“Humane Society International (HSI) has reviewed the Japanese reports from their most recent 2006/07 whale hunt in Antarctic waters and found that over half those killed were pregnant.
Of the 505 Antarctic minke whales killed in Antarctic waters last summer, 262 of them were pregnant females, while one of the three fin whales killed was also pregnant.
“These are gruesome statistics that the Japanese Government dresses up as science”, said HSI’s Nicola Beynon.
HSI reviewed the reports in preparation for our court case against the Japanese whalers, which resumes in the Federal Court of Australia this morning.
At today’s hearing we expect the Court to set a date for the full hearing. The full hearing will be to determine whether Japanese whalers are in breach of Australian law when they hunt whales in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in Antarctica and whether the Court will issue an injunction for the hunt to be stopped. HSI will ask for the final hearing to be held as soon as possible before the hunt starts up again this summer. It has been 3 years since HSI launched the case and many hurdles have been overcome to get to this point.
“It horrifies Australians to know that pregnant humpback whales breeding in the warm waters off Australia this winter will be targeted by the Japanese hunters in Antarctic waters this Christmas”, Ms Beynon said.
Japan has issued its whaling company with permits to kill 935 minke whales, 50 fin whales and 50 humpback whales in Antarctic waters this summer and, based on their past hunting grounds, we expect 90% of the hunt to be conducted within the Australian Whale Sanctuary, and a large proportion of the females to be pregnant.
HSI will ask the Federal Court to order a stop to the carnage in the Australian Whale Sanctuary once and for all.
End Media entitled ‘Japan killed 263 pregnant whales in Antarctic waters – HSI back in the Federal Court’
dated 24th July.
Japanese whalers respond:
“The Humane Society International (Australia) demonstrates its ignorance and lack of understanding of marine science with its latest claims, the Institute of Cetacean Research in Tokyo said today.
“Humane Society is ignorant, displays a unique lack of understanding of whale management and, unfortunately, plays on an equally ignorant media to manipulate the Australian and New Zealand public,” the Director General of the ICR, Mr Minoru Morimoto, said today.
“It is widely well known that the Antarctic minke whale population has increased more than the pre-commercial whaling era and is currently in a very healthy condition, with over 90 percent of the mature female whales becoming pregnant year to year. This consistent reproduction provides strong reassurance the population will easily sustain an annual commercial quota.”
Of the 286 mature females, 262 or 91.6 percent were pregnant. The remaining 24 were non-pregnant mature minke whales.
The research employs a random sampling method and the sampling of pregnant whales is taken into account under the JARPA II research program, in line with the International Whaling Commission’s Revised Management Procedure, which is a risk-averse method for calculating sustainable catch quotas.
In 1990, the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee agreed an abundance estimate of 760,000 Antarctic minke whales. That figure is currently under review but even if the abundance estimate is lower, the stock condition is very healthy and the taking of 850 minke whales poses no risk.
The breakdown of Antarctic minke whales sampled in Japan’s latest research program is outlined below.
• Total: 503 (Male: 154; Female: 349)
• Immature, non-reproducing females: 63; mature females 286 (Pregnant mature females 262 or 91.6 percent; non-pregnant mature females, 24 or 8.4 percent.)
End media release from the Institute of Cetacean Research in Tokyo entitled HUMANE SOCIETY DEMONSTRATES IGNORANCE dated 25th July 2007
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I agree with the Japanese. One must ask, exactly how pregnant? I gather they give birth annually, in midwinter, and these were harvested in summer. Which would make them less than half way through gestation.
If 91% of adult females were pregnant then this is an accurate statistical sample of the adult female population. The only issue is the imbalance of females. This can really only be resolved under a proper sustainable harvesting regime. For those are the only circumstances in which it would be viable to tag baby males at birth so they can form the major part of the harvest.
Once again it’s Science vs. ICR/ Japanese scientists
Excerpt from the ICR press release:
” It’s widely well known that the Antarctic minke whale population has increased more than the pre-commercial whaling era..”
Excerpt from the NewScientist:
“Japan’s claim that these whales were originally much rarer than now is almost certainly not true, Palumbi told New Scientist, and “there is no evidence whatsoever that their population growth is inhibiting populations of other whales in Antarctica”.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7038
Another more worrying issue are which scientists to believe in and why there ‘s such a wide gap in opinions between anti whaling vs prowhaling scientists re the issue if whaling is sustainable in the Antarctica.
