OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

@Robert Gentel,

RG, the establishment of the sanctuaries has stood the test of time and even the 2004 "review challenge" when Japan tried to boost the IWC by sponsoring "serf" state membership of places like landlocked AFrican and Asian nations. (They still didnt achieve the necessary majority to overturn).

I dont ever recall reading any literature in the refereed marine ecology journals or anything published by IWC that accepted the Japanese(sans evidence) argument

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

RG, the establishment of the sanctuaries has stood the test of time and even the 2004 "review challenge" when Japan tried to boost the IWC by sponsoring "serf" state membership of places like landlocked AFrican and Asian nations. (They still didnt achieve the necessary majority to overturn).

They have "stood the test of time" simply by steadfastly refusing to submit their decision to any kind of review. So yeah, they have the votes in the IWC for it, but that does not science make. They openly abandoned it in favor of a simple anti-whaling position. Here you go, the part I made bold makes it very clear that the anti-whaling nations recognize that the sustainability science is not on their side but that they oppose whaling altogether:

Quote:

In a note to Iceland and Norway in 1993, the USA explained the background for this change of position:

"The United States has been working in good faith in the IWC in recent years to develop reliable scientific data and a revised management scheme which could serve as a basis for a decision on whether to lift the moratorium on commercial whaling. Since that process is nearing completion and scientific analysis now shows that some populations of minke whales are likely to sustain a limited harvest, it was time to review US policy. As evidenced by the unanimous vote in the House for a resolution to ban commercial whaling, there is presently no support in the US Congress or among the American public for commercial whaling. Therefore, the United States has decided not to support resumption of commercial whaling, whether pelagic or coastal, and will abstain or vote against commercial quotas in the IWC".

To ensure that whaling nations such as Canada, Iceland, Japan, Norway and Russia follow whaling policies that are in agreement with the opinion of the American public, the USA has on a number of occasions threatened them with economic sanctions. The USA has also urged Iceland "to weigh the risks against the cost" in connection with Iceland’s proposals to resume whaling (US Note to Iceland, May 1993).

Britain came out of the closet in 1996. "Commercial whaling is opposed by the vast majority of our citizens and by Parliament... Accordingly, the UK will oppose any move to end the current moratorium on commercial whaling," said Tony Baldry, Britain’s Fisheries Minister, in a written statement to Parliament (May 8 1996).

The same attitude to whaling is evident Down Under. "Our basic concern is to ensure that whales are not killed", stated New Zealand’s IWC Commissioner Jim McClay (McClay, 1996). As grounds for this standpoint, he referred to "the current reality of world opinion" (NZ Opening Statement to the 1994 IWC Meeting).

There is no science to this, this is Western nations deciding that whales should not be killed, full stop.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070812192739/http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Trade/CITES/ci-an-iw.htm

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

They have never been told to get fucked, or anything like that, for having the opposite view, which has sometimes been presented in a very provocative (& sometimes quite uninformed) way.

Other than being in diametric opposition to your own point of view how is it provocative? I certainly never told you anythign like that did I?

Quote:

It aggravates me enormously if they then cry foul, or claim they are being "censored" or something, when we argue back from our perspective. What do they expect?

Less bias and more tolerance for one. When those on your side flog the horse you praise them for their patient virtues but those on the other side are portrayed as rude and provocative for doing the same thing but merely having the temerity to disagree. I have no problem when you guys argue back from your perspective. It's the part where you cry foul when your opposition argues theirs that we are talking about.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

This is an anti-whaling sanctuary, not a species-preservation sanctuary

. It does protect other speices than the target species, so what? Are sanctuaries supposed to be killing grounds? Perhaps you dont understand the concept of "sanctuary"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

It does protect other speices than the target species, so what?

Well when it's supposedly international law that should matter, but I don't know what you mean by this. I think the Minke is the target species, they knew the science would show a small catch was sustainable so they invoked the sanctuary (without the required scientific evidence for doing so) to prevent it.

If you think my understanding of this is incorrect I'd really like to be pointed to sources that contradict it.

