1. Ebenezer Scrooge got a bad press
By David Rowe
December 22, 2006
Charles Dickens’s sentimental 1843 work, A Christmas Carol, delivered to the world a character who has come to embody mean-spiritedness. Ebenezer Scrooge is represented as a cruel, penny-pinching miser who exploited his workers and hated the soft heartedness, and interruption to capital accumulation, that Christmas celebrations entailed.
In fulminating to Fred, his hapless nephew, Scrooge demands, “What’s Christmas time to you but a time for paying bills without money; a time for finding yourself a year older, but not an hour richer; a time for balancing your books and having every item in ’em through a round dozen of months presented dead against you?”
After scary visitations by his deceased business partner, Jacob Marley, and the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future, Scrooge I is redeemed, coming across as the wettest of liberals in a burst of “We are the World”-style celebrity philanthropy as he is reborn as Scrooge II.
Read the completel article here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5311
2. Reports of a dying catchment ‘greatly exaggerated’
By Glen Kile
December 20, 2006
The impact of logging in Melbourne’s water catchments is topical, given the drought, but has been greatly exaggerated.
While it is true logging results in fast-growing regrowth that uses more water than mature forests, the fact that less than 0.2 per cent is harvested annually means the effect is small.
Overall, timber production for saw logs is only permitted within a 13 per cent portion of the total catchment area and this is planned for logging on an 80-year cycle.
Read the complete article here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5295
3. More info if we are to cotton on to water issues
By Michael Duffy
December 16, 2006
A fortnight ago I fulfilled a dream and visited the Macquarie Marshes, which are at the centre of a dispute over water in the Macquarie River valley.
It’s a reminder of the complexity of water issues, which include long-term weather trends. There was a dry period from 1890 (when records were first kept) to 1946, followed by a very wet period to 1978, and then another dry period that is continuing. So a lot of our perceptions of what the land “should” look like are based on memories and photos of the 30 years after World War II, which were actually quite unusual.
Read the complete article here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/more-info-if-we-are-to-cotton-on-to-water-issues/2006/12/15/1166162317474.html
4. The Truth about Greenpeace and Whaling
by Paul Watson
December 20, 2006
Enough is enough. The Greenpeace fraud about saving the whales must be exposed. For years, I have been tolerating their pretense of action and watching them rake in tremendous profits from whaling.
Greenpeace makes more money from anti-whaling than Norway and Iceland combined make from whaling. In both cases, the whales die and someone profits.
Read the complete article: http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_061220_1.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
As odious as it may be, I find myself agreeing with what Sea Shepherd has to say about Greenpeace–to the extent that the claims are factually correct.
It is true that Greenpeace has enjoyed tremendous financial success and accomplished nothing. At the same time, Sea Shepherd’s oceangoing thugs have caused enormous damage to the cause of environmentalism and accomplished nearly nothing.
See, e.g., “Sea Shepherd’s Violent History,” Institute of Cetacean Research (ca. 2002),
http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/history.pdf
and
“Sea Shepherd Conservation Society,” ActivistCash.com (2006),
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/347
‘factually correct’
It’s funny what you interpret as being ‘factually correct’ when it suits you Schiller.
No surprise that the Greenie bashers want to promote any criticism of Greenpeace by Captain Watson (on a number of forums), also no surprise that the usual descripton of ‘fanatic’, ‘terrorist’ etc.. when referring to Captain Watson has suddenly been considerably toned down while making full political capital out of his remarks…..
Cynical? Moi?..
Travis, what facts suit you?
Lamna, perhaps you can offer your own opinion regarding Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd.
What a dilemma
Those who support both GP and SS have a real moral dilemma – or are spoilt for choice 😉
1.)support GP and denounce SS and Watson as Greenie bashers,
2.)Try and ignore / deny that Watson has torn into Greenpeacers more effectively then any ´greenie bashers´ on this blog have ever done …
3.)Try and disingeniously weasel out of it ..
4.) Agree with Watson ( and effectively denounce Greenpeace )
5.) Try and blame it on somebody else ( as long as it´s not GP or SS )
6.) Accept that Watson and his thugs really are a bunch of fanatics, terrorists, vegan thugs etc..
