U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

Certification is just the first step but sanctions are needed to get their attention. Japan should be included as well, it's the only way to get through those thick nationalist skulls that the world isn't buying the "research" crap!

Do it!! I want to see what Iceland does in response.

The Whale Hunt needs to stop.

This from a country that is trying to INCREASE the number of whales it kills. Aboriginal hunters in North America kill about 1000 whales a year. Canada is not a member of the IWC so is not bound by quotas but the US is and was pushing hard this year for an increase in the number of whales they can kill.

Both Canada and the US are huge exporters of food and have no need at all to harvest whales.

But Japan considers itself within the rules of the International Whaling Commission by invoking a clause that allows a catch for scientific research.

Er, no. So Agence France-Presse are as biased as AP on whaling stories.

This should read:

But Japan adheres to the International Whaling Commission's clause that allows a catch for scientific research.

“Iceland’s harvest of whales and export of fin whale meat threaten an endangered species and undermine worldwide efforts to protect whales,” said Locke, who oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

I agree that they should stop hunting fin whales, as they are an endangered species. But whales that aren't endangered should be able to be hunted.

proxy: This from a country that is trying to INCREASE the number of whales it kills. Aboriginal hunters in North America kill about 1000 whales a year. Canada is not a member of the IWC so is not bound by quotas but the US is and was pushing hard this year for an increase in the number of whales they can kill. Both Canada and the US are huge exporters of food and have no need at all to harvest whales.

Source?

Give the whales some armor and battering rams, and then the 'hunt' might be more even.

Deer run and hide, but what should the whales do? They have to come up for air. Do they know they are about to be speared?

They have to come up for air. Do they know they are about to be speared?

If they were as intelligent as some people like to believe, you'd think they would know by now.

USA is going bankrupt tomorrow. You'd think they have other things on their mind right now...

We can do both. The U.S. is a big country. WWII should be a good example of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

Aboriginal hunters in North America kill about 1000 whales a year.

Yup. But it's Ok because it's their culture. It's not OK in Japan because it's not Japanese culture. Er, wait, it is - how does the math work on this one?

I can't figure out how there is not a hue and cry from anti-whaling celebs in the US over the whaling in their own backyard. That little hollywood actress girl arrested here for Taiji protests said in an interview that Japanese whaling is bad but N American native population whaling is OK. I truly don't see the moral difference.

I don't get that one either

Maybe theFunk can explain it to us...

YOU CAN HELP!

Write to President Obama!

Ask the U.S. President to enact sanctions against Icelandic marine products (under the 1971 Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman's Protective Act and 1979 Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act) until the commercial slaughter of whales, especially endangered species, is stopped!

http://www.internationalwhaleprotection.org/campaigns/iceland/

For the record... Aboriginal hunters in N. America (US Alaska) only kill about 30 to 60 per year for subsistence (ie: not to produce canned whale meat for money but because they live off of the land)

Anybody who wants to confirm this can check the International Whaling Commission website at: http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/table_aboriginal.htm

Total killed by aboriginal Alaskan whalers in 2009? 38... not "1,000" as some has incorrectly suggested.

In fact, all of the aboriginal hunts together don't even come to half of that number.

People need to keep in mind that it is US law that requires the Secretary of Commerce to certify when other countries are hurting international conservation programs. The same law gives power to the US president to enact economic sanctions. Ronald Reagan hit Japan with sanctions over whaling in 1988.

What most people don't realize is that Iceland, and other whaling nations, have a long history of violating whaling regulations. In fact, during the 20th century, industrial whaling nearly wiped out most of the world's large whale species and many remain endangered today as a result.

A significant reason for this certification is the fact that Iceland's whalers have been killing endangered Fin whales for the last two years at THREE TIMES the number considered sustainable by International Whaling Commission scientists IF there was a number allowed other than ZERO.

In 1986 the IWC established a moratorium on all commercial whaling and Fin whales were protected before that. Iceland originally accepted the decision but then followed Japan's lead and started killing whales for bogus "research" purposes, only to continue selling whale meat to Japan. Today, despite multiple international conventions prohibiting the whale meat trade, Iceland continues to kill endangered Fin whales without the pretense of science to again, export the meat for Japanese dinner plates.

The threat of U.S. sanctions, consumer boycotts, and direct action by radical environmental groups all helped to pressure Iceland to give up whaling once before in 1989. It was 14 years before the killing began again. Hopefully, this bold step by the USA will be followed by even more pressure from people all over the world to put an end to commercial whaling for good.

“It’s critical that the government of Iceland take immediate action to comply with the moratorium,”

Critical for US politicians wanting to suck up some fringe environmentalists votes maybe, but in reality what Iceland is doing is entirely consistent with the whaling convention and sustainable development.

The Fin whale in the North Atlantic is perfectly abundant and the IWC's own Scientific Committee has advised that sustainable non-zero catch limits are possible for this stock. The US should be considering it's own role in the IWC failing to act on the advice of it's own scientific committee and the consequences of this.

Hollywood elites are all hypocrites. Most are opportunists, helps them with their PR, image and helps their overall notoriety and popularity, especially when they can be selective about it.

NuckinFutz,

Japan should be included as well, it's the only way to get through those thick nationalist skulls that the world isn't buying the "research" crap!

You are jumping the gun and over-extending to suggest that "the world" has saying to say about it. Australia (alone) has taken that issue to the ICJ (where according to Wikileaks, Australian officials think they will lose, and Japanese officials think they will win.).

As for the US, one of their officials last year stated under oath that "Japan does perform scientific research on the whales they take, and probably have the best whale science as a result"

http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=1169

So the US is unlikely to certify Japan too, under these circumstances.

"Japan has actively campaigned to end the moratorium, saying that whaling is its cultural right."

Not in international waters it's not.

The last thing Iceland needs at the moment is sanctions, giving its bankrupt economy. This just might hurt them. I suspect we'll see a lot of crying over the next 60 days or until Obama decides before then.

"Japan does perform scientific research on the whales they take, and probably have the best whale science as a result"

Yeah, which part goes best with mayonnaise.

Americans are hunting and killing whales but they're telling other countries they cannot?? The numbers really don't matter here. Hypocrisy does!

Yeah, which part goes best with mayonnaise.

