David @ Tokyo

New Zealand "Conservation" Minister Chris Carter in action again. Apparently he...

... approached Japan's ambassador to New Zealand to ask that Japan drop the humpback hunt in return for the assistance New Zealand gave Japan after its whaling vessel Nisshin Maru was disabled by a fire off the northern Antarctic coast in February.

Wellington provided weather information and communications support to the Japanese whaling fleet, and a sick whaler was brought to New Zealand for hospital treatment.

"We are trying to persuade the Japanese to drop the humpbacks as a gesture of goodwill," Carter told National Radio

Chris seems to have forgotten commissioning the New Zealand Air Force to collect propaganda footage for him. The Japanese obviously weren't impressed, as it led to Sea Shepherd putting out a monetary bounty for the fleet co-ordinate information, and the stunt subsequently saw him mocked by even the domestic New Zealand media for his poor diplomatic skills.

This silly remark indicates no signs of improvement.

Japan is entitled to permit the ICR to lethally sample 50 humpbacks (or indeed, as many as they determine fit under their programme).

If Carter seriously wishes to see Japan refrain from exercising it's rights in accordance with the terms of international agreements, it needs to offer Japan a real concession in return, not play these silly games in the media.

Labels: Chris Carter

An editorial that is heavily critical of Chris Carter's "irritatingly preachy sanctimoniousness" can be found at The Press.

I largely concur.

Labels: Chris Carter, irritatingly preachy sanctimoniousness

In the aftermath of the excitement around the rather dull RNZAF Orion video footage of some of the ICR vessels in action, predictably Sea Shepherd are upset at their lack of ability to find the whalers (the Farley Mowat has been at sea since December 29). They have put up a plea for assistance on their website, offering a reward to anyone who will leak them the co-ordinates of the JARPA vessels.

A Frank Watson article appearing in various Australian media provides some extra colour:

Two Sea Shepherd ships have unsuccessfully searched for the Japanese whalers in the Ross Sea for the past 12 days.

"The New Zealand Air Force flew over the whaling fleet in the Ross Sea on Friday and filmed them killing whales, but the Government won't reveal the co-ordinates," Captain Watson said from the protest ship Farley Mowat.

"We'll offer a $25,000 reward to get someone to leak the co-ordinates.

"We'll save that much on fuel."

Captain Watson said the air force plane had been searching for illegal fishing but did nothing except take pictures.

As usual, Watson likes to blame the Japanese for everything, including his own inability to make good use of the donations he attracts:

"Japan requested New Zealand not to release the co-ordinates . . . That makes the New Zealand Government complicit in criminal activity, as what Japan is doing is illegal."

Previously, Chris Carter told media (see "view video") that "for a public safety reason we won't be releasing these co-ordinates to Greenpeace". Once again later, responding to Japanese concerns about the safety of the ICR crew, he confirmed that the co-ordinates would not be released.

Sea Shepherd ships Farley Mowat and Robert Hunter have another three weeks before they must return to port to refuel.

This is the real problem for Sea Shepherd now, and it's just a matter of time. They have to dock again somewhere to re-supply, but I don't think any government - even those of Australia and New Zealand - will want to risk the condemnation of the international community that would follow if they allowed Sea Shepherd to set out for the Antarctic again, now that the Farley Mowat is sailing without a flag.

"We believe the whalers are within 400 nautical miles of us, but we have information the Japanese are using satellite tracking to find out our position every day. That way they can keep clear of us," Captain Watson said.

"We have also found out US Naval Intelligence has been tracking us by satellite and giving information to the Japanese."

So apparently now, not only Japan and New Zealand but the USA too is colluding against him. Are his suggestions true? Probably not. Last year he claimed that he had "received a tip from a reliable source in Japan, that Japan has dispatched a warship to the Southern Ocean" which never eventuated, giving the impression that it was an hysterical fabrication.

The real concern out of all of this is that depending on how frustrated Watson is, he may take even more seriously dangerous actions to try to make the most of his last chance to do what he said he would set out to achieve. I'm sure the ICR folks are aware of this, and will surely be doing everything they can to ensure their safety.

The Greenpeace ship Esperanza left Auckland on Friday and will reach the Ross Sea late this week to join the hunt.