7.) Ask Watson if he got the material / inspiration for his letter from reading Jen´s blog ;op
Lets see how intellectually honest Watson & GP supporters really are …
I await the denuciation of SS & Watson with suspense and or the denuciation of Greenpeace… I suspect that it will be a cold day in hell before it happens though 😉
I go for a partial 7 myself, I´ll bet Jen´s blog is Watson´s favourite bookmark ;O)
Merry festive season to you all – I´m offski …
‘Try and disingeniously weasel out of it’ – George
Thats rich coming from someone so offended by marine circuses that he told a member of the public not to support them but forgot to hand in his resignation…
No dilema for me George. Easy: Watson is dead right about Greedpeace and he’s an first class arsehole into the bargain.
The Watson / Greenpeace thing is just a christmas season sideshow. They’ll both be full on to their video making propaganda generation come the new year when the media starts paying attention (and they actually find the research fleet, which has probably killed at least 100 minkes already).
The ICR has a Japanee article with a lot of criticisms of both these groups obstruction activities, really echoing the sentiments we see here on this blog (maybe like Watson too they have it bookmarked under “favourites”?).
The most amusing revelation was that apparently Greenpeace only send their obstruction boats out when the weather is fine and sunny and good for video footage.
A final sentiment expressed was one of sorrow for the activists in the boats who believe that they are saving whales. The article’s author views them as naive puppets for money gathering Greenpeace HQ.
Oh, the ICR author did admit one thing though – GP did actually save a whale last year. Yep. One whale “saved”. But they also have details of the drop in animal welfare related statistics following the commencement of GP’s activities.
It’s measured in dollars for GP though of course. I’m amazed that the IFAW pays them for the footage. I can’t understand how they don’t see the huge ethical problems with that.
Just a couple of related articles on who’s who in the whaling zoo:
The Japanese whalers have raised concerns over Australia’s support to both Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd at
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Japanese-whalers-attack-Campbells-links/2006/12/15/1165685868434.html
However the Environment Minister has defended his support for both Sea Shepherd http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1812729.htm
I wonder in Channel 7 will be arranging exclusive video footage again this year
See Blog archive http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001247.html
This is a bloody stupid argument. “saving a whale”
Thanks to these guys the general public has an opinion on activities carried on out of sight and unseen. Without political opinion nothing changes.
Left to their own devices they’d probably drive them back close to extinction again.
Your arguments have just convinced me to consider signing up actually.
P.S. The Japs can get stuffed on this issue ! Hope the Minister tells them to bugger off and sends a gun boat.
‘The most amusing revelation was that apparently Greenpeace only send their obstruction boats out when the weather is fine and sunny and good for video footage.”
David, not wishing to flog a dead whale AGAIN with this issue, which could make Jennifer herself a lot of money should she be charging(but instead no doubts adds to the site hit rate)…should GP send their inflatables out in rough weather and someone get injured, you would be one of the first jumping up and down and screaming about safety issues. Have you been out in an inflatable in freezing waters travelling at variable speed and direction(no George, I am not asking you!)? Be consistent with your arguments please.
Hang on a minute there, Mr Watson. I also agree that Greenpeace is very good at fund raising, and needs to be to keep itself alive, and is taking a cynical approach to it, but before we condemn them completely for that, and suggest they have not actually saved any whales….Let’s first ask ourselves a few questions?
What was it that first led to the change in opinions internationally in regard to whaling?
It was skilful use of the media and the graphic footage of the carnage of a whale hunt.
Who consistently collected that footage and kept putting it in front of the media, in a package the media wanted? Was it commercial television that began by sending crews out to take video footage?
No, it was Greenpeace and like organisations.
At that time, were any of the whaling nations talking about sustainable harvests?
What was happening to whale populations?
Who put the the issue in front of the general public all over the world and changed government support of whaling into a general moratorium on whaling?
Grenpeace was fundamentally important in putting the issue onto my television, where I could make up my mind about it as an issue, and for me the choice was clear – I support the moratorium on whaling, and will continue to do so.
In my view it was never Greenpeace’s remit to actually stop whaling by physically getting between whales and whalers. It was to stop whaling by getting enough of the right media coverage to make it an issue, and to keep it an issue so that goverments responded to public pressure. It has been, thus far a very successful campaign.
It still needs to be kept in the public eye as an issue as it is obvious, the whaling nations would be back onto the feast as soon as the public lost interest in the issue, and the mainstream media are only interested in it as an issue while it remains emotive, and contains enough shocking imagery to keep people tuning in.
