Indeed, little has changed.

Every year the hardright anti-whaling politicians come and and declare that they are fighting to save the whales from extinction. And every year the pro-whaling politicians come along and talk about limited sustainable whaling. The argument goes nowhere, because the arguments aren't based on the same foundations - both sides don't agree with the ICRW convention, even though both sides are signatory to it. But who ever seriously expected politicians to behave honourably?

The only thing that has changed is the composition of the IWC membership. Perhaps progress may occur next year. The US appears more likely than ever to seeking to allow limited hunts, and other less extreme anti-use nations are also likely to follow this leadership.

PS, does anyone know of any good FAQs from anti-whaling sites? Ann?

The key phrase is,"These societies - perhaps 20% of the world population - may be the most outspoken and influential, but by no means do they represent 'World Opinion'"

I'd like to see "world opinion" on this topic portrayed according to personal income. Do the Zambians worry about whales? There are lots and lots of Zambians.

Zambians engage in personal combat with *baboons* over "indigenous property rights" to roots and tubers during the annual starvation season, and I bet the Zambians would be glad to try some whale.

For balance, the picture of what people shoot at whales should be juxtaposed with what people shoot at each other. The caliber is different, but the principles and basic design are pretty much the same. In either case, one hopes the design is optimal.

Schiller.

David,
A FAQ on whales for Australians:

http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=21940

Schiller,
Regarding starving Zambians doubt they will eat whale meat, some years ago they refused to eat GMO seeds that were offered them through some aid -programme, deeming them as some kind of devilish food, yes, they would rather starve.

And offering whale meat to starving people is not the solution to starvation. As we all know there is food in the whole world that could support twice the world population right now, but it is unequally distributed.

Schiller,

I guess the Zambians aren't likely to get any whale meat themselves, but in Nigeria it seems they are happy to eat whale meat if it is on offer:
http://www.highyieldconservation.org/articles/plus_conservation.html

Ann,
Dunno about there being enough food to support twice the world population - really? Is that in theory or actually in practice as well? It's one thing to have food, but not much use if you can't get it where it is required.

Thanks for the link! I'll add that to my whaling faq page later. If you have any from Greenpeace / IFAW, that'd be good too.

David,
Can't keep my face straight when I read this from the IWMC site:
" Would it be such a bad thing , if a whaling nation brought in a load or two of minke product to port?"

So this Lapoint guy suggests that the Norwegians for example should dump all their unwanted blubber and meat in Africa?

Do you really think that is ethically and morally right to dump whale products in developing countries after Japan and domestic markets have refused to buy the products due to contamination and bad quality?

Have you fgorgotten that the Japanese market is closed for Norwegian blubber due to toxics?

Have you forgotten that the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries don't want pregnant women to eat whale meat?

Ann,

I think you kind of miss the point of the article - although I do note that it seems people did actually consume whale meat despite your claim that they would rather starve (I'd rather eat whale meat than starve too, if I had to make the choice - I think most people on earth would as well)

Ultimately, I think people should be able to make their own choices about what they eat. That includes hungry people in Africa. I don't think foreign people have any business telling people what they can and can not eat.

Self determination, and all that.

Regards,

David,
I think it was OK that the Nigerians ate the whale carcass if they wanted to, but I don't think we should dump unwanted food to developing countries, this was the case with the GMO seed in Zambia. Regarding Nigeria, I personally know a guy from Lagos who is anti whaling and a Greenpeacer. The solution to end poverty in Nigeria( Africa) has nothing either to do with whaling,the problem has to do with corruption etc. Don't you think a country such as Nigeria with all that oil should be able to support their own population with proper food?

Here's my anti whaling friend, Tomakint , from Nigeria:

http://www.africanconservation.org/tomakint/

David,
FAQ from IFAW:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_5090000/newsid_5095000/5095016.stm

It is not a matter of oil or no oil if the political structure is not free there will be an improper distribution of wealth. Similarly if business and trade is not free there will be political problems and instability. Until there is free elections and free trade they will have to rely on charity to assist with poverty.

Ann,

There are anti-whaling people from all over the world, even Japan.

You probably saw my blog recently about how whether you are tolerant of whaling or not ultimately has more to do with your principles than your nation of birth (although your cultural background can effect your principles, this is not absolute).

And so, you know a Nigerian who is anti-whaling. So what (he seems a little confused about what "conservation" means if you ask me). Apparently a fair number of Nigerians are happy to eat whale meat. A single blue whale has a lot of meat on it, but it apparently got snaffled up quite quickly.

I don't know anything about the GMO seed, but again, it's up to people to eat what they want. Here in Japan it's generally acceptable to eat whales, but people here are also very big on organic foods. GM stuff isn't popular at all. Whale meat is organic after all. We need to clean up the oceans to ensure the health of our organic marine foods.

Thanks for the IFAW link! I'll include that one at my whaling FAQ also :-)

Regarding Tomakint and Greenpeace's anti whaling campaign in Iceland and Jennifer's post, it is interesting to notice why Tomakint won the competion to sail with the Esperanza to Iceland. He was the person in the whole world that collected most anti whaling signatures( in Nigeria).

Well,in Faroe Islands, at least for some years ago, "Whales were killed for sport, in a blood frenzy or out of murderous lust". Maybe not exactly but very close to this statement.

In a Viking frenzy, yes, the whalers are often drunk( the mayor of Torshavn, the Faroe Island's capital has admitted this)on beer, like many of the citizens , the Islanders in motorboats drive the whales into a bay . The bay is soon pink or red of killed pilot whales.

The Faroese celebrate the butchery of their whales in a carnival atmosphere of entertainment.
Children are often given a day off from school to watch the "fun". Children can also be seen playing upon dead pilot whales.

Maybe this seems like really anti whaling propaganda but even the mayor has confessed there are too many drunk people enjoying this butchery.

Sorta like an RSL club isn't it? Or a long weekend on highway 1.

Ann Novek,

It's not often that I call somone an idiot. Now you wear the designation. Zambians have engaged in unarmed combat with government soldiers and overwhelmed them in order to get access to "poison GM grain" in government warehouses. The same "poison grain" that people eat in countries where life expectancy reaches 70-80 years.

As a greenie you likely wants long-term studies showing that people who eat GM food live to 140 years. Will that be a "healthy" example for people lucky to reach the age of 40?

Naw... not long-term enough for you is my bet.

I've changed my mind. "Idiot" isn't the proper term. "Cretin" is more accurate.

Schiller.

Schiller,
You want a debate on GMOs, you are game...

I don't spout Greenpeace policy 24/7 but this is a fact:

Zambia , whose government controversially rejected food aid (GMO), during a draught a few years back, had a glut of maize last year and exported their excess to Angola.

Regarding the draught in 2002. Zambia issued an all out ban on GM food aid, with its president comparing GM seeds to poison. And you are quite right there were some riots regarding this GMO seed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2412603.stm

That's funny Schiller, cretin is a word that constantly springs to mind when reading your comments. However, some of us have common decency.

Aren't you both confusing Zambia with Zimbabwe where Mugabe sent 50,000 tonnes of GMO grain back to port while his people were starving?

I guess some would say they dies for the highest ideals.

After seeing what was on the menu in Gweilin, I doubt that too many of the 1.5 billion chinese would vote with their stomachs against the consumption of whale meat.

If its OK for Orcas to eat baby whales then what is wrong with humans eating surplus adult males and post breeding females?

As Shiller and I have mentioned there were some riots concerning this GMO food in Zambia. But I have also read that the common man was angry that the US was dumping unwanted GMO feed in Africa that Europe had refused to touch. Actually the Zambians asked for non GMO-feed.

That was why I responded to David's comment regarding whale meat, is it right to dump unwanted food in developing countries, when there actually are abundant food in the world.

Regarding "exotic" dishes, in Iceland during the Viking fesivities during February, the "Thorrablot", they eat rotten shark , ram's testicles and soured whale blubber. And yes, I have eaten whale meat.

I can guarantee most people that whale meat tastes very badly, sure can understand why the demand for whale meat is low in Norway.

> is it right to dump unwanted food in developing countries, when there actually are abundant food in the world.

I think the Nigeria case shows that whale meat is not neccesarily "unwanted food", and again, if there is abundant food, tell that to the starving people. And stop whinging about whaling.

Ideally, if people in those nations can find ways of sustainably feeding their population, that's a good thing for them. They need not rely on foreign nations for their food security that way, nor need to waste money importing food. Sustainable use of natural resources has a role to play in all of this.

> I can guarantee most people that whale meat tastes very badly,

I can't.

I've had whale on several occasions now:
1) minke steak twice (nice meal, and the meat was fine)
2) black and white sashimi style (blubber plus red meat) - I'd skip the blubber if presented with it again, it wasn't nice
3) "tataki" style (basically kind of raw red meat minced up - this is my favourite way so far, had both as sushi and "yukke style".

I've not tried bacon yet, but a restaurant down the road from my place has it, so I'm sure I'll get to it sometime or other.

Everyone has their own taste Ann, and ultimately that is a side issue anyway. In Japan, lots of people think Natto is disgusting, but foreigners here have never suggested that consumption of the stuff be banned - because that would be silly.

The primary concern should be sustainability, that's something we should all be able to agree on - if we are honest! (Did you see my blog on the almost total uselessness of the moratorium?)
Of course, I know you think whaling is cruel, and accept that, but I wish you'd stop trying to find other reasons to oppose it as well. Your cruelty reason is perfectly fair enough if you ask me.

David,
This is a bit off topic, but a Chinese woman and a Japanese/American man told me that the Japanese don't learn English in school. And that most Japanese don't speak English. Is this true?

David,
I think you should ask John Frizell himself "about the almost uselessness of the moratorium" - you are a wellknown person in Greenpeace! I have asked him myself some questions - now you don't want me to say that you don't dare to ask him;-) Go ahead:

http://ctk.greenpeace.org/discussions/message-view?message%5fid=2236808

ANN,
do you know about the mercury levels in that whales that people consume?

