On December 19, 2007 Australia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Honourable Stephen Smith, issued a joint media release with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Peter Garrett.
The release states that “Australia strongly believes that there is no credible scientific justification for the hunting of whales and is opposed to all commercial and ‘scientific’ whaling” and notes that “the Australian Government will step up efforts to end this senseless and brutal practice, using a range of diplomatic, legal and monitoring and surveillance initiatives” that “the Government is giving serious consideration to a range of options for international legal action against Japan” and that “the Government will develop its own proposal for improving and modernising the IWC, which will include closing the loophole that allows for scientific whaling.”
In the proper context of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) and the International Whaling Commission (IWC) these comments of the Government of Australia are provocative and absurd. The fact is that the ICRW is about properly managing the whaling industry by regulating catch quotas at levels so that whale stocks will not be diminished. The Convention is not about protecting all whales irrespective of their abundance.
Further, the fact that Australia was a whaling country when it agreed to and signed the ICRW and subsequently changed its position to an anti-whaling position following the closure of its industry in the 1970s does not change the Convention. If Australia can no longer agree to the Convention it should withdraw rather than subvert its purpose. Smith and Garrett can ignore these facts but they cannot change them.
Australia together with other anti-whaling members of the IWC have sacrificed the principles of science-based management and sustainable use that are the world standard (and supported by Australia in other international fora and for the management of their own resources) as a political expediency to satisfy the interests of non-government organizations.
This has made the IWC dysfunctional and threatens much-needed international cooperation required to properly manage and conserve all marine resources.
It is of considerable concern therefore that Australia’s stepped up efforts to end commercial and scientific whaling will undermine the work of the current IWC Chairman (William Hogarth of the United States) to resolve the dysfunctional nature of the organization and return it to its proper functioning as a resource management organization.
Japan’s whaling is not “senseless and brutal”. Neither is it illegal in any way. The most recent review of Japan’s research whaling program in the Antarctic by the IWC’s Scientific Committee in December 2006 concluded that “the dataset provides a valuable resource to allow investigation of some aspects of the role of whales within the marine ecosystem and that this has the potential to make an important contribution to the Scientific Committee’s work in this regard as well as the work of other relevant bodies such as the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources”. The Scientific Committee also agreed to its earlier (1997) conclusion that the results from the research program “have the potential to improve management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere”.
The suggestion of Smith and Garrett that somehow Japan’s whale research program is a violation of international law and that Japan is not acting in accordance with its international treaty obligations is totally without foundation. Article VIII of the ICRW unequivocally provides the right of members of the IWC to kill whales for research purposes and further states that “the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention.” Conversely, the fact that the Government of Australia has publicly stated that it no longer accepts the terms of the ICRW and yet continues to participate in the IWC is a self indictment that it has failed to meet its legal obligation to interpret and implement its treaty obligations in good faith.
Finally, Smith and Garrett note that “Australia values its extensive and mutually beneficial relationship with Japan” and that “as in any close relationship there are some issues on which we cannot agree”. In the face of this disagreement on whaling, Australia’s determination “to play a leading role in international efforts to stop Japan’s whaling practices” is arrogant and an insult to Japanese people and their culture.
A more constructive approach with less media hype is needed.
Keiichi NAKAJIMA
President, Japan Whaling Association
28 December 2007
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“In the face of this disagreement on whaling, Australia’s determination “to play a leading role in international efforts to stop Japan’s whaling practices” is arrogant and an insult to Japanese people and their culture.”
This is exactly what countries like Ausralia can say about Japan and their continued killing of migratory and endangered species in areas others recognise as sanctuaries, far away from Japan, irrespective of other nation’s rights and wishes for a cruel and unnesecessary whim many of the Japanese people know nothing about unless they are being forced to eat the meat. It is about pride, nothing more or less.
(NOTE: This is my first posting to this blog, and I am having difficulty getting the “Preview” function to work in such a way that I can see paragraph breaks. If this letter presents itself as one long run-on paragraph, please accept my apologies. I am apparently not smart enough to figure out how to make it look as I intend. I have numbered my paragraphs 1-9 in attempt to make myself clear. Again, regrets…)
1. I would like to know if anybody here can direct me to real world facts, figures, and bottom-line data that will demonstrate whether or not the Japanese, Norwegian, and Icelandic whaling industries are in fact profitable, whether or not there is a “sustainable” return-on-investment for the commercial whaling that has been undertaken by these three nations since 1) the the beginning of the Moratorium in 1986 and, 2) before that, since the end of WW II.
2. It is my understanding that each of these nations’ governments subsidize their commercial whaling fleets because otherwise these fleets would not be able to stay in business for the simple reason that they are in actual point of fact un-sustainably UNprofitable and have been, particularly since the onset of the post-WWII mega-slaughter of the great whales.
3. It is my understanding that without significant taxpayer-funded subsidization by their governments, the Japanese, Norwegian, and Icelandic whaling industries would have been shut down long ago. Can anyone point me to actual business operation and finance data from these governments or industries that would either confirm or contradict this understanding?
4. I admit total ignorance of the situation in Norway and Iceland, and request someone tell me where I can learn how these fleets dispose of their catch, to whom, and, historically and today, at what rate of return on whose investment (private and/or public).
5. I think I understand that in Japan, by-catch of the Japanese “scientific” whaling fleet is sold predominantly to the major Japanese seafood processoring corporations for considerable revenue, and that these processors are in turn doing quite well selling that “scientifically” procured whale meat to dog food producers, the Japanese public school systems, and, to a lesser degree, the national restaurant and home food industries. Can someone tell me where I can go to learn: 1) exactly how much annual revenue “scientific” whaling has generated for Japan’s ICR since its inception (as well as data regarding its total operating expenses for the same period); 2) exactly how much money the Japanese seafood processing industry has made disposing of the by-catch of that “scientific” whaling?; and 3) how much supporting the Japanese whaling industry has costs the Japanese taxpayer (by subsidizing the ICR, by buying whale meat for school lunches, etc etc etc).
6. Can anybody who regularly contributes and participates in the exchanges on this at least seemingly evidently pro-whaling and free trade/free market/free enterprise-loving blog tell me exactly how much commercial whaling (“scientific” or otherwise) actually costs the taxpayers of the only three nations on the planet to engage in non-subsistence whaling? And what the cost to those taxpayers actually is and has been and is anticipated to be for the near-term future?
7. My working hypothesis is that these three fleets are able to stay in operation ONLY because of taxpayer subsidization by their governments, and that that fact in itself demonstrates that they are not viable commercial enterprises and are therefore not ECONOMICALLY sustainable, except at great cost to the individual citizen-taxpayers of their respective nations. For, I too am fanatically anti-government interference in the marketplace (I believe in the separation of market and state for the same reason I believe in the separation of church and state) and believe quite frankly that subsidization, like taxation, is theft. Not just some of the time and not just for politically-incorrect activities (such as health, education, welfare, and then like), but for everything.
8. I will present my working hypothesis and research questions regarding the so-called ECOLOGICALLY “sustainability” of the whaling conducted by Japan, Norway, and Iceland at a future time.
9. Thank you for your assistance and consideration.
Sincerely,
JG Moebus
S/V WayFinder
Half Moon Bay, CA
PS: OK. Now I see how the “Preview” function works. Thaanks for your forbearance.
JGM
Hi JG,
I have some information on Norwegian whaling.
According to the Norwegian Government’s website , whaling and fisheries in Norway are not subsidized.
This is however contradicted by the folks back at Greenpeace Nordic’s office , who state that Norwegian whaling is funded on a regional basis.
The whales surveys are also subsidized by the State.
According to the paper Fiskeribladet ,
http://www.fiskeribladet.no/default.asp?side=101&lesmer=5153
whaling this year probably run with a loss of about 40 million NOK.
The profit was about 24( ?) million NOK.
The loss of profit was according to whalers due to changes in coastal whaling regulations.
I have no stats available right now, but is seems like whaling ain’t no big profit business. The fuel costs seems big, eating up any profits.
It seems as well as whaling is more to keep traditions alive than making profits.
” where I can learn how these fleets dispose of their catch, to whom…” -JG
Ellingsen’s whale meat processing factory ( hvalmottak) is the biggest receiver and purchaser of whales and whale meat in Norway
Thank you Ann. I’m not sure I follow you: on the one hand you wrote that “whaling this year probably run with a loss of about 40 million NOK, ” but on the other you wrote that “The profit was about 24( ?) million NOK.” How is there a loss of 40M but also a profit of 24M?
Also, have you heard anything about large (I’ve heard the term “huge”) stocks of Norwegian slaughtered whale meat that is stockpiled in wharehouses because there is no market for it?
And that attempts to to sell it to Japan were rebuffed because the Japanese have more whalemeat on hand than they can get rid of?
GREENPEACE Nordic, eh? Do you think they know what they’re talking about, or are they just another bunch of human-hating whale lovers?
Thanks again.
JG
Hi again,
Sorry for the confusion ( English is NOT my first language).
“The profit was about 24( ?) million NOK.” How is there a loss of 40M but also a profit of 24M?”- JG
As I understood , the net loss was about 20 million NOK.
Re the blubber mountain. I have heard that most have been destroyed due to contamination. But as is the case with Norwegian whaling, much is as well ” secret information” or ” State secrercy”.
Maybe our friend Rune , from the High North Alliance , can give us more information????
The information re regional funding to whaling , I got it from a Norwegian whales campaigner.
LOL! Don’t think the GP Nordic folks are human – hating, they are punkrockers that sometimes like to dress up in bumble bee clothes;) !!! LOL!
Hi Ann:
Thanks for the clarification. I understand: a net loss of 20M NOK. Is that for the most recent year or an average or what…did the article say?
That’s a good lead; I’ll explore if there are any Norwegian English language newspapers. Do you know any magazines or other credible information scources in Norway that publish in English that would have the information I seek? Also, does your whale campaigner source of info on the regional funding speak or write English? I’m afraid I know nothing of Norwegian. Are you Norwegian?
And finally,and most importantly: Why do you suppose Norwegian whaling is wrapped in the shroud of “State secrecy”? Is this Norway’s moral equivalent of America’s so-called “War” Against so-called “Terrorism” in which all manner of abominations are perpetrated against “enemies” (both foreign and domestic) and kept ultra top secret, all in the name of Fatherland Security?
