Norwegian fisheries paper, Fiskeribladet, stated on March 13th, with the headline “ Scaling down whale purchase,” that Norway’s largest whale meat processing factory, Ellingsens, will scale down its purchase of whale meat.
The owner, Ulf Ellingsen stated, “Maybe we will buy whale meat, maybe not, but anyway it will be much less than previous years.”
Ellingsens factory runs mainly selling salmon. According to the paper, they are concerned that the whale hunt will finally die out, with fewer actors in every field.
“Whaling is in a downward spiral,” said the owner.
BBC stated on March 13th “Iceland whaling go-ahead likely.”
The Icelandic Minke Whalers Head said to BBC that the whaling industry is asking for a quota of about 100 minkes and some Fin whales.
Excerpt from BBC:
Stefan Asmundsson, a senior official in Iceland’s fisheries ministry and its commissioner to the International Whaling Commission (IWC), confirmed that the hunt was likely to go ahead.
“We are not expecting any big quotas, but we are likely to see in the relatively near future some quotas for minke whales.”
The Fisheries Minister is likely to make the final announcement within a month.
Cheers,
Ann Novek
Sweden
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“New bowhead numbers show Inuit are right
DFO population estimate now 15 times greater
Inuit said for years that the Eastern Arctic’s stock of bowhead whales belong to one large and healthy population, while marine biologists at the federal department of fisheries and oceans disagreed.
But new numbers, presented to a public hearing held by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in Iqaluit last week, show that scientists were wrong and Inuit were right.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans now estimates that the Eastern Arctic bowhead whale population is 15 times greater than they thought only eight years ago.”
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002841.html#comments
Apologies for the wrong link:
http://nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/80314_1012.html
Hi iceclass,
Being an engineer and working in a typical environment, I always cringed, when watching old movies, when the crusty old tradesman showed up the young engineer, by pointing out his lack of experience.
Over the years, getting older myself, I realised, that while not all wisdom resided in experience, a great deal of it did. And if you combine theory with experience, you are there!
Unfortunately this is the sort of thing that must be learned anew by every generation.
Why is it so?
We are proud conceited humans, that’s why, it’s our way or no way!
Huh?
” Nature Environment News | Home
Reykjavik/Stockholm – “Market conditions” will determine the size of any whaling quotas set by the Icelandic government, a Fisheries Ministry official said Friday. The traditional whaling season opens in May, but the minister of fisheries has “not decided” yet on any quotas, Stefan Asmundsson, head of the International Affairs Office at the ministry, said.
In 2006 Reykjavik approved the killing of 39 minke whales and nine fin whales for commercial purposes after a break of more than 20 years, although it allowed whale hunting for research.
In August 2007 Fisheries Minister Einar Gudfinsson said no new quotas were to be set citing weak demand for whale meat after commercial whalers caught seven whales of each species.
Asmundsson said the domestic demand would likely be key in the quota decision since “exports were not very big in recent times.”
The whale research programme of 200 animals concluded last autumn.
Asmundsson, who is also whaling commissioner, said possible whaling quotas would be “sustainable” in accordance with the North Atlantic nation’s policy of ensuring that “all living marine resources” were harvested in a sustainable manner.
At present it was unlikely the government would move to allow hunting of other species than minke whales and fin whales, he said.
Minke whales are the smallest of the seven great whales. They are up to 11 metres long, and can weigh about 8 tons. The fin whale is the second largest of the seven great whales. They are up to 24 metres long, and can weigh between 45 and 64 tons. ”
David,
Where is Mr. Kristjan Loftsson?
Interesting IceClass. But where did they get the “15 times” number from? The link makes it clear that numbers have increased much more than 15 times.
“It took more than seven years for the DFO’s science to catch up. The DFO’s estimates of the bowhead population jumped from 345 in 2000 to about 3,000 in 2003, then to 7,309 in 2007, and now to 14,400.”
That is an increase of 41.74 times, not fifteen. And it may be a lot more.
“The DFO’s most recent stock assessment from February says this latest number of 14,400 is only a “partial estimate” and that there could actually be as many as 43,105 bowhead whales in the Eastern Arctic.”
So the variance between the 2000 “estimate” and the current population could be as high as 121.76 times.