The commercial interest in whaling will continue to rise as the stocks recover and so without continued public pressure, we always risk a return to the bad old days of the past. Don’t kid yourself it would be any different now -would the Japanese hunt humanely or sustainably? Not in my opinion.
Moral and ethical issues aside, in terms of the economic benefits to Australia of whaling or not whaling, I suggest Australia actually benefits more from not whaling as the whale watching/bothering industry is, by all accounts doing quite well.
That suits me and I acknowledge that Greenpeace, despite it’s many faults and its brazen fundraising, plays a centrally important role in keeping the issue in the public eye.
‘Try and disingeniously weasel out of it’ – George
Thats rich coming from someone so offended by marine circuses that he told a member of the public not to support them but forgot to hand in his resignation…
Coming from a sh*t smearing Weasel who does not have the moral or intellectual honesty to smear all of those who work or worked with the so called ´marine circuses ´ he despises, just those who disagree with him
Thats such a compliment – & fine that you keep exhibiting your cömplete lack of intellectual honesty and Morals ..
So lets see .. Mr. Batty prefers
2.)Try and ignore / deny that Watson has torn into Greenpeacers more effectively then any ´greenie bashers´ on this blog have ever done …
3.)Try and disingeniously weasel out of it ..
with a touch of 5 ….LOL …
ho ho ho no pressie for you naughty boy ..;op
Hi Russel,
Quite agree that “Greenpeace was fundamentally important in putting the issue onto my television”
-just as marine parks were fundamentally important in bringing cetaceans into public awareness.
Both had their place in history, but these times are now long gone …
Both GP and SS turn out the same old warnings of doom and gloom regarding whaling – year after year after year … Both focus on Japanese whaling and practically ignore whaling in the Northern hemisphere, somehow managing to ignore the fact that the Japanese are just as nationalistic ( if not more ) than either the Norwegians and the Icelanders ( the supposed reason given for no actions against the scandinavians in the north )
Perhaps Watson simply got tired of the whole enchilada and has decided to go out with a bang, taking a hefty swipe at GP in the process – If I was Rattenbury, I´d keep a good eye on which ship Watson tried to ram – it could very well be his ;op
Russel I´m class you as a 1.) then 😉
Russell – right on !
And as some of us have a big feed of seafood for Xmas one might ponder the state of the world’s oceans. Doesn’t seem good to me. I don’t think we’re doing a good job at all of managing marine resources globally. So why should the whalers be any better.
Australians obviously don’t mind eating SE Asian, African and Chinese seafood – raised in who knows what environmental conditions, aquaculture standards and levels of sustainability. Destruction of mangroves, nutrient runoff etc. But we’re a lot more finicky at home. Channel 7 ran a chef test on the foreign product and thoroughly denounced a lot of it so maybe we should be willing to shell out more for the Aussie product. Crystal Bays vs Vanelli anyone??
Although there has been recent dispute about sharks being endangered on the Barrier Reef with claim and counterclaim from both sides.
Certainly Boris Worm is despondent about global marine resource biodiversity mapping serious declines.
‘Only 50 years left’ for sea fish
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6108414.stm
There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a major scientific study.
Stocks have collapsed in nearly one-third of sea fisheries, and the rate of decline is accelerating.
http://myweb.dal.ca/bworm/Worm_etal_2006Science.pdf
similarly about large predator fish numbers
http://myweb.dal.ca/bworm/Worm_etal_2005.pdf
Overfishing responding way out of line with the ability of regulatory agencies to respond.
myweb.dal.ca/bworm/Berkes_etal_2006.pdf
myweb.dal.ca/bworm/Hughes_etal_2006.pdf
This blog heard the pros and cons of tuna harvest fudging in August this year.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001538.html
The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna now reports:
http://www.ccsbt.org/docs/news.html
Reviews of SBT farming and market data during 2006 suggest that southern bluefin tuna catches may have been substantially under-reported over the past 10-20 years. The impact of unreported catches on the estimates of past total catch and CPUE meant that it was not possible to proceed with the current Management Procedure, and that the Management Procedure needs to be re-evaluated.
Scenario modeling showed that in order to reduce the short term risk (to 2014) of further declines in stock size, a meaningful reduction in catch below 14,925 tonnes was required.
