An illegal whale meat operation was recently exposed in South Korea seizing over 50 tonnes of minke whale meat. Accidentally caught cetaceans can be legally sold in South Korean restaurants (located in Ulsan, Busan and Pohang) as long as this death is reported to the Maritime Police.
South Korea is a migratory corridor for a number of cetacean species, including the highly endangered Western Gray Whale. Only about 121 individuals survive, with entanglement and other anthropogenic threats undermining their comeback from over-exploitation during commercial whaling days. Local populations of species also exist around the Peninsula, such as the tiny finless porpoise.
The marine mammal by-catch problem has been labelled “marine bushmeat” (1), and presents many of the same issues as terrestrial bushmeat, including loss of biodiversity and threatening endangered populations. In a recent paper (2), researchers used techniques to identify the species and origins of cetacean meat sold in South Korean markets. A total of 289 minke whale samples were obtained during 12 surveys of South Korean markets from 1999-2003. Mitochondrial haplotype, sex and microsatellite-based genotyping was used, revealing products originated from 205 individuals. A capture-recapture technique then estimated that 827 minkes passed through the markets during this 5-year period. This number is somewhat larger than the 458 South Korea reported to the IWC for the same period. This technique also provided an estimate of the “half-life” of market products on sale during the survey (about 1.8 months), illustrating that markets should be monitored regularly for accurate results to be obtained.
When the figure of 827 South Korean J-Stock minkes is added to the reported Japanese incidental take of 390 from the Sea of Japan during 1999-2003 (assuming no under-reporting), over 1,200 whales were taken from this protected stock during this period (3). Some models suggest the minke J-stock cannot sustain this rate of loss. In fact previous research has suggested that in order to avoid further depletion, an annual loss of less than 50 J-stock minkes is required, and for the stock to recover, “incidental or illegal directed takes must be reduced to levels approaching zero” (4). The results of this 2000 model were originally rejected by Japan and South Korea as being “implausibly high”, but it now appears the model relied on under-reporting of South Korean by-catch and must be rejected as “implausibly low”.
Minke whales are frequently cited as being anything other than endangered, but genetically distinct populations of minkes are recognised. The J-stock is found in Korea’s East Sea. Due to declining catch per unit effort, in 1983 the IWC Scientific Committee concluded that the J-stock was depleted and should be classified as a protected stock. In the light of past commercial hunting, ongoing by-catch and low abundance estimates from recent surveys, the Committee has repeatedly expressed concern for the further depletion or even extinction of this stock. This stock may also make up some of the 100 minkes killed annually in Japan’s JARPN II hunt.
In 2005, a ‘whale treatment facility’ planned by the Ulsan Metropolitan City, was to provide a “check point for dealing with whale carcasses in an environmentally-friendly and sanitary manner” (Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, 2005). South Korea’s policies are “designed to promote the rational and scientific conservation and sustainable use of whales and dolphins” (MOMAF, 2005), but with a mooted whale meat processing factory, no mitigation measures to reduce by-catch levels and an adult minke fetching an estimated US $100, 000, the incentive is to increase rather than reduce cetacean by-catch in these waters. The legal sale of such incidental catch may also provide the cover for directed illegal hunting and even intentional net whaling.
Japan views market monitoring as outside the IWC’s jurisdiction, but inspection procedures and sustainable stocks are required under the Revised Management Scheme before commercial whaling is to resume. Clapham and Van Waerebeek (2007) write “Market monitoring may be the only way to assess the full toll of by-catch, poaching and legal whaling.” Japan and Norway have DNA registries for material from legally killed whales, but have “resisted independent international oversight of these databases.”
Molecular analysis can provide tools for assessing the extent of illegal trade in animals, but it can also highlight genetically-isolated and unique populations. As Palumbi (2007) writes: “The larger oceanic population might be able to sustain a catch of 200 animals a year, but the structure of the whale population is sometimes so local that small and isolated populations such as the J-stock cannot support a loss rate that may seem minor on the whole-ocean scale”.