” There is no scientists outside the anti whaling camp that believe that Japanese whaling is unsustainable”, stated Norwegian IWC Commissioner some years ago.
” There is no scientists beside the bought ones by the ICR that believe that Japanese whaling is sustainable” argues GPI’s John Frizell.
Read: ” … There are no scientists….”
Hi Ian,
This last season was a bit of an anomaly as the research was called off 2/3’s of the way through, so it’s hard to draw conclusions about the sex bias, but FYI in 2004/2005 season (conducted in the same area as 2006/2007), 59.8% of whales sampled turned out to be female, where as in the 2005/2006 season (conducted in a different area), the figure was only 45.8%. I seem to remember somewhere reading that there is a belief that pregnant females prefer different areas for feeding to other members of their species.
Ann,
Frizell must have a tough time keeping a straight face when he says that sort of stuff. Even Australian researchers have been reported in the Aussie media conceding that plans to kill 50 humpback whales isn’t going to have a huge impact on the rate of increase in numbers. Whether it’s sustainable or not is besides the point anyway, the most vociferous anti-whalers are opposed to killing whales under any circumstances (but you only need to put a seed of doubt in the non-affected well-wisher’s mind to get them on side).
Palumbi… little to say when even prominent anti-whaling scientists have rubbished his conclusions, but I (now) reckon it’s true that the minke whales aren’t inhibiting growth in blue and other whales. In the past few years it’s come to be recognised that Antarctic blue whales are increasing at (quite a good rate of) 7% or so annually, humpbacks are of course increasing, and if one believes the ICR scientists, fin whales too. I guess the problem with the blue whales was that there were just so damn few of them that it was
a) possible that they were finding it hard to find mates and/or
b) so few in number that it was hard to come up with anything near an accurate estimate because of the low number of sightings.
On the other hand the idea that minkes increased when their larger competitors were exterminated is also convincing enough for me, but it seems that harvesting them in larger numbers wouldn’t magically make blue whales increase much faster than they are now.
Still, there’s more than enough minkes for eating, so if I were the folks in charge in Japan I’d forget the idea that they are inhibiting the recovery of the blue whale (it was a fair hypothesis before we had this news of increases in blue whale numbers, but a bit redundant now), and just focus on the high abundance of minkes as justification for utilizing them on a sustainable basis.
>The only issue is the imbalance of females. This can really only be resolved under a proper sustainable harvesting regime.
and
>For those are the only circumstances in which it would be viable to tag baby males at birth so they can form the major part of the harvest. Ian,
Could you please expand on/explain these comments?
“Even Australian researchers have been reported in the Aussie media conceding that plans to kill 50 humpback whales isn’t going to have a huge impact on the rate of increase in numbers.”
David, so you have a link to this? I am not doubting you, just curious as to which “Australian researchers” said this.
“was a fair hypothesis before we had this news of increases in blue whale numbers”
Was it? Right from the start this idea has been rubbished by those who actually have an understanding of how predators compete within an ecosystem.
Libby,
You need to scrub up your google skills 🙂
This article provides such an example:
http://www.abc.net.au/southcoast/stories/s1963069.htm
Don’t remember for sure, but maybe Mr. Noad made a similar comment too? I forget, you can check if you like.
Prof. Harrison could also be in the same boat, we talked a bit about his comments here:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002051.html
> Was it?
As someone who admittedly can’t claim to actually have an understanding of how predators compete within an ecosystem, I personally would rather it kept as a hypothesis than discarded without a little more actual data to prove it when we are talking about conservation of the world’s largest animal species. We have such data now 🙂
I would like to know if any research is planned to test whether or not humpback behaviour in whale-watching areas changes as a result of human predation in the Antarctic. I guess some people must have an interest in showing that it will?
A bit off topic.
Sea Shepherd cancels ” visit” to Iceland to protest against whaling. They say they are needed in the Galapagos and that they have not heard that the Icelandic whalers have killed any Fin whales.
http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id=285951
“You need to scrub up your google skills :)”
True, but I know you are far better at it than me!!:)
“Don’t remember for sure, but maybe Mr. Noad made a similar comment too? I forget, you can check if you like.”
