“The controversial Icelandic whaling fleet captain, Mr. Kristian Loftsson, has stated that whale hunting is a matter of independence.
Some government ministers have as well claimed that whale hunting is an internal affair and not any other nation’s business. Many people, however, believe that such talk is nationalistic nonsense.
http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=251371
The whaling issue has split Iceland into almost two equal camps. Intellectuals in Universities and the tourist industry oppose whale hunting. US gigantic super market chain, Whole Foods Market, has decided to stop marketing Icelandic products because of Iceland’s decision to resume commercial whaling, and UK consumers have been told to boycott Icelandic fish. Tourists, however, seem to be still travelling to Iceland .
The Icelandic Government keeps their decisions on whaling quotas secret for as long as possible.
Only some weeks ago, the Prime Minister, Mr. Haare, told the international media that “ Iceland’s unsure to continue commercial whaling”.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=31&art_id=nw20070415124412250C494522&set_id=
Well, the decision has now been made. The total minke whale quota this season is 74 animals. The Government has issued permits to kill 38 minkes for the commercial hunt and the quota for the scientific hunt is 36 minke whales.
Iceland killed its first minke on Friday for the commercial hunt , and the scientific hunt will begin on May 8.
The minke whale meat is intended for the domestic market. The Icelandic Marine Research Institution estimates that about 200 to 400 minkes in Icelandic waters can be hunted in a sustainable way.
http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id=281010
It is not known yet if Iceland will continue to hunt Fin whales this year. It all depends on if there is a market for Fin whales in Japan. Last years the decision to kill 9 Fin whales was met with an international outcry.
Another whaling nation, Norway, has been struggling with whaling for some years and resumed whaling April 1. So far 21 minkes have been reported killed. By the same time last year, which was a very bad one for whalers, 17 minke whales had been killed.
http://www.fiskeribladet.no/default.asp?lesmer=5210
I’m wondering will Iceland and Mr . Loftsson hunt Fin whales this season and will Norwegian whalers fill their whaling quota?
Ann Novek
Sweden
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Today’s news on whales in the North.
Whale watching boat in Iceland to be powered by hydrogen. This has been noticed by Discovery Channel and it’s the first of its kind in the world.
http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id=281424
Local paper Lofotsposten,writes that the market is crying for whale meat.
Well, that might be true,there use to be a demand for fresh whale meat in the beginning of the season.
The paper continues that whalers have not been able to kill many whales as the weather conditions are very poor.
Hi anne,
Norway will take between 600 -800 depending on weathers conditions over the summer is my prediction.
Iceland will take the full commercial and scientific quota is another prediction.
” Some government ministers have as well claimed that whale hunting is an internal affair and not any other nation’s business. Many people, however, believe that such talk is nationalistic nonsense.”
I´m sure that “many people ” believe that – I´m also sure that the very same “many people” would be the first to whine and bitch when affected in their own country by outside pressures.
Final prediction, Neither GP or SS will do anything whatsoever to try and stop either country´s whaling activities by actions at sea …. Hypocrisy at its finest 😉
One final thought – Iceland should try and export a limited amount of Fin whale meat to Norway – Last time I had some was in the late eighties – I found it tasted better than minke – I´d buy some..
‘Iceland will take the full commercial and scientific quota is another prediction.’ – George Mcc
Because obviously it is impossible to do any scientific study of the Minke’s killed for commercial purposes…splitting the quota is a very convenient public relations scam to make sure the lowest figures for each can be presented..
I´m sure that “many people ” believe that – George Mcc
That would be the same Iceland that has a delegation campaigning at the IWC for the re-introduction of INTERNATIONAL commercial whaling… so many people are correct.. it is nationalistic nonsense.
‘actions at sea’ – George Mcc
You mean those allegedly terrorist activities that you are so against George?… you’re own hypocrisy is certainly not in doubt… 😉
Would this be the Patrick Batty aka Lamna Nasus,
Armchair environmentalist who works for Apple and or sells Apple products .. the very same Company that the Organisation Greenpeace ( of which Patrick is an Ardent rabid supporter ) deplores for being one of the worst pulluters in the computer electronics industry.
Yes Patrick, What was that you were saying about Hypocrisy? …
Tell you what Patrick, have a look at Icelands scientific Permit – count – then tell us how many animals are left on the original scientific Permit …
Then once you´ve done that, take a look at how many minkies are allowed on the commercial permit – then come back and tell us those figures as well – if your head is so far up your nether regions that you cannot tell the difference between a commercial and scientific permit and are left restorting to dare I say it “disingenious” ramblings, then nobody here has much if anything to learn from you.. ( If they ever did )
Norway has a commercial quota of 1052 animals – more than the Japan and Iceland combined Mr. Batty… and still GP and SS will conduct no actions at sea in the Northern hemisphere against Scandinavian whaling countries – GP claiming it is counter productive, and SS probably because they got such a hit in their finances in ´94 from the Norwegian Coast guard.
Hypocrisy indeed Mr. Batty, do tell us more..
George why do you have to attack with personal insults? So what if Lamna nasus works for apple? You take lovely photos of whales, make some dosh out of them and then say how much you enjoy the taste of them. I was hoping this thread wouldn’t stray into the usual snide snipes, but it didn’t take long did it?
Well, Paul Watson has made some comments now and then in Norwegian and ranting about to come back to Norwegian and Icelandic waters, but actually methinks it will just stay to rantings….
It is as well interesting to note that the Winter Olympic Games will take place in Tromsö 2018, right in the middle of a whaling community….
Evening Travis,
I suggest you read the post below Anne´s before calling me out – I was responding in kind Travis –
Patrick batty accusing me of hypocricsy is the pot calling the kettle black … but it´s noted that you chose to jump on my case instead tho….. why am I not surprised?
Tell me travis, whats my taking photos of whales got to do with eating them? zero… I take photos of cows pigs deer ostriches and hens and eat them too .. and that has also zero to do with the subject at hand.. nice try though ..
I have no time or inclination to pussyfoot politely around with ad hominem NGO muppets like Mr. Patrick Batty these days – I´m too busy actually being in the field collecting data instead of sitting in my armchair whining like like Batty …
And re Greenpeace in Norwegian waters….the Arctic Sunrise is right now in the North Sea , where part of the Norwegian whaling fleet is as well…
The Arctic Sunrise was in the Norwegian town Bergen as well for about 10 days ago….open ship , but GPI or GP Nordic have not mentioned anything about protests against Norwegian whalers…
Morning George,
Sorry you missed the point re the whale photos.
>” Some government ministers have as well claimed that whale hunting is an internal affair and not any other nation’s business. Many people, however, believe that such talk is nationalistic nonsense.” I´m sure that “many people ” believe that – I´m also sure that the very same “many people” would be the first to whine and bitch when affected in their own country by outside pressures.
This comment could apply to the South Pacific range states who are opposed to Southern Ocean whaling in any guise and the ‘outside pressures’ at play there.
Hi anne,
Yes, I´d heard about the GP Bergen visit and actions against trawlers in the North sea – no actions against whaling though – of course not, for one thing, it´s cost them too much money in the past, and secondly, Greenpeace claims to have “won” the whaling “war” in Norway and Iceland, so they don´t need to do they? … Excuse me whilst I fall off my chair and roll around on the floor laughing my butt off..
Not to worry, in a couple of weeks we´ll have the usual IWC plenary commisioners meeting in anchorage to “discuss” – Japanese “vote buying” will be roundly condemned here – and little or no mention will be made of the anti whaling mob buying votes …
here´s an interesting article
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article1690260.ece
I particularly like this comment from Lord Ashcroft :
” Every month I’m on the water somewhere,” he says. “I’ve grown a close affinity, not just for whales, but for dolphins and porpoises. So it wasn’t difficult for me to approach the Belizean authorities with such a brief.” He discovered that Belize’s annual subscription to the IWC — £10,000 — had lapsed and came up with the cash. That backing yielded swift results when a crucial vote was won by the anti-whaling nations by a majority of one. ”
Vote buying anyone ? No?..pity
Which point would that be Travis? a bit too subtle for an old fart like me … Don´t be sorry, spit it out..
Hi George and Travis,
Maybe Travis means that Australia and New Zealand see the Southern Oceans whales , as ” their” whales???? And the outsiders are the Japanese????
Anyway, the talk of ” their” whales poses as I see a drawback as the whales are a highly migratory species. This includes both pro and anti whaling nations….
Re Greenpeace has already won in Norway, no this is hardly the truth, the whalers have support from a broad part of the society….
Travis,
Let George munch his hvalbiffar( whale steaks), but I wish he would stick to Minke whales and not to Fin whales;)
And tourists in Iceland sometimes complain that the whale watching operators boats act as whaling boats in the night….now , this is of course untrue !
‘do tell us more..’ – George Mcc
Iceland – whaling in territorial waters
Norway – whaling in territorial waters
Japan – whaling in INTERNATIONAL waters
Just to make it unsubtle for the ‘old fart'(his words).
‘sells Apple products’ – George Mcc
As George well knows, we already did this debate some time ago and George claimed that he built his PC from components, implying it was in some way ‘greener’ but I think he must have had an urgent appointment elsewhere because unforunately he was unable to expalin how this was so to readers or indeed who made and where to buy these wonderful components..despite being asked…
‘ad hominem’ – George Mcc
I have always treated George as he has been kind enough to treat any environmentalists who disagree with him on web forums, as his posts to Travis amply demonstrate..
