David @ Tokyo

Look at this:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/archive/2005/12/whaling_fleet_f.html

mvh/Kjell
 

--- I tried e.mailing this to you but the e.mail address you submitted did not work. ----


Hi David,

Thanks for making a comment on the Greenpeace Ocean Defenders weblog. We are going to post your comment and reply to it at the same time.
However, it might take a day or two since it is such a long and detailed
comment.

Happy New Year
Regards
Lisa

- Greenpeace web editor

-------

We have often have a serious problem with spam bots using our blogs to advertise their products. That's the main reason why we wont publish your comment straight away. Also, if your comment asks questions, which we would like to answer before we post it, we will hold it until we can post it along with a response from us, as we are doing now, with yours. We do not censor any comments unless they are highly abusive. For instance if someone was to submit a post full of swearing and personal insults we would not publish it.

This is not uncommon for popular blogs.

L.
 

David,

I should have added in my earlier comment that there is sometimes a problem with our blogs when you submit a comment and it will say that the comment has been "denied due to questionable content" when actually there is nothing wrong with the content. In fact that message will NOT appear even if you write really horrible things about Greenpeace with lots of abusive words. The only time I have seen it happen is when I've added a Greenpeace website as my URL.

I'm sorry that this happened to you and gave you the wrong impression. I'm not sure why it did happen but we're looking into fixing it. You're comment WAS accepted. Did you try submitting it again after making any adjustments?

As I said above, we will be publishing your comment shortly along with a response.

Thanks again.

Regards
Lisa.

- Greenpeace web editor
 

Hi Lisa,

Thank you very much for taking the time to stop by, and thank you in advance for taking the the to prepare a response to the points I made. I look forward to it.

Happy New Year!
 

Also, yes I did try modifying my content. I was only able to post after removing the URLs, which obviously gave me a dubious impression.
 

Hi David,

Just letting you know that the Greenpeace response is now up at:

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/archive/2006/01/open_thread_wha.html

Feel free to ask more questions and we'll get them answered.

- Adele
Greenpeace Web Coordinator for "Defending Our Oceans"
 

Now i would like to ask you the same...Why do you think wales should be hunted?
 

Adele,

Thank you for notifying me of your response.

I do indeed have some further comments to make in reply, and will let you know once I've had time to put them together.

But I will answer Hugo, as that's not going to take so much time:

I believe it's more a question of why shouldn't they be hunted? I'm a free thinking, liberal, open minded person. I don't recall people of foreign, non-beef eating cultures demanding to know why I (from New Zealand) should be allowed to slaughter cows for food. Likewise with regards to people of non-pork eating cultures in respect to pig slaughter, which is also practiced in my culture.

I believe that, by default, any animal is up for open slather, be they cows, whales, sheep, fish, you name it. The world has a diverse range of cultures.

Thus my question is why not?

The most powerful culturally neutral reason against permitting any forms of whaling has to be one of science, and in particular sustainability. I'm yet to be convinced that the scientific reasons that Greenpeace puts up against whaling are necessarily valid. I'm particularly skeptical of the notion that there is not, and could not ever be, a catch limit for a given stock of whales that was sustainable. Very skeptical indeed, and I will be making my thoughts on that known at a subsequent point in time :-)
 

I really should clarify my comment - when I wrote "open slather", I meant "anything goes" rather than "kill as many as one pleases".
 

Hi David,

I read your post on the Greenpeace blog and so I thought I'd say hi to a fellow Gaijin here in Japan. I'm an American in Okinawa... Interesting debate going on. From the content of your blog, seems you're very interested in this subject. I submitted my 2 cents worth on the Greenpeace blog and we'll see if they post it, but in a nutshell, the big gaping hole in your argument is this: Whales aren't like cows or pigs that live on land. Or like dogs in Korea for that matter. They are common resources, shared by everyone, living in international waters. The world has voted, the majority of people value whales more alive than dead. You can watch a whale many times but you can only kill it once. It's the old "have your cake and eat it too" dilemna. LIVE whales support whale watching industries in Australia, NZ and Hawaii. The whales the Japanese hunt are the same ones that people pay money to see alive, jumping out of the water in Hawaii... So whether or not you buy into the moral sentiment that whaling is wrong, economically speaking, what the Japanese whalers are doing is irresponsible and must be protested and stopped.
 

Hi Greg :-)

Always good to hear from other foreigners in Japan!

> the big gaping hole in your argument is this: Whales aren't like cows or pigs that live on land ... They are common resources, shared by everyone, living in international waters. The world has voted, the majority of people value whales more alive than dead.

OK, here's what I say to that:

1) Yes whales live around the world in the oceans, so we can't apply our standard notions of property rights to whales. However, various nations have signed the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which from it's text was clearly intended as an international agreement amongst nations interested in utilising whale resources to co-operate, such that whale stocks may be both conserved and utilised by humans (full ICRW text: http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm)
This is the context within which decisions about whaling are supposed to be made, and every signatory to the convention has agreed to this content.

2) Only 60 or so nations have actually signed the ICRW. That leaves the majority of the world's nations without having cast an explicit vote on the issue - so I don't accept your assertion about a "majority". I believe many of those nations would have no issue with whales being utilised by humans, just as other natural resources are, providing it is shown to be sustainable. This is a perfectly rational and reasonable position in general.

3) I think what is important when considering whether whaling should be permitted or not, is not whether a majority are for or against, but whether it is sustainable, both for the stocks in question and their ecosystem conservation over the longer term. This is why the IWC has a Scientific Committee of course, to advise the delegates on such matters. In recent years however, the IWC delegates have notably ignored advice they were given by the committee. A famous example was when the Scientific Committee unanimously recommended it's "revised management procedure" to the IWC some years ago, it was adopted, yet not implemented. This resulted in then Chairman, Philip Hammond leaving his post in disgust. With background like this, it's very difficult to agree that a majority vote should mean that whaling should end - clearly the issue has been over-politicised. Politicians are voting not in terms of what is the best science or best for the environment, but what is the best political position for them. Ideally this will one day change - if it doesn't I think we'll see the whaling nations splinter off and reform a new organiztion. This is the worst outcome of course - I believe it's the anti-whaling camp that needs to alter their position. I don't think a ban on whaling for all eternity is necessarily good for the environment long term.

> You can watch a whale many times but you can only kill it once. It's the old "have your cake and eat it too" dilemna.

Well, actually you should be able to eat your whale and watch it too :-) The whole notion of whaling in this day and age is to set catch limits for healthy stocks that are growing robustly, and take a portion of the surplus (see the RMP info at the IWC's homepage).
It's like banking - principal and interest.
The whalers are happy to leave the principal for the whale watchers, so long as they get to enjoy some of the interest.

> So whether or not you buy into the moral sentiment that whaling is wrong, economically speaking, what the Japanese whalers are doing is irresponsible and must be protested and stopped.

The world has seen "irresponsible" before. That was the whaling of decades ago. Consider that Australia alone slaughtered more than 1,000 humpbacks in the 1961 season (as I noted in my original blog), at a time when the stock was already heavily depleted after years of heavy exploitation.

I don't think you could argue that Japan's whaling, or any other whaling around the globe to day for that matter, is any where near on the same scale of irresponsibility as that. Can you make such an argument supported with numbers in Japan's minke catch? I don't believe so.

So, I respectfully beg to differ on those grounds.
 

If I many comment on Gregs comments -

>>"They are common resources, shared by everyone, living in international waters."

Specific stocks of various species exist in the world, very few ( if any )of them migrate worldwide - Although Photo identification programs on various species have shown some individuals in wide ranging areas ( one match between a Barents Sea humpback and the same whale in the Carribean ) Many such "populations" tend to be site or area specific - the chances of seing a Barents sea humpback in Hawaii for example would be almost zero

>>"The world has voted, the majority of people value whales more alive than dead.You can watch a whale many times but you can only kill it once. It's the old "have your cake and eat it too" dilemna. LIVE whales support whale watching industries in Australia, NZ and Hawaii."

Live whales also support the whale watching industry in both Norway and Iceland - both of which are hunting minke whales - your point being?

>>"The whales the Japanese hunt are the same ones that people pay money to see alive, jumping out of the water in Hawaii... "

I sincerely doubt it - the whales you are referring to jumping off Hawaii are humpbacks most likely - the whales being hunted by Japan in antartica at the moment are Minke whales - a different species - if and when Japan begins a limited take of humpbacks remains to be seen - I will quite happily be proved wrong if you can give me details of any matches between the Hawaii humpback Photo ID Catalogue and the Antartic catalogue ...

>>"So whether or not you buy into the moral sentiment that whaling is wrong, economically speaking, what the Japanese whalers are doing is irresponsible and must be protested and stopped."

Not true, especially if you are using the " japanese are killing "our" whales arguement "

Regards

JM
 

Hi David,

Perhaps you should clarify exactly why you feel it necessary to personally crusade so widely on the part of a well organised and funded commercial industry?

If you have a vested interest, please declare it now.

Please also state whether you contributed the following, as part of a pro whaling post on the Greenpeace USA Discussion Board -

'You Greenpeace guys are filthy greedy devils.Tricking people into wanting to give their hard earned money to you is just downright dishonest.You disgust me......donating you scum money....You disgust me, you conman...

Regards,
David
Compassionate Human Being, Japan '

Of course it may just be a coincidence that two David's in Japan felt like supporting the Japanese Fisheries Ministry (currently breaking Australian law in the Southern Ocean) on Greenpeace's forums but I doubt it. :-)

- Lamna nasus
 

David and JM,

Thanks for the replies. Very well articulated arguments. I agree that the purpose of the ICRW is to regulate whaling and that in principle, the 60 nations that have signed it have indicated their approval of whaling by signing it. Therefore, for my point to be valid (that whales belong to everyone and most people of the world, if they heard both sides of the argument would prefer that no whales be hunted) the anti-whaling nations should withdraw from the ICRW and the IWC and take the issue to the UN. Better yet, and since it is impossible to take a worldwide poll on what the 6 billion people of the world really think about whales- the issue can be most practically dealt with on a bilateral (U.S. vs. Japan or UK/EU vs. Iceland/Norway) economic framework, where the cost-benefits of trade agreements could be weighed in to promote the moral positions of the anti-whaling nations. Because, let's be honest, when I say the "people of the world" Iraqis getting car-bombed everyday and kids dying of AIDS in Africa probably don't give a S!@# about whales! It's really just a few of us priviledged Westerners who have the luxury of caring about the plight of the whales.

So, my answer is this: People may differ on whether it is right to kill whales or whether in fact, the practice is sustainable and "you can watch your whale and eat it too" but what organizations like Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd are doing is generating and maintaining the public interest in the issue, which will- and has in fact- lead to political solutions. The Clinton administration, in it's second term, actually took some interest in the issue and began to put some pressure on Japan. If Al Gore (Clinton's VP) would have won in 2000, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. But with the @#&hole we have in the White House now, unfortunately we have bigger problems than whaling...
 

Greg,

Whilst Greenpeace and the sea sheep may be generating interest in the Japanese whaling - they are ignoring the norwegian whaling - why is that if all whaling must be stopped in their opinion? Norway is the only country conducting a legal open commercial hunt and will try and take 1052 minke whales in 2006 ( quota 1052 ) That´s more than Japan in the Antartic - and yet we practically don´t hear a peep about Norwegian whaling these days. Could it be ( just possibly ) that both the NGO´s above think Japan is an easier target and or a better PR subject?
Whilst on the subject of Japan, a common accusation against Japan is of vote buying within the IWC .. using aid to "buy votes"-take a look at this link to see who started vote buying within the IWC

http://tinyurl.com/ce9t3

I order to support such NGO´s, rational people must have trust that such NGO´s are honest and ethical - which in the case of Brent Spar and the IWC, Greenpeace was neither ( honest or ethical )

Is it then little wonder that some people mistrust the agenda of such NGO´s and the reasons behind how they operate?
Regards

JM
 

To Lamna nasus:

Yes, those comments were made by me - and I stand by the general content, although I may have been a bit full of beer at the time.

Greenpeace is very lucky to have sincere people such as Adele and Lisa working for them, but as an organization I believe the Greenpeace fundraising machine has misled and continues to mislead it's supporters and the general public with regards to whaling issues. The information I have seen over the years suggests that in the 21st century Greenpeace is only continuing with the "save the whales" campaign, as it is part of the Greenpeace organization's identity, and possibly because of financial gain by way of donations ("save the whales" is perhaps Greenpeace's highest profile campaign).

I'm certainly not the only one who thinks along these lines, but it is all irrelevant to this particular discussion.

Greenpeace has been kind enough to stick the issue on this ocassion, which is sustainable whaling - I hope any further comments from you will be related to the quality of the arguments presented here, rather than the people making them. It wastes my time for a start (I'd rather be preparing my response to the Greenpeace rep's statements), and doesn't enlighten anyone about anything - I could just as pointlessly inquire: "why you are voicing your support for Greenpeace - do you receive a portion of the donations they receive?" I'm sure you can see my point.

