I’ve done a rough translation of an insightful article from the Icelandic Minke Whaler’s Association which suggests the Japanese never intended to hunt Humpback whales in the Antarctic:
The Japanese spectacle continues…
During the annual International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Anchorage in May 2007, the Japanese were tough negotiators. They wanted permission to kill humpbacks in the Antarctic, held press conferences and wanted to withdraw from the IWC if their proposals weren’t accepted.
Therefore the decision to hunt humpbacks this Austral summer didn’t come as a surprise and the entire whale discussions was now focused on the humpback hunt and not about the 950 minkes and 50 Fin whales.
The Icelandic whalers now state that the Japanese are very smart and cunning. The Japanese have now declared that they will halt the humpback hunt (a hunt that the Japanese actually never have had an intention to carry out) and now the Japanese stand out as Mr. Nice Guys.
Now the Icelandic whalers want that their esteemed Minister of Agriculture to announce at the beginning of 2008, that Iceland has an intention to increase their whale hunting quotas substantially, 600 minkes, 300 Fins and 50 humpbacks. This would cause an international outcry from “environmentalists”. We would defend ourselves with all kinds of arguments but finally cave in, and half the quota and completely ignore the humpbacks (but this would depend on how the discussions did carry out).
Cheers,
Ann Novek
in Sweden
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thanks for the translation Ann. 300 fins eh? I am not so sure the Japanese have ended up looking like Mr Nice Guys. If anything, playing a form of political popularity Russian harpoon roulette makes them come across as quite “odd” to say the least. But hey, I occasionally name my study humpbacks, so what do I know?
Nice bit of speculation, albeit on the part of the Icelanders, but the facts remain that the Indian/Pacific Humpback population is well over 100,000 and expanding at rates as high as 11% p.a.
And the Japanese have every right to raise the issue of resuming Humpback harvesting now that the population has largely recovered.
And your source for these “facts” is what, Mr Mott?
“the facts remain that the Indian/Pacific Humpback population is well over 100,000 and expanding at rates as high as 11% p.a.”
Does your “Indian/Pacific humpback population” includes Areas C, X, D, E, F and G, or only some of these Ian?
See analysis of growth rates from past inventories as posted on this Blog (Google the blog Moebus).
And kindly refrain from cyber stalking, you sad plodder. Contrary to your repeated implication, I have no reluctance in stating that I have not served in any armed forces. That is for the very good reason that Australia has not taken part in any major engagements that required enhanced recruitment since Vietnam (1972). This kind of crap, on your part, might pass as meaningful debate in the US but here in Australia it merely highlights what a pathetic desperado you are. You read like you haven’t had a bowel movement in three weeks.
>See analysis of growth rates from past inventories as posted on this Blog (Google the blog Moebus).
Ian seems to be referring to what he has written as ‘facts’. Not recommended reading for either Jeff or Cassandra who want to actually learn something. Whale = cows.
Early 1990s generally accepted estimates of 48,000 with reported growth rates on both east and west coasts of 10%+ over another 17 years with zero harvest. Do the maths, morons.
So you are talking Australian populations Ian?
If you all could do me a favor, please keep your whales leashed or something.
We are tired of shooing the beasties out of our river.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-16-whales-sacramento_N.htm?csp=34
Mr Mott: “Early 1990s generally accepted estimates of 48,000 with reported growth rates on both east and west coasts of 10%+ over another 17 years with zero harvest. Do the maths, morons.”
Ian, Ian, Ian….”…generally accepted (by WHOM?) estimates (by WHOM?) of 48,000 with reported (by WHOM?) growth rates…of 10%….”
That’s all we’re saying. Why is it so interminably difficult to provide Sources?
Maybe you have all this data that you are constantly throwing about tucked into the recesses of your brain or immediately available via some very impressive data retreival system, but the rest of us, if we are to take your arguments seriously, need something more than “It is because I say it is, and if you want to find out if it’s true, then go look it up yourself. Bugger Off.”
Because, and I don’t think that even you can argue this, I have absolutely no doubt that there are divergent if not conflicting numbers that are bandied about, depending upon who’s doing the bandying and what they’re bandwagoning.
If you insist on pretending that this is an adversarial proceeding, then play by adversarial proceeding rules of engagement. Please. Thank you.
And why does it consistently take me asking you the same question three-four times at different locations on this blog before you finally realize there is no escape, and you might as well answer the bloody question, because it has absolutely no bearing on the matter at hand? Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to just answer the question the first time it is asked? Or dismiss it outright as having absolutely no bearing on the matter at hand.
I raise this issue for the simple reason that I am beginning to wonder if there is any place on this Planet where, or process by which, one can find out for himself 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 and beaten back and down. But, you know what, when the lights go out, I wonder if we Humans won’t have simply argued ourselves into Extinction without ever even having heard, let alone actually listened to, what the other person was trying to say.
Ah well. Such perhaps is the Way, the Destiny, and the Doom of The Talking Ape, eh? For it is not easy living at the End of The Age of Men.
SV WyF
Correction, the 100,000 figure is the world population of Humpbacks, not the southern ocean one. If Moebus had read through the numerous posts on this blog dealing with this topic he would understand that this stuff has been covered again and again. See http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002041.html#comments
“The IWC population estimates are somewhat dated and for Humpbacks, still incomplete. See; http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm
Note that the 1988 best estimate was 10,000 for Australia alone with 95% confidence range from 6,000 to 17,000. And if we assume the lower estimate of 6,000 in 1988 and apply the lower of the two growth rate estimates, (10.9% pa for WA, 12.4% for East Coast) this population is likely to be in the order of 13,700 by 1996 and 38,600 by 2006.
So even if the mid-south pacific population is still only 1400 (what date was Libby’s reported estimate of 1200?) then the total population intermingling in the southern ocean is over 40,000. And this means an additional 4,400 surviving to adulthood each year.
