There are two criteria which should be applied to the harvest of an animal species: 1. Are the numbers taken sustainable, and 2. Is the method of killing humane?
At least that’s what I said on ABC Radio National last Friday morning when Steve Cannane asked me why I thought it was hypocritical for Australians to rally against whaling by the Japanese while ignoring the slaughter of dugongs by indigenous Australians.
In reply Steve interviewed Joe Morrison, Executive Officer of the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, this morning. Mr Morrison essentially side-stepped the issue of whether dugongs were killed humanely, but he did dispute my claim that 1,000 dugongs are killed in northern Australia each year.
Mr Morrison suggested this number only applied to the Torres Straits. So how many dugongs are killed each year in Northern Australia?
You can listen to both interviews by podcast. The interviews were part of the Breakfast Program and so the podcasts include other interviews and news reports during that segment of the program.
1. Anti-whaling activists released
…The men are about to be handed over to the Sea Shepherd ship, the Steve Irwin. Meanwhile, an Australian public policy group is critical of the strong tactics used by conservation groups like the Sea Shepherds and Greenpeace, and the position of the Australian government on the whales issue.
Guests
Paul Watson, Captain of the Steve Irwin
Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, Senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs
Listen here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2008/2141167.htm
2. Whales and dugongs
Last week Breakfast heard from Dr Jennifer Marohasy from the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs who described the Australian Government’s anti-whaling position as hypocritical. Dr Marohasy said the Federal Government and conservation groups like Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd are jumping up and down about the slaughter of whales by the Japanese, yet ignoring the killing of more endangered species like dugongs and turtles by Indigenous people in Northern Australia.
Guests
Joe Morrison, Executive Officer of the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA)
Listen here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2008/2142705.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I have always felt that indigenous hunting was OK, provided it was done with indigenous weapons, & with indigenous transport systems.
Belting around in high powered outboards, with power heads, & guns, after the poor things has got very little to do with indigenous culture, or any other culture.
It is simply butchery.
From http://www.crikey.com.au
“Andrew Coleman writes: Regarding dugongs and indigenous take of said within Australian waters. While I would like to stick it into the IPA because they are a bunch of joyless nastypasties, their estimate of indigenous yearly take is about right. From the National Recreational Fishing Survey (2001), estimate (although contested) was 1,619 dugong taken between June 2000 and November 2001. Basically we allow this to happen to critically endangered species while bagging the Japanese for taking a few whales. Obviously you are OK if you take species in a manner that meets the “noble savage” tick of approval. What the Japanese need to do is go whaling in traditional dress and Greenpeace/Sea Shepherd would not say boo.”
21st January, 2008
Yes indeedy Jen, I was thinking that Australians who oppose Japanese whaling are guilty of cultural relativism. Didn’t the Bible say it best? “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
I was in Tokyo recently and passed up the opportunity to eat whale near the Akasaka Shrine. I knew that humpback was off the menu and I already had tried minke. Talk about gristle!
From a completely different perspective. A few years ago I was involved in native title negotiations. The subject of indigenous access to land for right to hunt was raised, along with the opinion of some, that hunting should be in the traditional manner, not with modern vehicles and weapons. It was pointed out that there was already a legal precedent on this subject (I think from North America).
The traditional right to hunt took precedence: the method used was secondary. This was based on recognition that cultures were not static, and could change to better tools / weapons.
I think that it could be possible to leverage preference for using modern vehicles and weapons by bringing their use under similar regulations as applies to other Australians, along with an humane code of practice for the taking of native species with modern technology. Humane codes already apply to farmers with permits to destroy pest native species.
Traditional hunting methods were maintained until the usurpation in the British Crown brought them summarily to an end. It is sadly typical that subjects of the usurpation should moralise that indigenous cultural practices in the present be constrained by practices prohibited by historical fact.
I am surprised that the media did not interview Professor Helene Marsh of the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University.
Professor Marsh is a member of the Wilderness Society’s WildCountry Science Council and has a major research interest in the application of ecology to the management of marine, coastal and terrestrial wildlife species (notably dugongs, sea turtles and native mammals) and their habitats, especially in relation to their distribution and abundance, life history, diet and movements.
Prof Marsh has received an international award, a Pew Charitable Trust Award for marine conservation for working with indigenous people of the northern Great Barrier Reef and reef management authorities to develop a framework of sustainable management of dugongs and green turtles.
