national

Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north

105 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2013 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

105 Comments
Login to comment

Good outcome ...safe trip back home to everyone.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

Shame the internationally wanted criminals got away.

-13 ( +8 / -21 )

Way to go,SS! Hats off to the efforts!

15 ( +22 / -7 )

cabadaje-

Shame the internationally wanted criminals got away.

Agreed. But at least the criminals only managed to kill 75 whales.

11 ( +18 / -7 )

(Japan) makes no secret of the fact that the meat ends up on dinner tables.

Biased reporting as usual from AFP. For the umpteenth time they include this little dig at Japan but fail to also mention that Japan is required by the IWC to commercially sell any whale meat resulting from the lethal research whaling.

-12 ( +7 / -19 )

A success for this seasons minke whale watching industries in NZ and Australia.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

Huge success. Long may they continue their campaign and I can only hope they are as effective next year.

I'm sure the great scientific journals of the world are also breathing a sigh of relief. They may not be subjected to such stunning findings as the one presented in 2006 when the Japanese Lethal Research team announced that whales eat fish.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

USNinJapan2MAR. 02, 2013 - 04:50PM JST (Japan) makes no secret of the fact that the meat ends up on dinner tables. Biased reporting as usual from AFP. For the umpteenth time they include this little dig at Japan but fail to also mention that Japan is required by the IWC to commercially sell any whale meat resulting from the lethal research whaling.

Yes, but it's primary purpose is supposed to be "research" but in fact judging from the widespread sales of the meat and very limited and dubious science the media has come to the obvious conclusion that the main purpose is to make money from whale meat.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

Agreed. But at least the criminals only managed to kill 75 whales.

That's nothing. Heck, the Sea Shepherd was willing to risk a fuel spill in the Southern Ocean.

-13 ( +6 / -20 )

75 whales @ 3billion yen + hunt, WOW that makes for really expensive meat! good work SS lets hope next years mean more ships down there keeping those eco terrorist in there place. another small victory in the long running war on whaling. LOL

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

@letsberealistic

Yes, but it's primary purpose is supposed to be "research" but in fact judging from the widespread sales of the meat and very limited and dubious science the media has come to the obvious conclusion that the main purpose is to make money from whale meat.

And yet, one of the primary arguments against whaling is that it is not profitable. How does that logic work?

Not that I agree with the term "widespread sales" or "limited an dubious science". Both are, after all, not supported claims.

-10 ( +5 / -16 )

@Tamarama

I'm sure the great scientific journals of the world are also breathing a sigh of relief. They may not be subjected to such stunning findings as the one presented in 2006 when the Japanese Lethal Research team announced that whales eat fish.

Your comprehension of that report notwithstanding, I would submit that no research publication will ever be relieved that they will not receive new research material because the barbarians were allowed to burn the witches at the stake, regardless of the topic of research.

-12 ( +5 / -18 )

@cabbage risk a fuel spill, lol your not even allowed to refuel down there anyways.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

"you're"

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I can only hope they are as effective next year.

I hope they don't need to go at all next year....

one of the primary arguments against whaling is that it is not profitable. How does that logic work?

The same logic as the roads to nowhere, concrete boxes and other pork barrel projects. Of no use to anyone and a drain on future finances - but someone in a position of power makes a killing.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

I think perhaps they suddenly realised the horror of what they do and decided to give up for good.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Unbelievable totally unbelievable my tax paid for a whale hunt, and that didn't happen money down the drain. What next "accountability"?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

@cabbage

And yet, one of the primary arguments against whaling is that it is not profitable. How does that logic work?

See more at: http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/anti-whalers-say-japanese-fleet-heading-north#sthash.O0WCMvmn.dpuf

Yes, funny that isn't it. So, not only is it non-scientific and not part of modern Japanese culture but it also cannot be made profitable. So what's the point anyway?!?

Ministry of Fisheries staff tell me it's "stubborn pride" and the fear if they back down they will be seen as weak by the international community, especially China.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@letsberealistic

@cabbage

It wasn't particularly clever or witty when wtfjapan came up with it; It is less so when repeated by someone else.

Yes, funny that isn't it. So, not only is it non-scientific and not part of modern Japanese culture but it also cannot be made profitable. So what's the point anyway?!?

Well, some people see a paradox in their reasoning, and determine that perhaps one of their assumptions is not accurate. Others, they see a paradox, and promptly consider it even further evidence in support of their belief.

Ministry of Fisheries staff tell me it's "stubborn pride" and the fear if they back down they will be seen as weak by the international community, especially China.

I'm sure they do. I am just as sure that even if that is a factor, it isn't even in the running as one of the most significant factors at the international level.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Only 75 whales? Their vital research must be inadequate this season. More meat for storage. Seriously though, I think the only research the Japanese are doing is to see how much they can piss the rest if the world off without getting one of their ships sunk

3 ( +10 / -7 )

I have to say I am quite curious about the refueling issue, however. If it is indeed illegal, why isn't it even being mentioned by anyone other than the usual protest groups? This would be a bonafide violation of international law, caught on film, publicly acknowledge, and yet...nothing?

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Here's hoping that next year's catch is closer to zero, and that Japan is finally forced to abandon this disgusting enterprise.

Good job, Sea Shepherd! You're doing with your limited capacity what Australia and the international community should be doing with their navies.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Imingine this Heading >} Whale fights back after swolowlng multiple of mines, rams whaling mothership as being draggedonboard exploding and sinking the mothership instantly.Drowning all survivers in gore.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

"It makes no secret of the fact that the meat ends up on dinner tables."

In fact most of that whale meat ends up in storage. That may be the real reason only 75 whale were taken. Japan is running out of space.

Japanese whale hunting is a crock of bull from start to finish.

*Japan does not have a long tradition of whaling.

Japanese whaling is not research.

Japanese whaling in not profitable and a burden on tax payers in Japan.

Whale meat is not a staple in the Japanese diet. If anything it is a specialty. And not a particularly popular one.

Whale meat is not healthy, being full of dioxins.

Whaling, which is utterly useless, is creating bad relations with New Zealand and Japan.

Japan whaler could make real money by taking tourists to see the whales in the Antarctic sanctuary.

The hunting of whales has more to do with a lurid Japanese nationalism than with anything remotely practical.
5 ( +11 / -6 )

Way to go, SS! Keep it up!

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Great job by them. The sad part about this is even what they caught a majority of it will sit in freezers and not be purchased by consumers.

It was pathetic to see the fisheries state in defiance that they wouldn't quit, the way it was worded it seemed more like a act of stubbornness against the general consensus that people aren't keen on Japan using this loop hole as the excuse.

Japan talks about this being part of their culture ...but I don't remember Japan traveling along with Christopher Columbus hunting whale halfway around the world. Utter crap !

3 ( +7 / -4 )

If all these people can do is harass whalers and "save the whales" they need a life. They have a savior complex. Our greatest contribution to humanity is that I saved one whale while humanity goes to hell. They would be better off feeding the children. We live in self world and people would rather save a whale than save a person. Shame on them. Put your efforts into humanity.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Kent McgrawMAR. 02, 2013 - 09:57PM JST If all these people can do is harass whalers and "save the whales" they need a life. They have a savior complex. Our greatest contribution to humanity is that I saved one whale while humanity goes to hell. They would be better off feeding the children. We live in self world and people would rather save a whale than save a person. Shame on them. Put your efforts into humanity.

So Kent, what you are admitting to is that you are unable to make the connection between protecting the environment and the future of this earth and humanity. And that people don't work to protect the environment at the expense of doing nothing for humanity, that's just overly simplistic thinking.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Cabadaje

You are welcome to try to spin that report anyway that suits your agenda. Go ahead, I'm interested to see what you do with it. Around 55 reports 'scientific' have been submitted by Japan on their whaling. Only 14 of those have been deemed moderately relevent in their findings. Japan has continually been discouraged from continuing it's lethal research by the IWC scientific committee who deem it unnecessary. Haven't they.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Great job SS! Make the cost of whaling so high as to make the Japanese whalers looks foolish!

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I meant "creating bad relations with New Zealand and Australia."

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Tamarama

You are welcome to try to spin that report anyway that suits your agenda.

What report? Tell me which one and I will be happy to "spin" it for you (known to others as "read").

Go ahead, I'm interested to see what you do with it.

No problem. Please link me to the report (I have enough topics of my own interest taking my time to voluntarily undertake searches for other people).

Around 55 reports 'scientific' have been submitted by Japan on their whaling. Only 14 of those have been deemed moderately relevent in their findings.

By whom?

Japan has continually been discouraged from continuing it's lethal research by the IWC scientific committee who deem it unnecessary. Haven't they.

Have they? Considering that it is the IWC scientific committee that sets the limits which all whalers abide by, and that Japan not only doesn't go to their limits, it also rejects certain permits (for instance, even though the IWC committee gave them a limit for Humpbacks, the Japanese are continuing their voluntary suspension due to this whales endangered status), that would be quite surprising.

http://iwc.int/cache/downloads/acwmk3ii6f40s0sckc4wk8484/IWCCCG1040.pdf

Where did you hear this?

Where did you hear this?

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

@wtfjapan

75 whales @ 3billion yen + hunt, WOW that makes for really expensive meat!.

No worries, Looking forward to the contempt of court proceedings in the USA ( motions already filed ) with SSCS losing their tax exempt charity status and their headquarters in Friday harbour when damages are awarded to the ICR. That will indeed be an expensive SO jaunt for SSCS. The whaling fleet will be back in the SO next winter and as we all know, they`ll take their full quota in the North Pacific in the meantime, so easy come, easy go. In the end, the only thing that SSCS have achieved has been to get JARPA Scientific whaling program declared legal according to the US courts, and of course, SSCS to be finally declared to be carrying out illegal actions in the eyes of the Law

All in all, Pretty cool result for Japan :-)

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

I don't mind Japanese whaling for food but can they put a quota. I hate their reasons for research. It's plain BS.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Japan has continually been discouraged from continuing it's lethal research by the IWC scientific committee who deem it unnecessary. Haven't they.

