David @ Tokyo
Perspective from Japan on whaling and whale meat, a spot of gourmet news, and monthly updates of whale meat stockpile statistics1/10/2006
Response to Greenpeace's John Frizell
John Frizell recently took the time to respond to comments I posted here on my blog, after having difficulties with the submission process on the Greenpeace site. I'd firstly offer my thanks to the good people who run the Greenpeace web blog for their sincere handling of the technical problems.
I'd like to take the opportunity now to comment on Mr. Frizell's response.
1) Greenpeace's mischaracterization of Article VIII as a "loophole"
Frizell states that Greenpeace's reasoning for declaring research whaling to be a loophole is because Article VIII was not intended to allow "an entire national whaling industry to be based on it".
This was an interesting response in that the reason why the only whaling Japan conducts today is under scientific permit is due to the global moratorium on commercial whaling that took effect in 1986. Given that the goals of the ICRW were to both see cooperation amongst nations to conserve stocks of great whales and make for whaling industry, the drafters and original signatories of the ICRW would certainly never have forseen that an indefinite moratorium on all whaling might in future be imposed, making the current situation what it is. Thus, while from the point of view of Greenpeace (and other organizations that oppose whaling) Article VIII of the ICRW might be described as "an inconvenience" or "an annoyance", it most certainly does not meet the standard criteria of "a loophole". In this regard, I would suggest to Greenpeace that they drop this language, as it could mislead people as to the true nature of Article VIII.
2) Internationally renowned scientists and lethal research
Frizell also goes on to question the credentials of Dr. Ray Gambell, former secretary of the IWC, failing to acknowledge that, having served more than 2 decades in that position with 37 years total involvement with the organization, he is most certainly a dependable source when it comes to interpretation of the IWC's convention and the rules under which they operate.
Those unfamiliar with Dr. Gambell may be interested to note that in addition to his roles at the IWC,
But its certainly not just the former secretary to the IWC who affirms the legality and necessity of lethal research to obtain the information that the Japanese are seeking. "Martin Cawthorn is a scientist, writer and member of the IWC scientific committee in Plimmerton, a seaside village just outside New Zealand's capital city. While some New Zealanders argue that the Japanese can do their scientific research from genetic sampling, he says, they "would change or modify their opinion" if they had any idea how difficult it is to gather such information in the Antarctic region."
Before Mr Frizell questions Martin Cawthorn's credentials as well, I would note that he has:
3) Sustainability of whaling
Frizell then (quite rightly) states that the question at the heart of the issue is whether or not sustainable whaling is possible. Frizell suggests a few recent episodes from history are sufficient proof that the answer to the question is no. Whaling history does include quite a catalog of mistakes, but history can certainly not be considered a proof that sustainable whaling is not possible. Indeed, even if Frizell and the Greenpeace organization believe that to be the case, the majority of the IWC contracting governments certainly do not:
Doug Butterworth, a scientist from South Africa and member of the IWC Scientific Committee has also noted: "From the scientific side, the RMP has been more thoroughly researched and tested than any comparable marine resource management system worldwide. Its own requirement for regular sighting surveys, as well as the regular review process associated with its implementation for any species and region, ensures adequate monitoring. It is so risk averse that the only real scientific basis for questioning its immediate implementation is that it is so conservative that it will waste much of a potential harvest."
Thus, from a scientific perspective, I again respectfully find myself questioning Frizell's assertions that sustainable whaling is not possible, as opposed to having just been botched on certain previous mis-attempts, notably by those whalers seeking oil.
4) Sanctuaries and the global commercial whaling moratorium
Frizell notes that the ICR is conducting research in an area that has been designated as a whale sanctuary. This is certainly the case today, but in future the sanctuary, and at least the global commercial whaling moratorium, will likely be overturned as these instruments together currently prevent the IWC from achieving it's goals of both whale stock conservation as well as the orderly development of whaling industry. One also has to note that from conservation and scientific perspectives the creation of the sanctuary in the southern ocean when a global commercial whaling moratorium was already in place, has served little if any purpose.
5) Greenpeace's opposition to whaling globally
Frizell then comments that Greenpeace has opposed whaling by a number of nations, and that whaling is not about culture. As should be evident from the above, the whaling controversy is certainly not about science anymore - but not about culture? One wonders why it is then that Greenpeace has questioned the notion that whale consumption is a part of Japanese culture, for example. Whale consumption culture in Japan is just as much a part of Japanese culture, as is the minority Maori culture to New Zealand culture. In other parts of the world such as Northern Alaska, people have been sustainably harvesting whales for food and feeding their community for 3000 years. The USA has also chosen to respect this minority culture. Furthermore, one has to wonder why Greenpeace does not employ similar tactics to obstruct whaling operations conducted by other nations (Norway's commercial hunt for example) as are currently being employed in the Southern Ocean.
6) The lack of respect for international agreements
Frizell concludes by noting that the IWC with a slim anti-whaling majority passed a resolution urging against the JARPA II proposal, stating that those anti-whaling nations find such opposition compatible with their IWC membership. Whether those nations wish to believe their voting patterns are consistent with their membership is one thing - over the years the New Zealand and Australian governments in particular have publicly stated their opposition to any sort of whaling, whatsoever. One has to question the judgement of any government who believes that this stance is in any way consistent with an International agreement that has a clear purpose to make for the orderly development of whaling industry.
The current situation at the IWC can be likened to a ship at a port set to sail for Whaling City. All the sailors fully understand at the outset that the destination is Whaling City. After setting sail, a certain number of the sailors decide that they do not wish to go to Whaling City any longer. Instead of getting off the ship at the nearest port and honourably leaving the remaining crew members to reach their goal, they attempt to prevent them from continuing on to the goal agreed to at the outset.
This behaviour on the part of the anti-whaling contracting governments is an international disgrace bearing similarity to mutiny. One fears that it sets a terrible precedent for the future of other international agreements on global environment and conservation issues.
I'd like to take the opportunity now to comment on Mr. Frizell's response.
1) Greenpeace's mischaracterization of Article VIII as a "loophole"
Frizell states that Greenpeace's reasoning for declaring research whaling to be a loophole is because Article VIII was not intended to allow "an entire national whaling industry to be based on it".
This was an interesting response in that the reason why the only whaling Japan conducts today is under scientific permit is due to the global moratorium on commercial whaling that took effect in 1986. Given that the goals of the ICRW were to both see cooperation amongst nations to conserve stocks of great whales and make for whaling industry, the drafters and original signatories of the ICRW would certainly never have forseen that an indefinite moratorium on all whaling might in future be imposed, making the current situation what it is. Thus, while from the point of view of Greenpeace (and other organizations that oppose whaling) Article VIII of the ICRW might be described as "an inconvenience" or "an annoyance", it most certainly does not meet the standard criteria of "a loophole". In this regard, I would suggest to Greenpeace that they drop this language, as it could mislead people as to the true nature of Article VIII.
2) Internationally renowned scientists and lethal research
Frizell also goes on to question the credentials of Dr. Ray Gambell, former secretary of the IWC, failing to acknowledge that, having served more than 2 decades in that position with 37 years total involvement with the organization, he is most certainly a dependable source when it comes to interpretation of the IWC's convention and the rules under which they operate.