Nick Gales had a “maybe” mentioned when talking about removal of fifty animals. Noad made a remark likening East Australian humpbacks to rabbits which I’m sure he’s glad he made.
“I would like to know if any research is planned to test whether or not humpback behaviour in whale-watching areas changes as a result of human predation in the Antarctic.”
Hmmm…I would say not at this point in terms of a dedicated study. There are only a very small number of boat-based whale watching impact studies from Australia. One is happening now off Sydney and is long overdue (understatement). There will likely be anecdotal accounts in time. I have already related what I have observed before, and it’s interesting that others raise the possibility of changed behaviour. Humpbacks are “moody” whales, but I see the point that this sort of observation is not the result of a dedicated research project. The difficulty is designing something to test for changes in behaviour that is anything other than anecdotal, but at least there are some studies from pre-killing to compare with.
Re changes in the Krill food chain. Nature has always abhorred a vacuum and it can be safely assumed that the removal of most of the larger Krill feeders was to the benefit of the remainder.
These beneficiaries would have included Minkes and crabeater seals. And it would not necessarily follow that the benefited species would achieve the same collective biomass as the harvested species.
There are grounds to suspect that Minkes and Crabeaters feed on the krill stocks before they reach maturity and in so doing prevent those stocks from getting to the size that larger whales need for economical feeding.
Blue whales, for example, need very large schools of krill to justify the energy such a large whale expends on a feeding dive.
Travis, the essence of the sustainable management of whale stocks is to ensure that males make up the majority of the harvest total. This is the same principle that has been applied to all husbanded animals. The females are kept for breeding and do not need equal numbers of males to maintain birth rates.
I gather the ratio for stud Rams is 40 females to one Ram. At this news one might be tempted to be reincarnated as a stud ram. But if the prospect of bonking 40 sheep is someone’s idea of nirvana then one needn’t risk death when a ticket to New Zealand would achieve the same outcome with greater certainty, don’t you think?
Meanwhile back at the whale ranch, a harvest that has a high proportion of males will have minimal impact on population (herd) growth.
All well and good Ian, but if the harvest already has a high proportion on females, and you are saying that a ‘harvest that has a high proportion of males will have minimal impact on population (herd) growth’, then how can it be that ‘The only issue is the imbalance of females. This can really only be resolved under a proper sustainable harvesting regime’? And also, I am confused about how you can achieve ‘For those are the only circumstances in which it would be viable to tag baby males at birth so they can form the major part of the harvest.’?
>There are grounds to suspect that Minkes and Crabeaters feed on the krill stocks before they reach maturity and in so doing prevent those stocks from getting to the size that larger whales need for economical feeding.
Where do these ‘grounds to suspect’ come from? I have not seen anything in the literature suggesting this.
>Blue whales, for example, need very large schools of krill to justify the energy such a large whale expends on a feeding dive.
Feeding dives can be very shallow, near-surface lunges.
Mr. Noad seems to have likened humpback whales to rabbits over a number of years.
Just as well he’s not a Japanese pro-whaler or he’d really be for it 🙂 But then I suppose rabbits are still cuter than cockroaches.
“But then I suppose rabbits are still cuter than cockroaches.”
I have a giant burrowing bush cockroach in my office that is cuter than any rabbit.
Perhaps Noad should be comparing humpbacks to minkes? That would really get him in trouble!
I’ve got a great piece of selective quoting here:
(Dr. Noad) “… the Japanese are going to start taking humpbacks … we hope they take them out of the East Australian population.”
🙂
Original transcript here (with full context and snipped bits):
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/qld/content/2006/s1972428.htm
Well, you haven’t been all that selective except for Noad’s last sentence 🙂 –
“DR MICHAE NOAD, PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR: Given that the Japanese are going to start taking humpbacks we from a purely biological and conservation point of view we hope they take them out of the East Australian population.”
DR MICHAEL NOAD: We from a purely biological and conservation point of view, we hope they take them out of the east Australian population. We hope they don’t take them out of one the smaller south pacific populations. Of course we wish they don’t take any at all.”