LOL, GOOD ONE

Skeptical Hippo: "Americans are hunting and killing whales but they're telling other countries they cannot??"

Are they? where? The Arctic? it's own exclusive waters?

smithinjapan,

The last thing Iceland needs at the moment is sanctions, giving its bankrupt economy.

This just might hurt them. I suspect we'll see a lot of crying over the next 60 days or until Obama decides before then.

I'll double that wager the other way. Obama won't do anything. This is just posturing by the US. They do this all the time. Norway has never had sanctions imposed on it for it's sustainable whaling, Iceland won't either. The US knows that the whaling convention is for the promotion of whaling industry, they won't want to open themselves up to litigation they know they will lose.

"Japan does perform scientific research on the whales they take, and probably have the best whale science as a result"

Yeah, which part goes best with mayonnaise.

Mock the facts all you like, but that's a statement from a US official. Not your typical "pro-whaler", if I may...

davidattokyo

"Japan does perform scientific research on the whales they take, and probably have the best whale science as a result" Mock the facts all you like, but that's a statement from a US official. Not your typical "pro-whaler", if I may...

Yeah the Japanese scientific research is brilliant! That good as of this moment there is still no consensus on the actual numbers of whales. So after a few decades of killing whales in the name of research we still dont even have definitive figures on whale numbers. Maybe more counting less killing

David

The Fin whale in the North Atlantic is perfectly abundant and the IWC's own Scientific Committee has advised that sustainable non-zero catch limits are possible for this stock.

Where can I find this information? The Fin whale is still classified as "Endangered", and even if aspects of the Scientific arm of the IWC think it is commercially exploitable, the IWC continues to maintain otherwise.

I will be interested to see if the Australia bashers on this site now turn on the US in the same way. Seems that the US has quite a lot of support already here.

Spidapig24,

Yeah the Japanese scientific research is brilliant!

You too mock the comments made in support of Japan's research even though they come from a US official under oath. Interesting.

The "whale numbers" estimation work is undertaken by the IWC Scientific Committee, not Japan alone, and that work doesn't have anything to do with Japan's research whaling activities. Just FYI.

Tamarama,

The Fin whale in the North Atlantic is perfectly abundant and the IWC's own Scientific Committee has advised that sustainable non-zero catch limits are possible for this stock.

Where can I find this information?

The IWC home page has it all. Check the IWC Scientific Committee's recent implementation work of the Revised Management Procedure for North Atlantic Fin whales for the details.

The Fin whale is still classified as "Endangered", and even if aspects of the Scientific arm of the IWC think it is commercially exploitable, the IWC continues to maintain otherwise.

The "Endangered" classification you are probably refering to is the IUCN Red List classification, which does not have anything to do with management of whaling and is comparatively generic in purpose.

The IWC's Scientific Committee has it's own rules for providing advice relating specifically to sustainable whaling, that's what I mention above (RMP etc). Be the IUCN's classification of the fin whale on a global scale as it may, in the North Atlantic the local Fin whales are abundant and that's why the IWC Scientific Committee is able to provide advice on sustainable catch limits there (although it goes ignored by the IWC politicians).

davidattokyo

You too mock the comments made in support of Japan's research even though they come from a US official under oath. Interesting.

Yeah l do mock the comments of ONE US official when it comes to Japans research. Just as you mock the Australian government and anyone who dares voice an opinion that doesnt follow your pro Japan, pro whaling line.

The "whale numbers" estimation work is undertaken by the IWC Scientific Committee, not Japan alone, and that work doesn't have anything to do with Japan's research whaling activities. Just FYI.

Im confussed David, you say "estimation work is undertaken by the IWC Scientific Committee, not Japan alone" yet the other week you said "besides numbers they are collecting biological data that can be used to determined trends in abundance. " so which is it David? I said that after all, "so after a few decades of killing whales in the name of research we still dont even have definitive figures on whale numbers. Maybe more counting less killing"

Spidapig24,

Yeah l do mock the comments of ONE US official when it comes to Japans research.

Don't you want to try to reconcile this information that conflicts with your viewpoint though? Do you think he was bought out by the Japanese or something, is that why he said what he did under oath? Or does he believe what he said but you think he must just be clueless? (Or heaven forbid, might it be your viewpoint that is awry? Just sayin'...)

you say "estimation work is undertaken by the IWC Scientific Committee, not Japan alone" yet the other week you said "besides numbers they are collecting biological data that can be used to determined trends in abundance. " so which is it David?

Uh, both.

Abundance - whale numbers - is a count.

A TREND in abundance is what is happening to the numbers. Up, down, flat, oscillating, etc.

E.g. you can have a number, but without information about the trend - whether the numbers are going up, down, or holding somewhere in between - your management decisions about how many whales can be caught will not be as good as they would be with that extra info. If the numbers are increasing, you can take more, if they are naturally decreasing you should take less. E.g. the extra info can help to eliminate this uncertainty and associated risk, and this may potentially lead to higher catch limits. In any case the management decisions will be safer than they otherwise might be. That's in a nutshell a part of what Japan's research contributes. Of course this is useless research for people who prefer there to be no whaling at all, but then that's not the point of the IWC, according to the whaling convention (and this is why I am 100% convinced that Australia will lose at the ICJ).

Are they? where? The Arctic? it's own exclusive waters?

Mr Smith, who are you talking about - Icelanders, Japanese or Americans? Please be clease when you pose a question. Thank you.

Its obvious what he meant. He meant the Native peoples. They are not whaling between New Zealand and Antarctica you know. They are not marauding the high seas in search of Moby Dick.

And the Natives are whaling to literally survive, not to profit. It makes a big difference. Or maybe you would like to be a farmer in Alaska to show them how its done?

And they may be officially American, but they are more like hostages. Plenty of them have risked arrest trying to secede from the Union, so accusing America of seeking to increase their own catch is dishonest spin for all I have said here.

And while I am not as familiar about conditions of Iceland, I imagine they also pretty much need whaling to literally survive, so that part may well be the hypocrisy you seek.

I agree with the motion that that "native" whaling needs to looked at again next Year.

Many native tribes either sell the meat or let it rot on the Beach(Faroe Islands) also the majority of them use very modern equipment(nothing traditional/ritual about their hunt).

