In the whaling countries, Norway, Japan and Iceland, whaling and whale watching exists side by side.
In Norway the whale watching industry is focused on sperm whales and killer whales and whale watching doesn’t happen near minke whale hunting grounds. In Japan as well, most whaling happens off shore, far away from coastal whale watching.
But in Iceland the killing of minke whales and the watching of minke whales occur in close proximity.
The Icelandic whale watching industry is unhappy and has commented:
“Whale watching in Iceland is being highly jeopardized, first by the resumption of the so-called “scientific” whaling in 2003 and now by the resumption of commercial whaling, announced and immediately performed in October 2006.
“161 minke whales have been caught for scientific purposes and their stomach contents analyzed to seek justification for the depleting fish stocks. However, at the last IWC meeting in June 2006, Iceland’s research was critized by the Scientific Commitee of the IWC for not being scientifically viable. The whales had been caught too close to shore, often within whale watching areas, and the study results are therefore insufficient.”
We have discussed here on Jennifer’s blog, what will happen with the Australian humpback whale watching industry, when Japan resumes humpback whaling this Austral summer for “scientific” reasons.
The whale watching industry is concerned the whales may become easier targets.
Comments from Australians include:
“Wally Franklin: The whales have become very used to these vessels and will come up to and roll over and present their underside and their belly to these vessels. Now are they going to do this, of course, to the Japanese harpooners in Antarctica?
That’s … we’re hoping they won’t.”
“Steve Dixon: Well if a season was added to the Hervey Bay calendar through whale watching and that industry suddenly becomes endangered, or the whales stop trusting the whale watchers, then it will have a severe economic impact on the whale city, because suddenly that fleet that goes out from July though to the end of September will suddenly find itself going out and looking at dolphins.”
So what will the impact of Japanese whaling be on the Australian humpback whaling industry?
My guess: The whale watchers may only experience the skittish animals that have been left – detracting from the whale watching adventure.
Cheers,
Ann Novek
Sweden
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Of course any future change in behaviour is pure speculation, but as I have mentioned previously, when I started doing my research and you were lucky to see humpbacks, those encountered were very shy. A comment by the head of the NSW whale watching organisation last week was that the animals may become aggressive towards boats, presenting an occupational health and safety risk to people on board.
Should the animals become skittish, it could put an end to my research where I need them to be relaxed and trusting around me. Oh well, I’m sure much more can be learnt from a dead whale than a live one, although dead whales don’t talk (or sing).
Hi Libby,
Incomplete information on cetacean biology and habitat use makes it difficult to determine impacts with certainty.
The responses vary between species , population and local situation.
Certain whales that periodically travel or feed alone , in pairs , or widely spaced apart , might have little opportunity to develop a learned response to hunting while the more social odontocetes and certain baleen whales could readily develop such responses.
Dr. Peter Corkeron has as well stated in one of his works that whales off northern Norway became more difficult to approach in the early days of commercial whaling.
In Alaska a ” new” pod of Beluga whales acted naively when approached by hunters:
http://article.wn.com/view/2007/08/13/Killing_Beluga_whales_sparks_a_controversy/
Firstly, I’m amused at the desire of the anti-whalers to try to redefine the English language just to try to reconcile their belonging to an International WHALING Commission.
I guess it won’t be long before the usage becomes common enough to make the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whaling
But it’s a bit silly considering that a another international organization may shortly start to fulfil the void that has been created by the anti-whalers refusing to let the IWC to carry out it’s mandate.
I digressed from the outset.
What are those in government and industry who are worried about humpbacks being hunted actually doing about it, other than talk and talk and talk?
They want the Japanese to not start targeting humpbacks again.
What’s the plan to actually achieve this outcome?
We are talking about an international dispute. Taking it to court is one way to try to resolve the issue – but there seems to big a big chance of losing. Aren’t these people thinking about other ways in which international disputes are resolved?
“We are talking about an international dispute. Taking it to court is one way to try to resolve the issue – but there seems to big a big chance of losing. Aren’t these people thinking about other ways in which international disputes are resolved?” -David
Millions of e-mails have been sent to protest against whaling….activists have encountered the whalers on the high seas, diplomats and courts have been involved etc, etc.
This is far from my area of ” expertise” but what about Libby taking personal contact with the Japanese Embassy as a very first step and making her point in a ” very small way”???? Telling people about her research etc in a friendly way and hoping the staff will forward her message to higher authorities. Might sound a bit childish and naive, but something I personally would have thought about…
Hmm, then again what is Australia’s goal? Not the purported one, but the real one?
To David,
I see in a paper that some cultures may question whether it is appropriate to hunt animals from a population that is regularly watched. Animals that are frequently exposed to whale watchers often become used to boats , and some species approach boats more often following prolonged exposure.
Although this doesn’t result in taming the animal, it might allow hunters to approach and kill such animals more easily than those which have been exposed to hunters or not exposed to humans in any concerted way.
Methinks this statement might have meant to be a code of hunters ethics. For example it’s forbidden and regarded as highly unethical to hunt and shot animals that have been cajoled to a feeding place… thinking about the Swedish annual moose hunt, hunters are fined if they have fed/ cajoled the moose with apples etc on the hunting grounds….
Yeah, there’s all sorts of arguments to be had but I’ve kind of gotten sick of them.
They won’t stop people from hoping to eat whales.
A path to a resolution of sorts is available but Australia seems to be taking no moves in this direction, which is a shame. Those in Australia who really care about “their whales” will be the losers, and their government will be left with no cards to play (unless they decide to put up the house as collateral, so to speak, but that’s never going to happen).
” They won’t stop people from hoping to eat whales.” – David
Methinks the Icelandic whale watching operator that I linked to provided interesting information on whale meat eating.
For those who didn’t read the link.
70% of Icelanders support whaling, but it doesn’t mean that they want to eat the meat. They support the whaling industry because they have been spoonfed by the authorities that ” the whales eat too many fish”.
From another link from the High North Alliance’s website I see that one man made the comment ” we eat whale meat in the Military, but it didn’t taste any good, had kind of an oily taste”.
One more note from the Icelandic whale watching operator. He warns people and tourists from eating whale meat. ” Don’t fall the temptation” .
Guess many tourists are tempted to try out whale meat as it is ” forbidden fruit”.
Read: ” Don’t fall for the temptation”.
‘there’s all sorts of arguments to be had but I’ve kind of gotten sick of them.’ – David
Everybody who has read David’s contributions on multiple forums is well aware that he is not in the slightest bit interested in anything but an immediate return to international commercial whaling, regardless of the international fishing industry’s repeated failure to harvest resources in the ‘commons’ sustainably.