Have they?

Yes they have.

RECALLING that the Commission has repeatedly requested Contracting Parties to refrain from issuing special permits for research involving the killing of whales within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, has expressed deep concern at continuing lethal research within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, and has also recommended that scientific research involving the killing of cetaceans should only be permitted where critically important research needs are addressed;.....CALLS UPON the Government of Japan to suspend indefinitely the lethal aspects of JARPA II conducted within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

http://archive.iwcoffice.org/meetings/resolutions/resolution2007.htm

it is the IWC scientific committee that sets the limits which all whalers abide by

Countries carrying out 'scientific research' under Article 8 set their own quotas. The IWC does not and cannot tell them how many whales they can 'research'.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@bajhista

I don't mind Japanese whaling for food but can they put a quota. I hate their reasons for research. It's plain BS.

They have a quota of 850 minkies

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Really, this is the season that the Sea Shepherd took that proverbial "step too far". They may have won the battle (heck, considering that for the first time since the moratorium the Japanese catch actually dropped below the 250 mark, sure, consider this a victory), but its a Pyrrhic victory at best.

Not that they have a great record. Their first Antarctic whaler interception was in 2005, even though they actually started in 2002. Problem was, well...they couldn't find the whaling ships. Incidentally, 2005 is the best Japanese catch since 1986, so...not so sure how useful they were. They were, however, ready and willing (and proud) to ram and foul propellers from the get-go.

The next four years all had higher catches than prior to 2002. The reason for this is largely that in 2002 the IWC began releasing permits for whales other than Minke (although they did top out their limit for Minkes). In 2008, we begin to see the catch dropping, now that the Sea Shepherd has corporate sponsorship (back in my day, this was called "selling out"). As of 2010, the number are back to pre-Sea Shepherd days, and as I mentioned, this years catch of 250 is the lowest catch since 1988...when Japan ceased objecting to the moratorium (we've been through the whole "coercion" thing, right?) and switched to special permits.

SO, basically...

The introduction of the Sea Shepherd also ushered in the era of the largest whale catches the Japanese had made in over a decade. For the first few years, they couldn't even find the whalers. When they did finally find the whalers, the numbers where still higher than before 2002, and only for the past 3 years have the numbers actually been where they were before the Sea Shepherd got involved (the Sea Shepherd has no problem spinning numbers to make themselves look good). This year, where they compounded their usual tactics of ramming other ships and fouling their million dollar propellers by breaking laws that all sea fairing countries consider not just international law, not just maritime law, but the laws of the sea (they rammed a fuel tanker, interfered with a refueling, and called out what will likely be ruled a false Mayday), they may well have lost what very little political capital they had left. It really would not surprise me to find the Sea Shepherd out of business before the next whaling season.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japan_whaling_since_1985.svg

Or, at least, as ineffective as they were the first 8 years into their mission.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

@ cabadaje

I have to say I am quite curious about the refueling issue, however. If it is indeed illegal, why isn't it even being mentioned by anyone other than the usual protest groups? This would be a bonafide violation of international law, caught on film, publicly acknowledge, and yet...nothing?

Refueling south of 60 degrees is perfectly legal - what`s against various treaties is refueling of Heavy fuel Oil, Which is what the NM used to run on. ( not any more, the NM was refitted ). What you have to remember is that most newspapers simply repeat what is said by SSCS or another journalistic source ( which usually comes from SSCS in the first place )

So if SSCS says its illegal, its simply repeated on and on in various media without anyone actually checking and facts for the most part - once upon a time, journalists actually did some research to verify facts before publishing a story, these days, it`s preety much repeating and rehashing news from other media sources.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

@ Cleo

Yes they have. RECALLING that the Commission has repeatedly requested Contracting Parties to refrain from issuing special permits for research involving the killing of whales within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, has expressed deep concern at continuing lethal research within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, and has also recommended that scientific research involving the killing of cetaceans should only be permitted where critically important research needs are addressed;.....CALLS UPON the Government of Japan to suspend indefinitely the lethal aspects of JARPA II conducted within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

Thats a resolution from the plenary commitee, not the Scientific commitee. The plenary commitee, is the political arena where the anti whaling countries can show their voters how green they are each year.

Here`s another resolution from the Plenary commitee of the IWC

REAFFIRMING the statement on safety at sea made at the Commission’s Intersessional Meeting held in Heathrow, UK, 6-8 March, 2008, which noted reports of dangerous actions by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in the Southern Ocean directed against Japanese vessels, called upon the SSCS to refrain from dangerous actions that jeopardise safety at sea, and on vessels and crews concerned to exercise restraint, condemned any actions that are a risk to human life and property in relation to the activities of vessels at sea, and again urged Contracting Governments to take actions, in accordance with relevant rules of international law and respective national laws and regulations, to cooperate to prevent and suppress actions that risk human life and property at sea and with respect to alleged offenders

http://iwc.int/cache/downloads/blps560ro0ocsckc0gwggwo8k/63-17.pdf

If SSCS wont follow the resolutions of the IWC plenary commitee, are you really surprised that Japan doesn t either?

The funny part is that SSCS says the IWC SO sanctuary gives them the mandate to do what they do ( amongst other things ) but ignore the IWC when they tell them to stop what they are doing...

They can`t have it both ways

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The introduction of the Sea Shepherd also ushered in the era of the largest whale catches the Japanese had made in over a decade.

2005 was the start of JARPA2, with an increased quota from 400 minke to 950 minke, 50 fin and 50 humpback. Do you have any links to show that the Japanese increased their quota in response to SS activity? I think you'll find the opposite is true. Before 2005, Japan consistently took more than the quota; since 2005 they have not once made the quota. Not for want of trying.

Since 2011 numbers taken have been way lower than pre-2005 levels.

in 2002 the IWC began releasing permits for whales other than Minke

Why do people keep repeating this rubbish? The IWC does not 'release permits' for 'research' whaling. Article 8 allows countries to issue their own permits. The IWC does not tell any country how many whales it can 'research' - though it has several times requested japan to desist.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

If SSCS wont follow the resolutions of the IWC plenary commitee, are you really surprised that Japan doesn t either?

Is SS a member of the IWC?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Seriously why do they whale? It's ridiculous and primitive!

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Sea Shepherd has also been hauled before the courts, with a U.S. judge banning the activists, in a December ruling, from physically confronting any vessel in the Japanese fleet.

They are also required to stay at least 500 yards from whaling vessels and prohibited from “navigating in a manner that is likely to endanger the safe navigation of any such vessel”.

An appeals court last week labelled Sea Shepherd “pirates”, clearing the way for the Japanese to pursue an injunction against their activities in the Southern Ocean, which were described as “violent acts for private ends”.

See more at: http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/anti-whalers-say-japanese-fleet-heading-north?utm_campaign=jt_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=jt_newsletter_2013-03-02_PM#sthash.hewewQVF.dpuf

I think this part of the article makes it pretty clear. I am not sure why Japan Today keeps posting articles featuring the liberalist nut bars who claim to be noble defenders of wildlife in the titles...they are hoodlums and trouble makers and hardly a good example to young people..lets keep the coverage balanced and non partisan please.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

@ cleo

Is SS a member of the IWC?

SSCS claims to base their actions on enforcing IWC mandates, ( Sourthern Ocean Sanctuary ) It`s the height of disingenious sophistry and hypocrisy to claim justification for your actions based on the resolutions of the IWC plenary commitee and then ignore the very same IWC resolutions when the IWC denounces your actions and requires you to desist.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

@ Cleo

Japan has lodged a formal objection to the sanctuary for minke whales and Japan isn`t whaling commercially in the SO sanctuary

Try reading up on how international treaties and obligations work.

In addition, I`d suggest reading IWC Document Number IWC/48/33. as to the legality of the SO sanctuary in the first place. Japan has asked the IWC to submit a case for the SO Sanctuary to a relevant legal body for judgement and analysis. The IWC has refused to do so.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

cleo - Is SS a member of the IWC?

Not any more. The eco-terrorist SS has been banned from IWC meetings since 1987 because of the eco-terrorist SS repeated acts of violence.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Militant anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd said Saturday the Japanese fleet had left the Antarctic whale sanctuary and appeared to be heading home with its smallest catch yet, hailing an “enormously successful” harassment campaign.

It appears that the eco-terrorist SS have created enough evidence that will allow the ICR and Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, LTD to win their case against the eco-terrorist SS and the fugitive Watson, in the U.S. court.

Cetacean sued under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, for injunctive and declaratory relief. The statute provides a cause of action for “a tort . . . committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” 28U.S.C. § 1350. Cetacean argues that Sea Shepherd’s acts amount to piracy and violate international agreements regulating conduct on the high seas.

The eco-terrorists will now become officially identified to all naions as pirates and future government actions will be taken against the pirate eco-terrorist SS organization. It's a win-win situation.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Cabadaje

What report? Tell me which one and I will be happy to "spin" it for you

Gee, that's interesting, because in your first post to me you implied I didn't understand the report, which also implies you must have read, and understood it better than I. You said;

Your comprehension of that report notwithstanding

So, I guess you haven't seen that report, huh? Well, that's embarrasing for you. Especially when you get to peruse the stunning findings it contains.

No problem. Please link me to the report (I have enough topics of my own interest taking my time to voluntarily undertake searches for other people).

I don't think so. Do your own homework - it's not my job to build your position for you. If you want to argue for whaling, then you should at least know your topic.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

This is a big victory for the whales, that's for sure. That the environmental-terrorists killed less than 75 whales shows the sea shepherd were very effective. Well done!

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Cabadaje

OK, actually, I will show you, because I feel a bit bad for you.

http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPAReview3ENG.html

Have a look at, for example, report; SC/D06/J20. But as you can see, there is plenty to read there.

If you take time to read it you will find such incredible findings as;

Whale stomach contents include fish.

Whale stomach contents include krill.

Based on the varying size of the krill in the stomach, it appears that whales do not have a preference for the size of their krill - 1mm, 2mm - they are all tasty.

And other such stunning findings.