But the two groups hate each other almost as much as they hate the whalers.

Greenpeace said it did not know the co-ordinates of the whalers but would not tell Sea Shepherd even if it did.

"We have a principle of peaceful protest, which Sea Shepherd does not," Greenpeace spokeswoman Sara Holden said.

Being a great big nuisance is apparently still "peaceful" by whatever standards and principles Greenpeace holds itself to, even though it only results in delaying the inevitable. The ICR will remain in the Antarctic until they are done - simple as that.

Labels: Chris Carter, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, Sea Shepherd

Today I sent off the following (less the hyperlinks):

To: Hon Chris Carter
CC: Hon Jim Anderton

Sir,

I commend you for your statements to the media, in relation to the video footage the RNZAF Orion captured of the Institute of Cetacean Research's vessels. In particular, your assurance that, "for a public safety reason we won't be releasing these co-ordinates to Greenpeace" was encouraging. I congratulate you for confirming the distance between the New Zealand Government and Greenpeace's tactics.

As an observation, you ask the question of the activity, "Is it science or is it butchery?"

Unfortunately, this "a) or b)" style of question provides the New Zealand public with insufficient information about the objectives of the ICR's research programme to be able to develop an informed opinion on the matter. As I'm sure you, as a representative of New Zealand to the IWC have been briefed, the ICR research programmes include the objective of increasing knowledge of the biological parameters of various "stocks" of whales, particularly the Antarctic minke whale stocks, with the ultimate objective of improving our ability to manage them sustainably (the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling calls for both conservation of these resources, as well as efforts to make for their "optimum utilization"). This work is common in marine resource management science. The IWC itself in Resolution 1997-5 recognised that while the results were "not required for management" under the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), "the Scientific Committee ... notes that these results have the potential to improve management in some ways; and that the results of analyses of JARPA data could thus be used to increase catch limits of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere without increasing the depletion risk indicated by the RMP-trials for these minke whales". Also worth noting is that the Scientific Committee also said that "there were non-lethal methods available that could provide information about population age structure (e.g. natural marking) but that logistics and the abundance of minke populations in Areas IV and V probably precluded their successful application."

What we see in this is that, yes indeed, scientific results have been produced, and that they have the potential to allow for commercial whaling operations on a larger scale than would have been possible without the results of JARPA. Are the results strictly necessary under the RMP? No; however the statements of the IWC Scientific Committee make it clear that better management is possible with the data being available. Without it, while management under the RMP would remain possible, due to the RMP's minimal data requirements, more uncertainty would exist. No honest resource manager would hope to have less information available when making a management decision, particularly so when it concerns the conservation of whale resources (an area with a very bad track record up until recently).

In 2007, the situation persists today. Few New Zealanders are likely aware that members of the IWC Scientific Committee from Australia, South Africa, the United States of America, as well as Japan are currently using catch-at-age analyses from the JARPA research in VPA work, as a component of the IWC Scientific Committee's assessment of the condition of the Antarctic minke whale stocks (as in section 10.1.2 of the SC Report for IWC 58). Even fewer New Zealanders are likely aware of what catch-at-age analyses and VPA are, and to whom they are useful, to begin with.

Of course, while it is the Japanese Government's objective to make for the "optimum utilization" of whale resources, it's the New Zealand Government's objective to make for as little consumptive utilization of whale resources as possible, preferably none at all. This is a perfectly valid position. However, the grounds for this position ought to be expressed more carefully. Given that Japan's position is to make for conservation of whale resources so that they may be consumptively utilized in an optimum manner, rational and informed New Zealanders will understand why Japan has been supporting these research programmes for the past two decades. Likewise, many New Zealanders will also understand why the New Zealand Government chooses to criticise the research programmes at every opportunity, as we have seen in the past (and as I suspect we will hear again this year) that they help to strengthen the scientific aspects of Japan's arguments for safe, sustainable commercial whaling.

With this, New Zealanders will realise that the answer to the question you posed is that, yes, it is science, qualified by the fact that the objective of the science is to make more "butchery" possible. In this respect, perhaps the simplest answer to your question is thus "Both".