Then Paton says –
“DAVE PATON: They’re not out of the woods, they’re not protected entirely and they’re still under threat so we can’t sort of sit back on our laurels and think well everything’s running fine because they’re increasing in number they’re certainly under threat.”
So we have resights and song sharing from/between EA and New Caledonia, showing there is interchange between the two areas. He mentions New Caledonia has a small population, So how is taking animals from EA going to guarantee no effect on New Caledonia? Seems a bit bizarre to me….
A very good point.
What grounds to suspect crab eaters eat immature krill? Simple, they dont migrate north during winter as the larger whales do. They remain in the south and, presumably, continue to eat. Or at least start eating before the whales return. Hence, an increase in the population of such species, including larger Penguins, has the potential to impact on the eventual mature volume of Krill.
Blue whales are known to prefer very large schools of Krill.
Actually this Krill issue is very interesting.
The Kiwis and the Norwegians are harvesting a very large amount of Krill in the Antarctica and the industry is going to expand.
Some scientists are worried that this will have an impact on fisheries, sea birds and sea mammals.
So the problem is not to find scapegoats among animals but humans are as usual to be blamed.
Ian your explanation that because crabeater seals stay year-round in Antarctic waters they therefore must be eating immature krill does not stand up to scrutiny. If you can back this with some actual evidence other than what you think is ‘simple’ it will be far more believable.
>Blue whales are known to prefer very large schools of Krill.
Any euphasiid-eating species would prefer large schools of krill!!! They also come across smaller schools of krill and expend energy foraging on those too. You take what you can get, or are you aware of studies where blues have forgone smaller shoals and continued searching for larger ones?
You still have not explaine this comment:-
>’For those are the only circumstances in which it would be viable to tag baby males at birth so they can form the major part of the harvest.’
Krill live for about a year, so part of that year the population is immature. The whales are absent during the time of year when Krill are young and still growing. Ergo, whales feed on mostly mature Krill.
In the absence of any evidence that species like crab eaters and penguins only eat mature Krill, one can reasonably assume that the species that remain in the Antarctic will start to feed on younger Krill before the migratory species return.
I made it quite clear that this was an assumption on my part. I have neither the time nor the inclination to jump through hoops for Travis to completely validate this assumption. If you have a problem with someone’s assumptions you can either ignore them or invalidate them.
The task of identifying and marking young males at birth would involve some expense. But if done properly, it would enable these animals to be more easily identified during harvesting to ensure that breeding females were a much smaller proportion of the harvest. This would maintain a high birth rate while still allowing for harvesting to take place.
The expense of such initial identification and marking would only be justified if there was sufficient certainty that harvesting would take place in the future. And that certainty would only be delivered by a proper sustainable harvesting regime.
Those who would oppose whaling in any form must explain how they intend to deal with over-populations of whales when this, inevitably, takes place.
There may have been a natural balance some time in the past but it is a fact of history that this balance has been substantially modified. And nature has a very well documented habit of over-responding to such changes in ways that can cause considerable suffering to the species involved.
Here is some information on krill (you see David, I can Google!). It is limited as I don’t have the time or inclination either to trawl through stuff. However, there is a tendency for the person who started this commentary to assume, and have us rely on his assumptions rather than anything that is fact. It seems ok for some to be challenged on assumptions but not others.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The concentrations of Antarctic krill vary with season and food availability. In addition, the swarms themselves have their own special features. For example, each swarm is made up of one age group, that is, adults swimming with adults, and juveniles swimming with juveniles. The juveniles tend to stay near the underside of the ice, and they have also been observed to feed inside brine channels in decaying ice flows. (Daly and Macaulay, 1991) Adults swim mainly in the open, warmer water where there is more food, especially in the fall. These are the locations where krill are most likely found however their locations may change with the seasons. For example, in the springtime both groups can be found in the open water. The location of krill is generally dependent on the age group.
