David @ Tokyo

Who shall we trust, international scientists or Mr. Wallö, hardline political advisor to the Norwegian gov'?

Mr. Wallö says to local paper "Lofotposten" that the minke whale population growth in the North Atlantic is 2% , but international scientisis and the IWC say it is only 1%.
 

anonymous,

I apologise for the broken links in my original post. They are fixed now. I suggest you read them.

From the University of Oslo:

"The results of the research programme persuaded the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission, where Professor Walløe has been a member and head of the Norwegian delegation since 1989, to accept Norway's estimates of stock size."

That is, the IWC's Scientific Commitee have in the past reviewed and accepted updated scientific understanding from programmes in which Professor Walløe was involved in.

I have no idea what leads you to describe Professor Walløe as a "hardline political advisor". I trust that you are not throwing mud around on my blog without any factual basis?

I note from the IWC's site that the most recent estimate they have provided for the is now 11 years out of date.

I fully imagine that local scientists such as Professor Walløe have more up to date knowledge about the North Atlantic minke stock than that.

If you have reason to believe otherwise, please explain.
 

Quote Anne Novek?
Who shall we trust, international scientists or Mr. Wallö, hardline political advisor to the Norwegian gov'?

Mr. Wallö says to local paper "Lofotposten" that the minke whale population growth in the North Atlantic is 2% , but international scientisis and the IWC say it is only 1%. "

8:00 PM "

Interesting..

Which international scientists? references please .

Lars Walloe is a well respected scientist who has led the Norwegian IWC delegation for over a decade.
No, this looks like a typical Greenpeace smear to me ;)
 

http://www.lofotposten.no/Innenriks/article1638371.ece
 

Hello guys,
Sorry for posting under anonymous, it was me Ann indeed who posted the previous comments as you might have guessed!

No , I'm not trying to throw around mud, I need facts... can you guys tell me how many minkes there are in the North Atlantic?

One day Mr. Walloe and co. say 100 000 , the next day I read 75 000...

About this "Greenpeace" smear I would like to inform you guys , that I have very good contact with a journalist from prowhaling paper Fiskeribladet, who send me documents on pirate fishing and has offered to help me with translations and so on... this guy know that I'm a Greenpeacer, but show no hosility at all! And BTW Fiskeribladet has written about Greenpeace actions on pirate fishing in a positive way.
 

Anne Novek said ::

Hello guys,
Sorry for posting under anonymous, it was me Ann indeed who posted the previous comments as you might have guessed!

No , I'm not trying to throw around mud, I need facts... can you guys tell me how many minkes there are in the North Atlantic?

184,000 (95% confidence interval) this is made up of the North east atlantic and central atlantic areas, with 110,000 and 74,000 repectively - these figures will be revised again at the St.Kitts IWC meeting and again in 2007/2008 to reflect Norway´s ongoing yearly survey program.

One day Mr. Walloe and co. say 100 000 , the next day I read 75 000...

He´s referring to the different areas...

About this "Greenpeace" smear I would like to inform you guys , that I have very good contact with a journalist from prowhaling paper Fiskeribladet, who send me documents on pirate fishing and has offered to help me with translations and so on... this guy know that I'm a Greenpeacer, but show no hosility at all!

Most Norwegians/whalers won´t show a greenpeacer any hostility at all either - it´s when Greenpeacers try their idiotic anti-whaling actions that Greenpeacers end up in the sea -

And BTW Fiskeribladet has written about Greenpeace actions on pirate fishing in a positive way.

What? those bloodthirsty barbaric Norwegians? wonder of wonders! ( yes, I am being a wee bit ironic ;op )

LOL.....
 

> No , I'm not trying to throw around mud, I need facts...

OK - a word of advice then, don't go hurling phrases like "hardline political advisor" around at scientists without providing good reasons for the characterization. Otherwise you just come across as hurling mud at someone who says things you perhaps don't like :)
 

Lofotenposten states there are 75 000 minkes in the North Atlantic, they are not referring to a special area, like the Northeast Atlantic or central Atlantic, this is very confusing.... check out the link I provided if you speak Norwegian!
 

Various media outlets report various estimates of whale populations all the time. I don't read Norwegian, so I can't judge whether the Lofotenposten is quoting scientists or not, but basically I wouldn't trust it if it doesn't seems correct. Trust the original source of the estimate. Journalists and reporters are just humans, and in many cases know less about an issue than plain old people that simply take a strong interest in the topic.