But, for the record, I am happy to state that:
- I indeed have no vested interest in whaling
- I have tried whale meat out of curiosity on maybe a handful of occasions (the latest, accompanied with a couple of friends from New Zealand and Australia for that matter). Whale steak was quite good, but the thinly sliced blubber was certainly not my bag.
 

Hi again greg,

>Therefore, for my point to be valid ...
>the anti-whaling nations should withdraw
>from the ICRW and the IWC and take the
>issue to the UN.

I totally agree with you there - I believe that that is the only honourable action for many of the current signatories to take given then they claim to oppose whaling on the one hand, while maintain their signatory status on the other.

However I do think your belief that the majority of the world would be against whaling is misplaced however. I say this based on opinion surveys that have been conducted, such as this;
http://www.iwmc.org/whales/survey/minke02.htm
(there are several pages)

>probably don't give a S!@# about whales!

I think that is likely true of most people all over the world, not just those in dreadful circumstances.

Survey's like the one I mention above seem to indicate that most people are quite unaware about whales and whaling cultures. Certainly most are unaffected by it in their everyday lives.

>It's really just a few of us priviledged
>Westerners who have the luxury of caring
>about the plight of the whales.

With the exception of your phrase "plight of the whales", I totally agree. My hope is that in the 21st century the world will become a place where people of diverse cultures can accept one another and co-operate constructively to find mutually acceptable solutions where differences exist.

>which will- and has in fact- lead to
>political solutions.

This is what concerns me. The problem with whaling right now is that it IS a political issue. I believe solutions must be based primarily on science, rather than politicians, who let's face it, will sacrifice principles to retain power (and NGOs too).
 

CENSORED BY DAVID @ Tokyo

I posted a rebuttal to David's blog entry - 'IWC 2005: Aussie Media Getting Suspicious (14/12/2005).
It was there briefly but now it has vanished.

Seems David isn't quite the champion of free speech he likes to make out. :-)

Still this Blog site is a fascinating window into David.

Marvel, as you read about his programming skills.

Gasp, as you read about his attitude to women.

Recoil, as you read the vitriol he has for the environmental movement.
:-)


- Lamna nasus
 

Lamna nasus -

This is your final warning. I have done no such thing as censor you (to date), and if you had the brains to understand what the "refresh" button in your browser is, you would be able to verify that.

The only reason I have not censored you on this ocassion (nor did I previously, as is quite evident for all who can be bothered to check: http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2005/11/iwc-2005-aussie-media-getting.html) is because I want other readers to witness first-hand the absolute garbage argumentation skills of some people from the anti-whaling side of the argument - that means you. Readers are urged to consider why it is that trolls like "Lamna nasus" play the man rather than the ball.

So Mr nasus, I say to you that if you do continue to post such nonsense I WILL have no choice but to censor you, as you are breaking up what is otherwise a productive discussion. Even if you do clean up your act, your comments will be let to stand, but this will be the last response you get from me - you've wasted more than enough of my time already. Perhaps that was your purpose in the first place.

Regards and farewell.
 

Hello again David and JM,

JM- First off, Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd have, at other times focussed their attention on Iceland and Norway's whaling activities. Sea Shepherd has even sunk a few Icelandic and Norwegian whaling ships and has had confrontations with the Norwegian Navy. At this time, the focus is on Japan and their bullsh!t "research" whaling that is an insult to anyone who knows anything about science. But that's another subject. As for Greenpeace buying votes in the IWC and playing capitalist hardball. I say, yeah, so what? That's great what they did. Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of that. My respect for the organization has only increased. Greenpeace, from what I understand has evolved over the years to become more concerned with environmental issues in general, rather than just whaling and somewhere along the line, they realized that playing politics and working the media is really the way things get done in this world. It's a corrupt system, of course. But I find it interesting that the link you referred me to was the conservative, Republican SUA site. Good job, so what's up with your man, Abramoff? But I digress... Greenpeace may not be perfect, but their vision, their message is resonating. And they still have managed to put 2 large ships, equipped with helicopters in the antarctic, where their crews are risking their lives, getting between the whales and harpoons, as we speak. That's dedication and passion for a cause and they have all my respect and are worthy of my membership dues.

I totally agree with you that science should be a key factor in this debate, not emotion. The whaling debate, practically speaking is about science and economics. First, the science. It is proven that whale meat is poisonous and not fit for human consumption. Maybe that's nature's way of saying people shouldn't eat whales. As long living animals at the top of the food chain living in the wild, whales absorb high levels of PCBs and mercury, that cause long term health risks, especially reproductive harm in humans that eat significant amounts of whale meat. I don't have the references handy, but do a Google search on it and if you've indulged, I'd go get yourself checked out if I were you. Second, whales are complex animals and scientists just do not know enough about their breeding habits and their distribution patterns to allow the resumption of commercial whaling.

As for the economics of the debate, it is clear, whales are worth more alive than dead. Whale watching has become a billion dollar a year industry in over 80 countries, while whaling generates just a few million and isn't even profitable and is even subsidized by the government of Japan (Iceland and Norway, I'm not sure). So why even hunt whales, then? My guess is that it's some tradition, but mostly desperation by the "fisheries" industry that has increasingly been under pressure due to decline in fish stocks in general. The "fisheries" believe they can make a quick buck by exploiting what they see as an available resource- while at the same time, covering up the increasing body of scientific evidence of the health hazards of eating marine mammals. The other side of this is, and also, not surprising- a major part of the "science" of scientific whaling is the supposed link between whales and declining fish stocks. Yes, that's right, desperate fisherman are blaming whales for eating all the fish!!! That's also why Japanese fishermen in Taiji round up dolphins every year and slaughter them- because they think they're eating all their fish.

Anyway, the bottom line is that whaling is irresponsible and eventually Greenpeace will succeed in their efforts to influence the governments of the U.S., the U.K and Australia to put the necessary economic pressure- backed up by sound science, of course- on Japan, Norway and Iceland to see the error of their ways.

By the way, I'm done with this blog. If you want to continue this discussion, let's bring it to Greenpeace's OceanDefender's blog, where I'm sure everyone else would be very interested to hear what you have to say.

Regards,
-Greg
 

Greg - I'm not going to be posting comments in response to those written at the Greenpeace blog - I don't have time being the reason. Replying on my own blog is enough as it is (especially with a troll having reared it's ugly head).

I need to hit the futon but several things I do want to note:

1) Poisonous whale meat. This isn't the issue for me at all. If people want to eat food that turns out to be poisonous, bad luck. They will die. Their responsibility. Yes I'm aware of the studies (not going there tonight tho). I've taken the "risk" myself, and am still alive and kicking. People die from various causes including eating too many hamburgers, drinking to much alcohol, and doing too much drugs. The science that is of far greater concern to me is that related to the sustainbility of whaling. If people want to kill themselves - that's their responsbility (and their governments' if proven to be responsible), but as an outsider my personal concern is that the whaling be sustainable. No one wants to see whales driven to extinction. That is the common ground. That's where the co-operation must start.

2) You state:
>whales are complex animals and scientists
>just do not know enough about their
>breeding habits and their distribution
>patterns to allow the resumption of
>commercial whaling.

Lack of knowledge of whale stocks is precisely why the IWC has a Scientific Committee, and why there is an Article VIII in the ICRW. You too slam Japan's research programmes but then complain about a lack of knowledge at the same time. I think there is an obvious problem with such a position.

3) "whales are worth more alive than dead"

I've made my point on this before - you can have eat your whales and watch them too - just not the exact same ones. This comes back to the sustainability of whaling.
But I do also wish to point out that money shouldn't always be a prime consideration in these matters - it surprises me that Greenpeace and other anti-whaling proponents appear to think so.

4) "So why even hunt whales, then?"

Food and culture. Studies have been done... but the night is not getting any younger!

5) "the bottom line is that whaling is irresponsible"

That certainly seems to be your opinion - I stress that - and I stress it because I've seen little to convince me of it. But I do thank you for your visit - it was very much a pleasure having you. If you ever want to pick up the discussion over beers in Tokyo then I'd happily join you :-)

PS

You speak of the Greenpeace people risking their lives by "getting between the whales and harpoons". If you go back in the news archives a couple of weeks, you'll probably be able to find the articles about how they had to cease putting out their inflatable boats because of treacherous seas - during which time the Japanese killed whales. I think this goes to show that those people you praise are not actually prepared to give their own life to save whales - nor would I - but I think you give them a smidgen too much credit. My impression is that its all just a well orchestrated show.
 

Hi David,

Thanks for putting my censored contribution back. :-)

You still haven't explained why you dislike us so much that you have made Pro-whaling, a personal crusade.

No, I do not receive any of the donations Greenpeace receives, I care about what happens to the planet because I have nieces and nephews who I think deserve a planet in better shape than it is now and a society which isn't ruled by the profit at any cost dictum.

Is it the subconscious guilt complex from allowing the profit motive to rule your life, that makes you hate us so much, David?

Let's not forget that environmentalists are campaigning for a better planet for you and your descendents too, despite your attempts to blacken our reputation with fake science.

- Lamna nasus
 

Well, like David, I need to hit my matress ( german futon ;o )

but I will make some quick comments, more to follow in the GMT+1hr friday morning ...

Greg,

"First off, Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd have, at other times focussed their attention on Iceland and Norway's whaling activities. Sea Shepherd has even sunk a few Icelandic and Norwegian whaling ships and has had confrontations with the Norwegian Navy."

But now neither do anything concerning norwegian whaling - of course, in Watsons case, if he ever comes into Norwegian waters, he will be quite rapidly put in the pokey ... and he knows it... here´s a prophecy for you - Paul Watson will NEVER enter Norwegian waters again ...

Here´s another, - Greenpeace will never try any of their Senet ( norwegian whaler - google it ) BS again either .. it costs them too much in bad PR and fines....

Remind me if either break these prophecies ;)

Quote Greg :

" At this time, the focus is on Japan and their bullsh!t "research" whaling that is an insult to anyone who knows anything about science. But that's another subject "

Well,I´ve been involved in population studies of minke whales for the last 13 years - and I "know" a fair bit about the science of population surveys ..but as you say, thats another subject- incidentally, one that both Greenpeace and See sheep " experts " have probably ZERO practical experience of.. but hey, thats another subject as you say ...;)

Quote Greg

" As for Greenpeace buying votes in the IWC and playing capitalist hardball. I say, yeah, so what? That's great what they did "

Greg, this is where I lost ALL respect for your POV... right there... are you so blind as to the hypocrisy of this .. or do you really believe that the means justify the end??

Quote Greg

" But I find it interesting that the link you referred me to was the conservative, Republican SUA site. Good job, so what's up with your man, Abramoff? "

Huh? it´s that site or another ( only two google hits left ) no idea what a " conservative, Republican SUA site. " is ... it´s a link quoting the story - no more than that... I´m a european that thinks your current Goverment is the scum of the earth and would not consider visiting such a police state if my life depended on it ( well you did kinda ask ;)

As to the whale meat stuff and the rest of it, I´ll attend to that in the morning if you can please wait that long ... I´ll add my comments to the posting of the Lamna nasus troll then also - I find it intersting that he/she is incapable ( so far) of rational discussion ( all too common amongst the majority of AR supporters unfortunately these days )

nite all

JM
 

PS.. apologies for my spelling mistakes - it´s late ;)

JM
 

A reply to David. David says in his blog that most people in the world don't give a sh* t about whaling or are prowhaling, referring to a survey conducted by the "conservation" organisation IWMC( the World Conservation Trust).

Why don't I believe him?

This "conservation" group, is a very notorious one.

The IWMC's president Eugene Lapointe is a former CITES dismissed Secrtetary General. His organisation actively supports whaling, sealing, bear-bile farming, ivory trade , shark -finning , you name it.

This Eugene is also an Exxonfunded climate sceptic.

So, David, I DO believe that the majority of all people are against whaling, I can see proof of that everyday

Ann Novek
 

I only say:
http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/save_whales_not_whaling/us_seafood_giant_gortons.html
and this:
http://wspa.org.uk/index.php?page=1217#
 

Hi David,

I'm simply just curious as to where your passion for whaling comes from. bviously this is something you feel quite strongly about, and I'm just curious as to why? Why whaling? What drives you about this whaling issue?

As I said, genuinely curious. I don't have an eblogger account and am too sleepy to get one right now, but I'm Suzie and will get one tomorrow possibly. I don't like being anonymous ;)

Suzie
 

Hey Greg,

Some more comment :

Quote Greg : "I totally agree with you that science should be a key factor in this debate, not emotion. The whaling debate, practically speaking is about science and economics."

Then why does the IWC not listen to it´s own scientific committee? could it be because the anti-whaling NGO´s have manipulated the Politics of the Plenary committee?

