# Whaling in Iceland.  Wheres the argument?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [August 23, 2003, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127 "2003-08-23T08:25:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\
**Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/81 "2003-09-08T10:52:42Z")

</div>

**Your Old Buddy** , let me address the various holes in the loose collection of statements that **Bark’s Dog Food** calls an argument and I’ll be with you as soon as I have time. However, this post will also address some of your points so have a read.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Barks’ dog food \*  
> I hope I wasn’t wasting your time when I poited out that Norway is not engaged in “scietific” whaling but in comercial whaling as I think it’s rather important to this debate.

It was _covert_ whaling you corrected me on. This was in fact an adequate correction that at the time I let stand unchallenged, hence the lack of mention in my response. Probably not a wise idea, given who I’m arguing with. You have ignored at least 90% of my arguments, points, and cites – do you agree with them and have no objections? Or, as is increasingly likely, do you have little regard for a discussion, and instead prefer to put forward minor unsupported objections to small segments of a larger argument rather than handle the entire argument in any meaningful manner? You adopt a most irritating approach.

Since you insist, we can take a brief look at what Norway is doing.

There is a global moratorium on whaling in effect since 1986. And you know that Norway grudgingly accepted this moratorium until 1992 or 1993, when it resumed whaling, thereby breaking the agreement and biting its thumb at IWC efforts. BUT, Norway started off relatively modestly – until 2000, Norway claimed that it was acting in accordance with the IWC’s [Revised Management Procedure](http://www.iwcoffice.org/RMP.htm), which proposes a scientifically sound method of setting safe catch limits for certain stocks. Norway abandoned the RMP in 2000, catching increasing numbers of whales, some of them from waters quite removed from Norway (MRP simulation applies to coastal/territorial waters, IIRC). Additionally, in 2001 the government removed the local ban (actually a CITES ban) on export of whale meat and blubber, thereby enabling a huge incentive for commercial whaling (the same year Norway attracted outrage by slaughtering grey wolves, a threatened species in Europe, based on claims that farmers’ commercial interests were being affected).

It’s been progressively downhill since the resumption of Norwegian whaling. Norway had always grumbled about the RMP and restrictions in general, and claimed that minke and some other whales were safe to catch in its waters. The IWC scientific committee responded to these concerns by suggesting the next stage, the [Revised Management Scheme](http://www.iwcoffice.org/RMS.htm). Quoting from the link: “before the RMP is implemented and the moratorium on commercial whaling lifted, the IWC has agreed that **an inspection and observation scheme must be in place to ensure that agreed catch limits are not exceeded**. It is this combination of scientific and non-scientific factors that comprises the Revised Management Scheme.” (my emphasis).

In recent years, Norway abandoned the pretext of abiding to any sort of scientific consensus on whale stock management, preferring instead to listen to its own interests; from there ensued full commercial whaling without regard for what the rest of the world or the scientific community thought. You can see objections to some of Norway’s behaviour in the following press release by an animal welfare society:

> [@](#):
>
> \*from [IFAW Slams Norwegian Whalers For Largest Whale Kill in Ten Years](http://www.ifaw.org/page.asp?unitid=705%5B/url) \*
> 
> says Vassilli Papastavrou, IFAW Global Whale Campaign Leader. “Each year Norway increases the number of whales it kills while claiming a scientific basis for its calculations. However, Norway turned its back on science long ago and can no longer claim to be using the International Whaling Commission’s agreed mechanism for calculating catches,” adds Papastavrou.

I hardly think Norway’s approach can be described as honest. Perhaps “covert” was the wrong word, but not that far off from the truth. Like Iceland and Japan, Norway sought to focus on scientific elements of whaling in order to meet commercial interests on the side. Here is the assessment by Greenpeace:

