“What could have been a very hot issue this year at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is the renewal of the aboriginal whaling quotas, in particular the quota for the United States.
The IWC is a highly polarised, single-issue regime with only whaling on the agenda. Either you are against it or in favour of it. Unlike most other multilateral regimes, it is therefore hard to find something with which to negotiate, something to compromise on. Only a handful of countries have real interests at stake. Simply put, the ordinary horse trading that allows many other international instruments to operate is absent at the IWC.
However, there is one potential major exception. The US is an anti-whaling whaling nation – it hunts whales and is against whaling elsewhere. This is at the outset an irreconcilable and contradictive policy, and has made the US worthy of accusations of double standards and hypocrisy. But this position is perfectly logical and coherent if you look at the interests at stake. This contradiction will continue as long as these very interests are not challenged.
On one hand, the US must promote the whaling interests of Alaska, mainly through securing an aboriginal quota at the IWC. On the other hand the US must satisfy the anti-whaling sentiments of various American animal rights groups. This is done by opposing so-called commercial whaling. Except for the occasional accusation of double standards the US does not have to bear any political or economic costs due to this policy.
In 2002, the US tasted the flavour of their policy, and didn’t enjoy it. A sufficient number of IWC-countries blocked the US bowhead quota at the ordinary annual meeting, pointing out that some Japanese whaling communities were equally worthy of being allocated whaling quotas. The US delegation was told by its politicians to never ever return from any IWC-meeting without a quota to Alaska, no matter what it took. After much wrangling, the US secured the quota at a special meeting held later in the year.
Now it is time for the quota renewal. The US has done its homework. First of all it is hosting this year’s meeting, fully aware that a host’s priorities are rarely neglected. The US has made the pro-whaling nations accept the fallacy and buy into the American propaganda: innocent Alaskans should not be penalised for the behaviour of its own Government.
Those very same pro-whaling nations will, however, accept at the same time that their own innocent, local communities, whether it is Hafnafjordur, Reine or Taiji, should in fact be penalised by the US.
After all the IWC is a meeting of sovereign governments. These should be negotiations at governmental levels, where each and every government is responsible for the consequences of its behaviour, however bad.
What the consequences would be if aboriginal quota was used as a bargaining chip is not evident. Certainly it would rock the boat with strongly worded accusations flying across the tables. But it would also challenge the US power balance, the US whaling policy. The US could very well be forced to make a choice, to find out what should be their first priority: securing their whaling quota or opposing whaling by other peoples. There is reason to believe that securing the whaling quota would win that competition.
If the US were to secure its quota, it would then have to convince other countries as well. More countries than the US would be needed to meet the requirements of those demanding something in return, e.g. a whaling quota also to them.
National interests take priority in international negotiations. It’s quid for pro, give and take. Either all legitimate quota requests are met or everyone goes home empty handed. When pro-whaling nations refuse to use the only bargaining chip available, it should be no surprise to anyone that the whaling conflict continues, that a solution is not found in the IWC.
However, it is worse. When the US gets what it wants, it shows no gratitude. On the contrary, the US then focuses on its second priority – making life hard for the whalers for the next four years, until it once again must behave a short time to secure the renewal of the whaling quota.
The problem is not the US. The problem is the pro-whaling nations refusing to promote and defend their own interests. After 25 years with putting forward good arguments and sound scientific evidence to no avail, it should be time for them to reconsider their strategy by asking themselves: Is there another way of doing things? Is there another way of promoting and defending our interests? The answers to both are yes.
Rune Frovik
High North Alliance
Norway
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Hi Rune,
There exist no political will and courage to challenge anything that has to do with aboriginal hunts worldwide.It doesn’t matter how cruel the hunts are…thinking about for example, Russian aboriginal whaling. The NGOs say they are sustainable.
Even NGOs like IFAW ( that is not a numbers NGO) seems to support, anyway not to oppose aboriginal whaling. Indeed, it’s double standards, especially when the hunts are on more endangered species and more cruel…
The problem might be that whaling nations, including HNA, seem to support a wider scale whaling and not only local whaling.
Just my thoughts….
Well said, Rune. I wasn’t aware of this double standard. And you are right, the one thing hypocrisy cannot coexist with is the clear light of day.
It must also be pointed out that Europe and North America account for more than half of the worlds sea trade and consume the majority of the output of the commercial fishing industries. And that means that the most vigorous anti-whaling nations are also the ones that have, implicitly, accepted and factored into their economy and tax base, the majority of whale deaths from ship strike and fishing gear entaglement.
This whale mortality is apparently in excess of all quota whaling activity and is regarded by these nations as their as-of-right entitlement to do so. They certainly have no intention of restricting their economic growth one tiny bit to reduce this mortality.
But the proportion of total shipping traffic in the worlds oceans that sails under an Icelandic flag, for example, is miniscule. And the proportion of ship strike whale mortality that would rightfully be attributed to Iceland or Norway is also miniscule.
So perhaps the next IWC meeting should be presented with a distribution of annual shipstrike and netting whale mortality, allocated on the basis of each nations share of global GDP. After all, the proper consideration of any resource use issue requires the full consideration of ALL relevant matters.
And that way even land locked nations like Switzerland etc would be compelled to recognise that they are all whaling nations. And they would have no excuse for discriminating against those nations that do their whaling openly and honestly.
It would certainly make the British, French and Germans, along with the USA New Zealand and Australia, crawl back into the nearest hole where they belong.
Just got a newsletter from IFAW. They stated:
” To end the cruelty of all forms of commercial whaling…”
Not a peep about the aboriginal whaling…
I
Hi Ann,
One global village. Local is global, global is local. The more sustainable whaling, the better for the environment. Unfortunately sustainable whaling will not be able to substitute all the world’s destructive food production, but some is better than nothing. Nobody can do everything, not even the whalers…
The note is part of the Hot Issues for the IWC, available at http://www.highnorth.no/IWC2007/hotissue.htm
Rune
>…the majority of whale deaths from ship strike and fishing gear entaglement.
This whale mortality is apparently in excess of all quota whaling activity and is regarded by these nations as their as-of-right entitlement to do so. They certainly have no intention of restricting their economic growth one tiny bit to reduce this mortality.
My, what a turn around. This coming from someone who has argued on this forum that ship strike and entanglement do not pose great threats to whales. You never cease to amaze.
Yes, any country that kills whales is whaling, because the term is interchangeable just like some people’s brains here.
> interchangeable just like some people’s brains here.
Unnecessary.
Whaling: An internal outrage http://greatreporter.com/mambo/content/view/1415/1
Not bad. Spin debunking continues.
Rune
David some people’s brains are interchangeable in terms of the ideas and morals they come up with depending on how they suit their pov. Your judgment, for example, that my comment is ‘unnecessary’ is highlighted by the fact that you would find similar comments by those who support your pov acceptable, without comment.
Rune is exactly right. Why do we need to discuss this?
Why do we need to discuss this? Because it’s a problem, and problems are only resolved only if they are defined, the underlying issues truly understood, and options assessed.
It’s unlikely that a forum such as this will resolve the problem, but there are enough readers close enough to the issue that it may benefit. And maybe, somebody will come up with a lateral idea that may start the ball rolling somewhere else.
I have no idea on this apart from believing that the world will be a poorer place without whales, but:
Are the any precedents in related areas – For example WRT to Aust Aborigines traditional hunting of dugong?
Are there any precedents in semi-related areas – For example, spear fishing? (It’s not allowed on scuba). Maybe define “traditional” hunting as activity carried out in a “traditional” manner, i.e. no motorised vessels, guns etc allowed? And exclude it from the IWC discussion.
Are there any precedents in non-related areas – ????
What are the boundary events – let’s say that traditional hunting is allowed, and the last two bow whales cruise into a defined traditional hunting area? Can / should “we” (i.e. the moral majority) stop it?
Discussion helps to understand the problem and the options.
cheers
Arnost
Well, Arnost,
Some problems only exist because some people make them so. Can you imagine how many billions of creatures, earthworms, insects and others, are killed worldwide by the the equipment used to till the soil?
