David @ Tokyo
Perspective from Japan on whaling and whale meat, a spot of gourmet news, and monthly updates of whale meat stockpile statistics9/21/2006
Whaling : Response to EIA's Claire Bass
I was pleasantly surprised to receive a comment from EIA's Claire Bass in response to my critique of a recent EIA press release of hers. She didn't seem to think that my criticism was fair though...
Formalities
"EIA's statistics"
Abundance estimates, and ICR survey data
In her comment, Claire Bass gleefully
Yet Claire Bass would also have my readers doubt that Japan's survey data is reliable?
My readers might also like to consider whether Claire Bass is being truthful, in more general terms.
Given Japan's track record of producing sightings survey data suitable for estimating minke whale abundance, my readers will likely have confidence that the ICR's ongoing research programmes will produce reliable data to aid the IWC Scientific Committee in agreeing on an abundance estimate for Sei whales in the North West Pacific, and indeed other stocks as well.
I noted it in my original piece, and I'll note it again: Japan is actually fronting up with data, and it is being used by the IWC Scientific Committee. The EIA is fronting up with nothing other than meaningless statistics, catchy soundbites, and glossy propaganda videos.
"Clearly unsustainable"?
Despite having noted in my original piece that in all likelihood the number of anthropogenic removals from the minke stock by JARPN II lies within the range of 0.20% to 0.78% of the estimated abundance, Claire Bass still wishes to question whether the hunt is sustainable, and again fails to properly justify her original claim that it is "clearly unsustainable". She is yet to make any mention of essential biological considerations such as reproductive rates and natural mortality, and indeed the only grounds on which she criticised the sustainability of the catch is by comparison of the number of whales lethally sampled to the number of whales sighted which, as I have noted, is scientific nonsense.
Ummmm...
IWC Scientific Committee consensus
Where animal products come from...
Perhaps instead of embarrassing herself even further, Claire Bass might just drop her elementary grade analysis of the impacts of JARPN on whale populations, and just be honest and oppose whaling on cultural / moral grounds? Or indeed is it because those grounds are so shaky that she and her organization resort to scientifically nonsensical (albeit catchy) soundbites about "killing almost every whale in sight"?
Oh really?
So, we find ourselves at the end of the second innings, and I'm wondering if Claire Bass has the courage to try to dig herself out of the massive hole she now finds herself in, having made further easily disprovable claims about the ICR's research.
I guess the question is, just how many people does Claire think she can fool by keeping up her charade?
Formalities
Thank you for your attention to our press release on JARPNIIEIA is more than welcome for the attention. As my regular readers know, exposing such propaganda as Claire Bass's recent effort is a frequent use that I find for my blog.
"EIA's statistics"
We are pleased you feel that our statistics require your defence!On the contrary, I didn't defend EIA's statistics (in fact derived from figures publicly released by the Institute of Cetacean Research, and more aptly described as "contortions"), I pointed out how scientifically meaningless they are.
Abundance estimates, and ICR survey data
In her comment, Claire Bass gleefully
- stresses that the IWC currently offers no abundance estimate for the Sei whale in the JARPN II research area, and
- thanks me for highlighting the IWC Scientific Committee's agreed abundance estimate for the North West Pacific and Okhotsk Sea minke, which has a lower confidence limit of 12,800, and
- proceeds to dispute that Japan's survey data is reliable, claiming that the IWC Scientific Committee has "heavily and regularly criticised" it for the last 20 years or so.
Yet Claire Bass would also have my readers doubt that Japan's survey data is reliable?
My readers might also like to consider whether Claire Bass is being truthful, in more general terms.
- The IWC homepage notes that in a review of the original JARPN programme in February 2000 "The Committee agreed that the information obtained was useful for management as it had been and will continue to be used in the refinement of Implementation Simulation Trials for North Pacific common minke whales."
- The Scientific Committee also noted with regard to the JARPA research that while "results were not required for management under the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), they had the potential to improve it..."
Given Japan's track record of producing sightings survey data suitable for estimating minke whale abundance, my readers will likely have confidence that the ICR's ongoing research programmes will produce reliable data to aid the IWC Scientific Committee in agreeing on an abundance estimate for Sei whales in the North West Pacific, and indeed other stocks as well.
