Mr. Minoru Morimoto, Director General of The Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) in Tokyo, said today that journalists and editors are misinforming the public and abusing the credibility of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Many of the news articles and stories about Japan’s whale research have incorrectly cited the World Conservation Union (IUCN) listing of humpback whales as “vulnerable” and fin whales as “endangered”.
The fact is that the IUCN’s website for its “Red List” clearly says that these listings are “out of date”. Both the assessment of these species and the criteria used to classify them are “out of date.” This is because the assessments were done in 1996 and used 1994 criteria which have since been revised. The IUCN has received updated assessments from its expert group but these have not yet been made public or adopted. Mr. Morimoto said that journalists and editors should at a minimum acknowledge this when they cite the IUCN listing of humpback and fin whale or not use them inappropriately.
In a similar way, articles have used the IWC Scientific Committee estimate of 42,000 to say that the current population of humpback whales in the Southern Hemisphere is “around 40,000” but that estimate applies to 1997/1998. With the population growing at 10% per year, (IWC SC estimate for East Australia 1981-96, 12.4% and West Australia 1977-91,10.9%) it would now be more than 2.5 times what it was at that time and more than 3 times what it was when IUCN did their assessment.
Mr. Morimoto said that it is misleading and confusing to readers to simply quote the IUCN’s listing which the IUCN itself says is out of date. He urged journalists and editors not to simply copy the rhetoric of the anti-whaling NGOs but to do their homework and present more precise reporting. Mr. Morimoto reiterated his earlier statement that Japan’s research makes a valuable contribution to the management of Antarctic whale species to ensure that any future commercial whaling regime is robust and sustainable and that a take of 50 humpback whales would have no impact on the population or the whale-watching industry.
Web links to IUCN World Conservation Union Red Listing of Humpback and Fin whales (see “annotations” in “Assessment Information”) and the International Whaling Commission website.
Humpback whale: http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/13006/all
Fin whale: http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/2478/summ
IWC population estimates: http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
According to the High North Alliances website the Fin Whales are still classified as ” Endangered”.
“Fin whale remained on the Endangered list. The main reason being reduced numbers in Antarctica caused by over-exploitation in the last century. The listing is with respect to the global situation. However, it was commented that the fin whale should have been evaluated with respect to different ocean basins as the species is pretty abundant in the North Atlantic.”
http://www.highnorth.no/read.asp?which=375
Mr. Morimoto is absolutely correct. If the Humpback population was 42,000 in 1997/98 and annual growth has been only 10% then current numbers will be in the order of 100,000. This is hardly an endangered, or even vulnerable, population.
At an average growth rate of 12.4% for Eastern Australia and 10.9% for Western Australia, the total is likely to be higher still. A growth rate of 11.5% would mean 118,000 as at December 2007.
Clearly, the NGOs are being grossly dishonest in using ten year old data.
And the media? Well, they are such a slimy bunch of incompetent low life that the only way one could add “value” to their output would be with a machine gun in a bare courtyard.
Anon is correct, this information has been posted here before:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001852.html
“The IUCN has received updated assessments from its expert group but these have not yet been made public or adopted. Mr. Morimoto said that journalists and editors should at a minimum acknowledge this when they cite the IUCN listing of humpback and fin whale or not use them inappropriately.”
There is still considerable debate regarding stock estimates for Southern Hemisphere humpbacks, fins and even minkes. Using the JARPA data for minkes “– data on trends in abundance were so imprecise that they could be interpreted as consistent with anything from a decline to an increase”, (from the previous whaling thread). This is using Japan’s science, which Mr Morimoto seems so keen to point out as a “valuable contribution”.
“In a similar way, articles have used the IWC Scientific Committee estimate of 42,000 to say that the current population of humpback whales in the Southern Hemisphere is “around 40,000” but that estimate applies to 1997/1998. With the population growing at 10% per year, (IWC SC estimate for East Australia 1981-96, 12.4% and West Australia 1977-91,10.9%) it would now be more than 2.5 times what it was at that time and more than 3 times what it was when IUCN did their assessment.”
The “article” referred to is http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SC59docs/SC-59-ForInformation25.pdf
It states in its conclusion: “…the sum of all abundance estimates from the northern breeding grounds is 53,000; whereas the current totals for the IDCR/SOWER surveys are 42,000, 54,000 and 71,000 for assumed rates of increase of 0% (which is unlikely), 5% and 10% respectively (Table 10). Both IDCR/SOWER and feeding ground estimates are negatively biased. In the IDCR/SOWER surveys, some humpback whales on the trackline are missed (i.e. g(0) < 1). Humpback whales produce very visible cues, thus this bias is probably small: an estimate of 10% was obtained from the eastern North Pacific (Calambokidis and Barlow, 2004). A more substantial negative bias comes because some humpbacks do not migrate southwards far enough to reach the IDCR/SOWER survey region. For breeding stocks A, B and C, where the Antarctic Polar Front is further north, the sum of the breeding region estimates is about 23,000 but the projected IDCR/SOWER estimates are only 3,000–7,000. The sum of the breeding ground estimates is probably also negatively biased because not all breeding grounds have been surveyed. For these reasons it is fairly safe to conclude that there are more than 50,000
humpback whales in the Southern Hemisphere.”