The reason I know whales eat fish and krill, is because I've seen shows on the telly where they have filmed it happening. The nice thing about that is that they didn't kill them and eat them afterwards just to make sure.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Great job SS - if it weren’t for you, many more whales would be slaughtered. Yes, your methods may not be moral, but then again, neither are the whalers.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Japan isn`t whaling commercially in the SO sanctuary

Japan says it's carrying out 'research' to allow for commercial whaling to be resumed, but it stands to reason the IWC is not going to allow commercial whaling in a whale sanctuary; so either Japan is not carrying out bone fide research (actually that's a given) or they are giving notice that they have no intention of abiding by any restrictions the IWC may impose on commercial whaling should it ever restart. Blatant lack of good faith on the part of Japan.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@ Cleo

Japan says it's carrying out 'research' to allow for commercial whaling to be resumed,

Correct

but it stands to reason the IWC is not going to allow commercial whaling in a whale sanctuary;

You`re assuming the so called sanctuary is a permanent feature, which is incorrect, it is reviewed each decade. In addition, Japan has a reservation to minke whales in the SOS. Japan has no objection to the Indian ocean sanctuary and has no intentions of whaling there either.

so either Japan is not carrying out bone fide research (actually that's a given)

Incorrect, they are carrying out bona fide research ( who do you think collects the population data in the SO? Who do you think supplies the ships for the surveys in the SO? Who do you think finances the ships in the SO surveys?) Please inform yourself better.

or they are giving notice that they have no intention of abiding by any restrictions the IWC may impose on commercial whaling should it ever restart.

Please supply links to independant sources that state authoritively that Japan has no intentions of following IWC restrictions on commercial whaling in the SO should it ever restart.

Blatant lack of good faith on the part of Japan..

Now that is hilarious, as opposed to Australia?, who has no intention of fulfilling it`s obligations under the ICRW? Who has publicly stated that they will not suppost any return to commercial whaling? If Australia were acting in good faith, they would remove themselves from the IWC as they have no intentions of doing anything other than blocking any whaling other than aboriginal whatsoever.

Incidentally, Greece has quit the IWC, one less anti whaling vote and Mauritania can now vote again at the next IWC meeting in Korea :-)

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I hope they can catch as much as possible, then I will be able to eat some whales meat. It should be really good!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Australia?, who has no intention of fulfilling it`s obligations under the ICRW?

Those obligations being to your mind agreeing to and assisting in the killing of as many whales as possible?

When the IWC was established in 1946 the 'whaling industry' meant killing whales, but 67 years later the world has moved on; whale watching is now a greater source of income for the whaling industry. Working to conserve whale stocks to support the whale watching industry is well within the obligations of IWC members to support the orderly development of the (modern) whaling industry.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@ Cleo,

To my mind? Not at all, to the mind of the ICRW, the international agreement that Australia signed.

When the IWC was established in 1946 the 'whaling industry' meant killing whales, but 67 years later the world has moved on.

Some parts of the world have decided not to whale, others continue, it`s the right of IWC members to choose which course they want to follow or both.

whale watching is now a greater source of income for the whaling industry

Whale watching has been going on in Norway since the 90´s, and its **never** been a greater source of income to the fishermen who go whaling. Its also never brought in greater income in total than whling in Norway itself. Both whale watching and whaling are conducted in Norway, Iceland and Greenland, best of both worlds. Are you seriously claiming tha right to tell fishermen in another country the jobs and careers they should take? I cannot take that suggestion seriously and neither would they.

Working to conserve whale stocks to support the whale watching industry is well within the obligations of IWC members to support the orderly development of the (modern) whaling industry.

Whale stocks are not threatened by whaling - period.

Australia wants to end all whaling - period. They will not accept any kind of commerciial whaling - period. So please tell us how that reconciles with the countries who wish to whale?

Australia does not support any ( modern ) whaling

When you find links to independant sources that state authoritively that Japan has no intentions of following IWC restrictions on commercial whaling in the SO should it ever restart, let us know.

Great that you accept that Japan carries out research in the SO ( if you disagree, tell us who provides the data for IWC population figures and who finances this) I suggest you look up information on the SOWER surveys

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I do not see whale meat in our supermarket shelves in my area in Japan.

We do not eat whale and I do not know anyone who does.

I heard from people that whale was eaten long time ago in schools. After WWII there was not so much food. Today sometimes old people eat whale for nostalgic reason. Usually young people do not eat whale.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

wtf, it's "you're"

0 ( +2 / -2 )

it`s the right of IWC members to choose which course they want to follow

And that includes Australia and other countries that see the way forward to be non-lethal use. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make their opinion any less valid than the we're still living in the slash-and-grab world of a hundred years ago mob.

When you find links to independant sources that state authoritively that Japan has no intentions of following IWC restrictions on commercial whaling in the SO should it ever restart, let us know.

Japan states the objective of JARPA2 is Improving the management procedure for the Antarctic minke whale stocks. It also claims that the Southern Ocean Sanctuary is 'against the law' and that that gives them the right to do what they want there. Easy to see they have no intention of ever following IWC restrictions on whaling in the sanctuary, just as they are at the moment doing what they want (or would be without SS putting a mighty spanner in their works). http://www.icrwhale.org/QandA2.html#a28

Great that you accept that Japan carries out research in the SO

Sigh. Another vociferous one-topic poster who doesn't understand the English language. Japan says it's carrying out 'research' does not mean I agree with what Japan says.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@cleo

Sorry, been busy, didn't want you to think I was forgetting you.

Yes they have.

Okay, interesting, I will look at that link at length later on. At first blush I does seem like I may stand corrected regarding the Scientific Committee objecting to lethal measures (which still doesn't make sense to me, as I still haven't seen nor heard of any alternative methods to get the same data). When I read it a bit more carefully, I'll get back to you.

Countries carrying out 'scientific research' under Article 8 set their own quotas. The IWC does not and cannot tell them how many whales they can 'research'.

Yes, I spoke out of office on that. It is true that each nation is responsible for setting their own quotas and regulations regarding scientific whaling. It is also true that each nation is required to submit these quotas and regulations to the IWC Scientific Committee.

In turn the Scientific Committee reviews the permits and decides whether or not the quotas match the research proposed, as well as whether the sample size is appropriate, and even whether the research could be done non-lethally (among many other guidelines pertinent to biological research).

So, instead of saying that the IWC sets the quotas for the whales, a more correct response would be that the IWC makes sure that the quotas set are within acceptable parameters of research.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Tamarama

Gee, that's interesting, because in your first post to me you implied I didn't understand the report, which also implies you must have read, and understood it better than I.

It can also imply a general lack of confidence in your report-reading abilities.

So, I guess you haven't seen that report, huh? Well, that's embarrasing for you. Especially when you get to peruse the stunning findings it contains.

Assuming that you are correct, and the contents are indeed stunning (which is why I am skeptical of your account; few reports qualify as "stunning" in any way, shape, or form).

As for embarrassment, I do not view debates (particularly anonymous ones) as games or battles, with winners and losers. If I am wrong, I am wrong, and I admit it; there is not enough ego tied into my claims to cause me embarrassment. If I am not wrong, or I believe my argument is valid, I see no reason to not proclaim it (with proper support).

I don't think so. Do your own homework - it's not my job to build your position for you. If you want to argue for whaling, then you should at least know your topic.

Then I shall remain at my position, and you at yours.

Incidentally, I am not arguing for whaling. I am arguing against misdirection and irrationality.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Tamarama

OK, actually, I will show you, because I feel a bit bad for you.

Ah, so you did indeed manage to find it. Congratulations. That must have been an unnerving moment, not knowing where the source you thought was so well-published was actually located.

Have a look at, for example, report; SC/D06/J20. But as you can see, there is plenty to read there.

Yes, it is good to know whales research is actually resulting in data on whales. Most of us kind of take it for granted, considering the political weight involved and how politics often unfairly influences budget and support, yet nonetheless, here we are.

If you take time to read it you will find such incredible findings as; Whale stomach contents include fish. Whale stomach contents include krill. Based on the varying size of the krill in the stomach, it appears that whales do not have a preference for the size of their krill - 1mm, 2mm - they are all tasty. And other such stunning findings.

Well, being that it is only 5 pages long (the rest being supporting data), I did read it. Overall, I will re-iterate my stand: You do not know how to understand a scientific report. Particularly if all you pulled out of this one is that they eat fish and krill.

For crying out loud, it even tells you on the first page what the objectives of the report are. Them eating fish and krill wasn't even one of them; researchers already knew that (sorry, you seem to be the only one to use "stunning" in regards to that revelation). The objective of this search was to determine where and how much of the prey species was being consumed. The complementary purpose was to determine the whales impact on its ecological niche, and moreover, the effect of the environment on the whale.

I don't know if it qualifies as stunning, but there where some unexpected finds, and again, you can see these without even going beyond the abstract (scientists actually tell you ahead of time what they are doing and what they found; not very good storytellers, but at least they get to the point quickly). One of the surprised was finding out that pregnant females seem to congregate in places with relatively little food, compared to places that they know exist which have an abundance of food. That's the kind of behaviour whale biologists are really interested in knowing about.

You mock the question of prey size selectivity, but there isn't a single biologist out there who doesn't immediately understand the relevance of it. Asides from the obvious and immediate impact regarding prey population (which, by itself, is pretty damn significant), one of the most powerful forces influencing evolution is survival of the fittest, of which being eaten is one of the more direct tests out there. Yes, knowing what size prey the predator prefers, or whether there is any preference at all, is pretty important when trying to get a good overall picture of the environment an animal lives in.

Your next comment reflects the kind of thinking that occurs when you don't understand the purpose of a report:

The reason I know whales eat fish and krill, is because I've seen shows on the telly where they have filmed it happening. The nice thing about that is that they didn't kill them and eat them afterwards just to make sure.