________________________________________________________________________
Many thanks to Jennifer and Ann for providing the links.
(1) Clapham, P and Van Waerebeek, K. (2007) Bushmeat and Bycatch: the sum of parts. Molecular Ecology, 16, 2607-2609.
(2) Baker, C. S. et al. (2007) Estimating the number of whales entering trade using DNA profiling and capture-recapture analysis of market products. Molecular Ecology, 16, 2617-2626.
(3) Palumbi, S. (2007) In the market for minke whales. Nature. Vol 447, 267-268.
(4) Baker, C. S. et al (2000) Predicted decline of protected whales based on molecular genetic monitoring of Japanese and Korean markets. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 267, 1191-1199.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“Japan and Norway have DNA registries for material from legally killed whales, but have “resisted independent international oversight of these databases.” – Libby
Interesting, have we any clue why they don’t want any international oversight of these databases?
( These databases for DNA are often used in the pro whaling arguments).
One reason is that it is viewed as not being under the IWC umbrella, much like animal welfare, sanctuaries, small cetaceans, etc.
Congratulations to the SK police for busting this illegal operation, and the scientists who did the work unearthing the possibility of violations taking place.
Unfortunately one has to say that this episode is yet another reason why the IWC (or another organization) must bring whaling operations under international regulations.
Strange how we’re constantly being told by the propaganda department of the animal protest industry that the Japanese are whaling despite there being no demand when in South Korea there’s obviously a demand with no legal outlet.
Looks like it’s time to create one and install a whaling management regime for Korea.
🙂
“Looks like it’s time to create one and install a whaling management regime for Korea.”
Do you suggest they hunt J-stock minkes?
IceClass,
Yeah. That would be a rational thing to do. However, as we know, some people prefer a big useless “PROHIBITION” sign rather than a “regulation” one.
If South Korea can make their market monitoring fullproof then I imagine in future Iceland and Norway may look to sell their wares there as well.
I’ve seen some suggestions that South Korea ought look to use research whaling as a means to provide a stable supply of meat to their market in Ulsan.
To me it seems like the Koreans are satisfied with their system of ” accidential” bycatch wich in reality is intentional bycatch.
With this system most of the world is ignorant about their whaling and they escape international criticism which is important re their big export industry.
Btw, it was a good guest post by Libby.
Libby > Putting a whaling management regime in place suggests that stocks that ought be protected are, and that hunts are directed towards stocks that can sustain a level of hunting.
With the IWC on the verge of collapse, the current IWC rule that stocks below 54% abundance of their estimated carrying capacity be protected from directed hunting to allow the most rapid rate of recovery may be thrown out (*1) and replaced by a new rule, under an agreed management regime.
Whale meat consumers in Ulsan are demanding whale meat, and if the demand can be satiated albeit for a lower rate of recovery in a given stock of whales (with the tradeoff of higher conservation risk than the IWC might accept), South Korea may see fit to make such a proposal to other relevant (*2) states. And the same applies in other parts of the world where people are interested in utilising whales as food.
At any rate, this illegal South Korean whaling operation has now been wound up, and so with anthropogenic removals being lower going forward, it should prove positive for the status of the J-stock. This is good for conservation, and eventually will be good for whale consumers and whaling industry too.
—
*1 This is a reason why Australia, if it really cares about whale conservation at all, ought be taking it’s international obligations with respect to the ICRW seriously, and why Australian conservationists ought to be making their government aware of this reality.
*2 Australia is currently relevant, but only just. Australia can not ban whaling, but it can have an influence to ensure that highly risk averse conservation decisions are made, rather than more practical ones that tend to be made with respect to other less glamourous types of resources.