> [@](#):
>
> \*From [Norwegian Whaling](http://whales.greenpeace.org/whaling/norway.html) \*
> 
> Norway resumed commercial whaling in 1993 as an attempt by the political party in power at the time to gain popularity in northern Norway. In order to justify its hunt, Norwegian scientists calculated a population estimate, which was later found to be much higher than the data supported. The scientific controversy surrounding Norway’s population estimates for Minke whales continues today,but even if the populations could be accurately determined, Norway’s whale hunt still directly undermines the authority of the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
> 
> Since restarting its commercial whaling, Norway has claimed that its Minke whale hunt is small scale and traditional. In fact, Norway did not begin Minke whaling until 1930. Some of Norway’s whaling vessels cross international waters and travel more than a thousand miles to reach their hunting grounds \<snip\> Norway’s whaling fleet is by no means crucial to the survival of Norway’s coastal communities, which in reality depend on the state of Norway’s fisheries.
> 
> \<snip\>
> 
> … there is little market for the [whale] meat in Norway.
> 
> The real goal of Norway’s whalers is export to Japan where prices paid for whale meat are several times higher than in Norway. One whaler commented to the press “When export is reopened, who ever has a license to whale will be sitting on a gold mine.” When the Norwegian government announced in January 2001, that it would allow exports to resume, a spokesperson for the whalers public relations arm described the decision as ‘the final victory’.

Is there a market for whale meat in Norway? Even if there is, isn’t it likely that whale meat dealers would prefer to export to Japan anyway in order to collect rather more revenue than they could hope to generate domestically? I think it’s clear that Norway doesn’t much care for IWC or CITES regulations. Norway’s actions have not been very honest or forthcoming on this matter – indeed, you could say they pursued and are pursuing certain covert goals, which become more obvious when one removes the blinders of affiliation such as citizenship or regionality.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Barks’ dog food \*  
> But one scientist is what the journalist found. That indicates that there are others.

Ah yes, another **Bark’s dog food** objection: let’s engage in a bit of vague hand-waving and hope the problem goes away. Let’s magically infer the magical existence of unmentioned and undocumented objectors to a scientific study, but let’s not go as far as naming them or outlining their concerns in a debate, no. Instead let’s drop the name of only one scientist – who broadcast no objections to the **methodology** of the mtDNA study but rather said that the results were not what he expected – and let’s hope that readers are uncritical and foolish enough to swallow such a nonexistent argument.

You are obviously afflicted by chronic cite deficiency, something I heartily bemoan. It’s not, however, an excuse for piss-poor debate, so please drop the approach you have favoured so far. Stop indulging in this abysmally stupid exercise that consists of you airing unsupported and frankly undeveloped opinion, stop taking tiny little bites out of a much larger discussion and try provide some props for your argument—should one ever materialize—to rest on.

> [@](#):
>
> The DNA study is not hard evidence it is statistical prossesing of numbers with several asumptions.

Ah yes, thank you for displaying such a fine understanding of science. Can you even name these incriminating assumptions that you mention with yet another casual wave of the hand? First, all science is to some degree statistical processing (are you attacking the coalescent?); second, the scientific method permits assumptions as long as they are stated, understood, and handled as part of the scientific process (the goal, of course, is always to minimize assumptions or unknowns, but their presence is not _automatically_ damning). So the picture is rather different from the one your feeble claim seeks to paint. Allow me to show you the abstract of the study published in Science Magazine, where you may obtain a better idea of what it actually _is_ about:

> [@](#):
>
> _From [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/301/5632/508](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/301/5632/508)_  
> \*\*Whales Before Whaling in the North Atlantic \*\*  
> Joe Roman and Stephen R. Palumbi
> 
> It is well known that hunting dramatically reduced all baleen whale populations, yet \*\* _reliable estimates of former whale abundances are elusive_ \*\*. Based on coalescent models for mitochondrial DNA sequence variation, the genetic diversity of North Atlantic whales suggests population sizes of approximately 240,000 humpback, 360,000 fin, and 265,000 minke whales. Estimates for fin and humpback whales are far greater than those previously calculated for prewhaling populations and 6 to 20 times higher than present-day population estimates. \*\* \*Such discrepancies suggest the need for a quantitative reevaluation of historical whale populations and a fundamental revision in our conception of the natural state of the oceans. \*\* \*
> 
> Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 16 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.

I have added emphasis to the above to highlight some important points that, it seems to me, are being deliberately ignored by the pro-whaling camp here. Now let me hammer home what I have already said at the very least two or three times, but which you clearly haven’t yet managed to grasp: mitochondrial DNA analysis employs more precise and qualitatively “better” data (less prone to error) to base a study on than the particular unscientific observations and records that previous historical whale population assessments are based on. I have already outlined the deficiencies of classical methods of estimating historical whale populations, in fact I have also linked and cited Roman and Palumbi’s comments on this subject; again, I invite you to re-read my posts and try harder this time.