There are estimates for both breeding and feeding grounds. The breeding ground data is as recent as 2006. A total of over 50,000 is estimated for the Southern Hemisphere according to Branch, the author of the IWC paper, factoring in rates of increase. Mr Morimoto states the lower estimate of 40,000. If you consider that last century over 200,000 humpbacks were killed in the Southern Ocean, it is obvious that current numbers do not resemble pre-exploitation levels.
“Mr. Morimoto reiterated his earlier statement that Japan’s research makes a valuable contribution to the management of Antarctic whale species to ensure that any future commercial whaling regime is robust and sustainable and that a take of 50 humpback whales would have no impact on the population or the whale-watching industry.”
Mr Morimoto is refusing to acknowledge the stocks of genetically distinct humpbacks in the South Pacific, which will also be targeted in JARPA II. His cherry picking of information, including that from the IWC SC, can be far less readily excused than an ignorant journalist’s.
To be honest I’d be happy if I were Mr. Moritomo that numbers like “40,000” humpbacks are being reported at all, as many in the west still believe that “whales are an endangered species”. I have bigger issue with the way in which reporters talk about there being only so many whales “left” now, as if whales were non-renewable.
He does make a boo-boo in suggesting the entire southern hemisphere humpback population is growing at 10% a year, as this is only known to be the case in those areas he mentions, not the whole Southern Hemisphere to which the circumpolar estimates apply.
> Mr Morimoto is refusing to acknowledge
> the stocks of genetically distinct humpbacks
> in the South Pacific, which will also be
> targeted in JARPA II.
They will? You must have an update for us on this issue Libby. The latest I had was that there is still a large obstacle to progress being made on this:
“Every effort should be made for scientists to share data from low and high latitude and carry out DNA analysis on southern humpback whales under the IWC Data Availability data access protocol”
I see Libby is trying on the old past population exaggeration again. She claims that 200,000 Humpbacks were taken in the past and implies that the past population must therefore have been 200,000. This is then compared to current (underestimates) of 50,000 to again imply that current population is substantially below pre-harvest levels. This is plain silly.
Humpbacks were taken over a number of decades and that means each adult whale taken would have left a niche for a younger whale to take its place. There is zero evidence to suggest that Humpbacks simply stopped breeding when the first ones were taken. So we must conclude that the total number of Humpbacks taken included animals that grew to adulthood during the period when harvesting was taking place.
We know that the species is capable of adding new adults at the rate of 10% each year. And that means annual harvesting must exceed 10% of adult females to produce any reduction in population. And we also know that the harvest based decline took much longer than a decade, indicating annual declines of less than 5% of population.
And given the life cycle of these animals, it is highly unlikely that the actual population of Humpbacks ever amounted to half of the total number of animals taken. That is, circa 100,000.
Furthermore, as other whale species were taken prior to Humpback harvesting then we can be quite certain that the Humpback population had expanded to fill the resulting niche.
So the real “scientific scandal” in the whaling issue is the fact that certain interests appear to be deliberately obfuscating, deliberately withholding information, or deliberately avoiding doing the research that would produce information as to the true condition of the whale stocks.
“as many in the west still believe that “whales are an endangered species” ”
Some whale species are endangered.
“They will? You must have an update for us on this issue Libby. The latest I had was that there is still a large obstacle to progress being made on this:
“Every effort should be made for scientists to share data from low and high latitude and carry out DNA analysis on southern humpback whales under the IWC Data Availability data access protocol” ”
Molecular analysis is being and has been conducted on stocks from low and high latitudes.
“She claims that 200,000 Humpbacks were taken in the past and implies that the past population must therefore have been 200,000.”
I made no such implication. I stated that >200,000 whales were taken.
Your calculations are simplistic as always.
“And given the life cycle of these animals, it is highly unlikely that the actual population of Humpbacks ever amounted to half of the total number of animals taken. That is, circa 100,000.”
There are currently an estimated 7000+ EA whales. Post commercial whaling this population was estimated at <200.
“Furthermore, as other whale species were taken prior to Humpback harvesting then we can be quite certain that the Humpback population had expanded to fill the resulting niche.”
We can be quite certain? I have never read of any such certainty have you? Does the ecosystem always respond so predictably and simplistically? Wishful thinking does not make good science.