“Whale meat consumers in Ulsan are demanding whale meat, and if the demand can be satiated albeit for a lower rate of recovery in a given stock of whales (with the tradeoff of higher conservation risk than the IWC might accept), South Korea may see fit to make such a proposal to other relevant (*2) states. And the same applies in other parts of the world where people are interested in utilising whales as food.”
Given commercial whaling’s past history, recovery rates for some stocks of whales and the current opposition to whaling by some counties, one would have to wonder about anyone making such a proposal. I’m sure it would be a good look for South Korea (apply to other parts of the world where people are interested in utilising whales as food and stocks are low) to begin scientific/commercial hunting of what the IWC SC agrees is a protected stock, and instill much confidence in anti-whaling nations that whaling nations can manage their resources effectively.
“At any rate, this illegal South Korean whaling operation has now been wound up, and so with anthropogenic removals being lower going forward, it should prove positive for the status of the J-stock.”
Well this one particular illegal operation has been ceased for now. Bycatch still occurs throughout the J-stock’s range, and no mitigation measures have been introduced to reduce it (with the exception of the removal of this particular illegal operation, who it was assumed partook in deliberate bycatch). I’m not convinced all is rosy for a speedy recovery of this stock any time soon.
Libby,
Like the other whaling nations, I believe South Korea recognises that anti-whaling nations are only interested in existing IWC rules to the extent that they can be abused to prevent whaling, rather than manage it sustainably.
The IWC’s 54% protection level rule is not a conservation requirement, it was a management decision, trading off the conservation priority versus the development of the whaling industry priority.
With a different mix of nations at the negotiation table I wouldn’t be at all surprised if new management decisions were made that could see resources developed sooner rather than later.
But of course, as we know Australia is convinced that it must seek to push it’s “NO WHALING” agenda at the IWC at all costs. I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that anti-whaling nations, Australia in particular, care about whale conservation.
By the way the reports on this operation that I see suggest it wasn’t a “by-catch” operation. This was a whaling operation that was just hoping not to be detected by the South Korean authorities.
” but with a mooted whale meat processing factory, no mitigation measures to reduce by-catch levels and an adult minke fetching an estimated US $100, 000, the incentive is to increase rather than reduce cetacean by-catch in these waters. The legal sale of such incidental catch may also provide the cover for directed illegal hunting and even intentional net whaling.” – Libby
According to WDCS ,the plans to build a whale meat processing factory are scrapped.
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/F9D68C8AFA715D24802573D100366BC1
Ann,
Greenpeace and KFEM (South Korean NGO) made a lot of noise about the meat processing facility back in 2005. I would say the plans have been put on hold, but not scrapped altogether.
David,
Most enlightening. History will no doubt repeat itself if the lunatics get hold of the asylum.
“I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that anti-whaling nations, Australia in particular, care about whale conservation.”
So which countries do, in your opinion, and why?
Seems there’s a hint of FRUSTRATION in poor David. Great management suggestions. Makes perfect sense. And of course Australia doesn’t care about whale conservation. Don’t be expecting a sensible answer or truth. One padded cell right coming up.
“To me it seems like the Koreans are satisfied with their system of ” accidential” bycatch wich in reality is intentional bycatch.”
They are obviously not satisfied with it if they are supplementing the actual bycatch with supplementary whales.
“With this system most of the world is ignorant about their whaling and they escape international criticism which is important re their big export industry.”
I think this system benefits the food fascists more. The animal protest industry is always trying to malign consumptive users and much of their propaganda tries to blur the lines of legality to make consumptive users look criminal even when their activities are perfectly legal.
While some food fascists and non-stakeholders whipped into a fury by a biased media looking to sell papers and air time may make a fuss, whaling has never been a liability to industry exports.
The animal protest indu$try wishes!
“Given commercial whaling’s past history,….”
Oh c’mon Libby!
The old slippery slope argument is tired and dead. It may still have value as a propagnada headline but not in a two way discussion.
You know as well as I do that we no longer whale for industrial oils or buggy whips or even ladies’ corsets.
The hunt is a completely different beat today.