And if you consider the telly to be a good source of education, then more power to you. Those with stronger levels of curiosity will still need a little more to go on, and they will still continue to be hired by the people with the cameras to tell them where the whales are eating the fish and krill, so they don't waste their time looking for creatures that spend 99% of their lives underwater. By reading reports such as the one you linked to, they know to film around the western slope if they are looking for the younger crowd, or in the Ross Sea if they are looking for the pregnant females. They also get a really good hook for their mysterious voice narrator:

"One of the great paradoxes surrounding these magnificent creatures is the tendency for the pregnant females to remove themselves from the bountiful western slopes, to the more barren Ross Sea..."

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I will look at that link at length later on

Heck, you're busy, no need to read at length. Just skim down the first bit of the Resolution on Jarpa - the Scientific Committee last year convened a workshop to analyse the results of JARPA 1, which is reported in SC/59/REP 1; NOTING that the Workshop agreed that none of the goals of JARPA 1 had been reached, and that the results of the JARPA 1 programme are not required for management under the RMP

instead of saying that the IWC sets the quotas for the whales, a more correct response would be that the IWC makes sure that the quotas set are within acceptable parameters of research.

So here we have the Scientific Committee stating clearly that the results of Jarpa are not required, yet still Japan ups its quota and continues 'researching' dead whales. So where do you get the bit about the Scientific Committee 'making sure' that the quotas are within acceptable parameters? Because I don't see it. All I see is Japan setting its own quotas.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@ Cleo

From the same report

In discussion, it was pointed out that this result indicated that the difference between commercial and JARPA ages in whales of intermediate ages (primarily 15-30 years old) was unlikely to be due to a learning effect. However, both readers were from the same ‘school’, so a bias affecting both readings was still possible. The Committee recommends further experiments (Annex G, Appendix 6) to provide additional insight into ageing errors.

Seems like they want more data anyway :-)

and that the results of the JARPA 1 programme are not required for management under the RMP.

You mean the RMP that the political Arm of the IWC won`t implement?

Cherry pick by the way - lets look at the full statement

The results from the JARPA programme, while not required for management under the RMP, have the potential to improve management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere in the following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios considered in Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure). The results of analyses of JARPA data could be used in this way perhaps to increase the allowed catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere, without increasing depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing Implementation Simulation Trials of the RMP for these minke whales. (IWC, 1998a)

Off for another giggle

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@ cleo

Seeing as the mods didnt like my last long post, Ill keep this one short

Sigh. Another vociferous one-topic poster who doesn't understand the English language. Japan says it's carrying out 'research' does not mean I agree with what Japan says.

I an british, it`s my mother tongue :-) ( incidentally MODS, hows the quote above for impolite? )

The IWC says Japan is carrying out research - you may disagree with the IWC of course, doesn`t help your arguments too much though

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

whoops, I am british typo :o)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Readers, no more bickering please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Latest news is that the whale killers are heading south again.

They are three days out of the whaling grounds, the weather is getting worse, the plankton blooms are dispersing and so too are the whales, so there is very little chance of them making more than a few token kills.

The icr claims that the quota of nearly 1000 dead whales is the minimum needed to produce significant data; there is no way at all they are going to kill anywhere near that number now, with less than a week of the season left and conditions deteriorating. Any killing done now will be simply gratuitous and meaningless. One more proof that the claim of 'research' is just a sham. Maybe they just want a bit more unesu to send home in cardboard boxes.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@cleo

Heck, you're busy, no need to read at length. Just skim down the first bit of the Resolution on Jarpa

No Cleo, you can't just "skim" down a resolution of any kind. For starters, resolutions are the conclusions; they won't tell you why the decision came to be. Second, without understanding the context, it is not always clear what the resolution is referring to; in extreme cases, this is referred to as "quote mining", but in smaller cases, it is known as cherry picking. Committees don't write huge reports and manifestos for the sole purpose of hearing themselves talk (unlike me); they write long reports because it is essential to explicitly state the context and environment around which a particular conclusion or decision is made.

So here we have the Scientific Committee stating clearly that the results of Jarpa are not required, yet still Japan ups its quota and continues 'researching' dead whales.

More accurately, we have the Commission stating the Scientific Committee claims the results are not required. Which begs the question: Required for what?

"Research" isn't some single, amorphous blob of knowledge that everyone can add to or take away from. Research has a specific purpose or direction. This is what I was talking about earlier when I spoke of context. It's the research version of someone saying "It needs to be 20% cooler (can you tell I have a goddaughter?)" Without understanding the context, we are left wondering "20% more than what?"

So, we do need to read the actual report. We can't just rely on skimming. And, when we read this report, we find 40+ pages of data after data, followed by the formal "the workshop welcomes this report/data/yadda yadda (which is basically their way of saying "good job"), summing up the gains from JARPA1. So, what's all this about "Not Required"?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@cleo

Well, the first thing to realize is that this workshop was actually planned 10 years prior. Back in 1997, they basically said "Okay, looks like we have something good here. Let's check this out again in a decade and see if we need to change anything." Sure enough, in 2007, they meet again. The first 3 pages of the report basically catch everyone up on what they are discussing. The next 30 pages are the actual reports. Those are a bit tough to read, but if you are into skimming, probably the area of interest is towards the end of each report, where you see the little blurb about the Workshop recognizing or welcoming the research, which is kind of like their stamp of approval. Now, keep in mind, the purpose of this report is to see how well JARPA1 met its objectives. According to this report, they did indeed. Where did that paragraph come from, though?

Okay, I can't seem to post certain excerpts from the report, so if you like, here is the link: http://iwc.int/cache/downloads/a9s2rpvbfyo8scowc8wgokswc/SC-59-Rep1.pdf I will try to post the specific sentences, but please understand that it is best to read page 31 in the above report, where I am, to gain a better understanding of the context presented here.

Although the Terms of Reference (ToR) specified this overview to include how well the initial and revised objectives of the research had been met, it was inevitable that the discussions at the Workshop would give rise to suggestions for further and/or refined analyses.

In this last section, the workshop makes it clear that they have already answered the preliminary question, and are now going to go ahead and see if the data they have could apply to questions we have now, 10 after the original. And the very first proposed offshoot topic (sometimes referred to as "new direction of research), we find:

8.1 Contribution to minke whale management If catch limits were to be set at some time in the future, the present approach the Scientific Committee has agreed to use for providing advice to the Commission on commercial whaling catch limits is that specified by the RMP. When it last considered this issue in 1997, the Committee agreed to the statement below. The results from the JARPA programme, while not required for management under the RMP, have the potential to improve management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere in the following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios considered in Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure). The results of analyses of JARPA data could be used in this way perhaps to increase the allowed catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere, without increasing depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing Implementation Simulation Trials of the RMP for these minke whales. The present Workshop concurred with that view.

So this paragraph is actually from the initial report back in 1997, and it is stating that, specifically in reference minke whale management in Antarctica, the idea has always been to set the limits specified by the RMP (which, incidentally, has not yet come into effect), and that they could choose a number without having all the data they could get in 10 years of research (How? Not really sure. Pull a number out of a hat, I guess). However, if they did have the data, they would be able to get a far more accurate picture of the stock structure in the southern sea, and not run into the risk of depletion risk in the event the RMP was wrong.

And now, 10 years later, the workshop agrees. Yes, they could have set limits based on the regs in the RMP (assuming they ratified it). However, with the massive wealth of information we gained over the last ten years, we are in a far better position to do it in.

Reading reports isn't fun. You have to do it several times before you are completely sure what it says. Always be wary with second-hand information, double-worry when no context is given, and triple-worry when all of this is done and a conclusion is based on the claim with your vote requested. That's an old trick designed to pass off questionable sources or conclusions as givens and make you focus instead on the proposed solution.

So here we have the Scientific Committee stating clearly that the results of Jarpa are not required, yet still Japan ups its quota and continues 'researching' dead whales.

No, I'm afraid not. It sounds like it, doesn't it? But when one goes to the source, when one looks at the context...that's when we find things amiss. The Scientific Committee did not make a blanket declaration that 10 years of research were completely useless. That was the Commission, which is a plenary body, which means it does not require people who are experienced in reading scientific reports. The quote they used was not from the report they sourced, but was from a report back in 1997. And the quote was not about JARPA data being useless, but rather about how useful JARPA data could be.

Always check the source. People lie. Data doesn't.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

cabadaje

Ah, so you did indeed manage to find it. Congratulations. That must have been an unnerving moment, not knowing where the source you thought was so well-published was actually located.

Not really - you were the one that wasn't sure where to find it, when it can be found in the most obvious of places.

Yes, it is good to know whales research is actually resulting in data on whales.

They do have to actually maintain the pretence that it is a legitimate Scientific Program, so of course there are 'reports' and 'data'. It seems to matter not to you that only a handful of them are considered moderately 'relevant'. That doesn't seem like very effective science to me, but perhaps you are happy with it. Like the Japanese.

You mock my ability to comprehend this report, but I put it to you that none of the things you cite as 'interesting' need to be done by killing 1000 whales a year. In fact, apart from measuring how much a whale consumes, there are clearly plenty of non-lethal ways of collecting much of the data cited in this report, or any of the other reports. If you know as much about biology as you purport to, you should be able to see that. Even if you can't, the scientists at the IWC and independent bodies who analyse this data can. Hence their disapproval of the program and the fact that the vast majority of these reports are considered useless. I defer to their judgement, with all due respect.

So, if you have swallowed this line - that this is actually effective and relevant science, I'm afraid you have no credibility in my eyes, posturing or otherwise.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@Tamarama

Not really - you were the one that wasn't sure where to find it, when it can be found in the most obvious of places.

Yes, alongside all the other reports made in the ten year span of JARPA. Strangely, I tried searching for krill, fish, eat, and all the other useful keywords I had available, but still couldn't quite pin it down, even with your description (such as it was).

They do have to actually maintain the pretence that it is a legitimate Scientific Program, so of course there are 'reports' and 'data'.

Pretty good pretense. Going on close to 25 years now, and despite the literally hundreds of researchers who have gone through these reports, you don't see an uproar in the scientific community about how these guys are mooching off the international group while producing nothing.

It seems to matter not to you that only a handful of them are considered moderately 'relevant'.