Do you think the Norwegian authorities are trying to hide something?
Jeff
PS: Have there been any public opinion polls on how the Norwegian people feel about whaling and their government’s role in the sport?
Thanks again.
JG,
1) The net loss of 20 million NOK was for 2007 and was estimated to be of the same number in 2008. Norwegian whaling has been subsidized officially until some years ago.
2) Re English speaking papers , there is Aftenposten
3) Well, re the ” state secrecy” , it was about one case that was classified as such, some NGOs including Greenpeace had to ask for court orders to see some documents on whaling.
4) I recommend that you take contact with Greenpeace Norway, if you have questions re Norwegian whaling : martin@nordic.greenpeace.org
5) No, I’m not Norwegian, I’m Swedish
6) For pro whaling information , check out the High North Alliance’s website
Thank you Ann. I’ve seen the HNA website. They are good at what they do, very good: good spinmeistering, good propaganda, good obfuscation, distortion, and omission. And just enough fact, truth, and reality to make the whole thing credible, particularly to the confused and/or uninformed who are just looking for somebody to tell them what to believe. Good mouthpieces. They would fit very well into the Realm of America’s Corporate Media.
I wonder if there is any place on The Planet where one can find out the Real, Actual TRUTH. About anything. Everybody has an Agenda to advance and defend, and therefore any and everybody else’s Agenda must and will be attacked.
When the lights go out, I wonder if we won’t have simply argued ourselves into Extinction without ever even having heard, let alone actually listened to, what the other guy was trying to say. Ah well. Such is the Way, the Destiny, and the Doom of The Talking Ape, eh?
And I will contact Martin @ GP Nord. Thanks again, and have A VERY GOOD YEAR.
JG
One last set of Questions before waiting for some Answers from Rune, Isanatori, David, and their ilk:
It is my understanding that there have been (recent?) disclosures of gross, open, bald-faced lying by what used to be called the Soviet Union on how many whales its fleets actually slaughtered when they were still in business.
Questions:
1. What is the best source for facts, evidence, and proof of this lying?
2. What is the basis for trusting Japan, Norway, and Iceland to accurately and truthfully report the number of whales that their fleets are slaughtering today? Are there independent observers not affiliated with these nationalized industries actually on board these whaling ships who actually and accurately count, record, and report the number of whales actually killed?
3. Have there ever been any instances where Japan, Norway, or Iceland have actually been caught lying about their whale kills, or where independent observers have regularly and systematically been able to actually confirm and verify their reported whale takings?
4. What, if any, punishments were levied against the former Soviet Union for its lying. What punishments were levied against Japan, Norway, or Iceland if they ever have been caught lying about their whale kills?
Thanks and may you all and all that you Love have A VERY GOOD YEAR.
JG Moebus
S/V WayFinder
Half Moon Bay, CA
” Have there been any public opinion polls on how the Norwegian people feel about whaling and their government’s role in the sport?” – JG
Sorry , missed this question of yours.
All political parties in Norway support whaling, including green NGOs, except Greenpeace and WWF.
There is an overwhelming support in the Parliament to cull whales because the majority believe that ” whales eat too much fish”.
Guesstimate that about 80% of Norwegians support whaling.
Anti whalers have support from young people mostly in urban areas and in the cities.
Roger that. Thanks.
Hmmmmm. So. Now the obvious Question becomes: DO whales in fact eat too much fish?
Who sez YES? And Who SEZ NO?
And, far more importantly, on what do the people making these claims base their claim for YES or NO?
And, for those who claim YES they do eat too much fish, how much fish is too much fish? Any at all? If a whale eats even ONE fish, is that one too many?
And what is the current ownership linkage between the Norwegian whaling industry and the Norwegian fishing industry? >>
Does anybody claim that whales are the cause of the looming worldwide collapse of the various and sundry fisheries that everybody seems so frothed about, or are the whales just doing that in the Norwegian co-prosperity zone of control? And, of course, again, on what basis are they making this claim? What kind of science are we actually talking about here? High North??? You there???
Or is the looming world-wide collapse of the fisheries just more Gore-ishly enviro-whacko hype like so-called “global warning.” Ooops, sorry: “global warming”?
It would be most interesting to trace the rise in Norway of that particular received TRUTH that “Whales eat too much fish.”
It sort of reminds me of how, in the late 2002 buildup to the American (sorry, Coalition Of The Willing) Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, American wags were suddenly touting the “fact” that 60-70% of all Americans believed that Iraqis were the ones who hijacked and flew those planes into those buildings back on 9.11. As an American who vividly remembered being told even before the last WTC Building had been demolished and brought down late that afternoon that the “the Saudis done it,” one could only be totally shocked and awed, to say nothing of amazed, at the power of the Government and its Media when they work together toward a common goal. Can a whole nation be hypnotized into believing whatever some special vested interest with access to the levers of power in both the government and the media wants it to believe? Well, it sure happened in the good ole US of A, I’ll tell ya.
Thanks again for all your assistance, Ann. Maybe when everybody gets back from holiday, I can start getting educated. So many Questions, so little time…….
Be well.
JG
Hello all,
Back after a loooooong period without internet…
To JG above – a look through the archives here:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/cat_biodiversity_animals_whaling.html
and here :
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/cat_biodiversity_animals_part_2.html
Will answer pretty much most of your questions…
Happy new year to all the usual suspects 😉
G
Missed this bit :
“8. I will present my working hypothesis and research questions regarding the so-called ECOLOGICALLY “sustainability” of the whaling conducted by Japan, Norway, and Iceland at a future time.”
Look forward to it – I also look forward to the same concerning the USA, Canada, Russia, Indonesia, Faroe Islands, Greenland etc etc etc
1. Thank you, George McC. I look forward to the dig.
2. What’s that, George McC?
The ECOLOGICAL “sustainability” of the whaling conducted by the USA, Canada, Russia, Indonesia, Faroe Islands, Greenland etc etc etc ?
Or the ECOLOGICAL “sustainability” of something else conducted by the USA, Canada, Russia, Indonesia, Faroe Islands, Greenland, etc etc etc ?
JG
Hi George,
Happy New Year!
JG Moebus,
You needn’t have replicated your comments at my blog, especially the insulting bits… 🙂
The information you get there is over to you to consider as you please.
As for Japan’s whaling operations, there are several types. There are commercial operations targetting cetacean species not managed by the IWC (not that the IWC manages any commercially). These operations are small in scale and as far as I know not subsidized. Also, whales caught in set nets can be legally sold, if certain procedures are followed. The compliance cost is at least 100,000 yen (dna registration fee), but as noted on my blog a recent fin whale by-catch brought in a 7,000,000 yen price at auction. Again this activity isn’t subsidized and its not directed whaling anyway.
The whaling activity that is subsidised is the research whaling programme. The costs are openly available at least in Japanese, but the info is from the govt. Up to you to believe the info or not. (from my mobile)
Hello David.
Insulting? Moi? I have absolutely NO idea to what you refer. ;]
You’re going to have to work w/ me a little on this. I do not have a clue as to what you mean when you say, “The information you get there (on your blog, I presume) is over to you to consider as you please.” What information I get where? And what does “over to me” mean?
Sorry. I’m new to this anti-/pro-whaling dialectic, and if I am asking what may seem to be childish or remote questions, please bear with me until I get my bearings. Thank you.
You indicate that there are “commercial operations targeting species not managed by the IWC.” Does anybody manage or regulate these operations in any way at all, other than by, for example licensing? Is sustainability a concern with these species? Is any research conducted by the ICR or anybody else on these species? Are catch totals available? Who would you recommend I contact to find out for certain whether or not these small-scale operations are indeed not subsidized?
Does the IWC have jurisdiction over the species that it does manage within Japanese territorial waters, or only in international waters? If it only manages whaling in international waters, does anybody manage or regulate IWC species whaling in territorial waters? And how far out from shore does Japan claim territorial jurisdiction? And does that mean then that, for example, if, say, a blue whale wandered into Yokohama Bay or swam in to a kilometer off the coast of Iawate Prefecture, that it could legally “taken”? For trespassing, perhaps?
Does the IWC regulate disposal of whales caught in set nets, or is that a sovereign decision by the government of Japan? Who regulates set netting? Again, the federal government of Japan?
Set netting is, if I understand it, a near shore activity, no? And would be carried out presumably by Japanese fishermen only in Japanese waters, no?
And what is “compliance cost”? Who pays it and when and who receives it? And finally, what is “directed whaling”?
Are statistics available in English that show the total catch for the non-ICW regulated operations? From whom?
Then, you note that the research whaling programme is subsidized. Do you have any data at all as to how large the subsidies are and have historically been? Can you tell me which agency within the Japanese government I should contact to get this and other financial data (operating expenses, revenues from sales of by-catch, etc). I’m not concerned that it is in Japanese; my girlfriend is Japanese, and is very eager to be of assistance on this matter.
And finally, would or do YOU believe the information on this matter that the Japanese government publishes?
Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
JG Moebus
JG Moebus,
I will need cash payment before providing answers to all your many, many detailed questions.
As your girlfriend is Japanese (and because I currently have just my mobile phone to work with at the current time) it may be more time and cost efficient for you to sit her down in front of your computer, if her time for you is cheap. Starting points are http://www.maff.go.jp and http://www.google.co.jp.
Let us know what she comes up with too, if you don’t mind.
It would be cheaper to pay you, David, I can assure you.
I’m not looking for all this info today. Can you at least clarify your opening statement: “The information you get there (on your blog, I presume) is over to you to consider as you please.” What information I get where? And what does “over to me” mean?
Thanks.
JG
Lets not beat about the bush here, this whole discussion as to the economic viability of whaling is more than just a bit fatuous in that it is an industry that is subject to extreme levels of regulatory intervention that seriously distorts the economics of the activity.
That is, the IWC is imposing very substantial costs, and very substantial diseconomies on the whaling nations. The requirements on subsistence whale catching is a good example where both the efficiencies of new technology and those of larger scale operations are precluded.
The Japanese harvest of 900 odd Minkes is an arbitrary number that has no relationship to the level of harvest that could take place while still maintaining the size of the herd. The same applies to the Humpback population.
It should also be pointed out that the market for whale meat is also being subjected to serious distortion that limits the capacity of whaling nations to market their product on the same basis that anti-whaling nations market their Pork, Beef, Sheep and Goats.