Those unfamiliar with Dr. Gambell may be interested to note that in addition to his roles at the IWC,
- he "was awarded the OBE (Officer of the Order of the British Empire) in the Queen's 1994 New Year's Honours for his services to the biology and conservation of whales. He has published more than 70 scientific papers and books".
- His research can be seen quoted on conservation sites of anti-whaling governments.
- At the time of his retirement from the IWC his "his ability to enunciate clearly the rules and procedures of the Commission", "sensitivity to the needs of all participants, and his ability to walk the tight rope between the often opposing factions within the Commission" were praised.
But its certainly not just the former secretary to the IWC who affirms the legality and necessity of lethal research to obtain the information that the Japanese are seeking. "Martin Cawthorn is a scientist, writer and member of the IWC scientific committee in Plimmerton, a seaside village just outside New Zealand's capital city. While some New Zealanders argue that the Japanese can do their scientific research from genetic sampling, he says, they "would change or modify their opinion" if they had any idea how difficult it is to gather such information in the Antarctic region."
Before Mr Frizell questions Martin Cawthorn's credentials as well, I would note that he has:
- "over 38 years involvement in marine mammal research" including senior scientist position with the New Zealand Department of Conservation
- "has been a member of the Scientific Commitee of the International Whaling Commission since 1977"
- has participated on the IWC's SOWER sightings programme
- "is a member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission (both whales and seals specialist groups)"
- "received the NZ Antarctic Conservation Award in 1984 for his work with NZ sea lions and Antarctic minke whales"
- was the co-author of the New Zealand Marine Mammal Protection Act 1978
3) Sustainability of whaling
Frizell then (quite rightly) states that the question at the heart of the issue is whether or not sustainable whaling is possible. Frizell suggests a few recent episodes from history are sufficient proof that the answer to the question is no. Whaling history does include quite a catalog of mistakes, but history can certainly not be considered a proof that sustainable whaling is not possible. Indeed, even if Frizell and the Greenpeace organization believe that to be the case, the majority of the IWC contracting governments certainly do not:
- All IWC contracting nations have signed the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which makes it quite clear that sustainable utilization of the world's whale resources is it's goal
- The IWC adopted the "Revised Management Procedure" in 1994, clearly indicating the belief of contracting nations that sustainable whaling is possible.
Doug Butterworth, a scientist from South Africa and member of the IWC Scientific Committee has also noted: "From the scientific side, the RMP has been more thoroughly researched and tested than any comparable marine resource management system worldwide. Its own requirement for regular sighting surveys, as well as the regular review process associated with its implementation for any species and region, ensures adequate monitoring. It is so risk averse that the only real scientific basis for questioning its immediate implementation is that it is so conservative that it will waste much of a potential harvest."
Thus, from a scientific perspective, I again respectfully find myself questioning Frizell's assertions that sustainable whaling is not possible, as opposed to having just been botched on certain previous mis-attempts, notably by those whalers seeking oil.
4) Sanctuaries and the global commercial whaling moratorium
Frizell notes that the ICR is conducting research in an area that has been designated as a whale sanctuary. This is certainly the case today, but in future the sanctuary, and at least the global commercial whaling moratorium, will likely be overturned as these instruments together currently prevent the IWC from achieving it's goals of both whale stock conservation as well as the orderly development of whaling industry. One also has to note that from conservation and scientific perspectives the creation of the sanctuary in the southern ocean when a global commercial whaling moratorium was already in place, has served little if any purpose.
5) Greenpeace's opposition to whaling globally
Frizell then comments that Greenpeace has opposed whaling by a number of nations, and that whaling is not about culture. As should be evident from the above, the whaling controversy is certainly not about science anymore - but not about culture? One wonders why it is then that Greenpeace has questioned the notion that whale consumption is a part of Japanese culture, for example. Whale consumption culture in Japan is just as much a part of Japanese culture, as is the minority Maori culture to New Zealand culture. In other parts of the world such as Northern Alaska, people have been sustainably harvesting whales for food and feeding their community for 3000 years. The USA has also chosen to respect this minority culture. Furthermore, one has to wonder why Greenpeace does not employ similar tactics to obstruct whaling operations conducted by other nations (Norway's commercial hunt for example) as are currently being employed in the Southern Ocean.
6) The lack of respect for international agreements
Frizell concludes by noting that the IWC with a slim anti-whaling majority passed a resolution urging against the JARPA II proposal, stating that those anti-whaling nations find such opposition compatible with their IWC membership. Whether those nations wish to believe their voting patterns are consistent with their membership is one thing - over the years the New Zealand and Australian governments in particular have publicly stated their opposition to any sort of whaling, whatsoever. One has to question the judgement of any government who believes that this stance is in any way consistent with an International agreement that has a clear purpose to make for the orderly development of whaling industry.
The current situation at the IWC can be likened to a ship at a port set to sail for Whaling City. All the sailors fully understand at the outset that the destination is Whaling City. After setting sail, a certain number of the sailors decide that they do not wish to go to Whaling City any longer. Instead of getting off the ship at the nearest port and honourably leaving the remaining crew members to reach their goal, they attempt to prevent them from continuing on to the goal agreed to at the outset.
This behaviour on the part of the anti-whaling contracting governments is an international disgrace bearing similarity to mutiny. One fears that it sets a terrible precedent for the future of other international agreements on global environment and conservation issues.
posted by David # 9:37 pm 
Comments:
<< Home
Hi David,
Thanks for your comment on my blog, the other day.
I have read your response to Frizell with much interest. I wonder what will be Greenpeace's answers to your arguments.
By the way, opponents to whaling should remember that Japan objected to the Southern Ocean Sanctuary with regards to Minke Whales. Besides, special permits as defined in the article VIII of the Convention, are not bound to the amendments of the Schedule.
I hope things won't escalate down there, in Antarctica...but I fear Sea Shepherd are too much fanatical.
isanatori
Thanks for your comment on my blog, the other day.
I have read your response to Frizell with much interest. I wonder what will be Greenpeace's answers to your arguments.
By the way, opponents to whaling should remember that Japan objected to the Southern Ocean Sanctuary with regards to Minke Whales. Besides, special permits as defined in the article VIII of the Convention, are not bound to the amendments of the Schedule.
I hope things won't escalate down there, in Antarctica...but I fear Sea Shepherd are too much fanatical.
isanatori
isanatori,
Thank you too for your comments :-)
I too am looking forward to any response from Greenpeace. It's amazing how many "sofa cetacean scientists" there are in the world. Many people are quick to make judgemental statements about Japan's research, but one wonders how much they really understand of it versus how much of it they merely heard from an non-impartial source of information. So I was glad of the opportunity to note what just a few demonstrably knowledgable cetacean scientists actually have to say on the matter.
As you say, research permits aren't bound to amendments of the Schedule (a fact which I believe Greenpeace has never reported to their supporters), but in this case Mr Frizell was questioning the purpose of research on a population which resides in an area that is a sanctuary anyway. My point was that the sanctuary could be overturned at such a time as 75% or more of the IWC contracting governments see fit to do so - the same as applies for the commercial moratorium. Given that the "Revised Management Procedure" scientific component has already been adopted indicating the IWC memberships' faith in science, it's just a matter of all sides co-operating together to finalize the Revised Management Scheme before this happens.