Quote:

Are sanctuaries supposed to be killing grounds? Perhaps you dont understand the concept of "sanctuary"

Sarcasm aside, I understand the concept of sanctuary farmerman. But if you are going to call it law it can't just be arbitrary. For example, if I declare a pig sanctuary in the United States that doesn't make it illegal to eat pig. Likewise the IWC's declaration of the Southern Sanctuary doesn't even meet its own founding requirements (which is why the IWC refuses to review it) and is an arbitrary distinction that does not represent law.

Edit: you don't seem to mind discussing IWC farmer, if msolga objects to me discussing it with you would you come to me to a thread of my creation to do so.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Other than being in diametric opposition to your own point of view how is it provocative? I certainly never told you anythign like that did I?

No you didn't. I am talking about the ongoing experience of two long threads on this issue. There have been some quite unpleasant moments, including, at worst, a "trashing" episode of the first thread & it being removed for a while. No, I was responding to George's comments earlier in this thread

Quote:

Less bias and more tolerance for one. When those on your side flog the horse you praise them for their patient virtues but those on the other side are portrayed as rude and provocative for doing the same thing but merely having the temerity to disagree. I have no problem when you guys argue back from your perspective. It's the part where you cry foul when your opposition argues theirs that we are talking about.

First, I honestly believe, on the whole we've been very tolerant.
I can't recall praising anyone for their "patient virtues" at all. Confused

Which episode/s of "crying foul" are you referring to, Robert? I recall feeling, saying even, that I'd had enough after days of quite involved debate. And questioning the nature & relevance of some of the points being offered for debate. I can't recall "crying foul", though.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

I can't recall "crying foul", though.

Well if I'm imagining this very unwelcome feeling is it cool if I argue with farmerman here while he's still willing to discuss it?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert, my dear, you are most welcome on this thread. Of course you are. Smile

(I mean it, in case there's any confusion. That is not meant to be sarcasm, or anything like that, OK? )

Please continue now ...

0 Replies

The first IWC sanctuary was established in the Antarctic in 1938, south of 40°S between longitudes 70°W and 160°W. The original reason for this was that in this sector commercial whaling had not hitherto been prosecuted and it was thought highly desirable that the immunity which whales in this area had enjoyed should be maintained. This sanctuary was continued by the IWC from its inception until 1955

The Indian Ocean Sanctuary was established by the IWC in 1979, extending south to 55°S latitude, as an area where commercial whaling is prohibited. The Indian Ocean Sanctuary was initially established for 10 years and its duration has since been extended twice.

At the 46th (1994) Annual Meeting the IWC adopted the Southern Ocean Sanctuary as another area in which commercial whaling is prohibited. The northern boundary of this Sanctuary follows the 40°S parallel of latitude except in the Indian Ocean sector where it joins the southern boundary of that sanctuary at 55°S, and around South America and into the South Pacific where the boundary is at 60°S. This prohibition will be reviewed ten years after its initial adoption and at succeeding ten year intervals, and could be revised at such times by the IWC.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I missed this earlier on:

Quote:

Edit: you don't seem to mind discussing IWC farmer, if msolga objects to me discussing it with you would you come to me to a thread of my creation to do so.

Why on earth would I "object" to such a discussion?

Good grief, Robert.

Farmer speaks for himself. Always has. As if any perceived objection of mine would have any influence on what he feels free to discuss.

It is not as if I haven't discussed IWC decisions myself . It is not as if it is some sort of taboo subject.

Incredible.

1 Reply

We present a two-tiered analysis of molecular genetic variation in order to determine the origins of whale' products purchased from retail markets in Japan and the Republic of (South) Korea during 1993-1999. This approach combined phylogenetic analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences for identification of protected species with a statistical comparison of intraspecific haplotype frequencies for distinguishing regional subpopulations or 'stocks' hunted for scientific research by the Japanese and killed incidentally in coastal fisheries by the Koreans. The phylogenetic identification of 655 products included eight species or subspecies of baleen whales, sperm whales, a pygmy sperm whale, two species of beaked whales, porpoises, killer whales and numerous species of dolphins as well as domestic sheep and horses. Six of the baleen whale species (the fin, sei, common-form and small-form Bryde's, blue or blue/fin hybrid, and humpback) and the sperm whale are protected by international agreements dating back to at least 1989 for all species and 1966 for some species

These results confirmed the power of molecular methods in monitoring retail markets and pointed to the inadequacy of the current moratorium for ensuring the recovery of protected species. More importantly, the integration of genetic evidence with a model of population dynamics identified an urgent need for actions to limit undocumented exploitation of a 'protected' stock of whales.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1690661/

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Why on earth would I "object" to such a discussion?