‘Those in Australia who really care about “their whales” will be the losers, and their government will be left with no cards to play’ – David
Utter tosh, David repeatedly suggests that some ‘new’ commercial whaling organisation is suddenly going sweep away the IWC, completelty ignoring a very important fact –
The clue is in the name, INTERNATIONAL Whaling Commission.. it covers international waters which means Japan cannot just unilaterally start imposing terms on other countries in international waters.. any new organisation would also face this issue, which is precisely the reason why even if Japan did throw a hissy fit and start a new organisation it would have to admit all those nations with an interest, whether or not they supported international commercial whaling.
The whole hypothetical scenario is merely a disingenuous attempt to loosen restrictions on whaling quotas within the IWC by empty sabre rattling..
Japan is perfectly capable of supplying the limited Japanese cultural market for whale meat from its own territorial waters (as are Iceland and Norway), so any attempt to re-invent the unsustainable international market for whale meat is simply about satisfying the short term financial avarice and political agenda of a tiny number of people…
As David well knows Japan does not have a registered reservation to the IWC Moratorium which is why, despite David’s repeated attempts to suggest otherwise, legal action is therefore unlikely to favor the Japanese delegation… indeed it explains why Japan has not rushed to court to press its case.
‘what is Australia’s goal? Not the purported one, but the real one?’ – David
Promoting conspiracy theories does not enhance David’s credibility.
” Yeah, there’s all sorts of arguments to be had but I’ve kind of gotten sick of them.” – David
I have cherry-picked some statements from a paper called “A Review of Whale-Watching and Whaling”.
Actually David, this review is quite balanced ” despite” that one author, Erich Hoyt , is from WDCS. The other author is G.T. Hvenegaard from Augustana University College, Canada.
Some excerpts from the review.
” Attitudes toward whaling vary country by country. Opposition against whaling was highest for residents in Australia ( 60%). For Japan ( 25%) and Norway ( 22%).”
” Any proposal to ban cetacean hunting, in order to promote whale watching , would certainly need to consider all of the related values of using whales for all purposes. If a country seeks to continue with cetacean hunting industry, attention should be given to improving public understanding of the industy’s history and values ( World Council of Whalers).
The success of management efforts will depend on local conservation concerns and the level of spatial, temporal and species overlap between cetacean hunting and whale watching.”
To be continued….
” In addition, tour operators , though not representative of communities , have opinions about whaling. For example , among tour operators in Tonga , 100% were opposed to commercial whaling and 66% were opposed to indigenous whaling. All operators agreed that a return to whaling practices of any type in Tonga would be detrimental to their businesses.
Of 13 whale watching operators in Iceland, 11 were opposed to whaling.
Whale watch operators and whalers in Andenes , Norway, seem to have developed more understanding and tolerance of each others’ positions. Ris ( 1993) suggests that residents of Norway do not necessarily have to choose between whaling and whale watching because of their heritage of respect for nature and ” harvesting” living natural resources.
Ris suggests that the dichotomous choice between whaling and nonconsumptive uses of whales is forced on Norwegians by foreign entrepreneurs and Anglo-Americans”.
>Taking it to court is one way to try to resolve the issue – but there seems to big a big chance of losing.
Perhaps not. There are other avenues appearing which seem to hold promise of success.
I have contacted both sides of the Australian government regarding the issue of Southern Ocean whaling (not specifically humpbacks). One didn’t respond and the other sent back an automated response he had prepared as he was being bombarded by concerned members of the public on the issue.
“In Japan as well, most whaling happens off shore, far away from coastal whale watching.”
Taiji has a number of oceanariums with performing dolphins, in the vicinity of where the dolphin drives take place. You can buy dolphin to eat at the local dining establishments.
“what about Libby taking personal contact with the Japanese Embassy what about Libby taking personal contact with the Japanese Embassy …Might sound a bit childish and naive, but something I personally would have thought about…”
It’s not childish, but perhaps not the best use of my time. I would rather write a letter to Gwen Stefani and other pop icons who are no doubt more popular with the Japanese than Mr Abe!
“David repeatedly suggests that some ‘new’ commercial whaling organisation is suddenly going sweep away the IWC, completelty ignoring a very important fact…”
Welcome back Lamna. David, in usual David style, alluded to an international organisation (He wrote “But it’s a bit silly considering that a another international organization may shortly start to fulfil the void…”). It would be in their best interests to stick with an international organisation, otherwise they will leave themselves open to legal action.
There are humpback whales in Japanese waters, with a growing whale watching industry around them. http://www.whaleroute.com/areas/japan/index.htm
These whales are of course migratory, and can be found in other areas where large whale watching ventures are in operation, carried out by wealthier and more influential participants in the world arena than Australia. Of course they don’t fit in to the JARPA II objective of studying the Antarctic ecosystem either, but I think we have all agreed that that is not the real objective for killing them.
In the U.S., “environmenatalists” are claiming that whales are too slow or stupid to get out of the way of ships, so they want shipping companies to pay $100-150 million more in fuel and labor so that the ships can slow down for them. Why do Japanese need to harpoon them if all they have to do is run over them like a possum in the road?
http://boortz.com/nuze/200708/08152007.html#environment
” Why do Japanese need to harpoon them if all they have to do is run over them like a possum in the road?” – Woody
Well, the Japanese want to eat the whales and then it’s better to harpoon them, otherwise they would sink.
The only whales that don’t sink are your mentioned right whales!!!
Given the thread of this conversation, I thought you might be interested in my new book — LEVIATHAN: A HISTORY OF WHALING IN AMERICA (W. W. Norton, July 2007). For more information please check out my website, http://www.ericjaydolin.com. If you can spread the word to those who might be interested, that would be great.
All the best.
Eric Jay Dolin
“n the U.S., “environmenatalists” are claiming that whales are too slow…”
It was your knowledgeable source in your link Woody that suggested the whales couldn’t even get out of the way of a ship, not “environmentalists”. Whales did not evolve to get out of the way of super tankers, high speed ferries, etc. It is the government agencies, advised by researchers, who have suggested that there are speed restrictions needed to ensure these animals don’t become extinct.
Eric,
Does your book look at whaling by America in other areas apart from the US?
Ann,
As for Iceland, WDCS says with regards to Iceland that “early indications are that sales are doing far better this year than in previous years”
(http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/17B97B67904E826080257306004CD9CF)
As for the military man who thought it tasted oily, big deal – so many men, so many minds. And there are good cooks and bad cooks!
Whether the numbers go up or go down, it’s not really my point though. The reality is that people wanting to eat whales aren’t going to go away all of a sudden. These realities (of the at least short to medium term) need to be mutually acknowledged if there is to be any (short to medium term) resolution of the issue.
Amazing that North Korea is probably going to drop it’s nuke programme, and yet no progress has been made on the issue for 25 years (although at least the anti-whalers are more open about how they feel these days). Or is it really that amazing?