Her expertise on marine mammals was sufficient for her to be part of the panel of experts chaired by the Australian government’s chief scientist to review the Tasmanian Pulp Mill and to set conditions for its approval despite the Department of Environment and Water advising the Minister that the it had “not identified any likely significant impacts on the marine environment in Commonwealth waters“.
As a panelist she was able to provide advice to the Minister to approve the Tasmanian Pulp Mill despite a massive campaign against the Mill by the Wilderness Society.
Agreed Cinders. Dr Marsh is widely recognised at the forefront of dugong research in this country and throughout the world. There are others who have had dealings with indigenous communities and dugongs as well.
The species is finally receiving the recognition and funding it deserves, which is not related to other charismatic megafauna getting all the attention, but the general low level priority of “whole-animal” natural history research in this country.
I suggested Steve interview Helene Marsh. She may have suggested Joe Morrison instead. Interestingly in the interview he claims to not be familiar with her work.
This from a 2004 ABC report that is still on the net:
“Indigenous hunting sparks dugong extinction fears
– Indigenous communities could be hunting the dugong to extinction, a report commissioned by the Federal Government has found.
The report by environmental scientist and dugong expert Helene Marsh shows up to 1,000 dugongs are caught using traditional Indigenous methods each year.
Federal Fisheries Minister Ian MacDonald says that is not sustainable and the Government will try to reduce the number to 100 a year.
“We are going to further investigate it under the biodiversity conservation Act but we do want to work very cooperatively with island and Indigenous leaders to try and stop that mass slaughter of these animals,” he said.
“If we don’t do something, there will be catastrophe.”
Now four years on, its is very surprising that Joe Morrison was not familiar with her work.
Comparing japanese whaling with aboriginal dugong hunting is ridiculous. The former is a commercial wild harvest, that has no cultural precedent. The latter is part of a peoples ongoing cultural tradition. Many factors now affect the dugong, including loss of sea grass habitats, increased population and illegal, unregulated commercial harvesting. These factors also affect many other species worldwide. Responsible indigenous people from northern australia are working hard to introduce and maintain local management arrangements to ensure sustainable traditional harvests of dugong, turtle and even other species targeted by commercial operators. They want more than research that simply counts things as they decline, and are working to apply good quality research knowledge and raise awareness and reassert cultural knowledge and responsibility where it has been undermined and usurped by the dominant paradigm. Dugong are still killed according to custom, because any other way does not make sense. To draw blood is asking for sharks to eat your catch before it gets to shore. I do not think that it is at all realistic to expect that the omnivorous human world will turn into vegans. Perhaps a better comparison with japanese whaling would be the whale drives in the Faroe Islands, but they are not intended as commercial operations either. It would be better if people like Jennifer Mahorosy lent their support and voice to indigenous people having a go to fix things.
There are dugong in Japan that are threatened by a US airforce base. They are found in Asian waters, across the subcontinent and into the waters of the Gulf States. The first Gulf War saw major oil spills threatening sea grass beds, dugongs, dolphins, and other aquatic organisms. One Australian researcher who has worked with Helene Marsh, Anthony Preen, was sent to investigate the extent of the devastation.
As Pjay points out, sea grass loss is a major threat to Australian dugongs. Nutritional refugees are known to come south into cold waters in seach of food. Ghost nets are a huge problem for animals like dugongs, as are fixed shark nets. Indigenous people up north assist with cleaning up ghost nets where they can, and have received much attention of late with this never-ending task. How many dugong, turtle, shark,dolphin are killed in the Arafura/Timor Seas by illegal fishing vessels from Taiwan, Indonesia, etc when they are entangled in their nets?
Some how I don’t think all the evidence is in on the Australian Aboriginal dugong hunts and more information is required before a verbal slaughter is warranted.
Pjay,
I am unsure why you think my comparison is “ridiculous”.
The Japanese have a long tradition of hunting and eating whales and indigenous Australians have a long tradition of hunting and eating dugongs.
Now indigenous Australians hunt from speedboats and the Japanese from big ships. Both take about 1,000 individuals each year. Both claim their activity is not primarily for commercial purposes.
I have listened twice to the interview with Joe Morrison Executive Officer of NAILSMA on Radio National. I certainly did not get the impression that Joe is unfamiliar with the results of my research. Indeed, as I am a member of the Technical Advisory Committee for the NAILSMA Turtle and Dugong Project, I know he is familiar with my work.
