by frog
Terrible news that Iceland is resuming commercial whaling after 20 years, and disastrous that they intend to include the endangered fin whale on their hit list. Metiria condemned the decision this morning:
Because Iceland’s neighbour Norway has also resumed commercial whaling, this move will place great strain on the whale population in this region.
Worse, there is no evidence of a commercial demand for whale meat in Iceland. As we have seen time and time again in Japan, consumers are not interested in eating whale meat in the numbers it would take to support a commercial operation. Icelanders have not been buying whale meat from scientific catches, so it is clear that the decision to resume commercial whaling is designed purely as a political affront to the International Whaling Commission.
As did Greenpeace:
Instead of investing in a one-man campaign to rejuvenate an outdated, unnecessary industry, that can only damage the reputation of the country internationally, Iceland should be capitalising on the value of a growing industry of watching and studying whales.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Wed, October 18th, 2006
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
If our government [& others]WON’T enforce the various M.E.A.’s [multi-lateral environmental agreements] such as the ATS [Antarctic Treaty System] C.I.T.E.S. and the regulations of the I.W.C. by the use of Trade Sanctions or the enforcement of the UN Charter for Nature [the sanction Sea Shepherd is using to take direct action]–then what hope do we have of doing anything against Iceland & Norway who are not parties to the IWC?????
The fin whales [2nd largest whale] is endangered – it cannot be sustainably harvested [murdered] in fact the evidence strongly suggests NO species can be sustainably harvested.
My action against whaling is tp promote a “peoples Trade Ban” i.e Don’t Buy Japanese- via my web site http://www.stopwhaling.co.nz. To date no major NGO OR Political party [even the Greens!] has supported my proposal.
dave@stopwhaling.co.nz
C.E.A.C.Inc-Napier-Aotearoa-NZ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It sounds like Iceland have simply reclassified their existing whaling plans from “scientific” to “commercial”. What does this mean – perhaps they plan to ramp up their catch significantly in future years?
Norway seems to be catching a lot more – 1,000 whales a year as I understand it.
A few tens of thousands of whales/elephants/anything else vs 6 billion humans …. I am glad I am not a whale. We seem to be over-running the planet and killing a large proportion of those other animals that remain alive. It is most impolite.
Greenpeace should be trying to persuade people to go vegetarian and have fewer children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
While I don’t condone whaling I have to say that whales to Iceland are like cows to us. They have a right to farm in their waters as they see fit… I suppose. We cut down most of our forests and covered them with grass so we can eat meat. Until we replant our forests and severly curtail the amount of meat we eat I don’t think we have any legs to stand on in an attempt to tell them what they should or should not be doing.
People in the far north have always eaten more meat, and especially blubbery types, because they have to. It’s how you survive up there.
Let’s replant out forests and become vegetarian’s and hope they copy the good example we set. In the end it’s all we can really do. Condoning the big brother mentality, good or bad, ain’t a good thing. Teach by example.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, it is quite rich of NZers to be telling off Iceland, when we have driven many of our NZ native species to the brink of extinction, and we eat a lot of meat. I think a lot of NZ’s meat and dairy production is for export -busily making $$$. Including shamelessly trying to persuade foreigners who don’t need more meat & dairy in their diet that they really do need all our Western diseases along with a huge ecological footprint. 39 whales out of a few tens of thousands (?) does not seem so bad. NZ has no right to the high ground.
A really good thing about Iceland is that almost all of its electricity is produced from geothermal energy – hardly any fossil fuel. Or so I understand.
I think that examples can be powerful inspiration that people follow. It would be great if NZ could be part of that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
good comment prim…
i agree 100%…
that blinkered-view that allows local ‘green/environmental activists’ to point the finger and go ‘shame..!..shame.! at other cultures’ treatments of sentient beings..
all the while ignoring/doing nothing about..the ‘everyday-horrors/exploitations’ going on right under their noses…
(and even ‘chowing-down’ themselves on the end versions/results of those ‘everyday-horrors’)
and holding fundraisers/parties where they publicly cook and eat those ‘other sentient beings’…(and sneer/laugh at vegans/vegos (some that ‘way’ for decades) who are present..and perhaps offended by these gross sights and smells…)
(you know who you are eh..?….)
with nary a self-glimpse of the glaring ironies/denials/contradictions they present..eh..?
and..while standing/sitting around…wallowing in their pig-fat and other obscenities..they will no doubt wave those charred limbs they are eating in the air….and bitch/declaim about ‘how horrible’ the japanese/norwegians etc etc are…
they really haven’t got a feckin’ clue..have they..?
and are truely mired in their ignorance….
(mind-numbing/jaw-dropping..!..eh..?..)
oh..i think the official name for their ‘condition/mindset’ is ‘speciesism..’
so..keep fighting the ‘good fight’..eh..?
and..as some form of minor consolation…we do have (some small degree of) schadenfreude from this ongoing horror-story..
that is..the aphorism ‘you are what you eat’ becomes more and more apparent…with the passing of the years..eh..?
so..eat pigs/offal/fat all your life..and the mirror/your face/body won’t lie to you…
will it darlings..?
go vegan..!..eh..?
and stop mouthing hollow platitudes at us….all the while your very lives deny those platitudes…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So Phil, what type of meat are you waving about?
Are you being ironic?
I can understand your anger at all the belligerent posturing out there but it seem’s that, though your weapon’s are different, you are still brandishing them.
I suppose I’m being critical of you because I can see some useful knowledge and understanding in your words but the vitriol it is served up with does you a dis-service. We will never win anyone over by alienating them. We have to be more mature than that.
As we are what we eat we are also of the land and conditions we live in. Polar bear liver is poisonus to us in these fair climes but in the far, far north where winter sunlight is scarce the natives, Inuit, find it a delicacy.
There may need to be consideration that the Icelander’s feel somewhat adrift in the modern world and that they are culling whales to try and re-instill their traditions after the world has told them that what they do is wrong. New Zealanders eat Turkey in the middle of summer for a far more subjective attachment to tradition.
Progress to a more mature state depends on those who make inroads to the future being of a calm and reasonable disposition so that those who are living in the past, and feeling the strain, will see the possiblities of the future as something worth striving for. But if the future is clothed in anger and frustration – for the past – then the past will only see it as a mirror of itself and not bother changing… for in effect, except for the subjective tools, it is the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I feel some empathy for what Phil has said. When one perceives something one considers bad, one may experience denial, anger, etc. I think that there is value in emotion, and I’m not sure whether change is more driven by calmness or emotion. Perhaps it’s a case by case thing.
Artyone, I think you have raised really good points, which stimulated my thinking.
Looking farther into the future … I think that if all humans become vegetarians, there is a risk that the world’s human population might be allowed to expand until we are using all suitable land to grow crops to feed humans. It’s not the way things should be, in my opinion. Ultimately something will probably have to be done to get the human population back in balance with the rest of the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kiore1 wrote (on another thread, but I think intended for this one):
Q1…. Are you saying we should actively choose not to follow healthy lifestyles because our population will increase to fill the amount of resources available anyway. …
Q2…But it seems to take a rather pessimistic view of human society. If we become wise enought to realise our present diet is unsustainable both for our own health and that of the planet, then we shouldsurely also become wise enough to control our own population.
————-
Kiore1 –
Answers:
Q1: No, I did not say that.
Q2: see answer to Q1. Also, I merely pointed out a potential future risk if population issues are not addressed. Ideally, population issues will be addressed appropriately; however, reality does not necessarily correspond with the ideal. Events to date may be somewhat illuminating. I drew no firm conclusion about what will actually happen.
I would argue that humanity should be doing everything it reasonably can to live sustainably. I have said it again and again, including in my previous postings on this discussion. If I may quote myself
:
“I think that examples can be powerful inspiration that people follow. It would be great if NZ could be part of that. ”
All the best.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
artyone said..
“..So Phil, what type of meat are you waving about?
Are you being ironic?..”
sheesh..!..was i that unclear/unsubtle..?..you missed that by a country mile ..eh..?
and just in case you missed the point..no..i wasn’t being ‘ironic’(!)..
and it’s been a few years since i’ve done anything with charred limbs..
artyone said..
“..I can understand your anger at all the belligerent posturing out there..”
um..once again you seem to have missed my point..
i’m as anti-whaling as those who are..
i am pointing out the double standard of expressing “shock!..horror..!” at the killing of creatures..(that b.t.w. have lived ‘full and happy’ lives)…while chowing down on the corpses of other sentient beings…beings that have had short brutal lives of unremitting/unrelenting misery/torture/pain/suffering..culminating in a premature death as brutal as their lives..
so these ‘green activists’ can have the temporary ‘gratification’ of eating their flesh/fat..?
artyone said..
“..We will never win anyone over by alienating them. We have to be more mature than that…”
sorry arty..that’s a crock…
i spent a decade in the green party being reasonably quiet about these issues…
only to face what i described above..
and nothing has changed since my departure…..i know other vegan people inside the ak party tried to present a remit to the ak greens asking them to consider having no meat cooked and eaten at green party functions..
do you know how the ‘charred limb eating jeerers’ buried that one..?
the ak co-convenor (richard green..there’s an irony..eh..?..that sirname..?) arranged for it to be debated at a ‘special monthly green meeting”..out in deepest sth ak…papakura..(heart of vego-country..eh..?)
and then had a handful of his anti-vego mates go there and ‘bury it’..
the records will show that what i say is true..
so artyone..i know ..from experience..that talking softly softly about animal rights issues in the green party is like passing water into the wind..
what has ten years got us..eh..?
what..?..battery-chooks ‘living space’ to be increased by 10cm in the next ten years ?…or some other such pathetic ‘advance’..?
that’s it..!..that’s ten years work by the animal welfare/rights thread of the green party..?
dosen’t the fact that the green party spokesperson on animal welfare…eats them..?..make you go ..huh..?..
what the feck is that..?..eh..?
(now that’s ‘irony’..artyone..)
another priority is that i am not even talking to those hardcore carnivores..(they can go take a flying feck at themselves..eh..?)
i am talking to the ‘waverers’ who are reading this..
those who are ‘nearly there’..or ‘on the road there’..or ‘thinking about going there”…
those who are feeling mildly disgusted with themselves .
those looking at breaking their addictions to eating the cooked flesh of other (formerly) living creatures..
they are who i am trying to ‘get through to’..
and for what..?..
are those waverers/anyone still eating flesh/fat/gristle/offal..?
can’t be for health reasons..eh..?..(that’s a proven..eh..?..)
can’t be for humanitarian reasons ..eh..?
(so much suffering/pain/death is wrapped up in every mouthful of flesh you chew..eh..?)
and it is easy to stop…
you just stop..
and ‘google’ ‘vegan recipies’…..
( a site i recommend is ‘vegan outreach’…go there and read their pamphlet called “why vegan?”..
(it says what i am am trying to say..but does a much better job of it..)
i think that pamplet is one of the most powerful pieces of ‘awareness-raising’/agit-prop i have seen….
and has been known to stop many people in their tracks..)
and if i can just ‘testify’ to you for a moment..
i promise you it will be one of the most liberating/good things you will ever do in your life…
giving up meat…
and the health/anti-ageing benefits just keep on giving and giving…
and get better and better the longer you don’t eat flesh…
seriously..i promise you..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Phil, I’m on your side…kinda. I just thought the anger was colouring your reason. I was vegan for a coupla years and I’m tryin’ to get back there. To me it’s not so much about animal welfare, at least in the short term, as it is about the simple fact that it’s much cheaper to be vegan. When I cook for myself it’s usually vegan but lately people have been cooking for me… and they eat meat so I eat meat.
I admire your stance, and I can understand that the way forward must really contain the type of policy you believe in. But politics has always been about the frontline only ever being a step or two ahead of the status quo, maybe one or two radical idealogs to give a movement credibility, and that’s the way it’s always going to be. Being miles out in front, on any issue, has always been a lonely place – but it is needed. Maybe it’s the only place where the trickle down ideal ever works. That said it’s no use throwing whole buckets of the real stuff when droplets will only ever be felt… but they will be felt.
Maybe even being out at the absolute frontline is where we learn that subtleties, carefully targeted subtleties, actually have the greatest effect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil,
whales good
pigs bad
veggies good
people who eat whales, pigs, not veggies, bad
Have I got it now? Good!
Can we have a rest, please…. Not dissing vegans, but Phil, you take the rhetoric, plus the dangling, ungrammatical sentences, a bit far regularly.
cheers, katie
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey,
I eat meat, I even enjoy it, and I dont think I’m bad person because of that. Nor do I think the answer to the worlds problems is really as simple as people becoming either vegetarian and vegan. Most of those beans and lentils come from somewhere, usually overseas, and can be farmed in just as intensive a fashion as our New Zealand dairy farms. I appreciate the fact that people want to express their efforts through living ethically and making conscious decisions about the impact they have in our modern world, but it doesnt mean other people making different decisions is wrong. We all try to do our bit in different ways, bashing peole around the head with ones opinions isn’t going to help anyone.
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hey katie..
p*ss off..with your moans about ‘rhetoric/dangling ungrammaticals..’
go do a tour of a killing field/slaughterhouse..
and see if you have a conciousness able to be raised..
you obviously don’t give a feck about those sufferings..do you..?
is ‘green’ just feckin’ trees ..is it..?
i’ve said my piece on this ssue only about three times..
and no amount of attempted shut-up’s/bullying by you..or anyone feckin’ like you will shut me up..ever..
“can we have a rest please..”
and you can ‘stick’ that glib/patronising sneer too…
‘cos you obviously can’t/don’t hear/see/feel the screams/moans/miseries of the animals you eat..
do you..you ‘good little greenie’..you..?
(what a ‘sick joke’..eh..?..)
you don’t even see your ironies do you.?…so mired are you in your ignorances..
..your glib dismissals of these concerns/realities actually makes me feel physically nauseous..and mildly in despair..
(and as such..is confirmation of my descriptions of you and yours..in the green party..and your group/institutional blinkers…)
just go back to sleep ..eh..?
or..it is labour weekend..
have you fired up the barbie yet..?
while you eat the flesh..you can stand around and (chew the fat’..and smugly congratulate yourself on what a ‘good person’ you are eh..?..for being a ‘greenie’..and ‘caring about the planet’..
bah..!..humbug..!
your hypocrisy has a stench to it..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
o-bogle –
I think you have made some good points. Vegetarianism isn’t for everyone. We are after all omnivores. But some things do bother me, for example: (1) a lot of people such as NZers have traditionally eaten far more meat than is good for them or the planet, as I understand it; (2) there are so many people on the planet that all the meat eating combined has a very large impact. Everything we do is having a large impact, and a lot of farming is intensive. Like Phil, I am also uncomfortable about the living conditions that we place animals under.
I take your point that different people can do their bit in different ways. I think that’s right. But on the other hand, I do not think that many people realise just how big the changes have to be for our lifestyles to be sustainable. I also think that many people probably don’t realise that the decision whether or not to eat meat can make a significant difference to their “ecological footprint”. You might be interested in an ecological footprint calculator, eg at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/withyou/do/footprint/ .
Also, while people can certainly do their bit in different ways, experience to date is that change has been slow; if anything, it has been in the wrong direction in NZ, I think. As a hypothetical example, suppose 40% of the population reduce their ecological footprint by 10%. Overall, the population as a whole then reduces its footprint by … 4%. I think we need more people to change behaviour, and by more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see Phil, that hijacking threads is not something you eschew yourself.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i don’t see it as ‘hijacking a thread’..bj..
how is what i say ‘not on topic’..?
in fact..i would argue..it is the topic..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree with phil u here. He has been commenting that the Greens have pointed the finger at Iceland, while in his view the Greens have done little about, and have participated in, a system that is bad for animals in NZ – and here I am putting it mildly. He is encouraging people to consider vegetarianism. I think that his comments are highly relevant to this thread, although the comments might not be what the Greens want to hear!
I think that people are free to take these discussions in various directions. I think that this is fine in general, with a few exceptions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Prim’s comments certainly make sene and I commend his calm approach. Phil’s use of language certainly can be intemperate, but I can certainly see where he is coming from.
It is not a question of whether eating meat makes you a “bad” person. I am sure most people who kept slaves were not “bad” people either, or most of those who watched public executions. One fo the major difficulties I have with being vegan in a world awash with animal products is that it is otherwise decent people who still participate in what must be the worst cruelty on the planet. If I could be convinced they were all evil psychopaths it would actually make things easier for me.
While I don’t think meat eaters are bad people, I certainly think that the institution of meat eating in Western societies is a bad system. Animals are not happy to be slaughtered, they are not happy while they are alive, in fact broiler chickens are in chronic pain for at least the last 20% of their lives. Battery hens are cramped in an area less than their body size for 18 months, and pigs in sow crates are literally driven insane.
Nor is extensive farming cruelty-free. Cows have their calves kidnapped from them at birth, they are dehorned, detailed and (if male) castrated without anaesthetic. Sheep and cows are transported long distances by sea and land to slaughter, in cramped conditions, and remember that the occupation of slaughterhouse worker is the most dangerous in the country. If that is the way humans are treated, then the cruelties inflicted on the animals don’t bear thinking about.
Meat is also not necessary to human health, and there is increasing evidence it is harmful. As Matthew Scully puts it so succinctly: if we start with a necessary evil, and remove the necessity – what’s left?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What a bizarre thread this has become. What started as a discussion about a threat to endangered species became “I have to say that whales to Iceland are like cows to us”. Since when have cows been endangered?
It then diverted to a sadly elitist “I’m greener than you because I’m vegetatian” debate. Get real! Being Green isn’t a competition in which you get “Green Points” for who can individually lead the most sustainable lifestyle. Being Green is a recognition that we are exploiting the planet beyond its sustainable capacity, and that to ensure a future for people and planet, there must be a collective effort to reverse this.
Sure, vegetarianism is more sustainable than eating meat – that can’t be denied on the facts. But, as someone who refuses to own and very rarely drives a car, I don’t get on my high horse condemning people who do own and regularly drive cars, and I don’t expect anyone to condemn me for my choice to eat meat. Collectively, though, humanity should, in the interests of ecological sustainability, be looking to reduce the amount both cars are driven and meat is eaten. Being Green is not just about ecological sustainability – it also about tolerance and respect for diversity – not putting people down because they don’t meet the personal lifestyle choices you make in trying to be Green.
SO back to the whales – the problem here is not that Icelanders may, to some extent that is debatable, choose to eat whale meat. The problem is that the Icelandic government has made a political decision that threatens endangered species.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Steady on there Phil. You’re pretty close to the line as far as personal attacks go:
“Comments that attack others in a grossly offensive way. Humour and sarcasm are fine, but attacks which seek to personally denigrate others are not.”
Take it easy please!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In reply to toad, the point I am making is that ecological wisdom is not the only green platform. Non-violence is just as important. The green party animal welfare policy recognises the intrinsic vlue of animals, and its policy of abolishing factory farming is more to do with ending animal cruelty than protecting endangered species. As you point out, hens, pigs and chickens are not endangered. No more are humans, but we oppose cruelty towards them.
Most people who saw Greenpeaces’ video of a whale being tortured to death for half an hour were reacting in horror not because it is an endangered species, but because it is a sentient being. It is therefore quite hypocritical of New Zealand to be condemning the torture of one sentient being while continuing to condone ritualised and routine mass torture of other sentient beings.
As far as personal attacks go, this blog is pretty mild even though some of us get carried away occasionally. Have a look at Sir Humphrey’s if you want to know what a *really* nasty blog is like.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps I missed it, but my understanding was that the Icelanders were not doing this so that they could eat whale meat, or fuel lamps with whale oil, Does anyone have any evidence that they are doing this? I don’t LIKE what they are doing, but if we’re going to diss ‘em for something it’d best be something they’re actually doing. No?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’d like to comment on the point that while the whales are endangered, cows are not. While this statement is most likely true, unless particular bovine diseases spread globally, I think that it takes an overly narrow view of effects.
To my mind, destruction of natural habitat for the creation of pastures to feed cows and sheep has most likely reduced the numbers of many kinds of NZ native species. While the cows themselves are not endangered, other species are. This thinking takes a wider view of our food chain and its effects on the environment, as compared to a view that considers only those animals that humans are actually killing.
BJ – I think that what is probably most relevant for the NZ-Iceland comparison are the numbers of animal deaths and context, rather than a comparison of their end uses by humans. In NZ, a common end use for the animals we kill happens to be food, as in quite a few other nations, and reducing meat consumption has potential to help put humanity back in balance with the planet. In Iceland the uses may be different. The fact that humans are killing and endangering very large numbers – of animals and species respectively – remains.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I started with the first comment on this issue and I am staggered to find the path of this debate! I just want to save endangered whales-one person doing something he feels strongly about. Its no wonder we have trouble making progress on issues with all the sidetracking and barrow pushing going on. I will just keep my eye on the ball in play on the issue I have chosen to put most of my energy on. Any suggestions that help would be appreciated.
Dave
http://www.stopwhaling.co.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t know if any of you have read “Nga uruora”. It seems to be a very under-rated book, possibly because the complexities of the Maori geneologies and politics were quite difficult to get into. But one point it does make is that so much of our lowland kahikatea forest has been removed for cattle and sheep pasture, and there are only a few remnants of it left. So Prim makes a valuable point about cattle. There is a lake near Levin where some remnants are preserved, and it is worth a visit, though it did make me sad to realise that the whole of the Horowhenua at one time would have been just as beautiful.
But I suppose one difference between eating the cow and killing the whales, at least from an environmental point of view, if not an animal rights one, is that it is now too late to preserve the Horowhenua forests, and not eating the cattle won’t bring them back now. In contrast, every whale killed contributes to the extinction.
