Comments on: How to justify killing pregnant whales http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/ hopping along the corridors of power Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:02:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: david @ tokyo http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16690 david @ tokyo Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:39:13 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16690 Your attempt to cast doubt on the independance of the NIWA scientists doesn't convince me at all. Your attempt to cast doubt on the independance of the NIWA scientists doesn’t convince me at all.

]]> By: naturevision http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16566 naturevision Sat, 05 Aug 2006 04:42:34 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16566 ^they are very much connected to Mfish, who are under A LOT of pressure from the industry... ^they are very much connected to Mfish, who are under A LOT of pressure from the industry…

]]> By: david @ tokyo http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16561 david @ tokyo Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:06:41 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16561 kiore1, The scientific advice is provided by the independant scientists at NIWA. They are not connected to the squid fishery as far as I know. Regards. kiore1,

The scientific advice is provided by the independant scientists at NIWA.

They are not connected to the squid fishery as far as I know.

Regards.

]]> By: kiore1 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16543 kiore1 Thu, 03 Aug 2006 23:04:05 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16543 Is this the same kind of scientific "advice" that told Anderton that hens suffer no more in battery cages than in well-managed free range systems. Is it the same sort of "advice" as that given by an industrial veterinarian who would not even divulge his methodology. Is it the same kind of "advice" as that given by the same crooked vet who supposedly did a survey of free range egg producers but failed to even contact the largest producer. Is it the same "advice" that totally ignored a scientific review by top European poultry scientists whose results were not favorurable to the industry. Is it the same kind of "advice" that instead cited a very poor, non-peer reviewed study that was totally torn apart by 3 reputable poultry welfare scientists. Is it the same "advice" that was stimulated by legal threats and bullying by the industry. Or was it the sort of "advice" given by treasury and the Ministry for the Environment, who manipulated an independent economic report staing that importing GM crops would lower GDP, and claimed in the absence of evidence that the report said exactly the opposite. Is it the sort of "advice" that I as a policy adviser was asked to give to the Minister "can you debunk this please?", written about an experiment showing that rats prefered non-GM to GM corn (note: Not "can you comment on this please", or "what do you think of this research", but "can you DEBUNK this". Is it the same kind of "advice" as that given to the minister after I was asked to critique Jeffrey Smiths "hard to swallow". I gave an honest appraisal, giving some cases where the authors' science was suspect, as well as other cases where it was spot on. Surprise, surprise, and no guessing which bits were left out when my highly "edited" advice finally got to the Minister. So forgive me for being cynical, but ministerial scientific "advice" carries about as much credibility with me as consulting a crystal ball. In fact less, because the crystal ball may sometimes come out against industry interests, but by some amazing coincidence, ministerial "scientific" advice always agrees with the industry. www.epf.org.nz Is this the same kind of scientific “advice” that told Anderton that hens suffer no more in battery cages than in well-managed free range systems. Is it the same sort of “advice” as that given by an industrial veterinarian who would not even divulge his methodology. Is it the same kind of “advice” as that given by the same crooked vet who supposedly did a survey of free range egg producers but failed to even contact the largest producer. Is it the same “advice” that totally ignored a scientific review by top European poultry scientists whose results were not favorurable to the industry. Is it the same kind of “advice” that instead cited a very poor, non-peer reviewed study that was totally torn apart by 3 reputable poultry welfare scientists. Is it the same “advice” that was stimulated by legal threats and bullying by the industry.

Or was it the sort of “advice” given by treasury and the Ministry for the Environment, who manipulated an independent economic report staing that importing GM crops would lower GDP, and claimed in the absence of evidence that the report said exactly the opposite. Is it the sort of “advice” that I as a policy adviser was asked to give to the Minister “can you debunk this please?”, written about an experiment showing that rats prefered non-GM to GM corn (note: Not “can you comment on this please”, or “what do you think of this research”, but “can you DEBUNK this”. Is it the same kind of “advice” as that given to the minister after I was asked to critique Jeffrey Smiths “hard to swallow”. I gave an honest appraisal, giving some cases where the authors’ science was suspect, as well as other cases where it was spot on. Surprise, surprise, and no guessing which bits were left out when my highly “edited” advice finally got to the Minister.