Here is the first [reading list](http://depts.washington.edu/genetics/courses/genet590/2002/) I found of studies and papers on coalescence and population genetics, it’s not as if use of coalescent theory is an new maverick and unreliable method – it’s one of the staples of population biology, evolutionary biology, etc.!

> [@](#):
>
> And while I agree that this might be a good road to follow this study could very well be wrong, what I objected to was that you claimed that all earlier studies must be wrong based on the DNA study.

I did not make such a claim. Re-read my posts.

> [@](#):
>
> And even the authors of the study said: "Hunting decisions about the minkes, the authors say, “must be based on other data”. Which is why this study can’t be used as an argument against hunting minke whales.

Since **Your Old Buddy** made the same error, of assuming that I claimed the mtDNA study was some sort of ultimate argument as far as whaling the minke go, I will consider the possibility that you misunderstood or that I stated myself unclearly. However I suspect you simply took YOB’s objection and recycled it the same way you recycled the cite I provided earlier. Minimum effort for maximum annoyance.

You will note in one of my very first messages in this thread the following words: \*\*“If Minke whales really have recovered to above 54% of historical stocks – a fact that is not yet obvious – then I suppose that the decision to hunt them may be discussed by the IWC.” \*\*

According to the study by Roman and Palumbi, the historical stock of minke was 265,000, with the present IWC point estimate standing at 149,000. That gives us a minke population today of roughly 56% of historical figures, which, lo and behold, may be enough to meet the 54% criterion for hunting. Which means the matter may be seriously discussed at the IWC, and real statisticians and scientists consulted before approval to hunt is or is not given. However, since I am not a marine biologist and since it is becoming laughably unlikely that you are, I would rather wait to hear the IWC proclaim that X numbers of minke may be caught in year Y rather than have Iceland go renegade and kill minke without the necessary permission. The Roman-Palumbi study is **no** go ahead for commercial whaling, and even a figure of 56% would have to be looked at closely (and checked) before a minke catch quota of over zero could ever be considered. The genetic variance study, leaving aside the results it obtained, is extremely important because it highlights the gross uncertainty that persists around whale stocks, and of course because it helps to bring into prominence an improved method of population analysis seldom used previously for our cetacean friends.

> [@](#):
>
> This might seem like a good answer to you but it might be bad answer to a marine biologist which is why I trust the skeptic more than you.

Bold words, for someone who has thus far failed to demonstrate even basic reading ability, never mind a single argument. Here is the commentary by the sceptical scientist quoted by the BBC that you have latched on to so tenaciously: "If the genetics is right, then either our estimates of past catches are very wrong or there’s been some major ecological shift in the oceans.” I invite you to either make use of those words in a concrete and substantial manner without your customary hand-waving, or to find other words that are more pertinent to the argument at hand. Let me point out, again, that the sceptic’s words state his concern with the results obtained by the study, not with the _methods_ or the data employed. Not liking the results is hardly invalidating scientific criticism. If the methods aren’t addressed, the criticism isn’t even sceptical, it’s just an observation that the study’s results do not match closely with those of other studies – a different matter entirely.

The whole point of the discussion involving the mtDNA study was the uncertainty that exists regarding whale populations. That is the very same type of concern that prompted the IWC to vote in favour of a suspension of whaling in 1982, and that’s the same concern that partly accounts for the ban’s existence today. So why don’t you sit tight and let the scientists at the IWC do their work and reach their conclusions?

> [@](#):
>
> But almost all whales are protected(except for aboriginal subsistence whaling which apparently doesn’t make any difference),

Aboriginal subsistence whaling makes a difference too. That’s why it too is regulated as much as possible: [IWC on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling](http://www.iwcoffice.org/Catches.htm#Aboriginal). You can imagine what a disaster it is when someone kills even just a few of something as endangered as the blue whale – of which there could be as few as 400 specimens left.

> [@](#):
>
> and even though many species of fish are protected some aren’t just like most whales are protected but some can be hunted…

Is this any kind of argument? Besides, right now no whale may be hunted for commercial purposes, it’s that simple.

> [@](#):
>
> The only whales that are hunted are in good shape even acording to the DNA study. Which leaves the question ;why should all whaling be banned because many whales are threatened when we don’t ban all fishing because many species of fish are threatened?