Another point following on from Prim’s last comment is that we need to think beyond simply preserving a species. We could after all quite easily, at least in principle preserve every species in a kahikatea forest by putting it in a zoo or herbarium, and in fact I am not even sure whether any actual species extinctions resulted from the destruction of the kahikatea forests. Instead, we need to think about preserving assemblages of species and ecosystems because these are also real losses.
kiore1
http://www.epf.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I actually think this meandering about is quite useful. Never are problems as simple as we like to think they are.
Iceland is ice and volcanos surrounded by sea. The people who have lived there have always eaten from the sea. The ocean around them may, percentage wise, have as many protected species as unprotected species, so it may very well be quite hard for them to fish as they always have – given they follow guidelines as set down by the rest of the world.
Whales are really big and reasonable easy to catch because they have to come up for air – I’m sure we all know this.
In the analogy of the whale and the cow… Imagine if the rest of the world told us we couldn’t eat cows and had to just eat possums.
Dave, I suggest you go to Iceland and hang with the natives. I’m sure there is a big difference between Japanese whaling and Icelandic whaling, not in the methods used, so much as the reason they are doing it. They are a very small nation in a very hard part of the world to live and people like that usually have good reasons for what they do – as opposed to economic superpowers who do what they do because they… feel like it. Saying the Icelanders shuld know better is completely different from the Japanese – who should know better; they can afford to know better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
artyone,
well said.
the main reasons i don’t like Japanese whaling are:
- whaling traditions never involved sending factory ships to the Antarctic
- no one outside a few small whaling villages is interested in whaling as a tradition
- whaling in Japan is just a right-wing nationalist show of power
Iceland may be in a completely different situation, i don’t know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I tried to go through the comments here above but very few of them had some real arguments with facts behind them so I kinda gave up.
First of all, Fin whales are not endangered around Iceland. The IWC even admits that there are at least 25.800 fin whales around Iceland. (http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm) The stock grows 10% annually and has done so for the last 17 years. (See the IWC scientific report 2006) This is another fact that IWC states. If you want to dispute IWC then it doesn’t make sense at all, because they don’t except numbers like these so lightly. This goes through a long process of verification and validation before approved by them. For everyone that really wants to know more about the real facts visit this site: http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm. This is again from IWC and is the most unbiased ground for statistics on the matter.
Minke whale are so far from being extinct now. Around Iceland it’s assumed that there lives 40.000 minke whales. In the north Atlantic it’s assumed that there are 176.000 minke whales (again IWC numbers). To even suggest that the hunt of 30 Icelandic minke whales will put pressure on the stock is ludicrous.
To base our animal eating decisions on how dumb we think animals are is kind of strange. Pigs for example are said to be highly intelligent but we still eat a lot of them. The idea that baleen whales are “intelligent” is disputed. Well-known anti-whaling scientists such as Phil Clapham have said:
“Having worked with these critters for many years, I’d support the general view that … baleen whales are not dreadfully bright (much as I love them)” (http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask99/0009.html)
Meat is meat, and actually whale meet is very good. Whales are no different then any other sustainable source of meat in the world. To say that they are so big and majestic that they should not be hunted is another strange annotation. There is no logic behind it. It just represents people opinion about them. And why should some people’s opinion, on the other side of the globe (NZ vs. Iceland) affect Icelanders. If there aren’t any facts or arguments behind the anti-whaling claims we can’t you just tolerate other people culture and viewpoints. Iceland is a small and barren island in the middle of the ocean that sustains it livelihood on their fisheries industries and the stocks of resource on the sea. The have managed to control their fishing in a very good manner while most other nations that are fishing face near extinction of their fish reserves (e.g. Cod in the North-Sea). Of course they want to use all the resources they have on their small island to make the best out of their life up in the north. And they would never even consider doing something that would harm their fish or whale stocks just because it would always come back to them in the end.
They don’t not brake any international or moral laws by starting to hunt whales. It’s very simple, they joined the IWC and stated that if the IWC hadn’t come up with any management regulations within 2006 they would have the right to hunt whales. IWC agreed upon that. Since 1994 have the IWC tried to put a management system in place for sustainable whaling. The IWC didn’t manage to agree upon management system and quotas for hunting whales, because of stalling form the anti-whaling body. Therefore Iceland is no longer obliged by the moratorium and can start whaling. Note further that IWC has stated the following:
“FURTHER NOTING that the moratorium which was clearly intended as a temporary measure is no longer necessary, that the Commission adopted a robust and risk-averse procedure (RMP) for calculating quotas for abundant stocks of baleen whales in 1994 and that the IWC’s own Scientific Committee has agreed that many species and stocks of whales are abundant and sustainable whaling is possible;
Everybody agrees that the best way to manage whaling is to have a management system that IWC regulates. But while that wouldn’t happen then the whaling nations have the right to start whaling. Now we have to see if IWC can stop to be about politics and starts to be about scientific facts. It’s all about that on this globe there are a lot of different cultures and nations that we need to respect. If there are not facts at all against whaling why not authorize sustainable whaling regulated by the IWC as many of the nations ask for?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And by the way, the IUCN redlist looks at the species of fin whales on global level. That means that though the fin whale stock around Iceland is now 70% of it’s previous highest limit, then the species is still catagorized as being endangered. The reason is that the stocks in the southern hemisphere have not recovered as well as the North-Atlantic stock. These 2 stocks are totally independent and never go over the equator in either direction. In January IUCN will review the status of sea mammals so hopefully they will take this into consideration like they have done with other whale species.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I must admit Ihavn’t had a chance to read the whole page.
But the part that I have angers me incredibly.
1) We are talking about whales not sheep or pigs, a highly intelligent animal, so an incedibly intelligent animal that man dosent understand, but the liitle information we are picking up is starting to prove this.
2) They die a horrible death, sometimes up to 4hrs,in pain. even cows/sheep(far less intelligent animals) get a fairly quick death
3) We dont farm them, their arn’t enough.
4) They are endangered, the crap Iceland is sending out at the moment, saying there are loads of fin whale, and they are well in control is a direct lie.
5) Whales will die if we don’t help them against mankind
I watch fin whales every summer, and the joy I get, and watching other people getting the same joy, there is something magical by watching them and you cant class them along side farm animals and if we let Iceland and Japan get away with it, dont count on your great grandchildren watching whales
Dave
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What do you think that Icelanders are? Do you really think they are barbarians that don’t care about the environment? They live on the nature, their whole economy is sustained by their fisheries. Why should they ever try to hunt whales or any other stock of nature to the brink of extinction. Whales are not being exterminated. Period.
Read my previous answer as an answer to your other comments. Note especially that the numbers are not from Iceland, they are from the International whaling commission!
The international whaling comission statement regarding Iceland and commercial whaling answers you also pretty well:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dave said..
“..We are talking about whales not sheep or pigs, a highly intelligent animal, so an incredibly intelligent animal that man dosent understand, but the liitle information we are picking up is starting to prove this…”
just to bring you up to speed here dave…pigs(esp) are extremely intelligent creatures..(more so than dogs..urban legend has it..)
(and does intelligence …or lack of it..make such treatment acceptable..?..)
if so..i’ve got more than a few human candidates for you…
dave said..
“..They die a horrible death, sometimes up to 4hrs,in pain…”
um..dave..pigs and any other ‘farmed’ animals usually have whole lives of total misery and neglect….and pain..
i’m not defending whaling..but at least (before their horrible deaths) the whales have lived the lives intended for them…and haven’t spent them in what are animal concentration camps…living(?) lives of unimaginable horrors..
(as in pigs unable to lie down or turn around….just jammed into boxes only slightly larger than them…for their whole feckin’ lives..!..dave..!..
being ‘fattened’ just for you..eh..?
dosen’t that bacon/pork smell good..?..eh..?..
think on..!..eh..?..)
why do you think not one of those ‘farms’ will allow the media inside to film the conditions these animals (sentient beings..sharing major percentages of d.n.a. with us..and emotions such as fear etc..) live in..?
it’s because the realities of the flesh on peoples’ plates…and the journey there…would stop many people from buying their ‘product’…
can i suggest dave..that you (and others) open their eyes to the horrors here/around you…?….and do something about them..?
i see you also make the ‘numbers argument..(fatuous..to my mind)..that if they are ‘endangered’..don’t you dare touch them…!
oh..!..what..?..there’s plenty of them..?…go for it..!
(it’s a ‘silly’ argument..eh..?..)
btw…i find it quite fascinating that whenever this subject/topic comes up..there are never those who come forward/stand up.to present any arguments for this cruel intensive farming/eating of living creatures..
‘cos they..and you and i..know there ain’t any..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree with Dave and with phil_u ! (I’m also an old cynic, and think there is more to this than “national pride” and using “resources” wisely etc)
Other lifeforms on this Planet that are “not endangered” should NOT automatically be regarded as “fair game” for any humans who want to exploit or kill (even if they are in or near the “territiory” of those particular
humans, and even if they are reducing the available fish in those areas).
Some of our problems are:
We “Homo sapiens” evolved in small hunter-gatherer extended family groups.
Our “knee jerk” thinking remains at that level, despite the fact that our rational minds have enabled us to extend our “caves” and our “clans” into (in some respects) very spophisticated ways of living and “utilising” the world around us.
Underneath all the veneer, we are still that original “hunter-gatherer”, and behave as such, despite our attempts to talk “economics” and “regional development” and “national sovereignty” etc etc) Just watch the developmental stages of our babies and young children. Just watch and listen to human males when war is declared … etc etc … to reveal our roots.
Human religions that have given “Man” dominion over other lifeforms is another piece of anachronistic, self serving “thought”. Unfortunately many human religions are not adequately addressing the mismatch now created between human death control and lack of human birth control.
If we are short of meat, the most plentiful protein etc on the planet is in the bodies of “Homo sapiens” (self named of course) … If we don’t re-endorse the ideas of “Zero Population Growth” soon “Soilent Green” could be back on the menu … (Personally I have become a vegetarian!)
Meanwhile let’s collectively leave the poor old decimated whale species alone and let them eat whatever food they need in their home territories.
(Having said all that, I do understand the “feel good” historical claims that Icelandic people may have to an old way of life … However, how many of their population are FOR and how many AGAINST this latest move?
I wonder! )
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi
Note to others……sorry, killing any animals is barbaric.
I just think that comparing a whales intelligence against a pig, is like comparing a flys intelligence against a pigs (but the arguements got diddly to doing with that )
Sirpink get your facts right, Iceland have an invested interest in whaling so there fats and figures are different to the rest of the world.
Wdcs (whale and dolphin conservation society) Greenpeace, sea sheherd.
If anyone is reading this blog check these sites afterwards for the facts.
FACT: Fin whales is regarded as an endangered animal by the rest of the world ( only in Iceland and Japan is it not regarded ( where it is hunted. ucanny)
FACT: The fin whale does not always die a quick deatch, sometimes up to 4hrs
The scientists that carried out the research had an invested interest.
Iceland’s goverment and fisheries have come up with completely different records.
Sea shepherd is making a campaign, the facts will be revealed.
I’ve borried this bit from wdcs
In a backwards step for the conservation of whales, Iceland has announced that it will resume commercial whaling in defiance of the international ban. It plans to kill nine fin whales, an endangered species, and thirty minke whales in 2006/7.
The hunt will be in addition to Iceland’s current whaling programme, which it says is for scientific purposes, and which will end with the killing of at least 30 minke whales in 2007.
Iceland is also clearly planning to resume international trade in whale meat, as like Japan and Norway, its domestic market is stagnant and it cannot even sell the minke whales that it is currently killing.
Commercial whaling is cruel, unnecessary and threatens the survival of whale populations.
Iceland believes the world has stopped caring about whales. We need to send a message loud and clear that we still care and that we do not support the resumption of commercial whaling and international trade in whale products.
When quoting facts Sirpink look at the worlds not Ivelands narrow minded goverment.
Daveuk
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And that is why the facts are from the International Whaling Commission (http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm).
For the same reason as you should not look at numbers from the whaling nations then you should not look at “facts” from WDCS, Greenpeace and Sea Sephard. They as well are invested party.
IWC should be the only unbiased place that you can find statistics on the matter.
75% of Icelanders are for whaling and 20% oppose it according to Gallup poll in september. It doesn’t change the fact though that a lot of people don’t agree with the method that these whaling efforts were started. This decision was only taken by 1 man, without any consult from legislators or environmentalists, which is not the correct manner to take major decisions like these!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for your answer.
I don’t see how
greenpeace charity to save the planet
wdcs charity to help save whales and dolphins
Sea shepherd charity set to kick arse of those that harm dolphins and whales…………………..All conservation charities
benefit from Iceland killing fin whales (ENDANGERED) second largest animal on the planet.
And as for facts from the IWC, well lets look what that stands for international whaling commission…….ummmmmmm something in that name gives me a clue…….ahhhhh whaling commission. just think if the whaling commission said no you cant hunt whales, now would they do that. I Dont think so, they would lose their living.
So who do you take your information from
One organisation set to kill.
Or several set to save.
Endangered Species Act is not just given to any animal, The fin whale is ENDANGERED. The IWC lets say the word…. International whaling (slaughtering) commision can say what they like, as they will do so for obvious reasons. whaling will be ban, I just hope there are some species left.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tell me when the world finally bans all forms of whaling, what will the Independent whaling commission be known as, the ex IWC, the artist formally known as IWC.
You rely on the whaling commission for the truth, maybe here lies the problem.
I read a little bit of an iceland paper and the glorified the death saying the fin whale died quickly, I was there but if it did it would be a first, some take up to four hours…………………..
Most westerners don’t at the end of the day if there were only 5 whales alive on the planet the IWC would still say its ok to hunt them because as long as there is whaling theres a IWC when there is no whaling………….
Iceland will of made themselves incredily unpopular with this slaughter, once the cogs get going…………sanctions and bans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The view is pretty simple, while the whales are a sustainable source of meat then Icelanders should have the right to hunt them.
Why shouldn’t we rely on the IWC for the truth? I don’t see why not, as they are organization that relys on scientific reasearch at the same time as listening to the views and opinions of both pro-whaling and anti-whaling lobbyists.
The harpoons with explosive do work in most of the cases. If this is the only time that a whale did instantanously then it most be the second time, as this whale died instantenously: http://icrwhale.org/eng/GPAS3.mpg
Nobody wants to make the whales extinct. Don’t try to even imagine anything like that. Icelanders as every other nations is all about preserving the nature. It’s is vital for them and their living that the resources that they get from the nature are conserved. But at the same time they have to use them in a sustainable way.
The reason why Iceland is geting bad attention is because people isn’t correctly informed. Most of the information going around is inaccurate and is in tabloid still.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK thanks for the reply.
IWC whaling commission….at the end of the day they are not a sit on the fence organisation, they are for whaling, they would be the last people to want whaling stopped.
As for Icelanders eating. I dont care what you do with your lives, live and let live, again you are hunting an ENDANGERED creature, one which I love.
Quick bit about me. Every Summer I drive 400 miles round trip, jump on a ferry, to go to Spain, takes about 4 days round trip for a day and a halve watching fin whales, I photograph them as well, I enjoy pointing these creatures out to the average person and explaining a bit about them and see the happiness. I do this four times a year.
I honestly do not mean any offence to any Iceland person but every time, an endangered fin whale is killed it is like losing a friend.
I have written to nearly every fishery minister, politicians, even politicians in America, actors, singers, anybody famous to stop iceland.
Believe me they are ENDANGERED(no matter what IWC say) , and the harpoons are not always successful. this isnt tabloid………
We are now going around in circles, enjoy your whale meat, and enjoy the wrath that will follow……………………………………………!
Good day to you…….!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sir Pink asks: “Why shouldn’t we rely on the IWC for the truth? I don’t see why not … ”
The last time I was paying attention, some very small, impecunious “nations” (Pacific Islands), with no whaling history (apart from the occasional historical salvage from a carcass floating by), or modern capability/interest, were joining the IWC at the behest of Japan to vote with the Japanese in return for “aid and development packages”.
The IWC was thus “stacked” by a very dubious “pro whaling” lobby.
The few remaining Great Whales face enough danger from container ships, flotsum and jetsom on the high seas, and other increasingly serious pollution without commercial whaling by humans for “products” that few people want and none need.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah, those bloody island nations in the pacific that might want to whale as one of their ways to feed themselves. They shouldn’t be allowed to have anything about whaling. Maybe they just want to joint to express their opinion?? Instead we should fill the IWC of landlocked EU nations… or no wait, most of them, like Austria, Luxemborg, Hungary, Czech Republic and more are already in the IWC. Why should a nation that doesn’t have an access to sea want to be in the IWC? Maybe to put in their voice in against the whaling nations, just like this small pacific island wants to favor whaling?
Nothing has been proven about Japan buying votes.
This way of geting more votes in the IWC works in both directions, while the whaling nations try to ask other nations to join the IWC, the anti-whaling nations also do so. The last country to join IWC was Slovenia, with 40 km of sealine. There aren’t any whales by that small sealine and they advertise themselves as a country that you can come and hunt dozen of different wildlife animals in their forrests. But they are really concerned about whales, which they never see…
The IWC has been splitt in the middle in the last years, and I don’t see that changing soon. That makes it possible for both the whaling nations and the anti-whaling nations to get their view across…
One point about the IWC also. You could ask yourself why the Government of the USA doesn’t condem the whaling. The reason is that on last IWC meeting they said they would propose on the next meeting to renew the whaling license they have for 67 Bowhead whales per year until 2013 (if i remember correctly). Therefore, they know if they will condemn the actions of Iceland they will probably get some negatives votes from the whaling lobby. Japan has done so just to point out the hypocraticy of the US in this matter…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Daveuk, Of course I understand that as you that has such a strong opinion about the fin whales would condemn this action, and nothing of what I will say will change that. I just wanted to try to lay the facts for you like I see them, and give some insight what my opinion, as being for whaling, is.
In light of what I’ve said about IWC, you must understand that IWC doesn’t allow over exploitation of the whale stocks. I don’t really know what to say more that I haven’t said already..
And of course you are true, we can’t really come to an conclusion in the end, we’ll always disagree about this. THank you for answering my posts here and giving me the opportunity to discuss these matters with you!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Answering eredwin. yes these animals are under great global threat, thats why Murdering nations like iceland, Japan, Faroe Islands, Norway have to be stopped.
To answer you sirpink, tell me are you the fisheries minister for Iceland, or the guy that owns the whaling fleet.
You twist everything for your slaughtering own satisfaction. The USA are not for killing whales, they alllow some forms of aboriginal people to still take them. ie Alaska.
Japan is breaking the rules in everyones eyes.
The IWC is not protecting these whales, every other organisation say FIN WHALES ENDANGERED, the IWC with an invested interest are saying they are not endangered, is that protecting them,
The only way Iceland and Norway and Japan has carried on hunting whales is by lieing to the world, this is for scientific reasons, scientific reasons do not end up on the dinner plate.
I re-enforce a very strong opinion that Iceland and Japan have Lied to the world, continually and need to be brought to justice for their actions, and I will continue my efforts to do so.
Please if anyone reads these blogs, go to seashepherd.org
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sirpink aka Iceland Govt. spokeperson [or at least is repeating answers I have got from them] should perhaps ponder this article which exposes the stupidity of whaling. Then again Sirpink could be Glenn Innes a NZlander paid by the Japanese Government to speak for them in very good english to give some respectablity [but little credibility] to their flawed logic.
See: http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2006/10/icelandic_whaling_show_me_the.html#more
Dave [my real name] http://www.stopwhaling.co.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stopwhaling your doing a great job, good website, pictures made me vommit
Sirpink is good at writing in English, but not so good at listening.
He speaks very similar to a lot of the literature I have received from Icelands goverment.
Just in case people get bored of Sirpinks (alias whale killer) dribble about the IWC.
Iceland and Japan hunting endangered species, do something about it…..!
Thanks Stopwhaling keep up the great work……………………..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Daveurk and Stopwhaling :
I’ve sent my letters of protest to the Icelandic officials and to the NZ Govt re IWC … and will tell my friends.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Daveuk,
The whales that Iceland is taking are in no way in threat of extinction. The fact is that the IWC Scientific Committee recognises that the Fin stock was increasing at a rate of around 10% a year from 1987 through to 2001 (and the trend has probably continued since). This growth saw the stock increase from an estimated 10,000 – 11,000 animals back in 1987-1989 to 25,800 now (95% CI of something like 20,000 to 33,000).
Iceland has permitted but *nine* of these whales to be taken.
The USA most certainly is for killing whales when it suits them. They are currently planning their quota requests for their people to kill more than 60 bowhead whales a year. In constrast to Iceland’s hunt, there are only around 10,000 bowheads, and the stock has been growing much more slowly at only about 3% each year.
How can you criticise Iceland for this tiny insignificant hunt, but then defend the USA on the other hand? The USA is the richest country in the world. If necessary they could easily ship beef to their people on the north slope.
Stop the double standards. There are two types of whaling – sustainable and unsustainable, and what’s good enough for the USA is surely good enough for everyone else.
The IWC has not expressed an opinion on this matter yet – the IWC is the 71 nations who have signed the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The IWC Secretariat, based in England, is completely neutral and has only published the findings on the Scientific Committee on it’s homepage. Stop shooting the messenger.
Hey Dave – Glenn Innes is a rugby player, are you sure you are shooting the right messenger?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
By the way everybody, since some people are questioning the function of the IWC:
# The Right and Grey whale species were protected since before the formation of the IWC
# The IWC has protected the Blue whale species globally since 1966, although it has only finally started showing signs of recovery recently
# The IWC has protected the Fin whale species since 1976 (30 years ago now)
# The IWC has protected the Sei whale species since 1978
# The IWC protected the Humpback whale in the Southern Hemisphere by 1963, and globally by 1966, 20 years before the moratorium came into effect.