‘I´m too busy actually being in the field collecting data’ – George Mcc
Sounds terribly grand and ‘scientific’ doesn’t it but it appears to be mostly trying to take unblurred photographs for identification purposes, nothing more… still better than waving hoops and balls… eh George?
Hi Ann,
Re whales as highly migratory species, Australia and New Zealand do have a potential opportunity for compromise in that the southern hemisphere whales (well, humpback, sperm, southern right whales at least) are useful to them for their whale watching industries. Even if the RMP were eventually implemented for say some stock of the humpback whales, these nations could reasonably argue that a population at only around 80% of it’s carrying capacity would perhaps not make as much money for the commercial operations in those countries as would a population at around 100% of it’s carrying capacity.
On those grounds they might like to suggest compromise with Japan that they will accept whaling in the North Pacific so long as Japan ceases to target humpbacks subjected to whale watching industry, and the same for any other commercially valuable species that migrate through Aussie and Kiwi whale watching areas.
No sign of such a compromise proposal yet however, so I wonder whether the governments of Aussie and Kiwi are actually serious about their concerns. While the Japanese government has invested heaps in the research in the Antarctic over the years, and even though under UNCLOS etc every nation technically has the right to whale anywhere on the high seas, I think they could be receptive to a compromise proposal that would allow whaling in the North Pacific. There are wins and sacrifices for both sides in this, but overall both sides would come out as winners.
Anyway, this argument probably doesn’t have much weight for Antarctic minke whales. As far as I know there aren’t any commercial operators targeting them.
I do not see any pictures of whaling operations presented on George McCallum’s site:
http://www.whalephoto.com/
George surely must have such images.
Hi David,
I checked out your blog.
Was it Greenpeace-Dave , that responded to the comment on the IUCN downlisting?
Dunno, why the guys have such problems with the whales downlisting.
OK, this might make whaling more ” acceptable”, but it is not sure….
Well, if I’m hard it’s about fundraising. It is much easier to get support for animals that are clssified as ” endangered”.
‘under UNCLOS etc every nation technically has the right to whale anywhere on the high seas’ – David
If the moratorium is lifted any member of the IWC will then be able to register a reservation to the RMP and not be bound by its terms.
In the event of the resumption of International commercial whaling there will be an international market for whale products.
The largest commercial seafood market in the world is Japan and Japan has recently been proven to be unable to control that market, even to regulate its own Tuna quotas, much less anyone elses in the pursuit of commercial profit.
The fact is the current status quo works extremely well.. Iceland and Norway whale within their territorial waters for a shrinking domestic market for whalemeat and Japan negotiates each year for a ‘scientific’ quota from international waters in addition to its territorial whaling, to sell commercially on its own limited domestic market.
Both sides come out as winners.
‘I do not see any pictures of whaling operations presented on George McCallum’s site:’ – pragmatic
Thats because there is a risk it might disencourage people from buying his prettier pictures, its all about marketing.
Ann,
I guess it was Greenpeace-Dave. When Rune at HNA broke the news earlier this year, Dave said something like “let’s hope it’s not true” on the Greenpeace ocean defenders blog, as well. I guess it’s bad timing for them with Japan to hunt humpbacks this year.
Here’s another thing about delisting humpbacks, this time in the US:
“The sight of whales playing in our waters is encouraging, but some worry, as the population recovers, these whales could be taken off the endangered species list someday. “At some point you are going to get pre-whaling stock numbers so the question is when do you de-list?””
http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=6483155
(“Currently we think there are 10-12 thousand humpback whales coming to Hawaii to mate and nurse their young.” says Greg Kaufman with the Pacific Whale Foundation.”
…
“Hawaii’s humpback population is estimated to be at half the level before whaling began.”)
Presumably you delist when the reasons for listing are no longer valid. As the reasons for a lot of whale species being listed as “Endangered” in the US have more to do with international politics than biological considerations, I suppose the humpback will remain listed as “Endangered” for quite some time yet.
Fascinating the way David@Tokyo has no interest whatsoever in wildlife unless it is fulfilling a commercial purpose…dead or alive… and making someone, somewhere money.
Never thought it would happen, but the Hindus have now proceeded to start telling westerners what to do with cows:
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSL0960994120070509
Perhaps this will help put whaling in context.
>Re whales as highly migratory species, Australia and New Zealand do have a potential opportunity for compromise in that the southern hemisphere whales (well, humpback, sperm, southern right whales at least) are useful to them for their whale watching industries. Even if the RMP were eventually implemented for say some stock of the humpback whales, these nations could reasonably argue that a population at only around 80% of it’s carrying capacity would perhaps not make as much money for the commercial operations in those countries as would a population at around 100% of it’s carrying capacity.
There are other countries in the South Pacific which will be affected too, not just the two obvious. These countries are wanting 100% carrying capacity as the populations are already down.
>Anyway, this argument probably doesn’t have much weight for Antarctic minke whales. As far as I know there aren’t any commercial operators targeting them.
There are commercial operators in the Antarctic who like to show their high paying customers a diverse range of wildlife. My bet is that they put a lot of emphasis on seeing minke and killer whales, although obviously these industries are not as large as the dedicated whale watching ones in Australia or NZ.
>I guess it’s bad timing for them with Japan to hunt humpbacks this year.
Not to mention for the humpback whales.
Actually whaling is banned in Norway since year 2000. Why they still kill whales depends on the UNCLOS paragraph that states that every coastal nation can utilize their natural resources.
Re the right to utilize the natural resorces in coastal waters focuses the whale watching industry as Travis pointed out vs Japanese whaling.
If Japanese whaling harms South Pacific whale watching industry, the right question in my opinion is , who has the more right to utilize whales, dead or alive?
Ann,
In UNCLOS A.64, it says
“1. The coastal State and other States whose nationals fish in the region for the highly migratory species listed in Annex I shall cooperate directly or through appropriate international organizations with a view to ensuring conservation and promoting the objective of optimum utilization of such species throughout the region, both within and beyond the exclusive economic zone…”
(Cetaceans are included in Annex I)
So I wonder what “optimum utilization” constitutes. Here’s a question – if you have a stock of whales at 100% carrying capacity and lots of tourism, or 99.99% of carrying capacity with lots of tourism, plus some whale meat for people to eat as well, which is more “optimum”?
I get the feeling the marginal benefit of the extra whale for tourism would be less than the marginal benefit of the whale meat, but I’m sure others would have other ideas.
Still, I’m surprised the Aussies and Kiwis haven’t tried this avenue out with the Japanese, given their apparent concern about their tourism industries, as I mentioned before.
Where to start..
Posted by Patrick Batty : May 10, 2007 11:49 AM
Iceland – whaling in territorial waters
Norway – whaling in territorial waters
Japan – whaling in INTERNATIONAL waters
“IWC minke areas in international waters between the NEZ and Jan Mayen are CM (Jan Mayen area), EW and ES. In Norwegian these international waters are called “Smutthavet”, while “Smutthullet” is the area between Norwegian and Russian waters. Rune Frøvik, High North Alliance ”
Posted by: Rune Frøvik at November 1, 2006 11:12 PM”
Subtle enough for you Batty? – get your facts right …
Which debate would this be Batty? the one where you claimed to be trying to change the computer industry from within? How do you do that? by using eco friendly ink in the toner cartridges you change?. We´re all ears ..
Batty :
”
I have always treated George as he has been kind enough to treat any environmentalists who disagree with him on web forums, as his posts to Travis amply demonstrate..”
Buhhahahahahaaaaaa…. sorry folks it just slipped out …
Batty
“Sounds terribly grand and ‘scientific’ doesn’t it but it appears to be mostly trying to take unblurred photographs for identification purposes, nothing more… still better than waving hoops and balls… eh George?”
hoops and balls? ahhhh .. this is Batty´s snide underhand attempt to refer to the days when I trained marine mammals – in an earlier thread, Batty said a lot more about his disgust for such people.. but wait, Batty only referred to me of course, and completely ignored the fact that an anti whaling contributor to the blog who has worked with Greenpeace and currently works with captive marine mammals today… I´m still waiting for Batty to show his moral fibre and condemn that person as roundly as he did me ….
No? I wonder why? Disingenious – hypocritical anyone? No? …. what a muppet
As to what I do onboard Marine research vessels, I´m sure you would love to know Batty – tough sh*t ..
I doubt it will stop Batty from Trying to pooh pooh it though – its a standard common tactic by armchair environmentalists such as Batty to try and discredit the person rather than address the subject .. what a wonker
Pragmatic :
” I do not see any pictures of whaling operations presented on George McCallum’s site:
http://www.whalephoto.com/
George surely must have such images.”
I´ve never been on a Whaling vessel during a hunt – thats why you don´t see any such images – I posted this info here on the blog in another thread last year .. have a look in the archives -of course, that does´nt stop sh*t smearing wonkers such as Batty from claiming otherwise does it ..
” Thats because there is a risk it might disencourage people from buying his prettier pictures, its all about marketing.”
LMAO … I have an email from Sea Shepherd asking for use of my pictures, despite having images of harpoons, whale meat in markets and whaling boats on my website – you want to read it ?
My position on whaling is available for all to see under my REAL name by a tiny bit of Googling ( type George McCallum in Google and one of the first hits is whaling threads on this blog )… my position has probably cost me sales and work in the past and probably will in the future …pfffft..
So what?
Marketing? ROFLMAO … what a muppet ..
