Outrage over Japan's plan to slaughter humpback whales

Setanta wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
I am primarily adressing the faction that consider whaling to be inherently wrong for some reason, not just unwise due to small whale populations. Comparing apples to oranges is legitimate when discussing the properties of fruit.

But you aren't in a discussion about fruit--this is the equivalent of making such an argument while everyone else is speaking of vegetables. Whales are wild, and swine and cattle are domestic. Whales inhabit this planet with us as a consequence of evolution--swine and cattle inhabit our agronomic industrial sites because we have chosen them and bred them for the "honor."

I don't see how the difference is relevant to my argument, but substitute salmon and cod for pigs and cattle, and the argument still stands.

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
I am not sure of all the species listed on the site msolga linked, but I understand minke whales, though far below their pre-whaling numbers, are plentiful, and not at all in danger of extinction. As for ecological balances, that is for each nation to evaluate, in cooperation with its neighbors.

I submit to you that given the ability to feed people comfortably with swine and cattle, there is no need of this wild harvest. Furthermore, i submit that in the specific case of the Japanese, like petulant children, they insist upon their choice to eat whales--not a necessity--and cooperation with their neighbors is not and never has been on their agenda. The wish to cajole, they wish to bully; but above all, they wish to serve an exotic food market to their own profit, and the rest of the world be damned. The Norwegians may be more civil in this regard, but i don't for a moment believe that it is necessary to their domestic economy to hunt whales.

I don't think anyone has claimed that whaling is an economic neccessity, though I'm sure that there are economic incentives. I see the choice to eat whale the same way I see the choice to eat salmon, cod, pigs or cattle, economies would survive without them as well.

The Japanese may well be overfishing, and their whaling in waters other than their own is questionable at best, but I see this as an issue to be resolved by Japan and other countries making a claim to those whale stocs. Endangered species should not be hunted, but a species need not be endangered just because it tallies less than half of what it did in the 17th century.

0 Replies

Quote:The whaling moratorium is an international "agreement" & not international law, so Norway feels no moral obligation (as a member) to uphold IWC policy? Then why participate? I honestly don't get it.

Of course, I could say the same for Japan. Why bother, when you have a resolve to do want you want to do, despite international agreements? And why bother attempting to stack the the committee & influence decisions? To what purpose? All this tells me is that we need an organization with real clout, which can put binding international laws in place. The IWC appears to have no real teeth at all & appears to be very open to corruption.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

einharjr said
Quote:
but I understand minke whales, though far below their pre-whaling numbers, are plentiful, and not at all in danger of extinction. As for ecological balances, that is for each nation to evaluate, in cooperation with its neighbors.

Any species that is removed from the planet at a rate higher than its replacement rate, is going to become extinct. You are kidding us if you believe that the minke whale population, estimated at about 1.2 million worldwide, can stand a critical population reduction, when noone knows its breeding patterns, or what constitutes a minimally viable population (we seem to feel that " right" whales are doomed because they have a minimum population requirement so that "random" breeding hits are accomplished by species density. Its maybe too late for them, because many of the nubile young cows are unmated giving credence to the observation that right whales just "hook up" they really dont have a mating relationship.

It is my understanding that the stock of minke whale in the Northern Atlantic has picked up considerably in recent years, and that hunting it is therefore considered sustainable. If I am not mistaken there are three populations of minke whale, one in the northern Atlantic, one in the northern Paciffic, and one in antarctic regions. These populations should be considered sepparately when determining the sustainability of whaling.

Quote:

The minke whale is considered to be reasonable abundant. However, the exact sizes of the various stocks are subject of discussion. The following stocks estimates are available:

North Pacific: 17,000-28,000. This stock is considered a Protection Stock by the IWC, because of the high uncertainties in these estimates.
Northeast Atlantic: 70,000-186,000. The IWC estimated this population at 90,000 to 135,000 in 1996. An estimated population of 6,000 whales was determined for the area North and East of Jan Mayen. The Central Atlantic stock was estimated at 60,000 in 1995. A 1990 survey estimated this same population at 28,000. The difference was attributed to a population increase and improved census methods.
Southern Hemisphere: 200,000-416,700.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jaap/minke.htm

It would appear to me that the Atlantic stock, being much more condensed than the Antarctic one, and much larger than the North paciffic one, should be able to sustain whaling if the other stocks are viable. I remember reading of considerable growth in the population, whcih should indicate that whaling would be sustainable.