I too hope that things don't get any worse than they already have down there. Have you seen the video footage?
http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea.htm
http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/the-expedition/news/whalers-ram-ship-111
I'll leave readers to make their own judgements about who rammed who.
Thank you too for your comments :-)
I too am looking forward to any response from Greenpeace. It's amazing how many "sofa cetacean scientists" there are in the world. Many people are quick to make judgemental statements about Japan's research, but one wonders how much they really understand of it versus how much of it they merely heard from an non-impartial source of information. So I was glad of the opportunity to note what just a few demonstrably knowledgable cetacean scientists actually have to say on the matter.
As you say, research permits aren't bound to amendments of the Schedule (a fact which I believe Greenpeace has never reported to their supporters), but in this case Mr Frizell was questioning the purpose of research on a population which resides in an area that is a sanctuary anyway. My point was that the sanctuary could be overturned at such a time as 75% or more of the IWC contracting governments see fit to do so - the same as applies for the commercial moratorium. Given that the "Revised Management Procedure" scientific component has already been adopted indicating the IWC memberships' faith in science, it's just a matter of all sides co-operating together to finalize the Revised Management Scheme before this happens.
I too hope that things don't get any worse than they already have down there. Have you seen the video footage?
http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea.htm
http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/the-expedition/news/whalers-ram-ship-111
I'll leave readers to make their own judgements about who rammed who.
Hi David,
I took a look at the link to the ICR's website. It seems obvious to me now that Greenpeace tried to inflict damage to the Nisshin-maru. It shows their strategy is quite the same as Sea Shepherd's.
Sea Shepherd have recognized they purposedly sideswiped the Oriental Bluebird with their ship in order to damage its hull with their "can-opener" device.
It would be nice if somebody could stop these fanatics.
Btw, the sanctuary doesn't need to be overturned with regards to Minke Whales as Japan has objected to it. So, whatever Frizell may speak again and again about the sanctuary, research on the Minke Whale stocks in Antarctica does make sense for Japan.
What angers me the most, is that western medias keep reporting all the crap Greenpeace, IFAW or Sea Shepherd tell them. But then, we're in a world where medias don't just inform people, they think in their place too. That's sad.
I took a look at the link to the ICR's website. It seems obvious to me now that Greenpeace tried to inflict damage to the Nisshin-maru. It shows their strategy is quite the same as Sea Shepherd's.
Sea Shepherd have recognized they purposedly sideswiped the Oriental Bluebird with their ship in order to damage its hull with their "can-opener" device.
It would be nice if somebody could stop these fanatics.
Btw, the sanctuary doesn't need to be overturned with regards to Minke Whales as Japan has objected to it. So, whatever Frizell may speak again and again about the sanctuary, research on the Minke Whale stocks in Antarctica does make sense for Japan.
What angers me the most, is that western medias keep reporting all the crap Greenpeace, IFAW or Sea Shepherd tell them. But then, we're in a world where medias don't just inform people, they think in their place too. That's sad.
Regarding the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, I wasn't aware that Japan had lodged a formal objection to it (although I know Norway lodged one with respect to the moratorium).
Certainly Japan was calling for the abolishment of all IWC sanctuaries as recently as last year (http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/57OpeningStatement.pdf) instead calling for the implementation of the Revised Management Procedure.
As for the western media, generally they do present a biased picture, but the reporters in western countries are just the same as everyone else - most of them are not wealthy enough to have been on a whale watching trip, let alone know anything about the ICRW, RMP and so forth. Really the only hope for the IWC is for those politicians from extreme anti-whaling countries to take a more constructive stance, of their own volition. Unfortuntately, politicians usually aren't as interested in sticking up for principles as they are trying to appear "green" in the eyes of their constituencies.
Certainly Japan was calling for the abolishment of all IWC sanctuaries as recently as last year (http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/57OpeningStatement.pdf) instead calling for the implementation of the Revised Management Procedure.
As for the western media, generally they do present a biased picture, but the reporters in western countries are just the same as everyone else - most of them are not wealthy enough to have been on a whale watching trip, let alone know anything about the ICRW, RMP and so forth. Really the only hope for the IWC is for those politicians from extreme anti-whaling countries to take a more constructive stance, of their own volition. Unfortuntately, politicians usually aren't as interested in sticking up for principles as they are trying to appear "green" in the eyes of their constituencies.
I have viewed the footage so kindly supplied in your links.
First, they are edited 'in camera' by long pans away from the 'action', for no obvious reason apart from to disguise the actual manoeuvers of the Nisshin Maru and Arctic Sunrise.
Second, the Arctic Sunrise has little or no bow wave as the ships start to close indicating as Greenpeace have stated that the Arctic Sunrise slowed close to a stop as the Nisshin Maru got closer.
Thirdly as the two ships get very close you can see the Arctic Sunrise's bow drop in the water indicating she is reversing, as Greenpeace have stated
It seems there are a lot of armchair video editors and sailors out there. :-)
- Lamna nasus
First, they are edited 'in camera' by long pans away from the 'action', for no obvious reason apart from to disguise the actual manoeuvers of the Nisshin Maru and Arctic Sunrise.
Second, the Arctic Sunrise has little or no bow wave as the ships start to close indicating as Greenpeace have stated that the Arctic Sunrise slowed close to a stop as the Nisshin Maru got closer.
Thirdly as the two ships get very close you can see the Arctic Sunrise's bow drop in the water indicating she is reversing, as Greenpeace have stated
It seems there are a lot of armchair video editors and sailors out there. :-)
- Lamna nasus
# posted by 
: 3:01 am
: 3:01 am
Anyone who views the Japanese videos and wishes to believe that there is no way Greenpeace could have avoided the collision (by turning to starboard rather than hard to port, for example) is welcome to do so, although they should be well aware that they might be seen to be exposing a huge bias.
Greenpeace's explanation and selective quoting of the rules over this was... interesting.
Quote:
# Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.
This is what Greenpeace claims to have done, however the next part of the rule says:
# The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
Of couse, as was evident from the Greenpeace video, the Greenpeace ship's captain could see full well that the Japanese ship had another ship to it's port side. The Japanese ship turning to port to avoid the Greenpeace ship would have resulted in a much bigger collision between those two ships. The Greenpeace captain could not reasonably have expected the Japanese ship to "get out of the way".
I think any neutral people viewing the videos will have little doubt in their mind that Greenpeace did every thing that they could to ensure a collision, and that there was plenty they could have done to avoid it.
Alas, this is yet another side show from the Greenpeace side that takes the focus off the real issue - sustainable whaling.
Greenpeace's explanation and selective quoting of the rules over this was... interesting.
Quote:
# Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.
This is what Greenpeace claims to have done, however the next part of the rule says:
# The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
Of couse, as was evident from the Greenpeace video, the Greenpeace ship's captain could see full well that the Japanese ship had another ship to it's port side. The Japanese ship turning to port to avoid the Greenpeace ship would have resulted in a much bigger collision between those two ships. The Greenpeace captain could not reasonably have expected the Japanese ship to "get out of the way".
