Comments davidintokyo has made

something to consider

amc89,

Have the existing bans on trade stamped out illegal hunting of wildlife?On Controversy in Kenya posted 2 years, 7 months ago 13 Responses

finally 3.....

Here is an article about Nan Hauser's tagging work that I referred to.

"It is a month since Ygor arrived from his own tagging project in Brazil; but in the Cook Islands he has yet to tag a single whale, and time and the weather are not on his side."

"The task is not an easy one."On Humpback whales have 'human-like' brain cells posted 3 years ago 26 Responses

finally...

"What I dislike is that he seems to mention these matters as a way to minimize the significance of whaling, or to distract attention away from it."

Whaling is insignificant in terms of whale conservation, which is my concern. I understand that whaling is significant to you in terms of your ethical ideas. Please try to understand my perspective.

For the record I have raised the issue of true threats to whales a couple of times recently on my blog, which I am readily able to locate thanks to the new "label" functionality Blogger introduced a few months back:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/search/label/threats%2...
My focus is very much on the whaling debate, but like Australian researchers I think the whaling issue needs to be resolved if we are ever to get the general public more focused on true conservation threats. Maybe you disagree with my priorities - you are welcome to if you like, but doubting me isn't particularly constructive I feel.

And finally, please do not make the mistake of misrepresenting my statements. I most certainly do care about animal welfare, and I would like to see killing methods improved. My tolerance / support of dolphin-killing and whale-killing is from a conservation perspective. There is more than one way of looking at the world.On Humpback whales have 'human-like' brain cells posted 3 years ago 26 Responses

Marine Policy

Jason, does the Marine Policy really cover any new ground?On Humpback whales have 'human-like' brain cells posted 3 years ago 26 Responses

canis

Whether whalers are Japanese or not should have no bearing on this discussion. Whalers are whalers and I see no benefit in clumping them into different categories based on what country they come from in a debate about conservation.On Humpback whales have 'human-like' brain cells posted 3 years ago 26 Responses

subject

TokyoTom,

Indeed, although I apologise to Jason for hijacking his thread. I'll make this my last one on this thread in case people want to discuss Jason's thing about Japan killing humpbacks from next year.

Jason,

I personally wonder what realisitically can be hoped for with regards to the Northern Right Whale. Even if we were suddenly able to plonk 10,000 right whales back into that environment, I imagine that we'd see is a big increase in the number of reported ship strike occurances, more fishing gear entanglement, thus probably negative growth for the population anyway. The authorities have been enacting measures related to both of these threats, but I think more needs to be done to find long-term solutions that would be appropriate for a day when we don't have just a few hundred of these critters swimming around, but potentially thousands of them.

There was an article in the Japanese media recently about research into underwater sound emitting devices being attached to vessels (ship strike reports are up here in Japan), and apparently they observed some success in repelling the whales from the path of the ships.

Since whales are supposed to be smart and intelligent, hopefully one day humans can devise a device to omit "hey, coming through!" signals to the whales that they understand, but I guess we are still quite a way off from that yet.On Humpback whales have 'human-like' brain cells posted 3 years ago 26 Responses

and again (sorry?)

OK, still not working, so here is the rest:

As I understand it this population has been recovering strongly so there is no great concern in terms of conservation, but they drowned that whale - it seems that it took at least 30 minutes to die.

I seem to recall a US cruise ship mowing down a Humpback quite recently as well.

On the other hand, the Northern Right Whale population is one of the most endangered in the world (it's not currently the target of whaling activity and hasn't been for many decades, but hasn't recovered despite protection - it may already be below it's critical depensation level).
IWC scientists are concerned that if anthropogenic mortality rate for this species is not reduced to 0, there is a very true concern that this species will be lost forever within the next 200 years.
Many of the members of this species have been observed with scars that indicate lucky escapes from entanglement / ship strike, and a number of deaths related to these causes have been confirmed in recent times.

Human behaviour is thus resulting in what must be painful deaths for these whales (with nothing at all to do with whaling) and not only that, it's also a conservation issue.

Anyway, you know where my priorities are. I personally see little difference between humans deliberately killing whales versus killing them accidently, but I prefer the former because
a) less pain is likely involved on average for the whale that is killed
b) accidental killing poses a far greater conservation concern

Cheers,
David

"The greatest threats to them now are bycatches in fishing gear, collisions with ships and potential damage to their habitat." -- Greg Donovan, Head of Science at the IWC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5103378.stmOn Humpback whales have 'human-like' brain cells posted 3 years ago 26 Responses

subject

Jason,

I do recommend that you look into ship strike, and I'd note that it's not just drift nets that are a problem.

Just a couple of weeks ago USA nationals killed a Humpback whale in a purse seine net while doing some (lethal) fisheries research:
http://www.sitnews.us/1106news/111506/111506_whale.html)On Humpback whales have 'human-like' brain cells posted 3 years ago 26 Responses

just a note

Jason,

Humpback whales are already being slaughtered, and it isn't by "the Japanese".

As always, you might want to refer to "whalers" rather than a specific race of people, some of whom happen to be whalers.

Best!
DavidOn Humpback whales have 'human-like' brain cells posted 3 years ago 26 Responses

Hey Tom

Tom,

I have nothing to do with Japan's programmes. It is strictly a hobby. All the information I am party to is available on the Internet - there's a wealth of information available on the IWC's homepage as well as the homepage of the ICR of course - not to mention the dodgy information from anti-whaling NGO homepages that becomes oh so incredibly transparent when reviewed properly against the full background.

By the way, Japan's research programmes have been evaluated by fisheries scientists from outside of Japan and evaluated quite well, all things considered. Keep your eyes peeled for the results of the complete JARPA review at next years' IWC meeting in May. The review will take place in a few weeks time in Tokyo - I would love to be party to the information, but like the rest of the public I'll also have to wait until IWC 59.

I think the Japanese government is going in the right direction on fisheries issues as well. It is trying to sort out problems within the industry and has taken the lead internationally in some areas here as well. The Japanese industry is where the real challenges lie, as they have more vested interests.On It's not driven by demand posted 3 years ago 39 Responses

To be fair to Greenpeace,

 they do actually campaign against overfishing. The problem I have with them is that they also campaign against whaling for what are evidently completely different reasons, which means that I can't donate to them because I don't know that my money won't get wasted on their flash PR campaigns in the Southern Ocean (or other stupid antics elsewhere).

By the way, the CCSBT has just posted reports from their recent meeting in which Japan agreed to reduce it's quota by more than half to around 3,000 tonnes over the next 5 years, partially to compensate for 1,500 tonnes of overfishing that was identified in 2004/2005, and partially as a move to aid the conservation of the stock, as I understand it. Other nations also took smaller less significant cuts, but Australia has maintained it's quota at around 5,200 and apparently only agreed to make further investigations into it's own industries practices.