The 50 to be taken by the Japanese, from alternating sectors, will amount to only 1.13% of the annual increase. This will reduce the annual growth rate from 10.9% to 10.77%.
The 1200 Tongan whales represent only 3% of the intermingled population and are likely to see only 3 of their number taken every second year. They would need a growth rate of only 0.125 of 1% to negate this loss.
So the question remains. How, exactly, will this pose a threat to the whale molesting industry?”
See also, “Ian, FYI a report submitted to the IWC SC notes total abundance in the southern hemisphere is probably above 50,000 now, and covers various recent abundance estimates in different areas comprehensively.
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2007/05/southern-hemisphere-humpback-numbers.html
(see page 8 of the report for info on the “E” stock, and page 9 of the report for info on the “F” stock)
And “the current estimate for Tonga is actually 2311 compared to Libby’s 700 to 1200 and the estimate for New Caledonia was 472 compared to Libby’s claimed 40 for NZ. One would reasonably assume that these 472 swam past NZ to get to New Caledonia.
Just to confirm;
Area IV (WA) was 18,000 in 1998/99, which, at 10% increase, would now be 35,000 Humpbacks.
Area V (East Coast, New Cal & Tonga) was 13,200 in 2002/03, which, at 10% increase, would now be 17,500 Humpbacks.
A total of 52,500, with an annual increase of 5,250 animals. But it is hardly necessary to adjust all my figures above as the message is already very loud and very clear.”
“This would cause an international outcry from “environmentalists”. ”
Hardly.
Genuine environmentalists moved on from the whaling $hakedown years ago.
Only the food nazis are left.
“Correction”
That’s why you get questioned Ian. Along with making statements like “In any event, it is illegal for tour operators to get close to any whales so that is a total non-issue.”
Why are you quoting 1988 figures for WA and EA when more recent exist and have been posted here?
“then the total population intermingling in the southern ocean is over 40,000.”
This has already been discussed as well. And what sort of “ total population intermingling” are you suggesting? Your statement can be misleading.
“from alternating sectors”
???
“The 1200 Tongan whales represent only 3% of the intermingled population and are likely to see only 3 of their number taken every second year.”
Such certainty Ian. No humpback researchers would make such a claim.
“So the question remains. How, exactly, will this pose a threat to the whale molesting industry?”
This has been covered before, with information from SP humpback researchers. You choose to ignore it and push your own agenda. You are selective with your sources.
“And “the current estimate for Tonga is actually 2311 compared to Libby’s 700 to 1200 and the estimate for New Caledonia was 472 compared to Libby’s claimed 40 for NZ. One would reasonably assume that these 472 swam past NZ to get to New Caledonia.”
Again, you are being devious. There were comments attached to this you have conveniently ignored. There is now even more reason to question some of this data. Your assumption about New Caledonia and NZ shows just how ignorant you really are, yet how you continue to prop yourself up as some sort of expert. New Caledonia whales have resights from EA, NZ and other areas, their song is similar to EA rather than Tonga. So no Ian, NC whales do not all swim past NZ. We still do not know a lot about substock migratory corridors, although perhaps you do? If you are questioning numbers given by me when they come from humpback whale researchers, what makes your numbers correct?
For people like Cassandra and Jeff and others who are genuinely trying to learn something, it is a shame they have to wade through the crap Ian Mott writes. I have no idea why someone with no expertise in an area would be so obsessed with writing his ideas and claiming them as fact. You must have a very big ego Mr Mott, particularly when you refer to others as “morons” yet need to start a comment with “correction.”
Admitting the need for a correction would seem to most people to be an important trait for anyone capable of making mistakes (ie all of us). But Libby has yet to exhibit the same, despite being cought out numerous times. Her criticism of me for not using more recent figures, that she has conspicuously failed to provide herself, nor any link to, is especially rich given that she was caught out using even older 1980s data.
The line that New Caledonian whales would not pass New Zealand on their way from the southern ocean could only be proposed by someone who can ignore the map. Some may miss it by a few hundred km but on the balance of probability, the majority will.
But this sort of resort to pedantic side issues is par for Libby’s course. First she tried to imply that all of the (now abandoned) humpback harvest would take place in the mid-pacific population (quoted from very old figures) and then tried to imply some sort of link to the Australian East coast population that is now well over 15,000 and growing at 10% pa.
Even if the southern ocean population went through some sudden, unexplained drop in population growth rates to only 1%pa, that would still mean an annual increase of 500, or ten times more than the proposed japanese harvest.
And it is pathetic how any sort of supportive reportage by clearly biased sources constitutes “information” that, in Libby’s eyes, is incontestible.
But what really gets up Libby’s nose is the ease at which here silly, vague and emotive statements can be dismembered by some very basic maths.
So tell us, Libby, what are those more recent figures, who compiled them, and under what auspices?
“But Libby has yet to exhibit the same, despite being cought out numerous times.”
Piffle. Check the archives, but it suits your continued campaign against me.
You can write to me:
“Her criticism of me for not using more recent figures, that she has conspicuously failed to provide herself, nor any link to, is especially rich given that she was caught out using even older 1980s data.”
And write to Jeff:
“See analysis of growth rates from past inventories as posted on this Blog (Google the blog Moebus).”
Where’s the consistency Ian? The information is in previous posts, as I wrote above. Are you that lazy and hypocritical?
“is especially rich given that she was caught out using even older 1980s data.”
This data was not as old as the 1980s, and had you bothered to (a) read what I wrote here, and (b) read what was written previously, you would not bother with such a comment.
“The line that New Caledonian whales would not pass New Zealand on their way from the southern ocean could only be proposed by someone who can ignore the map. Some may miss it by a few hundred km but on the balance of probability, the majority will.”