Earlier, instead of responding to the content of my arguments dadpad, yourself, and farmerman decided to respond with characterizations about me that ranged from pedantic to annoying (charges that certainly have their merits but that also put an end to any actual discussion of whaling that was going on).

Dadpad ranted to me that "YOU are wrong" repeatedly, "You are wrong. Why can't you accept that. Am i getting through to you?" and went on to say to me "Stop forcing your view on to people who don't want it. It would be nice if you could graciously bow out now and let Msolga get on with her dream of changing the world to what she thinks is a better one." and your response was "Amen dadpad". I didn't think I was "forcing" anything, just being a lone dissenter to passionate folk but when I offered to do so you called it "gracious". Later on when I started my own thread you asked me not to reference someone who had referenced you, in order not to draw you into the discussion and all this gave me the impression that you guys did not find the discussion welcome sometimes and that you prefer the more dogmatic "your are wrong, go away" approach. In this and other incidents I was very clearly led to believe that pretty much any dissenting opinion that stays for more than a brief visit here was unwelcome. Several others have expressed this sentiment (George being the most recent one) so if dissent is welcome here that is a very well-disguised characteristic of this thread.

Like you said, it's always been an openly one-sided thread and I think to some extent that is what we are referencing, the occasional weariness of discussion and apparent desire to get back to one-sided whaling updates. I don't think there's anything wrong with that to be honest. It's like a thread about how to best elect a person having arguments about whether they are the right person to elect. That's why I think a2k should have groups, so people can make like-minded discussion areas which I think can be valuable.

On some occasions it really did seem that you wanted a like-minded kind of thing, sometimes not. I don't think you object to the discussions occurring so much as become weary and frustrated by it. On other threads I see you just let go and walk off, but here I felt that maybe since it was your thread you felt like you had to flog the horse as the host and that continuing to dissent here was putting undue pressure on you to spend days arguing your case. I just want to argue whaling, I don't want to impose on people and make them feel like they are obligated to do things they don't want. And after every time you discuss whaling with me you tell me how weary you are of the discussion (e.g. saying you've spent 3 days on it, I feel bad if that's not what you wanted to do and you felt compelled somehow by me to do so).

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert, I was responding to this comment of yours:

Quote:

Edit: you don't seem to mind discussing IWC farmer, if msolga objects to me discussing it with you would you come to me to a thread of my creation to do so.

I'm sorry to divert a thread on whale conservation to this particular comment, but I was deeply offended by it. That was what I was responding to. I would have thought you knew me much better than that by now. But anyway ...

You have no idea, Robert, how much grief these two "whales" threads has cost me, at times. Apart from anything else, there are people who regard it as a form of sport, or something Confused

, to jump on board & "have a go" at those silly "whale lovers". When they're in the mood. Every now & then. Or to push their particular band wagon, like George. I have generally tried to respond, sometimes practically turning myself inside out in an attempt to be "reasonable". You know, you really sell me short.

I am just about at the point of deciding to opt out of discussing this issue on A2K at all. Nowhere else on A2K do I feel my personal integrity is on the line, or being questioned.

Anyway, going by your (quoted) comment it appears that you might see me as an impediment to open conversation.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

I'm sorry to divert a thread on whale conservation to this particular comment, but I was deeply offended by it. That was what I was responding to. I would have thought you knew me much better than that by now. But anyway ...

My intention isn't to offend you, it is to avoid precisely what you say right after this.

Quote:

You have no idea, Robert, how much grief these two "whales" threads has cost me, at times. Apart from anything else, there are people who regard it as a form of sport, or something , to jump on board & "have a go" at those silly "whale lovers". When they're in the mood. Every now & then. Or to push their particular band wagon, like George. I have generally tried to respond, sometimes practically turning myself inside out in an attempt to be "reasonable". You know, you really sell me short.

I think you do very well msolga and I have a lot of respect for your patience and civility, what I am referencing is that I don't want to cause you grief. I mean that!

Quote:

I am just about at the point of deciding to opt out of discussing this issue on A2K at all. Nowhere else on A2K do I feel my personal integrity is on the line, or being questioned.