The irony in this case is that the SBT is listed by the IUCN as "Critically Endangered". Australia protects it's own fishermen in this case, but attacks Icelanders for hunting "Endangered" fin whales, which are actually abundant in the waters where Iceland hunts. Sad for conservation efforts.On It's not driven by demand posted 3 years ago 39 Responses

caniscandia,

If you are puzzled, is that not your problem? Again, I have no idea what I could say to you that would "unpuzzle" you.

My popping up here has a lot to do with people posting stuff from the Economist that is extremely debateable given official figures on such topics as consumption trends. I presented the information for readers' consideration.

Would it be less suspicious if I let what I believe to be gross misinformation stand unquestioned? I get the impression that it is my questioning myth and dogma which you might prefer to believe that is really what is getting on your nerves.On It's not driven by demand posted 3 years ago 39 Responses

ugh

caniscandia,

I never said or implied that the people here at Grist are all Greenpeace people. I pointed out the ridiculous and contradictory nature of some of the arguments made against whaling in the west. Either way, Greenpeace are clearly lying somewhere, and I would be willing to bet that I can find other similar contradictory accusations made by other NGOs as well. That is not a comment about Grist readers but the anti-whaling confidence industry in general.

Your interest in my interest gives me the very strong impression that you are just trying to line me up for some kind of ad hominem attack. My arguments are what they are regardless of my personal interests and motivations. Address my arguments, or otherwise stop pussy footing around and tell everyone why you care so much about my life story (which does in fact have nothing to do with whaling). If you care so much about my motivations why don't you go to my blog and read all 400 posts back to front to see if you can find yourself an answer. I don't know what I need to say to satisfy you, and I don't know why I should need to justify myself to you in the first instance. I couldn't care less who you are, you should be able to extend me the same courtesy in a fair discussion.

Alternatively, if you want to stick to the arguments - answer me this: why should conservationists actively try to wipe out examples of sustainable natural resource use, of which whaling is one? If you wish to talk about sealing in Canada or elephant hunting in Southern Africa I'm happy enough to defend those activities as well, not to mention my home country's minister of fisheries allowing a bycatch of up to 150 new zealand sea lions this year from a population of around 12,000.

You want to argue against these activities on an ethical basis? Fine. I accept that. Why can't you accept that for others such as myself (like those at the IUCN) sustainable use of resources is a primary concern, and instead choose to question us? There is a word for that, but I will refrain from using it.On It's not driven by demand posted 3 years ago 39 Responses

and also...

opposition to whaling based on a belief that consumption is dying in Japan, when official figures that have been misinterpreted by anti-whaling NGOs clearly indicate otherwise.On It's not driven by demand posted 3 years ago 39 Responses

well then

Jason,

I said that the economist article from a few years ago was better - not that it was perfect. I also provided you with a link to actual figures showing increases in consumption over the past three years, largely driven by increases in private demand. It's not like you to selectively focus on something other than the full complete picture.

biodiversist,

You talk about whaling being a small industry. So what? Your conclusion is that because some people (often based on erroneous information) think that the industry should end is that it should? My conclusion is just the opposite. Why should a small industry that today is relatively eco-friendly for what it does be shut down? Have the people arguing against whaling ever thought of putting their writing and thinking skills to maybe a more meaningful endeavour to conserver the biosphere?

If you don't find my explanation compelling, I don't care. What are your motivations for commenting on whaling related topics? (That's rhetorical - I couldn't care less to be honest - my interest is in facts and reality, not misinformed propaganda).
On It's not driven by demand posted 3 years ago 39 Responses

canny

> On the other hand, to create an international, government-supported whale-saving organization would take some doing.

For a start, get all the anti-whaling nations to quit the whaling organization. It's hard to sink a ship when you want to keep sailing on it yourself :-)

> Your agenda ... is -- what?

Conservation. What the IUCN is into. I think this can help make the world a better place. Making wishy washy exceptions is contrary to this. I'm not adverse to all the moral arguments, but I think our priority at this stage should at least be to make sure what we are doing is sustainable, and there's plenty that we are not. Yet some people are wasting time and focus suggesting that the minor activity of whaling needs to end.

> OK; but have you in fact persuaded anybody?

Dunno about here on Gristmill, but in other forums on the Internet people who were unsure seem to have found my information instructive.

> "Everyone" is a lot of people,

OK, well I'm talking about governments. There is no government that wants to see unsustainable whaling resumed and all the whales killed off. It's true that I can't rule out madmen. One Indian colleague of mine said that he couldn't give a crap about their endangered Tigers.

> I am having to accept your friends the Japanese whalers slaughtering whales.

I've never met a single Japanese whaler in my life, although I would like to - but anyway, you are kind of skipping over all the other people in the world who kill and eat cetaceans. There are quite a lot of them actually.On No demand for Iceland's whale meat posted 3 years, 1 month ago 61 Responses

maddy

> Whales are great to watch and Iceland has a great whale watching tourism industry.

It's ok. Apparently numbers of tourists have increased from 60,000 to 90,000 since 2002, despite Iceland commencing a scientific whaling programme from 2003.

Didn't hurt tourism much, did it?

> In a recent internet poll 70% of Japanese were opposed to a return to commercial whaling...

What question were those respondants asked, and what information did the survey give them to base their answers on?

In actually factual news, I've been doing more stockpile analysis and I found that year on year for the figures going back to February 2004 (as far as is available on the Internet) the official figures indicate that consumption increased year on year every month between February 2004 and August 2006, with the exception of March 2004 being slightly ahead of March 2005.

Consumption here is rising.

I'll put these figures on my blog later.

> Maybe the Japanese Government should invest in whale watching

There is a whale watching industry in Japan, and I'm actually hoping to go whale-watching at the end of the month, if it's possible to organize myself in time.

> rather than spending millions of dollars to pay for votes at the International Whaling Commission.

Japan doesn't pay for votes at the IWC. Japan gives millions in overseas development assistance, in the way of loans, technical assistance, and grants. Some very good work is done in this respect. Were Japan buying votes at the IWC they would have reached a 75% majority easily already. On No demand for Iceland's whale meat posted 3 years, 1 month ago 61 Responses

caniscandida

> that means we should all give in to a gang of people who are going to go out and kill whales whether we like them to or not, and then we should all happily call that a reasonably negotiated treaty, and a sealed and kissed agreement.  I think that is not what Tokyo Tom had in mind.

Sure, but what is the realistic alternative?

You can't always get what you want.

The situation is that indeed as you say, whalers are going to kill whales without some people object to it or not. Damn. We can get all down and gloomy about it (well, not me, but those opposed to whaling), or we can at least try to make the best of a bad situation.

This clearly means that we should meet the whalers half way. They are going to kill whales. Let's at least try to bring this under international control via the International Whaling Commission, and make a start with these people. Once we've ensured that their whaling will at least be sustainable, then having bought ourselves this insurance, continue with the moral arguments.

> what could you possibly mean by "compromise," other than letting the whalers have their way?

Everyone wants whaling to be sustainable, at the very minimum. Why not at least get this guarantee for starters?