A variance of this scale really calls for the names of the authors of the year 2000 estimate to be made public. It is clearly a case of gross incompetence and normal prudence would demand that these people be indentified so that reasonable and practical steps can be taken to ensure that they are not harming the interests of stakeholders in a similar way today.
The nearest we in Australia would have to this kind of gross under reporting of wildlife populations would be the 1985 estimate of Kangaroo numbers by Michael Archer and Tim Flannery. They claimed only 10 million animals Australia wide but subsequent infra-red scans revealed 40 million in Queensland alone.
In both countries the outcome has been the same. Rights, liberties and economic opportunities have been taken from minority, non-urban, occupational classes on the basis of a perceived threat to wildlife that had absolutely no basis in fact.
In both cases there is no valid justification for any restrictions at all. The restrictions (quotas) are the product of a fraudulent mandate.
I have noticed the hypocracy of IceClass here on the blog.
Meanwhile he seems not to be a supporter of AGW , he dares not to oppose the High North Alliances statement on low carbon whale meat….
Tsk, tsk, Ann. So now that your cover has been blown you indulge in personal attacks? Is that all you can say in response to some very relevant information on the population of Bowhead whales?
All IceClass has done is to not comment on a topic. This is a simple omission that is quite distinct from the way you refused to comment on the topic of whale sonar signals when pressed.
And the low carbon footprint of whale meat is a simple statement of fact. It is a fact that has relevance to the perceptions of consumers, no matter how ill-informed those consumers may be.
Ian,
It’s not a personal attack mentioning the lack of discussion of ALL parts re the low carbon footprint of whale meat , that is pointed out by Rune.
Rune states as well that Greenpeace should leave the whale issue and focus on climate change , but you anti -greens/ whale eaters never mention this aspect.
It is as well strange that Ice Class is opposed to AGW since the Arctic Council and most indigenous people ( that he acts as a spokesman for) are very concerned about the climate issue.
Re the Bowheads, the Norwegians thinks it’s hypocracy that the indigenous people can hunt Bowheads without criticism but they can’t hunt minkes…
Ian,
In the previous whaling thread on sonar , I found it quite futile to post any more comments as did Libby, Travis and Roger.
If you had put some effort to find the answer to your question re why sonar from whales is less harmful than sonar from the Navy , you could find some answers googling ” resounance”.
This is very stupid of me but I’m going to give you a quote and link , even if I know that you’re not satisfied…
To be continued…
” ” But Mr. Balcomb, in whose back yard this all began, holds fast to his
claim that what caused the hemorrhaging in the Bahamas whales was
not sound’s effect on the whales’ hearing but on resonance effects in
their air cavities. In a recent letter to the Navy, Mr. Balcomb used
calculations by the Navy’s own physicists to show that both low and
middle frequencies can create resonance effects in whales’ air cavities.
He surmised that low-frequency sonar could cause the same injuries
probably caused by the midlevel sonar during the Bahamas strandings. ”
http://www.facesinnature.com/NYTimes1.html
” Is that all you can say in response to some very relevant information on the population of Bowhead whales?” – Ian
As a matter of fact I have read an article from the same paper that IceClass quoted from . It goes along the line that the Inuits in reality don’t mind very much counting wildlife ( game) such as polar bears and whales etc. See if I can find the article again…
Yes, Ann, you gave us the Balcomb line in the last thread and the best the subsequent reviews have been able to say is that it is a “plausible theory”. That is, it sounds believable but is by no means proven. So we have Balcomb’s opinion vs the unreferenced quote from Travis that appears to water down the whole resounance argument.
“The hypothesis that sounds produced by odontocetes can debilitate fish was examined. The effects of simulated odontocete pulsed signals on three species of fish commonly preyed on by odontocetes were examined, exposing three individuals of each species as well as groups of four fish to a high-frequency click of a bottlenose dolphin [peak frequency (PF) 120 kHz, 213-dB peak-to-peak exposure level (EL)], a midfrequency click modeled after a killer whale’s signal (PF 55 kHz, 208-dB EL), and a low-frequency click (PF 18 kHz, 193-dB EL). Fish were held in a 50-cm diameter net enclosure immediately in front of a transducer where their swimming behavior, orientation, and balance were observed with two video cameras. Clicks were presented at constant rates and in graded sweeps simulating a foraging dolphin’s “terminal buzz.” No measurable change in behavior was observed in any of the fish for any signal type or pulse modulation rate, despite the fact that clicks were at or near the maximum source levels recorded for odontocetes. Based on the results, the hypothesis that acoustic signals of odontocetes alone can disorient or “stun” prey cannot be supported.”