Tönsberg festival in northern Norway, will not serve dishes made of whale meat and shark this year after critic last year from NGOs.

This year we are going vegetarian...

Famous rock groups take part in the festivities.

Hi Flavio,

Norway's Whale Meat Toxic, Too
WWF reports that whale meat and blubber sampled in Norway recently were found to contain heavy metals, PCBs and pesticides.

The toxic whale meat crisis now faces Norwegian consumers as well as Japanese. Will the Norwegian government, like Japan, shirk its responsibility to protect its citizens? Will Norway put the financial health of a handful of whalers (who already make a fine living fishing most of the year) ahead of people who are consuming contaminants that cause cancer, sterility and other woes?

Twenty samples of whale meat and blubber collected in Norwegian markets in recent weeks were analyzed by scientists hired by WWF. Preliminary results show that more than 50 PCB congeners were identified, some of which are dioxin-like PCB's. Also, 25 metals were identified in whale blubber samples, including organic mercury. In addition, several organochlorine pesticides were detected, including aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, and DDE and DDD (which are breakdown products of DDT).

Norway should not be surprised that its minke whales are contaminated. The marine mammals are subjected each summer to the chemical and radioactive soup pouring into the Barents Sea from Russia's polluted rivers and military bases. Similar toxic exposure is faced by the whales when they winter in the North Sea and Irish Sea.

Ironically, the children, men and women of Norway may be saved from this tainted food by Gro Brundtland, the pro-whaling former Norwegian prime minister who now heads the World Health Organization. WHO is aggressively attacking tainted food.

Ann,

Regarding your offtopic comment,
no, it is incorrect that Japanese people don't learn English in school. Every Japanese person has 6 years English lessons, and they have done for decades now.
However, because the curriculum is crap, Japanese people can rarely ever speak well just by going through the system.

It was similar in my case, learning Japanese though. You need to practice heaps out of class to get any good.

And if John wants to talk about why he thinks the Moratorium is useful, he is more than welcome to. I'm a little too busy for John right now. Plaese direct him to my blog :)

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have studied with keen interest here the tone of the various topics here and I must confess to you all that "Whaling in this modern age should be discontinued" it is not only unjustifiable but an ignoble action that betrays our supremacy over other higher animals we share this planet with. Think about what would have been the global positions of whales now had it been that oil was not discovered in the Middle-East way back in the year 1908.

I am actually referring to the age when the oil gotten from the blubber of whales was predominantly useful and when the consumption of whales meat has not assumed the status of Commercial stage. Whatever we put down as online activities mean a lot to these people (those who see nothing wrong in hunting whales), hence, let's cultivate the habit of hammering, drumming and ringing it into their ears and hearts that "WHALING MUST BE STOPPED" our committment to this goal is TOTAL as Greenpeace Cyberactivists!

David, believe me, I love your contributions here especially your arguement regarding what happened sometimes in Nigeria regarding the whale issue, but you still need to understand the fact that when poverty is the order of the day in any society, the human mind, soul and body can unite together as one and evoke an unimaginable actions that would constitute ABSOLUTE MENACEto such society, that's the exact picture of what happened then in Nigeria, trust me it was an action i will live to rememeber for the rest of my life. And just like my fellow Cyberactivist and a good friend has stated that, "Don't you think a country such as Nigeria with all that oil should be able to support their own population with proper food?" Indeed, we that oil in a very large quantity, yet bad governance coupled with visionless leaders will not allow the proceeds from the oil to better the lots of the masses, exactly the point David. But....the case of Iceland, Norway and Japan (the three most notorious whaling nations is different in this case) do you still think Commercial whaling should continue....we all know that the IWC endorsed the commencement of "Subsistence whaling" in Alaska. Since we know that subsistence whaling pulls no threat why allow Commercial whaling in a super rich economy like that of Japan, in a very rich country like Norway and a comfortable economy like Iceland?....Don't you think it is unnecessary?

Tomakint,

It's a pleasure to be able to read your comments directly.

> do you still think Commercial whaling should continue...

I base my opinions on whether activities are sustainable or not. Not by who is conducting those activities, or how their complex their human social structures are.

If it's sustainable, I'll accept it.
-----
If it's unsustainable, I'll not accept it.

There is my line, nice and clear.

As you may have seen on my blog in my recent article about the Moratorium, scientists clearly believe that sustainable (commercial) whaling is quite possible (see comments by Judy Zeh, IWC Scientific Committee member and former Chair, as just one example).

This is what it comes down to for me. I don't need to make any exceptions based on this position. It's very straight forward, simple, and principled.

> Since we know that subsistence whaling pulls no threat why

It is crucial to recognise the reasons why this is the case.

It's not because it is subsistence whaling that bowhead whaling in Alaska is sustainable.

It is because the number of whales they are taking does not threaten the survival of the bowhead stock that they are harvesting.

Traditional harvests of animals are certainly not sustainable in all cases. My home country of New Zealand lost native bird species before my ancestors from Europe arrived on those shores in their whaling ships.

We should not be permitting activities based solely on whether they are traditional / subsistence or not. The primary concern must be sustainability.

> allow Commercial whaling in a super rich economy like that of Japan, in a very rich country like Norway and a comfortable economy like Iceland?....Don't you think it is unnecessary?

I don't think it is that necessary (I could certainly get by without whale meat), but neither are many of the activities conducted in my home country of New Zealand, and nor do I need to eat the cereal I choose every morning. I could easily choose a substitute. But I do need to eat something.

If the human population in Alaska increases in the future such that demand for whale meat exceeds what is sustainable, I'll certainly be opposed to any increases - I'd expect that you would be as well.

If the human population in Alaska becomes very rich in the future, I'll not suddenly one day decide that they must give up their way of life, just because they are wealthier than they are now.

As you can see, I'm not into defining arbitrary lines in the sand which I then have no hope of justifying.

Again, I base my position primarily on what is and is not sustainable. This line is very clear, and justifiable. It doesn't matter which culture you come from - it's a simple concept that anyone from any part of the globe can understand, and that's why we see so much "sustainable use" talk in so many global fora.

Hi Tomakint,
Thanks for contributing to this thread!

Ann

David my friend, are you aware that, Japan is likely to provoke the biggest diplomatic clash over whale hunting for years when it proposes doubling the number it is allowed to kill for "scientific research".

Now the gist: we all know that, "Scientific hunts are permitted under IWC regulations". But critics say they amount to a resumption because 2,000 tons of meat from the culls is sold in restaurants and supermarkets, fetching an estimated £28.4m. Also, trade in whale meat is not illegal: under IWC regulations countries may use the byproducts of scientific hunts as they see fit. In Japan, that means "eating them". This week (5/26/2005), the Australian prime minister, John Howard, said Australia would work with the US, New Zealand and Britain to persuade Japan to reconsider, although he did not support blocking Japanese whaling ships, (well thatz not good enough, to me he should have supported that). Japan insists hunts are necessary to monitor changes in the makeup of the whale population, although it admits they are a precursor to a return to commercial whaling.

Listen to these, Japanese wants to go into full-bloom commercial whaling, but under the aegis of Scientific research, with the belief that they want to manage whale resources, which includes determining a whale's age.

Now the danger: Already pro-whaling Japanese are saying banning whaling is an attack on their ways of life, but we all know whaling is never a culture or tradition but an habit that can be corrected just the same way a drunkard can quit excess booze, just the same way a pathological liar can quit lying, just the same way a serial killer can turn over a new life, hope you grab this. Scientists say that the most reliable way of determining a whale's age, for example, is by examining wax from its inner ear, a procedure that means killing the animal first.

If that should be the case then the purpose of conducting researches on whales is already defeated. Hellbent in commencing the killing business, Tokyo has repeatedly threatened to leave if the IWC continues to block a resumption of even a limited form of commercial whaling. The fact is this, some whales species are threatened and may be lost forever and if we all as humans start claiming that we have the rights to decide how to live based on our culture (including whaling as claimed by the Japanese) then we have missed the point totally. Most of what we abuse in this life are privileges and not rights. Japanese should note that they are only privileged to be where these creatures are plentiful and then shouldn't start to claim absolute rights on what to do with these creatures. If all humans were to be like the Japanese then as an African we can as well start destroying the beauty Mother Nature had bequeathed us in the area of Trees, rich and abundant wildlife, the Australians can do away with their rich reefs, the Asians can zero in on the abundant supplies of forests and animals life, the Americans can also resume the hunting of their limited number of Bisons and other threatened species in the jungle of the Amazon, the Europeans can resume absolute destruction of their rich biodiversities and the question is: What then will be our GAIN? of course we will lose!

Now the conclusion: Commercial Whaling should be vehemently resisted, there is more to preserving these whales than just killing them to enrich few purses of a few individuals. MY POINT!

Ann, you have been a buddy, my cyberactivist friend, I have been following your contributions here and I must confess you have not disappointed me in any way like I use to know your stand regarding this hotly debated topic,....COMMERCIAL WHALING!

Fellas,

The point is not about taking whales meat off the menu list of the Japanese but a strong warning against rendering imbalances to the balanced OCEAN LIFE!

Global food production is already sufficient to feed the worlds starving, but as Ann rightly points out, it is frequently not available to those who need it most.

There has also been a lamentable history of inappropriate aid dumping, destroying local farming communities and creating aid dependance.
If free food is available for any longer than is absolutely necessary to avert a disaster; then local farmers cannot sell their produce. Who is going to pay for food when they can get it for free?

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-363663,00.html

http://www.fao.org/news/2000/000704-e.html

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.html

http://www.vegsource.com/articles/gmo_feed_myth.html

Apologies to all, several of the links I posted do not appear to work.

If at first you don't succeeed...........

http://www.fao.org/News/2000/000704-e.htm

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm

http://www.vegsource.com/articles/gmo_feed_myth.htm

Hello David,

=If the human population in Alaska becomes very rich in the future, I'll not suddenly one day decide that they must give up their way of life, just because they are wealthier than they are now.