> suggesting that whaling does not make economic sense.

I very much disagree with Andrew. I think commercial whaling on a sustainable basis could make economic sense, especially in Japan's case.

They are interested in harvesting whales in both the southern and northern hemispheres which will keep their capital at work for most of the year. Iceland and Norwegian whalers on the other hand only catch whales in season in their coastal waters, although at least in Norway's case their whaling vessels are used in other fisheries for the rest of the year, I believe.

> I would propose an absolute moratorium on whaling

That's not a solution, because the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling allows for
a) whaling for scientific purposes
b) nations to object to decisions that they don't accept as being justified.

We need to work within the bounds of the ICRW, or otherwise work to destroy the ICRW (which seems implausible to me).

> The IWC's job should not be to examine whether whales can be "harvested" (or "collected," or "taken") "sustainably."  

The reality is that conservation and whaling regulation are the IWC's purpose, and you can't change it. If you want a whale saving organization you'll have to start a new one. The IWC's convention can't just be rewritten at will, as much as the anti-whaling nations would like to be able to do that.
On No demand for Iceland's whale meat posted 3 years, 1 month ago 61 Responses

wiscidea

>When information suggests it is okay to harvest whales, we can then debate the morality of it.

The IWC's Scientific Commitee can today provide advice on sustainable catch limits. Over a number of years following the IWC's commercial whaling moratorium, they developed a "Revised Management Procedure". Instead of me telling you about it, I'll let members of the Committee who were involved in it's development explain:

1) American statistician Judy Zeh talking to Australia's ABC a few years ago when she was Chair of the IWC Scientific Committee:
"it's certainly true that if commercial whaling were resumed under the revised management procedure, it could be managed safely"
(http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s147657.htm)

2) Greg Donovan, Head of Science at the IWC, commenting on the RMP earlier this year:
"From a scientific perspective, the IWC Scientific Committee has developed probably the most rigorously tested way to estimate safe catch levels for any marine species."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5103378.stm)

3) Dr Doug Butterworth (well-known fisheries management scientist) on the RMP:
"it is so risk averse that the only real scientific basis for questioning its immediate implementation is that it is so conservative that it will waste much of a potential harvest."
(http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Management_Regimes/NAMMCO...)

-----

So, this is why people are talking about the morality of whaling now.On No demand for Iceland's whale meat posted 3 years, 1 month ago 61 Responses

Dear fellow Edoite

TokyoTom,

I don't think it is really necessary to place property rights on whales. I don't see why the current system couldn't work just fine if the participants had the will.

And I'm not sure how property rights would work, anyway. For a start, we don't even know with precise accuracy how many whales there are. Who gets the rights anyway? To me it seems that not that many nations have a stake in a given stock of whales that they shouldn't simply be able to sit down and discuss a mutually satisfactory agreement.

I would note that "traditional, subsistence level" whaling is pretty hard to define given that in Alaska they apparently use some modern gear in their hunt (not to mention that the US is the richest country in the world so of course could ship food there if required), and in West Greenland you can find whale meat on supermarket shelves. I don't know exactly where the line between this and Japanese coastal whaling ambitions is, but what I do know is that we should not automatically assume that whatever we do classify as "aboriginal subsistence" whaling, is exempt from proper conservation considerations. I would never support an ongoing bowhead hunt by the Alaskas were it to become apparent that say climate change meant that such a hunt was no longer sustainable.

We have indeed seen species go extinct in the past, even with traditional methods - the New Zealand Moa bird is just one such tragic case (boy would I love to have seen one of those things walking around...). Modern technology does provide us with greater capacity to do damage, but this does not mean we must use it. On the contrary I see modern technology as a positive because it means that we can achieve faster killing than has been possible in the past. So long as we recognise that those "resources" are not infinite...

> Also, of course baleen whales, which are the ones taken, largely eat krill, not fish.

Just out of curiosity, how much fish do they eat, and which species, and in which locations? Would love to read some research about this.

> Can you guys start talking about solutions, and not simply positions?

The USA has already started talking about solutions, working within the current framework. I doubt there would be much political will to throw away everything the IWC does have and start all over again. The problem is that the IWC only gets together once a year (and in fact they've been talking about only doing it bi-annually as well).On No demand for Iceland's whale meat posted 3 years, 1 month ago 61 Responses

For Jason

Jason, you might be interested in this news:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1501AP_Self_Aware_...

Elsewhere however, conservationists have been pushing their case:

http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/search/label/Eugene%20...On No demand for Iceland's whale meat posted 3 years, 1 month ago 61 Responses

Dear Jason

Hi Jason,

Well in this case Iceland is only hunting 9 Fin whales and 30 minke whales, which will work out to be maybe 200-250 tonnes of meat I imagine. I think the Icelandic market has the potential to absorb that much meat, and well, the Iceland Ministry of Fisheries does also.

Currently by the way Japan doesn't buy whales from anywhere, although if the Icelanders did wish to find a market in Japan I'm sure that they could (yes I saw the reports about Japan's ambassador saying it wouldn't be needed, but I don't think she really knows the details). The fact is that whale meat in Japan wholesales at around 2,000 yen a kilogram, with actual consumer retail prices often 3 times that. This is significantly more expensive than whale meat substitutes, which seems to me to indicate further potential consumption. If Iceland's whalers were to get permission to export their meat (hypothetically here) I image that if they undercut the Japanese government's wholesale prices they could probably rake themselves in 2 million USD from this small little hunt. I'm not sure exactly what the situation would be in terms of restrictions in the case the government did permit the imports though.

> It's not economic for them

Scientific whaling is not economic, but the long term goal of commercial whaling is. I refer you to the historical fact that whale meat production peaked at 226,000 tonnes in 1962, and today annual supply is less than 10,000 tonnes, with whale meat prices remaining high (despite everything you may have read in the western environmental media - the figures are on my blog, if you wish to see for yourself).

> Unfortunately, many here on Grist don't seem to care whether whaling is profitable or not- as long as it's "sustainable" they're ok with it, which is short-sighted and undermines environmentalism.

Thought you'd get another plug in on this concept ;-)On No demand for Iceland's whale meat posted 3 years, 1 month ago 61 Responses

waste of time and energy

Hey Jason,

You sure do seem to have a thing about those whales, of which hardly any are killed by humans.

But anyway, putting my conservationist hat on, I've seen this news before myself and had some questions:

1. The technique still hasn't actually been developed or tested. How are they going to test that the whales are really as old as they think? The most accurate way is, amusingly, to kill a whale and test it's age using the current standard method of earplug examination.

2. Even if one day the technique works for one whale, how practical would it be to apply it to 850 randomly selected whales in the JARPA II survey area around Antarctica?

3. What is the point, anyway? Whale age information is not being gathered just for the hell of it - those interested in it are interested in it because they want to use the information in population modelling to aid in the setting of safe commercial whaling catch limits. Their goal is not research for the sake of research, their goal is research for the sake of making for commercial whaling - they intend to kill whales, using the information they obtain in order to set catch limits. Whether whales are killed for science or directly for dinner, the whales do not care much, I believe.

