Norwegian and Icelandic media have reported that Iceland is hoping to export whale meat to Japan in the 2008 whaling season.
We have also heard that the world famous whaler, Kristjan Loftsson, has also expressed hopes to export his Fin whales to Japan this year.
According to the Icelandic Minke Whalers Association, this 2007 season’s minke whales are for the domestic market. With between 10 to 15 minkes, out of 28, to be killed this summer before the hunting season closes September 1.
http://www.fiskaren.no/incoming/article138873.ece
Icelandic and Norwegian whalers have always been looking for the opportunities to sell their whale meat to Japan, as a means of keeping the whaling industry alive. However, the Japanese whalers are not too keen on competition from foreign whalers .
The Icelanders had investigated the Japanese market and there was room to export between 300 and 400 whales per year to Japan. The Icelandic Government will make a decision on this already this year.
The whalers seem optimistic but the Minister of Fisheries stated:
“The government had not made a decision on continued commercial whaling, but added there had not been a change in whaling policy with the new administration.
Gudfinnsson said a decision would be made after news had been received on whether the whale meat caught last season could be sold. The minister told Channel 2 that if there was no market for the meat, whaling would automatically discontinue. “
http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=283694
On a more macabre note from Norway. The newspaper Fiskaren writes that the rock star, Iggy Pop, has posted an e-mail to the festival committee in Tromsö, that he “wants to experience whales dead or alive” !
The festival committe has promised to offer him and his gang whale burgers!
And I thought that all rock stars were anti -whaling to keep up their image.
http://www.fiskaren.no/incoming/article139044.ece
Cheers,
Ann Novek
Sweden
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
There is a whale mobile touring around in Norway, promoting people to eat more whale meat.
Many people are sceptic against whale meat.
It seems like in the past whale meat has been over done or cooked. This is totally wrong , according to Hvalbiff, the company that promotes the whale meat.
Ugh! Did we ever really need to kill Whales? We certainly don’t now. One of Earth’s most precious creatures, as are Dolphins. I used to be a GreenPeace supporter until they became ‘Global Warming Inc.’
” Ugh! Did we ever really need to kill Whales? ” – Paul.
This is one of my favourite themes!
Personally I don’t promote whale meat eating as I’m now more or less a vegetarian. Note, no fanatic, I eat Norwegian salmon once a week and I will eat a ” happy pig” for X-mas!!! But my motto is ” I don’t eat my friends”.
However, this discrimination between animals is very controversial IMO.
Anti whalers always state that it’s not necessary anymore to kill whales ( or other wildlife) as we now have an abundance of livestock.
But, but….and I think the realisation that the livestock industry is so large now and will grow enormously due to the increase of population and that the livestock causes damage to biodiversity etc is now new information. Excerpt from ” Livestock’s long shadow” by FAO and LEAD:
” Some 306 of the 825 terrestial ecoregions identified by WWF – ranged across all biomes and all biogeographical realms , reported livestock as one of the current threats.”
An analysis by IUCN Red List of Threatened Species shows that most of the world’s threatened species are suffering habitat loss where livestock is a factor”.
This is indeed very new and interesting material and I’m planning to post something about the report at Jen’s blog( note the pdf file is over 800 pages)!
Let’s hope Iggy doesn’t become one of the Stooges and chooses the recyclable option of whale watching.
Well, Iggy comes to one of those whaling communities where you can watch wales in the neighbourhood and eat a minke beef as well.
Curiously enough, there are tens of thousands foreign tourists visiting this part of Northern Norway, and no one protests against whaling.
The main part of tourists are from Germany.
There are opportunities to watch sperm whales in Andenes. ( You know the place where whalers harpooned a minke in front of a whale watching boat last summer).
There has been some worries that the seismic activity for search after oil will scare away the fish and whales mfrom the neighbourhood, but according to the whale watching operator , the seismic activity has had no impact on the sperm whales so far.
The operator stated that the sperm whales seemed robust and untouched by this kind of noise pollution.
Probably the Norwegians will promote whale meat to Iggy as they say it’s very healty. Helps against diabetes and cardio vascular diseases.
Maybe it will do wonders to Iggy’s looks!!!
>The operator stated that the sperm whales seemed robust and untouched by this kind of noise pollution.
And you say Greenpeace kiddies come out with stupid remarks!
>Maybe it will do wonders to Iggy’s looks!!!
For a 60 year old who has tried just about everything there is to injest, inject or smoke he may not have it in the looks department, but he is one of the fittest performers around. Lets’ hope that lust for life extends to other beings too.
Just got into land today after 3 weeks at sea…
Good for iggy whoever – try something once, twice if you like it and all that …. :O)
Going by the last three weeks, the russian zone of the barents sea has a VERY good minke concentration.. but thats another story for the IWC meeting in Chile next year when the population estimates for the North east Atlantic the last 6 years will be dealt with….
Paul, do we NEED to kill cows/sheep/pigs/chickens?….ummmm dodgy ground you´re on there ;o) but be my guest …..precious my butt methinks …..
Y´know Travis..
I used to vaguely respect your postings, but after reading this :
“And you say Greenpeace kiddies come out with stupid remarks!”
I begin to wonder if you are simply a troll – Anne is simply passing on a comment from the local whale watching operator – if you want to call that operator a stupid idiot, then by all means do so, it really says a lot about your point of view…
Apologies of course if you were calling anne a stupid idiot, and not the whale watching operator, in that case i would simply have to describe you as a wonka -( to quote our dear Ian 😉
Get over yourself George. How many times here does someone ‘pass on a comment’ from someone and it gets ripped into? Yes, Ann is passing on a comment from a whale watching operator like she passed on a comment from a Greenpeace member. Both comments, IMHO, were naive, and I’m not talking about Ann. I didn’t call the operator a ‘stupid idiot’ so don’t put words in my mouth. If you want to attribute comments to me that I did not make, it says a lot about your point of view and makes you look lower than those that live under bridges.