Nowhere here or anywhere else did I write that NZ whales “would not pass NZ”. Stop trying to misrespresent me Ian. An apology is in order. You have absolutely no idea on SP humpback whale migration, and yet continue to argue with someone who actually studies it. Whales seen in NC may pass NZ, EA, transit the Tasman or take other routes. Your arrogance and ignorance is breathtaking, but I suspect there is more at foot.
“But this sort of resort to pedantic side issues is par for Libby’s course.”
What pedantic side issues Ian? You are deeming what I write in response to you is pedantic? How big is your ego Ian? You have raised points which are false, provided incorrect information and been caught out, and now you are accusing me of raising padantic issues. If you are claiming the truth is pedantic, what can one say about your moral code? Or perhaps you don’t think anyone should question your ‘expertise’?
“First she tried to imply that all of the (now abandoned) humpback harvest would take place in the mid-pacific population (quoted from very old figures) and then tried to imply some sort of link to the Australian East coast population that is now well over 15,000 and growing at 10% pa.”
Where did I state this Ian? What is the problem with linking the SP animals with EA ones? Looking forward to this one.
“And it is pathetic how any sort of supportive reportage by clearly biased sources constitutes “information” that, in Libby’s eyes, is incontestible.”
What are the “clearly biased sources” Ian? You seem to be suggesting that humpback whale researchers provide “biased” information. Where have I stated that this information may be “incontestible”? How is it that Ian Mott can provide information from anecdotal evidence and then get abusive when it is questioned not only by myself, but other blog contributors? Just how big is your ego Ian?
“But what really gets up Libby’s nose is the ease at which here silly, vague and emotive statements can be dismembered by some very basic maths.”
Nothing up my nose Ian. Once again you are making false statements about someone else. Your supposed “maths”, which truly is very basic, has been dismissed by myself and others as simplistic and childish time and again. It is not even worth responding to anymore.
“So tell us, Libby, what are those more recent figures, who compiled them, and under what auspices?”
Your kidding me aren’t you? Are you that lazy? This information is already available to you from none other than this blog. What do you do again Ian? You obviously have a lot of time on your hands and feel it should be spent wasting that of others. Anyway Ian, you are obviously an expert on cetaceans, and don’t believe what I write, so it is clear you are just baiting.
SPEAKING OF FOOD NAZIS…..NEWS RELEASE: New Aussie Prime Minister’s “SECRET PLAN TO END THE FAMINE”; Or, After The Whales Are Gone…
(Mullumbimby Lodge, NSW) Speaking from the front porch of his mansion in Mullumbimby, NSW, newly elected Prime Minister Ion Flott announced today the details of his “Secret Plan” to deal with Australia’s, and “if only the dumb bastards will listen to me,” the World’s food problem.
Promising “MORE FOOD NOW!!!,” and swept to power by a nation benumbed by the Peak Oil crash, three years of Global Cooling and/or Warming-induced drought on the Continent, locusts and other assorted plagues of Biblical proportion, and the subsequent collapse of available viable live stock, fruit, grain, and vegetables for food, as well as a mysterious near-complete absence of non-fatally-for-humans-toxically-contaminated consumable fish in the oceans, the charismatic Bush Power Party leader unveiled his plan to sustainably harvest human beings.
“According to my figures,” the affable and unflappable Mr Flott explained, “there are enough biped hominids on this planet to sustainably harvest their herds probably forever, if we do it in a scientifically-based sustainable manner. After all, two hominids can reproduce one of themselves annually, which means that, given the current population on the planet, there are enough to go around that nobody needs to go hungry ever again.”
“Do The Math, Morons,” Mr Flott emphasized, repeating his oft-repeated signature campaign slogan.
Announcing the establishment of The Institute For Hominid Research to begin scientific culling of the terminally ill, mental patients, drug addicts, homeless drifters, illegal immigrants, non-descript undesirables, and other obviously surplus hominids, as well as to set up breeding farms where hominid females will be housed for the express purpose of birthing food stock (and be an additional source of government revenue on the side, Mr Flott winked with a sly grin), he acknowledged that there may be some initial resistance to the idea of eating dead humans.
“People can and will adjust to the New Realities. Either that, or they will be toast,” he joked ominously. “Seriously though, of course, we won’t call them ‘humans.’ They are ‘Hominids.’ Big bloody difference. Back when they were still a food source, we called cows ‘beef,’ and pigs “ham and bacon,’ and chickens…..er, uh….
“Well, anyway,” he continued, “among other things, the IHR will develop ways and means to overcome the language barrier. What is critical is that we humans, the Ones Who Matter I mean, have enough to eat. There is a scientifically demonstrated viable source of food all around us. All we have to do is take it. It’s ours to take if we have the political, economic, and military power, and the moral, intellectual, and spiritual courage and will. It’s really that bloody bleeping simple.”
Announcing that both the Chinese and Japanese governments had responded very favorably to both the “FLOTT PLAN” and to initial inquiries as to the availability of excess people for export as food, Mr Flott announced his Vision for The Future. “While the whales didn’t last nearly as long as anybody had scientifically calculated they would as a viable food source (I think maybe somebody was eating just a little bit more than their fair share of sashimi,” he added parenthetically), “there are literally Billions of excess hominids on this planet waiting to be served. All that is needed is the Vision to see that Potential and to turn that Dream into Reality.”
“It’s either that, folks,” he warned cryptically, “or blood in the streets.” Flott waved aside requests for detailed data, facts, evidence, or proof as to his assertions, telling people to check the archives of his Blog if they were really that interested.
Rubbing his hands in evident anticipatory glee, Mr Flott chortled, “Boy, I can’t wait till the human wankers hear about THIS one!”
He also announced his plan to designate himself Minister of Defense, so as to, in his words, “fill that gap in my resume about never having spent any time in my nation’s defense. It wasn’t my fault the Yanks pulled out of Vietnam before I could enlist,” he explained.