PS - you seem a little peeved that more and more environmentalists don't see a problem with sustainable use of natural resources? The World Conservation Union (IUCN) doesn't either, in fact it has a policy on sustainable use. You'd hate it :-)On New scientific advance could help whales posted 3 years, 1 month ago 6 Responses

mandatory field

1. Saying that you do not think dolphin hunts in Japan are immoral- your right- but very illuminating

I wonder what you think it tells you? It tells me that our morals are different. What you want to infer from that is over to you. I personally feel that I'm a respectable human being because I don't try to impose my morals on others. I'm very proud of this aspect of who I am. I'd sooner be dead than any other way.

2. Again, trying rather undeftly to change the subject by suggesting that other practices in the U.S. are worse-

In my way of thinking they most certainly are. In my view, animals living freely before humans use them is highly desirable. I can't imagine why we would think of stamping out such uses of animals while other far worse uses exist.

A world where humans survive off the natural ecosystems around them sounds to me like it would be a great place to live.

 I have never said that they aren't and my opposition to factory-farming (which dominates U.S. agriculture) topped my list of practices that I think environmentalists should oppose

Yet, I've seen post after post from you in recent weeks about cetacean hunts... You don't seem to care much about your own priorities. Just my impression.

   3. You are also on record as saying that people who maim and kill should not be the ones who have to justify their actions, which I find rather odd

I find it rather odd that you think you have any right to dictate to people on the other side of the world how they should live in their environment, particularly when there seems to be worse things happening closer to home (in my opinion).

your sphere of caring seems essentially to include inly humans.

That's not true. From my conservationist POV I care about sustainability, but when I think about how animals live the priority for me is that they be able to live as natural lives as possible, free of human influence. The whales have it great in this respect. The cows have it miserable.

it is inconsistent with vritually all moral philosophy, arbitrary, and contrary to what I believe is at the core of environmentalism: a respect for life.

I respect life as a part of my humanity, not as a part of my conservationist streak. I think whalers show far more respect to whales than US cattle farmers do to their stock. They even artificially inseminate them, don't they? Sheez. Here in Japan they have shrines dedicated to whales.

Perhaps you might enjoy a field trip to Japan sometime, if you were able to make your mind a little more flexible to foreign places.

 To me, an environmentalist should oppose all extreme forms of animal cruelty, which includes practices as wide ranging as factory farming AND dolphin massacres.

I don't see anything extreme about small slaughers of dolphins compared to US beef farming practices. There's countless miserable cows today. The dolphins on the other hand are swimming free in the oceans.On The state of play on the animal welfare question posted 3 years, 2 months ago 23 Responses

not going to have much luck with that

The last sentence of the former contribution, on where the onus should be placed regarding the killing of animals (in spite of a potentially confusing typo of an important word: you wanted to write "maim," didn't you?), is excellent.

I think it's ridiculous.

What do you personally eat? Now justify to me why you should be able to continue eating that? Of course, I'm going to be the judge, using my morals.

Sound fair?
On The state of play on the animal welfare question posted 3 years, 2 months ago 23 Responses

so what are the moral ways of whaling for food?

I would appreciate it if you didn't manipulate my points.

I assure you it was unintentional, perhaps I didn't explain myself very clearly.

Howeverm I think you drastically overstate the cultural history of whaling in Japan

I don't recall having talked that much about the cultural history of whaling in Japan that much (I certainly haven't mentioned it on this thread), but perhaps you might like to single out people in the Solomon Islands, Phillipines, Norway, Iceland, the USA, Russia, Korea, the Marshall Islands, St. Lucia and so on instead for a change, rather than constantly mentioning Japan. There are various places where cetaceans are eaten, and I don't understand the constant Japan focus. It only serves to cloud the arguments, in my opinion.

, and try to pigeon-hole anyone with a notion of animal welfare as some sort of wishy-washy extremist.

Sorry if it can across like that, it's not intended. The reality is that those ideas simply aren't as widely accepted as ideas about ensuring humans activities on this earth are sustainable. This concept has been writen about in all sorts of documents and international conventions, where as the animal welfare ideas you talk about don't seem to have been. I'm not trying to say your ideas are extremist - just that they are not as widely accepted as the ideas of sustainability.

but there are moral ways and immoral ways to go about it.

So tell me how people could morally go about eating whales then :-)

You are full of reasons why it is not compatible with your morals, so let me hear some ways in which killing whales and eating them for food would be moral (this sounds more constructive).

If there are moral ways to go about whaling, then surely there is no need to ban it, and piss people off (and potentially create black markets, which may work to the detriment of efforts to ensure whale stocks are conserved)?

I think you have a very naive and unsophisticated understanding of the animal welfare arguments.

Probably very true. They don't interest me a great deal, as ultimately I don't see them as being of great use in the wider international scheme of things. Morals aren't standardized internationally, I'm afraid (nor domestically either for that matter).

Finally, I'm glad that you mentioned the intelligence of animals as a criteria. Now you are in the realm of science and

Well I really only mentioned it because you were talking about higher levels of consciousness.
On The state of play on the animal welfare question posted 3 years, 2 months ago 23 Responses

To biodiversivist

> Why do you support whaling?

I support tolerance more than anything. I put myself in the shoes of my fellow human beings, and ask myself "how would I feel?"

> What would it matter if it ended? A few people would have to find other livlihoods,

It would also set a dangerous precedent for conservation and the whole notion of sustainable resource use, which is something that I think is important.

> Do you have strong, all consuming reasons to support it, or are you just  basicly critical of the animal rights movement and are using whales as a case in point?

Whaling was the first issue that woke me up to the massive confidence scam that is going on.
If there are good reasons for whaling to end - fine - but if they are that good the whalers should understand them too. The problem I originally saw was that many people who were opposing whaling had no clue about the issue at all (as was the case with me until I started to suspect that I wasn't getting the full story).  

> I agree with most of your points. I am just wondering what motivates you.

I want to see the "right" and "just" outcome. Not some manufactured outcome that people would shake their heads at if they were fully informed. I don't want to live in a world where irrational decisions with potentially bad outcomes are made.

> I would like to see whaling ended because it serves no useful purpose other than to employ some poeple who could be employed eleswhere.

That goes for any industry though doesn't it?

> In other words, there isn't a strong case not to end it.

I don't see a strong case to end it, and at the end of the day, I think it's most important to actually involve the people who it WILL affect when making the decisions, not make the decisions then tell them to tow the line. That's only going to piss them off big time. Why would we deliberately choose to disaffect people? Seems crazy to me.

> I argue to end it because in the future, when enforcment of regulations break down

Yeah, but lots of industries have rule breakers. This is a fact of life. It's not an excuse to go banning everything.

> We have a chance here to put out the smoldering ember, giving at least one organism on the planet one less way to die at the hands of humanity.