I think any neutral people viewing the videos will have little doubt in their mind that Greenpeace did every thing that they could to ensure a collision, and that there was plenty they could have done to avoid it.
Alas, this is yet another side show from the Greenpeace side that takes the focus off the real issue - sustainable whaling.
# posted by : 11:35 am
: 11:35 am
Hi David,
I was wondering if you had sent your response to Greenpeace in order that they publish it on their blog.
I tried to post a comment to one of their messages there, but it seems they didn't deem it to be worth to be published.
Anyway, keep posting your articles on whaling, they are very interesting. Personnally, I wrote a paper on Japanese whaling for my university last year. If I can find the strength, I'll arrange it and try to have it published.
isanatori
I was wondering if you had sent your response to Greenpeace in order that they publish it on their blog.
I tried to post a comment to one of their messages there, but it seems they didn't deem it to be worth to be published.
Anyway, keep posting your articles on whaling, they are very interesting. Personnally, I wrote a paper on Japanese whaling for my university last year. If I can find the strength, I'll arrange it and try to have it published.
isanatori
Yes, I did submit a message to their site, informing them that I had posted a response here, were they interested. I'm sure Mr Frizell is quite a busy fellow though.
I too wrote a paper (in Japanese) for university a few years back - got an A+ for that course :-) I still have the html around somewhere, so I'll see if I can post it sometime.
I too wrote a paper (in Japanese) for university a few years back - got an A+ for that course :-) I still have the html around somewhere, so I'll see if I can post it sometime.
There never has been and never will be a 'sustainable' industrialised whaling industry.
All past whaling history shows that stocks were ruthlessly exploited, when a species became locally extinct, the local industry moved to new whaling grounds until either the species was commercially extinct or actually extinct within that fishing industry's waters.
Only the 'moratorium' protected the remaining international populations of whales.
Fishermen do not become voluntarily redundant,not without a sizable compensation package anyway, just ask the EEC.
Then ask what happened to those decomissioned EEC fishing vessels? Answer, they are currently reflagged and unsustainably removing fish stocks along the African Coast, depriving native fishermen (who practise low tech, sustainable fishing methods) of their culture and their livelihoods.
Modern corporations have a legal duty to maximise profits to their shareholders.
This is the reason all 'wild' resources are exploited until they are consumed. Wild resources have no husbandry costs only harvesting costs, greed and legal imperative takes care of everything else; unless political/legal restraints prevent it happening.
Facts that most people working for merchant banks or in the field of corporate globalisation would recognise but also prefer to gloss over.
- Lamna nasus
All past whaling history shows that stocks were ruthlessly exploited, when a species became locally extinct, the local industry moved to new whaling grounds until either the species was commercially extinct or actually extinct within that fishing industry's waters.
Only the 'moratorium' protected the remaining international populations of whales.
Fishermen do not become voluntarily redundant,not without a sizable compensation package anyway, just ask the EEC.
Then ask what happened to those decomissioned EEC fishing vessels? Answer, they are currently reflagged and unsustainably removing fish stocks along the African Coast, depriving native fishermen (who practise low tech, sustainable fishing methods) of their culture and their livelihoods.
Modern corporations have a legal duty to maximise profits to their shareholders.
This is the reason all 'wild' resources are exploited until they are consumed. Wild resources have no husbandry costs only harvesting costs, greed and legal imperative takes care of everything else; unless political/legal restraints prevent it happening.
Facts that most people working for merchant banks or in the field of corporate globalisation would recognise but also prefer to gloss over.
- Lamna nasus
# posted by : 3:58 am
: 3:58 am
Hi David,
I'm looking forward to reading your paper.
Now, if you can forgive me for feeding the troll...
To Lamna nasus :
You're not going to teach me about whaling history as I've already read about 15 books on the issue. I do know where the regulations of whaling have failed in the past. But, you have to admit things have changed a lot : Only a few countries are still whaling ; All are whaling for food ; IWC has more non-whaling member countries than whaling member countries ; The demand in whale products is very weak (even in Japan).
To say that only the 1982 whaling moratorium protected the remaining whales is completely untrue. It's mainly the abolition of the global quota (1962) and of the BWU system (1972), and the introduction of the NMP (1975) that permitted the beginning of sustainable whaling...until the moratorium was adopted in 1982.
By the way, you're wrong about your assertion that there's never been and will never be sustainable whaling : Norway is proving it since 1993. Already 12 years of commercial coastal whaling, and know what : Minke whales are still abundant near Norwegian coastal waters.
I'm looking forward to reading your paper.
Now, if you can forgive me for feeding the troll...
To Lamna nasus :
You're not going to teach me about whaling history as I've already read about 15 books on the issue. I do know where the regulations of whaling have failed in the past. But, you have to admit things have changed a lot : Only a few countries are still whaling ; All are whaling for food ; IWC has more non-whaling member countries than whaling member countries ; The demand in whale products is very weak (even in Japan).
To say that only the 1982 whaling moratorium protected the remaining whales is completely untrue. It's mainly the abolition of the global quota (1962) and of the BWU system (1972), and the introduction of the NMP (1975) that permitted the beginning of sustainable whaling...until the moratorium was adopted in 1982.
By the way, you're wrong about your assertion that there's never been and will never be sustainable whaling : Norway is proving it since 1993. Already 12 years of commercial coastal whaling, and know what : Minke whales are still abundant near Norwegian coastal waters.
Konichiwa Isanatori-san,
It is nice to know that we have both read books on whaling. :-)
Thank you for agreeing that all previous IWC attempts at whaling quotas failed to deliver a sustainable industry and also for agreeing that Japan is whaling to supply a food market and not for 'scientific' purposes
We also know that whale meat is not an essential source of protein in Japan, often contains hidden toxins and that a lot of the products from whaling are ending up in animal feed.
To say that the Moratorium is not responsible for protecting the remaining whale species / populations is quite simply untrue.
To claim that the measures you mention were in any way conservation measures; apart from too little, too late for the most critically endangered species is also untrue -
From 1962 to 1966 fin whale catches crashed from 27,000 per year to 2,536. So much for the abolition of the global quota.
By the time the Blue Whale Unit was abandoned in 1972 the damage had already been done since Blue Whale numbers had plunged catastrophically! The Blue Whale Unit was also only applicable to baleen whales in the Antarctic.
The New Management Procedure was a desperate measure (deliberately stuffed full of loop holes for increasing quotas), sponsored by the remaining whaling nations, aimed solely at preventing a moratorium being imposed.
As a result the IWC continued to assign quotas that exceeded sustainability until the moratorium was finally introduced in 1982.
Ever since then there has been sponsorship - by both sides - of non-whaling nations to control the IWC.
The truth is that the catch by whaling fleets had crashed so drastically that the reason only a few nations where still whaling is that many nations that had previously whaled now found that their whale populations were commercially extinct and fortunately enough of them realised that the continued whaling of remaining international whale stocks would have the same result.
In the case of Eubalaena glacialis (Atlantic Northern Right Whale) all this probably occured to late to stop the species being pushed over the extinction threshold itself. Certainly there has been no recovery in their numbers and due to their habits, they are particularly prone to ship strikes.