###
CORRECTION to FLOTT PLAN News Item:
In his enunciation of his list “obviously surplus hominids,” (such as “the terminally ill, mental patients, drug addicts, homeless drifters, illegal immigrants, and non-descript undesirables”), Prime Minister-elect Flott also included, “liberals, fags, progressives, greenies, civil and animal and human rights activists, anti-war and -whaling and -logging protesters, etc etc and so on and so forth.”
We regret any confusion this ommission may have caused.
Libby can’t even quote accurately. She quoted me saying, “The line that New Caledonian whales would not pass New Zealand on their way from the southern ocean could only be proposed by someone who can ignore the map. Some may miss it by a few hundred km but on the balance of probability, the majority will.”
But then, in her eagerness to find some pretext to attack, said “Nowhere here or anywhere else did I write that NZ whales “would not pass NZ”. (Thats New Caledonian Whales Libby dear, not NZ ones) but then she added the classic, “Stop trying to misrespresent me”.
And on she went, still refusing to supply any of the detail on the supposedly more up to date research, on the basis, wait for it, of MY supposed laziness. What a piece of work. She refuses to supply evidence and sources, as she and others demanded of me in earlier posts, and justifies it by my supposed laziness.
And on it goes.
And as for poor Moebus. Once again we have loads of off-topic drivel and ad hom. Curious how 75% of his content is all about him, his service record and his 18 year old (for f@#$ sake)unresolved issues with George Bush Senior.
Someone should tell him that this is a science and environment forum. It is not some sort of half way house to indulge the recognition cravings of this months sad, pensioned off “Chook Strangler”.
“Chook Strangler” is the Aussie diggers derisory term for big noting special forces types who have a boorish need to tell all and sundry how they saved the free world, all on their own. You’re just a sad cliche, Moebus.
Oh come off it Ian. You KNOW you’ve toyed with the idea of public office. After all, you ARE a natural-born leader.
And when you start including some REAL SCIENCE in your posts about the environment to this, ahem, “science and environment forum,” why then dahhling, I will stop exposing you for the pompous boorish boring ass that everybody in fact knows that you in fact are.
You old ad homo, you.
(Sorry Jennifer, Sorry Everybody. Couldn’t resist. Won’t happen again. I promise.)
A Chook Strangler in HMB
“Pedantic side issues”…hmmm.
“Libby can’t even quote accurately. She quoted me saying, “The line that New Caledonian whales would not pass New Zealand on their way from the southern ocean could only be proposed by someone who can ignore the map. Some may miss it by a few hundred km but on the balance of probability, the majority will.”
But then, in her eagerness to find some pretext to attack, said “Nowhere here or anywhere else did I write that NZ whales “would not pass NZ”. (Thats New Caledonian Whales Libby dear, not NZ ones) but then she added the classic, “Stop trying to misrespresent me”.”
My correction Ian for something I wrote in my “eagerness” to reply to you (how close is the C key to the Z one?). As for attacking, you confuse it with trying to get some facts across here. The only attacking I see is coming from you, but that’s my opinion.
So, let’s state this again with correction…
Nowhere here or anywhere else did I write that NC whales “would not pass NZ”. Stop trying to misrespresent me Ian. An apology is in order. You have absolutely no idea on SP humpback whale migration, and yet continue to argue with someone who actually studies it. Whales seen in NC may pass NZ, EA, transit the Tasman or take other routes. Your arrogance and ignorance is breathtaking, but I suspect there is more at foot.
An apology is still in order for your original misrespresentation.
“And on she went, still refusing to supply any of the detail on the supposedly more up to date research, on the basis, wait for it, of MY supposed laziness. What a piece of work. She refuses to supply evidence and sources, as she and others demanded of me in earlier posts, and justifies it by my supposed laziness.”
Which part don’t you understand Ian? The recent information is in Jennifer Marohasy’s blog archives, all you have to do is search for it, much like you told Jeff to do. Why is this so hard for you? As I have told you before, I have better things to do with my time than supply you with information you will instantly dismiss. You are being a troll.
I’m still waiting for answers to my above queries, and an apology.
Two further points to rubbish you have written:
“compared to Libby’s claimed 40 for NZ”
This is information supplied by the SPWRC.
“”And it is pathetic how any sort of supportive reportage by clearly biased sources constitutes “information” that, in Libby’s eyes, is incontestible.” ”
I have previously questioned here information from humpback researchers. This is available and transparent for all to see in the archives. Your assertion that I find it “incontestile” is not based on any fact or truth whatsoever, and again misrepresents me.
I see a number of serious issues currently affecting good science when it comes to S/H humpbacks. Egos and petty personalities dangerously impinging upon facts by people with a lot more expertise and high standing than you could ever aspire to Ian.
Libby, you were part of the usual chorus of insult and you demanded sources and actual data from me. Yet, you continue with your refusal to substantiate your claimed more recent figures/research, this time because you are supposedly too busy.
So which is it?
I’m too lazy so you don’t need to supply references? (titter, titter) or
You’re too busy to do what you demanded of me? (Hhmmph, hhmmph) or
All of the above? (Guuuuffaaaw)
I said, “the current estimate for Tonga is actually 2311 compared to Libby’s 700 to 1200 and the estimate for New Caledonia was 472 compared to Libby’s claimed 40 for NZ. One would reasonably assume that these 472 swam past NZ to get to New Caledonia.”
Note, Libby, that I used the term “reasonably assume”, I did not imply this as 100% fact. You supplied some useful qualification to this but finished with, “So no Ian, NC whales do not ALL (my emphasis) swim past NZ”.
So after all of Libby’s blather, we can still “reasonably assume” that most NC whales swim past NZ. And readers can now clearly see how Libby is prone to take some minor pedantry and seek to build it into some sort of implied fundamental flaw.
And all the while, she still has not supplied the “more recent” information that somehow is supposed to negate my arguments without any need, on her part, to actually present the information. Nice work if you can get it, but highly remeniscent of a little girls foot stomping and frown.