The seasonal feeding of Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba, is dependent upon the location and quantity of food. During the spring, the food supply is lowest under the ice, and highest in the open water. (Daly and Macaulay, 1991) The adult krill can be found feeding on the dense phytoplankton blooms in the open waters, while the smaller juvenile krill feed on the phytoplankton under the ice. The smaller, immature krill stay under the ice to avoid predators. During this time of the year, the days become longer with more light to produce greater concentrations of phytoplankton. In the summer months, the area which krill occupy extends to the area between the Antarctic convergence and the Antarctic coastline, (Nicol and Allison, 1997) almost an area of 35 million km squared. Because of the high abundance of phytoplankton, the krill can easily clear 100 cm² of algae from the ice in 5 minutes. (Nicol and Allison, 1997) The grazing behaviour that they use to clear the ice is defined as the behaviour that occurs when krill orient to the undersurface of ice to rake algal cells off the ice. (Stretch, et. al., 1988) As the light intensity increases, more algae can be found in open waters. In the fall, the concentration of adult krill is in the warmer, open waters, while Daly and Maculay (1991) found that the greatest densities of juveniles and immature adults were found under the ice. This shows clearly that the adult krill are responsible for most of the consumption of the phytoplankton. In all, the swarms consume 5-10% of primary production in the Antarctic. (Nicol and Allison, 1997) As the winter approaches, the feeding patterns change. Pakhomov, et. al. (1997) observed that krill regularly switch from herbivory to omnivority during the austral winter to meet their energy demands when the plankton concentrations are not sufficiently large enough to meet their needs. The diet of the krill may be supplemented with smaller animals, such as salps. (Kawaguchi and Takahshi, 1997) Gut contents of examined krill in fall and winter contained heterotrophic organisms and detritus in addition to phytoplankton. (Daly and Macaulay, 1991) Ice algal communities are also an important source of nutrients for the krill. Stretch, et. al. (1988) thought that this might help to explain how krill survive over the winters when stocks of phytoplankton are severely depleted. Even though food may not be readily available, Nicol and Allison (1997) discovered that adult krill could go for long periods without food by using their own lipids and proteins. They undergo an amazing transformation where they moult and their body size decreases with the lack of food intake. (Nicol,1999) Both younger and mature groups manage to survive using what little food there is available.
The species Euphausia superba has a unique method of survival. Their vertical migrations provide for a distribution so that there are enough krill for those animals that depend on them for their survival, but so that there are enough krill to reproduce so that the population size necessary for the surrounding ecosystem is maintained. The krill have adapted in a way so that they are able to get nutrients all year long in a region that has fluctuations in food production. Their specialised adaptation of raking the algae off of the underside of the ice cannot be equalled by any of the other nearby species. Another consideration is the feeding habits of the age groups. Because the mature adults feed in the open water sometimes, the younger krill are unable to compete, and are forced under the ice. Seasonably speaking this comes during the spring, when the phytoplankton blooms are developing. It is to the advantage of the adult krill to get as much food as they can in order to have a successful spawn. In addition, the separation of age groups prevents the krill from eating each other in times when algae and phytoplankton are scarce.
On a more positive note, it has been discovered that krill have a life span of several years as opposed to one, like the salp. The implication of this is that harvest rates will have the most impact on a single year class, instead of two or three, which would allow for a quicker recovery of the stock.
Population dynamics make for a difficult time in determining catch quotas for krill. Brierly and Reid (1999) reported that the population numbers fluctuate naturally every 3-4 years. Observed patters indicate that studies of krill predators can give vital clues to stock crashes. What they have seen is that the year before a population crash, the average length of the krill is unusually high. This indicates a lack of smaller-sized krill, and means that there are more larger-sized krill being consumed by predators. The reason for the lack of smaller krill has a lot to do with ice-coverage, which has a direct affect on the krill diet. (Loeb, et.al., 1997) When there is more ice-coverage, there will be more krill, and lack of it will lead to less krill and more salps. Krill require colder water with higher salinity in order for survival, however it is not necessarily the total dependence on these physical factors. Higher salinity and lower temperatures are optimal conditions for diatoms, as described by Moline, et. al. (in print) This may not seem like much, but a slight difference makes a tremendous change in the number of predator species.
They say years of limited sea ice coincide with reduced krill population and increased numbers of Salpa thompsoni or salps, a competitor of krill. What might happen to the Antarctic food web if temperatures increase in the polar regions?
“We think that sea ice provides a refugia for the krill population,” said Hewitt, a biologist with NOAA’s Antarctic Marine Living Resources Program at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, California. “It allows the krill a place to overwinter, protects them from predators and also provides a food source in the form of ice algae that grows in small cracks on the underside of sea ice. So, the more sea ice, the better for the krill.”
