Existing rules and regulations can sometimes be impossible to understand without an understanding of the history of the issue. I’ve only followed ‘whaling’ as an issue for a few years and have never felt I really understood the determination of the Japanese whalers to exploit every loop hole to keep whaling, including through their ‘scientific whaling programme’.
This morning I was sent a link to an article by Richard Black entitled ‘Did Greens help kill the whale?’ with a potted history of the environmental campaign against whaling going back to the early 1980s. Black suggests that, “the environmental movement pushed too hard; that its strident calls helped to alienate Japan at the very point where it was prepared to abandon whaling.”
There is also mention of Japanese resentment that they were being blamed for bringing some whales close to extinction when the UK and USA had historically caught far greater numbers and the push by US fishermen in the late 1980s to exclude the Japanese from access to US waters.
Read the complete article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6659401.stm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Good article from the BBC, I found this quote particularly informative –
‘”All of us were saying ‘why would you eliminate the very resource that is keeping your business afloat?’ And there was an economic study done that showed it was more profitable to go out and take as many as you could and then re-purpose your boat to go off and do other kinds of fishing.” – Patricia Forkan
As I see it , there are at least two psychological mechanisms at play:
-Western Governments and NGOs believe it is enough with international pressure, economic sanctions,people showing disgust at whaling, to stop whaling
vs.
-whaling nations pride that they don’t want to listen to international criticism, especially when they don’t understand ” cultural aspects”, and people gathering together when ” foreigners ” attack their nations fisheries interests including physical attacks against national properties , as whaling vessels etc.
I think NGOs mainly have ignored to estimate how strong some sentiments are , when they start attacking national interests…
Re strong sentiments, maybe Aussies, Kiwis and other South Pacific nations look at whales as ” our whales”, and that’s why they show such strong anti whaling feelings as the Japanese in turn can harm their whale watching industries….
The link between whaling and damage to the whale wanking industries is non-existent. There is no tourism based industry in Australia or NZ that involves interaction with Minke Whales. There has been no harvesting of Humpbacks and the 8000 plus Eastern Australian population is expanding in the order of 8 to 10% each year.
The statements by the whale wanking industry about whale harvesting are nothing more than the cynical exploitation of opportunities for free publicity and a chance to reinforce the entirely baseless perception that the public should see the whales before they disappear.
Every OECD nation has legislation that outlaws false advertising yet we seem to tolerate the publicity stunts of one of the sleasiest industries on the planet.
I like Richard Black’s articles (as with Reuters’ Elaine Lies’), and while the article is a good read the theory introduced seems backwards.
IMHO the problem was not so much the tactics that the NGOs used to try to ban whaling, it was that they were trying to ban whaling at all.
As noted by Shima-san in the article, a moratorium (and certainly a permanent ban) was irrational, to them.
It obviously doesn’t follow that if you ask the Japanese nicely to do something that to them seems irrational to them, they are more likely of doing it. They are just likely to say “no”, more politely (or perhaps “yes, we will think about it” = “no”).
The tactics they employed over the years simply resulted in annoying lots of people and raising the profile of the issue (“Why?” Is another question I hope the BBC explore).
Also, I think the western media tends to understate the significance of whale food culture in Japan prior to WWII. I assume that this stems from a drive by anti-whalers to undermine the argument that cultural diversity ought to be humbly respected. Some people are happy to attack the cultural diversity argument head on when it suits, but others have a little more humility, and spreading misinformation about the historical nature of whale food culture in Japan can thus help to get those more good-natured people on side.
Ann,
I think the “our whales” slogan is a recent invention. I never heard this when I was in NZ. Back then in NZ and I suppose Aussie as well, people didn’t think there were any whales (hardly). Now that even they have been forced to recognise that whale numbers are increasing, they obviously can’t oppose whaling on the basis of them being endangered, so they are trying to claim ownership of them instead. Maybe good for maintaining some support, but it doesn’t appear to have any basis in international law.
In a similar fashion, your misguided pushing too hard on the science of climate change is resulting in the alienation of the environmentally aware general public from the conservative viewpoint, with the end result that extreme and inneffective green policies will be adopted.
Wow, maybe I should write a book?
David,
I heard this ” our whales” statement from an Aussie last summer, she said back home people referred to humpbacks as ” our whales”….
re international laws….well, the Norwegian whalers do claim sometimes that the whales are ” our whales”…..
“There is no tourism based industry in Australia or NZ that involves interaction with Minke Whales”.
To highlight your continued ignorance on this issue, there is a swim-with industry in QLD (which involves research), on dwarf minke whales. The minkes the Japanese kill are primarily Antarctic minke whales, and it is fair to say there is a tourism industry in Antarctica as well. This is not a whale watching industry, but no doubt relies to a degree on a diversity of fauna to show tourists from around the globe.
“There has been no harvesting of Humpbacks and the 8000 plus Eastern Australian population is expanding in the order of 8 to 10% each year”.
The harvesting of humpbacks commences at the end of the year.
You continue to ignore the South Pacific nations of Tonga, New Caledonia, Niue, and Cook Islands. These countries have growing and even well established whale watching industries. To say the killing of the Group V humpbacks by the Japanese will not impact on the already-small populations of whales supporting these industries is baseless.
“As noted by Shima-san in the article, a moratorium (and certainly a permanent ban) was irrational, to them”.
If a moratorium at the time seemed irrational back then, then perhaps the Japanese did not understand the extent to which some stocks of whales had been depleted and the urgent need for more research into population assessments?
Re: the question of Japanese hunting of humpbacks in Area V from 2008/2009 and potential impact on the humpbacks that breed in Oceania:
Have the appropriate genetic studies related to this issue been undertaken / completed?
What have studies using non-genetic methods shown? Any surprising or unexpected results?
Re: the view at the time that the moratorium seemed irrational to the Japanese.
It is also not surprising that the Japanese, who recognised the great abundance of the minke whale population in the Antarctic (later estimated in 1990 to be 760,000), also thought that the moratorium was total overkill. This was particularly so given that “aboriginal subsistence” catch limits were still being set with respect to smaller stocks.
The late John Gulland, then FAO observer and one of the four “wise men” credited with seeing important protections placed upon various whale populations in the 1960’s also disagreed with the moratorium, saying “there seems to be no scientific justification for a global moratorium”.
http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_fao82.html
At the IWC plenary, Switzerland also “explained that it would abstain [on the moratorium vote] because it believed the proposal did not fulfil the Convention requirement of being based on scientific findings.”
http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_chair82_6.html
Thankfully the potentially huge set back for true conservation that the moratorium represented did result in the successfully development of the RMP. The subsequent failure to put it into action confirms Switzerland’s view of that time.
“the potentially huge set back for true conservation that the moratorium represented “- David
David, I don’t agree with you on this. The moratorium did open the eyes of ordinary people and authorities.
For example in Norway, premoratorium quotas were about 1800-2000 minkes , and after 1984 they dropped to a few hundred, so something must have opened the Governments eyes.
This is a sad fact, no country has killed as many whales as Norway, but today the whaling might be sustainable….actually, I think it is very sad if Norway will increase quotas and making the ” normalisation” process a reality.
As it is now, Norway has the best scores about fisheries management of all countries in the world , according to a study published today, it would be sad if IMO, if they started to increase quotas and talking about to hunt humpbacks, sperm whales and big baleen whales etc.
Dear Libby
I am certainly not an expert on whales but unless I am wrong the minke and the dwarf minke are different species of whales.
‘Minke whales
Until recently, it was thought that there was a single, variable species of minke whale throughout the world’s oceans. The ‘true’ minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata is known only from the Northern Hemisphere. It has a characteristic white band across the middle of the flipper. The Antarctic minke whale B. bonaerensis is found mostly in the Southern Hemisphere. It lacks the white band on the flipper and has alight to dark grey shoulder.
The dwarf minke whale is known only from the Southern Hemisphere. It has a white shoulder and flipper base, with a dark grey tip on the flipper. Unlike the Antarctic minke whale, it has a large dark patch extending onto the throat. Female dwarf minkes are on average about two metres shorter than Antarctic minkes (in baleen whales, the female is larger than the male). The largest dwarf minke whale that was accurately measured was 7.8 m long; adults weigh 5 6 tonnes.
Minke Recognition Chart
Both Antarctic and dwarf minke whales are found in Great Barrier Reef waters. However in six years of surveys, only one Antarctic minke whale has been seen in the northern Great Barrier Reef (compared with up to 200 dwarf minke whales per season).
Commercial whaling targets the Northern Hemisphere minke whale in Norwegian waters. The Antarctic and north Pacific minke whales are the object of scientific whaling research by Japan, with about 400 and 100 whales respectively taken from each species each year.
Dwarf minke whales were taken during commercial whaling in South African waters until this ceased in 1975. Sixteen dwarf minke whales were taken in the Japanese research whaling program but since 1993, no takes have been reported to the International Whaling Commission. If commercial whaling were to resume in the Southern Hemisphere it would target Antarctic minke whales. It is possible that some dwarf minke whales would also be taken incidentally”
http://www.minkewhale.org/
So Libby you are stretching the issue a bit to argue that because “there is a swim-with industry in QLD (which involves research), on dwarf minke whales” somehow Ian is incorrect to state “There is no tourism based industry in Australia or NZ that involves interaction with Minke Whales”. You may believe that there is “a tourism industry in Antarctica as well. This is not a whale watching industry, but no doubt relies to a degree on a diversity of fauna to show tourists from around the globe.”