“So the real “scientific scandal” in the whaling issue is the fact that certain interests appear to be deliberately obfuscating, deliberately withholding information, or deliberately avoiding doing the research that would produce information as to the true condition of the whale stocks.”
Well then you are obviously talking about research from both sides of the debate!
> Molecular analysis is being and has been conducted on stocks from low and high latitudes.
That’s good to hear. What’s the standard of the data sets from the high latitudes like?
Libby misleads again, she said, “If you consider that last century over 200,000 humpbacks were killed in the Southern Ocean, it is obvious that current numbers do not resemble pre-exploitation levels.”
The clear implication from the second part of that sentence is that the 200,000 figure is close to the pre-exploitation level. If you had any intention of advising what the likely pre-exploitation level was then you would have made specific mention of it, as distinct from total harvest numbers. You did not. You left the reader to make the link between the only fact mentioned, more than 200,000, and pre-exploitation levels. It is a classic misrepresentation by omission.
And again, she quotes the decline in a particular population but does not indicate the recovery rate. Lets face it Libby, you are nothing but a cheap propagandist and liar for a cause.
Some of the humpbacks , which will be targeted by JARPA II on their summer feeding grounds are likely to belong to small, vulnerable populations that over winter in the South Pacific , including some that remain critically endangered.
“What’s the standard of the data sets from the high latitudes like?”
It depends on what “standards” you are viewing the standards by. There has been work from the Antarctic Peninsula with comparisons to breeding aggregations. There is still a lot of work in progress, but genetic studies usually take a while to complete.
“You left the reader to make the link between the only fact mentioned, more than 200,000, and pre-exploitation levels.”
Summary of CA of SH humpback whales by IWC SC member: “More than 200,000 humpbacks were killed by whaling south of the equator in the 20th century, representing probably more than 90% of the pristine population.” http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/amj2006/divrptsNMML3.htm
An astute, non-biased and interested reader may wish to actually find information for themself.
“And again, she quotes the decline in a particular population but does not indicate the recovery rate.”
I did not indicate the recovery rate Ian as it was already indicated previously. For someone who is so critical of logical conclusion and “misrepresentation by omission”, you surprise.
“Lets face it Libby, you are nothing but a cheap propagandist and liar for a cause.”
Which “cheap” would that be Ian? The “bullocky’s daughter” “scrubber” type? I study South Pacific humpback whales, you don’t. Your opinion of me doesn’t interest me, and I have better things to do with my time. If you wish to insult and ignore information because your own pov is challenged, find someone else to blow hot air at.
Well then, Libby, if you were quoting another statement then that would not actually make you a liar. So I have no problem in withdrawing the statement.
But that merely means it is the NMML site that is misleading the public. To seriously suggest that over half a century of whaling could take place in a context of a total adolescent survival rate in the order of 10 to 15% is completely at variance with known fertility rates.
And one must ask, is this methodology the so-called “consensus” view of an anti-whaling dominated, and corrupted, IWC workshop?
It is clear from the NMML reporting that the very possibility of on-going adolescent survival to maturity during the period the harvesting was taking place has been completely eliminated from discussion.
They are, collectively at least, either stupid or dishonest.
Ian,
I don’t know why “pre-exploitation levels” were raised in the first instance. The 50 humpbacks being hunted are being hunted under scientific permit, not commercial whaling rules.
“But that merely means it is the NMML site that is misleading the public.”
The way I read that too it seems to suggest that the pre-exploitation abundance was about 220,000. That’s more than twice what I thought was the conventional estimate of about 100,000. Of course the latest genetic studies probably suggest that there were actually 9 squillion.
“I don’t know why “pre-exploitation levels” were raised in the first instance. The 50 humpbacks being hunted are being hunted under scientific permit, not commercial whaling rules.”
Then ask me. I raised it to give an idea of numbers, before and now, since the discussion was about population estimates. The humpbacks are being killed in the Southern Ocean, but we have also been discussing the breeding grounds. I had no idea it was no longer acceptible to raise new information in these discussions…
It is interesting how the original point was journalists misleading the public, then Mr Morimoto (conveniently skipped over), then me, then other researchers, and now the NMML.
“Of course the latest genetic studies probably suggest that there were actually 9 squillion.”
Of course depending on who came up with that figure would depend on whether you believed it.
Libby would you have picked Mottsa as an unpatriotic nip sympathiser. Talk about being un-Australian and a sell-out. He’s probably got shares in the Japanese street signs that now pollute Surfer’s Paradise. Torpedo the whaling fleet – we can discuss the issue later.
I have had a short correspondence with one of the commentators on the blog. It seems as well that WWII sentiments are still alive between the Aussies and the Japanese.
Personally I can especially understand the anger when a whale that interacts with whale watching operators is harpooned , as we then misuse that animals trust.