Quote Greg :
"First, the science. It is proven that whale meat is poisonous and not fit for human consumption. "

Whoa, stop right there - give me references for that claim - Most of the contaminants concentrate in the fatty tissue ( blubber ) whats in the meat is under maximum limits, at least in Norway ( I can´t speak for Japan ) ... for that matter, take a look at the " farmed " meat you buy off your local shelf - test it for anti biotics and growth hormone amongst other "pollutants" you may be surprised - and as David states, it´s about choice - If I choose to "poison " myself eating polluted food, that´s my choice

Quote Greg :
" Second, whales are complex animals and scientists just do not know enough about their breeding habits and their distribution patterns to allow the resumption of commercial whaling. "

Firstly, commercial whaling has been conducted by Norway since 1993 - Secondly, scientists know plenty about the distribution and numbers of Minkies ( and other species ) in the central and north eastern Atlantic - there are a number of sighting surveys done each year by various countries
and in fact, the norwegian survey estimates and methodology have been scrutinised and accepted by the IWC scientific committee...

next....

JM
 

Hi David and JM,

JM- I thought about going off and slamming you with obscenities, but then you said you're European (German?). Europeans are cool. I lived in Italy for 2 1/2 years before I came here to Japan, where I've been for 3 1/2 years.

Anyway, one thing we can both agree upon is that the current government of the U.S. is, in fact, the scum of the earth and I myself do not care to go back anytime soon. That's why I'm hiding out in Japan!

By the way, what I was referring to about "your man Abramoff"- I assumed you were an American, of Conservative Republican beliefs- also in the news, big in the US, this big time government lobbyist, Jack Abramoff just plead guilty to all sorts of charges relating to basically government/corporate corruption linked to the Bush administration. Basically, my point is that politics is the very definition of SLEAZE. But unfortunately, thats where things happen and where policies and laws are created and put into effect. If Greenpeace has resorted to "playing the game" and doing what they have to do, well then, that's what they have to do. Fight fire with fire. What the hell do you expect the Conservationist movement to do, just sit around in a big happy circle and sing "Kum-ba-ya???" Hell no! If they need to bribe politicians, buy votes on the IWC or set off some friggin' limpet mines, hey... tough shit. Yeah, I guess you could say I don't disagree with Machiavelli- the ends sometimes justify the means.

So what are the "ends" and why care? Well, first off... David, your point about "sustainable" whaling- that with management, you can eat your whale and watch it too. I agree- we do have the common ground of not wanting whales to become extinct. So can we "manage" whale stocks so that we can "take the interest and leave the principle?" Ok, I'll grant you that Minke whales are the ones that are being targetted currently and they are the most plentiful. By generous estimates, I've heard that there are maybe 1 million Minkes in the wild. Say there are twice that number, 2 million- of one of the most plentiful species of whale. Think about it though, the ocean is huge, in terms of the size of the ocean, thats probably still nowhere near the population nature intends. When Minke whales start to overpopulate themselves, I'll pick up a harpoon myself and help you cull them! ...My point is, that even for this supposedly plentiful stock of whales, we have no way of knowing what a "healthy" population figure should be, given the current state of the ocean ecosystem. Mother nature is always the best one to trust regarding the need to cull a particular animal species. Humans- especially financially motivated ones make lousy game wardens in the international high seas... So what about other species of whales? Humpbacks? Fins? Blues? All still listed as endangered. The fact that Japan intends to hunt Fins and Humpbacks next year, is simply outrageous. These Humpbacks, are infact the same ones that at least migrate by Australia and New Zealand and directly support whale watching in these two countries. The whales that escape the harpoon will no doubt be wary of boats and will stay far away from whale watchers. That's money lost by tour operators. If the governments of Australia and NZ do not file a formal lawsuit against Japan, then it's only because their governments SUCK almost as much as my own, U.S. government.

More on whale populations and "scientific" whaling. Okay... if anyone believes that this is real science, I have some ocean front property for sale in Arizona. C'mon... I do have to say that the Japanese are pretty smart though, they've figured out that since whales constantly swim around, they're kinda hard to count. So the best way to count them is to count their dead carcasses. So desu ne. (that's Japanese for "yeah, no shit!") Why are they surveying the population of whales in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary if commercial whaling is prohibited there anyway??? Please, if you respond to anything I've written, please answer that question for me! ...Basically this all suggests to me that the scientific credibility of the Scientific Committee of the IWC is in question, if they accept this crap as valid research. And I've heard that they don't and they've protested, but Japan proceeds anyway. But if they did accept it, or if they didn't so what. It's like the fox watching the henhouse anyway. My point is that, I think we need to err on the side of caution when it comes to managing the populations of animals that are near endangered. Where do you REALLY draw the line with Minkes, and what if we're wrong with our population estimates? Humpbacks, fins, blues... forget about it!!!

I guess what my point really is, and it goes back to economics... economics isnt just about money, per se, but about relative value we humans place on things. I know, from living in Japan, that the vast majority of Japanese do not eat whale, nor have any desire to, unless it is offered or they see it going around the sushi-go-round. The government, with the prodding of the desperate "fisheries" people might be trying to promote it for their own reasons- because they think they can sell it- but whale really isnt a significant part of the Japanese culinary culture. David, you live in Tokyo, how many whale restaurants do you know of? How many Japanese do you know who are suffering from vitamin "W" deficiency? Before the 1930s or so, whaling was limited to coastal whaling and only provided food for these limited coastal communities. For about a decade before WWII, Japan got it's taste for factory scale whaling and it provided food for more people, but then the war broke out and it wasn't until after the war, when the American occupation force permitted whaling as a means to provide "cheap" food for the masses, did this "culture" really develop. Do you really call this a Japanese culinary tradition? Culture? Well, cultures change. The U.S. had a culture of using whale oil for various things, but then for whatever reason, our culture changed. Now we and many others have found value in living whales, and that value is at odds with the institution of whaling.

I think that's enough for now... But yeah, David thanks for the offer for a beer in Tokyo. If you're ever in Okinawa, we have the best beer in Japan- ever had Orion?

-Cheers,
Greg
 

Just read this comment on the greenpeace weblog from Adele in answer to another poster

Quote GP:
"Actually, according to our resident whaling expert and Greenpeace representative to the IWC, John Frizell, there is no accurate estimate of minke whale populations."

Then Mr Frizell is extremely badly informed - or is misrepresenting the fact that There are accurate estimates of the North Atlantic population(s), figures that are accepted as accurate by the IWC Scientific Committee ..

North Atlantic (excluding Canadian East Coast) 120,000 - 182,000
( to 95% confidence limits ) Norway will complete a further multi-year study ( 1995-2006) this summer and present the data to the IWC shortly afterwards - feel free to inform Mr. Frizell. ( just in GP´s whaling expert does´nt realise this )


Quote GP:
"There is currently no agreed estimate for the size of the Antarctic minke population (although that has not stopped the Japanese whaling establishment from using the old discredited estimate of 760,000). Current surveys indicate that the abundance is substantially lower than the old estimate and the the IWC's Scientific Committee is still working to identify factors contributing to the differences between the two surveys. A substantial decline in the minke population has not been ruled out. "

This is quite true - however, a " substantial decline" has not ben proved either - a decline is indicated - one of the main reasons why the IWC/ SOWER surveys are being conducted. I wonder what GP´s postion will be if the current ongoing IWC / SOWER surveys show a rise or little to no change in numbers? Time will tell of course ;)

JM
 

Hi JM,

'Well,I´ve been involved in population studies of minke whales for the last 13 years'

Really? Easily said, care to add some detail to that statement? Would that be working for the High North Alliance, the Japanese Fisheries Ministries, the Pro Whaling faction of the IWC or a fully independent organisation?

'Remind me if either break these prophecies ;)'

Nice try JM, you will have to be a little bit more devious than that, if you want to find out how and where the Northern whaling fleets will next be challenged.

'Greg, this is where I lost ALL respect for your POV'

Why? Are you saying its unfair for the Pro-whaling faction to have their own methods used against them? You are an expert on hypocrisy!


'Lamna nasus troll'

Really? So you posting 'I´m a european that thinks your current Goverment is the scum of the earth and would not consider visiting such a police state if my life depended on it' is an example of non trollish 'rational discussion'?!
(All too common amongst the majority of neocon supporters unfortunately these days). :-) :-) :-)


'Whoa, stop right there - give me references for that claim'

My pleasure -

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/07/26/toxic.whalemeat.enn/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1132889.stm

http://www.eia-international.org/cgi/news/news.cgi?t=template&a=216&source=



http://www.safetyfirst.gr.jp/english/faqs.html




Whale populations? Fascinating subject -

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7038


'a " substantial decline" has not ben proved either - a decline is indicated'

How refreshingly honest of you at last. I think most rational people can work out that killing large numbers of a wild animal will reduce its population.

Norway's survey, like any survey undertaken by a whaling nation is merely a fox taking a chicken census and should be treated as such, ie. flawed by economic pressure.

Japan has simply worked out that at the moment nobody is stopping them whaling using the pseodo 'scientific studies' propaganda.
If they thought there was sufficient demand at home ( best cuts to very expensive restaurants and the rest to the pet food industry)and that the international community wouldn't take action; they would start hunting all whales tomorrow.
The intended expansion of the whale species taken, declared by the Japanese Fisheries Ministry is just such a test of international will.

Fact, they are breaking Australian Law by fishing in a declared whale sactuary right now.
Why is the Australian government not taking them to court? Because whales can't institute trade sanctions and Japan can.

Fact, meat from protected whale species has already been found on sale in japanese markets -

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=20909

Anytime you want to come on back with a detailed and uncontested survey of the seven tenths of this planet covered by water; properly integrated with a 'sustainable' exploitation profile that takes into account ALL the pressures (not just whaling) on a defined whale species supported by the compensation details for the fishery and the international whale watching industry when it reaches economic extinction because the exploitation plan was flawed, as all whaling exploitation plans have been since the beginning of the whaling industry......then we will be waiting.

In the meantime I think it is perfectly rational to use the Precautionary Principle and ask you why you are unable to do the same? Without resorting to spurious comparisons with the domesticated animal farming industry.
:-)

- Lamna nasus
 

Reply to Lamna nasus (LN) :

( shortened cos it´s late - more tommorrow )

Quote JM :

" 'Well,I´ve been involved in population studies of minke whales for the last 13 years'

Quote LN :
"Really? Easily said, care to add some detail to that statement? Would that be working for the High North Alliance, the Japanese Fisheries Ministries, the Pro Whaling faction of the IWC or a fully independent organisation?"

None of the above ;) and no, I do not care to elaborate..

Quote LN :

" Nice try JM, you will have to be a little bit more devious than that, if you want to find out how and where the Northern whaling fleets will next be challenged."

ROFLMFAO ... umm let me see, Jan Mayen, North sea, Vestfjord, Barents sea, Svalbard - take your pick - I´ll remind you after the 2006 season is over when nothing is done by either GP of the SS mob..

Quote LN:

"My pleasure -
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1132889.stm"

And? it refers to the blubber, which is contaminated - which I stated already .. Norway does´nt use the blubber - your point?

Love the 2001 date though ;)

Can´t open the CNN link though, will try again tommorrow

Quote LN:

"http://www.eia-international.org/cgi/news/news.cgi?t=template&a=216&source="

Yes, was the testing done by a " fully independent organisation "?

No? , then join the club ;)

Quote LN:

" Whale populations? Fascinating subject -

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7038

Ah, Steve Palumbi :O) Here´s the subject of a recent talk he gave ..

"Dr. Palumbi and his collaborators used his Pew Marine Fellowship to devise relatively simple techniques to investigate which whales are being served up. If whaling is to continue, Dr. Palumbi believes it must focus exclusively on populations numerous enough to sustain hunting and he explained what it would take to make this possible and how the International Whaling Commission could address this."

Looks like he believes in sustainable whaling too then huh?

Quote LN:

"How refreshingly honest of you at last. I think most rational people can work out that killing large numbers of a wild animal will reduce its population.

Norway's survey, like any survey undertaken by a whaling nation is merely a fox taking a chicken census and should be treated as such, ie. flawed by economic pressure."

You should tell that to the independant scientists from countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Mexico, England, USA, Canada, and many other anti-whaling countries who have taken part on them then, I´m sure they will love to hear from you that they were bought and paid for and that the data they collected was worthless, whilst you are at it, tell Justin Cook, Vassili Papastavrou, ( IFAW ) the same, they were on survey ships on the 1995 survey ;) On that survey there were over 70 foreign ( non-Norwegian observers )

I personally sat next to a swedish greenpeace member ( yup, there were quite a few of you onboard the ships )who refused to see a whale for five weeks .. not a one..

funny that - not a single one, not even the humpback breaching 50m from his nose ... guess he must have needed new glasses then huh?