Considering that you keep repeating this, and I keep asking you who exactly is referring to these as "moderately relevant", and I haven't gotten a source, well, I am just going to have to assume that, as you have demonstrated here, you read a report incorrectly.

That doesn't seem like very effective science to me, but perhaps you are happy with it. Like the Japanese.

Yes, well, you already have my opinion regarding your ability to judge scientific merit.

You mock my ability to comprehend this report, but I put it to you that none of the things you cite as 'interesting' need to be done by killing 1000 whales a year.

Which has little to nothing to do with comprehending the report.

In fact, apart from measuring how much a whale consumes, there are clearly plenty of non-lethal ways of collecting much of the data cited in this report, or any of the other reports.

And as long as you keep repeating that, I will repeat my response: How?

Eventually, the mod will tell us to stop going around in circles.

If you know as much about biology as you purport to, you should be able to see that.

I've never claimed to know anything about biology. What I claim, I source. I would judge my own level of knowledge around first year, maybe second year college level, mostly out of personal interest.

Even if you can't, the scientists at the IWC and independent bodies who analyse this data can.

So you keep saying.

Hence their disapproval of the program and the fact that the vast majority of these reports are considered useless.

If you are talking about the previous "disapproval" that Cleo brought up, then you aren't talking about the scientists or independent bodies. It's right in the name: The IWC Plenary Committee. Everyone's invited. Scientific cred not required.

I defer to their judgement, with all due respect.

I'll stick with the scientists, not the politicians.

So, if you have swallowed this line-

The one you made about this report consisting of nothing but the claim that whales eat fish and shrimp?

-that this is actually effective and relevant science, I'm afraid you have no credibility in my eyes, posturing or otherwise.

Being that this is the internet, credibility isn't something that can be seen. It can only be displayed, in the open, for anyone to see. I have made my arguments, I have sourced them, and I have remained on point. You made an argument, did not source it, refused to source it when asked, finally sourced it, refused to acknowledge the counter, tried to change the topic, created a straw-man ad hom (which was actually somewhat clever in concept) of my claiming to be an expert, used that strawman to segue into an incorrect statement regarding the make-up of the IWC Committee (either unintentionally, meaning you honestly did not know that these are two separate groups, or intentionally, meaning...anyway-), and ended with the change of topic you tried earlier, supporting it with the assumption of your own credibility on the matter.

And yet...the purpose of the report was not to tell us that whales eat fish and krill.

I will be content to allow others to determine the credibility of both arguments.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

From P31 of the report:

The results from the JARPA programme, while not required for management under the RMP...

Sorry, you don't like this but it's clear as clear can be, in black and white. While Japan insists that its 'research' is aimed at establishing numbers for the management of whaling, Jarpa is not required for the management of whale stocks.

the Workshop has not developed agreed estimates of abundance and trend for Antarctic minke whales in the JARPA research area at the present time

In other words, after nearly two decades and tens of thousands of dead whales, the 'research' has still not produced the desired results, ie., agreed estimates of numbers. The 'research' may have produced other results (such as experiments in fertilising pig and bovine ova with whale semen) so it isn't 'completely useless' (in the same way that if I use five gallons of milk to try and make cheddar cheese and end up instead with an amorphous blob of inedible gunk, my efforts aren't completely useless: at least I can feed the gunk to the dog and use the whey to make bread; but that's an awful lot of perfectly good milk ruined) but it hasn't done what it set out to do, and if after a quarter of a century the only results they can produce are 'not required', then it's time to stop.

If what Japan is doing is 'research', and the self-determined quota of 1000 dead whales is the minimum number needed to obtain results, why, when they this year have less than one-tenth of that number, is the whaling fleet heading back south to the whaling grounds as conditions worsen and there is no prospect of them taking more than a few more whales? The 'research' for this year (and the past few years) is so far below the 'minimum' quota that no meaningful data can be obtained; so why are they hellbent on killing more?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Yes, alongside all the other reports made in the ten year span of JARPA. Strangely, I tried searching for krill, fish, eat, and all the other useful keywords I had available, but still couldn't quite pin it down, even with your description (such as it was).

Exactly. I wonder why you didn't look there first?

Pretty good pretense. Going on close to 25 years now, and despite the literally hundreds of researchers who have gone through these reports, you don't see an uproar in the scientific community about how these guys are mooching off the international group while producing nothing.

You think so? Again, you'd better do more research. Oh wait, that's my job, right?

Look at: Whaling as Science. Phillip J. Clapham

Nobel Laureates? Leading Biologists? Distinguished Scientists? Nah, they wouldn't really know much about the science of whaling. There are many other similar criticisms, you don't need to look too hard. You can find them.

I would judge my own level of knowledge around first year, maybe second year college level, mostly out of personal interest.

I'm not all that interested in the snide little backhanders about intelligence. You have declared you are content with the lethal science, I have declared I am not. I have provided a source of scientists who have questioned the validity of the methods and findings and which you claim don't exist. Interestingly, you will note that one of the criticisms they make is that the Japanese 'research' is self-serving. That is, it is designed to justify the restarting of commercial whaling program by establishing that the whales are overeating krill and fish stocks. What do those collective reports we looked at tend to focus on? Exactly that. Recently, the Japanese minister simply stated that whaling is a cultural pursuit in Japan - that Japan has a cultural right to whale. In light of the criticisms of the scientific community, and such frank admissions by the Minister, the argument for scientific whaling seems rather moot to me.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@cleo

In other words, after nearly two decades and tens of thousands of dead whales, the 'research' has still not produced the desired results, ie., agreed estimates of numbers.

Look at SCRepFiles2012/SC-Report-Final.pdf

P37 table 9. Population agreed at 515,000

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@ cabadaje

The IWC Plenary Committee. Everyone's invited. Scientific cred not required.

Not quite, Paul Watson and Sea shepherd are banned from the IWC ;-)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

P37 table 9. Population agreed at 515,000

Humpback whale population agreed at 42,000, without killing a single one for 'research'. Why do minke have to be killed to be counted, when humpbacks don't?

I see no one is able to offer any insight as to why, with the season almost over and no prospect of taking more than a very few 'samples' that will still leave numbers this year far too low to be of any statistical use, the whalers are heading south.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@ Cleo

Humpback whale population agreed at 42,000, without killing a single one for 'research'. Why do minke have to be killed to be counted, when humpbacks don't?

Who says minkies need to be killed to be counted?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

eyeon - The whalers seem to think it's necessary to kill the minke in order to count them - counting a minke apparently involves needing to know what and how much it ate for dinner and where, exactly how old it is and how many babies it's carrying, yet for humpbacks just numbers is enough. And counting minke requires that nearly 1000 of them cop it, while fin whale requires only 10 'samples' for relevant 'research' to be done. If they can get results from 10 fin, why do they need 950 minke?

Just one more 'argument' on the part of the whale killers showing that while they say the name of the game is 'research', what they're doing is simply grabbing as much meat as possible. Hence their present U-turn back to the Southern Ocean.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@cleo

Sorry, you don't like this but it's clear as clear can be, in black and white.

Cleo, I don't understand how you can tell yourself, with a straight face, that you can cut up a sentence and declare that one particular snippet clearly shows, in black and white, what the entire sentence is saying. I mean, seriously, you literally stopped at the point most convenient to your belief system, and completely ignored the existence of the entire main body of the sentence...that's beyond cherry-picking. I'm not even sure there is a word for it; It's like cutting up a newspaper article and pasting the fragments of sentences back together to emphasize a point the newspaper was actively not emphasizing.

Look, you have, on a few occasions, publicly berated myself and others regarding our comprehension of the English language. "While" is a Subordinate Conjunction. The purpose of a subordinate conjunction is to link a dependent subordinate clause to an independent main clause. In other words, a clause that has no subject of its own, makes no sense on its own, and only exists to qualify an existing clause is attached to the actual main clause, which has its own subject, its own predicate, and which stands utterly unchanged by the existence or non-existence of the subordinate clause.

If we remove the subordinate clause, the main sentence continues to makes sense:

The results from the JARPA programme have the potential to improve management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere in the following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios considered in Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure).

Whereas the dependent subordinate clause does not:

while not required for management under the RMP

You cannot take a sentence whose entire purpose is to explain the ways in which a program will improve something, and pretend that the subordinate clause makes it say that it is completely useless. At a minimum, it is bad grammar. At the other extreme, it is outright denial.

While Japan insists that its 'research' is aimed at establishing numbers for the management of whaling, Jarpa is not required for the management of whale stocks.

Japan has never even pretended that this was the sole purpose of research.

the Workshop has not developed agreed estimates of abundance and trend for Antarctic minke whales in the JARPA research area at the present time

Nor had it developed them back 10 years previously, when the quote was made (going on 17 years now). Note again that the RMP had still not been ratified back then, had still not been ratified in 2007 when this report came out, and is still not ratified today. And this is the RMP that the above subordinate clause is referring to.

In other words, after nearly two decades and tens of thousands of dead whales, the 'research' has still not produced the desired results, ie., agreed estimates of numbers.

Oh, come on now...I gave you the link, I told you the page number, I talked about the objectives of the research...was all that time wasted? Didn't you even glance at the only two pages I referenced out of the entire report?

The 'research' may have produced other results (such as experiments in fertilising pig and bovine ova with whale semen)

Nope. Not even remotely connected. That was an entirely different line of research.

so it isn't 'completely useless' (in the same way that if I use five gallons of milk to try and make cheddar cheese and end up instead with an amorphous blob of inedible gunk, my efforts aren't completely useless: at least I can feed the gunk to the dog and use the whey to make bread; but that's an awful lot of perfectly good milk ruined) but it hasn't done what it set out to do, and if after a quarter of a century the only results they can produce are 'not required', then it's time to stop.

Unless, of course, everyone is looking at you strangely because you are feeding perfectly good cheese to your dog. Just because you don't recognize cheese doesn't mean that it isn't cheese.

