Surely you can do better than that.
Like using pointless one-liners like this? Like gainsay without any attempt at substantiation? I probably could do better than that but it's still a sight better than what you are doing.
Your view of the "whaling algorithms" is interesting. Ive been quoting the original ecology papaers that were done in the 90's'...
You "quoted" no such thing.
...when, according to the data, the number of individuals in a species was considered problematic to hunting when the present population was less than 0.5 of its pre whaling (natural population estimates).
Nobody really has any idea what "pre whaling" populations were and this simply is not a basis for claiming "sustainability".
Sustainability means the action can be sustained over time in the present and future, regardless of what previous population numbers were.
If you deny that the Minkes (entire world populations) are losing genetic diversity(which ois an indicator of pre-decline in a natural environment), lets see what youve got.
I've said no such thing. I asked you to substantiate your claims but you respond by asking me to substantiate claims I didn't even make
I would love to introduce you to burden of proof.
Im not married to any data package if its real stuff. But, why dont there appear any large "deep web" data lists of the genomes of the hunted whales by the Jaqpqnes?? Id say because their profit margin on each individual thats taken drives the "science".
It's now clear to me that you don't really actually follow any of this science at all because Japan has
done genetic diversity studies. But this is another distraction from having to actually substantiate the claims you parrot so getting back to that:
You repeatedly claimed that Minke whaling is not sustainable. Once again, I ask that you please substantiate your claims.
And, in case there is any confusion, that doesn't mean asking me to substantiate the negative of your claim, or asking me to substantiate other unrelated claims I have never spoken about.