In time past, we all know that after the Russian Revolution, things turn around all over the world, especially in the area of health care, which was good though, but gave an astronomical rise to world's population, hence the adverse effects of population pressure to world's resources.

David you will still agree with me that if not for the check and balances that follows suit immediately in China as result of their population explosion, things would have turn around for the worst, that is common sense, that is why we are humans, that is why we are superior to other animals, now coming back to your view. I will strongly advocate for a common sense approach to take its full course whereby Alaskans will stem the hunting of whales at least to a manageable portion. So David, get this fact right, whale hunting is not a way of life but an action that can be done away with the same way, we as humans outgrow some habits and change for the better!

Tomakint,

Lots of stuff in your second comment which I really don't have time to get in to, but let me cover a few:

> Scientists say that the most reliable way of determining a whale's age, for example, is by examining wax from its inner ear, a procedure that means killing the animal first.

Yes, that's correct. Such information is useful for people interested in making for the development of sustainable commercial whaling industry.

> The fact is this, some whales species are threatened and may be lost forever

Yes. No one is planning to hunt such truely endangered species.

Under IWC rules, no species would be hunted under IWC rules unless it was above 54% of it's estimated carrying capacity.

Currently that means stocks of whales like the Antarctic minke, probably the humpbacks that breed off the west coast of Australia, some stocks in the North Pacific, to name a few, could be hunted, were the IWC to act in accordance with the international convention that created it.

But this 54% protection rule rules out hunting of truely endangered species such as the Blue whale, which is still in the very early stages of recovering from over-hunting (although is now recognised to be increasing at a rate of around 7% a year in the Antarctic - fantastic news indeed).

IWC rules would see managed stocks of whales return to abundance of around 72% of their estimated carrying capacity.

Anti-whalers want whales to be 100% of their estimated carrying capacity.

Pretty obvious which side is failing to compromise in this situation.

> shouldn't start to claim absolute rights on what to do with these creatures.

Japan isn't making any such "absolute claim". Japan's actions are fully in line with the relevant international agreements.

> What then will be our GAIN? of course we will lose!

Yes, over-exploitation and over-hunting are bad things. I agree that these things should be avoided for the sake of future generations.

As for whaling, I suggest that you read up on Agenda 21, and "sustainable development" to try to understand where pro-sustainable use nations are coming from on this issue.

There is a difference between "hunting" and "over-hunting". I'm sure you can recognise this.

Tomakint,

Regarding your most recent comment:

> I will strongly advocate for a common sense approach to take its full course

Fantastic.

> whereby Alaskans will stem the hunting of whales at least to a manageable portion.

Presumably you think they are taking too many now, when you talk about stemming the hunting?

Would you care to give me a level of hunting of Bowhead whales that you think would be a safe amount?

> So David, get this fact right, whale hunting is not a way of life but

I'm not going to sit here and make such judgements. I have no right to tell people on the other side of the world how they should live in their environment, just as I reject know-nothings from other parts of the world telling me how to live sustainably in mine.

As I said first time around:

unsustainable -> unacceptable
-----------------------------
sustainable -> acceptable

There is a line that is acceptable internationally.

Please describe where you draw your line to me succinctly.

David, the topic is moving towards an interesting terrain, but first let me attend to your views.

>Presumably you think they are taking too many now, when you talk about stemming the hunting?

No David, thatz not what I meant, I guess you picked my point out of context, I was actually referring to your view here, "If the human population in Alaska becomes very rich in the future, I'll not suddenly one day decide that they must give up their way of life, just because they are wealthier than they are now."
My submission on stemming is this, should there be population explosion in Alaska in the future, the tendency to "bite more than they can chew" may arise (which you know), therefore I am only trying to send a word of caution across (really, Alaskans have been a perfect example of sustainable Whaling Practice.

To me Kudos must be given to the Alaskan Whalers for contributing reasonably well to how Whaling can be mildly practised. If Commercial whaling against Bowheads can reduce their populations to about 3,000 as at the time it was ended in 1910, only for it to be returned back to about 10,000 populations as at this year (2006),then such method is worth practising within such community, but not in sophisticated economies like Japan, Iceland and Norway mind you!

>There is a difference between "hunting" and "over-hunting". I'm sure you can recognise this.

Oh common David, you know what I am talking about....anywhere you see me talking about Whaling, hunting and the likes remember to include, "commercial",or "over" as applicable. Not to bore with you with too much talks on this issue you may read up this article: http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/pipermail/coral-list/2006-July/003397.html it is very important please!

Once again, I really appreciates your response so far!

That link is for you to draw a border line from what is unacceptable (unsustainable) and acceptable (sustainable) in your own view regarding Whaling.

Tomakint, I see that I misunderstood. I'm glad that we can both recognise that the Alaskan Bowhead hunt is sustainable.

> the tendency to "bite more than they can chew" may arise (which you know),

Yes, I agree. I don't believe that the Alaskans (or anybody) should hunt more whales than is sustainable. They would surely recognise themselves, that if they were to increase in population, and start hunting whales as a result, they would jeopardize their food supply, this element that supports their livelyhood.

> Alaskans have been a perfect example of sustainable Whaling Practice.

Given that we both feel that way, it's worth noting that Japan has in the past requested interim minke quotas of 50 whales a year (less than the Alaskan quota) from the north pacific 'O' stock of minke whales (which is more abundant than the bowhead stock the Alaskans hunt).
Despite wishing to hunt fewer whales than the Alaskans from a stock that is more abundant than that which is hunted by the Alaskans, Japan's request for it's small whaling coastal communities was rejected everytime.

This is interesting - clearly decisions aren't being made based on what is and is not sustainable, and in a modern international society that is very very wrong, and has the potential to lead to discord, as some (myself included) see this as a double-standard.

This is particularly interesting given that the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling states that such decisions should be made based on scientific findings, and take interests of people who depend on whales resources into account.

Decisions such as these clearly aren't based on science, and clearly don't take into consideration that interests of the people wishing to utilise whale resources sustainably. The IWC has clearly violated it's own convention (whether you agree with whaling or not, this much is a fact).

> then such method is worth practising within such community, but not in sophisticated economies like Japan, Iceland and Norway mind you!

This is where I get completely lost. I'd like you to explain your reasoning here to me further.

I'll tell you my point of view. Alaska is part of the USA, the world's most powerful nation. I know a guy who lives in Barrow, Alaska, and he eats whale meat, and also communicates with me over his internet connection. He does not actually hunt the whales he eats himself, he relies on others in his community to provide him with this service.

I struggle to understand why it is that "the world" has decided that it is O.K. for him to eat whales, but not O.K. for Japanese, Norwegian, and Icelandic people, amongst others, to eat whales.

Why should something that works well in Alaska not work well in other parts of the world?

Again, I have to ask where exactly the line should be drawn, and why.

> anywhere you see me talking about Whaling, hunting and the likes remember to include, "commercial",or "over" as applicable.

Apologies, but I'm not following you. Is it your view that whether an activity is commercial or not determines whether or not it is sustainable?

From the article you linked:

> Why hunt whales if the Japanese people don't want to eat them?

A very important point is that making generalizations about "Japanese people" is rather meaningless. The Japanese people are not homogenous. Japanese people from traditional whaling communities are far more likely to eat whale meat than other Japanese people in big cities. Even in the cities, people here come from different parts of Japan - some were raised in parts where whale meat was on school lunch menus until relatively recently, where as other people from different parts may never have eaten it at all.

My personal perspective in Japan is that some Japanese people certainly do want to eat whales. And of course, others have no interest at all. This is rather similar to the situation where some people choose not to eat beef, and others do.

Another recent story for you - "Whale bacon" was on the menu at a restaurant in my neighbourhood recently. My girlfriend and I went out to have dinner on the weekend, and I chose that restaurant as I wanted to give bacon a try (never had it before). But we were informed that they were out of whale bacon on that day. How come a restaurant in Japan could run out of whale meat if "Japanese people don't want to eat" whales?

Is it possible that I have missed something?
Or is it possible that the western media is full of such misleading information as this?
I actually live in Japan, and know various Japanese people. It's interesting that the western media has such a different view of things, and it makes you wonder how that came about.

> The second oddity comes from the Caribbean nations who supported the
declaration.

You can read my blog for much opinion from Caribbean nation representatives on why they see it as important to be a part of discussions at the IWC.

I find it especially odd that people like to talk about why island nations in the Caribbean are interested in such issues, while at the same time 7 European landlocked nations also take part.

> The USA allows indigenous hunters to take a few for sustenance, although witnesses report whale hunting is done in Alaska by natives, with high-powered, scoped, elaborate weapons.

Interesting, isn't it. Refer to my comments on the double-standards, above.

>I struggle to understand why it is that "the world" has decided that it is O.K. for him to eat whales, but not O.K. for Japanese, Norwegian, and Icelandic people, amongst others, to eat whales.

Thanks a billion for your observation here. Well, I am actually against giving the same privileges handed to some countries to Japan, Iceland and Norway (the ones I called Sophisticated Economies), simply because, the idea behind rational practices of Whaling have been largely abused by these nations. My point is this; "Despite a worldwide ban, whales are still being slaughtered for commercial profit. Since 1999, Japan has killed 600 minke whales in the North Pacific and the Southern Ocean Sanctuary under the guise of "scientific research" -- while the meat and by-products from the slaughtered whales is sold for profit. Norway also continues to kill whales in outright defiance of the ban; nearly 600 minke whales were slaughtered this past season." Still more to come, Norway kills between 550 and 650 minke whales a year; Japan 440 minkes in the Antarctic, 150 minkes, 59 sei, 50 Bryde's and 10 sperm whales in the Pacific. Already, Iceland says it intends to kill up to 250 minke and sei whales annually for sale to Japan. Wait for this; There are more than 80 species of whales, dolphins and porpoises in the cetacean family

· Ten are listed as endangered and two critically endangered

· Eleven types are still hunted

· Killing great whales, 10 tonnes and above, is prohibited by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) but around 1,400 are expected to be hunted this year

· Smaller whales, like pilot whales and dolphins, are outside the scope of the IWC. Unknown thousands are killed especially by these same three NATIONS!