If we cut through the majority of your painfully indirect writing, what you are really asking above is “how come certain types of relatively abundant whales may not be hunted?” I must have repeated the answer to that question at least a half dozen times so far: for the previously stated reasons that the ban on commercial whaling was instituted to begin with, and for the simple fact that the IWC says so; secondly, opening the door to commercial hunting of, say, minke, could easily lead to a massive escalation in commercial whaling without stricter controls and measures in place to prevent the kind of dishonesty we have seen in the past and continue to see today. Encouraging a market for whale products (anywhere) can be just as bad for whales as hunting them, since an existing and sizeable market means that someone is going to find a way to hunt whales regardless of the ban. Norway and Japan did so flagrantly, and now Iceland looks like it’s heading the same way, since there seems to be, strictly speaking, no reason to engage in lethal scientific research when other options are available. Rather disappointing given Iceland’s excellent record in environmental and conservation matters.

> [@](#):
>
> Your claim indicates that the whalers could make at least as much money on whale-watching as on hunting but for some reason prefers whaling.

Nothing of the sort. My claim, which actually consisted of a couple of cites based on claims put forward by tourism experts, indicated that whale-watching can match and exceed the revenues of certain types of whale-hunting, not that hunters should turn watchers or anything like that. If you had read the articles I linked on that topic you would have seen the specific commentary that the whaling boats and whale-watching boats are in direct competition, two completely different industries. I never implied that one ought to turn into the other, however there are certainly worse suggestions – in some African wildlife reserves, former poachers have been persuaded to stop killing and start assisting park guards, so anything can happen.

**Alien** : I’m happy to see a post by someone who is simultaneously able to enjoy the taste of whale meat _and_ acknowledge the seriousness of the issues that surround whaling. Thank you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Barks\_dog\_food](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c68b51/32.png) [@Barks\_dog\_food](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barks_dog_food)\
**Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/82 "2003-09-08T22:13:54Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Abe \*  
> \*\*
> 
> It was _covert_ whaling you corrected me on. This was in fact an adequate correction that at the time I let stand unchallenged, hence the lack of mention in my response. Probably not a wise idea, given who I’m arguing with. You have ignored at least 90% of my arguments, points, and cites – do you agree with them and have no objections? Or, as is increasingly likely, do you have little regard for a discussion, and instead prefer to put forward minor unsupported objections to small segments of a larger argument rather than handle the entire argument in any meaningful manner? You adopt a most irritating approach.
> 
> Since you insist, we can take a brief look at what Norway is doing.
> 
> There is a global moratorium on whaling in effect since 1986. And you know that Norway grudgingly accepted this moratorium until 1992 or 1993, when it resumed whaling, thereby breaking the agreement and biting its thumb at IWC efforts. BUT, Norway started off relatively modestly – until 2000, Norway claimed that it was acting in accordance with the IWC’s [Revised Management Procedure](http://www.iwcoffice.org/RMP.htm), which proposes a scientifically sound method of setting safe catch limits for certain stocks. Norway abandoned the RMP in 2000, catching increasing numbers of whales, some of them from waters quite removed from Norway (MRP simulation applies to coastal/territorial waters, IIRC). Additionally, in 2001 the government removed the local ban (actually a CITES ban) on export of whale meat and blubber, thereby enabling a huge incentive for commercial whaling (the same year Norway attracted outrage by slaughtering grey wolves, a threatened species in Europe, based on claims that farmers’ commercial interests were being affected).
> 
> It’s been progressively downhill since the resumption of Norwegian whaling. Norway had always grumbled about the RMP and restrictions in general, and claimed that minke and some other whales were safe to catch in its waters. The IWC scientific committee responded to these concerns by suggesting the next stage, the [Revised Management Scheme](http://www.iwcoffice.org/RMS.htm). Quoting from the link: “before the RMP is implemented and the moratorium on commercial whaling lifted, the IWC has agreed that **an inspection and observation scheme must be in place to ensure that agreed catch limits are not exceeded**. It is this combination of scientific and non-scientific factors that comprises the Revised Management Scheme.” (my emphasis).
> 
> In recent years, Norway abandoned the pretext of abiding to any sort of scientific consensus on whale stock management, preferring instead to listen to its own interests; from there ensued full commercial whaling without regard for what the rest of the world or the scientific community thought. You can see objections to some of Norway’s behaviour in the following press release by an animal welfare society:  
> \*\*