So forgive me for being cynical, but ministerial scientific “advice” carries about as much credibility with me as consulting a crystal ball. In fact less, because the crystal ball may sometimes come out against industry interests, but by some amazing coincidence, ministerial “scientific” advice always agrees with the industry.

http://www.epf.org.nz

]]> By: david @ tokyo http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16538 david @ tokyo Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:53:23 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16538 HB - I read Jim Anderton's press releases carefully, and it seems that his decision was made in full view of the scientific advice he had received, and he made a conservative decision based on that advice. Also worth remembering that the Fishieries Minister was taken to court in previous years for failing to make a balanced decision, and the industry won the case. I do agree that this presents an inconsistency. Clearly New Zealand law requires the minister to make balanced decisions where there are domestic parties involved, but New Zealand's position at the IWC is very different - politically expedient rather than principled. New Zealand either believes in science based decision making for conservation, whether that be at home or abroad, or it doesn't. But it's too much to expect politicians to be consistent :-) farmgeek - you're welcome :-) HB - I read Jim Anderton’s press releases carefully, and it seems that his decision was made in full view of the scientific advice he had received, and he made a conservative decision based on that advice.

Also worth remembering that the Fishieries Minister was taken to court in previous years for failing to make a balanced decision, and the industry won the case.

I do agree that this presents an inconsistency. Clearly New Zealand law requires the minister to make balanced decisions where there are domestic parties involved, but New Zealand’s position at the IWC is very different - politically expedient rather than principled.

New Zealand either believes in science based decision making for conservation, whether that be at home or abroad, or it doesn’t. But it’s too much to expect politicians to be consistent :-)

farmgeek - you’re welcome :-)

]]> By: farmgeek http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16528 farmgeek Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:02:51 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16528 Thanks David - I appreciate the perspective and you do provide food for thought. Thanks David - I appreciate the perspective and you do provide food for thought.

]]> By: HB http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16492 HB Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:02:05 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16492 The Government certainly does display some interesting differences in stance. For example, the Government - specifically Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton - allows the killing of endangered marine mammals here at home in NZ waters (NZ sea lions) while advocating against other countries doing so internationally (commercial and "scientific" whaling). NZ sea lions are more endangered than minke whales and their population is in serious decline. Many sea lions killed in the squid fishery are pregnant, and have pups on shore that starve to death - killing one female sea lion is equivalent to three sea lion deaths. Anyone notice any inconsistencies here? The Government certainly does display some interesting differences in stance. For example, the Government - specifically Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton - allows the killing of endangered marine mammals here at home in NZ waters (NZ sea lions) while advocating against other countries doing so internationally (commercial and “scientific” whaling). NZ sea lions are more endangered than minke whales and their population is in serious decline. Many sea lions killed in the squid fishery are pregnant, and have pups on shore that starve to death - killing one female sea lion is equivalent to three sea lion deaths. Anyone notice any inconsistencies here?

]]> By: david @ tokyo http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16486 david @ tokyo Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:40:35 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16486 > “The world is realising that there is no need or reason to prevent sustainable commercial whaling in the Antarctic under IWC management procedure and Australia may find itself standing alone while the rest of world moves on,� There is no "apparently" about this. "it's certainly true that if commercial whaling were resumed under the revised management procedure, it could be managed safely" That's Judy Zeh, former Chair of the IWC Scientific Committee talking to the aussie media a few years ago. Head of Science at the IWC, Greg Donovan agrees: "From a scientific perspective, the IWC Scientific Committee has developed probably the most rigorously tested way to estimate safe catch levels for any marine species." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5103378.stm To be blunt, the environmental movement discredits itself by clinging to the idea that every last whale must be protected from the harpoons. New Zealand has populations of small dolphins that are in serious danger of extinction. The minke whale is a non-issue, in terms of pure conservation. It's time for the environmental movement to get it's priorities straight. > “The world is realising that there is no need or reason to prevent sustainable commercial whaling in the Antarctic under IWC management procedure and Australia may find itself standing alone while the rest of world moves on,�

There is no “apparently” about this.

“it’s certainly true that if commercial whaling were resumed under the revised management procedure, it could be managed safely”

That’s Judy Zeh, former Chair of the IWC Scientific Committee talking to the aussie media a few years ago.

Head of Science at the IWC, Greg Donovan agrees:
“From a scientific perspective, the IWC Scientific Committee has developed probably the most rigorously tested way to estimate safe catch levels for any marine species.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5103378.stm

To be blunt, the environmental movement discredits itself by clinging to the idea that every last whale must be protected from the harpoons.

