As odious as it may be, I find myself agreeing with what Sea Shepherd has to say about Greenpeace--to the extent that the claims are factually correct.

It is true that Greenpeace has enjoyed tremendous financial success and accomplished nothing. At the same time, Sea Shepherd's oceangoing thugs have caused enormous damage to the cause of environmentalism and accomplished nearly nothing.

See, e.g., "Sea Shepherd's Violent History," Institute of Cetacean Research (ca. 2002),
http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/history.pdf

and

"Sea Shepherd Conservation Society," ActivistCash.com (2006),
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/347

'factually correct'

It's funny what you interpret as being 'factually correct' when it suits you Schiller.

No surprise that the Greenie bashers want to promote any criticism of Greenpeace by Captain Watson (on a number of forums), also no surprise that the usual descripton of 'fanatic', 'terrorist' etc.. when referring to Captain Watson has suddenly been considerably toned down while making full political capital out of his remarks.....

Cynical? Moi?..

Travis, what facts suit you?

Lamna, perhaps you can offer your own opinion regarding Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd.

What a dilemma

Those who support both GP and SS have a real moral dilemma - or are spoilt for choice ;)

1.)support GP and denounce SS and Watson as Greenie bashers,

2.)Try and ignore / deny that Watson has torn into Greenpeacers more effectively then any ´greenie bashers´ on this blog have ever done ...

3.)Try and disingeniously weasel out of it ..

4.) Agree with Watson ( and effectively denounce Greenpeace )

5.) Try and blame it on somebody else ( as long as it´s not GP or SS )

6.) Accept that Watson and his thugs really are a bunch of fanatics, terrorists, vegan thugs etc..

7.) Ask Watson if he got the material / inspiration for his letter from reading Jen´s blog ;op

Lets see how intellectually honest Watson & GP supporters really are ...
I await the denuciation of SS & Watson with suspense and or the denuciation of Greenpeace... I suspect that it will be a cold day in hell before it happens though ;)

I go for a partial 7 myself, I´ll bet Jen´s blog is Watson´s favourite bookmark ;O)

Merry festive season to you all - I´m offski ...

'Try and disingeniously weasel out of it' - George

Thats rich coming from someone so offended by marine circuses that he told a member of the public not to support them but forgot to hand in his resignation...

No dilema for me George. Easy: Watson is dead right about Greedpeace and he's an first class arsehole into the bargain.

The Watson / Greenpeace thing is just a christmas season sideshow. They'll both be full on to their video making propaganda generation come the new year when the media starts paying attention (and they actually find the research fleet, which has probably killed at least 100 minkes already).

The ICR has a Japanee article with a lot of criticisms of both these groups obstruction activities, really echoing the sentiments we see here on this blog (maybe like Watson too they have it bookmarked under "favourites"?).

The most amusing revelation was that apparently Greenpeace only send their obstruction boats out when the weather is fine and sunny and good for video footage.

A final sentiment expressed was one of sorrow for the activists in the boats who believe that they are saving whales. The article's author views them as naive puppets for money gathering Greenpeace HQ.

Oh, the ICR author did admit one thing though - GP did actually save a whale last year. Yep. One whale "saved". But they also have details of the drop in animal welfare related statistics following the commencement of GP's activities.

It's measured in dollars for GP though of course. I'm amazed that the IFAW pays them for the footage. I can't understand how they don't see the huge ethical problems with that.

Just a couple of related articles on who’s who in the whaling zoo:

The Japanese whalers have raised concerns over Australia’s support to both Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd at

www.theage.com.au/news/National/Japanese-whalers-attack-Campbells-links/2006/12/15/1165685868434.html

However the Environment Minister has defended his support for both Sea Shepherd www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1812729.htm

I wonder in Channel 7 will be arranging exclusive video footage again this year
See Blog archive http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001247.html

This is a bloody stupid argument. "saving a whale"

Thanks to these guys the general public has an opinion on activities carried on out of sight and unseen. Without political opinion nothing changes.

Left to their own devices they'd probably drive them back close to extinction again.

Your arguments have just convinced me to consider signing up actually.

P.S. The Japs can get stuffed on this issue ! Hope the Minister tells them to bugger off and sends a gun boat.

'The most amusing revelation was that apparently Greenpeace only send their obstruction boats out when the weather is fine and sunny and good for video footage."

David, not wishing to flog a dead whale AGAIN with this issue, which could make Jennifer herself a lot of money should she be charging(but instead no doubts adds to the site hit rate)...should GP send their inflatables out in rough weather and someone get injured, you would be one of the first jumping up and down and screaming about safety issues. Have you been out in an inflatable in freezing waters travelling at variable speed and direction(no George, I am not asking you!)? Be consistent with your arguments please.

Hang on a minute there, Mr Watson. I also agree that Greenpeace is very good at fund raising, and needs to be to keep itself alive, and is taking a cynical approach to it, but before we condemn them completely for that, and suggest they have not actually saved any whales....Let's first ask ourselves a few questions?
What was it that first led to the change in opinions internationally in regard to whaling?

It was skilful use of the media and the graphic footage of the carnage of a whale hunt.

Who consistently collected that footage and kept putting it in front of the media, in a package the media wanted? Was it commercial television that began by sending crews out to take video footage?

No, it was Greenpeace and like organisations.

At that time, were any of the whaling nations talking about sustainable harvests?

What was happening to whale populations?

Who put the the issue in front of the general public all over the world and changed government support of whaling into a general moratorium on whaling?

Grenpeace was fundamentally important in putting the issue onto my television, where I could make up my mind about it as an issue, and for me the choice was clear - I support the moratorium on whaling, and will continue to do so.

In my view it was never Greenpeace's remit to actually stop whaling by physically getting between whales and whalers. It was to stop whaling by getting enough of the right media coverage to make it an issue, and to keep it an issue so that goverments responded to public pressure. It has been, thus far a very successful campaign.

It still needs to be kept in the public eye as an issue as it is obvious, the whaling nations would be back onto the feast as soon as the public lost interest in the issue, and the mainstream media are only interested in it as an issue while it remains emotive, and contains enough shocking imagery to keep people tuning in.

The commercial interest in whaling will continue to rise as the stocks recover and so without continued public pressure, we always risk a return to the bad old days of the past. Don't kid yourself it would be any different now -would the Japanese hunt humanely or sustainably? Not in my opinion.

Moral and ethical issues aside, in terms of the economic benefits to Australia of whaling or not whaling, I suggest Australia actually benefits more from not whaling as the whale watching/bothering industry is, by all accounts doing quite well.

That suits me and I acknowledge that Greenpeace, despite it's many faults and its brazen fundraising, plays a centrally important role in keeping the issue in the public eye.

'Try and disingeniously weasel out of it' - George

Thats rich coming from someone so offended by marine circuses that he told a member of the public not to support them but forgot to hand in his resignation...

Coming from a sh*t smearing Weasel who does not have the moral or intellectual honesty to smear all of those who work or worked with the so called ´marine circuses ´ he despises, just those who disagree with him

Thats such a compliment - & fine that you keep exhibiting your cömplete lack of intellectual honesty and Morals ..

So lets see .. Mr. Batty prefers

2.)Try and ignore / deny that Watson has torn into Greenpeacers more effectively then any ´greenie bashers´ on this blog have ever done ...

3.)Try and disingeniously weasel out of it ..

with a touch of 5 ....LOL ...

ho ho ho no pressie for you naughty boy ..;op

Hi Russel,

Quite agree that "Greenpeace was fundamentally important in putting the issue onto my television"
-just as marine parks were fundamentally important in bringing cetaceans into public awareness.

Both had their place in history, but these times are now long gone ...

Both GP and SS turn out the same old warnings of doom and gloom regarding whaling - year after year after year ... Both focus on Japanese whaling and practically ignore whaling in the Northern hemisphere, somehow managing to ignore the fact that the Japanese are just as nationalistic ( if not more ) than either the Norwegians and the Icelanders ( the supposed reason given for no actions against the scandinavians in the north )

Perhaps Watson simply got tired of the whole enchilada and has decided to go out with a bang, taking a hefty swipe at GP in the process - If I was Rattenbury, I´d keep a good eye on which ship Watson tried to ram - it could very well be his ;op

Russel I´m class you as a 1.) then ;)

Russell - right on !

And as some of us have a big feed of seafood for Xmas one might ponder the state of the world's oceans. Doesn't seem good to me. I don't think we're doing a good job at all of managing marine resources globally. So why should the whalers be any better.

Australians obviously don't mind eating SE Asian, African and Chinese seafood - raised in who knows what environmental conditions, aquaculture standards and levels of sustainability. Destruction of mangroves, nutrient runoff etc. But we're a lot more finicky at home. Channel 7 ran a chef test on the foreign product and thoroughly denounced a lot of it so maybe we should be willing to shell out more for the Aussie product. Crystal Bays vs Vanelli anyone??

Although there has been recent dispute about sharks being endangered on the Barrier Reef with claim and counterclaim from both sides.

Certainly Boris Worm is despondent about global marine resource biodiversity mapping serious declines.

'Only 50 years left' for sea fish
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6108414.stm

There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a major scientific study.