“Initially our research was based on the premise that the krill population was regulated by predator consumption so we looked for ways to control the krill fishery to minimize the impact on their natural predators. We soon realized that the krill population is sustained by occasional strong year classes and that this has more to do with environmental conditions, namely extensive sea ice development in the winter months and absence of salp population blooms in the spring and summer months,” said Hewitt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One thing mentioned here is that krill can live for several years. Antarctic seals will form breathing holes, but are obviously limited to how far under the winter ice they travel in order to get food. Immature krill tend to stay under the ice in cracks and crevices. Pinnipeds and cetaceans can live off stores of fat.
There is still adult krill in Antarctic waters during winter. Penguins and seals would be feeding on these, and possibly immature krill too (when they can reach it).
On the subject of tagging and sexing whales….
A) Where are the breeding grounds of Antarctic minkes, blue whales, fin whales and some humpback whale populations?
B) How do you sex these animals in the field in order to attach a tag?
C)What type of said tag are you going to use that is long-lasting (talking years here)when currently most tags only last a number of months? Perhaps freeze brand them??
So, how the hell do you do this at all, let alone “properly”???
“Those who would oppose whaling in any form must explain how they intend to deal with over-populations of whales when this, inevitably, takes place….There may have been a natural balance some time in the past but it is a fact of history that this balance has been substantially modified.”
From modelling, we know that most large species of whales are well short of their pre-commercial whaling numbers. Why is there the assumption that these whales will continue to increase and become “over-populations” and not populations regulated by natural (and anthropogenic) forces? Which particular balance has been “substantially modified” to allow for over-population?
” A) Where are the breeding grounds of Antarctic minkes, blue whales, fin whales and some humpback whale populations?
B) How do you sex these animals in the field in order to attach a tag?
C)What type of said tag are you going to use that is long-lasting (talking years here)when currently most tags only last a number of months? Perhaps freeze brand them??” -Libby
You’re in big trouble Ian!!!
Well, nothing for me to add there! Will be interested to read Ian’s reply. No need to jump through hoops Ian, just do that which you expect everyone else to do for you.
hi all, still no word on the HSI case?
“She said the HSI was hoping the court would set a date for a full hearing of the case at today’s directions hearing” (from 24 July).
I gather they are still waiting for a date to be set (it was scheduled for July), otherwise you’d think we would have heard something?
Yeah, I guess they may not have understood the court process properly (like me!)
Fingers crossed for a good outcome anyway though.
Yes, my fingers are crossed too, but I doubt our interpretation of “good” is shared!
Well “good” for me is anything that see’s the issue progress towards some kind of conclusion.
Just saw this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/31/1992378.htm?site=midnorthcoast
Sasebo is a whaling stronghold, and one of the least likely places in all of Japan to gain a sympathetic ear for the anti-whaling message. I wonder what the response was 🙂
A bit off topic.
Norwegian paper Fiskeribladet writes this morning that the Norwegian whalers more or less have given up this years whale hunting.
The quota has not been filled and there’s a row between the whalers and the Ministry of the Fisheries re hunting in coastal areas.
Many whalers have given up and are going back to other fisheries.
Thanks for the info on Krill, Libby. But the fact that we don’t currently know how, when or with what to tag young whales is hardly a valid claim that it is impossible. It sounds an awful lot like the logic of the guy who claimed that the telephone would only ever be an expensive toy for the rich.
If there is a profit to be made, and there is a secure framework in place, someone will certainly find a way.
Ian there is plenty of incentive at present to tag whales. It is extraordinarily difficult. In fact the only tags that have worked have been the Discovery Tags, and they wre designed to be collected from hunted whales during commercial whaling in order to find out more about migratory movements. Benign tagging has been happening for decades now and still resulting with only months attachment to the animals. Comparing this to reduced costs and increasing demands of telephones thus making them widely available doesn’t wash.
You also forgot about finding the calves in the first place (where). We still do not know where most Southern Hemisphere baleen whales breed. There is plenty of incentive for finding these too, but I guess 8 years ago most of us thought we could never own a digital camera.