Travis mentioned , that the Norwegian whaling was more accepted because they killed their “own” whales.
But is that the sole thruth? The North Atlantic minke whales wintering grounds are uncertain. We know only that the wintering grounds are in tropic waters. Maybe they spend their time and migrate as well through anti whaling waters?
But in this case there ain’t protests.
So the issue is this . Is it worse to kill whales in international waters???
It’s hard to answer IMO to that question. According to IWC recommendations ( Norway) , the hunt should not be focused to a small coastal area.
We might as well question the whaling nations if they are involved in any horse trading with developing countries, such as if the whaling nations are voting for downlisting of elephants etc in compensations for their votes to downlist whales.
No Ann, there is very little lingering sentiment from WWII in Australia. Luke is just trying on some parody to stir up animosity, and poorly at that.
My uncle was a medical orderly with “Weary Dunlop” (an inspirational surgeon) as POWs of the Japanese. He had more reason to hate than most but he forgave them. I understand that “Weary” even had a Japanese Granddaughter in-law.
I know many that have animosity towards the japanese thanks to WWII. Some of these are older people, but there are many that are young and obviously did not experience the war. I know many Chinese and Korean Australians that espescially hate the japanese.
Should I take a low snipe at your uncle Ian, as you did my grandfather? No. Anyone who has been in war deserves respect. They have experienced things we can never imagine.
I also am aware of a number of people from different backgrounds in Australia who have a lot of ‘lingering sentiment from WWII’ regarding the Japanese. Surprisingly many are too young to have been at war, but have relatives who were, some have formed their own opinions. It doesn’t necessarily make it wrong or right. To say there is ‘little’ is based on one’s own perception, and may not be entirely accurate.
The irony is the connection between WWII and Japan’s whaling!
It would seem more appropriate to point out that most of the public exhibition of animosity towards Japanese people has been by active green, anti-whalers, who have attempted to try and rekindle past animosity for their own contemporary political ends.
Luke, for example, made his statements with a thin veneer of humour which masked an underlying squalid and sleazy intent to vilify. And it is particularly ironic that in a nation that has ratified the UN conventions on racial vilification with specific legislation, that the green movement feels it has the right to ignore both the letter and the spirit of this most fundamental quality of what we would all regard as “a better person”.
The fact that some Japanese may have done something, in international waters, in a way that has no direct impact on individuals, but which some Australians may not approve, has never been regarded as a trigger for ‘lawful’ vilification, or exemption from the duty of all to discourage it.
These same people would all agree that the fact that I might find the incidence of alcohol abuse, child neglect, and even child harm, in some parts of our indigenous community, would not, and should never be, used as an excuse for vilification of all, or even a part, of that community.
And the fact that many greens so readily stoop to such low behaviour towards the Japanese sends me a very strong signal that these people are far from the enlightened, moral or intellectually perceptive people that they would like us to believe they are. An ignorant, vengeful mob is an ugly sight no matter whether it be green, brown, black, white or yellow.
Travis wrote:
>I also am aware of a number of people from different backgrounds in Australia
Ian wrote:
>most of the public exhibition of animosity towards Japanese people has been by active green, anti-whalers, who have attempted to try and rekindle past animosity for their own contemporary political ends.
In absolute honest Ian I have never heard serious anti-Japanese sentiment by people who have any interest in the whaling issue. A couple of people who are for forestry management have made remarks, but on the whole, those that I have heard opinions from and you would consider belonging to the ‘green movement’ have been very much anti-racist and have nothing against the Japanese.
It would be convenient to label anti-Japanese feelings as some sinister plot by the greens, but I think that is too convenient.
If Weary’s mate forgave them well more fool him. We note you’re real big on understanding and forgiveness yourself. Metro scum – Mr hate everyone. And look who’s bleating on about law and order – the arson suggester and advocate of smacking govt reps in the mouth. As for mob rule you’re the epitome of it.
The one thing you find with right wing property rights blowhards is the stench of hypocrisy and total lack of any idea of solidarity. You’d sell out to make a buck from anyone or anything. Last Saturday night was a referundum for slime balls like you – so get in line …
Interdict the whaling fleet.
Whale takeaways hit streets of Tokyo
Packed lunches of whale meat were served up on the streets of Tokyo yesterday as the Japanese government stepped up its campaign to encourage the public to eat more whale.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/30/wtokyo130.xml
This story is actually just “business as usual”, the government hasn’t changed anything, the same marketing company that was set up last year is noted as working with the lunch vendor on this menu development.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gcCeUp_7uUHMIsfClNjny-kDOJ1w
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=77665&in_page_id=34
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009310861
The consumers quoted in the articles seem refreshingly “real” as well. The anti-whaling propaganda would have us believe that people are fooled or forced into eating the stuff. Reality: it’s just another menu option.