So while it might seem plausible to the poorly informed to try and shoe horn this issue into an economic jacket, the reality is that there is much more to economics than those convenient issues that some might choose to select from their drop down menu of the truth.
Nice to hear from you, Mr Mott. It’s always a pleasure and honor to encounter a true blogmeister afficianado. You wrote:
“Lets not beat about the bush here, this whole discussion as to the economic viability of whaling is more than just a bit fatuous in that it is an industry that is subject to extreme levels of regulatory intervention that seriously distorts the economics of the activity.
I agree. I’d much rather beat about the Cheney than the Bush. The Village Idiot of Crawford Texas has zero relevance to the matter at hand, or to any other matter of substance at hand. (That was irrefutably proven on 9/11, was it not? What was that pet goat’s name, again?)
Methinks you are yelping before you are hurt, Mr Mott. Instead of offering established, respectable sources of data, facts, evidence, and proof about the economics of commercial or “scientific” whaling in the 21st century, you declare that none of that information matters at all because it is reflective of a reality that is other than what you or the world whaling industry want it to be. In other words, the Truth about the way things are is irrelevant; far more important is to change the Reality, then the “Truth” will be more to our liking. Sounds hauntingly like the official response to challenges to the “Official” Conspiracy Theory about September 11.
The information I seek regarding the economic viability of commercial whaling is about what is actually going on in the real world as it is, not in the world that pro-whaling champions and mouthpieces would rather it be. I am interested in how much money whalers would make if there was no regulatory intervention. But my first question is, given the rules of the game that everybody claims they are playing by, what do the economics look like? Why do you find that so threatening?
Decisions made by governments to subsidize national whaling enterprises, and the cost to taxpayers thereby, is (or should be) based on revenues and expenses operating within the context of those regulations as they are now impacting operation of the fleets, not in a world of Ayn Rand superheroes after The Strike.
Have you or anybody else done any solid economic research that claim to show just exactly how MUCH the IWC regulation costs the whaling industry, about how much more profitable commercial whaling at the start of the 21st century would, could, and should be? Who has those numbers? I’d like to see them; just like I’d like to see the numbers not for how things would, could, and should be, but for how things actually in fact are. Where are the numbers to be found? That is all that I asked.
I’m asking for real world data about real world economic activity operating in a real world context and environment of allegedly apparently (at least you seem to think so) grossly overregulated business activity. You are telling me that I shouldn’t waste my time exploring, examining, and analyzing this data because you don’t like that context and environment, because you don’t like the way the real world is just now.
So, who’s being fatuous?. Or disingenuous? Or both?
“That is, the IWC is imposing very substantial costs, and very substantial diseconomies on the whaling nations. The requirements on subsistence whale catching is a good example where both the efficiencies of new technology and those of larger scale operations are precluded.
Can you be a bit more specific as to exactly how the IWC imposes costs and diseconomies? Again, what are the numbers? Is this something that is new or is it a fact of life of being a compliant (sic) member of the IWC? Or, at the risk of being fatuous and disingenuous again, is this just one of those things that everybody knows as the conventionally accepted wisdom and revealed truth among pro-whalers, and that, if you have to ask, you’ll probably never understand or believe it?
Without those requirements or restrictions on subsistence whaling, it would no longer be subsistence whaling; it would be open, bald face commercial whaling. The primary argument for indigenous peoples subsistence whaling is that it enables them to keep alive cultural traditions, folkways, etc and so forth that the white man destroyed when he stole the natives’ land and severed the link that indigenous peoples had with their environment. The traditional subsistence whaling of the northern American peoples clamoring to do their own tribal whale hunt thing did NOT include 500 hp outboard engines on Boston Whalers, high caliber rifles with scopes, and GPSs, radar, and VHF communications, in case the boys get lost in the fog out there.
The recent act by that band Makah Yayhoos who shot up a grey whale with high power rifles in the Straits of Juan de Fuca, in total disregard and wanton violation not only of the IWC and federal, state , and local laws, but of their own tribal whaling commission’s regulations and general tribal law and tradition, in what one of them proudly and defiantly called an act of “savage disobedience,” offers an excellent preview of what subsistence whaling would look like without regulation. Maybe the Japanese need to show the Makah how to set up a “scientific whaling” program. The problem again, of course, would be, so who’s going to eat all that for-science-only slaughtered whale meat and blubber?
I find it extremely telling that whaling seems to be one of the very few if not the ONLY indigenous cultural tradition that western industrial civilization (and I include Japanese whaling proponents and practitioners in that categorization) seems eager to foster, nurture, grow, and even subsidize. For example, not too many white boys (especially in organized religion and at the various enforcement levels of government) tolerated or encouraged the peyote cults of southwest American Indians. And when Injuns want to get uppity and claim legal monopoly to gambling facilities, or actual fulfillment of treaty-guaranteed water or fishing or mineral or other rights, why all manner of rich white guys in suits get extremely frosted. Seems we’d rather see them back on the reservations in the bingo halls in good old mainline Christian churches.
“The Japanese harvest of 900 odd Minkes is an arbitrary number that has no relationship to the level of harvest that could take place while still maintaining the size of the herd. The same applies to the Humpback population.
Wait a minute. I thought the Japanese were harvesting whales for purposes of so-called “scientific research.” Do they need MORE THAN 900 whales to do their research? Have they substantiated that assertion? Is the Japanese assertion that they need 900 dead minkes any more arbitrary than the IWC’s ruling that they can only take 900?
But again, this evades the point, which is how much does it cost to harvest 900 whales and how much revenue is generated by selling the by-catch of this “scientific” whaling, and how much taxpayer-provided subsidy is required to balance the books?
Again, are there studies that show how much more money could be made without regulation. That’s all I’m asking.
And who says that so many minkes (humpbacks, blues, grays, etc etc etc) could be taken without diminishing the herds? Are there differing studies and do they agree and which ones have been done in accordance with standard accepted scientific methodology? Where are the studies?
“It should also be pointed out that the market for whale meat is also being subjected to serious distortion that limits the capacity of whaling nations to market their product on the same basis that anti-whaling nations market their Pork, Beef, Sheep and Goats.
What specifically are those “serious distortions?” Are you saying that the only reason Americans don’t buy Japanese whale meat is because there are regulations against selling and buying whale meat in the United States? Are there such restrictions? Why doesn’t Japan take this matter of alleged restraint of trade up with the WTO? Isn’t that why we have the WTO and GATT and NAFTA, etc etc etc? Globalization is such a wonderful thing, isn’t it?
Actually, I wonder if you’d be interested in providing sufficient venture capital to start up a chain of fast whale and dolphin burger joints or upscale whale steak and sashimi emporiums all across America?
“So while it might seem plausible to the poorly informed to try and shoe horn this issue into an economic jacket, the reality is that there is much more to economics than those convenient issues that some might choose to select from their drop down menu of the truth.”
Yeah, you right. We poorly informed (sic), the great unwashed that we are, do have a tendency to see things in the stark reality of things as they actually are, versus not as it would be nice for them to be. It requires being a hard-eyed, neoliberal/conservative to have the vision to ask not what things are, but what they woulda coulda and shoulda been and be.
Because, by all means, we certainly wouldn’t want the poorly informed (ie, those who disagree with us) to try to use sound, conventional economic logic and reason with the situation under examination as it is, actually was or is. Far better that they examine it only from the standpoint of how things woulda coulda shoulda been and be if only we ruled the world..
What more is there to economics than supply and demand and elasticity of both; income and expenditures; profit and loss? Actually, if you go back over my questions, my “drop down menu of truth” actually has more to do with the conventional accounting practices of business enterprise activity, and documentation as to how effectively the operators of those enterprises can deal with the reality of their factors of production and the markets they are attempting to utilize, as well as their ability to effectively manage and use other people’s money.
How about this idea: let’s run an econometric model in which Japan, Norway and Iceland drop out of the IWC and begin that long-longed for unlimited-kill-all-they-want extermination-rate whaling. 1. How long would they be able to stay in business killing as many whales as their hearts desire and, more importantly, 2) Where are they going to sell all that additional meat on top of all the surplus meat that is not being consumed now? Who’s going to buy it? Or is the new game plan that they will be able to force consumption quotas on all of their client states? “You want to buy Sony electronics goods or Toyota automotive products from Japan? Fine, then you must purchase so many metric tons of whale meat per car, DVD player, tv, etc and so forth.” Or what?
JG Moebus
S/V WayFinder
Half Moon Bay, CA
Your original portrayal of yourself as some sort of innocent inquirer was both false and misleading.
My position remains that any discussion on the comparative economics of a market as corrupted as the whale market is pure sophistry.
The Japanese, and indeed, every other national government has the right to redress, at its own discretion, any adverse impacts, including financial ones, that are imposed on any of its citizens by the actions of foreign powers or interests.
And if you don’t agree with that principle then I would suggest that you tell that to your own elected representatives who are currently drafting the latest version of the US Farm Bill using the same rationale.
And when you are done with them then why not tell it to the Euro Commisssioners as well, I’m sure they could use a good laugh.
>The character and scale of you little bile vent, Moebus Dickus, makes it very clear that your original portrayal of yourself as some sort of innocent inquirer was both false and misleading.
Didn’t take long for the abuse and paranoia to sink in did it Grott? Keep taking those meds matey, and watch that blood pressure. Tick, tick tick….
If Travis had been older than 14 years he may have realised that it was a pun reference to Moby Dick, a whale. Abuse = zero, paranoia = zero, but poor Travie leaps to any opportunity for an ad hom. Any sign of pimples yet? Anything to make you appear a little older.
Any sign of an on-topic comment?
So responding to my “false and misleading” questions by blithely dismissing them as a “little bile vent” and “sophistry” is not ad hom itself, Mr Mott?
What if I had prefaced my initial inquiry with the caveat that I love whaling and want to be able to PROVE that the current regimen of regulation and restriction is economically unsound and unjust and I can prove it with real world facts, numbers, data, evidence, and proof. If I’d introduced myself by telling everybody how much seeing whales slaughtered just really turns me on, would you have been not quite so ad homo, and perhaps a little more participative, even cooperative?