I noted it in my original piece, and I'll note it again: Japan is actually fronting up with data, and it is being used by the IWC Scientific Committee. The EIA is fronting up with nothing other than meaningless statistics, catchy soundbites, and glossy propaganda videos.
"Clearly unsustainable"?
Despite having noted in my original piece that in all likelihood the number of anthropogenic removals from the minke stock by JARPN II lies within the range of 0.20% to 0.78% of the estimated abundance, Claire Bass still wishes to question whether the hunt is sustainable, and again fails to properly justify her original claim that it is "clearly unsustainable". She is yet to make any mention of essential biological considerations such as reproductive rates and natural mortality, and indeed the only grounds on which she criticised the sustainability of the catch is by comparison of the number of whales lethally sampled to the number of whales sighted which, as I have noted, is scientific nonsense.
Ummmm...
the majority of the Scientific Committee agree that you don't need to kill whales to count them!!Lethally sampling whales from a population is one methodology for obtaining information about biological parameters of that population, not estimating abundance, a fact which I'm sure the majority of the Scientific Committee is fully aware of, even if Claire Bass is not.
IWC Scientific Committee consensus
the IWC Scientific Committee has no consensus on the ...How could the IWC Scientific Committee have consensus on anything while the United Kingdom is actively appointing saboteurs from the EIA to it's ranks?
Where animal products come from...
On the other hand, you do need to kill them if you want to put them in cans and sell them in supermarkets..Of course it's obvious to anyone that consumes animal products that someone killing them first is a prerequisite for doing so.
Perhaps instead of embarrassing herself even further, Claire Bass might just drop her elementary grade analysis of the impacts of JARPN on whale populations, and just be honest and oppose whaling on cultural / moral grounds? Or indeed is it because those grounds are so shaky that she and her organization resort to scientifically nonsensical (albeit catchy) soundbites about "killing almost every whale in sight"?
Oh really?
We had considered a thorough response to the points made in your missive, but ... decided not to waste too much of our time.Yeah right, Claire...
So, we find ourselves at the end of the second innings, and I'm wondering if Claire Bass has the courage to try to dig herself out of the massive hole she now finds herself in, having made further easily disprovable claims about the ICR's research.
I guess the question is, just how many people does Claire think she can fool by keeping up her charade?
Labels: Claire Bass, EIA, Whaling
posted by David # 7:59 pm 
Comments:
<< Home
David-san,
As a Japanese citizen,I do not intend to make fun of EIA.
But... I do not know why anti-whaling NGO repeat the same nonsense comments.
>the majority of the Scientific >Committee agree that you don't >need to kill whales to
>count them!!
1、Then,I want them to count the
numder of the majority and clarify
it.At least, the majority means more than 80%,doesnt it? >EIA
I know some kindergarten girls shout "Many people say they hate you! "- EIA is doing the same?
２、I do not think she basically
recognizes we reseach because we need whale meat.
>We had considered a thorough >response to the points made in
>your missive, but ...
>decided not to waste too much of >our time.
I remember a tutor in my elementary school days always said the same things.I thought she was a liar.
Please do not give me headache any more. >EIA
Y/H (Japan)
As a Japanese citizen,I do not intend to make fun of EIA.
But... I do not know why anti-whaling NGO repeat the same nonsense comments.
>the majority of the Scientific >Committee agree that you don't >need to kill whales to
>count them!!
1、Then,I want them to count the
numder of the majority and clarify
it.At least, the majority means more than 80%,doesnt it? >EIA
I know some kindergarten girls shout "Many people say they hate you! "- EIA is doing the same?
２、I do not think she basically
recognizes we reseach because we need whale meat.
>We had considered a thorough >response to the points made in
>your missive, but ...
>decided not to waste too much of >our time.
I remember a tutor in my elementary school days always said the same things.I thought she was a liar.
Please do not give me headache any more. >EIA
Y/H (Japan)
# posted by 
: 9:26 pm
: 9:26 pm
> I do not know why anti-whaling NGO repeat the same nonsense comments.
I think the answer to this can be found on the EIA's homepage.