Quote:

In 1991, the Scientific Committee made a point estimate of 68,447 minke whales in the North-East Atlantic stock. Much of the Norwegian hunt is conducted within this stock. The RMP was still not finished so the Commission refused to set any quota.

In 1992, the Scientific Committee reached a unanimous assessment that estimated the North-East Atlantic minke whale stock to be 86,700. Again, the IWC did not set a quota.

Based on this new estimate, Norway announced that commercial harvesting of minke whales would resume in 1993.

In 1996, the Scientific Committee estimated the North-East Atlantic minke whale stock at 112,000. This estimate is based on a line transect survey carried out in 1995 using methodology previously approved by the Scientific Committee.

http://www.highnorth.no/iwc2000/briefings/Moratorium.htm

I can spot a trend.

farmerman wrote:

For all these recent conclusions about the projected fates of some whale species, I blame all nations that whale. The Norwegians cant mount any moral high ground and place blame on the Japanese, when the Norwegians were still whacking away at right whales until the stock was depleted.

You can't blame Norway for not setting and enforcing proper quota's prior to the international agreement to grant costal states an economic exclution zone of 200 miles in the late 70's. Before this the exclution zone was 50 miles, and had even then been recently extended. Norway could not unilateraly enforce whale quota's prior to this, nor could any nation. I do not belive right whales have been hunted since this agreement.

farmerman wrote:

The oceans in general are in a critical state for availability of resources and the only way that commercial stocks of anything can be replenished (Using your delightful parlance) is to quit taking them until you understand the rate that is safe to deplete. You cannot prove to me that the combined taking of whales by Norway, Japan, Russia, and whoever else is engaged in this reckless destruction of entire species, is not marching these animals to extinction. If only your country and the others would communicate the rate of destruction that youre engaged in, perhaps, together you could reach the conclusion that seems self evident to many of us.

Since the minke population has grown considerably in recent years I'd say that limited whaling combined with further surveilance would be an acceptable course of action, wouldn't you?

My other life is interupting, I'll respond to the rest of your post shortly.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

If only you could really realize and employ the husbandry skills of commercial meat producers, maybe you could do something to repopulate whales. Ive been plying the waters of the Bay of Fundy looking for whales and we noticed that, this year, its already mid July and we havent seen one Right whale yet.

Right whales are endangered, they are also a sepparate species from Minke Whales.

farmerman wrote:

Excuse me if I dont pat the Norwegians on the back for practicing sustainable whaling. Your just as guilty as the damn Japanese. Itll take another 15 million years or so for a common land dwelling ancestor to develop from manatees or dugong to evolve another whale-like creature from a semi oceanic Sirinea species. I dont have that long and I dont wish the existing whale species to be wiped out while you just point at each other saying "it was his fault"

Are you alledging that there has been whaling of declining stocs in Norwegian waters since the exclution zone extention? If you are, back that allegation up.

The decimation of whale stocs prior to about 1980 lies squarely at the feet of the international comunity, in failing to either set up an effective management regime for whaling (as well as other fishing), or granting individual nations the rights to manage the waters off their own coasts. The IWC at the time was a joke. Any finger pointing would have to be preceeded by a digging through old archives to look up votes on relevant issues in the IWC and other relevant forums. Laying the blame on each nation individually doesn't make sense given the circumstances.

farmerman wrote:

Whales dont recognize political boundaries, they are creatures that have evolved genetic memories of their worldwide travels and they return to familiar grounds after thousands of trip-miles. Theres where the slaughters occur.

I didn't know about the genetic memories, sounds interesting, and unlikely. Anyway, the bordercrossing properties of marine resources requires cooperation between nations sharing stocs of marine creatures. Such cooperation exists in the northeastern Atlantic, and has since the early 80's.

farmerman wrote:

Ya know, at least with the sturgeon population, the Russians, Iranians, and the people of the Ohio River basin have learned how to rear and raise sturgeon for the caviar market. Caviar, like whales comes only at the price of a life that, until recently , was a total mystery . There may be hope for Sturgeon, somehow I dont see the Norwegians or Japanese "hand rearing" or insemnating female whales at a rate that exceeds your plunder.