I stated in 2004, that ‘Co-management arrangements for indigenous hunting in Torres Strait must be progressed as a matter of urgency, if Australia is to honour its international commitments to conserve dugongs and dugong hunting cultures.’* I am pleased to report that significant progress is being made as a result of the efforts of NAILSMA and the Torres Strait Regional Authority supported by significant funding from the Australian government in accordance with its National Partnership Policy.
* Animal Conservation 7: 435-443., a paper based on the report cited by ‘cinders’:
The ‘long tradition’ of the Japanese whaling is primarily as far back as WWII. Sure there was bay/net whaling by some coastal communities, using traditional methods, but the main cultural aspect the Japanese cite regarding whaling is their forced reliance on it after WWII. Is this comparable to the ‘long tradition’ of Australian Aborigines?
The Japanese take consists of MORE than 1000 animals. There is JARPA II and JARPN II (taking endangered and vulnerable species) along with whaling in their own waters for species such as beaked whales, false killer whales, pilot whales and THOUSANDS of other small cetaceans.
The Japanese admit there is a link between the ‘research’ whaling and commercial purposes. To compare this with the indigenous dugong take is insulting to Australian indigenous commuities.
The obvious comparison between whaling and Australian Aboriginal dugong hunting is with Arctic indigenous communities. Why was this not made??? Why go with one of the richest countries in the world who have a niche meat market, whale thousands of kms from home, disguise it as research, keep increasing the quotas and species, have no qualms saying they want to expand it into a commercial venture, and hunt using modern equipment in an operation that costs millions to conduct? Extremely disappointing and transparent, but you have never hidden your views on whaling, so it’s hardly surprising. A job with the Japanese spin doctors perhaps, funded by their traditional artisinal activities in the Southern Ocean?
Helene,
Thanks for your comment.
Regarding Joe’s familiarity with your work … At the beginning of the interview he claims no knowledge of the figure of up to 1,000 dugongs taken each year. I understand that this estimate is from your research.
Furthermore, in the interview he appears to suggest that the number could only relate to the Torres Strait. I have copies of papers you co-authored some years ago but I have just moved house and unfortunately they are in storage at the moment … but it is my memory that the figure related to northern Australia more generally. Could you please clarify this?
The figure of 1000 per annum referred to in my paper were a rough estimate of the harvest in the Torres Strait region including PNG where the harvest is believed to be considerable. Joe Morrison is correct in stating that there are no accurate figures for other areas. The figures quoted in the National Recreational and Indigenous fishing survey in 2001 are in my opinion questionable because of the low sampling fraction and the lack of standard errors.
Travis,
We seem to have read different texts on the history and traditions of the Japanese.
I understand the oldest example of the use of cetaceans by the Japanese can be unreliably dated to 9,000 BC.
In 1687 the Shogun Tsunayoshi decreed that no animal could be eaten but whales were not protected by the decree as they were considered fish. During this period net whaling developed.
Current ‘Norwegian techniques’, using the harpoon, were introduced to Japan around 1900.
Jennifer,
I recognised the small scale bay whaling from Japan’s history. I am in no way ignoring this, however much more significance appears to be attached by many older Japanese to the industrial-scale whaling of the 20th century.
Why did you choose to compare Japan’s modern whaling with Australian Aborigines hunting dugong and not with other current Aboriginal cetacean hunts?
Travis,
I made the comparison because I consider my country — Australia’s — current very popularist and emotive campaign against the Japanese in the southern Ocean most hypocritical.
I thought this was evident from the radio interview which I did not seek, but which I was asked to participate in.
Jen – it’s clearly a peak political issue. “Most hyprocritical” – come on? In your opinion. Does not popular opinion of your fellow Australians count? Should we take a vote? What’s historically cultural or aboriginal in nature about racing half way across the globe in modern vessels replete with satellite navigation, radar and high technology hunting weapons promoted by a high nationalistic seamen’s union to satisfy essentially a few food fetishists?
If we are fair dinkum we’d see a lot more editorialising on the sustainability and utilisation of marine resources globally and locally regardless of popularity, Greenpeace campaigns or the nations involved. Convince us it’s not just Greenpeace anti-matter.
For your information about what’s being reported here in Japan, some Aussie Trade Minister (?) named Crean (?) is here in Japan, and apparently said (my translation): “I believe that the Australian public agrees that whaling should not be tangled up with other issues”.
He went on to talk about progress on the EPA. He says (ironically) further progress requires some give from Japan on Agricultural issues.