DavidatTokyo: "I'll double that wager the other way. Obama won't do anything."

I didn't make a wager, really, and know full well that Obama may not do anything. My point was that even the threat of sanctions will put stress on the situation while he considers whether or not to carry them out. If he DOES agree to certain sanctions it would hurt an already hurting nation.

On the other hand, I can't really see how it's political grand-standing, I don't think there's all too much to gain to announce there may be legislation put out there for sanctions. The only reason he might decide no is because he feels for the Icelandic economy.

That's it! I will never ever buy anything from Iceland ever again! I will forever boycott Iceland! Poor little whales!

chewitup

And the Natives are whaling to literally survive, not to profit.

That's what the Americans would have you believe.

However according to a Brazilian ex-IWC representative, "They have technology and government subsidies and they don’t hunt out of a need for survival" Full story: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=56331

IMO they are whaling because it's their culture. America could feed these people other ways if they really had to, if that is what it were all about.

And while I am not as familiar about conditions of Iceland, I imagine they also pretty much need whaling to literally survive, so that part may well be the hypocrisy you seek.

I think it comes down to self-determination. Whether people make their own choices about how to live or whether they toe someone else's line. America recognises it for it's own people due to political issues but denies it for others due to political issues.

Ultimately domestic politics of powerful nations shouldn't be brought into international fora where issues discussed cut across cultures.

smithinjapan,

I can't really see how it's political grand-standing, I don't think there's all too much to gain to announce there may be legislation put out there for sanctions.

The animal rights NGOs are always campaigning on this, giving them the odd token PR spiel helps keep them on side.

David

The IWC home page has it all. Check the IWC Scientific Committee's recent implementation work of the Revised Management Procedure for North Atlantic Fin whales for the details.

Well, I had a look, and this is what I got from the IWC site. For Status of Fin Whales, the site says this:

The data do not exist to allow a full assessment of present status, as the surveys that have been undertaken (usually south of 60°S) do not cover all of their primary summer distribution but there is no evidence that they have recovered to anywhere near unexploited levels (which may have been around 200,000).

Fin Whale populations are described as being 23,000 - 39,000 in the North Atlantic.

I looked at the Revised Management Procedure on the site, and didn't find anything pertaining specifically to Fin Whales.

I did spot this though, under the 'Management Objectives' part of this RMP. It's item number 2: catches should not be allowed on stocks below 54% of the estimated carrying capacity; which is followed by this: The Commission decided that greater priority should be given to objective 2. Now, 'carrying capacity' means the maximum population size of a species the environment can sustain indefinitely, and given that the IWC site suggests this may have been 200,000 for the Fin whale, current population estimates seem to fall well below the prioritised point 2 guideline for Management Objectives. But I am still curious to see if I have missed anything on nthe site, so you are welcome to direct me a little more specifically if you like.

Kudos for Tamarama for a classy post.

They have technology and government subsidies

Technology is not food, and subsidies can be denied, rerouted, stolen and lost. Ask the Dakota if you can find any alive. Their subsidies were stolen and they decided to have an uprising rather than starve. 303 were sentenced to death, although in the end 38 were hung by the neck, and the rest and their whole tribe got shipped to Pike Island where three hundred more died of starvation and disease. Dependence on the U.S. government for supplies is not a good way to go.

And just because they use modern whaling vessels does not mean they don't need the meat, and neither does some of the meat winding up in supermarkets in Greenland. First you tell me what else they are eating or can eat (bearing in mind that Natives don't do well on western crap diets) or could be eating instead, and then you come tell me they don't need it. Anything else is a load of wishful thinking, ie, crap. I don't know if you have been told, but people need to eat every two weeks at the outside or they just keel over and die. When it comes to food, there is no room for mucking about.

davidattokyo

You too mock the comments made in support of Japan's research even though they come from a US official under oath. Interesting.

Just out of curiosity David, who is this US official and when did this support allegedly happen as l cant find it anywhere?

Spidapig24, just read my comment at Jul. 21, 2011 - 12:36PM JST, I supplied a link to a webpage containing details of the hearing...

This is the guy:

The Honorable David A. Balton Deputy Assistant Secretary Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs U.S. Department of State

(sounds like he's the type of guy who might actually know a thing or two about this huh?)

Also if you do read the document, also check statements from Monica Medina as well. She is the US IWC commissioner, and according to her, "there could be thousands [of minke whales] harvested sustainably in the southern ocean."

davidattokyo,

Thanks for that link, you are correct very interesting reading. In particular the letter from Monica Medina where she says and l quote "The United States continues to support the moratorium on commercial whaling and will continue our efforts to end lethal scientific research whaling". Not that is very interesting.

And Mr Balton's statement "Japan which claims to observe the moratorium significantly expanded lethal scientific whaling in both the Southern Ocean and North Pacific"

So David both these people can see Japan for what it is doing, why cant you?

Tamarama,

I did spot this though, under the 'Management Objectives' part of this RMP. It's item number 2: catches should not be allowed on stocks below 54% of the estimated carrying capacity;

Indeed. This is an long standing rule dating back to the mid 1970's, long before the moratorium was imposed. The idea is that stocks below that level should be left space to recover, whereas stocks at 100% are in pristine condition and could thus support some level of harvest. 54% is the threshold for allowing catches, but the RMP would generally maintain stocks at above approx 75% of their natural carrying capacity over long periods of whaling.

Now, 'carrying capacity' means the maximum population size of a species the environment can sustain indefinitely,

In the IWC context, it refers not to species, but to what the IWC refers to as "stocks", or I suppose a sub-population of a species. E.g. the fin whales in the Northern Hemishphere are distinct from those in the Southern Hemisphere - they generally live distinctly apart in different parts of the world (in some places whale stocks do overlap but that's not relevant for fin whales here). Whale stocks are managed according to their individual circumstances. In the North Atlantic, the fin whale stock is recognised to be above that 54% threshold - in good shape - and the RMP has been implemented by the scientific committee for it, at the request of the Icelanders.

The IUCN Red List on the other hand, does classify by species, rather than stock. So when the US talks about endangering the Fin whale species, I (and the Icelanders) believe they are being very deceptive.

and given that the IWC site suggests this may have been 200,000 for the Fin whale, current population estimates seem to fall well below the prioritised point 2 guideline for Management Objectives.