New Zealand has populations of small dolphins that are in serious danger of extinction. The minke whale is a non-issue, in terms of pure conservation. It’s time for the environmental movement to get it’s priorities straight.

]]> By: david @ tokyo http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16485 david @ tokyo Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:32:41 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16485 > When the news is full of stories of massive whale meat gluts and reluctant consumers of the by-product of their alleged scientific whaling programme, what other conclusion can you arrive at? Do you believe that you are getting the full, accurate story about this, through pure unmanipulated western media? To give you something to think about: I went down the road on the weekend to a restaurant that I had previously seen advertising whale bacon on the menu (wrote about it on this blog previously). I tried to order some, but was told that they had sold out. Do you think people go to the restaurant and buy it for their pet dogs? > When the news is full of stories of massive whale meat gluts and reluctant consumers of the by-product of their alleged scientific whaling programme, what other conclusion can you arrive at?

Do you believe that you are getting the full, accurate story about this, through pure unmanipulated western media?

To give you something to think about: I went down the road on the weekend to a restaurant that I had previously seen advertising whale bacon on the menu (wrote about it on this blog previously). I tried to order some, but was told that they had sold out. Do you think people go to the restaurant and buy it for their pet dogs?

]]> By: david @ tokyo http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16484 david @ tokyo Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:24:26 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2006/07/31/how-to-justify-killing-pregnant-whales/#comment-16484 This complaint about the JARPA programme deserves some careful thought and analysis. The JARPA II programme is set to take 850 minke whales each summer, of which roughly half will be female - 425 on average. The IWC Scientific Committee estimates that there are literally hundreds of thousands of minke whales in the Antarctic during the summer when the JARPA II research is undertaken. New minke abundance estimates are set to be agreed upon by this time next year, but the current (negatively biased) abundance estimate has more than 300,000 minkes (see the latest Scientific Committee report at the IWC homepage - there's other info there to suggest that the finalized estimate will probably turn out to be higher than this, in fact). Anyway, we are almost certainly talking of around 150,000 female minke whales. As Hatakana says, the JARPA II sample shows that many of the mature females are pregnant (this fact was actually reported in the IWC Scientific Committee report earlier this year - HSI must not have bothered to read the IWC Scientific Committee report when it first came out back in mid-June?). 250 killed vs 150,000 left. Yes, the fetuses of the 250 are gone as well, but there's clearly plenty more baby whales on the way as this sample indicates. Is anyone really willing to make claims that it is 'pretty hard to maintain such a “robust� population in future', giving the basically insignifcant numbers of whales being taken in the JARPA II programme? The intellectually honest will admit that Hatanaka is quite right that this is good news for whale conservation. I blogged as much on this myself several days ago when the news first came out: http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/07/whaling-lots-of-pregnant-minkes.html This complaint about the JARPA programme deserves some careful thought and analysis.

The JARPA II programme is set to take 850 minke whales each summer, of which roughly half will be female - 425 on average.

The IWC Scientific Committee estimates that there are literally hundreds of thousands of minke whales in the Antarctic during the summer when the JARPA II research is undertaken. New minke abundance estimates are set to be agreed upon by this time next year, but the current (negatively biased) abundance estimate has more than 300,000 minkes (see the latest Scientific Committee report at the IWC homepage - there’s other info there to suggest that the finalized estimate will probably turn out to be higher than this, in fact).

Anyway, we are almost certainly talking of around 150,000 female minke whales. As Hatakana says, the JARPA II sample shows that many of the mature females are pregnant (this fact was actually reported in the IWC Scientific Committee report earlier this year - HSI must not have bothered to read the IWC Scientific Committee report when it first came out back in mid-June?).

250 killed vs 150,000 left. Yes, the fetuses of the 250 are gone as well, but there’s clearly plenty more baby whales on the way as this sample indicates.

Is anyone really willing to make claims that it is ‘pretty hard to maintain such a “robustâ€? population in future’, giving the basically insignifcant numbers of whales being taken in the JARPA II programme?

The intellectually honest will admit that Hatanaka is quite right that this is good news for whale conservation. I blogged as much on this myself several days ago when the news first came out:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/07/whaling-lots-of-pregnant-mi nkes.html

]]>