And this includes “organic” tilling. Untold carnage.
I will now point out how world governments turn a blind eye to this reckless disregard for natural creatures, merely to provide food to humans who suffer from obesity.
There you have it! Another manufactured controversy!
The only reason nobody pays attention to the carnage I mention is because there’s more money behind worrying about whales. They have big eyes, and sing humanly-audible songs.
Travis, if you had an attention span marginally above that of an antichinus in rut you would have noted that my past comments about ship strike and netting were related to claims by Libby that this was of such a scale that it threatened the survival of some species. She even went so far as to include total deaths of dolphins in the one number in a way that could be mistaken as total whale deaths.
The recent posts in respect of the growth of the Humpback populations makes it clear that my view was correct, shipstrike is not of a scale that poses a threat to entire species.
But that is no reason to avoid the proper allocation of responsibility for these whale deaths on the basis of the respective national GDP, the pursuit of which has been the main cause of mortality.
Very interesting link, Rune. Perhaps Iceland should take whale based tourism into a new niche where tourists could pay to watch whale hunting. It could even be “jazzed up” to make a real spectacle, as the Spanish have done with Bullfighting and at Pamplona. And as there are more than 40 million Spaniards and more than 130 million Mexicans this might prove to be more than enough to offset any loss from whale watching.
Another angle is to let the tourist fire, or even throw, the harpoon (after suitable training in a simulator) in the same way the South Africans (one of the 25 vocal anti-whaling nations) get big bucks from “big game hunters”. Whales are clearly “big game”, aren’t it?
The USA also has a thriving “big game fishing” industry, in just about every one of their maritime states, so Iceland would simply be taking advantage of a new niche based on local traditions. Within every second American male is a Hemmingway trying to escape and that means about a million of them with a spare $30,000 to pay for a row boat and a crew of traditional oarsmen to give them a chance to test their mettle. Go for it, there is a world of opportunity from thinking outside the square.
> Travis, if you had an attention span marginally above that of an antichinus in rut
Unnecessary.
Re: the tourism in Iceland – despite what is often said about the threat to tourism of Iceland’s resuming whaling, whale watching numbers actually increased significantly in the years following Iceland’s return to the IWC and subsequent special permit whaling program.
I blogged this at the link below last year, but when I checked the original article now, I notice that the graph illustrating this has vanished, for some reason.
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2007/01/iceland-whale-meat-and-tourism-status.html
“my past comments about ship strike and netting were related to claims by Libby that this was of such a scale that it threatened the survival of some species”.
Your past claims have been on at least two threads. So Ian the North Atlantic right whale is not threatened with extinction from ship/vessel strikes and entanglement? You do have a short and/or selective memory.
“She even went so far as to include total deaths of dolphins in the one number in a way that could be mistaken as total whale deaths”.
No Ian, that was your interpretation, for which I have no responsibility.
Somewhere I just read something from you accussing others of personal vendettas. Hmmm.
Libby, you made a reference to cetacean deaths in a discussion about whaling deaths and neglected to point out that the majority of the cetacean deaths were dolphins. And it has been downhill from you ever since.
“Libby, you made a reference to cetacean deaths in a discussion about whaling deaths and neglected to point out that the majority of the cetacean deaths were dolphins. And it has been downhill from you ever since”.
Here is what I wrote Ian:
“Of course whaling is not the only threat that whales now face. A female humpback whale will reproduce every 2-3 years. But her calf has a high risk of mortality in its first year due to a variety of factors such as predation, entanglement (maybe in Queensland shark nets), illness, its mother being compromised and so on. We know that low frequency sonar such as is used in naval exercises can cause mortality, that there is an increase in the numbers of cetaceans struck by ships (the northern right whale is highly endangered due to vessel strikes), that some 300,000 cetaceans die from entanglement in man-made fishing devices annually, and that scores are killed in pollution-triggered die-offs. That information is out there, and the numbers are often under reported. It is not a simple exercise of saying that whaling will have no impact on cetacean numbers when there are so many other factors at play as well.”
I mentioned “some 300,000 cetaceans”, not specifically whales. Cetaceans are whales, dolphins and porpoises. Had I been talking about entanglement figures specifically for whales I would have given the figure and written the word “whale” near it.
You have conveniently ignored here what you have written regarding entanglement and ship strikes. It appears here http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001125.html#comments, and also at this thread on the North Atlantic right whale http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001741.html#comments.
So instead of addressing this, you have again accused me of something you have misinterpreted and then tried to insult me. I have to wonder what the real purpose of all this is Ian. It certainly seems that it is something personal, and I wonder what it is that you find the need to come out with such outrageous comments and continue along the same lines no matter what.
Libby, don’t flatter yourself by thinking I might have anything personal against you. But it is a novel twist on your standard defamatory innuendo.
The quote you gave above was in a discussion about whales. There was no particular mention of dolphins until you decided to quote world wide data that included dolphins. I stated that I thought this was misleading in the extreme and from that point you have shed any veneer of sweetness and light and replaced it with bile and spite.
You should actually have this checked out because this is the classic response of a person with a narcissistic personality disorder. Any simple statement that contradicts your own view is taken as a personal slight, as if people have nothing better to do than to seek out opportunities to take you down. It would be funny if this condition were not so widespread but it is, and the dysfunction it causes is so unnecessary.
It is easily treated with low level therapy. Consider it, you will find that there is a much more likeable person waiting to be let free.
But thank you for reposting the links to past posts. I had forgotten some of the detail that had gone into them and I stand by what was said.
But this is a string about Iceland, remember, not Libby’s need to get square.
Thank you Ian, you have just managed to illustrate my point perfectly.
So I take it you still stand by your comment “shipstrike is not of a scale that poses a threat to entire species”?
Is it legal to be this close to a whale?
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/oceans/fingers-crossed-its-iwc-59
Comments from Nan Rice:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200705240906.html
(quote)
Rice said she believed it was time for environmental organisations to re-think the situation.
Instead of spending millions of dollars on “futile” campaigns against Japanese whalers in Antarctic waters, they should invest in research to find ways of making the killing of whales more humane.
(end quote)
Yes, shipstrike is not of a scale that poses a threat to entire species. The US East coast population of Northern Right Whales has been severely depleted by past harvesting activities and ship strike is one of the impacts limiting the rate of increase in that population.
A limitation on the rate of increase is an important distinction from a cause of population reduction. And in the broader context in which the original statement was made, ie in relation to Humpbacks and Minkes, shipstrike poses absolutely no threat to populations that are expanding by up to 10% per annum.
Now that we have stroked Libbys ego with some attention, again, time to get back to the issue of allocating shipstrike and entanglement mortality to all nations on the basis of their share of global GDP. Note the speed at which our former Greenpeace crewmember moved to change the subject?
Does anyone know of any (reliable, non-greenfarce)breakdown of shipstrike and entanglement mortality by species?
David, in Australia being that close is apparently still OK if the whale approached the vessel. But it is illegal to get ahead of a whale in a way that makes the whale approach the vessel.
This is not a distinction that would be widely understood by most tourists so the operator is generally free to circumvent this prescription.
Interesting to note that todays Courier Mail had an article on “concerns” that the resumption of Humpback whaling would discourage whales from “approaching” tourist vessels. But one would have thought that such highly intelligent sentient beings would have the nous to distinguish between a ship in the southern ocean in summer and a gin palace in the coral sea in winter. Simple variables in time and place that my dog would have no trouble comprehending.
“Is it legal to be this close to a whale”?
Yes if the whale approached the boat.
“A limitation on the rate of increase is an important distinction from a cause of population reduction”.
A process can be a threat to a specie’s survival even if it was not responsible for its initial decline.
“And in the broader context in which the original statement was made, ie in relation to Humpbacks and Minkes..”
This was the broader statement made by you and then questioned by Travis:
“>…the majority of whale deaths from ship strike and fishing gear entaglement. This whale mortality is apparently in excess of all quota whaling activity and is regarded by these nations as their as-of-right entitlement to do so. They certainly have no intention of restricting their economic growth one tiny bit to reduce this mortality”.
