Dr Indecision
I am utterly dismayed after reading a quote from Dr Wayne Mapp in today’s Dom Post, with regards to the NZ response to Japanese whaling:
I’m not really sure what we will be doing.
It doesn’t get any more wishy washy than that from a Defence Minister. Not that I blame Mapp for the sentiment. A decade in the opposition wilderness, the boss is away and he probably hasn’t even been briefed by officials from his ministry. That legitimately excuses the sentiment, but not the comment.
Never, ever should a Defence Minister express the least bit of doubt about what should or is about to happen. Indecision in this role can be fatal. Literally. Particularly when he/she has made such unequivocal statements in the past, such as:
It’s all very well as a nation we are strong in our condemnation of whaling, but we must put our money where our mouth is.
He could have stalled for time, stating that he was getting briefed and would soon speak to his counterparts overseas. He could have come out directly with a forceful statement that he had reconsidered his opinion after being briefed in his new role. He could have said just about anything at all except “I’m not really sure what we will be doing”.
Is this the guy we want responsible for putting our armed forces in harm’s way? I think not.
November 27th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
The harm of ? A whaler’s harpoon ? I prefer people saying ‘I dunno, just now’ than someone spooning up platitudes and horse puckey.
November 27th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
If the opposition senses indecision it will try to take advantage. Things escalate. They WILL escalate because firm control is not being exerted.
There are places where saying “I don’t know” is bad. This position is one of them.
respectfully
BJ
November 27th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Frog,
If you think Mapp’s response is prevaricating, see what Peter Garrett, Australian Minister for the Environment’s (and Midnight Oil’s frontman) volte facie has been on whaling
http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-081120-1.html
November 27th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Delightful Johan! Not!! It looks like Garrett sold out. But he is not defence minister, with troops all over the world working on the front lines against all sorts of nasty folk. Even though I condemn the lack of action, I condemn the waffle even more. We cannot afford to look weak or indecisive at any time where the military is concerned.
November 27th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Mark52 - are you not aware of all the hell holes where NZ troops, often peacekeeping, are deployed? There is serious harm that these good men and women are facing every day. Get real. A waffley defence minister is a big liability when they take your peacekeepers hostage.
November 27th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I wonder what frog’s take would have been if Dr Mapp had said,
“We are going to arm the RNZAF Orions with the aptly named Harpoon air to surface missile and sink any Japanese, Norwegian, Icelandic whaling ship.”
Link to similarly Pakistani equiped orion here
http://www.defence.pk/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/427
Would he have been called a war mongerer?
November 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Gerrit
I believe the article talks about Mapp backing down from using the air force to monitor the fleet, as opposed to blowing them up.
November 27th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Gerrit,
Mapp didn’t, so Frog couldn’t, so Mapp isn’t.
November 27th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Interesting scenario though!
Ultimately amd in reality, New Zealand is powerless against the Japanese whalers.
November 27th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Gerrit,
I think we can do something.
Have a look at this:
http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-081121-1.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/whale-wars-quota-cut-1311 08
I think if we (Australia and New Zealand) keep pushing we may have success on stopping Japanese whaling simply because it is not an economically viable industry that will not be supported by their government if it threatens other more important industries, for example the export/dumping of their second hand vehicles to NZ. I am not saying that is the answer but I think we are not necessarily powerless.
November 27th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Johan,
That sort of stance has not worked for the last 10 years. Why should it work in the future?
Sometime soon we are going to have to draw a line in the sand and sink a few. If we dont, than the whale hunt will continue as we are indeed poweless through diplomatic or economic channels.
Still, another ten years of “negotiations” will see the “scientific” collection of whales continue unabated.
November 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Well when I say ‘I dunno’ it means I’m working on it. I realize the mission and am taking the time to bring back a result beyond your wildest dreams…sunny day, regards mark
November 27th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
PS: I’ve forgotten what deep grievance we have with Afghanistan…I’m pleading for the same troopers lives that you are. ?
November 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
We don’t have any grievances with Afghanistan. But many of the people there have deep, possibly justified, grievances against most “western” economies, and would not be the type to draw a distinction between us and some of the countries more directly responsible for their grievances. If word comes down from on high that we’re not looking very co-ordinated at the moment, that could be very bad for our men and women.
November 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
“But many of the people there have deep, possibly justified, grievances against most “western” economies, and would not be the type to draw a distinction between us and some of the countries more directly responsible for their grievances”
My point exactly, so we should leave Now.