“hoops and balls? ahhhh .. this is Batty´s snide underhand attempt to refer to the days when I trained marine mammals – in an earlier thread, Batty said a lot more about his disgust for such people.. but wait, Batty only referred to me of course, and completely ignored the fact that an anti whaling contributor to the blog who has worked with Greenpeace and currently works with captive marine mammals today… I´m still waiting for Batty to show his moral fibre and condemn that person as roundly as he did me ….”
Are you referring to me George?
Yup Libby..
I DO NOT currently work with captive marine mammals. If Lamna, you or anyone else has issue with what I do and/or have done, take a number.
My apologies Libby , I was under the impression that you still did …
You used to work with captive Marine mammals once upon a time tho – am I correct? and for the record, I have no problem with you working with captive marine mammals…
Only one here that has a problem with that is Batty – which was my point..
Can I have no 13? 😉
Libby and George,
I have no problems with you two having worked with captive marine mammals—as you both have pointed out this helped to enlighten people about cetaceans.
Well, but Lamna refuses to admit this… he posted this reply to George.
Actually, methinks the only persons who can change conditions for animals in all sectors, are those who have worked with them practically, and not only checking out websites.
Personally, I grew up with horses, and have been taking part in competitions and training horses on a quite high level, and since I have been involved in the business , I ‘m not too keen on steeplechases ,high level eventings etc.
‘”IWC minke areas in international waters between the NEZ and Jan Mayen are CM (Jan Mayen area), EW and ES. In Norwegian these international waters are called “Smutthavet”, while “Smutthullet” is the area between Norwegian and Russian waters. Rune Frøvik, High North Alliance ”
Posted by: Rune Frøvik”
Posted by: Rune Frøvik at November 1, 2006 11:12 PM”
– George
Slective quoting as usual George… as many readers will remember our favourite High North Alliance spokesperson stated on this very blog that the Norwegians were not whaling in the International areas and have’nt done for a very long time..so long in fact he wasn’t sure when it last happenedd….
I´ve never been on a Whaling vessel during a hunt thats why you don´t see any such images….. despite having images of harpoons, whale meat in markets and whaling boats on my website…’ George
Make your mind up George which is it…. are there images or are there not?….. or are you just trying to disingenuously change the definition of what ‘whaling image’ means from what Pragmatic was clearly asking about to suit your next bout of straw man rhetoric?
‘As to what I do onboard Marine research vessels’ – George
You’ve already told us what you do George, stop trying to suggest you are anything other than a photographer, lens boy… unless you are referring to your stints in the galley and cleaning the heads?…
George’s has forgotten that the sizable problem with his Apple red herring is that selling a particular brand of PC is only part of what I do and I offer a trade in service to my clients… Since Greenpeace are campaigning against the dumping of toxic computer products and I am offering my clients an alternative to sending their old Apple computers to end up in third world landfill, George is clutching desparately at straws..maybe he didn’t have an urgent appointment last time, maybe he realised he was in a hole and decided to stop digging…..
Nice try George but no cigar, Libby isn’t supporting a return to international commercial whaling on mutiple web forums.. you on the other hand…
Disingenuous anyone?
Who’s selective now , Lamna ?
As far as I remember, the area in question was expanded especially for the whaling season 2006.
Why they didn’t kill any whales in the international area was due to bad weather conditions, expensive fuel expenditures etc.
Don’t try to weasel out of this, you little envious Lamna boy!
#Ho hum – the usual BS from Batty
” Slective quoting as usual George… as many readers will remember our favourite High North Alliance spokesperson stated on this very blog that the Norwegians were not whaling in the International areas and have’nt done for a very long time..so long in fact he wasn’t sure when it last happenedd….”
Read what Rune wrote again Batty –
report back here when you´re done…
” I´ve never been on a Whaling vessel during a hunt thats why you don´t see any such images….. despite having images of harpoons, whale meat in markets and whaling boats on my website…’ George
Make your mind up George which is it…. are there images or are there not?….. or are you just trying to disingenuously change the definition of what ‘whaling image’ means from what Pragmatic was clearly asking about to suit your next bout of straw man rhetoric?”
Find and read the original post in the archives and read it again Batty – then repeat it here… what was that you said about marketing? Lmao…
Batty:
” You’ve already told us what you do George, stop trying to suggest you are anything other than a photographer, lens boy… unless you are referring to your stints in the galley and cleaning the heads?…”
ROFLMAO … keep going Batty – this is getting really funny …
Batty :
” Libby isn’t supporting a return to international commercial whaling on mutiple web forums.. you on the other hand…”
Thankyou for admitting that the only reason you do not condemn Libby for her previous captive marine mammal work is that because she does not support what you call ” international commercial whaling ” …. it´s ok for Libby to have worked with CMM then Batty … but it´s not ok for me?
Your lack or moral backbone is showing dear
Do the words disingenious & hypocrite ring any bells anyone?
Straw man? LOL — pot.kettle.Black
‘As far as I remember’ – George
As far as I remember Rune was talking about changing the status of the waters concerned which was an interesting unilateral declaration…
No weasels were harmed in the drafting of this post.
*Yawn* The reason George and David never supply links to ‘archives’ is because it allows them to simply make stuff up as they go along..
David memorably once made claims about a discussion he claimed he had with Ann on his own blog..except the discussion had actually taken place on this blog and his claims were inaccurate…..
“You used to work with captive Marine mammals once upon a time tho – am I correct?”
You are. I worked with them for 10 years. I have problems with animals in captivity, but some more than others. I do not support cetaceans in captivity except under extreme circumstances. I base this on what I have experienced, what I have read and what others in the field have told me.
“Can I have no 13? ;)”
Sorry George, that one went a looong time ago. Perhaps 113?
Patrick Batty May 10, 2007 09:22 PM
” ‘As far as I remember’ – George”
Once again we have Batty attributing quotes to me that I have not made in this thread –
Where I have written that in this thread?
What was that you were saying about ” because it allows them to simply make stuff up as they go along” ?
You mean like you just did? keep it up muppet
Hi Libby
” I worked with them for 10 years.”
About the same as I did 😉
“I have problems with animals in captivity, but some more than others.”
Depends on the animal IMO …
“I do not support cetaceans in captivity except under extreme circumstances. ”
I don´t support the importation of cetaceans from the wild to captivity these days except under exceptional circumstances – I have no problems with captive born tho if the facilty is adequate
“I base this on what I have experienced, what I have read and what others in the field have told me.”
Same here pretty much 😉
“Sorry George, that one went a looong time ago. Perhaps 113?”
hows about 131313? 😉
George is quite right, I have misattributed a quote by Ann to him for which I apologise.
My comments about George and David’s use of vague references to ‘archive’ material stands.
Getting back to the subject of Whaling in internationl waters ..
What Rune actually wrote was :
“Hi,
To my knowledge, Norwegian whalers did not take any minke whales in international waters in 2006. I’m pretty sure this is correct. This was the first season for ages that the government permitted whaling in international waters. Depending on how the season proceeds, there might be catches in international waters next year.
Rune Frøvik
High North Alliance
Note that Norwegian whalers ARE permitted to hunt in international waters …Care to review your comments/statements above ? No… ? What was that you wrote about selective quoting? or Making things up as you go along? … what a muppet
“hows about 131313? ;)”
It’s OK George, you don’t have to take a number. You can discuss things anytime with me!
‘As far as I remember, the area in question was expanded especially for the whaling season 2006’ – Ann
The area was not expanded ‘especially’ for the whaling season in 2006, it was merely included in the permit as it had been before in some years and not in others and NO whales were taken in 2006… Rune does not appear to state why.
‘To my knowledge, Norwegian whalers did not take any minke whales in international waters in 2006. I’m pretty sure this is correct’ – Rune Frøvik
The reason the Norwegians have sensibly confined their whaling to territorial waters ‘for ages’ is that Norwegian whaling in international waters is open to legal challenge by the other nations that use those waters, including the UK… which is presumably why Norway is trying to change this area’s status.
‘Norway – whaling in territorial waters’ – Lamna nasus
‘Norwegian whalers DID NOT take any minke whales in INTERNATIONAL waters in 2006’ – Rune Frøvik
‘As far as I remember Rune was talking about changing the status of the waters concerned’ – Lamna nasus
‘Perhaps these waters will not be international much longer. Norway has apparently submitted some claims to the UN today that large parts of the Banana Hole, the Loop Hole and an area north of Spitzbergen should be turned into Norwegain EEZ. Some 250 000 square kilometres’ – Rune Frøvik 28th November 2006. 08:13
Since George must have checked that archive to quote from it, its rather odd he forgot to mention that what I remembered about Rune’s comments on changing the ‘international’ status was correct…
Still I apologised to him when I accidently put his name on the quote in my post to Ann, so now we will see if he is man enough to apologise for his ‘oversight’…
This info from WDCS: ” New regulations give Norwegian whalers the go-ahead to kill minkes also in international waters , the IWC management areas ES, EB, EW, EN and CM.
EN area is only 200 nautical miles of the UK coast.
Info from the High North Alliance:
When deliberating the White paper, the Parliament also said the minke whale hunt should go beyond national waters.
“The basis for the quota in the Jan Mayen area is the total IWC regulatory area around the island. In 2006 the whalers will be allowed to take the minke whale quota in a larger part of the Jan Mayen area than they have been allowed so far,” according to the Ministry’s media release.
In practice this means that Norwegian whalers will now be permitted to also catch minke whales in international waters.”
Lamna, if you check out the map, the position of the international areas, checking the past years areas where the whales have been killed,checking out what whalers think of whaling in remote areas etc. …when having done that give us a correct reply…
Actually the whalers don’r want to whale in remote areas as the Jan Mayen zone, due to bad weather conditions and high fuel expenditure. This was pointed out in the annual Minke whaler’s association’s meeting.