I´ll comment on the rest in the AM..

JM
 

LOL JM

You make a snide comment at LamaLama for his/her quoting something from 2001 and then in the next breath quote studies done in 1995?! LOL

Pot. Kettle. Black.
 

Ann Novek -

Thank you for your comment.

However, I'm sorry, but you too are playing the man and not the ball. Eugene Lapointe was indeed the secretary-general of CITES for a number of years, and the end of his time there was very controversial. The IWMC which he set up is indeed supportive of the principle of sustainable use, be that with respect to whales or a range of other wild animals.

However, you are telling me that you don't accept the findings of the opinion survey conducted by Responsive Management, for the sole reason that it is posted at the IWMC site. RM posted details of their methodology, and compared with what they knew of techniques used by IFAW polsters.

If you have a problem with what the contents of the survey are, then I suggest you describe those , rather than indulging in an character attack on a single person who happens to support the same view point as myself and many others.

Please play the ball....
 

Suzie -

Thank you to for your comment. However I fail to understand why you are so interested in why I am interested in the topic. Could you explain your interest?

Would you rather not discuss the arguments being made by Greenepace against whaling, and whether they are valid or not?

This is what this discussion is about. If you want to start your own blog and ask off-topic questions about them there, you are free to do so. I might pop by to give you your answer - but please don't continue to break up this discussion which is about the sustainability of whaling - not why my interests are what they are.
 

Dear David, thankyou for all the great websites you have provided me with..I'm more anti whaling than ever and devoutedly more so to the cause!
 

Quote a Nameless troll :

"LOL JM

You make a snide comment at LamaLama for his/her quoting something from 2001 and then in the next breath quote studies done in 1995?! LOL

Pot. Kettle. Black. "

Tell me .. what part of MULTI-YEAR-STUDY (1995-2006) Don´t you understand ? Tell you what, I´ll put it in terms even you can comprehend. the study STARTS in 1995 ( year one of the study ) and ENDS in 2006 ( last year of the study )

Got it yet? somehow I doubt it, as you only contribution to discussion so far proves that either :

a). You don´t read very well
b). You do read well but ignore facts
c). you are totally incapable of understanding what Multi-year means

having a good day yet are we?

JM
 

The Norwegian Government announced 1995 that it had overestimated the numbers of Minke whales in the Northeast Atlantic by 23%, about 17 000 animals.

The Norwegian scientists discovered serious errors in the software and calculation programs used to estimate the Northeast Atlantic Minke whale population.

And JM can you tell me why exactly the Norwegian whalers fail to kill their allocated quotas year after year if the number of whales is so abundant ?

Ann Novek
 

Hello Anne, Long time no read ;O)


Quote Anne :
"The Norwegian Government announced 1995 that it had overestimated the numbers of Minke whales in the Northeast Atlantic by 23%, about 17 000 animals.The Norwegian scientists discovered serious errors in the software and calculation programs used to estimate the Northeast Atlantic Minke whale population."

Correct, and they revised the figures - they did´nt hide, misinform, or otherwise try and screw around with the figures .. they corrected the figures once the flaw was discovered and presented them to the IWC scientific committee again...the figure were acecpted. your point is?

Quote anne:
"And JM can you tell me why exactly the Norwegian whalers fail to kill their allocated quotas year after year if the number of whales is so abundant ?
Ann Novek
"

Two areas - North sea and Jan Mayen are the areas where the full quota is "normally" not taken. It´s a combination of various factors ... Firstly, weather.. the north sea is notorious for unreliable weather .. if your lucks in, you go there and can take your quota quite rapidly - if your lucks out, you sit there for weeks on end waiting for a weather break. It similar round Jan Mayen with the added fun of thick fog much of the time -add to that the transit time to Jan Mayen plus the fact that many norwegian whaling boats are too small to make that journey and you have some of the reasons why the full quota is ( has ) not been taken. The Quotas in Vestfjord, Norwegian and Barents sea and around Svalbard were ( are usually ) taken .So the simplified answer for you is weather ( but it´s actually a wee bit more complex than that as I´m sure you realise being the smart Svenske lady that you are ;O)

JM
 

Quote Portbeagle shark :

"Fact, meat from protected whale species has already been found on sale in japanese markets -

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=20909"

Quote Scott Baker :

"Scott Baker: Well this is all done by molecular analysis. We amplify a small region of mytocondrial DNA and we have to do that in Japan or Korea to avoid any infringements of CITES regulations. But once we’ve amplified it, created a synthetic copy, we bring it back to the lab and we sequence it, and we compare that to what we call reference sequences, just as you would a key in a traditional taxonomy. - we’ve been reporting to the International Whaling Commission, IWC, since ’94 on this, and the response I have to say has been kind of a reluctant acceptance. The Japanese of course now have in fact initiated their own market surveys and their results are pretty similar to ours. But they interpret it very differently. They claim there’s a small stockpile of frozen products that some of these may be the result of. So there are a number of these sort of loopholes that are plausible explanations for the origins of these."

One of which ( frozen product stockpile ) which was blasted to the heavens by NGO´s as being from a Blue whale ... gasp!
Unfortunately for the NGO´s, it turned out ( after further investigation ) to be from a blue whale- fin whale hybrid legally taken off iceland in the 80´s and part of a shipment to Japan.

More later...

HM
 

Hi,

I've found your blog while I was looking at Greenpeace weblog. I must say I am also interested in the whaling issue.

Here's my blog on japanese whaling :
http://isanatori-en.blogspot.com/

Unfortunately, I've not had enough time to update it recently, but I'll try to continue.

Keep it up, David.

isanatori
 

Quote Portbeagle shark :

"Fact, meat from protected whale species has already been found on sale in japanese markets -

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=20909"

Lets see ... Scott Baker, is he from " a fully independent organisation?"

Lets have a look at this page -
http://130.216.185.96/page/wftw/intro
(Witness for the Whales website )
and lets have a peek at the bottom of the page under funding .. amongst others ... who do we find?

the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) - who ( amongst others, fund the maintenance of the reference dataset - I wonder if they funded anything else?...

JM
 

A final comment for today ..

Mr. Baker was also funded by Earthtrust ( not exactly independant either but whatever )

I personally support such Earthtrust initatives to make any trade in illegal whale products transparent .. ( although I would like to see independant corroboration (sp) of their methods and results )

Please note "illegal" trade ;)

Perhaps Greenpeace could donate some of their hundreds of millions of $$ to the IWC in order for the IWC to fund such DNA studies? No? shame really. Good then that Norway has their own DNA register already in place.. I believe Japan also now has such a register in place too ..good for them ;) Illegal whaling should not be allowed ( as opposed to legal that is );)

JM
 

Hi again JM,
You don't like illegal whaling.

Good.
But what about Norwegian whaling. Norway has strong laws against dealing with the extravagant disposal of waste from fishing. Still the Norwegians dump all the blubber into the sea. Only one tenth of a whale is utilised.

Do you call this legal and sustainable whaling?
 

The above comment was posted by me, Ann N.
 

Hi Again Anne

Quote Anne :

"Hi again JM,
You don't like illegal whaling."

Not what I said - I said Illegal whaling should not be allowed - as both Norway & Japan´s hunts are legal - no problem ;)

Quote Anne:

"Good.
But what about Norwegian whaling."

It´s legal - what about it?

Quote Anne:
"Norway has strong laws against dealing with the extravagant disposal of waste from fishing."

If you can post a link here to them or quote these laws here, I´ll comment on them

Quote Anne:
"Still the Norwegians dump all the blubber into the sea."

These days, yes - tell me anne, what happens to a minke whale carcass when it dies naturally? do you believe it magically dissapears? Of course not ( at least I hope not), by taking x% of the total bodymass of each minke, they are actually reducing the amount of pollution in the sea ... ridiculous arguement of course but no more ridiculous than an environmental organisation using Diesel powered ships to protest Oil development in the Barents sea

Quote Anne:
"Only one tenth of a whale is utilised."

your point being?

Quote Anne:
"Do you call this legal and sustainable whaling?"

Anne you seem a wee bit confused here ;)

Fact 1: Norwegian whaling is legal - whether they utilise 1% or 100% of a minke does´nt alter that

Fact 2: The sustainablity of any hunt refers to the ability to "remove or take " individual(s) from a given population without affecting the viabilty of that population

Here´s a simplified example - You have 100 Greenpeacer´s .. they mate and lo and behold, produce 10 more Greenpeace´r´s ... at the same time, 5 GP´s drop dead from natural causes, pollution, harpooning or whatever.
Now you have 105 GP´s ... Now if I "remove or take " 5 GP´s, how many do we have left ??
Now, I´m sure you are not so silly that you do not realise this - so why are you asking this question in the first place?

By the way, I suggest you do some independant reading - rather than read the GP sweden news archives..
If you did, you might come across such gems as this one.

It´s an interesting comment by Greenpeace activist Truls Gulowsen onboard the Esperanza in Lofoten in 2005 - maybe you can explain what he means to me -

Quote Greenpeace activist Truls Gulowsen :

"In an interview with Associated Press, Greenpeace activist Truls Gulowsen, currently aboard the group's ship Esperanza in the Lofotens, said, "Whaling takes the focus away from the real threats to the coast, including overfishing, and the risk of oil industry pollution," Gulowsen said."
;)

So tell me, - if an Greenpece activist onboard the Esperanza is stating this, why is GP spending so much time and resources on the whaling issue instead of fighting the REAL THREATS TO THE COAST ??

JM
 

Hi agai JM!!
truls Gulowsen statement was very uppsetting for old anti whalers like Paul Watson, who never could accept a Greenpeace ship in the Lofotens doing NO anti whaling activities at all. The Esperanza had other mission like preventing Russian oil tankers to come near the Norwegian coast etc. Greenpeace was concerned of future oiltanker accident in this sensitive area
And JM Greenpeace is not doing any more direct whaling actions in Norway since some years ago. Bottom line, our direct actions were counter-productive, people were nationalistic and didn't want any foreigners telling them what to do.

So the time with direct actions belongs to the past, in Norway anyway
 

Hi Anne

( assuming this comment was from you that is )

Quote Anne :

"And JM Greenpeace is not doing any more direct whaling actions in Norway since some years ago. Bottom line, our direct actions were counter-productive, people were nationalistic and didn't want any foreigners telling them what to do.

So the time with direct actions belongs to the past, in Norway anyway "

Bottom line,our direct actions were counter-productive? - and - So the time with direct actions belongs to the past?

Then why the hell is Greenpeace in the Southern Atlantic just now if direct actions belong to the past? Has´nt Greenpeace learned anything from their Norwegian experiences? like for example, " It does´nt work?"

JM
 

In the time for Truls Gulowsens statement no Greenpeace anti-whaling actions were never carried out- on Greenpeace's agenda was to save the coast from threats from oiltankers, oildrillings overfishing and damage to the big seabird colonies, and fish spawning areas.

Ann N. Sorry for my confusing post JM!
 

Hi Again Anne,

So if I can understand what you are writing correctly, It was not in Greenpeace´s interest or agenda to try and prevent 639 minke whales from being taken in Norway in 2005, rather, they were more interested in other things in Norway .. ok, so Norwegian whaling was´nt important enough for them in 2005 ( or 2004, 03, 02 either for that matter )

Answer me a question then, will you find it hypocritical of Greenpeace if they "restart" actions in 2006 ( or any other year for that matter )in Norway?

JM
 

Hi JM

'None of the above'..... followed by.......
'I personally sat next to a swedish greenpeace member ( yup, there were quite a few of you onboard the ships) '

So it would appear that the reason you do not want to elaborate on your claim to decades of scientific credentials; is that although you claim to have been involved in whale population studies for years; you also claim to have no affiliation to any recognised scientific body studying whaling and yet you ALSO claim to be a regular on whaling survey ships?!
Well at least we now know your real name, Pinocchio! :-)

Presumably you couldn't open the link to Safety First either -
'The study also showed that minke whale meat is the species most likely to be mis-advertised. The study showed that of all the mis-advertised samples, 40% were described as minke whale, but actually contained other species like pilot whale, Risso's dolphin and Dall's porpoise which are the most contaminated.......
This (above) frozen north Pacific minke blubber and skin sold in Nachi Katsuuro, Wakayama contains pesticide levels (HCH) exceeding Regulatory Limits established by a range of countries for fishery products.....
This (above) minke whale bacon sold in a shop in the Ameyoko Centre building in Tokyo contains levels of both PCBs and pesticides (HCH) exceeding Regulatory Limits established by a range of countries for fishery products.......
This (above) cooked, dried seasoned meat was described by waitor in a Tokyo restaurant as Antarctic minke whale meat. It was identified as Baird's beaked whale meat and contained four times the safe maximum level of mercury.....

Is one type of whale product safer than another?
No, because the study found that all types of whale products (canned, cooked, salted, frozen, shredded and sashimi) were misadvertised. Look at the following samples, which were also contaminated. Would you have been able to tell?'