Travis,
If there is a chance in court Australia’s government would surely have already taken it. But like NZ and the UK they haven’t. The cost is low for a rich nation like Australia, and I think it’s crap that they are worried about upsetting Japan – they took them to court over SBT in the past. So why not whaling? What’s the difference? Don’t Australia, NZ and the UK all care so much about whales?
I believe the most plausible explanation is they (agree with me and) think they will lose. Anyway like I say I do hope some court action is taken, it should help get the anti-whalers to think about other options to achieve their “aim”, whatever exactly that may be. What is Australia’s aim and why? What is it that is so important to Australia? What is it that government officials are *really* fighting for?
What did you tell the Aussie pollies? Did you question whether Aussie policy is any good, considering the utter ineffectiveness of it all to actually achieve anything Aussie claims to be arguing for?.
Libby,
From UNCLOS A.56:
” 1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has … sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources…”
A.65: “in the case of cetaceans shall in particular work through the appropriate international organizations for their conservation, management and study.”
“Organizations” is plural, and whether the IWC remains “appropriate” after 14 wasted years of RMS “negotiations” is dubious. It’s certainly not fulfilling it’s mandate, nor recognising and respecting sovereign rights in good faith.
Iceland has also set a precedent for re-establishing an objection to the “moratorium”.
What does UNCLOS say of the High Seas?
“The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked.”
“Freedom of the high seas … comprises … freedom of fishing …
“All States have the right for their nationals to engage in fishing on the high seas subject to … their treaty obligations …”
“States shall cooperate with each other in the conservation and management of living resources in the areas of the high seas. States whose nationals exploit identical living resources, or different living resources in the same area, shall enter into negotiations with a view to taking the measures necessary for the conservation of the living resources concerned.”
Whaling nations are happy to negotiate regarding measures for *conservation*, but UNCLOS says nothing about any obligation to negotiate for outright protectionism, which is what Australia desires with respect to whales that it exploits through whale watching.
“They shall, as appropriate, cooperate to establish subregional or regional fisheries organizations to this end.”
Australia doesn’t even have a whale fishery.
So on the grounds of which international agreement does Australia actually expect whaling nations to do on the high seas as Australia pleases? The opt-in, temporary “moratorium”, which even Japan is now thinking to work around?
Australia is going to come out a big loser, unless coming out a loser is the intended strategy.
Yes David, I am aware of UNCLOS. However, and I think Travis may be privy to the same info, there are avenues appearing that may well be explored soon, and not with the aim of losing.
LOL, so we have the Japanese talking about revising their approach to the IWC (etc, details of which I may or may not be privy to :)) and Aussies reckoning that long unexplored legal avenues “may well be explored soon”.
Lots of talk, no action yet! Which horse will be first out of the box?!
I’d say we “may well be” living in exciting times over the next … hmmm 🙂
David,
I saw on the Icelandic Minke whalers site that ” Sala a hrefnukjöti hafur gengid mjög vel i sumar”
Short translation: ” Minke whale meat sales have gone very well this summer”
I read as well that the expected quota for next years whaling in Norway will be the same as for this year, this means that only the half of the quota will be filled.
Next year there will be new abundance estimate of minke whales as well.
Eric,
I saw that your book has been featured on a whales news site. Thanks!
I guess the number of whales caught by norwegians depends on market demand and prices, versus costs 🙂
” What does UNCLOS say of the High Seas?
“The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked.”
“Freedom of the high seas … comprises … freedom of fishing … ” – David
I really hope that most people don’t look at this UNCLOS paragraph as something good.
This freedom of the high seas includes nasty things as ” freedom to pollute” etc .
Hey this is a good one:
“Article89
Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas
No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.”
Is Australia’s “whale sanctuary” actually in harmony with Australian law and Australian obligations under international law?
Whales safari in Andenes, Norway.
In a previous thread , Travis, George and I discussed the impact of seismic shooting on sperm whales , as the whale watching operator in Andenes made a statement for media that he hasn’t observed any particular changes in the whales’ behaviour during the seismic shootings off Lofoten.
Now, he has made a new comment for the media. He states again that the whales seem not to bother much about the seismic activity but it’s noteworthy to observe that the shooting have not been strong. He has no idea how the sperm whales will react when the activity will be stronger.
However, he has noticed that new individuals are shy and that the whales don’t like high frequency sounds.
The seismic activity has got much criticism from fishermen.
Thanks for the update Ann. Bless the ww operator’s cotton socks eh? When he says the whales aren’t too bothered, I guess he is judging that from their surface activity, defecation to show they have been feeding regularly, respiration rates? It will be interesting to hear what he has to say when the shots get stronger. As there appears to be no research being done on the possible effects, this fellow is in the best position to pass comment, however sweeping his statements might be.
Off topic a bit:
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=219928
Perhaps the Japanese businessman “found” this ivory and expected to keep it. What was that about finders keepers? Excuse me whilst I step over that dead African ranger.
” Bless the ww operator’s cotton socks eh? “- Travis.
Actually, the ww.operator has got criticism for his cautious stance.
Methinks the Marine Research Institute ( Havsforsknings Instituttet) is going to carry out research next year. It was also meant that the seismic activity would continue in August, but is now cancelled ( perhaps due to protests and uncertainty).
Excerpt from Eric Jay Dolin’s book:
” Throughout Leviathan, Dolin fills in gaps in our knowledge, devoting a chapter to murders and mutinies, and another, “An Enormous, Filthy Humbug,” to the brutal realities of life on a whale ship. Crewmen, he explains, generally made little money, suffered from a variety of diseases, ate rotten food and slept in forecastle beds “the best of which were bad, while the worst were truly vile.” Little wonder that one 19-year-old, Robert Weir, wrote, “We have to work like horses and live like pigs.”
LEVIATHAN
http://www.projo.com/books/content/BOOK-LEVIATHAN_08-12-07_ED6E09U.c16c88.html
” It’s not childish, but perhaps not the best use of my time. I would rather write a letter to Gwen Stefani and other pop icons who are no doubt more popular with the Japanese than Mr Abe!”- Libby
Don’t want to discourage you Libby and wish you all good luck with the humphies but experiences from Norway ( yes, we have been through this) showed that nothing united the country as much as criticism from the yanks and Paul McCarthny to continue whaling.
As a matter of fact Norway did resume commercial whaling because of international criticism and not because despite of it! Maybe the case is similar with Japan!
I see as well that a green NGO, the Norwegian Society for the Protection of Nature , states that Norway mustn’t cave in for international criticism. According to them it’s much more eco-friendly to eat a minke steak than beef or pig, yeah I know, I’m ranting…..
One more short note. The Norwegian Society for the Protection of Nature , thinks it’s OK to eat minke beef BUT NOT to blame the whales for the decline in fisheries.