The whalers want to whale in COASTAL areas because they don’t want to travel ” to the wilderness” ( their own words).
You say as well that Norwegian haven’t whaled in international areas due to legal concerns …but then you state that they want to change the areas status unilaterally….which way is it, your argument is totally senseless!
Ann, George,
No need to play with the troll 🙂
There you go again David telling readers what they should be doing and trying to influence their opinions. People have a right to contribute, even if their opinion differs from yours.
‘You say as well that Norwegian haven’t whaled in international areas due to legal concerns …but then you state that they want to change the areas status unilaterally’ – Ann
I will clarify those statements, I felt Rune Frøvik’s remarks were reminiscent of Iceland extending its territorial control in international waters and I regarded it as ‘unilateral’ because the international waters Norway is talking about are considerably closer to a number of other countries than in the Icelandic case… it is therefore likely that Norway’s proposal will be challenged by other nations with an economic interest.
Politically it has been much easier for Norway to continue its commercial whaling by not forcing a showdown with its non-whaling neigbours over the legal issue in international waters when it had whale stocks available in territorial waters…
However with the suggestion that International commercial whaling might be a posssibility in the future, it now makes political sense for Norway to test the level of opposition to its whaling in those international waters by issueing a permit but not actually whaling in those waters… then observing the intensity of the international political reaction of its neighbours; while at the same time seeking to circumvent any opposition by lodging an application to change the status of those international waters to Norwegian territory.
Basically the idea would be to find out which avenue offered the greatest chance of success and then pursue it…..
Changing the international areas status has nothing to do with whales….it is about accesss to oil…
OK, this was my last input to Lamna!
Its about access to all that area’s economic resources whales,oil and fish which is why Norway is unlikely to be granted possession..at least not without enormous political wrangling.
One more comment on Norwegian whaling in international waters.
The IWC wants the whalers to hunt all over the sea, including remote areas ( which in some cases are international waters).
This is met by protest from the whalers, and they say if the IWC and the Gov’t issues permits to remote areas , they will succeed with what Greenpeace didn’t manage, namely to halt Norwegian whaling.
This according to paper Fiskeribladet.
http://www.fiskeribladet.no/default.asp?side=101&lesmer=4057
So spreading out the permits to kill whales over a big area, and not only to coastal waters will benefit whale stocks.
>So spreading out the permits to kill whales over a big area, and not only to coastal waters will benefit whale stocks.
Sorry Ann, but is this your line of thinking or the Norwegian government’s?
Hi Travis,
Good comment. As far as I have understood the IWC wants to spread out the number of whales killed in a big area and not only focusing on coastal areas.
Acccording to the Norwegian paper Fiskeribladet, Norwegian scientists support the spreading outs together with IWC regulations.
I personally interpreted this statement from the paper as this might benefit whale stocks.
We can also ask George to read the article and ask for his interpretation.
Lamna
>it now makes political sense for Norway to test the level of opposition to its whaling in those international waters by issueing a permit but not actually whaling in those waters… then observing the intensity of the international political reaction of its neighbours
Excuse me Lamna, the blog has been full of statements that Norwegians don’t give a damn about international protests!
Actually, our friend Rune has made a comment in Norwegian media that Norwegians don’t care about NGO reactions etc. they just increase their quotas.
Ann,
I imagine the comments you see about what the “IWC wants” is probably somehow in relation to the multistock rules that are built into the RMP.
The purpose of the multistock rules is to guard against unintended local depletion of a stock in the case where there is the possibility of unrecognised sub-structure in the stock being targeted.
Rune wrote a little on this topic when he responded to Peter Corkeron once:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001142.html
“… the precautionary logic mainly goes the other way, since it is not proved that the stock is not comprised of sub-stocks, the scientists assume there could be sub-stocks.
Therefore quotas are set for smaller areas. However, scientific evidence now indicates that there is no need for sub areas. The whalers have always argued that the whales don’t respect these borders, that the whales go where there is ample food supply, something which varies between and within years.”
I guess this is the same argument being referred to in your article.
( There is a little bit on the multistock rules here at the ICR page: http://www.icrwhale.org/management.htm )
Dear all,
Just a couple of comments.
Whalers hunt whales were they believe they can make the best money. There are many factors: Weather, travel distance, availability of whales. The actual decision is based on past experience, interpretation of available information. For instance the Spitzbergen is far away, but still a favourite area. The ice provides shelter, thus the sea can be pretty flat even if it is very windy. Also the whales feed close to and “inside” the ice.
Interpretation of information is with respect to weather forecast, the clue is to find out where the sea is flat, even if the weather can be bad, but they learn by experience to find these areas, no matter how small, no matter how short a time. Within a couple of hours they can literally make the catch of a month.
Another type of information is about the prey, where there’s fish, there are whales. (This is not to commence a whale eats fish debate.) Thus they look for information where the fishing vessels are, e.g. herring fisheries out in the ocean, such as the banana hole.
Right now some boats are out of mobile range, apparently heading west from Lofoten. If you look at the map, they will arrive in the banana hole if they continue. How far they will go, they probably don’t know themselves.
Norway permitted hunting in international waters as part of the normalisation process. We have been talking about normalisation for ages. To us, this concept is about the whole whaling isssue, not limited to the IWC. While IWC still matters, and is still useful for us in several aspects, it is completely irrelevant in many others. (Our concept of normalisation should not be mixed with the relatively new concept of normalisation, limited only to the IWC.)
The thing is you do one thing at a time. You work domestically to make it happen, then you consolidate, and then you move on to another thing that needs to be normalised, or more accurately, what we consider need to be normalised/changed. Sometimes the new thing is implemented immediately, sometimes only on paper first, and then in practice afterwards. While it wasn’t deliberate, this was the fact with Norwegian whaling in international waters. So perhaps this year. If this has as consequence that Japan cannot longer be singled out as the only nation that conducts whaling in international waters, that is perfectly fine with us.
A similar pattern was followed when the blue box inspection system replaced the human inspector. The blue box took charge, carried out all the inspectors duties. But the inspectors were still on the vessels, not really to inspect the hunt, but to inspect, supervise, study the blue box, to make sure that it worked well. Everything was done in full transparency, but the little outcry only came the following year when the human “inspectors” were not there any longer. At that time the inspector had in practice been discharged for a long time, and the new blue box system firmly implemented and consolidated. At such time there is no way that Norway will go back. The antis understand this and must basically accept defeat. And then we move on to new areas.
Just a final note. The possible extensions of EEZs have nothing at all to do with whaling. I am far from being an expert, but the reasoning is that this is multilateral, in the sense that UNCLOS provides the principles and framework for this. Then a country takes the lead, it goes into the international processes, and bilaterally issues are worked out. I think Denmark/Greenland and Norway established some new borders last year covering some pretty big areas between Spitzbergen and Greenland. Much of the thinking is with respect of authority, not so much the division of living marine resources, as they have often been shared before hand. It also has to do with policing, like now cargo vessels can sail in international waters carrying IUU-fish, and nobody can stop them. If these waters were EEZs, they could be stopped, arrested, confiscated when passing through these waters. But to repeat myself, I am not an expert and not able to discuss this in detail.
Rune Frøvik
High North Alliance
Thanks David and Rune for the clarifications.
Just a short comment from me.
If the expansion of the EEZs means that IUU-fishing ( illegal trawling and halting of the transferring ships( omlastningsfartyg) ) can be achieved , I’m personally all for this expansion.
I know the Norwegian Coast Guard is doing a good work on this issue.
Oooops, I meant stopping of illegal trawling….
Patrick Batty May 11, 2007 09:45 AM
“Since George must have checked that archive to quote from it, its rather odd he forgot to mention that what I remembered about Rune’s comments on changing the ‘international’ status was correct… ”
There you go making things up and assuming again Batty – I have no need to delve into Jens Archives – Google Notes is your friend …
You stated:
” ‘Norway – whaling in territorial waters’ ”
and yet again, you are incorrect
“Still I apologised to him when I accidently put his name on the quote in my post to Ann, so now we will see if he is man enough to apologise for his ‘oversight’…”
You want me to apologise for your inability to check your facts before you write? or that you had a moment of lucidity in vaguely remembering what Rune had written? ..sfb – what a muppet
To keep the balance here ( posting both anti and prowhaling comments) for boosting the discussion. I would like to question Rune why it is so difficult for Norwegian whalers to fill their quotas year after year?
I know the antis say this must mean that the population has decreased or is maybe stable and NOT as the media wants us to believe that it has increased.
As far as I have understood there will be a big whales survey this year in the North Atlantic, including Norway,Canada, Iceland and Greenland.
Well, this criticism is not only from anti whaling organisations but I read a similar comment in Bergens Tidene.
You have mentioned weather conditions etc., but was it not easier back in the ” golden days of whaling” to fill quotas?
Or have the whalers more concern now about animal welfare issues and don’t harpoon whales in bad weather???
On a Norwegian site I read as well that the Norwegian Govt’s Head scientist, Lars Walloe, recommended back in the 90’s that female, pregnant whales should preferably be killed.
Has this policy now changed?
The article stated as well that in Spitsbergen 90% of the whales killed are cows.
This is the link for Rune:
http://www.dyrebeskyttelsen.no/artikler/df1999-4h.shtml
Probably he has had an argument over this already zillion times….