Moral of the story - don't trust the media. This is something you learn quickly if you find your views in alignment with the pro-conservation, pro-sustainable use side of the argument.
 

Anne Novek said …
Lofotenposten states there are 75 000 minkes in the North Atlantic, they are not referring to a special area, like the Northeast Atlantic or central Atlantic, this is very confusing.... check out the link I provided if you speak Norwegian!

I suggest you read official sources such as the one below ( older figures from 1995 and 1999 now revised )

http://odin.dep.no/odin/engelsk/norway/environment/032001-990108/

Or the IWC ( though you have to dig to find them )

Never rely on media or environmental NGO´s for facts - always go direct to source
 

BTW, you guys might be interested in reading the blog discussion here:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001326.html

The level of discussion is quite a lot higher than many other forums on whaling.
 

I checked out Jennifer's blog-- this lady seems to be prowhaling, but despite this I liked her comment about sunbears in China, bear bile farming disgust me much more than whaling
 

david@tokyo said
BTW, you guys might be interested in reading the blog discussion here:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001326.html

The level of discussion is quite a lot higher than many other forums on whaling.

Ah.. Peter Corkerton ... whilst Peter´s science credentials are certainly not under question, his motivation however,is another matter entirely - Peter spent a fair bit of time in Norway - and his anti-whaling bias was clear from week one, which is fair enough..( everybody is entitled to their own opinion of course ) he also leaves unsaid some important facts as well, especially regarding the non-use of binoculars in norwegian transect surveys, and their use in many other transect surveys elsewhere... such as that the norwegian survey model is being increasing used elsewhere as a more refined survey model. He also omits the use of independant platforms for observers, Peter is extremely hot on the theory of the transect surveys, but as he himself admits, he actually had no practical experience of them... but thats another thread...
 

As I have asked you before: "Who can we trust?"

Mr. Klepsvik says there are 1-1,5 million minke whales in the Southern Oceans, but IWC numbers seems to be 510 000-1,140 000
 

Mr. Klepsvik also says in an interview in newspaper " Dagbladet" "that Japanese lobbyism to recruit peripheral nations to join the IWC is the same tacticts that Greenpeace has used".

However, Greenpeace has never bought a vote. Japan on the other hand has been caught redhanded.

There were accusations of vote-buying by Greenpeace in a film called "Man in the
Rainbow" which was funded by the High North Alliance. This was a hatchet
propoganda job: at one point they asked Francisco Pallacio, who used to work as
a consultant for Greenpeace, how much Conservation organisations had spent on
whale conservation over the years. He replied, correctly, "millions of dollars."
But when they cut the film, they changed the question to "How much did
Greenpeace spend bribing commissioners?" -- we got a court order to produce the
original footage of the interview and transcripts, Palacio himself sued the
filmmakers, and judges in Germany and a couple other countries agreed that this
was libel, and forbid the showing of the film.
 

Anonymous said :


Mr. Klepsvik also says in an interview in newspaper " Dagbladet" "that Japanese lobbyism to recruit peripheral nations to join the IWC is the same tacticts that Greenpeace has used".

However, Greenpeace has never bought a vote. Japan on the other hand has been caught redhanded.

There were accusations of vote-buying by Greenpeace in a film called "Man in the
Rainbow" which was funded by the High North Alliance. This was a hatchet
propoganda job: at one point they asked Francisco Pallacio, who used to work as
a consultant for Greenpeace, how much Conservation organisations had spent on
whale conservation over the years. He replied, correctly, "millions of dollars."
But when they cut the film, they changed the question to "How much did
Greenpeace spend bribing commissioners?" -- we got a court order to produce the
original footage of the interview and transcripts, Palacio himself sued the
filmmakers, and judges in Germany and a couple other countries agreed that this
was libel, and forbid the showing of the film. ,

Tillman, ( The US IWC commissioner at the time ) stated that it was common knowledge that various commissioners were installed to the IWC by Greenpeace. Checking IWC records of attendees for the years concerned, we find that, lo and behold, various Greenpeace "consultants" were in fact commisioners for various countries, including Francisco Pallacio ... Greenpeace continually criticises Japanese " vote buying " at the IWC even to this day. It is a documented fact that Francisco Palacio was installed as the IWC commissioner for St. Lucia, Paul Gouin was installed as the IWC commissioner for Panama and Richard Baron was installed as the IWC commissioner for Antigua. ALL , Greenpeace members / consultants / whatever you want to call them ;op

As for the court cases in Germany, Norway and Denmark - note that parts of the films Survival in the high north and the rainbow man were judged to be libellious, parts - not the whole of both films ... something that you conveniently omit ..