At any rate, it is clear that one can not produce an informed answer on the question merely by viewing footage taken from the RNZAF Orion. That of course may not be what politics is all about, but my concern is that it does not serve conservation efforts, for which you are responsible.

As I like to be constructive in my criticism, I would finally like to suggest a more cutting and appropriate question that be asked of the New Zealand public:

"Regardless of the immediate and indirect objectives of whaling, is it acceptable in any form?"

Best Regards,

My letter was in response to this news.

Labels: Chris Carter, JARPA

The New Zealand government, through "Conservation" Minister Chris Carter, has released video footage taken from on board an RNZAF Orion purporting to be "undertaking surveillance against illegal fishing in the Southern Ocean".

This is a genuine task that these Orion airships are utilised for, but is the simultaneous departure of the Greenpeace Esperanza vessel and this surveillance flight a pure co-incidence?

One suspects that the co-ordinates of the position of the ICR vessels and the direction in which they were heading will have been passed on to Greenpeace by the New Zealand government, which should find the information useful in tracking the whalers down around a week or so from now, so they can really get stuck into their propaganda campaign.

Sea Shepherd, who have been at sea since December (without a flag state), will surely be fuming if Greenpeace are able to find the whalers before them, in the case of such assistance having occurred. Expect another out lash from Paul Watson if this prediction holds true.

As for the video footage itself (no audio - courtesy of TV3), it's very tame stuff. There is no blood and struggling like we saw when Greenpeace were engaging in their "whale saving" tactics last season. The New Zealand government, if it has indeed aided Greenpeace by providing information on the position of the ICR vessels, will have to bear the negative consequences for the whale welfare statistics of the hunt on it's own conscience.

New Zealand taxpayers must also be asking themselves why the air force vessels are wasting time filming the legal activities of the ICR fleet instead of carrying out their real duties (which leads to the suspicion that they received "special orders" for this particular mission...)


UPDATE: Another article at the Southland Times has more details:

Mr Carter said the a Royal New Zealand Air Force Orion undertaking surveillance against illegal fishing in the Southern Ocean had "come across" the Japanese whaling vessels.
...
Mr Carter said the government had decided to take the "very unusual step" of releasing the footage to "allow the public to make up their own minds about Japan's whaling activities".
...
The fleet had been prepared as the vessels were clearly labelled "research" and had a large sign with their website address printed on it, he said.
...
Mr Carter would not be drawn on where exactly in the Ross Sea the footage had been taken and said the co-ordinates would not be released to Greenpeace.

We will have to take the Honourable Minister at his word!

Mr Carter said he had a meeting with Greenpeace onboard the ship last Friday and while he supported their commitment to the issue he and the Government were concerned about the tactics used.

Among the tactics Greenpeace used was manoeuvring their inflatable boats between the harpoon and the whale, a move which Mr Carter said he was concerned about.

"While I applaud their work, the Southern Ocean is a dangerous place and we are concerned that we are going to have loss of life if the protests continue in the same way."

Mr Carter said filming of the fleet could not be ruled out in the future and they would continue to "keep an eye on the fleet".

I struggle to understand why the NZ government would want to film the ICR fleet further when their objectives are supposedly surveillance for illegal fishing operations...


Andrew Darby has comment from Hideki Moronuki of the JFA:

A Japanese Fisheries Agency official, Hideki Moronuki, said he could not understand why New Zealand had decided to film the fleet or release the footage.

"It makes no sense," he said.

Especially so, since the footage is so bland and tame...

Labels: Chris Carter, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates

According to New Zealand Conservation Minister and IWC delegate, Hon. Chris Carter:

"The Icelanders have been a bit duplicitous, to be honest ... the bottom line is you can't join up to a club if you're not prepared to obey the rules"

The full audio interview can be found here.

So tell us again Chris, how did all the anti-whaling nations that have no intention of ever acting in accordance with the object and purpose of the ICRW manage to join?

Labels: Chris Carter, Iceland, Whaling

New Zealand and Australia have put "world opinion" (sic) on display again.