Stocks have collapsed in nearly one-third of sea fisheries, and the rate of decline is accelerating.

http://myweb.dal.ca/bworm/Worm_etal_2006Science.pdf

similarly about large predator fish numbers

http://myweb.dal.ca/bworm/Worm_etal_2005.pdf

Overfishing responding way out of line with the ability of regulatory agencies to respond.

myweb.dal.ca/bworm/Berkes_etal_2006.pdf
myweb.dal.ca/bworm/Hughes_etal_2006.pdf

This blog heard the pros and cons of tuna harvest fudging in August this year.

www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001538.html

The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna now reports:

www.ccsbt.org/docs/news.html

Reviews of SBT farming and market data during 2006 suggest that southern bluefin tuna catches may have been substantially under-reported over the past 10-20 years. The impact of unreported catches on the estimates of past total catch and CPUE meant that it was not possible to proceed with the current Management Procedure, and that the Management Procedure needs to be re-evaluated.
Scenario modeling showed that in order to reduce the short term risk (to 2014) of further declines in stock size, a meaningful reduction in catch below 14,925 tonnes was required.
The CCSBT agreed to a 3 year total allowable catch of 11,810 tonnes, which is a TAC reduction of 3,115 tonnes. In addition, Taiwan and the Republic of Korea have undertaken to maintain their actual catch below 1,000 tonnes for a minimum of 3 years, giving a total actual catch level that should be below 11,530 tonnes for a 3 year period.
South Africa and the European Community have joined the Commission as Cooperating Non-Members. Indonesia has indicated that it intends to lodge an application for Cooperating Non-Member status in the near future.
Total fish tagged in the CCSBT tagging program is now 63,740. Recoveries of tags from all components of the SBT fishery are occurring.
The CCSBT will review its Scientific Research Program in 2007.

Calls for bans on destructive bottom trawling practices

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6181396.stm

North Sea cod fishing ban urged

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6069750.stm

A complete ban on cod fishing has again been recommended by experts until severely depleted stocks recover.

If Cod is so scare why can I still buy it.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6061872.stm

Albatross deaths prompt action from New Zealand
01-12-2006

www.birdlife.org/news/news/2006/12/swordfish_ban.html

The New Zealand government is considering imposing a temporary ban on surface longline fishing in the Kermadec Islands after a fishing vessel was reported to have killed 51 albatrosses in a single trip. Conservationists hope the ban will give the government time to implement mitigation techniques in the fishery, to reduce levels of seabird bycatch.

Prominent Scientists Join Call for UN Moratorium on Longline Fishing
705 International Scientists from 83 countries Have Signed

baltimorechronicle.com/020205SeaTurtle.shtml

Without more protection, global oceans will not be able to recover from shrinking fish populations, General Assembly told. Drift net fishing, by-ctach etc.

www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10548.doc.htm

"Both had their place in history, but these times are now long gone ..."

Why do you say this George? And what do you think has replaced them? Perhaps 'Free Willy' replaced the cetaceans in captivity? And now that whaling is on the agenda again, why would GP/SS be past history, espeically with the menu getting choices getting longer - again?

And please don't try to "class" me!

As an aside to the one issue out of the four above that is getting any attention...

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1817708.htm

You see our 'whale-loving' Environment Minister (whose boss seems to be admired by quite a few contributors here) can also make pro-development choices. So it's not all doom and gloom and putting animals before people, unless of course you are an original occupier of this land. Then they just try and wipe all traces of your existence away.

'just as marine parks were fundamentally important in bringing cetaceans into public awareness.' - George

Don't bother giving us that tired old 'public awareness' and educational value schtick about Marine Circuses, that piffle was comprehensively rubbished years ago as transparent justification propaganda with little or no proven merit...

Recommended reading -

The Rose Tinted Menagerie by William Johnson

captivitystinks.org

Hi Libby,

Quicky reply as I´m on my way out the door heading for the mountains ..

Those ´ times ´ were based on whaling for a long list of products which have by and large been replaced by synthetic or other alternatives ..

´Modern ´ whaling is pretty much based on protein aquisition - and as the NGO´s keep telling us there is no market for whale meat and or demand ... tell me why it should again become a threat to whale populations .... no sky is falling though please ( not that I´d expect it from you of course .. )

I´ve already given my opinion that whaling in Norway would probably have died out or be almost zero by now if the NGO´s had not made it a nationalistic issue ... and I believe that they are making exactly the same mistake with Japan ...

thats the short version - the longer version in more detail next week ..

have a good festive blah blah ;O)

"Don't bother giving us that tired old 'public awareness' and educational value schtick about Marine Circuses, that piffle was comprehensively rubbished years ago as transparent justification propaganda with little or no proven merit..."

Still waiting for you to smear Sh*t on Libby´s personal reputation as she has / still works with Captive marine mammals .. show your intellectual honesty in smearing all with the same Sh*t big boy ..

No? .. now why are we not surprised ..

bye bye now.. ;op

To add to my long rant above on state of global marine resources above - closer to home.. ..

Great Barrier Reef sharks in collapse
TOWNSVILLE, Australia, Dec. 5 (UPI) -- Australian scientists say coral reef shark populations on the Great Barrier Reef are in a catastrophic collapse.

Research -- conducted by William Robbins and colleagues at James Cook University and the Australian Research Council's Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies -- found grey reef shark numbers have declined to around 3 percent of unfished levels and are falling so quickly they could collapse to 1-1,000th of unfished levels within 20 years.

The study is the first of its kind to combine direct underwater counts of shark abundance with mathematical models that project future population trends.

"Our research indicates current reef shark abundances and levels of fishing pressure are simply not sustainable," said Robbins, the study's lead author. "Reef sharks are effectively on a fast track to 'ecological extinction' -- becoming so rare that they will no longer play their part in the ecology and food web of the reef.

"It also suggests that immediate and substantial reductions in fishing pressure will be needed to give threatened populations any chance of recovery," he added.

The research appears in this week's issue of Current Biology.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20061205-11111900-bc-australia-sharks.xml

And on quality of Australian supermarket fish offerings:

http://www.7perth.com.au/view/today-tonight-articles/20061204163441/

Imported Fish
Reporter: Helen Wellings
"Australians are seafood mad - we eat about 13 kilograms each per year and you'd think most would be homegrown. But amazingly, because of growing scarcity and fewer licenses being granted, around 75% of our fish and crustations are now imported, mainly from Africa, Thailand, Vietnam, Taiwan, China, South Africa and New Zealand.

In the supermarkets, you have very little choice but to buy imported seafood. Today Tonight checked out 10 supermarkets around Australia and found in most, over 70% is imported. In one IGA in Melbourne, no choice whatsoever, 100% is foreign.

Greg Doyle, owner/chef of Pier Restaurant in Sydney and Pier Head Chef Grant King know seafood backwards. We asked them to evaluate popular imported fish and prawns against similar Australian-grown varieties. Thumbs well down for the $8 a kilo African Nile Perch compared with very edible Australian barramundi at $33 a kilo in the supermarket.

At almost half the price of the Australian barramundi - Barramundi from Taiwan. Another very popular import cheapie, called Basa, is actually Vietnamese Catfish, at $10 a kilo. Better value is the more expensive Australian grown Goldband snapper - and Smoked Cod from South Africa at $11.50 a kilo ... the colour is a chemical paint, the cod .. literally sickening!

Now 2 varieties of prawns both from Thailand, $20 to $28 a kilo. Greg Doyle says "That's flavourless .. you'd just be wasting your money buying those. When you're paying just a couple of dollars more you'd definitely be better off buying the Australian prawn." So all the frozen imported seafood tested is rated poor to inedible. "Why import such low grade fish .. no nutritional value"

But worse, as we've revealed in previous stories, imported seafood often comes from unsafe, contaminated waters and can be deadly. Country of origin labelling is now compulsory, but Australian Fish Wholesaler Michael Miriklis says, fish names often mask their murky origins. "Fish eating Australians should worry about the quality of what they are eating, where it is coming from."

How sustainable is our local aquaculture:

www.crystalbayprawns.com.au/envir.asp

Dunno but it's big business and has high level support !

www.smartstate.qld.gov.au/strategy/strategy05_15/brand.shtm

Townsville’s Crystal Bay Prawns® have become renowned throughout the world for their consistent quality and sweet taste. Seafarm Pty Ltd sells 1000 tonnes each year and exports to Europe, New Zealand, Japan and Taiwan. The company released Crystal Bay Prawns® onto the market in 1999 and there are now 110 ponds at its Cardwell farm and 25 at its Mossman farm.
The Queensland Government has provided the company with important business assistance to develop its export markets.
invest $4 million in the Queensland Aquaculture Development Initiative to strengthen the economic development of major aquaculture growth sectors such as prawns and barramundi and emerging sectors such as crabs, sea scallops and reef fish. The initiative will provide additional research and development resources to support the industry’s continued expansion in a sustainable way.

Google Earth 18°19'10.33"S 146° 4'26.56"E
and 16°30'7.88"S 145°27'7.06"E

Right in the mangroves but what you would expect I guess.

Libby,

I don't know where I might have given you the impression that I care deeply about the safety of reckless GP activists.

If GP send their inflatables out in rough weather, and one of their naive activists gets comes to harm, it's their responsibility.

If GP send their inflatables out in good weather, and one of their naive activists comes to harm, it's still their responsibility.

GP does not need to put inflatables out there on the water. What GP headquarters wishes to do with the safety of their naive activists is frankly their concern, not mine. While of course I do not *wish* to see even stupid childish foolish naive GP activists come to harm, if such a thing does ever eventuate it will be entirely GP's responsibility. If they are sending people to the Antarctic on their revenue gathering exercises it's their responsibility to ensure their own safety, and obviously they put that at risk by putting their inflatables in a hunting zone.

It's pathetic, really. They are trying to portray themselves as heroic ocean defenders by putting their inflatables out there for obstruction purposes ... but they're only heroic when the weather is suitable and the sea is calm... Um, what about the harpoons? No inflatables in dangerous weather, but harpoons aren't such a risk? Aren't GP activists just so big and tough?