I did not claim it was “impossible”. I have illustrated the current state of play, but as usual, that is being disputed.
From today’s Daily terrorgraph:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22173478-5006003,00.html
It’s well known that toothed whales meat and blubber is more contaminated than baleen whales.
Some years ago , I heard in Greenpeace that one reason why the Japanese did want to expand whaling in the Southern Oceans was due to lesser contamination in SOS whales.
As I mentioned back in a post some time ago, the Norwegian minkes seem to be contaminated as well, despite previous tests/ samples also taken by Greenpeace had the meat tested as OK/ healthy.
However, the issue with this contamination is that activists seem to want that the whales are contaminated, whatever it takes to stop whaling seems OK.
>However, the issue with this contamination is that activists seem to want that the whales are contaminated, whatever it takes to stop whaling seems OK.
That’s a sweeping statement Ann. You are implying that all activists want this. Is there a basis for this comment?
The contamination issue was very hot some years ago, as a means to stop whaling.
If you heard GP talk and their discussions on the Forum, it was clear that most activists wanted the whales contaminated. Of course this is totally brainless as we know that marine pollution is a big threat to all life in the marine eco system.
There were comments from prominent activisists as ” I want all whales contaminated ” to ” we need to invent some injection that renders the meat unpalatable / toxic” !!!! It’s true , you can check out old GP archives.
(Maybe you know that Greenpeace used to spray seals with some colour )
And no I’m NOT implying that all activists want this , but I have got the impression that ” most people” in NGOs are happy when they hear that the meat and blubber have been contaminated in whaling countries.
>but I have got the impression that ” most people” in NGOs are happy when they hear that the meat and blubber have been contaminated in whaling countries.
Ann you are sounding like Schiller. Consider all the NGOs, from WWF to GP to Cousteau Society, Defenders of Wildlife, WDCS, etc. There are hundreds of them. This is a comment designed to tar all with the same brush and suggest NGOs don’t actually care about cetaceans or marine ecosystems. If you have a personal issue with GP that’s one thing, but frankly I expected you to be more discerning.
Travis,
I’m only passing on comments from some GP people ( your own words).
They could me naive ( your own words , remember the sperm whale operator’s comment / post?)
One of GP’s goals have been to stop marine pollution. Another goal is to stop whaling.
Whalers have been angry in Norway that anti whaling people uses the conatmination issue as a means of stopping whaling. They have wanted to sue the antis for this.
Maybe we should discuss the contamination issue in another thread. I can ask Jen to open up a contamination issue thread????
Me sounding as Schiller, Travy???? Now, that was funny and unexpected! LOL!No, I’m a straightshooter….
> I’m only passing on comments from some GP people ( your own words).
Remind me.
Ann, now you really are sounding like Schiller. If you are talking about GP, talk about GP. Don’t throw in ‘”most people” in NGOs’ to emphasise whatever beef you have with GP when your comment is regarding other NGOs too. If your comment is referring to ‘some GP people’ on a forum, then don’t claim ‘it was clear that most activists wanted the whales contaminated’. It may sound like nit-picking, but it is extremely mischievous to imply something is applicable to all based on some comments on a web forum.
>No, I’m a straightshooter….
How do you hit the target with the pendulum swinging?
If there is enough to support a discussion on contamination then it may be a good idea, otherwise everything gets rehashed and recycled. And who said this blog wasn’t green?
It’s certainly no good if unhealthy food is served to children, but what always gets me about these stories is comparisons to Minamata:
“In fact, the dolphin levels were higher than some of the mercury-tainted seafood tested during the tragic Minamata mercury-pollution disaster of the 1950s, according to Dr. Shigeo Ekino of Kumamoto Medical Science University in Kyushu. In that episode, thousands were sickened, disabled or died in the toxic chemical disaster.”
So what I want to know is how come we don’t hear about people eating whale meat and then being sickened, disabled, or dying?
I hope no such event occurs, but still my curiosity is arowsed.
Oh yeah I had this type of whale meat once before, “yamato-ni” style. Honestly to me this product tasted like it was dog food, but I didn’t get sick afterwards (although I have been observed as being sick from afar by some readers of this blog!)
> It may sound like nit-picking
I for one couldn’t care less, but other readers may also feel exactly the same way as Travis. If only we knew for sure
🙂
David,
Has there been anything on this in the Japanese media?