I don't intend to discuss the cruelties attached to the method of killing, probably for those who don't know imagine this detailed presentations; killing method is a harpoon that penetrates about 1ft into the whale before exploding, killing the animal with shock waves. If this fails a second harpoon or rifle is used. Average time to death is more than two minutes.However "adaptations for diving" may make it difficult to determine whether the animals are dead. "Their sheer mass, complex vascular systems and specific anatomical features may also impede efforts to kill them swiftly and humanely." On a simpler note, the quotations of Harry Lillie, who worked as a ship's physician on a whaling trip in the Antarctic half a century ago will do it better, he says, "If we can imagine a horse having two or three explosive spears stuck in its stomach and being made to pull a butcher's truck through the streets of London while it pours blood into the gutter, we shall have an idea of the method of killing. "The gunners themselves admit that if whales could scream, the industry would stop for nobody would be able to stand it."

What are we going to say about the Faroe Island Whalers; Whales are sensitive, social animals with highly developed nervous systems. They have a profound capacity to suffer distress, terror and pain. Each year, the Faroese kill over 1,500 pilot whales. The scenes of medieval cruelty are too shocking to be shown here.

Whole families of whales - including pregnant mothers, lactating females, youngsters and foetuses - are butchered by the islanders. The whales die slow deaths, screaming in agony. Their killers are often drunk.

Islanders in motorboats first drive the whales into a bay. The chase may be lengthy. The exhausted, terrified and confused whales are eventually driven into the shallows. Here the bloodbath begins. The islanders repeatedly hammer 2.2 kg metal gaffs into the living flesh of each whale until the hooks hold. A 15 cm knife is then used to slash through the blubber and flesh to the spinal column. Next the main blood vessels are severed. The blood-stained bay is soon filled with horribly mutilated and dying whales.

The Faroese celebrate the butchery of their victims in an carnival atmosphere of entertainment. Indoctinated from an early age, children are often given a day off school to watch the fun. They run down to the bay and clamber over the carcasses of slaughtered whales.

Now the question David my friend; Is the suffering inflicted by Faroese whaling ethically justified? Or is whale-killing an atrocity that has no place in any civilised society? Or Do you think in your heart of heart that should the hunting of whales in this way still be tolerated by a civilised society?".

> Why should something that works well in Alaska not work well in other parts of the world?

You have answered the issue yourself, the background of whaling in Alaska is distinct and different from that of the three other nations I told you earlier. The orientation is so unique that it will take Japan, Norway and Iceland 50 years back to be just like the Alaskans! But you know this is impossible based on their level of sophistications! Thank you.

Don't you think it's a bit strange that Greenpeace and I think IFAW as well, are not opposed to Faroe Island whaling. I have heard people say it takes about 6 minutes for the whalers to kill a grindhval or pilot whale in the Faroe Islands but the time to death in aboriginal whaling could be much more. I oppose whaling mostly on cruelty grounds.

> the idea behind rational practices of Whaling have been largely abused by these nations

As you might expect, I have a lot of problems with this ;-)

Firstly, I have to point out that "nations" are not the entities that hunted whales commercially, depleting stocks.

The entities that brought about the depletion were *companies* under the jurisdiction of various IWC signatory nations (and not just those you selectively mention).

And this depletion was largely due to poor management by the IWC during it's early years. This mismanagment was not the responsibility of those nations you mention, but was presided over by the whole IWC. Not just Iceland, Japan, and Norway - but all signatory nations - even including the USA, which is home to - you guessed it - the Alaskan people.

You seem to be happy to make an exception for the US's people in the Alaskan north slope instance despite their contribution to the depletion of the bowhead along with others (although had they been the only ones hunting this would not have been the case). But since you are prepared to grant an exception to the Alaskan people, why not also the coastal whalers of Japan who were, like the Alaskans, certainly not large contributors to these depletions either? Depletion of whale stocks started in the 18th and 19th century, long after whaling culture appeared in Japan.

So please consider and explain why you wish to punish *all* Japanese people, when you don't wish to punish *all* American people?

Again - there is a double standard.

Furthermore, it needs to acknowledged that while the over-hunting of whales was very bad in terms of conservation, it was not actually a crime. A mistake, certainly - but a punishable offense? What ever happened to "learning from our mistakes"?

Clearly with the development and adoption of the Revised Management Procedure, the IWC has accepted it's past mismanagement and addressed it. Those who deny this deny science and I have no time for them.

Indeed, even before the moratorium and RMP, quotas were already regarded as sustainable. For example, John Gulland of the FAO, and one of the expanded "Committee of Four" made such remarks in 1982 (you can see what he had to say about operations at that point in time on a recent post on my blog).

> "Despite a worldwide ban, whales are still being
> slaughtered for commercial profit. Since 1999, Japan
> has killed 600 minke whales in the North Pacific and
> the Southern Ocean Sanctuary under the guise of
> "scientific research" -- while the meat and by-products
> from the slaughtered whales is sold for profit.

This is incorrect.

The proceeds of whale meat sales offset the costs of the research programmes. There is no profit. The JARPA programme ran in the red for all of it's 18 years.

> Norway also continues to kill whales in outright
> defiance of the ban;

Also misleading - Norway is within it's rights under the ICRW.

> Japan 440 minkes in the Antarctic,

You are copying and pasting from an outdated source.

I think you get the picture on this info you are reproducing, so I'll skip the rest.

> Now the question David my friend; Is the suffering
> inflicted by Faroese whaling ethically justified?

I've already noted that it's not my place to tell the Faroese or anyone else what is and is not ethically justifiable in their country - that is for them and their people to decide democratically.

If you disagree, you need to be prepared to act on complaints about the way you live your life.

> Or is whale-killing an atrocity that has no
> place in any civilised society?

Clearly this is not the case.

All three societies you wish to punish, plus those in other parts of the world are most certainly civilised. It's not particularly adult to suggest otherwise, to be honest. Don't you agree?

> Or Do you think in your heart of heart that
> should the hunting of whales in this way
> still be tolerated by a civilised society?".

I think the reality is somewhat different depending on who you ask - your views are but your own.

> You have answered the issue yourself,
> the background of whaling in Alaska is distinct
> and different from that of the three other nations
> I told you earlier.

You seem to want to group whalers together by nation - I disagree with the distinction, and even you yourself do by wishing to make an exception for the people of Alaska, while I doubt you would permit whaling operations out of New York city.

I think you need to recognise the distinct types of whaling that exist in Japan - traditional coastal whaling and modern pelagic whaling. Given that you are happy with Alaskan whaling, you can only remain consistent by agreeing to Japanese coastal whaling, but retaining your opposition to pelagic whaling (on the grounds that pelagic whaling in the past was bad, so they deserve to be punished - I disagree with that as well, since sustainability is what it comes down to for me).

> Don't you think it's a bit strange that Greenpeace and I think IFAW as well, are not opposed to Faroe Island whaling.

If you are not a Greenpeace skeptic, you might think so.

I don't find it strange at all.

> I oppose whaling mostly on cruelty grounds.

Mostly? :-)

David,
I see that you have missed the psychology classes in school!

About the IWC and " learning from our past".

Rule number one: " If you want to know how a man will act in the future, just look at his past".

Ann,

Why do you feel the need to talk about the past? You surely know by now that I am going to ask you what is wrong with the Revised Management Procedure. You know that I will point out that the IWC Scientific Committee unanimously recommended it for adoption as a safe way of setting commercial catch limits, and that the IWC agreed to it's adoption.

You say yourself that you oppose whaling mostly on cruelty grounds. That's a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose whaling for. You needn't spoil it by ignoring realities such as the development of the RMP.

I am lost too.

Why do some anti whaling persons say that they have no problems with aboriginal hunting?

I have problems with their inefficient killing methods.

Why is it so horrible( yes it is) with Faroe Island whaling but not with Alaskan bowhead hunt?

The USA did not provide data on the Time of Death in the 2001 bowhead hunt, but reported that 31 of the 49 whales landed were killed using secondary killing methods, equivalent to 63,3%.

This indicates a poor efficiency rate in the primary killing methods used in this hunt and points to a very low rate of instantaneous kill that year.

In addition that year 26 whales struck were lost , 34,7%.

> Why do some anti whaling persons say that they have no problems with aboriginal hunting?

Many anti-whaling countries in fact. Ian Campbell describes whaling as "sick" and "absurd" on one hand, but when he pulls out his policy he selectively picks whaling peoples for whom it is ok to kill whales.

I agree, it's bizarre.

> I have problems with their inefficient killing methods.

As you know I'd like for these animals to die as rapidly as possible as well.

The world is a funny place though:

- you and I would know nothing about this whaling were the world not globalized the way it is
- the whaling peoples of the world would be killing whales with far less efficient methods were the world not globalized the way it is.

The world is funny, and not perfect. I think overall it's better for the globalization that we have though.

By the way Ann,

The anti-whaling scientists are talking about their ideals of ageing whales by their skin (again).

I'll probably write more on my blog because I have a lot to say about it, but for now here is a link:
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060731/full/442507a.html

In brief, they really are wasting their lives with this. The goal of Japan is to resume commercial whaling, so why do they care whether whales are killed for scientific purposes? Even in the unlikely outcome that this technique does become a replacement, that doesn't change the perception of whales as food in various parts of the world. Why don't they put more effort into research that could actually be of benefit to real conservation?

Greenpeace , WWF and other environmental organisations have today together with High North Alliance's member organisations Norges Fiskarlag( the Norwegian Fishermen's Union) and Fiskebåtsredenes Forbund( the Shipowner's Association) made a joint statement and declared to fight together against IUU- fishing, or what we call pirate fishing.