>The consumers quoted in the articles seem refreshingly “real” as well. The anti-whaling propaganda would have us believe that people are fooled or forced into eating the stuff.
So do fake people normally eat whale?! At last an admission!
>Reality: it’s just another menu option.
I don’t think anyone would deny it’s another menu option. The points that have been raised are how it gets pushed into school and business lunches and McBurgers in teen chain stores
…somewhat like oh-gee beef?
Really, Travis. Just about every thread on whaling at Online Opinion will flush out some anti-japanese bile by pseudonyms that have a long record of extreme green sentiment.
Luke attacks when cornered. Gee wizz. Note how he cannot distinguish between a person with legitimate complaints about the way a particular community has treated another, by way of legislation, regulation and maladministration and those who vilify an entire ethnic group on the basis of actions done by some that he disapproves of.
The guy is an ethical vacuum.
>…somewhat like oh-gee beef?
I dunno, is that what people in Japan say, real or otherwise? Of course they do eat beef as well, just like some Australians and Nzers.
Having read your verbal attacks, insults and threats Ian, I really don’t think you should be judging Luke so harshly. It is all in the archives. Of course the expected response to this will no doubt be more verbal abuse and absolution of one’s own actions.
This guy has to have insulted more people than anyone I know. That creeping nauseating assumed superiority that knows no bounds to his insults. Recommended activism over dialogue at every dispute when it suits his world view of resource exploitation.
Whaling devotees should note that Mottsa’s views are very much from the Aussie eccentric fringe. Your average Aussie hates the whalers’ tactics and knows the nips’ research program is one of the great science shams of the modern era. This is way beyond greenies. Don’t mistake the depth of feeling on this. Humpbacks indeed.
A little bit off topic but I see that the Norwegian whalers have gathered together this weekend for their annual meeting in the Lofotens Island.
The whaler’s have obviously an ” Oscar’s reward” for the best whaler etc every season. A golden cannon is the prize. See pic:
http://www.fiskeribladet.no/?side=101&lesmer=5875
This year’s “golden cannon” went to a guy that runs a store , where you can buy anything on whaling: cannons, grenades and harpoons. It’s the only one in it’s kind in the world. ( One must ask if they ever have been targeted by anti whalers??? I disapprove of course of such actions).
The Chair of the Norwegian Whaler’s Union told the man who run the store ” that without you Norwegian whaling would end”.
Sorry. An Award
To Rune,
There was actually one thing that I forgot to mention on the ” rotten tomatoe and rotten egg throwing thread”. One person in the whales circles asded me if I ever had met Rune. Nope , I said. He said that I have actually heard that he’s a nice guy!
Perhaps they should try it out each other.
Looks like a door knob for dorks.
That is really good, Travis. If you go back over some of your recent posts you will note that it took only minor digs to provoke you into a deluge of invective. And only minor touch ups to keep you frothing and spittling. It is called “rope-a-dope, and it is particularly effective at getting intolerant anti-whalers to display their faults to the impartial reader.
And then you conspicuously refrain from insulting my uncle to try and recover some credibility. Won’t work, you can insult him all you want, but I don’t have an emotional need to express outrage like you apparently do.
Luke still doesn’t get that distinction between criticism of a specific group for specific wrongs to a specific occupational class and indiscriminate vilification of an entire culture on the basis of individual acts that have only a remote, emotional impact on the vilifier.
Does nature abhor an ethical vacuum?
>That is really good, Travis. If you go back over some of your recent posts you will note that it took only minor digs to provoke you into a deluge of invective. And only minor touch ups to keep you frothing and spittling. It is called “rope-a-dope, and it is particularly effective at getting intolerant anti-whalers to display their faults to the impartial reader.
Ah Ian, of course I’m the 14 year old! Anyone who feels the need to insult someone else’s family just to get a ‘dig’ is mighty mature!!! Rope-a-dope??? Intolerant anti-whalers??? I have to give you credit Ian, you are just too funny!!! If you have enough of that rope Ian…!!!
>And then you conspicuously refrain from insulting my uncle to try and recover some credibility.
!!! It gets even better! Oh Ian, upset that I didn’t limbo to your levels? Are you seriously deluded enough to think that others might be as revolting as you and need to insult innocent relatives just to get a kick? Matey, you ought to take the hook out of your own mouth!
I am so delighted this all gets archived. It’s bloody priceless, but hell I pity Ian’s family!!!
>( One must ask if they ever have been targeted by anti whalers??? I disapprove of course of such actions).
But Ann, it is fine to wish death and destruction on others, just like Ian does on anti-whaling protesters, etc. Remember the question is ‘Does nature abhor an ethical vacuum?’
My sides are hurting from laughing so much…!!!