But all of this is still a deliberate side-step of the core issue. That is, southern ocean Humpback populations (be they 30,000, 50,000 or 70,000) have undergone substantial recovery. And that rate of recovery has been, and remains, far in excess of any proposed harvesting.
Ditto for Minkes.
“Libby, you were part of the usual chorus of insult and you demanded sources and actual data from me. Yet, you continue with your refusal to substantiate your claimed more recent figures/research, this time because you are supposedly too busy.”
Insult? The “claims” have been “substantiated” here on the blog Ian. I am not going through the archives for you. I can’t make it any clearer. The only conclusion I can draw is that you are a troll and a hypocrite. Well, actually there are other conclusions I can draw…
Regarding unpublished current Area Vi, ii, iii data, the way things are proceeding we will never have an accurate assessment, and that is before the SPWRC has even met for this year Ian. There you go, hot off the presses, but hey, what do I know?
“So after all of Libby’s blather, we can still “reasonably assume” that most NC whales swim past NZ.”
Can you? Then you are stupider than I thought, and THAT is saying something. Why are you even bothering to argue this with me Ian? If you look at the results of years of genetics, photo-ID, song and other study, you wouldn’t be assuming anything, but you know best. What do you do again?
” And readers can now clearly see how Libby is prone to take some minor pedantry and seek to build it into some sort of implied fundamental flaw.”
Whatever. Blather, pedantry, pedantic issues – it all blurs into one. You seem to think “readers” will align themselves with your world view. You do have an ego. I like readers to have a balanced view Ian, not be presented with biased “facts” by someone with a personal vendetta and delusions of grandeur. You have a history, and it’s there for all to see.
And all the while, she still has not supplied the “more recent” information that somehow is supposed to negate my arguments without any need, on her part, to actually present the information. Nice work if you can get it, but highly remeniscent of a little girls foot stomping and frown.”
You seem to be mistaking my behaviour for yours. For the final time I write, the most recent published data is available on this blog. Apologies to any readers left for the repetition. I’ve made myself perfectly clear, and you are continuing ot be a troll.
“That is, southern ocean Humpback populations (be they 30,000, 50,000 or 70,000) have undergone substantial recovery.”
Yes Ian -SOME stocks have undergone recovery. You are ignoring those that haven’t, along with any other information presented by S/H humpback researchers that don’t fit your views.
I’m awaiting your answers to your claims here Ian, in particular:
“First she tried to imply that all of the (now abandoned) humpback harvest would take place in the mid-pacific population (quoted from very old figures) and then tried to imply some sort of link to the Australian East coast population that is now well over 15,000 and growing at 10% pa.”
And just for laughs:
“In any event, it is illegal for tour operators to get close to any whales so that is a total non-issue.”
” I’m not so sure that the Japanese have ended up looking like Mr. Nice Guys” – Libby
but BBC’s reporter on the Esperanza wrote :
” But having let the humpbacks live, international concern for the other 1,000 whales being targeted has dwindled”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7171409.stm
Libby dishes up fine rhetoric like, “I like readers to have a balanced view Ian, not be presented with biased “facts”.
But the reality is that she refuses to supply information that she claims is right on this blog for anyone to access. The only problem is that she seems to be the only person who knows which mythical information she is refering to. And is therefore the only person who can retrieve it.
And of course, sweet Libby would never resort to insult. Clearly, terms like “a troll and a hypocrite”, “stupider than I thought” etc are acceptable when used by Whale Wallys but totally obscene if used by anyone else.
She then said, “Yes Ian -SOME stocks have undergone recovery. You are ignoring those that haven’t”. As the above posts are in large part covering stocks that have not recovered I have clearly not ignored them. What has bothered Libby is that she has attempted to restrict the focus of discussion to stocks that are less numerous in the hope that this would make the impact of harvesting seem greater.
But this was always a fat porky. The reliable research is not clear on what size these populations originally were. And it is pure speculation that these small populations are ones that have not “recovered”. They may well be just small populations.
And in any event, given that the Whale wallys have ships at their disposal, they have always had the option of increasing their “patrolling” of these respective portions of the southern ocean so the Japanese would concentrate in the areas, south of Australia and elsewhere, where the Humpback stocks have undergone unambiguous recovery.
But that would require a measure of common sense that would be totally beyond the wit of these people. It would also amount to an admission, on their part, of the simple truth that Humpback populations have recovered. And hell would freeze over before these fanatical ideologues did that.
And Libby is waiting (just for laughs) for evidence of my claims that, “In any event, it is illegal for tour operators to get close to any whales so that is a total non-issue.”
Well Libby, wrap your laughing gear around Section 6 of the Qld Nature Conservation (whales and dolphins) Conservation Plan 1997
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Search/isysquery/c54a314e-3d32-49a2-98cf-824d2d2fdb2a/1/doc/NatureConWhP97.pdf#xml=http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Search/isysquery/c54a314e-3d32-49a2-98cf-824d2d2fdb2a/1/hilite/
Note penalty for allowing boat within 100m of whale is 120 penalty units, “just for laughs”, Libby, just for laughs.
You wrote Ian:
“That is, southern ocean Humpback populations (be they 30,000, 50,000 or 70,000) have undergone substantial recovery. And that rate of recovery has been, and remains, far in excess of any proposed harvesting.”
Then write in my response to some of the S/H stocks NOT “substantially recovering”:
“She then said, “Yes Ian -SOME stocks have undergone recovery. You are ignoring those that haven’t”. As the above posts are in large part covering stocks that have not recovered I have clearly not ignored them. What has bothered Libby is that she has attempted to restrict the focus of discussion to stocks that are less numerous in the hope that this would make the impact of harvesting seem greater.”
