Japanese "Scientific Whaling"

[Chi65]

Informations about scientific whaling:

http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/F308216585F054FF80256F
3500551523

Japan's Scientific Whaling
The general objectives of the Japanese research programme in Antarctica are stated to be to estimate biological parameters for stock management and to elucidate the role of the minke whales in the ecosystem. The determination of age-specific natural mortality rates of minke whales has been the most important specific objective. Determining stock identity and general biological parameters are other important parts of the research.

The main aim of the North Pacific research is to investigate stock identity using genetic studies, measurement of parasite and pollutant burdens, morphometrics and allozmye studies. The Japanese wished to prevent any unnecessary restrictions on catch quotas in their traditional whaling grounds which might arise through inappropriate stock boundaries.

The Japanese Antarctic research programme has faced considerable methodological difficulties which have resulted in the primary focus being changed from estimating age-specific natural mortality, to the less ambitious one of estimating average natural mortality rates. This is for a variety of reasons, including that it has proved impossible to take a truly random sample of whales because of the age and sex segregation of minke whales in both time and space. Large groups of whales have proved easier to sample than small groups or individuals and difficulties with ageing techniques have added to the problems. The confidence which can be placed in any results therefore remains in question. Many of the problems which have been encountered were raised by other scientists on the Scientific Committee during discussions of the research proposals but largely disregarded by the Japanese.

Stock identity studies using genetic techniques have provided valuable information on the populations of whales in both the Antarctic and the North Pacific. However, this information could have been obtained using non-lethal biopsy techniques.

The efforts the Japanese have made to develop their lethal research methodologies are in contrast to the limited effort placed in developing non-lethal alternatives such as biopsy sampling. The higher costs of non-lethal research, where costs cannot be recouped by the sale of products have influenced this.

None of the Japanese research results to date have been used either to improve upon current management plans or to develop new plans. Only the stock identity work, using information from genetic studies, is being used in implementation simulation trials with the Revised Management Plan (RMP), the IWC’s current approach to the management of whaling.

Therefore, none of the scientific whaling programmes fulfilled the IWC’s criteria. Despite substantive criticisms, many of which have been shown to be valid in retrospect, the research programmes have gone ahead with little modification. The IWC and the Scientific Committee have not taken control of the scientific whaling programmes to ensure their quality. In part this is because the Scientific Committee have been unable to institute mechanisms of review which would be generally considered consistent with good science - those involved in the research are part of the review and thus even basic standards of impartiality are not met.

Illegal trade in whale meat has taken place in the space created by sales of meat from the scientific catch. What the impacts of illegal sale of whale meat on other stocks of whales maybe, or how the research funding is influencing the Japanese research away from non-lethal methods has not been considered during the Scientific Committee’s review process.

Clear enough for a start?

[Sarapva]

I think this part says it all:

The efforts the Japanese have made to develop their lethal research methodologies are in contrast to the limited effort placed in developing non-lethal alternatives such as biopsy sampling. The higher costs of non-lethal research, where costs cannot be recouped by the sale of products have influenced this.

It would cost more for the Japanese to conduct non-lethal research because they wouldn't have the whale meat to sell afterwards!

[Kyoto Returnee]

Yes, we are definitely on to something here.

I think it's about time the whalers and JP government came clean and actually told the truth as to what they are doing instead of hiding behind a curtain.

[Chi65]

As if that is a reason or excuse for killing after all. . .:-(
They simply should not do it then, because it basically can be done another way. . .if not by them, then others, right?
What is the whaling company, if he gives his acceptance to this?
Nothing better!
The Japanese might even get additional helpers for another way from the anti-whaling front, if you think it through, but as long as they have excessive(!) commercial goals with whale-meat, they will get nothing but hate in the end, when this becomes clear in the broad public. And as said, Davos is already at it.
It also says at another part once more, that they simply did not consider or work it out enough, so what.
Eating habits? Excuse me, if I laugh even louder now. . .(not at you, S., you probably understand)
A real bad joke to fool people.

It seems to be a fine and very informed whale page, by the way!
Worth to be watched.
Wiltshire, UK based, actually.

Sorry, Kyoto retournee, you were faster, and I agree completely with you.

Berlin Sherlock ;-)

[Chi65]

And after all, they have too much (contaminated) whale meet in their freezers already, think about this part!
And they knew it before, thus its a complete mismanagement, and thats one of the reasons, why they now have to manipulate the people to come back to eat their crap, argh...

This bubble will burst, sooner or later.

[Chi65]

More about the first quotes:



What WDCS is doing

WDCS has been actively campaigning against Japanese whaling and trade in whale meat for years, including the following:

Funding undercover investigations, conducting unique opposition research into the whaling industry, and
monitoring Japanese press and government websites on a daily basis.

Working closely with Japanese NGOs to inform the world about Japan’s activities, refute its spurious arguments
and debunk its hollow science.

Sending an expert team to all meetings of the International Whaling Commission and CITES where our most
intense and visible effort goes into deploying our scientific, legal and other technical skills to block Japan and influence votes.

Building relationships with governments so that they believe the intelligence we provide is correct and trust our advice.

Providing technical support to like-minded governments seeking specialist legal or scientific input.

Providing financial support to exceptional NGOs in developing countries; for example providing travel costs to enable them to attend meetings with their government officials, and even come to IWC meetings so that they can lobby at first hand and – most importantly - report to the press and public back home to keep leveraging pressure.

Leading and participating in international coalitions of conservation and animal welfare groups so that our collective resources and effort are maximised

Leading public protests against Japanese whaling

Our research and advocacy contribute to discussions and initiatives on benign research techniques (for example to prove that Japan’s argument that whales need to be killed to study them - is wrong).

[Chi65]

More informations, please, the full text on

http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/index.cfm?uNewsID=13793&uLangID=1

ALTERNATIVES TO LETHAL RESEARCH

Although the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling does contain a provision that allows governments to issue their own lethal research permits, it was written more than 50 years ago, at a time when no practicable alternatives existed. At that time, killing whales was unfortunately the only way to learn some of the most basic biological information, which was then used in setting catch quotas. In the last 50 years, non-lethal techniques have been developed that provide the data required for management much more efficiently and accurately than can lethal sampling.

For example, genetic analysis of small skin samples is now widely used to understand population structure in many mammals, including whales. Recent technical advances in this field have revolutionized genetics and meant that scientists can undertake detailed analyses that were previously impossible, or very cumbersome and expensive. Genetic analyses allow the examination of different whales in different geographic areas, assisting in determining where the boundaries of different whale stocks might be - a critical question in quota management, since in the past whaling nations frequently set high quotas for large areas based on the mistaken belief that the total number of whales in an area were all part of the same population. Genetic samples are generally taken from a live whale using a biopsy dart, and do not require killing or injuring the animal. Biopsy darting is also far more efficient, allowing scientists to acquire large amounts of data from a broader section of the whale population.

Japan also claims it must kill whales to determine what they eat, which they accomplish by studying stomach contents of the dead whales. However, this generally provides nothing more than a snapshot view of the most recently consumed prey, and may not be indicative of the real diet, particularly with whales such as minkes, which consume a broad range of prey items. In contrast, stable isotope analysis from skin samples, again obtained using a biopsy dart on a live whale, provides a long-term view of the whale's diet over a longer time period. Whatever food is consumed has a unique isotopic "signature" reflected in the tissues of the animal consuming the food. This technique has been applied all over the world in studies of other whales.

Japan also claims that lethal research is needed to determine the sex and reproductive condition of whales. Yet sex is easily determined with a biopsy sample, and a recently developed technique also enables scientists to determine pregnancy from such material.

Given these modern techniques in common use in whale science elsewhere in the world, it is very clear that Japan's scientific methods are an anachronism, and nothing more than an excuse to kill whales for the meat market.

[kame]

All the more reason for Japanese to pursue commercial whaling.