November 27th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I’d love to leave now- I don’t think we should have any part of a “war on terrorism”, civilian support or otherwise. But until then, maybe our defense minister should stop looking like he doesn’t know what’s going on and is unready if something comes up.
November 27th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
You said it yourself
“Not that I blame Mapp for the sentiment. A decade in the opposition . . . . and he probably hasn’t even been briefed by officials from his ministry” yet
Let the man get his feet under the table ffs. In 9 years the Labour Led Governments didn’t do anything but waffle, at least here we have an honest politician who says he isn’t sure what the new government’s action will be. He’s probably focused on our people in harm’s way for the last week and hasn’t got round to the whales yet. If you can’t understand that prioritisation process, thank Gaia he can!
November 27th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Frog said
“Even though I condemn the lack of action, I condemn the waffle even more. We cannot afford to look weak or indecisive at any time where the military is concerned.”
Well I guess if NZ is under threat from an invasion of mutant whales then we might have a problem.
If the guy had said we’re gonna blow the whaling ships out of the water, then we would have a really interesting moral debate on our hands
November 28th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I’m certainly with frog on this one. Saying we don’t know what we are doing is inviting trouble from a number of sources. Saying you have asked for a briefing from your officials and want to discuss it with allies suggests decisiveness, even if it isn’t actually there.
Trevor.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:19 am
An Orion can loiter in the area for a couple of hours and then has to come back. It is flying a long mission and it is NOT capable of doing the rescue part of Search and Rescue.
Better to send a Frigate or other Arctic Capable ship to do the overwatch, as it is a much more pointed reminder of our position. Too bad the Project Protector ships aren’t ready yet. Could have a media rep on the frigate and let them record as much as they can get on film. It may not prevent violence, but it would be more useful if the pushing and shoving gets nasty.
If someone gave me a job like that all of a sudden the media would not be able to reach me until I had discussed our force situation with the military and my PM. That would take a little less than a day. Putting feet under the table is wrong… getting them to do their thing and so I can talk to the people who know what I HAVE to know would be far wiser.
BJ
November 28th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Trevor ! ! ! !
Saying you have asked for a briefing from your officials and want to discuss it with allies suggests decisiveness, even if it isn’t actually there.
Seems to me you are emulating Ms. Clark there mate! She had all the words regarding climate change and global warming, but non of the action! I prefer honesty in my governing politicians - not liars!
You must be a Party Member! What car do you drive - really not ’suggestionally’.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I never realised we were at war with Japan. When did this happen?
Btw, its a bit rich for the Greens to criticise how a Party should govern considering the Greens have never been in Government.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Gerrit,
In response, I share the sentiments you expressed about dithering around while the Japanese whale slaughter continues. My view is that NZ government cannot possibly sink the whalers - for the obvious reason that we are not at war with Japan. However, nothing stops us from expressing our displeasure at their continuing whaling through economic means and through active monitoring - as mentioned by BJ and as Australia did last whale hunting season.
As consumers we also have power - a well planned and clearly targeted consumer boycott of Japanese products where we have access to alternative products - specifically if we consider the statements made by their media spokesperson about it being a subsidised and not important industry in Japan. Don’t think it is not effective, it worked against South African goods such as wine and other produce during the apartheid era - I should know, I originally come from there.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Given the Greens proclaimed commitment to non-violence, I would have thought an indecisive defence minister would be just the ticket.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Johan,
Hear what you are saying and agree on the boycotts. However for New Zealand to do this alone is futile. ALL anti-whaling countries should put a Japanese consumer boycott.
Sinking a few whaling boats would be fun though and show a proper commitment (bit like activist stopping a coal train by lying on the track) to anti whaling.
Wonder if the Japanese would consider sinking one of their merchant fleet an act of war?
Especially if say a “private’ vessel sunk one using a torpedo.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I just don’t get why the japs are so obsessed with eating whales when there are plenty of other more delicious, less controversial and more accessable creatures available. Beef, chicken, lamb, pork, and other varieties of fish that are not hunted to extinction, so many tasty choices…
November 28th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Gerrit,
Yeah, our number of consumers are not enough to do it on our own, we do need the other anti-whaling nations for it to work - at least it requires Australian participation for the numbers to get to any appreciable level. However, from the Sydney Morning Herald article it seems that the sentiment in Japan may be such that if whaling is seen as something their allies (those that are anti-whaling) makes an issue of it they may change their tune simply because it is apparently not that an important economic activity - I gather that is the thrust of the Greenpeace approach this year.