Very easy to decide such things when you ignore the people who it effects :-)On The state of play on the animal welfare question posted 3 years, 2 months ago 23 Responses

uncertainties

I wonder if the continued warming of the oceans will cause potential problems -- such as less krill, competing for feeding grounds, etc. -- and a subsequent downward turn in populations. Then, perhaps, any whaling that's already reduced breeding populations might seem regrettable. Has this been factored into the equation?

Yes. The IWC's "Revised Management Procedure" has been tested against a range of scenarios, including catastrophes and sudden reductions in population by half. As a result, the catch limits that the RMP permits are extremely conservative. One of the developers of the RMP noted that were similar principles applied to other types of fisheries, most of them would have to be shut down immediately. It's a very conservative system.On Yes posted 3 years, 2 months ago 22 Responses

amc89

The seal hunt topic is an interesting one, too...

I see a similarity with what's happening with whales in Japan with what's happening in Canada with seals.  The commercial seal slaughter makes no scientific or economic sense, but it does benefit the Canadian politicians on the east coast.

Figures at the link below show that the Landed Value for the seal hunt in 2006 was $27,023,320.
http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/reports_rapport...
Compare it with what happened in 2005:
http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/reports_rapport...

$16,289,402? Wow. They saw an increase of more than $10,000,000 in the Landed Value of the seal hunt year on year. That's pretty impressive given increasing fuel costs.

Why not let the people of that region decide whether or not it makes economic sense?

We all know that it was government incompetance and unreasonably high quotas that caused the cod collapse, but marine mammals are easy scapegoats, whether in Canada, Japan, or Norway.  

It's always worth keeping it in the back of one's mind that people do actually eat marine mammals in those places.

The decline of cod and other fisheries is obviously caused by over-fishing, not marine mammals.

Whatever, what's really important is the sustainability of the seal hunt itself. Perhaps if animal welfare groups promised to pay the people of the region $27,000,000 annually each year, plus inflation, and so forth, then they might agree to stop hunting seals and sit around on their bums all day instead of working?

But its easier for Canadian ministers to call for an increase in seal hunting than it is to implement fisheries recovery programs that include strict quotas.

That's certainly true, but there is little wrong in increasing quotas for seals if they are in abundance.

As we've seen in fishing communities around the world, as long as seals and fisheries overlap, commercial fishing interests will want to remove seals from the eco-system.

I was under the impression that the people hunting seals were fishermen looking for supplemntary income in an otherwise quiet time of the year. I could be wrong :-)

some scientists predict that in several years, the effects of the hunt will be evident.

I heard that the seal population estimates today are much higher than they were back... in the early 80's, I think it was.

Today's kill levels meet and even exceed those of the 1950s and 60s. And today seals have a new threat to contend with - climate change.

Indeed. The effects of climate change on these animals needs to be monitored, and human hunts adjusted accordingly.On If environmentalism doesn't include animal welfare, why not? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 65 Responses

caniscandida

From the Scoop article:

"We are continually subjected to abuse, racism and other terrible means from these groups because we support the rights of all people to utilize whale resources for food, just like we do in the Caribbean."

And here is one of the images that was published:
http://www.earthisland.org/immp/assets/image6_03.jpg

The ECO publications refered to "Japan's Caribbean lap dogs".

Of course, whether you regard all this as racism or not is a personal decision for you.On Japan eradicates dolphins as form of 'pest control' posted 3 years, 2 months ago 8 Responses

eh?

An interesting comment here on the protest site:

We know first-hand that showing up in Japan is very expensive and dangerous

What is dangerous about showing up in Japan?
On Japan eradicates dolphins as form of 'pest control' posted 3 years, 2 months ago 8 Responses

That was such bad english,

...I will try again:

90% of proceeds from whale meat sales go to funding the JARPA programmes, but I've not seen any exact figures for where the whale meat sales go to fund the IWC research vessel (which is my assumption based on the funding for JARPA)On If environmentalism doesn't include animal welfare, why not? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 65 Responses

a concrete example...

A tax by itself is a financial disincentive, and thus reduces the incentive to conserve resources. Of course, if people still reap enough benefit despite the tax, then they still have an incentive, albeit a reduced one.

But allow to me give an example of what I am talking about with respect to whales. The International Whaling Commission conducts it's own research in the Antarctic (SOWER), independantly of Japan's (JARPA) programme.

Last year's research cruise was led by one of my fellow New Zealanders, Paul Ensor, along with US and Japanese scientists. A significant confirmation from this latest cruise was that Blue whales are indeed finally showing clear signs of recovery after dwindling in numbers for many years despite being protected since the 1960's. This was welcome news in terms of whale conservation ().

Now, if I come to my point - who do you think it was who stumped up with the vessel that took these scientists to the Antarctic so they could carry out their research?

It was the Government of that well-known whaling nation, Japan, not the world's richest nation the USA, nor that great whale loving nation situated so close to Antarctic, Australia.

Unfortunately for whale conservation, until last year, the GOJ had been providing two research vessels for each year, but due to financial constraints, they have had to make the decision to reduce the number of vessels to just one, as noted here in this report: http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SOWERPlanMtgSep05...

"On behalf of the IWC, [Greg] Donovan [head of science at the IWC] reiterated the Commission's considerable appreciation of Japan's most generous provision of two vessels in previous years. He recognised the financial difficulties currently encountered by the Japanese Government in maintaining that level of support, but both as a scientist and as one closely involved in planning IDCR/SOWER cruises over many years he was saddened by the reduction to only one vessel. However, he noted that even one vessel is one more than that provided by any other nation."

Now, let's say that the IWC were to permit commercial whaling again in the Antarctic. Japan would certainly request a quota for it's people to benefit from. Is it likely that the GOJ would be more willing to provide the additional vessel in light of the financial benefits derived from use of whale resources by it's citizens? I personally believe so. That's what governments are there for.

On the other hand, were all hope of a resumption in commercial whaling eliminated, the GOJ would have no incentive to aid in the monitoring of whale resources in the Antarctic, and this might be a problem at some point if for some reason whale populations hit some big issue (global warming?) and it went unnoticed.

> My concern with whaling is that it will light off again someday, driving some whales to extincion after all.

In my opinion that's not a realistic concern assuming that commercial whaling is resumed under the IWC's rules - I'll refer you to my comments on previous discussions here about the reasons.
On the other hand though, some whale species have indeed gone extinct over the eons, although hunting by humans was not the cause.

> I don't think protecting the whaling industry rates very high on the scale of things.

I don't see any conservation benefit from wiping out whaling, when there are greater concerns about pollution and ship strikes as threats to whale species, and indeed because financial benefits derived through whaling operations appear to encourage nations to aid research that benefits conservation.

() more on this good news about Blue whales here: http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/02/iwc-2006-more-...On If environmentalism doesn't include animal welfare, why not? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 65 Responses

these comparisons...

I think it's bizarre to compare killing animals for food with "oppression or cruelty".