These species were all protected before the commercial whaling moratorium was adopted (which is why the moratorium is regarded as unnecessary).
It’s common sense that after being protected for so long some of these whale stocks are recovering to levels where whaling can recommence, and on a sustainable level this time, now that the greedy oil whalers from the UK, NZ, Australia and other places are gone now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks eredwin
David @ tokyo
Probably another member of the IWC trying to justify what they do, or being from Tokyo an eater.
I didnt say anything about Glenn Innes yet…………….
I wasnt protecting America, and yes England has made mistakes in the past but they are trying putting them right.
When you send a letter of disapproval to Iceland you get their interesting facts back, part blaming America for their hunting. part quoting the local scientific (invested interest) tests that seem different to the worlds reports
Its funny when a finger is pointed at you, you turn straight around and say iwas their fault.
Iceland has lasted years without hunting, why start…………?
I love fin whales as I have already said when one dies its like losing s friend that is why I just one mere person will do all I can to save the slaughter
Any form of killing whales is wrong, I want to put a stop to the whole lot whether its in Japan/Norway/Iceland/Faroe Islands/Greenland.
I like “stopwhaling’s” website and will be creating my own shortly……….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Daveuk,
I’m not a member of the IWC. The IWC is a group of nations who signed the ICRW. I’m not from Tokyo. I’m from Wellington (New Zealand). I live in Tokyo now. The people here are friendly and honest and they understand what “conservation” means.
I wasn’t talking to you about Glenn Innes, I was talking to the other Dave (from “stopwhaling”). How come everyone here is called Dave?
What information did you get from Iceland that seemed different to “the worlds reports”? I checked the factual information provided by the IWC Secretariat about what the IWC Scientific Committee has agreed on with regards to abundance and growth rates, and it looks like Iceland’s version of the story is completely accurate.
So what is Iceland saying that seems dodgy to you but isn’t mentioned in here:
http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
?
I’m not blaming just the UK, like I said “and others”. The fact is that the politicians of the IWC back in the 1950′s were too slow to act. They shouldn’t have allowed Australian whalers to kill 17,000 humpbacks in the decade prior to 1963. They should have curbed Australia’s catching in advance of this, to ensure the proper conservation of the humpback stocks. If they had, Australia might still have a whaling industry today, and maybe they’d be selling the meat to Japan, just like they are selling “critically endangered” blue fin tuna to Japan for high prices.
Iceland hasn’t hunted whales for years, but circumstances change. As I mentioned in 1987 there were only 10,000 or so fin whales, but new estimates for 2001 show that the population expanded by 2.6 times to 25,800. Iceland is saying “hey, we’ve protected the whales for long enough, now we can hunt them again, and so long as we do so sustainably then there is no conservation issue with doing so”.
Do you really seriously equate the life of a fin whale with the life of one of your friends? I can only guess that you have never actually lost the life of a friend. I just can’t understand how you could place the same value on the life of an animal as you could on the life of one of your own buddies. I guess we all have our own individual value systems.
Lastly, a few questions:
Have you written to the US government to ask them to stop killing Bowheads and Gray whales for food?
Have you written to the St. Vincent and Grenadines government to ask them to stop killing Humpbacks for food?
Have you written to the Solomon Islands to ask them to stop catching dolphins for food?
Have you written to Australia to ask them to stop killing dudongs for food?
Have you written to the Marshall Islands to ask them to stop killing turtles for food?
Have you written to St. Lucia to ask them to stop killing pilot whales?
Have you written to Russia to ask them to stop killing gray whales?
Have you written to Korea to ask them to stop letting so many whales die in fishing nets?
If so, did any of them respond?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wow now thats an answer dave.
Got to confess not yet but working on it.
I am probably just as guilty as everyone else by not doing enough in the past, so Ive just pledged a wedge to greenpeace, and joined sea shepherd hopefully as a active member.(fascinating website) the guys a legend.
If you want to look at the letter from Iceland, take a look at seashepherd.org he’s has the same one which we all got with Captain Paul Watson’s answers.
Yes it may be an obsession but these animals have something we dont understand…………………..
Get a famous peson to walk in to a group of 1000……………..800 will go wow their famous…………………………………a 100 will go, so what ………. a 100 will say i dont like them.
Stick a 1000 people on a boat get a large fin whale to role beside the boat and I bet every single person would be smiling. They bring happiness Ive seen it time and time again
Yes they do mean that much to me…………………….I suffer from winter lows, the thing that keeps me going, is the thought of Summer coming and being out there with the whales, its my hobby, its my passion and the thought of someone killing them makes me physically sick………..
Thats why Ive gotta try
Dave (john if it makes matters less confusing)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is the email that Iceland sends out.
Captain Watson’s replies in brackets, its great reading, take time to read it properly………………………………………………..!
Thank-you for your correspondence concerning Iceland’s policy on whaling.
I wish to assure you that Iceland has no intention of catching any of the endangered species of whales, killed on a large scale by other whaling nations in the past. Iceland’s resumption of sustainable whaling only involves abundant stocks and is linked to Iceland’s overall policy of sustainable utilization of marine resources.
[Captain Watson: This is of course a blatant untruth because Iceland has targeted fin whales and fin whales are regarded as an endangered species by both CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) and the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). The Scientific Committee of the IWC disagrees with Iceland that there are abundant populations of fin whales.]
Several countries catch whales, most of them on a much bigger scale than Iceland. The biggest whaling countries among the members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) are the United States, Russia, Norway, Japan and Greenland. The whaling operations practiced by all those countries, as well as Iceland, are sustainable and legal and in accordance with the rules of the IWC.
[Norwegian whaling is a blatant violation of IWC regulations. Both Iceland and Norway are in violation of the global moratorium on commercial whaling. Japanese whaling attempts to hide behind the guise of “scientific research whaling? but they are fooling no one. Japanese whaling is illegal, and because they are hunting fins and humpbacks they are violating CITES regulations, also. Whaling in Greenland and the United States is conducted only by aboriginal peoples in accordance with IWC regulations.]
Iceland fully appreciates the need for careful conservation of marine resources. Our economy depends on those resources as marine products constitute around 60% of Iceland’s revenue from exported goods and almost 40% of all Icelandic exported goods and services. Disruption of the ecological balance in Icelandic waters due to overfishing or other reasons could have catastrophic consequences for the livelihood of Icelanders.
[Iceland has already overfished their waters and Iceland is one of the leading causes of fish population diminishment in the North Atlantic. Iceland has not practiced careful fish management and has instead allowed Icelandic companies to over-exploit marine species.]
As you may know, Iceland was among the first countries in the world to extend its fishery limits to 200 nautical miles in the year 1975, in order to put an end to the uncontrolled fishing around Iceland by trawlers from other countries. Since then Iceland has taken great care in maintaining balanced and sustainable fishing in Icelandic waters by enforcing an effective management system for various fish species including cod, herring and capelin.
[Yes, Iceland did extend their territorial limits to force foreign fishing operations out of the area within 200 miles of their coastline. This simply meant that instead of British and Spanish ships over-exploiting the fish,100% of the diminishment that has occurred since 1975 is entirely the responsibility of Iceland.]
Iceland takes pride in its pioneering work in this field, which has been emulated by many countries in the world wishing to avoid unsustainable practices. The annual catch quotas for fishing and whaling are based on recommendations by scientists, who regularly monitor the status of the stocks, thus ensuring that the activity is sustainable.
[All scientists employed by industry and government with a vested interest in telling industry and government what they want to hear.]
For a number of years, Iceland has acknowledged the need for scientific research on whales to gain a better understanding of the interaction between the different whale stocks and other marine species and the role of whales in the marine ecosystem. Therefore, Iceland began implementing a research plan on Minke whales in 2003. So far, 161 Minke whales have been taken and we look forward to the completion of the research plan in 2007 when the sample size of 200 Minke whales has been obtained. Whaling quotas will take into account the number of whales that are taken in the implementation of the research plan, ensuring that the total number remains well below sustainable levels.
[All whales taken by Iceland since 2003 have been killed illegally. Their so-called “scientific? whaling was as unlawful as Japanese “scientific whaling.? Implementing commercial whaling activities is a violation of the IWC implemented global moratorium on commercial whaling which has not been rescinded.]
There are many different whale species and stocks in the world’s oceans. Some are in a poor state and in need of protection. However, many whale populations are far from being threatened or endangered. The total stock size of Central North-Atlantic Minke whales, for example, is close to 70,000 animals. Of those, around 43,600 live in Icelandic coastal waters. Fin whales in the Central North Atlantic number around 25,800 animals. Both estimates have been agreed by consensus by the Scientific Committees of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and the North-Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO).
[The Norwegians have been insisting there are 700,000 piked (Minke) whales in the North Atlantic. At least the Icelanders don’t exaggerate as much but they do exaggerate. There is no consensus on how many piked whales are in the North Atlantic. But even if there were 70,000 whales in the North Atlantic, that is the equivalent of a small European town. What incredibly audacity that a species with 6.5 billion refers to a species numbering 70,000 as overly abundant.]
Iceland’s decision to resume sustainable whaling involves takes of 30 Minke whales and nine fin whales, during the current fishing year which ends on 31 August 2007. This will bring the total catches of Minke whales in Icelandic waters during this fishing year to 69, including the Minke whales taken in completing the research plan. These takes equal less than 0.2% of the number of Minke whales in Icelandic coastal waters, an even smaller fraction of the total stock, and less than 0.04% of fin whales in the Central North Atlantic. Both are considered to be close to pre-exploitation levels and estimated sustainable annual catch levels are 200 and 400 fin and Minke whales respectively. As the catch limits now issued are much lower, the catches will not have a significant impact on whale stocks. A responsible management system will ensure that the catch quotas set will not be exceeded. The catches are clearly sustainable and therefore consistent with the principle of sustainable development.
[To suggest that the current population of piked and fin whales are close to pre-exploitation levels is absurd and has little scientific credibility. Sustainable development has become the catch phrase of every resource extraction industry. They are simply words that mean very little.]
Iceland’s resumption of sustainable whaling is legal under international law. At the time of the re-entry of Iceland into the IWC, Iceland made a reservation with respect to the so-called moratorium on commercial whaling. As a part of that reservation, Iceland committed itself not to authorize commercial whaling before 2006 and thereafter not to authorize such whaling while progress was being made in negotiating the IWC’s Revised Management Scheme (RMS), a management framework for commercial whaling.
[Iceland can spin it anyway they wish but the bottom line is that in the eyes of the IWC and the International public, Icelandic whaling is illegal.]
At the IWC’s Annual Meeting in 2005, Iceland went on record expressing its regret that no progress was being made in the RMS discussions. At this year’s IWC Annual Meeting, Iceland’s judgment of the situation was reconfirmed as the IWC generally agreed that talks on an RMS had reached an impasse. As a result, Iceland’s reservation has taken effect. Therefore, Iceland is no longer bound by the so-called moratorium on commercial whaling. In this respect, Iceland is in the same position as other IWC members that are not bound by the moratorium.
[The reason no progress has been made on the Revised Management Scheme is that is simply a scheme to resurrect commercial whaling. Because Iceland, Norway, and Japan have not been getting what they want, they claim no progress has been made. Iceland remains bound to the global moratorium on whaling. You can’t avoid the law by simply stating that you do not recognize the law. If that was so the world’s prisons would be empty.]
Iceland was one of the first countries in the world to realize the importance of a conservation approach to whaling. As signs of overexploitation of whales emerged early in the last century, Iceland declared a ban on whaling for large whales around Iceland in 1915. Whaling was not resumed until 1948, except for limited catches 1935-1939. Strict rules and limitations were applied to whaling in Iceland from 1948 to 1985 when all commercial whaling was halted again following a decision by the IWC.
[Iceland was forced to stop whaling in 1939 because of the war, not because they were concerned for conservation. Icelandic whaling has never been managed responsibly. What Iceland is not getting, however, is that the killing of whales has no place in the 21st Century. It is a barbaric practice and is grossly inhumane.]
Iceland has been a leading advocate for international cooperation in ensuring sustainable use of living marine resources, including whales. This has been the position taken by Iceland within the IWC, based on the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling from 1946. The stated role of the IWC, according to its founding Convention, is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.
[In other words, Iceland has been a leading advocate in ensuring continued economic exploitation of marine species. The objectives of the IWC have changed since 1946 and the Committee is now composed of a majority of members who have voted to ban whaling and have chosen to protect and conserve whales and not to kill them.]
I hope that this information will be useful to you in understanding Iceland’s position on sustainable whaling. You may rest assured, that the desire to ensure the conservation of the whale stocks around Iceland and elsewhere is fully shared by the Icelandic Government.
[We are not assured and we intend to oppose illegal whaling by Iceland by all legal means.]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OKey, so you like Paul Watson. Paul Watson is nothing but a terrorist. IWC has even condemned him for his actions. His life threatening atrocaties should not belong in a discussion like this. He boosted of sinking the whaling boats in the harbor of Reykjavik, Iceland, and sabotageing the whaling station, for over 2 years, but when he was brought to questioning by the Icelandic police he denied doing as he faced long jail sentence. From that time he will not be allowed to come into the country again. He has been banned form any IWC activity and there have been numerous account of him both shooting and raming vessels conducting totally lawful behaviour.
His reply to the letter of the icelandic government includes numerous lies and nice little twists of the facts.
>The Scientific Committee of the IWC disagrees with Iceland that there are abundant populations of fin whales.
Wrong! – http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
>Both Iceland and Norway are in violation of the global moratorium on commercial whaling.
Wrong! – http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
>Iceland has already overfished their waters and Iceland is one of the leading causes of fish population diminishment in the North Atlantic.
Probably one of the most blatant lies. Greenpeace has appraised the efforts of the icelandic government in their fishery management. Which one is then lieing Mr. Watson or Greenpeace?
>[All scientists employed by industry and government with a vested interest in telling industry and government what they want to hear.]
IWC scientist don’t probably want to be called icelandic….
>To suggest that the current population of piked and fin whales are close to pre-exploitation levels is absurd and has little scientific credibility.
Again wrong – http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
>[Iceland can spin it anyway they wish but the bottom line is that in the eyes of the IWC and the International public, Icelandic whaling is illegal.]
Why didn’t he read the IWC page before he posted these lies? I don’t understand how he can just post something like this without even.. uh thinking!
>The objectives of the IWC have changed since 1946 and the Committee is now composed of a majority of members who have voted to ban whaling and have chosen to protect and conserve whales and not to kill them.
And once again – wrong. He should read the objectives and resolutions from the last meeting. Here is one small part of it:
UNDERSTANDING that the purpose of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) is to ‘provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry’ (quoted from the Preamble to the Convention) and that the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is therefore about managing whaling to ensure whale stocks are not over-harvested rather than protecting all whales irrespective of their abundance;
Paul Watson is just a propaganda machine and a spin doctor that thinks that he can say everything, doesn’t matter if it’s the truth or not. And no, i’m not connected to the icelandic government nor the whaling industry. I’m just a measily little university student in Gothenburg, Sweden that thinks that the world is not thinking logicaly when it comes to whaling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How nice coincidence… i didn’t even know that you were going to post the letter before I wrote my objections.
Btw, always nice to read what you have to say david@tokyo.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Paul Watson really said: “The Scientific Committee of the IWC disagrees with Iceland that there are abundant populations of fin whales.”
????
What was he smoking?
The information on the IWC Secretariat’s homepage clearly states that the IWC Scientific Committee has agreed on an abudance estimate for the stock in question, and Iceland has been using this same figure to support it’s argument.
Maybe someone should tell him, because it could be very embarassing for him to get caught out telling such obvious lies like that. Who would support someone who tells such obvious lies?
SirPink,
You too, my friend! You might enjoy reading some of the whaling posts over here:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/
I’ve been illustrating the huge jump in whale meat consumption in Japan over the past year with figures on stockpile movements (maybe you saw them already on my blog)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SirPink I think your a liar…………….!
You talk just like the goverments and fisheries.
Your probably even paid to try and justify the slaughtering of innocent ENDANGERED animals.
In fact you know to much………. even about Paul watson
And as for for Paul Watson…….the mans a god, read more at
seahepherd.org
He believes in something so strongly that he’ll put his own life on the line.
And as for nothing understanding, what all the fuss about in slaughtering innocent endangered animals
Well…………………
Take youself on a whale trip, take a good long look into one of these endangered animals eyes, then think do I have the right to kill it.
As I say there is something there we dont understand but it brings a smile to our face……
I hopefully you’ll be meeting captain Paul Watson next year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, I too can confirm that the IWC in the past condemned Paul Watson’s acts of terrorism.
I mean, seriously. You want to think very very carefully about supporting someone who using violence, even if you agree with the cause. It is never justified. If you think otherwise, just remember the London trainbombings and 9/11.
Terrorism is never, never justified. Particularly note when we are talking about animal slaughter, which is something that Australians, Kiwis, Americans, and of course those in Britain practice every day.
Just think – if you were on the receiving end of a terrorist attack by Hindi extremists wanting to “save the cows”, how would you feel?
Violence is not the solution. If your arguments are truely the correct ones, they should be strong enough to win people over without the attraction of violence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Daveuk,
Take a look at what you are saying. You are just shooting the messenger. SirPink is but reporting the facts of the matter, refering to the IWC Secretariat’s information. The IWC Secretariat is based on England, and is undoubtedly unbiased.
> He believes in something so strongly that he’ll put his own life on the line.
I’ll believe that when I see him take a harpoon in his bloated belly. Until then I regard him as a lying terrorist coward desperately seeking attention.
> what all the fuss about in slaughtering innocent endangered animals
Iceland is not killing animals that are in any danger of extinction.
> Take youself on a whale trip
I hope to go on one as early as this time next month!
> take a good long look into one of these endangered animals eyes,
They don’t have many endangered whales here off the coast of Japan, only abundant ones. I’m hoping to see some Bryde’s whales. Japan has plans to hunt them commercially in the near future too, if the IWC permits it.
See? We can share the whales. I’ll go watching some. Then I’ll possibly eat some sometime. The two activities are complementary.
> As I say there is something there we dont understand
Mmmm, I guess I’ll have to wait to experience that eh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Now this is getting silly……………………………….!
Paul Watson is not a terrosrist, and you start talking about bombings….are you on drugs……!
I am not for any bombings but yes I support sea shepherd
Anybody into hunting whales will say this, just to put people off him and the great work he does.
Ive learnt something from this blog…..and that is people will say anything to Justify whaling…..
These amazing creatures:
Fin Whale ENDANGERED. Humpback ENDANGERED
Japan are after both of these, Iceland the fin whale……
Intelligent animals…………………………………….needless deaths
I would love to speak to you after youve seen them, to see if your opinion changes
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Daveuk,
“Expelled From the IWC
After the sinking of the Icelandic whaling vessels in 1986, Sea Shepherd lost its status as an observer at the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
In February of 1994, IWC Secretary Ray Gambell reiterated – after Sea Shepherd claimed it was merely enforcing IWC rules – that “the IWC and all its members ardently condemn Sea Shepherd’s acts of terrorism.?
http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/pr2001/ocean_warriors_confront_lucian_fishermen.htm
Why don’t you support a slightly more reputable group such as WWF?
Fin whales are not in any danger of extinction.
Humpback whales are not in any danger of extinction (around Australia they will be back to pre-exploitation levels of abundance within the next 10-15 years). It’s amazing what happens when the Australians aren’t slaughtering them willy nilly.
I’ll definitely put it on my blog if I do get to go whale watching next month (24th of Oct – a friday in Shikoku), so by all means visit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Im getting bored of this
Go to Endangered Species Act.
FIN WHALE ENDANGERED
HUMPBACK ENDANGERED
Oh sorry your into whaling you dont you recognise the endangered species act……………..!!
IWC whaling commission of course there not going to like Paul
whaling commission
anti whaling
do you expect these to be buddies
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Fin Whale was regarded as “Endangered” globally as of 1996, but as the IWC page points out, in individual regions the species could be rated differently to the species as seen from a global perspective.
Iceland has looked after it’s Fin whales, so it’s a bit ridiculous to suggest that they shouldn’t be able to hunt a small number just because the whalers who hunted around Antarctic went overboard, so to speak.
And, the Humpback is actually not “Endangered” according to the IUCN, it’s only rated “Vulnerable”, and as I say, it’s in fantastic shape pretty much everywhere – the North Atlantic, North Pacific, around Australia’s west and east coasts – just some south pacific stocks that are really struggling to recover properly, and no one is planning to hunt those.
As for the IWC, as noted, Paul Watson claimed he was enforcing the IWC’s rules. The IWC rejected him and called him a terrorist. Make of it what you will. By the way, the IWC has been anti-whaling ever since the late 1970′s when Greenpeace bought the votes of lots of small countries to push the moratorium through.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sir pink says..
“..Which one is then lieing Mr. Watson or Greenpeace?..”
(ahem)…now that question is opening a whole new can of worms..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
well they are both still on the endangered species act.
and the iwc is at the end of the day a whaling commission.
who are you………………..?
the facts, the figures, the knowing and veing able to twist.
if you have a hobby you get to know alot about it, and what you said about paul Watson, the average Jo bloggs wouldnt know that
but you wouldnt have a hobby for whaling.
fisheries minister, IWC………?
David@tokyo and Sirpink involved in the slaughter (invested interest)
You lot are obviously getting worried if you are either sent or come on blogs trying to convince people there’s nothing wrong with it.