Let me repeat something that I said in my initial post that will hopefully remind you of exactly where I stand on the matter of government (or meta-government interference in economic activity AND on whaling: “…7. My working hypothesis is that these three fleets are able to stay in operation ONLY because of taxpayer subsidization by their governments, and that that fact in itself demonstrates that they are not viable commercial enterprises and are therefore not ECONOMICALLY sustainable, except at great cost to the individual citizen-taxpayers of their respective nations. For, I too am fanatically anti-government interference in the marketplace (I believe in the separation of market and state for the same reason I believe in the separation of church and state) and believe quite frankly that subsidization, like taxation, is theft. Not just some of the time and not just for politically-incorrect activities (such as health, education, welfare, and then like), but for everything.”
Nothing very false and misleading about that, now, is there Mr Mott? (I could almost put that to the Grinch Christmas Song, couldn’t I? heh)
What I find most noteworthy about your non-responses and attempts to divert the focus of my inquiries and to avoid any attempt to bring data, facts, evidence, and proof into the discussion and to THUS BE FORCED TO CONFRONT THOSE FACTS, EVIDENCE, AND PROOF yourself, is that you are not alone. NOBODY among the herd of pro-whalers that frequent this blog (or several other to which I have posted similar requests for assistance/information) has provided a single shred of information or anything but the same sort of insults that you have offered.
Why is that? What are you all afraid of? The Truth?
Are you afraid that the facts, the real world economic business performance data will demonstrate conclusively that whaling stopped being profitable when its primary focus was on providing pre-fossil fuel oil for lubrication and lighting, and that the emergence of petroleum rendered whaling irrelevant and thus by definition UNPROFITABLE to the world’s economy by the late 19th and early 20th century?
Or, was whaling still profitable during the Great Slaughter years after WWII until, alas, the fleets had hunted their prey into virtual extinction and decided that, gee, maybe we need some kind of auto-regulation after all?
Incidently, did you know that Man is the ONLY species on the planet that hunts his prey to extinction? Surely, another indicator of Man’s Superior Intelligence, no doubt. After all, he is also the only species that turns his own habitat into a shit-hole and wages war on the non-combatants of his own species, and engages in slavery purely for profit. Yes. Clearly the possessor of Superior Intelligence.
In any event, I for one would welcome Japan attempting to take its Whaling case to the WTO. But they won’t. For the same reason that Iceland refused to charge Sea Shepherd for the destruction of its illegal whaling fleet back in the 80s. Japan, especially the career bureaucrats at the ICR and the career whalers in the fleet, would really like it if everybody would pretend tthey didn’t exist so they could live out their life producing nothing of economic value to anybody but themselves, and let the Japanese taxpayers make up the difference between the real world utility of their product and what the world is willing to pay for it.
You have provided no data, facts, evidence, or proof, or even access to such to demonstrate your assertions about so-called IWC inflicted “dis-economies” and “substanial” costs. Nothing.
You provided and still provide nothing but smoke, mirrors, and noise. And THAT, my friend ain’t no ad homo that I’m throwing at you.
That is a bald, simple statement of fact. If you don’t believe me, re-read your posts as alleged reasonable and rationale responses to my posts.
And, the US Farm Bill and EU agricultural protectionism has absolutely nothing to do with ithis ssue (either whaling or your obfuscation, denial, and jitterbugging), and you know it.
Please do not take me or the other people on this blog for complete idiots.
JG Moebus (S/V WayFinder)
Half Moon Bay, CA
PS to MOTT
You wrote: “The Japanese, and indeed, every other national government has the right to redress, at its own discretion, any adverse impacts, including financial ones, that are imposed on any of its citizens by the actions of foreign powers or interests.”
I agree. Just don’t confuse THAT preogative with the “Right” to hunt and kill Whale, because, Mr Mott, that is a “Right” that NOBODY has. Not the Japanese, nor the Norwegians, nor Icelanders nor the Inuits nor any other so-called “subsistence hinters,” nor you nor anybody else.
The following is a message that I sent to two notable pro-whaling bloggers, David@Tokyo and the so-called “Isanatori” regarding this very issue. Predictably, neither has bothered to respond. Particularly when it came to providing actual, real world numbers regarding revenues and expenses, profits and losses, and cost-to-taxpayer government subsidies. The same message was also sent to the Greenpeace ESPERANZA blog, which refused to post it:
David@Tokyo & Isanatori:
On what basis do the Japanese or anybody else claim a “Right” to slaughter whales, for food or any other purpose?
Because their government has enough money to outfit a whaling fleet?
Then if I have enough money to outfit an anti-whaling fleet, I have a “right” to stop you and your chums from slaughtering whales, right?
Because I happen to believe that Whales have Rights just like whalers and their government sponsors. Unfortunately, the whales and their rights were not represented when the IWC was set up. Nor are they yet. But that can change. Even in our lifetime. And will, if I have anything to say about it.
The IWC was and is not set up to protect whales; it is set up to manage the so-called “sustainability” of whaling (see following comment) so as to maximize the profits for those who invest in whalers. That is why the IWC will ultimately fail: because there is no profit to be made in whaling. There hasn’t been for a long, long time.
If there was, your Japanese, Norwegian, and Icelandic whaling fleets would not require taxpayer-funded government subsidy to even exist, let alone survive.
(You and your sidekick David@Tokyo are big on waving numbers around: how about some profit and loss statements for Japanese whalers for the last 30 years? “Not For Profit!!!” you say? Fine, then show us some operating expenses and revenue statements. And I’m not talking about the Japanese seafood companies who buy the “scientific” by-catch; I’m talking about the organization and operation that actually kills the whales.)
“Right To Life, Right To Freedom of Speech and Thought and Assembly, Right To Breathable Air and Drinkable Water, Right To Protection From Governments and Other Criminals…,” these I understand. But, the “right” to kill and eat whale? Is that in the U.N. Charter someplace that I missed?
Please do not confuse “needs and wants” (or intent to make profit regardless of the suffering inflicted upon others) with “rights.”
JG Moebus
S/V Wayfinder
Half Moon Bay, CA
On the so-called “SUSTAINABILITY” of Commercial Whaling
On 29 DEC, pro-whale slaughter blogger Isanatori posted to Greenpeace’s ESPERANZA blog: “Besides Norway has been whaling commercially and sustainably for 14 years now. So GP’s assumption that whaling cannot be sustainable is wrong.”
Permit me to ask the honorable representative of and spokesman for “sustainable” whale slaughtering one simple question:
On what grounds, Isanatori, do you define Norway’s whaling as “sustainable”? Whose definition of “sustainability” are you using? Norway’s? Japan’s? The IWC’s? Yours and David@Tokyo’s? George W Bush’s?
“Sustainability” as a rationale, justification, and excuse starts with the assumption that the whales are there specifically for human consumption, to be used as humans deem appropriate, and that as long as we conduct the slaughter “scientifically” and “sustainably,” then it is OK because then there will always be enough whales around for us to keep slaughtering “sustainably,” sort of like the way we slaughter chickens and cows and pigs and the like. The best part about harvesting whales, tho, is that we don’t have to feed and shelter them like chicken, cow, and pig farmers do their crops.
Major reduction in capital outlay and thus much higher profits, eh? Why is it, then, that your Japanese (Norwegian, Icelandic) whalers can’t make a profit on their own efforts, and have to be subsidized by their government?
Well guess what? The whales aren’t there simply for human consumption, to be used as humans deem appropriate. Any more than Africans were there for European slave trader and slave owner consumption. The Africans were unable to defend themselves against the superior firepower technology of western “civilization,” and so the “Rights” of slave owners became a convenient conventional fiction. The whales ,too, have no immediate defense against the superior killing power of the whalers. At least not yet.
In the absence of an army of Mocha Dicks (the sperm whale that destroyed several whaling ships and killed dozens of South Pacific whalers back in the mid-1800s) or a navy of U.S. Confederacy raiders like the Shenandoah (which captured and destroyed 37 Yankee whalers up in the Bering Sea back in 1865 at the end of the American War of Rebellion), those who would protect the whales from those who view them only as so much crop to be harvested for optimal profit resort to efforts such as that launched by Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd. And the terms “army” and “navy” are not at all inappropriate. For, my friend, this is indeed a War.
A War To Save The Whales. My argument elsewhere on the Greenpeace blog that GP and SSCS should be cooperating and coordinating their efforts against the Japanese whalers is based on an old concept that runs: in a War, sometimes, The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend.
Unless, of course, one doesn’t consider the Whalers to be “an enemy,” but some sort of poor, misguided, maleducated infidel needing only understanding, education, and a proper Crusader re-orientation as to what is Right and Good and Decent and True. But I can assure you that, to the Whales, the Whalers are more than misbenighted morons, or even simply Enemies. To the Whales, the whalers are the Perpetrators of Genocide. Or, more accurately, Speciecide.
And the crews of the good ships ESPERANZA and STEVE IRWIN are there to do whatever they can to halt this abomination, this outrage against the very Fabric of Life on this Planet itself that folks like you and your chums in the Japanese (and Norwegian and Icelandic) whaling business blithely dismiss as “sustainable.”
I’ll take your arguments about so-called “sustainability” more seriously when there is solid evidence presented that human beings are reproducing on, and consuming and destroying, this planet at a “sustainable” rate. Starting right there in Japan, the United States, Europe, Australia, and the rest of Western so-called “civilization.” As Gandhi noted when asked what he thought about “Western civilization”: “I think it would be a very good idea.”
Until then, leave the whales alone. They have enough problems trying to survive in oceans that the humans are rendering unfit for any form of life.
JG Moebus (S/V WayFinder)
Half Moon Bay, CA
The IWC was set up with the express purpose of ensuring the continuation of whale harvesting. And that, Moebus, makes it a “right” that has the full ratification of the UN under which the IWC is established as a voluntary body.
It is not, and has never been, a body set up to end all whaling. Accept that fact or go to the far queue.
The rest of your rant, especially your suggestion that this is a war, supposedly being fought by you and others on behalf of the whale population, makes it clear that your initial posts were deliberately deceptive. You are clearly, by your own admission above, an extreme anti-whaling activist. Yet, you portrayed yourself as nothing more than an innocent inquirer seeking information. Readers had a right to know who you were and the record makes it clear that it took only a few minor provocations to flush out the extremist nutter that was always there. Case rests.
Readers will easily see how pathetic your attempts to limit the notion of economic viability really are.