I note that the welfare issue has not featured much in your discussions. Even modern killing techniques using the explosive grenade harpoon cannot ensure a humane death for hunted whales. Even the whalers admit that hundreds of whales take between several minutes and over an hour to die. This is total hypocrisy as animal welfare standards in the whaling countries themselves would never permit such killing times and appalling cruelty inflicted on sentient animals for their domestic meat industries.
Sadly, the whaling countries are now refusing to submit data to the International Whaling Commission on times to death of slaughtered whales. The reason for this is obvious. Regardless of your position on eating whales, if whaling cannot be conducted humanely it should not be conducted at all. In modern, wealthy and so-called civilised societies, where whale meat is not even a critical necessity but merely a luxury, there are ample alternatives from humanly killed livestock. There can be no moral justification for such an inherently cruel and outdated industry.
“if whaling cannot be conducted humanely it should not be conducted at all. ” – Andy
Hi Andy,
Thanks a lot for your input. I agree with your statement. In previous whaling threads we have all discussed the animal welfare aspect of whaling. Valuable information has been passed on by Libby for example.
We have also discussed whaling vs. farming and methinks we all agreed that we didn’t treat our livestock very well as well. We were all very concerned how to improve living standards and TTD’s for all animals.
Unfortunately, Japan and Iceland don’t submit TTDs and other welfare stats to the IWC.This is a big drawback IMO, which only will make bad PR for the whaling nations.
We do have TTD’s for the Norwegian whaling. Russia submits TTD’s as well ( it’s a gruesome read). And we are thankful for this.
According to you, animal welfare issues should be pointed out more. What to do?
Greenpeace Nordic made a statement that the killing methods had improved a lot , and there really didn’t exist such thing as ” cruel and bloody whaling”. No, they are not an animal welfare organisation. Hopefully we will come back to the animal welfare and cruelty issue once again in another thread and discuss this more thoroughly.
Thanks again!
PS. A Norwegian animal welfare issue has published the cruelty of whaling on their website.
Their article was surprisingly as well published on a “whaler’s” paper.
Read: ” A Norwegian animal welfare organisation has published TTD’s etc in a whaler’s paper….”
Hi Andy,
See for example http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002101.html for stuff on TTD, and there is plenty more in the archives on our thoughts re cruelty. In fact stick around and you will see we are like the proverbial goldfish in a bowl – round and round and round….Most of the whaling threads have some mention of animal welfare and/or intelligence in them!
I see that Andy Ottaway is from Campaign Whale, the UK anti whaling NGO. Welcome!
Yay for anti whaling NGOs! Where would the whaling debate have gone without them!!
eeh
Don’t be jealous now David, you know that we enjoy as well when the whale-eaters pop up for discussions!!!
It’s refreshing to have some new input. I wouldn’t say there is a paucity of pro-whaling viewpoints on this site.
Travis,
Are not most sites whale-huggers sites??? The pro whalers used to get a lot of abuse methinks. For example, the High North Alliances guest book is closed due to abuse,so of course it’s good when Rune ” dares” to comment on a site in the world’s leading anti whaling country.
A ” professional” debate includes always as many viewpoints as possible. We have our little ” IWC meeting” here!
Ann,
We have Rune, David, George, IceMan, Ian and some other ring-ins in the red corner. We have Libby, me, Lamna, and some other ring-ins in the white corner. I still have no idea where you fit in as you insist on swinging both ways 🙂 Although at the moment I’d put you’re firmly entrenched in the red corner. And there are many sites out there that are not ‘whale-hugger’ sites, and anti-whaling sites get abuse too. Rune doesn’t ‘dare’ at all- he says what he thinks like everyone else does here. I’ve seen plenty of abuse on these whaling threads, and it hasn’t been directed at Rune.
” I still have no idea where you fit in as you insist on swinging both ways 🙂 ” -Travis
I told you that I support the former US IWC Commissioners proposal on whaling( a middle way):
I speak Norwegian, so of course you get the impression that I’m prowhaling when I translate articles from hardcore whaling papers;-)!
No, but actually both David and George know that I support the whales and they fully accept that.
>I speak Norwegian, so of course you get the impression that I’m prowhaling
Er, no. It has had nothing to do with your language skills!
>No, but actually both David and George know that I support the whales and they fully accept that.
That’s nice to know.
A bit off topic but highly relevant in the whales’ dicussions.
One Swedish animal friend made this comment in my morning paper:
” How comes that some animals are looked at as dear family members /icons/ inelligent/ sentient beings , meanwhile others are only mentioned in terms of “TONS”, ” PRODUCE” and ” FARMING/ HARVESTING”.
Nobody would talk about producing 2000tons of cats/year!
Off topic again ( excerpt from the world’s strangest laws):
1. The head of any dead whale found on the British coast is legally the property of the King; the tail, on the other hand, belongs to the Queen – in case she needs the bones for her corset.
Sperm whale watching in Andenes, Norway.
Today major Norwegian paper ” Dagbladet” writes aboout whale watching in Andenes. Check out the nice images:
http://www.dagbladet.no/dinside/2007/08/17/509083.html
The article begins with the statement : ” Norwegians absent from the whale whatching tours. Most visitors come from Spain, Germany and the Netherlands.”
Only one of ten whale watchers are Norwegians.
You can watch the sperm whales at a distance of 20 to 30 metres. The tour takes between 3 to 8 hours. You can as well visit the local ” Norwegian Whale Centre” . Here guides are talking about the importance of the whales for the ecosystem as well for coastal Norway.( Guess they mean whale watching as well as whaling!)
You may also have the opportunity to watch sea eagles and big colonies of puffins. Lots of seals.
There will be comments made by Norwegians during the day re the article which is on topic with our discussions, whaling vs whale watching. I will post some comments later during the day.
Some comments from Norwegian readers on the article which has the flattering name ” The Kings of the Oceans”.
1) ” Better to watch whales than to kill them. Norway should be famous for whale watching and not famous for its whaling”.
2) I see as well that the ” world famous” whaler Steinar Bastantesen( who tried to smuggel tons of blubber to Japan) has made a comment:
” Whales are nice to look at , they are as well nice to eat. Have you ever been in an abattoir???
Now all the double standards/ hypocracy must end!!”
Of course whaling and whale-watching can co-exist. The simple problem here is that no one owns any whales, so that private individuals have no way to work out these competing interests – by buying each other out, by agreeing to mutual limits on when and where they conduct activities, or by recourse to a court of law when one unreasonably interferes with the rights of the other.
When the whaling nations decided that they needed to put a temporary end to the tragedy of the commons race to catch whales, they sadly left the problem there, instead of trying to develop property rights – which would resemble ITQs (individual trasferrable quotas) that have been succesfuly implemented fort a number of fish stocks. Because of the lack of ownership, each side has simply been using its remaining tools, viz., political pressure or “scientific” whaling, to try to achieve unilaterally what it cannot bargain for in the market.