But then again, you don't se Norwegian whale stocs declining either, at least not the stocs of species permitted to be whaled. How many deer are hand reared or inseminated in the US?

The whale issue is merely a subset of the larger issue of management of marine resources, an issue which has been largely resolved in the my part of the world. Mismanagement, or rather non-management, ran rampant prior to the extention of economic exclution zones in the late 1970's, and mismanagement is still a pressing issue in many parts of the world.

The Japanese may well be overwhaling, they have messed up stocs of other species before, and I've already voiced opposition to their, or anyones, harvest in international waters. Oceanic property-rights is what needs to be resolved, and not just with respect to whales.

I'll return to this thread later today, my other life interupting again.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

The whaling moratorium is an international "agreement" & not international law, so Norway feels no moral obligation (as a member) to uphold IWC policy? Then why participate? I honestly don't get it.

Current membership of the IWC:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/members.htm

The IWC was iformed in 1946, before countries were allowed to manage marine resources some distance off their coasts. Depletion of whale stocs was becomming apparent, and whaling countries decided that whaling would need to be regulated in order to be sustainable. The IWC was an attempt to set up a reliable quota regime at a time when most of the worlds oceans were considered "international waters", and the harvesting of marine resources in international waters was a free for all. Countries considered it their right to fish and whale unhindered just off the shores of other countries. The IWC was working in our interest, and joining it was the natural thing to do. Due to internal bickering however, the IWC failed, and didn't do much of anything until 1974. Whaling in accordance with the IWC regime after 74 was generally sustainable, though lapses occured, and enforcement was problematic. Not all countries were equally enthusiastic about enforcing agreed quota's.

The moratorium was implemented in 1986, and was intended to be a temporary mesure while the IWC reviewed it's method for determining sustainable quota's, and for enforcing them. It was not intended to last longer than until 1990.

An influx of countries with no connection to whaling turned the mood in the IWC conservationist however, and the moratorium was extended indefinetely. Norway lodged a protest, and exempted itself from the ban on whaling, opting instead to manage it's own whale stocs, just like it had successfully managed it's own fish stocs since getting the power to do so in the late 1970's. (Comercial exclutionzone extended from 50 to 200 miles)

I agree that the IWC is no longer relevant to Norwegian fisheries, and that we should withdraw from it. It is still relevant to the paciffic however, as much of that ocean is still considered international waters, and as the countries around it have not agreed to a ban on fishing and whaling in such waters. The IWC thus remains the only organisation with any semblance of authority to regulate whaling activities in much of the paciffic ocean. I'm sure that goes for much of the antarctic as well.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

All this tells me is that we need an organization with real clout, which can put binding international laws in place. The IWC appears to have no real teeth at all & appears to be very open to corruption.

I wouldn't want to extend international law beyond what is almost universally agreed, lest it looses its credibility. International law should focus on issues of war and peace, as well as genocide and other crimes against humanity.

0 Replies

einherjar said

Quote:

But then again, you don't se Norwegian whale stocs declining either, at least not the stocs of species permitted to be whaled. How many deer are hand reared or inseminated in the US?

You try to make an argument as if your practices are laudable, but the other guys in the game are brutes. When I said that whales dont respect political borders, their "genetic memory" is of normal routes of travel, over which theyve wandered since the Miocene and maybe before. There is No such thing as a NORWEGIAN STOCK of whales, these are transoceanic pelagic creatures.
In the US we have that "dont blame me mentality" in our water treatment facilities. We each filter the sewage and treat it to an acceptable limit for most things until, by the time the water course reaches its mouth, there are high concentrations of chlorinated compounds that, if everyone along the stream would treat their water to a higher degree, the last bath out would be much cleaner.
Same thing with whales, with everyone killing the whales, we have species on the verge of extinction, and a little concern to stop further slaughter. You seem to take refuge behind a nationalistic pride that "your industry is acting responsibly"

Minke whales have always been unaffected because they are small versions of the finbacks. They just havent been hunted to near extinction However, given the rate of decimation among the whaling countries, we will be having this same converstaion in a few years, except youll want to sanction the slaughter of tiny belugas.