Sorry other readers. Ann I trust you will bring the thread back to decency.
“But Ann, it is fine to wish death and destruction on others, just like Ian does on anti-whaling protesters, etc. Remember the question is ‘Does nature abhor an ethical vacuum?’- Travis
Well, personally methinks they can blow up slaughterhouses, gun shops, fur shops, cannon shops etc, but that won’t achieve much.
But if anti whalers blow up this special whaler’s shop , it would only make thingies worse and all the whalers and their symphatizers would start wearing again the ” intelligent people eat intelligent meat ” t-shirts !
Travy,
If you want bring back decency to the thread you might perhaps have the kindness to make a little summary of the BBC report ” War on Whales” part I , that I missed . It was mentioned something about discussions on ” the upper hands ” of the whaling industry and the anti whalers. I would be very keen on to know what the upper hands of the whaling industry and their opponents are.
If you didn’t listen to the program, readers might have a clue?
Personally methink that one of the upper hands of the Norwegian whaling is that even Greenpeace thinks a catch of 600 minkes in the North Atlanic is sustainable.
So what are the upper hands of the Japanese Fisheries Agency????
More news from the Norwegian Whaler Union’s annual meeting.
A very rough and short summary.
Norway may step out of the IWC in 2009 , if there is enough support for this decision in the Parlament.
This due to the unwieldy system in the IWC with its 78 member states. The new management organisation would then be NAMMCO.
Professor Lars Wallö, the scientific advisor said that the IWC’s Scientific Committee didn’t work in a satisfactory way re Norwegian interests lately and was more and more ” unscientific”.
It was also pointed out that Japan was the target for international criticism and that Norway played the little nice boy’s part in the class room.
A little correction re my above post. Professor Walloe did not made the statement that the SC didn’t work in a satisfactory way re Norwegian interests , this statement was made by a spokesperson for the Fisheries Departement. Prof. Walloe stated that he feared ” science based on politics”.
As I said, Travis, all it took, again, was a little dig and off you went with the fairies.
You never did answer which side of age 14 you are, did you?
Good for the Norwegians. Junk the IWC for the total irrelevance it has become.
Do go away little yappy tutu-dressed dog. No one’s paying any attention to you and you’re just looking pathetic.
Ann, I will try and do a summary for you.
Thank you Travis. I know also that Peter Corkeron will be pleased to see that someone really read that link.
“Every effort should be made for scientists to share data from low and high latitude and carry out DNA analysis on southern humpback whales under the IWC Data Availability data access protocol”
Isn’t that what the Japanese are doing? Conducting more DNA analysis of the low lattitude. They’re the only ones with an economic interest to do so.
James,
The Japanese are collecting data from the high latitudes but none from the low. Other researchers are collecting data from high and low migratory termini (that is feeding and mating/calving grounds) and also migratory corridors.
Whilst some see it as “economic interest”, others see it as getting a more complete understanding of stock mingling and identity.
So lets get back to the topic. Is Libby still claiming, as per her link, that the original “pristine” population of Humpbacks was in the order of 220,000, from which more than 200,000 were taken?
That is, does she continue to assume that there was zero succession to maturity throughout the period of Humpback harvesting?
Sorry , a bit off topic.( A rough translation here)
The Norwegian whalers have had their annual meeting. Awards have been distributed.
Professor Egil Ole Øen at the Veterinary Institute was awarded the title honorary member.
The Professor is the man behind the development of the explosive harpoon , that has made that the Norwegian whaling activity is operating with short TTDs.
According to the Professor , whaling is about life philosophy. The world craves biodiversity , but doesn’t care about diversity among small professions.
We live with ” an urban arrogance” where the ” urbanites” states ” that we don’t need whalers”.
They provide food that soon is the most important matter in the world . I hope whaling will continue for many generations to come, states the Professor.
Actually it was me who extrapolated 200,000 as 90% back to being about 220,000, but I still wonder what the current and generally accepted pre-abundance estimate is.
I see the 100,000 estimate was being bandied about back in the 1970’s, and I guess this was probably before the illegal soviet whaling was uncovered (40,000 ~ 50,000 extra whales killed that weren’t reported over some time period?)
So my guess is that the estimate is probably somewhere between something like 120,000 and 200,000 unless I am missing some other big changes in knowledge that occured along the way.
Professor Oen said, “We live with “an urban arrogance” where the “urbanites” state “that we don’t need whalers”.
Now where have I heard that sentiment before? Obviously a very perceptive individual. I guess we are long overdue for some mass starvation amongst the “Barbie Worlders”.
Hello – no hyprocrisy here – last time Mottsa was banging on about Euro food mountains. Now they’re all going to perish from starvation. ROTFL.
Prof Oen could have been useful in Nazi Germany too – proudly developing effective execution methods. What an honour. And this guy is a vet?