JM would like us to believe that Norwegian whale meat comes from less contaminated seas than the Southern Ocean?! Again we see why he doesn't wish to elaborate on his non-existant 'scientific' credentials.

'join the club' -
Once again the Pro-whaling lobby doesn't like it when their own tactics are used against them. If a Pro-whaling source claims something, then its independant science, but its not science when its an Anti-whaling source...Back atcha!
Since the anti-whaling organisations do not profit from a complete ban on whaling (indeed it removes a revenue stream) they are more independant than a commercial industry seeking to expand its business. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Of course JM has very conveniently overlooked why his favourite MULTI-YEAR-STUDY (1995-2006) scientific reports are interpreted differently by the majority of countries in favour of continuing the moratorium than those countries with a financial interest in expanding their whaling industry. Guess he reads well but ignores the facts. :-)

'funny that - not a single one, not even the humpback breaching 50m from his nose ... guess he must have needed new glasses then huh?' -

unverifiable, anecdotal evidence, JM.. from an anonymous source who refuses to authenticate even his scientific credentials...ie.Worthless!

'Palumbi's primary goal is to foster more widespread accountability among those responsible for enforcing international conservation.'
- Pew Fellows Programme in Marine Conservation

The usual cheap deabating tricks from a Pro-whaler, making a massive and unsubstantiated suggestive leap from...'IF (my capitals) whaling is to continue' by Palumbi.....to 'Looks like he believes in sustainable whaling too' by JM.
Interesting that he pulled the quote but didnt post a link to the rest of that 'recent talk'. Thats the trouble with independent scientists, they will not give JM what he wants. :-)

More science on toxicity -

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/species/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=2124

http://www2.gol.com/users/chapa/cphomepage/Stuff%20for%20Hp/latimes.html


The real reason Norwegian whalers fail to kill their allocated quotas year after year isn't the weather JM, as well you know.
Its because they don't have sufficient markets and as a result are spending considerable sums of money on stockpiling most of their exisiting, polluted catch. :-)

http://csiwhalesalive.org/csi98303.html

More inconveniently independant science from 'pollution free' (according to JM) Northern waters -

Grandjean P, White RF, Weihe P, Jorgensen PJ. "Neurotoxic risk caused by stable and variable exposure to methyl mercury from seafood," in Ambul Pediatr, 3(1), 2003, pp. 18-23.

This is the most recent study based on the cohort of 1,022 children born in the Faroe Islands in 1986-87. Intrauterine methyl mercury exposure was determined from mercury concentrations in cord blood and 2 sets of maternal hair. Neurobehavioral performance of 917 children (90 percent) was assessed at age 7. In children with complete exposure data, 8 of 16 neuropsychological tests showed deficits significantly associated with the cord-blood mercury concentration after confounder adjustment. The study supports previous findings from this cohort study that maternal mercury exposure during pregnancy is associated with neuropsychological deficits detectable at age 7 years.


More debating tricks from JM -

'we’ve been reporting to the International Whaling Commission, IWC, since ’94 on this, and the response I have to say has been kind of a RELUCTANT ACCEPTANCE (my capitals). The Japanese of course now have in fact initiated their own market surveys and their results are PRETTY SIMILAR TO OURS. BUT THEY INTERPRET IT VERY DIFFERENTLY (my capitals)

Why is JM spending so much time seemingly supporting my argument?
Because he is setting up the springboard for one of his huge suggestive leaps again...are you ready for him?ok here we go.......
'from a Blue whale ... gasp!Unfortunately for the NGO´s, it turned out ( after further investigation ) to be from a blue whale- fin whale hybrid'.......
The devious suggestive leap? That all the anti-whaling science preceeding that final sentence was flawed because in one case only, one sample which DID contain blue whale DNA but from an unusual hybrid animal.
This JM tries to disingenuously suggest undermines all the other facts; which is of course utter tosh!
JM also conveniently glosses over the fact that the only reason that whale was 'legal' was that Iceland classed it as a fin whale not a blue! Why not a blue, Because thats illegal and unsaleable!

While we are on the subject of Iceland's whaling JM, why don't you regale us with the details of how Iceland having had an almighty hissy fit when the moratorium was democratically voted on and stormed out of the IWC; later illegally voted for itself to be re-instated while not actually a member and therefore without voting rights. Fascinating bit of history that! ......No? .... can't get you to elaborate on it...what a shame....:-)

Why doesn't Greenpeace donate dollars to the IWC?
Why, on its financial butt is it?!
Waste money duplicating existing studies?
Produce a report that Iceland, Norway and Japan are going to dismiss immediately, because its funded by Greenpeace?!
More of your cheap debating tricks JM! :-)

- Lamna nasus
 

Hi JM,
I'm deadly tired, you will get a reply tomorrow.

Ann
 

A short reply to JM.

I am familiar with the Esperanza's tour in the Lofotens 2005, as I was one of the volunteers Greenpeace asked to participate in the campaign. Unfortunately, I couldn't participate due to personal matters at home.

The issue has also been discussed at the Greenpeace Cybercentre, with Paul Watson, John Fritzell etc.

As I mentioned Greenpeace Norway is against direct actionst with the whalers. Of course this doesn't mean that we don't care for the whales, but nowadays we fight in other ways.

We have massive public information campaigns, using rational arguments such as , Norway is breaking international agreements when doing whaling against IWC decisions. Commercial whaling will lead to a collapse in the whale stocks etc.

We campaign also to decrease the demand for whale meat in Norway, and this has been a great success.

Ann Novek
 

Quote LN :

"So it would appear that the reason you do not want to elaborate on your claim to decades of scientific credentials;" is that although you claim to have been involved in whale population studies for years; you also claim to have no affiliation to any recognised scientific body studying whaling"

LN, can you actually read AND understand the written word? Is english your mother tongue? you seem to be having dificulty here;)

I stated "none of the above" which means,

I don´t work for :
a). High North Alliance
b). the Japanese Fisheries Ministries
c).the Pro Whaling faction of the IWC ( what the hell´s that when it´s at home? )
d).a fully independent organisation

Keep guessing and you reach get the right answer eventually - my affiliation is unimportant, as are my reasons for remaining anonymous- the facts however, are important -something that readers would do well to note

Quote LN :
"and yet you ALSO claim to be a regular on whaling survey ships?!
Well at least we now know your real name, Pinocchio! :-)"

dear oh dear, you are having a bad day - I wrote :
" Well,I´ve been involved in population studies of minke whales for the last 13 years - and I "know" a fair bit about the science of population surveys "

You however, make a enourmous leap of imagination and state " you ALSO claim to be a regular on whaling survey ships?!"

the only person making that claim is you LN .. could it possibly be you are trying to track me down in order to set your AR fanatics on me ? you would´nt do that would you? I ´m sure you would´nt as you seem to be a Greenpeace supporter and Greenpeace does´nt condone violence do they ... on the other hand, maybe you are a sea shepherd thug.. are you?

Quote LN :

"Presumably you couldn't open the link to Safety First either "

Yes, I´ve read most of the links supplied on that page ..

Quote LN:

"JM would like us to believe that Norwegian whale meat comes from less contaminated seas than the Southern Ocean?! Again we see why he doesn't wish to elaborate on his non-existant 'scientific' credentials."

Not at all, I noted in a post to Greg ( Quote JM )

" Whoa, stop right there - give me references for that claim - Most of the contaminants concentrate in the fatty tissue ( blubber ) whats in the meat is under maximum limits, at least in Norway ( I can´t speak for Japan ) ..."

Contaminants in Norwegian whale meat are under safe limits - would you like me to lnk to some documents ? they´re in Norwegian of course so you may not understand squat but hey, not understanding squat has´nt stopped you so far has it? I don´t see the point anyway as you quite clearly are not interested in "anything" that supports whaling ...

and anyway, your safety first "arguements" are specious The same "warnings" apply to eating fish,and or ANY other animal or plant.

Quote LN :

"The real reason Norwegian whalers fail to kill their allocated quotas year after year isn't the weather JM, as well you know.
Its because they don't have sufficient markets and as a result are spending considerable sums of money on stockpiling most of their exisiting, polluted catch. :-)

http://csiwhalesalive.org/csi98303.html

More inconveniently independant science from 'pollution free' (according to JM) Northern waters "

ROFLMFAO ... CSI? independant science? I ask you LN, you are quoting a 1998 article on blubber mountains ..which no longer exists .. here are a few facts for you - Norwegians don´t have a taste for blubber - and anyway, contamination levels in the blubber are too high - which is why the 1998 "blubber stocks " have since been destroyed.. These " blubber stocks" in freezer warehouses were stockpiled by businesses who were speculating on export - they speculated wrong and lost out ...

What is your point? we´re all ears here ...

Quote LN :

" While we are on the subject of Iceland's whaling JM, why don't you regale us with the details of how Iceland having had an almighty hissy fit when the moratorium was democratically voted on "

Damn LN, you get funnier by the minute, " when the moratorium was democratically voted on " ????

Read this :

http://tinyurl.com/ce9t3

Democracy?? It took Greenpeace quite a lot of $$ to bring "democracy " to the IWC ... shall we discuss " vote buying " LN? or shall we discuss democracy?

Quote LN :

" Why doesn't Greenpeace donate dollars to the IWC?
Why, on its financial butt is it?!
Waste money duplicating existing studies? "

No, the IWC is not "on its financial butt" However, they do have limited finances - and the "existing studies" for the main have been conducted by scientists financed by anti- whaing organisations such as IFAW - hardly independant studies - As the IWC is THE regulatory body concering whalng - it is in the interests of the opposing sides to have "independant studies" done - who better than the IWC ?
Fact is however, that no matter who does what study is irrelevant to you as long as it may support any facet of whaling - or do you deny that?
Come out of the closet and tell readers that you would accept independant studies done by a body agreed upon by both sides of the whaling debate - I know that I personally would accept such studies in such a case
 

Hi Anne;

Quote anne :

" short reply to JM.

I am familiar with the Esperanza's tour in the Lofotens 2005, as I was one of the volunteers Greenpeace asked to participate in the campaign. Unfortunately, I couldn't participate due to personal matters at home."

Shame Anne, I could´ve had a face to face chat with you when Eperanza was in Tromso harbour in September ( 9th and 10th as far as I can remember )would´ve been fun discussing the whole circus over a beer or two ;O)

Quote anne:
"
The issue has also been discussed at the Greenpeace Cybercentre, with Paul Watson, John Fritzell etc.

As I mentioned Greenpeace Norway is against direct actionst with the whalers. Of course this doesn't mean that we don't care for the whales, but nowadays we fight in other ways."

Ah ..Greenpeace Norway .. so tell me, is Greenpeace Norway´s position also the position of Greenpeace international?

Quote anne:
"
We have massive public information campaigns, using rational arguments such as , Norway is breaking international agreements when doing whaling against IWC decisions."

Hardly a rational arguement when Norway is legally conducting a commercial minke whale hunt fully in line with IWC rules - tell me anne, does greenpeace still maintain that Norway´s minke whale hunt is illegal? if yes, why?

Quote anne:
"
Commercial whaling will lead to a collapse in the whale stocks etc."

Norway has been conducting a commercial whale hunt since 1993 and there is no evidence of "any" collapse in the north atlantic minke whale stocks whatsoever.. tell me, what is Greenpeace´s position on this ?

quote anne:
"
We campaign also to decrease the demand for whale meat in Norway, and this has been a great success.

Ann Novek "

Really,? in what way? I ( for one ) knew nothing about it and have seen othing about it in norwegian or european media - can you quote sources of the extent of this success in stopping norwegian demand for whale meat? I would be really interested in reading these

Regards

JM
 

isanatori,

Thank you for dropping a note to let me know of your blog. I look forward to reading further articles of interest :-)
 

After rereading my "discussions" with LN, I´d Like to add a comment..

We´re not really having that much of a discussion, rather, we seem to be taking cheap potshots at each other and that´s not helping matters in the least ..

So, I withdraw any insinuations whatsoever that I have made ( or implied ) against LN ( whoever he or she is ) It´s this kind of character assasination that is all to prevalent within the whaling debate and it´s time consuming and worthless.
I´ll confine myself to adressing solely the facts in the discussion in any further comments ;)

JM
 

Hi again Greg, sorry for not responding sooner.

> Think about it though, the ocean is huge,
> in terms of the size of the ocean, thats
> probably still nowhere near the population
> nature intends.

Well you can not really look at a individual species (minke stocks in this case) in isolation and say what "nature intends" for it. There are other factors to consider such as "how much competition for food is there?"
It's worth noting too that the IWC Scientific Committee recently considered research conducted by some well known scientists with anti-whaling affiliations which had attempted to show that whale populations were times of magnitude greater than previously thought. You can see what the IWC Scientific Committee thought about that research and the huge difference with accepted estimates here:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2004/56annexs.pdf
IWC Scientific Committee member Doug Butterworth and others were also skeptical:
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3092711.stm

> we have no way of knowing what a "healthy"
> population figure should be

I think I'll accept the traditional whale abundance estimates reached by the experts myself.