Hi George,
So you’re a landlubber now for a day or a few???
Interesting to hear that you have spotted many whales in the Russian zone of the Barents Sea. Thought btw the Russian zone was closed for Norwegian whales surveys ( due to political reasons???).
Hope to hear more about the whales survey up in the Arctic :-)!
Hi Travis,
Maybe the whale watching operator’s comment was a bit naive, dunno….but he noticed that the sperm whales hadn’t been scared away.
The search for oil in Northern Norway and the Arctic, is indeed worrying the fishermen. Still we don’t know about the consequences about such activities on marine life.
It seemed as well that some reseach can be made by using electromagnetic waves( I’m not going into this now).
Kudos to Iggy Pop for his open mind. He won’t be popular amongst the anti-whalers, but hey most people in the world don’t give a damn (and Mr. Pop is over the hill any way I reckon, so it’s not exactly going to hurt his record sales).
Paul,
Whether you ever needed to kill Whales or not is irrelevant to people besides whoever you are refering to when you say “we”.
Me personally, I’d happily give up the fatty Aussie beef that’s on sale here in Japan in exchange for an equivalent supply of whale meat. If only.
Ann,
I saw news about marine noise in Australia scaring away whales this year (maybe Southern Rights it was, I forget exactly). It’s ironic considering all the scaremongering about tiny numbers of whales being harpooned in the Antarctic “possibly” going to effect their behaviour in whale watching areas. But that sums up the whaling issue – easier to criticise what other people are doing 1,000’s of kilometres away than focus on real, existent problems that are created by one’s own people.
George,
Welcome back 🙂
Hello David,
Could you please provide a link to the noise news you are referring to? Ta.
I don’t geddit. Paul simply stated his opinion re whaling/dolphin hunts. He is a rare contributor on whaling threads. Have we become such a little closed club that anyone else who enters and comments is suitably attacked to ensure they don’t come back?
Libby,
If you plug in “whale noise” at news.google.com you’ll find a few items at the moment.
—-
I don’t think the following one is the same article I read, but it’s the same issue (a couple of newspapers took it up).
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/whales-may-have-fled-tests/2007/07/12/1183833691201.html
“AN UNDERWATER acoustics expert, who was a consultant to seismic testing at Warrnambool, says he cannot rule out suggestions that the work had deterred southern right whales from visiting their calving waters.
No southern right whales have arrived off Warrnambool’s Logans Beach this winter after resources company Santos conducted oil and gas exploration as close as 14 kilometres off the coast in May and June.”
I think the article I read had comment from a Santos representative which was also quite interesting, no time to search for it now though.
—-
This one I hadn’t seen:
http://www.theleader.com.au/2007/07/where_are_the_whales.php
“The drilling from the desalination plant site could be sending noise vibrations out which are disturbing them. All we can say for sure is the numbers dropped after the first week when drilling at the desalination plant site began, but that could well be coincidental.”
—-
The Sakhalin story is also in the news but hard to fathom with all the conflicting information:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12187-construction-of-oil-site-frightening-whales-away.html
“Randall Reeves, Chair of the World Conservation Union’s Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel, says his group is also receiving conflicting reports…
On Monday 2 July, panel members received a letter from Sakhalin Environment Watch expressing the group’s concern over unusual noise levels. Reeves hopes the contradictions between the reports will be cleared up “within a week” by reports from other observation teams on the island.”
Hey Travis,
I’m sure that we all in ” our little whaling club” welcome Paul’s comment and hope that he will continue to post comments on the whaling threads!
We badly need some new blood;-)!!!
Hey , who could have guessed that Paul has been a former Greenpeace supporter!
Hi again Paul,
I doubt you need the assurance, but no one was attacking you, Travis is just trying to stoke up a flamewar as he often does on these whaling threads. Travis has however made some comments relevant to your question regarding the necessity of whaling, in the past (by Australia):
“It was an activity that was necessary. We needed oil for lights, machinery and so on.”
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001892.html
People who today benefit from whales as a source of *food* have little concern for the views of those who tell them to stop without good reason (good being defined as a reason convincing to those who benefit from the exploitation).
This is especially true where those who are complaining also justify their nations’ own past exploitation of whales on the basis that it was for items such as “lights, machinery and so on”.
Indeed Ann, I vote for subbing Travis out and Paul Biggs in! Welcome Paul!
To Travis,
A small clarification is needed re the whale watching operator in Andenes, Norway.
The operator has been one of the most vocal and fierce opponents against the seismic activity off Lofoten.
However, according to a statement he did for media , the sperm whales seemed to tolerate this seismic activity quite well and it was well known that sperm whales could endure external strains maybe more well than other whales.
Note as well that the seismic activity was 5 km away from the sperm whale’s feeding grounds.
The Faroe Islands are planning to make the last whaling station north of the Equator to a museum for whaling and maritime history.
This is as well a history on Norwegian whaling. The whaling station was built during the 1900 century , when whale stocks begun to decrease along the Norwegian coast.
From 1906 to 1984 , 4454 whales were harpooned ( 3155 Fin whales, 524 Sperm whales, 509 Sei whales , 124 Minkes, 62 Blue whales and 30 Humpbacks).
Here are some old pics from the whaling station ( unfortunately , you might need a password):
http://www.fiskaren.no/incoming/article139332.ece
“If you want to attribute comments to me that I did not make, it says a lot about your point of view and makes you look lower than those that live under bridges.”
oh dear,
“>The operator stated that the sperm whales seemed robust and untouched by this kind of noise pollution.
And you say Greenpeace kiddies come out with stupid remarks! ”
Your Words?
Noting that the operator anne quotes has over 20 years experience of these “local” Sperm whales, i´d say he´s making an informed, albeit a bit premature, comment …
but hey Travis, what does he know, i´m sure he´ll defer to your obviously VASTLY superior knowledge of the subject huh?…
I´m off back out to sea chaps … I´ll peek in at a later date – have fun with the sock puppet in the meantime
David you have accussed me of picking fights in the past, along with having nothing worthwhile to contribute to this blog, but now I am ‘just trying to stoke up a flamewar’. What else will you pull out of your backside I wonder (but don’t really care to know). Seems you are the one wanting to pick a fight, but as usual the blame will go to someone who doesn’t share your pov. I notice Paul has not written anything further (sadly) so he would be your perfect sparring partner.