This combined with by-catch pressures, natural predation and disease means the species is almost certainly doomed its just a matter of when, not if.
The remaining whaling nations hoped that by opposing the moratorium they would have the last whale stocks to themselves and this would buy their industries a few more years profits before all the whale species were commercially extinct, the fishermenmen were made redundant, the ships sold for scrap and the diversified corporations moved their attentions to more lucrative markets.
The only reason minke whales travelling through Norwegian waters are still abundent is because they are not being targeted by a fully commercialised industry.
Toxicity and lack of markets means the Norwegian whalers cannot dispose of large quantities of the whale products that they currently take in a restricted hunt.
In other words, Norway has not cleverly invented a sustainable whaling industry, its sustainable only because Norway has had restrictions placed on its whaling by the moratorium and toxicity.
It is nice to know that we have both read books on whaling. :-)
Thank you for agreeing that all previous IWC attempts at whaling quotas failed to deliver a sustainable industry and also for agreeing that Japan is whaling to supply a food market and not for 'scientific' purposes
We also know that whale meat is not an essential source of protein in Japan, often contains hidden toxins and that a lot of the products from whaling are ending up in animal feed.
To say that the Moratorium is not responsible for protecting the remaining whale species / populations is quite simply untrue.
To claim that the measures you mention were in any way conservation measures; apart from too little, too late for the most critically endangered species is also untrue -
From 1962 to 1966 fin whale catches crashed from 27,000 per year to 2,536. So much for the abolition of the global quota.
By the time the Blue Whale Unit was abandoned in 1972 the damage had already been done since Blue Whale numbers had plunged catastrophically! The Blue Whale Unit was also only applicable to baleen whales in the Antarctic.
The New Management Procedure was a desperate measure (deliberately stuffed full of loop holes for increasing quotas), sponsored by the remaining whaling nations, aimed solely at preventing a moratorium being imposed.
As a result the IWC continued to assign quotas that exceeded sustainability until the moratorium was finally introduced in 1982.
Ever since then there has been sponsorship - by both sides - of non-whaling nations to control the IWC.
The truth is that the catch by whaling fleets had crashed so drastically that the reason only a few nations where still whaling is that many nations that had previously whaled now found that their whale populations were commercially extinct and fortunately enough of them realised that the continued whaling of remaining international whale stocks would have the same result.
In the case of Eubalaena glacialis (Atlantic Northern Right Whale) all this probably occured to late to stop the species being pushed over the extinction threshold itself. Certainly there has been no recovery in their numbers and due to their habits, they are particularly prone to ship strikes.
This combined with by-catch pressures, natural predation and disease means the species is almost certainly doomed its just a matter of when, not if.
The remaining whaling nations hoped that by opposing the moratorium they would have the last whale stocks to themselves and this would buy their industries a few more years profits before all the whale species were commercially extinct, the fishermenmen were made redundant, the ships sold for scrap and the diversified corporations moved their attentions to more lucrative markets.
The only reason minke whales travelling through Norwegian waters are still abundent is because they are not being targeted by a fully commercialised industry.
Toxicity and lack of markets means the Norwegian whalers cannot dispose of large quantities of the whale products that they currently take in a restricted hunt.
In other words, Norway has not cleverly invented a sustainable whaling industry, its sustainable only because Norway has had restrictions placed on its whaling by the moratorium and toxicity.
lamna nasus,
>Japan is whaling to supply a food market and not for 'scientific' purposes
As I said in my original piece to Greenpeace, "The ultimate goal of whaling is of course to put whale meat on tables, but this research programme is clearly just the forerunner to that - gathering better scientific information so that when the time comes commercial catch limits can be set based on the best possible scientific information."
As the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling states:
"The Commission may amend ... the provisions of the Schedule by adopting regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization of whale resources, fixing (a) protected and unprotected species; (b) open and closed seasons; (c) open and closed waters, including the designation of sanctuary areas; (d) size limits for each species..."
and states that
"These amendments of the Schedule (a) shall be such as are necessary to carry out the objectives and purposes of this Convention and to provide for the conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale resources; (b) shall be based on scientific findings..."
The goals of research programmes are varied, but one of the prime goals is to improve knowledge of stocks such that the IWC can make better decisions in accordance with the content of the Convention that I noted above. The benefit of this is that in future the IWC may be able to reduce scientific uncertainty such that increased levels of catch are made possible without increasing the level of risk of stock depletion.
This clearly has the potential to contribute to the Convention's goal of "conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale resources".
Groups such as Greenpeace don't want to see any whaling at all, and so of course attack scientific endeavours that have the potential to reduce scientific uncertainty.
Greenpeace's problem is clearly not with nations acting in accordance with the detail of the Convention, but with the content of the Convention itself. It's time that Greenpeace stood up for what it believed in and attacked nations that have signed their name to the ICRW document that Greenpeace so clearly dislikes. The ICRW isn't going to disappear while nations such as New Zealand and Australia have their signature on it.
>To say that the Moratorium is not responsible for protecting the remaining whale species /
>populations is quite simply untrue.
Certainly many stocks recognised to have been depleted were protected years before the moratorium was imposed, but whatever the case, the IWC Scientific Committee developed the "Revised Management Procedure", and unamimously recommended it to the IWC, which subsequently adopted it.
Given that that the Scientific Committee is made up of scientists from around the world, including a majority from non-whaling nations, it's remarkable that the science was compelling enough to ensure every single member of the committee voted in favour of it.
>As a result the IWC continued to assign quotas that exceeded sustainability until
Indeed, there have been instances of sustainable limits having been exceeded in the past. These sorts of mistakes are part of the background of the Revised Management Procedure.
At least I am now clear that you accept that there do exist such sustainable limits.
>The only reason minke whales travelling through Norwegian waters are still abundent
>is because they are
I'm glad you are able to recognise that current Norwegian whaling practices have not resulted in the depletion of the target stock, and are thus currently sustainable.
The Norwegians are employing the Revised Management Procedure.
I'm sure you can therefore agree that it bodes very well for the future of sustainable catches under the IWC's authority, as the same RMP will be used.
>Japan is whaling to supply a food market and not for 'scientific' purposes
As I said in my original piece to Greenpeace, "The ultimate goal of whaling is of course to put whale meat on tables, but this research programme is clearly just the forerunner to that - gathering better scientific information so that when the time comes commercial catch limits can be set based on the best possible scientific information."
As the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling states:
"The Commission may amend ... the provisions of the Schedule by adopting regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization of whale resources, fixing (a) protected and unprotected species; (b) open and closed seasons; (c) open and closed waters, including the designation of sanctuary areas; (d) size limits for each species..."
and states that
"These amendments of the Schedule (a) shall be such as are necessary to carry out the objectives and purposes of this Convention and to provide for the conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale resources; (b) shall be based on scientific findings..."
The goals of research programmes are varied, but one of the prime goals is to improve knowledge of stocks such that the IWC can make better decisions in accordance with the content of the Convention that I noted above. The benefit of this is that in future the IWC may be able to reduce scientific uncertainty such that increased levels of catch are made possible without increasing the level of risk of stock depletion.
This clearly has the potential to contribute to the Convention's goal of "conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale resources".