You would be correct with respect to the Southern Hemisphere fin whale stocks. However Iceland isn't hunting these ones commercially (or at all).

The data do not exist to allow a full assessment of present status, as the surveys that have been undertaken (usually south of 60°S)

That too would be the stocks of southern hemisphere Fin whales.

Fin Whale populations are described as being 23,000 - 39,000 in the North Atlantic.

That's right. (Also, when the IWC Scientific Committee uses the RMP to advise on catch limits, it would always use the lower 95% confidence limit of the abundance estimate in the calculations to play on the safe side.)

I looked at the Revised Management Procedure on the site, and didn't find anything pertaining specifically to Fin Whales.

Good point, one really has to dig into the scientific committee reports themselves to find such details. The latest one is here. http://www.iwcoffice.org/sci_com/screport.htm You can find a summary in the "Scientific Committee main report", and more details are in "Revised Management Procedure" (click the "Annex D" link). Admitedly one probably has to go back and read through reports from previous years to understand what has been happening, but basically where the IWC's scientific committee has run "implementation simulation trials" for the RMP with respect to a given stock of whales, they are in a position to provide advice on sustainable catch limits for that stock.

Spidapig24,

In particular the letter from Monica Medina where she says and l quote "The United States continues to support the moratorium on commercial whaling and will continue our efforts to end lethal scientific research whaling".

Indeed this is US policy. So what's new.

And Mr Balton's statement "Japan which claims to observe the moratorium significantly expanded lethal scientific whaling in both the Southern Ocean and North Pacific"

So David both these people can see Japan for what it is doing, why cant you?

Huh? I am the one who agrees with Balton that "Japan does perform scientific research on the whales they take", and that they "have the best whale science as a result", and I too recognise that they expanded scientific whaling after opting to observe the moratorium.

You were the one who dismissed him as just ONE guy, etc

davidattokyo

"and given that the IWC site suggests this may have been 200,000 for the Fin whale, current population estimates seem to fall well below the prioritised point 2 guideline for Management Objectives." You would be correct with respect to the Southern Hemisphere fin whale stocks. However Iceland isn't hunting these ones commercially (or at all).

But Japan does? So by your own admission the fact that the numbers fall below the 54% mark in the Southern Ocean they shouldnt be hunted. Yet Japan does hunt Fin whales in the South Pacific. So Iceland is abiding by this ruling but Japan isnt then. Is that correct?

I

davidattokyo,

"And Mr Balton's statement "Japan which claims to observe the moratorium significantly expanded lethal scientific whaling in both the Southern Ocean and North Pacific" So David both these people can see Japan for what it is doing, why cant you?"

Huh? I am the one who agrees with Balton that "Japan does perform scientific research on the whales they take", and that they "have the best whale science as a result", and I too recognise that they expanded scientific whaling after opting to observe the moratorium.

I give up, you obviously cant see the fact when its staring you in the face. He isnt patting Japan on the back he is being critical. By saying "Japan WHICH CLAIMS to observe the moratorium SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDED lethal scientific whaling in both the Southern Ocean and North Pacific"

Spidapig24,

However Iceland isn't hunting these ones commercially (or at all).

But Japan does?

Japan isn't using an RMP implementation for commercial whaling of fin whales like Iceland, Japan is catching a few for research.

So by your own admission the fact that the numbers fall below the 54% mark in the Southern Ocean they shouldnt be hunted.

That rule only applies to IWC set quotas. E.g. the rule is no commercial harvests for depleted whale stocks.

Japan is doing special permit whaling only, and Japan isn't catching a significant number of these whales at all. I think the number that they have caught since 2005/6 is something like 10 or 20 all up. Iceland on the other hand is talking about catching more than 100, each year, for commercial purposes. This is a completely different story.

He isnt patting Japan on the back

When he said that Japan probably has the best whale science as a result of it's work, I could swear that he was. How did you read it?

he is being critical.

Is he?

By saying "Japan WHICH CLAIMS to observe the moratorium SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDED lethal scientific whaling in both the Southern Ocean and North Pacific"

Japan does claim to observe the moratorium... Australia etc deny this... and Japan has significantly expanded "lethal scientific whaling". Balton has stated that Japan's research is probably the best as a result. Are you sure you aren't projecting your own preceptions on to what he said? (If you can give me a reason why I should ignore his statement, I will consider if it isn't me who is awry here).

davidattokyo

I have just reread the report and it seems you are being a bit picky with what you are taking from the report.

Japan isn't using an RMP implementation for commercial whaling of fin whales like Iceland, Japan is catching a few for research.

So Japan is killing what the IWC classify an endangered species then?

Japan is doing special permit whaling only, and Japan isn't catching a significant number of these whales at all. I think the number that they have caught since 2005/6 is something like 10 or 20 all up. Iceland on the other hand is talking about catching more than 100, each year, for commercial purposes. This is a completely different story.

But again Japan is catching what the IWC consider an endangered species?

When he said that Japan probably has the best whale science as a result of it's work, I could swear that he was. How did you read it?

David l can pick one quote out of the whole report and run with that like you have. So here are the ones l will pick and run with.

Ambassador Balton> "Japan, Norway and Iceland will have to reconsider what they have been doing"

Mr Delahunt >"In other words is there a willingness on the part, particularly of these three nations to commit to end commercial whaling"

So even the US believes Japan is commercial whaling in disguise!

And as for your quote from Ms Medina you missed the next line where she expressed concerns about whaling in the Southern Ocean due to the sanctuary and that whaling in the sanctuary isnt appropriate. She then goes on to say and l quote " the Japanese are conducting large scale industrial type whaling there"

So David you have picked bits and pieces of a report that suit yourself and leave out the rest that dont suit your arguement

he is being critical.

Is he?

By saying "Japan WHICH CLAIMS to observe the moratorium SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDED lethal scientific whaling in both the Southern Ocean and North Pacific"

Japan does claim to observe the moratorium... Australia etc deny this... and Japan has significantly expanded "lethal scientific whaling". Balton has stated that Japan's research is probably the best as a result. Are you sure you aren't projecting your own preceptions on to what he said? (If you can give me a reason why I should ignore his statement, I will consider if it isn't me who is awry here).