Your constant rehashing of my quote again shows signs of immaturity and obsessiveness, but seems your sand pit buddy is packing up his bucket and spade again. I have never understood why you grabbed on to that quote, but I think you are trying to say that whaling nations like Japan NEED whale meat for food. Who knows what you are trying to say David? It is similar to your obsessiveness over the JARPA review, and we all know how that turned out don’t we? Had it been a review in Japan’s favour you would be rubbing my nose in it.
As for your twisting George, whatever. Calling someone ‘a stupid idiot’ is different from saying they made a ‘stupid remark’, but if you think someone with ‘over 20 years of whale watching experience’ can make an informed judgement as to whether seismic testing has impacted on the ‘local’ sperm whales in any way by their surface presence alone, you should stick to taking pretty pictures. As for my ‘obviously VASTLY superior knowledge of the subject’, you have no idea what my background is, and I am not the one making, as you say, ‘premature’ remarks about seismic activity on deep-diving, long-lived, acoustically-orientated marine mammals.
Ann, what a pity.
Travis,
This could really be an interesting subject but unfortunately I can’t make any comments on this due to lack of knowledge.
I have checked out local media.
The fisherier are opposed to seismic activity since they believe it will scare away the fish. I have no info on impacts on cetaceans.
However, it seems like a searching technology called ” SEABED LOGGING” can be used in the near future in Arctic seas to search for oil. It uses electromagnetc waves which probably are more harmless than seismic activity.
The technology seems to be used in New Foundland, the Mediterranean, Southeast Asia and West Africa.
As oil exporation will grow enormously in the near future in the Arctic , it’s important that ” harmless” exploration techniques are used .
George can you identify the species http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/war/video/default.htm?program=chaser&pres=20060714_2200&story=0
Travis,
“I think you are trying to say that whaling nations like Japan NEED whale meat for food. ”
You’ve shown before that you tend to think whatever you like. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming on one hand that Australia needed whale oil to have light and to fuel it’s industrial revolution (I guess Paul wouldn’t agree with you on that point), and at the same time be critical of people who eat whales.
“Your constant rehashing of my quote again shows signs of immaturity and obsessiveness,”
I know I would wish I hadn’t said what you said if I were you, too. You could always just retract the statement Travis (like the one about wishing me dead (!?)), if you don’t want to stand by it. People are allowed to change their minds, even those of demonstrably amazing intelligence like yourself. A bit of humility never killed anybody.
“… the JARPA review, and we all know how that turned out don’t we?”
LOL, here I was thinking that you had been quiet about it 🙂
Anyone who reads the JARPA review report could hardly avoid the impression that it’s a genuine scientific endeavour as opposed to a sham producing nothing of scientific value, as the anti-whaling rhetoric claims. The latest review again made it clear that the opposite is true.
But go ahead, selectively quote us some of it if you like!
>A bit of humility never killed anybody.
Humility I have demonstrated to you before David, somewhere in the recent archives, and I remember what the rebuff was from you (to form)!
>I know I would wish I hadn’t said what you said if I were you, too.
Your ‘too’ suggests I ‘wish I hadn’t said it’. Your interpretation (to form). And you accuse me of having conversations with myself!
>You could always just retract the statement
To make you happy?? Honesty is something I actually value. Yes, ‘people are ‘allowed to change their minds, and I am so glad you are ‘allowing’ it!!
>it’s a genuine scientific endeavour as opposed to a sham producing nothing of scientific value, as the anti-whaling rhetoric claims.
No ‘anti-whaling rhetoric’ I have read has said the JARPA review was a sham. Rather the articles in Science etc have pointed out the review suggests the research is a sham. I believe a number of countries at the plenary meeting agreed with this. I will leave the selective quotes to you David, good luck!!!
Ann,
The recent newsletter from Malcolm Turnbull (Federal environment minister) says:
‘New guidelines released this week have revised parameters for minimising the risks to whales from sounds generated by seismic survey operators
searching for new oil and gas fields.
This is an important step, developed with the involvement of the oil and gas industry, conservation groups and Australias best whale research scientists. Australia continues to be a world leader in whale protection and research and this policy represents global best practice in minimising the potential impacts of seismic survey activities on whales. Seismic operations will now have to shut down if whales are within 2km of a survey vessel.
Years of experience with and research on whales has demonstrated how well the oil and gas industry has managed the risk of seismic activity on whales.’
Cavity-forming stuff really.
Electromagnetic waves may still have the potential to interfere with ‘navigation’ systems of cetaceans, but fingers crossed it doesn’t. It would be interesting to know what trials have been performed of the system on various marine fauna.
Now, I need to club a wallaby coz the supermarket’s closed….
“Humility I have demonstrated to you before David, somewhere in the recent archives”
Too vague to verify, and the shock of seeing it come to fruition would likely have killed me (your wish). But being a humble guy I’ll take your word for it that you were humble on at least one occassion 🙂 Still not quite sure where you stand on the necessity of whaling though…
“Rather the articles in Science etc have pointed out the review suggests the research is a sham. I believe a number of countries at the plenary meeting agreed with this. ”
Huh? Articles about the review appeared in Science quickly enough for countries at the plenary meeting to agree with?
The articles that Science tends to publish that are critical of JARPA are generally written by a small subset of the IWC Scientific Committee, as opposed to the review itself which was endorsed by the IWC SC as a whole.
I make my judgements based on what the IWC SC endorses, not a certain select few members (wisely so considering anti-whaling NGO activists are amongst those appointed to it), and whatever the politicians representing countries at the IWC say is entirely irrelevant to the debate (sic) about whether JARPA is a sham or not.