Kiwi Minister of Conservation Hon. Chris Carter managed to muster together 27 names for his demarche:

Americas:
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Mexico, United States
Australasia:
Australia, New Zealand
Europe:
Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom

Better than the meagre efforts of 12 nations (protesting at Norway) and 17 nations (Japan) earlier in the year, but of course amongst the 19 European nations included, 6 of them don't even have a coastline.

Over the ditch in Australia, "Minister for the Environment" Ian Campbell illustrated that he has fewer mates than Chris Carter, only being able to muster together 21 names:

Americas:
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, United States
Australasia:
Australia, New Zealand
Europe:
Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom

That is, the names that Carter managed to get but Campbell missed out on were Czech Republic, Hungary, San Marino, Switzerland (all landlocked) plus Monaco and new IWC member Slovenia (all European nations).

I still find myself asking where the "world" in this "world opinion" is, though? To his credit, Ian Campbell seems to have dropped the phrase from his PR, but Chris Carter has persisted with it. Why not just be honest and concede that this is essentially "European opinion", or perhaps "Anglo-saxon opinion" plus a few extras? There's not an African or Asian nation included amongst this bunch. Furthermore, with just 27 nations, less than 40% of IWC member nations have participated in this show.

Incidentally, Carter, who is having troubles back home with his portfolio, and Campbell both seem completely unaware of the situation at the IWC, both whinging that JARPA II "undermines international efforts to conserve and protect whales".

The goals stated in the ICRW are 1) to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and 2) to thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry. There is no international agreement that protecting every single individual whale (which will all die eventually regardless, as with any living creature) is appropriate. Just because these jokers and a bunch of their European politician mates think so is no justification for trying to lump this upon the rest of the nations of the world.


On a completely different note, George McCallum informs me that the Shonan Maru No. 2 has arrived in Cape Town for another 2 months of research. The Japanese government continues to be the only government stumping up with a research vessel for this work, which is directed by the IWC Scientific Committee. Last season the cruise brought back good news for the Antarctic blue whale.

Labels: Chris Carter, Ian Campbell, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, Shonan Maru No. 2, Whaling

Australians for Animals International, led by Sue Arnold (pictured), is another group not too disimilar to Sea Shepherd except that they don't go as far as terrorist acts. Their approach is a more gentle one - searching for legal avenues by which whaling can be shut down. And it makes sense, given that Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd failed to save any whales in the Southern Ocean this year, but they did succeed in burning up gallons and gallons of fuel in doing so. As for Australians for Animals Int., their homepage mentions the "Japanese Imperial Army" and uses the "whale holocaust" phrase. So you get the idea.

The one thing I do like about these groups is that they attack the irrational Australian and New Zealand governments. These groups may be crazy and dangerous, but at least they consistent in their working to a principle - animal rights.

Carter defends signing agreement

Conservation Minister Chris Carter is defending New Zealand's signing of a WTO agreement which allows for trading of whale products.

The group Australians for Animals, says WTO tariff schedules, which both Australia and New Zealand have signed, allow the import and export of whale products, despite the global ban on commercial whaling.

Sue Arnold, from the Australians for Animals group, says both countires have allowed the WTO schedules to override environmental treaties they have signed up to. She says ministers are not telling people Australia and New Zealand are "held hostage" by the WTO.

"When we sit down and weigh up which is more important - trade or whales - trade is going to win," she says.

But, Carter says that despite the WTO agreement, trading in whale products in New Zealand is banned under two pieces of legislation. He says it is useful having those products on a schedule so Customs can require they be declared therefore protecting and conserving whales.

Carter says he is a little surprised New Zealand has been criticised for doing something which is protecting whales.

Amusing to see the anti-whaling parties bickering amongst themselves for media attention - who is the greenest!?

Labels: Chris Carter

A good article appeared at www.stuff.co.nz on Tuvalu's stance at the IWC. The journo does a reasonable job of putting across Tuvalu's position as it is, as opposed to what anti-whaling NGOs and governments would say it is (kudos to Michael Field - well done).

Amongst other things, Tuvalu

• believes in the sustainable use of marine resources
• wants to act in the best interests of its people

This is of course quite reasonable, especially from a small island nation dependant on the resources of the ocean around it for development potential.

From the New Zealand side:

• it's "bad news"
• "the Pacific has been turning against us"
  

Who is it bad news for? I think it's great news for the people of Tuvalu that their government is putting their interests ahead of interests of people in foreign countries.