Hi Luke,
Methinks it was in National Geographic that I read Prof.Øen stated , ” I’m on the whales side , that’s why I work with developing humane killing methods”. Note, it MIGHT have been some other Norwegian vet.
Personally I doubt as well that whale consumption has anything to do with future food supply— firstly the blubber might be too contaminated and there is also a lot of waste . Methinks its only about a tenth of a minke whale that is utilised .( Greenpeace info)
Personally I’m of the opinion if the locals want to eat minke beef , it’s ” OK” ( don’t care much if it’s a minke or a cow philosophically speaking)but also methinks the whale steak as well as kangaroo steaks are not preferd by the large majority of people.
Right Ann – Ikea is history. I’m throwing out my Lingonsylt Jam and Antifoni light. They’re boycotted.
LOL ! LOL ! What am I going to do with my Aussie quilt ( duvet ) cover designed by Ken Done???( They are very beautiful with sailing boats and the Sydney bridge as well as one linen with a sea bottom).
Anyway, I support a compromise solution. Saw in the Norwegian paper that they prefer??? management of whales similar to Regional Fisheries Management Organisations. Our IWC Commissioner says with an RMS there will be less whales killed than currently with a moratorium. The IWC has also lost all control.
On the other hand the Norwegians might support an RMS if they believe whaling will be more ” acceptable”. As it is now all is question marks.
BTW Lukey, is Phil Done , Ken Done’s brother???
Luke,
Why I don’t want to discriminate between different animals is because I’m not an animal -Nazi guard standing in Auschwitz deciding who’s going to the right or left queue.
An extremely interesting news from the Norwegian Whaler’s Union. They demand that Norway cut all cooperation with the Japanese as long as they don’t want to buy Norwegian whale products.
It seems like the Japanese have cheated the Norwegians re promises to buy whale products. The Japanese have promised to buy whale products for years but not doing this. Now the Norwegians want to cut all ccoperation in whaling issues.
So it seems like the Japanese have cheated the Icelanders as well re purchase of whale products???
Ann,
Here’s the Whalers’ Union resolution on cooperation with Japan, only in Norwegian for the time being.
RESOLUSJON FRA ÅRSMØTET I NORGES SMÅKVALFANGERLAG 30. NOVEMBER 2007.
1. Norge og Japan har gjennom mange år samarbeidet nært i kvalfangstspørsmål til nytte for begge land.
2. Et slikt samarbeid bør omfatte samtlige aktuelle spørsmål i en sak.
3. Internasjonal handel med kvalprodukter er for Norge en meget viktig del av et slikt samarbeid
4. Japan har trenert handel med kvalprodukter mellom våre to land i årevis, tross forsikringer om det motsatte
Derfor må Norge nå:
Bryte alt samarbeid i kvalsaken med Japan inntil spørsmålet om markedsadgang til Japan for norske kvalprodukter er løst.
When a fully paid up departmental goon like Luke starts bunging on about Nazis it must be time for the delete button.
Here’s the resolution in English:
Resolution adopted by the Annual General Meeting of the Norwegian Whalers’ Union, 30. November 2007
1. Norway and Japan have a long history of close and mutually beneficial cooperation on the whaling issue.
2. Such a cooperation should encompass all relevant aspects to an issue.
3. International trade in whale products is for Norway a very important aspect within such a cooperative framework.
4. Japan has for several years delayed trade with whale products between our two countries, despite promises of the opposite.
Thus Norway must now cease all cooperation with Japan on the whaling issue until the question of market access for Norwegian whale products to Japan has been solved.
(Translation from original text in Norwegian.)
Says the member for the New Republic of Byron Bay – but what’s this – I can’t believe it – he appears to be unelected unrepresentative swill. Australia’s sole unpatriotic pro-whaling advocate. Ann the rationale is, if it moves shoot it – if it doesn’t chop it down.
>When a fully paid up departmental goon like Luke starts bunging on about Nazis it must be time for the delete button.
Grott is owning the blog still I see? Questioning what rights casual posters have here, hogging every thread, abusing and insulting and now (snigger!) determining that because someone from the other side used the word Nazi they must be deleted! Classic Grott.
Ann,
There is a little bit of cultural cringe about Ken Done’s work in Australia. It’s aimed at the tourism market, and is very popular, but Aussies tend to turn their noses up at it.
The Norwegian Whaler’s Union Resolution is very interesting. The Japanese are great at making enemies, but even better at losing friends!
Gosh, the last time anyone adopted the ploy of using a rhyming substitute for my name, in the way Luke and Travis have recently done, was back in year 9, 1970. So do tell us, Travis, that slab of beer is still in play, which side of age 14 are you?