As for freezing waters, last year one GP activist jumped right into the water of his own volition, grabbing on to a harpoon rope for another piece of flashy video footage. He had jumped out of an inflatable into the water, the inflatable then moved away (cameras started rolling here), then a few moments later they came and fished him back out of the ocean again. Ridiculous. Nothing to do with documenting the whaling activity for the world to see. But great for donation gathering activity.
Kind of like this great photo:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/defensores/archives/whaling.jpg
Just what we need?
http://archivo.greenpeace.org/cbi2004/imgs/ballenas8.jpg
Documenting the whaling activity?
http://archivo.greenpeace.org/cbi2004/imgs/ballenas13.jpg
Great photo!
http://www.greenpeace.gen.nz/gallery/2000/12JANAction_Inflatable
What does the sign say? "Need donations from even non-english speaking countries"!
http://www.greenpeace.gen.nz/gallery/2000/Whales7
Errrrm, the whale is dead... what is the point of this other than putting oneself in danger (not only physically, but hell the Japanese will probably arrest them this year if they try out such a stunt).

So Libby, I'll tell you when I'll stop criticising GP's obstruction tactics in the Antartic:

When they go down there and simply film whats going on. You know, give it to us "straight".

I hope that more people think about this tactic of inflatables zigzaging infront of the harpoons (well, on fine, calm days anyway). Given that the research fleet got their 850 +/-10% quota last year with a sampling efficiency for the total research of something like 95%+ (better than in previous years), people ought to think about whether inflatables aid the welfare of whales that are invariably selected for sampling and killed. I know that GP supporters wish that whales weren't killed at all. That's not going to change by putting out inflatables. Hopefully at least people would think about the welfare of those whales that are to be killed.

Russell,

Back in the 1970's the whaling nations were actually talking about sustainable harvests.

The humpback and blue whales were fully protected already in the 1960's.

The IWC Scientific Committee (primarily New Zealander K. Allen) developed a "New Management Procedure" in the 1970's, which then saw sei and fin whale stocks protected (The NMP introduced a highly conservative "protection level" of 54% of the estimated carrying capacity of the stock).

In the 1980's, the moratorium came in to affect and shut down all commercial whaling, even though scientists such as John Gulland from the FAO (one of the scientists credited with getting protection for those other stocks back in the 1960's and 1970's) said that hunting levels at that time were mostly likely to sustainable.

This all led to the development of the "Revised Management Procedure". At which point in time, there was no longer any scientific concern about the sustainability of whaling. Yet still today, many people oppose whaling because they believe that "whales are endangered".

> the whaling nations would be back onto the
> feast as soon as the public lost interest

Oh great, and they'd bring down another commercial whaling moratorium if they screw up again, once more. Smart move? I guess it depends how stupid you think the governments of these whaling nations are.

> The commercial interest in whaling will
> continue to rise as the stocks recover

No surprise there.

> Don't kid yourself it would be any different
> now -would the Japanese hunt humanely or
> sustainably? Not in my opinion.

The Japanese hunt whales using the same methods as the Norwegians, although the Japanese hunt is scientific where the Norwegian one is commercial.

Whether they hunt sustainably depends on
a) whether the government grants permits for limits set on the advice of the IWC Scientific Committee
b) whether the government has sufficient regulations in place to ensure the catch limits are abided by.

As for humane killing, if you are truely serious about that then you should be writing to Greenpeace and seeking assurances that they won't be putting inflatables out there on the water between the harpoons and the whales. There is no reason why GP can't document the true undistorted whaling activity from a safe distance. Putting their inflatables in the hunting zone has a negative effect on the killing efficiency (longer chases, longer times to deaths, more harpoons coming unstuck).

> as the whale watching/bothering industry is,
> by all accounts doing quite well.

Actually I heard that they had a crap season on the western coast of Australia this year. I also heard that they were blaming it on the Japanese, who haven't actually started hunting humpbacks yet. But why not just blame the Japanese anyway?

At any rate, under commercial whaling executed in accordance with IWC rules, stocks will still be maintained over around 75% of their carrying capacity in the long run. Plenty of whales for whale watching left.

David - given the completely parlous state of global marine resources, despite all manner of international panels and agreements - endless meetings and gab-fests, the history in general is one of over-exploitation.

Given the tuna numbers fiasco this year (and add in Aussies too if you want to keep fair) why should Joe or Jill average in the street believe marine resource managers and the fishing/whaling industrty know anything about sustainability.

Out of sight and out of mind who knows what happens. Unless of course we're reminded by rogues such as Greedpeace and other sundry boat biffers. It's a wonder the Japs haven't sub-contracted to the French to dispose of their Sea Shepherd problem a la Rainbow Warrior.

Luke,

I doubt Joe or Jill average are never likely to understand sustainability, simply because they have better things to do than worry about where their food came from.

Government's on the other hand do need to take this responsibility, and I think at least in some areas - tuna land included - we are starting to see this, and in whaling land this is even further advanced. I seriously believe that the controversial nature of the issue is likely to ensure that when international commercial whaling is resumed it'll be probably the best managed fishery out there, and hopefully an example for the rest. I'm not suggesting that other fisheries organization take the same ultra precautionary scientific stance to resource utilization, but at least applying the same principles should bear fruits (well, fish).

I posted another message earlier today about GP's activities in the Antarctic (too many URLs and it's stuck in the filter machine) but let me make it 100% - I have no problem with GP being in the Antarctic documenting the whaling activity (although I think they have better things to spend their money on). What I have a problem with is them making their activists a feature of the hunt. That's irresponsible both in terms of their own safety as well as the fact that it depicts a distorted reality of what is actually happening down there. If they are going to take pictures, they should do so from a safe distance that gives the truest representation of whaling activities possible.

However.....
http://www.greenpeace.gen.nz/gallery/2000/Whales7
What on earth are the doing? This isn't documenting the whaling, it's outrageous propaganda material generation, and if they try this sort of stunt again this year they'll possibly find themselves arrested. Japanese prisons aren't nice, I hear. Yet another martyr for the GP money machine it would become of course, but I'll welcome it when it happens. The Japanese have been too soft up until this point.

I don't think the Government of Japan is about to start blowing up terrorist vessels in the Antarctic, however. If you are interested in their approach then perhaps this will be of interest:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/search/label/IMO%20guidelines

I've got a couple of comments backed up now (one for Libby, one for Luke), but I was just reviewing a PR from GP last year - amusing stuff:

(QUOTE)
Early this morning Greenpeace activists onboard inflatables began to paint the words, "whale meat from sanctuary" on the side of the Oriental Bluebird. Their action in no way impeded the transfer of the meat and the tiny inflatables in no way represented a threat to either vessel.
(/QUOTE)

Did the Nisshin Maru and Oriental Bluebird crew know that, and are they obliged to accept that GP will graffiti their ships for their propaganda purposes anyway?
(How does spraying paint on to the side of a ship "save whales"?)

(QUOTE)
The Arctic Sunrise was observing the action from over one kilometre away on the opposite side of the supply vessel from the Nisshin Maru.
As the activists completed painting the slogan, the Nisshin Mura suddenly disengaged from the supply vessel coming around a full 360 degrees before making for the Arctic Sunrise and striking it on the port side. The Greenpeace captain tried to pull out of the way of the oncoming whaler. "
(/QUOTE)

So, despite being "one kilometre away", the "Nisshin Mura" (sic) "suddenly" struck GP on the "port side" (the port side of the nose of the AS?)
And they even did a 360 degree turn first in the process?

I can't believe that GP has so many people wishing to defend them and their heinous PR and video stunts. Really, I can't. I wonder about the state of the world.

Also from the same incident:
(QUOTE)
Speaking from onboard the Arctic Sunrise, the Greenpeace expedition leader Shane Rattenbury said: "There is no way to describe this as anything but a deliberate ramming which placed the safety of our ship and the lives of its crew in severe danger."
(/QUOTE)

What do you know, I can actually agree with Ratsy there.

I think we should send a gun boat and impound any vessels found whaling in the sanctuary. We like doing it to any Indonesians annoying us.

"Hopefully at least people would think about the welfare of those whales that are to be killed."

Like the whalers do?? Are you serious???

"So Libby, I'll tell you when I'll stop criticising GP's obstruction tactics in the Antartic"

David, I would never expect the likes of you to stop criticising the likes of Greenpeace.

"As for humane killing, if you are truely serious about that then you should be writing to Greenpeace and seeking assurances that they won't be putting inflatables out there on the water between the harpoons and the whales."

David, drop the blaming of others. Show me some hard scientific evidence, reviewed by the IWC SC, that activist's actions last year resulted in inhumane killing of whales in Antarctic waters. The inhumane killing is being carried out by the Japanese (in this case), and it is tiring that you insist on suggesting otherwise.

"Putting their inflatables in the hunting zone has a negative effect on the killing efficiency (longer chases, longer times to deaths, more harpoons coming unstuck)."

See above. Perhaps the Japanese should be taking some responsibility themselves. If they are so concerned about being humane, then they should not be firing the harpoons or engaging in lengthy chases. This to me makes perfect sense. If they are concerned of course.

"Plenty of whales for whale watching left."

Interesting. As for long-term research projects that rely on the animals actually being alive, these may not be so successful.

"That's irresponsible both in terms of their own safety as well as the fact that it depicts a distorted reality of what is actually happening down there."

You say it's "irresponsible", and it is "their responsibility". These are somewhat conflicting points. As for being distorted, tell me David, what is really happening down there.? Can you tell me? No. As Luke pointed out, these groups show the average Jack and Jill (who you seem to have scant respect for) something of the situation down there - ie. whales being harpooned. Perhaps the activists could just sit back and roll the cameras from a distance and not intervene. But then somehow I think you would find fault with that too and say it was distorting the truth.

"This isn't documenting the whaling, it's outrageous propaganda material generation"

Hmmm, brings us back to the scientific research doesn't it. Don't they just want to put steaks on plates, as you mentioned in a previous post? You like eating whale, and some Japanese like eating whale, but it is not necessary for Japanese to eat whale, as there are other forms of protein available to this nation. It is not about sustainability, culture or research. It is about making money and killing and consuming something entirely unnecessarily.

"they'll possibly find themselves arrested"

What for David? For graffiti, perhaps, but anything else?