Both sides should put down their silliness and start working to privatize whales, so that both sides have incentives to invest in healthy populations.
It is a continiuing surprise to me that Japan, which has one of the highest stakes in the health of the oceans, refuses to see obvious ways to turn vicious PR wars into productive relationships. This is needed not only for whales, but for tuna and other crashing sticks that remain essentially free-for-alls duer to a lack of ownership rights.
Regards,
TT
So far over 20 comments have been made. It’s quite equal between the pros and antis. Readers can as well vote which comment is the best one.
Comment number 1 is the most popular one!!!! OK, this is only an ” Internet poll”, so it really doesn’t reflect the reality????
Good debate among the Norwegians today. The last comment stated:
Information from the Departement of Agriculture and Food:
” The part of animals that lived for more than 10 minutes ( after been hit by the harpoon) has been reduced by the half since the season 1984/ 1986 and lies between 10%.”
According to the Norwegian poster this still means cruelty to the whales.
Still comment # 1 is leading before ” Whales for dinner” comments!
“The simple problem here is that no one owns any whales, “- Tokyo Tom
Thanks a lot for your a little tricky input in the discussions.
We have touched this topic a little previously when we have discussed that some Aussies mention the whales as ” our whales” , similarily like some Norwegian whalers call the minkes their whales and whaling ain’t nobody elses business.
The big problem here is that whales are classified as ” highly migratory species”. This means as well that they belong to all nations not only coastal ones.
Another problem with migratory animals is where is really their home. Is it where they are born or where they spend the feeding season?
As it is now both breeding and feeding grounds are mostly unknown for many species.
Tom,
To my mind with whaling we’re still a bit further behind the 8-ball.
Australia and New Zealand are primarily interested in demanding that nobody kills them, anywhere. This attitude was on display at IWC 59. Japan went there looking to negotiate for coastal whaling, but Australia and New Zealand weren’t interested in anything that could be described as “commercial whaling”, even if it meant *less* whales being killed than at the present time.
Once Australia and New Zealand can accept that other people hope to eat whales then schemes like ITQs indeed might be successfully explored as means to achieve mutuably happy outcomes for humans.
>Japan went there looking to negotiate for coastal whaling, but Australia and New Zealand weren’t interested in anything that could be described as “commercial whaling”, even if it meant *less* whales being killed than at the present time.
Japan withdrew its proposal in Anchorage for coastal whaling because it knew it would not get the support from IWC members, NOT just Australia and NZ. To suggest any decision was based purely on Australia and NZ’s opposition to whaling is disingenuous. The suggestion of a ‘deal’ regarding humpbacks was something else altogether, and seen for what it was.
>Once Australia and New Zealand can accept that other people hope to eat whales
You know the voting system at the IWC David. There are many more countries opposed to whaling apart from these two.
>to achieve mutuably happy outcomes for humans.
Bad luck if you’re a whale.
What is it with these western dudes and ‘Tokyo’ tags?
Still ” votings” and comments can be made on the ” Dagbladets” article, whaling vs whale watching.
Score is now:
#1) ” Norway should be famous for its whale watching and not for whaling” – 59 votes
#2) ” Whales for dinner” – 12 votes
#3) ” We want whale hunting safaris” -3 votes
#4) ” Harpoon the whales because they eat too many fish” – 1 vote
One more comment on the article and the following discussions. They seem to be focused on killing methods and not sustainability.
Travis, I just happen to live in Tokyo. No conspiracy theory necessary. By the way, you might note that I give equal time to berating both sides.
“Bad luck if you’re a whale,” you say, but isn’t it very clear that whenever a market economy confronts a resource, that resource is in deep trouble for as long as it remains UNOWNED, as an open-access free-for-all? Does “tragedy of the commons” ring a bell with you? Of course things may be different when the demand is is purely local/indigenous, but with a little study it is clear that indigenous peoples developed property rights systems as well (see Ostrum on these generally, and Anderson & Leal on systems developed by American Indians). The problem has been that these systems have broken in the face of Western domination and market demand.
The way forward is to establish property rights systems, that will give resource users protectable rights. Such rights will all users to put aside the race to catch and to invest in future harvests.
In the absence of any ownership, we simply have a predictable – and counterproductive – PR/rent-seeking game whereby various interests seek to manipulate their states to control a resource that they don’t own. Ownership (including clear allocation of responsibility re: externalities) is what allows for productive use of resources. In the US, enviro groups may oppose the development of ANWAR, but Nature Conservancy has oil and gas wells on its own properties. And under the Bush administration, oil and gas developers gained rights to develop on public land, without responsibility for the downstream damage that they are doing. We should all be aware that the involvement of states leads to rent-seeking and the benefit of elites, at the cost of others – and a frustration of the ability of individuals to work out competing interests by making deals.
Whales aint gas or oil reserves. As Ann pointed out, many are highly migratory, with any ‘ownership’ able to be contested by numerous parties with conflicting interests.
In Australia we have just witnessed how white man can taketh away, disguising a resource grab as an 11-year-late ‘moral obligation’. There seemed to be no ‘protectable rights’ in this instance, and in the end money does the talking. ‘Property rights’ can be confused with ‘territory’ when discussing indigenous humans, which is particularly ‘problematic’ when considering nomadic groups.
Ann, what “belongs to all nations” belongs to no one, and is at risk. For whales there is exceptionally light hunting pressure now due to the moratorium agreed by the whaling (and ex-whaling) nations, but just look at what has been happening to ocean fisheries as a whole – the great cod fishery? Gone. Tuna – going, going, and soon gone.
The impulse in various nations to call the whales “theirs” is fine, but obviously that can only hold true within their respective EEZs, and each nation still has to deal with the problem of domestic fights between whalers and watchers over resources that neither owns. It would be better to formally allocate property rights, so these groups would have incentives to work together. Whalers are natural conservationists – when they have the ability to protect the resource.
The migratory aspects of whales is really not a huge issue. If initial property rights were allocated (in particular pods and individuals), there would be tremendous amounts of investment and cooperation in information and technology to identify and track whales, including in illegal harvesting by others, and the owners would have incentives to sue for damage caused by other users of the oceans.
On the international level, everyone should recognize that the PR war results simply from the fact that no one owns whales and thus is lacking the traditional means of making one’s perfectly legitimate interests felt – by putting his money where his mouth is. So we have alot of mouth, to try to control what our governments do.
The demonization has obvious origins and is understandable, but is silly and childish.
David, simply pointing your fingers elsewhere is unproductive, and takes no imagination.
Why Japan insists on cutting off its nose to spite its face is beyond me. The lack of ITQs is really starting to hurt it as the oceans are overfished. Japan should be working harder on this issue generally than anyone else, but what does it do? Lets ocean fisheries crash to satisfy a desire to not let other nations dictate to it on whales? Japan should be in the forefront of the ITQs issue.