> The whales that escape the harpoon
> will no doubt be wary of boats and
> will stay far away from whale watchers.

On the contrary, the experience in places such as Iceland and Norway has been that the bad western press generated due to whaling activities has had a far greater impact on the whale watching industry than whales turning shy. It's also worth remembering that in percentage terms only minute fractions of the overall population will be utilised - most whales of the target stock wouldn't even have a clue. Furthermore, if one thinks that whales will be shy of whale watching vessels, surely the same would be true of larger whaling vessels.

> If the governments of Australia and NZ
> do not file a formal lawsuit against
> Japan, then it's only because their
> governments SUCK

Well, I don't there is any grounds for that, especially given that those nations are party to whaling conducted under IWC regulations, as they remain contracting governments (despite their opposition to whaling). They could withdraw, but they've failed to do this so far.

On the other hand, the whalers would likely love to see a court case taken against them - they know that they have international law on their side. A lost court case would be a massive political blunder for either of those governments. It's quite interesting actually, in Australia last year the opposition parties were goading the government for not taking court action - of course when they find themselves in government the situation will be exactly the same, with just the roles reversed. These are politicians after all - they have good advice. But they also know that it's good politics to make an issue out of this while in opposition.

> Why are they surveying the population
> of whales in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary
> if commercial whaling is prohibited there anyway???

Mr Frizell noted as much in his response to me previously. Stay tuned for my response to him in the next couple of days - I'll be addressing that issue specifically.

> Basically this all suggests to me that
> the scientific credibility of the Scientific
> Committee of the IWC is in question, if they
> accept this crap as valid research

Instead of talking about "if", why not read the reports from the IWC Scientific Committee and then draw a conclusion? There are plenty of reports available on the Internet. If you'd like some links I'd be more than happy to provide some.

> And I've heard that they don't and
> they've protested, but Japan proceeds anyway

The IWC Scientific Committee consists of around 200 scientists these days, and the majority of course come from non-whaling nations, and some of the scientists have affiliations with anti-whaling organizations. Nonetheless, over the years the Scientific Committee has been generally supportive of Japan's research. The anti-whaling NGO's often succeed in airing what the vociferous minority of the IWC Scientific Committee have to say. I've covered this matter previously in fact:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2005/06/iwc-2005-anti-whaling-nation-disregard.html
My favourite part from that news article was a "senior scientist" who gave the reson for his refusal to participate in the review of the JARPA II research proposal as "there has been no independent review of the original JARPA". Of course any scientist of stature should be able to conduct such a review all by himself!

Anyway, the Internet is full of Scientific Committee reports - you can read the reports yourself and draw your own conclusions.

> think we need to err on the side of
> caution when it comes to managing the
> populations of animals that are near endangered.

If you do I little reading about the IWC Scientific Committee's RMP (which the politically driven IWC adopted as the management procedure) I think you'll find that those thoughts are shared by the scientific community.

> I know, from living in Japan,
> that the vast majority of Japanese
> do not eat whale, nor have any desire to

Totally true for most Japanese people. This then becomes a question of whether minority cultures should be wiped out. Certainly if there is good reason, maybe that's the case. My point in all of this is that I haven't seen any very good reasons from Greenpeace or others yet. I think if the arguments were so good then those with an interest in whaling would have already brought it to a stop themselves. Good reasons go across cultural boundaries - they are universal. Scientific reasons, were there any, would fit the criteria nicely.

> David, you live in Tokyo, how many whale
> restaurants do you know of?

I myself know of "kujiraya" in Shibuya which is where I had whale steak, and also there is minke whale from the research programmes on sale at my favourite sushi restaurant, although I prefer straight fish. I had whale meat in one other restaurant near my office as well. So it's certainly on the menu, but you are right that hardly anyone eats it.

> did this "culture" really develop

It's certainly a very prominent element in certain coastal communities in Japan. I think it's worth making a distinction between such whaling communities and the desire of larger fisheries companies to take part in larger scale pelagic whaling under IWC regulations for commercial gain. Whaling culture is very important in those little villages - but you are right that it's not at all important in big cities like Tokyo. However the world's nations have signed up to the ICRW, so I see nothing wrong with commercial whaling on those grounds. All of our nations agreed with it.

> we have the best beer in Japan- ever had Orion?

I think I've heard of it :-)
 

Hi JM or should I call you, John McCarlie?

'Please answer some direct questions relating to the responsibilities of ships navigating on the high seas under international law.

Are your ships formally registered as commercial ships under a flag recognised by the International Maritime Organization?

If so, why are they obstructing the lawful passage of Japanese flag vessels on the high seas?

If commercial vessels, what are the views and actions of the flag state(s)?'

- John McCarlie at January 9, 2006

REPLY FROM THE ESPERANZA

Hi John,

To answer your questions:

The Arctic Sunrise and the Esperanza (and the Rainbow Warrior) are technically Motor Yachts registered in the Netherlands.

Our bridge officers have the same level of technical maritime certification that would be required on a commercial vessel of our size. We also carry the same (or better) safety and communications gear that you would find on a commercial ship.

In answer to your last question, the whaler's factory made a full circle from where it was had been tied up along THE FAR SIDE of the tanker ship (the third ship you see in the video) for more than six hours. While we have been doing our best to peacefully intervene in their whaling, at the time they had to go well out of their way to hit the Arctic Sunrise.
- Andrew, Esparanza Web Editor


In independant Pro Whaling terminology, a vessel illegally whaling in another countries territorial waters (and whale reserve) that deliberately steers a course to ram a Greenpeace vessel is being 'obstructed'?!!!!!!!
How very illuminating! :-)


'd).a fully independent organisation' -

Well at least that establishes that you are not claiming to be independant and that therefore you are in favour of unsustainable, industrial whaling; since you are clearly not Anti-whaling and the only sustainable whaling practise the IWC or 'modern' commercial, industrial whaling has ever conducted throughout its history, is the 'moratorium'.


And no, I do not have any links with the tiny number of extremists on the far right of the Anti-Vivisection movement.

I accept your withdrawal of insinuations made or implied, however I am going to address some of the non sequiturs (interesting debating tactics John, make the remarks, then withdraw them before receiving an answer, knowing that once uttered, it is very difficult for the audience to forget them. :-)

'You however, make a enourmous leap of imagination and state " you ALSO claim to be a regular on whaling survey ships?!"

No leap by Lamna required, JM stated -

'I PERSONALLY SAT NEXT TO (my capitals) a swedish greenpeace member....yup, there were quite a few of you onboard the SHIPS (my capitals ).

JM can now come clean and clarify that he has only ever been on one survey ship on one trip but that his job description during that voyage is (for some undisclosed reason) confidential.


'Contaminants in Norwegian whale meat are under safe limits - would you like me to lnk to some documents ? they´re in Norwegian of course' -

With your claimed level of scientific involvement with Norwegian / International whaling studies you should be able to produce links to translated studies (IWC?) JM; therefore for some reason you clearly just do not wish to do so.

Norway should not be surprised that its minke whales are contaminated. The marine mammals are subjected each summer to the chemical soup pouring into the Barents Sea from Russia's polluted rivers and military bases. Similar toxic exposure is faced by the whales when they winter in the North Sea and Irish Sea.



'The same "warnings" apply to eating fish,and or ANY other animal or plant.'

Of course it has to be clearly labelled as containing toxins, what type of toxins, the quantity of those toxins, the recommended safe level of exposure to those toxins and finally the likely results of toxin combinations to increase toxicity; if people are to be given the opportunity to make an informed choice!

As I have already demonstrated from the japanese study, this is not happening with whale meat. In fact the japanese public is being widely misled.

It is of course still specious to draw parallels with the industrialised domestic farming industry, JM . Despite your repeated efforts to do so.

If you want to open a seperate thread on toxins obscured from the public by manufacturers and suppliers in the consumer market place (particularly the industrialised farming industry) I am more than happy to oblige but David may wish us to take the discussion somwhere other than his Blog.


'What is your point?'

That it is a lack of markets (which you have confirmed) NOT the weather as you suggested JM, that has restricted Norwegian whaling; which is why they are so keen for a resumption of commercial whaling in spite of the fact that Northern whale meat is as contaminated as any other.

"Our advice is that pregnant women and mothers who are breast feeding should not eat whale meat," Janneche Utne Skaare, deputy director of the National Veterinary Institute, Oslo...following a meeting this week and based on samples from 125 whales -
Reuters, May 2003.

In fact I think in view of the general shortage of information on current Norwegian stock piles you now have an excellent opportunity to back up your claim of destruction, with some verifiable, current stockpile figures for whale meat and blubber (in English please). 2003 will do, if you have nothing more recent. Along with an account of how, where and when the prvious toxic blubber stockpile was destroyed.

'Sites and volumes of blubber for location are recorded. In December 1999, the estimate of the total stockpile of blubber stored in Norway had not been officially published, but reliable sources mentioned that it is probably close to 400 tonnes.'
- 53rd IWC Meeting

While you were RAOTFLYAO, you forgot to address that long term independent study on the effects of toxins on the health of Faroe Islanders. An oversight I'm sure you will wish to correct?


'http://tinyurl.com/ce9t3' -
(Warning using this link more than once may have serious side effects, including - Calling yourself 'Bubba', playing the banjo, voting for license free, automatic weapons for the under twelves and the right to marry your sister. :-)

Thought you didn't like old links JM - yet you post a link to an article published in 1993, currently hosted on a far right, neocon / religious site, and I quote -

'The mainstream media’s silence on the subject has been deafening. When’s the last time you read of any Communist activity in America reported by ABC, CBS, NBC or the New York Times?

I think it’s time the media and especially the Limbaugh’s, Hannity’s and O’Rielly’s of America face the facts. The main stream media will cover-up anything designed to bring down America. The do their way on a daily basis. We aren’t just in a cultural war between God believing people and secularists....'


'they do have limited finances - and the "existing studies" for the main have been conducted by scientists financed by anti- whaing organisations such as IFAW - hardly independant studies - As the IWC is THE regulatory body concering whalng '

Make up your mind JM, if you don't like science funded by IFAW, then why suggest IWC studies funded by Greenpeace.
To try to suggest that the international fisheries industry is too poor to fund research is just plain weak and not supported by the facts ( a bit like Norwegian whaling ships saying they are too small to have an independant scientific monitor on board!).
To suggest that the majority of studies have been funded by environmentalists, smacks of the worst kind of neocon. conspiracy theory paranoia.

Greenpeace's money is just as democratic as anyone else's.

If its good enough for Pro-whaling nations to buy votes and pay for scientific studies, its good enough for us environmentalists too. Never enter a gunfight armed only with a stick because your opponent says its fairer. :-)

Lets face it if there was no incentive of any kind, why would anyone pay for studies?

Obviously I recognise JM's (whoever he or she is ) offer of an effort in future to concentrate on the facts (even if they have been payed for by 'pinko' environmentalist studies :-) in this debate, as long as my debating opponents maintain those lofty ideals.

- Lamna nasus
 

Quote LN:
"Hi JM or should I call you, John McCarlie?"

JM is fine, I´d suggest you answer John McCarlie on the greenpeace weblog though, as he´s not posting here ( as far as I know ) ;)

Quote LN :

"'d).a fully independent organisation' -

Well at least that establishes that you are not claiming to be independant and that therefore you are in favour of unsustainable, industrial whaling; since you are clearly not Anti-whaling and the only sustainable whaling practise the IWC or 'modern' commercial, industrial whaling has ever conducted throughout its history, is the 'moratorium'."

I make and have made, no claims to be part of an independant " organisation ". As for the rest of your quote above, it establishes nothing. You say "I am clearly not anti - whaling" wrong LN ;)

Quote LN :

"And no, I do not have any links with the tiny number of extremists on the far right of the Anti-Vivisection movement. "

I actually asked you if you were a "sea shepherd thug" - interesting answer though, but I won´t go there anymore as I have stated ;)

Quote LN :

" JM can now come clean and clarify that he has only ever been on one survey ship on one trip but that his job description during that voyage is (for some undisclosed reason) confidential."

LN, wrong again, and as I have stated already, I will not elaborate;)

But I do find it quite funny that you keep at it...