The typical anti-whaling NGO strategy is to:
1) Try to mislead people unfamiliar with the issue to believe that there is a huge problem (i.e., in this instance, Claire Bass's original PR piece). There are many well-meaning people out there in the world, and many of them are ripe to be misled.
2) Also it helps if you can give your statements a shred of respectability by attaching some scientific sounding credentials to your comments. In this case, Claire Bass has been delegated to the IWC Scientific Committee by the anti-whaling U.K. government, so she has elected to mention those "credentials" in her press release.
However, it seems that Claire Bass has no scientific credentials at all, based on a search at Google Scholar
3) Make a flash homepage, and stick a big "DONATE NOW" link on it. Here is the link from EIA's top page: http:.../what_can_i_do/donate/
(That's right - "what can i do?" - you can give EIA money, and they'll save the world on your behalf)
4) PROFIT!
I believe that EIA and other NGO groups will continue to release misleading PR statements full of scientific nonsense as long as they are able to keep convincing people to donate money to them by doing so.
I believe that such groups have huge ethical questions to answer, and I will continue to expose them for what they appear to be - a confidence scam industry.
I think the answer to this can be found on the EIA's homepage.
The typical anti-whaling NGO strategy is to:
1) Try to mislead people unfamiliar with the issue to believe that there is a huge problem (i.e., in this instance, Claire Bass's original PR piece). There are many well-meaning people out there in the world, and many of them are ripe to be misled.
2) Also it helps if you can give your statements a shred of respectability by attaching some scientific sounding credentials to your comments. In this case, Claire Bass has been delegated to the IWC Scientific Committee by the anti-whaling U.K. government, so she has elected to mention those "credentials" in her press release.
However, it seems that Claire Bass has no scientific credentials at all, based on a search at Google Scholar
3) Make a flash homepage, and stick a big "DONATE NOW" link on it. Here is the link from EIA's top page: http:.../what_can_i_do/donate/
(That's right - "what can i do?" - you can give EIA money, and they'll save the world on your behalf)
4) PROFIT!
I believe that EIA and other NGO groups will continue to release misleading PR statements full of scientific nonsense as long as they are able to keep convincing people to donate money to them by doing so.
I believe that such groups have huge ethical questions to answer, and I will continue to expose them for what they appear to be - a confidence scam industry.
David,
As I said before I have very little time to waste on your little hobby, though it has been quite an experience. It is sad that you are so bitter and misguided. It is also sad that you feel that the best way to communicate your point of view is to insult people - personally in my case. Not only do I find this offensive (and quite possibly libellous - you may wish to bare this in mind during future assaults) but I find it entirely disinclines me to answer your criticisms and questions. I hope your blog makes you happy because it is certainly not effective: you will not convince anyone to adopt your way of thinking by using the nasty playground-level tactics you currently employ.
To save you the trouble of agonising over the best way to make sarcastic and bitter responses to my posting I will assure you that I will not be visiting your site again. Perhaps you could claim this as a victory and attribute it to my not being able to answer your criticisms and so backing out and changing the subject. Do whatever makes you happy - it really doesn't matter to anyone except you.
Claire Bass
As I said before I have very little time to waste on your little hobby, though it has been quite an experience. It is sad that you are so bitter and misguided. It is also sad that you feel that the best way to communicate your point of view is to insult people - personally in my case. Not only do I find this offensive (and quite possibly libellous - you may wish to bare this in mind during future assaults) but I find it entirely disinclines me to answer your criticisms and questions. I hope your blog makes you happy because it is certainly not effective: you will not convince anyone to adopt your way of thinking by using the nasty playground-level tactics you currently employ.
To save you the trouble of agonising over the best way to make sarcastic and bitter responses to my posting I will assure you that I will not be visiting your site again. Perhaps you could claim this as a victory and attribute it to my not being able to answer your criticisms and so backing out and changing the subject. Do whatever makes you happy - it really doesn't matter to anyone except you.
Claire Bass
PS - "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Ghandhi
Guess you come in somewhere between the laughing and the fighting, which means we're well on track.
Guess you come in somewhere between the laughing and the fighting, which means we're well on track.
David-san,
I do not know why she is so hysteric...