David wrote:
>Too vague to verify, and the shock of seeing it come to fruition would likely have killed me
Travis write:
>Humility…hmmm…perhaps we can both practice some humility towards each other and in ourselves and see where that gets us (on the Let People Sell Tigers thread).
>Huh? Articles about the review appeared in Science quickly enough for countries at the plenary meeting to agree with?
Yes, I will give that to you. Poor sentence construction on my behalf. However, ‘even those of demonstrably amazing intelligence like yourself’ should be able to decipher it. Go on, surprise me!
>the review itself which was endorsed by the IWC SC as a whole
I have to hand it to you David, you are both optimistic and fiercely defensive of your adopted country. Blindingly so unfortunately, but it keeps me amused. But why worry about the IWC SC score for the JARPA I review (not to mention what countless others think)? Japan didn’t, hence starting JARPA II before any scientific scrutiny at the hands of the esteemed and respected IWC SC could be passed!!!
Travis,
My citizenship hasn’t changed last time I checked.
The “score” from the IWC SC review was explained by the IWC SC chair in this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6667907.stm
A dead stinking whale is floating in a Norwegian fjord.
Authorities are afraid that the whale will explode.
” Well, I wouldn’t exactly call it an explosion , but it can be like an enormous fart!” stated a spokesman:
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1893357.ece
One’s citizenship does not have to change in order to adopt a country’s ideals.
‘This review is being finalised in Anchorage, Alaska, ahead of this year’s IWC meeting. But of the parts completed so far…’
That is what the article you have provided a link for is based on, not the actual report. That and the words of the SC chair (Arne Bjorne, from Olso). Yet you write:
>I make my judgements based on what the IWC SC endorses, not a certain select few members (wisely so considering anti-whaling NGO activists are amongst those appointed to it)…
when it can be said there are pro-whaling NGO activists amongst those appointed to it as well. It is odd how you seem to be depicting this duplicity for only one side of the debate, which is perhaps not so wise.
Well, Travis gonna club a wallaby , so now it suits to post another Greenpeace story to make Travis, Lukey and Libby a little bit upset;-)!
Note , my story comes from Swedish media and from the Swedish GP site , so it’s not me who’s bitching , but this is quite funny!!!
Do you remeber the GP action in Berlin and Stockholm when GP displayed cetacean carcasses.
Anyway the cadavers were in different kinds of decomposition and were spreading a terrible stench.
” Stinking whale protest” wrote one paper and had an image of a girl holding her hand over the nose.
Well, this was not of course a very smart way of protesting IMO as the cadavers were spreading a deadly stench, as the papers wrote.
One person wrote to the Swedish GP site and asked why this protest was carried out in anti whaling countries and not in Iceland and Norway. He said that GP didn’t dare to carry out this kind of actions in pro whaling countries…
Well, the unsmart thingy was … the cadavers were tawn and refozen many times…so you can imagine the stench and bacteria etc.
Link for those about this action who are familiar with Scandinavian languages:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/sverige/2007/04/hur_hamnade_vi_egentligen_har.html#comments
Here’s some more things to work into your story Travis,
a) the review to which the SC Chair’s comments at the BBC refer to was held last year in December.
b) the final IWC 59 SC Report notes that “The Committee reviewed the Workshop report and (bold)endorses(/bold) its conclusions and recommendations.” (page 63)
c) The part of the review that wasn’t completed at the workshop was that relating to the discussion of the utility of non-lethal methods versus lethal methods, and in any case the outcome of this discussion (which was inconclusive, as always) was never going to change the value of the data already obtained, anyway.
In my humble view the Chair’s summary to the BBC of the what the review panel thought is hardly obselete following IWC 59. I’m still surprised at the constant desire of the anti-whalers to try to argue against this, anyway. It’s not the first time the SC and SC Chair have come out with praise for the programme, it happened with the mid-term review, and Judy Zeh also spoke favourably of the programme to Australia’s ABC during her tenure too (as I have probably commented here before).
One comment from a Swedish fisherman on the Swedish GP site:
” Many fishermen that GP have encountered during the journey , have had the idea/ notion that it’s impossible to have a dialogue with Greenpeace.
I feel the same and have no confidence in GP methods when you throw up dead , stinking whale cadavers in central Stockholm.
We are not whaling in Sweden. Go to Norway and Iceland, if you dare! But you shouldn’t be here.
Your actions and methods make people not wanting to listen to you!”
BBC versus Science eh? Kind of sums up the whole debate!
Very inventive 🙂
I think it’s more a case of the (elected) chair of the SC versus… well you know 😉
According to Norwegian paper Fiskeribladet there is a big row between whalers and the Ministry of Fisheries. The Ministry even refuses to speak to whalers re the stop of whaling in coastal areas.
The whalers are accusing the Ministry for breach of contract as they were promised to hunt whales in coastal areas in the beginning of the season but this was closed in the middle of the whaling season due to IWC regulations( so it seems that the IWC is not completely useless).
The row is also about if the minkes in different zones are of the same stock or sub-stocks.
Whalers are as well complaining that it will be impossible to fill the quota over 900 minkes and that they have invested in the equipment etc.
Read: ” …whalers have invested in new equipment”
>a) the review to which the SC Chair’s comments at the BBC refer to was held last year in December.
Notice I quoted from the article David, I did not say anything about the review not being held in December.
>b) the final IWC 59 SC Report notes that “The Committee reviewed the Workshop report and (bold)endorses(/bold) its conclusions and recommendations.” (page 63)
Perhaps the important part is WHAT those recommendations are!!! LOL!!!!
An (elected) chair of the IWC SC is much like any other elected position. The JARPA review consisted of one particpant each from Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, St. Lucia, Norway, Germany, Grenada and Iceland, 4 from USA, 29 participants from Japan,13 invited participants, and your esteemed chair and secretariat. Consider the number of researchers present at any IWC SC meeting. Consider the number of researchers not present at any IWC SC meeting. Consider how many of those researchers at the review, at SC meetings and not at SC meetings disagree with the (elected) chair’s pollie speak and the whole ‘scientific whaling’ ruse. Listen to Abe or Howard and see if you think they are currently respresenting everyone in their party’s views or everyone in their country’s views or if their tired and polished pollie talk is the same old same old rhetoric.
