing this item as an AEF priority.
Luke,
Regarding international observers, from a recent IWC position document:
“Japan is willing to accept a practical, effective and cost efficient monitoring and inspection scheme including national inspectors and international observers to verify catches, a conservative harvesting quota, and a fair sharing of the costs. Japan’s commitment to secure the implementation of a reasonable RMS is demonstrated by the substantial compromises and proposals we have made.”
(http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/58BriefingNote.doc)
So yes, the Japanese are willing to host international observers, and now the question is are you willing to accept commercial whaling in the Western North Pacific?
A quick search through the thread for occurances of “JARPA II” reveals that Lamna Nasus is the only commenter who had mentioned it up to this point. So much for his accusations of thread hijacking.
As usual, the rest of his comments are not worthy of response.
Pinxi,
Which Australian animal do you consider to be on the brink of extinction?
Regarding the AEF. Here are the groups principles:
1.Evidence – policies are set and decisions are made on the basis of facts, evidence and scientific analysis.
2. Choice – issues are prioritized on the basis of accurate risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
3. Technology – appropriate and innovative technological solutions are implemented.
4. Management – active management is used when necessary, acknowledging that landscapes and ecosystems are dynamic.
5. Diversity – biological diversity is maintained.
6. People – the needs and aspirations of people should receive due consideration.
You will note that the second is: ‘Choice – issues are prioritized on the basis of accurate risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.’
Animals at ‘high risk’, and ‘high cost’ potentially present a problem for groups that are just starting?
And I haven’t been pushing specific issues within the AEF. Perhaps I see my role within the group as reminding members and the executive of the importance of taking a truly evidence based approach to issue and always tolerating and encouraging open discussion and debate. Most importantly I have also been helping the group initially just surviving and growing.
YOu may not be aware but the ACF have already tried to shut us down: http://www.aefweb.info/media772.html .
Jennifer I simply asked if the AEF is developing a policy on “Australian animals which are most vulnerable”. Surely it’s a fair question, esp given Australia’s record in extinctions.
Biodiversity is a principle of the AEF so why would the AEF not consider if there are vulnerable native animals in need of its attention? It appears you’re ruling out this policy area without assessing the evidence.
It’s rather rich if you’re leading the open discussions & evidence-based approach! You cherry pick to fit your opinions. You reject anything coming out of the CSIRO, all govt depts are ruled by lefty bureaucrats, all uni research is by green nazi’s & NGOs should be shutdown. What’s left, what evidence do you admit under that 1st principle? What constitutes acceptable science other than privately funded industry R&D?
‘So much for his accusations of thread hijacking.’
Hmmmm… this is a thread about the Baiji and David is complaining that despite discussing the Japanese ‘scientific’ whaling in the Southern Ocean instead of the Baiji, because he didn’t use the exact term JARPA II he is not thread hijacking…..
How many moons are there on your planet David?
:o)
Jennifer:”You will note that the second is: ‘Choice – issues are prioritized on the basis of accurate risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.’
Animals at ‘high risk’, and ‘high cost’ potentially present a problem for groups that are just starting?”
Well, in my opinion a very importanat issue.
I know extremely expensive experiments to try to re-introduce some species unsuccesfully in Sweden, for example a species of a rare woodpecker.
This extremely expensive experiment failed just because the forestry had changed the biotop. Not enough of old rotten trees.
Other reintroduced species have on the other hand been very succesful at lower costs, for example the reintroduction of the beaver. There is one beaver actually in my neighbourhood and in the central Stockholm.
Don’t know if there are any succesful attempts made to reintroduce cetaceans? Guess one of the Baiji plans was to reintroduce the dolphins in another river?
The AEF principles are quite broad. If you’re dodging relevant policy questions because you lack the plans & resources to become an effective environmental NFP/NGO then best retire from the game, stop wasting donations, & leave it to those who can.
IMHO the debate over conservation and sustainability issues here always deteriorates to the lowest common denominator, a battle of wits on behalf of fronts with individual lobbies aimed at green politics and a handful of genuine concerned from a far broader spectrum, unrepresentative, unelected, unauthorised ??? opinions on red herrings backed by dubious choices of links ad infinitum meantime our bush burns
Ann,
Read my piece from the IPA Review link in the original blog post above… I detail some of what had been done to save the baiji, including I think comment that both WWF and the Japanese government provided significant funding towards infrastructure for a baiji captive breeding program in China.
Pinxi,
There has been interest within the AEF on working on norhern hairy nosed wombat protection … but I’m not sure if the reason was because it was considered a most vulnerable species or rather because it was part of a vulnerable landscape?