I would not take numbers from a whaling commission i would rather take them from the world endangered species act…!
Iceland looking after there whales, what hae they done gone out and fattened them up, the whales would be there regardless, same as they are in the Biscay
Whaling is barbaric and it will be stopped one day,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You want to kill and eat Humpbacks? You and your family might be a little gamey, but with the right sauce?
Of course if the meat isn’t really that good we always could feed it to dogs.
This is not merely about scientifically measuring sustainable catches and farming the sea. This is about an emotional attachment as well and while I do not understand it, it is a real thing. Killing whales and dolphins is widely perceived as immoral by those of us who’ve heard and interacted with them.
I suspect that this is what you wish to draw out, that our objections are not entirely scientific. Perhaps you should re-examine your basis of operations then, because from a scientific standpoint there’s lots of people who are handicapped enough that the whales are smarter, but we don’t cull them and eat them or feed them to our dogs. Maybe we should? Shades of “Soylent Green”
As much as I follow science and engineering, I am yet a human, and I deny that at my peril.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>(ahem)…now that question is opening a whole new can of worms..eh..?
Please, phil, lets open it!
It’s really basic, sea sheperd, condemned by IWC and other nations, says one thing and Greenpeace says another thing. Which one should we believe? And if Sea Shepherd is lieing there why wouldn’t they lie about everything else (like they nearly did)?
>David@tokyo and Sirpink involved in the slaughter (invested interest)
I wish i would get paied for the time that I’ve used in replying to people in different blogs and chats around the world!
I see this as a chance to try to show people the facts, the truth behind whaling. As I said before, I’m just a university student in Sweden that can’t understand how people can turn a blind eye to what I see as the facts. I’ll just use the example of the holy cows of India again. What would you say if all Hindu nations of the world would bind together and form an alliance of nations that would oppose the unholy treatment of cows? Wouldn’t you think it would be unlogical and just ridiculous that they could affect the nations of the world to stop “farming” cows.
bjchip, I know that this is reason why people are so strongly against whaling. And in these times of cultural differences that we are experiencing now, I can’t see why cultural values of few nations should be thrust upon other nations, without them wanting it. When we come down to it, it’s all about culture. In Australia, NZ and UK they have managed to build a strong whale culture, a culture that believes that whales should not be touched. In other coutries, like Norway, Japan, Russia, China and Iceland they have the strong culture of useing the reserves that the nature provides them to their benefit.
The cultures of the countries can’t and should never be aligned in the same direction. In reality the only way to solve these difference is to compromise, the whaling nations to accepts quotas set by IWC and the anti-whaling nations to lift the moratorium. Even the official of the US in the IWC has stated that the moratorium should be lifted! The godlike worshiping of the whales isn’t logical at all, they are just like any other species of animals.
And yes, I’ve seen whales numerous times, and I love to watch them. I have also seen sheps, llamas and oustriches, but I still love to eat them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sirpink you dont listen to the facts your obviously paid to convince people that iceland and Japan arnt doing anything wrong.
You and david tokyo pretend to be this average guy who dosent care either way.
You quote the IWC like its a bible, you class paul watson as a terrorist (only whalers or people connected with whaling call him a terrorist )
You deny the facts that the fin whale and the humpback is endangered although they are both on the Endangered species act.
You say most whales die quickly which is a lie.
Every message youve quoted according to the IWC
you turn and twist the truth to suit whaling aspect.
Who the hell are you………………..?
As far as I am concerned you are a slaughterer……..one of many that will be brought to justice…………..! of the same breed of those that put the second largest animal, an extremely intelligent animal through unnecessary pain and eventual death.
Iceland have broken an international law by hunting endangered animals, and they will be brought to justice……1
and dont even think about quoting me again………!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great comments Daveuk. you hit the nail on the head. These goons are being paid or have some other motivation to spread half-truths on the basis that if you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe it. Paul Watson SSCS acts in accordance with the UN charter for nature-the law of the sea and a shit load of MEA’s that whaling nations are in violation of that no govt. has the intestinal fortutude [balls] to take action on. His organisation has for many years protected our oceans from the rape & pillage of environmental vandals-especially Japan, who are destryoing ecosystems in ‘everyones backyards. They are beneath/beyond contempt.
Dave http://www.stopwhaling.co.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Paul Watson states that the IWC disagrees with Iceland’s abundance estimate. Sir Pink states that Watson is wrong , and cites a position statement of the IWC on the website
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
This website confirms that the fin whale is endangered, though the IWC are scientists, not activists and are careful not to extrapolate beyond the evidence.
“The fin whale species as a whole was classified as ‘Endangered’ under the IUCN system in 1996 using their 1994 criteria. The classification of Endangered can be made on the basis that the species fulfils at least one of five major and wide ranging criteria. Its definition is:
‘A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as defined by any of the criteria ….’
It was noted2 that the current status of fin whales ‘is poorly known in most areas outside the North Atlantic’. The global categorisation of ‘Endangered’ was made on the basis of one of the criteria, namely ‘an estimated decline of at least 50% worldwide over the last three generations (assumed generation time 20-25 years)…..the greatest decline was in the Southern Hemisphere, which had the largest original population’. It should be noted that there will be a major review of the IUCN Cetacean Red List in January 2007, although this will again be at the global level.”
They nowhere say that the fin whale is “abundant” though they do use the same figures of 43,000 cited by Iceland.
It is SirPink who is wrong, and I would recommend he/she actually reads references before citing them.
Watson also states that Iceland and Norway are in contravention of the moratorium. Sir Pink again disputes this.
The IWC website states that the moratorium is still in force until a revised management scheme has been put in place.
“The Commission, while adopting the RMP, agreed not to lift the commercial whaling moratorium until an RMS is in place to ensure that agreed catch limits are not exceeded1. The Commission has been working on such a regime for many years but has not yet reached agreement. At the Commission’s 58th Annual Meeting in St. Kitts and Nevis in June 2006, the Commission confirmed its view that discussions on the RMS remain at an impasse and no further collective work was scheduled. It was understood, however, that this does not prevent individual governments or groups of governments working together on the RMS if they so choose.”
Again SirPink is inadvertently or deliberately misleading us by not thoroughly checking his references.
It is standard parctice to denigrate people by calling them names, which is what SirPink is doing simply by labelling Watson as a “terrorist”. Oh, he’s a terrorist is he, oh that’s bad, so end of discussion. But I would actually ask SirPink who are the real terrorists. Given his lecture on the unacceptability of violence, perhaps he would like to volunteer as crew of the Sea Shepherd or Green Peace ships to try to prevent the extreme violence being meted out to sentient creatures who have done none of us any harm. Watson has not to my knowledge killed anyone, or endangered any lives except his own and his volunteer crew, so his “terrorism” rather pales into significance does it not.
And if you define “terrorism” in a broader way as anyone who can engender “terror” then that pretty much rules out any sort of protest or law enforecment does it not. All criminals are frightened of the police, and all factory farmers are frightened of even legal protest that could expose what they are doing. Tax evaders live in dread of audits from the IRD, need I go on. So if Watson is a “terrorist” by this definition then so are the police, customs, the IRD, Greenpeace, SAFE, the RNZSPCA, MAF, and the Green Party.
kiore1
http://www.epf.org.nz (terrorist website)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DaveUK, come on, you are not listening to what I’m saying at all.. of course I’m not paied to do this, that’s just ridiculous if you think of it that it’s 3 am here… Listen to what I’m saying and don’t dismiss it so easily, if I see some facts here I’ll undoubtfully look at them and value what they mean for me. That’s what I’ve done in this conversation that has being going on different sites on the internet.
IWC should be the bible as it is the only unbiased source of scientific knowledge of the whales.
And what happens if I quote you again?
You’ll come and hunt me as I’m the “slaugtherer” that I’m…
>They nowhere say that the fin whale is “abundant? though they do use the same figures of 43,000 cited by Iceland.
>It is SirPink who is wrong, and I would recommend he/she actually reads references before citing them.
Of course I’ve red my citation, I’ve red this one like thousand times! But I actually thought that this comment was there, and that’s why i refered to it. But anyone here is what i wanted to refer to:
“Isn’t the fin whale considered endangered?
Yes. But the ‘endangered’ moniker is for the global population of fin whales: an estimated 90% decline in numbers over three generations earns this tag. This is mainly attributable to huge exploitation in Antarctic waters, Vikingsson notes — catches were more than 10,000 per year at the peak between 1940 and 1960. “This was one of the worst cases of natural over-exploitation in the history of mankind,” he says.
There are estimated to be 25,000 fin whales in the North Atlantic, which is thought to be more than 70% of the pre-exploitation level, says Vikingsson. “You can’t say that there is a danger of extinction,” he says — not in the North Atlantic.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061023/full/061023-3.html
>Again SirPink is inadvertently or deliberately misleading us by not thoroughly checking his references.
This part that you refer to says it all:
At the Commission’s 58th Annual Meeting in St. Kitts and Nevis in June 2006, the Commission confirmed its view that discussions on the RMS remain at an impasse and no further collective work was scheduled.
That means that according to the reservation (‘Notwithstanding this, the Government of Iceland will not authorise whaling for commercial purposes by Icelandic vessels before 2006 and, thereafter, will not authorise such whaling while progress is being made in negotiations within the IWC on the RMS.”) that was agreed by IWC nations, Iceland can start whaling. All this was in my reference, I was just to lazy to point exactly to it.
Webster defines terrorism as:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Mr. Watson has a long record of violence terrorism (exactly like the definition) acts. In February 1994, IWC Secretary, Ray Gambell, declared to NTB (the Norwegian Telegram Agency) that the IWC and all its member states ardently condemn Sea Shepherd’s acts of terrorism.
Sea Shepherd aren’t allowed to attend IWC meetings anymore, like all other environmentalist organization that wants to.
Lets look at Mr.Watson record of events:
1979: A Sea Shepherd vessel rams the whaler “Sierra?.
1980: The “Sierra? is sunk in Lisbon harbour with the help of limpet mines. Sea Shepherd claims responsibility.
1981: Sea Shepherd sinks the two whaling vessels, Ibsa I and Ibsa II, in the Spanish harbour of Viga (Sole source Sea Shepherd. This has not been confirmed by any other source)
1986: Sea Shepherd activists shoot at Faroese police with a line rifle and try to sink their rubber dinghies. They also use methods of burning petrol, signal flares and rotating iron spikes against the rubber dinghies.
1986: Sea Shepherd claims responsibility for the sinking of two whaling vessels in Reykjavik, Iceland, and for malicious damage to the whaling station not far from the town. The act was carried out by two US citizens, one of them, Rodney Corronado, is now wanted in the US for several incidents of serious animal rights terrorism. Watson publicly announced that he was behind these atrocities. On the night of these happenings a watchman that was aboard the ships barely escapes fatal injuries when fleeing from the ships.
1991: Scott Trimmingham, president of Sea Shepherd quits in protest. “We had rules about not hurting anyone, about not using weapons. I left because those rules and that philosophy seems to be changing,? he said to “Outside? magazine (Sept. 1991).
1993: Sea Shepherd makes an unsuccesful attempt at scuttling the combined minke whaling and fishing vessel “Senet” at her moorings in Gressvik. The vessel was salvaged, but the water had caused some damage.
1993: Sea Shepherd concludes that the organisation has sunk 8 ships and rammed and damaged a further 6. A lot more acts of terrorism have been recorded but it’s just too much to list here.
Terrorism is not only causing fatalities, terrorism is to use terror. That is exactly what Watson is doing with his threats and actions. Even though noone has died, he has done so much damage to boats and equipment and hes undoubtfully threaten the lives of the crews. And don’t say that his violent unlawful actions are not causing terror and comparing him to policeman or IRD is not correct. Police, IRD and customs cause “terror” by laws and regulations, not coercion. Noone can justify actions like these. I don’t accept violence against human beings. Noone can say that violence against human beings is equal to hunting of animals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
> well they are both still on the endangered species act.
Domestic legislation doesn’t mean much in the international world, because in many cases some animals are regarded as being “endangered” for political purposes.
> and the iwc is at the end of the day a whaling commission.
Yes, the underlying convention which it’s member nations has signed implies that conservative whaling is OK.
From a conservation point of view, there is nothing wrong with hunting whales.
You may choose to oppose it from a “animal rights” or “whale rights” point of view, but that has nothing at all to do with conservation.
> if you have a hobby you get to know alot about it, and what you said about paul Watson, the average Jo bloggs wouldnt know that
I have a great interest in conservation issues and sustainable use of wildlife as a means of achieving good conservation outcomes. Here’s an article from the BBC this morning:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6091848.stm
I have heard about Paul Watson before, terrorists often have made quite a name for themself. Have you ever heard of Osama Bin Laden? Paul Watson is nowhere NEAR as bad as Bin Laden, but Watson is still a menace to human society, and his views don’t serve a good conservation purpose at all.
> You lot are obviously getting worried if you are either sent or come on blogs trying to convince people there’s nothing wrong with it.
There is nothing wrong with it, from a conservation perspective.
If you want to argue on grounds of “oh well the whale makes me feel special”, then I can respect that you have a different world view to me, but your view doesn’t have anything to do with conservation.
> Iceland looking after there whales, what hae they done
They didn’t go and kill too many, like the Australians did with their humpbacks.
> Whaling is barbaric and it will be stopped one day,
If whaling is barbaric, then what ISN’T barbaric?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ
> This is not merely about scientifically measuring sustainable catches
My concern is conservation of the ecosystems on which humans depend. As such, this is my primary area of concern.
I want to see good conservation outcomes. And we have seen some really great outcomes as a result of the IWC’s actions over the past 43 years.
1963 – humpbacks protected, before it was too late – and today this is one of the most rapidly recovering species worldwide
Similar situations with other species, to lesser or greater extents.
> This is about an emotional attachment as well
This is the difficulty in the debate, really.
One side sees whale poo as being made of pure gold, the other side sees them as just another source of food from the sea.
How can these two different sides with such a wide gap between them emotionally, actually sit down and have productive discussions? And indeed, why should people in Iceland even need to have a discussion with people in New Zealand? Iceland’s whales migrate in the North Atlantic. Surely their management should really be left over to the countries whose waters those whales swim through.
> Killing whales and dolphins is widely perceived as immoral by those of us who’ve heard and interacted with them.
I know many people who have seen whales and dolphins (an acquantence of mine photographs them for a living) who don’t have a problem will killing them so long as it is sustainable.
> I suspect that this is what you wish to draw out, that our objections are not entirely scientific.
I suppose so – conservation has a lot to do with science, but little to do with emotion.
I think it’s really really important to understand the motivation for killing whales.
It’s not because they are stupid.
It’s because people want to eat them. Whales come from the ocean. In some parts of the world, particularly places where land-based farming was unsuitable, anything from the ocean is regarded as food, whales included.
By the way, the vast majority of whale meat is consumed by humans. Dogs only get the scraps that humans don’t eat, such as small intestines from toothed whales (such parts of such species have high levels of pollutant contamination).
> As much as I follow science and engineering, I am yet a human, and I deny that at my peril.
You are more than welcome to be human, and feel the way you feel about whales. But you should also respect that other humans are also humans, and having developed in different environments to you and I, the way they see the world is quite different.
With this respect I hope we can argue about things in terms of science, because at the end of the day, we need to be sure to conserve resources today, so that tomorrow our future generations may benefit and also have the same options as we do to live happy lives on this earth. That’s our responsibility to our future generations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
> You and david tokyo pretend to be this average guy who dosent care either way.
Actually, I am deadly serious about this issue. It is NOT a conservation issue. It distracts people who want to think that they are caring for the environment from focusing on real issues, where lesser glamorous animals than whales are involved.
> Every message youve quoted according to the IWC
The IWC is a neutral source, like it or not. The IWC was the same organization that put a blanket ban on commercial whaling in 1986, remember?
> one of many that will be brought to justice…
OK dave. I think this was my last response to you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore,
The figures that Iceland used and that the IWC Secretariat confirmed on their webpage are indeed the same, and the numbers clearly indicate an abundant stock of fin whales.
Do you deny that the fin whale stock is rightly described as “abundant”, despite the figures which you seem to accept?
Iceland also made it clear the conditions on which it was rejoining the IWC, and the IWC admitted Iceland. Iceland has done nothing it said it wouldn’t. The failure of the IWC to implement the RMS within the timeframe set by Iceland is not Iceland’s failure. Iceland could just withdraw from the IWC and continue on whaling again, anyway. It would not be breaking the moratorium under those conditions, either.
> SirPink is doing simply by labelling Watson as a “terrorist?
Actually, the IWC labelled Watson a terrorist. And if you look up a definition of terrorist, you’ll see that the dictionary agrees.
> prevent the extreme violence being meted out to sentient creatures who have done none of us any harm
Umm, they are just hunting animals…. Don’t you think you’re … kind of taking that a little bit far?
> So if Watson is a “terrorist? by this definition
Watson is a terrorist because he has used acts of violence against his fellow human beings to intimidate them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually, we have at least one correspondent who has indicated that feeding it to dogs is exactly what happens in Japan. There is no desire on the part of the general population to partake in the rare delicacy.
While we are concerned with the conservation of our ecosystems, we are after all, greens, we are also concerned with the well being of species we feel some fraternity with, and the ocean mammals are well represented there. If you know “many people” who actually interact with these animals and can still consider eating them I have to regard that as reflecting poorly on the company you keep.
As for the rest, there are indeed people who rely on whale meat as part of their diet. The Japanese are not heavily represented in this group, and the Japanese who send their fleet to the southern ocean preserves to ravage the population here, are not represented at all, as none of the people who rely on whale meat have factory ships to render their kill.
I think you’ve got plenty of facts and yet you still get the wrong answer. People have the morality they can afford. We can afford now to eschew the killing of whales.
It’s not because they are stupid.
Nope. I never said that, but I’ll happily call them stubborn. Whale is not such a popular dish anymore… and the price has had to be dropped several times as the supply increased. I get the distinct impression that it is more a matter of resisting outsiders than any real appetite for the stuff.
Finally, the question of conservation is not at issue (at least for me). I reckon that the folks in Iceland have a real good handle on what happens around Iceland. The numbers are fine if conservation is all that is at issue, but the principle of conservation is not DAMAGED by not taking any whales. As I pointed out, we could sustainably “harvest” humans by the thousands without creating any problem for the species. The fact that something is sustainable does not make it desireable or necessarily moral, it merely makes it sustainable. You want to just argue about the science but it isn’t just about the science as you very clearly understand by your answer to me.
The Japanese whaling fleet has, if I am to believe the press, been found in places it isn’t supposed to go, and in this era when you can get a GPS that tells you where you are to within 6 meters for $100 NZ there’s no “navigational error” excuse that will wash. If it were not for Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd we’d not even have this information because there’s nobody else watching.
I suspect that there’s a lot of truth being bent on both sides of this issue, but at the end of the day we have decided in favour of the rights of the whales and dolphins for many of the same reasons we have decided not to kill and eat people.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Whale meat on the whole is consumed by humans who pay fairly high prices for the meat.
This whole “dogs eat the whale meat” thing started up a year or so ago when the WDCS NGO found the webpage of a company that sells whale meat, and also includes a section for pet food:
http://www.hakudai.com/pet.html
That particular product is made from the small intensines of the Baird’s beaked whale (of the toothed whale family). This part of that species is generally not fit for human consumption.
I mean, think what you like, but do you seriously think that the Japanese would sail ships halfway around the world for the purpose of getting food to feed their doggies? To me this sounds completely loony, yet even so the conspiracy theory managed to take hold. People must think that Japan is one of the wackiest countries on earth or something.
Also, recent stockpile movements indicate a big jump in whale meat consumption of around 2,000 tonnes, year on year for the year to the end of August 2006. This increase in sales has been reported in the Japanese media as well, and the stockpile movements confirm it.
As someone who lives in Japan, I can actually confirm for you that whale meat is sold in restaurants where humans go to eat, and pets are not permitted.
But, believe what you will.
> While we are concerned with the conservation of our ecosystems
Absolutely. This is what anti-whalers and whalers alike have in common. It would be nice if the two sides could at least get some agreement and firm understanding in this area.
> we are after all, greens, we are also concerned with the well being of species we feel some fraternity with, and the ocean mammals are well represented there.
How about the cute little calves born in New Zealand farms? Have you ever looked one of them in the eye? What about cute little baby lambs?
> If you know “many people? who actually interact with these animals and can still consider eating them I have to regard that as reflecting poorly on the company you keep
I’ve actually seen dolphins myself, and have also tried whale meat. And you know there are whale watching organizations in Japan, right? I’m hoping to go whale-watching in Shikoku within the next few months, and see me some Bryde’s whales.
Also, do you know that Japanese tourists go to New Zealand and go on farm visits? Would you be surprised if you heard that despite that they also eat lamb and beef?
>there are indeed people who rely on whale meat as part of their diet.
None of them really need it in this day and age though. The whole “subsistence” thing is crap. Food could easily be shipped to those regions where food is required, especially so in the USA which is the richest country on earth. Their people don’t need to keep killing whales every year.
> the Japanese who send their fleet to the southern ocean preserves to ravage the population here,
Let’s be fair, shall we? The Japanese are hardly “ravaging” the whale populations around Antarctica. They didn’t even take 900 last year. Immediately prior to the commercial whaling moratorium being imposed (unnecessarily) the Russians and Japanese together were killing about 7,000 minke whales a year, and even then this level was actually regarded by the FAO as being “within the productive capacity of the stock and should be sustainable indefinitely.”
http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_fao82.html
It’s quite an interesting read, actually (if you are just a plain old conservationist, like me). The FAO observer also noted: “Given the differing status of the various stocks, and the fact that virtually all those species or stocks that are seriously depleted are already receiving complete protection, there seems to be no scientific justification for a global moratorium.”