A quote from a biased source. I haven’t seen any quotes by scientists claiming that minke whales are endagered but I may have missed them so could repost of I have?  
The problem arises when the IWC doesn’t admit that some whales can be hunted. Then it has stopped existing for the whalers. I hope that the IWC someday will set the quotas so that everyone can see that whaling isn’t evil.  
\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> I hardly think Norway’s approach can be described as honest. Perhaps “covert” was the wrong word, but not that far off from the truth. Like Iceland and Japan, Norway sought to focus on scientific elements of whaling in order to meet commercial interests on the side. Here is the assessment by Greenpeace:
> 
> Is there a market for whale meat in Norway? Even if there is, isn’t it likely that whale meat dealers would prefer to export to Japan anyway in order to collect rather more revenue than they could hope to generate domestically? I think it’s clear that Norway doesn’t much care for IWC or CITES regulations. Norway’s actions have not been very honest or forthcoming on this matter – indeed, you could say they pursued and are pursuing certain covert goals, which become more obvious when one removes the blinders of affiliation such as citizenship or regionality.  
> \*\*

AFAIK there is a marked for whalemeat in Norway, if you post cites saying othewise I will read them although they should explain how the whalers made money for 10 years without selling anything.  
I am sure the whalers want to make more money and export if they can, the blubber that is. The export probarbly will not happen because of to much toxins in the blubber so if the only purpose of Norwegian whaling is export to Japan then Norwegian whaling will soon end.  
There has never been anything covert about the whaling, the blubber has been stored(most have been thrown away though) from the beginning of comercial whaling.  
\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Ah yes, another **Bark’s dog food** objection: let’s engage in a bit of vague hand-waving and hope the problem goes away. Let’s magically infer the magical existence of unmentioned and undocumented objectors to a scientific study, but let’s not go as far as naming them or outlining their concerns in a debate, no. Instead let’s drop the name of only one scientist – who broadcast no objections to the **methodology** of the mtDNA study but rather said that the results were not what he expected – and let’s hope that readers are uncritical and foolish enough to swallow such a nonexistent argument.
> 
> You are obviously afflicted by chronic cite deficiency, something I heartily bemoan. It’s not, however, an excuse for piss-poor debate, so please drop the approach you have favoured so far. Stop indulging in this abysmally stupid exercise that consists of you airing unsupported and frankly undeveloped opinion, stop taking tiny little bites out of a much larger discussion and try provide some props for your argument—should one ever materialize—to rest on.
> 
> Ah yes, thank you for displaying such a fine understanding of science. Can you even name these incriminating assumptions that you mention with yet another casual wave of the hand? First, all science is to some degree statistical processing (are you attacking the coalescent?); second, the scientific method permits assumptions as long as they are stated, understood, and handled as part of the scientific process (the goal, of course, is always to minimize assumptions or unknowns, but their presence is not _automatically_ damning). So the picture is rather different from the one your feeble claim seeks to paint. Allow me to show you the abstract of the study published in Science Magazine, where you may obtain a better idea of what it actually _is_ about:  
> I have added emphasis to the above to highlight some important points that, it seems to me, are being deliberately ignored by the pro-whaling camp here. Now let me hammer home what I have already said at the very least two or three times, but which you clearly haven’t yet managed to grasp: mitochondrial DNA analysis employs more precise and qualitatively “better” data (less prone to error) to base a study on than the particular unscientific observations and records that previous historical whale population assessments are based on. I have already outlined the deficiencies of classical methods of estimating historical whale populations, in fact I have also linked and cited Roman and Palumbi’s comments on this subject; again, I invite you to re-read my posts and try harder this time.
> 
> Here is the first [reading list](http://depts.washington.edu/genetics/courses/genet590/2002/) I found of studies and papers on coalescence and population genetics, it’s not as if use of coalescent theory is an new maverick and unreliable method – it’s one of the staples of population biology, evolutionary biology, etc.!  
> \*\*

Here is some quotes regarding the study and assumptions.  
[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001237046\_whales25.html](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001237046_whales25.html)

Tim Smith, a government fisheries biologist in Woods Hole, Mass., and head of U.S. scientific delegation to the IWC, said that data from the ship logbooks are much better than the study said. The figures have been cross-checked carefully with customhouse records, Smith said.