This is what you then wrote:
“Travis, if you had an attention span marginally above that of an antichinus in rut you would have noted that my past comments about ship strike and netting were related to claims by Libby that this was of such a scale that it threatened the survival of some species”.
You made two past statements regarding ship strike and entanglement mortality (links above). One was the North Atlantic right whale thread. If you wish to accuse me of ‘misleading’ people by using broad terms such as “cetaceans”, “dolphins” and “whales”, I suggest you don’t lead by example and choose your species later in the argument.
“Note the speed at which our former Greenpeace crew member moved to change the subject”?
I was never a Greenpeace crew member Ian.
>Does anyone know of any (reliable, non-greenfarce)breakdown of shipstrike and entanglement mortality by species?
That’s just bloody rude Ian.
Interesting comments today from Peter Harrison, who in 2005 commented that the rapidly increasing east Australian humpback population must be protected: “Absolutely and particularly at this vulnerable stage because it really is just now starting to show significant signs of increase”
Now in 2007:
“Their behaviour patterns could change dramatically if whaling reoccurs off Antarctica. They might start avoiding whale watching boats and slip by because their natural instinct will mean they avoid engine noises and large boats,” he said.
http://www.gcbulletin.com.au/article/2007/05/25/5343_news.html
The suggestion that whaling may contribute to a reduction in ship strike is a novel one. If killing one whale means saving 5 others, it could be worth further consideration.
Or, conversely is he expressing concern about the possible negative effects on tourism?
Some news from Norway.
Only 40 minkes have so far been killed in this seasons hunt…
And now , in the middle of the whaling season new regulations have been adopted.
The Gov’t has decided that only 165 minkes can be hunted in coastal areas. This has to to with my previously mentioned recommendations from the IWCs SC.
Whalers are angry with this decision and critics say that maybe only 165 minkes will be killed this season….seems as many whalers don’t want to travel far away due to bunkering costs…
“The suggestion that whaling may contribute to a reduction in ship strike is a novel one. If killing one whale means saving 5 others, it could be worth further consideration.
Or, conversely is he expressing concern about the possible negative effects on tourism?”
The article said:
“looking at current breeding patterns there was a real risk whalers could instil fear in the mammals. Their behaviour patterns could change dramatically if whaling reoccurs off Antarctica. They might start avoiding whale watching boats and slip by because their natural instinct will mean they avoid engine noises and large boats,” he said.
He is suggesting that the animals may become boat-shy. But hey, what would I know?
Let’s hope they do become boat shy, for their own sake.
Ian, there is a ship strike working group at the IWC:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC59docs/59-CC3.pdf
Infractions from the IWC:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC59docs/59-INF4.pdf
Two South Korea infractions involving minke whales.
Given the IWC’s reluctance to properly regulate whaling in this area, I wonder if Japan and South Korea couldn’t do a better job on a bi-lateral basis.
And how many whales are the hungry North Koreans killing?
To Rune,
I think personally you will get a rough and tough ride trying to sell whale meat as an eco-friendly choice in case commercial whaling resumes.
A whale steak in Lofoten might be eco-friendly , but what about whale harvested in the Southern Oceans or in waters far way? Thinking about bunkering costs,
Basically, the NGOs have or will ruin the markets in the Western countries, people all believe that all whales are endangered.
I saw an example of that from the GP action in Stockholm, two days ago. My morning paper wrote that the whales were endangered, they got the info from Greenpeace.
Maybe some Asian and African countries are interested in to eat whale meat, but the problem on the world market is not lack of meat….
When we are on the topic, personally methinks premoratorium minke catches were unsustainable, didn’t the minke population decrease a lot???
Ann,
> personally methinks premoratorium minke catches were unsustainable,
The Antarctic minke whale is still the world’s most abundant baleen whale species, so I can’t agree with that. Even without the moratorium one also cannot forecast what changes (reductions/increases) may have been made by the IWC if it had continued setting catch limits.
> didn’t the minke population decrease a lot???
You have to deplete a population in order to obtain a harvest from it. How much did the population decrease anyway? In 1990 the abundance estimate was 760,000 (although we should hear more about this next week).
David,
I’m thinking about the North Atlantic minke whale population….hope Rune can dig up some figures…
oops, sorry!
“Let’s hope they do become boat shy, for their own sake”.
Do you mean with regards to whaling vessels or whale watching vessels (or perhaps both)?
http://www.oceana.org/north-america/what-we-do/save-flipper/reports/
Marine mammals killed by commercial fisheries in US waters. Species given.
” Their behaviour patterns could change dramatically if whaling reoccurs off Antarctica. They might start avoiding whale watching boats and slip by because their natural instinct will mean they avoid engine noises and large boats,” he said.”
What natural instinct? is he referring to humpbacks or minkies? Bit of an anthropomorphic statement there… and judging by minke behaviour I´ve personally observed in the Arctic, a bit off target.
Some Minkies avoid boats, some don´t, some actively approach boats, even when one of their bretheren has just been harpooned, winched onboard and flensed ( lots of blood in the water ) In view of the intellegence discussion going on the the other thread .. risky route to go really 😉
“They might start avoiding whale watching boats ”
and conversely they might not … nobody knows
>What natural instinct? is he referring to humpbacks or minkies?
Well, we’ve established that there are no minke whale watch operations down here, so he is talking humpbacks. In fact, if you read the article, he is talking about humpbacks.
Hi Travis,
“They might start avoiding whale watching boats ”
and conversely they might not … nobody knows 😉
– Humpback whales can live for more than 70 years.
– Humpbacks were officially protected back in 1963.
– Thus, humpbacks of 45 years and older were all alive in the final days of the whaling of the old days. Some may have seen their mothers die with (especially Aussie) harpoons sticking out of them, gushing blood into the water.
– …
– Today, a boat based eco-tourism industry exists.
People can fill in the gap as suits their personal position on whaling in general, I think.
I don’t know if old whales remember and avoid killing fields, but I have heard that old elephants do this…
And what of Soviet harpoons, which were fired at a later date? Oh yeah, we have no Russian anti-whalers here.
Good point Libby. Indeed as illegal Soviet whaling is said to have continued into the 1970’s, humpbacks of 38 years or more (not 45 or more) may very well have witnessed very gruesome deaths. My example stands revised 🙂
Eeek! David, if you heard a thud, it was me falling off my chair! Can’t remember the figures right now for Soviet illegally-killed humpbacks, but hence why the South Pacific numbers are so low.
I read an account of a humpback that was harpooned off Norfolk Island. Another animal in the area commenced ‘attacking’ the little whaling boat. Different species respond in different ways. I would not want to tangle with a humpback, sperm, Southern right or Gray whale, but perhaps a minke or even a blue or Bryde’s may not be so bad.
Libby,
The small minkes can be ” aggressive” as well when injured by a harpoon… I know at least two cases where minkes have attacked the small whaling boats and people have got injured….
I shall try to dig up some stories on minkes attackong whaling boats later….
Minke rams whaling boat:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0104/feature3/
Hey Ann,
A book by Jun Hosokawa of Greenpeace Japan apparently conceeds that (my translation) “a part of the responsibility for the distortion [of the futile whaling debate] lies with the anti-whaling movement, including Greenpeace”.
This is what they are saying in Japan to try to regain some face – I think I’ll cut a finger or two off if a Greenpeace International representative ever admits this much in the western media 🙂
I saw that Greenpeace Australia’s director Mr Steve Shallhorn made a statement that sustainable whaling should be stopped.
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?story_id=589176
“The symbolic victory for the pro-whalers last year to support sustainable whaling must be overturned.”
Good spotting Ann, so Shallhorn wants unsustainable whaling? I suppose it would be good for business 🙂
So these animals are not smart enough to distinguish between an industrial size ship in the southern ocean and floating gin palace on the barrier reef? And they are not smart enough to pass on their memory of relatives being harpooned?
Interesting to note how the ship strike data has been inflated by seals as well as dolphins. That data would have some credibility if they had bothered to place the mortality figures beside an estimate of total stocks. But they didn’t, did they?