And why is this seen as the Pacific turning against New Zealand? Were the Pacific nations ever opposed to the sustainable use of marine resources? On the contrary, it's New Zealand who abandoned the principle of sustainable use when it rejoined the IWC in 1975 after earlier quitting the organization.

New Zealand is a fairly developed nation, whose economy is not overly reliant on marine resources for expansion. 80% of New Zealanders live in cities.

Look at Tuvalu. It does not have the natural resources available to New Zealand. What does it have?

Fish. Only fish. That's it. Nothing else.

New Zealand may be able to afford itself the luxury of the odd irrational air-headed "environmental" policy, but Tuvalu has no room to compromise. Tuvalu must ensure that it's marine resources are managed properly because they have nothing else.

The full article is duplicated below for posterity. Congratulations, once again Tuvalu.

Tuvalu sides with whaling nations

11 May 2006

By MICHAEL FIELD

A bid by Conservation Minister Chris Carter to persuade Tuvalu to vote with New Zealand to protect whales has failed, with the tiny Pacific archipelago saying it favours sustainable use.

News that the Tuvaluan Government said it was grateful for aid from Australia and New Zealand but wanted to act in the best interests of its people has been met with disappointment.

The decision comes before a crucial International Whaling Commission meeting at which Japan may take control of the 66-nation body.

New Zealand's whaling commissioner, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, said Tuvalu's stance was bad news.

"It's going to be exceedingly close and therefore every vote counts."

A senior Tuvaluan Government official was quoted as saying: "Our position has never changed since we joined the International Whaling Commission. We are for the sustainable use of whatever resources we have, be it whales, fish, forestry, land.

"Whilst we appreciate assistance from both countries, Tuvalu should be allowed as a sovereign nation to make its independent decision on what is best for its people."

Mr Carter was not available for comment yesterday but a spokesman said despite relationship-building between the two countries "it was never expected the meeting would produce an overnight change in Tuvalu's position".

The diplomatic failure for Mr Carter comes as nations lined up with Japan meet in Tokyo today to plan their strategy for the IWC meeting from June 16 to 20 in the Caribbean nation of St Kitts and Nevis.

On paper Japan has a majority of the 66 member nations in the IWC. To overturn the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling would require a three-quarters majority. This is considered unlikely, but a simple majority vote would amount to a big win for Japan and fellow whaling nations Norway and Iceland.

Mr Carter is to visit the Solomons, Kiribati and Nauru before the IWC meeting. Sir Geoffrey said the lobbying was important "as the Pacific has been turning against us in the International Whaling Commission".

Labels: Chris Carter, IWC vote influence, Tuvalu

Today I received an email from NZ Minister of Conservation, Chris Carter's secretary with a response to correspondence I sent concerning a recent press release.

Minister Carter says he stands by his comments:

"When the RMP was adopted by the IWC in 1994, the Commission chose to set the "tuning levels" between 54 percent (below which a stock would be fully protected) and 72 percent (at which the maximum quota levels, to take the full replacement yield, would be set). Norway announced at the annual meeting of the IWC in June 2005 that for its commercial whaling operations, it would be reducing the tuning level from 72 percent to 60 percent ... I understand that Norway will be formally presenting the position to the IWC Scientific Committee at this month's meeting of the IWC Scientific Committee, at which it will be peer reviewed."

I responded to the Minister's secretary as follows, taking the opportunity to also suggest a policy change:

Thank you very much for your response.
I understand that the Minister has been flying to places such as Tuvalu in search of support for New Zealand's position at the IWC in recent days, so I do appreciate his taking the time to reply at what must be a particularly busy time.

As for content of his response, I'm still left uncertain regarding the Minister's comments.

The Minister states that the Commission chose to use tuning levels between 0.54 and 0.72. It's my understanding that tests of the RMP by the Scientific Committee during it's development have already shown these values to ensure that the IWC's management objectives are met.

Norway's selection of 0.60 is of course within the range of 0.54 and 0.72.

Additionally, the tuning level change from 0.72 to 0.60 has been gradual, not sudden. Norway used 0.66 in 2001, and 0.62 in 2003.