David,
what do you say about this, HNA member organisations working together with Greenpeace and WWF?

I think it is good that the anti-use groups can display common sense on at least one issue and work with pro-conservation / sustainable use groups such as the High North Alliance.

Perhaps they are finally starting to come around. I can but now wait to hear of the news that they now conceed that whaling is a feasible sustainable use of marine resources as well.

As to why they would behave in such a way, I don't know. Perhaps there was a photo op involved.

>You seem to want to group whalers together by nation - I disagree with the distinction, and even you yourself do by wishing to make an exception for the people of Alaska, while I doubt you would permit whaling operations out of New York city.

David, you can not know too much! We can only get around this nutty issue if we give room for "listening ears to different views", sincerely I appreciate your level of maturity on this but you still need to work on it a little bit higher. Now follow me; When you try to exonerate Japan, Iceland and Norway from the status of Culprits and hinge it on Companies (which is a fact though) that are directly involved in the killing, then what do you imagine of Lebanon that harbours the Hezbollah Terrorist Cell, Palestine that harbours Hamas, Syria-Al Queada and other countries within the Middle East, despite the fact that these terrorists cells are the major culprits these countries still bear the brunts of the offensive from the oppositions for being the ones that serve as their breeding grounds, exactly the point here, hope you got it clearer now!

As per your views on my recent posts where you made mention of me copying and pasting from an outdated source, well, let me point it out to you that as writers, 'we are all robbers of other people's ideas' cause we can't solely rely on our own views. Another thing I have come to discover here is that, our views can never come to a conclusion because I am speaking from an anti-whaling point of view while you are addressing this issue from a pro-whaling point of view...our agreement can only be partial as you and I have witnessed since we started our discussion on this thread. One thing I still don't understand is that you seem to be defending and covering up the activities of those whaling companies (as you like it stated) within Japan, Iceland and Norway.

I have painted the hidden details of their flagrant disobedience to the IWC rules regarding whaling, more to come DAVID!

Hmn...,just on the 1st of this month (August, 2006), it was reported by The Age magazine (as covered by Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society)that: of the 391 female minke whales killed last season, about 93.8 per cent of the population were pregnant.Yet, Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) is using these results as evidence that the Antarctic minke whale reproduces consistently every year and is able to sustain a commercial hunt, others have branded it an atrocity (another erroneous doctrine being perpetrated).

Now the crux of the matter; "The whalers reported killing 853 minke whales and 10 fin whales last summer, of the 391 female minke whales slaughtered, 224 were pregnant with 227 foetuses".

David... when I say you cannot know too much I know what I was talking about...listen to this, many of these anti-whaling agencies have the facts and figurs that you don't have. The issue of exaggeration of facts as copiously stated in your many articles here are unfounded. Can I prove this to you that, the practise of Commercial Whaling by these 3 sophisticated economies is highly illegal why? Because, taking Japan as an example, despite the fact that she stated categorically that her hunting of whales is strictly under the guise of 'scientific' whaling, yet, the products of this whaling end up in Japanese restaurants and supermarkets (who is fooling who?). The fact is glaring, whaling industries perpetrate their illicit trades with "no sustainability in view" and if we keep quiet we all will be losers.

May be you don't know... some governments of these culprit whaling companies do defend their illicit actions as stated here;"...........Demand for whale meat in Norway has fallen to such a low that the industry has resorted to selling whale meat as pet food. This summer it is even sending a “whale mobile” around the country, showing people how to cook whale meat. Sue continued, "Just last week the government had to defend its whalers killing a whale in front of a boat full of whale watching tourists". For your information, Sue Fisher, is a whaling expert for Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society.

Mind you, the reason why Anti-Whaling Agencies are springing up virtually form everywhere around the world is that, they see IWC as a toothless barking dog and a bought-over tool in the hands of the Whaling-Gangs. MY POINT!

Hi Tomakint,

I´ll make a comment on parts of your last post, in particular this paragraph.

"
May be you don't know... some governments of these culprit whaling companies do defend their illicit actions as stated here;"...........Demand for whale meat in Norway has fallen to such a low that the industry has resorted to selling whale meat as pet food. This summer it is even sending a “whale mobile” around the country, showing people how to cook whale meat. Sue continued, "Just last week the government had to defend its whalers killing a whale in front of a boat full of whale watching tourists".

Can you provide a citation or source of the claim that the norwegians are selling whale meat as pet food?

Here in Germany where I live, there are a number of "wild pig" and "boar" mobiles as well as kangaroo, ostrich and ( at least I have read of )crocodile mobiles going around the country, also showing people various ways of cooking such foods/ meat. What is your point?
They all are promoting their products..

Please note, the only country commmercially whaling is Norway and the hunt is legal, despite what any NGO may claim otherwise. Even the Government of the United Kingdom ( home of WDCS and virulently anti-whaling) acknowledge this... so what do you base your claim of illegality upon? International law? The ICRW ? or what? I simply do not understand where you get the idea that Norway is hunting illegally from .. ( Or Iceland, Japan, Greenland, Russia, Canada, USA, Indonesia amongst others for that matter )

The whale "mobile" information is old stuff, I wrote about it at the Greenpeace forum already 2 years ago.

Regarding whale meat demand,sure the demand has decreased, but WDCS has not mentioned that a new "hvalmottak",a whale meat processing factory has reopened as well in the Lofotens after 43 years. The new processing factory's name is Lofothval, and is run by High North Alliance's Rune Frövik.

Regarding Tomakints and my own statements in forums, they are our own views and don't represent neccessarily Greenpeace's views. We are not allowed to do any statements on Greenpeace's behalf.

Tomakint,
I think Greenpeace Nordic's position on Norwegian whaling is that the commercial hunt undermines international convention and bodies , not that it is illegal.

Hi Anne,

Regarding the legality of the Norwegian hunt it was only relatively recently that GP international stopped claiming that the hunt was illegal, after many years of misinforming the public and their supporters ( along with many other NGO´s for that matter ) Some NGO´s still claim it is illegal - I wonder why? ;op

Unfortunately the WDCS's translations from Norwegian press releases are poor or incorrect. As far as I remember the Government did not defend the whalers, it was the Whaler's association that made the statement.

And where from comes the statement that whale meat has been sold as pet food? I have not heard any Norwegian NGO mention this, maybe it is true, maybe not... Anyway, in 2003 Råfisklaget sold some tonnes of blubber to animal feed production...

Hi George,
Maybe the ICRW could be interpreted in different ways?

Maybe it's all about who has the best and smartest lawyers, dunno?

Hi anne,

Yes, it´s a good example of how the public is led to believe a load of old cobblers, because of course, the NGO´s are the good guys and do not tell lies do they? ;op ( and they seldom admit to misinformation / lies / blatant untruths anyway, even when caught out )

Of course, the solution is for individuals to do careful research of both sides of the story ( pro and Anti ) to determine what is actually correct - unfortunately, in these days of the 10 second soundbite, most people don´t bother ....

As to the ICRW Anne, it´s an international agreement signed by 70 nations or so - kind of hard to believe that they all are wrong and the NGO´s claiming illegality are right dont you think? ;op

For your information.

I e-mailed Norwegian animal welfare organisation Dyrebeskyttelsen that use to work on issues like whale and seal meat dumping regarding the WDCS statement that whale meat was sold as pet food.

George, I passed on your information on the killer whale project to the horse people who had adopted a killer whale. Of course they were very sad , they especially liked to adopt a killer whale. Ok, now they are talking about adopting maybe a tiger...

Hi again,

Truls Gulowsen, spokesman for Greenpeace Norway, has made the following comment on Norwegian whaling for 3 years ago: " A quota of 600 Minke whales poses no threat to the Minke whale population".

Hi George,
George :"...the NGOs claiming illegality are right..?"

In the end most lies and misinformations have a tendency to backfire. There is an old Swedish proverb on this:" Lies have short legs".

As for why they are using such claims? Maybe to say this is a bit taboo, but whales are used as cover girls or cover boys for fundraising purposes, nothing wrong with that IMO, as long as the information is correct.

Anne,

I take my hat off to you and will buy you a glass of wine or three next time I bump into you - You are the first and only GP/ NGO member I have ever heard admit that they believe that is the case ;)

Haha George,but actually many GP folks say the same thing, maybe not officially, but no campaign attracts people as much as a marine mammal campaign,personally I'm very interested in sea bottom life and I'm very frustrated that most people have no clue about this issue at all, who cares about sea bottoms and deep sea life , a world that is even more unexplored than Mars.

My point exactly anne,

No one or no NGO will admit it - even unnoficially over a beer or two - it´s why many people simply do not have any or little respect for such organisations.

If somebody such as shane rattenbury ( or whatever his name is ) admitted the same, what do you think would happen to GP´s income? Of course, it would probably drop like a rock but hey, he ( and the organisation he represents ) at least would have the respect of a lot of people - and I predict that their fund raising income would increase again steadily shortly afterwards

But what happens instead is that folk with a modicum of common sense realise that one of the main reasons GP continue with the whole anti whaling circus is simply that it´s a big money spinner - even despite their obvious contradictory actions and methods. People then instead begin to question GP´s motives in other areas such as PVC ( they took a thwacking on that one ) Brent Spar, Logging, overfishing and so on.

One day anne, it´s all going to come back to GP ( or other NGO´s for that matter ) with a vengeance and bite them on them butt...

and all because they simply could´nt admit that some of their campaigns are selected on their fund rasing capabilities .. sure, the campaign may ( or not depending on your point of view ) be worthwhile, but it kinds of leaves a rotten taste in the mouth don´t you think?

Hey George,
Brian F. from GPI wrote at his blog that icon animals such as whales, seals , elephants and polar bears are used as poster girls and boys to attract people to Greenpeace.

But you are right that some organisations leave a bad taste in the mouth, you maybe heard that the director for Amnesty Sweden, embezzled the organisations money...