And how exactly is the US going to do this? A no fly zone over Iceland, combined with "humanitarian aid", borrow more money from China, and then wonder why their debt is increasing? Silly obozo, how about creating jobs instead of enforcing the world?

davidattokyo

Apologies for the repost, when l was quoting you l forgot to remove you comments at the bottom. So to save confusion they are now removed

I have just reread the report and it seems you are being a bit picky with what you are taking from the report.

Japan isn't using an RMP implementation for commercial whaling of fin whales like Iceland, Japan is catching a few for research.

So Japan is killing what the IWC classify an endangered species then?

Japan is doing special permit whaling only, and Japan isn't catching a significant number of these whales at all. I think the number that they have caught since 2005/6 is something like 10 or 20 all up. Iceland on the other hand is talking about catching more than 100, each year, for commercial purposes. This is a completely different story.

But again Japan is catching what the IWC consider an endangered species?

When he said that Japan probably has the best whale science as a result of it's work, I could swear that he was. How did you read it?

David l can pick one quote out of the whole report and run with that like you have. So here are the ones l will pick and run with.

Ambassador Balton> "Japan, Norway and Iceland will have to reconsider what they have been doing"

Mr Delahunt >"In other words is there a willingness on the part, particularly of these three nations to commit to end commercial whaling"

So even the US believes Japan is commercial whaling in disguise!

And as for your quote from Ms Medina you missed the next line where she expressed concerns about whaling in the Southern Ocean due to the sanctuary and that whaling in the sanctuary isnt appropriate. She then goes on to say and l quote " the Japanese are conducting large scale industrial type whaling there"

So David you have picked bits and pieces of a report that suit yourself and leave out the rest that dont suit your arguement

Spidapig24,

So Japan is killing what the IWC classify an endangered species then?

No, the IWC doesn't classify "endangered species" etc. With respect to the Fin whales in the southern hemisphere, the term would be "protection stock", in the IWC terminology.

But that only applies to IWC set quotas.

It doesn't apply to special permit catches, which as we should all know by now, are exempt from the operation of the whaling convention.

But, if you like, the IUCN does call the fin whale an endangered species. But then the IUCN calls southern bluefin tuna a "critically endangered" species, yet that doesn't stop nations including Australia from exploiting it on a commercial basis.

Ain't the world just so FULL of these paradoxes!

So even the US believes Japan is commercial whaling in disguise!

Well, that Delahunt guy seems to. He and Medina may have missed Balton's comment about Japan probably having the best research as a result of their lethal research whaling, or ignored it because it doesn't match his preconceptions.

And as for your quote from Ms Medina you missed the next line where she expressed concerns about whaling in the Southern Ocean due to the sanctuary and that whaling in the sanctuary isnt appropriate.

Yeah, but she admits that thousands of whales could be taken sustainably. She thinks that they shouldn't be because of the sanctuary, but then my reply to that is - why is there a sanctuary in the first place? If thousands of whales can be harvested sustainably then a sanctuary is unnecessary in light of the objectives of the whaling convention.

So although she is correctly informed that thousands of whales can be taken sustainably :) her justification for the anti-whaling policy being "oh we called it a sanctuary so therefore whaling should be banned" is a little too... shallow... I guess is how I'd call it. Enough to convince the choir but not the rest of us non anti-whalers.

the iwc is like the icc, a waste of time, space, and money. Just send the US in and let them drop some humanitarian aid

davidattokyo

"So Japan is killing what the IWC classify an endangered species then?" But, if you like, the IUCN does call the fin whale an endangered species. But then the IUCN calls southern bluefin tuna a "critically endangered" species, yet that doesn't stop nations including Australia from exploiting it on a commercial basis.

We are not talking about tuna we are talking whales. So you admit Japan does kill an endangered species then! As for the tuna, yes Australia does catch them as does Japan and isnt it Japan that got caught illegally fishing for tuna in Australian EEZ, and didnt the Japanese also get caught exceeding their quotas?

So even the US believes Japan is commercial whaling in disguise! Well, that Delahunt guy seems to. He and Medina may have missed Balton's comment about Japan probably having the best research as a result of their lethal research whaling, or ignored it because it doesn't match his preconceptions.

Really David who cares if Japan has a good scientific program. You seem to be focussing on one comment (which is typical), so he says the Japanese have a good scientific program well done Japan. It was also said that Japan is effectively conducting large scale industrial whaling in a sanctuary. And that was said by the US IWC rep. But you will no doubt ignore that and just focus on how Japans good scientific program is.

Yeah, but she admits that thousands of whales could be taken sustainably. She thinks that they shouldn't be because of the sanctuary, but then my reply to that is - why is there a sanctuary in the first place? If thousands of whales can be harvested sustainably then a sanctuary is unnecessary in light of the objectives of the whaling convention.

David again who cares. You are cherry picking one comment out of a whole argument and focussing on that and ignoring the next line where she is critical of the Japanese whaling in the area. And for the record she didnt admit anything she hesitantly said she thinks. Big difference.

So although she is correctly informed that thousands of whales can be taken sustainably :) her justification for the anti-whaling policy being "oh we called it a sanctuary so therefore whaling should be banned" is a little too... shallow... I guess is how I'd call it. Enough to convince the choir but not the rest of us non anti-whalers.

So whales where hunted to the brink of extinction and now numbers are increasing you want all protections removed so the vacuum of the sea (aka Japan) can hunt them legally again why stop at whales lets not protect anything, lets just have open slather. I guess you only see what you want right, but he did say what a good program Japan has.

Davidattokyo,

Its funny at 9:02 you where saying how good this report was and how it supported your argument. Now l have read it and called you on your selective quoting you are saying its full of preconceptions and the people you where praising are now shallow. David you have cherry picked quotes and been court out now you are damning the report. I guess that says more about attitudes than any quote from a report ever could.

Funny how you're saying that david is cherry picking when you're doing the same. Who cares about a bunch of whales. We killed dodos, tigers, rhinos, and other species into extinction and now we care about whales? damn you people are stupid

Ooooh! Sanctions by the USA! Chills down my spine! Oooooooh!

The IUCN Red List on the other hand, does classify by species, rather than stock. So when the US talks about endangering the Fin whale species, I (and the Icelanders) believe they are being very deceptive.