Stating that " However, Greenpeace has never bought a vote " quite frankly is bullshit - Greenpeace are on record as having covered expenses and fees of various commisioners - whether or not actual cash changed hands is debatable, but there is no question that Greenpeace used debatable tactics to obtain votes at the IWC - the same tactics that Greenpeace now use to slam Japan with ...

It´s also telling that Forbes Maagazine in the US ( which originally printed the accusations of vote buying by greenpeace in 1991 ) has never printed a retraction or been sued by greenpeace or Pallacio or any of the others
 

Strong anti-whaling protest

Norway is used to be criticized for its whaling policy, but this time the anti-whaling protest alliance was unusually strong and on a broad front.

Neither the Forign Ministry or the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs can recall such a strong demarche from anti whaling countries , according to Norwegian TV2 Nettavisen.
 

Really? Are they being sarcastic perhaps :)

There are 66 nations in the IWC, and yet only 12 of them participated in the demarche. That's only 18% of the IWC membership.

Even in the demarche against Japan, only 17 nations participated - just barely 25%.
 

Well, to the person who labels themselves "Anonymous" but decides to slag me by name - "Peter is extremely hot on the theory of the transect surveys, but as he himself admits, he actually had no practical experience of them"

I haven't done any vessel-based line transect surveys?
IDCR, Antarctic 1995/96
US NOAA ORCAWALE survey, west coast US 1996
Surveys for inshore dolphins in tropical Queensland, late 90s.

And a lot of other work estimating marine mammal abundance, mostly using aerial strip transects (i.e. transect surveys), land-based distance sampling and photoidentification CMR. I took part in my first survey over 20 years ago. Plenty of references to my work in the refereed literature, if you chose to look.

So to take words straight from David's keyboard - a word of advice then, don't go hurling phrases like, he actually had no practical experience of them.

Peter Corkeron
 

Peter is extremely hot on the theory of the transect surveys, but as he himself admits, he actually had no practical experience of them... but thats another thread...

My apologies Peter, what I meant to say was that you had no practical experience of NORWEGIAN Line transect ( Norwegian Independant Line transect Surveys =NILS )surveys ... I know you have experience of other surveys and yes, I am familiar with your work/papers.

As For anonymous,Peter, I prefer an inbox free of hate mail ...
 

Well, Mr Anonymous, thank you for the correction. That makes your statement read a little differently.

Please feel free to identify yourself to me in a private email, otherwise I'm sure you'll understand if I assume you're simply a coward.

Peter
 

Please feel free to identify yourself to me in a private email, otherwise I'm sure you'll understand if I assume you're simply a coward.

Thanks for the offer Mr. Corkerton, but no thanks, you go right ahead and assume what you wish of course, it has zip to do with the subject we are discussing has it? I fully understand your POV on how wide the yellow streak is on my back. Tell me though Mr.C, do you have any children? How would you feel if some AR moron contacted them about what daddy does or says? Just wondering how wide the yellow streak on your back might be in such a theoretical situation .... but I digress... lets get back to the subject at hand ...
 

Dear Mr Anonymous

I suggested you email me directly, so that way no-one else gets to know who you are, and I'll be only too happy to post here that I accept you're not a coward. Your name will remain my secret.

To answer your question, yes, I have a child. I don't know what an AR moron is, but I assume you're saying that you're protecting your kids. I accept that you feel that you have good reasons for wanting anonymity on this blog. I wouldn't want you to do something that you thought put your kids at risk.

Hence the offer that you just send me an email. My email address is readily available through the Society for Marine Mammalogy website if you're a member, or on one of my most recent papers.