"I wonder about the state of the world."

Indeed David, indeed.

And regarding the ramming incident? No one who was not there should be even suggesting they know the truth. As someone who sprouts the IWC SC results and the benefits of science David, I am 'surprised' you would be resorting to uncircumstantial evidence.

Luke,

I'd love to see the Australian authorities "enforce" their self-declared sanctuary as well.

That'd be fantastic.

Hey kids, have some christmas spirit pls, less squabbling.

GP generated awareness would have contributed to the support SS is getting:

"Australians have come out in force to support Sea Shepherd in the past several months. During our stay in Australia, over 30,000 people have visited the Farley Mowat in both Fremantle and Melbourne. The crew has given numerous tours of the ship and participated at events around the country over the past several months. Thousands of new Oz supporters have joined the Society. Among them, advertising guru John Singleton and Bluetongue Brewery are supporting the campaign through the launch of their website www.whalesafebeer.com. The citizens of Melbourne have been very generous to Sea Shepherd by contributing tons of food, tools, supplies, and donations that are so vital to the campaign. Australian media coverage has been unprecedented as the momentum of the anti-whaling movement is reaching a critical mass. There is no doubt but that Australians love the whales.

A crowd of supporters were on hand to send off the crew of the Farley Mowat. The conservation vessel flew the flag of Fremantle, Western Australia, when the ship departed. [Farley Mowat_departs_MelbournePort] The flag had been given to the ship by Fremantle Mayor Peter Tagliaferri with the request that we fly it in the Southern Oceans.

The ship also flew the Bluetongue beer flag in honor of Bluetongue’s sponsorship of the expedition. And, of course, the ship flew both the Australian and the Aboriginal flag as a courtesy to a people who are dedicated to shutting down the criminal operations of the Japanese whaling fleet."

Libby,

Yes, I believe the whalers do take an interest in whale welfare. They don't agree that they shouldn't be killed at all, just as Australians apparently disagree that it is unnecessary to kill kangaroos (upwards of 5 million a year I think we said it was).

And like I said Libby, I promise you that I will stop criticising Greenpeace if they head down to the Antarctic and simply take videos of the whalers. I don't need to see GP inflatables waving flags around or trying to board the whaling vessels. That's not the reality of whaling operations. That's the reality of GP stuntshows.

As for the "likes of me", I can't imagine "the likes of you" ever finding fault with GP, either so the feeling is mutual :)

> Show me some hard scientific evidence,
> reviewed by the IWC SC, that activist's
> actions last year resulted in inhumane
> killing of whales in Antarctic waters.

Hey Libby, whatever happened to the precautionary principle? Is it not plausible (without even considering the data presented by the ICR on this)
that GP's actions have contributed to negative effects on whale welfare?

Obviously it's from the ICR so you can ignore it if you like (I have no problem with that), but for those interested in what the ICR is reporting to have happened (my rough translation of one part of a recent article published on the ICR homepage in Japanese), these are the following welfare problems observed:

--------
(1) Due to obstruction, appropriate shooting opportunities were restricted, and the pursuit time for whales increased.
(2) Due to obstruction, the accuracy of the shot (the chest area around the heart is the main target) was reduced, the instantaneous death rate fell, and the average time to death increased.
(3) Due to obstruction, the accuracy of the shot was reduced, resulting in 3 ocassions when the target whale had to be re-harpooned
(4) Due to obstruction after harpooning, secondary killing (in cases where the whales did not die instantly) via rifle could not be attempted in two cases.
(5) There was an example of whale's swimming activity being disturbed over a long period time, such that the whale got exhausted and could no longer continue swimming.
------

Here are the stats from Hajime Ishikawa of the ICR (he's apparently a veterinarian specialising in whale welfare)

Average pursuit time (minutes):
Before GP obstruction: 11.2
After GP obstruction: 31.6

Average time to death (seconds):
Before: 104
After: 258

Instantaneous death ratio (%):
Before: 57.6%
After: 48.0%

Percentage of harpoons coming unstuck:
Before: 1.7%
After: 12.0%

Number of samples used in the figures above:
Before: 118
After: 25

You are welcome to demand peer reviewed reports from the IWC's humane killing working group, but I personally I'm more than happy to suggest that the precautionary principle be employed, and scientists such as yourself urge GP to cease their stunts, which as we know does not save any whales. OK, well the ICR conceed that they had to give up on *one whale* due to GP obstruction last season, but then hey, you don't want to accept their data anyway, so I guess I shouldn't bring it up...

> The inhumane killing is being carried out
> by the Japanese (in this case),

I don't think the Japanese whalers are inhumane, and I think they did the best they could under the circumstances. Hopefully in future GP activists will help to ensure better outcomes.

> and it is
> tiring that you insist on suggesting otherwise.

Oh! There's no doubt about the fact that whales do suffer when they are shot with the explosive harpoons. I hope I didn't give you the impression that I thought they died blissfully. Certainly even without GP I hope that the whalers will continue their efforts to improve their hunting efficiency, just as I hope people involved in all animal killing industries seek to improve their standards.

What I'm suggesting here (sorry if I didn't make it clear) is that GP is contributing to WORSE outcomes than would *otherwise* be the case. I don't think GP or supporters can use the fact that the whalers are looking to kill these whales as an excuse to absolve themselves of responsibility for their role in this.

There are deep differences of opinion regarding whether whales should be killed or not, but the reality is at the current time is that they will be killed (again I come back to the 95% + sampling efficiency and that ICR conceeds GP only successfully prevented one individual whale from being killed), but at least I would have thought that those opposed to whaling would be looking to ensure that their protest activities were not resulting in more pain than necessary...

... as useful as such footage may be for revenue gathering :(

> If they are so concerned about being humane,
> then they should not be firing the harpoons
> or engaging in lengthy chases.

They are there in the Antarctic to conduct their research programme, Libby. Welfare is not the sole concern. There are a number of constraints, as I'm sure you are aware.

> As for long-term research projects that
> rely on the animals actually being alive,
> these may not be so successful.

To what degree do you imagine these research programmes will be upset (realistically, not the worst implausible case you care to dream up)?

When commercial whaling resumes programmes that rely on every single whale in the ocean not dying of anthropogenic causes are still going to have problems, anyway. Meanwhile Australia continues it's adherence to the ICRW despite the fact that this ICRW condones whale killing. That's a problem for such programmes in the long run anyway. Time to start thinking about that.

> You say it's "irresponsible", and
> it is "their responsibility".

Greenpeace is responsible for their irresponsible actions. Don't tell me you want to change this to a discussion about English.

> tell me David, what is really happening down there.? Can you tell me? No.

Right!! That's what I'm SAYING to you here :)
Why can't GP show us what is happening, rather than showing us their stuntshow performances? I'm not interested in seeing that, even if the general public finds the action compelling stuff to watch.

> Perhaps the activists could just sit back
> and roll the cameras from a distance and not
> intervene. But then somehow I think you would
> find fault with that too and say it was
> distorting the truth.

Not at all. There's no reason to believe that GP is incapable of producing lots of raw video footage of the whaling activity from a safe distance without themselves getting in the way (except for those financial motives, perhaps)

> Don't they just want to put steaks on plates,
> as you mentioned in a previous post?

Ultimately, yes.

> You like eating whale, and some Japanese like
> eating whale, but it is not necessary for
> Japanese to eat whale, as there are other
> forms of protein available to this nation.

Good grief, do we come to this argument?

There's no need for Australia cows to die to feed the Japanese people.

I'd rather eat whale meat than Australian produced beef, and I'd rather eat whale meat even more if GP would stop potentially contributing to worse whale welfare outcomes than would otherwise be the case.

> It is not about sustainability, culture or
> research. It is about making money and killing
> and consuming something entirely unnecessarily.

The same can be said for Australian produced beef and southern bluefin tuna.

Ultimately, it is indeed about killing and consuming these animals, and this has the potential to contribute to improved food self-sufficiency for Japan, and it's also generally better in terms of animal welfare than the way Australia produces it's food, although like I said above I hope that the whalers continue to improve their killing efficiency.

> > "they'll possibly find themselves arrested"
>
> What for David? For graffiti, perhaps, but
> anything else?

Yup, something else. Hope it comes about myself. I hear Japanese prisons are pretty nasty.

> No one who was not there should be even
> suggesting they know the truth.

True, but I think anyone with common sense who reads the GP propaganda then actually views the video of the incident can see quite clearly that GP could have easily avoided the incident. They chose not to.

> I am 'surprised' you would be resorting to
> uncircumstantial evidence.

The videos tell a pretty good story, Libby.

How many seafood dishes even need seafood in them? While considering the fish catch & farming trends, let's also not forget the trend to pass off fish-flavoured, coloured gelatine-based shaped as seafood. Seafood sticks & shanties are common in fish n chips & some asian dishes but the trend is spreading & becoming more sophisticatd. Most gobblers don't even notice they're eating fake squid or pretend prawns cooked in their dishes (although Aussies are usually on the ball). Imagine if someone tried to pass off a fake steak to you though!

May Santa put the Ghosts of Jap POWs & Whales Past, Present and Future in your stockings.

Hopefully not my stockings Pinxi. David's vision of a 1984 (where if he keeps telling us 2+2=5 we will eventually believe him) is quite frightening. Not because we will succumb like Winston, but because he is so obsessive about it. It is pointless trying to engage and it is the same crap with no let up.

Perhaps Santa should give the mutt a bone and ship him off across the Sea of Japan. Yum!

Have a nice Christmas Pinxi!

Any time you want to tell me that you care about whale welfare and agree that GP could improve the situation by NOT putting their inflatables in the way of the harpoons, let us know Libster.

Ading to george Mc observations, without whaling GP would have no claim to your $$ so they depend on whalers for their 'harvest'. If whaling was to stop tomorrow and japan embraced the whale as their national emblem GP would be stranded, GP needs whaling to continue.