Maybe Travis would like to do us all the courtesy of supplying the author’s details, dates etc.
And the point I have repeatedly made is that the frequencies and intensities used in the experiment, and by implication those used by those species themselves, are greater than that used by most sonar.
One must also remind you that I have not doubted that there may be specific problems with smaller cetaceans who operate in the medium frequency band. But as Ann’s quotes in the previous thread made clear, these medium frequencies are very short range so the radius of harm is limited to about 1km. Hence the USN’s undertaking to limit sonar activity if whales are within that perimeter.
And as I have said before, the long range, low frequency sonar is in the same frequency band as the larger whales and is also at similar intensities to their natural call. So any claim that sonar has very long range adverse impacts has no basis in the science.
This “resounance theory” is only plausible at very close range and even then faces a burden of proof to demonstrate why similar soundings from Orcas do not produce the same damage in beaked whales.
It has now been 7 years since Balcomb put forward his theory. So what has he done to prove his thesis since then? Probably nothing.
Meanwhile, back at the 2000 (is that another Y2K?) gross under-estimate of bowhead whale populations.
Does Ann et al now agree that official estimates can get it all very seriously wrong?
” and by implication those used by those species themselves, are greater than that used by most sonar.” – Motty
Haven’t you mentioned in a previous thread that some baleen whales emitt sounds at frequencies of 230dB?
FYI Motty, the blue whale is the animal on earth that emitts the strongest sound of all animals ( note that loudness can be estimated in many different ways), about 190dB and low-frequent. It’s a HUGE different between 190dB and 230dB( remember the logarithmic scale).
As is mentioned in various sonar threads as well, complications and harmfullness of sonar is NOT only restricted to physical injuries but as well the cetaceans will have difficulties in communicating with each other when the oceans are full of anthropogenic noise.
And now Motty , please try to be on topic !!!!
OOOps ! An error in my above post. Read : at INTENSITY ,not frequency, of 230dB.
Motty, I have read a Canadian article that states that the officials were wrong re beluga numbers and the Inuits were right, so I stand corrected.
Here’s another excerpt:
“Of the three whales that inhabit the Arctic year-round, the beluga is the most important to the Inuit outside of Repulse, Arctic Bay and Grise Fiord. Not only are they more plentiful than narwhal and the giant bowheads, they inhabit most parts of the Arctic’s vast marine world.
No one knows exactly how many belugas there are in Canadian waters, but estimates range from 72,000 to 144,000.
That’s enough in most places to sustain the harvest the Inuit co-manage with Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials.
But the times are changing in the Arctic. Not only is there increasing pressure to hunt more whales, there’s also concern that disease, and contaminants like mercury that are washing out of the melting permafrost, could affect the belugas’ future.
The rapidly melting sea ice, however, could be an even greater threat. Open water could make belugas more vulnerable to killer whales and to the increasing number of ships that will be entering Arctic waters”
Maybe Mott would like to ask Travis for the reference. Better still, get Alex to ask Libby. You’re a waste of space Mott.
“There’s a theory that the dolphin has two hearing systems. One is devoted to communication sounds — the whistles and other noises they make in social settings. The scientists believe the other one is a passive system that has special timing considerations in a portion of the brain that becomes engaged when they begin to echolocate. When dolphins generate a click, they somehow know when the echo will return, and they can ignore other incoming signals until they receive the echo”
FYI Travis has already mentioned this interesting aspect .
You still don’t get it, Ann. If the sound is very low frequency then it is inaudible to all the species that operate in a higher frequency band. And your reference to Blue whales at 190-dB vs 230-dB was a nice attempt at a side-step but, again, you ignore the critical issue of frequency band.
Lets look at Travis’ unreferenced quote again where it says, “..exposing three individuals of each species ..to a high-frequency click of a bottlenose dolphin [peak frequency (PF) 120 kHz, 213-dB peak-to-peak exposure level (EL)], a midfrequency click modeled after a killer whale’s signal (PF 55 kHz, 208-dB EL), and a low-frequency click (PF 18 kHz, 193-dB EL).”