The latest news on the whaling horizon is that 22 minkes have been killed , 12 out in the North Sea and 10 in Vestfjorden area.
‘what a muppet’ – George
I’ll take that as a no.. :o)
‘On a Norwegian site I read as well that the Norwegian Govt’s Head scientist, Lars Walloe, recommended back in the 90’s that female, pregnant whales should preferably be killed.
Has this policy now changed?’ – Ann
Good Question for Rune. If it true then it is a cynical method of taking more whales than the official qouta and makes a mockery of all the ‘sustainability’ propaganda…
This recent BBC article suggests that the UK kills as many cetaceans as a whaling nation, due to toxic pollution, climate change etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6642931.stm
Re sustainability in Norwegian whaling, methinks personally that catches around 600 minkes are sustainable.
What is worrying IMO, is when they discuss to go back to catches around 2000 minkes.
Re pregnant whales , we have had this discussion actually with Rune somewhere on the blog,it had something to do with that the catches are being taken in numbers and not in kilograms ????
‘This recent BBC article suggests that the UK kills as many cetaceans as a whaling nation, due to toxic pollution, climate change etc.’ – Ann
British territorial waters do not have a wall around them, so the suggestion that all pollution in British waters is from Britain is unscientific rubbish…ocean pollution and climate change is a global problem. besides Whaling nations produce emissions that contribute to climate change, toxic pollution, etc. AND hunt whales….. so the real value of the BBC story is to highlight that whaling is an added pressure that cetacean populations do not need when faced with a multitude of other threats…
‘Excuse me Lamna, the blog has been full of statements that Norwegians don’t give a damn about international protests!’ – Ann
The US and UK governments made lots of statements that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, didn’t make it true.
‘our friend Rune has made a comment in Norwegian media that Norwegians don’t care about NGO reactions etc. they just increase their quotas.’ – Ann
Nice to now the quotas are based on ‘science’ eh?
‘This is met by protest from the whalers, and they say if the IWC and the Gov’t issues permits to remote areas , they will succeed with what Greenpeace didn’t manage, namely to halt Norwegian whaling.’ – Ann
Are you suggesting that if the IWC re-introduced commercial whaling, Norway would respond by stopping whaling?? That argument is ..how did you put it?..oh yes..’totally senseless!’
‘OK, this was my last input to Lamna!’ – Ann
I very much doubt that.. :o)
Comment deleted at Ann’s request.
Hi,
The main reason why the TAC is not taken is the market situation. Weather and aivalability of whales matter, but the market is decisive. This is after all a business. With better demand and higher profits, I am pretty sure that the numbers caught would be considerably higher.
To my knowledge, the IWC quota calculation model (CLA/RMP) used by Norway takes into account the male-female ratio of the hunt. I think it assumes a 50-50 ratio. I also think that if the female ratio turns out to be more than 50% then the basic quota is reduced. (I don’t think it is increased if the male ratio is higher than 50%, but could be wrong). The basic quota is set every fifth year.
I cannot respond on behalf of Prof. Lars Walløe. What I reckon he might have said is something along the lines, if you want to achieve this or that, then you should/could do this or that. And then this is construed to be his view, which is then construed to be Norway’s policy.
Rune Frøvik, High North Alliance
Hi Rune,
Nice to have you back on the forum.
‘Another type of information is about the prey, where there’s fish, there are whales. (This is not to commence a whale eats fish debate.) – Rune Frøvik
Yes it is Rune, you have used the word ‘prey’, followed by the phrase ‘where there is fish there is whales; then mentioned the commercially valuable species ‘herring’ and specifically herring fisheries..
The implications are clear and merely following them with a statement that ‘This is not to commence a whale eats fish debate.’ is frankly disingenuous in the extreme.
‘normalisation’- Rune Frøvik
Could you be more specific on precisely what the Norwegian government means by ‘normalisation’ in international waters?
‘If this has as consequence that Japan cannot longer be singled out as the only nation that conducts whaling in international waters, that is perfectly fine with us.’ – Rune Frøvik
Could you be more specific on how this differs from a deliberate intention taken by two pro-commercial nations to expand whaling in international waters to test the international political opposition both inside and outside the IWC?
Could you also provide an update on how the High North Alliance is progressing with its political efforts to get certain cetacean species downgraded and / or removed from key international legislation designed to protect those species, using expertise supplied by ex CITES staff from the IWMC non governmental organisation.
‘The possible extensions of EEZs have nothing at all to do with whaling.’ – Rune Frøvik
The suggestion that a nation that commercially hunts whales expanding its EEZ has ‘nothing at all to do with whaling’ is rather unusual logic’ it also appears to contradict a statement I believe you made last year refering to the expense of crossing international waters to reach Norwegian EEZs for whaling.
‘Like now cargo vessels can sail in international waters carrying IUU-fish, and nobody can stop them. If these waters were EEZs, they could be stopped, arrested, confiscated when passing through these waters.’- Rune Frøvik
Here we agree on something, Do you have a collegue who could give detaled comment on these matters on this forum?
What are the current penalties for this type of crime in Norway?
Do penalties extend to the companies that own the vessels or just the vessel and crew and if so are they punitive enough to act as a deterent?
What are the statistics for Norwegian prosecutions for this type of crime over the last ten years for both Norwegian and foreign vessels and what consideration has been given to the scenario that Norwegian / foreign vessels will simply move these type of transfers to international waters just outside any new EEZ?
It would be informative since a common thread in discussions on this forum is that EEC countries tell other countries what to do, while making no attempt to clean up their own backyard.
Apologies to Rune, Norway is not a member of the EEC.
Just a short comment here today….
To Lamna …. Jennifer told me once to be reasonable against you, that’s why I still continue to reply to your comments….
To Rune,
I agree with Lamna that we appreciate to have you at the forum discussing whaling with us.
To all,
Actually Greenpeace Norway thinks that a catch of about 600 minkes is sustainable.
Well, the main trouble right now in the Barents Sea , and the international waters are illegal trawling by Russians and Spaniards. The Norwegian Coast Guard is doing a good job to arrest the trawlers and the transferring ships…
I only wish that some whalers and politicians do recognise that the problem with the depletion of fish stocks is pirate fishing ( IUU-fishing) and that this poses the greatest threat to coastal Norway.
I would appreciate to have a ” whales eat fish ” discussion with Rune.
The usual method for ‘laundering’ the fish involves under-reporting their daily catches – then transhipping (transferring) some of the catch to a reefer (refrigerated cargo vessel) like the Mumrinskiy. These reefers then bring the stolen fish into Dutch ports, where landing documents are not verified, allowing the fish into the European market through Holland.
To Rune,
Here are some thoughts from me re the ” whales eat fish ” discussion.
Meanwhile I personally can accept a moderate hunt of minkes and people eating hvalbiffar since I believe if killed humanely ” :
. An animal killed instantly within its own environment is under less stress than domestic stock that have been herded, penned, transported etc.” (RSPCA 1985
I’m still confused over the fact that so many Norwegian people that I meet( note I’m not talking about the whaling industry) are under the impression that whales are a threat to fisheries and if you don’t hunt them some will starve to death.
This has probably to do with the official party line and also with Mr Walloes statement ” for every minke we kill, this and that many tons of fish can be saved for fishermen”.
There are as well the extremists who point out that if Norwegians don’t kill whales , they will destroy the coastal communities and that the whales eat more fish than IUU-fishing.
Single species management has never been succesful and I really, really hope that soon most Norwegians will realise that whales are not a threat to commercial fisheries.
Lamna mentions EEC, but that is EUs former name. It is called EU since 1993
Ann’s quite right.. I’m showing my age… :o)
The Maastricht treaty, signed in November, 1993 changed the EEC’s name and it became the European Community. The European Community, along with the ECSC and Euratom, became known as the European Communities and became collectively known as the European Union.
To clarify Norway is not a full member of the European Union either, although Norway’s relations with the EU are mainly governed by the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The EEA Agreement in force since January 1994, extends the Single Market legislation, with the exception of Agriculture and Fisheries, from the EU Member States to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Through the EEA Agreement, Norway also participates, albeit with no voting rights, in a number of EU Agencies and programmes, covering i.a. enterprise, environment, education and research programmes.
Ann,
I know of one relevant study:
“Direct and indirect effects of minke. whale abundance on cod and herring fisheries: A scenario experiment for the Greater. Barents Sea.”
I’ve not seen it myself but it apparently showed that having an extra minke whale in the sea would result in 5 tonnes less yield for the herring and cod fishery.
Hi David,
Methinks this is the exact statement that the Norwegians use / have used.
However, the issue seems much more complex. I saw a study from the University of Tromsö re diminishing cod stocks. They did not point out the whales. There were other mechanisms at play… seemed as well be much about climate change
I see that Norwegiam fisheries media say that fish stocks are decreasing due to warmer climate.
Anyway, Rune said somewhere. If Greenpeace really want to do some real environmental work they should leave the whaling issue and focus on climate change.
Probably Rune doesn’t want to commence a whale eats fish debate, he seems to have stated that as I have understood and this is a very sensitive issue for Norwegians….