It is for these reasons that I expect that the Scientific Committee will refer the Minister to their earlier work on the matter.

I understand that the Norwegians are of the opinion that under ecosystem-based management the catch limits would be somewhat higher than under the highly conservative RMP.

As Norway lodged a formal objection to Para 10 (e) of the IWC Schedule, there is of course no legal reason for Norway to employ the conservative RMP at all, instead of independant approaches yielding larger quotas. There is nothing stopping them from declaring "open season", other than their own good sense.

However, there is no guarantee that this will continue to be the case. If New Zealand's position is to "save whales", the best way to ensure that as few whales as possible are removed over the long term is to work constructively to complete an RMS agreeable to Norway (and indeed other nations following the principle of sustainable use) sooner, rather than later (or indeed never).

Failing to do this leaves open the possibility that Norway may indeed continue to increase it's quotas to levels that do prove to be unsustainable, although that doesn't appear to be a realistic concern at present.

I think the time has come for New Zealand to recognise that dreams of 21st century where there is no whaling is fanciful, and that compromise is necessary at the IWC to ensure that the best conservation outcomes do come to pass. Furthermore, it's important for New Zealand's position to reflect the reality that whaling is entirely consistent with the concept of ecosystem-based management of marine resources, as noted in Agenda 21 and recent FAO documentation on fisheries.

I notice that (http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/susdev/wssd/) New Zealand wishes to position itself as "a champion of sustainable development, at home and internationally, committed to following and developing best practice". If indeed New Zealand wishes to consistently champion such principles, changes to our anti-whaling policy are evidently required.

I'll be following proceedings at St Kitts with interest.

Labels: Chris Carter

Tuvalu can stand proud as a nation after it's officials rejected NZ Conservation Minister Chris Carter's meddling in their democratic processes.

Labels: Chris Carter, IWC vote influence, Tuvalu

NZ Conservation Minister, Chris Carter is apparently off to Tuvalu.

Tuvalu has voted with the pro-whaling nations in the past, but Mr Carter hopes he can persuade it to abstain on some critical issues.

A disgrace. Tuvalu is a sovereign nation, and it's people are quite capable of understanding whaling issues and making a decision by themselves, without Chris Carter's guidance. Then again, perhaps Carter may learn a thing or two out of the discussion, so it may be a useful exercise afterall.

Tuvalu has made its position on the issue quite clear.

Prime Minister Maatia Toafa has called on Australia and New Zealand to allow Tuvalu to be able to make a decision on its own, without pressure.

As a supposedly responsible Minister, Chris Carter should rightfully have heeded this request.

Labels: Chris Carter, IWC vote influence, Tuvalu

Remember NZ IWC delegate Chris Carter? Last year he made a laughing stock of New Zealand amongst our international peers, getting himself described as being exictable, badly informed and unknowledgable.

He's back!
This time he's talking about taking Japan to the World Court too. However, he says that the chances of NZ winning needs to be taken into account. Chris only needs to read my previous blogs on this topic to know that he doesn't stand a chance in hell of defeating the Japanese - they would likely welcome such a case.

The best bit of the article is that he actually openly admits he's nothing but a mouthpiece for Greenpeace and other such organizations.

And the Greens are back at it too, again shamelessly accusing Japan of "shamelessly" bribing small nations to vote for whaling. Quite a serious allegation, both highly offensive to the small nations in question, as well as the Japanese. Funny, recruiting small nations and appointing their commissioners with their own people is how the anti-whaling bloc pushed through the moratorium in the first place. Why should anyone be surprised that small island nations share Japan's view that natural resources can be sustainably utilised? For some reason, the Greens and other parties keen to intimidate these small nations are happy to have trouble believing this.

In the meantime, Australian Prime Minister Howard has come out showing his ignorance of whaling issues as well.

"We find it hard to believe a cull of 400 minke whales - and we're talking about minkes not the humpbacks - is scientific."

Perhaps Johnny ought to do his homework before making stupid statements like "hey, I can't understand cetacean science, so this must be front for commercial whaling".

First point of call John: high school statistics class and population sampling. Then maybe you'll start to get the picture.

Labels: Chris Carter, John Howard