Very interesting, as this year the IWC adopted a resolution to the effect that the moratorium was “unnecessary”. Indeed, scientists never said it was. It seems that it was always just a smokescreen for the true motivation of the anti-whalers to just ban whaling for all time. This event was interesting, because it’s basically corrupted the true meaning of the word “moratorium” as well. These days whenever some one calls for a “moratorium” we know that they are actually demanding a perpetual ban
> are not represented at all, as none of the people who rely on whale meat have factory ships to render their kill.
It’s not about need for whale meat, it’s just about a desire to sell it and make money from it, just as New Zealanders sell beef and lamb for profit.
> We can afford now to eschew the killing of whales.
And cows and lambs, too.
I think the whalers are just waiting for the beef farmers to take the first step. They’ll definitely follow once the beef and lamb eaters make the first move.
> Whale is not such a popular dish anymore… and the price has had to be dropped several times as the supply increased.
Prices do drop when supply increases. That’s just plain old economics. Whale meat is still more expensive than pork is here (1.5 to 2 times), but as I noted earlier consumption has actually increased by 2,000 tonnes in the past year. Back in the 1990′s there wasn’t even 2,000 tonnes of meat available, which was why the prices were so inflated.
> I get the distinct impression that it is more a matter of resisting outsiders than any real appetite for the stuff.
There’s probably a bit of that, a bit of being proud. Ironically, protesting against whaling only serves to strengthen that particular feeling. If the anti-whalers just shut up about it the industry might die all by itself, and given that anti-whalers are sure that whale meat isn’t in much demand, I’m still lost as to why they haven’t tried this tactic yet.
Maybe it’s because the anti-whalers want something to be noisy about? I dunno.
> the principle of conservation is not DAMAGED by not taking any whales.
Sure. Conservation is about balance. Although, the Icelanders believe that it’s important to not place blanket protections on one species in the ecosystem for fear that it may lead to imbalance. And anyway, they can probably make money by exporting whale meat to Japan, if Japan permits it (I figure about 2 million USD for this year’s 39 whales).
> You want to just argue about the science but it isn’t just about the science as you very clearly understand by your answer to me.
Sure. The problem is, once we leave the science table, and move to the ethical table, we find that we have no common ground any more. Even within New Zealand people have very different ethics, let alone people in New Zealand trying to discuss things with Japanese and Icelanders.
> The Japanese whaling fleet has, if I am to believe the press, been found in places it isn’t supposed to go
This is refering to the sanctuaries in Antarctica? None of them apply to Japan’s current hunting:
1) The Southern Ocean Sanctuary only applies to commercial whaling. Also, Japan has a reservation to this sanctuary with regards to the minke whale.
2) The Australian Antarctic Sanctuary is only recognised by about 4 nations in the entire world (this is related to the Antarctic Treaty which froze claims on territory). Japan isn’t one of the 4 nations.
> If it were not for Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd we’d not even have this information because there’s nobody else watching.
I’m actually quite comfortable with independant watch dogs sailing around in the ocean trying to keep up with the research fleet, because it will keep the pressure on the whaling interests and leave them in no two minds, that if they were to break the rules, they would be outed, and would take a massive credibility hit for it.
> we have decided in favour of the rights of the whales and dolphins for many of the same reasons we have decided not to kill and eat people.
Why have you decided not to kill and eat people?
I never had the desire in the first place. Lots of people have the desire to eat whales and other cetaceans however…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Just for the record, there is demand for whale meat in Japan – the anti-whaling people are trying to have us believe otherwise, but I tell you, I can leave my apartment and get some within a 10 minute walk if I want to. Fact: Consumption is up by at least 2,000 tonnes during the last year to August end. This is clear from analysis of stockpile movements.
Also for the record, Japanese people go whale-watching as well. They also go on farm visits to New Zealand, and later consume lamb and beef. There is no big wierd thing about this. I think Kiwis are just a bit funny in the head about whales.
Neither could Japan be regarded as “ravaging” the Antarctic’s whale stocks. This year they will again hunt less than 900 there for the research programmes. If you think they are ravaging them now – just wait. Their goal is to gain enough scientific information to allow them to resume commercial operations with several thousands of whales as the quota. This level would probably be sustainable, but they need evidence to give scientific certainty to it. Together, just prior to the moratorium Russia and Japan together were taking around 7,000 minke whales each year from the Antarctic. At the time an FAO observer at the IWC noted that this level was probably within the productive capacity of the stock, but ongoing scientific information was necessary.
Japan hasn’t broken any rules with its scientific hunts, but the anti-whalers are pissed off that Japan doesn’t have to recognise the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, and the Australians are annoyed that Japan doesn’t recognise their Antarctic Sanctuary. Won’t go into the details, but the fact is under international law Japan is doing nothing illegal (although under Australian law they are, but then Australian law doesn’t apply to them).
You are right that just because whaling is sustianable doesn’t mean that we should do it, but you should also recognise that just because you choose not to do a sustainable actiivity, it doesn’t mean that no one else should either, especially not people with different ethical ideas to you. This is very much the case within New Zealand, let alone sitting kiwis down with Japanese and Icelanders. You’ll never get agreement in this area – at least not for a long time
But finally, I don’t think the reasons kiwis decide not to kill and eat whales has nothing to do with the reasons why they don’t kill and eat each other. You are probably forgetting that Maori actually consume beached whales traditionally, so there is definitely no adversity towards the meat as food perse. Many Maori are actually annoyed with the government for not taking their views in to consideration, even Labour’s Shane Jones spoke out against the “Pakeha” view:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/iwc-2006-nz-labours-shane-jones-on.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What gives? I think I posted twice, but neither appeared?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well that sure sucks
Doesn’t matter!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
David @tokyo you are also a liar
You are an Icelandic spin doctor as is sirpink
You say you are into conservation and yet your saying and argueing the point thayt its alright to kill whales.(no conservationist no matter what would do that )
Again about that great man Paul Watson. You labelled him yourself as a terrorist and likened him to bombers ( no conservationist would ever do that)(and the only people to label him that are whale killers)
Your timing when you come on and leave messages is similar to mine in the uk, but you tell us your in Japan (unless your getting up to write messages at 3, 4, 5 and 6o’clock in the morning)
You know the IWC like the back of your, and all the issues that have ever happened in Iceland ( would a conservationist in Japan know that )
You pull spin to favour Iceland and deny that Fin whales are endangered although check any internet sites, tap in Fin whale and see what it says (now would a conservationist deny something is endangered when it is)
Your probably the most low down of the liars, its like going to war then getting shot in the back by your mate.
Nice try david@toky or should I say Heinrich but no cigar
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
David@Tokyo… Did either of your posts have a lot of links? that often gets posts moderated simply to make sure they are legit. If so the posts will appear sometime soon.
Apologies, but it’s happened to me more than a few times.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Daveuk,
Ask yourself what it means to “conserve” something. When you “conserve” water, does it mean you do not use any water? Or does it mean that you take care to only use a limited amount of water, to ensure that you have enough for a rainy day (or a very dry day, in this case)?
This is what we are talking about with whales. The whalers only want to take a limited number of whales each year, to ensure that plenty remain for the future (and the whale-watchers also benefit of course).
The notion that every last whale (which is scheduled to die a natural death anyway) should not be deliberately killed by humans is pointless anyway. Many of them die by accident, when they strike ships, or get entangled into fishing gear. These problems are far far greater than whaling because it could happen to *any* species of whale, even *truely endangered* species like the Blue whale, the Northern Right Whale, the Western Gray Whale (for examples of whale species that remain truely endangered, although in the case of Blue whales we know that they have started to recover). These issues are what should concern us, not Iceland killing 9 fin whales which aren’t really endangered. I mean come on – the population has been growing at 10% each year for almost the past 2 decades. If that were your bank account savings growing at that rate you’d be happy – hy not so with whales?
BJ,
Both of my responses were to you, so you’ll get two different answers if they do show up. I guess the most important thing I had to say was that morality isn’t a particularly useful grounds for argument when trying to sit down with people with different world views and flesch out some agreement. Even within New Zealand I don’t think you wold get agreement that it is immoral or unethical to kill whales for food. Many New Zealanders (myself included) think that it’s ok to kill them for food, so long as you don’t kill too many. I think New Zealanders would have to be speaking with once voice with that form of argument before trying to impose it on others overseas and then getting dissappointed when no one listened.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Can I suggest the all the Sirpinks out there [or is that curpink?] visit the following to see the reality of Icelandic whaling.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65099473@N00/sets/72157594339825151/show/
Dave/stopwhaling
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dave,
Can I suggest that perhaps us antipodeans might like to address this before complaining?
http://www.savethesheep.com/
And can I ask what you expected the internals of a whale to look like? A sea of gold and chocolate? You know where the meat in supermarkets comes from right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Possibly the real issue with whaling is not so much the anticipated catch in the coming year, but a lack of trust that people may have that whalers would actually keep it to sustainable levels. Such a lack of trust might be understandable given experience to date with whaling activity, and given experience with fish stocks. If the same thing happens (again) with whaling, the whales might be in serious trouble in a relatively short time.
Again – a few tens of thousands of whales vs 6 billion humans … and it takes only a handful of rogue humans to do a lot of damage. The less encouragement we give those, the better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Prim,
You are probably right (whether that is with foundation in Iceland’s case is debatable, but the observation is reasonable).
Surely then, the practical way forward is for nations to agree on standard regulatory systems that will ensure that there is a low risk of whalers being able to break the rules unnoticed, and also to agree that commercial catch limits must always be set in line with the best scientific advice available, and also continue to monitor the stocks through regular sightings surveys so that any sudden decreases in abundance could be detected. In fact the IWC has already agreed on those last two points, and is just needing to establish regulatory systems.
I don’t personally see much scope for massive overhunting. In the past, the whales were hunted because people needed oil. Today, whale meat has many substitutes, so what incentive is there for going crazy and killing more whales than is sustainable? Doing so would run a high risk of seeing whaling banned, once again. And, if we listen to Greenpeace there is “no market for whale meat” anyway. I think Greenpeace are telling lies, actually:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/10/deception-over-whale-meat-demand-in_29.html
But anyway…
What do you say? What sort of regulatory systems should be in place in order to ensure that there is a low risk of rules being broken? How about say, taking DNA samples from every whale hunted, so that any whale meat found on the market that didn’t have it’s DNA in the official database would be regarded as illegal, then fining and charging the retailers and their suppliers big time? Of course, Greenpeace happily volunteer their services by sailing around the Antarctic in the summer chasing the whalers, so they have a role too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
David –
I am not so sure as you. As long as there’s no people in danger of starving for want of whale meat (and there’d better not be in this country in this day and age) I would expect to get better than 90% of Kiwi’s behind a ban on whaling. Except for the libertarians who might not like whaling but like regulation even less I’d expect to see more like 100%. The same result could be expected in most of the western world… and the few places where it is not true (Iceland, Norway, Japan) are not doing it because there’s big bucks in it, something you basically seem to agree with above.
As for sheep I can’t feel any affinity for the beasts. In some very powerful way, they are not related to me the same way the whales and dolphins are. I’ve read Lilly. I’ve studied language and intelligence theory. I’ve done a little homework, but I can’t really explain this difference. Sheep are just stupid, uncommunicative and smelly animals… Whales and Dolphins are cousins.
I would not be surprised to see the bans dropped in time however, as the human species will itself be in deep poo within this century. Societies have the morality they can afford.
By the end of the century it is unclear that we will be able to afford much of what we take for granted now.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great parlimentory speech with no answer and oodles of spin in Heinrich @tokyo.
Right lets do a way with the spin
Is the fin whale endangered yes or no
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Daveuk,
Exactly how long do you think it will take for the fin whale to go extinct now that Iceland has issued commercial permits for 9 of them until next August (of which 4 have already been taken)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
more spin
Answer yes or no
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I beg to differ 4 have been already taken that sound so nice.
How about Iceland has already illegally slaughtered 4 of the second largest animals on the planet, and these animals most likely died in agonising pain. Intelligent animals that all accept a few scientists from Iceland consider endangered
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Come on spin maestro, I know your kind struggles to answer yes or no without a speech trying to twist it so you end up talking about sheep.
Answer the bloody question
Are Fin whales endangered YES or NO……………………………….!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sir Pink says that noone [sic] would equate violence to humans with violence to animals. This is incorrect, I for one do equate the two and I am not alone in that assertion. Pain is pain, and terror is terror, and the fact that the victim of the terror is Homo sapiens, Sus scrofulus, Felis catus or any other species makes no difference to the being experiencing it.
So if Watson is a terrorist, then the whalers are worst terrorists, and Watson is simply removing the tools of their terrorist activities, in the same way a police officer removes a gun or other weapon from a criminal. Obviously criminals (and even some non-criminals) are frightened of the police and tax evaders (and even some non-evaders) are frightened of the IRD, as whalers are frightened of Watson. Some vivisectors are even frightened of teenage demonstrators, which shows what cowards they are, but it does not make any of us terrorists.
It seems as if SirPink and others accept without question that members of the species Homo sapiens are the only ones that are morally considerable. Ths is considered a self evident truth in the same way that 2+2 must always equal 4, but in fact an examination of recent history will show that this is not the case. The prevailing Western liberal view that humans and only humans count as far as violence is concerned did not come out of a Christmas cracker but was the result of centuries of argument, protest and fighting. Not that long ago, the status of a negro slave (a member of the species Homo sapiens and certainly human by any definition) was roughly equivalent to the status of a cow now.
The world is continuing to move on morally. Where once it would have been considered ridiculous to consider animals to have any feelings, let alone rights, there are now a large number of intelligent,sane and well educated people (such as myself) who are insisting that animals should have moral standing. We may of course be wrong. But to prove us wrong you need to put up a convincing argument, not simply dismiss us with false statements that “noone” believes as we do.
kiore1
http://www.epf.org.nz (factory farmers are frightened of this website. I must be a terrorist!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t have any polls from NZ that are still accessible, but how about this one from the BBC?
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1998502.stm
Should whaling be permitted?
Yes 66.99%
No 33.00%
How about that.
Honestly, most people don’t care. It’s just the noisy ones who want to feel good about themselves who are making a fuss.
CNN?
http://www.cnn.com/POLL/results/133301.content.html
Should commercial whaling be re-introduced?
Yes Yes votes 61% 14870 votes
No No votes 39% 9587 votes
How about that.
http://outside.away.com/polls/whaling/index.htm
Should commercial whaling be illegal worldwide?
Yes Current Standings: 33 %
No Current Standings: 66 %
Hey, how about that, another one?!
> the few places where it is not true (Iceland, Norway, Japan) are not doing it because there’s big bucks in it, something you basically seem to agree with above.
That’s right. There isn’t *that* much demand for whale meat. It’s not *that* much different to it’s substitutes. Why go to the special effort of banning this and pissing people off? Why do we think there are islamic extremists willing to kill americans today? Isn’t it because they feel the americans have meddled in their lives?
Perhaps if there were precedents for this in New Zealand and other places, whaling people might listen. Say, let’s see New Zealand give up cow slaughter to make the Hindu people happy, then perhaps the whalers might sit up straight. But at the moment you’ve got a bunch of europeans saying “oh well please stop killing whales”, never mind that the europeans contributed in large part to the depletion of the whales stocks in the first place, destroying their own whaling industries. The natural response from the whalers is “go f**k yourself first”. Would you feel any differently yourself?
> As for sheep I can’t feel any affinity for the beasts. In some very powerful way, they are not related to me the same way the whales and dolphins are.
Unfortunately that’s not something that you can use in a discussion with whalers.
> By the end of the century it is unclear that we will be able to afford much of what we take for granted now.
On the contrary, I think this is why we need to support whaling, because it’s an example of the principle of sustainable use. We need more sustainable use, not to ban examples of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
heinrich @tokyo
Cracking spin, pick out the bits you want and to go to all that trouble, as above and being that your only a consevationist.
You want to support whaling cause your involved in it. you spin a web of lies, and will twist opinions to suit
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore,
Why don’t you successfully assert your moralising arguments at home in New Zealand before trying to assert them on peoples in other countries?
thanks
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
another political speech
well heinrich whats up cant you answer yes or no, looking at your answers (spin) above, i dont think you can
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Daveuk,
Could you calm down please? I’m not involved in the whaling industry, I’m just fed up with morons claiming that animals in no danger of extinction should not be hunted in a sustainable fashion as if this has anything to do with “environmentalism”.
There are only 300 northern right whales left.
Why aren’t you spending your time whinging about that instead? Iceland’s deliberately slaughtering 9 fin whales out of a growing stock of 25,000 isn’t a conservation issue.
Don’t you care about the northern right whales? Or do you only care about it when you can bitch and whinge about someone other than the USA about it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is the fin whale endangered yes or no you Iceland piece of scum
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Daveuk,
Do you think your moronic ramblings are going to save any whales?
Honest question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Daveuk,
The fin whale is not endangered (read a dictionary). Don’t be confused by the IUCN definitions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
More lies from the Iceland goverment ( now I know for definite your from Iceland)
The fin whale is on the endangered species list.
Iceland are illegally slaughtering it
The Iceland goverment knows the blowback there going to get from illegally murdering fin whales.
So they put people called Dave@tokyo to pretend to be conservationists, you dont know the first word about conservation.
I have lots to do, I dont think time spent on here argueing with Icelandic murderers is going to drum up the storm clouds.
Please if you read this page regardless to what Icelandic dave@tokyo or icelandic sirpink says
Check seashepherd and donate
Greenpeace and donate
wdcs and donate.
Youve started the war several of us in England will bring you to justice,
You are not going to kill endangered animals.
I hope I have the pleasure of meeting Icelandic dav who pretends to be from Tokyo and sirpink who claims to be a student in Sweden
Lieing murdering cowards, see you next spring
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Daveuk,
Let me assure you – you are not gaining *a single* whale saver to your cause by your moronic diatribe against anyone who tries to inject common sense and facts in to the discussion.
Tell me again what you think “conserve” means Daveuk?
By the way nutter, I’m from NZ, not Tokyo or Iceland…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I must say, even though the Iceland whaling plans seem to be a small percentage of the number of relevant types of whales, the whale numbers – tens of thousands – do seem rather small, regardless of how the word “endangered” is defined. I’d prefer to let the whale populations increase somewhat more before people consider whaling, if that is possible. Not sure what the whale populations were like before the days of whaling etc though, i.e. how many whales those areas can support … perhaps someone can enlighten me on that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Prim,
The IWC Scientific Committee is planning “Implementation Simulation Trials” for the North Atlantic fin whale starting next year or 2008 (I forget which).
This typically only happens when the stock is already above 54% of it’s estimated carrying capacity.
Fin whales globally numbered in the hundreds of thousands, but in Icelands waters they would probably have only been 40,000 or so, from what I understand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh – if you check up about the Eastern Gray whale, it today numbers around 25,000, which scientists consider to be it’s natural limit.
A few years ago there was quite a die off, with many starved whales beaching themselves. It seems that the population “over shot”.
(off into downtown tokyo now, so no more from me tonight)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
david @ tokyo:
That sounds very scientific and rational.
When will the “scientists” recommend the culling of humans?
Surely Homo sapiens is far past its “natural limits”, both regionally and world wide.
I’d say the die off of many starving humans shows clear population “overshot” in many regions of the Planet.
Excellent “Soilent Green” marketing opportunities there!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore1:
What you say about MrWatson saddens me. Noone should accept the actions of a terrorist like this.
We can’t accept emotions of people as an argument in this debate. It’s just not argumentatative… this debate is about conservation and not how people feel about the whales. The reason is that you will always have somoone that feels different from you and who should we listen to. We’ll see a No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes fight in a sandbox…
We are at the top of the food chain. That is just a fact in the nature we life in…
Prim:
As David@Tokyo said is the stock geting close to his before exploitation level. They say it’s now 70% of what it was before over exploitation.
Eredwen:
Well, I would object morally, but as you know yourself there are still some aborginials around the globe that eat humans. It’s not like that anyone is going there and demanding them to stop, as it is their own decision. Why should whales be different? Why should you campaign for their life instead of the lifes of the few that are eaten by aboriginals in the Amazon or Indonesia?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My contributions here attempt to point out differences in thinking between those who see all species as “a resource” to be “utilized” by the current human population, and those who see humans as one species among the many on this Planet.
The interesting thing is that many of those who “put humans in a separate category” are, in fact, willing to “use” these same humans too (eg, as convenient “cannon fodder” for wars).
Humans don’t “need” to kill the great whales. They do it because they can “make a profit” from doing so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey guys, I’m just catching up on posts over the weekend and can I please urge that you tone down the personal abuse. Frogblog has policy on comments that are personally abusive:
“Comments that attack others in a grossly offensive way. Humour and sarcasm are fine, but attacks which seek to personally denigrate others are not.”
As far as I’m concerned, calling people liars, scum, nutters etc, crosses that line and I will delete or edit future posts that do so.
Cheers,
frog
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, I couldn’t agree more!
I just wanted to point out that even though people think differently about this catagorization we should tolerate each other cultures. You have your opinion and they have their own. That is why you shouldn’t condemn other nations and threaten boycotts and etc. Even if you don’t agree it shouldn’t matter as they are not going to exterminate the whales by their minimal whaling that they are starting now… And if they start to behave badly then you should start raising questions, don’t let you protests be based on future speculations!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Why don’t you successfully assert your moralising arguments at home in New Zealand before trying to assert them on peoples in other countries?”