I like cod, I like fried codfish with tartar sauce. I like its mild flavor. I dont eat it anymore nor do0 I support the "coyotes" who overfish cod, or shrimp, or sturgeon, or whales. You cannot supply any convincing evidence other than census numbers that indicate we understand anything about the whales population dynamics.
Of course I know that right whales are different than minkes, I brought up the point to address the rapidly declining numbers of pregnant female right whales because all the "geniuses" studying cetacean ecology didnt know or take a guess that many populations require minimum numbers of individuals to be considered viable, let alone "sustainable". All the science supplied by the whaling nations and you didnt even know aboput Shelfords Law in guessing about Right WHales. Some ecologists.
The fact that right whales are being allowed to go to extinction without any additional intrusion is mighty decent of you and Japan, now we see that Minkes are on the menu.
You can make whatever arguments regarding your nations practices in responsible whaling. Just like the US is using a righty agenda driving a serpentine understanding of "atmospheric Science", I accuse all whaling nations of purposefully driving a number of whale species to the brink of extinction for the stupidest of reasons, gluttony.

0 Replies

very well put farmerman I commend you and are fully in agreement with you.

0 Replies

I'm unable to find a link to this story, but I heard on ABC radio today that sales of blue whale meat are available for sale in Japanese markets. The blue whale is an endangered species & it's definitely not acceptable for the Japanese to hunt & kill them. I'll keep looking & supply more details when I find them.

0 Replies

Quote:

Minke whales are distributed world-wide, with three major distinct populations: the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and southern oceans. However, genetic work now indicates that the two hemispheres may contain different species of minke whales, as opposed to distinct populations of a single species.

http://www.whalecenter.org/species.htm

The north atlantic Minke is a sepparate population and a sepparate subspecies. They do not leave the Atlantic ocean.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

I'm unable to find a link to this story, but I heard on ABC radio today that sales of blue whale meat are available for sale in Japanese markets. The blue whale is an endangered species & it's definitely not acceptable for the Japanese to hunt & kill them. I'll keep looking & supply more details when I find them.

They're not supposed to according to Japanese policy either. This smells like lack of enforcement.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

msolga wrote:
All this tells me is that we need an organization with real clout, which can put binding international laws in place. The IWC appears to have no real teeth at all & appears to be very open to corruption.

I wouldn't want to extend international law beyond what is almost universally agreed, lest it looses its credibility. International law should focus on issues of war and peace, as well as genocide and other crimes against humanity.

What on earth is the problem with laws regarding ecology concerns? Confused

Why should such laws lack credibility? We all live on one planet, after all. We've seen enough destruction & loss already. Positive steps can actually be made if we all try to work together!

0 Replies

Einherjar is ignoring that cod and salmon breed by spawning, and produce literally thousands of eggs in order to obtain a few viable adults who can then repeat this "scattergun" style of reproduction. Whales do not reproduce in such a manner. Furthermore, the comment about deer in the United States is ludicrous. Deer are so abundant, that states are faced with hiring profession hunters to cull the herds, or deal with the health hazards of hundreds or even thousands of deer dying of starvation or disease. Once again, a single stag with a harem can produce many offspring, and most of them will be viable. Once again, no such reproductive "bonus" applies to whales.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

msolga wrote:
I'm unable to find a link to this story, but I heard on ABC radio today that sales of blue whale meat are available for sale in Japanese markets. The blue whale is an endangered species & it's definitely not acceptable for the Japanese to hunt & kill them. I'll keep looking & supply more details when I find them.

They're not supposed to according to Japanese policy either. This smells like lack of enforcement.

Yes, it does, Einherjar. Another theory proposed on the ABC program was that they might have "accidentally" have been caught by net trawling. Not good enough, really.