“Honestly to me this product tasted like it was dog food”
You leave yourself open with this one.
“(although I have been observed as being sick from afar by some readers of this blog!)”
Tsk, tsk. You do dwell. Well, I have to say, so do I. However you have calmed considerably since those days (although still throw in the occasional unnecessary comment to rile). To be fair, insult withdrawn. (I wonder if there will be a withdrawal exchange across enemy territory here?).
“… other readers may also feel exactly the same way as Travis. If only we knew for sure
:)”
I did find Ann’s comment odd and to me it implied a generalisation for all NGOs. It is not nit-picking if their reputations and moral standing are being questioned based on internet “gossip”. So now you know for sure.
Guess it’s time to leave the blog now when I have started to sound as Schiller…
A clarification here .
The GP guy who stated that he ” wanted to see all whales contaminated as a means to stop whaling” was handpicked by Greenpeace to participate in the GP IWC delegation in Japan( 2001).
Libby,
Not so far as I can see, but as you know the average amount of cetacean consumption in Japan at the moment is something like 30 grams per year (I guess it must be slightly higher now with the recent consumption increases), and so the Japanese mass media is unlikely to take the story up until someone actually gets sick from eating the supposedly toxic meat I reckon. Still, if it does develop into a story I have the feeling that the western whale lovers won’t get the exact type of result they are searching for. For example, the JFA is in charge of management of fisheries. The JFA will get the bash if they mess up fisheries management, but if there is a serious health issue here (which still hasn’t surfaced after years of such alerts) I suspect it’s more likely to be a different area of the ministry that would be held responsible.
> Tsk, tsk. You do dwell.
I was just joshing 🙂 I know you called me sick in a different sense of the word 🙂
> To be fair, insult withdrawn.
Thanks! I never took it personally anyway 🙂 I will forget it was ever written. I’m going to forget that Travis ever wished me dead too 🙂
> I wonder if there will be a withdrawal exchange across enemy territory here?
I hope I’m not regarded as an “enemy”, but hey I’m not proud of any things I said which you or others took offense to, and it was bad form of me to be lazy when searching for a way to express a difference of opinion.
Ok Ann, comparing you to Schiller was way harsh. Also, it would be time for us all to leave if there were two of him. So please don’t leave. Just try and remember that if a handful of GP people state something, you can’t really then say most NGOs think the same way. Nor can you really say all GP people think the same way either.
In the spirit of decency, dead comment annulled. About as harsh as comparing Ann to Schiller really. Not pleasant.
Thanks Travis, trying to improve myself( but remember I have a temper;-)!
awwwww, group hug everybody!
Way off topic but I have to show this one to Ann:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4150424a10.html
If you google pentodactyl in images there are a number of things. It reminds me of Mike the Headless Chicken http://secretlifeofshoes.blogspot.com/2005/05/mike-headless-chicken.html
Thank you David. Maybe us whaling blog types can set an example to the others? Imagine that!
Mmmm, some serious news from Japan – apparently a western gray whale has been found washed ashore on the south eastern coast of Japan’s northern most main island, Hokkaido yesterday morning. Reports suggests that the animal died at sea and washed ashore, and had already partially decomposed. The sex of the animal was not reported, but apparently a researcher(s?) from the ICR has been dispatched to investigate. The animal was about 13 metres in length.
It seems like it’s quite common with calves with two heads…. I saw a pic in my paper some day ago of a hare with three ears. Looked quite funny!!!
Guys, I have posted a ” whales contamination guest post ” to Jennifer!
Snakes with two heads are quite common too. Look forward to your post Ann.
David can you please let us know if you hear any more about the gray? Very grim news.
Just FYI on the this WGW location – this was on the opposite side of Hokkaido to the Sakhalin area, and also about 300 kms north of where 2 WGW by-catches occured previously. Fingers crossed that it was a doddery old male whose time had come…
Oh silly me there are pictures here:
http://www.nishinippon.co.jp/nnp/lifestyle/20070801/20070801_005.shtml
http://www.muromin.mnw.jp/murominn-web/back/2007/08/02/20070802m_08.html
Video here:
http://www.stv.ne.jp/news/item/20070801190333/