@davidtokyo

How can a species be endangered and a stock cannot, when a stock is a subgroup of a species?

Really David who cares if Japan has a good scientific program.

Obviously :)

And for the record she didnt admit anything she hesitantly said she thinks.

How can you tell what she "hesitantly said"?

So whales where hunted to the brink of extinction and now numbers are increasing you want all protections removed so

No I want regulated sustainable whaling on those species which can sustain harvests.

why stop at whales lets not protect anything, lets just have open slather.

I think you need to see the shades of grey between the black and white options of "no whaling" and "open slather whaling".

Everything is good in moderation.

Its funny at 9:02 you where saying how good this report was and how it supported your argument.

All I raised it for was to show that US officials recognise that Japan's activities are consistent with the whaling convention. I can see it riled you up a bit too though so that's a bonus!

Now l have read it and called you on your selective quoting you are saying its full of preconceptions and the people you where praising are now shallow. David you have cherry picked quotes and been court out now you are damning the report. I guess that says more about attitudes than any quote from a report ever could.

davidattokyo

"Really David who cares if Japan has a good scientific program." Obviously :)

David you are hung up on one point of a massive report. One line that says Japan has a good scientific program yet you ignore the pages of testimony from the same sources that are damning in their condemnation of Japan and its whaling program. You even ignore the point where they discuss sanctions against Japan if it doesnt alter its stance.

"And for the record she didnt admit anything she hesitantly said she thinks." How can you tell what she "hesitantly said"?

Well David if one is so sure of their position they do not use words like "l think", "could be", and also "havent agreed yet" If you read her whole statement instead of the first sentence. As l said yesterday yes she blunders out that the could be thousands. She then goes on in the very next sentence to say "whaling isnt appropriate in that area" but again you choose to ignore that point.

"Its funny at 9:02 you where saying how good this report was and how it supported your argument." All I raised it for was to show that US officials recognise that Japan's activities are consistent with the whaling convention.

David that is so wrong l cant even believe you wrote it.

You came out several times saying this article proves your point about whaling. You picked 2 quotes from the whole report that say positive things yet you ignore the very next sentence which is damning of Japanese whaling. The report does not in any way show that US officials recognise the Japanese activities as consistent with the whaling convention. If anything they show that the US believes Japan to be in breach of the moratorium on commercial whaling and worse that they are conducting it in a sanctuary.

I can see it riled you up a bit too though so that's a bonus!

Nah David what has got me is your picking of 2 quotes that moderately support your fragile arguement while the rest of the report including statements from the 2 people you quote are critical of Japan and its whaling. I guess you werent expecting anyone to read the report though and could get away with your stretching of the truth.

Nessie,

How can a species be endangered and a stock cannot, when a stock is a subgroup of a species?

Not sure I understand what you are getting at, but an IWC "stock" can be depleted (IWC calls it "protection stock" below 54%), but the IUCN which uses the "endangered" terminology doesn't categorize stocks, but species.

This from the IWC homepage may help to clarify:

"The first thing to note is that at present, the classification of fin whales applies to the species worldwide (called ‘populations’ in the very specific IUCN terminology) not to ocean areas or ‘populations’ in the traditional biological sense. The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria were designed for global taxon assessments. When applied at national or regional levels, IUCN notes that ‘it must be recognized that a global category may not be the same as a national or regional category for a particular taxon’, thus regional populations may be either more or less threatened than the global assessment."

http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm

The point with the North Atlantic fin whales is that they are "less threatened" than the global assessment of the species. Iceland recognises this and is happy to hunt them, the US on the other hand ignores this and makes out that Iceland is driving species to extinction. As I think one IWC delegate once said, "it's like saying humans are endangered because there are not many people in Iceland".

Spidapig24,

You even ignore the point where they discuss sanctions against Japan if it doesnt alter its stance.

Oh I must have missed that bit. What did they conclude? All guns blazing with sanctions?

As l said yesterday yes she blunders out that the could be thousands.

Ah, you said she "blunders out" so it must be true then. Thanks for clearing it up.

She then goes on in the very next sentence to say "whaling isnt appropriate in that area" but again you choose to ignore that point.

I didn't ignore it, I directly addressed it saying that her reasons for stating that are bogus. She herself concedes that a sanctuary isn't necessary because thousands of whales could be caught, but she says that because there is a sanctuary there should be no whaling. It doesn't make sense except perhaps to anti-whalers.

If anything they show that the US believes Japan to be in breach of the moratorium on commercial whaling and worse that they are conducting it in a sanctuary.

IWC sanctuaries don't apply to research programmes, of which Japan is stated to have probably the best.

Oh I found a bit about sanctions:

"Ambassador BALTON. ... the United States, at least, has never been willing to impose any meaningful sanctions for whaling activities. There is a statute on the book, the Pelly Amendment, and I am sure you are familiar with it. Countries have been certified under the Pelly Amendment for whaling activities. But if what you are talking about are serious economic sanctions ... At least, if the past is prologue, there has never been a willingness on any administration’s part to use those sanctions."

Seems to prove my original point when I first raised this report, that "the US is unlikely to certify Japan too, under these circumstances" no?

or at least impose sanctions.

davidattokyo,

"You even ignore the point where they discuss sanctions against Japan if it doesnt alter its stance." Oh I must have missed that bit. What did they conclude? All guns blazing with sanctions?

Yeah it seems that you missed or omitted quite a bit from the report. Seems you found 2 reasonably supportive quotes and ran with them.

"As l said yesterday yes she blunders out that the could be thousands." Ah, you said she "blunders out" so it must be true then. Thanks for clearing it up.

Just like you said "there could be thousands [of minke whales] harvested sustainably in the southern ocean." But omitted the rest of the quote. Yes she did say what you typed but as you took it out of context (i.e. didnt put the full quote) its meaningless.

"She then goes on in the very next sentence to say "whaling isnt appropriate in that area" but again you choose to ignore that point." I didn't ignore it, I directly addressed it saying that her reasons for stating that are bogus. She herself concedes that a sanctuary isn't necessary because thousands of whales could be caught, but she says that because there is a sanctuary there should be no whaling. It doesn't make sense except perhaps to anti-whalers.