The CCSBT agreed to a 3 year total allowable catch of 11,810 tonnes, which is a TAC reduction of 3,115 tonnes. In addition, Taiwan and the Republic of Korea have undertaken to maintain their actual catch below 1,000 tonnes for a minimum of 3 years, giving a total actual catch level that should be below 11,530 tonnes for a 3 year period.
South Africa and the European Community have joined the Commission as Cooperating Non-Members. Indonesia has indicated that it intends to lodge an application for Cooperating Non-Member status in the near future.
Total fish tagged in the CCSBT tagging program is now 63,740. Recoveries of tags from all components of the SBT fishery are occurring.
The CCSBT will review its Scientific Research Program in 2007.
Calls for bans on destructive bottom trawling practices
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6181396.stm
North Sea cod fishing ban urged
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6069750.stm
A complete ban on cod fishing has again been recommended by experts until severely depleted stocks recover.
If Cod is so scare why can I still buy it.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6061872.stm
Albatross deaths prompt action from New Zealand
01-12-2006
http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2006/12/swordfish_ban.html
The New Zealand government is considering imposing a temporary ban on surface longline fishing in the Kermadec Islands after a fishing vessel was reported to have killed 51 albatrosses in a single trip. Conservationists hope the ban will give the government time to implement mitigation techniques in the fishery, to reduce levels of seabird bycatch.
Prominent Scientists Join Call for UN Moratorium on Longline Fishing
705 International Scientists from 83 countries Have Signed
baltimorechronicle.com/020205SeaTurtle.shtml
Without more protection, global oceans will not be able to recover from shrinking fish populations, General Assembly told. Drift net fishing, by-ctach etc.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10548.doc.htm
“Both had their place in history, but these times are now long gone …”
Why do you say this George? And what do you think has replaced them? Perhaps ‘Free Willy’ replaced the cetaceans in captivity? And now that whaling is on the agenda again, why would GP/SS be past history, espeically with the menu getting choices getting longer – again?
And please don’t try to “class” me!
As an aside to the one issue out of the four above that is getting any attention…
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1817708.htm
You see our ‘whale-loving’ Environment Minister (whose boss seems to be admired by quite a few contributors here) can also make pro-development choices. So it’s not all doom and gloom and putting animals before people, unless of course you are an original occupier of this land. Then they just try and wipe all traces of your existence away.
‘just as marine parks were fundamentally important in bringing cetaceans into public awareness.’ – George
Don’t bother giving us that tired old ‘public awareness’ and educational value schtick about Marine Circuses, that piffle was comprehensively rubbished years ago as transparent justification propaganda with little or no proven merit…
Recommended reading –
The Rose Tinted Menagerie by William Johnson
captivitystinks.org
Hi Libby,
Quicky reply as I´m on my way out the door heading for the mountains ..
Those ´ times ´ were based on whaling for a long list of products which have by and large been replaced by synthetic or other alternatives ..
´Modern ´ whaling is pretty much based on protein aquisition – and as the NGO´s keep telling us there is no market for whale meat and or demand … tell me why it should again become a threat to whale populations …. no sky is falling though please ( not that I´d expect it from you of course .. )
I´ve already given my opinion that whaling in Norway would probably have died out or be almost zero by now if the NGO´s had not made it a nationalistic issue … and I believe that they are making exactly the same mistake with Japan …
thats the short version – the longer version in more detail next week ..
have a good festive blah blah ;O)
“Don’t bother giving us that tired old ‘public awareness’ and educational value schtick about Marine Circuses, that piffle was comprehensively rubbished years ago as transparent justification propaganda with little or no proven merit…”
Still waiting for you to smear Sh*t on Libby´s personal reputation as she has / still works with Captive marine mammals .. show your intellectual honesty in smearing all with the same Sh*t big boy ..
No? .. now why are we not surprised ..
bye bye now.. ;op
To add to my long rant above on state of global marine resources above – closer to home.. ..
Great Barrier Reef sharks in collapse
TOWNSVILLE, Australia, Dec. 5 (UPI) — Australian scientists say coral reef shark populations on the Great Barrier Reef are in a catastrophic collapse.
Research — conducted by William Robbins and colleagues at James Cook University and the Australian Research Council’s Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies — found grey reef shark numbers have declined to around 3 percent of unfished levels and are falling so quickly they could collapse to 1-1,000th of unfished levels within 20 years.