But it could hardly be described as a tourism based industry..I don’t think too many tourists who fork out the big bucks to head to Antartica would feel cheated if they never saw a minke whale.
Blair
Ann,
When I say “true conservation” I refer to a conservation that means setting catches within reasonable limits, protecting depleted stocks to allow them to recover, balancing the current use of resources with their preservation for the use by others in the future, taking into consideration the interests of all of the hopeful beneficiaries of the exploitation.
Dear Blair,
This what I wrote:
“there is a swim-with industry in QLD (which involves research), on dwarf minke whales. The minkes the Japanese kill are primarily Antarctic minke whales…”
Ian did not specify which type of minke he was referring to. Dwarf and Antartic minkes are both minkes. To say there is not a whale watch industry on minke whales in Australia is incorrect.
This is is what I also wrote:
“a tourism industry in Antarctica as well. This is not a whale watching industry…”
If this is not a tourism-based industry, then what would you describe it as? Most likely many tourists who head to Antartcia would not feel “cheated” if they never saw a minke, but seeing whales is part if the experience. Minkes and orcas are the species they are most likely to see, followed by humpbacks (depending on area visited).
“Have the appropriate genetic studies related to this issue been undertaken / completed?
What have studies using non-genetic methods shown? Any surprising or unexpected results?”
A paper outlining genetics of some populations of Oceania humpbacks was published recently. In brief, significant differentiation was found at both the haplotype and nucleotide level among whales from New Caledonia, Tonga, Cook Islands, eastern Polynesia, Western Australia and Colombia.
With regards to non-genetic studies, I have outlined my song research before (showing interchange between Tonga and eastern Australia), and mark-recapture shows some interchange amongst island nations (including Australia-NZ, NZ-Tonga, Tonga-New Caledonia, etc), suggesting more complex migratory behaviour. I gather you are familiar with the paper on this available on the IWC SC site?
‘so they are trying to claim ownership of them instead’ – David
In which case Japan and Norway’s claims that their quotas apply to international waters are equally challengable since any claim that those whales are ‘theirs’ is equally facile…The non whaling nations at the IWC are perfectly entitled to claim them but not hunt them.
Japan Norway and Iceland are all capable of supplying their dwindling ‘cultural’ market from within their own EEZs (indeed it should be noted that Japan’s genuine cultural history of whaling only covers this area); so David’s continual whining about cultural imperialism is utter tosh..
The resumption of international commercial whaling has absolutely nothing to do with culture and everything to do with profit and as a result David’s ‘true conservation’ only exists in his fevered imagination, since the IWC’s RMP and RMS are not binding on any commercial whaling country at the IWC who registers a reservation to them.. having done so those countries will be free to set whatever quotas and restrictions they like regardless of ‘conservation’.
Japan has failed to enforce its own Tuna quotas much less enforce anyone other countries over-quota exports to the Japanese seafood market (the largest in the world) for years; so there is absolutely no reason to believe their record for international commercial whaling would be any different.
The long history of Japanese observers failing to report massive over quota whaling by the Soviet whaling fleet to the IWC for decades before the moratorium is well documented.
The only reason that Minke whales are as numerous as they are is because they were regarded as being too small to be commercially worthwhile until all the larger species populations were in dire trouble…
Which is precisely why the pro-commercial whaling nations registered cynical reservations to the CITES listings of great whale species and are already pushing to include larger species in their quotas and to have the international legigislation protecting those species downgraded or removed…
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it – George Santayana
It sometimes seems, Susan Lamna, that for every dude with a pithy quote there are a thousand morons trying to apply it to the wrong situation.
And it was interesting to hear from Libby that there is a swim with whales tourist industry with minke Whales because this would appear to be quite outside the spirit of the EPA regulations which have very specific prescriptions in respect of minimum distances to be observed by all vessels. If the intent of these regulations is being subverted by way of some sort of bogus claim of research on the part of paying customers then it is a matter that needs to be raised with the Minister.
Could this be a classic green double standard where the very people criticising the Japanese for skirting the whale harvest moratorium under the guise of research are doing their own bit of whale molestation under the guise of research?
My understanding is that most of the Antarctic “tourism industry” as Libby puts it, comprises of regular flights to, but not landing on, the continent in a 747. Perhaps Libby might like to advise us exactly how they interact with minke whales from 10km up and then she could tell us how many “tourists” actually make landfall there.
And sorry, I just can’t get my head around the notion that there might be some sort of mad fool stupid enough to attempt swimming with minkes in the kind of waters that would make a brass monkey sing soprano.
As usual, Libby draws the predictable long bows of the self deluded fanatic. And she just will not consider the numbers. The Japanese want to hunt 50, world wide, of a mix of whales and Libby thinks this poses a threat to the Humpback population that numbers more than 8000 on the East Coast alone.
Sorry, I forgot, its all just the thin edge of the wedge wank wank. Isn’t that the same as domino theory?
Swimming with whales is the same as harpooning them with explosives, eh Motty?
Motty is living proof that thanks to the internet the infinite monkey theorem is demonstrably flawed…
“And it was interesting to hear from Libby that there is a swim with whales tourist industry with minke Whales because this would appear to be quite outside the spirit of the EPA regulations which have very specific prescriptions in respect of minimum distances to be observed by all vessels. If the intent of these regulations is being subverted by way of some sort of bogus claim of research on the part of paying customers then it is a matter that needs to be raised with the Minister.”
Ian, I suggest you visit the site that Blair highighted. This will illustrate the methods the industry uses. Of course you wont visit the site, wont be educated and will continue to write as if you have some knowledge on the subject.
“My understanding is that most of the Antarctic “tourism industry” as Libby puts it, comprises of regular flights to, but not landing on, the continent in a 747. Perhaps Libby might like to advise us exactly how they interact with minke whales from 10km up and then she could tell us how many “tourists” actually make landfall there.”
So what about the veseels that leave from Tasmania, Ushuaia, etc? Another site for you to visit Ian http://www.iaato.org/ and another site you will not, and so remain uneducated and continue to write as such.
“As usual, Libby draws the predictable long bows of the self deluded fanatic. And she just will not consider the numbers. The Japanese want to hunt 50, world wide, of a mix of whales and Libby thinks this poses a threat to the Humpback population that numbers more than 8000 on the East Coast alone.”
“Self deluded fantatic”. Thanks I’ll add that to the list. Good to see you are slipping back into insults. The 50 humpbacks the Japanese plan to kill at the end of the year are from Area IV and Area V, not “worldwide” Ian, and not from some global “mix” of whales. If you actually read what I wrote on May 18 at 5:37, I was mentioning the “Oceania” populations of whales Ian.
You obviously are clueless as to anything concerning this issue. Perhaps you could educate yourself on this matter as well, to spare us your ignorant remarks, or perhaps you will simply retort with more insults.
Well, I gladly stand corrected on the balance of tourist numbers in the Antarctic, with 25,000 landed and circa 5,000 fly overs.
But this does not alter the fact that current or projected future whaling poses any threat to the whale wanking industry. The numbers of minkes is still in the hundreds of thousands. And I don’t think anyone would be swayed by Libby’s lame attempts at correcting minor, irrelevant points in the hope that it would be perceived as a refutation of the basic tennent.
The simple facts are that Minkes are one of the few Krill eating species that has been left to exploit the gaps left by overharvesting of larger whale species. So there is a very high probability that total Minke numbers have increased over the past two centuries.
It is also clear that the Dwarf Minkes that comprise the Nth Qld tourism “industry”, if you can refer to serendipitous contacts by that term, are not a species that is targeted for harvesting.
The facts are that there is zero threat to whale based tourism from existing or proposed harvesting. And Libby has made no credible effort to substantiate the case that there is a threat.
Under Labor’s plan, whaling ships found operating illegally could be intercepted and boarded at sea, News Limited newspapers report. The military presence would be backed up by legal action.
Bids to halt whale catching would be made by a Labor government in the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?story_id=586518
“The facts are that there is zero threat to whale based tourism from existing or proposed harvesting. And Libby has made no credible effort to substantiate the case that there is a threat”.
Which whale based tourism are you specifically talkng about here Ian?
” Anti whaling nations secure majority”
” The UK drive in Europe secured votes in Europe while environmentalists secured votes in Latin America”.
According to the paper thanks to Sea Shepherd, Equador joined the IWC, due to help to its fisheries.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/antiwhaling-nations-secure-voting-majority/2007/05/18/1178995408831.html
Only Laos has joined the pro whaling camp. The drive to recruit prowhaling nations to join the IWC has slowed downed and not the opposite , as was believed…
Ian, Libby was not saying that dwarf minkes would be affected by whaling, she was correcting a mistake you made. If she was ‘correcting minor, irrelevant points in the hope that it would be perceived as a refutation of the basic tennent’, perhaps you shouldn’t have made the ‘minor points’ to begin with.
Your comments here IMHO are not even worth the while commenting to they are so stupid.
I had the good fortune to participate in a program aimed at urging nations to prohibit commercial and sport whaling.
My usuall free market instincts don’t serve this issue well. I only wish we could use the Navy to sink whaling ships. That would bring the barbaric practice to an end pretty damn quick.
I had the good fortune to participate in a program aimed at urging nations to prohibit commercial and sport whaling.
My usuall free market instincts don’t serve this issue well. I only wish we could use the Navy to sink whaling ships. That would bring the barbaric practice to an end pretty damn quick.
Why don’t you just substantiate a threat to any whale based tourism, Libby? Take your pick, and then we can deal with all of them. Or is that question only meant to obfuscate further.