So where in the initial comment regarding total estimates for S/H is “As the above posts are in large part covering stocks that have not recovered I have clearly not ignored them”??? Where do you actualy mention some stocks NOT recovering “substantially” and what is your criteria for “substantial” if you are telling us that “The reliable research is not clear on what size these populations originally were”?
“What has bothered Libby”, “attempted to restrict the focus of discussion to stocks that are less numerous in the hope that this would make the impact of harvesting seem greater”
More assumptions Ian, base on nothing. In previous posts I have gone into detail about small stocks. I have not done so here. And no, I’m not bovvered Ian.
“And it is pure speculation that these small populations are ones that have not “recovered”. They may well be just small populations.”
There is information on stocks associated with Fiji, New Zealand, Norfolk Island and Tonga prior to stocks collapsing as a result of commercial whaling. Humpback researchers don’t speculate about it, so your pure speculation is yours alone.
“And in any event, given that the Whale wallys have ships at their disposal, they have always had the option of increasing their “patrolling” of these respective portions of the southern ocean so the Japanese would concentrate in the areas, south of Australia and elsewhere, where the Humpback stocks have undergone unambiguous recovery.”
LOL!!! You have NO IDEA how this research operates Ian, but thanks for the laughs.
“of the simple truth that Humpback populations have recovered”
Which populations are you talking about again? This is quite fun.
The original comment from you was:
“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.”
A number of questions were posed to you regarding this eg “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?”, but we’ll stick with the last sentence from you. So your idea of “close” is within 100 metres Ian? We are talking your standards of “close”. So tell me, what happens, as often does, when a boat gets closer than 100m because the whales approach it? You said it is illegal for boats to get close, what do they do when a whale mugs a boat? How do the minke swim-withs possibly operate? Who is out there enforcing distances and HOW MANY operators have been penalised?
But what about this one:
“First she tried to imply that all of the (now abandoned) humpback harvest would take place in the mid-pacific population (quoted from very old figures) and then tried to imply some sort of link to the Australian East coast population that is now well over 15,000 and growing at 10% pa.” ???
Thanks for some laughs Ian. The YouTube was funny, but you have delivered well here!
The comment from the BBC reporter does not necessarily mean anything in light of my comment Ann. It perhaps simply shows that humans are shallow and can only focus on what is popular and has personally effected them via activities such as whale watching. I have always maintained the Southern Ocean is a Big Brother house, and the winner this time is the humpbacks.
Well said Libby 🙂 ! I like that you have name for your study humpies as well, not only numbers , can you name a few?
Crikey Grott!!! This thread has created enough classics from you that it must be time for another Mott rap. Whaddya think? You can then recite it on YouTube for all the young ‘uns. I suggest you dress homey style.
Lots of numbers stretching around the place – >100,000 humpbacks in the Indian/Pacific Oceans (was that northern , southern or both?), so of course there are plenty of them. Oh wait, you’ve been questioned on it, and now the 100,000 is for WORLD humpbacks. Almost got away with it, but what were your references? Must be a pro-whaling humpback scientist for you to accept the figure.
And the southern hemisphere ones are all ‘intermingling’ in the Antarctic again I see. Not to mention the ability by the Japanese to pick and choose which stock the intermingling animals are from!
>The line that New Caledonian whales would not pass New Zealand on their way from the southern ocean could only be proposed by someone who can ignore the map. Some may miss it by a few hundred km but on the balance of probability, the majority will.
A Grott beauty. Which map were you looking at? Pictures may tell a thousand stories, but sometimes you have to tackle the actual words as well! So many have told you to take up reading, but you always seem to know best. Of course the corker was then claiming Libby was ‘attacking’ you and being pedantic and then picking her up for putting in NZ and not NC, to make er, what point exactly Grott? The point that you suggested she claimed no animals went past New Zealand to get to New Caledonia, (which she clearly did not say) and then backing down on an apology, which she deserved. Classic.
So any and all sweeping statements from the cetacean expert Grott, all designed to put him on his tree stump pedestal and mislead anyone here who doesn’t know better or couldn’t be bothered checking his ‘facts’. All peppered throughout with his personal attacks on those he doesn’t like (what is it about Libby you just can’t stand Ian, apart from the fact she’s a woman? Some of us have been wondering for a while now). But Ian if you attack enough, those you attack may respond in kind, and then Mum Jennifer can step in and ban them from the blog for being nasty. What a smart thing to do! That way you and Jennifer aren’t accountable for any of the crap that is written here and are never questioned on what you write. Like getting close to whales is illegal!!! Of course! Oh too many to choose from!!!!
Why oh why do you think you are so very important Grott? Why oh why don’t you take those meds and give us a break from you? (Take a few too many and give us a long one). You really are an idiot. Whales = cows.
Hi Ann,
Creepy, Zed (Farida), Corduroy, Little Mozart, Pinto Mum, Spike and Remy have been named by myself and a colleague. I’m not big on giving them names, but there are times when it can’t be helped!
So Libby still refuses to supply the references to her claimed more recent research. All that invective but conspicuously no substance.
She takes a while to grasp some of the simplest notions. The notion that 100 metres is “close” to a whale is not my invention. It is defined by regulation in the state where much of the whale watching takes place. She had a link to the exact legislation but couldn’t help herself in her eagerness to take a shot at me. Caught out again.
And despite this link to the regulations, we have the resident village idiot, Travis, still absolutely convinced that this is just some “crap” that I invented, “Like getting close to whales is illegal!!!” And this was the dumb turd that demanded references from me but, when links are provided, is too full of his own bull$hit to read them before shooting his mouth off.
And when they are both caught out, again and again, the thick boofheads then try to rationalise it all on the basis of some implied “hatred of women” that is supposed to drive my criticism. Pathetic.
But don’t be fooled, readers, these people will stoop to any stunt to divert attention from the major recovery that has taken place in humpback whale populations. As is evidenced by the above thread. By their deeds shall ye know them.