If what Japan is doing is 'research', and the self-determined quota of 1000 dead whales is the minimum number needed to obtain results, why, when they this year have less than one-tenth of that number, is the whaling fleet heading back south to the whaling grounds as conditions worsen and there is no prospect of them taking more than a few more whales? The 'research' for this year (and the past few years) is so far below the 'minimum' quota that no meaningful data can be obtained; so why are they hellbent on killing more?

Well, my answer in two parts is that A) I would need to know the source of that claim, and B) Any data is better than no data.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"While" is a Subordinate Conjunction. The purpose of a subordinate conjunction is to link a dependent subordinate clause to an independent main clause. In other words, a clause that has no subject of its own, makes no sense on its own, and only exists to qualify an existing clause is attached to the actual main clause, which has its own subject, its own predicate, and which stands utterly unchanged by the existence or non-existence of the subordinate clause.

I used to have Japanese students who could analyse the grammar of a sentence in minute detail but had no idea what it meant, until I paraphrased it for them. (I used to have Japanese students who, while they had no idea what it meant, could analyse the grammar of a sentence in minute detail)

while not required for management under the RMP the results from the JARPA programme have the potential to blah blah blah is the same as the results from the JARPA programme are not required for management under the RMP, but they have the potential to blah blah blah

the subordinate clause makes it say that it is completely useless

There you go again. No one as far as I know is saying it is completely useless. Its limited usefulness is not commensurate with the price paid.

Not even remotely connected. That was an entirely different line of research.

Proudly included by the icr in their list of Lookit All the Fine Peer-Reviewed Research We're Doing from JARPA/JARPA2.

http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPA91paper.html

everyone is looking at you strangely because you are feeding perfectly good cheese to your dog. Just because you don't recognize cheese doesn't mean that it isn't cheese.

Hey, I love my dog, I do feed him perfectly good cheese (in moderation). What the whalers are doing, and being looked at very strangely on account of, is feeding the dog gunk and calling it not only perfectly good cheese, but absolutely essential, culturally-dictated dog food sorry we mean people food. In the meantime vast amounts of perfectly good milk are being sacrificed to no good purpose, with 40% simply dumped out at sea. (Can you manage the mutatis mutandis?)

A) I would need to know the source of that claim, and B) Any data is better than no data.

A) SS claim that they are once again in pursuit of the fleet, which is heading southwards. Yes, I know, you aren't interested in anything SS has to say.

B) Any scientist or statistician will tell you that that is simply not true. Would you take, say, the opinions expressed in the first five posts on JT on any given day as being representative of the expat community as a whole and extrapolate them to all non-Japanese? I hope not.

They're after a couple more whales either to 'prove' they haven't been driven out of the SO, as a token to make the trip a little bit less embarrassing, or to get more meat for the market (or, more likely, for the cardboard boxes). None of which have anything at all to do with legitimate scientific research.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@Tamarama

Exactly. I wonder why you didn't look there first?

You wonder, even after I told you? Like I said, your description that it was a report about whales eating fish and krill didn't really narrow it down at all.

You think so? Again, you'd better do more research. Oh wait, that's my job, right?

Nope. Your job is to source your claims. If you don't source your claims, then they aren't claims, they are opinions.

Look at: Whaling as Science. Phillip J. Clapham

Okay. What am I looking for?

Nobel Laureates? Leading Biologists? Distinguished Scientists? Nah, they wouldn't really know much about the science of whaling.

Well, that's not an accurate thing to say. After all, of the 21 signatures on the open letter, a good 17 of them work directly on ocean related research, some directly on cetacean research. While the remaining aren't directly involved in ocean research, they are involved in the biological sciences (although the organic chemistry guy might be a little bit of a stretch).

But that isn't actually all that bad, considering that the main point of the letter isn't actually about whales so much as the quality of the research. This letter was published in the "Viewpoint" section of BioScience (a pretty reputable scientific journal) which prompted responses accusing the signatories of not understanding the science behind the issues and pushing valid science aside for the sake of a political cause. While that seems a bit harsh, considering that some of these people are actually cetacean researchers, having read the article, I can sort of see their point.

One of the first thing that springs out to me is that the main argument regarding lethal research is that it isn't needed for population estimation. Agreed. However, population research is not the sole purpose of whaling research. Similarly, the main objection to whaling is not that the data is incorrect, but rather that it is not sufficiently accurate, which to my mind begs the question of whether observation or biopsy could somehow be more accurate in regards to the state of pregnancy, consumption level and type, environmental hazard (how do you tell how much mercury is in a whale's organ from the outside?), or morphological adaption. Additionally, they continue to make references to the RMP as if it were in full effect, which it wasn't in 2002, and still isn't today. These were the biggest points in the two page paper published in the opinion section of the journal that would make me wonder why trained scientist would make objections that would really have almost no scientific significance except under such specific circumstances.

There are many other similar criticisms, you don't need to look too hard. You can find them.

I'm sure I could. Heck, I'm sure I could find some from from actual IWC scientists as well (of which Clapman is one). The question, however, isn't whether I can find criticism; there's plenty of that in any subject, let alone controversial ones. The question is who you are referring to every time you claim that "they" claim that most of the research (according to you, a mere handful) is "moderately relevant". This paper certainly doesn't. It claims it could have been done less lethally (although it only makes one reference to the least difficult portion of the research), it claims the IWC is not well-organized (in terms of publishing and organizing research), and it accuses the Japanese of not sharing data (which anyone here in a research role will recognize as a common complaint from external departments), but it doesn't ever claim that the data gathered is not relevant.

I would judge my own level of knowledge around first year, maybe second year college level, mostly out of personal interest.

I'm not all that interested in the snide little backhanders about intelligence.

Then don't make them. Making a snide remark about someone's intelligence waives your right to complain when they refute your remark without making a snide comment about your intelligence in return.

Besides which, it isn't even your intelligence which is driving the discussion, but rather your rationality.

You have declared you are content with the lethal science, I have declared I am not.

Actually, no, I have declared that I understand why lethal science is done, and don't see alternatives that would gather the same information.

I have provided a source of scientists who have questioned the validity of the methods and findings and which you claim don't exist.

Except that I have never claimed that they don't exist.

Interestingly, you will note that one of the criticisms they make is that the Japanese 'research' is self-serving. That is, it is designed to justify the restarting of commercial whaling program by establishing that the whales are overeating krill and fish stocks.

Which is why most of the criticisms of that paper remark that the true purpose was to push a political goal (an end to whaling), rather than to accurately address the more complex points of the research. Although, to be fair, it was only a two page comment piece, and Clapman has written much more extensive and detailed refutations of the research process of the IWC.

What do those collective reports we looked at tend to focus on? Exactly that.

I know, right? Really, with all the different avenues of research, and just about the only research venue that can be done non-lethally being population, why do you suppose most of the opponents would focus on population when commenting on how whaling could be done non-lethally?

What a mystery.

Recently, the Japanese minister simply stated that whaling is a cultural pursuit in Japan - that Japan has a cultural right to whale. In light of the criticisms of the scientific community, and such frank admissions by the Minister, the argument for scientific whaling seems rather moot to me.

You think that's recent? In all cases, I tend to agree. It is high time to get rid of the silly excuse for a moratorium for the purpose of research and replace it with something derived from the much more ample store of knowledge we have today, such as whaling limits set by actual population, migration, and genetic sampling, as opposed to a set of regulations that have been sitting idle for the better part of 20 years (the RMP), which even Clapman derides as not being ecosystem based.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@ cleo

eyeon - The whalers seem to think it's necessary to kill the minke in order to count them

No, this is simply untrue. You may believe it, but it has little to do with reality.

counting a minke apparently involves needing to know what and how much it ate for dinner and where, exactly how old it is and how many babies it's carrying, yet for humpbacks just numbers is enough.

Once again, wrong. Other areas of research require lethal sampling. The reason they are not doing lethal sampling on humpbacks i have already stated above. If and when they begin hunting humpbacks, they will collect other data sets from those as well

Population numbers are done via line transect surveys, a non lethal sampling method, although it`s interesting that due to interference by SSCS, they have not been able to conduct these the last few years - I seriously doubt that the IWC are overly happy that they are not getting this data, especially when Japan finances the ships and the surveys.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

If and when they begin hunting humpbacks, they will collect other data sets from those as well

They're already hunting fin, but apparently 50 is enough. (I said 10 before, my mistake, it's 5x worse - but still a lot less than the minke)

it`s interesting that due to interference by SSCS, they have not been able to conduct these the last few years

SS tries to prevent them shooting whales and loading them for butchering. So do you have any evidence of SS interfering with the peaceful widdle whalers engaged in non-lethal sampling methods? Just quietly trundling up and down the Southern Ocean whale-spotting and jotting numbers down on a bit of paper??

I seriously doubt that the IWC are overly happy that they are not getting this data

Sorry, trouble with your English skills again. Are you saying you think the IWC are not happy that they are not getting the data, or that you think the IWC isn't fussed about not getting the data?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@ Cleo

So do you have any evidence of SS interfering with the peaceful widdle whalers engaged in non-lethal sampling methods? Just quietly trundling up and down the Southern Ocean whale-spotting and jotting numbers down on a bit of paper??

Certainly :-)

10.8.3.2 REPORT OF THE 2011/12 CETACEAN SIGHTING SURVEY IN THE ANTARCTIC Plans for a dedicated sighting survey in the Antarctic in the 2011/12 austral summer season were presented last year and subsequently endorsed by the Committee (IWC, 2012f). The research vessels Yushin-Maru No 2 and Yushin-Maru No 3 were to survey in Area IIIE, Area IV and western part of Area V. The survey methods were to be the same as in IWC-SOWER surveys, and trackline design was improved to provide approximately uniform coverage probability. Furthermore, the planned sighting procedure was in accordance with the guidelines agreed by the Scientific Committee (IWC, 2012v). Unfortunately no research activity could be conducted due to external violent interference by an anti-whaling group (SC/64/IA8). The Committee expresses regret that these actions had prevented the sighting survey from being conducted as reportedly planned. Following the cessation of the IDCR/SOWER programme in 2009, these surveys now provide the only dedicated cetacean sighting data in this region of the Southern Ocean that might be used for abundance estimation, and as such are extremely valuable to the work of the Scientific Committee.