Well, Travis, that certainly was a “humble opinion”, par for your course.
The fact is that Libby cannot substantiate a threat because there is none. Fifty less Humpbacks in population of 8000 and expanding by about 800 each year. All it means is that when each boat goes out there will be 9.375% MORE whales than last year, instead of 10% MORE than last year.
Good one, Real Spooner, when are you signing up for the Navy? Just remember that once you start shooting it is fair for others to shoot back. But you’ll be right out front, won’t you?
The reason this is such a confusing topic is because it’s not about the whales. Just like the furores over DDT, GM crops and global warming aren’t actually about those things.
The NGOs have plenty of gullible foot-soldiers willing to be shrill about these things, but none of these would be issues worth notice without the financial backing that comes from those with money on the line.
Of course, Greenpeace, WWF and the usual motley crew are lined up for donations. But also standing in line are those who oppose Japan, corporations and trade unions under pressure from low-cost exporters of goods and services, providers of outdated pesticides, herbicides and seeds, and food companies looking for a marketing angle that will bring in another half percent in market share by next quarter.
It’s not about the whales.
Real Spore,
The sad fact is that your Navy kills more whales with their sonar than the whaling nations….
Real Sporer,
The sad fact is that your Navy kills more whales with their sonar than the whaling nations….
“The sad fact is that your Navy kills more whales with their sonar than the whaling nations….”
Ann, do you have figures for this, just out of curiosity?
Ian,
I am tending to agree with Travis, but anyway…
“Why don’t you just substantiate a threat to any whale based tourism, Libby? Take your pick, and then we can deal with all of them. Or is that question only meant to obfuscate further.”
and
“The fact is that Libby cannot substantiate a threat because there is none. Fifty less Humpbacks in population of 8000 and expanding by about 800 each year. All it means is that when each boat goes out there will be 9.375% MORE whales than last year, instead of 10% MORE than last year.”
Read what has been written here, if you can manage it. Which populations of humpbacks have I been writing about Ian? When you can answer this with some sense, I’ll substantiate.
Hi Libby,
I don’t think anybody yet has any figures as the mass strandings that are linked to sonar are just the tip of an iceberg. Most whales will be lost and never found…
However, what I have heard from discussions from whales people , the sonar is far more dangerous than whaling…
And what do we know about such things in Russian and Chinese waters???
http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/sonar.asp
To Libby,
Did a Google… found this:
Strandings in Britain have more than doubled in the past decade, from 360 in 1994 to 782 in 2004, and vets believe that the number of whales that wash up on shore are only one-tenth of those that die, suggesting that there are thousands of casualties.
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines06/0122-06.htm
No, Libby, you are trying on a text book example of obfuscation, establishing an entirely manufactured hurdle that supposedly needs to be crossed before you actually respond.
You are free to choose any whale based tourism operation you want, as long as you substantiate the character, scale, frequency and extent of the harm and the relevance of that harm to the affected population of whales.
The Australian Federal Opposition has promised to send more naval gunboats to patrol southern waters in a bid to take tough action against whale hunting.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1927562.htm
Motty’s punch drunk but still trying to land a left
This is a suitable post for this thread.
This lettr from an anti whaling organisation was published in an Icelandic paper to Mr. Paul Watson.
http://mbl.is/media/24/724.pdf
Dear Mr Watson,
Iceland Nature Conservation Association has learned that Sea Shepherd intends taking actions against whaling activities in Icelandic waters this summer. The INCA urges you not to do this…
Dear Ian,
“No, Libby, you are trying on a text book example of obfuscation, establishing an entirely manufactured hurdle that supposedly needs to be crossed before you actually respond”.
Obfuscation? Manufactured hurdle? No Ian. I have far better things to do than respond to you when it is going to be a waste of my valuable time. I’ve done that too many times before. Any obfuscation or hurdles are in your mind and of your own making. Some of us have a life.
Here is what I first wrote in response to comments on this thread, made namely by you:
“You continue to ignore the South Pacific nations of Tonga, New Caledonia, Niue, and Cook Islands. These countries have growing and even well established whale watching industries. To say the killing of the Group V humpbacks by the Japanese will not impact on the already-small populations of whales supporting these industries is baseless.”
So, if you actually read this it is talking about South Pacific nations which have whale watch industries. Which whale watching industries did I raise Ian? South Pacific ones.
Let’s look at Tonga. She has from 700-1200 humpbacks which mate and breed in her waters. There is a valuable boat-based and swim-with industry there. Each season vistors from all around the world visit this third-world country, which is one of four areas world-wide where there is a swim-with-humpback-whales industry. The knock on effect of these tourists regarding accomodation, transportation, food, souvenirs, Tongan employment, etc should not be too hard to imagine. Many tourtists also donate to local families and schools. The population of whales which visit these waters are genetically distinct. They have not shown the same rates of recovery as the east Australian humbacks. There used to be humpbacks in Fijian waters. They are lucky to see five there a year now. There used to be humpbacks passing in great numbers along the NZ coast. They are lucky to see 40 there now. There is further information on this debate in the archives. This includes exchanges about feeding areas and intermingling, and the ability to tell which is a Tongan whale and which is an east Australian whale when you are aiming your harpoon. Do your own leg work.
So far you have written that:
A) “There is no tourism based industry in Australia or NZ that involves interaction with Minke Whales”. Wrong.
B) “There is a swim with whales tourist industry with minke Whales because this would appear to be quite outside the spirit of the EPA regulations which have very specific prescriptions in respect of minimum distances to be observed by all vessels. If the intent of these regulations is being subverted by way of some sort of bogus claim of research on the part of paying customers then it is a matter that needs to be raised with the Minister”. Wrong.
C)”My understanding is that most of the Antarctic “tourism industry” as Libby puts it, comprises of regular flights to, but not landing on, the continent in a 747″. Wrong.
D)”The Japanese want to hunt 50, world wide, of a mix of whales.” Wrong.
E) “The facts are that there is zero threat to whale based tourism from existing or proposed harvesting”. Wrong.
If this does not satisfy you, too bad. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that nothing I do will satisfy you Ian. Time and again (who could forget the Northern Right Whale thread?) you put up dumb arguments just because you like the sound of your own prose. A bit like GraemeBird, funny that. Feel free to insult and try and show me in a bad light as much as you like Ian. The sun is shining, it rained recently and there are more pleasant things in life. Oh yeah, and the whales are passing up the coast.
The reason this does not satisfy is that you have not delivered any of the substantiation of threat that you were challenged to provide. Instead you embarked on an attack on some straw men.
Your point A above is somewhat of a long bow, and based on the Minke’s curiosity rather than mainstream tourism.
Your point B above actually leaves out the the first part of that sentence which completely alters the meaning. I said “[And it was interesting to hear from Libby that] there is a swim with whales tourist industry with minke Whales because this would appear to be quite outside the spirit of the EPA regulations which have very specific prescriptions in respect of minimum distances to be observed by all vessels.” My view, that this is using the “research” loophole to get around the intent of the regulations has not been addressed by you or anyone else.
Your point C above has already been gladly conceded by me.
Your point D, asserting that my view that the extra 50 non-Minkes that the Japanese want to capture are a mixture of species is wrong, has not been substantiated by you.
And your point E, where you claim I am wrong to suggest that “there is zero threat to whale based tourism from existing or proposed harvesting”, is the very issue that you have so conspicuously failed to substantiate.
It is simply not good enough to claim that the NZ industry only has 40 humpacks, or the 700 to 1200 Tongan ones are genetically distinct, without any consideration of the actual probability that, of all the humpbacks in the southern ocean, the Japanese are going to capture even one of the Tongan ones or the NZ ones. But you have allowed, actually encouraged the gullible to make an assumption that the 50 whales harvested would all be NZ or Tongan ones.
This is either seriously delusional or downright dishonesty on your part. Do the numbers, 50 out of 10,000 odd humpbacks works out at a realistic chance of 1 NZ humpback being caught every 5 years.
And your guff about slow rates of recovery doesn’t stack up because the stated population range of between 700 and 1200 animals is far too imprecise to detect a 10% annual growth rate if it was staring you in the face.
And it must be said that the swim-with industry in the pacific islands could well be a major reason why that population is not growing as fast as the East and West coast populations in Australia.
Like I said, you are free to support you claims with relevant detail any time you choose.
Re: the issue of humpback stock structure in relation to the possibility of the JARPA hunt of 50 whales in Areas IV and V in alternating years starting next austral summer,
Some relevant information on sub structure within the E stock from an IWC SC workshop held prior to the IWC 58 SC meeting:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/workshops/SC-58-Rep5.pdf
“Whilst welcoming these papers, the Workshop noted that despite the large number of samples available, there have as yet been no major genetic comparisons of the data from eastern Australia with samples from other parts of the South Pacific.”
Unfortunately, the report does not go into details of the reasons for that, however,
“… The Workshop strongly recommends that such analyses be undertaken as soon as possible, since they are fundamental to understanding stock structure in these regions and in particular, may enable a reduction in the number of hypotheses given … ”
This indeed sounds like very important work, and according to the report’s summary on research priorities:
“Priority 1. Genetic analyses
The Workshop noted that genetic comparisons have not been made between other breeding grounds and the migratory corridor of eastern Australia or the presumed breeding grounds of the Great Barrier Reef. It strongly recommends that genetic comparisons should be made between eastern Australia and the rest of Breeding Stocks E and F, as well as with western Australia (see Item 3.5.5); this is essential to providing the necessary information on stock structure for the completion of the assessment.”