The study is the first of its kind to combine direct underwater counts of shark abundance with mathematical models that project future population trends.
“Our research indicates current reef shark abundances and levels of fishing pressure are simply not sustainable,” said Robbins, the study’s lead author. “Reef sharks are effectively on a fast track to ‘ecological extinction’ — becoming so rare that they will no longer play their part in the ecology and food web of the reef.
“It also suggests that immediate and substantial reductions in fishing pressure will be needed to give threatened populations any chance of recovery,” he added.
The research appears in this week’s issue of Current Biology.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20061205-11111900-bc-australia-sharks.xml
And on quality of Australian supermarket fish offerings:
http://www.7perth.com.au/view/today-tonight-articles/20061204163441/
Imported Fish
Reporter: Helen Wellings
“Australians are seafood mad – we eat about 13 kilograms each per year and you’d think most would be homegrown. But amazingly, because of growing scarcity and fewer licenses being granted, around 75% of our fish and crustations are now imported, mainly from Africa, Thailand, Vietnam, Taiwan, China, South Africa and New Zealand.
In the supermarkets, you have very little choice but to buy imported seafood. Today Tonight checked out 10 supermarkets around Australia and found in most, over 70% is imported. In one IGA in Melbourne, no choice whatsoever, 100% is foreign.
Greg Doyle, owner/chef of Pier Restaurant in Sydney and Pier Head Chef Grant King know seafood backwards. We asked them to evaluate popular imported fish and prawns against similar Australian-grown varieties. Thumbs well down for the $8 a kilo African Nile Perch compared with very edible Australian barramundi at $33 a kilo in the supermarket.
At almost half the price of the Australian barramundi – Barramundi from Taiwan. Another very popular import cheapie, called Basa, is actually Vietnamese Catfish, at $10 a kilo. Better value is the more expensive Australian grown Goldband snapper – and Smoked Cod from South Africa at $11.50 a kilo … the colour is a chemical paint, the cod .. literally sickening!
Now 2 varieties of prawns both from Thailand, $20 to $28 a kilo. Greg Doyle says “That’s flavourless .. you’d just be wasting your money buying those. When you’re paying just a couple of dollars more you’d definitely be better off buying the Australian prawn.” So all the frozen imported seafood tested is rated poor to inedible. “Why import such low grade fish .. no nutritional value”
But worse, as we’ve revealed in previous stories, imported seafood often comes from unsafe, contaminated waters and can be deadly. Country of origin labelling is now compulsory, but Australian Fish Wholesaler Michael Miriklis says, fish names often mask their murky origins. “Fish eating Australians should worry about the quality of what they are eating, where it is coming from.”
How sustainable is our local aquaculture:
http://www.crystalbayprawns.com.au/envir.asp
Dunno but it’s big business and has high level support !
http://www.smartstate.qld.gov.au/strategy/strategy05_15/brand.shtm
Townsville’s Crystal Bay Prawns® have become renowned throughout the world for their consistent quality and sweet taste. Seafarm Pty Ltd sells 1000 tonnes each year and exports to Europe, New Zealand, Japan and Taiwan. The company released Crystal Bay Prawns® onto the market in 1999 and there are now 110 ponds at its Cardwell farm and 25 at its Mossman farm.
The Queensland Government has provided the company with important business assistance to develop its export markets.
invest $4 million in the Queensland Aquaculture Development Initiative to strengthen the economic development of major aquaculture growth sectors such as prawns and barramundi and emerging sectors such as crabs, sea scallops and reef fish. The initiative will provide additional research and development resources to support the industry’s continued expansion in a sustainable way.
Google Earth 18°19’10.33″S 146° 4’26.56″E
and 16°30’7.88″S 145°27’7.06″E
Right in the mangroves but what you would expect I guess.
Libby,
I don’t know where I might have given you the impression that I care deeply about the safety of reckless GP activists.
If GP send their inflatables out in rough weather, and one of their naive activists gets comes to harm, it’s their responsibility.
If GP send their inflatables out in good weather, and one of their naive activists comes to harm, it’s still their responsibility.