Claire Bass is a smart woman of
an eminent anti-whaling NGO,is
not she?
Her hysteric behavior also gave me headache.
Y/H(Japan)
I do not know why she is so hysteric...
Claire Bass is a smart woman of
an eminent anti-whaling NGO,is
not she?
Her hysteric behavior also gave me headache.
Y/H(Japan)
# posted by : 11:32 pm
: 11:32 pm
Welcome again to my little old blog, Claire.
> It is also sad that you feel that the best way to communicate your point of view is to insult people - personally in my case.
Let's fairly evaluate things, shall we? I communicated my POV by
- noting that the nature of sightings surveys means that the number of whales spotted should not be confused with actual stock abundance
- quoting information from the IWC's own homepage about how the Scientific Committee has evaluated ICR research programmes (contradicting assertions you made), as well as agreed abundance estimates (which you neglected to mention in your PR, and when you did acknowledge it you chose to focus on the 95% lower confidence limit)
- noting that ICR sightings survey data has been accepted by the IWC Scientific Committee for use in abundance estimation in the past (again contradicting assertions you made).
- highlighted the fact that you claimed the research was "clearly unsustainable" despite making no reference at all to rates of natural mortality. ...etc
Ultimately, it's my view (and while you may not agree with my view, I hope you accept my right to express it here on my blog) that your PR had the potential to mislead people, to give them an impression far detatched from reality - I again refer to your "killing almost every whale in sight" headline attempt, and lack of other relevant factual information in your PR.
You may be unhappy (or offended you claim) about all this exposure but you ought to be prepared to take your share of responsibility for it.
If you want to talk to the general populace through the media you had better be careful to present the facts in a balanced manner, or you will be called for it - if not by me, by others who noticed (I know of at least one other who did actually notice your PR, if that's any consolation).
> (and quite possibly libellous - you may wish to bare this in mind during future assaults)
This sort of silly threatening comment does your image no favours at all.
> I find it entirely disinclines me to answer your criticisms.
Why do I have the impression that my readers have not missed much?
Of all the grounds on which you could have chosen to attack the JARPN programme, it was on the "killing almost every whale in sight" line. That alone speaks volumes.
It was original though, which is the main reason that I wrote up the debunk.
> you will not convince anyone to adopt your way of thinking by using the nasty playground-level tactics you currently employ.
You disingenuously say that it is I that is employing childish methods. Perhaps you ought to go and re-evaluate your PR techniques before passing such judgements?
It does however seem to be an unfortunate truth that groups such as yours are able to spread huge amounts of misleading information far more successfully than small time bloggers such as myself who are saying "hey wait, look at all the information (including important sources like the IWC itself) and *think* for a second...".
> I will assure you that I will not be visiting your site again.
As you please. My blog is not about having personal conversations with members of those anti-whaling groups that I believe are misleading the public, it is simply to illustrate the deception as I see it, for others to evaluate for themselves.
> Perhaps you could claim this as a victory and attribute it to my not being able to answer your criticisms and so backing out and changing the subject.
You turned up to post - fine. You don't want to continue - that's fine as well. My readers are all smart people (even those who I disagree with on the whaling issue), they'll make up their minds for themselves.
> Guess you come in somewhere between the laughing and the fighting, which means we're well on track.
No time or desire to answer criticisms, but time for pointless comments such as this? I do seem to have struck a nerve.
Best regards Claire, if you do happen to return again.
David
> It is also sad that you feel that the best way to communicate your point of view is to insult people - personally in my case.
Let's fairly evaluate things, shall we? I communicated my POV by
- noting that the nature of sightings surveys means that the number of whales spotted should not be confused with actual stock abundance
- quoting information from the IWC's own homepage about how the Scientific Committee has evaluated ICR research programmes (contradicting assertions you made), as well as agreed abundance estimates (which you neglected to mention in your PR, and when you did acknowledge it you chose to focus on the 95% lower confidence limit)
- noting that ICR sightings survey data has been accepted by the IWC Scientific Committee for use in abundance estimation in the past (again contradicting assertions you made).