While I understand that the issue of data sharing amongst scientists can be an extremely sensitive issue, I would hope that scientists are able to share their data with other scientists through the IWC Data Availability protocol.
It’s clear that genetic data from the humpback Antarctic feeding grounds is available ( http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/DataAvailability/DAJARPA.pdf ), so hopefully access can soon be had for other samples.
With respect to the feeding ground samples, ICR scientists have reported that while their “genetic results support the previous view based on non-genetic information that the Areas are occupied by different populations during the feeding season”, they note that the “possibility of intermingle of populations in bordering sectors can not be discarded yet and a comprehensive analysis that involves genetic data from low and high latitude, as recommended by the Scientific Committee, is necessary to solve this issue”
So, at this stage it appears that is still too early to state with complete confidence that none of the humpback whales that feed in Area V could belong to very much less recovered Oceania humpback populations, but conversely it’s also too early to state that that suggestion is baseless, as it clearly is a possibility.
I don’t see any papers related to this in the IWC SC 59 document list, and wonder what the status is with this data availability issue.
Re the kafuffle about the ALP’s plans to go crazy in their quest to get elected.. uuh, to stop “whale slaughter”.
“Mr Rudd says something has to change”
I’m glad of the debate being had in Australia. Perhaps someone there will say “how come we have a domestic law that is incompatible with our status as a signatory to the ICRW, and anyway, why do we have this anti-whaling policy in the first place?”
Ian the pot calling kettle black you love to deconstruct anyone and everyone’s else’s line. That’s all you’ve done here. So tedious. Put up your own assumptions and fully justified population ecology explanation. Don’t just attack and deconstruct like a Po-Mo delusionist. Nah, not the flimsy envelope crap you try to pass off, but some real substantiated argument. Convince the thinking man that your bully tactics aren’t just about logging rights and your blind political stance over neo-liberal property rights.
Ian you are also free to support you claims with relevant detail any time you choose. BTW, remember to program your envelope accordingly as they’re not bovines or trees. What you do know about whales again? How many minutes in your entire life have you spent observing whales?
Hi Pinxi sweets 🙂
You said on May 20, 2007 07:30 PM
” What you do know about whales again? How many minutes in your entire life have you spent observing whales? ”
Great question ( seriously )- apply it all contributors 😉
George honey
We could modify that criterion – you can only advocate whaling if you’ve taken a grenade laden harpoon in the noggin.
Aaah Lukey, back again to the topic of whaling and cruelty…as some of you guys are Greenpeace supporters , I want to post a controversial comment posted by a former GP Norwegian activist back on their forum.
This person seemed to be an experienced marine mammal observer as well and had applied to one of the whales survey in the Barents Sea, and had participated in the direct actions against whalers back in the 90’s.
She said the TTD’s statistics were not bad at all.. no, she didn’t oppose whaling on cruelty grounds….
If you find this offensive, the comment could be found in Greenpeace’s Galley Gossip, this person replied to a comment by me…think it was 2 years ago….methinks I mentioned that whaling was cruel…
“Your point A above is somewhat of a long bow, and based on the Minke’s curiosity rather than mainstream tourism”.
The minkes are in the area, they are curious by nature, and hence an industry has sprung up around it. Check the dive magazines Ian.
“My view, that this is using the “research” loophole to get around the intent of the regulations has not been addressed by you or anyone else”.
Oh, were we to address this? Go to the website Ian and read it. The industry would exist without the research. It is, however, a good platform for the researchers to use (‘a platform of opportunity’). There is no loophole, except in the obvious area of your anatomy.
“Your point D, asserting that my view that the extra 50 non-Minkes that the Japanese want to capture are a mixture of species is wrong, has not been substantiated by you”.
You have not substantiated that they will all be from the east Australian group of whales.
“But you have allowed, actually encouraged the gullible to make an assumption that the 50 whales harvested would all be NZ or Tongan ones.”
Balderdash Ian. Absolute crap. I have said no such thing at all. Bully boy tactics as usual.
“And your guff about slow rates of recovery doesn’t stack up because the stated population range of between 700 and 1200 animals is far too imprecise to detect a 10% annual growth rate if it was staring you in the face”.
Are these whales increasing at a 10% rate? I’m talking about the TONGAN ones Ian.
“And it must be said that the swim-with industry in the pacific islands could well be a major reason why that population is not growing as fast as the East and West coast populations in Australia”.
Is there evidence for this Ian? The same sort of evidence you are demanding from me? No. There has been no study done on the effects, short, mid or long term, of the swim-with industry on the Tongan whales. The industry has been in operation since 1994. How do you account for slow growth prior to this? Why isn’t vessel-based tourism affecting the EA and WA whales when you consider the realities of swim-withs?
“”Whilst welcoming these papers, the Workshop noted that despite the large number of samples available, there have as yet been no major genetic comparisons of the data from eastern Australia with samples from other parts of the South Pacific.””
This should be available shortly. I believe there have been issues with standardizing techniques, ie. different researchers in different areas using different samples and analysis.
“It’s clear that genetic data from the humpback Antarctic feeding grounds is available”
There is also mark-recapture data available from the feeding grounds, although it is only from a small number of individuals.
A population assessment of Oceania whales is in development. It is being revised from last year’s paper. There are still problems (my words) with the sharing of data between researchers with catalogues and samples. It is a major stumbling block (my words again) of the process.
There is another potential aspect of the hunting of humpbacks, which has been raised by some people, and that is that non-hunted humpback whales will be ‘boat shy’. I have given much thought to this, and whilst there is no firm conclusion that can be drawn at this stage, it is a possibility. When I first started my research in 1985 you were lucky to see 20 whales in two weeks of dedicated surveys. The whales would come nowhere near boats. In five years I noticed some of the subadults (no adults) being more ‘curious’ and readily approaching vessels. Nowadays many whales ‘mug’ boats before continuing on their way. Just my observations.
Ian says:
>The Japanese want to hunt 50, world wide, of a mix of whales and Libby thinks this poses a threat to the Humpback population that numbers more than 8000 on the East Coast alone.
Then says:
>Your point D, asserting that my view that the extra 50 non-Minkes that the Japanese want to capture are a mixture of species is wrong, has not been substantiated by you.
So are the Japanese hunting a MIX of whales Ian, and could this MIX of whales include NZ, Tonga, Fiji, New Caledonia, along with eastern Australia animals? Which MIX are we talking about here?
Your arguments make little sense, but then we have come to expect that.
If Travis had basic comprehension capacities he would have recognised that I was refering to a mix of species.
Re the Tongan humpback population, when the most accurate assessment of a population consists of a range as wide as between 700 and 1200 animals (71% error margin) then any assessment of population increase is impossible. I find this kind of imprecise base line is a fairly well worn green device to obscure the actual rate of population increase.
For example, if the base line was actually 700 with a 5% annual increase (35/year) then that increase could go on for 15 years and those with an interest in understating the numbers could still claim that the baseline was 1200 all along and the population is static.
Again lots of froth from Libby but no explanation of the actual character, scale, frequency and relevance of whale harvesting on the populations themselves, and certainly no explanation of how these minor effects translate into a threat to the whale molestation industry.
Here is the relevant part of the national whale watching guidelines dealing with scientific access.
“In some instances, such as for scientific or
educational purposes, or commercial filming it
may be necessary for vessels to approach closer to
a whale or dolphin than outlined in the national
standards (Tier 1). This may only occur under the
authorisation of the relevant state, territory or
Australian Government agency. In these cases all vessels must operate within the conditions of authorisation”.
Note that these guidelines apply only when the boat approaches the whale or dolphin, not when the animal approaches the boat. There is, however, specific prescriptions preventing boats from waiting ahead of whales and allowing them to approach on their way. See;
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/pubs/whale-watching-guidelines-2005.pdf
Ian there is no reliable assessment of population increase for Tongan humpbacks. Researchers have recognised for years that this population is not recovering at the rate some others are. There may be some sort of assessment for them included in the one I mentioned in an above post. Have you flogged that dead horse enough?
“Again lots of froth from Libby but no explanation of the actual character, scale, frequency and relevance of whale harvesting on the populations themselves, and certainly no explanation of how these minor effects translate into a threat to the whale molestation industry”.
I don’t froth Ian. I have provided you with some information, and as stated, there is more in the archives. If you can’t see that a small population of whales in Tonga, which feeds in Antarctic waters where stocks intermingle, may be affeced by harvesting over a period of time, which in turn then affects the Tongan tourism industry, it’s nothing to do with me. If you see my answers as some sort of failing, then at least you are being consistent.
I have no idea why you have mentioned the Federal whale watch guidelines. Are you still asserting that QLD is breaking these with the minke-swim with?
>If Travis had basic comprehension capacities he would have recognised that I was refering to a mix of species.
Oh yeah? So in the first sentence the Japanese are hunting 50 of what, worldwide, of what mix of whale species that you clais Libby thinks poses a threat to 8000 HUMPBACK whales? In the second sentence there are an extra 50 non-minkes of a mix of what species?
Mott admit it – you don’t know what you are talking about. You not only can’t provide facts, you can’t construct a logical sentence! One wonders if your rabid barking is aimed at Libby simply because you don’t like her, not because you want to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion.
Good to learn here that genetic analysis including samples from Eastern Australia is now being undertaken. Hopefully the data can also made available through the IWC SC Data Availability protocol, and hopefully the issue can be resolved at the IWC SC prior to the 2008/2009 austral summer.
