Just to nip this one before it goes further, they were more or less repeating what the IWC said: but I included it as a source, just in case they reached the same conclusions independently (I assume they have their own marine biologists?).
I don’t know what you mean. Do you mean that you don’t see the justification for eating whales or the justification for hunting more of them? Personally I think the only justifcation they need is that people like to eat them. I find nothing immoral about killing a whale and eating it. No different then eating tuna or sea bass.
The article says that Japan killed 440 of those whales in the antartic last year. How many did they kill the year before or the year before that. Is 440 a radical increase in the amount of whales they normally kill? Is this really a big deal or do anti-whalers just want to protest?
Marc
Is there a fishery in the world that can meet this standard? I won’t bother searching for a link but I will bet that the Japanese have studies saying they can take thousands.
I am not sure the IWC is the best source for information either. They are a political organization made up mostly of nations with a stated desire to end whaling altogether. Go ahead and criticize Japan for utilizing loopholes but keep in mind that the rest of the nations are arguably misusing an organization who’s mandate is to regulate whaling rather than prohibit it.
Some people eat tiger penis as well, and drink a suspension of rhino horn.
Just because people want to consume an endangered species doesn’t justify hunting and killing the endangered speies.
I would think most fisheries in the world can meet the standard that 400 deaths would not affect the sustainability, save perhaps for endangered turtles.
I can read Japanese, with some effort: when I have some spare time today I’ll go off and check out the Japanese government’s position.
As for the IWC…arguably, most people who study whales have an interest in preserving them, and I would have thought that the IWC is the most impartial, given it also has Norway and japan as members. Any shenanagins in IWC figures would be quickly pointed out by pro-whaling countries.
I am particularly worried about the blue whales, which are supposedly in such small numbers spread out so far that they are no longer sustainable as a population.
So I take it if these particular whales aren’t endangered then you’d have no problems with people eating them? Ok, are those whales who number 170,000 + endangered?
Marc
Which whales are those, Marc? Can you tell me with confidence which whales currently have populations over 170,000?
Pilot whales did, as at 1989.
Given the moratorium, it may be that whale populations have increased. But I haven’t found any information on that yet.
sigh. UBB deficient.
Hardly what I meant. No fishery can prove that current harvest levels are sustainable.
According to this link http://luna.pos.to/whale/gen_art_alessi.html we don’t have to bother going to the Japanese for a study. He says: “In the Southern Ocean above Antarctica, the minke whale population is estimated at 760,000, and an extremely conservative harvest model developed by the IWC set the sustainable harvest level in this region at 2,000 minkes annually.”
So the facts to hand so far consist of Greenpeace stating that the whale numbers appear to be in decline and everyone else in the entire world saying that they haven’t got a clue what the whale numbers are? IS that an accurate summary. Contrary to what the NZ Conservation minister has said at least one world expert contends that "Others, such as the minke, are not only abundant, but are increasing in numbers.
Sorry folks but Greenpeace doesn’t cut it as a reliable source of information. They’re a commercial oprganisation that makes money solely because people believe that trees and animals, whales particularly are endangered. For that reason alone I’ll discount their testimony. Greenpeace is not an accurate source of information and is consistently guilty of ignoring any research that doesn’t favour its position while grasping at anything that does. This is the same organisation that is on record as declaring the commercially harvested kangaroo species as being threatened, a status rejected by every independant wildlife authority in the world. May I suggest:
Here
or here
or here
and most particularly here where Japan actually defends itself against the outrageous claims of Greenpeace and staes, amongst other things that “Even the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee has calculated that 2,000 animals could be taken each year for the next 100 years with no risk to the population”.
Seriously folks just put Greenpeace lies into Google and see how many sites like these, all with verifiable examples of Greenpeace ‘prevarications’, you turn up.
So that leaves us with the argument that we should stop fishing for whales because we don’t know what their numbers are doing. As has already been noted that argument applies equally to virtually any wild resource harvest. It’s been used time and again as an argument against kangaroo harvests despite the fact that we know unequivocally that kangaroo numbers are far higher now than prior to European settlement. The argument is that we can’t do anything like an accurate census so we can’t know when the population is about to plunge down to unsustainable levels, (a fall of about 99.999% of adult females). I suspect exactly the same argument is being use here. We have no reason to suspect that harvetsing is having an effect but we’ll stop it just on spec. The experts seem to be contending that Minke whale populations are on the rise and that all evidence suggests the current Japanese hatvest is sustainable, and only Greenpeace disputes this. This objection is based as far as I can see on the fact that although all the evidence supports whaling we can’t have 100% knowledge of every whale. Well folks we can’t have 100% knowledge of every tuna either.