- highlighted the fact that you claimed the research was "clearly unsustainable" despite making no reference at all to rates of natural mortality. ...etc
Ultimately, it's my view (and while you may not agree with my view, I hope you accept my right to express it here on my blog) that your PR had the potential to mislead people, to give them an impression far detatched from reality - I again refer to your "killing almost every whale in sight" headline attempt, and lack of other relevant factual information in your PR.
You may be unhappy (or offended you claim) about all this exposure but you ought to be prepared to take your share of responsibility for it.
If you want to talk to the general populace through the media you had better be careful to present the facts in a balanced manner, or you will be called for it - if not by me, by others who noticed (I know of at least one other who did actually notice your PR, if that's any consolation).
> (and quite possibly libellous - you may wish to bare this in mind during future assaults)
This sort of silly threatening comment does your image no favours at all.
> I find it entirely disinclines me to answer your criticisms.
Why do I have the impression that my readers have not missed much?
Of all the grounds on which you could have chosen to attack the JARPN programme, it was on the "killing almost every whale in sight" line. That alone speaks volumes.
It was original though, which is the main reason that I wrote up the debunk.
> you will not convince anyone to adopt your way of thinking by using the nasty playground-level tactics you currently employ.
You disingenuously say that it is I that is employing childish methods. Perhaps you ought to go and re-evaluate your PR techniques before passing such judgements?
It does however seem to be an unfortunate truth that groups such as yours are able to spread huge amounts of misleading information far more successfully than small time bloggers such as myself who are saying "hey wait, look at all the information (including important sources like the IWC itself) and *think* for a second...".
> I will assure you that I will not be visiting your site again.
As you please. My blog is not about having personal conversations with members of those anti-whaling groups that I believe are misleading the public, it is simply to illustrate the deception as I see it, for others to evaluate for themselves.
> Perhaps you could claim this as a victory and attribute it to my not being able to answer your criticisms and so backing out and changing the subject.
You turned up to post - fine. You don't want to continue - that's fine as well. My readers are all smart people (even those who I disagree with on the whaling issue), they'll make up their minds for themselves.
> Guess you come in somewhere between the laughing and the fighting, which means we're well on track.
No time or desire to answer criticisms, but time for pointless comments such as this? I do seem to have struck a nerve.
Best regards Claire, if you do happen to return again.
David
Y/H-san,
いつも、コメントありがとう！
そうだね。びっくりだよ、本当に。
彼女は自分が高度の知識を持っているよ、というふうにふるまおうとしているのに、
ちっとも科学的な点について述べようともしない。そうだったらコメントは不要と判断すればいいのに、もう3回もコメントしてきた？
まあ、それは彼女が判断することだからね。
いつも、コメントありがとう！
そうだね。びっくりだよ、本当に。
彼女は自分が高度の知識を持っているよ、というふうにふるまおうとしているのに、
ちっとも科学的な点について述べようともしない。そうだったらコメントは不要と判断すればいいのに、もう3回もコメントしてきた？
まあ、それは彼女が判断することだからね。
Following is my personal view about Claire-san's answer to David-san.
Please let me give some comments.
>I have very little time to waste on your little hobby,
OH yes! You are busy for doing BIG HOBBY:That's right - "what can i do?" -
you can give EIA money, and they'll save the world on your behalf.
>It is sad that you are so bitter and misguided.
Sorry but,it is more sad that many poeple are misguided by EIA:
EIA with no scentific research & data. Full of misinformation .
(The nice point if EIA is that it is not the group of terrorists
like SSCS or GP.)
>It is also sad that you feel that the best way to communicate your point of view
>is to insult people - personally in my case.
Sorry but, it seems to me David-san tries to clarify your misinfomatin, not to insult you.
Do not misunderstand.
> Perhaps you could claim this as a victory and attribute it to my not being able to
>answer your criticisms and so backing out and changing the subject.
Sorry but ,this statement clealy shows EIA is one of the nonsense anti-whaling NGOs.
You should be ashamed of it.
>Do whatever makes you happy - it really doesn't matter to anyone except you.
失礼な女だな。反捕鯨はこれだから困る。結局同じく遁走。
Y/H(Japan)
Please let me give some comments.
>I have very little time to waste on your little hobby,
OH yes! You are busy for doing BIG HOBBY:That's right - "what can i do?" -
you can give EIA money, and they'll save the world on your behalf.