Why should I? The internet is international, and if anyone from a country other than New Zealand reads my arguments and agrees with any part of them, then I will be very pleased. I could say the same to you, or indeed to anyone who posts anything on any blog in an international language like English.
“What you say about MrWatson saddens me. Noone should accept the actions of a terrorist like this.
We can’t accept emotions of people as an argument in this debate.”
But you have just used an emotion (sadness) to back up what you regard as an argument. I on the other hand am not using emotion, nor name calling, just pointing out that there is no logical reason to confine moral objection to violence to one species, and to point out that if Watson is a terrorist then the same label can be given to Greenpeace, the IRD, the police and even teenage protestors.
“this debate is about conservation and not how people feel about the whales. ”
this debte is about whether it is moral to kill whales. My arguments are well within the terms of reference of the debate. And feelings have nothing to do with it.
“We are at the top of the food chain. That is just a fact in the nature we life in…”
We are wherever we choose to be. We may choose to be at the top of the food chain or we may choose not to. I choose not to, so speak for your self. We cannot derive “ought” from “is”. The question is not what we choose to do, but what we ought to choose to do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good points Kiore1.
We are omnivores. Most of the food we eat is quite low down on the food chain.
I thank posters above for the information that whale stocks have recovered to a fair percentage of pre-whaling populations. The populations in any case look pretty small to me numerically. I cannot help but think that it is probably best in the end to just leave the whales alone.
Sure, the IWC could set up any number of regulatory regimes to try to prevent unsustainable practices – but in my view, based reasonably on history, the fishing/whaling industries have not been trustworthy, nor do I expect that to change. I wonder whether the expense in enforcing an adequate regime would outweigh any benefits of whaling, and I doubt whether enforcement would work in any case.
Also, I do not see why arguments need be entirely devoid of emotive basis. Someone noted recently “do not let emotion get in the way of reason” – a good point in many contexts. But sometimes I wonder whether we should also avoid reason unduly getting in the way of emotion. Sometimes people and societies can reason themselves into doing things that later generations think horrific.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore 1:
“The question is not what we choose to do, but what we ought to choose to do.”
Good point! (and very pertinent in other respects … as my house is currently being buffeted by the full force of yet another “unseasonal” gale.)
Our family also chooses NOT to be at the top of the food chain … as do many Greens in Aotearoa/NZ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
prim says:
” … But sometimes I wonder whether we should also avoid reason unduly getting in the way of emotion. Sometimes people and societies can “reason” themselves into doing things that later generations think horrific.”
An excellent point, very well said! Added quote marks around the word “reason” add to the meaning I think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
> I cannot help but think that it is probably best in the end to just leave the whales alone.
At the end of the day, the Icelanders don’t agree (not surprising that they have a different perspective since they actually depend on the same ecosystem as the whales).
GIven that they are hunting, it seems to me that it would be in everyone’s best interests if the IWC were to accept that some level of hunting IS going to happen whether you like it or not, and at least agree how to regulate it for the good of those targetted stocks.
Once we’ve got that out of the way, perhaps we can worry about how to actually save the northern right whales, which actually are in danger of extinction?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Along with the increasing human-produced pollution of the oceans, the biggest threat to cetaceans will be starvation, as humans remove more and more of their food (from krill to fish) from the sea to feed their own burgeoning populations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dear frog,
You’re right. My language was not acceptable. I reacted strongly to being called a “Lieing murdering coward”.
I’ll know to point out the blog policy if that happens again (hopefully not).
eredwen,
A currently popular theme at the FAO is ecosystem based fisheries. These ideas are still in their early stages but hopefully they can be developed quickly and successfully and contribute to solutions that allow humans to truely live sustainably off the oceans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
david@tokyo: That’s good to hear!
However, I understand that the monitoring of actual fishing behaviour (as opposed to reported behaviour) in the remote Southern Ocean still has problems to be solved. (“Get rich quick now” versus both “conservation of all affected species” and “sustainability of fish stocks for the future “.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I said:
> I cannot help but think that it is probably best in the end to just leave the whales alone.
david @ tokyo replied:
October 30th, 2006 at 11:37 am
At the end of the day, the Icelanders don’t agree …
Divid – it is my understanding that the great majority of Icelanders don’t want whaling. Who are “the Icelanders” you refer to? (The Icelandic whaling lobby perchance?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
73% are in favour of whaling and 10% oppose it…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sir Pink & David@tokyo [A self proclaimed GREEN-yeah right]are just spin merchants. Just how do you get the figure that 73% “someones?” are in favour of whaling?
Japan is breaking IWC regulations in their operations[ I'll quote them if you are actually interested], which is commercial whaling but uses the guise of science. Australian & NZ scientists have got more scientific results from non-lethal methods of studying whales that Japan could dream of. But of course Japan is not really interested in science-just the continued over-expolitation of all oceans resources. The IWC has over 33 resolutions condeming Japanese “so-called”scientific whaling on their books. Stop talking about domesticated animals that are humanly killed for their products, you simply can’t logically justify the inhumane killing [taking up to 35 minutes] of over-exploited whales. They also remain conscious up until the moment of death- being held upside down until the either drown or bleed to death. Which is fine for the Japanese who killed 10′s of millions of people from 1936 to 1945 , mostly brutally & against the conventions of war. Dave @Tokyo your arguements are just spewed up Japanese propoganda which you have obviously swallowed without question. Whales meat stocks are still high in Japanese freezers dispite a huge, costly campaign to get the Japanese people to eat it – but its easy to force in on school kids and hospital patients. The right wing government has for years been brain washing their population and the press will not cover these whale stories with any balance. You appear to have caught their disease/s. I don’t find that your hosts have many redeaming features as human beings. If you are in fact a Kiwi -then you have been away too long and have been subverted by the smiling assassins.
Dave http://www.stopwhaling.co.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Dave,
73% was from the Gallup poll conducted in Iceland in September. SirPink and I both have a copy of the report, if you want to see it let me know and we’ll find a way to accomodate you as well.
Japan isn’t breaking any IWC rules, and even Australian and New Zealand politicians have accepted this. See here:
http://whaling-faq.blogspot.com/2006/04/faq-2.html
It’s for this reason that Aussie and Kiwi politicians have recently been talking about trying to rewrite the ICRW – they know that Japan is right in terms of the convention, and so want to try to change it (no chance of course).
Aussie and Kiwi non-lethal research hasn’t even been provided yet, Ian Campbell talked big about it earlier this year, but where are the papers, Dave? Do they have, say estimates of natural mortality for any of the populations that Japan is studying? Have they got information about how the rate of natural mortality is changing over time? Show us the science Dave. I’ve looked and couldn’t find any. Blogged it here:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/04/iwc-2006-where-is-australian-whale.html
Of course, everyone should understand that Japan isn’t doing research just for the hell of it. The goal is to gain more information about these populations, and with greater understanding and certainty about important features of the dynamics of these populations and the ecosystem within which they live, they hope to be able to make for safe, sustainable, and commercially viable catch limits in the Antarctic. You may not agree with this goal, but there’s nothing to be gained other than a bad reputation in denying the science. IWC Scientific Committee has evaluated Japan’s results as being useful and enabling improvements in management.
The IWC politicians can pass whatever resolutions they like regarding Japan’s research, that doesn’t make it anything other than political rhetoric. And this year indeed no such resolution was passed, because they don’t even have the numbers anymore. Japan, Norway, Iceland, Korea, Russia, China, all those nations that eat cetaceans, plus others that support the principle of sustainable use of natural resources are in the majority now.
Kangaroos shot in Australian from helicopters aren’t domesticated, they are wild free animals. Highlighting one bad case of a nasty whale death doesn’t cut the mustard when the reality is that most die cleanly like this:
http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/GPAS3.mpg
Go get the Aussies to fix their inhumane Kangaroo slaughter methods before whinging about the whalers who are much more efficient.
> They also remain conscious up until the moment of death
What animal doesn’t remain conscious up until the moment of death, Dave?
And why the racist remarks about the Japanese? The Americans and Greenlanders are killing whales using far less efficient techniques where 30 minutes isn’t a bad exception, it’s the norm. Why dredge up old 60+ year old history Dave? Don’t you remember that New Zealanders were killing whales until way after the war ended.
Whale meat consumption in Japan has surged in the past year – up at least 2,000 tonnes on the previous year – this has been led by private consumption through sales in supermarkets and restaurants. The difference? All they did have people market the whale meat as a form of employment. Meat products don’t just walk around and find new markets by themselves, don’t you know. The Hananomai sea-food restaurant chain recently upgraded whale meat from a seasonal offering to a regular on it’s menus, noting that one of the dishes was amongst their top 10 sellers. Maruetsu has included a variety of whale products in their supermarkets since last year.
Sorry Dave, but this is the reality. Repeating lies that you read at greenpeace.org doesn’t help make those lies true. On the contrary it’s going to work against you when people look at the facts and figures (all on my blog, in plain English and numbers) and realise that you’ve been lying to them. Most people don’t like liars and racists.
It’s ridiculous that you question the bias of the Japanese media. They hardly give a crap about whale meat – there is hardly any available. Frozen whale meat makes up just 0.5% of the total of frozen marine product stockpiles at the current time. What do you want them to report, Dave? How about “Some chap named Dave from New Zealand who likes to compare whalers with the Japanese imperial army from 65 years ago says that whaling sucks” – is that the balance you are hoping for? Laughable! Calm down mate.
> You appear to have caught their disease/s.
Racism…
> I don’t find that your hosts have many redeaming features as human beings.
Racism…
Why do you make such statements Dave? Does that apply to the Japanese who ARE against whaling as well? Say, Junko Sakuma, and Naoko Funahashi?
> If you are in fact a Kiwi -then you have been away too long and have been subverted by the smiling assassins.
And even more racism to finish with a flurry. I sincerely hope that frog doesn’t delete your comments, because your overt racism deserves to be exposed. I’ll be pointing anyone who mentions your site to your comments here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well.. a lot of nice name calling going on, I haven’t thought of me as a spin merchant before so that is something new.
I sincerely think you should step back and take a few moments to collect yourself and think what you are saying. It isn’t approriate…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Japan Whaling Association pleads its case:
“Whales consume as much as six times the volume of fish that humans catch. Whales are eating a disproportionate amount of our marine resources. Because whales are currently protected and may not be harvested, their numbers are increasing, and they are eating larger and larger amounts of fish, leaving many fewer fish for fishermen to take. This is an important reason for the decline of many fisheries resources around the world.”
Its funny that they overlook the 1000′s of boats [& ships] dragging out increasing numbers of species from all the oceans by all nations [ even our doppy NZ fishermen -helped by overseas boats [Incl.Japanese] have just about stuffed our EEZ.
But it the whales that get the blame.
who said god created fish & mammals etc JUST for man?
We are part of the web that we are destroying.
Dave
ps David of tokyo I will reply-but I have few more important things to do than answer your comments. My “racist” comments are directed to a very few Japanese [men] who taint the reputation of 99+% of the Japanese people. I am still wondering if your name is actually Glenn?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was wondering when the “whales eat too much fish” argument was going to be introduced.
Poor old Planet Earth … well on the way to being covered in humans with standing room only!
(Nothing that a few good viral mutations won’t fix … while we still have airtravel as the perfect vector! “Bird Flu” perhaps?)
Whatever happened to the movement for Human “Zero Population Growth” that was so well supported in the 1970′s and 80′s ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stop whaling says
“Stop talking about domesticated animals that are humanly killed for their products, you simply can’t logically justify the inhumane killing [taking up to 35 minutes] of over-exploited whales.”
Whales are not humanely killed and neither are all the domesticated animals whose products are enjoyed by meat eaters. Gail Eisnitz was an undercover investigator for a humane society in the United States, and in her book “slaughterhouse” documents numerous cases of botched slaughter attempts, animals scalded alive, animals frozen or fried to death in cattle trucks, “downer” cows with broken pelvises simply dumped like so much trash, and even several cases of deliberate torture.
I am not naive or anti-American enough to believe that such extreme forms of cruelty are unique to the US and could not go on here. Especially as ACC figures show that slaughterhouse worker is the most dangerous profession. If that is the way the HUMANS are treated, what hope is there for decent treatment of the animals.
Add to that the fact that all the 80 million broiler chickens in New Zealand are in constant pain from lameness for the last 20% of their miserable lives, and the pain is exacerbated considerably through being strung up by the legs prior to torture, that 2.8 million layer hens are cramped in cages all their lives, that 60,000 sows are driven literally insane with boredom, that merino sheep have their buttocks literally sliced off (no anaesthetic) to prevent fly strike, that sheep and cows have their tails and testicles cut off (no anaesthetic – chronic “stump” pain can last a lifetime), that calves are separated from their mothers at birth, etc, etc, then I think you will see that the whales, who are at least allowed to live in their natural state before being shot at, are in fact the lucky ones.
None of this excuses whaling, but if anyone is really concerned over the suffering of the whales as individuals (as opposed to the fate of the species), then to be totally logically consistent they will have to stop eating all commercially produced animal products.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Japan has not produced a single international peer-reviewed research paper on whales during the last 20 years of their illegal whaling activities. The only research they have been doing is product development and marketing research. But what about real, valid, peer-reviewed scientific research?
Finally, after two decades of lethal research Japan has released a scientific report that has shocked the world! Based on a recent slaughter of 60 piked (Minke) whales in the North Pacific, Japan has determined and has proven beyond all doubts that whales eat fish.
Who would have thunk it?
Inquiring minds need to know these things. Many scientists have long speculated that whales eat fish. Now thanks to Japanese research whaling, this is now a fact and no longer just a theory.
However, Japanese research will continue because there needs to be a scientific model constructed to prove that this fish-eating behaviour is permanent. Japanese scientists need to be sure that this fish diet is not just an aberration. More whales will need to be taken every year to establish that eating fish is something whales do all the time and not just during leap years. Is global warming a factor? Does it have something to do with the position of the stars? We won’t know unless whales are killed every year for further study.
Clearly it is a question as to how many more whales Japan must kill to discover what we already know they eat.
This announcement has raised questions. How come the Japanese did not discover this exciting revelation about fish eating whales until now? Surely after a half century of whaling, at least one Japanese scientist would have noticed that whales eat fish.
When Japanese whaling delegate Tadahiko Nakamura was asked if he was concerned about the survival of the whales and would he like to have his children and grand-children see the whales.
His answer was shocking. “No,” he said. “My duty is to my family, my country, and my company and that duty is to make as much profit as I can for them today. I am not concerned with future generations. They will have to find ways to survive just as we must find ways to survive today.”
He was then asked if he was concerned that the whales would go extinct. “They may go extinct but that is not my concern. My concern is to realize the maximum profit from them before they do.”
[thanks to PW,SSCS for info.].
Incidently I don’t eat chicken, and only eat organic free range chicken eggs, eat very little fish, but heaps of beans veges [is it acceptable to cut lettuce?] and other plant based protein. Is it all right for me to speak up for the whales now I have admitted that? [I maybe a little sarcastic at times!]
Dave
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
> who said god created fish & mammals etc JUST for man?
No one, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be eaten. Maori traditionally consumed whales too remember Dave. Ask Shane Jones of the Labour party about it – he is okay with whale meat consumption (I wonder if you doubt he is a Kiwi too?)
> ps David of tokyo I will reply-but I have few more important things to do than answer your comments.
Perhaps you just don’t want to answer my comments because it would be inconvenient to attempt to do so. Don’t worry Dave. It’s ok to argue based on emotions.
> My “racist? comments are directed to a very few Japanese [men] who
Oh, you’re sexist as well?
> taint the reputation of 99+% of the Japanese people.
What has being a whaler got to do with the rest of the Japanese? Why does it reflect on the Japanese as a whole Dave? You ever heard of Luis Pastene, Dave?
> I am still wondering if your name is actually Glenn?
Oh, you know Glenn? He posted on my blog once, when I debunked the myth that the moratorium is responsible for whale populations increasing today:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/07/iwc-2006-reflection-moratorium-and.html
kiore,
> to be totally logically consistent they will have to stop eating all commercially produced animal products.
You are dead right. A chap named Jason has been making this argument on the Gristmill blog in recent months. He and I both agree on that much, although he believes it is unethical to kill animals, I don’t.
Dave,
Paul Watson’s propaganda is easily debunked by simply reading http://www.iwcoffice.org
I suggest you read it carefully.
Never heard of Tadahiko Nakamura anyway, but no doubt the quotes that Watson attributes to him are lies like pretty much everything else Watson posts on his personality cult homepage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I still agree largely with the other Dave. I just wanted to point out an error in a statement he made about domestic animals being raised or killed humanely.
43,000 fin whales may sound abundant when you think of how much space it would take to hold them, but the IUCN with more experience at conservation than you or I have determined they are endangered. So any pressure on the population from human hunters, whether Icelandic, Japanese, or Alaskan would be detrimental to their survival. Hunting not only removes the animals hunted from the gene pool, it disrupts mating and migration paterns, which would have pressure on reproduction rates.
It is easy for a species with 6,500,000,000 in the gene pool to be complacent about extinction but I wonder what would happen if our own numbers fell to 43,000 world wide. I imagine there would be absolute panic, and the state (or the remnants of it) would be encouraging mass orgies, anything to get the population back up. Sexual abstinence would probably be a severe crime, and certainly those who did not do their bit to have children would be considered extremely selfish and ostracised by society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore,
I also hope you don’t agree with his racism.
With regards to the IUCN, please try to think critically for yourself about this.
Here’s a good summary just in from the High North Alliance:
http://www.highnorth.no/read.asp?which=372
Pay close attention to the classification for the Bowhead whale, which the Americans hunt, versus the Fin whale hunted by the Icelanders:
IUCN and fin whale
The attempted justification for the allegation that Iceland harvests endangered fin whales is based on the IUCN Red List definition of the fin whale species as endangered. It is essential to note that this listing applies to the species worldwide, not to separate regions or to biological populations.
When applied at national or regional levels, IUCN notes that “it must be recognized that a global category may not be the same as a national or regional category for a particular taxon (species)?, thus regional populations may be either less or more threatened than the global assessment.
The IUCN listing is mainly based on the status of fin whales in Antarctica. In the justification for the listing, IUCN writes: “Nearly three quarters of a million Fin Whales were reportedly taken in the Southern Hemisphere alone between 1904 and 1979. (…) Fin Whales are rarely encountered today in those areas of the Southern Hemisphere where they were taken in large numbers. (…) [T]he greatest decline was in the Southern Hemisphere, which had the largest original population.?
It is because of the historic over exploitation in the Southern Hemisphere that the IUCN made its classification: “The species was classified as Endangered on the basis of an estimated decline of at least 50% worldwide over the last three generations (assumed generation time was 20-25 years).?
According to IUCN there are more than 40,000 fin whales in the North Atlantic. North Atlantic fin whales do not mix with Southern Hemisphere fin whales, they are separate biological populations.
“To claim that Icelandic whalers hunt endangered fin whales is a deliberate lie,? Rune Frovik says. “The claim can only be made by grossly abusing the IUCN and ignoring scientific knowledge.?
“Saying that the Icelandic fin whale is endangered is as correct as claiming that the Chinese people are endangered because there are only a few Chinese in Iceland. However, I am certain that in the end facts will debunk fiction,? Frovik adds.
IUCN and bowhead whale
The IUCN Red List with respect to bowhead whales demonstrates the flaw. The IUCN notes that all bowhead populations have been severely depleted and that the global number of bowhead whales is about 10,000 individuals.
The Red List places bowhead whales in the non-threatened category known as “Least Concern? despite the global number of bowheads being less than a quarter of the North Atlantic number of fin whales.
“The contrast between bowhead and fin whales in the IUCN Red List is indicative of the dirty politics involved in all that has to do with whales. We are sick of the hypocrisy and double standards,? Frovik says.
IUCN will review the listing of whales in January 2007.
For more information:
IWC note on Iceland
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
IUCN and fin whale
http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/2478/summ
IUCN and bowhead whale
http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/2467/summ
IUCN categories and criteria
http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/categories_criteria2001
——
Let’s be honest – anyone raising alarm bells over 9 whales from a population of at least 20,000 is not being level headed. New Zealand’s Chris Carter in fact, will not even recognise that the IWC Scientific Committee has agreed on the abundance of fin whales in the North Atlantic, which is an even more blatant lie than politicians in the rest of the world. Is it no surprise that no one takes us seriously when our politicians say “STOP WHALING”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
stink, my post went into moderation for too many links. Here’s a simplified version
kiore, I hope you don’t agree with Dave’s racism.
And you might like to consider the difference in status between the Bowhead and Fin whales. There are less Bowhead whales (hunted by Americans) than there are Fin whales, yet the Bowhead whale is classed with a lower IUCN category.
See:
http://www.highnorth.no/read.asp?which=372
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dave:
>Finally, after two decades of lethal research Japan has released a scientific report that has shocked the world! Based on a recent slaughter of 60 piked (Minke) whales in the North Pacific, Japan has determined and has proven beyond all doubts that whales eat fish.
Who would have thunk it?
I literally dropped my jaw when you pointed this out. Isn’t this the biggest counter argument of all the big environmentalist groups? That whales don’t eat so much fish at all so they don’t contribute to the large decrease of fish stock in the oceans as some of the pro-whaling people is saying? So this reasearch, that you have been so kind to point to me proves all the environmentalist groups wrong. Very interesting to see you come up with arguments with whaling just without you even noticing it..
>More whales will need to be taken every year to establish that eating fish is something whales do all the time and not just during leap years.
Of course, we need to show that they eat fish or not! That is the whole argument of the environmentalists for not whaling, that they don’t eat so much fish. The only way to show them wrong is to research further like you are saying! Good to see that you suddenly are pro-whaling!