In another story, the Japanese foreign minister spoke with him as well and urged Australia take action after the Sea Shepherd incident. Crean apparently said “It was a regrettable incident, and it must not be repeated again”.
Meanwhile at the 2ch message forums someone picked up on an Australia news item that reported Toyota Australia saying that they won’t be criticising whaling, instead asking their customers to judge them on their environmental policy.
Luke,
On this one, the opinion of my “fellow Australias” is most embarrassing.
And it’s hardly the first time I have written as much, see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3634
And Luke, please don’t insist that me or anyone else feel compelled to convince you of anything… I know from experience how futile and frustrating that can be.
David,
As always, thanks for the updates from Tokyo.
Jennifer,
I seem to have read similar texts to you on Japanese history and traditions relating to whales.
In fact I’ve also read some of the texts which the texts themselves mention 🙂
There seems to be an arbitrarily drawn line in some people’s minds about where Japanese traditions ended, and a wealth of evidence of the significance of whale culture in Japan prior to where that line has arbitrarily been drawn, the people drawing the line are either uninformed about matters or are simply ignoring them.
Yet the line is drawn anyway.
>On this one, the opinion of my “fellow Australias” is most embarrassing.
Your opinion. There are many with a lot more knowledge than you on the issues and yet becasue you don’t agree with them and are pro-whaling it is ’embarrassing’. Odd.
So why not draw comparisons with the kangaroo cull then? Pouched cockroches vs cockroaches of the sea? Rednecks with rifles and bull bars vs poor Japanese whalers trying to make a living for their culturally-sensitive families? Smashed skulls and orphaned joeys vs shrapnelled blubber and struck and lost?
You may not have sought the interview, but were you best qualified to do it anyway?
Luke wrote:
>Convince us it’s not just Greenpeace anti-matter.
Jennifer wrote:
>And Luke, please don’t insist that me or anyone else feel compelled to convince you of anything… I know from experience how futile and frustrating that can be.
Luke has a point, but Jennifer’s response seems more Greenpeace/Luke anti-matter than anything else. You can convince me too Jennifer, or is that just as futile and frustrating?
Crean is indeed the minister’s name. He has a point about tangling issues, which serves no purpose except to draw attention away for the real issues at hand. Obviously there is no news from Tokyo that is anti-whaling or shows a completely different side to the spin we get via David. And Jennifer perhaps thinks Australians are biased and not informed? Now that’s embarrassing.
… despite a wealth of …
Travis,
Yes I agree, embarrassment all round.
And if you listen to my interview you will hear the issue of the kangaroo harvest discussed. I have also written about his in the context of whaling, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=199
PS I prefer to provide an amount of information and let readers make up their own mind. Should Travis, Luke and others agree or disagree …I am not particularly bothered.
I would like this blog to be about the free exchange of information rather than the need to change opinion. Different opinion makes for an interesting world, but it can be embarrassing when ill informed opinion is pushed as fanatically as the Australian media has with the issue of whaling.
>PS I prefer to provide an amount of information and let readers make up there own mind.
But it doesn’t – it’s biased! The information is not balanced and therefore does not inform readers of the multiple facets to a debate.
http://federalnewsradio.com/?nid=82&pid=&sid=1294450&page=1
http://steinbaugh.com/microsite/japanese-whaling-industry/report/
http://www.whaling.jp/english/history.html
The cultural significance of whaling to the Japanese seems to depend on many things it seems, such as whether the sun is out or it’s a rainy day or you’re a westerner who is pro-whaling or anti-whaling..
Hello all,
I’m not going to take part in this discussion because I don’t know much about the dugong issue, but in my daily paper yesterday I read something interesting.
” Yes-sayers” are unconstructive. People that always agree with others make things uninnovative and make things unconstructive”!
Jennifer,
Well said, and after reading this again I’m not sure what exact problem some people here have with your pointing out Australian double standards, in terms of the “two criteria” you mention at the top of your post. Those are the criteria that you think ought to be applied, but it seems people criticising you think that other criteria also ought be applied. I question whether their additional criteria are well defined or have reasonable justification.
On that note I’ve been pleasantly surprised this year to see the amount of skepticism within Australia and New Zealand about the policies of these governments in this area.
Indeed Ann, and that’s why Australia is lucky to have people such as Jennifer there saying “hey what are we thinking?” when it ought be said.