“So Libby still refuses to supply the references to her claimed more recent research. All that invective but conspicuously no substance.”
Yawn. The funny thing is that you have already referenced where this is, but remain obsessively determined to make me do the work for you!
Ian Mott wrote (again):
“In any event, it is illegal for tour operators to get close to any whales so that is a total non-issue.”
Yet then write:
“The notion that 100 metres is “close” to a whale is not my invention.”
Er, actually it is here Ian, as per your sentence above. You have decided whether 100m is “close” or not. Take responsibility for what you write. All too easily you make claims and sprout facts, but they are generalisations at best, and a very good attempt to mislead people. The sad thing is that you then twist and wriggle when caught out, and resort to abuse and counter claims. I believe it is Travis who has kindly pointed out to you that you have some sort of habit of attributing your behaviour to others. Odd.
“She had a link to the exact legislation but couldn’t help herself in her eagerness to take a shot at me. Caught out again.”
Whatever, blah, blah, blah…I am all too familiar with the legislation Ian. Wonder why…
” And this was the dumb turd that demanded references from me but, when links are provided, is too full of his own bull$hit to read them before shooting his mouth off.”
Do you know if Travis read the links or not? I would suggest (sorry to speak for you Traivis), that he was as amused as I was that you could make such a silly statement. Regulars here are probably familiar with Australia’s ww regulations Ian (you aside). It is ‘illegal to get close’ is what you wrote. A very broad statement, and not exactly correct, depending on what your definition of “close” is (maybe 100m is too close for some) or whether animals approach the boat, or what type of activity it is.
“And when they are both caught out, again and again, the thick boofheads then try to rationalise it all on the basis of some implied “hatred of women” that is supposed to drive my criticism. Pathetic.”
“thick boof heads”? Keep ’em coming. So tell me Ian, where here have I implied there is “hatred of women” behind your criticism? Travis did, but tell me where I did please. If you can’t tell me where I implied this here, I want an apology. You are treading a very fine line once again.
And tell me Ian, where is the evidence for this, which you have been blatantly avoiding:
“First she tried to imply that all of the (now abandoned) humpback harvest would take place in the mid-pacific population (quoted from very old figures) and then tried to imply some sort of link to the Australian East coast population that is now well over 15,000 and growing at 10% pa.”
>(sorry to speak for you Traivis)
That’s fine, although watch the spelling of my name! Grott may pick you up on that one too. Your assumption is perfectly correct regarding the dopey statement made by Ian. He is too blinded by his own self-importance to see what he is doing though, which is highly amusing. Are they black eyes or feathers in the cap Ian?
>She takes a while to grasp some of the simplest notions.
The simplest notions are all she has to grasp from you Ian!!! Nothing of style, substance or certainly intellect comes from you!!
>resident village idiot
Ouch!!
>dumb turd
Yoww!!
>too full of his own bull$hit
Umphff!
>thick boofheads
Bamm!!
Bet you feel better now little-class-room-bully-with-the-dunce-cap-on. Tell me Grott, do you make snorting noises when you guffaw? La-la-la!
(sigh)
Once more for the bimboscenti. The 100 metre buffer is defined by Queensland government regulation on pain of serious penalty. If Travis had read the link to that legislation he would not have supported Libby’s claim that it was my “invention”.
Round and round in circles but STILL NO REFERENCES FROM LIBBY. She clearly has such little respect for readers of this blog that she feels no compunction to provide the minimum substantiation.
Yes David, I agree. Apologies for the tedium. Enough from me, although I will happily take bets on what the childish response from Mr Mott will be.
Libby,
No need to apologise, I’ve slipped into similar behavior myself in the past.
Here in Japan the net has been running hot with the story about Australia reacting to the little youtube video that came out.
The kangaroo slaughter part of the video was informative though, and subsequently I found this as well.
http://huhcanitbetrue.blogspot.com/2008/01/blog-post_08.html
It seems that there is little sympathy in Japan for Australia’s complaints about “barbaric” whaling at the present time.
Can’t wait for March to arrive so we will have something new to argue about 🙂
David,
We have had a fair bit of media coverage here with the YouTube (ie the Japanese one) video. Tonight a dingo campaigner came forth saying he was receiving tens of hate emails daily from anti-whaling supporters because the video had suggested he was pro-whaling. It used his image and words without his consent, and people have even threatened his pet dingo.
A draft report on kangaroo culls was released recently which again mentioned the ways of despatching with macropod pouch young and young at foot. Whilst some of the recommendations appear humane, there is room for extreme cruelty. As we have seen, this does take place. However, we have also had obscene cases of domestic animal cruelty here, which is not something reserved for Australians alone.
I have a friend who is a feral animal controller, and some colleagues who deal with macropods. When carried out by skilled marksmen with the objective of quickly and humanely despatching of macropods, I believe it is conducted with a high degree of instantaneous death to adults. When these same people encounter pouch young and young at foot, I believe they also maturely and humanely put the animals out of any misery. Unfortunately these are not the only ones carrying out the kills and I am as sickened by the cruelty as many others are. The culling itself is not something I can say I agree with either. Becks can have synthetic boots as far as I’m concerned.
I wonder though if there are degrees to our repulsion with cruelty. A fluffy joey being stomped on vs an aquatic whale being impaled vs a lobster being boiled alive. Humans are odd creatures.
Libby,
Actually the youtube poster linked to my blog as well, and I’ve had a big jump in traffic since. Surprisingly to me though, not many abusive comments. Most of the hits are coming from Japan though, so I got some interesting remarks come in in Japanese. Anyway, one thing I can say is that many of the comments at youtube are far below the standards we see here. We can all be proud of ourselves!
The cruelty thing is very difficult though really. I think that what this draft set of “humane killing” standards for kangaroos (again) shows is that different people have different levels of tolerance for killing. Where the line is drawn seems to me to be rather arbitrary, and mileage will surely vary from society to society.