BTW, I have an article for you to read here:

http://www.folkevett.no/index.php?back=1&artikkelid=1079

Hi George,
Now you maybe have to buy Brian F. a beer as well;)

Hi Anne,

Umm no, he´s not exactly shouting it from the rooftops is he? On his personal blog? tell me anne, is this so that; if GP gets bad press about it, GP can claim it was his personal opinion and not GP policy? ;op

The day that Brian F or John Fritzell admit openly in an interview ( be it TV or other media ) that GP picks causes partially based on their financial and or glamerous poster boy/girl qualities is the day they might get a pint from me - I imagine that they are going to get real thirsty first before that happens though ;)

Hi again George,
I believe Greenpeace's policy is to attract people to the organisation through a popular campaign as the whaling issue, and then hopefully supporters would be attracted by other environmental issues as well and not exclusively focussing on whaling. A " big picture" view is desirable.

George,
Some Greenpeace offices run with a big loss, for example Greenpeace Russia, and money is needed from other GP offices as GPI and GP Nordic to carry out work in this country.

George,
All interesting information is usually stated off-record, what did the whale watching operator really say to you?

Anne,

Here are some questions for you - lets see if you or GP can supply some answers : ( I will not hold my breath though ;op )

What is the total income of all GP offices each year for the last 5 financial years?

What is the income of each individual office by country?

How much of the total income of each individual GP office had to be paid to Greenpeace international in Amsterdam?

How much income did GP int recieve from non charitable GP entities such as Greenpeace energy, Greenpeace magazine(s) Greenpeace products etc etc?

How much income does GP recieve from sale of media ( images - footage ) to media outlets, magazines, newspapers?

How many employees does GP have worldwide? ( here is a start, GP Germany had 180 paid emloyees in 2004 with an operating budget of 41.5 million Euro

What is the average employee salary comparible to other industries?

How much tax did GP entities pay to their respective countries worlwide over the last 5 financial years?

How much did GP recieve in donations each year for the last 5 years broken down by office?

How much is the operating budget of the Russian GP office? Who provides the budget? how many employees?

How many GP offices run at a loss? what is the loss in comparison to the total GP yearly budget?

What was GP australia´s Budget in the year proceeding their anti whaling action in the southern ocean? What was their budget last year? What is their budget this year?
Have donations gone up or down since the anti whaling action? What was the total cost of the action?

How do I, as a prospective donator to GP who, lets say wants to donate to their anti bottom trawling campaign ( which I tend to agree with for the most part ), make sure that my donation goes to THAT campaign and not say, their Anti nuclear energy campaign which I totally disagree with ? ( the answer top that is simply I can´t can I? )

How many Greenpeace offices have non charitable companies in their respective countries? ( ie Greenpeace energy in Germany )How many companies worldwide?

Enough for now ;op

Anne, you asked

"George,
All interesting information is usually stated off-record, what did the whale watching operator really say to you?"

It´s off record anne ;op
It was quite funny though, that much I can tell you, especially if you know the guy and the operation up in Andenes ...

Jeez George,
All those questions have to be answered by some fundraising person .... all I can tell you is that most Greenpeace employees are underpayed and overworked, it's true ...no understatement...

Glad that you are interested in the anti bottom trawling campaign, this is my favourite issue...

Btw, I have posted my guest blog post on whaling to Jennifer! It's about Greenpeace Norway...

OK George,
Without consultating anyone from the financial departement I believe there are about 1000 employees worlwide working for Greenpeace. It seems like GP Germany is a very large office...

But, Greenpeace Nordic had most victories worldwide last year!

OK, regarding worlwide budget last year I think there was a slight decrease in profits, mostly depending on that offices in Eastern Europe run with a loss...

That is all I know right now...

Hi George, I know by now you must have seen the impending danger that looms ahead as soon the curtain behind the ban on commercial whaling is drawn....perhaps this link will appeal to your conscience depending on the way you take it! http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1357250.ece

Dear Tomakint,
Hope you will not be angry with me , but why is it wrong to eat whale meat? I know you are far from being a vegetarian, you are deeply religious and have stated that something like " God gave us animals to eat". I think it is even worse in Sweden, I have seen shops here selling brown bear meat! Ugh...No protests at all...

Tomakint,

What impending danger? Norway IS whaling commercially now - this moment - and has been since 1993.

Still do not see your point ( if you have one )

Anne,

Thought you might be interested in this, it´s a toktdagbok from the ecosystem surveys currently underway in the Barents sea ( only in Norwegian - there is also the old 2005 one )

http://www.imr.no/barentshavet/tokt/toktdagbok_2006

To Ann and George,

>Dear Tomakint,
Hope you will not be angry with me , but why is it wrong to eat whale's meat?

Ann, I have never indicated here on this thread that it is wrong to eat Whale's meat if you've been following my contributions so far. (if you still remember this "Fellas, The point is not about taking whales meat off the menu list of the Japanese but a strong warning against rendering imbalances to the balanced OCEAN LIFE!" exactly my point)

>I know you are far from being a vegetarian.

Thatz correct!

>you are deeply religious?

Thatz based on your opinion, I have never for once shown that to anyone, itz just a matter of calling a spade a spade-I am not a fanatic or bigot, ait!

> and have stated that something like " God gave us animals to eat".

thatz absolutely correct.

And to you George;

>What impending danger?

I will not be tired of letting out my voice against the danger that looms ahead, even though you claim not to see my points. Listen George, can you tell me the numbers of Bison that once thundered the great plains of America (of course they were in their hundreds of millions) but when Buffalo Bill came calling we all know what happened-they were roundly reduced up to endangered status. You still remember the case of the passenger pidgeons that once dotted the sky even to the point of blocking the sun rays when on migration (in case you don't know they were in their billions) but what happened now - extinction! Come down to Africa, we use to boast of a sizable populations of Wildebeest (a.k.a gnu), but now their populations is being reduced at an exponential rate. Time will fail me to keep on mentioning some other affected species like the; Moa-bird, Dodo, California Condor, Great Auk,Mountain Lion, Big Horn Ship, the Pronghorn, Mongolian Saiga, including the mammals listed as endangered with the NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service)are the Blue whale, Bowhead whale, Fin whale, Western North Pacific Gray whale, Humpback whale, Northern Right whale, Sei whale, Southern Right whale, Sperm whale, Chinese river dolphin in China, Indus river dolphin in Pakistan, Dugong, West Indian manatee, Gulf of California Harbor porpoise, Western stock of Steller sea lion, Caribbean monk seal, Hawaiian monk seal, Mediterranean monk seal, and the Ringed seal in Finland.

Now the question?

If animals are being reduced at a geometrical progression rates and humans are increasing on a geometrical progression rates then what chance do the others (species of animals) stand should another round of unchecked hunting commences? I hope you get the picture now!

You may consider these links; http://marinebio.org/Oceans/ThreatenedEndangeredSpecies.asp, http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/programme,

Nobody is interested in dictating to anyone what he or she must do but as humans we are different from other animals in that their is room for second thoughts regarding all our actions...history as they say is Prophecy and whether we like it or not history has a way of repeating itself if given the chance mind you! Perhaps when all the whales are lost when all the useful species we all crave after are gone then we would all learn to live within our means, but...is there any sense in applying medication to a corpse. EXACTLY MY POINT!

Hi George,
Thanks for sending me this interesting information...do you know if the Norwegians are going to do a survey on whales in Eastern Barents Sea ( in the Russian zone), it seemed like they were not given permission by the Russians to carry out any survey in the Russian zone... don't know if this is politically motivated(?) , regarding the Electron affair and the Fishing Protection Zone around Svalbard?

OK George, according to your link whales surveys seem to be carried out in the whole Barents Sea. Never trust the press...

Tomakint,

It is really important to note that companies from other nations such as Australia, the USSR, and the USA were also involved in depleting stocks of whales.

Firstly, catch limits set were set by the IWC as a whole. The IWC as a whole has responsibility for past mismanagement - not just today's nations with commercial whaling industries.

Secondly, companies globally that contributed to depletion of whale stocks largely don't exist any more, they are basically dead, yet you seem to be trying to attribute their share of the blame to whaling interests in Japan Iceland Norway, even whaling interests (small communities) that played a insignificant role in the depletion of whale stocks (coastal whaling communities in Japan), yet you let similar communities in other parts of the world (USA, USSR, Denmark) get away without the same tarbrush. You yourself posted information illustrating the modern nature of whaling in Alaska.

Your argument is not very convincing at all, giving due consideration to these facts.

My honest impression is that you are just against whaling as a pre-conceived position, and are trying to slap together something that looks like an argument to support it.

My line is crystal clear - sustainability is what counts. Very simple. The line you draw seems to be completely arbitrary, and that it happens to encircle just whaling interests in Japan Iceland and Norway betrays the true nature of your opposition to whaling.

> One thing I still don't understand is that you seem to be defending and
> covering up the activities of those whaling companies (as you like it stated)
> within Japan, Iceland and Norway.

I don't blame whaling companies for taking quotas that were agreed to by the IWC.

If your government tells you that it has been agreed at an international forum of governments that you may do something, then you go ahead and do it, and it turns out that what was agreed by the politicians was a mess up, is that your fault?

> I have painted the hidden details of their flagrant disobedience to the
> IWC rules regarding whaling

Today whaling conducted by people of all three 3 nations is in accordance with the ICRW.

> of the 391 female minke whales killed last season, about 93.8 per cent of the population were pregnant.

This information was presented to the IWC SC by Japan.
You only know this information because they were open with it.
Don't forget that.

> Yet, Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) is using
> these results as evidence that the Antarctic minke whale reproduces
> consistently every year and is able to sustain a commercial hunt,

That's exactly what it demonstrates.
This is how science works.
People may get excited about pregnant whales dying, so what?
The numbers are not a conservation issue.
The fact that pregnant whales are killed is only an issue for people who believe that whales shouldn't be killed at all in the first place.
This information is great news for whale conservation, as I noted on my blog.