0 Replies

Found it!:

Last Update: Thursday, July 21, 2005. 6:27pm (AEST)

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200506/r50403_134037.jpg

Jean-Michel Cousteau says the Japanese should admit their whaling program is not for scientific purposes. (ABC TV)

Japanese eating endangered whales: Cousteau

The son of oceanographer Jacques Cousteau says Japan should admit its whaling program is a farce.

Ocean expert Jean-Michel Cousteau says genetic testing has confirmed that one of the world's engendered species, the blue whale, is being sold at Japanese fish markets.

Japan has always maintained its scientific whaling program is about real science.

Japanese officials say whales are killed to determine their age and what they eat.

Blue whale is one of the species Japan is not allowed to kill under International Whaling Commission (IWC) rules.

"You can go on the fish market in Tokyo and find all kinds of whale meat for sale," Mr Cousteau said.

"Elements have been picked up and analysed for DNA, you know that they are some of the species that they are not supposed to capture."

The Japanese Fisheries Division's international negotiations director was not available for an interview.

Peter Harrison, the director of the Whale Research Centre at Southern Cross University, says it is a mystery how blue whale meat ends up in Japanese markets.

"It's not entirely certain how these species end up as part of the meat market situation," he said.

"But in some cases it appears that some of these protected species are actually killed as part of becoming entangled in netting operations close to shore, not necessarily as an active part of whaling with exploding harpoons."

But Mr Cousteau is sceptical.

"My concern is that it's hypocritical, they have to say things the way they are and not hide behind scientific research as an excuse to kill those whales," he said.

Whales have impressed Mr Cousteau, who has been diving since he was seven.

His late father was the co-inventor of the underwater breathing equipment used by most divers.

"I've dived with many, many whales - grey whales, humpback whales, sperm whales - many times since I was seven years of age, and this was 60 years ago," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1419595.htm

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
msolga wrote:
All this tells me is that we need an organization with real clout, which can put binding international laws in place. The IWC appears to have no real teeth at all & appears to be very open to corruption.

I wouldn't want to extend international law beyond what is almost universally agreed, lest it looses its credibility. International law should focus on issues of war and peace, as well as genocide and other crimes against humanity.

What on earth is the problem with laws regarding ecology concerns? Why should such laws lack credibility? We all live on one planet, after all. We've seen enough destruction & loss already. Positive steps can actually be made if we all try to work together!

I'm worried that someone might draft a law based on KYOTO, and the US would object, that someone might draft a law on chemical waste, and a number of kleptocrat regimes would flaunt it without reprecussions, and when some asswipe of a dictator decides to have a go at ethnic clensing he'll just excuse it by saying "law smaw, everyone's in breach of something, why should a different standard be applied to me?"

I want even countries that disagree with certain provisions of international law to feel bound by it, and I belive that environmental legislation followed by widespread non-compliance would undermine that.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Einherjar is ignoring that cod and salmon breed by spawning, and produce literally thousands of eggs in order to obtain a few viable adults who can then repeat this "scattergun" style of reproduction. Whales do not reproduce in such a manner. Furthermore, the comment about deer in the United States is ludicrous. Deer are so abundant, that states are faced with hiring profession hunters to cull the herds, or deal with the health hazards of hundreds or even thousands of deer dying of starvation or disease. Once again, a single stag with a harem can produce many offspring, and most of them will be viable. Once again, no such reproductive "bonus" applies to whales.

So you're saying what, that the north atlantic minke whale population is not growing? I'm objecting to the idea that whales should be protected for being "majestic", a clear parallel to the "cattle should be protected for being holy" possition.

If you're making the argument instead that harvesting of north atlantic minke is unsustainable, please expand, figures are especially welcome.

0 Replies

Nothing ventured, nothing gained, Einherjar. It matters. And (obviously)the IWC seems to me not to be the appropriate place to protect whales.

0 Replies

Well, I consider genocide to be worse by several factors of magnitude. Some things are better left unventured.

Both whaling and fishing should be banned in international waters. Provisions should then be made in the WTO, allowing countries to sanction other countries for overexploiting stocs of marine resources in which they share. I'm sure agreements would then be reached.

0 Replies

No, not the WTO. This issue is not just about trade.

0 Replies

Outrage over Japan's plan to slaughter humpback whales

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know