More on Greenpeace – Junichi Sato of GP Japan is out in the western media saying that he can’t believe the IWC is still entertaining the idea of allowing commercial whaling, because there are so many other threats to cetaceans today.
Meanwhile, an article in Japan’s Yomiuri newspaper has Joji Morishita squaring off with Jun Hosokawa, also of GP Japan, and the message is completely different – Hosokawa stresses that they aren’t against commercial whaling, only that in the southern oceans, and they want people to think about whether the demand for whale meat couldn’t be satisfied just with coastal whaling.
What is Greenpeace’s actual policy? Ann?
This group is worried about compromises apparently:
http://www.campaign-whale.org/latest_news.php?news_id=150
“We are appalled and ashamed that some so-called conservation groups are promoting a compromise that will allow the slaughter of whales for profit when their supporters believe they are opposed to commercial whaling.”
I wonder which groups they are talking about. WWF?
David,
I have no clue about Greenpeace’s actual policy right now…
I have always got the impression that local GP Japan and Norway are less concerned about the whaling issue and not as opposed to commercial whaling as GPI.
I know as well that some GPI persons are not very satisfied with GP Japan’s whaling policy…
It seems as well that GP Japan is mostly focused on nukes…
Local GP Norway is mostly interested in pirate fishing ( IUU-fishing)…
I saw that GP Nordic wanted to include other cetaceans than the “IWC-whales” in the IWC agenda/ management…
I think as well we don’t discuss the small and medium sized cetaceans at all… they are the forgotten whales…
Can Libby for example write a little blog post about them????
Ann,
Are you meaning small-medium cetaceans in general, or only those which are hunted? Trouble is, as soon as I write something, the harpoons get fired in my direction, making the experience highly unpleasant 🙂
Yikes, bad news from Japan today – the head of the Ministry of Agriculture Forests and Fisheries (Matsuoka) apparently committed suicide after being involved in some funding scandals.
LOL! Libby,
Sure the whaling discussions ain’t no popularity contests…everyone sticking out the chin must be prepared to get a knock:) !
Anyway, you always have your knight, Travis, on his white stallion ready to assist you!!!!
Methinks personally it would be great to discuss the small-medium sized cetacean hunts,
PLEEAAZEEEE Libby ,post a blog post!!!!
Hey do you guys remember that time earlier this year when Greenpeace reps from the Esperanza flew into Tokyo, and held a press conference at the flash Fuji Sankei plaza in downtown Otemachi, criticising Japanese groups which prevented their easy entry into port as a denial of their “free speech” (which they exercised in Tokyo to make the claim)?
Today:
“The only circumstances under which Mr Abe should be addressing the Australian parliament is if his country is willing to stop whaling in the Southern Ocean. Anything less is simply not appropriate,” Mr Shallhorn said.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21808380-1702,00.html
Well, all I can say is that this statement does not surprise me.
Hahaha, just reading Junichi’s Japanese blog from Anchorage. He’s criticising them because of all the articles in the Japanese media today, none of the journalists went to Greenpeace to get any opinion from them.
So, as a result Junichi plans to pro actively approach Japanese journalists tomorrow when the meeting starts, because he feels that the media has a responsibility to report both sides of the argument evenly.
Yes indeed! But why talk to Greenpeace when they can talk to Chris Carter, Bill Hogarth, Malcolm Turnbull, or someone more important that him? Why does Greenpeace assume that their opinion is automatically worthy of reporting?
Hey dammit, I want my opinion reported too! I’ve got a blog, why don’t no one quote me?!
“Hey dammit, I want my opinion reported too! I’ve got a blog, why don’t no one quote me?!”
Careful David, they may quote you in a way you you may not wish to be represented, then you have little recourse for reply.
“Sure the whaling discussions ain’t no popularity contests…everyone sticking out the chin must be prepared to get a knock:) !”
Taking time out to do the work and sticking out my chin at your request, only to get it punched…hmmm, yeah that sounds like a worthwhile past time.
“Anyway, you always have your knight, Travis, on his white stallion ready to assist you!!!!”
I think Travis has his stallion at your ready, not mine! I’ve only seen that horse a couple of times.
Sorry femme fatals. I don’t do horses – I’m allergic to them.
Stallion? Try Sancho Panchez, the donkey of Don Quixote fame.
Just stick to the facts, Libby, and you have nothing to fear.
Better to ride an ass than be one Ian.
“Just stick to the facts”
No fear Ian. I just hate wasting time with people who can’t practice what they preach.
One of last night’s new channels showed a story of two Australian teenagers who are over in Anchorage protesting to “Save our humpbacks”. One of them is the daughter of the president of the NSW association of whale watching. I wondered what their response would be if Turnbull and Morishita approached them and said how about the humpbacks are dropped from JARPRA II in exchange for Japanese coastal whaling. Maybe I was being mean.
It got me thinking that perhaps the whale species are contestants in the Big Brother house. After all, JARPN II is happening now, but it never gets any press.
Probably first nomination would be the sei whale. Nobody can accurately pronounce the name, let alone recognise what one is. Isn’t it just a minke on steroids? It’s time to go…sei whale.
The next nomination is for the Gray whale. Aren’t they those whales that get stuck in the ice? Where are they found again? Where’s that?? Ok, they are pretty non-interesting, although if they were down here they could be good for whale watching. It’s time to go… Gray whale.
Next nomination is a bit of a toss up. There are two contestants running neck and neck – the bowhead and Bryde’s. The Bryde’s had some PR here in 1994 when one was entrapped in a river for 100 days, but again, they are pretty non-descript and who can pronounce their name properly? The bowhead though – now that is an ugly name. What the hell is a bowhead anyway? (Doesn’t count that as an 8 year old I wrote a novel “Op the Greenland Right Whale’s Wonderful Adventures). This time it’s a double eviction – It’s time to go Bryde’s, it’s time to go bowhead.
Things are hotting up in the house now. There are only 4 housemates left, and there is some squabbling that ethnicity should be taken into consideration.
Next nominated is the fin whale. Size matters not. Status matters not. You have not managed to entertain the viewers enough, so it’s time to go… fin whale.
So who is left? The sperm whale, minke whale and humpback. The sperm whale has a somewhat tarnished reputation due to Melville, and hey, they are pretty ugly (what is it with whales and big heads?) No one ever sees one unless they are whale geeks, one washes up dying, or you go to NZ. It’s time to go…Sperm whale.
The minkes are cute and we have curious ones here. We do? Where is that? Oh. But what do minkes actually DO? Not much, but we do know what a minke is, unlike those other contestants. It’s time to go…minke.
And the winner of Big Brother Whale is The Humpback Whale. Far more deserving of being protected from the harpoons than any other species (well, unless they are in the Caribbean. Where’s that?). These whales actually do something. They are instantly recognisable, they are cool. Expect interviews with the saved humpback housemate in any kid’s media near you.
Libby,
Or how to pronounce “dauhval”? The sei and Bryde’s also have their Norwegian origin, as the minke. Ann should know how to pronounce dauhval and what it means literally…
Wouldn’t it be a fair deal? Let them take these minkes that they take anyway? Saying yes will limit the number of whales hunted, no humpbacks. Saying no will increase the number of whales hunted, minkes plus humpbacks. But they won’t, their baby is § 10e, they will never let it go, no matter how many whales that are being hunted.
Rune
Just curious, how do Australians (or whoever “nobody” refers to) say “sei whale”?
Are only pro-whalers allowed to be humourous? Sigh…
Rune,
I forgot that Australians had difficulty with saying minke too, until recently. Often it was pronounced ‘minks’.
David,
Australians often say ‘sigh’ whale, or ‘say-i’ whale. Bryde’s is of course pronounced ‘brides’ or ‘bridees’. So you could sigh about the minks the brides are wearing. Ooops, another lame attempt at humour.
I guess the anti-whalers are generally too sour to be humourous, what with sacred whales being killed and all.