Instead, it wastes it taxpayers yen by buying out its whole commercial whaling industry and runs it at a loss while pissing off the rest of the world, while other more imprtant fisheries are run into the ground. Japan could easily capture the global public imagination and diplomacy points by investing in whale tracking and scientific discovery.
Regards,
Tom
>Whalers are natural conservationists – when they have the ability to protect the resource.
No offense TT, but I think part of the objection to whaling is as a result of over-exploitation by said whalers who did not properly manage the resource, when they had the ability to.
The ability to track live whales (and the associated problems) has been discussed here before.
Where there is a will, often there is a way. You can set up systems to protect resources from over-harvesting, but ways of rorting the system inevitably follow. Humans are inherently greedy and devious creatures.
Travis, do you disagree with any of my basic points about what happens to unowned resources, or resources that are “owned” by governments?
Do know anything about ITQs? Establishing them in certain populations of whales would not be difficult, and increasingly cheap technology exists to tag and track whales. Where there is an owner, there is an incentive to invest in a continuing use. Where there is none, there is simply a race to take and destroy, future be damned. Just look at cod, tuna, coral reel poioning and dynamiting, and destructive deep sea mount trawling.
The only answer is MORE ownership, not less.
TT
TT and Travis,
“problem of domestic fights between whalers and watchers over resources that neither owns”- TT
The ww operator I’m refering to in Norway has got praise both of the High North Alliance and the WDCS! So in this particular case there doesn’t exist a row between whalers and ww operators.
Case might be totally different in Iceland, the Caribbean and your Aussie whale watching oprations.
Are whalers conservationists—mmmmm—-look just what whalers say in Norway, the damn whales eat too many fish!
You might be right that the CURRENT pressure on the whales’population is sustainable…even Greenpeace think Norwegian whaling is so!
But humans are inherently greedy as Travis pointed out, and personally I would like to discuss other fisheries than whaling very gladly!!!!
“increasingly cheap technology exists to tag and track whales”
Problems lie in getting the tags to stay in/on the whales, not the cost of the technology. If you are talking long-term as in years, there would be issues with battery life. Tagging of tuna already exists, with many of the same problems as tagging cetaceans.
Ann/Travis: Of course humans are greedy. The question is simply it preferable to give free rein to that greed by allowing tragedy of commons situations to persist (and to simply enage in moralizing finger-pointing), or to control that greed through ownership of resources.
This is the same problem with face with many resources, including the internet (spammers) and intellectual propoerty. Does calling spammers or hackers evil help? Those who have resources naturally invest in ways to prevent others from stealing from or free-riding on them.
Libby: Markets create continuous incentives to address the problems you mention.
TT
Tom,
I’ve no real problem with ITQs for whales if everyone can agree, the sticking point is that Australia and New Zealand don’t think whales should be subject to killing, let alone ownership of the right to kill or whatever.
ITQs aren’t perfect either though, regulatory measures are still required to ensure that individual owners abide by their quota.
David, you still prefer to simply point fingers. How about approaching this as someone looking for a productive solution? Just think of the political hay Japan could get on this issue if it started to push ITQs and instead of an in-your-face scientific take in the Southern refuge engaged in PR that touched on the fundamental tragedy of the commons dynamics that led to the moratorium in the first place?
NZ, by the way, is one of the proving grounds for how successful ITQs are.
Japan will be more successful if it tries to show it understands the reasons underlying others concerns, and that it sees the big picture of other ocean fisheries. In reality, there is a huge middle ground.
Greenpeace and others should also realize in the long run how costly a divisive agenda is.
Regards, Tom
>the sticking point is that Australia and New Zealand don’t think whales should be subject to killing,
Why there you go again – ‘mazing how all those other countries don’t get a look in! How influential these antipodeans are!
>Markets create continuous incentives to address the problems you mention.
I would have thought there was plenty of incentive in the tuna fishery – even more so than whales.
Tom,
I’m not sure if I’ve got you right, but it seems like you would have me believe the anti-whalers would be happy if they were 100% certain and assured that whaling nations wouldn’t kill more whales than was sustainable (hence ITQs).
The whaling issue is multi-dimensional, people will oppose it regardless of sustainability.
” The whaling issue is multi-dimensional, people will oppose it regardless of sustainability.” – David
Yeah , right observation…
Greenpeace spokesman has stated in Norwegian paper Dagbladet ” that killing methods have improved a lot and ” bloody and violent/ cruel whaling is no reason to end whaling. There are new threats now as pollution, entanglement etc”
Greenpeace spokesman has also stated in another Norwegian paper ” that Norwegian whaling is sustainable”.
So two main reasons according to Greenpeace
1) Sustainability
2) Inhumane killing methods
are not good enough reasons to stop Norwegian whaling
I have also heard the GP whales campaigner telling me that ” whalers don’t pose any risk to the whales”
So what’s all fuzz about?
Rant, rant , rant….probably the NGOs and politicians use icon animal as fundraisers/ vote buyers.
As I’m personally more or less a vegetarian , and respect animal lives I don’t want to see any whales dead…BUT I can’t see that livestock consumption is a much better/ humane/ eco-friendly alternative either….
Re Norwegian NGOs. There have always been an unwillingness to discuss whaling as their foreign cousins are prowhaling…
Travis, you should do some reading on fisheries, tragedy of the commons and ITQs. This article by Ron Bailey might be a good start: http://www.reason.com/news/show/36839.html
Like whales, no one owns the tuna stocks, so there are NO market incentives to invest in protection of them or in any technology except how to find and catch them before someone else does.
TT
Oops!!! Read : ” …as their foreign cousins are all anti-whaling”.
David, I’m saying there’s a path forward that is in the self-interest of the Japanese and others to push unilaterally even if it takes a while before others follow.
I think anti-whaling nations can be persuaded if (a) they start to understand that the real problem is the tragedy of the commons aspect if whales are unowned and completely unprotected, if (b) the Japanese weren’t in their face with a southern oceans take, and if (c) they could see that the same issue applies not only to whales but to a broader issue of ocean fisheries. The right diplomacy by the Japanese would make hem appear much more sympathetically and paint anti-whalers and Greenpeace in the corner.
The Japanese are just as at fault by falling into the demonization game, forgetting that there are reasons why anti-whaling got wrapped up in politics (tragedy of the commons), and ignoring their own broader interests in other ocean fisheries.
This is a great issue for Japan to take international leadership on, but instead they unfortunately take an extremely narrow view that results in them being easily cast as people who selfishly do not care a whit for international opinion. Why? Because like other nations, this issue has been captured in Japan by a small special interest group (here, right-wingers). Japan’s long-term international interests are being sacrificed to satisfy the egos of these people.