You're the one who made the choice to play the man and not the ball, after all.

mvh
Peter
 

Dear Mr C,

Once again, Thanks for the offer but no thanks, as I don´t know you personally, I must decline your offer ( you say you are Peter C.. whilst I am fairly sure you are, I don´t really know - so I am sure you understand that I decline )I have my reasons for my anonimity, and they will remain my private reasons

On the subject of playing the man and not the ball .. well, lets see.. I questioned your motivation - you are anti - whaling Mr. C or? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong..
You are extremely hot on the theoretical side, correct? ( or at least your work indicates this ) and you did leave out some important facts concerning the NILS´/ NASS survey´s methodology - that is fair enough, opinions on methodology differ, especially within the scientific community as you most probably know all too well. Fact is though, that the IWC SC accepts the norwegian population figures and survey methodology - and whilst the cut and thrust of scientific opinion and debate is all very fine and well, that is how the cookie crumbles ..

We could quite easily discuss the relative merits of Synoptic surveys vs multi year surveys and the benefits and disadvatages of both but I do not really see the point - other than to possibly educate some who may be interested in reading how these population figures are arrived at - I suspect it would be over the heads of many ( including me - I struggle at the best of times with truly understanding g=0 or g=1 but that is another story )
So am I playing the man? No, not really, - I suspect your motivation is not entirely NPOV, but I may be wrong - free to correct me if so..

For what it´s worth, I am not one of your colleagues Mr. C and I do not know you personally ( and I am not one of your ex- Norwegian colleagues either )Although I do know of your reputation indirectly through a third party ... So no, I am not Blix in disguise ;)

Finally, I really could not give a toss if anyone thinks I am a coward, I am confident of my femininity and my masculinity both - and feel no need to indulge in any macho stuff...

My intention was not to "slag" you Mr. C - apologies if it came across that way - my intention was to point out that it is not neccessarily what a person / NGO writes ( no matter how qualified they may be ) that is important - it is equally important what he/she/ they do not write or leave out - which is why I personally always suggest to folk that they do their own research on a subject, and particularly on the subject of modern whaling ... Rereading through my original post, I can certainly see where you are coming from, I will try and be a bit less lazy in my posts in future and more specific
 

Hi Peter,

Anonymous likes to guard his identity so that he can make unsubstantiated claims about his ‘scientific credentials’ and by extention his ability to make 'authoritative' comments on whaling. This does not however stop him from demanding the identity, affiliations and qualifications of others. :-)

Hi JM / Anonymous, you still didn't answer my questions. Stockpiles and Faroe islands JM, stockpiles and Faroes islands! :-)
 

Lamna,
The blubber mountain is destroyed, JM provided an article from 2005, we discussed that in an other forum. Nowadays all blubber is dumped in the hunting grounds, but of course there is a stockpile of whale meat in Norway and Iceland.
 

Hi Ann,

Its not just Norwegian and Icelandic tax payers who have to spend huge sums to subsidise whaling and its stockpiles.
Japan's stockpile reached 4.800 tonnes in 2005; for comparison, Japan's stockpile was 673 tonnes in 1998.
 

Lamna,
I think all this whaling business is very confusing, why are they whaling at all , if it is subsidized and give hardly no profit at all.

OK, Norwegians and Icelanders claim the whales eat too much fish.

Do you remember Tig, he said Japanese people never oppose their Government or other authorities.

The Norwegians are rich, they can afford to support whaling.

My brother who is a doctor , used to work in a fishing community in northern Norway, north of the polar circle, in Kåfjord, when he badly needed money, the salary was very high in Norway.
 

Lamna-nasus,

I see you bought the WDCS propaganda about whale meat stock sizes, hook line and sinker.

Gullible as usual.

You really ought to do some critical thinking of your own, using your stupendous mental abilities, if you want to avoid the obvious conclusion that you will believe anything the anti-whaling NGOs tell you.

Perhaps it is because you want to believe whatever they say, that you fail to consider whether you could be having the wool pulled over your eyes.

Anyway, I thank you for regugitating the NGO nonsense, as it encouraged me to finish my write up on the "stock pile" and "pet food" crap that WDCS sold you.

Ann,

You're right, research whaling has been subsidized for the past 20 years, and it hasn't been making a profit.

So, we know that, unlike what Greenpeace wants you to believe, the Japanese aren't in it for the money. This is why you are confused, no?

Perhaps instead of looking to Greenpeace for commentary about why Japan takes the actions that it does, why not look to Japan for those answers instead?
http://whaling-faq.blogspot.com/2006/04/faq-1.html

Japan believes strongly in the principle of sustainable use being applied to marine resources, and does not budge on its conviction in this.