>It is sad that you are so bitter and misguided.
Sorry but,it is more sad that many poeple are misguided by EIA:
EIA with no scentific research & data. Full of misinformation .
(The nice point if EIA is that it is not the group of terrorists
like SSCS or GP.)
>It is also sad that you feel that the best way to communicate your point of view
>is to insult people - personally in my case.
Sorry but, it seems to me David-san tries to clarify your misinfomatin, not to insult you.
Do not misunderstand.
> Perhaps you could claim this as a victory and attribute it to my not being able to
>answer your criticisms and so backing out and changing the subject.
Sorry but ,this statement clealy shows EIA is one of the nonsense anti-whaling NGOs.
You should be ashamed of it.
>Do whatever makes you happy - it really doesn't matter to anyone except you.
失礼な女だな。反捕鯨はこれだから困る。結局同じく遁走。
Y/H(Japan)
# posted by : 12:32 am
: 12:32 am
I've had some interesting reading looking at my sitemeter stats.
Here's stats for one Britain based visitor:
Time of Visit: Sep 26 2006 8:58:51 pm
Last Page View: Sep 26 2006 11:04:58 pm
Visit Length: 2 hours 6 minutes 7 seconds
Page Views: 23
Two comments received in the middle of this time range, before 10 pm, including Claire's assurance that she would not be back again.
The same user returned again a short while later:
Time of Visit: Sep 27 2006 12:59:12 am
Last Page View: Sep 27 2006 1:42:05 am
Visit Length: 42 minutes 53 seconds
Page Views: 37
Another 42 minutes of snooping around my blog.
Readers may speculate who this particular visitor might be.
Here's stats for one Britain based visitor:
Time of Visit: Sep 26 2006 8:58:51 pm
Last Page View: Sep 26 2006 11:04:58 pm
Visit Length: 2 hours 6 minutes 7 seconds
Page Views: 23
Two comments received in the middle of this time range, before 10 pm, including Claire's assurance that she would not be back again.
The same user returned again a short while later:
Time of Visit: Sep 27 2006 12:59:12 am
Last Page View: Sep 27 2006 1:42:05 am
Visit Length: 42 minutes 53 seconds
Page Views: 37
Another 42 minutes of snooping around my blog.
Readers may speculate who this particular visitor might be.
>We had considered a thorough response to the points made in your missive, but ... decided not to waste too much of our time.<
Well,how should we estimate the comment above,if some vistor of David-san's pages is "She" who told us to decide not to visit anymore?
I remember she said she was too busy to waste her time on your LITTLE HOBBY.
I do not hope she is a liar.
Even Gandhi might have laughed her strange behavior...
Y/H(Japan)
Well,how should we estimate the comment above,if some vistor of David-san's pages is "She" who told us to decide not to visit anymore?
I remember she said she was too busy to waste her time on your LITTLE HOBBY.
I do not hope she is a liar.
Even Gandhi might have laughed her strange behavior...
Y/H(Japan)
# posted by : 3:39 pm
: 3:39 pm
For some years, I have been watching anti-whaling NGO's behaviors.The conclusion of my personal view is that they are quite strange.
Above all, the remarkable characteristics is that they use many kinds of data or misinformation in order to gather donations.Sad to say, this is entirely wrong.
This time,with David-san's blog, I found the new NGO,EIA. I do not deny the exsitance of any NGOs concerning to Animal Right or Wild animals ,because I know some of them are rather honest.Without ramming vessels or drawing pictutes on vessels,to some extent,they succeed in getting publicity for them.
However,I am discouraged again to see EIA is also among nonsense NGOs.
1.In sipite that EIA itself does not research, they use the data only given by anti-whaling bloc.This is unfair.
2.Alike GP, the definition of the word,"extinction" is very vague.
For example,about 760000 minke whales about 40000 fin whales -
they are enough.They are not among extinction species.Anti-whaling NGOs never recognize the fact.
3.Japan wants to get more whale meat because we regard whaling as an important national policy to use the sustainabale resources of food.The basic point is that we research whales and get sceintific
data,and then in return,we take whale meat.