Groups such as Greenpeace don't want to see any whaling at all, and so of course attack scientific endeavours that have the potential to reduce scientific uncertainty.
Greenpeace's problem is clearly not with nations acting in accordance with the detail of the Convention, but with the content of the Convention itself. It's time that Greenpeace stood up for what it believed in and attacked nations that have signed their name to the ICRW document that Greenpeace so clearly dislikes. The ICRW isn't going to disappear while nations such as New Zealand and Australia have their signature on it.
>To say that the Moratorium is not responsible for protecting the remaining whale species /
>populations is quite simply untrue.
Certainly many stocks recognised to have been depleted were protected years before the moratorium was imposed, but whatever the case, the IWC Scientific Committee developed the "Revised Management Procedure", and unamimously recommended it to the IWC, which subsequently adopted it.
Given that that the Scientific Committee is made up of scientists from around the world, including a majority from non-whaling nations, it's remarkable that the science was compelling enough to ensure every single member of the committee voted in favour of it.
>As a result the IWC continued to assign quotas that exceeded sustainability until
Indeed, there have been instances of sustainable limits having been exceeded in the past. These sorts of mistakes are part of the background of the Revised Management Procedure.
At least I am now clear that you accept that there do exist such sustainable limits.
>The only reason minke whales travelling through Norwegian waters are still abundent
>is because they are
I'm glad you are able to recognise that current Norwegian whaling practices have not resulted in the depletion of the target stock, and are thus currently sustainable.
The Norwegians are employing the Revised Management Procedure.
I'm sure you can therefore agree that it bodes very well for the future of sustainable catches under the IWC's authority, as the same RMP will be used.
David,
'As I said in my original piece to Greenpeace, "The ultimate goal of whaling is of course to put whale meat on tables'
Yes it is and it is an unneccesary and out dated goal and custom for developed nations. Just like Pakeha stew!
Greenpeace and other environmental groups certainly do not want commercial whaling by industrialised whaling fleets, ever again.
Pro-whaling science is always deeply flawed, since it is sponsored with the sole intention of producing material to support the re-introduction of commercial whaling -
'Russians Suppress Soviet Whaling Scandal
The KGB, Russian mafia, and the Russian delegation to the International Whaling Commission all have one thing in common: they all feel threatened by the new publication, "Soviet Antarctic Whaling Data."
Suppressed for years by the Soviet government, and more recently by old-style Soviet bureaucrats and corrupt officials, the famous Soviet whaling data is finally officially out and available here at the IWC.
Published by the Russian Marine Mammal Council, and endorsed by the Russian Minister of Environment, this shocking 300-page expos reveals, among many other facts, that:
Falsified statistics of catches were systematically reported to the IWC Secretariat for decades. More than 90,000 kills went unreported, including tens of thousands of "protected" species: at least 46,000 humpbacks, 8,000 blues and 3,000 right whales.
"The extent of poaching was wide ... the secret Soviet whaling industry killed major populations of whales not only in the waters of New Zealand and the Antarctic, but also in the northwestern part of the Indian Ocean, and in the southwest Atlantic."
Much of the poaching took place under the eyes of Japanese inspectors in the Antarctic waters.
IWC rules were not lived up to by a single Soviet flotilla.
The data revealed in this critically-important publication is so convincing that Russia's Minister of Environment, in the Foreword, states that by publishing this information "we will clean up yet another dirty spot in
Soviet history."
But the Russian delegation and other Soviet henchmen think differently. The Fisheries Ministry and Ministry of Foreign Affairs have been working
closely with the Japanese government to: (a) increase exports of marine
products to Japan; and (b) to grant more fishing concessions to Japanese
vessels. So what does any of this have to do with the new publication on Soviet whaling data?
According to reliable sources in Moscow, ECO has learned that several
officials who worked in the Soviet Ministry of Fisheries during the dark days of Soviet whale poaching are still in positions of power.
The trail of the data leads to their doorstep, and if one looked further, would reveal that they benefitted from illegal trade of the poached meat to Japanese companies for several decades.
Furthermore, as the authors of the publication point out, the new
revelations "force one to believe that the international community must review practically all population statistics presented to the IWC about a variety of whale species, including humpbacks, southern blue whales, fin whales, sei whales, and Bryde's whales [as well as] the current distribution of whale populations throughout the world."
Because the Russian Fisheries Ministry and Foreign Affairs Ministry stand to gain financially from increased cooperation with Japan--and a lot to lose from smoking guns pointing at those who struck and continue to strike lucrative deals with Japan - they have struck back at the new publication with venomous attacks.
This year the Federal Security Bureau (formerly known as the KGB) launched an investigation into the researchers behind the publication.
It is suspected that this investigation was requested by the Fisheries Ministry.'
http://www.earthtrust.org/iwc96/eco5.html
I do not agree that the RMP is based on reliable science and I look forward to the day when commercial whaling is consigned to the dustbin full of mankind's least edifying history.
As I have stated before, Norway is not whaling 'sustainably' by choice.
You argument therefore supports the continuation of the moratorium.
'As I said in my original piece to Greenpeace, "The ultimate goal of whaling is of course to put whale meat on tables'
Yes it is and it is an unneccesary and out dated goal and custom for developed nations. Just like Pakeha stew!
Greenpeace and other environmental groups certainly do not want commercial whaling by industrialised whaling fleets, ever again.
Pro-whaling science is always deeply flawed, since it is sponsored with the sole intention of producing material to support the re-introduction of commercial whaling -
'Russians Suppress Soviet Whaling Scandal
The KGB, Russian mafia, and the Russian delegation to the International Whaling Commission all have one thing in common: they all feel threatened by the new publication, "Soviet Antarctic Whaling Data."
Suppressed for years by the Soviet government, and more recently by old-style Soviet bureaucrats and corrupt officials, the famous Soviet whaling data is finally officially out and available here at the IWC.
Published by the Russian Marine Mammal Council, and endorsed by the Russian Minister of Environment, this shocking 300-page expos reveals, among many other facts, that:
Falsified statistics of catches were systematically reported to the IWC Secretariat for decades. More than 90,000 kills went unreported, including tens of thousands of "protected" species: at least 46,000 humpbacks, 8,000 blues and 3,000 right whales.
"The extent of poaching was wide ... the secret Soviet whaling industry killed major populations of whales not only in the waters of New Zealand and the Antarctic, but also in the northwestern part of the Indian Ocean, and in the southwest Atlantic."
Much of the poaching took place under the eyes of Japanese inspectors in the Antarctic waters.
IWC rules were not lived up to by a single Soviet flotilla.
The data revealed in this critically-important publication is so convincing that Russia's Minister of Environment, in the Foreword, states that by publishing this information "we will clean up yet another dirty spot in
Soviet history."
But the Russian delegation and other Soviet henchmen think differently. The Fisheries Ministry and Ministry of Foreign Affairs have been working
closely with the Japanese government to: (a) increase exports of marine
products to Japan; and (b) to grant more fishing concessions to Japanese
vessels. So what does any of this have to do with the new publication on Soviet whaling data?
According to reliable sources in Moscow, ECO has learned that several
officials who worked in the Soviet Ministry of Fisheries during the dark days of Soviet whale poaching are still in positions of power.
The trail of the data leads to their doorstep, and if one looked further, would reveal that they benefitted from illegal trade of the poached meat to Japanese companies for several decades.
Furthermore, as the authors of the publication point out, the new
revelations "force one to believe that the international community must review practically all population statistics presented to the IWC about a variety of whale species, including humpbacks, southern blue whales, fin whales, sei whales, and Bryde's whales [as well as] the current distribution of whale populations throughout the world."
Because the Russian Fisheries Ministry and Foreign Affairs Ministry stand to gain financially from increased cooperation with Japan--and a lot to lose from smoking guns pointing at those who struck and continue to strike lucrative deals with Japan - they have struck back at the new publication with venomous attacks.
This year the Federal Security Bureau (formerly known as the KGB) launched an investigation into the researchers behind the publication.
It is suspected that this investigation was requested by the Fisheries Ministry.'
http://www.earthtrust.org/iwc96/eco5.html
I do not agree that the RMP is based on reliable science and I look forward to the day when commercial whaling is consigned to the dustbin full of mankind's least edifying history.
As I have stated before, Norway is not whaling 'sustainably' by choice.
You argument therefore supports the continuation of the moratorium.
"it is an unneccesary and out dated goal and custom for developed nations"
Fantastic argumentation skills. Well done.
[snip info from earthtrust]
"I do not agree that the RMP is based on reliable science"
The IWC disagrees with you, and the IWC includes a range of nations who are fiercely anti-whaling.
The IWC/SC that developed the RMP is also dominated by scientists from anti-whaling nations.
I'd like to make the observation that that is quite a weight of opinion against yours.
"As I have stated before, Norway is not whaling 'sustainably' by choice."
But of course they are. Their current actions are taken by themselves and themselves alone. They objected to the moratorium and have chosen to employ the IWC's RMP of their own volition.
"You argument therefore supports the continuation of the moratorium."
???
Fantastic argumentation skills. Well done.
[snip info from earthtrust]
"I do not agree that the RMP is based on reliable science"
The IWC disagrees with you, and the IWC includes a range of nations who are fiercely anti-whaling.
The IWC/SC that developed the RMP is also dominated by scientists from anti-whaling nations.
I'd like to make the observation that that is quite a weight of opinion against yours.
"As I have stated before, Norway is not whaling 'sustainably' by choice."
But of course they are. Their current actions are taken by themselves and themselves alone. They objected to the moratorium and have chosen to employ the IWC's RMP of their own volition.
"You argument therefore supports the continuation of the moratorium."
???
Oh good grief, you quoted ECO to me?
That publication is a disgrace, and was recently banned:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0306/S00274.htm
If you want to duplicate your propaganda, please do it on your own blog
That publication is a disgrace, and was recently banned:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0306/S00274.htm
If you want to duplicate your propaganda, please do it on your own blog
Spare us the melodrama about ECO, David and address the issues raised by -
"Soviet Antarctic Whaling Data.'
Published by the Russian Marine Mammal Council, and endorsed by the Russian Minister of Environment.
Falsified statistics of catches were systematically reported to the IWC Secretariat for decades. More than 90,000 kills went unreported, including tens of thousands of "protected" species: at least 46,000 humpbacks, 8,000 blues and 3,000 right whales.
"The extent of poaching was wide ... the secret Soviet whaling industry killed major populations of whales not only in the waters of New Zealand and the Antarctic, but also in the northwestern part of the Indian Ocean, and in the southwest Atlantic."
Much of the poaching took place under the eyes of Japanese inspectors in the Antarctic waters.'
If you don't address the issues, David, people will correctly wonder why its ok for JM to use Far Right / Religious Fundamentalist sites in the USA for archived material, published by others; without you pretending the sky is falling.
But I'm not allowed to use a particular environmental web site?
While we are on that subject, I decided to do some research -
ECO edition complained about 2003,
ECO edition I quoted from 1996.
here is a quote from David's link -
'The Commission called on the EXTREMIST (my capitals) organizations listed as sponsors to ECO to “formally disassociate themselves from the offending statements” and vowed to call into question their observer status if they did not.
The organizations that contributed and supported the offensive publication were:
American Cetacean Society, Animal Welfare Institute, Campaign Whale, Canadian Marine Environment Protection Society, Cetacean Society International, CousteauSociety, Dolphin Connection, Earth Island Institute, Earthtrust, ECCEA, Greenpeace, Humane Society International, The Humane Society of the US, International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), International Wildlife Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council, Orcalab/Pacific Orca Society, Robin des Bois, RSPCA, Swiss Coalition for the Protection of Whales, Swiss Working Group for the Protection of Marine Mammals and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
This statement issued by the IWC Commissioners from
ANTIGA and BARBUDA, DOMINICA, GRENADA, ST LUCIA, ST VINCENT and THE GRENADINES, ST KITTS and NEVIS' (My Capitals),
I was very surprised to read that mainstream organisations like the RSPCA and the World Wilflife Fund were in fact covert, extremist organisations!
So I thought I would do a little more research -
'allegations leading up to the meeting and raised during the meeting by New Zealand, supported by Argentina, Australia, Germany, Italy, Monaco, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, that Japan had been seeking to gain support at the meeting by linking economic and financial assistance to certain developing countries with support for Japanese positions at the IWC meeting: the so-called "vote buying" issue. These allegations appeared to be admitted during the meeting by an official of the Fisheries Agency of Japan, although those comments were later denied. Nevertheless, this does in fact appear to have been the policy as the six Eastern Caribbean States
ANTIGA and BARBUDA, DOMINICA, GRENADA, ST LUCIA, ST VINCENT and THE GRENADINES, ST KITTS and NEVIS (My Capitals),
along with Morocco (with which there has been increased dialogue with Japan in recent years on the whaling issue) voted with Japan on the vast majority of issues, even though it may be thought that they had little common interest in many of the issues.
- 53rd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission
Ah hah!...methinks murky waters are suddenly clearing; Gosh those IWC meetings can be Machievllian! :-)
I also think that if SCOOP is worth a link from David, its worth a link from Lamna nasus. :-)
Japan misleads public about anti-whaling actions.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0601/S00035.htm
"Soviet Antarctic Whaling Data.'
Published by the Russian Marine Mammal Council, and endorsed by the Russian Minister of Environment.
Falsified statistics of catches were systematically reported to the IWC Secretariat for decades. More than 90,000 kills went unreported, including tens of thousands of "protected" species: at least 46,000 humpbacks, 8,000 blues and 3,000 right whales.
"The extent of poaching was wide ... the secret Soviet whaling industry killed major populations of whales not only in the waters of New Zealand and the Antarctic, but also in the northwestern part of the Indian Ocean, and in the southwest Atlantic."
Much of the poaching took place under the eyes of Japanese inspectors in the Antarctic waters.'
If you don't address the issues, David, people will correctly wonder why its ok for JM to use Far Right / Religious Fundamentalist sites in the USA for archived material, published by others; without you pretending the sky is falling.
But I'm not allowed to use a particular environmental web site?