The killing of animals for food is quite natural. If you think it's bad that humans do it, by extension you must think it's bad that other animals, such as whale killing orcas do as well.

-----

By the way, just in from Australia on the example issue of whaling:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1740287.htm

"Researcher Mike Iliffe says commercial whaling issues are dominating the IWC at the expense of the real threats to the mammals."

"When you listen to some of the arguments that the anti-whaling countries put forward they are based on cultural or moral high ground and I would suggest that that's pretty shaky ground to be on."

Australia's hard-right anti-whaling "environment minister" responded to the researchers from the University of Tasmania by repeating his populist mantra:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1740530.htmOn If environmentalism doesn't include animal welfare, why not? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 65 Responses

I'll be a "conservationist" then

Trying to define which species are "higher order" seems to me to be fraught with difficulty. Which animals are in, and which are out, and what are our criteria for these distinctions? Notwithstanding this practical issue, I'm not comfortable with the idea that humans should treat different animal species (including our own) differently depending on human conceived pecking orders.

I'd suggest that needing to make exceptions where necessary to sport hunting and sustainable wildlife use bans, to avoid imbalances created by humans ceasing traditional uses of wildlife, indicates that there is a fundamental problem with the ability of the proposal to meet our conservation goals. Instead of making exceptions to the proposed idea, starting from scratch is probably more appropriate.
(Also, whaling is not correctly characterized as a sport. The ultimate purpose of whaling is to get food).

I don't disagree with certain aspects of what you say, but like David Roberts I can't see any link between a concern for conserving ecosystems and concerns about individual life forms. The reasons for these concerns are quite separate in my mind as well.

I'm happy to declare myself a "conservationist" if you are that desperate to have the "environmentalist" label.On Enviros should adopt some animal welfare concerns posted 3 years, 2 months ago 31 Responses

I don't believe humans are that different

JS, I guess that's too bad if my arguments seem specious and "ridiculous" to you.

1. - OK. It just seems to me that in today's world the subsistence hunters could be provided by food via other means than letting them live off their local environment, if it were really necessary (not that I think it is). After all, here in Japan only 40% of the food consumed here is produced nationally. Instead of the US shipping their beef here, they could ship it to Alaska instead (or non animal based products). If your morals were important enough to uphold, it could be done (although at detriment to the environment through additional pollution).

2. -  Why the focus on humans? You complain that humans might kill some whales at a young age. As I noted in my last comment, orcas drown grey whale calves for food. Under commercial whaling rules these calves wouldn't have a hand laid on them. They have a much better chance at a longer life were the orcas to leave them alone. Orcas have a diverse diet, they eat heaps of things. Why baby whales?

3. - I do not believe that humans are "DIFFERENT" to other animals any more than other animals are different to one another, and I believe that we are bound by the "LAWS OF THE JUNGLE", just as Steve Irwin reminded the world of recently. Science proves this (genetics). There is no huge gap between our species. If we think objectively about our species, it is clear that this is true.

You talk about "minimizing suffering", but I do not believe it is realistic to think that were humans not consuming animals that other predators would not take over the niche if we decided to leave it. We see this all the time in nature. Plus 1, minus 1, nature finds a different equilibrium, there is no reduction in suffering in net. We can not change nature to the degree that you wish, we can only work within nature as individuals. We are not God to be able to change this (and I'm an atheist). If individuals wish to make such personal choices to reduce the suffering at their own hands, then I totally understand that, but as a species I can't see that there would be any net benefit in terms of reducing animal suffering.

Interesting to note that there are several tonnes of meat on a single whale. How many chicken lives must be taken to gain the equivalent?

"Simply using the suffering that happens in nature as a cover for inflicting more of it on animals is totally bizarre to me."

As much as you might like to fight it, this is the  reality of nature, and it is not going to change even if our entire species wanted to make it happen.On Responses to "Environmentalism and animal rights" posted 3 years, 2 months ago 15 Responses

contrary to true conservation efforts

This tactic has worked for charismatic species, but it is also starting to become detrimental to true conservation efforts.

Today, for example, it's quite clear that anti-whaling protests in the Antarctic are more about fund-raising than conserving whales. On Ginormous earthworm discovered, may get federal protection posted 3 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

hello again all

Kaela,

To answer your question, I consider myself an environmentalist in the "conservationist" sense of the word.

Conservation in the dictionary means exploiting resources, but at levels that will not prevent our future generations from also being able to exploit those resources.
Another phrase often used is "sustainable use".
http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/susg/

I am not an environmentalist of the "animal rights" type. I believe the animal rightists actually tried to take over the term "environmentalism" to make themselves sound more mainstream. This is a common tactic. Anti-whaling people call themselves "conservationists" when in fact they argue not for conservation but for blanket protection.

I think almost all people on earth would consider themselves environmentalists of the type I represent - far fewer currently support the animal rights version, which has little to do with conserving our environment.

I'd add that I would associate with much of what GreenEngineer said with regard to how humans see themselves in nature. Nature is not a zoo - we are just one species in the massive web.

I'd associate myself with the comments of GoodCheer, who notes that humans with our technology do have quite efficient killing ability. Of course, we can always look to improve, and this is because we strive to be "humane".

dwm376s, Tom Twigg also made points that I can associate myself with.

People interested in environmentalism versus the animal rights movement might enjoy Eugene Lapointe's book "Embracing the Earth's Wild Resources". It's available from the IWMC site (www.iwmc.org). Eugene Lapointe formerly headed the CITES organization, but anti-ivory trade "environmentalists" campaigned to have him removed, and he was (although a UN tribunal subsequently found that he had been wronged). Lapointe currently heads up the IWMC, which supports sustainable use / conservation of wildlife, as opposed to animal rights. I'm not financially related with IWMC, although I did buy Lapointe's book :-)On No environmentalism is complete without consideration of animal welfare posted 3 years, 2 months ago 64 Responses

To caniscandia

JARPA is not an organization, it is the name of a recently completed research programme. The organization that conducted the JARPA programme is the ICR. You also completely ignore everything I have noted about the review of the JARPA programme by the IWC Scientific Committee, which is a gathering of the world's leading researchers in the field.

As I mentioned earlier: "people may like to consider whether they are knowledgable enough about the topic of whale management to actually form an properly informed opinion on the validity of the research. I get the impression that a large number of people out there who dismiss it do not even have basic knowledge of the objectives of the research."

