David @ Tokyo
Perspective from Japan on whaling and whale meat, a spot of gourmet news, and monthly updates of whale meat stockpile statistics5/27/2005
IWC 2005: New Zealand "scientists" join in the deception
New Zealand scientists have over the years contributed little constructive information with regards to the ICRW's requirements that signatories promote research to enhance understanding of whale stocks, with the aim of making possible the "orderly development of the whaling industry".
Scott Baker of Auckland University is one such "scientist". Funded by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), an "environmental" group that draws millions of dollars in anti-whaling donation, Baker claims that
"Humpback whales throughout much of the South Pacific have shown little sign of recovery to their former abundance, despite claims to the contrary by some Japanese scientists."
This is despite "Dr" Baker's fellow researchers in Australia having recognised that the Humpback population in the region is "booming".
He also attempts to make out that:
"Japan plans to resume hunting of both species in defiance of the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary”
"Dr" Baker is certainly in a position to be aware of the provisions of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which explicitly allow lethal hunts for scientific purposes. To talk of "defiance" is a nonsense - Article VIII existed since the beginning.
He also adds that “Japan's irresponsible plans to hunt these same whales during their migration to feeding grounds in waters around the Antarctic could undermine local recovery."
"Dr" Baker should do his maths. The numbers of whales Japan is proposing to take is well within the 10% annual rate of population growth that Australian researchers have observed. So just how are these plans "irresponsible", and how could they "undermine local recovery" to a degree worth worrying about?
That "Dr" Baker is prepared to have such comments attributed to his name makes it clear that he is nothing but a mouthpiece for the IFAW, who in part fund his livelihood. His comments could easily have been taken directly from the IFAW's homepage.
If "Dr" Baker wants to be taken seriously, he should stick to his science, rather than wade into the political side of the debate. Of course, if he did that the IFAW might not feel so inclined to fund him any longer... everyone has to make a living for themselves somehow though, don't they :-)
Scott Baker of Auckland University is one such "scientist". Funded by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), an "environmental" group that draws millions of dollars in anti-whaling donation, Baker claims that
"Humpback whales throughout much of the South Pacific have shown little sign of recovery to their former abundance, despite claims to the contrary by some Japanese scientists."
This is despite "Dr" Baker's fellow researchers in Australia having recognised that the Humpback population in the region is "booming".
He also attempts to make out that:
"Japan plans to resume hunting of both species in defiance of the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary”
"Dr" Baker is certainly in a position to be aware of the provisions of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which explicitly allow lethal hunts for scientific purposes. To talk of "defiance" is a nonsense - Article VIII existed since the beginning.
He also adds that “Japan's irresponsible plans to hunt these same whales during their migration to feeding grounds in waters around the Antarctic could undermine local recovery."
"Dr" Baker should do his maths. The numbers of whales Japan is proposing to take is well within the 10% annual rate of population growth that Australian researchers have observed. So just how are these plans "irresponsible", and how could they "undermine local recovery" to a degree worth worrying about?
That "Dr" Baker is prepared to have such comments attributed to his name makes it clear that he is nothing but a mouthpiece for the IFAW, who in part fund his livelihood. His comments could easily have been taken directly from the IFAW's homepage.
If "Dr" Baker wants to be taken seriously, he should stick to his science, rather than wade into the political side of the debate. Of course, if he did that the IFAW might not feel so inclined to fund him any longer... everyone has to make a living for themselves somehow though, don't they :-)
posted by David # 9:57 pm 
Comments:
<< Home
OOh what an intresting Blogg..
As I lie in the anti - party and generally have no problem with proper Aboriginal hunting I do have a major issue with hunting on the level that Japan does currently under the "Scientific" guise.
The reasons being that that Traditional coastal whaling for community sustainability does just that. A community that has hunted on it's doorstep for as long as living memory recalls is sustainable. Remember tha food is only consumed locally, by the locals.
Pelagic Whaling on the other hand decended from the days when whale was hunted largly for it's oils and the awful waste that was ensued, ie no or little meat kept for latter human consumption.
When one considers David your claim that the Humpback whale population is exploding, like the NGO's and all the other anti -criminals you paint using false language and conveniently ommitted words of the Australian Scientists announcement, being " in their region" this is hugely significant when you consider that the numbers for any quotas are based on a population that moves regularly over thousands of miles and perhaps they are being counted twice somewhere in the equations.