GP does not need to put inflatables out there on the water. What GP headquarters wishes to do with the safety of their naive activists is frankly their concern, not mine. While of course I do not *wish* to see even stupid childish foolish naive GP activists come to harm, if such a thing does ever eventuate it will be entirely GP’s responsibility. If they are sending people to the Antarctic on their revenue gathering exercises it’s their responsibility to ensure their own safety, and obviously they put that at risk by putting their inflatables in a hunting zone.
It’s pathetic, really. They are trying to portray themselves as heroic ocean defenders by putting their inflatables out there for obstruction purposes … but they’re only heroic when the weather is suitable and the sea is calm… Um, what about the harpoons? No inflatables in dangerous weather, but harpoons aren’t such a risk? Aren’t GP activists just so big and tough?
As for freezing waters, last year one GP activist jumped right into the water of his own volition, grabbing on to a harpoon rope for another piece of flashy video footage. He had jumped out of an inflatable into the water, the inflatable then moved away (cameras started rolling here), then a few moments later they came and fished him back out of the ocean again. Ridiculous. Nothing to do with documenting the whaling activity for the world to see. But great for donation gathering activity.
Kind of like this great photo:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/defensores/archives/whaling.jpg
Just what we need?
http://archivo.greenpeace.org/cbi2004/imgs/ballenas8.jpg
Documenting the whaling activity?
http://archivo.greenpeace.org/cbi2004/imgs/ballenas13.jpg
Great photo!
http://www.greenpeace.gen.nz/gallery/2000/12JANAction_Inflatable
What does the sign say? “Need donations from even non-english speaking countries”!
http://www.greenpeace.gen.nz/gallery/2000/Whales7
Errrrm, the whale is dead… what is the point of this other than putting oneself in danger (not only physically, but hell the Japanese will probably arrest them this year if they try out such a stunt).
So Libby, I’ll tell you when I’ll stop criticising GP’s obstruction tactics in the Antartic:
When they go down there and simply film whats going on. You know, give it to us “straight”.
I hope that more people think about this tactic of inflatables zigzaging infront of the harpoons (well, on fine, calm days anyway). Given that the research fleet got their 850 +/-10% quota last year with a sampling efficiency for the total research of something like 95%+ (better than in previous years), people ought to think about whether inflatables aid the welfare of whales that are invariably selected for sampling and killed. I know that GP supporters wish that whales weren’t killed at all. That’s not going to change by putting out inflatables. Hopefully at least people would think about the welfare of those whales that are to be killed.
Russell,
Back in the 1970’s the whaling nations were actually talking about sustainable harvests.
The humpback and blue whales were fully protected already in the 1960’s.
The IWC Scientific Committee (primarily New Zealander K. Allen) developed a “New Management Procedure” in the 1970’s, which then saw sei and fin whale stocks protected (The NMP introduced a highly conservative “protection level” of 54% of the estimated carrying capacity of the stock).
In the 1980’s, the moratorium came in to affect and shut down all commercial whaling, even though scientists such as John Gulland from the FAO (one of the scientists credited with getting protection for those other stocks back in the 1960’s and 1970’s) said that hunting levels at that time were mostly likely to sustainable.
This all led to the development of the “Revised Management Procedure”. At which point in time, there was no longer any scientific concern about the sustainability of whaling. Yet still today, many people oppose whaling because they believe that “whales are endangered”.
> the whaling nations would be back onto the
> feast as soon as the public lost interest
Oh great, and they’d bring down another commercial whaling moratorium if they screw up again, once more. Smart move? I guess it depends how stupid you think the governments of these whaling nations are.
> The commercial interest in whaling will
> continue to rise as the stocks recover
No surprise there.
> Don’t kid yourself it would be any different
> now -would the Japanese hunt humanely or
> sustainably? Not in my opinion.
The Japanese hunt whales using the same methods as the Norwegians, although the Japanese hunt is scientific where the Norwegian one is commercial.
Whether they hunt sustainably depends on
a) whether the government grants permits for limits set on the advice of the IWC Scientific Committee
b) whether the government has sufficient regulations in place to ensure the catch limits are abided by.
As for humane killing, if you are truely serious about that then you should be writing to Greenpeace and seeking assurances that they won’t be putting inflatables out there on the water between the harpoons and the whales. There is no reason why GP can’t document the true undistorted whaling activity from a safe distance. Putting their inflatables in the hunting zone has a negative effect on the killing efficiency (longer chases, longer times to deaths, more harpoons coming unstuck).