A few years back I had a (gaol) prisoner working for me, he was on day release. He was always going on about how the screws made life tough for the crims (BTW in gaol prisoners will freely tell you they are all innocent and only guilty of a monstrous injustice being perpetrated on their innocent souls)

Anyway I got tired of his whingeing and told him that blokes like him are good business for gaols, warders need crims to keep them in work. It was his call, make a life for yourself or waste it by being a resource for a growing industry.

"warders need crims to keep them in work"

Rog, that argument can be applied to all sorts of situations...doctors need sick people, bullies need victims.

"Any time you want to tell me that you care about whale welfare and agree that GP could improve the situation by NOT putting their inflatables in the way of the harpoons"

David, are you now telling me I don't care about whale welfare, regardless of whether I said I agreed or not with the positioning of inflatables (of which I said neither)? The situation could be improved if the animals weren't harpooned, that's my take on it. But then whalers need whales to keep them in work.

Blogs need wallies?

Only a 60% instant kill rate. That's bloody dreadful.

Luke,

60% is excellent compared to the aboriginal subsistence hunts that Australia likes to support at the IWC, and I hope they can improve further. But personally, all things considered I'd still rather eat whale meat than beef (including that producted in Japan as tender as it may be).

The amount of time that the whale who the meat on my plate belonged to suffered was at best a short instant, or on average less than two minutes (assuming GP wasn't involved). I can't say the same for the cows whose meat I've eaten (I helped out on my late uncle's dairy farm when I was a lad in NZ, and looking back I'm glad for the experience and perspective it gives me today). For those who are confused, I'm talking about the treatment of animals for their entire lives, from birth to death, not just focusing on the minutes when the beasts are "humanely killed".

Libby, (unless you like Libster? I think it sounds cute :))

I don't disagree with your take, whales would naturally be better off if they weren't harpooned.

But they are, and this is the reality world which I am living in. Whales are being harpooned, and they will continued to be harpooned for as long as people around the world regard whales as a valuable source of protein (or some other useful resource), and it's in that context that I'm criticising GP and questioning whether they care about whale welfare in light of their obstruction tactics, which ultimately don't save whales but do have the potential for negative welfare outcomes.

I realise that GP put people who agree with their cause (if not the means) in a tough position by taking these actions. I think what this says is that there are other groups out there who are worth supporting, and GP and SS are not. My opinion of course, people may like to defend GP even with all of their numerous faults.

I personally think the anti-whalers need to re-gather. GP is off the rails. They are distracted by sideshows. They need to focus their efforts on doing what counts. Most Japanese people don't care much, and if GP were to churn their anti-whaling donations into TV campaigns in Japan, I think they could actually go a long way to achieving their objectives. GP should be richer than the whaling lobby here, I believe.

The only problem is that with all their extra baggage, GP is just a punching bag. It's so easy. "ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID"s and all that. It will have to happen under another umbrella for it to stand a chance. Maybe IFAW?

Quite interesting to go back and look at statements from Greenpeace staff earlier in the year in March (before GP said they would be back in the Antarctic again):

(QUOTE)
For Eric and Orca -- Every year Greenpeace makes tough decisions what projects to dedicate their ships to. There is a lot of ocean to cover and many different problems to address. With all of these competing priorities, decisions have to be made about where the most good can be done with each ship (getting the best "bang for the buck").

The fact that Greenpeace sent two out of its three ships down to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary this past season was an enormous commitment of resources. If the organization was simply interested in fund raising and media exposure, it could have achieved the same result with the Esperanza alone. The truth of this can be seen from other one ship anti-whaling trips (including the Sea Shepherd's).

However, Greenpeace committed two ships - both to maximize the chance of finding the whaling fleet and for saving individual whales (twice as many boats, boat drivers and crew). Our success in both respects has been well acknowledged in both the media and even by the whalers themselves.
(/QUOTE)
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/archive/2006/02/talk_to_us_open_2.html

HAHAHA. The ICR acknowledged that they saved *one* whale :)

And despite this, GP has done an about face and decided that it's worth heading back to "save the whales" again this austral summer.

So presumably, if the ICR kills 934 minkes this summer instead of 935 they'll consider the money well spent.

GP does indeed have a LOT of baggage...

I think GP must be incredibly effective David.

This is why you need to keep referencing them non-stop. I think their actions are very effective in keeping major pressure alive politically which eventually will see the desired result.

The more you write - the more I know they've got you by the short and curlies. Methinks you doth protest too much !

Luke,

HAHAHA, don't worry mate, I think there will be plenty of others still left criticising GP once I get sick of it :)
Merry Christmas!

Merry Xmas to you too ! Time for drink .. ..

'GP could have easily avoided the incident.' - David

Really? So contrary to David's earlier claims he is not happy with Greenpeace filming, he also requires them to run away if a Japanese whaling ship deliberately engineers a ramming incident (strange he didn't think that the Oriental Bluebird could have easily avoided the incident with Sea Shepherd last season eh?) which would of course irresponsibly leave the inflatable crews unsupported in the Southern Ocean for as long as the Japanese ship chose to pursue....

David has previously gone on record on another forum claiming that the crews of the Greenpeace ships are purely there for a nice cruise at donors expense so thats exactly what he would repeat if Greenpeace was not taking action in inflatables and just filming...

In bad weather the whalers stop whaling so the inflatables spiel and David's never ending attempts to compare privately owned domesticated animals bred for the meat industry with wild animals in international waters are both sound indicators of what a load of cobblers David is spouting... and he is not a member of an ethical farming NGO either.. more crocodile tears..

'once I get sick of it' - David

Like that's going to happen... :o)

Just a reminder to any interested readers that the ICR videos of GP's vessel "unavoidably" colliding with the Nisshin Maru last January can be seen at this link:
http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea.htm
(when watching, I always find it most enjoyable to imagine a GP crew member screaming to their captain, "Turn to starboard! Turn to bloody starboard you imbecile!!"

That's just me though.

Anyone wishing to post GP's videos and their explanation of events is more than welcome to - I've reviewed it and it's pretty self-incriminating, and the way GP tried to spin it showed them up for the self-righteous bunch of pricks that they are, considering how bad it looks.

Again, all I can say is that I feel sorry for anyone who agrees with GP's end goal of stopping the whale killing, because anyone wishing to defend GP is placed in such an untenable position. Too much baggage... time to switch over to IFAW? Although they of course have their own questions to answer, having purchased GP's video footage of the whaling for their own propaganda purposes.

Are there no clean internationally recognised anti-whaling outfits in this world? WWF International?

Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace Greenpeace
Sea Shepherd.

Thanks for providing a much-needed laugh Luke!

Wish that some smart guy makes an analysis re why whaling has increased during the last decades despite all the massive anti whaling campaigns...

Tourism to whaling countries has increased as well...

Re Greenpeace's direct actions in the Southern Oceans, it is all very confusing...

Brian F. from GPI made this official statement 2005 to Paul Watson, why GP did not launch their inflatables in Norway. ( I have not the exact quote here) but it went like this: " Launching the inflatables was useful for some decades or years ago , to focus the public's awareness on whaling. Today it has no purpose...."

Regarding actions against Japanese whaling, Greenpeace International made a comment something like this (2005):" Anti whaling actions should only be carried out by Japanese people and NGOs and GP Japan should not be influenced by foreign people ....."

IMO these high seas confrontations might have a counterproductive impact on the public( the Japanese) that are most important...

The funniest thing about this controversary between GP and SS are that Greenpeace accuses Sea Shepherd to be in this business only for fundraising motives, accusing SS for filming bleeding seals in white snow and in turn SS accuses GP for making money from bleeding whales...

Honestly, the whales deserve better champions...

So what can end whaling. Maybe only the US have the power to end whaling through sanctions, but as everybody knows this is impossible due to WTO regulations.

"Wish that some smart guy makes an analysis re why whaling has increased during the last decades despite all the massive anti whaling campaigns"

Ann there are governments that oppose whaling as well, not just NGOs. There would be many reasons why whaling has increased again.

Two years ago most of us woke up to a huge tragedy. For all the criticism that gets levelled at Greenpeace, here is a reminder of the good they can do:

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/2005/01-04-2005.cfm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0107-06.htm

Hi Libby,
You maybe remember that I have mentioned this " Warrior" action to Schiller some months ago. They assisted MSF as well in the Lebanon crisis this year. That is very good and noble...

What this discussion is about is the fundraising part. GPI denies they are into it for money.... and that is not the whole thruth ( trust me on this).

Are stunts like preventing dead whales to be hauled up onboard the Japanese ship saving whales?

Or is it a photo op? These are the questions to be answered...

Libby, btw Merry Christmas, we in Sweden celebrate our Christmas on the 24th December!

A question for you. Can you tell us about the minke population decline in the Southern Oceans ?

Sorry Libby,

but this is a very good article IMO on GP from their own folks, the former Rainbow Warrior captain John Castel writes this article " Greenpeace at war":

http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?Linkid=47205

One more point about the tsunami victims and GP and Japan...

Japan poured a lot of money into the humanitarian work to assist the tsunami victims...

As a matter of fact they poured so much money into it that many hardcore anti whalers recognized this and were uncertain about their anti whaling protests, they felt they were not so keen on to protest against Japan , when they heard about their aid programme....

Libby,

Good on GP for helping out after the tsunami (like many groups, organizations and countries). I'm hoping for more of that type of good stuff, rather than more anti-whaling performances in the Antarctic that place their supporters in untennable positions of having to defend such actions.

Ann,

I'd be surprised if anyone here can tell you about the possible minke population decline in the southern ocean, as the IWC SC is still working on analyses in that area :) Annex G of the 2006 IWC SC report details the most recent work.

One thing that the anti-whalers must just HATE is that catch-at-age analyses have been conducted based on (gasp) JARPA data, provided through the IWC's Data Availability Protocol.