Jen – the issue is simply this – is the dugong issue only useful enough to be brought up as an anti-whaling wedge argument? I’m concerned. Surely the issue is worthy of discussion in it’s own right. We could also talk about sea turtles too for that matter.
So you may not think that it’s not worth attempting to convince me of anything but I do listen to what you have to say, I did listen to the audio interviews in detail. I have written to parliamentarians on the dugong issue previously. And it was you who recently told me that two wrongs don’t make a right – or something to that effect. So I remember a lot more than you may think.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t remember much (or any) blog editorialising on dugongs – which you have now implied are a more pressing issue than Minke whales.
Surely our local sea mammals therefore are worth a bit of space. And not just as a wedge argument. Are we fair dinkum or not. It’s not just Sea Shepherd’s problem.
And yes we could go to kangaroo harvesting/culling, animal production systems, live trade, and mulesing of sheep if you want the full ethical animal management grand tour.
erratum – “pro-whaling wedge argument”
David,
Opinion pieces are all well and good, provided it is clear they are just that and not dressed up as information pieces. Some here have questioned the comparison between Indigenous Australian dugong hunting vs Japanese Southern Ocean whaling, and this is valid. I personally have no problem with comparing dugong hunting with ‘traditional’ whaling currently being carried out in places like the Arctic in terms of numbers, techniques, need and animal welfare.
>I question whether their additional criteria are well defined or have reasonable justification.
No doubt you would, and it is your opinion, which we are all pretty clear on.
>On that note I’ve been pleasantly surprised this year to see the amount of skepticism within Australia and New Zealand about the policies of these governments in this area.
No doubt you would, yet again, but at least there is balance in the debate within this country, unlike your adopted one. Reminds me of the Youtube video out of Japan, somehow bringing Cronulla’s race riots into the whaling arena when behind the budding doco maker is a country whose anti-immigration stance is legendary.
As for being ‘lucky’, I wonder…, but freedom of information and speech is something this country is fortunate to have developed.
Here’s a reuters story on Crean in Tokyo:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T26652.htm
Luke,
I don’t write much here on dugongs because I don’t have much first-hand or new information. We get updates from Ann Novek on particular issues and from Neil Hewett on others, and when I visit the Murray I often give updates and post photographs on what is happening in that part of the world. Paul’s passion is climate change.
Do we have someone who will send me stuff regularly on indigenous hunting in northern Australia or elsewhere?
Just his morning I was asked to write another piece for On Line Opinion on the issue/on dugongs and I replied that I had no new information – nothing to add to what I had previously written.
Perhaps Joe Morrison and/or Helene Marsh might see this blog as a forum for keeping the issue alive?
I appreciate the note from Helene this morning clarifying that the number of 1,000 includes PNG but not north western Australia.
PS Of course I learn a lot from Roger Underwood on forestry in WA.
I wonder on what basis Travis said “but at least there is balance in the debate within this country, unlike your adopted one”, in reference to Japan.
Australia is lucky to have proud citizens like Travis, as well as people such as Jennifer.
A few comments on the two pieces. Not a great deal of detail went into the actual hunting technique of dugongs vs whaling except to say that whaling such as that carried out by the Japanese “can render” an animal instantly dead. Yes, but it doesn’t always, and this is something raised time and again, hence the gruesome images. Does indigenous whaling render animals instantly dead?
Virtually nothing on Aboriginal whaling, but mention of the Faroes, JARPA II, Norway and Iceland as being comparable in scale to Australia’s dugong hunt. I think we’ve now established that the numbers known for dugongs is not as reliable as for the whales, and this lack of knowledge on actual population and take size is of concern regarding the dugongs, but also in a debate when throwing around facts and figures.
I didn’t get the impression Joe was dismissing knowledge of Helene or the figure of 1,000.
The comment that the ‘killing method gets monitored’ lost me.
I could be wrong, but I thought the comment that minkes are the “rabbits of the sea” was made by Michael Noad, not Tim Flannery. Funny how we can cite Tim and believe him on this, but not on AGW. Hmm…
Australia was whaling as recently as 1978, which is even more recent than 1962. Scandalous! But it was in WA, not hippy Byron Bay, so not so scandalous.
The question of the Japanese hunting under the guise of research was ignored.
The kangaroo issue was raised very briefly, and it is a cull. In terms of animal management this is quite different from traditional hunting or (probably) scientific whaling.
Dealing with the media is tricky.