Let’s then just do that.. easy peasy!
And when you state that the japanese researches are not giving any data lets look at a comment that Judy Zeh (in the IWC scientific commitee for USA, which should give her the status of anti-whaling?) made in 2000, 6 years ago (even then the scientific hunts were giving some results):
MATT COLEMAN: How valuable are these scientific research programs that Japan carries out in telling scientists like yourself something useful about whale populations?
JUDY ZEH: Well, they certainly do provide a lot of data. They’ve been doing a lot of genetic analyses which tells us about stock structure, whether whales in a particular area mix with whales from another area or whether they don’t. And this is something that’s very important to know for management purposes. So they certainly provide good information on things like that.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s147657.htm
It’s always very nice to throw out some itchy statements that sound so good, but it’s even better to provide something to support the statements. I know it’s very hard for you to do so as there doesn’t seem to be so much of data to back up the claims…
Regards,
SirPink
http://www.startwhaling.co.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sir Pink et al:
What an interesting Planet it will be when the only species left on it (standing room only) is “Homo sapiens” (self named of course).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen,
What on earth gives you the idea that whaling people will bring about such a situation?
Can you show me your mathematical models that have led you to that belief?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
david@tokyo -
I think that it is obvious that eredwen’s previous posting is not meant to be taken literally.
Hmm, as far as whales are concerned – oh yes, you might remember: some species were endangered. It is my understanding that it was whaling people who brought that about. Could it happen again? In my view, it could happen. See one or two of my postings above re failure of regulatory regimes, fish stocks etc.
I believe that there are scientists out there studying current species extinctions. How many extinctions are estimated to be occurring each week these days?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Prim,
I don’t understand eredwen’s point, if s/he is not to be take literally.
Some whale stocks were most certainly depleted. Could it happen again? It depends. Why would people have the incentive to go out and hunt whales in huge numbers again? Why did they do it in the past?
Oil.
Today whale meat has substitutes. Greenpeace is constantly claiming that there is no market for whale meat. So where is the pressure from hunting interests going to come from?
At any rate, regardless of the fact that there is not the demand for whale meat that there once was for whale oil, hunting should be properly regulated in future. Another problem in the past was that sound scientific methods for setting catch limits were not in place. They used a ridiculous method called the Blue Whale Unit. If you read about it it becomes quite clear why whale stocks were depleted. If you read about the Revised Management Procedure it becomes pretty clear that today sustainable whaling is just a matter of appropriate regulation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
david @ tokyo said
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:42 pm
>I don’t understand eredwen’s point, if s/he is not to be take literally.
Humanity is driving a lot of species to extinction, while the human population expands unsustainably. The scenario presented may be a possibility. eredwen makes a good point, in a general but not literal sense.
>Why would people have the incentive to go out and hunt whales in huge >numbers again? Why did they do it in the past?
Financial gain.
>So where is the pressure from hunting interests going to come from?
You said it yourself … there is pressure from hunting interests.
>hunting should be properly regulated in future.
Ah, the magic word “should”. But does it denote a possibility, or wishful thinking.
>They used a ridiculous method called the Blue Whale Unit. If you read >about it it becomes quite clear why whale stocks were depleted. If you >read about the Revised Management Procedure it becomes pretty clear >that today sustainable whaling is just a matter of appropriate regulation.
Presumably that was what the Blue Whale Unit people thought too.
And enforcement of regulations… hmm, to my mind an area already rife with problems. But david@tokyo seems ever hopeful that it will work … this time.
Whaling? Let’s not go there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Prim,
Some species may be in trouble, but whaling today is an example of what we should be doing *more* of. We need to use resources, and where we do use them we need to do so sustainably.
You seem to have ignored my noting that Oil was the commodity which whalers in the past over-exploited stocks for.
Humans can only eat so much food. Going crazy by killing more whales than one can find a market for is bad business. Iceland’s representatives today said that they won’t hunt more meat than they can sell (in addition to not hunting more than is sustainable):
http://science.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1217569.php/Iceland_may_review_commercial_whaling_if_unable_to_export_meat
Whaling does increase pressure on whale stocks, but we need to consider how much pressure and how much pressure those resources can sustain. As we have noted already, the fin whale stock for example has been growing at 10% annually between 1987 and 2001, which has seen fin whale numbers multiply by around 2.6 times. The stock is clearly capable of withstanding small conservative harvests for food.
Whaling being regulated is what we should all hope for, because like it or not, it is going to happen. Iceland and others aren’t going to cave into unreasonable demands from anti-whaling nations.
Before passing comment on the BWU versus the RMP, you might want to actually read up about them.
Just assume for a minute that you have a renewable resource. How would you go about managing it sustainably? Have a think about that for yourself, then take a look at what the IWC has devised with respect to the RMP.
I’ve said it here before and I’ll say it again:
“From a scientific perspective, the IWC Scientific Committee has developed probably the most rigorously tested way to estimate safe catch levels for any marine species.? — Greg Donovan, Head of Science at the IWC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5103378.stm
And lastly – no one is asking you to go whaling. Just because Iceland chooses to does not mean that you have to as well – you do not even have to like it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This looks like it is going to be largely circular – for a reply, see my previous posting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s sad that there are people out there who have already given up despite the challenges that face us and our role on the planet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
David@tokyo –
I did not think that you addressed the points in my 6.02 posting, while I believed that my 6.02 posting addresses points in your 6.15 posting. You appeared to have given up, in some sense, by simply pushing the same line over and over.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Prim: Thanks for your support!
David et al: My point is that the attitude/assumption: …
1. That humans have the unquestionable right to “use” other species at will.
2. That this is unquestionably OK as long as we leave “enough” individual animals to be able to breed.
3. That if we miscaluculate this or if other human behaviour impacts on these numbers and a species then fails to survive this is “unfortunate”.
(This has happened and is happening to alarming numbers of species right now.)
4. The unquestionable assumption that there is something so special about Homo sapiens that we should have the right to use other species in any way we choose, and literally trash this Planet permanently for all life (current and potential) … often for the sake of “MONEY” … (a misused and now dangerous tool that seems to have taken on a life of its own.)
All of this is counterproductive, naiive and ARROGANT beyond belief, and potentially lethal for all life as we know it including our own.
Very often this arrogance has its roots in the concept of a god or gods that made us “SO SPECIAL…”
What a self serving but extremely dangerous way to behave!!
(end of rant … exits stage right)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So, we can agree on that sustainable whaling is a positive thing!
I think that the Science that IWC presents is enough for us to start sustainable whaling. Both because the scientific commitee of IWC is both with anti- and pro-whaling scientists and that they seem to be very cautious in their estimates and recommendations. Their RMS is, in my opinion, very sound and a good platform to start from.
I know that you don’t agree with the science, and that is were our difference in opinion lies, alongside with the emoitional factor.
I agree with you comment no. 4. But you can’t apply that to every person and every culture. You can’t generalize like that. As I’ve said before, conservatism is in the blood of the Icelanders and they need it to survive on this small island in the north. If they don’t have their fish stocks there wouldn’t be any reason to inhabit the island…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
good rant eredwen….
(but careful you don’t mention it again ..eh..?…y’know..’nagging’..and all that..!)
and just when do you reach that point that pointing out the ‘bleeding obvious’ to you..to those who can’t/won’t see it (yet)…..tips over into ‘nagging’…?
(nelson mandela….he ‘nagged’ a bit..eh..?…there have been a few ‘naggers’ over the years..eh..?
it’s got a long strong proud tradition..that nagging..eh..?
oh well !..just call me ‘phil the nag’..eh..?
(‘i’ll seize the label with pride..)
(shall i take up that new moniker..?..)
it’s quite fun having different personas/names…..
over at rightie coven sir humphreys i have taken up the moniker ‘still officially banned’..as (ahem!)..i am….
or how about p.t.f.p.i.y.a.w.a.b.o.a.b.a.r…?
the acronym of “phil the feckin’ pain in the ar*e who always bangs on about blo*dy animal rights’…..
(bit big and clumsy.eh…?..shall we just shorten it to p.t.f.p.i.t.a..?..)
phil(whoar
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
David@Tokyo, How much do the Japanese pay you to spread all the selective, half-truths[at best] around bloggs such as this. You have called yourself ‘Green” & a Kiwi. You are a disgrace in both regards. I hope you stay their with your “friends’ . Your mis-use of the NZ Greens Blogg is disgraceful & cynical. You don’t even have the balls to identify yourself. You use sources that could only have come from your insane masters. and I have heard “Japanese spokesman Glenn Innes” enough to recognise you. One things for sure the more you reply the more we find out what your pathetic arguements are to justify killing. Read the latest ‘Science Journal’ to see what you and your mates have been responsible for.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SirPinko -you are not even worth bothering to reply to. SO I won’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
David , SirPink
It is clear as I have spent a little time paying attention now, that the issue is not so much the consumption of whales (meat), but the consumption of (fish by) whales… and that the dismal downward spiral of fish stocks in most of the planet’s fisheries is being driven by the dismal upward spiral of the planet’s human population and hunger.
Everybody is hungry, we’ve got the biggest club.
In about 20 years time the NZ fisheries will, if we are careful, be pretty much all that’s left. People in Japan, in China, and perhaps some in Iceland…. will all be running short of protein.
At which time they will undoubtedly find some excuse to invade our fisheries.
It isn’t a question of whales per-se, it is a question of population and human lack of self-restraint. China at least, has recognized the problem of having too many people and done SOMEthing… we can argue at length about the effectiveness, but their effort is one of the few bright spots in this sorry situation.
In the meantime, limiting the whale population to aid the fish population is unlikely to effect any positive result until and unless the people of the countries involved also voluntarily limit their human populations. This is, goddamit, a zero-sum game…. no I take that back, it is a diminishing sum game.
Sustainable fisheries are the goal? Then attention has to be paid to the demand side of the curve. Culling the whale population to reduce competition for fish by whales is understandable and might actually be morally justifiable if the whale population grows while we are holding our own demand constant.
Its a complicated balance. As long as it is addressed only by counting whales and fish it will not be balanced. We have to count whales, fish AND people to find anything like balance.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dave:
Cool, then we are square, I’ve clearly answered all the issues that you had with whaling….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Unfortunately our population it was that grew whilst the whale population was for the most part, constant. Our consumption of whales and our culling of whales to make room for more human consumption has to be regarded as greedy, immoral and unsustainable.
At this point however, unless we manage to get the fish stocks back on the increase it is all quite moot.
Which leads us to a rather different argument about “sustainable catches” of whales than we started with, and a rather different moral justification for our managing their numbers.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tokyo Dave states that the northern and southern Atlantic fin whales are different populations and there is no mixing. If this is true, then they are not just different populations, they are different species; a species by definition is a population that does not share a gene pool with any other population. So there is even more reason to protect northern fin whales.
And the pressure on the species will not just come from removing 9 whales from the gene pool, but from the attendant stresses and disruptions to the population brought about by hunting. The moa went extinct not just as a direct result of being hunted but because avoiding the new predator on the block was just one more pressure on their survival, so as a result mating patterns were disrupted, the birds spent energy avoiding humans that could have gone into fighting disease or into reproduction, etc. Ecosystems are finely balanced, and any new stress can tip them over the edge. It is the same with the whales.
It is quite logical to assume that a local population may be more endangered than a global one. But the converse cannot be true. It does not follow logically that if Chinese are endangered in Icelend they are endangered world wide, but it must follow that if they are endangered world wide they are endangered in iceland. And if the IUCN have determined that fin whales are endangered world wide, then all populations of fin whales are endangered.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Isotope study summary:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i did a story yesterday on how whale-watching operators are reporting a 25% drop in bookings because of iceland resuming whaling…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil:
It was one UK company that had 25% less bookings during the last 2 weeks then they had expected (they expected 50-100% which I would not have thought being very realistic)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ:
You are raising valid points and I agree that we cannot let the whaling spiral into becoming unsustainable. 9 fin whales are not unsustainable, so lets small and then see what the IWC while do in the near future to implement management system that REALLY works. Ban of whaling is kind of out of the questions for the biggest part of the human population…
The balance in the sea are unpredictable and I admit that it’s hard to connect the number whales to number of fishes in the sea. But if the whaling is not permantely damaging the stock of whales it should be quite okey…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kiore:
Okey, so if UK has maybe 100.000 foxes and then there isn’t a single fox outside of UK then they endangered globally but clearly not in UK. If they want to hunt foxes they should do it in a way that doesn’t danger the number of foxes. There are numerous examples of species like that… E.g. there are millions of kangoroo in Australia but they are nowhere else. Then by your classification are saying that kangoroos are endangered and should be put on the IUCN list?? Lets tell the Australians that and see what they will do…
There is the same reason behind whaling in iceland, there are 26.000 whales in a stock growing 10% annually and is around 70% of the pre-exploitation level. The animals live in packs of 6-10, so there should be no increased stress on all of the stock due to hunting, and they don’t live in forrests, which also means that they will not be affected by the same reasons as made the moa go extinct.
Whales have been hunted for centuries. If we suddenly stop hunting them for 17 years it will not mean that it will immediately change their behaviour. And if we hunt whales again it doesn’t affect them either because we are talking about 26.000 whales living in a enormous space that the 200 mile EEZ around Iceland is. You are not going to see the whales swimming away from the ships because they have had ships around them for milleniums…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>Phil:
>It was one UK company that had 25% less bookings during the last 2 >weeks then they had expected (they expected 50-100% which I would >not have thought being very realistic)
They expected 50-100% increse in bookings this year compared to last year… that was what I meant…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
speech by Magnus Bjornsson of the Iceland First party, delivered on Radio Iceland (“All Bjork, All the Time?), reveals other motivations for the resumption. (translated from the original Icelandic)
People of Iceland, it is time to start whaling again! Why? This opportunity comes because the hippies who ended whaling in the 1980s have mutated; they’ve moved on to African poverty, sustainability and climate change, and now neglect traditional hippie values, particularly their love of saving whales. This neglect, combined with the fact that the seas are teeming with delicious whales after 30 years without proper harvesting, means a dangerous imbalance in our waters! A dangerous imbalance!
see the next issue of the NZ Listemer
Dave
sorry Glen I got your surname wrong
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dave,
I’m not Glenn…
It’s a tribute to my efforts that I’ve worked you up so much that you are so desperate to think so though.
You got his first name wrong as well, by the way.
I doubt many people are still reading this, but hopefully any subsequent posts can be not satirical and actually of some informative nature…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dave@ tokyo. So I got ‘His’ name wrong. So how do you know? Could it be he is feeding you this stuff. O this is informative -its exposing the lengths the Japanese will go to ‘recruit’ naive people like you and your ‘friend’ Glenn [ in his case paying him] to try & bring some credibility to their warped logic. Satirical post are in keeping with the Japanese whaling position -I mean not many people take them seriously-scientifically speaking.
Dave
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dave,
I know who “Glenn” is, because I know this issue well
I am also a rugby league fan as well as a rugby fan (I am a kiwi whether you want to accept it or not) so I know who Craig Innes is as well – obviously I know this stuff better than you in fact, which is why I caught you napping. You got the name so badly wrong – so who is paying you?
They ought to fire you!!
But I’m flattered that you think my efforts add to the credibility of the arguments from the pro-sustainable use faction. Yours add to the lack of credibility of the cause you support. My honest assessment. You’d do your cause better by shutting your computer away.
And by the way, IWC Scientific Committee reviews of Japan’s research indicate that plenty of scientists in the field of whale stock management take it seriously indeed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Dave,
I just saw your little petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/302533298?ltl=1163822760
How come you only have 592 signatures?
Pretty useless for a “Global Peoples anti Japanese Whaling Consumers Trade Ban”, don’t you think? Perhaps you should stick to your day job.
Then again, it was probably the racist “anti Japanese Whaling” thing that turn people off. People don’t like racists, Dave. Not even people who are anti Whaling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yo Dave,
Since you really needed the help, I even added my own signature to your little petition. Number 593!
You’re welcome.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sir Pink, I don’t think you are even trying to understand. Whales are endangered because of their low numbers, not their geographical distribution. Kangaroos are not endangered because of their numbers, not their geographical distribution. If something is endangered in the world, it is endangered in any geographical area that is a subset of the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore1,
You are making perfect sense. No argument with your logic – the problem is that the definition by which the IUCN specified fin whales as “endangered” (10 years ago back in 1996, I stress) is not the same as the dictionary definition.
Read the IUCN criteria used in the fin whale classification here:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/categories_criteria1994#categories
As has been noted, the fin whale stocks in the northern and southern hemispheres are distinct. The fin whale could be extinct in the southern hemisphere already, but it would not change the fact that the fin whale is abundant in the northern atlantic, and that the IWC Scientific Committee is going to start work on preparing advice as to what would be sustainable catch limits for that stock.
The IUCN classification itself notes that :
“The species was classified as Endangered (under the 1996 categories and criteria) on the basis of an estimated decline of at least 50% worldwide over the last three generations (assumed generation time was 20–25 years).”
We know that the fin whale was overhunted in the Antarctic – this stopped in the 1970′s, and recent Japanese surveys indicate increasing abundance in the species (good news, right?). The cause of the original decrease is thus understood. In the Northern Atlantic the situation is completely different, and it’s really quite unreasonable to criticise Iceland on these grounds, given that there is a pretty clear flaw in the criteria used for assessment.
For pristine fisheries stocks the idea is generally to deplete them to levels between 40% and 60% of their capacity to achieve MSY. With whales the RMP is far more conservative and managed stocks would rarely be depleted below 70% of their pristine condition.
By the IUCN criteria this means that managing a fishery optimally would probably see the species classified as “Endangered”. A bit ridiculous really, don’t you think?
The IUCN really needs to consider whether it’s criteria for these classifications are suitable for each species being reviewed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Lets examine how these Japanese whalers think – WHY I DON’T LIKE WHAT THEY DO , which has nothing to do with being a racist. The whalers have:”The Yasukuni mindset”
The Yasukuni Shrine near the Imperial Palace in Tokyo is a memorial to the souls of more than 2 million Japanese soldiers from wars stretching back to the Meiji era of 1868-1912. It also honors 14 Class A war criminals (not to mention Class B, C and D criminals – 1,068 convicted war criminals in all, known to some as the “Showa Martyrs” after the reign name of the late emperor Hirohito).
The use of the term “martyrs” is instructive, because the real issue isn’t the technical appropriateness of the premier’s visits (recently upheld as constitutional by Japan’s Supreme Court). It is an entire catalogue of coalescing attitudes that might be called the “Yasukuni mindset” and made explicit in the attached Yushukan Museum.
The Yasukuni mindset holds that Japan fought a purely defensive war to liberate Asia. Countries from India to Indonesia owe their independence from European colonialism to the thankless efforts of Japan. Tokyo was provoked into going to war by “Chinese terrorists” and Europeans who connived to hold down the rising but resource-poor power.
The Yasukuni mindset also holds that the Tokyo war-crimes trials with the resulting convictions and executions of such figures as wartime premier Hideki Tojo were a sham, mere victor’s justice. Tojo’s granddaughter spends much of her time propagating this view, which was also spread through a popular movie of a few years back called Pride.
These views are no longer the province of the right-wing fringe, the kind of people who patrol the streets of Tokyo in sound trucks hectoring people through loudspeakers. They are becoming mainstream.
Koizumi’s presumed successor Shinzo Abe subscribes to most of these views, even if he is a little more guarded in proclaiming them. He has already let it be known that he plans to continue Koizumi’s practice of making official visits to the shrine. He has questioned the validity of the Tokyo Trials and ducked questions as to whether he considers Japan to have been the aggressor in World War II.
It is interesting to note the Empreror [and his sucessor] have refused to visit the shrine until the war criminals have been removed. Ever year Japanese,dressed in their imperial war uniforms visit the shrine. Can you imagine the reaction if Germans wore their gestapo/SS uniforms to their graveyards! But their war criminals are not paid homage to like the Japanese ones are. So I’m racist NO actually I’m just record history!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The whalers from Japan also are born out of their common history:
For our common humanity
What experience and history teach is this — That people and government of Japan never have learned anything from history, or acted on the principles deduced from it.
— G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of History
This page [see address below] is for the memorial of the victims of the Japanese atrocities in the Second Sino-Japan War and their families, and for Justice and Peace, and for our humanity.
See: http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SirPink see what the following does to your theory on whale numbers:
The History and Future of Whales
by Dr. Stephen R. Palumbi
Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University’s Hopkins Marine Station
What is the Lecture About?
Scientists use new technologies to reveal untold mysteries about whales and provide information on whale history that may be crucial to their survival in the future. Dr. Stephen Palumbi, a renowned marine biologist and professor at Stanford, will discuss how he uses genetic techniques to estimate historic whale populations and how his findings play an important role in decisions of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). He recently published in the journal Science that DNA evidence indicates that before commercial whaling began, whale populations were 10 times larger than scientists previously believed. The IWC guidelines state that there can be no whaling until populations have returned to at least 54% of their historic levels, but their estimates are based on unreliable whaling records kept by ships and dating back to the mid 19th century. According to these previous estimates, many whale populations have nearly recovered to the required 54% of their historic levels, but the new genetic analysis suggests it will take at least another 50 -100 years.
TO JOIN YOU NEED TO DOWNLOAD SOME SOFTWARE. FOR MORE INFORMATION:
http://www.esi.utexas.edu/outreach/ols/lectures/Palumbi/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dave,
People must be sitting around scratching their heads – what does Japan’s war history have to do with whale killing and eating?
People in Norway, Iceland, Russia, the USA, South Korea, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Lucia, the Marshall Islands, the Solomon Islands, Greenland and so forth are all eating cetaceans, right?