As for the sinking of whalers, Sea Shepherd seems to have done something about this in the past.
http://www.seashepherd.org/whales/sea-shepherd-history.html
I see today’s Herald notes that the Japanese whalers are expected to operate primarily in New Zealand waters.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10545 373
November 28th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Pat1,
As I understand it, although there had been some whaling in earlier years commercial whaling is not a Japanese tradition, notwithstanding their apologists saying it is. After the Second World War Japan suffered as a result of a lack of protein. General MacAuthor then had a number of derelict ships converted to whalers and the industry was born (more like “spawned” if you ask me) to deal with this issue.
http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-060627-1.html
November 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Whilst it’s probably a far too simple answer for a complex problem, It would be good if we could do a deal with them where we offer some lamb/beef etc. at a lower rate on the condition that they stopped whaling altogther, Their ships could act as transport for the meat and it would keep the people employed
November 28th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Given that the Japanese govt already subsidises the whalere to the tune of 500 million Yen per year, perhaps they should just pay them to stay home, and we wouldn’t have to cut any deal whatsoever!
November 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Frog,
I gather it is a case of “loss of face” and that whaling has become an issue of “not being pushed around”. I think it is for this reason that Greenpeace now works inside Japan to get public opinion in Japan on their side. They may need an alternative reason to abindon whaling that allows them to “save face.”
“Based on our 30 years of experience of campaigning against whaling, Greenpeace has decided that at this stage in the global campaign, our efforts need to focus on continuing to shift public opinion in Japan,” said Karli Thomas, Greenpeace New Zealand Oceans Campaigner. “Our research in Japan shows that over 70 per cent of Japanese people do not support high seas whaling, and ordinary Japanese people are starting to question the use of tax-payers money to support an outdated and globally unpopular industry.”
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/press/releases/greenpeace-ramps- up-whales-cam
November 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Typical Tory - all full of bluster when he was in opposition and dithers when he is given responsibility. Now if he’d been asked whether he should privatise something - there’d be no hestitation in relying in the affirmative.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
frog,
Your criticism of the language of the Defence minister is very valid.
But I would question what business the Defence minister has with the perfectly legal activities of vessels of another state in international waters, in the first instance. Sir Geoff Palmer has publicly conceded the legality of it, whether NZ’s policy is to like it or not. Sometimes international agreements don’t work in your favour - especially if you are the ones who changed your minds after making the agreement in the first place!
Mapp was playing cheap politics when he was in opposition, now he’s just caught with his pants down.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
pat1,
It’s not a matter of having lots of lamb to eat at cheap prices. On the contrary, a part of the issue is that Japan has food self-sufficiency at about 40%, and a lot of pro-whaling people are very uncomfortable with this reliance on foreign produce to be able to feed the population. Many such people in Japan believe that it is no coincidence that beef and lamb exporting nations such as Australia and New Zealand are the most vocal of the anti-whaling nations.
But first and foremost, pro-whaling people argue that there are enough whales to allow for sustainable exploitation. They question why this should be forgone just because in some other cultures (the past over-exploitation of) whales became symbolic of man’s destruction of nature in pursuit of wealth? What kind of precedent would a nation be setting for itself if it were to willingly submit to the whims of other sovereign states on such a basis?
To be pro-whaling is in a sense to believe in the rights of sovereign states to make decisions for themselves. This issue is as symbolic for people of whaling nations as it is symbolic for people of anti-whaling nations. With Japan’s recent history of being under the US’s thumb, this resounds with lots of Japanese people. If Japan can’t even be independent on issues such of it’s choice about what to catch for dinner, what does it say about Japan as a nation?
The pro-whaling people are not for hunting whales to extinction. They are for hunting them on a sustainable basis.
Of course in Japan there are people who think differently and feel that Japan should basically sacrifice it’s independence in order to avoid even the most trivial of conflicts such as this one over whaling - the foreign ministry of Japan is full of such people for example.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Johan,
Actually Japan’s pelagic whaling in the Antarctic started before WWII. This took a breather during WWII when the whaling fleets were converted to act as supply ships for the military.
Of course Japan’s pelagic whaling was based on Norwegian technology anyway. Japan’s traditional coastal whaling methods using nets had already been long made obselete, as foreign whalers had moved in in the 1800’s and started exploiting whale stocks in the North Pacific, reducing the numbers of whales coming within range of the original methods used by the locals.