** Dave Stewart**, can you explain to me the long term effects of 100, 000, 000 yellowfin tuna deaths per year upon the overall yellowfin tuna population population, and especially its breeding patterns? Why exactly is the annual cull insignificant on tuna numbers? Don’t know? Funny, that - no one does. By your own argument we should not be harvesting any wild species because accurate censuses of wild species is only possible once the population has become seriously threatened.
If that’s the strength of the argument against Japanese whale harvests then it so weak as to be laughable. Nothing more than an argument from ignorance, and these boards don’t take well to ignorance.
The majority of whales do not live off krill. Only the baleen whales, a total of only 11 species, eat krill. The toothed whales, a grand total of 70 species, eat fish, squid, other whales etc.
What a load of old cobblers. Every eskimo whale hunt i’ve seen has involved either high powered semi-automatic rifles or, more commonly, pneumatic harpoons. According to this site "Modern hunting equipment and techniques are permitted. In an effort to reduce the number of whales that were struck but lost, the Inuit adopted a Norwegian harpoon, reducing the “struck but lost” rate to one in ten.
Have you actually got any evidence that eskimo anywhere still attack whales out of wooden boats using hand-held harpoons?
Can you tell me with confidence which tuna currently have populations over 170,000, 000, 0000? We know a lot less about tuna ecology than we do about whales. By your argument we need to outlaw tuna fishing don’t we?
and this
There are plenty more.
OK, firstly to the best of my knowledge no-one is harvesting blues. Haven’t done for decades.
Secondly (and more importantly) it’s fairly much open to debate if blue whales have been a truly sustainable population for millenia. Genetic testing has shown constant outcrossing with humpback and fin whales has been going on for that long at least. The blue whale as a species may never even have existed, but if it did it then for the last couple of thousand years it has been at low enough levels that female blues routinely mated with males of other species. This type of female outrcrossing in polyamorous creatures like whales is a sure sign that population levels have been unsustainable.
Thirdly blue whale populations are increasing in the northern hemisphere which suggests more than just sustainablity. They are stable or slightly increasing in the south and ironically the lag in recovery has been attributed to lack of Japanese whaling. A number of scientists attribute this to substantial increases in species competing for the same food supply, such as minke whales and crabeater seals. The culling back of some minkes and seals may help the blue whale recovery. So if you’re really worried about the blues, encourage Japanese whaling.
That link was interesting. This guy is co-ordinator of the Center for Private Conservation, a project of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC. I’d never heard of them: they have a website at http://www.cei.org. Its stated objectives:
So, its big business think tank, or at least, recognisably partisan in its opposition to ecology groups.
He attacks the scientific approach of the IWC and says:
The IWC says, in respect of southern ocean minkes:
A BBC report from July this year quotes the IWC, and seems more up to date in its position than the IWC website, and says:
Your link attacks the IWC as being partisan, too, so I looked for more data on minke whale populations.
I found this, from here
This is from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Japan, at this site: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fishery/whales/iwc/population.html
On statistical flaws in assessing whale numbers, from here, which claims the Norwegians are overstating numbers of minkes in the north Atlantic:
Again, its the uncertainty that bothers me. Its not like counting lions on the African veldt.
Ah, Gaspode, you are determined to stop me from doing any work today, aren’t you?
Setting aside your cheap closing comment, yellowfin tuna are not endangered. The IWC thinks minke whales are endangered. So while substantial tuna fish deaths per year might not endanger the survival of tuna as a species, substantial minke whale deaths might do so.
I concede that, and confess to being misled by National Geographic TV specials.
I think I covered most of everything else you said in my last post - if not, please let me know.
He also couldn’t rule out the possibility that unicorns were living in his ashtray and that aliens caused crop circle formations. This is an argument from ignorance and no more. There is no evidence presented that populations have suffered a decline.