Tom
Ann, I think you are right with this: “the NGOs and politicians use icon animal as fundraisers/ vote buyers.” They are cashing in on emotional reactions, which are easily manipulated.
But this can be turned, particularly if Japan takes the high road.
TT
‘ITQs’ – TokyoTom
While I happen to agree that ITQs have been proven effective in certain nations’ territorial waters (there are also examples where they have been less successful), It is currently extremely debatable that they would work well in international waters without a massive improvement in international enforcement and technology…it would require a tag that lasted the lifetime of the animal, which recorded the exact time of death, linked to a high powered satellite imaging system connected in real time to an international naval police force to prevent pirate fishing and that costs BIG, BIG money… more money than the pro-commercial whaling faction or the fishing industry as a whole are currently willing to spend and that attitude to international enforcement will only change when the tipping point in commercial fisheries around the world really bites… although on past history that will probably lead to lots of fishermen pointing accusatory fingers at ‘foreign’ fishermen and wildlife, so that they can still use a mirror while shaving….
‘Welcome back Lamna.’ – Libby
Thanx Libby and also to Travis for the name check.
If current whaling can be regarded in any way as ‘sustainable’ (considering the large number of small cetaceans species not covered by the IWC this is open to debate) it is because there is a moratorium and therefore no large scale international commercial market… whale watching does not deplete its core asset, so it makes better economic sense than commercial whaling anyway…
On a final note the pro-commercial whaling countries have objections registered to the CITES listings of virtually every endangered species of whale, including the Blue whale… part of the reason Minke whales currently have healthier populations than other species is because for a very long time they were regarded as too small to be economically viable as a target species… which is of course why the Pro-commercial whaling lobby wants hunting expanded to include larger protected species, such as fin and humpbacks.
>Travis, you should do some reading on fisheries, tragedy of the commons and ITQs.
Sure TT. Perhaps you could do some reading on the whaling issue and whale behaviour, biology and current research?
Lamna, thanks, I’m glad you have the time to comment.
” do not care a whit for international opinion. Why? ” – TT
No the whaling nations will not cave in for international pressure. Why?
Well, boycotts don’t work etc. so why cave in. And the anti whaling nations are not in the least better when in comes to environmental issues and animal welfare issues.
I have mentioned the UK, took the example of veal calves and they have the nuclear site , Sellafield, leaking out thousand of litres radioactive water into the marine environment polluting the fish and whales.
As a matter of fact there is a protest group ” Lofotens against Sellafield” that I’m gonna support.
Tom,
With respect to whaling, and I have nothing against ITQs, but it doesn’t seem to me to be realistic that anything would change if Japan did as you say. I believe think Iceland and Norway already have such systems, and they are still criticised and threatened with trade boycotts over whaling.
Thus I believe no matter what the whaling nations say or do the mutineers at the IWC will produce a reason to oppose whaling, because it’s the anti-whaling policy itself that is most important to those governments, not the whales or anything else. People oppose whaling for various reasons, so long as the government opposes whaling their constituency is happy, and the government is thus accredited, “green”. The mutineers would see the IWC blow up before they modify their anti-whaling policy (and even then it won’t change). The anti-whalers have made it clear that their policy is non-negotiable (and so they want to try their luck in court – anything but negotiate as one might expect where international disputes arise)
I estimate that this is ultimately how the issue will be “resolved”: nations that are OK with whaling will do together what they please in accordance with their common understanding, and the IWC mutineers will continue together to complain about them. And so everyone will end up happy, rather than just anti-whaling government officials and their supporters.
What happens next is up to the officials of the whaling nations.
Whaling nations should thus determine a path forward, roll with it, and take lots of care not to give the anti-whalers (and indeed those who simply care about sustainability) any live ammunition to go all those rounds of blanks.
I agree that Japan should look to generically reform it’s fisheries though. This:
http://www.nikkeicho.or.jp/Chosa/new_report/takagifish070731_top.html
… was an good read (I guess you read Japanese).
Travis, didn’t mean to offend. Perhaps my intent would have been clearer if I had reversed my two paragraphs.
The link I gave to you about the success of ITQs in New Zealand makes clear my point – when there are clear ownership rights to a resource, then the resource users have incentives to invest in making the resource productive, including investments in basic scientific knowledge and in technology and fishery practices. The absence of such rights in tuna, despite its high commercial value, is the reason why investments – except in finding catching tuna quicker – have not occurred. Otherwise, people are making investments in “captive” resources, such as in farming salmon and tuna.
The “tragedy of the commons” is all about how our institutions (or lack of them) affect the incentives of resource users. I would think that if you care about resource abuse, you’d actually be interested in learning a little more about it. That’s why I bothered to offer you up a link.
TT
Lamma, I don’t deny the difficulties you mention, but where there are property rights (or alternative market pricing signal) there are powerful incentives for continuous technological improvement. It is on this basis that market societies are tremendously productive – and that economists argue for a pricing signal for GHG emissions.
Ocean fisheries are the real urgent problem, with whales mainly a distraction. I don’t see why you and others are not more interested in actually trying to explore the huge middle ground in trying to solve these problems.
TT
David, I think that the trick is for Japan to start paying attention to its larger interests in sustainable ocean fisheries and deflate some of its national pride that it has invested in whaling. It is the big picture that is important, and Japan (Iceland and Norway) could make headway on whales if they were to speak to a broader agenda about other ocean resources.
Regards,
TT
‘Mutineers’ now David? Such colourful metaphors flavour your opinion! Perhaps we should coin the term ‘dictators’ for the other side?
>I would think that if you care about resource abuse, you’d actually be interested in learning a little more about it. That’s why I bothered to offer you up a link.
TT, thank you for the link, but do not insinuate I do not care or am not interested. FYI I actually do bother to read and educate myself on many issues, just like I gather you will do on whaling, whales and whale/marine research 🙂
>I don’t see why you and others are not more interested in actually trying to explore the huge middle ground in trying to solve these problems.
I shouldn’t speak for Lamna, but you appear to be making large assumptions about a number of us here with very little to go on. Not very diplomatic of you.
‘I don’t see why you and others are not more interested in actually trying to explore the huge middle ground in trying to solve these problems.’ – TokyoTom
Because Japanese observers failed to report massive over quota whaling to the IWC by the Soviets before the moratorium and Japan itself has just been caught ignoring its own Tuna quota, buying over quota Tuna from other nations and buying Tuna from nations which refuse to recognise international quotas, it also appears that these abuses had been occurring for quite some time..
So why would anyone believe anything the Japanese delegation to the IWC has to say… particularly on the subject of quotas and ‘sustainability’?…
The pro-whaling countries are already whaling anyway and are able to meet the limited ‘cultural’ market from their existing quotas.. so what exactly is the middle ground to which you refer?