Why don't you simply accept this at face value, rather than looking to Greenpeace for it's manipulation of the facts to try to give the impression that Japan is up to some kind of evil trick?

Is the world's largest user of marine resources per capita standing up for the principle of sustainable use really such a hard thing to believe?

I can tell you this - I am in no way confused at all about anything Japan does, and also I'm in no way confused at all about Greenpeace's misinterpretations either!! Although, I can remember a time when I was - that was right before I opened my eyes :) Maybe the time is drawing near for you, as well :)
Of course, this doesn't mean you will necessarily come to support whaling. At the very least though, I would hope that you can at least understand and respect Japan's actions, even if you wish to continue to oppose whaling on the grounds that it is cruel.
 

David,
I have just read an edited version of Keiko Hirata's article " Why Japan supports whaling". Actually there seems not to be any easy answers.

Tokyo's harsh criticism of the IWC, anti-whaling states and NGO's stems from the views of the Fisheries Agency and MAFF( Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries).

These bureaucratic branches represents the Japanese government at the IWC. At the IWC meeting , they have repeatedly and aggressively argued that the sustainable use of whales (ie commercial whaling) should be allowed because there is no ecological reason to abandon whaling.

They have provided four arguments.

1) Japan has cultural right to whaling

2) They maintain the moratorium has no scientific basis.

3) Some species are abundant and actually destroying the ecosystem.

4) They regard the 1982 moratorium as a temporary measure.

In addition to these official claims , there is another possible reason that these bureaucrats insists on the continuation of scientific whaling.

Since whaling is under the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Agency and MAFF, the end of whaling could mean a decline in these agencie's political power.

Given intense interministerial rivalries in Japan, it is not likely that these bureacratic actors would voluntarily concede of their areas of jurisdiction. Instead, these officials may want to eventually resume commercial whaling to further strenghten their position in domestic politics.
 

> insists on the continuation of scientific whaling.

It really needs to be stressed that scientific whaling is the means, not the end goal.

The ICRW states quite clearly that nations should strive to improve scientific knowledge to better enable the IWC to meets it's goals of whale conservation and making for whaling industry.

And even the IWC's homepage confirms that the research is of value.

> the end of whaling could mean a decline in these agencie's political power.

I think all these sorts of political type arguments are sideshows.

Why not keep the focus on the issue of whaling itself?

The crux of the issue is the sustainability of whaling operations. Whoever wins politically is irrelevant to me (and most of the world), providing that whaling is sustainable.

This is the issue of prime importance.

Again, I don't think this needs to be deliberately made complicated.

Japan's position is that the principle of sustainable use should be applied equally to all natural resources, on the basis of science.

As some western commentaries have noted, Japanese officials are concerned that by backing down to what Japan sees as irrational policy from anti-whaling nations, a very very dangerous precedent would be set.

It's much better for Japan to fight (and win) this battle in the minor whaling industry, rather than in the wider fisheries industry.

The greatest shame in the whole debate is that groups such as Greenpeace choose to focus their attention on trivialties, rather than the core issues. Were their propaganda campaigns not so effective, the pro-sustainable use nations would have won at the IWC years ago.
 

Hi Ann,

Subsidies mean there is money to be made in whaling, whether it is currently a 'profitable' industry or not, is actually not necessarily anything more important than a justification for the current subsidies. This is the reason for your confusion but it is a distinction that David understands very well.

If Japan had not kept its 'scientific' whaling programme running then the ships would have been scrapped and the whalers would have moved on to other occupations. In that scenario it would be very, very expensive to build a new whaling fleet and train people to man those whaling ships effectively.

It is highly likely that had that happened after the moratorium, the Japanese government would have regarded the whaling industry as obsolete and not worth campaigning for. But, by keeping the industry ticking over, with operational ships and experienced crews; knowing full well that if commercial whaling in off shore waters resumes, it will include only a very small number of 'players' suddenly the potential profitability of the industry looks a lot more attractive.

'Daven Joseph, from the St Kitts and Nevis delegation...."The key point is that if commercial whaling is resumed, then countries in the Caribbean would be given a quota," he told BBC News.
"Even though we might not catch whales ourselves, we could then sell the quota, like we do our tuna quota under ICCAT (the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna)."
- BBC
22nd June 2005


Japan likes to buy other countries quotas for stocks those countries cannot exploit. This is the reason for all those Japanese Fisheries development grants to small countries.