From the Annex G:

"The sub-committee agreed that having results from the catch-at-age analyses was valuable for interpreting apparent trends in abundance and estimating trend in recruitment"

This work, based on analyses of JARPA data is "valuable"? Who would ever have thought.

By the way, interesting you mention Sri Lanka. I actually have quite a lot of information about that particular ODA recipient (not first hand info, second hand from a certain acquaintence). I have been contemplating translating it and putting it on my blog, but I imagine that a certain troll that reads these pages would then subsequently start hurling personal insults, which I'd rather not happen... at least not without consent. Sometimes it's enough to just be content in what oneself knows, not necessary to burst every bubble that GP has helped manufactor... Anyway.

Hi Ann,

"we in Sweden celebrate our Christmas on the 24th December!"

Does this mean Jesus was born on the 24th??

"Can you tell us about the minke population decline in the Southern Oceans ?"

As far as I know the IWC are still waiting to get some recent figuresfor this, as there are two thoughts - the numbers are declining, or they are increasing. The old figure of 760, 000 is no longer accepted.

"Japan poured a lot of money into the humanitarian work to assist the tsunami victims..."

Sorry Ann, but Australia (per capita) poured a huge amount into assisting with the tsunami victims too. It's not such a solid argument. If hardcore anti-whalers hear about an aid programme and decide to change their views on a completely unrelated topic, then they seemed to have been confused about what they were hardcore about in the first place! Hope you had a good Christmas.

"The sub-committee agreed that having results from the catch-at-age analyses was valuable for interpreting apparent trends in abundance and estimating trend in recruitment"

Let's not forget how many years Japan has been collecting this data and that the quota keeps increasing.

> As far as I know the IWC are still waiting to get some recent
> figures for this, as there are two thoughts - the numbers are
> declining, or they are increasing.

That's not the interpretations that I have read about (particularly the latter one). I wonder where you got that from. (^_^)

You know, you can always go straight to the horses mouth for the answer if you do ever start to doubt your sources...

> The old figure of 760, 000 is no longer accepted.

To be precise, the 761,000 estimate is still the accepted estimated for the years 1982/83 - 1988/89.

The "old figure" is not applicable today, which of course is not especially surprising, given that populations have the potential to fluctuate over time.

> Sorry Ann, but Australia (per capita) poured a huge amount
> into assisting with the tsunami victims too.

You must be proud of Australia.

I think that Ann was pointing out that people perhaps had their opinions of Japan's ODA work modified once they actually saw it with their own eyes, as opposed to the impression that would get from just reading about it in the western media (the only time we do hear much about it seems to be in relation to the whaling debate).

People are rarely informed about the positive outcomes that have come about as a result of the ODA projects. If you care to read about a Fisheries ODA project in Honduras (not even an IWC member) I've been working on a translation of that at my blog, Libby. Hope to finish it up some time soon shortly. Guess you may not be interested in reading such pro-whaling propaganda though.

"The sub-committee agreed that having results from the catch-at-age analyses was valuable for interpreting apparent trends in abundance and estimating trend in recruitment"

Gosh I love that quote, and the way it makes some people get all defensive (^_^) Of course, that data is not necessary for whale management, valuable as it may be, right. I guess I should be all fair and balanced in conceeeding that.

> Let's not forget how many years Japan has been collecting this data and that the quota keeps increasing.

For a bit of much needed clarity, the original plan executed was with 300 +/- 10% in Areas IV and V, the research area was later expanded to cover the eastern part of Area III and the western part of Area VI, hence the quota went up to 400 +/- 10%.

In the new programme the quota is 850 +/- 10%.

Also, probably worth pointing out that in the absense of data from commercial whaling, ongoing data from scientific whaling will help in catch-at-age analyses for subsequent assessments of the Antarctic minke whale population in future as well.

Of course, such analyses won't be possible if they decide to stop their research programme, as Australia constantly requests. Go Australia, you big "pro-whale conservation" nation, you.

Oh and one more thing - 850 minkes whales is just barely 10% of the commercial catch (8,008) of minke whales in the Antarctic for the 81/82 season :-)

I suppose then, the ICR could take another few thousand whales a year under scientific permit before anyone might start to seriously believe that the current hunt is anything resembling whaling prior to the adoption of the moratorium (^_^)

Hi Libby and David,
Re the tsunami comment, I just wanted to be a bit trollish....the comment I was refering to was actually made by one of Greenpeace's most virulent anti whaling supporters and I must admit that Libby is compeletly dead right on this...

This Echo person has also made strange comments on the captivity industry, she is studying orcas in a tank!!! Something for Lamna to think about before hurling insults towards George.

Btw, George and Libby have both made excellent explanations why they have been involved personally!

As usual , our both camps are in total disagreement regarding an " acceptable" hunt in the Antarctica. " West is west and East is east..."

The Norwegian IWC Commissioner states that no scientist outside the anti whaling world believe that the current Japanese hunt is unsustainable.

Greenpeace and John Frizell, on the other side state the opposite.

As far as I know, Greenpeace believes that climate change is the major threat to whale populations...

David,
One of the major obstacles in the RMS discussions currently is that Japan is not willing to end the scientific hunt, even if going commercial...

And a quote from High North Alliance:" The Japanese scientific hunt can continue forever..."

"You must be proud of Australia." /"Go Australia, you big "pro-whale conservation" nation, you." /"you don't want to accept their data anyway"/ "To be precise, the 761,000 estimate is still the accepted estimated for the years 1982/83 - 1988/89"/"To what degree do you imagine these research programmes will be upset (realistically, not the worst implausible case you care to dream up)?"/"but I imagine that a certain troll that reads these pages would then subsequently start hurling personal insults" etc, etc.

David,

Such arrogance, deliberate misinterpretation of what has been written by myself and others, obsessiveness and hypocrisy means I personally don't want to engage with you anymore. There is no point and I have better things to do. You're a rude, sick individual as far as I can see, and it takes a lot for me to actually write that.

I can only hope that people understand that the reason the debate is so one-sided is because people like you make it so bloody hard for any sort of logical discussion, and those with any common sense would rather stay silent.

Libby pleeaaze come back! I appreciate people with some temper!!! LOL! LOL!

Ann,

What the RMP calculates is a safe level of total anthropogenic removals (not just a plain commercial catch limit). So the limit produced by the RMP is not a limit on commercial catch alone, but also by-catch as well, and of course, scientific whaling. Thus, where non-zero catch limits are introduced under the RMP, ongoing lethal research programmes would result in reduced commercial catch quotas. This seems to be good to me, in terms of whale conservation. If you saw my blog recently, one IWC scientist has stated that "In my view, whales and whalers would be better protected by use of the RMP to manage whaling than by the moratorium."

On the other hand, where the RMP isn't implemented (i.e., for stocks still below the 54% protection level), scientific permits may still be issued, and in this area I imagine there could be scope for further discussion. I don't think it's appropriate to consider abolishing the right to scientific research at this stage (given that many scientists do appear to believe that useful data results, even if others would rather such data was not available), but perhaps there is the possibility of developing stricter criteria about for example, levels of abundance that protected whale stocks must have attained before scientific permits could be issued.

It's just my opinion, but I think the whalers would be willing to consider such discussions in good faith if the anti-whalers would agree to lift the moratorium.

Maybe George will have an opinion on this too, when he gets back (or Rune even, if he is reading).

Libby,

Perhaps it might have been interesting to reflect on your first comment in this thread, before criticising me of "deliberate misinterpretation" (as well as some subsequent comments you have made).

No one is perfect. I know I have my flaws. The intensity of my desire to expose GP's sham "environmental" campaign in the Antarctic is one of them, and I know that it gets on your nose (although why you wish to defend the undefensible GP so much is not something I understand) just as much as your incessant and unbalanced criticisms of Japan and their research programmes get on mine.

So if we can agree on one thing it's that it does appear difficult for you and I to maintain a civil level of discussion. It happens. Another here who has characterised whaling as "culling" (despite the fact that people do actually eat whales) and I had a somewhat similar difficulty, as you may recall.

I'm happy to take your word for it that you won't engage in discussion with me anymore. I hope you enjoy your discussions with other participants here.

Ann,

"As far as I know, Greenpeace believes that climate change is the major threat to whale populations..."

Interesting. With general respect to the Antarctic populations, that's the impression I have as well.

Perhaps I should head along to GP's new whales page, and offer my campaign suggestion:

"Get the world's worst offenders in terms of ecological footprint to reduce their footprint, say, for starters to the level of Japan, helping to reduce the effects of global warming on the whales, and then we can reassess the situation from there"

What do you reckon? Or should I perhaps should I term that bit about Japan as "below 5", since it could obviously rankle up the people of Australia the USA and UK where GP support is so strong?

Libby and David,
Not trying to be your Mum here, but think about Pixie's advice, don't take everything too seriously, even if we discuss important and serious matters...

Will be away for some hours and gonna check out the blog later....

What's yr definition of culling then David? I can't imagine you'd try to distinguish culling from not-culling based on whether or not the culled animal is eaten.

I think the big challenge for Japan is that neither the experts nor the public are fooled by claims that the Jap whaling programme amounts to a necessary or bona fide scientific effort. David makes a lot of informed comment (and also delves into semantics) but he still hasn't put forward a convincing defense of Japan's scientific whaling argument. Nor has Japan shown itself to voluntarily exercise restraint in terms of whaling sustainably.

It's not just IMHO that Japan's scientific argument is pure blubber: when scientists, NGO's and laypeople agree, then all you need to achieve change is a slight shift in the breezes that blow political agendas.

"when scientists, NGO's and laypeople agree.."

obviously Pinxii's Xmas cones dont grow on Xmas trees.

When have ever all 3 agreed?