So far we’ve taken a more holistic approach to ‘biodiversity’.
I forgot the word ‘unresponsive’ in relation to the blog click and any hope for practical outcomes from these long winded www trades
Hi Gavin,
One of the purposes as well with Jen’s blog is to get new contacts. For example Libby has been trying to help me with some contacts in Sweden.
Hi Ann
You’re an exception to any comments I could make about the usual suspects and the value of the blog may well be in what goes on in chat behind the crisscross.
We wish they could all come out hey
“Which Australian animal do you consider to be on the brink of extinction?”
Ooh , miss, me, pick me. I can give you a reasonable list!
David,
It was actally you who introduced JARPA(as per usual)with:
“reviews conducted by the IWC Scientific Committee (such as the one held at the beginning of the month for which we’ll see the report next May”
You would accuse us of being stupid if we didn’t know you were talking about JARPA (yes, it’s I, not II), but yet then say it is Lamna who brought it up. If you want to get nit-picky David, I am sure we can accomodate.
From what I wrote way back when: “Hopefully the same rigorous scientific scrutiny was applied to the dead grays before they were consumed as would be applied to the minkes!”, you have managed to extrapolate that I am “blinkered by Greenpeace propaganda”, and that my “views seem closer to those of Greenpeace propaganda than cetacean scientists”. This is telling David, and not about my views, but about your ability to interpret something and present it in such a way.
“I’m sure when you noted your opinion regarding the minke research that you were refering to the scientific papers of those scientists, and not their political work, right?”
Are you going to tell me that the scientific work of the Japanese is not politically-driven?
“At any rate, so long as you’ve reconciled their arguments with the reports of reviews conducted by the IWC Scientific Committee (such as the one held at the beginning of the month for which we’ll see the report next May (unless someone kindly leaks it to you)), I’m sure you’re totally comfortable with it all, right?”
Are you going to tell me that every member of the SC thinks favourably of the Japanese research? Don’t keep painting the picture that because some may have given it a gold star others did not. Now that is being disengenous. One would imagine that the recent review will also have differing opinions from the SC committee, and as long as that is the case, then no, I dont feel “totally comfortable with it”.
“Also out of curiosity… in one recent paper which you may have heard about,”
Be up front David and name the paper you are talking about. If not for my benefit then for the others here.
“…has always given me the impression that they are more about such politics than true conservation – as is also evidently the case with certain other people who post here.”
And which certain people would that be David?
David, you are looking for an argument and being typically bullish. If you are having a bad Greenpeace week or whatever, don’t take it out on us.
Hi Libby,
YOu did a good list here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001508.html .
Send me in the list of Australian species on the brink of extinction and I will post it as a new thread and also onforward to the AEF.
Libby:
“Hopefully the same rigorous scientific scrutiny was applied to the dead grays before they were consumed as would be applied to the minkes!”
Posted by: Libby at December 17, 2006 07:43 PM
Any Australians looking for an example of an endangered or vulnerable freshwater species to focus a campaign on might look no further than the Burnett River tortoise. This species is under threat due to changes in flow regimes on the Burnett, as it lives primarily in riffle habitats and these are disappearing as a consequence of damming the river. The species was the subject of some controversy during the Paradise Dam proposal and construction. The dam proponents escaped the endangered species label for this tortoise by pointing out it also occurs in the Fitzroy and the Mary and so how could it be endangered if the Dam was built on the Burnett? Of course there was little discussion of the impact of existing and proposed modifications of habitat for this species on those two other river systems. But as one of the leading engineers for the consulting company that prepared the EIA (and the director of their environmental group) said to me at the time…..what is the fate of a tortoise, compared to the need to provide table grapes to Brisbane? What indeed, I had to ask myself? After all, it is nothing more than a rather ugly looking reptile. What possible moral or ethical dilemma could there be in making a decision not to proceed with a development simply because it might extinguish a species that had moved itself foolishly up an adaptive peak? Clearly those who eventually made the decision to proceed were motivated by a much loftier sense of duty -the need to provide grapes to Brisbane. I might also point out they were so motivated by that lofty moral position they had no qualms about changing what I had written in the EIA to tone down the quite legitimate concerns about the future of that species.
My point in raising this example, is that some here seem to imply that the fate of the Baiji might have been different if it had been Australians that were making the local decisions.
My personal experience suggests there would be no difference.
see Gavin, real results forthcoming, via the AEF! I suggest you up yr donation.
Morning all..
Did Greenpeace fund anything to do with the Baiji?
Did Seashepherd fund anything to do with the Baiji?
No ? typical ..
end of discussion on that then …
Libby, some comment ..