Travis, sorry for seeming undiplomatic. I would be interested in hearing whether you see any middle ground on whales, particularly if you also care about the sustainability of anay other ocean resource. Is that better?
Lamna, I thought my comments above made clear where I thought the middle ground was – in cooperation to establish sustainable use regimes for the ocean’s fisheries (in the absence of which whales may eventually face starvation due to lack of browse), and in side-stepping the PR wars over whales by establishing similar property rights (ITQs) which would give both sides protectible ownership.
Hi TT,
Your ‘middle ground’ with Travis is whales.. but your middle ground with me is ‘fisheries’??
This thread is dedicated to whaling and whale watching, internet forum etiquette suggests that we try to stick as closely as possible to Ann’s original thread subject…
I have already touched on the issue of poor enforcement by the international fisheries industry in my comments on the complete lack of economic will to provide adequate international naval policing of quotas while addressing your point on the use of tags for whale ITQs..
My comments on the discovery in 2007 of the proven Tuna quota busting by the Japanese seafood industry (there is a very real possibility that these industrial scale quota breaking practices have been going on covertly for decades, with the tacit agreement of the Japanese government) graphically illustrate the enormous gulf between the Japanese Fisheries Ministry’s PR and its actual record on sustainability, which is currently so appalling I see no reason what so ever for giving the Japanese delegation at the IWC the opportunity to create a new international market to decimate more oceanic species… there is no middle ground.
The current moratorium is doing what it was supposed to do, protect large cetacean species from being driven to extinction… with the industrial improvements in modern fishing technology it is quite possible there will never be a justification for re-introducing international commercial whaling because the recruitment rates of whale species will not support it.. (the pro-whaling countries are aware of this and that is why we keep seeing ridiculous propaganda that whales are eating all the fish and proposing culling as an alternative reason for resuming international commercial whaling) in which case that regulation will be properly enforced by the IWC, while ensuring that the dwindling demand for ‘cultural’ quotas are taken into consideration very probably in territorial waters only, since one of the key elements in real sustainability for future international fisheries is going to be permanent no take zones that allow sustainable recruitment to steadily repopulate fishing grounds outside the no take zones for human consumption.
In the hypothetical scenario that whales start to starve to death because of human forcings perhaps it would wake humanity up to the fact that if this planet’s surface is seven tenths ocean and yet whales can starve, humanities days as the apex species might be numbered…. it would certainly be one of the single most dramatic statements about this planet’s finite resources possible…
The abject failure to properly enforce the multitude of unsustainable existing international fishing quotas amply illustrates that promises of regulated international commercial whaling quotas are as empty a guarantee of ‘sustainability’ as the regularly reviewed tuna quotas and tuna produce vast numbers more offspring than whales….
As previously mentioned whale watching provides a lucrative revenue stream and does not deplete the core asset, yet hunted whale populations will necessarily become more wary (or pay the Darwinian price) thereby negatively effecting the tourist experience and whale watching tourists are considerably less likely to eat whale than the small number of Japanese, Icelandic or Norwegian traditionalists (not forgetting ‘large slice of minke please’ David@Tokyo) and frankly if it wasn’t on the menu it is highly unlikely there would be a queue of tourists to the door demanding it…..
So Lamna, your “solutions” are to keep ITQs forever off the table on whales, not negotiate, and let those who want to do commercial whaling to drop out of the convention and whale without any legal retriction? And for tuna and other fisheries to do what?
It is clear that the reason why fisheries “management regimes have collapsed in the past is that the resource users didn`t have any individual rights and no incentives to do anything except cheat. But obviously the situation is not sustainable and ITQs have been proven to work. Is it your advice that we all just stand by while all fisheries crash, instead of trying to change incentives?
What are you offering to anyone, except more of the status quo?
TT
Hi TT,
My position is perfectly clear –
ITQs have been proven to work in some (but not all) national territorial waters, international waters however are a completely different matter.
Properly funded enforcement, carrying draconian penalties for infringements patrolled by an independant international naval police force is mandatory for your proposal of international ITQs to work and currently there is no adequate political or economic will to set such an organisation up, indeed the current economic benefits to the quota busters and pirates unfortunately provide many incentives for self interest groups to actively oppose creating such an organisation.
I am simply being pragmatic, your international ITQ proposal will not work without the organisation I have just described, it will merely produce a pointless international bureaucracy
generating a different type of quota system with absolutely no teeth; therefore the ITQs would simply be ignored by pirate fishing operations.
The setting up and funding of that independent international naval police force with the unequivocal political and economic support of all nations with international fishing fleets in conjunction with the creation of very large and impeccably scientifically researched permanent international no take reserves to protect recruitment for the ITQ zones, are an absolute prerequisite to any attempt to create a market for international ITQs. Otherwise no-one is going to buy such an ITQ because it will not be worth the paper it is written on, regardless of the species it licences.
“if whaling cannot be conducted humanely it should not be conducted at all. ” – Andy
What a simplistic and ridiculous crock of crap.
Please start by defining “humane” killing.
Then back it up with a concise explanation of why you would forbid an entire avenue of healthy, sustainable, free range, organic and unprocessed foods to a world population that is up to its neck in unsustainable, diversity reducing and environmentally noxious food production.
Time to death of your food critter is NOT an environmental issue.
Meanwhile specifically Time to death maybe ain’t an environmental issue, the treatment of animals nowadays surely involves environmental aspects.
Fortunately more and more consumers ask for certified / enviro-friendly produced food products.
But when will we realise that ” the neatly arrayed, cellophaned slabs of red meat that we find in the supermarkets don’t come out of a machine. They’re the end product of a process that requires confinement, killing, dismemberment and, often, considerable misery.”
Andy’s view is no more ‘simplistic’ than yours. No one ever claimed that TTD was an environmental issue.
Concisely said Ann.
A similar case that happened in Norway last summer has happened in Japan:
“Tokyo, Aug 25: Whale watching tourists encountered hunters in waters off northern Japan and witnessed the bloody killing of a Baird’s beaked whale, a report said Saturday.
Some 20 tourists on board the whale-watching ship Evergreen, some of them foreigners, witnessed the hunt yesterday off the Eastern Coast of Hokkaido Island, touching Okhotsk Sea, the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper said.
The crew on Evergreen initially noticed a whaling ship and sprays from a whale’s blow hole in waters about 3.5 km away from them, the newspaper said, citing a Japanese whale watching guide.
When Evergreen approached within about 100 meters of the whaling ship, the tourists saw a harpoon shot into a Baird’s beaked whale, according to the guide, the newspaper said.
Two other whale-watching ships were also in the area, and the hunt sickened a few tourists and shocked children, the guide claimed, the Mainichi said.”
http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?rep=2&aid=390961&ssid=26&ssname=Eco%20News&sid=ENV&sname=