Norway on the extent of its continental shelf:
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/Press-Contacts/News/2006/Norway-submits-documentation-on-the-extent-of-its-continental-shelf.html?id=436866
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/kilde/ud/prm/2006/0375/ddd/pdfv/299461-sokkel.pdf
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/kilde/ud/prm/2006/0375/ddd/pdfv/299461-sokkel.pdf
Delimitation line Greenland/Denmark Spitsbergen/Norway:
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/Press-Contacts/News/2006/Delimitation-line-in-the-sea-areas-between-Greenland-and-Svalbard-established.html?id=438505
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/kilde/ud/prm/2006/0141/ddd/pdfv/273564-kart025.pdf
Norway on IUU-fisheries:
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd/Press-Centre/Press-releases/2007/Welcome-decline-in-overfishing-in-the-Ba.html?id=458800
http://www.fisheries.no/management_control/recourse_management_control/IUU_fishing_definition.htm
Map:
http://www.fisheries.no/NR/rdonlyres/859F606D-51A7-4F03-9BE3-A543ACE1E6F5/56040/nez800px.gif
English website Norway’s Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal affairs:
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fkd.html?id=257
I shall try and return to some issues brought up by you.
Ann: I do not fancy that you copy and post previous posts I have submitted on other occassions/threads without specifying that you have done so, cf. your post 12 May, 11:29 PM. I would appreciate if you could ask Jennifer to either delete the submission or to edit it such that it becomes clear that this is copied from a previous different discussion. Thanks.
Rune Frøvik, High North Alliance
Lamna
>’Like now cargo vessels can sail in international waters carrying IUU-fish, and nobody can stop them. If these waters were EEZs, they could be stopped, arrested, confiscated when passing through these waters.’- Rune Frøvik
Here we agree on something, Do you have a collegue who could give detaled comment on these matters on this forum?
What are the current penalties for this type of crime in Norway?
Do penalties extend to the companies that own the vessels or just the vessel and crew and if so are they punitive enough to act as a deterent?
What are the statistics for Norwegian prosecutions for this type of crime over the last ten years for both Norwegian and foreign vessels and what consideration has been given to the scenario that Norwegian / foreign vessels will simply move these type of transfers to international waters just outside any new EEZ?
It would be informative since a common thread in discussions on this forum is that EEC countries tell other countries what to do, while making no attempt to clean up their own backyard
Lamna you are a Greenpeace supporter and you know some people at GPI.
The questions you pose are actually Greenpeace issues , so I’m very surpised that meanwhile you are bitching a lot you have no clue about those issues.
Methinks the Arctic Sunrise is currently in the North Sea and dealing with some of those issues.
I know as well that Greenpeace Norway works especially with pirate fishing.
OK, Rune , sorry,
I agree that I should have mentioned that your comment was from an earlier thread.
As far as I have understood from an article in Norwegian media , it was preferred in the past? to hunt big , pregnant cows.
If I’m wrong , please correct me.
Going to ask Jennifer to delete it.
To Rune,
I hope you’re not going to post some ” Norge-historier” !
“To Rune,
I hope you’re not going to post some ” Norge-historier” !” Ann
????
R
Oh, come on Rune, sure you know what ” Norge -historier” are !!!!
You know the stories, we have about the crazy Norwegians;) . You sure must have ” Sverige-historier” as well;)
Ann
‘I’ve not seen it myself but it apparently showed that having an extra minke whale in the sea would result in 5 tonnes less yield for the herring and cod fishery.’ – David
Not only has David not seen the report, he fails to put it in perspective –
In 1997 the allowable herring quota was 1,498,000 tonnes…. lets just repeat that, almost 1.5 MILLION tonnes… for The European Community, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway and The Russian Federation. Norway’s share of that quota was 854,000 tonnes.
– Agreed Record Of Conclusions of Fisheries Consultations On The Managment Of The Norwegian Spring Spawning Herring (Atlanto-Scandian Herring) Stock In The Northeast Atlantic for 1997.
Just one extra fishing vessel operating at a third of optimum efficiency means approx. 2098 tonnes less fish in the ocean.
‘We find that optimal landings at average prices are 6,296 tonnes, about three times the average quantity actually landed in the fleet. Hence, as expected there seems to be substantial overcapacity in this fleet.’
– Fishermen Behaviour with Individual Vessel Quotas – Over-capacity and Potential Rent
by
Frank Asche,
Stavanger University College and Centre for Fisheries Economics, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Norway.
Trond Bjørndal,
Department of Economics and Centre for Fisheries Economics, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Bergen, Norway
and
Daniel V. Gordon,
Department of Economics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada and Centre for Fisheries Economics
The study goes on to point out these rather interesting facts about TAC quota systems –
‘Traditionally, most fisheries can be characterised either as unregulated or regulated open access.
Typical in a regulated open access fishery is a restriction on harvest given by a Total Allowable Catch Quota (TAC), often combined with restricted entry and input controls. Under these circumstances, the incentive for fishermen is to maximise their share of the catch.
This incentive will lead to a race among fishermen to capture the largest share possible of the TAC and to over-capacity in harvesting as fishermen
substitute away from those inputs restricted by regulation (Munro and Scott, 1985).
These regulations can, in many cases, make the overcapacity problem more severe than in
unregulated fisheries because of the race to fish (Homans and Wilen, 1997). What is more, the common property nature of the resource is essentially unaltered by these regulations and resource rents are dissipated.’
– Fishermen Behaviour with Individual Vessel Quotas – Over-capacity and Potential Rent
Since David is also deliberately implying that this is desperately needed food for humans lets have a look at what is happening to herring catches –
‘The latest intelligence has it that a considerable quantity of summer herring remains in cold stores and much of it in fillet form. Whilst some of this will undoubtedly be turned into fishmeal, it is feared that the rest will be used as a lever to drive down the trading value of North Sea herring.’
– Eurofish Herring Market Report, February 2007.
So over harvesting means that large quantities of herring are sitting in stockpiles waiting to be made into animal feed and fertiliser with the risk it will still drive down the price of herring for human consumption….
Whales are not a threat to commercial fish stocks. Over harvesting by industrialised commercial fishing fleets and the shortage of permanent NO-Take reserves based on spawning grounds that allow stocks to maintain their numbers for sustainable quotas outside the reserve areas are the real culprits.
Hi Rune,
Thank you for the links and I look forward to your response to the other issues.
” In 1997 the allowable herring quota was 1,498,000 tonnes…. lets just repeat that, almost 1.5 MILLION tonnes… for The European Community, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway and The Russian Federation. Norway’s share of that quota was 854,000 tonnes.”
Yes, lets look at these 1997 herring catches in perspective shall we ?
1997 – Estimated Biomass was a little over 8 million tonnes
Lets repeat that – over Eight Million tonnes …
http://www.imr.no/__data/page/6538/2.3.1_Norsk_vaargytende_sild.pdf
To date, Norwegian fisheries management of NVG Herring is probably one of the best fisheries management successes in the world
There´s a short discussion of it in the archives if anybody cares to look 😉
Another reference paper :
http://www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/256D5C58-BC28-4D31-AEEB-7C5FA785E1A3/0/HerringNorwegianSpringSpawners06.pdf
To Rune,
I have asked Jennifer via e-mail to delete the comment you asked me to…
As far as I know there are record catches of herrings right now, but re the whale eats fish discussion the Norwegians are mostly concerned about the impact of whales on cod fisheries….
George’s straw man rhetoric as disingenuous as ever, a quota of 1.5 million tonnes, an estimated biomass of approx. 8 million tonnes..Yet the pro-commercial whaling propaganda is that whales are eating all the fish……
On the subject of cod – the cold water copepod, a form of zooplankton that forms an important part of juvenile cods’ diet is moving north due to warming seas and this is changing the availablity of cod to some fisheries however the average cod now caught is only six years old despite the fact that cod have evolved to live for more than 20 years; laying ever more numerous eggs with a better survival ratio, as they do so.
Quotas are also extensively compromised in any mixed fishery zone; hundreds of tonnes of commercial fish are dumped dead back into the sea each year because trawling is not a selective method of fishing and the fishing vessels will. have more than one species quota to fulfill.
Once a species quota is reached the vessel concerned simply dumps the dead surplus but continues to trawl in the hope of filling its other quotas (except those vessels who land black fish* illegally or transfer it at sea to other vessels).
*black fish – a term used in the European fishing industry to describe over quota catches.
‘record catches of herrings right now’ – Ann
The Minke Whale’s Diet
The minke whale does not just eat krill and plankton. Preliminary results from the Norwegian scientific whaling programme show that its staple diet consists first and foremost of fish, PARTICULARLY HERRING, but also cod, haddock and saithe. IN THE NORTH, near the ice fields, it eats A LOT OF KRILL, whereas capelin is the main ingredient in the eastern Barents Sea.
– High North Alliance
According to the Marine Research Institute of Iceland, cod represents approximately 3 to 6% of the Icelandic Minke whale diet.
‘Stomach contents samples were obtained from ten animals. The diet comprised mainly sandeels (Ammodytidae, around two-thirds of the diet by number or weight) and clupeids (herring Clupea harengus and sprat Sprattus sprattus).’
– Diet of minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata in Scottish (UK) waters with notes on strandings of this species in Scotland 1992–2002.
by
G.J. Pierce**, M.B. Santos**, R.J. Reid***, I.A.P. Patterson*** and H.M. Ross***.
** – Department of Zoology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen
*** – SAC Veterinary Services
Still at it Batty ?.. LMAO ..
Straw man?
“you have used the word ‘prey’, followed by the phrase ‘where there is fish there is whales; then mentioned the commercially valuable species ‘herring’ and specifically herring fisheries..”
” The implications are clear and merely following them with a statement that ‘This is not to commence a whale eats fish debate.’ is frankly disingenuous in the extreme.”