Don’t you want them to stop whaling too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Dave,
Palumbi got that research published ages ago (like 4 years), but for some reason is regurgitating it again now.
The IWC Scientific Committee already reviewed it:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/publications/editorialnew.htm
“The Committee had agreed that the estimates of historic abundance provided in Roman and Palumbi (2002) for the initial pre-whaling population sizes of humpback, fin and common minke whales in the North Atlantic have considerably more uncertainty than reported, and can not be considered reliable estimates of immediate pre-whaling population size. Particularly important in this regard is the mismatch between the time-period to which genetic estimates apply (i.e. the time period is difficult to determine and extremely wide) and the population sizes of whales immediately prior to exploitation. It also agreed that the paper provides no information to suggest that changes are required in either the RMP or AWMP approaches to management.”
And Dave, have you ever heard of Phil Clapham? Here’s a document that he and other IWC Scientific Committee scientists put together regarding Palumbi’s work:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/…4/56annexs.pdf
Or if you want to know what Clapham really thinks:
“Although concerned about the resumption of commercial whaling, other whale biologists say that Palumbi’s figures are a gross overestimate of historical whale numbers. “It’s completely out of the realm of reality,” says Phil Clapham”
http://www.nature.com/news/2003/0307…030721-14.html
Or what Tim Smith thinks:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp…nguage=printer
“[Roman and Palumbi] wrote that “whaling logbooks may be incomplete, intentionally underreported or fail to consider whales that were struck and lost,” a judgment Smith called “facile” and “disturbing.”"
And then there is fisheries specialist Doug Butterworth, of South Africa’s University of Cape Town:
“If they’d come up with numbers that said twice as many, then maybe we’d start thinking about our methods,” Butterworth added. “But when you come up with five-to-10 times as many, then maybe they’re the ones who ought to take another look.”
And Butterworth at the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3092711.stm
“If the genetics is right, then either our estimates of past catches are very wrong or there’s been some major ecological shift in the oceans. Where is the stuff all these whales were eating?
“There may be questions about the accuracy of our figures. They may be two or three times out, but even that’s pushing it. They’re not five to ten times out.”
Looks like Palumbi’s work didn’t stand up too well to the peer review, did it? But then, I think we all know that Palumbi’s work is not so much to produce valid research, but just to fool the gullible, like you eh Dave.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dave@tokyo- you missed the point [actually you ignored it] what makes these people tick? [the jap whalers] thats what the reference to their history is all about – and the right wingers have not changed much since -THAT’S THE POINT! In recent times Japan has killed more cetaceans than the rest of the world put together. In any case my old mum told me “two wrongs do not make a right”. Actually Dave bugger all people are eating whales. Iceland now wants to sell Japan its left over whale meat [but at least they did not claim it was killed in the name of science-like Japan does].
Japan has bastardised the cause of legimate small scale whaling by “NATIVE” peoples [and there are heaps more than you mention - O yes there are still some Japan has not bribed to be a yes vote on the IWC].
What these small Islands display is an inability to resist Millions of$ in so called aid but more importantly a lack of appreciation they are doing real harm to their cause for traditional [single figure] whaling to be reinstated by their support of Japan at the IWC.
But tell me this – what about the countries [ landlocked ] that have never fished the oceans, or at least never carried out whaling doing supporting Japanese whaling. The simple answer is Japan aid money and in some cases straight out bribe money going to individuals via Japanese companies and organisations [Mongolian involvement is well documented]
So Dave if you had gone to school in Japan all of this would be a complete mystery to you. That is why the net is beginning to counter the right wing Japanese dribble you keep spewing forth in support of your Japanese employers , care to tell us who they are? Or are you actually Japanese using the guise of being a New Zealander to somehow give credibility to your cause.
O by the way how many signatures have you got on YOUR petition mate??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting how this discussion is going. While I disagree with Tokyo David over whaling I certainly agree that the Japanese war history has nothing to do with the issue. There is a lot of anti-Japan feeling over the war still. But when I was working in Japan, my Japanese teacher was an ex-Kamikaze pilot (yes there is such a thing – he was scheduled to make his flight just after the war ended). He is not a right wing fanatic, he is a warrior, who was prepared to die for his country. And even if he had been sucked in by militaristic jingoism, he is certainly not the first.
And if he is a war criminal then so are all the US and UK soldiers in Iraq, dying in a war they don’t understand much either. It is always the winners who decide who to try for war crimes. Bush, Reagan and Thatcher have never been tried for war crimes because they won, not because right was on their side.
So I fully support Kiozumi and Abe vivisting a shrine to commemorate the Japanese war dead, just as I support our country doing the same, and the US commemorating those who died in Iraq. Interestingly my friend traveled to the US recently, and he found that retired USAF and US navy pilots, the ones he was trying to kill, were far more forgiving and understanding than many who were not even alive in the war.
Getting back to whaling, I oppose Japan, Iceland and Alaskans whaling. Using cultural concerns as an excuse is just as ridiculous for Alaskans as for Japanese. Witch burning used to be a part of my culture, as was bull baiting, cock fighting and fox hunting. Some cultural practices need to die.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dave,
Japan’s whaling tradition expanded to a national level only after WWII ended, and this was due to their Americans defeators commanding them to do so. Your trying to connect whaling to the war mongers is facile, but then what can one expect from a racist.
Iceland wants to sell it’s meat to Japan because it fetches a high price in Japan. This is why New Zealanders like to sell their goods to Japan as well. Your consumer boycott is a joke, Dave. Why don’t you set up an exporters boycott as well? The Japanese love eating our kiwi fruit. They’d just be so devasted if they weren’t able to eat them any more. Go on – I dare you – put your money where your mouth is and start an exporters boycott – no New Zealand goods in Japan. That’s right. No more tip top ice cream. No more vegemite. No more kiwifruit. This is the best way for you to hurt the Japanese Dave. Trust me.
Japan’s scientific research programmes are legit, but its up to you if you want to remain ignorant and slave to the anti-whaling propaganda for your whole life.
Japan does not bribe anyone. It irks the anti-whalers that the Japanese are better at making friends and *listening and co-operating* with the people they give official development assistance to, compared with the anglo-saxons who seem to totally annoy every who they try to “help”, so they invent disgraceful stories of corruption and drag the names of any nation who dares disagree with them through the mud.
There are today 9 land-locked nations involved at the IWC, of which 7 are european nations. If you are smart enough to figure out why those 7 nations joined the IWC (the first of which was a little landlocked European country with no coastline prior to the adoption of the commercial moratorium), perhaps you’ll be able to figure out why Mali and Mongolia joined in more recent times as well.
But Dave, I guess you never heard of the value of Japan’s scientific programmes for whale management, coming from a little old racist redneck town in anti-whaling New Zealand countryside.
Before questioning my nationality you might want to think about what guys like Archie Tairoa, Sir Tipene O’regan, Shane Jones (of the Labour party) have said about whales. Then you might start to feel embarassed, although of course you might accuse them of being bribed as well. Show us which it is Dave.
Lesson over – now one question for you Dave, tell me WHY you think that not even one single whale should be killed for food?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore1,
I move that cow farming be abolished in New Zealand. Beef eating is just an unnecessary cultural practice that needs to die.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
People ask “How can the Japanese be so cruel when killing whales?? [They take 30 minutes to kill many of their catches]. Again the answer is in their history.
The Japanese & biological warfare.
The Imperial Army set up several large research institutes to spread
biological weapons research and testing areas throughout
occupied China. Shiro Ishii commanded the largest and best
known of these research and development establishments,
named Unit 731, whose sole purpose was offensive
biological weapons research. Ishii commented that defensive
research, composed mainly of vaccines, could easily be done
in Japan. Offensive weapons research needed to be done in
China. Why?
These institutes were set up in China largely because the
Japanese felt culturally superior to the Chinese and wanted
to have a ready supply of experimental subjects to test the
effectiveness of their newly developed agents. In addition to
Chinese citizens, the Japanese also used Russian, American,
and United Kingdom prisoners of war to test their biological
agents. Many were autopsied alive, without an anesthetic.
The Japanese thought that anesthesia might change the
pathologic findings of infection. They often referred to their
Chinese subjects as marutas, or logs.
Unit 731 and its counterpart Units 100 and EI-1644 were
responsible for at least 12 biological field tests. Militarily, the
Japanese used biological weapons in a well-documented
attack against the much-hated Russians in 1939 on the
Manchurian border. Japanese soldiers crossed behind Soviet
lines and spread anthrax in an attempt to poison animals and
deny the Russians transport capability. They were only
partially successful. The infection spread from the animals to
the soldiers, and Russians died. The wind shifted, and the
anthrax was blown over the Japanese lines, infecting these
soldiers as well.
In another incident, Ishii gave chocolates laced with
anthrax to the children of Nanking. Other field tests of
offensive biological weapons included a cholera outbreak in
Chang Chung, and the poisoning of wells in Nangking. The
plague was used in Ningpo and Chuhsein in October 1940
and Changteh in November 1941. The results of these field
tests were published in the Japanese-language Chinese
Medical Journal in July 1943.
There is another medical tragedy associated with the
spirit of the biological weapons research done by the
Japanese during World War II. Thomas Easton, a reporter for
the Baltimore Sun, detailed the experience of American B29
airmen who bailed out over Japanese-held territory after
their planes were hit. Several wound up at Kiushu University
on the home island of Japan. The case of one airman, Teddy
Ponczka, remains particularly appalling. Documentation of
Mr. Ponczka’s treatment was provided by Dr. Tushito Todo,
an eyewitness to the events. One of Ponczka’s lungs was
removed because the Japanese physicians wanted to know
the effect of surgery on the respiratory system. Later, when
he had recovered from surgery, Mr. Ponczka’s blood was
removed and replaced with seawater, in an experiment
designed to see how long circulation could be effectively
maintained in the absence of blood. Other American airmen
were documented to have partial hepatectomies, epilepsy
surgery when they were not epileptic, and stomach
resections; all of them later were killed. This treatment is
consistent with what the Japanese did in occupied China and
other countries. Interestingly, before and during World War
II, the Japanese felt culturally superior to the Americans,
who they felt were a nation of weak merchants incapable of
beating the superior wind warriors.
At the end of World War II, the Japanese officers
responsible for the biological warfare program were brought
to justice. Twenty-three were found guilty: 5 were sentenced
to death, 4 were sentenced to life, and 14 to shorter terms.
Yet, in September 1950, Douglas McArthur commuted their
sentences. He was concerned that Japanese knowledge of
biological weapons should stay in American hands. McArthur
and the American government were afraid the Japanese
knowledge and experience with biological weapons would
fall into Russian hands. There were no executions – the
Japanese successfully traded their knowledge for their lives.
From:A History of Biological Warfare
Douglas R. Bacon, MD, MA
Professor of Anesthesiology and Medical History
Department of Anesthesiology, Ch1-108
Mayo Clinic
200 First Street SW
Rochester, MN 55905 USA
http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/germwar/uspow.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
David@Tokyo – the main issue I have with the Japanese whaling trade is the continuous exploitation of species and areas that are protected.
Most countries operate now operate some kind of quota system over their fisheries, whaling is a bit different in terms of the quota being applied internationally rather than by the localized authority – but it is a quota all the same. If Japan actually obeyed these restrictions I wouldn’t have too much issue with them – while they continue to flagrantly disobey them they should be periodically shut down.
Personally I would also prefer to see further research performed into how they can make the industry more humane as well – but that is a side issue
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dave at Tokyo wrote:
“I move that cow farming be abolished in New Zealand. Beef eating is just an unnecessary cultural practice that needs to die.”
I totally agree! Meat eating is an ice age anachronism that has no place in a civilised society. It is hideously cruel, a major contributor to climate change and extremely wasteful in an age of scarece resources.
I have been doing my bit by becoming vegan and starting various groups opposed to the worst form of abuse. How about you?
kiore1
http://www.epf.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘the value of Japan’s scientific programmes for whale management’ – David
The vast majority of the ICR’s research is merely presented to the IWC. David would like readers to believe that this is the same as being internationally peer reviewed in scientific journals…. but it isn’t.
David would also like readers to believe that the RMP will guarantee ‘sustainable’ international commercial whaling, this is also piffle.
Japan is the largest market in the world for seafood, it is also a market that has consistently put profits before sustainability. Japan was recently caught red handed ignoring its own Tuna quotas -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6057576.stm
Japan also buys over quota Tuna from other nation members of international commercial supervisory organisations like ICCAT and buys Tuna from countries which refuse to recognise international Tuna quotas.
Japan, Norway and Iceland, the driving force behind attempts to overturn the IWC’s international moratorium on commercial whaling already have cynical ‘reservations’ registered against most of the endangered whale species under CITES, as a result the Icelandic and Japanese whaling fleets are hunting protected whale species this season.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
comment to: Lamna nasus- thanks for adding to the real debate. We are well aware of the Tuna issue here in NZ . japan has for a long time been using stalling tactics to avoid being ruled against in their plunder on south pacific tuna- putting at risk the modest catch by various small island nations. They are actively selling cetacean products in violation of CITES. It appears the have no respect for any international law, agreements, treaties, conventions etc etc when it comes to raping the oceans of the world. But they are not alone in this – they just happen to be the worst.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore1,
I agree that the argument is consistent, but as you might have guessed I’m more interested in it because I think it will make kiwis more accepting of whaling, given that agriculture is the backbone of New Zealand’s economy.
I don’t think it is rational to expect the whalers to give up their whale meat while New Zealanders are happily exporting their beef to places such as Japan. I can’t see such a crazy situation ever coming to fruition.
iiq374,
The whaling operations authorized by the government of Japan are fully in accordance with IWC rules. Greenpeace has (successfully) created a perception that this is not the case, or that Japan is taking advantage of a “loophole” in the relevant international agreement, but this is actually not the case. Greenpeace is successful because they appeal to the lowest common denominator. The whalers can only defend themselves against this by appealing at a level that is one wrung higher on the ladder, but because whaling does not actually affect 99% of New Zealanders this is a challenge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Japan can meet its ‘cultural’ whalemeat demand within its own EEZ, the only reason it continues with its ‘scientific’ whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is to keep its commercial whaling fleet from the scrap heap and retain a core of skilled crews, while Japan continues to try to overturn the IWC moratorium.
All the data the Japanese whaling hunts obtain from their fatal research was already available from pre-moratorium data and clearly killing a percentage of what you count is counter productive, especially when they are pregnant females. Interestingly Japan doesn’t count a pregnant whale as two whales which means they are already cheating on their self imposed ‘scientific’ quotas.
Bearing in mind the importance of breeding age females to ‘sustanability’ David is being disingenuous in the extreme…. as usual
Nice of David to suggest that the public are the ‘lowest common denominator’…… everyone is just so lucky thaty he takes time out of his tremendously busy and self important day to dispense his pearls of wisdom to the swinish masses, eh?
)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
David – actually I was referring to the fact that phylogenetic testing of the whale meat available within Japanese meat markets consistently shows whales from within protected areas and species. The Japanese whale meat market is one of the most interesting study areas to a bio-informatitician for this reason.
I agree that part of the issue is that Greenpeace often concentrates on the wrong area – frequently trying to sensationalize whaling where it is legal, rather than concentrating on the massive amounts of genuinely illegal whaling that occurs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
iiq374,
I see. In recent times (since around 2000 or 2001, I think) the authorities have worked with TRAFFIC’s Japan branch on that issue, and they’ve implemented a DNA database of whale meat sources which covers all meat obtained through the scientific research programmes, and I believe that all meat sourced from “by-catch” or strandings that is put on the market must have a DNA sample provided as well. There are some species for which this isn’t allowed, such as the Blue whale, but for more common species it is also legal.
I think the only source of whale meat that is not yet included in the database is that from imports that remains in stockpiles, although the amount of this must be extremely small to non-existant now.
Do you know of any recent reports of market surveys showing whales from within protected areas and species, that also passed scrutiny at the IWC Scientific Committee meetings? I heard of one report from as recently as 2004, but couldn’t find any reference to it anyway other than in the media.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The first DNA evidence of illegal whaling in southern hemisphere waters has been found.
DNA-tested whale meat from the Japanese retail market matches the signature of the sei whale’s southern hemisphere stock, according to geneticist Scott Baker.
Sei whales have been protected globally from commercial whaling since about 1980. The only whaling fleet to operate in the southern hemisphere since then is Japan’s “research” fleet.
But Professor Baker, associate professor of population genetics and evolution at the University of Auckland, said the data could not implicate the Japanese fleet.
“It is more likely that somebody has taken sei whales illegally and they have made their way into Japan. What it shows us is that the Japanese market is permeable to products of suspicious origin,” he said.
Professor Baker has been studying the DNA of whale meat in Japanese shops for 10 years. He presented evidence of the sei catch to the International Whaling Commission in a paper released yesterday.
He said the commission’s meeting in Sorrento, Italy, was also told that Japan planned to increase its “scientific” kill in the North Pacific, doubling the number of sei whales it caught to 100, in addition to the 220 minke whales, 50 bryde’s whales and 10 sperm whales now targeted.
Numbers of the sei, a swift temperate and tropical waters whale, are thought to have been cut by about 75 per cent to 25,000 in the commercial hunt. The sei is protected in Australian waters, where it is listed as vulnerable.
The last known commercial hunt for sei whales was in waters off Chile and Peru in 1981.
Professor Baker said his group found sei meat in Japan from 1998 to 2002, but he was only recently able to compare DNA reference sequences with three separate global stocks of the species.
“This is the first case where we would have persuasive evidence from the DNA record of illegal whaling in the southern hemisphere,” he said. “The research has also found meat on sale in Japan from humpback and fin whales, as well as dolphins.” See:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/19/1090089101723.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dave it is quite logical for the Japanese to stop whaling whether or not New Zealand stops exporting meat. It is also quite logical for New Zealand to stop exporting meat whether or not Japan stops whaling. Saying that it is okay to act unethically because someone else is acting more unethically is simply a variant of the “two wrongs make a right” argument.
And most of us recognised the folly of that argument at primary school.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Dave,
That’s exactly the media report I was thinking of, thanks.
“This is the first case where we would have persuasive evidence”
2004 was the first case? Anyway…
But what was persuasive about it? I searched through the IWC’s report from 2004, but can’t find any reference to this allegation anywhere – it’s almost as if it were … dismissed? Can you help me find out more about this research Dave, and whether the scientific community took it seriously?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore1,
I note that you are making reference to primary school… do you think it makes your argument look stronger, or weaker? Just something for you to think about…
I don’t think it’s at all logical for the whalers to stop whaling while the anti-whaling cow killers keep exporting their beef products to them. I don’t think the whalers would see any logic in that either.
You have to accept that the reality is we live in a world where the people arguing about this issue generally don’t have problems with animals being killed for human food. I know you want to argue about ethics, but the whaling debate really isn’t the place… you are arguing against whalers while lots of the people arguing on your side do not agree with your arguments… But you know that already.
I understand. It must be hell frustrating. Perhaps you should at least argue for the sake of conservation, and once we’ve won that battle then try moving on to your ethical thing. It’s easier to walk up the stairs one step at a time rather than go up in leaps and bounds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘I don’t think it’s at all logical for the whalers to stop whaling while the anti-whaling cow killers’ – David
Another of David’s favourite straw men. There is no comparison between privately owned domesticated animals and protected wild species hunted in international waters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
d@t you must know that Prof. Scott Baker knows more about whales from DNA samples , photos & observations than your mates who have killed 1000′s in the name of science. Who ever said the IWC ever got to any truth, good science is being prostituted by so-called scientists paid to discover what the are paid to discover. Pure research does not pay the bills in many cases. Try looking at Prof Scott Bakers web site and discover what his crew are actually doing in the name of pure science -I’m sure you can find him [google him]. The fact remains the samples from the Tokyo fish market did not all come from imports, pre 1986 sources or from grounded cetaceans – they were deliberetly slaughtered for their meat/oil etc. Certain proof [beyond doubt] is what the Japanese thinks absolves them from being caught out and dishonoured. They might be able to save face from themselves but they are only fooling themselves [we will avoid another history lesson!]
DaveH
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
reference :”david @ tokyo Says:
November 27th, 2006 at 11:17 am
iiq374,
I see. In recent times (since around 2000 or 2001, I think) the authorities have worked with TRAFFIC’s Japan branch.”
More on DNA
Japan does have a DNA database or ‘register’ but they will not
let anyone else have access to it [thats not surprising!], so it utility for observation and inspection is questionable. It is very unlikely it has ‘everything’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
David, you seem like an intelligent and articulate guy, but if you are really so lacking in moral intuition that you think two wrongs DO make a right then there is no point arguing with you.
The reason I am not using the conservation argument is because I don’t agree with it. And I prefer to remain intellectually honest. Conservationists oppose whaling because they consider the whales to be endangered. The implication is that if the whales were not endangered then it would be okay.
Well it is not okay to torture and kill sentient beings for trivial purposes, whether it is whales for blubber, cows for meat or humans for oil. And the conservationists’ arguments are not even consistant from a conservation point of view. The clearing of all our lowland kahikatea forests for meat has done more damage to the environment and endangered more species than whaling, not to mention climate change caused by cow flatulence and damage to streams by intensive dairy farms.
Like you I have lived in Japan, and I have a great deal of respect for the Japanese. But what they are doing to the shales is quite simply wrong, just as what New Zealanders are doing to cows, sheep, chickens and pigs is wrong. It has nothing to do with racism or the Japanese war crimes, which are probably no better or worse than those of any imperial power, including my own country of birth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore1,
Good luck convincing the rest of the New Zealand public of your moral arguments, not to mention the peoples of nations around the world where cetaceans are consumed as food.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)