I wonder what are the anti-whaling advocates are thinking by criticizing Japanese whaling as scientific research. Politically, there is absolutely no way that the Japanese government will give up whaling in the foreseeable future. So if the international community chooses to criticize the research purpose, Japan has no choice but to go commercial even if it means ditching IWC.

Japanese officials have clearly stated that they "postponed" hunting 50 humpback whales for the time being because they wanted to give IWC chairman the last chance to normalize the dysfunctional organization. I don't know how serious they are, but it's obvious that Japan is getting close to the edge.

Would you rather keep Japanese whaling under "research" which will effectively lock the quota at the current (more than sustainable) level, or would you rather push Japan and the rest of the whaling nations out of IWC and risk less-regulated commercial whaling? Politically, there's no likely alternatives.

In the diplomatic world, you can't always get 100% of what you want.

[centrajapan]

Japans research programme is very scientifical and there is nothing illeagal about it. Why dont you go to IWC web page and check it for yourself instead of getting biased info through close minded anti whaling fanatics about IWC and Japans scientific research.

Whaling is by far the most strictly regualted whild hunt there is on this planet. I would welcome other type of wild hunt to be as monitored and scientific as whaling.

It is hard to dicsuss whaling with people who know nothing about it and who are close minded towards other cultures.

[centrajapan]

Attitudes on whaling

Respondents in Australia, England, Germany and the U.S. held opinions markedly different from those expressed by Japanese and Norwegians when each was questioned about whaling.

For example, when asked whether they "opposed the hunting of whales under any circumstances" a sizeable majority of respondents in Australia and Germany agreed (by a two to one margin). However, even larger majorities (two and a half to three to one) in Japan and Norway disagreed with the statement that whales should not be hunted under any circumstances. Opposition to whaling under any circumstances was more moderate in the U.S. (a four to three majority opposing whaling) and even more evenly divided in England with 43% opposed to whaling, 37% not opposed, and a further 19% expressing no strong opinion one way or the other.

In Germany and Australia about half the respondents (60% in the U.S.) believe there are less than 10,000 minke whales in the world, and only about 5% thought that the number was greater than 100,000. Respondents in Japan and Norway were three to four times as likely to select a correct answer for minke whale population levels compared to those in Australia, England, Germany, or the U.S.

Conclusions

The public in each country appears to have only a limited amount of accurate knowledge concerning whales and issues related to whaling. However, somewhat greater knowledge was possessed by the public in the two countries (Japan and Norway) where support for whaling is strongest.


http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Opinion/ga-on-pu.htm

[Chi65]

Japans research programme is very scientifical and there is nothing illeagal about it. Why dont you go to IWC web page and check it for yourself instead of getting biased info through close minded anti whaling fanatics about IWC and Japans scientific research.
Whaling is by far the most strictly regualted whild hunt there is on this planet. I would welcome other type of wild hunt to be as monitored and scientific as whaling.
It is hard to dicsuss whaling with people who know nothing about it and who are close minded towards other cultures.

I also did go to the IWC webpage before, often enough, don't worry.
Plus to many other ones.
Certain facts remain the same, and I don't think, other pages with informations from other scientists are closed minded. In fact, it appears much more, that the closedmindedness is on the whaler side.
To see, what is ignored there, does not take much. Almost everything, that is not grown on their own field, although their own field ignores the poison on this one. Which really does not make them very reliable at all.

Commercial whaling or scientific whaling leads to the very same, eating and distributing poisoned and thus unnecessary meet.

The rest is blabla and nothing but distractions.

[centrajapan]

In fact, it appears much more, that the closedmindedness is on the whaler side.

Why? You sound like a sausage eating imperialist for saying this. Am I telling you to stop eating sausages? I dont think so.

[Chi65]

Sausages are not half as contaminated as whale meat, particularly not those from eco-shops. So what is the blaming for? And it has nothing to do with imperialists, thats hilarious, as so much from you.
If you wish to go on poisioning with whale meat, you can do so. That does not change the fact, that its poisoned, nor has that to do with me, in case you can think clear sometimes.
Your posts like this are clear trollings, nothing else.

[outspoken_plimpy]

Japan actually makes a loss from whaling. It costs 3000 million yen to go whale each year, and from selling the whale meat and by-products of scientific research they get 2700 million yen, the Japanese Government has to fund the rest. Also, at the rate that Japan is taking Minke whales (which makes over 95% of their catch) if only 1 in 800 Minke whales breed the population will be sustained.

[TripLover]

This morning I read a news and just laughed.
I just come back here to show the aussie joke.

www news.com.au/story/0,23599,23468776-421,00.html
Japan cries foul over Australia's dugong hunt

"The Australian Government rejects all lethal uses of whales and yet supports sustainable utilisation in its own national hunting of the dugong."

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said there was no analogy between Japanese whaling and the killing of dugongs. He said the federal Government was actively engaged in several programs to protect dugongs.

Torres Shire Deputy Mayor Allan Ketchell said dugongs were an important traditional food for Islanders, but because there were no limits and the sea mammals were easy to catch with motorised boats, too many were being killed.

"Sometimes people go out and spear five or six when one or two a month should be enough," he said.

Australian local rule
#Killing wild kangaroo (sustainable) OK
#Killing wild dugong (IUCN lists as species vulnerable to extinction),(sustainable) OK
#Killing wild Mink whale ( IUCN list the northern species as Lower Risk/Near Threatened and the southern as Lower Risk/Conservation dependent ),(sustainable) Never!!

"Very Fair and Scientific Attitude"

[MadamePapillon]

"Sometimes people go out and spear five or six when one or two a month should be enough," he said.
Five or six sea animals a month to feed Islanders is a far cry from the 900+ whales Japan wants to harvest for the whole Japanese population.
I don't know what you are trying to prove. By anyones standards killing five or six animals of any kind a month to feed the locals isn't considered an offense.
Oh, and the link didn't even work

EDIT:
From the same website...
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23474310-421,00.html?from=public_rss

THE world population of the Antarctic minke whale, the main species hunted by the Japanese, is half what it was thought to be, after a more accurate analysis of survey numbers.

*rolls eyes*

[david@tokyo]

Five or six sea animals a month to feed Islanders is a far cry from the 900+ whales Japan wants to harvest for the whole Japanese population.

What true conservationists consider is not "five or six" versus "900+", but the ability of the exploited population to sustain such a level of anthropogenic removals.

The article suggests that even the most pessimistic estimate puts the Antarctic minke whale population at over 200,000.
900+ is less than 0.5% of even this most pessimistic of population estimates.

By anyones standards killing five or six animals of any kind a month to feed the locals isn't considered an offense.

They are believed to be taking more than that in total, and further, how many dugongs are there in the population that the Australians are hunting? Do you think that there is no chance at all that this population could be depleted locally?

[kame]

I wonder if we are reading the same article. The article states:

James Cook University researcher Ivan Lawler said a university study had concluded that in the Torres Strait, about 100 dugongs a year - 10 per cent of the current harvest - could be taken sustainably.

They are overhunting creature by ten times the number considered to be sustainable by the Australian researcher.

The number of minke whales killed annually by the Japanese, ostensibly for scientific research, is similar to the number of dugongs killed each year for food in the Torres Strait - about 1000.

Many more dugongs are killed for food - or when drowned in fishing nets or hit by motor boats - elsewhere in northern Australia, and in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia.

So they DO kill >1000 dugongs a year. So I wonder if you would like to retract your statement.

Five or six sea animals a month to feed Islanders is a far cry from the 900+ whales Japan wants to harvest for the whole Japanese population.
I don't know what you are trying to prove. By anyones standards killing five or six animals of any kind a month to feed the locals isn't considered an offense.

Again from the article,
Environment Minister Peter Garrett said the dugong was not listed as a threatened species in Australia, and harvesting the sea mammals for traditional food was not comparable to Japan's "industrial" whaling.

TripLover, you are right, this has got to be a joke! I double checked the date to make sure that it wasn't released on Apr.1.

The fact that dugong was not listed as a threatened species in Australia is a disgrace as self-proclaimed conservationists. Garrett is right that Japan's sustainable whaling is not comparable to the irresponsible exploitation of the rare and endangered dugongs.

[MadamePapillon]

Good lord, look what the cat dragged in. I was wondering how long it would take you two to rise from the dead.

Anyways, you are acting as if hunting Dugongs is some sort of widespread industrialized practice. The Dugongs are being hunted by island aborigines, this is not some massive government funded operation as is the case with Japan, and the practice was banned by the Australian Government since the 1970s, selling Dugong meat (in Australia) is illegal.
You call Australia a disgrace for this but it's like blaming Canada and America for the actions of Eskimos or S. Americans for the forest tribes actions, it's simply not comparable.
As we all know, the natives tend to go about their business while the Government and general public rarely look their way unless a scandal pops up. I doubt the general public (and even many government officials) even knew this was taking place. And the only people actually defending killing the Dugongs is the aborigines themselves.

But I like how suddenly you two became champions of the Dugong while the whale can still go to hell. Nice.

And I noticed how the two of you didn't bother to comment on:
THE world population of the Antarctic minke whale, the main species hunted by the Japanese, is half what it was thought to be, after a more accurate analysis of survey numbers.

[outspoken_plimpy]

Even if it is only the Aborigines hunting the dugongs, they still catch more dugongs then Japan takes whales. Also, Japan is legally required to sell the by-products of scientific whaling because thats part of the clause that allows scientific whaling. And before anyone can cast doubt on "scientific whaling" the clause is specifically for what Japan is currently doing and the IWC has no problem with what they do, its only America and Australia.

[kame]

Anyways, you are acting as if hunting Dugongs is some sort of widespread industrialized practice. The Dugongs are being hunted by island aborigines, this is not some massive government funded operation as is the case with Japan, and the practice was banned by the Australian Government since the 1970s, selling Dugong meat (in Australia) is illegal.

You, as well as few other people on this forum, seem to have some irrational grudge against commercial utilization of natural resources. What is important is whether or not the hunting is sustainable, not whether the meat is consumed locally or sold in supermarkets. It's not right to overhunt endangered species just because the hunters are aborigines. Conversely, there's nothing wrong with commercial harvest of a species in a sustainable manner.

What about kangaroos? They are overtly hunted commercially in a much larger scale than whales in Australia. I think it's okay as long as it's sustainable, but would you oppose it because it's commercial?

You call Australia a disgrace for this but it's like blaming Canada and America for the actions of Eskimos or S. Americans for the forest tribes actions, it's simply not comparable.

I did and I do denounce Canada for the hypocrisy of critisizing sustainable commercial whaling while condoning their own people hunting some of the endangered whale species. I don't blame the Eskimos themselves as long as the whaling is performed sustainably.

[david@tokyo]

Good lord, look what the cat dragged in. I was wondering how long it would take you two to rise from the dead.

You need not make comments such as that.

Anyways, you are acting as if hunting Dugongs is some sort of widespread industrialized practice.

Nonsense.

What is important is sustainability. Not absolute numbers (or technology employed). There is a difference.

But I like how suddenly you two became champions of the Dugong while the whale can still go to hell. Nice.

As I pointed out in my previous comment, the Antarctic minke whale is clearly not under threat from human hunting at the present time.

You should be careful about jumping to conclusions about what the (as of yet unconfirmed) estimates mean in terms of trends in abundance. The IWC scientific committee has given a range of possible reasons for the decline in abundance *estimates*, of which only one possibility is that such a decline is real. And at any rate, there are hundreds of thousands of them.

[outspoken_plimpy]

Five or six sea animals a month to feed Islanders is a far cry from the 900+ whales Japan wants to harvest for the whole Japanese population.
I don't know what you are trying to prove. By anyones standards killing five or six animals of any kind a month to feed the locals isn't considered an offense.
Oh, and the link didn't even work
*rolls eyes*

It was never said that it was 5/6 a month, but 5/6 a trip. A single group can make 20+ trips per month which brings it closer to a possible 100 per month per group

[MadamePapillon]

I don't know why you three are acting as if I (or the majority of the Australian public) is for this. Like I said, the only people actually defending this is the aborigines, the Australian Government long ago made efforts to stop any commercial hunting and selling of Dugong meat as I pointed out before.
You are taking the actions of island tribes who don't want to let go of ancient practices and putting it as the actions of Australia as a whole, which is ridiculous.

The IWC scientific committee has given a range of possible reasons for the decline in abundance *estimates*, of which only one possibility is that such a decline is real. And at any rate, there are hundreds of thousands of them.

So the estimates suddenly turn out to be wrong, they overshot the mark by about half which is no small error. So much for that unshakable faith in the numbers. But, there are only a few hundred thousand of these animals in the world and you are still for the commercial hunting of them despite all evidence that 'sustainable' hunting is rarely ever that and even when Minke whales are regarded as high risk animals for extinction.
Add to that the fact that it has been proven there is very little market for whale meat in Japan, the stores are piling up and the government is actually putting money into the operation to make up for the loss ..... it seems like absolute madness that anyone is rallying for it.

To be honest, I really can't see what you are fighting for.
Japans right to hunt another marine species to the brink of extinction as they have in the past? while at the same time losing money over this 'scientific whaling' and accumulating tons of meat that nobody seems to want and all this just to prove that they 'don't have to listen to what the west says'?
I mean...wow.

[outspoken_plimpy]

But, there are only a few hundred thousand of these animals in the world and you are still for the commercial hunting of them despite all evidence that 'sustainable' hunting is rarely ever that and even when Minke whales are regarded as high risk animals for extinction.

There are 900 000 of them, which is a large number by anyones standards. Also, I would like to know who exactly thinks they are high risk?

Add to that the fact that it has been proven there is very little market for whale meat in Japan, the stores are piling up and the government is actually putting money into the operation to make up for the loss ..... it seems like absolute madness that anyone is rallying for it.
To be honest, I really can't see what you are fighting for.
Japans right to hunt another marine species to the brink of extinction as they have in the past? while at the same time losing money over this 'scientific whaling' and accumulating tons of meat that nobody seems to want and all this just to prove that they 'don't have to listen to what the west says'?
I mean...wow.

So, basically, what your saying is that using scientific whaling as a guise for commercial whaling and taking a species of whale near to extinction and losing money by this is ridiculous and simply not logical. I have to agree, you make a valid point, this does not sound like something a rational nation would do. However, I can propose an alternative hypothesis. Maybe, they are actually doing scientific whaling. I know crazy, isn't it? Just bear with me. Then, say there was this clause, in the whaling memoriam that said they can do scientific whaling, and said the byproducts shouldn't go to waste. So Japan does this scientific whaling, and as they still make a loss, it obviously can't be commercial. It accounts for everything. Coincidence? Maybe, but unlikely.

[MadamePapillon]

There are 900 000 of them, which is a large number by anyones standards. Also, I would like to know who exactly thinks they are high risk?

That is how many the Japanese say there are...

Recent estimates show there could already be as few as 250,000 Minkes from 3 different sub-species in the Southern Ocean, despite Japanese claims of close to 1 million.

However, I can propose an alternative hypothesis. Maybe, they are actually doing scientific whaling. I know crazy, isn't it? Just bear with me. Then, say there was this clause, in the whaling memoriam that said they can do scientific whaling, and said the byproducts shouldn't go to waste. So Japan does this scientific whaling, and as they still make a loss, it obviously can't be commercial. It accounts for everything. Coincidence? Maybe, but unlikely.

I'll give you, there might -- strong might -- be some research going on. But in what world does research require the killing of 900+ of the animal in question? There are plenty of non-lethal methods that might be used.
Also....where is the research and what is it being used for?

Japanese claim to be undertaking research by killing whales. However, most of the data collected by the Japanese ‘Scientific whaling’ programme is not required for management or conservation of whale stocks and is never published in reputable scientific journals.

Most Japanese ‘research’ objectives are directed towards finding data to support a return to commercial whaling, and/or studies on how to make whaling more efficient.

Source (http://www.cgeorgemuller.com/summary.htm)

[outspoken_plimpy]

All this information you're getting is from an unknown individual. All his views are extremely biased (I went to his website) and some are just plain wrong, for instance, he thinks that Japan is exploiting a loophole. If you consider following an agreement carefully and exactly as it is intended a loophole then...
Moving on, you need to catch 900 whales to get a good result. if you take 1 whale your results would be way wrong. I would like to know what non-lethal techniques you believe are worth 2700 million yen that are accurate and provide all the information you can get from catching the whale. Also, the reason Japan is scientifically whaling is to check how large the population is and if it is enough to support commercial whaling, they have never said that wasn't the case, but if it's sustainable, then I suppose you won't have any issues with it?

[david@tokyo]

Sorry, but there are lots of little points to respond to here...
You are taking the actions of island tribes who don't want to let go of ancient practices and putting it as the actions of Australia as a whole, which is ridiculous.

You describe it as "ancient practices" - that's your way of convincing yourself to be tolerant of it. Japanese people have been catching whales for ages too. People in both cases want to catch animals to sustain their existence and live fruitful lives. Not everyone in Japan is a whaler, just as not everyone in Australia is a dugong hunter. But these governments both stick up for their people (as they should). The problem is that Australia (and other nations but Australia is the worst at the moment) doesn't accept that the same standards that apply for their own people should apply for everyone else as well.

This is wrong.

Things are easiest if we draw the line at sustainability. Sustainability is what we must put first, before anything else.

So the estimates suddenly turn out to be wrong, they overshot the mark by about half which is no small error. So much for that unshakable faith in the numbers.

Estimates for populations of whales (which spend most of the time out of sight, under water) typically have wide confidence intervals. When the IWC scientists advise on safe catch limits they always use the lower 95% confidence limit as the basis for their estimates (i.e., if the estimate is between 200,000 and 600,000 whales, with 400,000 being the most likely size, they'll still play it safe and set catch limits as if there were only 200,000 - with no more than a 5% chance of the population being less than this number). This is erring well on the side of caution.

Furthermore the IWC's method for setting safe catch limits has been tested against scenarios such as "Catastrophes (irregular episodic events when the population is halved)".
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Management_Regimes/IWC/th-in-wh.htm

Even in such circumstances scientists have agreed that they can calculate safe catch limits for whaling, yet there is no advice at the current time that this is what has happened (we'll hear more from the IWC/SC in June).

But, there are only a few hundred thousand of these animals in the world and you are still for the commercial hunting

Only a small, exceedingly conservative amount that has scientifically been agreed sustainable. I am extreme?

of them despite all evidence that 'sustainable' hunting is rarely ever that

What's not sustainable? You think that even taking a single Antarctic minke whale a year would not be sustainable? Yes or no? If yes, then how many, and why? These are the questions that you need to have good answers to if you wish people to agree to stop whaling.

and even when Minke whales are regarded as high risk animals for extinction.

Not by even the politically influenced IUCN Red List is the Antarctic minke whale considered at high risk of extinction. On the contrary the IUCN Red List reckons the Antarctic minke whale is the most abundant baleen species in the world today.

Add to that the fact that it has been proven there is very little market for whale meat in Japan

It's been proven that there is very little whale meat supplied in Japan, due to a 22 year commercial whaling "moratorium", which makes it pretty clear why the market in Japan is small.

the stores are piling up

On the contrary, January 2008 stockpile figures released by the Ministry indicate that the stockpile was down to 2,832 tonnes, the lowest level at the end of January since 2004 (prior to the expansion of the JARPA research programme).

and the government is actually putting money into the operation to make up for the loss

It's a government sponsored research operation, not a government sponsored profit making operation. It's supposed to run at a loss, and if they were making a profit you'd be screaming murder don't you think?

To be honest, I really can't see what you are fighting for.

... just what I believe is right and fair and good. I presume you are the same. We obviously disagree on what that means, and my reasons why are stated here for you.

Japans right to hunt another marine species to the brink of extinction

It's the right to live sustainably, not the right to live unsustainably, that I suggest we support. We don't live sustainably by banning sustainable activities. We live sustainably by supporting and adopting sustainable activities, encouraging them, and that's why people support sustainable whaling.

I don't support unsustainable whaling. Only sustainable whaling.

There are 900 000 of them, which is a large number by anyones standards.

Maybe only between 200,000 and 600,000 or so if we are to believe the information from the IWC's Scientific Committee which Australian government sources have leaked.

But still, hundreds of thousands certainly, so I think most people would accept that a small conservative number of a reproductive population could be safely harvested (except when it comes to whales some people lose all ability to be reasonable).

However, I can propose an alternative hypothesis. Maybe, they are actually doing scientific whaling.

Welcome to the club :) We live in a world where there is a sensible explanation for the situation which does not require huge jumps of logic, denial of facts, or subscription to a conspiracy theory :)

[david@tokyo]

That is how many the Japanese say there are...

The estimates originate from the IWC's Scientific Committee, not Japan.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm

The estimate for Antarctic minke whales on this page is no longer current, and we won't know the new one until the Scientific Committee produces it's report in June. The Australian government was naughty in leaking information before the IWC Scientific Committee has announced what it has agreed.

I'll give you, there might -- strong might -- be some research going on. But in what world does research require the killing of 900+ of the animal in question?

Any population study requires a reasonable sample size, and much information that the Japanese wish to obtain is only able to be obtained via lethal methods. Furthermore, the animals are ultimately eaten as well, so it's not as if they are going to waste (I do my bit here). On the contrary I'd say those lives are of much greater value to us than the cows and chickens that are slaughtered to provide only food.

There are plenty of non-lethal methods that might be used.

Japan does use non-lethal methods. But non-lethal methods alone can't provide all the information that Japan wishes to obtain. If this wasn't true we'd have the answers to all of Japan's questions already.

Also....where is the research and what is it being used for?

It's been presented to the IWC's Scientific Committee, and it's hoped that it will be used (amongst various other things) to improve the IWC's Revised Management Procedure. Indeed the IWC Scientific Committee has agreed that it has this potential. But, alas, you aren't interested in the improvement of the RMP are you?

[MadamePapillon]

You describe it as "ancient practices" - that's your way of convincing yourself to be tolerant of it.

Who said anything about being tolerant. I'm just as against the killing of Dugongs as I am of whales. If you had read correctly I said that it was a practice they weren't willing to let go of...how is that convincing myself to be tolerant?

Estimates for populations of whales (which spend most of the time out of sight, under water) typically have wide confidence intervals. When the IWC scientists advise on safe catch limits they always use the lower 95% confidence limit as the basis for their estimates (i.e., if the estimate is between 200,000 and 600,000 whales, with 400,000 being the most likely size, they'll still play it safe and set catch limits as if there were only 200,000 - with no more than a 5% chance of the population being less than this number). This is erring well on the side of caution.
Do you know why we eat cows and chicken and tuna as opposed to, say, whales? It's because all their numbers range in the couple of millions rather than a few thousand. Now the Japanese aren't just taking 900+ from the seas...they are taking that amount from the Antarctic and still another 200+ from the North-West Pacific...so, lets round that up and their total catch is about 1100...adding to that the fact that the Japanese have been known to knowingly go after young whales and breeding females, well, that is no small problem. It's easy to see where this 'scientific research' is benefiting the whales. :okashii:
If there were only about 200 000 humans left on earth would you think the killing of 1100 of us was no big deal? I think not.

......


And it's not just the Minke whales (whose numbers are speculation at best). The Japanese have also hunted Humpback whales (an endangered species), Fin whales (endangered), Sei whales (endangered, though the Japanese tried to make their number out to be larger than they really were), Bryde whales (endangered), and, finally, Sperm whales (no surprise, endangered). Once again, I fail to see how hunting endangered species benefits them or science in any way.


As for this 'scientific research' I've been hearing so much about: http://news.smh.com.au/japan-whale-experiments-bizarre-report/20080308-1xyj.html
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23340214-952,00.html

Need I say more?

[david@tokyo]

Do you know why we eat cows and chicken and tuna as opposed to, say, whales?

Because that's your culture, and you are fortunate that the Indians don't try to impose their values on you the way you do others.

As for tuna, by the way, those stocks are generally in an over-exploited state at the moment. Some stocks of whales on the other hand are in an under-exploited state, and increasing our exploitation to higher levels would help reduce consumer demand for tuna (here in Japan).

Now the Japanese aren't just taking 900+ from the seas...they are taking that amount from the Antarctic and still another 200+ from the North-West Pacific...so, lets round that up and their total catch is about 1100...

As I've explained to you before, what matters is sustainability. Sustainability is not determined by how many zeros you have on your numbers, it's determined by the relationship between the natural rate of increase in the population, the natural rate of mortality in the population, the size of the population, and how many we humans take from the population.

This applies to cow farming as well as whale hunting, with the differences being in the biology. Stock management is not the lazy, unscientific practice you appear to think it is. You may have no interest in putting your mind to the task of considering how many whales may be taken sustainably because you are happy eating your cows and chickens and over-exploited tuna, but you are going to have to accept the reality that other people are interested in thinking about this because they hope to eat whales, sustainably, forever.

the Japanese have been known to knowingly go after young whales and breeding females, well, that is no small problem.

That's because it's random sampling, not commercial whaling where they would target the largest and most profitable individuals. And at the low levels they are taking them it's hardly a sustainability problem (unless you care to explain how).

It's easy to see where this 'scientific research' is benefiting the whales.

The research is primarily to benefit humans, who hope to eat whales, sustainably, forever.

If there were only about 200 000 humans left on earth would you think the killing of 1100 of us was no big deal? I think not.

Well gee, unless one was a psycopath, that would be the case, wouldn't it?

There are more than 6,000,000,000 humans on the planet, and it is a big deal if even one of us kills another, but the reasons for that have nothing at all to do with stock management and sustainability, which is what we were supposed to be discussing here until you found yourself making ridiculous analogies involving your own species.

And it's not just the Minke whales (whose numbers are speculation at best).

That's an entirely unscientific evaluation, but at this point, I'm not surprised.

Once again, I fail to see how hunting endangered species benefits them or science in any way.

Again the research is primarily for the benefit of humans, and the species being hunted are in no danger of extinction.

Need I say more?

If you are quoting Australia's "scientific delegation" to the IWC, then no you certainly don't.

[outspoken_plimpy]

As for this 'scientific research' I've been hearing so much about:
(2 URLs I can't yet post, from Australian news websites)
Need I say more?
These are from Australian newspapers, where the only whaling story is anti-whaling. If they wrote a pro-whaling story they wouldn't be able to give their news away. As a journalist, their job is to sell, not to report facts in an unbiased manner.

[MadamePapillon]

Because that's your culture, and you are fortunate that the Indians don't try to impose their values on you the way you do others.

Really? Hunting whales is not a part of Canadian history? I would suggest picking up a history book because whaling was an important part of western cultures for many many years, even before the Japanese started taking up the practice.
We stopped because the populations were becoming overstressed and we realized it was neither sustainable nor practical when other abundant sources of meat were available.

As for tuna, by the way, those stocks are generally in an over-exploited state at the moment. Some stocks of whales on the other hand are in an under-exploited state, and increasing our exploitation to higher levels would help reduce consumer demand for tuna (here in Japan).

Under-exploited you say? So your solution is to move away from what was once an abundant and plentiful food source of food (before the Japanese over-harvested them) and create a demand for a species who's numbers only range in the thousands. Tell me, what part of creating a large consumer demand for whales (most who are threatened or endangered) and others who's numbers are being estimated as lower and lower every time I look (not even scratching the one million mark as of now), sounds likes a good idea?
If the Japanese can't manage to sustainably harvest tuna (a food source that is a true cultural part of their cuisine and what one would think they would have the greatest drive to protect) then how do you think it would be so different with whales which are nowhere near as important to the Japanese as tuna?

You may have no interest in putting your mind to the task of considering how many whales may be taken sustainably because you are happy eating your cows and chickens and over-exploited tuna, but you are going to have to accept the reality that other people are interested in thinking about this because they hope to eat whales, sustainably, forever.

That's because it's random sampling, not commercial whaling where they would target the largest and most profitable individuals.


Ok, first off, it seems that the Japanese are the ones happy eating their over-exploited tuna as I only eat tuna rarely. However, in one breath you say the Japanese want to eat whales forever and in the next you claim that hunting whales is all for science. Make up your mind. I have never known reputable scientist to kill young and pregnant whales and eat them or sell their meat to restaurants or for pet food.

Also, I might remind you that only a tiny percentage of the Japanese population eats whales on a regular basis and even you are saying that a demand needs to be created for it. It seems you are not concerned for the whales or even sustainability if you think it is a good idea to create a demand thus raising the number of whales the Japanese would harvest which ultimately results in an imbalance of demand and supply.
As of now they are catching about 1500 whales (in total), this with only a small consumer base. The population of Japan is about 127,433,494, the Minke whale population on a good day is about 200 000 - 600 000. Is this sustainable if demand increases? I don't have much hope for sustainable whaling in Japan when they have over harvested pretty much every source of edible sea life in their surrounding waters.

There are more than 6,000,000,000 humans on the planet, and it is a big deal if even one of us kills another, but the reasons for that have nothing at all to do with stock management and sustainability, which is what we were supposed to be discussing here until you found yourself making ridiculous analogies involving your own species

How is it ridiculous? It is a valid question in regards to population...if the human population was as low as the whale population would you think 1100 of us dying was a small loss?

That's an entirely unscientific evaluation, but at this point, I'm not surprised.

So the Minke whale population is not estimated as between 200 000 and 600 000, quite a large margin for error there? Were the numbers not just revealed to be wrong by about half? As much as you like to call this science and tote it as infallible logic it is really just best guess.


Again the research is primarily for the benefit of humans, and the species being hunted are in no danger of extinction.

So Humpbacks, Fin whales, Sei whales, Bryde whales, and, Sperm whales are not on the endangered species list? Interesting. It is obvious your concern lies not with protecting the whale populations and allowing them to increase but to treat living creatures as a commodity that is only valuable in it's usefulness to humans. You seem to forget that whales aren't simply numbers on a page, they are more important in the wild than on a dinner plate or in a lab.

These are from Australian newspapers, where the only whaling story is anti-whaling. If they wrote a pro-whaling story they wouldn't be able to give their news away. As a journalist, their job is to sell, not to report facts in an unbiased manner.

There findings came from the 'scientific' papers that came directly from the Institute of Cetacean Research that the Japanese themselves wrote and funded. I see no one disputing these findings except for you two...simply because the scientists in question are Australian.
18 years, 7000 whales and I fail to see what Japan has accomplished from all this.

[david@tokyo]

We stopped because the populations were becoming overstressed and we realized it was neither sustainable nor practical when other abundant sources of meat were available.

The western nations weren't whaling for meat, they were whaling for oil to fuel their industrial revolutions. And they stopped not because whale populations were overexploited per se, but because this over-exploitation had made it so hard to find whales to catch that other forms of oil production simply became more economical.

Whaling for food continued, continues, and will continue because, while there isn't much oil on a minke whale, there is plenty of very good meat on them, which makes it worthwhile. Why destructively create farms on land to raise cattle when you can just send a ship out into the ocean and get 10-20 times the meat off a single minke that you can from a cow? Other whale stocks are recovering from past overexploitation as well, and the future of sustainable whaling for food is bright.

Also as I said, but you skipped over, you are fortunate that India does not try to impose it's way of thinking on your beef eating habits the way you do the Japanese and other with whale eating habits.

Under-exploited you say?

Yes. Antarctic minke whales were not so significantly depleted from their initial level of pre-whaling abundance in the first place, and haven't been subject to any commercial catch for 20 years. Hence as a resource they are under-exploited.

So your solution is to move away from what was once an abundant and plentiful food source of food (before the Japanese over-harvested them) and create a demand for a species who's numbers only range in the thousands.

So now tuna over-harvesting is all Japan's fault as well...

Do you think that incorrect attribution of blame is likely to see the problems rectified?
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/index.cfm?uNewsID=126840

Japan has contributed it's own share to tuna over-exploitation, but you are living on another planet (probably one created by western fishing nations) if you believe that this is all Japan's fault.

Tell me, what part of creating a large consumer demand for whales

I'm not suggesting creating a "large" consumer demand for whales, I'm suggesting permitting *sustainable* whale harvests.

However many whales can be sustainably harvested is the number of whales that I think is the maximum that should be put on the market.

And with this sustainably produced whale meat available, whale meat prices should come down a bit, making it more attractive to consumers here, and maybe even make it more attractive than tuna. In turn reducing demand for tuna, and in turn taking away one incentive for the tuna-fishing industry to over-exploit.

(most who are threatened or endangered)

I'd settle for at least sustainable harvests of abundant ones first, and in the dictionary sense of the word I don't think any truely endangered species should be hunted. There is a difference though between what the dictionary describes as endangered and what the IUCN describes as "endangered", particularly where whales and fish are concerned.

and others who's numbers are being estimated as lower and lower every time I look (not even scratching the one million mark as of now)

This is based on a bit of information leaked prematurely by the Australian government, without any of the associated context that will eventually be released with it by the IWC Scientific Committee once they agree the situation in June, two months from now?

sounds likes a good idea?

The alternative is to NOT sustainably utilise abundant whale resources in line with unequivocal scientific advice that safe sustainable whaling catch limits could be set, thus NOT increasing sustainable alternatives to tuna product.

how do you think it would be so different with whales which are nowhere near as important to the Japanese as tuna?

Tuna harvests are currently regulated individually by each nation. Many have done a bad job, Japan being no exception, which is why they had to do this for example:
http://www.oprt.or.jp/eng/e_news_060425.html

However, whales are an entirely different kettle of fish. Japan wants permission to hunt whales, not under a Japanese managed regulatory system, but an international one, including satellite vessel monitoring, international observers on board the ships, DNA registration of every whale put on the market, and an international oversight committee to monitor the effectiveness of the regulations. And also inline with unequivocal scientific advice from the IWC's scientific committee that the catch limits set in accordance with the RMP would be safe.

Unfortunately the IWC has not fulfilled it's responsibility so Japan with other like-minded nations is seemingly looking at the possibility of establishing an alternative international organization that will pick up the ball.

in one breath you say the Japanese want to eat whales forever and in the next you claim that hunting whales is all for science. Make up your mind.

Again I find myself thinking that you appear to have no interest in thinking about "how many whales may be taken sustainably", but I'll explain it anyway, step by step, nice and easy:

1) Some people think whales are tasty, and hope to be able to eat them forever (at least try to see it from someone else's perspective! otherwise you will never be able to have fruitful discussion on this topic)
2) Whales have in the past been over-exploited and it is now well-known that there is not an infinite supply of whales (thankfully many are now recovering from this past over-exploitation)
3) So how do people get to eat whales forever if the supply of whales is not infinite?
4) => Stock / Resource management!
4a) Whales live in the oceans. We can count them, but (and this piece you have been able to grasp) not with extremely precise accuracy, but at least with reasonable certainty about minimum numbers.
4b) We could catch whales based on these minimum estimated numbers and very conservative assumptions about whale reproduction and natural mortality (this is how the RMP calculates catch limits)...
4c) ... but if we have greater certainty about our numbers and research whale biology, we can potentially eliminate implausible assumptions made, and set catch limits for whales with more safety and accuracy - perhaps also allowing for increases in the numbers of whales caught.
5) Thus, people who hope to eat whales forever have a strong incentive to conduct research that can improve stock management (the IWC Scientific Committee has agreed that Japan's data has the potential to support scientific analyses that could facilitate that).

Now, if you recall the current situation, the Japanese hope to eat whales forever, therefore they have an incentive to do research, and they can because international agreements explicitly admit every nation to conduct research. However the broken IWC currently does not set commercial catch limits for whaling, and so the only whaling that Japan can conduct in accordance with the ICRW is research whaling.

Under normal circumstances (i.e., non-zero catch limits for abundant species), Japan would be able to obtain some of the data it obtains through it's research whaling from commercial samples, but the IWC decision to impose a moratorium precludes that at the moment. On the other hand, it has meant that, without being able to hunt commercially, the hunting that is done is designed specifically to target random animals and thus hopefully give more useful data to analyze. I expect that Japan will continue to conduct research whaling in conjunction with commercial whaling in future, for this reason.

Also, I might remind you that only a tiny percentage of the Japanese population eats whales on a regular basis

I don't know why you think this is relevant to the discussion at this point, but you've got it wrong anyway: Few Japanese people eat whales on a regular basis because the "commercial whaling moratorium" resulted in the level of whale meat supplied to the market drop around 90%. There is only enough meat to provide one slice of whale sashimi to every Japanese citizen once a year, so it's obvious that few can eat it regularly.

and even you are saying that a demand needs to be created for it.

That's your lack of comprehension ability at work, not what I am saying.

It seems you are not concerned for the whales or even sustainability if you think it is a good idea to create a demand

Negative. There already is demand. I'm talking about catching more abundant whales, and this increases SUPPLY, not demand. And do you know what happens when supply increases? It generally puts downward pressure on prices.

What increases demand is things like lunatic nutcase "activitists" hurling dangerous objects at, and illegally boarding whaling vessels, as this puts whale meat in people's minds. I suppose we do have a bit of that too, but I don't see you complaining about that.

thus raising the number of whales the Japanese would harvest which ultimately results in an imbalance of demand and supply.

Exactly, and that's why prices would be expected to fall, and make whale a more attractive option than tuna, as compared to now.

As of now they are catching about 1500 whales (in total), this with only a small consumer base. The population of Japan is about 127,433,494,

That's a pretty big consumer base then, isn't it?

the Minke whale population on a good day is about 200 000 - 600 000. Is this sustainable if demand increases?

If demand increases, prices will go up. Demand increasing doesn't mean supply increases. How can more people demanding whale meat result in more whales being caught, if the IWC were doing it's job and regulating whaling as Japan is requesting it to?

How is it ridiculous?

Comparing killing humans with killing whales is ridiculous. You should have picked a different species.

It is a valid question in regards to population...

So pick a species which doesn't result in your analogy talking about murder of humans.

Were the numbers not just revealed to be wrong by about half?

As I said above, the information that has been leaked by Australian government sources is ... well, it's information that has been leaked by Australian government sources and thus you can think about what that means about it's completeness.

As much as you like to call this science and tote it as infallible logic it is really just best guess.

No, that's just your thoroughly unscientific evaluation. You haven't studied much science, statistics or mathematics have you? It shows.

So Humpbacks, Fin whales, Sei whales, Bryde whales, and, Sperm whales are not on the endangered species list?

Your assumption that a species being on someone's "endangered species" list means the species is necessarily in danger of extinction if we hunt any of them is false.

There findings came from the 'scientific' papers that came directly from the Institute of Cetacean Research that the Japanese themselves wrote and funded. I see no one disputing these findings except for you two...simply because the scientists in question are Australian.

Well, I've actually read a lot of the reports and discussion about Japan's data, so I know hysterical BS when I see it. If you think Mr. Gales' PR is a fair, balanced and accurate representation of the research, I can only ask whether you also think you are living in The Matrix.

[MadamePapillon]

Why destructively create farms on land to raise cattle when you can just send a ship out into the ocean and get 10-20 times the meat off a single minke that you can from a cow? Other whale stocks are recovering from past overexploitation as well, and the future of sustainable whaling for food is bright.

Also as I said, but you skipped over, you are fortunate that India does not try to impose it's way of thinking on your beef eating habits the way you do the Japanese and other with whale eating habits.

Why? Because farms create a stable source of food that doesn't have the inherent problems involved in managing and estimating wild populations, the risks to the local marine system, the damaging pollution and irritation to the water and a whole slew of other problems that go along with catching food directly from the wild.
There is a reason why every great civilization utilized farming.
And as for India or other countries imposing their views...the Indians might not but fire is coming from all areas for battery farms, fois gras, lamb, veal ect. Japan is not unique in this.

Yes. Antarctic minke whales were not so significantly depleted from their initial level of pre-whaling abundance in the first place, and haven't been subject to any commercial catch for 20 years. Hence as a resource they are under-exploited.

So they haven't been hunted in 20 years and aren't close to extinction so lets all hunt them and do our best to reverse the progress they have made. Most wouldn't consider a 200 000 - 600 000 population to be 'under-exploited' by any means.


So now tuna over-harvesting is all Japan's fault as well...

Japan has contributed it's own share to tuna over-exploitation, but you are living on another planet (probably one created by western fishing nations) if you believe that this is all Japan's fault.

Who said anything about that? I am talking about their effect on their local waters. Notice how the Japanese have to go so far out of their native waters in order to catch anything? That's no coincidence. And as the number one consumers of tuna in the entire world I should think Japan has had a significant effect on worldwide tuna numbers.


I'm not suggesting creating a "large" consumer demand for whales, I'm suggesting permitting *sustainable* whale harvests.

However many whales can be sustainably harvested is the number of whales that I think is the maximum that should be put on the market.

And with this sustainably produced whale meat available, whale meat prices should come down a bit, making it more attractive to consumers here, and maybe even make it more attractive than tuna. In turn reducing demand for tuna, and in turn taking away one incentive for the tuna-fishing industry to over-exploit.

The alternative is to NOT sustainably utilise abundant whale resources in line with unequivocal scientific advice that safe sustainable whaling catch limits could be set, thus NOT increasing sustainable alternatives to tuna product.

However, whales are an entirely different kettle of fish. Japan wants permission to hunt whales, not under a Japanese managed regulatory system, but an international one, including satellite vessel monitoring, international observers on board the ships, DNA registration of every whale put on the market, and an international oversight committee to monitor the effectiveness of the regulations. And also inline with unequivocal scientific advice from the IWC's scientific committee that the catch limits set in accordance with the RMP would be safe.

I'll leave out the other large bit as this is becoming increasingly ridiculous. You are living in a fantasy world where everything works out exactly as planned, by the numbers and everyone goes home happy.
I believe your idea was to use whale meat to off set the demand for tuna.
Do you think you could create a demand for whale (as there is not a great demand for it now despite what you say) as a tuna substitute and the Japanese would be content to remain within the strict guidelines the IWC set and everything would be all hunky dory.
You forget there is money to be made...the whaling industry is a business which, as of right now, is losing money and working for little to no profit. This 'scientific research' as we all know is simply a nice official title tacked onto commercial whaling.
If whaling goes legitimate and there is a demand at first prices will be high until the consumer base picks up. Then the price goes down, there will be more customers ...more customers equals increased productivity, increased productivity equals increased production meaning more whales to be harvested to meet the demand.
I don't know in what fantasy stock, demand and productivity stays the same and everyone only takes what is necessary (or, in this case, what the IWC says they can take and we all know what Japan thinks of people 'telling them what to do').
It sounds real nice on paper...unfortunately we live in the real world, if demand increases and prices fall do you seriously think Japan won't start harvesting more whales to meet demand? They haven't gone directly against the international community over this as of now because whaling isn't as big as you make it out to be but if the market increased and so did the money...well, I think you can figure that out for yourself.

This is based on a bit of information leaked prematurely by the Australian government, without any of the associated context that will eventually be released with it by the IWC Scientific Committee once they agree the situation in June, two months from now?

It doesn't chnge the fact the Minke whale population estimates are speculation (unreliable estimates) and have been steadily decreasing over the yeas...in '89 the Minke whale population was estimated at over 1 million to the low side of 500 000. Now the population appears to rest at no more than 600 000 to the low side of 200 000.
Here's a nice little paragraph on your infallible estimates....


The total population of Minke Whales is estimated to be in the order of 184,000 (95% confidence interval, IWC Scientific Committee 2004) in the Central and North East Atlantic. As of 2005, there are no agreed estimates for North Pacific or Southern Hemisphere. In the early 1990s the IWC Scientific Committee, after analysing the available data, agreed that Minkes in the Southern Hemisphere numbered 760,000, which the Japanese whaling industry uses as the current (2005) estimate. In 2000, however, the Committee withdrew this advice in light of new survey data suggesting population estimates 50% lower than in the 1980s (Branch & Butterworth 2001). Final circumpolar estimates from the IWC IDCR/SOWER population surveys (1978/79-2003/04) were 338,000 and were only 39% of those from the 1985/86-1990/91 surveys[3], however, the IWC has not yet decided whether these estimates reflect a real change in the population or a change in the survey methodology. Minke Whales are widely distributed throughout the world, commonly found from the poles to the tropics but prefer the open sea.

So Japan is actually working with the wrong estimates, far overshooting the sustainable level if the population really is as low as 184 000 - 338 000 when they are working with numbers closer to the 1 million mark.

Negative. There already is demand. I'm talking about catching more abundant whales, and this increases SUPPLY, not demand.

Really? http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/08/most_japanese_stores_not_selling_whale/2403/

-- Many Japanese sushi restaurants and supermarkets are not selling whale meat, according to a survey by Greenpeace.

The environmental group contacted 24 companies operating major supermarkets, department stores, and sushi and other restaurants in Japan between November and February, and based its findings on the 14 companies that gave effective responses, Kyodo reported Saturday.

"Demand for whale meat in the domestic market is not growing and it is obvious that the Japanese government's stated reason for restarting commercial whaling is collapsing," the news agency quoted a Greenpeace official as saying.

Among five major supermarket chains that responded, only Daiei Inc. said it continues to sell whale meat, the survey found.

So with all this demand only one out of five major supermarkets are even selling whale meat? In all the links I looked I could not find one single article to suggest that the demand or the desire for whale meat is increasing.


So pick a species which doesn't result in your analogy talking about murder of humans.

Not once did I ever use the word murder or even suggest it. That is your own imagination at work. I find it interesting that you parallel the whaling situation as it applies to humans and come up with murder, through no doing of my own.

[david@tokyo]

Why? Because farms create a stable source of food that doesn't have the inherent problems involved in managing and estimating wild populations

That much is both acceptable and obvious.

the risks to the local marine system, the damaging pollution and irritation to the water and a whole slew of other problems that go along with catching food directly from the wild.

Negative. Educate yourself at Google: "Farms pollution".

There is a reason why every great civilization utilized farming.

All these great civilizations don't catch animals from the wild too!?

And as for India or other countries imposing their views...the Indians might not

Exactly, and you could learn a thing or two from them about how to be humble. There ain't nothing wrong with eating whale - it not being your culture does not make it wrong.

So they haven't been hunted in 20 years and aren't close to extinction so lets all hunt them and do our best to reverse the progress they have made.

What progress are you refering to?

Most wouldn't consider a 200 000 - 600 000 population to be 'under-exploited' by any means.

"Most" is not as relevant as people who actually know about population dynamics as opposed to lay people.

Notice how the Japanese have to go so far out of their native waters in order to catch anything?

What about the 1,500,000 tons of fish that they catch in their coastal fisheries each year? (Kind of dwarfs the whale meat stockpile don't it?)

And as the number one consumers of tuna in the entire world I should think Japan has had a significant effect on worldwide tuna numbers.

Certainly a lot of the demand for tuna has historically been from Japan, the problem however is that the nations with tuna fisheries have been lax in their regulation, and over-fishing has occurred.

You are living in a fantasy world where everything works out exactly as planned, by the numbers and everyone goes home happy.


Let's give it a test for 5 years then. If it doesn't work out, I'll conceed that the world in which you live where everything that doesn't effect you in the least little bit is certain to result in some major disaster or catastrophe and so everyone should just agree to live the way that you personally live your life as you are a model human being.

But we at least have to give things a chance first.

Do you think you could create a demand for whale

There is already demand for whale.
I had some myself last night:
http://www.kujira-yuusin.jp/
The 2,000 yen steak option, it was fabulous - and you can take my word for it that I wasn't the only one in the restaurant.

(as there is not a great demand for it now despite what you say)

Depends how you define "not a great demand", but there is demand. I wouldn't be eating a dinner priced at 2,000 yen if there was no demand for such a meal, that's for sure (I can get a nice pork cutlet meal for half that price).

as a tuna substitute and the Japanese would be content to remain within the strict guidelines the IWC set and everything would be all hunky dory.

That's right. So long as they play by the rules, everything is happy. If they don't play by the rules, they will need to lose their quota or something. With the international observers on their ships, and the satellites monitoring their movements, and the DNA scientists registering each and every whale to allow market monitoring though, they would be crazy to think they could get away with deliberate cheating.

You forget there is money to be made...the whaling industry is a business which, as of right now, is losing money and working for little to no profit. This 'scientific research' as we all know is simply a nice official title tacked onto commercial whaling.

If they were in it for the money and they were losing money then they would shut up shop.
The fact that this hasn't eventuated should signal to you that some part of your supposition is wrong. And I can confirm for you that they aren't making money.

If whaling goes legitimate and there is a demand at first prices will be high until the consumer base picks up. Then the price goes down,

Bzzzt, negative. If more consumers suddenly decide they want to eat whale (you seem to be happy believing there is "no great demand" for it though?), then the effect will be that shop owners can sell whale for a higher price.

more customers equals increased productivity

Bzzzt, negative. Catching more whales equals more whale meat production. Customers can't eat more whales without more production. More production is not possible without either a) legally increasing quotas (which would need international agreement) or b) illegally increasing quotas (which will be tough due to the international observers on whaling ships, the satellites tracking them, and the DNA registration of each whale and subsequent monitoring of the market place for compliance).

Both a) and b) would be possible, but the most likely option is c) that with supply basically fixed, shop owners would elect to simply raise the prices for their product. a) is unlikely because if the catch limits were already supposed to be sustainable, increasing them would become unsustainable (possibly or probably), and b) would just be very very dangerous business, considering the political climate surrounding whaling.

On the other hand, c), if the demand has increased as in the scenario you describe, they should be able to sell all their product at higher prices, and make extra profit that way, completely legally, without requiring more dead whales.

There are already people willing to pay 2,000 yen for a nice whale steak meal instead of a 1,000 yen pork cutlet meal, so this should seem reasonable to you I imagine.

I don't know in what fantasy stock, demand and productivity stays the same and everyone only takes what is necessary (or, in this case, what the IWC says they can take and we all know what Japan thinks of people 'telling them what to do').

Japan doesn't like being told not to eat whales just like Canadians wouldn't like being told not to eat cows. Japan is asking the IWC to set sustainable catch limits. If the IWC does that, it means Japan wins. Even if they weren't satisfied after that, too bad for them, the line will have been drawn at sustainability.

It sounds real nice on paper...unfortunately we live in the real world

I do.

if demand increases and prices fall

When demand increases, prices rise in the real world. See oil prices.

do you seriously think Japan won't start harvesting more whales to meet demand?

Yes.
If they try to catch more than we generously agree to allow them, their whalers will be slammed with penalties and the IWC could vote to take their quota away (i.e., go back to the situation we have now). And besides, you seem convinced that there is not so much demand for whale meat anyway - so what are you worried about?

They haven't gone directly against the international community over this as of now because whaling isn't as big as you make it out to be

Well, the Japanese are very very patient and don't like quitting international agreements hastily. It's been 20+ years though...

but if the market increased and so did the money...well, I think you can figure that out for yourself.

See above. The IWC, on observing such a situation, votes to take away Japan's quota. And what else could Japan do?

Take the recent SBT over-fishing case. In this case the regulatory system for Japanese fishing ships was solely Japan's responsibility, and upon evidence of overfishing, the Japanese authorities went along to the next CCSBT meeting and agreed to slash their quota down to 3,000 tons as a penalty and also so as to help the SBT stock recover to a higher, more productive level of abundance.

With whales, the international regulatory system will have very very suspicious international observers on whaling ships, satellites monitoring them from space, DNA registration of every whale taken, and monitoring of the market against this DNA database for compliance purposes. It's a pretty tough system, much tougher than what Japan had in place for it's tuna when the overfishing occurred.

It doesn't chnge the fact the Minke whale population estimates are speculation (unreliable estimates)

Again, let's stop these silly unscientific statements shall we. If they were just guessing they wouldn't have needed to spend 50 million USD in doing all the work to come up with these estimates.

and have been steadily decreasing over the yeas...

No, they've gone up, then up, then down, and they are still in the hundreds of thousands. Conclusion: there are at least some hundreds of thousands.

in '89 the Minke whale population was estimated at over 1 million to the low side of 500 000. Now the population appears to rest at no more than 600 000 to the low side of 200 000.

That's the estimate that is changing, the scientific committee has not yet advised on how these estimates reflect actual changes in population abundance. Note the difference.

So Japan is actually working with the wrong estimates far overshooting the sustainable level if the population really is as low as 184 000 - 338 000 when they are working with numbers closer to the 1 million mark.

Negative. Read your own source more carefully. The 184,000 is for the North Atlantic (i.e., minke whales which Japan does not hunt). The 338,000 estimate is a preliminary one for the Antarctic, and again the IWC/SC hasn't advised on how such an estimate is to be interpreted yet. Wait until June.

Really?

Yes.

So with all this demand only one out of five major supermarkets are even selling whale meat?

Considering that there is only enough whale for one sashimi slice per citizen per year, it's actually amazing that any of the major supermarkets are stocking it.

In all the links I looked I could not find one single article to suggest that the demand or the desire for whale meat is increasing.

OK, so let's just say (think of it as a hypothetical question if it helps) that whale meat demand is increasing. Is Greenpeace going to tell you that via their propaganda? Does Greenpeace have an incentive in accurately informing you? Or are they going to design propaganda so as to deceive you, and make you want to give them money?

Not once did I ever use the word murder or even suggest it.

OK.

In that case these humans presumably died of natural causes (like the other 6 billion who suddenly vanished?), in which case it's "too bad", and will happen to you and I sometime too.

So long as enough of us are making babies our species will survive. Same for whales.

[Sarapva]

... It is obvious your concern lies not with protecting the whale populations and allowing them to increase but to treat living creatures as a commodity that is only valuable in it's usefulness to humans. You seem to forget that whales aren't simply numbers on a page, they are more important in the wild than on a dinner plate or in a lab.

I couldn't have said this better myself! Unfortunately though, most of the world is guilty of seeing animals and the environment only in terms of its usefulness to humans, to be exploited without thought of consequences (which ultimately means our own destruction - global warming, etc.). I wonder if we'll ever evolve to the point where we can appreciate the natural world and try to live in harmony with it.

[david@tokyo]

most of the world is guilty of seeing animals and the environment only in terms of its usefulness to humans

Every human (including you) can only sustain his or her existence through a reliance on other forms of life.

It's thus hypocritical for humans who sustain themselves via certain forms of life to criticise other humans who for mainly geographic, historical and cultural reasons, sustain themselves via other forms of life. The lifeforms which are sacrificed to sustain the existence of the hypocrits are no less significant than the lifeforms consumed by those who are victimised.

to be exploited without thought of consequences (which ultimately means our own destruction - global warming, etc.).

See MP's comments about farms apparently not causing problems for an example of thinking such as that.

Sustainable whaling on the other hand, is by definition, sustainable.

I wonder if we'll ever evolve to the point where we can appreciate the natural world and try to live in harmony with it.

Sustainable whaling is an example of this. Sustainable anything is. Sustainable use is our friend.