David she does not say that at all. Please stop claiming things that arnt written. At no point does she say the sanctuary is not required. You are nothing but lying there and you know it. In one breathe you say her reasons are bogus and in the next you are saying she says that there is no need for a sanctuary. David that is a lie you know it and l do as will anyone who reads the document.

"If anything they show that the US believes Japan to be in breach of the moratorium on commercial whaling and worse that they are conducting it in a sanctuary." IWC sanctuaries don't apply to research programmes, of which Japan is stated to have probably the best.

But David the US doesnt believe that the Japanese are conducting research as they say in the report and l will quote it for you as you overlooked this too. "the Japanese are conducting large scale industrial type whaling there"

So David its obvious you have been caught on a lie. And now you are trying to back out. So no point continuing the discussion as you cant be trusted to write the truth as this clearly points out.

Spidapig24,

Yes she did say what you typed but as you took it out of context (i.e. didnt put the full quote) its meaningless.

That wasn't context. The rest of her quote doesn't change the fact that thousands of whale could be harvested sustainably. She just thinks they shouldn't be because of blah blah blah.

At no point does she say the sanctuary is not required.

No, that's what I am saying, in addressing her comment.

you say her reasons are bogus and in the next you are saying she says that there is no need for a sanctuary.

No she is saying that there is a sanctuary so none of the thousands of whales that could be harvested should be harvested, I am saying that because thousands of whales could be harvested there is no need for a sanctuary.

But David the US doesnt believe that the Japanese are conducting research as they say in the report

Balton states quite clearly that Japan probably has the best science.

"the Japanese are conducting large scale industrial type whaling there"

The research indeed does involve several big ships, if that's what you are getting excited over...

Spidapig24,

Just so you know, the conditions required for IWC sanctuaries include the following:

(a) shall be ... necessary to carry out the objectives and purposes of this Convention and to provide for the conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale resources;

Taking zero of a potential harvest of thousands of whales is obviously not optimum utilization - it is non-utilization.

(b) shall be based on scientific findings;

There's a scientific basis against the sanctuary, but not one for it.

Skipping (c) as it's not relevant to Sanctuaries

(d) shall take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry.

Obviously the sanctuary doesn't take this into consideration.

The sanctuary is allegedly illegal, one might say, and certainly not needed.

DavidatTokyo,

states quite clearly that Japan probably has the best science

Indeed he does! He also states that Japan is breaching the IWC ban on commercial whaling and he also criticizes Japan quite badly for its whaling actions. But you stick to your one quote. And l will stick to the rest of the report that damns Japans actions.

The sanctuary is allegedly illegal, one might say, and certainly not needed

Funny the only ones who think the sanctuary is illegal is you, John Inwood, the ICR, and JWA. Oh and they are the ones even the US accuses of breaching the moratorium on commercial whaling.

Spidapig24, if the US really thought that they wouldn't have criticised Australia's ICJ case against Japan the way they did.

(And I think you are really reading the report about the US hearing with the blinkers on - plus there were two quotes in the report that I really like, a) Japan probably has the best science and the admission that Japan does research on the whales killed and b) Medina's admission that 1000s of whales could be caught sustainably, but we've already gone over that enough I think, so we'll have to disagree on what the English language in the document means)

davidattokyo

if the US really thought that they wouldn't have criticised Australia's ICJ case against Japan the way they did.

Well David what can l say, its all in the report that you provided the link to. It all in black and white and as you said the other day it was all said under oath. Its funny when you first brought this up to support your claims and before l read it you said "heaven forbid, might it be your viewpoint that is awry" I could really say that to you now.

And I think you are really reading the report about the US hearing with the blinkers on -

Wow l have blinkers on you are joking arnt you. You are the one that picked two partial statements out of a document and claim that they show support for Japan (which they do) but you omit the rest of the document indeed even the rest of the statement that is damning of Japan . I ask who has the blinkers on? Not me thats for sure.

so we'll have to disagree on what the English language in the document means

No we wont David, it is clearly stated what is said in the document. Yes there are two positive quotes that you mentioned l agree however the rest of the document is clearly damning of the Japanese there are no doubts about that at all. The only one doubting and claiming doubt is you, l can see it is crystal clear in what it is saying as can others who l have shown it too for an opinion.

The truth of the matter is David you tried to bluff your way through with this and it backfired you are now trying to save face and its not working. You can keep ignoring the facts of this document but they will not go away. I just wonder how many other documents you have misquoted in your attempts to get your point across.

Spidapig24,

You are the one that picked two partial statements out of a document and claim that they show support for Japan (which they do)

Those statements were just facts presented to the panel, a) Japan is actually doing research b) thousands of whales could be harvested sustainably.

Those are just facts though - based on those facts what US policy makers decide to do is entirely over to them.

They decide they want to be opposed to whaling and opposed to Japan's useful science programmes anyway - none of that changes the facts. It's all consistent with a US policy that is against whaling conducted by the Japanese. So what? None of that suggests that the US is going to put sanctions on Japan because it disagrees whether whaling is OK or not.

but you omit the rest of the document indeed even the rest of the statement that is damning of Japan.

The document is hardly "damning" of Japan, it's a talkfest amongst policy makers with advice from SMEs.

You can keep ignoring the facts of this document but they will not go away.

I've not ignored any facts. You seem to have confused US policy decisions with "facts" (just because US policy is against whaling by Japan does not mean it's a fact that Japan's whaling is commercial whaling in disguise, indeed the advice is contrary to that position) and you've also done a whole load of extrapolating about what you believe certain statements made were meant to mean, rather than taking the words at face value.

davidattokyo

You really hate to be proven as wrong dont you. Just give up on this David, everyone l have shown this too even pro whalers agree you are wrong on this one.

"You are the one that picked two partial statements out of a document and claim that they show support for Japan (which they do)" Those statements were just facts presented to the panel, a) Japan is actually doing research b) thousands of whales could be harvested sustainably.

Again you are cherry picking statements that support your argument and leaving out the rest. David if you are going to quote me quote my whole statement no just the bit that supports your flimsy argument please.

Those are just facts though - based on those facts what US policy makers decide to do is entirely over to them.