“George,
Bringing in the captivity debate is bold of you, although I realise it was Lamna who sort of brought it up. Not really relevant here, but another polarising issue. Of course we could talk about Qui Qui, the lone Baiji who stayed in a facility all those years but could not have a mate stay alive long enough in order to possibly give the species a chance. ”
No Libby, Patrick Batty brought it up in a feeble attempt to smear shit as per usual.
However ,it is relevant as the plan was to move any animals found to semi captive or captive facilities.
But of course, we can´t talk about that can we? as captive facilities and animal husbandry folk are the spawn of the devil, never mind Darth Vader huh?
Complete tripe of course Libby and anybody lacking in intellectual honesty enough to deny the place that captive facilities have in publicising cetacean welfare deserves all they get..
Whilst we´re on the subject, whats your take on this ?
http://www.baiji.org/in-depth/baiji/finless-porpoise/porpoise-is-born.html
I´m all for it – a captive breeding program is often the only way of keeping a breeding population viable, something the ” Animal prisons ” flat earthers tend to ignore in their crusades ..
Russell’s comment just uploaded as a new thread/blog post: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001797.html .
> This is telling David, and not about my views,
> but about your ability to interpret something
> and present it in such a way.
Your statement gave me the impression that your view is more similar Greenpeace’s position than of other scientists who I have seen criticising the minke whale research.
> Are you going to tell me that the scientific work
> of the Japanese is not politically-driven?
No, it’s certainly politically motivated – Japan has a policy on the sustainable use of marine resources, and without it the ICR would not exist.
This is a far cry from papers containing political opinion which happen to be written by cetacean scientists.
I would prefer it if scientists left the politics over to the politicians, and yes, that does go both ways.
> Are you going to tell me that every member
> of the SC thinks favourably of the Japanese
> research?
No, I didn’t suggest that. Seems I’m not the only one failing to express myself clearly, eh?
There are certainly SC members who think poorly of the ICR’s research. I think I’m more prepared to recognise that than people on the other side of the fence are with regards to the vice versa.
> One would imagine that the recent review will
> also have differing opinions from the SC committee,
> and as long as that is the case, then no, I dont
> feel “totally comfortable with it”.
Excellent!
I’m glad to read that Libby 🙂 (honestly, I am).
I’ll be careful to put that away in the back of my mind the next time you mention minke whale research with skepticism, and think to myself “but I also know that Libby recognises that other scientists disagree with her view, and probably decided not to mention it to get a rise out of me”.
> Be up front David and name the paper you
> are talking about. If not for my benefit
> then for the others here.
Which paper it was is not the point. The view was expressed – I was asking you about the view. Do you think that the Japanese feel they have the right to “unlimited access” to the world’s marine resources? You can ignore the fact that this view was also expressed by a scientist in a paper that was published. I promise I won’t use your response against you or the scientist who expressed it. I’m just wondering what you think, because (believe it or not) I have respect for your political view.
> And which certain people would that be David?
It wasn’t you if you are concerned about that Libby, and if you take a guess on that basis I think you will probably hit the right button.
> David, you are looking for an argument and
> being typically bullish. If you are having
> a bad Greenpeace week or whatever, don’t
> take it out on us.
It was more your refering to the minke whale research that did it to me Libby. Although I’m very glad to hear that you recognise that differing opinions are likely to come out of the recent SC review.
Hi George,
The finless are apparently more amenable to life in a concrete pool than perhaps the Baiji. It may have also been capture techniques and already compromised animals that lead to no companions for Qui Qui. I am sure the people at the facility had input from the world’s top oceanariums, but I know that finless porpoise and Irradwaddys do reasonably well in captivity.
I have issues with the captivity option. I have worked with captive cetaceans and pinnipeds for 10 years, and continue to work with animals in captivity. It would seem that on the face of it captive breeding programmes can do a lot for a species’ survival (such as the Spix macaw Lamna brought up before, although this is fraught with rivalries amongst breeders). However, when it comes dowm to it, not much conservation has actually been achieved via this process.
Yes, captive cetaceans did a lot to galvanise people against issues such as the whaling debate. We saw dolphins as intelligent, appealing and funny non-fish, and they could be taught to do tricks for the amusement of us primates. David Suzuki did a good piece on our humanisation of animals, and anyone doubting it look at A Bug’s Life and count the number of legs on the main character.
The stats for cetacean deaths in captivity is not so appealing or funny to look at, and as animals that have intricate social lives and rely on acoustics and freedom of movement, it doesn’t sit too well with me. I have also seen some truly awful things happen to the animals in my years working in captive animal institutions. BUT….if one out of 15 visitors goes away with some sort of knowledge, understanding and empathy towards that creature, I try and convince myself it is worth it. In cold harsh reality, I think it is more like Russell wrote:
“My personal experience suggests there would be no difference.”