Icelandic Minke Whalers Association states yesterday on their website :
” The sale of minke whale meat has never been better”
“On July 16 one minke was harpooned”
Unfortunately , my Icelandic is not fluent so I dare not to translate much!!! ( Icelandic is a very archaic Nordic language)
http://www.hrefna.is
I see that Sea Shepherd has delayed it’s plan to go to Iceland .
They are now in the Galapagos protesting against the company PLANKTOS plan to dump iron dust in the high seas.
We have discussed this recently at Jen’s blog.
Actually methinks this is a good deed by SS. ( They should stick to these kind of actions).
Maybe they have got much criticism as well from Icelandic anti whaling organisations for planning to make dierect actions against Icelandic whalers.
I see as well that this crazy Planktos CEO is a former Greenpeace member.
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_070718_1.html
Travis,
The conclusions and recommendations were what the Chair summarized briefly for the BBC’s news report, and the Chair is the spokesman for the IWC SC.
You don’t seem to be comfortable with the Chair’s summary, even though in his brief summary he mentioned “some advice on how these data could be further analysed, or better analysed”. But it’s not much use when it has a “but there was general consensus about the high quality and the usefulness of the data”, tacked on the end of it.
You are welcome to your opinion of course, whatever exactly it is.
This little mini-episode reminds me of when Phil Hammond resigned his position as the Chair back in the early 1990’s:
“I can no longer justify myself being the organiser and spokesman for a Committee whose work is held in such disregard by the body to which it is responsible. Nor can I justify asking other members of the Committee to spend their valuable time… knowing how the results of this work may be treated… I am left with no alternative, therefore, but to resign as Chairman of the Scientific Committee.”
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Management_Regimes/IWC/sm-ty-wh.htm
It also reminds me of this from the report of the IWC in 2002:
“… the Scientific Committee Chair admitted that she was tempted to resign”
http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_chair02_10.html
This is the nature of the whaling issue.
Hey Ann,
Perhaps SS’s trouble with flags is the biggest reason for their change of plans.
Hi David,
Maybe they have problems with the the flags, maybe they also think it’s a bit in vain to go to Iceland in the end of the whaling season???
I mean, Iceland is going to hunt 10 to 15 minkes and when SS arrives there will probably be only a few minkes left from the quota. So they can’t brag that they have saved a lot of minkes????
That’s probably a factor too I guess, they will get “better” publicity if they try to go after the Japanese at the end of the year.
I wonder if they might be their own worst enemies though by pulling this Mohawk flag stunt (assuming they go through with it and the Aussie authorities still permit them to use Australian ports unimpeded). They may find themselves diverting attention away from the whaling activity onto the other aspect of their stunt.
Re Japanese whaling this is John Frizell’s reply to David and his friend Isonatori:
Why does Greenpeace claim that research whaling is a “loophole”, when
> >> it’s explicitly stated in Article VIII of the International Convention
> >> for the Regulation of Whaling [1] as being permitted?
> >> Because Article 8, which was written in 1946, was never intended to
> >> allow an entire national whaling industry to be based on it. For the
> >> first 20 or so years there were never more than about 30 whales a year
> >> killed for scientific purposes, by all IWC members combined, usually
> >> less.
Similar comments have been made by others as well. Have a reference to one somewhere which I will try to locate…
Wow Ann, where did you dig that one up 🙂
Of course I responded to Frizell on that point ages ago (http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/01/response-to-greenpeaces-john-frizell.html), but the argument goes around in circles.
Even if one wishes to buy Greenpeace’s line on the matter, does Greenpeace have nothing better to do than carry on a petty campaign?
The argument is a sideshow in the first place –
What happens when (as seems to be increasingly likely) Japan resumes commercial whaling of IWC managed species, following on in the footsteps of Iceland and Norway?
The “national industry” claim becomes redundant (strictly speaking it always has been) and people hopefully start realizing how silly they have been beleiving that they could indefinitely undermine an international agreement drawn up amongst sovereign nations (but then they do say to make hay while the sun shines).
Perhaps the IWC becomes completely irrelevant. Yet some people still have their heads in the sand and think it’s the be all and end all.
Where the debate should be is “what is wrong with commercial whaling that is appropriately regulated and conducted in accordance with scientific advice?”
Once common ground is found with respect to this matter, everything else becomes mute.
Hence why the antis endlessly keep up the sideshow arguments.
Ann,
Another thing with scientific permits is that while the commercial whaling industry was still active it was still possible to gain access to samples from those whales captured. With a moratorium, no such samples would be available without a lethal research programme.
Then the debate comes to the lethal versus non-lethal methods debate, which is unresolved.
Nonetheless my view is that it is telling that some scientists seem to have devoted huge amounts of their careers to developing non-lethal methods of obtaining the same information, and yet non-lethal methods are still unable to accurately age randomly selected whales from the Antarctic, whereas the sampling efficiency for the lethal method employed by the JARPA programme is well over 90% and constantly improving.
Of course, this information is only really useful if you think killing whales for food or other consumptive purposes is an OK thing, and that too, brings us back to the core question…
Very strange…you wrote:
“I make my judgements based on what the IWC SC endorses”, and then wrote…
“Yet some people still have their heads in the sand and think it’s the be all and end all”.
Is that why you keep backing the chair of the IWC SC and ignoring the plebs beneath him or other researchers? Hmmm….
