.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

David @ Tokyo

Perspective from Japan on whaling and whale meat, a spot of gourmet news, and monthly updates of whale meat stockpile statistics



Whaling: JARPN II fleet returns, only EAI notices

The Institute of Cetacean Research this week announced the return of the JARPN II fleet from it's most recent research expedition in the North West Pacific Ocean, and issued a press release (in Japanese) about some results obtained so far from this year's programme.

It seems that the only whales that matter to the fund-raising groups are the ones in the Antarctic, because not only did groups such as Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd not attempt to obstruct the JARPN II research in any way, they don't even seem to have noticed that it has just finished, despite 256 whales being taken (100 common minke, 100 Sei, 50 Bryde's, and 6 Sperm whales).

The EIA ("Environmental Investigation Agency") has noticed though.
EIA is a much smaller anti-sustainable use group than Greenpeace but have been around for more than 20 years now. The EIA has a couple of it's staff members delegated by the anti-whaling UK government to attend the IWC Scientific Committee meetings, but apparently pay their own way to attend (here's a shot of their team in St. Kitts for IWC 58). The UK banner is quite significant for them, as they can then get their names in the media with "IWC Scientific Committee member" tagged to it. Their actual comments however destroy any mirage of credibility they may gain from it.

Let's take a look at the EIA has to say then...
...booms the headline. "Every whale in sight"! Quite catchy. Full marks to the EIA media department - what are they spinning though? We shall see...
The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) today branded Japan’s so-called ‘scientific’ whaling hunts ‘widespread devastation’ after revealing shocking new evidence of the scale of slaughter in the north Pacific.
All that "widespread devastation" and yet the Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd eco-terrorists were conspicious by their absence. Guys? Where are you?

But I digress - EIA deserve the attention here for actually going to the effort of putting out a press release.

Despite what their press release says, EIA has done no such thing as "reveal shocking new evidence". The Institute of Cetacean Research simply their put out their annual press release following the conclusion of the 2006 JARPN II expedition, as they did in 2005 (here), 2004 (here), 2003 (here), 2002 (here), 2001 (here), indeed, every year.

It's still "shocking new evidence" though, apparently, and they have at least made a fresh attempt at misinterpreting the information. The "killing almost every whale in sight" catch-phrase seems to be what they managed to come up with.
"... figures released by Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) yesterday show that the hunters killed up to 75% of the whales sighted over more than 10,000 nautical miles of ocean, despite Japan’s frequent claim that its ‘scientific’ hunts are sustainable and will not damage the recovery of populations."
Quite a remarkable representation of the figures for someone who can claim to be a member of the IWC's Scientific Committee, thanks to the UK Government. But let's not dwell on that too much.

Above, the EIA PR is refering to the number of whales sighted as a part of the visual survey conducted by the ICR for the purpose of whale abundance estimates, versus the number of whales sampled (i.e., lethally). Rather than have one research fleet conducting the lethal sampling in one part of the ocean, and another fleet conduct sightings survey research in another part, the ICR conducts both types of research with just one fleet.

For those readers without much background reading, essentially with sightings surveys in large wide spaces, you can't feasibly count the number of animals located in the research region at one time - the North West Pacific is just too wide an expanse. What the scientists fall back to is determining paths through the research area along which they sail their ships, counting the number of whales they see, and then essentially extrapolate the sightings data to make an estimate of abundance within the entire research area [*].

In short, on these sightings surveys only a very small fraction of the whale populations have a probability of being sighted to begin with. This is especially easy to see when one considers that the IWC Scientific Committee estimates there to be 25,000 minke whales in the North West Pacific. JARPN II takes only 100 minke whales each year - just 0.4% of the estimated abundance. This is why people believe that JARPN II will not "damage the recovery of these populations", as EIA alluded to.

Of course, well done to EIA for twisting a sample size estimated to be between 0.20% and 0.78% of the estimated abundance into a "slaughter" of "up to 75% of the whales sighted", and going even further for the big media headline with their "almost every whale in sight" soundbite. Great stuff!
(EIA gets my nomination for "Deception of the year" award.)
“The fact that Japan is killing almost every whale they see is simply unacceptable and clearly unsustainable’ said Claire Bass, EIA Campaigner and member of the Scientific Committee to the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
On the contrary, it's clearly not unsustainable, and it's a shame that Claire Bass would spoil the good name of the IWC Scientific Committee by making such statements under the title.
The situation for sei whales is also of grave concern. One hundred of the 336 sei whales observed during the latest three month cruise were killed. The population abundance of north Pacific sei whales is not known, but they are listed as endangered by the IUCN (the World Conservation Union).
The Sei whale is indeed the most frequently sighted type of whale in the JARPN II programme, with almost 3 times as many sighted as minke whales (they are easier to spot than minkes due to their larger size). EIA have tried hard here to make a crisis out of the situation, but what the IUCN actually says is this:
The species' classification by IUCN as Endangered in the mid-1990s (under the 1996 categories and criteria) was based on an estimated decline of around 50% in worldwide total abundance over the last three generations. This assumes a generation time of roughly 20-25 years. Most of this decline would have occurred in the Southern Hemisphere, which had a much larger original population than the North Atlantic or North Pacific. While a change in classification to Vulnerable may be appropriate, there is a distinct lack of reliable survey data that could serve as the basis for reassessment.
What Japan is actually doing (unlike the EIA) is conduct surveys to obtain reliable data that could serve as such a basis, amongst various other research objectives. Interesting that EIA would rather be upset than happy at news of the reconfirmation of high levels of Sei whale abundance - yet another positive whale conservation story.