If I use the word Idiot, followed by the phrase ” where there are idiots there are certain Greenpeace supporters, then mention the commercially valuable donations Greenpeace solicits and specifically (FILL IN ALARMIST FACTIOD HERE )
The implications are also clear using your logic ;Op
Dear oh dear .. straw man indeed – make sure you don´t light any matches Batty …
‘make sure you don´t light any matches ‘ – George
You’re the expert McSophist.. your latest post is a complete non sequitur to the quote it contains..
You are starting to sound like Schiller and that isn’t a good idea if you are intending to impress the undecided with the quality of your objective logic.. rather than merely showboating for the rabidly anti-green…
Tell me Batty, what part of ” ‘This is not to commence a whale eats fish debate.” Don´t you understand?
muppet
‘Don´t you understand?’
Tell me George what part of ‘Another type of information is about the prey, where there’s fish, there are whales’.. IS commencing a whales eat fish debate…Or where you just having problems focusing through the blur of single malt….
In the north east atlantic, especially in the polar regions – you will generally tend to find higher concentrations of Whales around high concentrations of prey – so if you are toddling along on the briny sea looking specifically for whales, and either hear fishing vessels nearby on VHF talking about catches and or spot some on the radar .. you call and ask nicely if they have seen whales – if they have, you head there – if not, you continue on your merry way .. thats what we head cleaners call information ….
I´m sure that is what Rune is referring to but he can speak for himself of course
Some whales eat fish – no debate 🙂 ( unless you´d like to argue otherwise of course ..LOL
The only debate is in your own head muppet
This topic had some high points for once, but it keeps getting brought back down by insults. I’d wanna learn alot more from you George if you would stop with the attacks on certain posters here. It is very unnecessary.
Nice try George but no cigar..
‘Another type of information is about THE PREY, where there’s fish, there are whales’- Rune Frøvik
Combined with the persistant whaling propaganda about whales impact on fish stocks and the fact that Minke whales diet includes herring that is very definately entering the whales eat fish debate.. adding a disclaimer doesn’t work.
Take the shame George. This is not to commence a George should take the shame debate…. :o)
Hi Winston,
I suggest you read back through the whaling posts to find out why I reply to Batty in kind these days… His sh*t smearing ad hominem´s towards various posters on this forum ( and others ) are well documented I simply can´t be arsed being polite to the muppet any more 😉
Batty – the only combining is in your head as usual….
Norwegian organisation ” Dyrebeskyttelsen” ( The animals protection)states ” it is unresponsible to blame the whales needs to eat fish as an argument to increase quotas….
this argument ca lead to harm Norway’s reputation.”
They continue: ” The whales are a part of the eco-system, and the fish that the whales consume are brought back to the eco-system”
A very good argument IMO !
This info from an anti-whaling Norwegian organisation that states as well that the minkes are not endangered .
It is as well interesting to note that IUU-fishing catches in the Barents Sea are estimated to be around 400 000- 500 000 tons.
As far as I have understood these numbers are about equal to those that some people claim that the whales consume.
http://www.dyrebeskyttelsen.no/pressemeldinger/20040722_hval_og_fisk.shtml
Note,my numbers on the IUU-fishing was only about the COD stock.
There are many more species that are affected by IUU-fishing…
Rather depressing to read in one of Rune’s links that a reduction in over fishing is the ‘good news’ despite the fact that rampant Russian over quota fishing in the Barents Sea is still the norm –
The 2006 report on Russian fishing of cod and haddock presented today by the Directorate of Fisheries states that Russian fishing in excess of quota in 2006 fell by 23% (equivalent to 23,000 tonnes) for cod, and by fully 55% (equivalent to 20,000 tonnes) for haddock. Estimating overfishing involves great uncertainty and poses many methodological challenges…
‘2006 saw a distressingly high catch far above the set quotas, and this underlines the need for continuing to work on measures to combat unreported fishing,” says State Secretary Vidar Ulriksen of the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs.
Hey,
Sea Shepherd has announced that the Farley Mowat is leaving Melbourne for the North Atlantic “to go after Iceland’s illegal commercial whaling operations”.
Quote sea shepherd:
“We intend to create an international incident over Iceland’s refusal to comply with international protection regulations.”
How about that George? Maybe your final prediction will prove wrong, at least with respect to Sea Shepherd if not Greenpeace.
So, how will the Government of Iceland, Mr. Loftsson, the Iceland MRI, and Dutch authorities react?
If the need arises I hope the Icelandic authorities take some very draconian measures to deal with this bunch indeed, and I also look for some strong leadership from the IWC signatories later this month as well.
Also from Sea Shepherd:
“The whales are counting on us for protection . . .
We are counting on you to keep us fighting for them.”
“Donate Now”
http://www.seashepherd.org/ragnarok/index.html
Geeee, this was the craziest thing I have heard for a long time….
If you are anti whaling this is actually very bad news….
The Watson guy lacks every ability to make a rational analysis, it all comes down to his ego…
Ann,
I still can’t understand why the Dutch ship registry would have not found something in their policy to prevent them from registering these guys.
Even Belize saw fit to strike them off their registry, and over the years Belize have had a reputation for being an easy flag to buy.
Watson also served 80 days in prison in the Netherlands back in 1997 in relation to a 1992 incident in Norway.
This should be hugely embarrassing for the Dutch authorities if you ask me – I’m surprised this hasn’t been taken up more in the media, but then I guess governments don’t have as much budget for media publicity as some NGOs.
David, I have no clue why SS could register their ship in the Netherlands…
Might be that their general policy is very liberal????
As I see it , ordinary people and people who are neutral will only get angry if SS actually can do some harm to some vessels in the whaling fleet.
People will ony gather together against a ” foreign enemy” . This has been proved since ancient times…
Ann,
Yeah, I think support for commercial whaling will only increase in Iceland as a result of any upcoming Sea Shepherd actions. Events earlier this year got a lot of coverage in Japan, which I assume would have been positive for the pro-whaling support base.
On the other hand, this is most likely positive from the perspective of Sea Shepherd’s donation gathering activities as well.
As for the Netherlands ship registry, I don’t know what their policy is, but I can only assume that it doesn’t include a “registration may be denied at the discretion of the authority” type of clause. I can’t imagine that they would really have wanted to potentially waste tax payer resources on dealing with these guys in the future when they inevitably cause trouble again. The Dutch aren’t hard up for the cash.
Yup David, probably all this fuss is only about donations….however, I’m sure that GP Nordic is not very happy with a SS action in Iceland. It will put back their work…
Well, let’s see whats gonna happen…
Actually , I checked out Morgunbladit, Iceland’s biggest papper( my Icelandic is very poor) but didn’t see anything about SS…
Let’s check out Iceland Review later today…
Hi David,
” How about that George? Maybe your final prediction will prove wrong, at least with respect to Sea Shepherd if not Greenpeace.”
Could be, could be :O) … I´ll still bet that Watson won´t be anywhere near the ship if it ever gets there 😉 I hope to be proved wrong tho …
and I wish the ships V/s Týr, V/s Ægir and the rest of the Icelandic Coastguard all success in arresting them. Pity the UT 512L OPV won´t be delivered till 2009 but thats the breaks 🙂
On a side note, it looks like Laos may very well be Joining the IWC …. who´da thunk it …
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21735941-5005961,00.html
Probably both camps are involved in this IMO stinky vote-buying…
I see something ” similar” in a press release from the mentioned Norwegian organisation back from 2000, which states there is ” vote-buying” as well in the CITES.
Norwegian delegates had the mandate to vote with African countries to downlist the elephant,if the African delegates in turn voted to downlist minkes.
Don’t know exactly how this affair turned out….
http://www.dyrebeskyttelsen.no/pressemeldinger/20000406.shtml
FYI, Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs records on the web show that officials of Laos and Japan have been discussing the situation at the IWC since at least as early as 2004. I doubt it would take 3 years to “buy” a vote, if that’s what’s going on.
… and while withholding an opinion with regards to Lord Ashcroft and Belize, I doubt the anti’s have been “buying” votes either.
“And now with reports that Laos is willing to join in with Japan the situation is even more serious as this suggests Japan has the numbers.”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21739049-1702,00.html
What is Peter Garrett on?
It’s interesting to note that Greenpeace’s the Arctic Sunrise is carrying out direct actions against scottish trawlers in the North Sea currently and not against some vessels in the Norwegian whaling fleet.
‘It’s interesting to note that Greenpeace’s the Arctic Sunrise is carrying out direct actions against scottish trawlers in the North Sea currently and not against some vessels in the Norwegian whaling fleet.’ – Ann
Why?
>It’s interesting to note that Greenpeace’s the Arctic Sunrise is carrying out direct actions against scottish trawlers in the North Sea currently and not against some vessels in the Norwegian whaling fleet.
If Greenpeace were carrying out direct actions against some vessels in the Norwegian whaling fleet and not against scottish trawlers in the North Sea would that be interesting too?
Sorry Ann, I am not meaning to sound mean here, but it is an odd statement. Everyone has ideas about what NGOs/governments/researchers should be doing, but they can’t do everything.
Here are some opposite statements from a Norwegian paper on whaling.
http://www.bt.no/innenriks/article292097.ece
” It’s not cult anymore to eat whale meat”, states Greenpeace’s spokesman.
” This is all lies, states a spokesman for a fishermen/ whalers organisation ( Råfisklaget).Whale meat is more popular than ever.”
Greenpeace states as well there is lots of political support for whaling but this doesn’t mirror the demand for whale meat etc.
The poor catches comes as well together with an increased acceptance for whale meat.