> as the whale watching/bothering industry is,
> by all accounts doing quite well.
Actually I heard that they had a crap season on the western coast of Australia this year. I also heard that they were blaming it on the Japanese, who haven’t actually started hunting humpbacks yet. But why not just blame the Japanese anyway?
At any rate, under commercial whaling executed in accordance with IWC rules, stocks will still be maintained over around 75% of their carrying capacity in the long run. Plenty of whales for whale watching left.
David – given the completely parlous state of global marine resources, despite all manner of international panels and agreements – endless meetings and gab-fests, the history in general is one of over-exploitation.
Given the tuna numbers fiasco this year (and add in Aussies too if you want to keep fair) why should Joe or Jill average in the street believe marine resource managers and the fishing/whaling industrty know anything about sustainability.
Out of sight and out of mind who knows what happens. Unless of course we’re reminded by rogues such as Greedpeace and other sundry boat biffers. It’s a wonder the Japs haven’t sub-contracted to the French to dispose of their Sea Shepherd problem a la Rainbow Warrior.
Luke,
I doubt Joe or Jill average are never likely to understand sustainability, simply because they have better things to do than worry about where their food came from.
Government’s on the other hand do need to take this responsibility, and I think at least in some areas – tuna land included – we are starting to see this, and in whaling land this is even further advanced. I seriously believe that the controversial nature of the issue is likely to ensure that when international commercial whaling is resumed it’ll be probably the best managed fishery out there, and hopefully an example for the rest. I’m not suggesting that other fisheries organization take the same ultra precautionary scientific stance to resource utilization, but at least applying the same principles should bear fruits (well, fish).
I posted another message earlier today about GP’s activities in the Antarctic (too many URLs and it’s stuck in the filter machine) but let me make it 100% – I have no problem with GP being in the Antarctic documenting the whaling activity (although I think they have better things to spend their money on). What I have a problem with is them making their activists a feature of the hunt. That’s irresponsible both in terms of their own safety as well as the fact that it depicts a distorted reality of what is actually happening down there. If they are going to take pictures, they should do so from a safe distance that gives the truest representation of whaling activities possible.
However…..
http://www.greenpeace.gen.nz/gallery/2000/Whales7
What on earth are the doing? This isn’t documenting the whaling, it’s outrageous propaganda material generation, and if they try this sort of stunt again this year they’ll possibly find themselves arrested. Japanese prisons aren’t nice, I hear. Yet another martyr for the GP money machine it would become of course, but I’ll welcome it when it happens. The Japanese have been too soft up until this point.
I don’t think the Government of Japan is about to start blowing up terrorist vessels in the Antarctic, however. If you are interested in their approach then perhaps this will be of interest:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/search/label/IMO%20guidelines
I’ve got a couple of comments backed up now (one for Libby, one for Luke), but I was just reviewing a PR from GP last year – amusing stuff:
(QUOTE)
Early this morning Greenpeace activists onboard inflatables began to paint the words, “whale meat from sanctuary” on the side of the Oriental Bluebird. Their action in no way impeded the transfer of the meat and the tiny inflatables in no way represented a threat to either vessel.
(/QUOTE)
Did the Nisshin Maru and Oriental Bluebird crew know that, and are they obliged to accept that GP will graffiti their ships for their propaganda purposes anyway?
(How does spraying paint on to the side of a ship “save whales”?)
(QUOTE)
The Arctic Sunrise was observing the action from over one kilometre away on the opposite side of the supply vessel from the Nisshin Maru.
As the activists completed painting the slogan, the Nisshin Mura suddenly disengaged from the supply vessel coming around a full 360 degrees before making for the Arctic Sunrise and striking it on the port side. The Greenpeace captain tried to pull out of the way of the oncoming whaler. ”
(/QUOTE)
So, despite being “one kilometre away”, the “Nisshin Mura” (sic) “suddenly” struck GP on the “port side” (the port side of the nose of the AS?)
And they even did a 360 degree turn first in the process?
I can’t believe that GP has so many people wishing to defend them and their heinous PR and video stunts. Really, I can’t. I wonder about the state of the world.
Also from the same incident:
(QUOTE)
Speaking from onboard the Arctic Sunrise, the Greenpeace expedition leader Shane Rattenbury said: “There is no way to describe this as anything but a deliberate ramming which placed the safety of our ship and the lives of its crew in severe danger.”