Just to finish up with EIA, taking a look at the figures we can also see that they have followed the standard anti-sustainable use group methodology of highlighting the "worst" case scenario (which I have just debunked above, anyway):

Minke sightings: 135
Minke samples: 100 == 74%

Sei sightings: 336
Sei samples: 100 == 30%

Bryde's sightings: 173
Bryde's samples: 50 == 29%

Sperm whale sightings: 333
Sperm whale samples: 6 == 2%

Blue sightings: 42
Blue samples: 0 == 0%

Fin sightings: 100
Fin samples: 0 == 0%

Humpback sightings: 78
Humpback samples: 0 == 0%

Right sightings: 14
Right samples: 0 == 0%

* * *

One last, final comment. How come when Greenpeace put out a press release, it is splashed all through-out the western media (especially Australia), yet when EIA put out a press release, only a single site other than their own homepage runs the story? Seriously, I'm probably the second source on the Internet to make a mention of it.

Although we find Greenpeace's propaganda campaigns extremely unethical and dangerous, we have to admire the massive media network they have developed.

[*] The ICR has a primer on line-transect based sightings surveys for whale abundance estimation in the Antarctic here. The same principles apply in the NW Pacific. The same techniques are used for estimating the abundance of a range of wildlife besides whales.

Labels: , ,


Glad to know you had nice summer holidays!.Thanks for your reports of Kyushyu. I enjoy it very much!


SSCS makes me laugh again. No more joke,please.


>>Education – Visit schools, universities, clubs, and/or organizations to give presentations on Sea Shepherd.

SSCS will be the teachers how to become terrorist?
Will they give children many instructions how to became terrorists?
School teacters are absurd enough to accept their proposals?
If the school exists,I will do know it.

Crazy guys,please stop your comedy play...

Y/H (Japan)
Hi Y/H-san,

It was a fabulous holiday, indeed - I hope to finish writing up about it within the next couple of weeks.

SSCS's homepage is always just too full of lies and nonsense for me to bother reading it :-/

But you definitely have to wonder about what kid's parents think about their offspring being "educated" by these people. I'd not be happy at all.

Thank you for your attention to our press release on JARPNII; for highlighting the lack of population estimates for Sei whales, and for providing a link to the IWC SC’s web page of population estimates which shows that – to the best available scientific knowledge – there could be as few as 12,800 minkes in the North Pacific. We are pleased you feel that our statistics require your defence!

We had considered a thorough response to the points made in your missive, but on finding the quality of your arguments reduced to bold uniformed unscientific statements such as: “This is why people believe that JARPN II will not damage the recovery of these populations" (which ‘people’? The Japanese, Norwegian and Icelandic scientists, perhaps? what a coincidence!), and: “On the contrary, it's clearly not unsustainable” (according to who? the IWC Scientific Committee has no consensus on the sustainability of any scientific whaling, let alone for populations such as north Pacific Sei whales, for which we have no current knowledge of abundance, as you highlighted before), we decided not to waste too much of our time.

Incidentally though, your readers may be interested to know that the ‘reliable data’ from the Japanese surveys is heavily and regularly (ie, for the last 20 years) criticised by the Scientific Committee, and what is more – and this may come as something of a surprise – the majority of the Scientific Committee agree that you don’t need to kill whales to count them!! On the other hand, you do need to kill them if you want to put them in cans and sell them in supermarkets...

Best regards,
Claire Bass

Thanks for stopping by and commenting. You and the EIA are more than welcome for the attention I gave to your press release, although I can only boast to be host of a small infrequently visited blog on the WWW.

I'd like to respond at length to your comments in a few days time, as you make a range of peculiar statements (with no defence of your misleading "killing almost every whale in sight" PR), but I have a few other things to write about here on my blog (namely the last part of my summer holiday) before I do. But please do check back this time next week as by then I will surely have given you and the EIA some more airtime on my top page, although I can promise that it will not be very favourable :-)

PS: I apologise for mislabelling your organization as "EAI" in the heading of the original post - the post heading is embedded into the URL of the article, and as I'd already sent the link to some people by the time I realized, I decided not to fix it.
Here is my response to Claire.
Post a Comment

<< Home


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  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?