And they can also see how the Japanese government’s support for the whaling industry, in the face of foreign market distorting activities, is absolutely no different to US or EU support of their own interests that they perceive as being unfairly impacted by outside interests in similar ways. But you clearly take the view that the application of core principles of governance can be selectively applied according to your own biases and expedients.
I extend my sympathy to your girlfriend. I suspect she deserves better, a reasonable man with a capacity to make proportionate resonses to verifiable reality.
>Any sign of an on-topic comment?
Why, when you can’t debate them ignoramus?
The IWC has also expressed its concern over JARPA II and JARPN II Grott, but the Japanese have thumbed their nose at them.
Is it a crime for people here to seek information Ian? Take those meds. We all know you are an expert on everything, but you refuse to share this knowledge with us – it is disguised as annecdotes and false information and plain stupidity. We now have to go to YouTube to see a fat old idiot stumbling about and eloquently educating us on good vs evil.
As for your concluding remarks to JG Moebus, you have proven once again that age has nothing to do with maturity or decency or hypocrisy. You are a low life Mott, and that is something we all know here. Go and hide behind Jennifer’s apron.
Jeff – in an attempt to return to your questions:
Re the Japanese fleet – figures I’ve seen for 2003 – the income from meat sales was in the order of $US55 million, topped up with ~$8.8 million from government subsidies. Figures are from a paper: Sand, P.H. 2007. Japan’s ‘Research Whaling’ in the Face of the Endangered Species Convention (CITES) in Review of European Community and International Environmental Law for December 2007. (For some reason it’s not available online yet, I got a preprint).
There’s a story (rumour?) kicking around that Japan’s building a new, bigger factory ship. If so, it’d be interesting to know who’s paying for that.
On the situation in Norway – my view is that it is complicated by food costs in Norway, that are heavily influenced by the way the government subsidizes the farmers there. You can read more of that in a chapter I had in a book in 2006, Gaining Ground, edited by Dave Lavigne. Anyone who’s interested in a copy can shoot me an email & I ‘ll send on a pdf of the chapter. (Might take a few days as I’m doing fieldwork at present.)
There are other outlays that could be viewed as government subsidies in Norway to whaling, from the costs for surveys and salaries of scientists to direct government funding to the High North Alliance. I don’t think anyone’s ever put together a complete breakdown of those subsidies, tho’ there’s an old report by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) that addresses the topic: see http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/4BFBF08E3461F1D2802568F10038AB85
On the whales eat fish issue – I wrote a short review recently for WDCS on this, with a focus on Iceland. Go to the bottom of this page:
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/2763CCA824E96ED2802573A90035DB56
and you’ll find the pdf.
Hope this helps.
Peter
Thank you, Peter. It helps very much. That’s exactly the sort of information that I was hoping to begin to be able to find by coming to this blog in the first place. I was not looking for a ration of shit, nor to have to waste my time defending my self and my intentions. Mott. This whole episode is a perfect example of why very little is ever actually accomplished in the real world thru the medium of internet e-lists, discussion groups, or blogs. That’s probably why people like Mott are drawn to them.
And thank you, Travis, for your support. Although I know that you know that it is not nice to badger the functionally challenged. (Please see my PS for an addtional off-topic question. Thanks.)
As for you Mott, please do not presume to tell me what the IWC was set up to do. Had you bothered to read my “PS to MOTT” message above, you would have seen (tho probably not comprehended) the following: “…the whales and their rights were not represented when the IWC was set up….The IWC was and is not set up to protect whales; it is set up to manage the so-called ‘sustainability’ of whaling so as to maximize the profits for those who invest in whalers. That is why the IWC will ultimately fail: because there is no profit to be made in whaling. There hasn’t been for a long, long time.”
So (one of) the core issue(s) here is whether or not so-called “sustainability” is a legitimate basis for determining the value and morality of human action directed against other life forms on this planet, and, indeed, on the planet itself.
And “sustainability,” Mott, is not a revelation from God. Nor a scientifically demonstrated fact. It is a value judgement made by people who view the planet and everything therein or -on as something that exists for the purpose of humans to be able to make money.
As for your allegation that because the IWC has the full ratification of the UN, that makes slaughtering whales for fun, food, and profit a “right,” and therefore a true, good, and noble thing, let remind you of another Inconvenient Truth: your exact same UN fully ratified and blessed off on the infliction of economic sanctions against the people of Iraq following the first Gulf War, as demanded by Bush The Elder. As a direct result of those sanctions, 750,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis (mostly the very young and the very old) died of preventable and/or treatable diseases.
By your logic, because the UN ratified this action and all those nations who participated in the sanctions did so on a voluntary basis, these sanctions that killed 3/4 to 1 million people (and who knows how many it left permanently physically, mentally, emotionally, psychologically, and humanly disabled, disfigured, disfunctional, and diseased) were “RIGHT.” And the United States had the “RIGHT” to see to it that these sanctions were kept in place until Sadaam had outlived his usefullness to it in 2003. And NOBODY can be held accountable or be made responsible for this Crime Against Humanity for which somebody should be hung after being tortured to tell the Rest of The Truth.
All because the UN said it was OK.
Do you REALLY believe that?
If you do, Mr Mott, then please, if you are not on meds, as Travis hints, you seriously need to be. And I don’t think your wife’s skirts will protect you that problem at all.
Thank you again, Peter. And Travis. And you too, Mott.
It’s always encouraging to see vivid verification of my long-standing suspicion that man’s is NOT the superior intelligence on this planet. And you, Mr Mott, have demonstrated that in spades.
How THAT for an ad homo, eh? Heh.
JG Moebus
PS: Does Mott really have a YouTube Show? Where is it? I’d love to see what this guy actually looks like.
PSS to Peter:
Dear Mr Corkeron:
I would like very much to get a PDF copy of your chapter from the book GAINING GROUND.
My e-address is jgmoebus@yahoo.com .
Thank you for that, and again for your previously noted assistance.
Jeff
Hi again,
Re subsidies to Norwegian whaling industry, I recall as well that the Nordic Council supports financially Norwegian whaling.
I wrote to the Swedish Gov’t and asked them if Sweden donated money to whaling, but the answer was No, so it seems like only the Norwegian part/ branch of the Nordic Council funds whaling.
Jeff,
Nice to see you got a response from Peter Corkeron. A helpful and insightful chap.
Re YouTube:
Aimed at all those 14 year olds out there no doubt!
Thanks for the YouTube link, Travis…I look forward to seeing Mr Mott in action.
And, Hi again Ann, and thanks for that additional information.
What about Denmark? Do you know if Denmark has had any public position on Iceland’s relationship with the IWC and with its resumed whaling? Or if there is any commercial linkage between Norway and Iceland re: whaling?
I went to the Greenpeace Nordic website per your previous info, and found that the most recent anti-whaling activities noted are in 1999. I think I read someplace (on this blog, someplace?) that Greenpeace has stopped protesting Norway’s whaling. Do you know if that is so? I sent a message to the contact you gave me at Greenpeace Nordic, but have not received a reply as yet.
Which, I’m afraid, is not altogether surprising. I’m still waiting for a reply from my letter to Greenpeace HQ about why they refuse to cooperate with Sea Shepherd in the Southern Ocean anti-Whaling Campaign, pointing out that if they DON’T cooperate, the only ones who will benefit will be the Japanese, and the only ones who suffer will be the whales.
Thank you again for all your support and assistance, Ann. And thank you again, as well, Travis.
Be Well and Be Seein’ Ya.
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
A very short reply here as I’m on my way out…
Greenpeace will not cooperate with Sea Shepherd under any circumstances as I have understood, forget about that ( I know as I’m a former GP activist). Greenpeace won’t either reply to Watson. They think that Watson is only out for raising money to SS and Watson is focusing on giving GP a bad reputation…that’s what I have heard….
I’ll try and come back tomorrow….
If Moebus had more than a lance corporals strategic vision he would begin to comprehend that the most important lesson in war is that the opponent doesn’t always respond in the way you expect them to. So he bowls in with his neat little fantasy about costing existing whaling activities with a view to presenting them as economically unviable.
But when it is pointed out that the whale business is seriously distorted and that any economic analysis must also include consideration of the cost of those distortions, he throws a dummy spit.
And of course, he is the self appointed arbiter of who and what actually gets to enjoy rights and what those rights might be. But if Whales have rights to remain undisturbed then poor old Moebus had best tell that to the sharks and orcas that routinely kill whales, and lots of them, especially the baby ones.
And between all the spittle he dumps a load of his own extremist opinions and bewails the fact that Whaling nations, when confronted by organised sabotage by foreign interests, feel a duty to support their own citizens. Just as his own government does.
The sooner the Japanese Special Forces board the eco-terrorist ships and lock the crew up (a la Guantanamo) for the duration of their little private “war”, the better. But that won’t include Moebus because he will still be blog stalking from the sidelines.
And thanks for the link to Youtube, Travis. I did some serious tree killing and dismemberment over the break and lost some serious Kgs. You obviously think I should do a lot more of it, and I agree. But I suppose Moebus thinks trees have rights too.
Does anybody have anything on-topic to add? If not, and with your permission:
Mott belched: “If Moebus had more than a lance corporals strategic vision he would begin to comprehend that the most important lesson in war is that the opponent doesn’t always respond in the way you expect them to. So he bowls in with his neat little fantasy about costing existing whaling activities with a view to presenting them as economically unviable.
“But when it is pointed out that the whale business is seriously distorted and that any economic analysis must also include consideration of the cost of those distortions, he throws a dummy spit.”
“Bowls in”…”throws a dummy split”?!? WTF? Ah…..bowling….BOWLING? A bowling analogy?! God, Ian!!!! You ARE an athlete. Not Rugby or Aussie Rules football, but BOWLING. God what a Man….
You know very well that I have not denied that economic analysis must include all costs. All I have done is ask for those costs and all the other data, information, and facts that go into a legitimate, normal economic or business analysis. You, on the other hand, deny that any valid economic analysis can occur as long as those costs exist. So who’s throwing gutter balls? If that’s what you’re talking about; although having seen your YouTube shows, my guess is that you are more the Lawn Bowling type. I imagine you look quite sporty in those nifty little white outfits. I’m sure you cut quite the figure in front of the ladies.
Try to think of it like this, Ian. when you prepare your annual profit/loss and income statements, do you leave out all the taxes, fees, employee insurance tabs, and other such odious expenditures because you don’t believe in them? It’s about that simple. I cannot get it any simpler. If you can not or do not comprehend that, then I am afraid that all those people who have sent me e-mails about you are absolutely right: you indeed ARE a bloody moron completely out of your depth.