In this day and age it would be irresponsble to not remember the "Precautionery Principle". New and improved tech has recently revealed that Yellow fine Tuna stocks where being counted twice so the world total was skewed completly and the figure people had thought was the case is a gross exageration.
As to your earlier bitchin' about Greenpeace and their US income of $100+m, try looking at that this way.....
....people voluntry make donations for causes they believ Greenpeace represents their feelings/intrest etc. This is over and above the taxes that the HAVE to pay levied by governments. If governments were minding the shop as well as we would like them to then groups like Greenpece would be out of business.
I live in Antigua and Barbuda, famous for selling out to Japan "AID", one of the reasons they were bought was because Greenpeace had shown Japan it was possible originally. BTW we have no enforcement vessels from Japan to protect our water from the incursions of longliners etc but that is another story which is part of this one.
As I lie in the anti - party and generally have no problem with proper Aboriginal hunting I do have a major issue with hunting on the level that Japan does currently under the "Scientific" guise.
The reasons being that that Traditional coastal whaling for community sustainability does just that. A community that has hunted on it's doorstep for as long as living memory recalls is sustainable. Remember tha food is only consumed locally, by the locals.
Pelagic Whaling on the other hand decended from the days when whale was hunted largly for it's oils and the awful waste that was ensued, ie no or little meat kept for latter human consumption.
When one considers David your claim that the Humpback whale population is exploding, like the NGO's and all the other anti -criminals you paint using false language and conveniently ommitted words of the Australian Scientists announcement, being " in their region" this is hugely significant when you consider that the numbers for any quotas are based on a population that moves regularly over thousands of miles and perhaps they are being counted twice somewhere in the equations.
In this day and age it would be irresponsble to not remember the "Precautionery Principle". New and improved tech has recently revealed that Yellow fine Tuna stocks where being counted twice so the world total was skewed completly and the figure people had thought was the case is a gross exageration.
As to your earlier bitchin' about Greenpeace and their US income of $100+m, try looking at that this way.....
....people voluntry make donations for causes they believ Greenpeace represents their feelings/intrest etc. This is over and above the taxes that the HAVE to pay levied by governments. If governments were minding the shop as well as we would like them to then groups like Greenpece would be out of business.
I live in Antigua and Barbuda, famous for selling out to Japan "AID", one of the reasons they were bought was because Greenpeace had shown Japan it was possible originally. BTW we have no enforcement vessels from Japan to protect our water from the incursions of longliners etc but that is another story which is part of this one.
# posted by 
: 1:31 pm
: 1:31 pm
> A community that has hunted on it's doorstep for as long as living memory recalls is sustainable.
Usually, that's a safe assumption to make, although it's dangerous to make such a blanket statement. The world is changing, often because of activities humans are undertaking that effect other parts of the ecosystem. I think it's important that all groups who utilise natural resources in a sustainable manner strive to monitor the ecosystem that they depend on appropriately, to ensure that their activities continue to be sustainable into the future. We should not take anything for granted.
> Remember tha food is only consumed locally, by the locals.
This is not of relevance in terms of conservation. Whether the resources are consumed locally, or exported overseas has no effect on sustainability. So long as the level of resource consumption stays at the same level, the activity itself remains sustainable.
This is actually very important, as it provides the means for countries to develop new sustainable industries for the benefit of their populations.
> ie no or little meat kept for latter human consumption.
That was certainly true of the oil whalers, but for those nations hunting for food, of course they took the meat home with them.
> When one considers David your claim that the Humpback whale population is exploding
It's not my claim - I'm not the one doing this research. The recent IWC Scientific Committee report put the estimate for numbers in the Southern Hemisphere above 40,000 now, and the 'D' stock that breeds off western Australia is also estimated to be abundant enough to qualify for management under the IWC's RMP.
> you paint using false language and conveniently ommitted words of the Australian Scientists announcement, being " in their region"
The fact is that the humpback whales to be targeted are the 'D' and 'E' stocks recognised by the IWC Scientific Committee. The 'D' stock is in wonderful shape, still growing, and the 'E' stock is the one refered to by the Australian scientists as booming at rates of 10% each year. Those are the stocks of whales that the JARPA programme is targeting, not others. Some Australasian scientists have made claims of substructure within the 'E' stock, but these are yet to find wide acceptance, and other studies provide indication to the contrary, i.e., that there is no stock sub-structure.
> this is hugely significant when you consider that the numbers for any quotas are based on a population that moves regularly over thousands of miles and perhaps they are being counted twice somewhere in the equations.
Sightings survey methodology covers all such possibilities.