Back to the topic. This motion by the Norwegians is a fairly standard negotiating ploy that the Japanese will recognise. No-one opens their domestic markets if they don’t need to, especially Europeans, but the Japanese are more than likely to appreciate the benefits of internationalising the whale industry.
Would the “Sea Scumbag” and its ecoterrorists be quite so keen on ramming a Norwegian vessel that is fishing in the southern ocean? I suspect not.
I also seem to recall that Norway actually has a claim to a large part of the Antarctic mainland, from Longitude 20W to 45E. And with this would come a claim for an Exclusive Economic Zone that would have exactly the same legitimacy as the Australian one.
Who knows, they may be able to leverage access to this zone in exchange for Japanese market access. and I hear the North Koreans have a heightened appreciation for sea food, any food for that matter. Now there’s an olive branch worth extending, don’t you think?
Rune,
Thanks for posting the translation.
Travis,
“but Aussies tend to turn their noses up at it. ”
Oops , might have made the wrong choice then , actually I can buy 10 IKEA duvet covers for the price of one Ken Done. But I liked the motif, fish, sponges , corals and mussels , 1oo% suitable for a ” save the sea floor ” campaign!
>Gosh, the last time anyone adopted the ploy of using a rhyming substitute for my name, in the way Luke and Travis have recently done, was back in year 9, 1970. So do tell us, Travis, that slab of beer is still in play, which side of age 14 are you?
Didn’t Libby recently write something similar about you Ian? Perhaps the ability to assign your own faults to others is part of your pathological condition? Your obsession with my age is certainly a worry, and your betting of a slab of beer on it would suggest you are caught in some sort of old-age identity crisis.
>Would the “Sea Scumbag” and its ecoterrorists be quite so keen on ramming a Norwegian vessel that is fishing in the southern ocean? I suspect not.
I guess Sea Shepherd would rather ram the Norwegians in their own waters – much cheaper! The Robert Hunter apparently leaves Melbourne tomorrow.
>Now there’s an olive branch worth extending, don’t you think?
Now there’s some of your own advice you can take Ian – peace and thinking.
Ann,
Have you not heard of ‘tall poppy syndrome’ down here in Australia? Someone gets successful, they are loved and hyped, then after a while we snip them off at the knees coz we are tired of their success. Lovely people aren’t we? I can see the attraction in Done’s work – it’s bright and cheerful, and I think you can sleep under your duvet appreciating a healthy, populated sea floor and some happy colour from Australia.
Luke,
We buy as well uranium from Australia.
There was a little row between Sweden and Norway re nuclear waste a while ago. The Norwegians are of the opinion that the nuclear plant in the UK, Sellafield ” is nuking the marine life and whales etc”.
I just like to jam common sense down the throats of fools, Travis. And while you and Libby might like to try on the kind of amateur psych analysis that might appeal to a Big Brother audience at 11.30pm on a slow Tuesday, I just see it as a force of nature. For nature abhors a vacuum, especially an intellectual one like yours.
What we do know is that if you were even aged 18 you would have no trouble proclaiming how wrong I was. But you didn’t, so we can conclude, until advised otherwise, that you are not even old enough to vote. So run along now, laddie, thats a good boy.
I’ll tell you what Ian, you and your mates go and drink that slab of beer, you can even discuss me a bit more (Oh that’s right, you’re too busy for that). That way you can have an adult telling you what to do and have no responsibility yourself. Just mind that the alcohol can effect your medication.
>What we do know
‘We’? Who are ‘we’ Ian? You and your beer-drinking mates? I am so touched I play such a large role in your life.
>I just like to jam common sense down the throats of fools, Travis.
You may ‘like’ Ian, but you wouldn’t know common sense if it bit you on the arse and gave you a free slab of beer. As for fools, I keep telling you- PUT DOWN THAT MIRROR!!! Oh, and get the pebbles out of your pockets too.
Grott’s probably back from punching a few govt staffers and blowing up a bilby nest – his blood is up.
All you have to do it find the first thread and see if his name is on the bottom of the comments list. You can then rest assured that he has commented on all the other threads. He’s a bit late for this one, but let’s wait and see. He’s a very busy man y’know.
I check out the Norwegian paper Fiskeribladet ( the Fisheries paper) every day. Even if most of their readers probably are extremely prowhaling they sometimes post articles that are critical of whaling. ( Wonder if Japanese media ever does this???). I congrat the paper for this…
Today they write that the Norwegian Society for Protection of Animals has handed over a protest list , signed by about 700 anti whalers to end whaling due to cruelty , to the Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg.
According to whale friends , about 118 minke whales might have suffered a prolonged and cruel death in this years hunt.
>According to whale friends…
Do whales have Face Book? That way they could post the petition up on their site, people could sign it, and everyone would know how many friends they had. Of course the site would be protected from molestors like Grott.