I see! “Sigh whale” huh. To the uninitiated “Sei” actually looks like a Japanese word, consisting of two basic characters “se” and “i”, and this correctly reads as “say”. I’ve been reading Japanese so long that I couldn’t imagine another way it might be pronounced.
The Japanese name for the Sei whale is “iwashi kujira”. “Iwashi” (ee-wah-she) is Japanese for sardine. I bring this up as a little trivia, not to start another debate about whether “whales eat fish” or “whales eat plankton”, indeed both sardines and plankton have been recovered from sei whale stomachs during the ICR’s JARPN II programme, as I recall.
Commercial whaling is underway in Japan – a Baird’s beaked whale was landed in Hokkaido overnight. This species is of course bigger than the wee minkes everyone gets so excited about, but because it’s not on the IWC agenda, it’s no big deal (the way it should be). The Japanese government permits around 60 to be hunted each year, IIRC.
However I understand that they are no good for eating as sashimi.
Can anyone advise which additional anti-whaling nations have been bribed to join the IWC?
Note the way the media portray the two forms of committee stacking in completely different ways. If the Japanese do it then it is described as corruption, bribery and undemocratic rorting. But when the anti-whaling nations do it then it either doesn’t rate a mention or is actually presented as an expansion of democracy.
Are there any landlocked ones in the latest batch?
And how many of the anti-whaling members of the IWC have actually ratified the Mastricht Treaty and subordinated their own constitutions to the European Union? These nations should not have a vote in either the UN, the IPCC or the IWC because they are no different to the states of Australia, the USA or the prefectures of Japan.
“guess the anti-whalers are generally too sour to be humourous, what with sacred whales being killed and all”.
Better revert to form then. Sigh…
“However I understand that they are no good for eating as sashimi”.
What do they use them for, or are they prepared in other ways? Now the Ziphiids wouldn’t even be allowed in the Big Brother house.
>If the Japanese do it then it is described as corruption, bribery and undemocratic rorting. But when the anti-whaling nations do it then it either doesn’t rate a mention or is actually presented as an expansion of democracy.
Depends on if promises of financial aid and other incentives have actually occurred, doesn’t it?
> Better revert to form then. Sigh…
That’s the Libby I know!
🙂
> What do they use them for, or are they prepared in other ways?
I’ve never had Baird’s beaked whale (as far as I know, anyway), so I’m not that familiar with that species, but sashimi is just eating the meat raw, usually with soy sauce and ginger. There are various other ways of preparing it as well, depending on the part of the whale and the species. I was in Shibuya’s famous “Kujira-ya” on Sunday for lunch for a whale meat lunch, and looking through the complete menu, despite it being about my fourth time I was again impressed by the diversity of dishes available. The lunch menu only includes three options though – sashimi (which 4 of us had – very good), fried (good for first timers), and as steak. I prefer the sashimi and fried options to steak, but with whales being wild animals, the type of meat that ends up on your plate is probably more variable in quality than with not so naturally produced animal protein sources. Or perhaps they use the best meat for sashimi (the price for the sashimi option is highest).
One of the reasons the coastal whalers want a minke quota is because it’s suitable to use as sashimi, as I understand it. Kujira-ya’s whale meat is all minke whale from the Antarctic, as I understand it. Their most expensive course menu is named “Antarctica” (in Japanese).
Laos is signatory to UNCLOS, and as I understand it, several anti-whaling nations are yet to ratify this treaty.
Japan and Laos have had friendly relations for some years, and Japan’s whaling policy has been on the agenda in official meetings between the two nations since at least 2004, according to documents on the foreign ministry’s homepage.
I think it’s very unfortunate that people even entertain the thought that development assistance for the purpose of removing unexploded land mines would ever be offered by any sovereign nation to another on the condition of a vote in a given international forum. But then, there is always going to be a sector of society that will believe anything.
Ian,
I believe that there are currently 10 land-locked IWC members – 7 against whaling, 3 for it.
Morning,
Rune’s dauhval , must be a dead whale carcass, dau in Norwegian or död in swedish means dead!
Sei whale, I would pronounciate this as ” say” whales, sei is pollock in Norwegian,
Captain Minke was a Norwegian whaler…
Actually methinks Runes name must be very hard to pronounciate for English speaking persons;)
You could as well believe that the Norwegians called the minke a minke! But it is called vågehval, methink it aquired its name swimming after herrings….
Posted by: Travis at May 29, 2007 11:34 AM
“Depends on if promises of financial aid and other incentives have actually occurred, doesn’t it?”
It certainly does Travis – guess you missed this on another thread …
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 ?
Back again to the aboriginal whale hunting. Note, this post might be a bit controversial.
The Alaskans suffer more and more from various health problems, including obesitas. Now this can hardly be the case if they haven’t adopted some ” white man’s bad habits”. So evidently whale meat can not only be their only protein source as the US authorities want us to believe.
The case is similar in Greenland. The Inuits suffer from health problems and alcoholism. It has gone so far that in some villages it’s banned since last week to sell alcohol due to all social problems.
When I was in Greenpeace and they had their climate campaign in Greenland I heard about those issues. An ” easy” solution seemed to be that only if the Inuits could conduct whaling, sealing and their tradional habits , everything could be solved.
I really don’t think the case is as easy as that.
Actually, I get the impression now that maybe the authorities are issuing hunting permits to the Inuits , everything will be OK, and nobody will complain…
Perhaps these hunting communities do need some kind of a modernisation, even though it would be good to preserve some traditions????
David,
Can you tell me why Japan does not submit any information of TTDs to the IWC, even if some other whaling nations, such as Norway and Russia do so????
Ann,
I missed that part of the discussions at the IWC today, but perhaps this statement from last year’s WKM&AWI workshop is indicative:
“Japan then made a more general statement concerning the provision of data and the use made of that data, noting that it has been providing data to the IWC on a voluntary basis. Japan noted that when data is provided it is almost always misunderstood and this leads to greater polarisation. Positive data and good progress is usually ignored. In the past, Japan has presented its programmes and reported on progress and has taken into account constructive comments. Japan welcomes constructive scientific and technical discussions but it appears to it that the data provided is only used to criticise whaling. Japan therefore stated that until the IWC is normalised, it will submit its data to other appropriate forum or publish it in academic journals. Japan believes that this decision will help the IWC to be normalised.” (1)
Things have changed in this area. When Japan completed development of the penthrite harpoon in the early 1980’s:
“Many governments congratulated Japan on the success of its programme to replace the cold grenade harpoon, including Australia, the Netherlands, St Lucia, Seychelles, USA and Argentina.” (2)
Seemingly the tone of the IWC has worsened over the last 2 decades (understatement!?).
You may also recall that Japan believes this topic is not within the mandate of the IWC in the first instance (nothing is written about it in the ICRW) and in previous years called for votes to strike these items off the agenda.
(1) http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/meetings/stkitts/AnnexD.pdf
(2) http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_chair83_20.html
George,
It’s OK to buy out the developing nations if you are a snobby neo-colonial (or at least, widely ignored in the propaganda), and apparently everyone should always take care to have an opinion contrary to Japan if they plan to receive development assistance, such as land mine removal aid, from them. Indeed, perhaps Japan should give no assistance to anyone and then see what the response is?
Hi David,
Read another article ( need to find the link again ) about how Mr.Ashcroft and co had their noses slightly tweaked out of joint when CNN and MTV refused to air their 500,000 quids worth ( might have been 50,000 but I remember being slightly surprised ) of anti whaling TV advertisments in the Caribean in the run up to the IWC..
Thats terrible really, sticking yer tongue out to the guys in the white hats .. whats the world coming to?
Here´s the bunny 😉
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/05/01/eajapan101.xml
and here´s the Advertisment itself :
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:s4JiEt0Xjz0J:www.hugg.com/story/Antiwhaling-advert-censored-by-CNN-MTV/+lord+ashcroft+cnn+mtv&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5
I would have thought that it perhaps looks ‘worse’ for Japan not to submit data on TTDs? It sounds like a bit of a cop out to say ‘Japan noted that when data is provided it is almost always misunderstood and this leads to greater polarisation. Positive data and good progress is usually ignored.’