> In this day and age it would be irresponsble to not remember the "Precautionery Principle".
The IWC's RMP is heavily conservative, and takes a wide range of uncertainties into account. There is no need to be cautious about scientific certainties. Only uncertainties. The Precautionary Principle is about acting precautionary when there is uncertainty, but it is wrong to try to invoke it when uncertainty does not exist, or is addressed appropriately as is the case with the RMP.
> ....people voluntry make donations for causes they believ Greenpeace represents their feelings/intrest etc.
Greenpeace does of course indulge in misinformation campaigns to incite such desires.
> If governments were minding the shop as well as we would like them to then groups like Greenpece would be out of business.
The situation with whaling illustrates the falsity of this claim.
> I live in Antigua and Barbuda, famous for selling out to Japan "AID", one of the reasons they were bought was because Greenpeace had shown Japan it was possible originally.
Unlike the early days, Antigua and Barbuda actually send their own representatives to the IWC these days, and they make their position on the matter quite clear, and actively explain their position. There is no need to do so, if they are only there to supply votes.
> BTW we have no enforcement vessels from Japan to protect our water from the incursions of longliners etc but that is another story which is part of this one.
Would love to hear more about it.
Post a Comment
Usually, that's a safe assumption to make, although it's dangerous to make such a blanket statement. The world is changing, often because of activities humans are undertaking that effect other parts of the ecosystem. I think it's important that all groups who utilise natural resources in a sustainable manner strive to monitor the ecosystem that they depend on appropriately, to ensure that their activities continue to be sustainable into the future. We should not take anything for granted.
> Remember tha food is only consumed locally, by the locals.
This is not of relevance in terms of conservation. Whether the resources are consumed locally, or exported overseas has no effect on sustainability. So long as the level of resource consumption stays at the same level, the activity itself remains sustainable.
This is actually very important, as it provides the means for countries to develop new sustainable industries for the benefit of their populations.
> ie no or little meat kept for latter human consumption.
That was certainly true of the oil whalers, but for those nations hunting for food, of course they took the meat home with them.
> When one considers David your claim that the Humpback whale population is exploding
It's not my claim - I'm not the one doing this research. The recent IWC Scientific Committee report put the estimate for numbers in the Southern Hemisphere above 40,000 now, and the 'D' stock that breeds off western Australia is also estimated to be abundant enough to qualify for management under the IWC's RMP.
> you paint using false language and conveniently ommitted words of the Australian Scientists announcement, being " in their region"
The fact is that the humpback whales to be targeted are the 'D' and 'E' stocks recognised by the IWC Scientific Committee. The 'D' stock is in wonderful shape, still growing, and the 'E' stock is the one refered to by the Australian scientists as booming at rates of 10% each year. Those are the stocks of whales that the JARPA programme is targeting, not others. Some Australasian scientists have made claims of substructure within the 'E' stock, but these are yet to find wide acceptance, and other studies provide indication to the contrary, i.e., that there is no stock sub-structure.
> this is hugely significant when you consider that the numbers for any quotas are based on a population that moves regularly over thousands of miles and perhaps they are being counted twice somewhere in the equations.
Sightings survey methodology covers all such possibilities.
> In this day and age it would be irresponsble to not remember the "Precautionery Principle".
The IWC's RMP is heavily conservative, and takes a wide range of uncertainties into account. There is no need to be cautious about scientific certainties. Only uncertainties. The Precautionary Principle is about acting precautionary when there is uncertainty, but it is wrong to try to invoke it when uncertainty does not exist, or is addressed appropriately as is the case with the RMP.
> ....people voluntry make donations for causes they believ Greenpeace represents their feelings/intrest etc.
Greenpeace does of course indulge in misinformation campaigns to incite such desires.
> If governments were minding the shop as well as we would like them to then groups like Greenpece would be out of business.
The situation with whaling illustrates the falsity of this claim.
> I live in Antigua and Barbuda, famous for selling out to Japan "AID", one of the reasons they were bought was because Greenpeace had shown Japan it was possible originally.
Unlike the early days, Antigua and Barbuda actually send their own representatives to the IWC these days, and they make their position on the matter quite clear, and actively explain their position. There is no need to do so, if they are only there to supply votes.
> BTW we have no enforcement vessels from Japan to protect our water from the incursions of longliners etc but that is another story which is part of this one.
Would love to hear more about it.
# posted by : 8:01 pm
: 8:01 pm<< Home
Archives
June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 January 2010 February 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 February 2011 March 2011 May 2013 June 2013