Anyway, going by your (quoted) comment it appears that you might see me as an impediment to open conversation.

I don't think you should feel that way, but that is exactly what I want to avoid and what I was suggesting a whaling argument thread (as opposed to a less contentious anti-whaling activism thread). The suggestion wasn't that you are an impediment to discussion or that you want to censor, just that I don't want to cause you any grief by arguing whaling on your thread. It feels like being the atheist ass arguing in church. Dunno, it feels impolite for whatever reason to me

So I'm just gonna take the argument part elsewhere where knuckleheads like farmerman and I can bang our heads against each other. Last time I made the mistake of going meta into food ethics and not just doing whaling so here's my whaling debate thread farmerman, if you'd like please respond to me there..

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

So I'm just gonna take the argument part elsewhere where knuckleheads like farmerman and I can bang our heads against each other

Robert, my last word on this tonight. I absolutely do not believe that farmer is a "knucklehead".

And I doubt I will be participating in a another whaling discussion on A2k. I think I might be doing it elsewhere.

2 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Robert, my last word on this tonight. I absolutely do not believe that farmer is a "knucklehead".

I didn't mean that in a bad way, I mean it affectionately in that he and I are more argumentative than you and I don't think he minds butting heads with me on whaling. That is all, no slight intended to him and I'm fine with being the only knucklehead then.

And please don't give up discussing whaling msolga here, that is the very kind of thing I was saying I wanted to avoid.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I think I have all but given up on discussing this at A2K, Robert. Sorry.

1 Reply

@msolga,

I, and any number of other people, will be very sorry if you decide to stick to that, Msolga.

But of course, you need to do whatever is right for you.

0 Replies

@msolga,

That would be unfortunate for us all Msolga.

You are one of the most cordial and congenial posters on a site that too often lacks these qualities.

Apparently you were offended by my comments on dogmatism and intolerance. That was not my intention, and I apologise if that was the outcome.

I have taken the title of this thread, "Outrage over Whaling" seriously and have attempted to address some of the issues it implies. I don't have sufficient knowledge of the biology & population data to either dispute you & farmerman over the scientific merits of the case, or to adopt your conclusions without question or reservation. So I have accepted your views on these matters at face value, and, instead, focused on another aspect of this longterm and very widespread outrage, namely its failure so far to achieve its intended purpose.

That is what is behind my suggestion that this is a political issue, and not merely a scientific or indeed a legal one. So far the outrage and the legal efforts have been notably usuccessful in persuading the Japanese (and others) to cease whaling in the areas that interest you (or everywhere if that is your purpose). Certainly the efforts of the activists to physically interfere with the Japanese whalers (endangering their own lives and those of others in the process) appear to have only increased the resolve of the Japanese whalers. I believe these facts do indeed merit some reassessment of the matter and the methods used so far.

Perhaps, instead you want an exclusive forum in which you and those of similar views can mutually reinforce the collective outrage of all the participants - and exclude those with differing views.. In that case my remarks about intolerance and dogmatism would be all the more apt.

By the way, I certainly don't think farmerman is a knucklehead. On the contrary, I like and admire him. We have a few interests and opinions in common and we disagree sharply on many issues. However, I'm generally glad to read his views even if I don't agree, and that disagreement - even if stated in strong terms - certainly doesn't diminish my interest in and enjoyment of what he posts here. Same goes for you.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Apparently you were offended by my comments on dogmatism and intolerance.

What we say on the net and how we intend to be heard are often miles apart. I had a similar "WTF" when I read the recent posts but I know that you usually shoot for substance and the format takes second place.
RG has started a thread for the "pro whale" guys to disucc the merits of killing whales. I dont have the heart to join in.

Ill sit here and kvetch about how the "illegalities" of whaling are patently obvious to many here but noit the obverse condition where a sovereign nation uses its staus AS a nation to break treaties and use "newspeak" to make us believe that they are not slaughtering whales at a rate that is unsustainable.

IWC has refused the data from Japan simply because they stated that they can not use data derived by non "lincoln indexing" techniques (Read : killing to count techniques) to assess the species population in one area.
MAybe the simplicity of that point doesnt ring elegant but killing to count is what they did to assess the bison and passenger pidgeon populations in the late 19th century.

0 Replies

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know