Those countries are never actually going to whale, they are going to sell their annual quotas to Japan with no doubt some quotas going to Norway and Iceland.

That's just three countries monopolising global commercial whaling.

That is the potential that is currently being subsidised and that is the reason for someone in the banking industry in Japan not feeling at all confused about the issue.


While we are on the subject of sustainable exploitation of stocks, Japan and indeed that very popular culinary delight, Tuna.... I am intrigued to find out if David wants to inform you about what happened to the Tuna quotas and indeed the entire Tuna fishery that Japan purchased and monopolised off the coast of South America.

I know I'm looking forward to that slice of recent history with great interest.
It will be a fascinating opener to the wider discussion David appears to wish to pursue about the policies of amongst others, the UN's FAO on his other threads.
:-)
 

Lamna,
I know you think my argumentations are flawed , you already pointed out that in your hate mail to me.
 

> If Japan had not kept its 'scientific' whaling programme running then the ships would have been scrapped and the whalers would have moved on to other occupations. In that scenario it would be very, very expensive to build a new whaling fleet and train people to man those whaling ships effectively.

Certainly, had the scientific programmes not commenced, this is quite possible.

That said, we shouldn't overlook that without scientific information, sustainable whaling (the goal of the ICRW, which signatory nations are mandated to work towards) would not be possible in the first instance.
While other nations wish to forget about the goals of the ICRW, Japan did not.
JARPA II seeks to improve on the RMP and contribute to upcoming ecosystem based management approachs, but other funding for scientific research into whales is indeed required for IWC management today (regular sighting surveys for example). Such (non-lethal) research would not be possible without funding, the majority of which comes from sales of whale meat from the lethal programmes, rather than subsidies (at least up until this time).
The argument is of course that to improve management further (serving the goals of the ICRW), lethal research is required, and lethal research requires people with skills in catching whales.
It's easy to see why those who don't understand Japan's scientific arguments find it difficult to see that scientific whaling is not commercial whaling.
With knowledge of the issue, it becomes clear that Japan is one of the few nations actively contributing to the goals of the ICRW, and should be commended for this.

> Japan likes to buy other countries quotas for stocks those countries cannot exploit.

Allocation of user rights is quite standard in the 21st century, and is even explicitly noted as a principle of relevance to ecosystem based fisheries management
(http://www.fao.org//docrep/005/y4470e/y4470e0d.htm#bm13.8)

> This is the reason for all those Japanese Fisheries development grants to small countries.

I think you have that bit completely wrong :-)

> Those countries are never actually going to whale, they are going to sell their annual quotas to Japan with no doubt some quotas going to Norway and Iceland.

That's not true. Some Caribbean nations for example have expressed interest in whaling, and indeed some already do conduct whaling.

Besides, whether you utilise whales or not yourself does not mean you don't have an interest in the issue. The vast majority of the nations that vote with the active whalers at the IWC are developing nations that depend on fisheries. They clearly understand recent trends in ecosystem based management - specifically with respect to understanding inter-species relationships within the ecosystem.

On the other hand, I doubt the 6 landlocked European nations at the IWC understand this at all.

> That's just three countries monopolising global commercial whaling.

Three does not make a duopoly let alone a monopoly, but thats besides the point.

What is not important is not who is doing the taking, but whether how much is taken is sustainable.

Under the IWC's RMP, there is no reasonable scientific doubt that allocated catch limits would be sustainable.

> That is the potential that is currently being subsidised and that is the reason for someone in the banking industry in Japan not feeling at all confused about the issue.

Again, I think you have that bit completely wrong :-)

Ann is more likely to find correct information about Japan's ODA assistance to developing nations here (http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/oda/).

> I am intrigued to find out if David wants to inform you about what happened to the Tuna quotas and indeed the entire Tuna fishery that Japan purchased and monopolised off the coast of South America.

Licked on the whaling issue, you turn to other topics :-)

As for Tuna, as with whales, Japanese officials realise that irresponsible fishing will not be economically profitable in the long run, and have been working to reduce their catch to sustainable levels.
I'm sure you can tell Ann all about that if you please, but then I don't think it's fair to assume that she doesn't know already.
 