While we are on that subject, I decided to do some research -
ECO edition complained about 2003,
ECO edition I quoted from 1996.
here is a quote from David's link -
'The Commission called on the EXTREMIST (my capitals) organizations listed as sponsors to ECO to “formally disassociate themselves from the offending statements” and vowed to call into question their observer status if they did not.
The organizations that contributed and supported the offensive publication were:
American Cetacean Society, Animal Welfare Institute, Campaign Whale, Canadian Marine Environment Protection Society, Cetacean Society International, CousteauSociety, Dolphin Connection, Earth Island Institute, Earthtrust, ECCEA, Greenpeace, Humane Society International, The Humane Society of the US, International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), International Wildlife Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council, Orcalab/Pacific Orca Society, Robin des Bois, RSPCA, Swiss Coalition for the Protection of Whales, Swiss Working Group for the Protection of Marine Mammals and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
This statement issued by the IWC Commissioners from
ANTIGA and BARBUDA, DOMINICA, GRENADA, ST LUCIA, ST VINCENT and THE GRENADINES, ST KITTS and NEVIS' (My Capitals),
I was very surprised to read that mainstream organisations like the RSPCA and the World Wilflife Fund were in fact covert, extremist organisations!
So I thought I would do a little more research -
'allegations leading up to the meeting and raised during the meeting by New Zealand, supported by Argentina, Australia, Germany, Italy, Monaco, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, that Japan had been seeking to gain support at the meeting by linking economic and financial assistance to certain developing countries with support for Japanese positions at the IWC meeting: the so-called "vote buying" issue. These allegations appeared to be admitted during the meeting by an official of the Fisheries Agency of Japan, although those comments were later denied. Nevertheless, this does in fact appear to have been the policy as the six Eastern Caribbean States
ANTIGA and BARBUDA, DOMINICA, GRENADA, ST LUCIA, ST VINCENT and THE GRENADINES, ST KITTS and NEVIS (My Capitals),
along with Morocco (with which there has been increased dialogue with Japan in recent years on the whaling issue) voted with Japan on the vast majority of issues, even though it may be thought that they had little common interest in many of the issues.
- 53rd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission
Ah hah!...methinks murky waters are suddenly clearing; Gosh those IWC meetings can be Machievllian! :-)
I also think that if SCOOP is worth a link from David, its worth a link from Lamna nasus. :-)
Japan misleads public about anti-whaling actions.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0601/S00035.htm
I also think that if SCOOP is worth a link from David, its worth a link from Lamna nasus. :-)
Japan misleads public about anti-whaling actions.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0601/S00035.htm
Why thank you for the link LN, most illuminating ... lets see, who wrote it - one Jon Sumby
"Jon Sumby trained as a marine ecologist and is presently doing a PhD in ocean policy and science at the University of Tasmania. He has a long-standing interest in tracking the anti-environmental movement and has been to Antarctica as a crewmember with the 2002-3 Sea Shepherd whaling campaign."
You are linking to an article from a FAR RIGHT Sea Shepherd crew member?
Ok, once again,
LN, are you a sea shepherd member? have you at any time been a sea shepherd member? Have you at any time been a Sea shepherd crew member? ( if you have been, then at least for the time you spent onboard, you must be a vegan of course as no meat is served onboard sea shepherd vessels )
Two things for your info LN ... 1.) I´ll reply to the other thread in my own good time ;)
2.) I sign my posts JM ( LN would have readers believe that all anon posts are made by me )
JM
Japan misleads public about anti-whaling actions.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0601/S00035.htm
Why thank you for the link LN, most illuminating ... lets see, who wrote it - one Jon Sumby
"Jon Sumby trained as a marine ecologist and is presently doing a PhD in ocean policy and science at the University of Tasmania. He has a long-standing interest in tracking the anti-environmental movement and has been to Antarctica as a crewmember with the 2002-3 Sea Shepherd whaling campaign."
You are linking to an article from a FAR RIGHT Sea Shepherd crew member?
Ok, once again,
LN, are you a sea shepherd member? have you at any time been a sea shepherd member? Have you at any time been a Sea shepherd crew member? ( if you have been, then at least for the time you spent onboard, you must be a vegan of course as no meat is served onboard sea shepherd vessels )
Two things for your info LN ... 1.) I´ll reply to the other thread in my own good time ;)
2.) I sign my posts JM ( LN would have readers believe that all anon posts are made by me )
JM
# posted by : 4:52 pm
: 4:52 pm
Lamna nasus, oh great one (I notice you talking about yourself in the 3rd person now... oh dear...)
Scoop is news outfit, and publishing press releases is what they do...nothing for you to get excited about...
As the Caribbean press release indicates, the ECO publication was banned at the IWC because of unacceptable content. Given it's list of sponsers, there is little reason to believe that ECO would contain much in the way of truth, as ECO sponsers regularly publish a range of mistruths on their websites. Were your information from a source that has not already self-destructed it's own credibility, it might be worth a read, but like the Palumbi research that concluded conventional estimates of whale populations were 10 times too small (subsequently effectively rubbished by the IWC/SC), this appears to be yet another poor effort from the anti-whaling brigade to find a reason for the implementation of the RMP to be delayed.
I thus give the ECO publication as much credit as the IWC and all it's commisioners, pro-whaling and anti-whaling alike, give it. That's "zip". Though I doubt this is of consequence to you - you've already chosen to differ in opinion to New Zealand's commisioner.
You have been good enough to refrain from posting utter garbage like a troll since your first efforts, but I'm left wondering how much further time it's worth spending on someone who appears to base his/her opinion exclusively on sources that demonstrably are without credibility.
Many of my opinions on the other hand are proving to be supported by even those who take opposing positions in the whaling debate.
Readers can draw their own conclusions.
Scoop is news outfit, and publishing press releases is what they do...nothing for you to get excited about...
As the Caribbean press release indicates, the ECO publication was banned at the IWC because of unacceptable content. Given it's list of sponsers, there is little reason to believe that ECO would contain much in the way of truth, as ECO sponsers regularly publish a range of mistruths on their websites. Were your information from a source that has not already self-destructed it's own credibility, it might be worth a read, but like the Palumbi research that concluded conventional estimates of whale populations were 10 times too small (subsequently effectively rubbished by the IWC/SC), this appears to be yet another poor effort from the anti-whaling brigade to find a reason for the implementation of the RMP to be delayed.
I thus give the ECO publication as much credit as the IWC and all it's commisioners, pro-whaling and anti-whaling alike, give it. That's "zip". Though I doubt this is of consequence to you - you've already chosen to differ in opinion to New Zealand's commisioner.
You have been good enough to refrain from posting utter garbage like a troll since your first efforts, but I'm left wondering how much further time it's worth spending on someone who appears to base his/her opinion exclusively on sources that demonstrably are without credibility.
Many of my opinions on the other hand are proving to be supported by even those who take opposing positions in the whaling debate.
Readers can draw their own conclusions.
Hope a nice Japanese person can come along and harpoon you sometime David. No-one would deserve the first hand experience of dying inhumanely more than you. I feel there is no need to address your flawed arguments. Anyone that can morally support whaling has not done enough research.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 1:00 pm
: 1:00 pm<< Home
Archives
June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 January 2010 February 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 February 2011 March 2011 May 2013 June 2013