Note that the latter low frequency click was at 18 kHz and 193-dB while the long range sonar is all in the <1 kHz band. It is such a low frequency with such a long wavelength that resounance is not an issue.
Just a little hint, folks. We have “microwave” ovens for heating things up. They work on the resounance produced by high frequency radiation. We do not have ultra-low frequency ovens because they do not produce sufficient resounance to warm up a blow-fly’s turd.
And readers should note that Travis has declined my obvious hint above to supply references to his quotes. One normally regards this as a minimum professional performance requirement but, then, I suppose it does involve Travis, after all, so I guess we will have to do without.
And what a cop-out on the Belugas, Ann. Using the mere potential for future harm as a justification for limiting the rights and liberties of the Inuit is classic green sleaze.
The first obligation of all who might want to influence policy on the management of these resources is to get the damned numbers right. The next step is to observe actual trends in numbers to determine the ACTUAL impacts, if any, of the issues you raised. And once those ACTUAL impacts can be shown to be of a material bearing on the populations of the species then appropriate and proportionate measures could be implemented.
If the Canadian DFO is so incompetent and unprofessional as to propose regulations, or to maintain existing ones, on the basis of population estimates that range from 72,000 to 144,000, or that can be between 42 times and 120 times below the actual population count, then they are clearly acting with a callous disregard for the rights and liberties of the Inuit people.
So lets take a look at what you said, shall we?
“But the times are changing in the Arctic. Not only is there increasing pressure to hunt more whales, (how many more, exactly) there’s also concern (by what vocal but ignorant minority) that disease, and contaminants like mercury that are washing out of the melting permafrost, could affect the belugas’ future (in what specific way and to what extent?).
And then there was, “The rapidly melting sea ice (really? not this year, Ann), however, could be an even greater threat. Open water could make belugas more vulnerable to killer whales and to the increasing number of ships that will be entering Arctic waters”.
This last one is a classic. So how many ships enter these Arctic waters already, Ann? And how many more are realistically likely to go there IF the ice continues to melt? And how many million km2 of water are these 72,000 to 144,000 Belugas spread over and what is the realistic probability that these ships will kill any but the old and sick who are too weak to respond to the only ship to pass by that week? My guess? About three fifths of sweet FA.
This kind of baseless, unsubstantiated scaremongering to deprive minorities of access to their natural resources is the worst kind of neo-colonialist arrogance because it claims authority without any responsibility for the consequences.
Mott wrote:
>obvious hint
No hints Ian. Ask, like a normal, decent human being would. Oh, excuse me, that isn’t you.
Mott wrote:
>One normally regards this as a minimum professional performance requirement
Shall we scroll back through the archives to see where you have provided referenced material vs anecdotal crap vs lies vs plain stoopid comments? You are a hypocrite. Then again, you did mention ‘professional’, which again is not you.
Mott wrote:
>This kind of baseless, unsubstantiated
That is exactly you in your nut shell Mott.
Still can’t get your re-faced head around the fact that getting population estimates for aquatic animals is different from counting COWS in a paddock can you? I wonder why…
Your ignorance NEVER ceases to amaze.
HAPPY EASTER TO EVERYONE!!!!
Travis, most people regard supplying the references when you quote someone as the minimum standard of behaviour. Google “plagiarism”. But of course, this quote isn’t as “convenient” as you first assumed it to be so you are now trying to bury it.
Well then ‘Alex’, maybe you could ask me for it. It’s pretty simple really. Contrary to your paranoid and baseless claim I have no qualms about supplying the reference. It is a matter of courtesy, which you are incapable of but demand from others.
Happy Easter Ann. May you have healthy gulls with no bumble foot that can be released into pristine seas.
” Environment Minister Peter Garrett has called on Iceland and Norway to respect the international global moratorium on commercial whaling.
The call follows reports Iceland is considering issuing commercial whaling quotas for 2008, on the back of Norway’s recent decision to approve a quota”
http://news.theage.com.au/garrett-wants-end-to-commercial-whaling/20080319-20gg.html
There will also post a translation here on the blog re a statement from the Icelandic Minke Whalers Association on the IWC meeting in London
Read : I will also post ….