I hear these arguments about “Antarctic whaling isn’t traditional” or whatever. In the context of history, things change over time, and comparing 2008 with 1650 doesn’t make a lot of sense if all that happened in between is ignored.
Furthermore, no one had any problem with Japan catching whales in the 1950’s, in fact the western whalers were selling them their whaling fleets as their oil-extraction industries fell into decline.
I don’t understand why it is that western people expect the Japanese, Icelanders and Norwegians to toe the same line as westerners, just because westerners pulled out of the biz.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
“# david @ tokyo Says:
November 28th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
pat1,
It’s not a matter of having lots of lamb to eat at cheap prices. On the contrary, a part of the issue is that Japan has food self-sufficiency at about 40%, and a lot of pro-whaling people are very uncomfortable with this reliance on foreign produce to be able to feed the population.”
I respond:
Only a small percentage of Japanese consume whale meat so the statement that it provides food selfsuffiency is false. Japan, like many other countries import food and there is no indication whatsoever that Japan faces any shortage at all.
“Many such people in Japan believe that it is no coincidence that beef and lamb exporting nations such as Australia and New Zealand are the most vocal of the anti-whaling nations.”
I respond:
Many nations throughout the world, including non-beef and lamb exporting countries abhore the practice of whaling.
http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/home/news_en_newsobj2887.php
“But first and foremost, pro-whaling people argue that there are enough whales to allow for sustainable exploitation. They question why this should be forgone just because in some other cultures (the past over-exploitation of) whales became symbolic of man’s destruction of nature in pursuit of wealth? What kind of precedent would a nation be setting for itself if it were to willingly submit to the whims of other sovereign states on such a basis?”
I respond:
Incorrect, most whales are protected under CITES, including those hunted by the Japanese whalers such as minke. It is for this same reason that the Southern Ocean is a whale sanctuary that the Japanese whalers enter to hunt whales under the guise of “scientific research” – I challenge you to produce one single peer reviewed research paper produced by the Japanese Institute for Cetacean Research emanating from the “research” conducted during the annual whaling.
“To be pro-whaling is in a sense to believe in the rights of sovereign states to make decisions for themselves. This issue is as symbolic for people of whaling nations as it is symbolic for people of anti-whaling nations. With Japan’s recent history of being under the US’s thumb, this resounds with lots of Japanese people. If Japan can’t even be independent on issues such of it’s choice about what to catch for dinner, what does it say about Japan as a nation?”
I respond:
You mean like the Confederate States in the 1800’s having sovereign rights to keep slaves or South Africa’s rights in the 1940-90s to apartheid, or currently by Bob Mugabe about his treatment of the inhabitants of Zimbabwe. The argument of sovereignity is used by states who are rogue in their actions and do not wish to be reprimanded for their abhorrent practices.
“The pro-whaling people are not for hunting whales to extinction. They are for hunting them on a sustainable basis.”
I respond
The scientific community as represented by CITES are capable of determining sustainability and to date no level of whaling has been determined to be “sustainable”. Australian Environment Minister Peter Garrett has announced that Australia will invest millions into whale research to prove that non-lethal methods are sufficient and that Japan does not need to employ lethal research to secure their research objectives.
“Of course in Japan there are people who think differently and feel that Japan should basically sacrifice it’s independence in order to avoid even the most trivial of conflicts such as this one over whaling - the foreign ministry of Japan is full of such people for example.”
I respond:
Not just the Ministry of foreign affairs, ex whalers as well. Shigeko Misaki, a former advisor to the Japan Whaling Association and the former counsel for the Institute for Cetacean Research states:
“…I now find myself retired and severed from much of the controversy over whaling. However, internet reports of whaling “progress” thus far persuade me that this season is the most opportune time for Japan’s government to decide to withdraw all whaling operations from the Southern Ocean.”
“I say this because I believe that pelagic whaling does not contribute to the prevention of global warming. Just think of the expensive fuel the Japanese whaling fleet consumes en route to the Antarctic, plus that consumed by the freezing ship for transporting the byproducts of whaling to the Japanese market. Over the years, Japanese research ships have made a mess on the ocean when fire broke out due to poor management of the vessel. Add to that the mess made by animal rights groups eager to attack the whaling ships. Whaling as a business hardly justifies the environmental costs. Talk about ‘food mileage’ has not touched on whale meat. Why doesn’t the government consider it more seriously, and cease whaling in any form, except small-scale coastal whaling?”