Libby - I'd like to defend David here. I think he's a tremedous asset for the anti-whaling conservation side - surely his testimony alone is a compelling reason for anyone to join GP, WWF, sell guns to Sea Shepherd, write their MP, harrass Japanese tourists at Surfers (with brochures on time share), and not buy another Toyota.

Well done David. I think congratulations all round are needed.

Pinx - Rog has got a stash of Xmas cones. Let's go to his place quick.

In her state of seemingly perpetual awareness Pinxii quotes: "Australians have come out in force to support Sea Shepherd in the past several months"

Pinxii wilfully chooses to neglect to advise source of quote: Sea Shepherd Inc. May the force be with you Pixiie.

Bluetongue Beer are sponsors of SS, their slogan our beer is whale safe... http://www.whalesafebeer.com

Well roggi-the-chrissy-bear it was clearly a quote. It was from the SS website. You know links are sometimes rejected so why try to score points over petty details? How hard would it be for you to trace the source of a quote if yr synapses couldn't figure it out?

As for the rest rog, you must know as well as I do that replying to yr 1 liners with any supporting evidence is a waste of everyone's time. Now make yourself useful & go slosh me out some blue label.

New Years resolution - coz Roggy-Woggy wouldn't play fair in 2006 (and made a number of unkind personal remarks) we don't provide any evidence to back up biased (even rampant) opinions in 2007.

fuck no! a sense of responsibility kept me doing it from time to time but less so than Lukey Dukey. Supportive evidence no more! Reasoned debate out the window, emotive rampant ranting in (at least then we'll be able to relate to Motty).

rog's just concerned about his import-export whale caviar business proposal

Gee this moet chando stuff improves after 5-6 or so glasses

Pinxi with pegleg & eye patch,

Actually, to my mind the negative connatation associated with the word "cull" does have a lot to do with how the animals are viewed. Animals that are regarded as a source of food are usually "caught" or "harvested" or something like that. Hunts of animals that are on the other hand regarded regarded as pests do tend to be refered to as "culls". At least that's my experience. Perhaps my understanding is not the same as yours. Anyway, perhaps you can understand my POV on that point, having explained it.

> I think the big challenge for Japan is that neither the experts nor
> the public are fooled by claims that the Jap whaling programme amounts
> to a necessary or bona fide scientific effort.

(sigh)

At worst, with respect to "the experts" the issue is controversial, not the clear cut guilty as charged verdict that you make it out to be here.

So I find myself having to point out that a lot of experts do see scientific value in the ICR's research programmes. Just a few comments earlier I was posting info about catch-at-age analyses of JARPA data that an IWC sub-committee regarded as "valuable". I really struggle to understand how it is that people fail to accept all this, even when I put it right under their noses... the only explanation that springs to my (biased?) mind is that it's because of pre-determined positions.

As for the general public however, you are of course right that they are not "fooled", but then how many of them really even know such basics as the purported objectives of the research? My impression is that most have made their minds up before even thinking of actually considering the side of the argument that they never hear about through their media, unless they decide to go and look for it of their own volition.

> he still hasn't put forward a convincing defense of
> Japan's scientific whaling argument.

I don't imagine that I can convince everyone, given that it's controversial even in the scientific community. It's hard to get people on the other side of the debate to conceed even that much!

> Nor has Japan shown itself to voluntarily exercise
> restraint in terms of whaling sustainably.

Again, can't convince everybody, although I refer you to the comments of former IWC Secretary (24 years) and scientist, Dr. Ray Gamball, which don't really mirror your sentiment:
"Japan always acts totally within the rules that are laid down, and the situation has been in the past that they have taken catches which are definitely sustainable and I don't see any reason why they would change that policy of working within a sustainable limit."

But what would dear old Ray know? GP's John Frizell dismissed him, I guess that means you and everyone else can too (^_^)

on usage of cull, yes I can appreciate yr POV david but it's nothing sufficiently material or scientific on which to hang a whaling debate so let's, heh, cull that topic.

On the other, what of the 'what if all countries (or even all countries with marine boundaries) whaled scientifically like Japan does' question, then would it be sustainable?

an extra one david, why does Japan focus on whales? What of albatross? Why not conduct lethal scientific studies on albatross - like whales at sea, how else do you determine their feeding pattersn without culling them?

Why perform lethal cetacean research when non-research techniques are adequate & don't interfere with cohorts & local population genetics? If lethal whaling research is of such benefit, why not perform it on the most vulnerable cetacean species? Oh, because, the objectives just focus on the species that Japan would like to whale commercially. So, ultimately commercial aims, but why? Why is it so important for Japan to whale when there are plenty of alternative, affordable/cheaper & less politically contentious protein options available?

I think Pinx is totally Willisee-ed. Wissed a newt.

If ya gonna duke it out with Motty you'll need a Pentium Duo A3 envelope.

Following on from Pinx's lead - basically we need to know what language we can use on this blog. I know Motty would like to let rip. Does Jen have a device such as this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJIk01p_x7U

I think the level of blog debate needs improving after a notable decline in 2006 and a wiki entry on acceptable language is sorely needed. If "bullocky's daughter" worse than "numb nuts". And if we are going to talk about Greenpeace Greenpeeeeseee Greasypiece - too many cocktails too.. .. we need standards.

Yeah, well if people are genuinely trying to have a apolitical, non-emotional debate about scientific aspects of whale management it's my personal view that using words with as negative a connotation as "cull" is likely to be unproductive if one is also happens to be expressing a pronounced "anti-whaling" viewpoint.

> On the other, what of the 'what if all countries (or even all countries with marine boundaries)
> whaled scientifically like Japan does' question, then would it be sustainable?

I very much doubt it would be, but it's probably more valid to first consider whether such a crazy thing is likely to ever occur?

You are describing a more extreme version of the same situation we had with commercial whaling in the past that led to the drafting of the ICRW, right.

In that same spirit I thus imagine that if other nations again started expressing interest in say, Antarctic minke whale stocks, they'd look to co-operate with the ICR researchers to ensure that the sum of their activities was sustainable. If their goals were similar of course they'd probably look to collaborate with the ICR researchers rather than go and wastefully duplicate effort at costs to themselves. It is possible for foreign scientists to participate in the JARPA research as I recall.

At this stage however, Japan is the only nation with people showing any serious interest in the Antarctic minke whale resources. Japan is the only nation providing research vessels to the IWC SC for the IWC SC's research.

If you read the JARPA II research proposal you'll find the answer to your albatross question there. I will leave this as an exercise for the reader.

You describe non-research techniques as "adequate". Again, that's "controversial". The ICRW states that decisions will be made for the "optimum utilization" of whale resources, not the "adequate utilization". You can better make for the "optimum utilization" by using the best combination of data available, rather than simply "adequate" data.

> If lethal whaling research is of such benefit, why not perform it on the most
> vulnerable cetacean species?

Is it not obvious that lethal methods are not a suitable methodology for the most vulnerable cetacean species when the desire is to make for their optimum utilization?

> So, ultimately commercial aims, but why?

Same reasons as Australians kill cows and southern bluefin tuna and unnecessarily export it off to Japan as luxury food?

> Why is it so important for Japan to whale when there are plenty of alternative,
> affordable/cheaper & less politically contentious protein options available?

Why is it so important for Australia to kill southern bluefin tuna when there are .... blah blah blah? Southern bluefin tuna is classified as "critically endangered" by the IUCN, don't you know. That's worse than the species Japan is targeting in it's research programmes.

Maybe... maybe with this you can finally see Japan's point?! Or otherwise, see the same problems with Australia's stance that you see with Japan's?

So why are you so interested in this issue David?

Not much point of setting standards Luke if you and the Pinx thing maintain under performance.

Some well-known cetologists (some on the IWC Scientific Committee) have produced a response to an article written by Joji Morishita, whose article is entitled " Multiple analysis of the whaling issue: understanding the dispute by a matrix."

I will pull out some of what the researchers have written:

"Joji Morishita gives the Government of Japan's (GOJ) position on whaling as if it were incontestable fact.....However, by selectively choosing the information he presents, ignoring contradictory data, providing "facts" supported by irrelevant citations, trivializing opposing perspectives, and vilifying opponents, Morishita succeeds in creating a discussion of the issue which is in fact nothing more than a one-sided
restatement of the GPJ's whaling policy."
"Since 1987, Japan has killed almost 10,000 whales in its two scientific whaling programs in the Antarctic and North Pacific; this is more than four and a half times the total number kiled for research by all other nations combined since 1952." "Prior to the IWC moratorium, and like other nations, Japan conducted only small-scale research whaling..."
"Japan frequently promulgates generalizations regarding all aspects of the whaling dispute. For example, the GOJ often states publicly that "whales" consume too much fish." "...Japan continues to promote the idea of competition by and among whale species as the primary justification for its scientific whaling."
"...the SC has concluded, "There is currently no system for which we have suitable data or modeling approaches to be able to provide reliable quantitative management advice on the impact of cetaceans on fisheries or fisheries on cetaceans."
"The implication of the competition argument is that abundant whales must be "managed" (ie culled) to protect human food security....Yet culling is not only a crude and ineffective method of managing animals in a complex ecosystem, it is antithetical to the objectives of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and the conservative principles underlying the SC's agreed method of calculating catch quotas, the Revised Management Procedure (RPM)."
"Morishita's contention that the IWC "clearly acknowledge(s) the scientific contributions of (Japan's) research" is belied by repeated critiques from numerous SC scientists. These critiques have pointed out that Japan's research has little relevance to the input variables required by the RMP...When 63 members of the SC (representing more than half of the national delegations present) come to this conclusion, it can hardly be called a ringing endorsement of Japan's research."
"..Morishita is careful in his article to note that some whale populations are growing "at more than 10% annually", yet on the public website of the GOJ's Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), readers are told that populations of humpback and fin whales are increasing at "14-16%" - rates that the SC has agreed are biologically impossible. Elsewhere, the 760,000 estimate for Antarctic minke whales is often cited by Japan with no mention of the fact that the IWC no longer considers it appropriate."
"...the proposed catches of humpback and fin whales in the Antarctic will occur in populations that are generally believed to be below 54% of K, the minimum threshold below which the RMP does not permit catches."
"The article contends, "The group that is economically most dependent on the whaling issue is ironically the extreme anti-whaling NGOs such as Greenpeace." However, not all NGOs are green; there are several pro-whaling groups that are just as embroiled in this controversy; and there are more than enough other environmental problems on which to base fund-raising campaigns."
"Morishita accuses environmentalists of using scientific uncertainty about whale stocks "as the basis for calls for the prohibition of whaling." ..Japan has been particularly concerned about scientific uncertainty since the 1991 United Nations General Assembly global moratorium on all large-scale high seas drift-net fishing, a ban which was based largely upon the precautionary principle."
"Among the major managenment failures of the past was the absence of the International Observer Scheme (IOS)...Japan is known to have falsified catch data on sperm and Bryde's whales in its coastal whaling operations. For the latter species, these catches occurred until at least 1987, ie. the year after the IWC Moratorium took effect. Additional details on the extent of past falsification by Japan are currently unknown; it is worth noting that (unlike Russia with the Soviet case) Japan has yet to acknowledge that these falsifications occurred." "Japan's response to these revelations has been to publicly question the integrity of the former Soviet biologists who (at considerable personal risk within the Soviet system) meticulously documented these catches."
"Morishita tells us that exising international and domestic oversight prcedures "are adequate to ensure sustainable whaling" and that the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) "has not been agreed by the IWC because of delaying tactics of anti-whaling governments." Yet one of the biggest delays in implementation of the RMS has arisen from the refusal of Japan and other whaling nations to accept true transparency in the monitoring of whaling." "The RMS includes the set of controls and inspection procedures to be put in place should commercial whaling resume."
"For many people in this debate, the issue is not that some whales are not abundant, but that the whaling industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself or to honestly assess the status of potentially exploitable populations. It is hard to trust a government agency which frequently serves up nonsensical estimates of abundance and population growth, which refuses to allow independent oversight of its actions, and which pays lip service to the RMP while simultaneously stating that the proper way to manage whales is to cull them."
"Throughout his article, Morishita portrays as irrational or hostile any party disagreeing with the GOJ's position.."
"...Japan's abuse of science to justify escalating catch numbers, and the whaling nations' contention that whales (and other marine mammmals) need to be culled, leave little room for good-faith negotiations on responsible resource management." "The Japanese Fisheries Agency still permits a cull of Stellar sea lions, a species which is classified as endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature." "These actions, and Norway's recent announcement that it is unilaterally modifying the RMP because it is "too conservative" and gives catches that "are inappropriately small", do little to convince skeptics that the whalers genuinely intend to manage whales in a way that will not repeat the mistakes of the past."
"But whaling itself represents a potentially slippery slope: a major loss of concession in this issue could potentially have severe ramifications for Japan's extensive and critically important fisheries agreements elsewhere...Mr Morishita himself inadvertently illustrated this dilemma in an amusing incident which occurred at the 2001 IWC meeting in London. In an intervention at an SC plenary session, he explained why he disliked a procedure that had been suggested for managing Antarctic minke whales, and concluded by saying that this was "a very bad way to manage southern bluefin tuna." After a pause in which everyone in the room looked up quizzically, he added, "Sorry-wrong meeting."

Apologies for typos and the length.

With issues like this

"For many people in this debate, the issue is not that some whales are not abundant, but that the whaling industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself or to honestly assess the status of potentially exploitable populations. It is hard to trust a government agency which frequently serves up nonsensical estimates of abundance and population growth, which refuses to allow independent oversight of its actions, and which pays lip service to the RMP while simultaneously stating that the proper way to manage whales is to cull them."

One can only say "yes but let's quickly get back to arguing about Greenpeace. Did I mention Greenpeace .. .. .."

And why do they want to wack Sea Lions for ?

On the question of what if all countries with marine boundaries whaled scientifically like Japan does, David said "consider whether such a crazy thing is likely to ever occur" .. "a more extreme version of the same situation we had with commercial whaling in the past"

Why is it crazy if Japan is (allegedly) doing it for science? When does it become crazy? The more investment in good science the better, right? and if Japan's well-intended scientific research is for the benevolent purpose of understanding the impact of commercial whaling then what's good for one must be good for all, otherwise how is it globally sustainable in the long-term?

Counter ploys such as Aust kills/eats cows, kangas, tuna etc are irrelevant. Unless we want to foray into comparative political analyses, it actually does nothing to add to a constructive discussion on whether or not & why Japan should & does whale. Is it useful to suggest that Japan whales internationally because Aust kills kangaroos/tuna/yowies? No, let's not even have such a diversionary & time wasting discussion & let's return to the relevant question & keep on topic. The topic is whales. Otherwise David if you try to sidestep it you run the risk of looking as though you actually don't have an answer. If that's not the case you may want to have another bash at the questions.

thanks for the info Travis

roggi-bear cheap shots will be ignored. still awaiting the blue label nightcap thanks rog

Travis,

Thanks for posting all of that. I've already written my own thoughts on the abstract of that particular political opinion piece on my blog previously.

The quotes you provide here essentially confirm what I suspected from the exceedingly poor quality evidenced by the abstract.

But then, what can one expect from people who going around breaking IWC document confidentiality rules to express their political opinions.

Pinxi with pegleg & eye patch,

What is crazy is not that Japan is doing scientific research, but the situation described where every nation decided that they would go out and conduct scientific research. I personally assign that a plausibility of 0.000000000000000001.
And maybe still I am being generous.

When would that situation become crazy? Well, somewhere after two or more nations set out to both do research and simultaneously ignore the activity of the other. That's what we saw with whaling in the past, except here the suggestion is that not just a handful of nations do it, but every nation with a coastline.

> if Japan's well-intended scientific research is for the benevolent purpose of understanding the
> impact of commercial whaling then what's good for one must be good for all, otherwise how is it
> globally sustainable in the long-term?

Do you understand the word "duplicative"? That should be a big enough hint. If you still don't get it, try "international co-operation".

By the way, your understanding of the purported objectives of the research programmes also appears lacking based on your statement above.

> Counter ploys such as Aust kills/eats cows, kangas, tuna etc are irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant to illustrate double standards? Is it not fair to illustrate double standards when this doesn't suit Australia's position?

Why is Tuna so different to whales? Both are valuable migratory resources.

What is the justification for Australia to continue to allow it's fishermen to harvest juvenile fishes, fatten them up, then kill them and sell them off to the highest bidder?

You only want to avoid this because you know that whatever your answer is, it's the same for the whalers, if we are to be consistent.

> Otherwise David if you try to sidestep it you run the risk of looking as though you actually don't
> have an answer.

Hahaha, that's a really nice try :)

So David @ Tokyo - why are you so interested in this issue?

Shucks, you don't know why yet?

A post on my blog dated 6/20/2006 should provide some insight.

As for you, why are you interested Luke?

And why do you think GP is interested? Ann has told us that "GPI denies they are into it for money.... and that is not the whole thruth ( trust me on this)" (I get persecuted every time I say something like that). Any thoughts about GP's motivations, Luke? Especially considering they originally said that they wouldn't be protesting again this year, but then changed their mind?

Hi all,
No more whaling questions for me tonite...the last Christmas day .... gonna try to make a comment tomorrow!

However, this question maybe can be replied to???

Libby : " "we in Sweden celebrate our Christmas on the 24th December!"

Does this mean Jesus was born on the 24th??"

Well, I saw a docu and they said that scientists didn't know in which year or date Jesus was born in! The scientists had looked at star constellations and figured out that Jesus must have been born in springtime!!!

Evening all...

One quick comment first, the anti Japanese vitriol on this thread so far, far outweigh´s the anti NGO stuff ... it´s facinating and telling ;)

David,

"It's just my opinion, but I think the whalers would be willing to consider such discussions in good faith if the anti-whalers would agree to lift the moratorium."

Thing is, the ´whalers´ themselves have little say in the matter - a certain amount of influence, sure .. but ultimately, it´s government level decisions, and whaling is just a side show - it´s about use of resources, and how governments use either the resources within their own EEZ, or on the high seas...

Going by past IWC shenanigans, the anti bunch have a long way to go to convince any Pro country that any hand extended with an olive branch is meant as a gesture of compromise, rather than a gesture that they are going to whack the Pro´s over the head with it ..

Conversely, the Pro´s have to be able to convince the anti´s that they are genuine in wanting and capable of enforcing a sustainable fishery as well as a few other bits and pieces...

The NGO´s involved are simply another side show ..albeit politically important in some countries...

I personaly doubt if any of this is going to happen at the IWC - too much bad blood has flowed under that particular bridge but you never know ... pigs might fly ...

I´m off out the door again for my next chunk of dead animal ... cutting a swathe through the animal kingdom this year ..;op

yo ho ho to you all

"One quick comment first, the anti Japanese vitriol on this thread so far, far outweigh´s the anti NGO stuff ... it´s facinating and telling ;)"

Only because you have been absent George, as well as perhaps Ian Mott, Schiller, Rune, etc etc. I am sure it evens up in the end. I am quite sure that no one here is anti-Japanese either.

Happy hunting!

David yes of course I thought about the issue of duplication of research but who's gullible enough to believe that bona fide research is the basis for Japan's work?

Why can't you answer the whaling questions directly without trying to muddy the waters of the discussion by comparing nations & species. If you beat your child don't excuse it on the basis that I beat my dingo. I'm not defending any other animal farming/hunting/culling activities. Let's stick to the stand-alone issue of whether or not Japan has a reasonable explanation for its whaling activities and