If not, perhaps the ICR will consider limiting it’s lethal sampling operations away from the part of Area V bordering Area VI where the possibility of mixing can not be ruled out yet. In addition to the possible conservation issue of taking whales from the Oceania stocks, I imagine aspects of the JARPA II study on humpback whales would be somewhat compromised were whales other than those from the rapidly increasing Eastern Australia population included within the analyses.
I obviously know little about the possibility of humpbacks avoiding boats in whale-watching areas due to 50 of them being hunted in their feeding grounds thousands of kilometres away, but I remember seeing an article some months ago about fewer opportunities for whale-watching off western Australia last year. Someone related to the industry quoted in the article speculated that the lack of whales was possibly due to the ICR programme in the Antarctic in Area IV. This was of course prior to any humpbacks being taken, according to the ICR/GoJ. Unlike Kevin Rudd’s party, I don’t doubt the GoJ’s reporting of the numbers and types of whales taken during their programme, but hey, who knows for sure whether we can trust the GoJ or not.
Libby said, “If you can’t see that a small population of whales in Tonga, which feeds in Antarctic waters where stocks intermingle, may be affeced by harvesting over a period of time, which in turn then affects the Tongan tourism industry, it’s nothing to do with me”.
Yet you refuse to get specific. The IWC population estimates are somewhat dated and for Humpbacks, still incomplete. See; http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm
Note that the 1988 best estimate was 10,000 for Australia alone with 95% confidence range from 6,000 to 17,000. And if we assume the lower estimate of 6,000 in 1988 and apply the lower of the two growth rate estimates, (10.9% pa for WA, 12.4% for East Coast) this population is likely to be in the order of 13,700 by 1996 and 38,600 by 2006.
So even if the mid-south pacific population is still only 1400 (what date was Libby’s reported estimate of 1200?) then the total population intermingling in the southern ocean is over 40,000. And this means an additional 4,400 surviving to adulthood each year.
The 50 to be taken by the Japanese, from alternating sectors, will amount to only 1.13% of the annual increase. This will reduce the annual growth rate from 10.9% to 10.77%.
The 1200 Tongan whales represent only 3% of the intermingled population and are likely to see only 3 of their number taken every second year. They would need a growth rate of only 0.125 of 1% to negate this loss.
So the question remains. How, exactly, will this pose a threat to the whale molesting industry?
Good points, David. Is there a map anywhere of Areas V and VI?
>I obviously know little about the possibility of humpbacks avoiding boats in whale-watching areas due to 50 of them being hunted in their feeding grounds thousands of kilometres away
Obviously. You seem to be mentioning the ’50’ and ‘thousands of kilometres away’ as some sort of point you are trying to make. Cetaceans, like many other animals, can learn from observing others. Proof in point is the song copying of humpback whales. It is totally feasible that what groups of whales observe on feeding grounds thousands of kilometres away with regards to vessels and unpleasant encounters can be translated into behaviour on migration or on breeding grounds. The starting number is 50 for this austral summer. This is not a once-off take.
Ian, FYI a report submitted to the IWC SC notes total abundance in the southern hemisphere is probably above 50,000 now, and covers various recent abundance estimates in different areas comprehensively.
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2007/05/southern-hemisphere-humpback-numbers.html
(see page 8 of the report for info on the “E” stock, and page 9 of the report for info on the “F” stock)
Ian, sure, take a look at my blog (the link above) for a map.
Back slapping all round. Wow Ian. I gather you have been emailing from Alaska, where you have been attending the IWC SC meeting? Your simplistic knowledge of population modelling is astounding, and I am sure you are a worthy contributor to Southern Hemisphere humpback whale assessments. I can’t get over how ‘easy’ you think this all is. Are you really that naive? More and more I am shocked by your apparent knowledge, and I am not being sarcastic here.
The “1200” was from last year, but it was agreed that better estimates are required, hence the review I have mentioned.
Can’t you find maps of Area V and VI yourself Ian? You seem to have all the answers, so I am surprised by this.
“perhaps the ICR will consider limiting it’s lethal sampling operations away from the part of Area V bordering Area VI where the possibility of mixing can not be ruled out yet”.
There is not much point limiting catches from the border of Area V and Area VI if whales don’t limit themselves to this area, is there? An east Australian humpback was all the way across the Area VI border, so it stands to reason that these animals travel vast distances in either direction depending on environmental conditions and food availablility.
Travis,
> Obviously.
Is that necessary?
> There is not much point limiting catches from the border of Area V and Area VI if whales don’t limit themselves to this area, is there?
To what degree does such mixing occur?
“To what degree does such mixing occur?”
That is what we are trying to establish, but we do know that mixing does occur. This would obviously be variable, as I mentioned, with regards to environmental and prey conditons. Part of the problem with going back to past catch records is that we don’t know which breeding groups animals came from.
There is “good” assessment information for breeding stocks A, G and D, but problems still exist for G and D. The assessment for breeding stock D is considered as preliminary and will be re-evauated in the future.
While looking forward to the results from additional studies utilising available genetic samples from Eastern Australia, I wonder whether (for example) existing genetic studies give any indication of whether the degree of mixing between the different stocks in the west and centre of Area V (away from the border with Area VI) is high, medium, or low?
As far as I know, and I will stand corrected if otherwise shown, this information is not currently available from genetic studies.
Once again, Libby substitutes sneer and bile for solid information. But thanks for that link, David. It does confirm my estimates and it was most illuminating to see the current estimate for Tonga is actually 2311 compared to Libby’s 700 to 1200 and the estimate for New Caledonia was 472 compared to Libby’s claimed 40 for NZ. One would reasonably assume that these 472 swam past NZ to get to New Caledonia.
Just to confirm;
Area IV (WA) was 18,000 in 1998/99, which, at 10% increase, would now be 35,000 Humpbacks.
Area V (East Coast, New Cal & Tonga) was 13,200 in 2002/03, which, at 10% increase, would now be 17,500 Humpbacks.
A total of 52,500, with an annual increase of 5,250 animals. But it is hardly necessary to adjust all my figures above as the message is already very loud and very clear.
But don’t expect Travis to eat his words “Mott admit it – you don’t know what you are talking about. You not only can’t provide facts, you can’t construct a logical sentence”!
Really! We’ll just let the readers form their own opinion, shall we, punk?
The whaling circus continues…
Read Paul Watsons reply to Icelandic anti whaling organisation INCA ( now he blames IFAW as well for supporting sustainable whaling) :
http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070518_1.html
Ann,
I read that too, and was surprised. Is it true that IFAW supports sustainable whaling, or is that just more PW nonsense?
David,
Greenpeace’s and IFAW’s anti whaling campaigns in Iceland are very cautious…they don’t say you must close down the whaling industry , they say it might be wise to close it down, since it may hurt the tourist sector…
IFAW and sustainabele whaling. Don’t hardly think they support sustainable whaling, but for example , neither Greenpeace nor IFAW are opposed to the Faroe Islands whaling….
As I have not been in a Greenpeace office for some months , I have no clue how the discussions are running….
If whales are so smart, how come they have not managed to form any alliances with other species?
Correction! Orcas appear to be the only whale species that have formed cooperative agreements with other species, with humans, and that was to hunt Humpbacks and Minkes, especially their babies.
If whales are so smart, how come they have not managed to work out how to communicate with us?
If whales are such sensitive, sentient beings, how come they still include the “gang bang” in their accepted mating rituals? Does that mean the “Bulldogs” Rugby League team are also sentient beings?
If whale molesters are so smart, how come they have not managed to communicate with whales with anything more subtle than banging a stick on the side of a boat?
On another topic, has anyone asked Kevin Rudd what his “exit strategy” is for his naval conflict with Japan?
If whales are so smart, how come they have not managed to form any alliances with other species?
Correction! Orcas appear to be the only whale species that have formed cooperative agreements with other species, with humans, and that was to hunt Humpbacks and Minkes, especially their babies.
If whales are so smart, how come they have not managed to work out how to communicate with us?
If whales are such sensitive, sentient beings, how come they still include the “gang bang” in their accepted mating rituals? Does that mean the “Bulldogs” Rugby League team are also sentient beings?
If whale molesters are so smart, how come they have not managed to communicate with whales with anything more subtle than banging a stick on the side of a boat?
On another topic, has anyone asked Kevin Rudd what his “exit strategy” is for his naval conflict with Japan?
Ian,
Re: Rudd’s plan (to potentially cause an international conflict over whales being killed under the terms of an international agreement to which Australia is signatory, also in violation of other treaties to which Australia is signatory),
I saw a statement by him somewhere that boarding ships etc would only take place in extreme circumstances (or similar words – haven’t seen the original policy outline to be able to quote directly).
So I figure that a Labor government in practice wouldn’t be as crazy as the voters that they are apparently trying to appeal to.
“Once again, Libby substitutes sneer and bile for solid information.”
Ah no, I leave that sort of stunt to you Ian. You are the one with the insults and body secretions, remember?
“But thanks for that link, David. It does confirm my estimates and it was most illuminating to see the current estimate for Tonga is actually 2311 compared to Libby’s 700 to 1200 and the estimate for New Caledonia was 472 compared to Libby’s claimed 40 for NZ”.
David’s link is by one researcher, who does not belong to the SPWRC. The SPWRC actually does do research on Tongan whales and contributed largely to the SH assessment last year. They are the ones the IWC are looking to for answers
“One would reasonably assume that these 472 swam past NZ to get to New Caledonia”.
Well, once again you are demonstrating how little you know about humpback whales Ian! Keep reading, or asking others for help. Incorrect answer yet again.