And actually, I was a Master Sergeant. Twenty-eight years, U.S. Army. Making the world safe for the likes of you. Two years Viet Nam, two years Middle East, four years Special Forces (more on that later), bit of time at the Pentagon, etc etc etc. How much time did you spend in which Army and how much combat did you see, General? And please ANSWER at least this one Question directly: have enough balls not to try to sidestep it.
And Ian, please also understand: You are no enemy, and you are responding exactly as I expected you to. You are a badgering bellowing bulbous bilious bully who is used to throwing his considerable weight around, and is very un-used to having somebody stand up to his abject nonsense and announce quite simply and frankly, “Bullshit.” That’s all you are, amigo. Nothing less and nothing more.
“And of course, he is the self appointed arbiter of who and what actually gets to enjoy rights and what those rights might be. But if Whales have rights to remain undisturbed then poor old Moebus had best tell that to the sharks and orcas that routinely kill whales, and lots of them,, eh?) especially the baby ones.”
The whales don’t need my help against sharks and orcas etc. As a very wise sixteen year old recently observed: “Natural predators, in my humble understanding, are those who survive on the flesh of the kill, and who are adapted to exist in areas where their prey live without expending excessive amounts of natural resources to do so.”
This young lady has a very firm grasp of real life in the real world, wouldn’t you agree? The whales know exactly how to deal with natural predators; exactly the same way everything else in the non-human world deals with natural predators.
My concern is with the whales’ un-natural predator, of which there is only one, who expends all kinds of natural resources and other people’s money to go to places on the planet that are quite literally unfit for human habitation or activity. For no natural predator hunts its prey into extinction; only one predator does that: the UnNatural One. Man. I bet you’re a hunter aren’t you? Fly out by helicopter and shoot ‘em from the air then send your pollywogs out later to retrieve the carcasses, if at all, and be back in time for a cold Frosty Fosty and a barby, before a little lawn bowling, eh Mate?
Why do your guys (the Japanese) have to go all the way to Antarctica and expend all that money on fuel and wear-and-tear (which I understand is deductible via depreciation, but, because they live on government handout, they don’t have to worry about such details, do they?) to kill their whales for their “scientific research”? They can’t do that closer to home a lot more economically? Probably not. They’ve probably killed all the easy-to-get-to whales. Sort of like we’ve burned up all the easy-to-get-to oil, and now have to stage Terror Events to justify seizing land to guarantee that our fossil fuel-based economy doesn’t grind to a halt at least before the next election. But then again, when Uncle Tojo’s picking up the tab, why worry about it, eh?
“And between all the spittle he dumps a load of his own extremist opinions and bewails the fact that Whaling nations, when confronted by organised sabotage by foreign interests, feel a duty to support their own citizens. Just as his own government does.”
Ah-soooo. So the reason Japanese whaling has to be subsidized is because of Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace, is it? Now I understand. That’s what you just said: “organized sabotage by foreign interests.” Or, are you referring to the IWC? Your whole chain of thinking, reasoning, and communicating is getting a bit wobbly there, Ian. Easy, old boy. Don’t blow a gasket. At least not on-line.
And you are right. My government does support its citizens against organized sabotage by foreign interests by Invading and Occupying foreign nations that happen to have the oil (or whatever else) that They, the Ruling Elite of the United States of America honestly and sincerely believe is their God-given Right to take as they deem necessary, fit, and appropriate. Having spent my entire adult life in the Army honestly and sincerely believing that my job was to preserve, protect, and defend such forgotten, worthy values and causes as freedom, democracy, life, liberty, equality, and justice — or even to protect so-called “national” interests, it was quite sobering to one day realize that the reason we have an Army is to preserve and protect returns on corporate investment, access to markets and resources, and the other varying and sundering interests of Empire.
What was profound about that realization, Ian, was the recognition that this Empire is the exact same one that Columbus worked for, 500 years ago.
“The sooner the Japanese Special Forces board the eco-terrorist ships and lock the crew up (a la Guantanamo) for the duration of their little private “war”, the better. But that won’t include Moebus because he will still be blog stalking from the sidelines.”
Yeah. I figured Guantanamo would be your kind of place. Held without charges; without legal representation; tortured; completely and totally contrary to any Law of Any type of Warfare. You’d fit right in down there, Ian.
But, unfortunately for your little wet dream fantasy, the Japanese don’t have any Special Forces to speak of. They got their asses kicked 60 years ago and haven’t quite been able to figure out how to resurrect their Samurais as yet. But don’t despair. You can always call on the French, especially with the new regime in place over in Paris. Those guys have a lot of experience going into a foreign port and blowing up eco-terrorist ships. And killing night watchmen who go down with the ship while they’re at it. Your kind of people.
“And thanks for the link to Youtube, Travis. I did some serious tree killing and dismemberment over the break and lost some serious Kgs. You obviously think I should do a lot more of it, and I agree. But I suppose Moebus thinks trees have rights too.”
Well, certainly not your trees, Ian. No more than do your women or your niggers.
“I extend my sympathy to your girlfriend. I suspect she deserves better, a reasonable man with a capacity to make proportionate resonses to verifiable reality.” – Ian Mott
What a disgusting thing to write.
>But if Whales have rights to remain undisturbed then poor old Moebus had best tell that to the sharks and orcas that routinely kill whales, and lots of them, especially the baby ones.
Deary me. Here we go again. Not only does Grott persist with calling groups of whales ‘herds’ and calves ‘babies’, but he always manages to revist the orcas killing baby whales line (although sharks have got a look in this time too). The natural order of things in the ocean, which does not include ship strikes, anthropogenic noise, pollution, entanglement and bycatch, fisheries depletion, habitat degradation, disturbance and hunting and whaling, is acceptible to most rational human beings. Predators keep the balance, and orcas and sharks killing weak, sick and young baleen whales is what we call natural. However, one must not forget that
WHALES = COWS,
so such logic has gone out the window with the flying pigs.
>I did some serious tree killing and dismemberment over the break and lost some serious Kgs. You obviously think I should do a lot more of it, and I agree.
Dunno Ian. Have you trimmed off the pork belly? I doubt you could be much trimmer. As for trees having rights, last time I looked they are classified as living organisms. If you get your cheap thrills out of killing things and bloating about it here, you have more than a weight problem. But then I think we all know that already, and YouTube only serves it to the masses(with apple sauce)!!!
“In my humble opinion….”
All things have a right to live. All things have a right to eat in order to live. All things have a right to completely destroy every other thing. But having a right, does not make it right. Nor does it make it possible.
All such arguments come down to morality, and all morality is fueled by the mortality that we assume is reality. I can jump in front of a bus. I have that right. I choose not to execute that right for a number of reasons, my well-being being the forefront of this and most decisions. I recognize that true altruism does not exist. Even the “human-hating whale lovers” would have to admit that their intentions in saving the whales from slaughter is partially influenced by their aesthetic attraction to the beasts. On a larger scale, it is noted that the monetary gain from allowing the whales to exist (they should thank us, eh?) is certainly a factor that the US government does not ignore. “We estimate that whale watching in California alone probably generates on the order of $20 million in gross revenues annually and net revenues of between $4 million and $9 million.” (Pendelton, 2006, linwoodp.bol.ucla.edu/whales.pdf)
Self-service is unavoidable, being that the self is the gauge of which we relate to other things. Even when I find a cause that seems to ring true with the moral code of which I identify, I never discount the infinite codes I which I have yet to encounter.
I have a point, I swear. Existential banter, though a great way to fill a rainy day, is not how I wish to fill this message board. I would just like to bear witness to the deviation from the point, while acknowledging that there never is one.
The last few days of blogging has brought with it many facts and figures that a person with even half of an education could use to construct a very solid argument for the protection of whales. It is only when those facts and figures are presented with biased and unnecessary, even malicious, addendum, that those without the patience or piqued interest could fall short of establishing any position.
Gentlemen, please put your wankers away for the sake of the little people. If you don’t care for trees, or whales, or your girlfriends, perhaps you can attach to the notion that there are less-informed people, perhaps a young 16 year old working on her own moral development, that could really use straightforward answers free of the plague of ego.
Thank you all (Jeff, Ian, Peter, Ana, etc) for your continued pursuit of truth. i look forward to reading more.
Cassandra
cassandrarenee@gmail.com
Gosh, so when all else fails they resort to personal attacks on the basis of physical appearance. What a bunch of intellectual giants. But of course, they havn’t taken a look at Al Gore lately, (or Bill Clinton in shorts) maybe that is just another inconvenient truth. But keep it up folks, just remember, two thirds of the voters don’t have a “smack” figure and that means you have just alienated two thirds of the readers of this blog.
And Moebus, the term “to bowl in” is a cricketing analogy, usually performed by fit young men. But as usual, if it seems to make sense in your head then it is all you need to rave on. Not that I played much cricket, Rugby (front row) was more suited to my build and temperament and an essential part of a good education. They still play it in heaven you know.
And 28 years and only a Master Seargent? That figures. So if you hate the system so much, Moebus, why did you waste most of your life defending it? Or is that just another sad inconsistency of a pensioner with no fixed address?
And thanks, Jennifer B, for an absolute classic. So now wishing someone might deserve the company of “a reasonable man with a capacity to make proportionate resonses to verifiable reality,” is a “disgusting thing to write”. Damnit, don’t this blog have just about everything?
” What about Denmark? Do you know if Denmark has had any public position on Iceland’s relationship with the IWC and with its resumed whaling? Or if there is any commercial linkage between Norway and Iceland re: whaling?” – JG
Denmarks position on whaling is sometimes a bit confusing, they support an RMS , but it’s not always certain which way they gonna vote , pro or anti whaling. As it seems to be now , they support the Icelandic whaling.
Re trade in whale products between Norway and Iceland, there ain’t currently no trade. Last export of whale products from Norway to Iceland took place in 2002(?). However, Iceland exported a small amount of whale meat to the Faroe Islands 2 years ago.
Re Greenpeace’s anti whaling protests against Norway, they are minimal. All direct actions are out of question. They were exteremely counter productive. There is a new strategy now based on ” rational information” to Norwegians.