Hi Libby,
I also have issues with the captivity option – however, maintaining a small breeding population in ´reserve ´ in case it all goes pear shaped so to speak is simply a sensible precaution don´t you think?
Captive breeding programs did quite a lot for the fate of african lions a decade or so ago when large numbers were reintroduced into the wild after a viral induced die-off as I recall, I´ll see if I can dig up the reference.. I know of a few programs for animals such as Tamarins which are a great success.
I´m glad to see that you agree that captive cetaceans had ( have? ) their place in bringing public awareness to cetaceans, and it will be enlightning to see any attempt to smear sh*t on your personal reputation from the usual subject regarding your working with captive cetaceans Libby … if he has a microgram of intellectual honesty that is …. I won´t hold my breath though ..
RE this comment :
” BUT….if one out of 15 visitors goes away with some sort of knowledge, understanding and empathy towards that creature, I try and convince myself it is worth it. In cold harsh reality, I think it is more like Russell wrote:
“My personal experience suggests there would be no difference.”
I didn´t try any convince myself – I knew it was worth it – I lost a job once for replying to visitors who asked how we could keep such ” wonderful beautiful intellegent animals captive” with this ..
” it´s very simple – as long as people like you come along and pay your $25 to see them, there will be some one willing to display captive dolphins ( in that case ).. it´s simple – don´t come …. ”
The management were not happy campers when they found out 😉 and funnily enough, ´twas one of the said visitors who complained about my suggestion …
G
The only facility in the world that keeps captive harbour porpoises, is the Danish research institution Fjord&Belt.
Harbour porpoises are especially difficult to keep in captivity, maybe one reason is that they are very shy.
Why this Danish Institution has had success may depend on that the pool’s bottom is similar to sea bottom.
The animals are kept in captivity because research is done on them how they act re fishing nets and pingers.
Of course, the animals are not too happy, but maybe in this particular case it is justified to keep them in captivity.
One more note.
I wrote in a comment that the Baltic Sea harbor porp population is about 500-600 animals. However, it is depressing that some of the latest surveys have indicated that the population is about 100 animals or less.
Well, I have already got s***t in the GP Forum today( guess by whom???) because I ride horses.
And Gavin,
Thanks!!!
Ann,
I’ve also seen a particular someone try to give GP forum readers the impression that the IWC has not yet adopted the RMP.
I wonder, could it be the same person who we are encountering problems with?
Ann,
I also note that the tactic employed against you involved personal attack. I too have suffered from the same thing, and reported it to the GP forum administrators. I suggest you do the same. The situation will not improve if we let trolls run riot.
Hi Ann,
Doesn’t Harderwijk in the Netherlands keep harbour porpoise?
Kolmarden has/had tuxuci, a river/estuarine dolphin a little like a cross between a bottlenose and a baiji (stretching it a bit maybe). Their facility is/was undercover. Not my idea of best practice I’m afraid.
‘I’ve also seen a particular someone try to give GP forum readers the impression that the IWC has not yet adopted the RMP.’ – David
No David, I simply waited to see if you were going to give GP forum readers the impression that the whole RMP scientific issue was wrapped up early in the 1990s with a resounding vote of confidence for the pro-whaling arguement…. without giving them the full details and the fact that the RMP is now part of the RMS, which is still not agreed…. you did… so I showed you up….
Hi Libby,
Dunno if Harderwijk Dolphinarium has aquired som harbor porps lately?
Regarding Kolmårdens Dolphinarium, have never visited the facility. It is a popular subject in Swedish Television, however my standpoint re dolphinariums is truely( yes, laugh now) Norwegian! Means no dolpinariums are acceptable for human enjoyment!!
The Kolmårdens Dophinarium makes quite a lot of PR for themselves and states that they fund worlwide dolphin research, not much opposition against Kolmården Zoo in Sweden, immensely popular among the public.
Accidents have obviously happened in the dolphinarium, must unfortunately say that some seems to have been silenced. Despite this criticism, must admit their vets are the most skilled wildlife vets in Sweden.
So Libby are we allowed to ask about the happiness and well being of a certain pod of dolphins at a well known Gold Coast tourist attraction?
BTW, George and Libby!
I know you both have worked with captive animals because you love them…. my comment about the captivity is just a personal opinion, actually I’ m a sucker for this issue.
Jen says:
“I think the IPA does a good job given its focus and modest funding… can’t say the same for Greenpeace.”