“Just to confirm;
Area IV (WA) was 18,000 in 1998/99, which, at 10% increase, would now be 35,000 Humpbacks.
Area V (East Coast, New Cal & Tonga) was 13,200 in 2002/03, which, at 10% increase, would now be 17,500 Humpbacks”.
You mean you couldn’t get a old of estimates more current?!
“Correction! Orcas appear to be the only whale species that have formed cooperative agreements with other species, with humans, and that was to hunt Humpbacks and Minkes, especially their babies”.
This is utter tosh which you keep regurgitating, who knows why? The killer whales you are talking about “cooperatively” hunted southern right and humpback whales for a start. The industry was not targeting minkes. Remember? That’s why there are ‘so many of them’. The killer whales would help with adults and subadults not “babies”. Put away your Little Golden Books Ian. Other examples of cooperative hunting by dolphins are currently seen in Africa and Asia with dolphins and fishermen. It appears various baleen whales may cooperatively hunt, birds and mammalian terrestrial carnivores are seen to cooperatively hunt. Your ignorance knows no bounds, except that your ego overshoots it.
“If whales are so smart, how come they have not managed to work out how to communicate with us?”
How do you know they haven’t Ian? Perhaps it’s that humans are too dumb to understand them. If they have encountered the likes of you, no wonder they have given up! Sound advice there.
>Really! We’ll just let the readers form their own opinion, shall we, punk?
Oooh I love it when you talk homie Ian!
>But don’t expect Travis to eat his words “Mott admit it – you don’t know what you are talking about. You not only can’t provide facts, you can’t construct a logical sentence”!
Um no, you still don’t know what you are talking about!!! If Ian is so smart how come he writes idiotic stuff like at 3:59 (not to mention previously)? It’s not what you know Ian, but who you know, speaking of alliances!!!
“If whales are so smart, how come they have not managed to work out how to communicate with us?”-Ian
Maybe some people are so idiotic that they think whales should communicate with them through language….but they lack suitable vocal cords to do so….maybe some people are not subtle enough to communicate with them???
Personally, I can communicate ( I’m not boasting) even with some birds, they do actually understand a lot ….then why not whales????
Actually, the information referred to in the Branch paper on humpback abundant about the Tonga and New Caledonia estimates was from the SPWRC, not Mr. Branch, he just cited it:
“Photographic mark-recapture methods from 1999–2004 give estimates of 472 (CV = 0.18) for New Caledonia (substock E2) and 2,311 (CV = 0.22) for Tonga (substock E3) (South Pacific Whale Research Consortium et al., 2006).”
The Branch paper is basically a summary, as far as I can tell, although Branch is involved in the abundance estimate work for the IDCR/SOWER programme (at least).
“Actually, the information referred to in the Branch paper on humpback abundant about the Tonga and New Caledonia estimates was from the SPWRC, not Mr. Branch, he just cited it”
The SC has stated that better estimates need to be obtained for the Oceania stocks amongst others). It is my understanding that the SPWRC was not putting much weight on the estimates given for some Oceania stocks even by their own researchers, recognising that much more needs to be done (you can read a few things into that comment, which I’d rather not elaborate on). As I mentioned previously, it was largely recognised last year that only 3 SH breeding groups have “good” information on estimates, and of those only one is really reliable. I believe more accurate estimates will be forthcoming, but it needs a little more of those “alliances” Ian was talking about in order to ensure the data given is as good as we can get.
Here’s an article from Iceland Review that states:
“That is to say non-violent protest might be futile but violent protest is just counterproductive. ”
Paul Watson is IMO Mr. Loftssons and the whaling industy’s best friend as comments as Watsons might only promote pro whaling and nationalistic feelings.
http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=282173
Hey Ann,
Sorry to jump back down to the SOS but, Sea Shepherd says “If Australia decides to intervene then we will happily defer to their authority.”
SSCS staying away from the Antarctic is welcome news for everyone I think (although I’m highly skeptical of Labor’s intention to actually use their gunships against the ICR fleet, so maybe SSCS will turn up anyway when they find out that the navy isn’t going to play as rough as has been made out by the Aussie media).
Also, apparently the Labor policy would also involve documentation (video etc) of the hunting.
Under such circumstances, Greenpeace too would have no reason to go to the Antarctic, since documenting the hunt would be covered by the Australian Navy.
Presumably Greenpeace will also be happy that they should be able to free up their resources for other activities? Or do you think they would head to the Antarctic (for some reason) anyway 🙂
David,
As you probably know from GP websites etc. GP makes their decisions on campaign strategies and the ships routes at least one year ahead of the actual campaign/action.
Of course there are small corrections as well…
So the decision to go to the SOS has probably already been made ….
Ooops, I meant , ” the decision to go or not go to the SOS has probably already been made”
No, I didn’t know that Ann. Thanks! Well, for starters, fingers crossed that Labor are elected in Australia.
Some would have us believe that whales are these highly intelligent beings that frolic about in the ocean reciting sonnets. But to date, the best they have demonstrated is a level of intellect equivalent to a non-selectively bred cattle dog. Most are more on the plane of cattle themselves.
But thats right, Libby and Travis, keep up the invective and avoid the substance all you can. You have provided readers with a very solid record of irrational argument, avoidance of the key facts and resort to abuse when checkmated.
And still no explanation as to how 50 harvested Humpbacks, out of a population of 52,000 animals, sorry, that would soon be more like 57,000 as the birthing season is underway, would damage the whale molestation industry.
Damn it, these fornicating, procreating whales are ruining a good catastrophe story. Whose side are they on anyway?
I wondered how long it would take for the whales=cows comment to be repeated. Pinxie would be proud of you!
The readers can pass their own judgement Ian. On the one hand there is someone studying EA and Tongan humpbacks, and on the other there is…er…what do you do again Ian, cut down trees?
Posted by: Libby at May 21, 2007 11:32 PM
” The readers can pass their own judgement Ian. On the one hand there is someone studying EA and Tongan humpbacks, and on the other there is…er…what do you do again Ian, cut down trees? ”
There´s someone collecting population and other data on North Atlantic Minkies as well as humpbacks and other species as well Libby – Difference is – you´re one of the Jedi – I went over to the dark side long ago …LMAO
Travis, can I remind you of something?
Travis why do you have to attack with personal insults? I was hoping this thread wouldn’t stray into the usual snide snipes, but it didn’t take long did it?
Pot.Kettle.Black ;op
No Libby, I deflate bloated bladders of blatant baloney on a few well regarded blog sites. I take great delight in providing the numbers by which readers may apply proper tests of relevance to the partial and fragmentary assemblages of loaded assumptions, factoids and outright fantasy that is routinely served up as information by the green/left.
George I was not overlooking you. I was being specific. Your point about which side of the Force one is on is exactly right. For some it is all about alliances no matter how accurate the content. Pity really.
Ian, whatever turns you on!
Hi Libby,
No worries – I just thought it was quite funny .. and I believe you are spot on with this comment :
” Your point about which side of the Force one is on is exactly right. For some it is all about alliances no matter how accurate the content. Pity really.”
too true
Ah George, I have learnt from the Sith Lord himself.
George, I am your father.. I find your lack of faith disturbing!
:o)
My name is Motty, yo, and I know it all
Gunna test my knowledge, listen up y’all
No swimming wit dem minkes is happenin’ in Beattie’s heaven
There’s no watchin in da ice ‘less it’s from a 747
Da guvmint’s not allowin’ close approach to any whales
So da lawmen betta ‘rrest whale watchers coz legally it fails
Da 50 worldwide humpies are a mixin it in the sea
Like dem cats in da dumpsters at the back of KFC
Obfuscate, gunna obfuscate
Whilst I ask my bro the facts of this debate
Gotta dis that Libby scrubber what the hell does she know?
She aint no landlubber like my bro in Tokyo
Orca are the only ones jammin’ with us here
They killed da minkes babies it’s a fact, is that clear?
No creatures but dem orcas have alliances of da species
What’s a ratel and honey guide gotta do with this thesis?
“wank”, “molestors”, “gang bangs” yeah
Y’know I had to get my sexual refs in there
52, 5000, 10%, 4, 400 it’s simple dope
Gotta run to da post office for another envelope
Irrational argument, avoidence, abuse I can matchya
I’m so smart I can throw the same words backatcha
I’m da man, I’m da xpert of the whys and the hows
Remember punk and bimbo and y’all
whales = cows
Hey y’all, I thought it was supposed to be my fault whenever one of these whaling threads turns nasty. Anyone feel like blaming me yet?
🙂
Travis shows as much creative talent as Ian!!!
Too bad, maybe common sense will prevail after all…
“I think it was ill-conceived and really dumb politics when it comes to what the Japanese contribute here” – Kevin Byrne, Mayor of Cairns on ALP anti-whaling plan.
“Any military arrests in Antarctic waters would cause alarm and not just with Japan” – Don Rothwell
… but there is still much hope!
“Veteran whale researcher Wally Franklin of the Oceania Project supports Labor’s new policy. He believes that the present Government’s policy of diplomatic action has been simply ignored by the Japanese, and that time is ripe for a new, more active policy.
It’s a view supported by the vast majority of ABC Wide Bay talkback callers, with a solid consensus in favour of direct action to protect whales in Australia’s territorial waters in the Antarctic.”
Admiral Rudd looks like trying on the “Galtieri Gambit” that was so popular with Argentine voters in the lead up to the Falklands campaign. And Rudd, like the General, doesn’t appear to have an exit strategy for his little dalliance in military adventurism.