No David they are not facts they are called opinions. So what you are saying is that the entire report is someone's opinion and a bogus one you claimed yesterday. But their opinion on these two statements are fact. You have one interesting view on things there David.

They decide they want to be opposed to whaling and opposed to Japan's useful science programmes anyway - none of that changes the facts.

What facts David, the fact the US government, their IWC spokepeople all believe Japan is illegally large scale commercial whaling in a sanctuary. After all that is what they said under oath.

"but you omit the rest of the document indeed even the rest of the statement that is damning of Japan." The document is hardly "damning" of Japan, it's a talkfest amongst policy makers with advice from SMEs.

But yesterday you claimed it clearly supported your view on the legality of Japans whaling, now its a talkfest. Must be hard to accept your wrong.

I've not ignored any facts.

Yes you have and you have also misrepresented statements to suit your argument

You seem to have confused US policy decisions with "facts" (just because US policy is against whaling by Japan does not mean it's a fact that Japan's whaling is commercial whaling in disguise,

David l have not confussed anything, it states in black and white under oath that the US rep to the IWC believes that Japan is conducting large scale industrial whaling in the sanctuary end of story. Read it for yourself on the link you posted.

and you've also done a whole load of extrapolating about what you believe certain statements made were meant to mean, rather than taking the words at face value.

HAHAHAHAHA yeah right. From the man who is renouned for misquoting. For evidence see your posts on this article, even see the first line of your last post.

David l will let you get the last word in as it seems you need to do that. I have made my point thanks to your article l have nothing more to say

it states in black and white under oath that the US rep to the IWC believes that Japan is conducting large scale industrial whaling in the sanctuary end of story.

This much it says, so what?

You extrapolated this, saying "the US government, their IWC spokespeople all believe Japan is illegally large scale commercial whaling in a sanctuary."

As you can surely see for yourself, you've extrapolating the "large scale industrial whaling" description of the research whaling (which is probably the best science according to Balton) to "illegal commercial whaling".

That wasn't said. You extrapolated it.

and you've also done a whole load of extrapolating about what you believe certain statements made were meant to mean, rather than taking the words at face value.

HAHAHAHAHA yeah right.

Well I for one am pretty sure you extrapolated (presumably since the facts don't support you).

Funny you are also say "even pro whalers agree you are wrong on this one." As far as I could see, this was a ping-pong discussion between you and me. Now you know what "pro whalers" think too, as well as being able to read the mind of US representatives based on statements written in a document that do not say what you claim they say. It's odd, don't you think?

davidattokyo,

"it states in black and white under oath that the US rep to the IWC believes that Japan is conducting large scale industrial whaling in the sanctuary end of story." This much it says, so what?

Correct we agree on this.

You extrapolated this, saying "the US government, their IWC spokespeople all believe Japan is illegally large scale commercial whaling in a sanctuary."

Ok David so you are accusing me of assuming this. After all the definition of extrapolate is "to infer (an unknown) from something that is known". Now im really confused because above you say about the same quote "This much it says, so what?". So David in one sentence you agree in the next lm making it up, you can see how one would become confused you are flip flopping all over the place. But if you are unsure please refer to page 29 paragraph 4 of the Joint hearing document you sent me. I am sure you will find the quote l refer to there as it was said under oath. And you will also see that there was no extrapolating of this quote unlike some of yours.

As you can surely see for yourself, you've extrapolating the "large scale industrial whaling" description of the research whaling (which is probably the best science according to Balton) to "illegal commercial whaling".

Let me say it this way, is commercial whaling illegal? Yes. Is Japan a signature to that? Yes. Is Japan accused in the document of "large scale industrial whaling? Yes. Well then as commercial whaling is illegal, especially in a sanctuary and the people said under oath that they believe the Japanese are conducting large scale industrial whaling in a sanctuary. Then yes they are conducting illegal commercial whaling.

and you've also done a whole load of extrapolating about what you believe certain statements made were meant to mean, rather than taking the words at face value.

Wow that coming from the guy who takes the first portion of a sentence and claims that this proves the US supports the Japanese. When the rest of the sentence is critical of them. David rather than use fancy words like extrapolating, just come out and say you are accusing me of lying.Because as this whole thread has proven you extrapolate the little bits that support your argument and forget the rest and lm guessing if l go back and check all your sources l will find the same. Your only mistake here David was you assumed no one would read the entire document and you where caught out.

Well I for one am pretty sure you extrapolated (presumably since the facts don't support you).

Funny about that but everything l have said l can get the full quotes from the document. Now l would like to see you do that David. The full sentence not just the bit that suits your argument. You see l will admit that they did say Japan has a good research program. But l will also say that in the same document the same man criticizes Japans actions as well. So as for facts thanks to you l have all the quotes l need to refute you accusing me of lying.

Funny you are also say "even pro whalers agree you are wrong on this one." As far as I could see, this was a ping-pong discussion between you and me. Now you know what "pro whalers" think too, as well as being able to read the mind of US representatives based on statements written in a document that do not say what you claim they say. It's odd, don't you think?

See David here is another misquote on your part. You quote a tiny bit of a sentence to make things look damning. The whole quote is "everyone l have shown this too even pro whalers agree you are wrong on this one." You see the key words are EVERYONE I HAVE SHOWN THIS TOO. But l guess if you put that full quote in you couldnt accuse me of lying then could you. You think this is the only site that discusses this. Do you think that l dont talk to other people? So no l dont claim to read peoples minds l talk to them and have discussions with them and get their opinion.

Basically you want to say that to your mind, large scale industrial whaling (which involves producing the best science available) is equivalent to illegal commercial whaling, right?

just come out and say you are accusing me of lying

Not allowed to call people liars here at JT, and as for me I was only suggesting you are misinterpreting the comments in the document to mean things that they do not.

You see the key words are EVERYONE I HAVE SHOWN THIS TOO

Oh, maybe you meant "shown this to", rather than "shown this too"? Indeed if you meant the former, not the latter, then I can see how you might feel I selectively snipped your comment. But perhaps given that you seemingly mistakenly used "too" instead of "to", you can see how I thought it was snippable.

David l will let you get the last word in as it seems you need to do that. I have made my point thanks to your article l have nothing more to say

Did you not mean this? Just sayin'... I'll give you the last say when you answer my question at the top of this comment. Cheers