Sorry but this is silly. China is a country whose authorities have recently bashed and jailed a blind lawyer because he tried to help out some poor brutalised peasants. These people listen to no-one. What would be the point of Greenpeace sinking millions into a “Save the Baiji” campaign that would have had zero chance of success?
Hi Steve,
RE:
” What would be the point of Greenpeace sinking millions into a “Save the Baiji” campaign that would have had zero chance of success?”
Substitute ” save the whales ” for “save the Baiji” and you´ve nailed it in one .. ;op
Libby,
Undercover facilities are not exactly optimal but pretty much neccessary with northern European winters … a removable paneled roof would be the best compromise …
Anne,
dunno about ´loving them ´ but something kept me working 330 days a year without a day off and often living in crappy wee caravans on site for many years – I guess it must have been the buckets of cash I earned maybe ;ö )
“So Libby are we allowed to ask about the happiness and well being of a certain pod of dolphins at a well known Gold Coast tourist attraction?”
Hi Luke,
I haven’t been to that facility for years, so it would not be fair for me to comment. The educational value of the shows leaves a lot to be desired, and Roman chariot rides and rocket rides doesn’t exactly tell the kiddies much about the natural behaviour of the animals, just that we can ‘dominate’ them and make them look subservient in my opinion. This facilty does a lot of good work with strandings an assisting research, but as for the animal’s happiness, I really can’t say.
Hi Ann,
“..worked with captive animals because you love them”
I wanted to make a difference and educate people. You get to consider the animals as part of your family, and try and make the animals’ conditions as best as you possibly can. A lot of keepers get burnt out as they put so much in but the management screws you over.
“Undercover facilities are not exactly optimal but pretty much neccessary with northern European winters … a removable paneled roof would be the best compromise …”
Hi George,
Yes, a removable roof would be good. I don’t think Kolmarden has one.
Steve does have a point. Wildlife conservation in China would be terribly hard. Outside help may not be kindly looked upon, and inside help would be treated pretty shabbily (understatement it seems).
That point about obstacles to interfering in Chinese issues has been discussed here before but naturally it still gets ignored in the GP bashing hysteria.
Hi:
Steve wrtes: “What would be the point of Greenpeace sinking millions into a “Save the Baiji” campaign that would have had zero chance of success?”
Well the (critically endangered) Chinese alligator hit a successful turning point recently, under some excellent work by some Chinese scientists and with the assistance of the IUCN-SSC Crocodile Specialist Group. Conservation may be hard in China, but it is not impossible.
The point of GP sinking a lot of money into the baiji would I imagine be:
a) it might have saved the species; and
b) it may focus attention on the very many obscure species on the brink of extinction, and away from more common species facing trivial conservation threats.
Chthonic regards
B
Pinxi …
” That point about obstacles to interfering in Chinese issues has been discussed here before but naturally it still gets ignored in the GP bashing hysteria.”
Hmmmm .. so it´s not ok to interfere in Chinese issues, because ” ” these people listen to no-one ” or because of other obstacles ( which? )
Care to point me to the thread where these issues are discussed Pinx??
Libby and George,
Kolmården Dolphinarium in Sweden is supposed to be the biggest and best dolphinarium in Europe…and as far as I know they have no paneled removable roof.
I have been in contact in the past with a NGO regarding the captivity issue and Kolmården. They stated this issue has not the highest priority on their agenda.
The dolphinarium will certainly not be closed down. It is actually one of Swedens biggest tourist attractions.
If there is any opposition they state that the dolphins are born in captivity and hence not suffer as much as dolphins brought in directly from the wild…
I agree that dolphinariums etc have played an important role in the past to raise awareness
Well, my concern is not only about dolphins and their relatives…. from what I have heard , the animals that suffer most from captivity are polar bears…
We used to have them polar bears in Stockholm ( Skansen), they showed this sterotypical behavior in small surroundings and finally no more polar bears were allowed in Sweden.
Hi George,
Dunno exactly in which thread this was discussed, but methink I brought it up as well…
My opinion was that it seemed difficult for NGOs like Greenpeace to carry out actions in China , the way they carry out actions in Western countries.
I think it is OK for scientists to speak out in China, but to make a Greenpeace protest against the Government policy seems actually kind of dangerous. This issue is of course very politically charged…
Dunno where my last post disappeared?
Shortly. Once I brought up the issue with environmental problems and GP China’s work with a GP Hong Kong staff. It seemed like this issue was very sensitive. Remember he said some improvements were made re NGO work and mentioned for example Animal Asia’s work against bear-bile farming.
Slideshow from the Baiji expedition:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/slideshow/page/0,,1955482,00.html
Paul Watson vs Greenpeace:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,1975368,00.html