But don’t worry folks, if Rudd doesn’t have one the Japanese might be quite willing to provide one of their own. Just like the one Maggie T provided the Argentines. The only trouble is that nations that have to utilise another nations exit strategy tend to have to pay for it with a 37 cent dollar.
Environment Minister Turnbull made it very clear the other night that both their own legal advice, and the legal advice from other nations, is that the Antarctic Exclusive Economic Zone that we have claimed, and which must form the basis of any right to interfere with vessels in the zone, has no international legal basis.
The use of our navy to try and enforce the zone would be ruled illegal and the resulting legal ruling would be binding on Australia and every other pretender to Antarctic sovereignty. It would open a clear legal door for China, India, Japan and Korea to establish permanent settlements there with obvious implications for oil and coal exploration in an energy constrained world.
But as both Liberal and Labor administrations have been quite content to pursue a policy based on a myth, a misrepresentation made with a knowledge of its untruth, it is high time this BS was sorted out. Bring it on, bozos, just give me time to get some funds offshore.
Nah nah nah nah nah – nah. The preceding climate thread is bigger !!
The circus continues…
Greenpeace’s latest stunt in Germany has been described as a “performance” by at least two Japanese media outlets.
The Circus indeed … I was there 😉
I asked two Greenpeace activists why they were claiming
” They set out 17 dead whales and dolphins, which were collected in the last weeks along European coasts.”
When they were all Porpoises as far as I could see .
Answer : No, they are dolphins and whales ..
Me : there are no whales there – where are the dolphins and whales?
answer : silence ….
OOPS .. the film Dumber and dumber springs to mind …
I also asked if I could see the CITES permits for transporting Cetacean biological material across Borders within Europe – I know from personal experience how hard it is to ship even small biopsy samples…
Answer : I´ll have to check, ummmmm we don´t have them here though …
I took the opportunity to inform the Head of the Police contingent there that these bozos had no CITES permit available if at all and called the ZOLL as well – ( Border and customs ) they were going to send someone out to check details..
Finally, it was around 33C in the shade yesterday in central Berlin – though the porpoises came from a freezer ´truck – they were sitting in melting ice in direct sunshine ( over 40C – I checked ) and will now be re frozen – and then partially rethawed at the next circus .. and again and again … a wonderful example of public health concern …
Thats assuming that the ZOLL don´t confiscate the material first – would be a shame if these bozos have not got all there CITES permits in a row would´nt it ?
All well meaning tosh by GP but as usual – LOOK …. we need yer dosh .. shame some bugger spoilt it a somewhat by asking embarassing questions on camera 😉
PS..
One “might” have been a small common dolphin – I say “might” – so technically, one 17th of GP´s claim ” might ” be right
The circus will arrive to Stockholm tomorrow…
On GPs Swedish site it is stated:
” Protect the whales!”
On a funny note, GP Nordic states, there will be porpoises, common dolphin(s), pilot whales and one Cuvier’s beaked whale at display….
I saw one image from Berlin, as far as I could see only harbour porpoises at display…
This action is meant to be a manifestation against cetacean bycatch and a protest against the resumption of commercial whaling…
OK, anyway if they want whales stopped being killed, it might be strange that pilot whales/grindvalar are at display since GP doesn’t oppose the pilot whale hunt….
Hi Anne,
According to GP Germany, They had a pilot whale, a common dolphin, a white sided dolphin and a beaked whale amongst the 17 – The white sided ” might” be the 12th from the right – The common dolphin may also be on the far left .. did´nt see any beaked whale personally ( I could be wrong of course as I did´nt inspect any in detail )
Whatever …I have no problem with them having a
” manifestation against cetacean bycatch ” .. ( though I´d have called it a protest myself ;p ) and I´d certainly be interesting in hearing what GP intend to do about it in the way of solutions – I might even agree with them on something( god forbid )
and I´d certainly be interested in what kind of beaked whale they had ( if they had it at all ) … Shame I did´nt have time a closer look… have a look in Stockholm if you get the chance and take a close up pic of them
Hi George,
Methinks the little confusion about ” whales and dolphins” has to do with the language you use, it IS confusing, we in Sweden do call the porpoises for example for small whales…
Guess as well that in the beginning, some real experts have identified the cetaceans, doubt that any activists or campaigner have the skills to do that….
Well, in the first press release re the protest/ manifestation it was stated that 34 whales and dolphins were going to be showed to the public… seems like some have rottened??? So it will be interesting to see what will be left in the end.
It seems as well that GP Germany more has angeled this protest to focus on the resumption of commercial whaling, meanwhile from a newsletter from GP Nordic,the protest was mostly about the bycatch issue and they stated that bycatches and entanglements of cetacenas are the greatest threats to them.
Re solutions. Pringers,stopping drift-nets , pair trawling are some solutions. Would have been good to have a GP campaigner here, but they don’t post comments on Monsanto sponsored blogs re themselves!
Sorry, meant ” according to Greenpeace…”
>One “might” have been a small common dolphin – I say “might” –
Just wondering why you say ‘might’ George and why it couldn’t be positively identified.
>Pringers
Ann I believe they are called pingers.
Hmmn, frozen Dolphins. Just like the frozen Platypus at Maleny that gets a gig every time there is a new protest.
Travis,
I was´nt close to the popsicles – but at a glance they were all porpoises apart from one slightly larger carcass – Going by the small images on the GP germany website I may very well be wrong as to what was on the other end of the table – I can see a more falcate fin and chevrons on an animal 2/3rds of the way along – maybe a common maybe the white sided they say they had .. hence the “might”
Anne,thats a thought perhaps ..harbour porpoises are ” schweinswale ” in German = Pig whales
LOL … the film Dumber and dumber may very well refer to myself for not looking more closely ;Op
Thanks George.
Speaking of entanglements, Norway has submitted an interesting paper to the whale killing methods workshop at the IWC:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC59docs/59-WKM&AWI7.pdf
I wonder what Norway is trying to say by submitting this paper? Could it be ‘Northern right whales are in a bad way’? Could it be ‘Entanglement is bad and is a real problem’? Could it be ‘Entanglement causes slow deaths in northern right whales’? Could it be ‘The US are causing endangered whales to die slow agonising deaths, so if we cause other species to die slow agonising deaths via harpoon it is ok’?
The paper had been published in a journal last year, so one could assume the participants at the whale killing methods workshop could well be aware of it.
Perhaps Norway is thinking of changing her killing methods to entanglement instead?
Travis,
After a very quick look at the Norwegian paper, I got the impression it might have something to do with the TTD issue/debate.
Meanwhile anti whaling nations complain that whaling is cruel and the TTDs are very long,Norway points out that the US in this case is not much better, allowing fishing gear that cause long and agonizing deaths to whales????
Just my thoughts , as the paper points out that the harpoon kills the whales within minutes or seconds.
This is as well a thought of mine re the Greenpeace’s protest against the bycatch of cetaceans. Note , the bycatches of the porpoises came only from anti whaling nations….not much is done to protect cetacean bycatches in the European waters….and re fisheries bycatches, surprise,surprise, I read that Norway and Iceland have the best records( lowest bycatch numbers)!!!! Just straight facts…not any propaganda piece…
I got as well a newsletter from some NGO, that pointed out that Greenland plans to start humpback whale hunting….
Norway’s concerns will no doubt be expressed at the workshop and possibly again during the plenary.
The workshop to which the paper has been submitted isn’t called the “Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues Workshop” for nothing. No doubt the submission of the document will be welcomed. I would be surprised if representatives of any nation were to choose to respond to the submission from Norway in the way in which Travis has here.
> Could it be ‘The US are causing endangered whales to die slow agonising deaths, so if we cause other species to die slow agonising deaths via harpoon it is ok’?
Quoting from the article – “Modern technology to harvest a whale results in a far, far more acceptable time from impact to death: minutes if not seconds. In contrast the process of dying over periods of months or being continuously entangled for in one case over four years, seems to be barbaric in the extreme”.
I doubt any IWC participant would disparage the huge steps forward in whale killing methods that Norway has made over the years, partially in cooperation with Japanese scientists. Indeed, it’s a matter of record that following the development of the penthrite harpoon nations including Australia, the Netherlands and the USA congratulated the Japanese on this development programme.
> Perhaps Norway is thinking of changing her killing methods to entanglement instead?
Nothing more needs to be said.
Sorry again and again…a minor error in my sentence, I meant ” not much is done in European waters to lower cetacean bycatches…”
Finally found Labor’s whaling policy:
“Labor will:
…
* Monitor whaling vessels operating in Australian waters, and intercept vessels operating illegally;”
This is what has been reported in the media.
Then, later in the small print:
“Labor will maintain the option of boarding whaling vessels operating within the Australian Fishing Zone.”
http://www.petergarrett.com.au/c.asp?id=340
Good election year politics. The only real blow up after they get elected will be when the lunatic voters who fall for this find out that their government won’t be playing crazies after all. By then it won’t matter.
To use one form of killing as an example in order to show your form of killing is less inhumane is a good way of drawing emphasis away from the argument. It is something that pro-whaling advocates do time and time again. If the issue is TTD of harpooned whales, then by all means raise other ways that cetaceans can die (although to make what point, except point the finger at someone else?), but don’t hold them up as some sort of yard stick to measure your own actions by.
>not much is done in European waters to lower cetacean bycatches
Ann, Europe is a big place. Are you sure that not much is being done by ANY European country to reduce bycatch? It is a big claim to make.
>Nothing more needs to be said.
We can only hope.