(/QUOTE)
What do you know, I can actually agree with Ratsy there.
I think we should send a gun boat and impound any vessels found whaling in the sanctuary. We like doing it to any Indonesians annoying us.
“Hopefully at least people would think about the welfare of those whales that are to be killed.”
Like the whalers do?? Are you serious???
“So Libby, I’ll tell you when I’ll stop criticising GP’s obstruction tactics in the Antartic”
David, I would never expect the likes of you to stop criticising the likes of Greenpeace.
“As for humane killing, if you are truely serious about that then you should be writing to Greenpeace and seeking assurances that they won’t be putting inflatables out there on the water between the harpoons and the whales.”
David, drop the blaming of others. Show me some hard scientific evidence, reviewed by the IWC SC, that activist’s actions last year resulted in inhumane killing of whales in Antarctic waters. The inhumane killing is being carried out by the Japanese (in this case), and it is tiring that you insist on suggesting otherwise.
“Putting their inflatables in the hunting zone has a negative effect on the killing efficiency (longer chases, longer times to deaths, more harpoons coming unstuck).”
See above. Perhaps the Japanese should be taking some responsibility themselves. If they are so concerned about being humane, then they should not be firing the harpoons or engaging in lengthy chases. This to me makes perfect sense. If they are concerned of course.
“Plenty of whales for whale watching left.”
Interesting. As for long-term research projects that rely on the animals actually being alive, these may not be so successful.
“That’s irresponsible both in terms of their own safety as well as the fact that it depicts a distorted reality of what is actually happening down there.”
You say it’s “irresponsible”, and it is “their responsibility”. These are somewhat conflicting points. As for being distorted, tell me David, what is really happening down there.? Can you tell me? No. As Luke pointed out, these groups show the average Jack and Jill (who you seem to have scant respect for) something of the situation down there – ie. whales being harpooned. Perhaps the activists could just sit back and roll the cameras from a distance and not intervene. But then somehow I think you would find fault with that too and say it was distorting the truth.
“This isn’t documenting the whaling, it’s outrageous propaganda material generation”
Hmmm, brings us back to the scientific research doesn’t it. Don’t they just want to put steaks on plates, as you mentioned in a previous post? You like eating whale, and some Japanese like eating whale, but it is not necessary for Japanese to eat whale, as there are other forms of protein available to this nation. It is not about sustainability, culture or research. It is about making money and killing and consuming something entirely unnecessarily.
“they’ll possibly find themselves arrested”
What for David? For graffiti, perhaps, but anything else?
“I wonder about the state of the world.”
Indeed David, indeed.
And regarding the ramming incident? No one who was not there should be even suggesting they know the truth. As someone who sprouts the IWC SC results and the benefits of science David, I am ‘surprised’ you would be resorting to uncircumstantial evidence.
Luke,
I’d love to see the Australian authorities “enforce” their self-declared sanctuary as well.
That’d be fantastic.
Hey kids, have some christmas spirit pls, less squabbling.
GP generated awareness would have contributed to the support SS is getting:
“Australians have come out in force to support Sea Shepherd in the past several months. During our stay in Australia, over 30,000 people have visited the Farley Mowat in both Fremantle and Melbourne. The crew has given numerous tours of the ship and participated at events around the country over the past several months. Thousands of new Oz supporters have joined the Society. Among them, advertising guru John Singleton and Bluetongue Brewery are supporting the campaign through the launch of their website http://www.whalesafebeer.com. The citizens of Melbourne have been very generous to Sea Shepherd by contributing tons of food, tools, supplies, and donations that are so vital to the campaign. Australian media coverage has been unprecedented as the momentum of the anti-whaling movement is reaching a critical mass. There is no doubt but that Australians love the whales.
A crowd of supporters were on hand to send off the crew of the Farley Mowat. The conservation vessel flew the flag of Fremantle, Western Australia, when the ship departed. [Farley Mowat_departs_MelbournePort] The flag had been given to the ship by Fremantle Mayor Peter Tagliaferri with the request that we fly it in the Southern Oceans.
The ship also flew the Bluetongue beer flag in honor of Bluetongue’s sponsorship of the expedition. And, of course, the ship flew both the Australian and the Aboriginal flag as a courtesy to a people who are dedicated to shutting down the criminal operations of the Japanese whaling fleet.”