Re development assistance, all well and good if it is being done out of the ‘goodness of one’s heart’, as is being implied here. Hospitals and fish processing factories and land mine clearing sound great, and of course are, but what’s in it for Japan? The deal that Japan was trying to strike at Anchorage today reeked of similar tactics.
No comment on Mr. Ashcroft Travis?
Can someone send me an update on what is happening in Alaska … to start a new thread. address is jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
Mmmm, really interesting thoughts Travis, I suppose Japan could always just do things the Aussie way and stonewall, making the meeting a complete waste of time, rather than keeping the gullible in suspense.
Got to bring it back to Rune’s comment…
Australia and New Zealand both ostensibly want the humpbacks not to be included in Japan’s research programme for various purported reasons.
Japan has indicated that it may be prepared to offer this.
In return, Japan would:
– permit the killing of no more whales than would otherwise be the case
– do no (or at least less) research on the carcasses after catching, although there would likely be differences in the way in which whales killed are selected by the hunters (anti-whalers claim to believe that scientific permit hunting is commercial whaling in disguise, anyway)
– move the hunting of these whales under an international oversight committee
– regulate this hunting with VMS
– limit the sale of meat to the local region where the whale was caught
But Australia and New Zealand won’t have a bar of it.
This has nothing to do with it being commercial whaling, either. Japan could establish communist regimes in these little whaling communities, and have the whale meat distributed for free. But Australia and New Zealand would still reject this as well (maybe claiming that the whaling isn’t “cultural” enough or some other lame excuse).
The answer is “Japanese whaling, NO!” under any circumstances.
For the people in Australia and New Zealand who do actually genuinely want to see a reprive for 50 humpbacks this year, how will they evaluate this? If anything, once Japan has started hunting humpbacks, at some point in the future it seems likely that numbers killed will eventually increase. If the whale lovers of Australia and New Zealand have any common sense, they should evaluate this option favourably.
That Australia and New Zealand’s position does not appear to have reflected this ostensible opposition to humpback hunting indicates clearly that this issue is nothing more than an matter of politics. Clearly these nations want the conflict at the IWC to continue, and indeed escalate if at all possible.
These nations are frankly an embarassment to their constituents and the international community.
If a legal case against these nations can not be made, then I would suggest international law is badly broken, or inherently flawed for relying on the good intentions of sovereign states.
One can just imagine the good residents of San Marino, all 27,366 of them, in their landlocked mountain top enclave in Italy, gladly parting with their hard earned $25,000 annual fee for the sake of the whales. And one can be certain the good residents of Monaco are equally enthused. To their credit both Lichtenstein and Andorra have refused the bribes.
There are 26 nations smaller than Iceland with a vote in the UN and hence a potential IWC member,
and, surprise surprise, 15 of the smaller nations are signed up with a few more that have lapsed.
Interestingly, a number of other nations have only joined the IWC on the basis that the convention does not apply to areas within their 200km territorial waters. But they have no problem in restricting Japanese actions in Japanese territorial waters.
CANBERRA, May 30 (Reuters) – Military exercises planned by Australia and the United States next month off the Australian coast could result in large-scale whale deaths or injuries, the International Whaling Commission said.
As the Aussie and Kiwi media have not shown any indications at all of any desire to see “their” humpbacks spared in a compromise deal, I assume that Turnbull’s people will have been watching for the reaction, and having observed none, will make no compromises.
I predict Japan will thus go ahead with JARPA II as planned, and I also predict that reaction from Australia to this will not be as fierce as Turnbull has attempted to make out.
What a circus.
If Japan has a deal to allow limited coastal whaling in return to spare 50 humpbacks from its scientific cull how genuine are they. Call out the navy and confiscate any ships founding whaling in Australian waters. Except if David is on the ship in which case – then torpedo it without hesitation.
Luke,
Japan has stated it’s open for compromise proposals – Australia has stonewalled and still maintains it’s “all or nothing” approach to whaling, despite 20 years of whaling under scientific permit which Australia officially believes “is commercial whaling in disguise”.
If, as seems to be the case, Australia’s position is really “all or nothing”, then Japan may as well just quit the IWC and do whatever the hell it likes. This option is apparently something that Australia is willing to accept.
So Japan’s prepared to compromise its sham scientific whaling program for quota? The humpbacks therefore must be scientifically not needed. What a crock !
Utterly indefensible.
Now now Luke. JARPA I was received very well at the IWC Review. In fact I am surprised that some here have not been singing its success from the rafters. Obviously good work is being done in the Southern Ocean, and if the Japanese are lucky, they will impale Migaloo and find out once and for all if he has pink eyes. They can also tidy up those incomplete life history files on certain individual whales by adding date and cause of death. They’ll be able to tell us the age of the individuals, which will be very useful for animals who were not documented as calves by unimaginative Australian researchers (provided of course that the ear plugs are complete and clear), and we will know what they eat and how they are outcompeting the minkes, provided they don’t have late night snacks.
Australia supports humpback whaling in Caribbean:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1937464.htm
This:
> The humpbacks therefore must be scientifically not needed.
Is not a logical consequence of this…
> So Japan’s prepared to compromise its sham scientific whaling program for quota?
… unless it’s one’s predetermined position.
Libby,
My your comments demonstrate a remarkable jump in the level of intellectual honesty!
Yet another typically stupid headline from the Aussie media:
“Commercial whaling to continue in South Atlantic”
Huh? Global commercial whaling moratorium anyone? I don’t see Iceland, Norway or Russia killing whales there (but geez you never know)
And from New Zealand:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10442839
* * * *
“As far as the other proposals we put up were concerned, none of them involved commercial whaling and none of them involved killing more whales,” Mr Carter said.
“I’m bullish in so much that the Japanese want to talk, despite knowing we won’t compromise on coastal whaling.”
* * * *
If only the Japanese are talking, Mr Carter is deluded to think he can stonewall and still get a concession. Does this guy have no diplomatic skills at all?
It is not that Carter is not compromising on coastal whaling, scientific whaling will continue, and indeed because of his intransigeance, he is in fact also promoting the addition of 50 humpbacks. Didn’t they love the humpbacks so much that they would do whatever it took? Apparently not, their only baby is §10e. Well, he’s got another reason for travelling to Santiago next year continuing his posturing. Rune
Rune,
With Iceland hunting whales commercially, Japan is the only major player who isn’t just ignoring silly old §10e completely (and Japan is only asking to add a §10f, not delete §10e, which would still be a seperate vote).
Plus the anti-whalers claim to think scientific permit whaling is “commercial whaling in disguise” anyway – and they say “go ahead and shoot the humpbacks, we don’t give a damn!”
Japan may as well start living up to the slander and start issuing “special permits” for as ever many whales as they see fit. If you are going to be abused, you may as well be abused for fair reason! Take this organization as seriously as it deserves to be:
So how about a “special permit for scientific research into the ability of the Japanese government to appropriately regulate a commercial whaling harvest, involving xxx whales. Programme to run indefinitely, coupled as a real world test of the RMP, using tuning level 0.60”?
Maybe then everyone will be happy?
Santiago sounds like a nice place to visit though huh!
Note to self – only pro-whalers are allowed to be humorous and sarcastic! Sigh…
What a circus.
“The fundamental point is there is simply no scientific basis for assuming there can be sustainable harvesting of whales.” — Malcolm Turnbull
Australia supports non-sustainable harvesting of whales, except when it’s done by Japan, Norway, or Iceland?
So what is their excuse for supporting non-sustainable harvesting of whales by “aboriginal subsistence” hunters, including those who sell whale craft products at exorbitant prices in Anchorage tourist shops?
Ladies and Gentlemen, that is the Australian minister of the environment… (and it’s better – Peter Garrett is the alternative)
“The only reason we’re starting to see humpbacks again around Australia’s coast is because of the 20-plus-year ban on commercial whaling which has meant the populations have started to recover” — Malcolm Turnbull
Moratorium? What’s that? The humpbacks weren’t being hunted when the blanket zero catch limits were agreed by the sham vote at the IWC in 1982.