According to [url=“http://www.wcmc.org.uk/species/animals/categories.html”]this lower risk, near threatened status can be gained simply because a species can be considered to have “a reduction of at least 20%, projected or suspected to be met within the next ten years or three generations, whichever is the longer, based on potential levels of exploitation.”
In other words if the moratorium on whaling was listed and that could potentially cause a 20% reduction in population then a species qualifies as lower risk, near threatened. The animal is probably listed only because we have evidence from past experience that populations would dive if restraictions were listed. This doesn’t tell us anything about the population whatsoever.
It should be noted that lower risk, near threatened status means that this whale population has “been evaluated, but does not satisfy the criteria for any of the categories Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable.” In other words it is at absolutely no current risk as things stand, taking into full account current hunting by all whaling nations. It will only potentially be at risk if circumstances change.
It’s status is actually confirmation that Japanese whaling is having absolutely no effect on this species and is in fact sustainable.
No it doesn’t. Your own link says that they consider it “lower risk, near threatened”. It has to pass though vulnerable status before it gets to endangered. So, no, the Minke whale is not considered threatened by anyone.
As I said in my last post the status as ‘lower risk, not threatened’ means that there is some risk of a potential drop in populations if circumstances change and hunting increases. Evaluation by the IWC has proven that Japanese whaling is not causeing a drop in Minke whale numbers by definition.
Let’s just calrify this.
Substantial tuna fish deaths per year might not endanger the survival of tuna as a species, substantial minke whale deaths might do so.
But equally
Substantial minke whale deaths per year might not endanger the survival of minke whale as a species, substantial tuna fish deaths might do so.
And equally
Substantial tuna fish deaths per year might endanger the survival of tuna as a species, substantial minke whale deaths might not do so.
and
Substantial minke whale deaths per year might endanger the survival of minke whale as a species, substantial tuna fish deaths might not do so.
You agree with all those statements I take it. In other words there is infinite uncertainty as to the outcome of any given course of action due to a lack of reliable data? If that is the case what exactly makes whale fishing different from tuna fishing?
Well, according to the article you cited in your OP there are over 760,000 minke whales. If the article couldn’t get the number of minke whales correct why does the rest of the article have any merit?
Marc
What I find interesting in the debate surrounding whaling by Japan is that most of the end-consumers of the whale meat are indifferent at best about the continuing supply. Whale was widely used as a staple after WWII, and most people who grew up in that era are sick of it. What upsets me more is Japan’s continuing to characterise their whaling as scientific, when most of it goes to the consumer market.
Good article here, not as much scientific data as others, but a good perspective piece:
http://www.bigempire.com/sake/whale.html
Personally, I have to say that if ever I got the opportunity to try it, I’d chalk it up to experience and plinge in. I’ve already eaten dog, horse, snake, alligator and elephant, so why not some whale? Hell, why not baby while we’re at it? 
Debating the populations of different types of whales is irrelevent. First there are no acurate numbers and even if the amount “harvested” is to be small, we don’t know what is involved for the population to recover. I know that this is about whales, but I am going to change topics over to penguins to make a point.
This whole thing reminded me of something that I had heard when in South America. I visited a penguin colony and had been told that the Japanese wanted to “harvest” some of the penguins for pet food or something. The Japanese estimated that the population of Magellanic penguins was 4-5 million and that if they took 250,000 there would be no problem. There was one small problem; the Magellanic penguin population was under 2 million. Removing 250,000 individuals would have been devastating to the species. This site shows the populations of various penguin species. Notice that Emperor penguins are listed as stable with a population of 212,000, yet the Rockhopper, with a population ranging from 350,000 - 830,000 is endangered.
But this is true for pretty much every wild animal population that isn’t already endangered. Can anyone here provide me with figures of population numbers and recovery effects of harvest with 95% confidence limits for North American Bison, Red Deer, Eastern Grey Kangaroo, Atlantic Salmon and Yellowfin Tuna? If you can’t then can you explain to me why exactly you support the harvesting of these species? This particular argument from ignorance is popular with conservation groups precisely because they know that it is impossible to get accurate figures for any virtually any wild species. However my view is that if you want to claim a right to infringe on someone’s lifestyle and happiness the onus is on you to provide evidence of the harm you allege they are causing. The burden of proof is not on them to prove they are harmless.