From the IWC scientific committee report for 2012 ( SCRepFiles2012/SC-Report-Final.pdf )

Sorry, trouble with your English skills again. Are you saying you think the IWC are not happy that they are not getting the data, or that you think the IWC isn't fussed about not getting the data?

The Committee expresses regret that these actions had prevented the sighting survey from being conducted as reportedly planned.

No apologies neccessary..

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I'm happy to hear about SS's success. I've always been a supporter. Stand up for what you believe in.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

eyeon - That's strange, because during the 2011-2012 season, the Yushin Maru 3 spent a lot of its time with the Shonan Maru 2 chasing the Steve Irwin around Macquarie Island - not much trundling up and down peacefully watching whales going on there.

According to the icr cruise report for 2011-2012, 684 minke were sighted, of which 266 were 'sampled' (killed). Maybe the claim of non-lethal sighting surveys would have more credibility if they weren't using harpoon vessels and killing nearly 40% of all the whales sighted?

http://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/SC6402.pdf

Going off on a bit of a tangent - if they see only 684, what's with the quota of 950? Where's the logic that says you should aim to kill more than you can even find?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@ Cleo

That's strange, because during the 2011-2012 season, the Yushin Maru 3 spent a lot of its time with the Shonan Maru 2 chasing the Steve Irwin around Macquarie Island - not much trundling up and down peacefully watching whales going on there.

I suggest you look up why ( clue, it`s in the report ).

According to the icr cruise report for 2011-2012, 684 minke were sighted, of which 266 were 'sampled' (killed). Maybe the claim of non-lethal sighting surveys would have more credibility if they weren't using harpoon vessels and killing nearly 40% of all the whales sighted?

Going off on a bit of a tangent - if they see only 684, what's with the quota of 950? Where's the logic that says you should aim to kill more than you can even find?

'Your lack of knowledge on how line transect surveys work and how they come to abundance estimates from the data is impressive. I suggest you google " line transect surveys whales " and inform yourself.

The Line transect surveys have IWC, non Japanese personel / observers onboard usually, perhaps you would like to question their credibility? Google "Paul Ensor, Sower" - hes a Kiwi, or " Martin Cawthorne" also a Kiwi . I don't think Martin`s been on the surveys for a while ( I may be Wrong ) but I do know that Paul was on the surveys up until a few years ago ( he may very well still be on them )

I will add that I find it distasteful when the credibilty of hard working researchers is questioned for the sake of an obvious anti whaling agenda, but considering we are discussing Sea shepherd, I`m not overly surprised

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The Line transect surveys have IWC, non Japanese personel / observers onboard usually, perhaps you would like to question their credibility? Google "Paul Ensor, Sower" - hes a Kiwi, or " Martin Cawthorne" also a Kiwi .

You think nationality offers credibility? The bloke who does the PR for the icr, Glenn Inwood, is a Kiwi. Most of the pro-whaling posters on JT are non-Japanese. The SS ships have Japanese crew members. Race/nationality means nothing. Let's keep cheap racist innuendos out of this, shall we?

I will add that I find it distasteful when the credibilty of hard working researchers is questioned

I find it more than distasteful when animals are killed wantonly and inhumanely for the sake of a blatant lie. I don't care how 'hard-working' the 'researchers' might be, if they're aiding the mealy-mouthed whaling industry in any way, they have no credibility as impartial observers. It's their choice who they jump into bed with.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@ Cleo

I find it more than distasteful when animals are killed wantonly and inhumanely for the sake of a blatant lie.

Ah, the animal rights arguement :)

So do you accept all whaling other than Japanese whaling? ( You seem to believe Japanese whaling is a lie, feel free to correct me if not )

I don't care how 'hard-working' the 'researchers' might be,if they're aiding the mealy-mouthed whaling industry in any way, they have no credibility as impartial observers.

Interesting concept, the International Whaling Commission sends impartial observers on the Japanese non lethal line transect surveys, and as far as you are concerned, they have no credibility.

Uhuh ..

Logically it follows on that you consider the IWC to have no credibility in that case. But if Sea shepherd claim they are enforcing the SOS established by the IWC. Why are SSCS then claiming enforcement of the SOS by a body that has no credibility in your / their eyes?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Ah, the animal rights arguement

No, animals don't have rights unless we bestow rights on them. More the don't you know any better than to inflict suffering on dumb animals? argument.

So do you accept all whaling other than Japanese whaling?

I don't accept any whaling except the watching kind. You seem to have some kind of fixation on nationality?

the International Whaling Commission sends impartial observers.....as far as you are concerned, they have no credibility

You can't accept money to go on a working harpoon ship, share space with people actively engaged in killing whales, do nothing to stop them, and claim to be impartial.

But if Sea shepherd claim they are enforcing the SOS established by the IWC

Sea Shepherd have their own rationale for what they do. I have no respect for anyone who kills animals for a living in a cruel, inhumane and painful way, wherever they do it.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@ Cleo

You can't accept money to go on a working harpoon ship, share space with people actively engaged in killing whales, do nothing to stop them, and claim to be impartial

The survey ship is not actively engaged in hunting whales, they are doing a non lethal survey, which part of this are you having trouble comprehending?

Incidentally, I think you should really look up the meaning of the word " impartial " Here`s the Miriam Webster definition : not partial or biased : treating or affecting all equally

English can be difficult sometimes :)

Sea Shepherd have their own rationale for what they do. I have no respect for anyone who kills animals for a living in a cruel, inhumane and painful way, wherever they do it.

uhuh.. So going by that logic, you shouldn`t have any problems with the 80% of Norwegian minkies hunted that die instantly.

Somehow though, I suspect that not to be the case :-)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

cabadaje

Oh dear.

Your job is to source your claims. If you don't source your claims, then they aren't claims, they are opinions.

The claim, my friend, is yours. You see, you said this;

Going on close to 25 years now, and despite the literally hundreds of researchers who have gone through these reports, you don't see an uproar in the scientific community about how these guys are mooching off the international group while producing nothing.

I then provided you with a link to a report that directly contradicts this claim. Your claim. A report triggered by the controversy surrounding a letter published in the New York Times in 2002 by a number of leading scientists and biologists, inclusive of 3 Nobel Laureates, who question the validity and quality of the Japanese research findings, as well as the methods. I'm not sure how much more publically and unequivically they need to state it, but anyway. Claphams report contains a link to a far more detailed deconstruction of the merits of Japan's scientific whaling program.

The delicious irony for me is that you go on to point out how credible the scientists are in their field, seemingly unawares that I was being facetious when I said;

Nobel Laureates? Leading Biologists? Distinguished Scientists? Nah, they wouldn't really know much about the science of whaling.

Beautiful. Further, you go on to articulate the exact reasons I provided it as a counter to your point, Including the fact that it touches upon criticisms coming from the Scientific Committee members, yes, including Clapham.

but it doesn't ever claim that the data gathered is not relevant

No? Not this;

IWC does not include ecosystem based management; consequently, none of the information derived from the feeding ecology study is relevent to the manner in which the IWC assesses and manages whale populations.

Other fundamental problems include a lack of testable hypotheses or performance measures, innapropriate use of ecosystem models and failure to include sensitivity analyses and key data on other ecosystem components; selective or innapropriate use of data or methods in estimating whale abundance, unnecessary reliance on lethal sampling, innapropriate geographic sampling for population structuring analysis

Lets keep looking.

In short, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that JARPN II exists to demonstrate - all data to the contrary notwithstanding - that whales eat too much fish and therefore should be culled by more whaling.

He goes on to call the scientific results of the Antarctic hunt 'remarkably poor' - and points out that only 1 of the 150 articles produced by the Japanese scientists made it to a peer reviewed journal. He says;

JARPA's failure to publish in international refereed journals says much about the quality and motives of it's science

And

Today, so little of any significance to the IWC can be obtained from only whaling catches that it is impossible to justify killing animals on this basis

He finishes with this;

researchers are right to speak out if they believe commercial activities are being misrepresented as science. In our views, there has barely been a more egrarious example of this misrepresentation that Japan's Scientific whaling program

It is unequivocal. His position is crystal clear. You spin it any way you like, but I suggest prudence if you try.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The survey ship is not actively engaged in hunting whales, they are doing a non lethal survey, which part of this are you having trouble comprehending?

I read the report through again, and you know, I can't find any reference to SS interfering in any non-lethal surveys. What it says is that because of SS the YM2 and YM3, that were supposedly doing the non-lethal sighting survey, 'had to dedicate to security tasks'. Seems they thought killing whales was more important than counting them. And they killed nearly 40% of all minke sighted.

the meaning of the word " impartial " Here`s the Miriam Webster definition : not partial or biased : treating or affecting all equally

And let's face it, if you're happy sitting on a whaling ship and happy to abandon your non-lethal sighting survey to try and ensure more whales killed, you're not treating both sides equally; you're throwing in your lot with the killers. Unless of course you can find any reference to these impartial scientists making a formal complaint about their work being made to take a back seat to the harpoon wallahs.

you shouldn`t have any problems with the 80% of Norwegian minkies hunted that die instantly

= 20 % don't die instantly (probably higher than that, since they conveniently count 'death' as simply 'the whale isn't moving').

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@cleo

And let's face it, if you're happy sitting on a whaling ship and happy to abandon your non-lethal sighting survey to try and ensure more whales killed, you're not treating both sides equally; you're throwing in your lot with the killers. Unless of course you can find any reference to these impartial scientists making a formal complaint about their work being made to take a back seat to the harpoon wallahs

Interesting that you see non interference on either side by the observers as being" throwing in your lot with the whale killers" but its perfectly clear you still do not understand the meaning of the word "impartial " No worries, I didnt expect anything less

And they killed nearly 40% of all minke sighted.