“Nonetheless my view is that it is telling that some scientists seem to have devoted huge amounts of their careers to developing non-lethal methods of obtaining the same information, and yet non-lethal methods are still unable to accurately age randomly selected whales from the Antarctic”
I’m not so sure what is wrong with this. Many researchers of different species do not wish to collect biological information from their subjects which involves killing them. So? The results of discovering non-lethal techniques for sampling may have benefits for a number of species, including humans. Collection and analytical techniques across a broad spectrum of the natural sciences continue to improve. That, surely, goes without saying, although humane killing of large whales at sea still has a way to go, and so far it is the Norwegians who are doing a better job at this than the Japanese.
“whereas the sampling efficiency for the lethal method employed by the JARPA programme is well over 90% and constantly improving”
You know full well that one of the issues with JARPA was the accuracy of the aging techniques! Inventive indeed!!!
‘Scientific whaling was not the original purpose behind IWC..Article VIII was drafted by Norwegian whaling expert and first chair of IWC, Birger Bergersen, now deceased. “It’s clear that in his mind he was thinking that the number of whales a country could take for science was less than 10; he didn’t intend for hundreds to be killed for this purpose,” says Lars Walloe, a physiological biologist at the University of Oslo, Norway, who has written about Bergersen and heads the Norwegian delegation to the Scientific Committee. “He had in mind, for instance, the possibilty of finding a new animal and thus needing to take some in order to describe them scientifically.” ‘
Now this was taken from an article in Science (a somewhat inferior source of information compared to BBC online), and to which David writes: “The articles that Science tends to publish that are critical of JARPA are generally written by a small subset of the IWC Scientific Committee, as opposed to the review itself which was endorsed by the IWC SC as a whole,” same said organisation that some people think perhaps shouldn’t be the be all and end all.. when it suits them of course!
Science vs John Frizell now? Wouldn’t want to spoil Ann and David’s fun!
Libby,
The “be all and end all” comment was with respect to the IWC, not the IWC SC. I’m sure your misrepresenting me was not deliberate, but just want in on the record.
“I’m not so sure what is wrong with this.”
Nothing wrong with that in itself but it makes them look a bit silly (in my view) when they are saying at the same time that lethal methods can obtain the same or better data. A classic example of shooting oneself in the foot.
“You know full well that one of the issues with JARPA was the accuracy of the aging techniques!”
As I recall that has been raised as an issue particularly for the samples from the commercial era, but in any case they are still able to do better today than the approach using telemeres (which hasn’t even been developed yet, let alone tested and accepted).
And again, the drafters of the ICRW would never have forseen a situation where data which could normally be obtained through commercial operations could no longer be obtained due to the IWC abandoning it’s mandate.
Which brings me back to this (again): “what is wrong with commercial whaling that is appropriately regulated and conducted in accordance with scientific advice?”
Indeed the antis do like to argue about anything but that.
Libby and David,
Good discussion and points;-)!
Why I pointed out John Frizell’s statement was because the very same arguments are used by anti whaling diplomats .
David states that Japan is likely to follow the steps by Norway and Iceland. Now David , this doesn’t convince me. As far as I have understood , Japan doesn’t want to abandon scientific whaling even if going to commercial whaling.
And btw, aren’t the Norwegians taking whales for research purposes from their commercial whaling operations when needed????
Unless the Japanese were bluffing earlier this year we should find out what Japan’s plans are soon enough Ann. A domestic whaling forum was recently held in Japan and these issues were discussed. Details are not on my blog sorry, but it’s more of the same talk about whether Japan should unilaterally start coastal whaling again etc. Let’s wait and see.
“As far as I have understood , Japan doesn’t want to abandon scientific whaling even if going to commercial whaling.”
Well they don’t want to abandon one of their rights under the convention in order to have another of their rights (commercial whaling) under the same convention permitted (yet one of a number of conditions that some nations who are against commercial whaling in the first instance have insisted upon).
If the RMP were practically implemented though, the commercial quota for a given stock would automatically be reduced by any number of whales taken for research purposes, but then getting the RMP implemented for a given stock is in itself a mini goal. If a commercial quota is large enough (i.e., taking whales for scientific purposes wouldn’t spoil the party too badly for the commercial operators) they may want to continue on researching in some circumstances, but generally I reckon they are likely to turn their attentions to other stocks for which there is less knowledge, and use data from commercial operations (like any other fishery), unless they see an ongoing need for samples obtained in a special manner, i.e. via random sampling as in JARPA.
The other option would be to regulate their commercial whalers to catch the whales using certain methods (i.e., make them follow a hunting pattern similar to a sampling survey design), but that would inevitably increase costs for commercial operations, so that’s unlikely to happen.
“And btw, aren’t the Norwegians taking whales for research purposes from their commercial whaling operations when needed????”
You tell me 🙂 I didn’t think Norway was running any such research programmes at the moment, although Iceland is.
“The “be all and end all” comment was with respect to the IWC, not the IWC SC”
Aahhh…thanks for the clarification. Hmmm…
“A classic example of shooting oneself in the foot.”
Don’t get this one, sorry. You can’t be shootng yourself in the foot if your aim is to gather data using non-lethal methods. Perhaps it is the definition of “they” here.
“As I recall that has been raised as an issue particularly for the samples from the commercial era…”
Commercial mostly, but this extends to JARPA as well. The issues are damage and breakage and smearing of bands.
“…telemeres (which hasn’t even been developed yet, let alone tested and accepted)”.
Revert to above comment re developing techniques.
“….”what is wrong with commercial whaling that is appropriately regulated and conducted in accordance with scientific advice?”
Indeed the antis do like to argue about anything but that”.
Well, I figure I have “argued” about a number of issues, so I consider this comment not addressed in my direction!
“Why I pointed out John Frizell’s statement was because the very same arguments are used by anti whaling diplomats”.
In much the same way as the same arguments for are rehashed by pro-whaling groups and diplomats!
I have a totally non-related question for you David…how come foreigners can’t get tickets to see big concerts in Japan unless they have an address of Japanese residency?
” “And btw, aren’t the Norwegians taking whales for research purposes from their commercial whaling operations when needed????”
You tell me 🙂 I didn’t think Norway was running any such research programmes at the moment, although Iceland is.”
OK David, methinks as well they aren’t currently taking any samples for scientific research, but this is something that I have heard .
I checked out the High North Alliance’s site and saw that in 1998 ( when Norway had ended its scientific whaling) ” samples for scientific research have been taken as usual, including DNA tests of every animal caught.”
According to Marine Research Institute Iceland , record numbers of Fin whales have been counted.
This makes them a threat to other marine species, according to the authorities.
This makes them OK to hunt as well, according to the authorities.
BUT, if we can’t sell the meat , whaling will end, states the Fisheries Minister , Einar K. Gudfinnsson.
http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id=285849
Libby,
I have no idea what the situation is with tickets to “big concerts in Japan” (must be some hell of a concert). Tell me more if you like.
“Don’t get this one, sorry.”
There is nothing at all wrong with developing such techniques (people are free to do what they like with their time and resources), what I think is silly is making out that such techniques already exist when they don’t yet (and there is no guarantee that they will be developed successfully either), and criticising those who are skeptical of these non-existent techniques and who prefer to use existing ones that actually have a track record that is significantly better than squat.
At the end of the day, when your ultimate aim is to make for optimal and sustainable whale harvests, I personally don’t think there is any problem at all with killing whales to obtain such samples. The people who are developing the non-lethal techniques are also aware of this. It’s a very strange debate to be having, as it would be mute if the core question were resolved first…
Ann,
Yeah all of Iceland Norway and Japan have been recording DNA (and at least in Japan including that from by-caught whales and other cetaceans). They will need this to monitor markets once international trade resumes (hopefully soon!).
Iceland’s statements are interesting. They say on one hand that the fin whales have a detrimental effect on fisheries, but also say whaling would end if the fin whale meat can’t be sold. Maybe the fishing people will call for a straight out cull instead? Or maybe fisheries yields are improving with increased numbers of fin whales?
Anyway I still think there is a market for the meat if it’s healthy and there are no political obstacles to the trade taking place. This weekend there is an election in Japan which isn’t looking good for the ruling LDP party, this may not be good for quick moves on the matter… even though the opposition parties support whaling as well.
Here’s another one relating to the seismic testing in Australia.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/company-allowed-to-test-in-whalebreeding-area/2007/07/22/1185042948508.html
Better to be a blue than a southern right. Perhaps the Japanese could sell minke earplugs to these guys! It is a dangerous game when your research has some of Santos’s $ behind it but this happens.
” Iceland’s statements are interesting. They say on one hand that the fin whales have a detrimental effect on fisheries, but also say whaling would end if the fin whale meat can’t be sold. Maybe the fishing people will call for a straight out cull instead? Or maybe fisheries yields are improving with increased numbers of fin whales?” – David
As you already know . I strongly disagree with the line that the whales have a negative impact on fisheries.
It’s interesting to note that the High North Alliance did a statement some years ago ( when they were invited to a conference by anti whaling organisation WSPA) that whales could not be scapegoats for the decline in fisheries.
I did also note Rune’s unwillingness to discuss this topic in another whaling thread.
Another Norwegian NGO ( which has a WWF/ Greenpeace like orientation) but supports whaling have also made a ststement that whales can’t be blamed as scapegoats.
I’m afraid that this Norwegian and Icelandic view that whales and seals have such big impact on fisheries is a very old fashioned view and recently over 100 scientists did made a statement that anyway seals did not decrease the fisheries.
More science on this is needed!!!!
Norwegian paper Verdens Gang has interviewed Greenpeace Norway’s spokesman, who has btw lived in Japan for 8 months.
He stated that the consumption of whale meat is heavily decreasing.
” In Japan schoolchildren are ” forced ” to eat whale meat and it’s used as dog food”, according to GP.
” In Iceland , whale meat is the cheapest available meat”.
” In Norway, whaling is subsidized”
, according to the spokesman.
This is very interesting to note , as the official line is that whaling is NOT subsidized.
http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=144576
Is Norwegian whaling subsidized or not???
According to John Frizell, GPI, Norwegian whaling is not subsidized, only the whale’s surveys are.
According to Frode Pleym, GP Nordic, the whaling is subsidized.
According to the Gov’t, the whaling is not subsidized.
According to the High North Alliance, whaling is not subsidized.
Surely we farm cattle – we don’t farm Whales.
BTW – what’s the status of the various species of Whales these days – are numbers stable, falling or rising?
Welcome back again to the ” Whale’s Forum” Paul!
There are over 80 whale species , so maybe Libby, who’s a marine bilogist can give you a brief update on increases and decreases of different species.
However, the Northern Atlantic minke whale size is about 107 000 animals.
A Norwegian survey from 1987, indicated there were about 85 000 minkes.
Growth rate is estimated to 2%.
Re whaling vs. farming. Here are some viewpoints from anti whaling organisations:
1) Whaling is cruel. The TTD( time to death) in slaughterhouses is much lesser than harpooing a whale.
2) You have an ” unlimited ” supply of animals with farming
Arguments from prowhalers:
1) Whales have freedom from hunger and thirst.
2) Freedom from discomfort . Whales live a free life.
3) Freedom from fear and distress. ( They live a free life and in the Norwegian hunt , they are not aware that they are hunted).
4) Freedom to express normal behaviour. Whales are not enclosed in small cages.
Pro whalers think as well that whaling is environmentty friendly. It doesn’t have an impact on climate, biodiversity, soil, forests, water resources etc.
Ooops, read ” prowhalers think that whaling is environmentally friendly”.
I need to do another correction as well.
The High North Alliance has made a statement that one additional minke to the population, consumes 5 tons of cod and 5 tons of herring.
Hi Paul,
Briefly – It depends on the species and the population. Some are increasing from the commercial whaling era, some are stable and some are declining. There are modelling estimates for what numbers were like of commercially hunted species before they were so drastically reduced. There are surveys to make estimates of what numbers are like now. These are not exact sciences. Counting your cattle in the back paddock, who reproduce more frequently than one offspring every 1-3 years is a little more precise.