The subject of dugongs in Australian waters is something that is very interesting and worthy of a stand alone post (similarly posts on kangaroos, live export etc, as Luke brought up), but I don’t think using it in the whaling debate is very useful (unless regarding other indigenous hunts). Just my opinion.
“The subject of dugongs in Australian waters is something that is very interesting and worthy of a stand alone post (similarly posts on kangaroos, live export etc, as Luke brought up), but I don’t think using it in the whaling debate is very useful (unless regarding other indigenous hunts). Just my opinion” – Libby
I’m with you on this libby!
So, can someone find someone knowledgable on this issue to send in some information for posting?
Jen,
I’m willing to volunteer on the subject of live exports( not only Aussie sheep to the Middle East) but in general, as I often look at animal issues not only from a conservation point of view but more from a vet’s ( not not I’m a vet) viewpoint.
Next week , if it’s suitable , as I have two ongoing posts on hedgehogs and whales and sonar!
Hi Ann,
I’m not particularly interested in the issue of live exports and I consider that an animal rights rather than an environmental issue. Furthermore I don’t know that you would do a good job on it — being all the way over in Sweden.
But why don’t you take some time out and come over here to Australia and investigate the dugong issue?
OK Jen I understand, would love to come to Australia and look at the dugong issue!! Unfortunately , I have not much clue on those critters… Peter corkeron has done some work on those animals as I have understood.
You could learn on the job. Interview people, attend meetings, tell us first hand how the animals are caught, things like that. Find out what data really is available and who is collecting it. Find out how the local communities feel about the idea of a quota.
If you come to Australia and find someone to show you around then I will come and visit.
LOL! LOL! Thanks Jen for the offer… Please someone go ahead with the very interesting dugong issue. We have been through this before but in whaling nations, at least in Norway , the live transport of animals is connected to the whaling issue.
The Coastal Party, that consists of fishermen, whalers , sealers etc . are arguing against live transports and telling us that those transports are a much cruel thing than whaling, so the issue is not only an AR issue but an issue connected with whales politics and ethics.
Indigenous Australians have suffered a dreadful disenfranchisement through the settlement excesses and pressures of an ever-expanding non-indigenous Australia. Homeland communities in particular are deprived of any real economic engagement, which largely underpins the turmoil of their respective predicaments. They have described themselves as ‘asset rich but dirt poor’ and in amongst their various trials and tribulations, they celebrate the occasional expression of cultural richness in feast.
For special occasions, I have paid up to $40/kg for eye fillet. An adult dugong can weigh as much as 400kg. For the purposes of economic comparison, an adult dugong (with a similarly coveted quality) would have the equivalent worth of $16,000. Unlike the whaling under discussion, this of course cannot be converted into income, however it is as valuable to its beneficiaries, nonetheless.
I have had a limited exposure to dugong hunting by members of the Guugu Yimithirr-warra, whose traditional cultural landscape includes the various landscapes between the Annan River (south of Cooktown), northwards to Princess Charlotte Bay and associated reefs, sea-beds, waters and mangrove communities of the Coral Sea.
As far as I have seen, dugong are not hunted for mercenary purposes. They are undisputably valuable and are most frequently hunted in association with matters of ceremonial importance. What is not so evident is the importance and the extent to which members of this culture care for their skin and that of their children, through a daily application of dugong oil.
I have witnessed the skill of dugong being ‘tracked’ through sea-grass beds from the bow of a motorised tinny. I have experienced the danger and the importance and pride of practice.
I also suspect that because killing animals for food is a matter that we in our western culture are largely concealed from, our opinions of indigenous killing is subjective.
Thanks for your perspective Neil.
Jennifer what qualifies you to speak publicly on this issue? You smooth over the bumps in the dugong-whaling comparison, eg indigenous claims, techniques, locality etc. Why didn’t you defer to an expert in the area? I don’t understand how you can feel qualified to speak in an area in which you don’t conduct science and you publish non-referenced or peer reviewed popular pieces.
Also, if you’re interested in the environmental issue only and not the animal rights area as you say to Ann then why do you routinely reference humane aspects of killing to defend the Japanese whale slaughter and criticise dugong hunting?
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2008/dugong-01-24-2008.html
Dugongs in Japan. The Greenpeace vessel Esperanza was in Japan supporting local groups for protection of the dugong before she headed to the Southern Ocean for the whaling campaign. Funny the things that get raised here and those that are conveniently ignored.