It is a food fishery.
Besides, you could apply that tired old slippery slope argument to the use of any resource living or mineral but I don’t see you giving up your need for resources.
“So which countries do, in your opinion, and why?”
Well the people who eat whales do, Libby.
They’ve been raising the alarm over pollutants, fish bycatch, seabed destruction marine industrial development and more for much longer than either Greenpeace or the $ea $chleppers have been soaking up the cash and airtime.
“The old slippery slope argument is tired and dead.”
It’s convenient in your mind that it is. Comments here suggest it’s anything but, particularly when talking about small populations. Besides, you have just pointed out some of the problems cetaceans in the world face today – these weren’t problems in the days of corsets and buggy whips.
“but I don’t see you giving up your need for resources.”
You have no idea what I give up Iceclass. Ignorant comment.
“Well the people who eat whales do, Libby.
They’ve been raising the alarm over pollutants, fish bycatch, seabed destruction marine industrial development and more for much longer than either Greenpeace or the $ea $chleppers have been soaking up the cash and airtime.”
Hardly a surprising comment then is it? Did you read this post? Here’s an example – South Koreans eat whales, their waters are some of the most polluted in the world. They have a problem with bycatch, much of it accidental. They recently had a huge oil spill. Along their shores they are developing aquaculture and removing vital wet lands. They are one of the busiest shipping areas in the world. Their odontocetes are shown to have high levels of mercury. Their research into their cetacean fauna is minimal, and at best consists of “surveys” with dodgy stats. Would you like me to compare this with Australia?
Try a bit harder next time. The original comment and yours falls into the prowhaling propaganda trash basket.
iceclass,
The funniest thing about the whole “history of commercial whaling” rhetoric is that recently the anti-whalers are also frantic in their claims of “no market for the meat” (sometimes iced off with a subsequent “the decision of this government doesn’t make any sense at all!” – cracks me up everytime).
Libby,
As you’re so certain that Australia has so much to offer in terms of constructive participation with regards to the conservation of cetacean resources, your apparent “no consumptive use ever” philosophy is disappointing to say the least. As with Australia’s policy on whaling however, the attitude is almost irrelevant.
David,
You mention the word “apparent”. As your comments here are based on your own opinions I would say that “irrelevant” was a term best described for your own existence.
Is being for “non use” something to be ashamed of Libby? Australia’s policy is “non use” after all. Should Australians be ashamed of this policy? Or proud of it?
On irrelevance:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/a-maori-voice-for-a-japanese-cause/2008/01/18/1200620211150.html
“I don’t think the Japanese really care that much about public opinion in Australia.” — Michael Smith, of some PR company
” They are obviously not satisfied with it if they are supplementing the actual bycatch with supplementary whales.” – IceClass
So why don’t they then resume regular whaling operations? No , this system with intentional bycatch is a smart way to avoid international criticism. It’s strange that in countries that allow utilisation of whales in entanglement the bycatch stats are huge.
” whaling has never been a liability to industry exports.” – IceClass
You’r completely wrong on this. The Foreign Ministries of all whaling nations have a tendency to not like whaling very much in comparison to other Ministries because of their negative impact on the coutries reputation.
And it’s a completely different matter that the boycotts don’t work…
I’d suggest Foreign Ministry staff not liking the whaling issue has much to do with the extra work it creates for them.
Additionally I imagine that they realise no matter how much time they spend on the issue, normal diplomatic means won’t help see the matter resolved.
From the fur thread:
“I’ve always wanted a full size fur bed cover” – IceClass
That seems very tacky and vulgar IMO.
IceClass, your stories seem very hollow. First you say that you wear polar bear trousers and make propaganda for the sports polar bear hunt. Secondly, you state that you are a rep for the sealing industry, and now finally you say that you deal with coyote pelts….
I have a sheep skin rug in my living room. I don’t see the difference between this and a full size fur bed cover?
That figures.