They were not on the Sightings survey then - at the time, they were a security ship - you can dance all you want, fact is, due to SSCS interference, Valuable non lethal population studies of crucial importance to the IWC were unable to be carried out due to the actions of SSCS

Hows that MODS? still off topic?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Interesting that you see non interference on either side by the observers as being" throwing in your lot with the whale killers" but its perfectly clear you still do not understand the meaning of the word "impartial "

No, you are the one who does not understand the meaning of the word 'impartial'. The non-lethal survey observers were on a whaling ship, in the pay of the icr. How is that impartial?

They were not on the Sightings survey then - at the time, they were a security ship

What? The whalers - not the non-lethal survey observers in the pay of the icr - claimed to have sighted 684 minke, of which they killed 266. That's 39% of all the minke they saw.

Valuable non lethal population studies of crucial importance to the IWC were unable to be carried out due to the actions of SSCS

It was the whalers' decision to abandon the non-lethal survey in favour of the harpoon party.

Interesting to note that even if they had killed every single minke they saw, they still would not have made their quota of 850 plus/minus 10%. Yet they claim they can take over 1000 without affecting the population?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@ Cleo

No, you are the one who does not understand the meaning of the word 'impartial'. The non-lethal survey observers were on a whaling ship, in the pay of the icr. How is that impartial?

Once again, incorrect, false, wrong. They are paid by the IWC ( and not a great day rate either ) Try and educate yourself so that you don`t spout such rubbish.

What? The whalers - not the non-lethal survey observers in the pay of the icr - claimed to have sighted 684 minke, of which they killed 266. That's 39% of all the minke they saw.

The IWC observers are not paid by the ICR. Do you understand this yet? sheeesh

It was the whalers' decision to abandon the non-lethal survey in favour of the harpoon party

I`ll repeat, as you really ignore this you can dance all you want, fact is, due to SSCS interference, Valuable non lethal population studies of crucial importance to the IWC were unable to be carried out due to the actions of SSCS

Interesting to note that even if they had killed every single minke they saw, they still would not have made their quota of 850 plus/minus 10%. Yet they claim they can take over 1000 without affecting the population?

Please explain to the readers how taking a sample of 1000 will affect a population of 515,000 animals, I really look forward to this one :-)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Please stop going around in circles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They are paid by the IWC

The report mentions only that the sighting surveys were planned according to the IWC survey guideline and were endorsed by the IWC SC. No mention of the survey or observers being paid by the IWC. The observers were Japanese, which might point to their being closer to the icr than your kiwi observers, but as I said before, nationality doesn't really say anything. Maybe you're confusing the Japanese meat-is-top-priority whale hunt with the IWC-SOWER sighting surveys. There was no IWC/SOWER survey 2011/2012.

Please explain to the readers how taking a sample of 1000 will affect a population of 515,000 animals, I really look forward to this one

No, I look forward to the explanation of how killing every single whale you come across (and still wanting more) is somehow OK and inspires any kind of confidence in assurances that were commercial whaling to be resumed there would be any attempt to stick to quotas.

The Japanese MFA website claims that the Antarctic minke population is 760,000 plus and growing, and needs to be 'culled' to leave more krill for the depleted blue whale and fin whale (which Japan still likes to kill) whose populations have not recovered. (A claim that has been debunked by researchers at Stanford University, but hey...) The IWC says the 'best estimate' of the minke population is 515,000 as of 2003/4, maybe as low as 360,000, maybe as high as 730,000 but in any case way down on the 1990 'best estimate' of 720,000 (low 510,000, high 1,010,000). In other words, the population is falling, not booming. Not a good scenario for sweeping the Southern Ocean for as many whales as you can process on your giant butcher ship.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/january18/minke-whale-research-012110.html

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fishery/whales/iwc/minke.html

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Tamarama

cabadaje Oh dear.

A word of warning: Attempting to match my level of superciliousness without proper warming up can lead to muscle cramps and torn ligaments.

The claim, my friend, is yours. You see, you said this;

Going on close to 25 years now, and despite the literally hundreds of researchers who have gone through these reports, you don't see an uproar in the scientific community about how these guys are mooching off the international group while producing nothing.

Yes, I did. I am even willing to to use the verb form of "claim" for your benefit, as you do not seem to distinguish between the verb and the noun.

I then provided you with a link to a report that directly contradicts this claim.

Not even close. Heck, not even all that contradictory, when one comes down to it, but let's keep it simple:

"An uproar in the scientific community" is going to require a bit more than 21 people. That they were directly objecting to the subject, conceded (not that it was ever denied, but regardless). There are hundreds of thousands of biologists, tens of thousands of ocean biologists, thousands of cetacean researchers, and about 200 scientists, give or take, of whatever stripe actually in the IWC. Bear in mind, of course, that we are not talking about people who dislike whaling in general, but who actively consider lethal whale research to be relevant.

Your claim.

My claim? It doesn't even contradict your claim of what I claim. The paper you linked to does not actually refer to the data as irrelevant or redundant (at some point we are going to have to decide on which word to use), except in the specific area of population. It even qualifies itself by asserting that lethal research has provided benefits, I can only assume to avoid being accused of what you are attempting to use it for.

A report triggered by the controversy surrounding a letter published in the New York Times in 2002 by a number of leading scientists and biologists, inclusive of 3 Nobel Laureates, who question the validity and quality of the Japanese research findings, as well as the methods. I'm not sure how much more publically and unequivically they need to state it, but anyway. Claphams report contains a link to a far more detailed deconstruction of the merits of Japan's scientific whaling program.

Yes, that's pretty much what I said. Incidentally, this sort of paragraph is what you should have included with your previous link. The problem with slapping a link down on the table and relying on sarcasm or facetiousness is that if what you consider obvious can be countered, you end up being "embarrassed", which I gather from your previous posts, it is something of importance to you). My goddaughter compared it to "dropping the mic" and then having someone rap better than you, for those to whom that makes sense (of which I am not one, but I will take her word on it).

The delicious irony for me is that you go on to point out how credible the scientists are in their field, seemingly unawares that I was being facetious when I said;

Well, aside from not actually being "irony" (as opposed to your original comment, which was, which makes this sentence mildly ironic as well...), having the incorrect focus of you attempt pointed out and declaring unawareness on the other person's side...that's a little like trying to punch someone, being countered, and then claiming the other person didn't notice you were trying to punch him.

Beautiful. Further, you go on to articulate the exact reasons I provided it as a counter to your point, Including the fact that it touches upon criticisms coming from the Scientific Committee members, yes, including Clapham.

And here I was thinking you posted it without reading because it was the first thing you found that sounded scientific enough.

No? Not this;

IWC does not include ecosystem based management; consequently, none of the information derived from the feeding ecology study is relevent to the manner in which the IWC assesses and manages whale populations.

Correct. Not this.

Other fundamental problems include a lack of testable hypotheses or performance measures, innapropriate use of ecosystem models and failure to include sensitivity analyses and key data on other ecosystem components; selective or innapropriate use of data or methods in estimating whale abundance, unnecessary reliance on lethal sampling, innapropriate geographic sampling for population structuring analysis

Same.

Lets keep looking. In short, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that JARPN II exists to demonstrate - all data to the contrary notwithstanding - that whales eat too much fish and therefore should be culled by more whaling.

Same.

He goes on to call the scientific results of the Antarctic hunt 'remarkably poor' - and points out that only 1 of the 150 articles produced by the Japanese scientists made it to a peer reviewed journal. He says;

JARPA's failure to publish in international refereed journals says much about the quality and motives of it's science And Today, so little of any significance to the IWC can be obtained from only whaling catches that it is impossible to justify killing animals on this basis

Same.

Tamaran, in a two-page article, chances are very low that the examples are going to indicate anything different from each other.

He finishes with this;

researchers are right to speak out if they believe commercial activities are being misrepresented as science. In our views, there has barely been a more egrarious example of this misrepresentation that Japan's Scientific whaling program

It is unequivocal. His position is crystal clear. You spin it any way you like, but I suggest prudence if you try.

What's to spin? You aren't saying anything that I did not already state in my previous comment. It's like you are so eager to prove me wrong that you didn't notice that we are agreeing.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@ Cleo

The report mentions only that the sighting surveys were planned according to the IWC survey guideline and were endorsed by the IWC SC. No mention of the survey or observers being paid by the IWC.

Why don`t you ask them as I did? The IWC pays the impartial observer Day rates / salaries. If you wish, look at the breakdown of the SOWER surveys costs and finances to find out who paid who. I know for a fact that the IWC pays the salaries of their obsevers and I also know that compared to comparable other surveys, the pay is low. Check it out, do some research.

Send them an email, apply for one of the jobs if you have the required knowledge or simply ask them - their email addy is on their homepage, Then report back here as to their answer

Please explain to the readers how taking a sample of 1000 will affect a population of 515,000 animals, I really look forward to this one

Answer the question..

Ignoring your opponents questions whilst demanding answers to your own? Cool ( albeit intellectually weak ) debating tactic, can I do that too? :-)

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@ Cleo

The report mentions only that the sighting surveys were planned according to the IWC survey guideline and were endorsed by the IWC SC. No mention of the survey or observers being paid by the IWC

Just to save you doing your own research, Page 2 Top table

http://archive.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC62docs/62-10.pdf

There was no IWC/SOWER survey 2011/2012.

I`ve already told you why, yet you ignore it. I see no point in discussing it further

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Readers, you are still going around in circles. From here on, posts that repeat the same arguments will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

eyeon-

The table in the document you link to gives the budget for observers under the International Observer Scheme. These are observers put on the ships to observe the whaling operation and ensure the validity of the results recorded by the whaling vessels, not to observe the whales. The IOS is not a whale-counting operation. In the table under 'Rationale' it tells you that the salary is calculated as being between the current daily grant paid for cruise leaders and senior scientists taking part in SOWER cruises, ie it tells you what they are basing their budget estimates on. It doesn't mean that the observers being budgeted for at £160 a day are going on SOWER whale-counting expeditions.

There was no IWC/SOWER survey 2011/2012. I`ve already told you why

You're claiming that SS stopped it. What the icr stopped so that they could concentrate on killing whales in response to SS actions was not a SOWER survey.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

By the way, I was never able to find a whales meat in the store. It may sell like water at an online store.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites