why stop at whales, why not go for endangered whales?!
Not much shocks Frog these days, but the news that Japan is keen to add 50 humpbacks to its ‘”scientific” haul impressed even this jaded amphibian with its audacity.
Several rallies were held last weekend around NZ and Australia, but media coverage seems fairly sparse. Good report here by AUT student journalist.
Pleased to see Chris Carter has appealed to their sense of fairplay (?) and intimated that we would be very, very cross.
Meyt echoed that sentiment in her release on Biodiversity Day.
Looks like anti-whaling countries will regain a majority at the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) meeting in Anchorage next week, but it will still be a fierce battle.
Bookmark to:
May 25th, 2007 at 7:17 am
A coalition of Japanese and Norwegian scientists have admitted their “bafflement� at the decline of several types of Pacific whale. Species at risk include the Okinawan Tasty Whale and the Greater Beached Whale. “Time is running out,� said a spokescap’n at a press conference this morning. “We have caught almost every one of these whales known to exist to research their disappearance, and yet we are no closer to an answer. Our figures indicate there may be only five whales left, and we hope that these will provide vital clues to their diminishing numbers.�
May 25th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
What bothers me most is the method used to kill these creatures, surely that is enough reason alone to stop the slaughter?
Linda Axford
May 26th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
At the outset, for readers who don’t know or remember me from the last time whaling was discussed here, I am fully supportive of sustainable whaling in principle, I live in Tokyo, and I eat whale meat from time to time (actually last night, and also plan to tomorrow as well, but twice in one week is much more than my average).
Firstly, I do congratulate frog for (I think) recognising that the whales Japan has been hunting up to this point are not endangered. The Antarctic minke whale has the main target for the last 2 to 3 decades, but it has never been severely overexploited, even prior to the moratorium on “commercial whaling”. Under Japan’s programmes in the Antarctic, the catch quota of around 400 a year, and now 850 a year (although they didn’t take this many last season due to the fire accident). Catch limits prior to the moratorium were between 5,000 and 8,000 each year, shared between the Russians and the Japanese. Hence under Japan’s programmes, catches have been approximately a 10th or at most 1/5th of what they before the moratorium. Additionally, the species is known to number in the hundreds of thousands. The IWC Scientific Committee may announce a new agreed estimate on Tuesday (NZT), so there may be more news regarding that.
Secondly, however, I have to note that the humpback whale species is not endangered, in the originally sense of the word. A paper that was considered by the IWC Scientific Committee indicates that the humpback whale species now likely numbers more than 50,000 in the Southern Hemisphere alone.
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2007/05/southern-hemisphere-humpbac k-numbers.html
Rates of increase vary depending on the region, but some of the signficant areas where recovery has been observed are the areas where Japan plans to hunt 50 each year. Despite protection in 1963, illegal Soviet whaling continued until the early 1970’s which prevented recovery in the species, but by the 1980’s scientists recognised strong rates of growth (around 10% per annum, close to the theoretical biological maximum) in some areas.
Indeed, even the often quoted IUCN Red List’s existing classification of the species based on an assessment 11 years ago in 1996 is that it is “Vulnerable”. Rumour also has it that an cetacean expert group who conducted a reassessment this year in January recommended that the species be completely taken off the Red List, although this hasn’t been officially confirmed or announced.
Perhaps in terms of conservation, the most controversial hunt is that targeting southern hemisphere fin whales (which started two seasons ago). While Japan’s research programmes led them to believe that this species is also recovering relatively quickly in the Antarctic, little data appears to be available from other scientists, and the species still meets the IUCN’s “Endangered” criteria. As one might expect, the Japanese have faith in their own research and a difference of opinion exists.
Thirdly, do not expect much in response to Chris Carter’s call for “good will”. It was Chris Carter himself who earlier this year commissioned the New Zealand Air Force to take video footage of the whaling fleet in action, which he subsequently released to the media. The Japanese did not take fondly to this activity at all, and will most likely offer little more than a wry smile at such talk:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2007/05/chris-carters-selective-mem ory.html
Fourthly, while last years vote in St. Kitts and Nevis saw those nations in favour of sustainable use gain a majority for the first time in decades, the current way in which the IWC “works” is unsustainable. The body is roughly split 50/50 between groups of nations who generally oppose “commercial whaling” under any circumstances, and those nations who believe that healthy stocks of whales may be utilised on a sustainable basis as food. But for anything significant to happen 3/4s must agree. As such, nothing significant in terms of the IWC making decisions as a resource management body will happen at this upcoming meeting.
The big question is the IWC’s future. Nations such as Japan, Iceland, Norway, South Korea, Russia, China and others belong to the IWC only in the hope that the IWC will fulfil the purpose that was laid out for it in it’s convention - conservation of whale stocks and making possible the development of whaling industry. Nations such as New Zealand have a policy that is essentially incompatible with a number of aspects of the convention, believing that it is “outdated”. If there is no agreement on what sort of body the IWC should be, is there any point in these two groups with fundamentally different ideas about how whales should be utilised by humans, working together?
All signatory nations have the right under the convention to withdraw from it completely, and not be bound by any of it’s regulations. There is nothing preventing the nations in favour of the sustainable use of cetaceans from working amongst themselves in accordance with the ideals that they seek.
As much as some New Zealanders do not like whaling (for whatever reason - believing whales are endangered, believing whales are too intelligent to kill, believing that modern penthrite harpoon methods are cruel), what people need to consider is whether they wish to see this international organization fall to pieces, and both sides go there own way. The reality is that whaling and whale meat consumption are not going to go away, no matter how long these arguments are repeated. Recognising that the sovereign rights of nations mean they may leave the IWC and act in accordance with their own people’s wishes, anti-whaling people need to ask themselves whether they are really happy to see the IWC disintegrate in the pursuit of the unobtainable goal of “no whaling anywhere in the world”.
Or is there a “next best thing”, which the New Zealand government should seek to pursue?
May 27th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
So David@tokyo has started his paid propoganda for his japanese masters, a spin doctor of the very worst kind. A traitor to his people and his country. David go boil your head [someone in the brown side of your family may tell you the significance of this curse].
dave@stopwhaling
May 28th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
From the link Frogblog provided:
“The Japanese public views whale meat as an expensive luxury item and not an everyday food. Japan hopes to stimulate the market with the introduction of humpback whale meat from the hunts later this year, as well as promotional sales of items like whale burgers and ice cream, and heavily subsidized sales of whale meat for school lunches.”
As for David@tokyo stating that there are more than 50,000 humpbacks remaining, well they are still listed as ‘endangered’. I can’t find a single source that backs up these numbers, in fact, they appear ridiculously high.
Linda Axford
May 28th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I somehow don’t think the Japanese will stop whaling just because Chris Carter wags his finger at them, no matter how severely. Or Greenpeace either. Bring on Sea Shpherd! Last summer they spooked them into setting fire to their own ship by mistake (do you get the impression the whalers are not very competent mariners).