Hi David,

'Licked on the whaling issue, you turn to other topics'

Really? That's odd because you posted this -

'Is the world's largest user of marine resources per capita standing up for the principle of sustainable use really such a hard thing to believe?'

So we are both allowed to put the Japanese fishing industry, whaling and sustainability in its wider context particularly with your oft repeated assurances that the Japanese fishing industry would only ever whale responsibly and sustainably if given a quota.

Between 1962 and 1967 a Japanese long lineing fleet targeted the West Atlantic Blue Fin Tuna population off the coast Brazil. The population crashed and has never recovered.
Apologists have suggested that a change in migration patterns might be responsible however they have been unable to prove this explanation.

The Japanese delegation to ICCAT is well noted for consistantly lobbying against quota restrictions.

The Japanese market as you correctly pointed out 'is world's largest user of marine resources per capita'
therefore market forces win over long term sustainabilty every time.



Further information about Tuna fisheries -

http://www.seaweb.org/resources/writings/writings/safina2.php
 

Again, you let yourself down with your dishonesty.

You talk about the 1960's but fail to recognise Japan's recent efforts including a 20% reduction in their tuna fleet, at a time when EU nations continue to subsidise construction of additional fisheries capacity.
 

Hi David,

Again, you let yourself down with your dishonesty.

Japan is the world's largest user of marine resources per capita therefore lobbying over quotas is a lot more important to Japanese commercial seafood buyers than who actually catches those quotas.
If Japanese seafood buyers find it more economically profitable to buy from EU sources then thats what they will do.
Globalised big business has few if any national loyalties but you work in banking so you already know that.

However those facts don't support your diatribes on the 'evils' of the 'West' which probably explains your disinterest in Japanese anti-whaling organisations, how much money Japanese whale watching generates and the fact that environmental NGOs have plenty of campaigns against Western companies and Western government policies including their fishing policies. Except on those occasions when you are indulging a diatribe against the 'evils' of environmentalists and environmental NGOs of course. :-)

Instead you favour presenting threads where you re-interpret news stories and letters from politicians assistants to suite your desire to gain acceptance and approval in your country of domicile by attempting to appear more culturally Japanese than the Japanese themselves.

Its a bit like disingenuously referencing anti-whaling countries with no coastline in the IWC and forgetting to mention Mongolia and Mali who are pro whaling countries with no coastline. :-)
 

> If Japanese seafood buyers find it more economically profitable to buy from EU sources then thats what they will do.

You totally miss the point as usual.

Is the sustainability of the world's tuna fisheries helped if Japan reduces it's capacity by 20%, while in Europe governments are busy subsidising extra capacity?Obviously, Japan's efforts are weakened by the lack of cooperation from other users.

> your disinterest in Japanese anti-whaling organisations,

Err, like which ones?

> how much money Japanese whale watching generates

How much it generates is irrelevant to the sustainability of whaling.
The fact that whale watching exists in Japan and that Japan is also a whaling nation illustrates that the two industries can happily coexist.

> your desire to gain acceptance and approval in your country of domicile by attempting to appear more culturally Japanese than the Japanese themselves.

Err, yes, which is why I write it all in Japanese, instead of English.

Since when did you learn to read Japanese?

> Its a bit like disingenuously referencing anti-whaling countries with no coastline in the IWC and forgetting to mention Mongolia and Mali who are pro whaling countries with no coastline. :-)

I've said that I believe landlocked nations have no place in the IWC.
The fact of the matter is that the anti-whaling bloc recruited landlocked nations as early as 1980, whereas Mali and Mongolia only joined in recent years, and not after further landlocked anti-whaling nations were added. The total is currently 6 anti-whaling nations to 2. I'm certainly more than happy to talk about these facts, as it shows just how corrupt and dishonest the anti-whaling bloc is, and how they have set disgraceful precedents.
 

A friend of Lamna has been in contact with me regarding my statement that Lamna had sent "hate mail" to me. She said this was an obvious misunderstanding from my side, and this is true because my English is not too good. She says Englismen are blunt and talk in that way to friends!

So obviously my statement was wrong and I apologize.
 

Hi Ann,

Your apology is accepted and I apologise for the tone of my email to you being blunt to the point of brusqueness.
 

Good to see that you are all friends again. You had better be, considering that you've both in the same sinking ship :-)