Two thirds of the readers of this blog Ian are not hypocrites like you, who routinely insults just about every group and individual you find doesn’t fit your perfect idea of a human being. You can give it but can’t take it, and that is what makes it so pathetic and laughable.
Cassandra, if you have the time and inclination -and buckets of patience – go through the archives for some of the arguments re whaling. It has been done to death here, and is becoming very ‘biased and unnecessary’, partly due to some contributors being banned or bullied into leaving. You may be enlightened on many fronts, or quite disgusted by what you read. Read as many of the links that are supplied if you can, as they can provide the real information.
Whaling is an emotional issue, and humans are emotional beings.
Thank you, as always, Ann, for the info.
“Rational information” as a mechanism for changing attitudes about whaling… That’s an interesting concept. Based on my experience here, I wonder how effective it has been in Norway?
Speaking of which, I KNEW we had something in common, Mr Mott. Yes, I do indeed know The Game They Play In Heaven.
But I’m sorry, Ian. Did I miss where you said how much time you spent in which Army?
And yes, I lost all chances of making it to Sergeant Major (next rank up and the highest possible rank for a noncommissioned officer) in December 1990 after I read the transcript of the meeting in July, 1990 between Sadaam Hussein and the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, in which he told her that he was going to invade Kuwait unless told otherwise by the United States, and she told him that the U.S. does not get involved in disputes between Arab nations. At which point I told my bosses at the Pentagon that OPERATION DESERT STORM was a Lie. They kept me around for a while because I was good at what I did, but any chance of ever getting promoted to Sergeant Major was then totally out of the question. That transcript was the genesis from whence came ultimately the revelation about the Real Purpose of An Army that I mentioned in a previous post above, and the subsequent epiphany. I’m sorry, but what rank did you say you achieved, Ian?
But what in the world does any of that have to do with my requests for information, for data, for facts, evidence, and proof about the economics of slaughtering whales?
Why nothing, of course. In fact, very little, if anything, that you have said or asked on this thread, Mr Mott, has had anything to do with data, information, facts, evidence, and proof, about whaling or about anything else.
Your fear and loathing of those very concepts of rational inquiry is painfully evident. So, please continue with your off-topic railings and rantings as you deem necessary to keep reminding people that Ole Ian still packs a punch, and I think the rest of us who are interested in finding out The Truth about all this will simply continue on our way trying to locate the most valid and valuable data so as to come to a real understanding of how the Real World of Whaling really works.
I know you find this hard to believe because you evidently are quite used to being able to bully any who oppose you by the sheer majesty of your presence and the volume of your bellowing, but quite frankly, Mr Mott, you have demonstrated yourself terminally irrelevant to any reasoned and rational attempt to determine The Truth about The Economics of Commercial Whaling at the start of the 21st century.
And quite frankly, I am fed up with it, and hereby implement a MOTT BOYCOTT, in which any and all further comments by you that do not contribute to the search for actual knowledge are simply ignored. I am not banning or barring anybody, as I have neither the authority nor the inclination to engage in such motley activity. Simply, I’m just going to ignore you until you give evidence that you, too, are interested in a serious examination of reality, as conducted by normal, rational people in quest of information and knowledge.
Am I fanatically anti-whaling? You bet your sweet ass I am, Big Boy. And my strategy is to prove to the world, especially to all you neo-conservative neo-liberal FreeMarketeers who condemn any government involvement in the well-being of civil society except when it puts money in YOUR pockets, that Whaling Is Economically UnProfitable and Therefore Irrelevant. Straight out of Neo-Classical and/or Neo-Liberal Economics 101. That’s my Intent, my Objective, my Strategy, and my Tactics. That’s my BattlePlanBook.
Now, if in the course of my research I am overwhelmed with data that proves conclusively that my working hypothesis is wrong, then, as a rational inquirer, I will have no choice but to admit that I am wrong. But, even if I disprove my own contention that whaling is uneconomical, I will still be fanatically anti-whaling. Because the bottom line about the morality of whaling has nothing to do with how much money it puts in some rich white or yellow guy’s pocket. At which I refer you to Cassandra’s comments above.
In conclusion, as Monte Python put it as he stood facing the beseiging army of barbarians attempting to overrun his castle and overthrow his kingdom, “I fart in your general direction.”
Thank you Mr Mott, and goodnite. Oh, and see you in Heaven for a scrum or lineout or two.
Jeff
PS:
You know, by your name, Cassandra,
of course, that you are doomed
to be ignored?
You know, by your name, Cassandra,
of course, that you will be proven
correct.
“Cassandra, if you have the time and inclination -and buckets of patience – go through the archives for some of the arguments re whaling. Read as many of the links that are supplied if you can, as they can provide the real information.”
Well said Travis, I don´t agree with you that often, but you´re spot on there 😉
Shucks George, and a Happy New Year to you too! Welcome back on land.
I AM inclined to find facts, and disappointed that it takes rifling through the muck that these men continue to throw. I will likely take my search somewhere cleaner, as my polite request to end the muck-throwing has been blatantly ignored. Thank you for your suggestions, Travis. (I have a brother named Travis, whom I pray will grow similarly passionate for just causes as he ripens with experience.)
I found an interesting article earlier in my search for quantifiable statistics in favor of whale existence (aka anti-whaling). It is noted in my previous blog above, but perhaps lost in the whatnots. Here it is again:
linwoodp.bol.ucla.edu/whales.pdf
-I found it particularly interesting to see the breakdown (on page 8) of average numbers of whale watchers annually, for select countries. Figures show North America, collectively, and the United States, specifically, comprising nearly half of the world’s whale-watching profits. Forgiving, of course, countries unnamed, which may skew the results, though most sighting-favorable countries have been listed. Noted is the lack of Japanese whale-watching statistics, in this report. I did find this very straight-forward site which includes more current and complete listings of whale watching countries:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~lauhakan/whale/#World
— “Whale watching is a non-consumptive use of whales with economic, recreational, educational and scientific dimensions. The economic benefits occur in areas where whale watching has quickly become a significant aspect of a local tourism economy.”
And this simple site which noted outstanding rates of success in Ogasawa for humpback whale spotting (Over 90%!?):
http://www.h2.dion.ne.jp/~owa/english/e_content.html
Dr. Jim Nollman, director or Interspecies Communication Inc., has is opinions and accounts, with which I will neither agree nor disagree here, but will link you to his reports nevertheless, to make your own decisions:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~lauhakan/whale/intersp/jimjapan.html
http://www.helsinki.fi/~lauhakan/whale/intersp/over.html
–“Japan has become part of a widespread phenomenon, joining 30 other countries in the pursuit of whale watching. Worldwide in 1991, more than 4 million people went whale watching. In Japan whale watching occurs in seven different parts of the country, all in areas of great natural beauty. Like the best tours in other countries, Japanese whale watching combines a measure of science and education with recreation. It is also good business.” (http://www.helsinki.fi/~lauhakan/whale/japan/japan.html)
This is hopeful: http://www.gjallarhorn.com/dolphin/
Noteworthy, of course, in all of this is that **“The Japanese”** are taking an active part in this pursuit of whale watching as many other countries of the world are also doing. There is profit to be made. This is not to say that whaling isn’t also a part of their economic makeup, but I am merely adding layers to the argument. (More fun that way, eh?)
I recognize that geographic and demographic factors, namely migratory patterns and economic surplus, greatly contribute to these numbers. But the raw number isn’t as important to me as the sum of these parts, and the glaring holes creeping out between said parts.
Forgive my ignorance once again, but it seems to me that any nation with profitable interest in preserving the life of whales bears weight in the argument opposing whaling, no? Why then is but one or two ships, not sanctioned by the US or any government, deployed to protect these whales, and indirectly, the profits they bear?
Don’t get me wrong. I certainly do not wish for a world in which monetary gain is the drive to protect it’s creatures. Nor do I necessarily believe that “whale-watching” is as environmentally conservative as my morals will allow. But a nagging voice tells me that something else is not being presented. At least not to me. So please, feel free to inform me.
**As an addendum to my use of “The Japanese” as quoted, I would like to reiterate a statement that I made on an Esperanza blog today regarding misnomers. It politely ask all those writing in this and any blog to practice caution when overgeneralizing an entire group of people. To say “The Japanese” instead of “The Japanese Whaling Association” is to mislabel and assume a generalized opinion of a group of people that are comprised of individuals with individual moral structures. Not to mention it just plain sounds racist.
I hope this blog serves as informative for those interested, and a tad less than obsequious to those whose aforementioned wankering is driving me crazy.
Sincerely and Peacefully,
Cassandra
Moebus, the people I know who have served their country would cringe at the boorish manner in which you seem to believe that your record of service is all that is needed to negate someone else’s opinion. And it is out of respect for them, and the potential for collateral damage, that I refrain from dismembering your pathetic conceit.
Meanwhile back on topic, you guys had best swat up on peak oil and the likely impact on food production and prices before you go making half baked pronunciamentos on the economics of whale meat. The economic $hit has only just begun to hit the fan and the current view in some quarters that there are ample alternatives to whale meat is likely to be way off the mark.
And the guff about the whale watching industry being threatened by whaling has been thoroughly debunked in past posts on this blog.
Whale wankers have this overwhelming desire to simply and dumb down consideration of the issues. And for someone so blatantly leftist like Moebus to try wrapping himself in a veneer of gonzo economic rationalism indicates a remarkable capacity for hypocrisy.
“And the guff about the whale watching industry being threatened by whaling has been thoroughly debunked in past posts on this blog.
Whale wankers have this overwhelming desire to simply and dumb down consideration of the issues.”
–Am I to believe these statements are directed to me? If so, than you certainly have not taken the time to read the music before you began tooting your horn.
Cassandra? Don’t….. at least not until you have read this:
PS to The Proposed MOTT BOYCOTT
Whereas Mr Ian Mott is apparently uncontrollably driven to continue to attempt to deflect genuine rational discourse, analysis, and exploration of the issues presented on this Blog by various means including but not limited to ad hominid (sic) attacks, “red herrings,” straw man and/or woman “arguments” and other tricks of the trade, as well as distortions, omissions, obfuscations, overt falsifications, insults, and other sundry and sundering off-topic plots and ploys of one whose objective is not information and knowledge, but propaganda and power; and,
Whereas it is, for some of us, actually fun (albeit in a probably adolescently perverse and certainly positively “wankerish” sort of way, as pointed out by the esteemed Lady Cassandra) to play Word Games with the Ian Motts of the world when we have absolutely nothing of any use to anybody else on the planet with which to occupy our time and attention;
It is hereby Proposed that any and all further responses to any and all further above-cited bellowings and belches of Mr Ian Mott NOT be posted to this, Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog, but to Mr Ian Mott’s Blog, found at: http://ianmott.blogspot.com/.