I wonder what can you tell me about the stated objectives of the JARPA programme...On A response to a plan to dramatically increase the scope of whaling posted 3 years, 2 months ago 30 Responses

sustainable use

Actually, I would like to just post a wee bit of the Convention of Biological Diversity ---

Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:

(a) Integrate consideration of the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources into national decision-making;

(b) Adopt measures relating to the use of biological resources to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on biological diversity;

(c) Protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements;

(d) Support local populations to develop and implement remedial action in degraded areas where biological diversity has been reduced; and

(e) Encourage cooperation between its governmental authorities and its private sector in developing methods for sustainable use of biological resources.

http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.shtml?lg=0&...On A response to a plan to dramatically increase the scope of whaling posted 3 years, 2 months ago 30 Responses

Humans sprang from nature

This is getting really long, but I also am happy for the forum for rational discussion :-)

I can assure you that I'm not using the hypocrisy criticism as a justification for whaling - I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy. There is nothing stopping a general argument against the killing of all sentient lifeforms instead of picking on small minority instances of this, such as whaling. Such a general argument is quite respectable, although I do not agree with it.
-----------
1. You say that "there have been no supply effects". This is what is patently false. Supply has decreased significantly, although it has recently turned up slightly. Refer to my previous figures on consumption versus the amount of supply through the by-products from the research programmes today. It's quite obvious that supply has been massively effected. The reason whale meat is now regarded as a luxury is because supply was reduced, which resulted in higher prices.

The problem recently encountered is when the JARPA II programme was launched (which covers a larger research area and includes larger sample sizes than it's predecessor JARPA programme), this has resulted in an additional supply of whale meat products. However old supply chains are long dead. Yet whale meat does not just walk around and start marketing itself. A new company was set up this year precisely for the purpose of re-creating supply chains to sell the research by-products, and I imagine other companies would start up to establish further markets when commercial whaling resumes in the future.

You seem to have gotten the impression that whale meat is highly unpopular in Japan. On the contrary, the general feeling I sense while living here in Japan is that whaling is perfectly acceptable to the majority, even if they personally have no volition to eat whale meat regularly themselves. Japanese people who live in the mountains understand that Japanese people who live on craggy peninsulas eat more marine resources than them.

Many western readers don't have the luxury of being able to go straight to the horses mouth to find what is really going on here in Japan. At the link below I provide translation of an editorial from one of Japan's leading morning newspapers following this year's IWC meeting.

http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/iwc-2006-persp...

---------------
2. Perhaps you missed the important piece from the link I directed you to, so I will reproduce it here in full:

(quote)
The Committee also noted that while JARPA results were not required for management under the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), they had the potential to improve it in the following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios considered in RMP Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure). The results of analyses of JARPA might allow an increased allowed catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere without increasing the depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing Implementation Simulation Trials for these minke whales.
(end quote)

People who want to read some of the research findings for themselves can find a collection of papers here:
http://icrwhale.org/JARPAReview2.htm

All I can say is that people may like to consider whether they are knowledgable enough about the topic of whale management to actually form an properly informed opinion on the validity of the research. I get the impression that a large number of people out there who dismiss it do not even have basic knowledge of the objectives of the research.

--------------
3. Focusing on Japan and Norway specifically only serves to confuse the discussion. I have already noted that people in certain developing nations also consume cetaceans, not to mention the Americans. I noted earlier that "need is not the point".

The fact is that people historically developed in different parts of the world, with different resources available to them. Some people decided came to rely on agricultural based means of food production, and others more so on their surrounding marine environment.

At the end of the day, people in both environments are killing animals, and it seems to me to be completely arbitrary to turn the spotlight on those who came to rely on marine resources.

Those who kill no animals at all, of course, need to have a general discussion with both groups, rather than trying to use the animal killers of one type of environment to subvert the animal killers of another.

---------------
4. Why make an exception for whaling based on indigenous grounds though? The American government is rich. They could easily supply alternative types of food to their people who kill whales.

But what really worries me about this exception is the consequences for conservation. Conservation is about conserving resources so that we have enough in the future as well. Otherwise we doom ourselves.

So hypothetically, what if the human population in such regions as the north slope of Alaska increased and, due to increased human food requirements, their whaling activities became unsustainable?

Do we then place human requirements ahead of conservation?

My belief is that our primary consideration should be "is this activity sustainable?" If people are no longer able to live sustainably in their environment, I would hope that they would migrate to a different region where they could.

---------------
5. Indeed the whales don't have a "say", but if they are smart enough to swim away from danger, they can escape. If they are not - bad luck, they get caught and killed. We should not criticise the Orcas for this, and nor should we criticise our own species. This is how nature is. We see this when we watch large cats on the african savannah chasing down antelopes. The antelopes get away sometimes - but not always. Just a few days ago a well known human was killed by a sting-ray - and not even for food. This is true nature - not the Disney version.

Incidentally, personally if I were a whale, given the choice between death at the hands of an explosive harpoon (at least a good chance of instantaneous death) and death at the teeth of a pack of Orcas, I'm in no two minds about which I would opt for.

> can you tell me why you don't think that "sustainably" harvesting humans wouldn't be ok

Human society would fall into chaos if people were to start eating their neighbours. This, I believe, is why governments have laws against the general killing of other people by people.

Our species is able to make rules for our own inter-species behaviour, but we cannot change the way that nature operates. Humans do not have that power. I believe we should be humble and accept nature as it operates.

> humans are "above" the rest of the animal kingdom.

I certainly don't believe this. Humans are a part of the "animal kingdom". It was from nature which we sprang, just like all the other species that we share this planet with.
-----------
6. Those who should decide whether traditions should be abandoned are those themselves who practice the tradition. Today you have the luxury of the internet in attempting to impose your views on others. But ultimately you have to grin and bear it if your moralising does not convince those whose activities you oppose.

I personally would also be against whaling if I could see a good reason for it. However I can not. It ultimately comes down to your morals versus mine, and if we cannot agree, what else can we do but agree to disagree, and live our lives according to our own beliefs?

> hopefully, you will realize that your argument really comes to whether you think humans have the right to choose what to kill in order to provide culinary pleasure

That is essentially my belief, yes. Hopefully, you can accept that your morals are your own, and that they may not find common acceptance.

I'm happy if you wish to agree to disagree on the point about killing animals (including whales) for food being morally wrong.

> represents a view that will become less and less tenable as science advances and we learn more and more about how we are not as exclusive and special as we once thought.

On the contrary, I do not see humans as "exclusive and special". We are a part of nature, and we are just another species on this planet. On A response to a plan to dramatically increase the scope of whaling posted 3 years, 2 months ago 30 Responses

To biodiversivist

You say your problem is with "industrial whaling", but subsistence whaling is not an issue.

I find this to be quite a dangerous statement in terms of conservation.

What do you suppose we do the day subsistence whaling is no longer sustainable?

Iceland's position is that there are only two types of whaling - sustainable whaling, and un-sustainable whaling. Iceland supports the former, and is against the latter. On A response to a plan to dramatically increase the scope of whaling posted 3 years, 2 months ago 30 Responses

The core issue - why should whales not be eaten?

I don't believe that talk of the "Japanese government counseling evil" deserves a serious response. We are talking about the desire of peoples to sustainably utilise a naturally replenishing resource for food - important to maintain this perspective.

Some people do in fact need whale meat (could go into details, but only if there is interest). However, need is not the point. Humans don't need to eat any meat, let alone whales. The vegetarians have proven this to us. So that clearly is not the argument.