There are of course other factors that impact upon marine mammals nowadys such as pollution, habitat disturbance, anthropogenic noise, bycatch, competion for food and other resources, disease, boat/ship strike, tourism.
There are also small cetacean hunts (although some of these animals are actually whales). These hunts are often overlooked, and small cetaceans are barely addressed by bodies such as the IWC. They can be incredibly cruel.
There is a lot of discussion on whaling in the archives, but then you have to read through a lot of unpleasantries too. However, I’m sure David and George will be able to enlighten you as well now you have re-entered the arena. I suggest you put on some armour and carry a big stick! Sorry for the broadness of the reply, for what is a multi-layered issue.
Hi Paul,
In whaling regions (where there tends to be much less arable land than in traditional farming regions) whales are just another marine resource that can be harvested.
Obviously with both farming and whaling the goal is to get meat. It’s just two different means of going about it, given to the different characteristics of each type of animal.
With whalers, they can’t actively manage whale stocks in the same way as land based farmers manage livestock, but they can passively observe the population and make decisions based on what knowledge they are able to glean. The “revised management procedure” was the answer of the IWC’s scientific committee to the question of how can safe catch limits be calculated for baleen whales, based on limited information (which itself is not 100% accurate). It sounds like a pretty tough task, but the RMP was unanimously recommended to the IWC by it’s scientific committee in the early 1990’s, and even the anti-whaling IWC itself adopted it.
If you are interested, searching around for “RMP” and names like “Greg Donovan” (IWC Head of Science) or “Andre Punt” / “Doug Butterworth” (a couple of scientists involved in the development of the RMP) will probably turn up some results.
The controversy surrounding lethal research programmes is complicated – the IWC scientific committee agreed when reviewing JARPA (in 1997 and again last year) that the additional information it provides has the potential to improve management under the RMP, but the information obtained in JARPA is being obtained by lethal methods (which anti-whalers don’t like of course) and improving management under the RMP potentially means higher catch limits than would otherwise be the case without the information (another reason anti-whalers prefer such research not be conducted even if they won’t admit as much). The current tactic of the anti-whalers is evidently to emphasize criticisms of some aspects of the research and downplay (or indeed not even mention or acknowledge) the positive feedback on the research. As I’ve been saying, these arguments would all be mute if everyone could agree whether it’s OK to kill whales for food on a sustainable basis (i.e., under an RMP-like catch limit setting procedure and appropriate regulations) or not.
As Libby says, the answer to your question of “are numbers stable, falling or rising?” is really “all of the above”.
Naturally though, the whaling issue today is about whether it’s OK to hunt robust stocks of whales on a sustainable basis. The whalers quite agree that stocks that can not sustain any level of anthropogenic removal should be fully protected from hunting. One criticism I do have of the whalers is that they don’t do enough to take the banner of “conservationists” from the anti-whalers. They need to take more initiatives in helping depleted stocks of whales recover, and publicise such efforts more.
But anyway some recent papers on Antarctic blue and southern hemisphere humpback whale population estimates may be of interest:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/search/label/Trevor%20Branch
(just two examples, not to be taken as indicative of the overall picture one way or the other)
Libby, I thought Migaloo was “he”?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/24/1987072.htm?site=idx-qld
“The current tactic of the anti-whalers is evidently to emphasize criticisms of some aspects of the research and downplay (or indeed not even mention or acknowledge) the positive feedback on the research.”
Hmmm….it could well be said the current tactic of pro-whalers is to ignore criticisms of some aspects of the research and downplay (or indeed not even mention or acknowledge) the negative feedback on the research.
Regarding the population estimates for Southern Hemisphere humpbacks, again it must be pointed out that there have been some problems and current estimates for most populations are far from ‘finalised’.
“I thought Migaloo was “he”?”
Yes he is, but who can disagree with what experienced whale watch operators say?!
> it could well be said the current tactic of pro-whalers (snip…)
See my post at July 23, 2007 10:22 AM.
To Paul:
Declining cetacean populations:
Northern Right Whales
Western Gray Whales
Baltic Sea Harbour Porpoises
Most River Dolphins
Increasing cetacean populations:
Eastern Gray Whales
Humpbacks
“Of the 505 minke whales killed, 262 were pregnant, while one of the three fin whales killed was also pregnant, HSI said.
“These are gruesome statistics that the Japanese government dresses up as science”, said spokesperson Nicola Beynon.
HSI said the statistics would be used in a court case against the Japanese whalers, which was due to resume in Australia’s Federal Court on Tuesday, with a date to be set for a full hearing.”
http://article.wn.com/view/2007/07/24/Japan_accused_of_killing_pregnant_whales_a/
Ann, for some reason I can’t find any articles in the media about what happened with the court case yesterday. I wonder what’s going on.
Perhaps try checking the HSI site later or looking at their media releases, although I didn’t see anything just then when I skimmed through. I have found that the HSI case has receieved very little media attention in the past.
Norwegian paper Fiskaren writes today that the local demand for whale meat is now saturated after an initial demand.
Retailers only want to buy 30 tons of whale meat during August.
In the beginning of the season the demand was so big that the whalers could not provide/ hunt enough whales.
12 whaling boats had seeked permits to hunt whales. However, only two boats will get permissions after lottery.
30 tons of meat are 20 minke whales. It would be unprofitable if more whaling boats participated in the hunt.
ICR spokesman Glenn Inwood is in the Aussie media having a go at HSI, but still no mention of the details of the court case:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/killing-pregnant-whales-is-good-news-whalers/2007/07/25/1185339064854.html
Plenty of demand for whale meat here in Japan Ann, if they were only able to export it here! (sigh)
This year’s ICR press release and last year’s are very similar.
http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/060729Release.pdf
One thing I’m interested in:
““The sampling of pregnant whales are 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,” Dr Hatanaka said.”
I must be really rusty, I’m not sure what exactly they are talking about with this.