Spokesman for the Råfislkaget, says that people in the world are getting to understand that Norwegian whaling is sustainable.
.
Excuse me for the spelling errors….this is too early for me!
Greenpeace Norway’s spokesman, has stated that anti whaling protests helped the whaling industry …
Icelandic Head of the Whale watching industry didn’t want that the Rainbow Warrior visited Iceland as this might undermine the domestic anti whaling movement…
A Japanese scientist at the New York Whales Symposium , stated ” Japan is not pro whaling, but we are anti-NGO”.( The summary from this meeting can be found at former GPI director Rene Parmentier’s blog).
This BBC article published today,asks ” Did Greens help kill whales ?”
” When activists look back from this year’s IWC meeting , which marks the 25th anniversary of the moratorium decision, will they feel any qualms about their lobbying, demonstrating, boycotting and suing might have been too extreme, forcing Japan ( and other whaling nations, my note) to kick back?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6659401.stm
My personal opinion on this is that many protests have really been counterproductive and this anti whaling movement seems much to be about fundraising and using good hearthed peoples money and conscience.
“Sorry Ann, I am not meaning to sound mean here, but it is an odd statement. Everyone has ideas about what NGOs/governments/researchers should be doing, but they can’t do everything”. Travis.
Yes, Travis , that is indeed a correct observation, but why I mentioned this is that Greenpeace Norway has not updated their site the last 6 or 7 years on Norwegian whaling and not mentions that the whaling season resumes etc. This I find very ” interesting”….
>My personal opinion on this is that many protests have really been counterproductive and this anti whaling movement seems much to be about fundraising and using good hearthed peoples money and conscience.
So what are your thoughts on whaling Ann? Should we bring back commercial whaling? Should NGO’s drop whaling from their agenda? I have found it quite difficult to follow your thougts on this issue as they seem to swing lke a pendulum.
Travis,
Greenpeace Norway’s site do contain GP actions in Southern Oceans but not a peep that Norwegian whaling is unsustainable or that consumers shouldn’t eat whale meat….
” I have found it quite difficult to follow your thougts on this issue as they seem to swing like a pendulum.” Travis.
Sorry,if you have got this impressium….I’m just confused why Greenpeace carries out actions in the Southern Oceans.
I want a solution where fewest possible whales are killed… this is what I’m really interested in …and is a solution to this the formet IWC Commissioner’s proposal or a moratorium:
– no whaling in the Sancuary
– no trade in whale products
-only coastal Japanese whaling
I’m also confused about the sustainability issue..
as many people do accept that CURRENT Norwegian whaling is sustainable, the NGOs all think that Japanese whaling is unsustainable, even if there are more whales in the SOS and the Norwegian quota is bigger….
Note I mean former US IWC Commissioner’s proposal.
Looking back . We have sent millions of e-mails to the Government’s and nothing have happened… the whaling nation’s have just increased the quotas…
Travis, this IS confusing, as I get as well many contradictary signals from Greenpeace…
Sometimes thet say ” we want to end whaling”
Sometimes they say ” we want to end commercial whaling”
And now they say ” we want to end high seas whaling”
Ann,
It’s a good observation and I think it’s the state of confusion that the anti-whaling lobby industry is in. What is the most plausible argument they can make today?
On “aboriginal subsistence” whaling Greenpeace take a “no position” position, neither supporting or opposing. That in itself is ludicrous for a conservation group (and likewise where animal welfare groups are concerned). They should have an opinion on it, because these hunts are a negative impact on the targeted whale stocks (oh and especially so because of the multitude of threats that whales face today in the 21st century, to borrow their rhetoric).
The problem is that as soon as they take a conservation oriented position on “aboriginal subsistence” whaling they will be called for their double-standards on other whaling.
It’s damn hard to find what Greenpeace really think these days. When I went to their new whales site, there’s plenty of information about their campaigns and ways to “take direct action” or donate money, but as far as I could tell, nothing on *why* anyone should. I’m not sure if that’s a design flaw with their homepage design, or just a deliberate choice. Various people have various reasons for opposing whaling, it’s easier to just be a mouthpiece to “stop it!” rather than to actually represent a specific principle or point of view.
To Travis,
Once again, I’m sorry that the stuff that I have posted is confusing, but I pointed out in the beginning of the thread that I’m going to post BOTH anti and prowhaling articles from papers to boost the discussion.
And the whaling issue seems much more complex than David’s and Rune’s maximal utilization concept vs an Australian total no whaling concept.
The whaling nations are nowhere close to end whaling.
And what about a third position? On the Swedish former Govt’s website it was pointed out that with an RMS fewer whales would be killed in the near future than with the moratorium. This is also our IWC Commissioner’s standpoint. Still methinks they did vote last year for a moratorium…
Speak of the devil, their page has been updated:
“Nearly one thousand whales are hunted every year.
We need your help to make their voices heard all around the world.
The International Whaling Commission is meeting at the end of this month to decide the future for whales around the world. We need your help to make their voices heard all around the world.”
(yes, they actually repeat the same line twice)
So Greenpeace’s role is to “make their voices heard all around the world”?
The IWC is going to “decide the future for whales around the world” this month? I don’t think so. They are going to talk and scream and waste time as usual, and nothing will be decided. The decisions are made in Japan, Iceland and Norway – the only decisions that will be made are related to hunts that Greenpeace takes a “no position” stance on. For other whaling, the only decision that is made is made by the whalers and it’s “should we continue to put up with this situation?” and for the past 25 years the answer has been yes.
Not to mention the factual error – more than a thousand whales are hunted every year, not to mention smaller cetaceans.
Ann,
Funny, they are right, but I think longer term the RMS will see greater numbers of whales killed than at present with Japan only hunting under scientific permit.
It would be a good way to break the deadlock though – commercial whaling under the RMS, but this would require some kind of deal on scientific whaling to make it a win for the anti-whalers in the short term. Not likely to happen though, not so much because of the ICRW right to hunt under scientific permit, but because I don’t think the whalers would trust the anti-whalers to follow through on their side of the deal further down the track (permitting additional quotas as more RMP implementations were completed). It’s really about Japan today since Iceland and Norway are just whaling anyways. Japan has options, after 25 years maybe they are finally going to start to explore them.
To David and Travis,
One of GPI’s head whaling campaigners ( a Norwegian guy) , stated back in a Norwegian paper ” the whaling debate is a circus debate”.
Why I pointed out this fundraising subject…I’m spammed with newsletters from NGOs asking for money…
Back to Travis, yes indeed ,I have been a little bit split as well in the whaling issue as some GP guys have told me that Norwegian whaling IS sustainable, what’s the difference between eating cows and whales, to totally different opinions.
It is not very easy for a layperson to find the correct answers…personally I pick a little here and there and try to be independent….
Travis complains that I’m confusing;) but what about this stuff from WSPA that I just received:
” 2500 whales will be hunted and killed this year”
So Greenpeace points out that 1000 whales will be killed and WSPA says that 2500 will be hunted and killed.
Don’t like this that Greenpeace leaves out to mention the hunted Norwegian whales.
Ann. I am not ‘complaining’ that you are confusing. It was just my perception.
The 1000 wales would simply be the Southern Ocean ones, no mention as you say of Norway’s, or Iceland’s or of course the JARPN II program, which is totally ignored by all. And then of course the small-medium cetaceans.
As usual the finger is pointed at Greenpeace. It is quite amusing that although there is IFAW, HSI, WDCS, Sea Shepherd, WWF and a whole host of smaller NGOs, the sole blame and responsibility rests on Greenpeace. IFAW had a NDA for whales in Australia, NZ and Tonga last weekend, but I guess Greenpeae will be criticised for that too!
Travis,
I’m just teasing;). We know you are a nice person caring about animals and especially whales…
So my thought on Greenpeace Norway was something along the line with this… going to extremes…
from hardcore anti whaling direct actions to not mention whaling at all on their website….
the rough truth is that maybe whaling still is very sensitive to discuss in Norway, environmental NGOs with a prowhaling agenda are popular in Norway, might be a bit confusing for people who don’t know much about Norway….
“aboriginal subsistence” – David
Once again David desperately tries to portray the resumption of International commercial whaling as some sort of cottage industry for Japan, Norway and Iceland on a par with “aboriginal subsistence” whaling; not only is this a complete fabrication but he conveniently fails to mention that Russia, China and Korea amongst others, would all want a commercial quota if international commercial whaling resumed and all would be free to register reservations to any RMP and RMS restrictions…
To Travis,
I have been thinking a lot of the issue re that you have got different perceptions of my comments.
As I previously pointed out , this issue with whaling up in the North is complex. Some environmental NGOs put forth some good arguments for eating whale beefs, such it is eco-friendly etc.
Local WWF has made statements sometimes that they don’t oppose local whaling and GP Nordic doesn’t oppose Norwegian whaling according to a statement from the High North Alliance.
But on a newsletter from HNA, Rune states that indeed GP puts obstacles up for Norwegian whaling.
I would be interested to know what those obstacles are , maybe GP should point out this on their website????
And to make it even more complicated, when I was back in Greenpeace, they told me that whaling was so intertwined in the Norwegian society , that it was impossible to make a campaign, and people ( mostly Swedes) didn’t want to go up to northern Norway to make enemies with the whalers and fishermen….
So what is my position. IMO , Greenpeace Norway should make a statement on their position, such as they oppose? increased quotas as it might be unsustainble and making a statement that overfishing is the cause of the decline of fish stocks, something very simple as that if they now want to avoid confrontations…