But humans do need to eat something. For people living in regions with abundant whale resources, whale meat is a natural option, and that's why such cultures developed in those environments. Can you imagine the people who live in the picture below farming cows instead of harvesting marine resources such as whales?
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2177/1613/1600/skrova%...

Again to clarify, humpbacks of the 'D' and 'E' stocks recognised by the IWC Scientific Committee are to be killed in their Antarctic feeding grounds, not in the Pacific as suggested above. The humpback stock that visits Hawaii is not the one that feeds in the Antarctic during the austral summer. Nonetheless, I understand that the North Pacific humpback stock is also in fairly good shape and recovering from depletion just like it's southern cousins.

Despite the comments of the poster above, the IWC Scientific Committee does have quite good estimates of abundance for many whale stocks, and uncertainty in these numbers is taken into consideration when advice is provided about sustainable catch numbers. Where insufficient data was available, no advice on sustainable numbers that could be caught would be provided. Again, please refer to the links I provided regarding the Revised Management Procedure. Much has been said about the Antarctic Minke estimate in recent years, despite the IWC Scientific Committee not having completed it's latest evaluation. This is due to happen next year, and it's certainly going to produce an abundance estimate showing a figure in the hundreds of thousands.

The real issue here is clearly not science - the IWC Scientific Committee unanimously recommended the RMP to the IWC in 1992, and indeed the IWC politicians themselves, including Australia, New Zealand the United Kingdom and so on agreed to adopt the RMP for management.

The real issue is whether whaling is "tolerable" or not. Why should whales be treated differently to other animals, and why should people who wish to eat whales see this to be the case? If it is true, then there must be a rational argument in favour of it. This point is where the disagreement lies, this is where the discussion should focus, in my opinion.
On A response to a plan to dramatically increase the scope of whaling posted 3 years, 2 months ago 30 Responses

The Revised Management Procedure

An interesting read. Lots of points that I would like to share, so please bear with me:

Japan, Norway and Iceland weren't really "rebuffed" at this year's IWC meeting at all. They'll proceed as planned. The IWC did not adopt any of Japan's proposals, despite them having a paper majority, because on various issues not all nations in favour of sustainable use could support the specific proposals. On the other hand, the IWC did adopt the St. Kitts and Nevis declaration, indicating clearly that a majority of nations at the IWC (including Russia, China, Denmark, Korea, in addition to the more well recognised names) now supports the resumption of commercial whaling under limited harvest restrictions. No resolutions were passed condemning any of the whaling nations this year - none were even tabled.

Additionally, visitors to Hawaii may be pleased to know that Japan has no immediate plans to hunt humpback whales in the North Pacific. The Humpback stocks that will hunted are the 'D' and 'E' stocks that feed in the Antarctic during the austral summer (this hunting will begin from 2007/2008). These two stocks in particular are exhibiting annual growth of around 10% a year (close to the theoretical biological maximum), and this has been the situation for more than 2 decades now. The 'D' stock in particularly is well advanced in it's recovery, and IWC scientists have estimated that it will hit it's natural carrying capacity level within the next decade. The 'E' stock is several years behind the 'D' stock in it's recovery, but should be back to pre-whaling levels within the next 2 decades.

You mention that "these magnificent creatures pose no threat to humans". No one ever suggested that they are to be killed because they might harm humans. The idea behind the whaling is to ultimately eat them. There is no malice intended in this, just as there is no malice intended when eating sardines, tuna, chickens, cows, and pigs.

Was the intensity of your feelings misplaced? It may have been (how intense?).
What is the problem with the notion of sustainably harvesting a natural resource for food? This happens in various parts of the world, even anti-whaling nations.

Apparently, whales are supposed to be exempt from this concept, at least in the eyes of some. But why? Pigs are known to be comparitively intelligent, yet no one against whaling has turned against the pig farmers. And who said that only dumb animals were good for eating, anyway?

1) Perhaps you reacted strongly because whaling is one form of "cruelty" which you are happy to see dissappear since you have no personal stake in it.
Here are some other issues that some groups are raising, but not making much ground on:
http://www.savethesheep.com
http://www.cowsarecool.com
Spot the difference.

2) Rich nations kill cetaceans for food, yes. Perhaps you are not aware that so do developing nations.

• The people of the Solomon Islands consume dolphins.
  
• The people of St. Vincent and the Grenadines kill and consume humpback whales.
  
• The people of St. Lucia kill and consume pilot whales.
  

You also mention Japan's research programmes with a skeptical tone.

The IWC Scientific Committee in 1997 declared that Japan's JARPA research had the potential to improve the management procedure under which whaling catch limits will in future be set: http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm#jarpa

Claims that the scientific research is not genuine need to be reconciled with this fact.

Some people may not agree with the goals of the research (to aid eventually resumed commercial whaling) - but that is no reason to pretend without foundation that the research is not genuine. Indeed, such comments distract us from the real debate (perhaps why such anti-science arguments were made by anti-whaling groups in the first instance).

You question the motives of governments supporting whaling. The real reason that nations support whaling is because they see it as important to defend the principle of science-based management of marine resources. If they cave on this minor issue, it may set a dangerous precedent putting much more economically important industries at stake - fisheries in general for example.

I'm sure you can recognise the importance of defending principles. This should make it clear why so many nations with non-agriculturally based economies (particularly developing island nations) vote for sustainable use of whale resources at the IWC.

3. You mention that there would be no opportunity cost for stopping whaling. Indeed as I mentioned above, this is true if you have no personal stake in whaling. It's very easy to tell other people that they are going to have to modify their ways so that you can feel better about yourself. But does it actually make the world a better, more harmonious place? I do not believe so.

4. You hit the nail on the head with your remarks regarding whales (and other animals) as symbols of the environmental movement.

To give a little more detail - under the IWC's rules, no whale stock could be hunted if there is any reasonable chance that it is below 54% of it's estimated natural level of abundance. 54% is far above the "critical depensation" for whale stocks. Whaling under IWC rules is thus clearly not likely to pose a threat to whale stocks.

Finally, I am at a loss to understand how one might consider the blanket banning of a form of sustainable natural resource use as an "enlightened environmental policy". Humans do not benefit from cutting ourselves off from the ecosystems on which some of us depend. Such a ban proposals are not "conservation". They are simply "protectionism".

If you are looking for small victories in true conservation terms, you certainly have one already in the form of the IWC adopting the Revised Management Procedure for setting safe commercial catch limits, which I have mentioned a little about above. And I'd argue that this RMP is not just a small achievement, but a very significant one.

Perhaps readers unfamiliar with the IWC's RMP would like more detailed information. Here is a basic  presentation on the subject from the IWC's Head of Science, Greg Donovan:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/meetings/ulsan/RMP.pd...

A more detailed paper from Donovan here:
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Management_Regimes/IWC/th...

And another from Douglas Butterworth (a fisheries management expert):
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Management_Regimes/NAMMCO...On A response to a plan to dramatically increase the scope of whaling posted 3 years, 2 months ago 30 Responses