> many of these anti-whaling agencies have the facts and figurs that you don't have.

That information was written in the IWC SC report from this year, and I had read it about a month before HSI managed to find and report it, as if it were some big secret. Amusing it was to me that an interested observer like myself was more observant than a group receiving funds to supposedly fight to stop whaling activities.

> the practise of Commercial Whaling by these 3 sophisticated economies is highly illegal why?

It's not illegal at all, let alone "highly" so.
Even politicians in Australia, New Zealand and Britain conceed that a court case against Japan would be a loser. See whaling-faq.blogspot.com for a quote from Ian Campbell on this point.

> Because, taking Japan as an example, despite the fact that she
> stated categorically that her hunting of whales is strictly under
> the guise of 'scientific' whaling,

Japan doesn't state that it is under the guise of scientific whaling, that's what Greenpeace says.

> yet, the products of this whaling end up in Japanese restaurants and
> supermarkets (who is fooling who?).

That is essentially a requirement of the ICRW.
The proceeds of whale meat sales are used to offset the costs of the research programmes.
The JARPA programme ran in the red for all of it's 18 years.

If you are conducting lethal research whaling with the aim of making for the reopening of commercial whaling, it's a no-brainer that small amount of whale meat that is obtained should be marketed for full consumption. Why on earth would you throw out all the good meat.

Just want to mention that the UK and Gemany also were big actors in Antarctic whaling operations in the beginning of the last century.

I know that the UK was quite active (more active than Japan) - can you tell me more about Germany?

David,

Germany , a very big actor during the 20' and 30'.

I think Hitler had big plans, but all whaling activities halted during the WWII.

I see. Lucky for this reason too that Hitler is no longer with us.

David,
In most legal hunting activities it is illegal to kill a female animal, double crime if she is pregnant. That is why most people are so upset with killing pregnant whales.

Anne,

Did the pork chop or steak you ate last week come from a male of female ? how do you know? How do you know if the animal was pregnant or not? How can you tell if a minkie is male or female? or pregnant? Are you trying to tell me that from the tens of thousands or so elk / moose hunted in sweden every year, they are all male?? If not, how do the hunters tell if the elk are pregnant or not? Do they ask them to pee in a jar first so they can test it? ..LOL....

Hey George,
Very good question this about the elk or moose hunt in Sweden. Well, there is a reason why there is a hunting season and a closed season.

The hunting season for moose and deers is closed in the spring, it opens only in the autumn, when the animals have had their offsprings.

Very easy to see if a moose is a he or she. The males have antlers the females none and in the autumn the females are accompanied by their calves, often two.

Well, this have to do with your most spoken about sustainability, no other ethics.

Well George, this case with pregnant minkes, are they not bigger and sometimes just hunted for that reason? I have heard that is the case, but I'm not sure. Anyway smaller minkes taste better according to Ellingsens whale meat processing factory.

Regarding male or female farmed pigs, it doesn't matter if they are females or males ... but females taste better, have to do with the hormones...

To David,

Regarding whale pooh collection, hey now Greenpeace know that fin whale pooh is pink... haha

As a hunting nation Norwegians are pale compared to Sweden that has the biggest land mammal hunt in the world, 100 000 moose are killed every season plus some tens of thousands deers, hares, foxes countless birds, but no no Norwegians shouldn't hunt them minkes...

Hi again George,
Regarding the moose hunt this was information that I received from my neighbour that is a hunter, but you are right there is a quota of female moose as well in the autumn

George, you got to come to Sweden and watch the moose that are roaming around in the forests... instead of just counting minkes in the Barents Sea!LOL!
I have some here in my neighbourhood, hope they will survive the hunting season though that usually starts in September! Sometimes they jump into the horses' paddocks and scare the s**t out of them!

One more information about the deer family. Reindeers are the only species where both bulls and cows have antlers...

David,

>Your argument is not very convincing at all, giving due consideration to these facts.

Indeed it is!(And yours is very convincing).

>I don't blame whaling companies for taking quotas that were agreed to by the IWC.

Now, this is what I have been expecting you to say, yet you know many of these whaling companies use to exceed the given quotas by the IWC. Now straight to you...do you blame whaling companies for exceeding the quotas given to them? Huh!

Don't tell me you don't know what I am talking about that the reason why I lay claim to the term "Illegal" has to do with this point (of exceeding quota). How many whaling nations are guilty.

Hi Tomakint,
Yes in the past whaling nations exceeded quotas, hunted in closed areas and in closed season... but do they do that today?

Anyway, Norway and even Iceland has not filled their quotas for some years...

Sorry for all my gramma errors, trying to reread my comments before I post them next time!

Anne,
you said ( and I quote )

"In most legal hunting activities it is illegal to kill a female animal"

That was what I was pointing out ... not in Sweden then ? ;op

RE: Elk / Moose, I´ve been chased around a car more than once by Elk in Tysfjord - I had a trio ( male, female and calf ) that used to come past my chalet every morning - I could set my alarm by them....

Re The minkies, it´s practically impossible to tell the sex of a minkie just by size alone - it´s hard enough getting close enough to dart them for a DNA sample, never mind trying to sex them at the same time - ditto for the whalers ..

Tomakint -

Since 1993, ONE - only one Norwegian whaling boat took ONE minkie over it´s quota - the boat was fined a large amount of money for breaking the rules...

I have to say that you seem to be living in the past ....

Hey Anne

Managed to find the blog of Brian fitzgerald of Greenpeace, and whilst browsing through it, came across these gems :

" With a simple majority the Japanese can:

Promote a resolution endorsing Japan’s and Norway’s “scientific whaling” programmes "

Ummmm excuse me? Norway´s scientific whaling program?

Dear Brian, Norway has been whaling commercially since 1993 .....

If this is the guy doing GP´s "web stuff" ( his own words ), no wonder it´s full of misinformation and out and out crap :O)

From his bio :

"I have worked to apply new technology at Greenpeace since introducing the first transatlantic email account to the organisation in 1985, hacking an email connection out of the Soviet Union in 1989, and inventing the internet. I currently harumpf loudly about the state of the world while running the Greenpeace Intenrational website. "

says it all really .... my god

By the way anne,

You also said

" Hey George,
Brian F. from GPI wrote at his blog that icon animals such as whales, seals , elephants and polar bears are used as poster girls and boys to attract people to Greenpeace."

Care to point out to me where? Just had a good look through and did not find it anywhere on his blog (

Tomakint,

Of course I blame whaling companies that exceeded quotas for exceeding them.

That's no reason to ban whaling "the activity" though.

Some people drink alcohol then drive cars.

No one is suggesting that driving cars should be banned, only that the drink drivers be punished.

Given that banning the activity is total overkill and completely unrealistic, what do you think would be practical means of addressing the issue of people breaking rules?

Hi George,
Here are Brians own words:

Interesting, and right in many places (don’t debate the science, e.g.) but wrong about the power of polar bears to convey the message. We’ve polled on this (has he?) and the extinction of polar bears is a “wake up” point for people who think of climate change as a harmless change in the weather. They’re positioned to be the canaries in the coal mine of climate change, and there’s a massive segment of the public, not really environmentalists, who do care about them dying out. Concern about the well being of “Charismatic MegaFauna” such as whales, harp seals, and pandas have been driving a wide swath of the public to environmental action for decades, and there’s no sign of that sloping off. There’s big symbolic value, and big psychological power, in these emblematic species.

Regarding the "scientific" Norwegian whaling programme, I have pointed out this to Brian, think it was just a mistake(?), but actually he copied this information from Remi Parmentier's blog and that he made a mistake was probably more unfortunate than Brian making a mistake . Quite sure though this was a mistake of some kind as Remi I believe has IWC observer status and is involved with John Frizell.

Remi went to the St Kitts IWC meeting apparently.

Chris Carter from NZ last year also wrongly talked about northern hemisphere countries conducting research in the Antarctic besides Japan (see High North homepage).

George,
It's OK if you don't share Brian F's views( personally I don't do that always as well) but he's a friend of mine and is extremely intelligent , humorous and with a great knowledge on subjects varying from religion, philosophy, modern politics to eveything that has to do with environmentalism.

Regarding his work as a webbie, I must point out that the webbie isn't the one who composes the articles, the campaigners provide the information.

>Regarding the "scientific" Norwegian whaling programme, I have pointed out this to Brian, think it was just a mistake(?), but actually he copied this information from Remi Parmentier's blog and that he made a mistake was probably more unfortunate than Brian making a mistake . Quite sure though this was a mistake of some kind as Remi I believe has IWC observer status and is involved with John Frizell.

You sure anne? As I have pointed out earlier. GP UK still claim Norway hunts whales "in the name of spurious science "- could it be that

a.) Both Remi and Fritzell, GP´s "Experts" on whaling are wrong

b.) Both Remi and Fritzell, GP´s "Experts" on whaling don´t know what they are talking about?

c.)Both Remi and Fritzell, GP´s "Experts" on whaling are misleading the public?

or

d.) Both Remi and Fritzell, GP´s "Experts" on whaling have made a mistake, but cannot be bothered correcting the mistake? - (and anyway it looks better on all of the various GP websites )

8op

> Regarding his work as a webbie, I must point out that the webbie isn't the one who composes the articles, the campaigners provide the information

So anne, the GP campaigners are wrong - don´t you think it is about time they cleaned up their act and stopped misinforming the public?

Hey,hey George, usually I do't care about spelling, but who is J.Fritzell,no German Fritzes here, it's Frizell, without a "t"!LOL!

LOL ....

Frizell frizell ...

so, a, b, c, d, Anne :op

George,
I checked out the UK site. Can't find the quotation. Care to provide a link? Btw, all GP site's on Norwegian whaling have not been updated for ages, especially the Norwegian site.

Maybe the statement refers to "that the whales are eating too many fish"?