It is further hereby proposed that, unless and until Mr Mott creates an article on his Blog entitled something like, say, “Reactions and Responses To My Off-Topic Blatherings, Bellowings, and Belches On Jennifer Marohasy’s BlogSite,” that all Comments that would come under this Subject be posted to the currently most current article on Mr Mott’s Blog: “New perspectives on temperature change,” dated July 20, 2007.
The first such Comment has been posted to the Mott Blog by the undersigned on 07 JAN 08. It is Comment #2 to the original Blog post.
Respectfully submitted for your Consideration and Appropriate Action on 6 January 2008, 2115 UCT, by your faithful servant, Jeffrey G. Moebus, Master Sergeant, U.S. Army (Retired) aka S/V WayFinder, Half Moon Bay, California, USA.
CORRECTION TO: PS to MOTT BOYCOTT
The Mott Blog URL is:
http://ianmott.blogspot.com/
I keep forgetting about those damn periods.
Sorry.
Jeff
“And the guff about the whale watching industry being threatened by whaling has been thoroughly debunked in past posts on this blog.”
In your mind perhaps Ian. Readers might like to make up their own minds, particularly from other sources.
Mr Mott. Why don’t you provide a community service to those of us who are new to your realm, and tell us exactly WHICH posts on this blog have “thoroughly debunked” assertions that whale slaughter is not a threat to whale watching. Exactly where can we go to find this alleged de-bunking, and how do we get there? As Libby says, perhaps a second opinion is in order. A little de-Bunking of the de-bunkers, anyone?
Thank you for your assistance.
JG Moebus
Ian Mott wrote: “Meanwhile back on topic, you guys had best swat up on peak oil and the likely impact on food production and prices before you go making half baked pronunciamentos on the economics of whale meat. The economic $hit has only just begun to hit the fan and the current view in some quarters that there are ample alternatives to whale meat is likely to be way off the mark.”
Back on-topic. I know all about Peak Oil, Mr Mott. It is, in fact, exactly why the Terror Event of September 11 happened: to provide a pretext for the United States to establish a large scale military presence in the Middle East and South West Asia so as to be able to have direct military control over 70-80% of the known remaining easy-to-get-to oil reserves on this planet. And if Team Cheney hadn’t succeeded in doing it, someone else would have been sent to DC to do it.
How do I know all that? Why, because I’m a retired US Army Master Sergeant who spent a little bit of time back in the early 90s doing Military, Political, and Economic Threat Analysis and Long-Term Strategic Planning for the Boys in Green up in the Pentagon and their bosses, the rich white guys in suits. And, more importantly, because I know how to play Connect-The-Dots.
So there are two time frames within which to consider the “economics of whale meat,” are there not? There is the economics of whale meat NOW (about which you steadfastly refuse to provide any date or facts), and there is it at some point in the future, when the “$hit hits the fan” (clever…I like that…Bu$h….$eptember 11…the po$$ibilitie$ are endle$$) (about which you cannot provide any data or facts, but about which there may be projections from who knows who’s think tanks). And so, other than to make noise, your point is what?
Apparently, Mr Mott, you are now asserting that Japan (and Norway, etc) is in fact providing a service to humanity by keeping alive the whale meat procurement industry for the time coming in the not-too-distant-future when we hairless hominids will need to be able to eat the whales to extinction in order to be able to survive the oil crash that will, in turn, kill off domesticated animal sources of protein? Is that your rain/reign/drain/train of thought?
And that the Japanese pro-whaling lobby’s (I’m not smart, Cassandra, but I am trainable) pending overthrow of the ban and bar on commercial whaling is in fact a boon to mankind that will be, in time, recognized for the great humanitarian act that it is, and will ultimately earn the ICR the Nobel Peace Prize at some point in the future? Is that what you are indeed saying?
Hmmmm. Interesting hypothesis. Let me give you one more chance to be an active participant in the pursuit and propagation of actually factually demonstrated Truth, as opposed to mere Propaganda and Power: before going any further, do you agree that, at this time on this Blog, your assertion is nothing BUT a hypothesis and not a statement of fact? Do you agree to that? Yes or No?
I am almost afraid to ask this, based on recent personal experience, but: do you have ANY information, data, facts, evidence, or proof to back up this assertion? ANY whatsoever? Or, like the Man Behind The Curtain, is it just that The Great Mott Has Spoken?
By the way, I thought Peak Oil was just another enviro-whacko leftist smokescreen to justify the seizure of more power by the State. Sort of like Global Warming.
Ooops. Guess what happened? With Peak Oil as the driving force, since September 11, your kind of people have succeeded in pulling off the biggest grab for government power on this planet since Stalin’s Russia in the 20s, Hitler’s Germany and Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 30s, and Mao’s China in then 40s. No wonder you are so smited with Peak Oil.
JG Moebus
S/V WayFinder
Half Moon Bay, CA
Yeah, right, a Master Seargent, as you have this pathetic need to continually advise us that you were, was privy to the detailed nuances of policy at the Pentagon. You are a legend in your own lunchtime.
The term Whale Wankers was obviously a general reference. If anyone chooses to include themselves in that category it is their own choice.
The reason why an examination of current cost/volume/profit relationships in the whale industry is totally fatuous is that volume is restricted by regulation without any regard for the actual size of the Minke or Humpback population. The Minke population is generally accepted to be well above 700,000 so an annual harvest of 900 is only 0.128 of 1%.
And given the life cycle and reproduction rates of these animals, an annual harvest of 1%, especially if it can be weighted towards males and post breeding females, would produce only a minor reduction in the rate of population growth.
And given that a large portion of current costs are of a fixed or overhead nature, any increase in volume will substantially reduce the proportion of overhead costs that must be covered by each whale. Ergo, the cost per animal will decline and any need for state support will rapidly disappear. It is the simplest of Management Analysis 101, but apparently beyond the wit of anti-whalers.
It also seems to have escaped the keen intellects of the whale wallies that there is currently only minimal reliance by the whale watching industry on Minkes. And the current harvesting activity appears to have produced no evidence of a reluctance on their part to allow tour boats to get close to them. In any event, it is illegal for tour operators to get close to any whales so that is a total non-issue.
But have fun with your boycott, Moebus. Readers can view for themselves, from your previous posts, exactly where all the off-topic raving is sourced from.
Yeah, right, a Master Seargent, as you have this pathetic need to continually advise us that you were, was privy to the detailed nuances of policy at the Pentagon. You are a legend in your own lunchtime.
The term Whale Wankers was obviously a general reference. If anyone chooses to include themselves in that category it is their own choice.
The reason why an examination of current cost/volume/profit relationships in the whale industry is totally fatuous is that volume is restricted by regulation without any regard for the actual size of the Minke or Humpback population. The Minke population is generally accepted to be well above 700,000 so an annual harvest of 900 is only 0.128 of 1%.
And given the life cycle and reproduction rates of these animals, an annual harvest of 1%, especially if it can be weighted towards males and post breeding females, would produce only a minor reduction in the rate of population growth.
And given that a large portion of current costs are of a fixed or overhead nature, any increase in volume will substantially reduce the proportion of overhead costs that must be covered by each whale. Ergo, the cost per animal will decline and any need for state support will rapidly disappear. It is the simplest of Management Analysis 101, but apparently beyond the wit of anti-whalers.
It also seems to have escaped the keen intellects of the whale wallies that there is currently only minimal reliance by the whale watching industry on Minkes. And the current harvesting activity appears to have produced no evidence of a reluctance on their part to allow tour boats to get close to them. In any event, it is illegal for tour operators to get close to any whales so that is a total non-issue.
But have fun with your boycott, Moebus. Readers can view for themselves, from your previous posts, exactly where all the off-topic raving is sourced from.
“especially if it can be weighted towards males and post breeding females”
And how do you propose this happens? Oh that’s right, tag and sex animals and track them to maturity. Now how many pregnant and resting female minkes made up JARPA II’s 2006/2007 hunt Ian???
“And the current harvesting activity appears to have produced no evidence of a reluctance on their part to allow tour boats to get close to them.”
Give us evidence for this please. You have made a statement about Southern Hemisphere minkes. Are you talking dwarf or Antarctic minkes Ian, and tour operations on the GBR or in Antarctic waters? What methods were used to assess whether targeted species had become boat shy or not? Who made this assessment?
“In any event, it is illegal for tour operators to get close to any whales so that is a total non-issue.”
What???
So. FINALLY. Some ***apparently*** actual data, analysis, and examinable/challengeable information and “evidence.” It certainly ***sounds*** like it, at any rate.
Thank you, Mr Mott. One very simple question that should (and under normal circumstance, could and would) not be terribly difficult to answer: What are your Sources?
And, sorry old boy, but I didn’t say I was doing Policy; I said I was doing Analysis and Planning. And, far more importantly and interestingly, playing Connect-The-Dots.
You don’t think those Colonels and Generals and Deputy Assistant Vice-UnderSecretaries do all that research and typing and slide show preparation themselves, do you? They have underlings for that sort of thing.
C’est moi, l’underling.
JG Moebus S/V WayFinder Half Moon Bay, CA USA
WELL DONE Ian!
Mr Mott has erased any and all Comments to his Blog that pertain to his pattern of behavior on this Blog, as referenced above.
That’s OK, Mr Mott, we’ll just re-post them. Unless you specifically request that we do not. And say “Please.”
Have a great day, Mate. – JGM
Keiichi NAKAJIMA stated
“In the face of this disagreement on whaling, Australia’s determination “to play a leading role in international efforts to stop Japan’s whaling practices” is arrogant and an insult to Japanese people and their culture.”
It no longer about culture or the Japanese people when you must travel thousands of mile from your own homeland to hunt for whales. Your hypocrisy at entering Alaskan and Australian waters to do so is a violation of those countries laws an practices.
Australia has every right to interfere.
Using “RESEARCH” as an excuse and an obvious lie is bad enough, but you insist on hunting this mammal to extinction. It is a very dishonorable thing you do.