Quoting the draft:
“… forcefully swinging the head of the young against a solid metal object (e.g. tow bar of a vehicle). The operator must confirm that there has been massive and deadly damage to the head.”
I don’t think anyone reading this would think “ah yes, that sounds like it would be just great”, but at the same time I imagine that it sounds somewhat worse to me than it might do to someone who actually deals with killing kangaroos.
Anyway, this is a bit of an illustration of why the response to video from the Australian politician has been making the news here. To the Japanese it looks like a clear double-standard for Australian politicians to say whaling is “barbaric”. But we can turn it on it’s head and say “hey japs, look at the way you kill whales, how can you criticise us for our humane methods of killing young kangaroos?”
In the absense of any agreed standards for killing various animals under various circumstances, I can’t see this debate being concluded other than by mutually agreeing to disagree on standards, and each society implementing it’s own standards as it see’s fit. Perhaps the Japanese should be more vocal in their criticisms of Australia’s animal killing in future, to make sure that this is clear to all. Or they could just shut up and not be accused of hypocrisy themselves.
“Perhaps the Japanese should be more vocal in their criticisms of Australia’s animal killing in future, to make sure that this is clear to all. Or they could just shut up and not be accused of hypocrisy themselves.”
Perhaps both could lift their game when it comes to animal ethics and welfare 🙂
You can also throw some criticism across to your motherland too. Killing of brushtail possums in NZ can be just as barbaric. Like the macropods here, there are serious attempts to carry it out humanely, and much money is spent on research into genetics and reproductive disruptors. But there is also that rogue element (like cane toads here too) where people seem to deliberately set out to be as cruel as possible. I’m not sure what they recommend for joeys there.
“shows is that different people have different levels of tolerance for killing”
Well, we see that in the way different human societies treat their own kind. Or the old line about how many dead westerners it takes to make a front page, vs how many dead Pakistanis/Africans, etc.
Hmmmm:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/09/18471384.php
David,
I must say that Sea Shepherd have mighty friends:
Mr. Campbell joins an Advisory Board that in addition to Mr. Kleinschmidt also includes esteemed whale scientist Dr. Roger Payne, Oceanographer Dr. Joe McInnis, Anthropologist Dr. Louise Leakey, Naturalist Terri Irwin, Marine wildlife photographer Robert Talbot and actors Piece Brosnan, Richard Dean Anderson and Sean Penn.
Greenpeace once asked P. Brosnan to join GP, but the answer was NO.
My personal opinion of Campbell was never that good, so for me this doesn’t reflect so well on his company.
I think we should start a fund to pay ‘activists” to hassle Pierce Brosnan and crash a few cars into his house.
We’d see vapid celebrity support for the food-fascists dry up pretty quick.
I seriously can’t see the difference between throwing some cash at the Sea $chleppers and funding anti-abortionists to hassle patients and damage clinics.
If anything the whalers are putting food on the table.
If someone can come up with a good plan to put the spotlight on the celebs, I’ll kick in a couple of hundred bucks to start a hassle Martin Sheen or Pierce Brosnan at home campaign.
Anything that forces a wanker like Brosnan to expound on his eco-theories will make them look like double standard hypocrites and will cost them.
The appeal of celebs is they expound at will but have agents and press people to shield them.
I’m amazed at how a misanthrope like Watson can juggle his brand of eco-fascism with some major celebs and even corporations.
Hmmm….I’d love to start a campaign to go trash a couple of Paul Mitchell salons too.
Let’s hear from Brosnan how he balances supporting food fascists like Watson whilst simultaneously schilling for BMW heavy industries, luxury brands etc..
And Paul Mitchell just sells unnecessary detergents in polluting plastic bottles. Much less “necessary” than food.
My $200 still stands.
Time to turn the tables.
Watson honoured as one of the 50 most influencial environmental people in the world in the Guardian.
Among other people : Merkel, Lomborg, Greenpeace CEO Leipold, Gore,di Caprio ……
http://www.openmarket.org/2008/01/08/eco-terrorist-on-honored-for-his-work-in-guardian/
” 50 people that can save the planet” – Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/05/activists.ethicalliving
Peter Garrett? For what? And Midnight Oil were never “punk.”
I’m surprised that Brittney Spears and Pete Doherty aren’t on the list… maybe the Guardian will have them on next year????
To be fair, there are some decent people doing decent work on the list, but the quiet achievers are usually both those things – quiet and achieving.
OK Travis, but another site/paper voted Stella Mc Cartney as environmentalist No I of the year, so you wonder if those awards go to the glamorous people?
I would like to see some awards going to completely unknown people, like rangers working in reserves in Africa and Asia , with their lives at stake…
My motivation why Brittney should be awarded: It’s environmentally friendly to shave off your hair because it’s very efficient to soak up oil with hair in oil spills….
Motivation for Doherty: he’s is enviro friendly using only natural products….;-)!
Yeah, I know that Im trying to be funny but it’s not easy to make English jokes:-)!!!!
Well done Ann!!! So Peter Garrett falls into the Britney-no hair camp too.
>I would like to see some awards going to completely unknown people, like rangers working in reserves in Africa and Asia , with their lives at stake…
Now you are REALLY being funny!
“I would like to see some awards going to completely unknown people, like rangers working in reserves in Africa and Asia , with their lives at stake…”
“Environmentalism” that’s dependent on movie stars and bloated food fascists is obviously not about empowerment of the common man and hence doomed to fail.
Non-lethal research illegal under Australian law?
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SYD7828.htm
“Allsop said that … there was evidence that biopsy samples were taken from humpbacks using a crossbow.
“I am satisfied that this non-lethal method of sampling amounted to injuring, interfering with and treating a cetacean within the definition of the EPBC Act,” he said.”
No, non-lethal research in Australian waters and/or by an Australian citizen requires a permit and animal ethics approval.