Quote LN:

"With your claimed level of scientific involvement with Norwegian / International whaling studies you should be able to produce links to translated studies (IWC?) JM; therefore for some reason you clearly just do not wish to do so. "

LN... read this one more time

(Quote JM ) Well,I´ve been involved in population studies of minke whales for the last 13 years - and I "know" a fair bit about the science of population surveys "

You sem to read an incredible amount into that statement ... why is this?
"I have been involved"
"I "know" a fair bit about the science of population surveys "

Why are you insisting or attributing claims to me that I have not made? once again, you are guessing or perhaps reaching for straws, I have no idea why ... you simply need to accept what I stated or not - If not, then there is no point in any further discussion with you - I "could" give you various details of surveys, methodology, names of participants etc etc etc ad infinitum .. what would be the point? You would dismiss any or all of it as being Pro whaling rubbish... you would also have no way of checking a lot of the information either .. Here´s a snippet of info for you -During the 95 survey, independant observers observers from such diverse nations as South Africa, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, USA, Mexico, Poland and Australia ( amongst others )took part. Would you like me to name them, their scientific affiliation, qualifications and which ships they were on? ...
Maybe you would ( for whatever reasons ) But how could you verify this information without contact each and every one of them? Why would you bother? Just to prove me right? I don´t think so somehow:)

Of course, I would´nt give you that information anyway, especially on a public forum ...

No LN, just deal with the discussion as best you can

Quote LN :

" Of course it has to be clearly labelled as containing toxins, what type of toxins, the quantity of those toxins, the recommended safe level of exposure to those toxins and finally the likely results of toxin combinations to increase toxicity; if people are to be given the opportunity to make an informed choice! "

Really? are all foods labelled with toxin, contaminant etc levels in the supermarkets of your country? Tell me which country it is and I may move there ( unless it´s the USA )... In Norway, it´s the responsibility of a number of agencies ..amongst others, The Norwegian school of Veterinary science ( NVH), the Nasjonalt institutt for ernærings- og sjømatforskning (NIFES)and the Mattilsynet. I suggest you Google for the relevant data...

the quote you mention is from the deputy director, she also metioned in the same press release " "We do not recommend more consumption of whale blubber than 10 grams per week for a grown up individual. Pregnant women and children should not consume blubber at all,"

And

" She said the advice, following a meeting this week and based on samples from 125 whales, was in line with recommendations to women to avoid certain types of fish including swordfish and large trout when pregnant or nursing"

" Levels were highest in the North Sea and lowest in the Arctic Barents Sea. For fish, Norway has considered 0.50 micrograms of mercury as a safe limit."

08.05.2003

"We do not recommend more consumption of whale blubber than 10 grams per week for a grown up individual. Pregnant women and children should not consume blubber at all," said Janneche Utne Skaare, who is the head of the Veterinary Institute

Good for her, and the rest of the organisations involved, they tested, gave their results and recommendations - all in good order

What are you complaining about? that they warned the public?

Your point is?

Quote LN :

" In fact I think in view of the general shortage of information on current Norwegian stock piles you now have an excellent opportunity to back up your claim of destruction, with some verifiable, current stockpile figures for whale meat and blubber (in English please). 2003 will do, if you have nothing more recent. Along with an account of how, where and when the prvious toxic blubber stockpile was destroyed."

LOL .. Do your own googling ( work ) Why on earth do you expect me to do your work for you? As I have already stated to Greg
(Quote JM) "Most of the contaminants concentrate in the fatty tissue ( blubber ) whats in the meat is under maximum limits, at least in Norway ( I can´t speak for Japan ) ... "

I can´t speak for the Faroes either, ( just in case you were about to ask )

Norwegian whalemeat is regularly tested at all stages of food processing by the relevant authorities - if you don´t accept my word for it, look it up yourself - the fact that you quoted Janneche Utne Skaare from 2003 reinforces the this - If you want the exact toxicology figures then google or write to the relevant authorities yourself, I´m certainly not going to do your work for you ;O)

Quote LN :

" 'http://tinyurl.com/ce9t3' -
(Warning using this link more than once may have serious side effects, including - Calling yourself 'Bubba', playing the banjo, voting for license free, automatic weapons for the under twelves and the right to marry your sister. :-)"

I could have linked to the High North alliance website but you would have dismissed that as a Pro whaling website ... the link refers to an Article first published in Forbes Magazine - I have no idea if Forbes Mag is any of the above twaddle you state .. is it? Do you disagree with the article .. seems not...

Quote LN :

"If its good enough for Pro-whaling nations to buy votes and pay for scientific studies, its good enough for us environmentalists too. Never enter a gunfight armed only with a stick because your opponent says its fairer. :-) "

Interesting statement LN, I quote the Forbes article here
"Between 1978 and 1982, Palacio says, the operation added at least half a dozen new member countries to the commission's membership to achieve the three-fourths majority necessary for a moratorium on commercial whaling, which it passed in 1982.

This project cost millions, says Palacio, including the commission membership payments picked up on behalf of cooperating members. "In membership fees the payments amounted to about $150,000 [a year], and then we had all the grease money throughout the years," says Palacio. The Frenchman Gouin, then in his 30's was the angel, funneling the funds through a Miami-based "foundation" called Sea Life Resources Institute. Where did Gouin get that kind of money? From trading investments, he says."

Between 1978 and 1982 LN, and Greenpeace has been accusing Japan of vote buying since when? would you care to inform us?

so when you say " Never enter a gunfight armed only with a stick because your opponent says its fairer. :-) "

You are in fact confirming the complete and utter hypocrisy of Greenpeace ... thankyou, it´s interesting to see ;)

G´nite - I look forward to your reply ( when I get back on Thursday )

JM
 

Hello JM,
I must say I'm a little bit surprised that you apparently don't read and follow the media debate in Norway regarding Greenpeace and the whale meat market.

Don't you read "Fiskeribladet", the whaler's and fishermen's daily newspaper in Norway?

Both "Fiskeribladet and other media have covered Greenpeace's position on confrontations with the whalers and discussed the whale meat market.

I read "Lofotensposten" and " Fiskeribladet" and they write often about the problems with the sales and decline of the whale meat market.

The Ellingsen's have promoted new whale meat products , like Lofotensburgers to increase the demand for whale meat, but it seems like very few people really eat whale meat nowadays in Norway, except for the northern parts.

Ann
 

Hi again JM,
As you are aware the Norwegian whale industry is export based, and now when the export market has collapsed , the industry has domestic problems to sell all the whale meat.

Whalers today admit there are going to be huge problems to sell all the whale meat , when the self allocated quotas has increased even more.

The whalers appeal to or rather demand the Norwegian public to consume more whale meat , in that way supporting the whalers and being patriotic!!!

Ann
 

Hi JM,
I still remember former Norwegian Foreign Minister Thorvald Stoltenberg's statement( BTW Thorvald is father to the current Prime Minister): " The Minkes are the rats of the seas".

Unfortunately, I believe that still many whalers hate the whales, because they think they are the cause of the depletion of fish stocks.

Whalers want to increase the quota year after year, and VERY soon we are near premoratorium numbers , that almost depleted the Northeast minke whale stock.

This stock of whales was considered so seriously depleted that it was given total protection from commercial hunting, by the IWC, in 1985.

In recommending protected status for the stock, the Commission's Scientific Committee concluded that this whole stock had been reduced to well below half of its pre-exploitation level.

Ann
 

Correction:
Of course I mean the Northeast Atlantic minke whale stock!

Ann
 

Hi Anne..

Just a quickish reply as I´m off out the door agaoin shortly

Quote Anne :

"Hello JM,
I must say I'm a little bit surprised that you apparently don't read and follow the media debate in Norway regarding Greenpeace and the whale meat market.

Don't you read "Fiskeribladet", the whaler's and fishermen's daily newspaper in Norway?

Both "Fiskeribladet and other media have covered Greenpeace's position on confrontations with the whalers and discussed the whale meat market.I read "Lofotensposten" and " Fiskeribladet" and they write often about the problems with the sales and decline of the whale meat market."

Acually, I read both when I´m in Norway and follow the online edition a few times a week ... Other than Greenpeace´s March " endangered Lofoten" campaign and a samll article on the Esperanza visit, I have seen nothing in the online archives ... at last about whaling .. maybe you are thinking of another year? I aslo checked VG´s archives ... nothing about what you describe in 2005

Quote Anne:
"The Ellingsen's have promoted new whale meat products , like Lofotensburgers to increase the demand for whale meat, but it seems like very few people really eat whale meat nowadays in Norway, except for the northern parts."

Southern Norway has´nt really been a part of the market since the war, however, Ellingsen ( amongst others) have recently invested large sums in new machinery ( packing ) and processing in order to deal with the new products - in the north and west, the market is steadily increasing - as far as I can remember, Ellingsen posted an 11.2 million NOK income in 2005( may have been 2004 - I´ll need to check ) .. a substantial rise in income - so tell me, if whale meat sales are going so badly, why is the largest producer doing so well?

Quote anne

"Hi again JM,
As you are aware the Norwegian whale industry is export based, and now when the export market has collapsed , the industry has domestic problems to sell all the whale meat."

Excuse me? Norwegian whaling has´nt been export based since the 80´s ..
aside from a couple of hundred tons to Iceland and the Faroe islands in the last 15 months or so, all whalemeat is for the home market .. tell me, where did you read that?

Quote anne:

"Whalers today admit there are going to be huge problems to sell all the whale meat , when the self allocated quotas has increased even more."

Interesting, I wonder which whalers you are talking to, ´cos the ones I know are looking forward to a good 2006 season - you do realise that unless they have seriously good weather for long periods that they will not fill the 1052 quota don´t you?

Quote anne:

"The whalers appeal to or rather demand the Norwegian public to consume more whale meat , in that way supporting the whalers and being patriotic!!!"

LOL, once again, where are you reading this stuff? on a greenpeace homepage? ...


Quote anne:
"Hi JM,
I still remember former Norwegian Foreign Minister Thorvald Stoltenberg's statement( BTW Thorvald is father to the current Prime Minister): " The Minkes are the rats of the seas"."

So are you suggesting that the son of the father is " just as evil" or what? What his father or for that matter, any politician says is politics - and as such should be taken with a hefty pinch of salt anne ;O)

Quote anne:

"Unfortunately, I believe that still many whalers hate the whales, because they think they are the cause of the depletion of fish stocks."

"hate" has nothing to do with it .. I find it incredible that you believe such rubbish - to a norwegian whaler, a minke whale is an income source for part of the year, the rest of the year, various fish species are the other source ( Sild, torsk, mackrell, Kveite, kongekrabben etc )

They don´t hate minke whales and they don´t hate herring either ...

"Whalers want to increase the quota year after year, and VERY soon we are near premoratorium numbers , that almost depleted the Northeast minke whale stock."

Bullcrap basically, the Northeast minke whale stock has never been seriously depleted - you do realise that Norway´s commercial hunt actually takes less minkies than the could under IWC recommendations don´t you? You do realise that in actual fact, if Norway followed the IWC RMP exactly, they could take over 2000 minkies a year don´t you?

Quote anne:
"
This stock of whales was considered so seriously depleted that it was given total protection from commercial hunting, by the IWC, in 1985."

Once again, Bullcrap, the moratorium was a politically motivated temporary measure that should have been lifted in 1990 - politics within the IWC has kept it in place - you do realise that GREENPEACE spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy votes in order to get enough countries to vote for the moratorium in the late 70´s and early 80´s don´t you?
How do you feel about that? Do you approve?

The current North eastern Atlantic Minke whale Population figures are accepted by the IWC scientific commitee anne, the latest revision of the figures was in 2001-02. There will be a further revision in 2006-07.

Do you actually know what the 1985 population figures were anne? Do you know that the norwegians have done a survey ´every ´ year since 1995 instead of once every five years as the are required to do by their membership of the IWC ?

Enough Anne, how´s about you start answering the questions I have asked you ?


Quote JM :

"So if I can understand what you are writing correctly, It was not in Greenpeace´s interest or agenda to try and prevent 639 minke whales from being taken in Norway in 2005, rather, they were more interested in other things in Norway .. ok, so Norwegian whaling was´nt important enough for them in 2005 ( or 2004, 03, 02 either for that matter )

Answer me a question then, will you find it hypocritical of Greenpeace if they "restart" actions in 2006 ( or any other year for that matter )in Norway?"

(Quote anne)
As I mentioned Greenpeace Norway is against direct actionst with the whalers. Of course this doesn't mean that we don't care for the whales, but nowadays we fight in other ways."

( Quote JM )
Ah ..Greenpeace Norway .. so tell me, is Greenpeace Norway´s position also the position of Greenpeace international?

"Quote anne:
"
We have massive public information campaigns, using rational arguments such as , Norway is breaking international agreements when doing whaling against IWC decisions."

Hardly a rational arguement when Norway is legally conducting a commercial minke whale hunt fully in line with IWC rules - tell me anne, does greenpeace still maintain that Norway´s minke whale hunt is illegal? if yes, why?

"Quote anne:
"
Commercial whaling will lead to a collapse in the whale stocks etc."

Norway has been conducting a commercial whale hunt since 1993 and there is no evidence of "any" collapse in the north atlantic minke whale stocks whatsoever.. tell me, what is Greenpeace´s position on this ?