If humpback whales can suddenly start to recover because of section 10e of the Schedule, it must be like magick or somethin’ huh?
But wait a minute – if the whales can start to recover because of those magick words of the Schedule, who says hunting now would really make them decrease? We don’t know the power of this section 10e! Scientific permits here we come! Verify the magick!
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0705/S00510.htm
“The planet would suffer one of the greatest losses in all of human history, and would have to live with the weight of the void left in their absence.” — Trish Franklin
“The Japanese never did pelagic or deep ocean whaling before World War II” — Wally Franklin
“The Japanese see an advantage in keeping whaling under discussion” — Wally Franklin
1) Sigh
2) Factually incorrect
3) Just like the Aussies see an advantage in stonewalling at any discussion
On reading comments like this, from people who are apparently the “experts” of one anti-whaling nation, it’s no wonder that the IWC is in such a shambles.
“The planet would suffer one of the greatest losses in all of human history, and would have to live with the weight of the void left in their absence.” — Trish Franklin…
1) Sigh”
This is her opinion. I believe she is entitled to express it, just like you express yours about the virtues of minke steak. Should the media interview you, you no doubt would express your opinions too.
“On reading comments like this, from people who are apparently the “experts” of one anti-whaling nation, it’s no wonder that the IWC is in such a shambles”.
The Franklins are not “experts” on IWC or whaling matters. They have experience with humpback whales. They would have been approached by the Australian/NZ media for their opinions, just like Japanese delegates get approached for their opinions. Only I hardly think that what Trish and Wally says influences the outcomes at the IWC!
Hey here’s a good one:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2007/Annex%20H%20Final%20sq.pdf
“The sub-committee welcomed this paper as it addressed some of the work recently recommended. In discussion, it was noted that results obtained from feeding grounds associated with breeding stock A (n=7) and E (n=8) should be considered preliminary in view of the small sample size. The sub-committee recommended that efforts are increased to collect samples in the feeding areas associated with these two breeding stocks. It was noted that there are a number of JARPA biopsy samples available from the feeding grounds associated to stock E, which could further inform the analysis. However, the authors of SC/59/SH24 indicated adherence to a policy of not using biopsy samples which have been obtained through lethal research programs.”
Wow gee, that’s a great policy to maintain (to hell with conservation?)
> This is her opinion.
Sure. But I’m allowed to sigh, too, aren’t I?
> The Franklins are not “experts” on IWC or whaling matters.
Yeah, maybe one of his mates taught him about Japanese whaling history, and he gullibly took his word for it without checking. You never know eh. The lies started somewhere though.
The discussions at the IWC have never gone anywhere and I estimate that it’s in large part to either the ignorance or intellectual dishonesty (whichever it may be) of the anti-whalers. Sorry, but that’s MY opinion.
Another example – today I see an IFAW statement “quoting” from the IWC Scientific Committee – the statement they attributed to the SC has never been made by the SC. If it was made at all (as opposed to simply made up) it might have been made by an IFAW / Greenpeace funded scientist or equivalent – hardly honest in any case. If you are a big powerful NGO group with lots of fund-raising potential, if you attribute a comment to a person or group you better bloody well not be making it up, or you’ll stain your reputation (i.e., even more).
It’s such a waste of time, and it’s astonishing that people who claim to give such a massive rats about conservation are evidently more interested maintaining their pride, their lack of humility and their ever so precious personal stance, or perhaps in IFAW’s case, the donations.
True conservation is the biggest loser.
Well the organisation I occasionally collaborate with recently put out a paper on resights between Antarctica and east Australia, involving Japanese work. The organisation was given a hard time by the authors indicated above (amongst others), not because of lethal techniques (obviously) but because of the Japanese program.
“Another example – today I see an IFAW statement “quoting” from the IWC Scientific Committee – the statement they attributed to the SC has never been made by the SC.”
Which statement?
“True conservation is the biggest loser”.
See my last comment. I see this with the SPWRC, but perhaps I am being sour!
So how useful/useless is the IWC?
According to Norwegian paper Fiskeribladet, the Commission is only useful for Norway as it in this case could be used to make milder the international outcry against whaling….
The paper states as well that this years meeting has been so far without any harsh comments about whaling?????
The paper went to press before the third day of the meeting started. The IWC is considered to serve some interests. Why else do you think the whaling nations are still there? Rune
” Why else do you think the whaling nations are still there? ” -Rune
As far as I have understood some Norwegian whalers want to leave the IWC. This is accompanied by the usual threats from Japan.
As long as Japan and Norway still remain in the IWC, they are not considered as ” outlaws”, maybe that is one reason why they still are in the IWC?
Maybe the paper wants to point out , if the whaling nations stay within the IWC, their points/arguments can be heard and whaling can be more accepted?
Hey Rune,
Maybe you should call your pals and tell them that a Swede is reading their paper and they should be careful with their statements as it might leak out internationally;)
BTW, the journos are quite friendly, one even offered to help me with some fish names…
Libby,
(quote IFAW)
A report by the IWC scientific committee has strongly criticized the scientific value of Japan’s whaling program noting that, “It is quite clear from the JARPA review workshop and subsequent discussions in the Committee that the 18-year JARPA programme involving killing 6,796 whales has added little to our understanding of minke whale biology or ecology.”
(end quote IFAW)
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0705/S00489.htm
If they want to publish slanted criticism of JARPA, fine, but why on earth would they dishonestly mis-attribute the statement to the IWC SC like this?
Well, on second thoughts, if you are going to be unbalanced I guess there is no big deal in making up lies to go with it and give it a little more “punch”.
Do they stop at nowhere in their investment in propaganda to misinform the gullible, loosely-interested western public who will support them financially in the future?
For a group that complains about the ethics of the actions of others, they sure have a lot to answer for.
Ann,
Japan may or may not quit the IWC, but one thing that is certain (I gather) is that Japan’s relationship with the IWC is going to be very different this time next year.
The personal view of Joji Morishita is that Japan should not leave the organization, and I understand this view is based on the fact that Japan’s position is consistent with the ICRW, where as the position of the tyranical mutineers who oppose them is not. In such a case there are other options available that will be explored and acted upon while officially remaining a member of the IWC.
Alternatively others in Japan may push for withdrawal. I would only suggest Japan take this route if the vast majority of their supporters agree to join them (I imagine Norway won’t) and work together instead.
Japanese media editorials have suggested, like you, that by remaining within the IWC their points/arguments can be heard, but I personally believe this is a naive approach given the past 2-3 decades of discussions there. In Japan, a lot of people think that if they just stick to the IWC for long enough, eventually (what the Japanese regard as) common sense will prevail. This is a reasonable idea, but the IWC is not a normal organization, so a different approach is required.
Ironically a Japanese fisheries researcher who is critical of the JFA and fisheries management has suggested that Japan should quit the IWC until such a time as a reasonable RMS is imposed. Even the (non fund-raising NGO) critics in Japan are on Japan’s side, it seems.
“Environmental organisations Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd came under fire themselves in a resolution co-ordinated by Japan and New Zealand.
It was the only concrete sign so far of the common ground which both sides said they were seeking before the meeting convened.
Japan says its whale hunt is for scientific, not commercial, reasons
The resolution, which says that member governments “do not condone, and in fact condemn, any actions that are a risk to human life and property in relation to the activities of vessels at sea,” passed by consensus. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6706805.stm
It’s honestly wonderful to see such an intelligent, in-depth discussion of the whale hunt issue on a blog. We may not all agree on all the details, but the fact that so many people are open to talking about it is a great thing. I’ve put a link to this specific blog entry on the blogroll of IFAW’s Song of the Whale blog, and look forward to returning to continue reading.
Hi Leigh-Ann,
Thanks for your kind words…yes, the discussion here on Jen’s blog keeps high standards as many people have in-depth knowledge about the whaling issue.
It is also good to see the mix of opinions…
>the discussion here on Jen’s blog keeps high standards
!!!! Gosh Ann, you’re easily pleased!