I must again point out that various offices have different articles and somewhat different statements on the campaigns, in this case Norwegian whaling.

Anne,

"Between them Japan, Iceland and Norway are killing around 2,000 whales a year - in the name of spurious science"

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/oceans/oceans.cfm?ucidparam=20060614162704

Also mentioned here in asking you what you thought about it personally ..

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001423.html#comments

So are you saying that all GP´s sites not being updated for ages justifies GP misinforming the public worldwide?

I assume ( correct me if I am wrong ) that the whaling information on GP websites worldwide comes from Remi and Frizell, as they are GP´s "experts" on whaling and have observer status at the IWC - so don´t you think it is about time that Remi and Frizell sent a memo to all GP offices noting that Norway does not have a scientific whale hunt since 1993 and in fact, has been hunting minkies commercially since 1993?

( for your information, Norway had a hunt under Sc permit between I believe 1987 and 1992 approx.)

Does in fact this misinformation come from GP "experts"? and if so, why do they not correct it?

Hi anne, posted a reply with two links which has been held by the forum software - I assume it will be cleared by jennifer at some point ...

but if you go to the June 14, 2006
International Whaling Commission Meeting Starts Friday in The West Indies thread,

you can find the link in a post where I replied to you in the thread

Hi George,
I checked out the article. To me it seems like it is pure negligence to mention Norway together with Japan and Iceland conducting " scientific" whaling.

It might be explained by that an unexperienced media officer, has composed the article.

I have not seen this disinformation on ANY other GP office's site. Greenpeace have ZERO to win calling Norwegian whaling "scientific".

Why they haven't corrected this? Frankly no idea.

Well anne,

It seems to be all too common on other GP sites .. the first I looked at after your reply was GP austria and noticed this :

" Mit seinem Forschungsprogramm JAPRA II will Japan in Zukunft jährlich 935 Zwergwale und 50 der extrem gefährdeten und geschützten Buckel- und Finnwale jagen"

"extrem gefährdeten " means extremely endangered and protected humpback and fin whales .... extremely endangered??

Don´t you think this is a misrepresentation of the status of antartic humbacks and fin whales???

Here is a paragraph from the GP New zealand site on Norwegian whaling under the heading Norway( the second I looked at )

"In the last year of the whaling campaign we've seen a definite escalation of effort and resources by the whalers – they are not content with the status quo (i.e. the killing of 1,000 whales each year under the ‘scientific’ and objection loopholes) anymore than we are, but are seeking a return to whaling of the scale which so devastated whale populations in the past."

One more mention of the "scientific loophole". though at least they mention objection - do they mean Japan in the norway section or are they simply making another mistake??

Third one I looked at GP australia´s website

"An independent panel of international legal experts commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare has found that the ‘scientific’ whaling conducted by some members of the IWC (Japan, Norway and Iceland) violates the moratorium on commercial whaling, and that such whaling is “unlawful”."

Anne, if I can find this on the first three I look at, need I look at more?? I don´t think so - there seems to be a deliberate misinformation on GP Websites worldwide -

Either that or they recieve their information from GP international from GP "experts " on the subject ...

Do you wonder why I am critical of GP ?

Anne,

and here´s a quote from the GP international website :

"Greenpeace has documented tons of frozen blubber, each block carefully wrapped and labelled in Japanese, stored in Norwegian industrial freezers, waiting for export"

enough of this ... I have better things to do anne ...

George, the guys who really have any clue about Norwegian whaling are the Norwegian Greenpeacers, and they even don't upgrade their site on whaling.

Hey , there ain't even such a thing as a Norwegian whales campaigner in the Nordic office anymore. Everyone is into pirate fishing.

I asked John Frizell a couple of week ago if Norwegian whaling still was subsidised by the Government. No , he stated. But when I asked a former Norwegian whales campaigner on this issue , he said " sure it is", it's subsidised by regional funds.

Thanks for confirming that the organisation you support has pretty much no clue on Norwegian whaling anne,

but if they have no clue on Norwegian whaling, then why should anyone believe / trust they have a clue on Japanese or icelandic whaling either? ......

See where this is going ? ... anyway, enough anne ... we know that the GP whaling "experts" are misinformed and misinform the public via GP websites worldwide.....

I need to get some work done ;)

George,
What I meant with my last statement is that maybe we don't know the whole thruth about Norwegian whaling, is it subsidised , or not? According to High North Alliance and the Gov't this is not the case anymore .

Do Norwegian whalers recieve money direct from the goverment to go whaling ? No

Do Norwegian whalers recieve money direct from the Kommune(n) to go whaling ? No

Do Norwegian whalers recieve money direct from the fylke to go whaling ? No

Do they recieve cheaper boat diesel? Yes - like all other boat owners that use marine diesel.

Each whaling boat is a private business anne, usually a family business - each has a concession .. there are no new consessions issued.

Do Companies like Ellingson who process and sell whale meat get subsidies? no idea - why don´t you ask them? ...

But I can assure you that the whalers ( the owners of the whaling boats and their crews ) do not. In fact, they have to fork out quite large sums of money out of their own pockets in order to be able to go whaling in order to conform to governmental regulations. Perhaps if Rune Frovik of HNA is still around the forum and reads this thread, he can confirm this.

Whaling in Norway and Whaling in Japan are two totally different kettles of fish anne....

" Maybe we don´t know the whole truth " anne? Who´s we? Greenpeace or you? and if it´s Greenpeace ( and it is plain to see they know little about norwegian whaling judging by their "experts" and websites )why don´t they actually find out the facts instead of publishing a whole load of crap?

So if the HNA and the norwegian government say there are no subsidies, you do not believe them?

Who will you believe anne?

Hi George,
Sure(?) that neither Remi nor Frizell are responsible for GP websites. Actually, don't know if Remi is still actively involved in GPI.

The website misinformation and lack of updating of the sites is very unfortunate that MANY GP supporters have noticed and reminded.

And simply put , Norwegian whaling is no issue right now, maybe if the quotas rise even more to premoratorium levels(1800) minkes, it will be in focus one more time...Icelandic whaling is as well not in focus...the quota this year is about 50 or 60 minkes, GP see this as a victory.

Who to trust? Haha,,,but just only some years ago the files that mentioned that the Government funded some organisations as IWMC were branded secret, and were released after Greenpeace and Naturvernförbundet had succeeded in to get a court order to look at them.

I know you like to kick around GP folks and complain about their misinformations but the prowhaling camp have at least equal misinformations, such as the " the whales eat too many fish", " if we don't cull minkes and seals they will cause havoc in the ecosystem" , "increased whaling is needed to save fish stocks" etc, etc...

Ann,

Those last three statements that you make are ones that I don't personally believe the sustainable use proponents are making (we've had that discussion before).

I believe that those statements are Greenpeace misinterpretations and manipulations.

So anne,

You say that neither Remi or Frizell are responsible for GP websites - but as GP Whaling "experts" they are responsible for GP whaling campaign information ( or not? ) - or do the individual offices just make it up as they go along??

Simply put anne, Norwegian whaling has gone on regardless of any greenpeace actions or campaigns and continues each year - Greenpeace has had ZERO effect upon it - I suspect that the large fines and confistication of equipment ( zodiacs etc ) inflicted upon GP has due to their actions in Norway had an effect on their so called "victory" there. ( it other words, it was getting rather expensive )

Current quota is a 2/3rds of premoratorium levels anne, so I guess the taking of 600 to 700 minkies a year by norway ( current take ) is a victory for Greenpeace? give me a break... Norway takes approx 3/4 of the number of minkies that the Japanese do in the southern ocean and thats a victory for greenpeace? what are you guys smoking? can I have some? ;op

RE: misinformation anne,

Greenpeace paint themselves as the guardians of our environment anne and as such, have a moral and ethical responsiblity to be completely above board and transparent - and as they take the moral high ground, they have a responsiblity to disseminate factual information on any or all of their campaigns - including whaling.

As we see however, they fit none of the above - at least on the whaling question - they disseminate false information, they are most certainly not transparent and their ethics on the whaling question are dubious to say the least.

Anne, you seem to think I like " kicking around " GP folks - not at all - I´m critical of many NGO´s policies on various subjects / campaigns - I´m as concerned about the environment as you are - however, the 10% or so of my income that goes to charity goes directly to projects I approve of.

Who to trust anne? I find it amazing that you trust GP on their whaling campaign

Dear David,
You seem to see just what you want to see..
Yes, I recall we have had this discussion before and that you were rude to Peter Corkeron and his article in National Geographics.

I have many documents in Norwegian and on parliament sessions on whaling , where politicians state that increased whaling quotas are needed because whales pose a threat to fish stocks...

Here's an article direct from the horse's mouth as you have expressed yourself:

Norway's Parliament called on Tuesday(2004) for a three-fold increase in whale hunting quotas in a move it said would protect cod stocks and other fish eaten by the gigant mammals:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/world/article793337.ece

Anne,

Regarding Remi Parmentier, he ( officially anyway ) seems to no longer be involved with GP - he is now director of the Vardo Group consultancy.He was formerly Political Director of Greenpeace International.

What I find particularly distasteful is the disclaimer used on the GP Int website regarding an article by Remi on icelandic whaling published between 25th Sept and 9th October 2003

"The views expressed in this article are Rémi's; they do not necessarily reflect all aspects of Greenpeace's current policy."

If the guy was political director and worked for GP for 27 years until recently, why do they find the need to distance themselves from any article published on the GP Int website?

They trusted him for 27 years and now that he has left, his opinions are his own? ...

When exactly did he leave GP Internationals employ?

One last comment anne,

Remi Parmentier is still a special advisor to GP International according to the internet sources I have read. I assume that GP hires his consultancy services from the Vardo group.

Hi George,
You still continue to use strong words as "distasteful" regarding GP or GPI. Are you sure this is not just about " kicking some GP a**es?"

And regarding Greenpeacers , we are not just hippies or a rebel crew drinking beer on the high seas! LOL!

So w