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/rc20080803a6.html
November 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
David,
I find your response to me enlightning as it exposes the lie by the Japanese whalers that their hunting is for “research purposes” while you inadvertently, but correctly, expose the real motive - nationalism and a fear of “being made to toe the same line”. Whale meat is not a big seller in Japan and makes up only a small part of the diet - so why the elaborate attempts to defend it? Well, your post provides the answer and it is not research or food security but hubris.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Johan,
1) Food security
The argument is that Japanese producing more food for themselves would *improve* Japan’s food self-sufficiency. Obviously catching whaling would not make them 100% self-sufficient, but it *would* be a positive contribution towards it (at the expense of western meat exporters maybe).
Also I suppose you are aware that there is a “commercial whaling moratorium” right now. Supply of whale meat was much much more plentiful before that came into effect, as much more whales were being caught back then. With a much smaller supply of meat these days (although increasing somewhat in the last few years), fewer people are able to eat it. Recent moves by Iceland and Norway to redevelop the market for their whale products in Japan, after their respective hiatuses from whaling in the 1990’s, suggests that they believe there is untapped demand in the Japanese market.
Some anti-whaling groups argue this point, but really if they are right then why not try reverse-psychology on the whalers? Let them catch whales commercially - if it’s true that there is little desire to eat whales, then it will not be profitable to catch them, and the industry will die. Game over.
2) Sovereignity
You say: “Many nations throughout the world, including non-beef and lamb exporting countries abhore the practice of whaling.”
Yes. It’s like westerners looking down on Koreans for eating dogs. This isn’t lost on the Japanese. But they don’t accept westerners looking down upon them as a proper reason to stop eating whales. Many nations do not have policies that preclude whales from being eaten.
You give examples of slavery etc. The examples are not relevant to matters about which animals people choose to eat as food. Whales are animals, like dogs and cows. If there is similarity its where human rights are concerned, but it goes the opposite way. As with slavery, should some humans be able to deny other humans of their rights (to eat cows or whales or dogs)? Obviously not.
3) CITES and IWC
The whaling nations have legal objections to the relevant CITES listings (the grounds for which they question), and so are not legally bound by them. And so what if the westerners are shifty enough to get non-endangered species such as the minke listed under CITES without proper scientific justification? Why should whaling people give up trading whale products internationally just because people in other places don’t like it? CITES is about stopping international trade from driving species to extinction. Iceland and Norway selling their whale to Japan isn’t undermining that.
CITES tends to follow advice from the IWC, it doesn’t have it’s own body of scientists like the IWC. The IWC’s scientific committee has since the early 1990’s been quite clear that it has developed a method for setting sustainable catch limits for baleen whales. The use of this method (the “RMP”) has been implemented already for several species of baleen whales. The IWC itself (politicians) has not started using the RMP to set sustainable catch limits for other reasons which have nothing to do with science (this is one reason why whaling nations have no interest in observing the CITES listings).
Likewise the Southern Ocean “whale sanctuary” was established in 1994, well after Japan commenced its post-moratorium whaling programme in the Antarctic in 1987/88. Furthermore, IWC sanctuaries only prevent whaling under commercial permit, and Japan is operating under Article VIII of the ICRW agreement. So again, the anti-whaling nations may succeed in (ab)using international agreements to score propaganda points through the establishment of “sanctuaries” (which are meaningless when there is already a moratorium!), but should such deviousness mean that Japan etc are obliged to toe the line?
4) Science
Peer-reviewed research papers have been published. For some reason one in particular made big news earlier this year (see “minke blubber”). So there you go.
The reality is that scientific opinion over the need for lethal research methods is just as divided as the non-scientific opinion regarding whether whales are food or not. I believe the correlation is indicative of perceptions about science being confounded by more basic perceptions about the morality of eating animals (whales in particular).
5) Non pro-whaling Japanese
Shigeko Misaki, like the people in the foreign ministry, is welcome to her opinion. Her reasons for agreeing with whaling in the first place weren’t necessarily the same as the reasons for most pro-whaling people agreeing with it, only she could answer.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Johan,
The hunting is primarily for research purposes, but the reality is that if you aren’t interested in eating whales (catching them at an optimal sustainable level etc) then there is no scientific need to have information about whale biology such as that which Japan collects.