JM
 

Excuse my spelling ..LOL..

JM
 

In case readers haven't noticed, I've posted a follow up to Mr Frizell's response. Find it on the top page.
 

Hi again JM,
First, you are right about the Fiskeribladet about Greenpeace's articles, but it's very interesting to note that they write:"... Greenpeace nowadays wants to establish friendly and normal relations with the coastal population...".

Regarding the Ellingsen's, their main revenues come from fish products not from whale meat, and the increase of income this year came from fish products as well.

JM, my mistake, the Norwegian whale industry is not export based today ,but they surely are waiting ...

And JM, whalers DO have HUGE problems to sell the meat, PLEEAASE do a search again in Norwegian media.

Regarding your questions about Greenpeace I have no authority or knowledge to do comments about them in an international forum, so I suggest you to take contact with a Greenpeace office and pose your questions.

Have a nice day !!!

Ann
 

Good morning JM,
Rereading our posts again and I have some more comments!

Regarding the whalers "hating" the minkes .

Why do I hear and read comments from angry whalers like :
" The minkes are eating more fish than all illegal Russian trawlers are fishing in the Barents Sea."

" They need to be regulated..."

" They destroy the ecosystem..."

Ann
 

To JM,

http://archive.greenpeace.org/Annualreport_2001/dialogue.html

Ann
 

http://archive.greenpeace.org/Annualreport_2001/dialogue.html
 

Hi all,
It seems like everyone can't open the link so I have a summary of the article from Greenpeace (2001) :

" Greenpeace's campaigner Frode Pleym is taking the campaign to a different level, and instead of provoking conflict is encouraging dialogue. The strategy? Having a chat and sharing a coffee.

We aim to generate a calm, rational debate about why whaling should end. When we meet the whalers face to face something happens. They see the human face of Greenpeace people.

There are guys threatening to beat us up, but after a few cup of coffee and a chat, people may not always agree with our stance, but we are able to discuss it. And this is the first step to getting a person to agree with you.

Before we are able to change whaling policy in Norway, we must first change opinion in communities."

Ann
 

Hi Anne

Quote anne:
"Hi again JM,
First, you are right about the Fiskeribladet about Greenpeace's articles, but it's very interesting to note that they write:"... Greenpeace nowadays wants to establish friendly and normal relations with the coastal population...".

I was also right about Lofotposten and Verdens Gang, so we can safely assume that this comment "Both "Fiskeribladet and other media have covered Greenpeace's position on confrontations with the whalers and discussed the whale meat market.I read "Lofotensposten" and " Fiskeribladet" and they write often about the problems with the sales and decline of the whale meat market."

Is complete rubbish - however, if you delve into the past, especially around the end of the 90´s, you will find such discussions anne - years ago..

Quote Anne:
"
Regarding the Ellingsen's, their main revenues come from fish products not from whale meat, and the increase of income this year came from fish products as well."

Thankyou for letting me know that a Greenpeace member/ supporter confirms that Whale meat sales / products are in fact rising and this comment " but it seems like very few people really eat whale meat nowadays in Norway, except for the northern parts."

is not accurate - unless of course all the sales increases were in the North - however, if you check meda sources you´ll find that supermarket chains nationwide are beginning to stock ( and sell ) these products. If you want the exact figures, I suggest you write ( or call ) Ellingsen yourself and ask him ( he´s a very pleasant guy BTW, I´m sure he will be pleased to tell a swedish greenpeace member / supporter all the details )
By the way Anne, are you a greenpeace member - supporter or both?

Quote anne:

"
JM, my mistake, the Norwegian whale industry is not export based today ,but they surely are waiting ..."

Anne, you say " your mistake" this means that you believed this until now - on what information did you base that belief? Greenpeace information? or what?


Quote Anne:
"
And JM, whalers DO have HUGE problems to sell the meat, PLEEAASE do a search again in Norwegian media."

Anne, First of all, you admit that the largest whale meat processor ( Ellingsen ) has increased sales and then you ay again that they have HUGE problems to sell it ... which is it?

Incidentally, most whaling boats sell their meat to a fiskemottak ( ummm.. fisherys buyer/ reciever I think in english - correct me if its a bad translation ) They then sell that either locally, or to larger processors, such as Ellingsen .. in 2005, at least one boat installed processing equipment and sold their catch direct in their home Port / own mottak ... there have been delays in 2003-4 ( as far as I can remember) when there were only two mottaks open in the North, leadng to delays/ queue´s in landing the catch .. so in your statement " whalers DO have HUGE problems to sell the meat " you are
factually wrong as well, I DO
recall a number of years ago that the TOTAL catch had not been sold that year - ( If I can remember when or find a link to it I will post it here )

Quote Anne:
"Regarding your questions about Greenpeace I have no authority or knowledge to do comments about them in an international forum, so I suggest you to take contact with a Greenpeace office and pose your questions."

Umm.. No thanks .. tell you what the anne, how´s about answering those questions that you can as a private person - state your personal opinions ...

Quote anne:

" Regarding the whalers "hating" the minkes . Why do I hear and read comments from angry whalers like :
" The minkes are eating more fish than all illegal Russian trawlers are fishing in the Barents Sea."
" They need to be regulated..."
" They destroy the ecosystem..."

Do you hear ths or read this? If you read this, then please direct me to where I can read this too, as I´ve never seen anything of the sort to date ( could be I´ve been reading the wrong newspapers though )

I talk with many different whalers regulary and to date I have never heard anything remotely like this ... admittedly, there are some people who may claim such rubbish but I think you will find that few, if any of them are norwegian whalers...

Quote anne

" " Greenpeace's campaigner Frode Pleym is taking the campaign to a different level, and instead of provoking conflict is encouraging dialogue. The strategy? Having a chat and sharing a coffee."

LOL, yes, I remember one particular action where 3 ( may have been 4 ) Greenpeace activists boarded a whaler in the harbour on the morning it was due to go out and chained themselves to the cannon mount - they ad a tv team pre-arranged to film the resulting "action" - imagine the TV teams´dissapointmemt when two of the crew came out of the bridge and offered them coffee and cream cake ;O) ..... they sat around ( the activists ) chained to the cannon mount for a few hours until the boat was preparing to leave, when the crew came out, cut the chains, asked them if they would leave peacefully - got NO as a reply and the crew then dumped them over the side into the harbour.. was quite a funny protest ... However, obstructionist tactics on other boats in late years have caused or provoked stronger reactions - I´m glad to see that Frode Pleym ( is he still around ) has realised that incidents such as the Senet
( amongst others ) are counter productive
Quote Frode Pleym :
"
Before we are able to change whaling policy in Norway, we must first change opinion in communities."

Quite correct, I applaud him on that ... and wish him the best
of luck doing that - I don´t think he or greenpeace has a snowball´s chance in hell in changing opinion on the whaling question though ;O)

You have a nice day too, mine was particular busy but lovely weather ..

JM
 

Hi JM,

'You say "I am clearly not anti - whaling" wrong LN ;)

Any confusion over your 'anti-whaling' stance was probably caused by everything you have posted so far, JM. :-)

'I actually asked you if you were a "sea shepherd thug"

Yes JM you did, unfortunately your forgot to do it until after you had posted this -
'could it possibly be you are trying to track me down in order to set your AR fanatics on me ?....'
AR clearly stands for Animal Rights, not Sea Shepherd!

'You sem to read an incredible amount into that statement ... why is this?' -

Because that statement, amongst others about what you did or did not see on whaling survey ships and your continuous Mcarthyesque claims to be able to produce specialist scientific evidence, are designed for one purpose only.
To mislead others into believing you are some sort of authority on whaling but it is of course nothing more than a disingenuous debating trick, which brings me to this quote of yours -

'I "could" give you various details of surveys, methodology, names of participants etc etc etc ad infinitum ..'

-there you go again JM, saying you have a list, but failing to produce it, 'ad infinitum'.

Just like you failed to produce any back-up for your claim that Norway's contaminated whale product
stockpile had been destroyed when challenged on the subject and are now asking me to Google for the data. Either you can back your claim up or you cannot, JM!

Or this attempt by JM to connect the CSI link which I had provided to support my comments about Norwegian stockpiling -
'Norwegian press reports have indicated that stockpiles of hundreds of tons of frozen whale meat and blubber sit in warehouses in Northern Norway. This year the government announced plans to try and develop alternative uses for whale products (such as oil and pet food) in an attempt to keep the industry alive.' -

In order to get a cheap jibe in about the 'independance' of CSI and try to avoid facing the very independent study mentioned and clearly connected by the
' - ' after 'Northern waters' at the same time.

More inconveniently independant science from 'pollution free' (according to JM) Northern waters -

Grandjean P, White RF, Weihe P, Jorgensen PJ. "Neurotoxic risk caused by stable and variable exposure to methyl mercury from seafood," in Ambul Pediatr, 3(1), 2003, pp. 18-23.

This is the most recent study based on the cohort of 1,022 children born in the Faroe Islands in 1986-87. Intrauterine methyl mercury exposure was determined from mercury concentrations in cord blood and 2 sets of maternal hair. Neurobehavioral performance of 917 children (90 percent) was assessed at age 7. In children with complete exposure data, 8 of 16 neuropsychological tests showed deficits significantly associated with the cord-blood mercury concentration after confounder adjustment. The study supports previous findings from this cohort study that maternal mercury exposure during pregnancy is associated with neuropsychological deficits detectable at age 7 years.

Why is JM so keen to repeatedly avoid the Faroe island study? -
'I can´t speak for the Faroes'-
Because the study is independant, its not disputed and the Faroese are very hot on cultural consumption of whale products. The Faroese will also tell anyone who wants to listen, how good whale products are and that environmentalists should mind their own business because the Faroese know better.
Rather striking parallels with JM's stand for Norwegian whaling in fact, which means he really, really, really doesn't want to discuss the Faroes.

In your words JM, 'just deal with the discussion as best you can.' :-)

'Really? are all foods labelled' -
As I indicated before JM, David has opened his blog up for a discussion on whaling, not your attempts to draw the debate towards the wholly inadequate toxin labeling of the domesticated farming industry.


'Your point is?' -
My point JM, as well you know, is that the deputy director mentioned whale MEAT (my capitals) as well as blubber, although I admire your efforts to get as many references to (what we both agree is toxin contaminated) blubber into your quotes as possible in an effort to bury that fact. :-)


'Love the 2001 date though ;)' -
Really JM?, how kind....what date was your 'hot' article from Forbes magazine published?....11/11/1991. :-)

'Do you disagree with the article'
In your words JM... 'read this one more time ' -
Never enter a gunfight armed only with a stick because your opponent says its fairer.

The IWC moratorium was democratically introduced at a time when certain whale species / populations of whale were already past the extinction threshold.
Many others have still to be considered anything like clear of this danger and the nations that voted against the moratorium would have driven them ALL to commercial extinction if not over the extinction threshold in the pursuit of mere profit.
I applaud the environmental movement for mobilising to prevent that happening and I am certainly not going to apologise for it, just because you wish to bandy around spurious charges of hypocrisy!

G´nite. :-)
 

Apologies, the above post is by Lamna nasus.
:-)
 

Hi again JM,
First I will only send you some links that I find interesting in the Norwegian media. I will make some more comments later( have to go to work right now)!

First link: Some rubbish from a whaler that the whales are destroying the ecosystem.

http://www.nrk.no/programmer/radio/norgesglasset/3849666.html

Second link: an interesting statement from Frode Pleym, he is also mentioning the decline of whale meat demand in Norway.

http://www.nrk.no/programmer/radio/norgesglasset/3862035.html

Sorry LN, the links are in Norwegian.

Ann
 

Hello again guys,
Sorry, I have no idea what happens to my links! My computer skills are zero.

OK, I will maybe translate them later.

Ann
 

Anne,

If you add ( .html) to each link, they come up - I´ve just read them and I´ll listen to the radio interview later, I know Rangvald Dahl personally and It would´nt surprise me whatever he said but well see ..;O) More later ..

JM
 

Thanks JM for the help!
Just a short input.

Regarding Ellingsens I read that they had a profit last year but this excess of income was due to a sell of buildings and NOT because of an increase of sales of whale meat. Without this sell of the buildings they would have been near a deficit.

And regarding the detruction of the stockpiles of blubber I have also heard rumours that the stockpile has been destroyed.

Anyway, an old comment from the Bellona Magasin (1999). Ellingsens say: "...our stockpile of blubber is going to be destroyed".

If its done or not is still uncertain for me.

I will be back later again.

Ann
 

Hi all,
Sorry for my bad English!

Correction:
".. the sale of the buildings"

Ann
 

Hi all ,
After receiving some not so funny e-mails about my contributions here at the forum I have decided to leave you without making any more comments...

I thank you all for taking part in an interesting discussion!

Ann