4.EIA never knows how many people of Japan need whale meat in real and how many people need not .The clear thing is that, except the anti-whaling NGOs and the supporters, the Japanese are willing to eat whales.It means anti-whaling supporters are in the minority.
Japan has been suffered by big harassment waves,but I believe we will win ,because we do the right thing with right ways.
Y/H(Japan)
Above all, the remarkable characteristics is that they use many kinds of data or misinformation in order to gather donations.Sad to say, this is entirely wrong.
This time,with David-san's blog, I found the new NGO,EIA. I do not deny the exsitance of any NGOs concerning to Animal Right or Wild animals ,because I know some of them are rather honest.Without ramming vessels or drawing pictutes on vessels,to some extent,they succeed in getting publicity for them.
However,I am discouraged again to see EIA is also among nonsense NGOs.
1.In sipite that EIA itself does not research, they use the data only given by anti-whaling bloc.This is unfair.
2.Alike GP, the definition of the word,"extinction" is very vague.
For example,about 760000 minke whales about 40000 fin whales -
they are enough.They are not among extinction species.Anti-whaling NGOs never recognize the fact.
3.Japan wants to get more whale meat because we regard whaling as an important national policy to use the sustainabale resources of food.The basic point is that we research whales and get sceintific
data,and then in return,we take whale meat.
4.EIA never knows how many people of Japan need whale meat in real and how many people need not .The clear thing is that, except the anti-whaling NGOs and the supporters, the Japanese are willing to eat whales.It means anti-whaling supporters are in the minority.
Japan has been suffered by big harassment waves,but I believe we will win ,because we do the right thing with right ways.
Y/H(Japan)
# posted by : 3:55 pm
: 3:55 pm
Hmmm.. interesting response from Ms. Bass ....
I must say David, that I fail to see where you have been supposedly insulting her personally .. unless of course she means of course this phrase " her elementary grade analysis of the impacts of JARPN on whale populations " To be perfectly frank, I think that comment is an accurate assessment of Ms. Bass´s analysis.
However, Ms. Bass´s lack of response to your questions / statements is very telling indeed, especially in view of the puerile nature of the 9.36pm reply.
Note that it is a common NGO tactic to avoid discussing the science David - I await Ms. Bass´s rebuttal to your points with interest..
G
I must say David, that I fail to see where you have been supposedly insulting her personally .. unless of course she means of course this phrase " her elementary grade analysis of the impacts of JARPN on whale populations " To be perfectly frank, I think that comment is an accurate assessment of Ms. Bass´s analysis.
However, Ms. Bass´s lack of response to your questions / statements is very telling indeed, especially in view of the puerile nature of the 9.36pm reply.
Note that it is a common NGO tactic to avoid discussing the science David - I await Ms. Bass´s rebuttal to your points with interest..
G
# posted by : 9:32 pm
: 9:32 pm
Y/H san,
Thanks for your comments :-)
Yes, I agree that EIA does at least refrain from using violent protests as a means of trying to attract attention. I'd like to say that they deserve credit for this, but really this is just plain decent behaviour. Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd tactics in particular are deplorable.
On the willingness of Japanese to eat whale meat, I have some stats from the MAFF which should be interesting to readers. I'll start a separate post about that.
george - thanks for your comments too! Your observation about NGOs and science fits quite closely with my experiences as well :-) I don't think CB will be back though. She turned up once more for a quick peep again this afternoon, but I imagine she will try to keep her word now that she knows her visits are being logged. Alternately, she might like to use an anonymizer to mask her visits :-)
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comments :-)
Yes, I agree that EIA does at least refrain from using violent protests as a means of trying to attract attention. I'd like to say that they deserve credit for this, but really this is just plain decent behaviour. Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd tactics in particular are deplorable.
On the willingness of Japanese to eat whale meat, I have some stats from the MAFF which should be interesting to readers. I'll start a separate post about that.
george - thanks for your comments too! Your observation about NGOs and science fits quite closely with my experiences as well :-) I don't think CB will be back though. She turned up once more for a quick peep again this afternoon, but I imagine she will try to keep her word now that she knows her visits are being logged. Alternately, she might like to use an anonymizer to mask her visits :-)
<< 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