> you inadvertently, but correctly, expose the real motive
It wasn’t inadvertent. This is exactly the type of thing that a fisheries official describes on a pro-whaling website in Japan in response to the question of why Japan sticks to it’s position on whaling?
> nationalism and a fear of “being made to toe the same line”.
> why the elaborate attempts to defend it?
If “Nationalism” means one believes a nation ought to be able to choose for itself what food it eats, then yes indeed it is nationalism!
And yes there a fear that if Japan gives up on a small issue like whaling, then it will set a bad precedent for much bigger issues.
As I said, whaling is as symbolic for pro-whalers as it is for so-called environmentalists. Whaling is just a symbol of a much greater issue.
> “Well, your post provides the answer and it is not research or food security but hubris.”
On the contrary, I think its hubris that drives western nations to keep trying to force whaling nations to stop whaling.
November 29th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Perhaps we just don’t like those who flout laws by exploiting a loophole under false pretenses.
Or do you have a stack of academic papers generated from this whale research that we don’t know about?
Trevor.
November 30th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Strings - I never suggested lying. The minister can say that he has asked for a briefing and actually ask for it. That doesn’t take much effort.
As for your logic concluding that I “must be a Party Member” - it must be flawed since I am not a Party member (of any party).
Trevor.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:54 am
“david @ tokyo Says:
November 28th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Recent moves by Iceland and Norway to redevelop the market for their whale products in Japan, after their respective hiatuses from whaling in the 1990’s, suggests that they believe there is untapped demand in the Japanese market. ”
Well David, perhaps your whaling friends in Europe know a thing or two about “their” whales that you should take note of:
“…chief medical officers Pál Weihe and Høgni Debes Joensen announced that pilot whale meat and blubber contains too much mercury, PCBs and DDT derivatives to be safe for human consumption.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16159-faroe-islanders-told-to-st op-eating-toxic-whales.html
December 1st, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Trevor29, I don’t know how many average joes have perused the archives of the IWC’s Scientific Committee website, but I have an it’s clear to me that there is a lot of information provided from the programmes sponsored by Japan. There are examples of foreign scientists actually requesting access to, obtaining, and utilising biological data collected by the programme in work such as the IWC’s assessment of the state of the Antarctic minke whale population (see the catch-at-age analysis work).
Of course, a lot of people who are skeptical about the biological data collected by the programmes that the Japanese government sponsors are against killing whales in the first instance. It seems to me that many anti-whaling people develop this skepticism with little or no effort to actually try to find a sound basis for forming it - but it makes it easier to justify denying whaling people’s their rights if one can convince oneself that it’s the opponents who are being dishonest and unfair.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Johan,
My whaling friends in northern Europe are more into catching baleen whales such as minke whales and fin whales than they are smaller, toothed cetaceans which feed at a higher trophic level, e.g. the pilot whales that you mention.
The meat that’s being traded internationally is the baleen whale stuff. And it’s been tested for toxins both by the whalers, and by the authorities on the Japanese side before permitting the import. (Additionally they take DNA samples from the meat of each baleen whale captured and of the imported product to ensure that the meat is only from whales taken legally).
But yes, I wouldn’t advise any one to eat pilot whales on a regular basis these days, although that isn’t relevant here…
The whale eating people are surely grateful to you for your concern about their health. But you will have to get used to the idea of people eating what they choose, no matter what propaganda or quantity of it you spin in their direction. They will happily stay out of your kitchen if you stay out of theirs. And up at the international level, the governments representing those people will continue to act in such a way as is consistent with both their sovereignty and relevant international agreements that are observed in good faith.
For the last 25 years at least, the IWC’s agreement has not been observed in good faith; my pick is that come this time next year rhetoric about “sanctuaries” and “moratoriums” will have become even more irrelevant than it already is. People will continue eating whales for as long as people are eating cows and dogs and fish. This is not a “problem”, it’s mere diversity - and we are tolerant of that, are we not? I would have thought the Greens of all people would be.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Trevor.
Mea Culpa.
I drew the wring noun from your sentence . . .
“Saying you have asked for a briefing from your officials and want to discuss it with allies suggests decisiveness, even if it isn’t actually there.”
I took subject of the third clause to be the noun from the first, it is now clear you meant ‘decisiveness’ from the second.
My apologies for the comment and the derived conclusion, which was in error.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Typo - Wrong, not wring.
Sorry all.