Malcolm Turnbull:
“The reality is whales are under threat from a number of sources – obviously hunting, ship strikes, but climate change is [also] a major factor.”
It’s amazing how climate change can actually exist if you have a cause to attach it to!
High North Alliance IWC wrap up:
Greenland gets ok for more whaling, Japan gets nothing
High North News (01.06.07): On the last day of this year’s meeting, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) gave the green light for increased whale hunting in Greenland. They can now also hunt two bowhead whales annually, restoring a millennium old tradition.
The minke whale quota was increased with 25 to 212 animals per year, and the fin whale quota remains the same with 19 per year.
Greenland’s request to also take 10 humpback whales a year was postponed until next year to allow the scientists to provide more precise quota advice.
The Inuit of Greenland hunted the bowheads regularly from the first millennium, but stopped in practice in the 19th century due to low numbers. In the last century, they took only a couple of bowheads. Scientists can now provide encouraging abundance estimates for the bowhead, with more than one thousand individuals in West Greenland.
The Greenland quota was adopted with 41 votes in favour and 11 against. The other whaling quotas issued to the USA, Russia and St Vincent and the Grenadines were adopted by consensus, probably because they mirrored earlier quotas without any change in respect of the numbers of whales taken.
Iceland and Norway did not request any whale quotas. They have their own arrangement with the IWC, which includes that they set their national quotas based on the best available scientific knowledge.
Only Japan’s request for a minke whale quota to four coastal communities was rejected at the IWC meeting.
Indeed, the meeting delegates spent most of their time discussing current and future Japanese whaling. A majority of the countries asked Japan to stop scientific whaling, in the form of a non-binding resolution. Much energy was also spent on attempting to stop Japan’s plan to include the taking of 50 humpback whales in the scientific program.
“There is an extreme lack of consistency, a very unfair treatment of Japan’s reasonable and limited requests. The IWC is a breeding ground for hypocrisy and double standards where the anti-Japanese sentiments are running high,” says Rune Frovik, Secretary to the High North Alliance.
After a month of scientific and political deliberations, the IWC on Thursday ended the 59th annual meeting in Anchorage, Alaska. Next year it will meet in Santiago, Chile.
Hi Ann,
Looks like the BBC has an earlier version of the resolution. The final one does not include the words “and in fact condemn”.
Watered down again. In normal circumstances, it would be unbelieveble.
Hi Rune,
Thanks for the commentary. It would be pretty amusing if it weren’t all happening in an international forum at which one would expect sovereign nations to conduct themselves with grace and dignity.
The Japanese have apparently no longer any cultural connections with their past in the eyes of the majority of IWC members, or alternatively, some kind of distinction is made between the supermarkets of Greenland and the supermarkets of Abashiri, Ayukawa, Wada, and Taiji.
The excuses made have been ridiculous. “Oh if we let them catch whales in their coastal waters, everyone will want to do it”, or “oh if we set a catch limit there will be no way to take it away again later”.
Nonsense. Such logic does not apply to the IWC as a quarter of century of history illustrates.
In the Japanese media a Japanese official says he regrets the way the IWC has turned into a resolution battle ground and in retrospect also regrets the way the St. Kitts and Nevis declaration was adopted last year by a single vote majority inspite of the lack of consensus.
Has the rejection of the Japanese coastal whaling proposal something to do with decreased/ depleted minke stocks around the coastal Japan?
Or is it only double standards???
It seemed though as some compromise willing nations/persons were thinking about the Japanese proposal, but what about science for such a proposal???
FYI:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4080825a12.html
Pffffft
I suggest adidas turn to shoes made of whale penis skin instead. Soft,light, prowhaling, and perfectly designed for wankers.
Why Travis, I thought you were cool with the annual Australian kangaroo massacre?
News of Japan’s considering leaving the IWC or setting up alternative international organizations for the purpose that the IWC has failed to live up to is Google News Japan’s top story today.
Back in 2003 when the conservation committee was established without making any allowances for consumptive utilisation talk of a withdrawal was also quite big in Japan, although the reaction was mixed. Reading through the reactions at that point in time, I get the feeling that there will be more support for some kind of substantive move from Japan this time.
The ruling LDP party is also known to favour withdrawing from the IWC, others have suggested unilaterally recommencing commercial whaling with Japan’s EEZ.
Details:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1939858.htm
Joji Morishita, who heads the Japanese delegation, says he’s been asked by the Government to reassess Japan’s future in the commission, and consider withdrawal.
JOJI MORISHITA: At this stage we don’t know. We have to think about the result of this meeting, after we go back to Tokyo. We will decide our course toward the next meeting. The list included the withdrawal from IWC and to start talking about the new organisation, and also the unilateral resumption of whaling, small type whaling especially, within Japanese 200 mile zone. I think those are major recommendations from the (inaudible).
SARAH CLARKE: So withdrawing is a serious option?
JOJI MORISHITA: That’s still one of them, but you remember that I said personally I don’t think a good idea, but that’s the options we were asked to look at.
One aspect in the livestock industry( which I have commented on in short in the Kangaroo, Whale and Beef Steak thread) is that the livestock industry is responsible for 18% of the world’s total emissions of greenhouse gases.
The livestock industry’s contribution to greenhouse gases is more than the transport sections!
Maybe something to think about when we gladly promote beef steak eating!
It is as well noteworthy that 1/3 of the total grain production in the world goes to livestock fodder.
Link in Swedish ( to Rune and George):
http://www.nationen.no/eu_wto/article2793761.ece
Ann,
Next time you consider beef, take whale meat, and you will do something good for the climate.
Sorry to the non-Scandinavian lingo people, here’s a piece on whale rescuing in Lofoten:
http://www.lofotposten.no/lokale_nyheter/article2802224.ece
Rune
“Greenpeace says it is heartened by an apparent consensus that the 62-year-old body should be reformed.
It says the commission is stuck in a debate about commercial whale hunting and change is desperately needed.”
———————————————
You know, I could have sworn that Greenpeace has something to do with this situation about commercial whaling dominating the IWC?
Here are some more images of the pilot whales rescue action ( note, in the middle of a whaling community)that Rune made a comment on.
The wildlife authorities were alarmed as well as a veterinarian to help the whales. They swam away with some smaller wounds:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2007/06/02/502358.html
It seems like one of the whales was rescued after tying a rope on the whale and then dragging it off the ground…
” >the discussion here on Jen’s blog keeps high standards
!!!! Gosh Ann, you’re easily pleased!” -Travis
Hey Travis,
Even if we have lots of fun with Pixie like discussions and now I don’t want to be pompous , you got to know that Greenpeace folks, IFAW people and the prowhalers , such as Rune and maybe ICR are reading our discussions!!!!
So our small , little voices about the whales issue are not in vain and I encourage everyone to post their opinions , whatever they are!!
” Ann,
Next time you consider beef, take whale meat, and you will do something good for the climate.” – Rune.
Hey, hey Rune, you’re not going to smuggel whale meat to Sweden, and end up in jail???
>Even if we have lots of fun with Pixie like discussions and now I don’t want to be pompous , you got to know that Greenpeace folks, IFAW people and the prowhalers , such as Rune and maybe ICR are reading our discussions!!!!
In cyberspace no one can hear them laughing at us.
>So our small , little voices about the whales issue are not in vain and I encourage everyone to post their opinions , whatever they are!!
But what are our voices not in vain about? Whaling, not whaling, who’s right, who’s wrong??
” But what are our voices not in vain about? Whaling, not whaling, who’s right, who’s wrong?? ”
Well Travis, you better ask the Oracle in Delphi about that;)!!!!!
Rune,
you should not make a logical fallacy of false analogy, by equating commercial whaling and aboriginal whaling. just look at the number/quotas they are asking for. If Japan, Norway, Iceland asks for five whales a year, your request may be reconsidered in good faith. But, honestly, how many have you been asking for? How many do you need to feel satisfied? thousands? You don’t need that many to feed your own stomach. I know you are not eating whale dish three times a day.