This morning’s news on whaling from Norway and an interview with our friend Mr. Rune Frövik, from the High North Alliance.
http://www.fiskaren.no/incoming/article135228.ece
Rough translation:
” The USA’s policy on whales is double standards”
, states Rune Frövik.
Meanwhile the US gets the IWCs approval to conduct whaling in Alaska,on the other hand Japan, Norway and Iceland are heavily criticised.
The New York Whales Symposium in the UN headquarters , supported by rich anti whaling environmentalists , did make a statement against whaling, without the IWCs mandate.
” The whaling opponenets are as usual as active and aggressive in their statements” , says Rune F.
This year’s IWC- meeting will be a tragedy, showing that nations will not discuss management of natural resources.
A new strategy is needed.
Japans efforts to recruit new members are fruitless and without any result , according to Rune.
The anti whaling nations will just in turn recruit new members as well.
The key to discussions lays in the US, as they are a whaling nation themselves.
Finally, Rune Frövik complains , that aboriginal whaling is accepted , but not Japanese, Norwegian and Icelandic whaling.
“Ann, Europe is a big place. Are you sure that not much is being done by ANY European country to reduce bycatch?”-Travis
Hey Travis, the Europeans just talk a lot, actually methinks that not much is done.
OK, I will dig a little in the issue….
The aim of whale killing methods employed by whalers is clear to all. Significant improvements have been made since the closure of Australia’s whaling industry (and Australia’s subsequent adoption of anti-whaling policy that followed). While today continuously seeking to improve, the Norwegians rate their whale killing methods very highly. They achieve instantaneous death in many cases. No one has presented more efficient methods that could be employed in their place.
The length of time the whales entangled in fishing gear can take to die is in a completely different ball park judging by the article submitted by Norway, and, generally speaking, it’s hard to believe that anyone could ever get the impression that Norway might be suggesting the entanglement death times be regarded as a yard stick for their targeted whale killing operations.
Again, it’s not called the “Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues Workshop” for nothing.
Hey Ann,
Just talk in New Zealand too, apparently. This from the researcher of the paper exposing the problem relating to fiordland’s bottlenose dolphins last year:
“I cannot believe that such flagrant mismanagement of an internationally important natural asset can still go unnoticed (or uncorrected) by the New Zealand governement. Of course, taking care of national interests does not provide as much media coverage for the Minister for Conservation than international talks do… “Save the Fiordland bottlenose dolphins!”, just does not have the same ring to it.
But, who could care about Fiordland in Wellington when the local managers don’t even give a toss?”
http://www.fiordlandbottlenosedolphins.blogspot.com/
NZ’s report to the IWC on the matter says only:
“The Department of Conservation is developing a Code of Conduct with operators to minimise disturbance to dolphins.”
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC59docs/59-CC10.pdf
A remarkably short and uninformative update, given the circumstances. The conservation committee doesn’t seem to get much detail to discuss, when you compare with the information provided by the whalers to the whale killing methods workshop.
To Travis and David,
According to a Norwegian animal welfare organisation, Dyrebeskyttelsen, killing methods have improved during the last seasons.
FYI, this issue is discussed even among whalers etc. and in another , might I call the paper a hardcore whaling paper, Fiskeribladet, this topic is discussed today.
The paper has an article with the headline ” Minke whale hunting is animal cruelty” and even an e-mail adress to Prime Minister Mr Stoltenberg, to protest against the hunt.
I must say the paper indeed is very democratic, and shows all aspects of whaling! I lift my hat…
http://www.fiskeribladet.no/?side=101&lesmer=4791
And according to the paper, this Norwegian anti whaling organisation will participate in the IWC…
To Travis, hope this will not confuse you;) but I post articles that show how the debate is running…
“Pacific Delegation Challenges Japanese Officials About Whaling
Press Release 15 May, 2007
A delegation representing the Pacific peoples of New Zealand today handed a diplomatic letter of protest or demarche to Ryosuke Hirooka from the Japanese Embassy’s economic section in Wellington.
Making up the delegation are Graham Pryor (Ngati Awa), Melino Maka (Tongan), Koroseta To’o (Samoan) and Janet Mason (Fijian). They have requested Mr Kirooka convey the community’s concerns about the consequences for New Zealand and Pacific tourism to the Japanese Government if Japanese whaling fleets carry out their plan to hunt 50 humpback whales this summer….”
“Joint Demarche By The Pacific Peoples of New Zealand
15 May, 2007
We, the Pacific peoples of New Zealand, condemn the Japanese Government’s intention to kill Pacific humpback whales next summer in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary under its JARPA II plan. Such action threatens the viability of this threatened species and the economies of several Pacific nations.
We wish to point out the mounting body of evidence that demonstrates humpback populations in the South Pacific have yet to recover from the relentless hunting of Northern Hemisphere whaling fleets in the 60s. The survivors of this onslaught are the backbone of developing whale watch industries in Samoa, the Cook Islands, French Polynesia, Fiji and Tonga. These whales come to our waters every year to breed. They are an important part of our family – socially, economically and culturally.
Tourism is the region’s most important foreign exchange earner and the financial benefits of whale watching are a significant element in the growth strategies of many Pacific nations. The leading example of the non-lethal utilisation of humpback whales in the Pacific Islands region is Tonga’s northern island group of Vava’u. Whale watching operations, and the related transport and accommodation requirements, are Tonga’s main earner of foreign revenue in winter months. A recent report estimated the growth rate of whale watching in Vava’u between 1998 and 2005 at 22% per annum. A humpback whale returning each winter to Tongan waters will potentially generate $US 1 million in tourism revenues during its 50-year lifespan. Around the region whale watching generates $US21m per annum to the economies of Pacific nations.
In 2005 more than 110, 000 people went whale watching around the Pacific. The whales they watched and marveled at may be the same humpbacks your whalers intend to hunt in the 2007/2008 summer months. These are the animals that feed in Area V of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, south of NZ. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) classifies these whales as the New Zealand/Tonga stock. The whales in this area will also include those that have come from Australia, New Caledonia and Fiji. A harpooner in the Southern Ocean will have no idea whether the whale in his sites is from an Australian population that numbers in the thousands or from a Fijian population of less than 50 animals.
We call upon the Japanese Government to respect the right of Pacific nations to protect their natural resources and economies and to halt its planned “scientific” (or “research”) whaling of humpback whales. We urge the Government of Japan to reconsider its position and to conduct future research on whales in a non-lethal manner.”
>A remarkably short and uninformative update, given the circumstances. The conservation committee doesn’t seem to get much detail to discuss, when you compare with the information provided by the whalers to the whale killing methods workshop.
There has been criticism by some that the IWC has been turned into too much of a conservation arena, so you can’t please everyone. It would be in the whaler’s best interests, one would think, to provide a lot of information to the whale killing methods workshop. After all animal welfare is one of the main reasons there is so much discussion about whaling. Some countries don’t even think the IWC should be holding whale killing methods workshops.
” ” manifestation against cetacean bycatch ” .. ( though I´d have called it a protest myself ;p ) and I´d certainly be interesting in hearing what GP intend to do about it in the way of solutions – I might even agree with them on something( god forbid )”- George
Hi George,
Maybe you finally will sleep with the enemy!!! Do you English speaking persons say so????
Here are some GP solutions on cetacean bycatch:
1)Ban drift-nets including the new ones that will be introduced 2008
2) Wide spread marine reserves
3) Encouraging new fishing methods that will help cetaceans ( don’t know much about this, but some fishing gear will help cetaceans , sharks and turtles to escape from being trapped in the fishing gear)
The GP action on the live webcam. ( Unfortunately this action takes place in Sweden’s most ugly place, only concrete, subways, bozoz, drug addicts , whores and pimps):
http://www.webbkameror.se/webbkameror/sergelstorg/
brillint pooom travi!!
Why thanx sister.
Or should that be ‘sista’?!
How unusual, a political statement full of half truths, delusion and extrapolation masquerading as fact. The fact that it is made by Maori is the only thing distinguishing it from all the other cretinous bumf.
How unusual, the expert Ian asserting his expertise. What do you do again Ian?
Ian,
I stopped reading as soon as I hit “We, the Pacific peoples of New Zealand” the first time round, but now I look again I see there’s some other eyebrow raisers in there:
“… may be the same humpbacks your whalers intend to hunt in the 2007/2008 summer months. These are the animals that feed in Area V of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, south of NZ. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) classifies these whales as the New Zealand/Tonga stock.”
People protesting to the Japanese government ought to get their facts straight. Of course people dishing out propaganda prior to IWC meetings need not worry about such trivialities.
“We urge the Government of Japan to … conduct future research on whales in a non-lethal manner.”
Very poorly informed.
Hhmmn, Kiwis talking bull$hit, noooo? It can’t be. Anyone who would believe that has obviously never had a beer in a Bondi pub before a Bledisloe Cup game. Gosh, Maori wouldn’t exaggerate to influence an opponent, would they? Ever seen a Hakka.
What is the proper term to describe a New Zealander in a suit? The Defendant.
How do you recognise a Kiwi when you have to meet him in a pub? He’s the one flogging the hot DVDs.
Why do they call Kiwis “Hydraulics”? Because they’ll lift anything. Ironically, the most conspicuous use of NZ imagery in Australian business is “ENZED Industries”, they sell hydraulic hoses and fittings.
Go lightly now, eh.
What do you find ‘poorly informed’ about it David?
This is a genuine question David. No raps will be written about it 🙂
Yep, who is very poorly informed? Typical tactic.