“The population of humpbacks could not have been greater than 40,000 based on historical data and was probably substantially less than 40,000,” he said. “Their estimate of 240,000 (humpbacks whales) cannot be true. They just don’t understand.”

[http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/943075.asp?0cl=cr#BODY](http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/943075.asp?0cl=cr#BODY)  
The study does, however, have its skeptics.  
“My evaluation is that those historical catches, although there are uncertainties, can’t be off as far as those numbers imply,” said Tim Smith, fisheries biologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  
Johann Sigurjonsson, head of Iceland’s Marine Research Institute, called the new estimates “impossible.”  
Roman and Palumbi assume that whale fertility and age at maturity are constant, he said, while these are actually variable, which could affect how much their DNA varies.

Roman and Palumbi acknowledged that their estimates could be affected if North Atlantic whales had significant exchanges with whales elsewhere, which would increase genetic variation. DNA sampling of other whales, particularly from the South Atlantic, is needed, they wrote.

[http://www.mcbi.org/News/whale\_number.htm](http://www.mcbi.org/News/whale_number.htm)  
“The result is a paper with unproven methodology that doesn’t serve science well, and doesn’t serve fisheries management well.”

[http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/6408107.htm](http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/6408107.htm)  
Critics point out that the new study does not pinpoint the number of whales that plied the oceans just before intensive hunting began. Instead, it estimates the average population over tens of thousands of years. There have been a lot of climate changes during that time, including an ice age that ended 11,500 years ago, and the ocean’s capacity to support whales may be vastly different today than it was back then.

``The main issue is that these estimates may be true, but we don’t know what time period they actually cover,’’ said Robert Brownell, a whale biologist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Pacific Grove.

And I am not impressed with the 95% confidence 265 000 (176 000-415 000) even without the possible faults in the assumptions (which the authers admit might exist).  
\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> I did not make such a claim. Re-read my posts.  
> \*\*

You said:“Yet, scientifically speaking, the mitochondrial DNA research is orders of magnitude superior in quality to previous estimates that relied on suspect data, and ought to be considered much more important in reaching decisions on the resumption of whaling.”  
My cites shows there is some doubt about this.

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Since **Your Old Buddy** made the same error, of assuming that I claimed the mtDNA study was some sort of ultimate argument as far as whaling the minke go, I will consider the possibility that you misunderstood or that I stated myself unclearly. However I suspect you simply took YOB’s objection and recycled it the same way you recycled the cite I provided earlier. Minimum effort for maximum annoyance.
> 
> You will note in one of my very first messages in this thread the following words: \*\*“If Minke whales really have recovered to above 54% of historical stocks – a fact that is not yet obvious – then I suppose that the decision to hunt them may be discussed by the IWC.” \*\*  
> \*\*

But when the IWC doesn’t have a discussion why should anyone listen to them? No evidence has come that shows anything but the fact that minke whales are at least 54% of historical stocks but the absense of discussion makes one think that IWC might have other agendas.  
\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> According to the study by Roman and Palumbi, the historical stock of minke was 265,000, with the present IWC point estimate standing at 149,000. That gives us a minke population today of roughly 56% of historical figures, which, lo and behold, may be enough to meet the 54% criterion for hunting. Which means the matter may be seriously discussed at the IWC, and real statisticians and scientists consulted before approval to hunt is or is not given. However, since I am not a marine biologist and since it is becoming laughably unlikely that you are, I would rather wait to hear the IWC proclaim that X numbers of minke may be caught in year Y rather than have Iceland go renegade and kill minke without the necessary permission. The Roman-Palumbi study is **no** go ahead for commercial whaling, and even a figure of 56% would have to be looked at closely (and checked) before a minke catch quota of over zero could ever be considered. The genetic variance study, leaving aside the results it obtained, is extremely important because it highlights the gross uncertainty that persists around whale stocks, and of course because it helps to bring into prominence an improved method of population analysis seldom used previously for our cetacean friends.  
> \*\*

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Bold words, for someone who has thus far failed to demonstrate even basic reading ability, never mind a single argument. Here is the commentary by the sceptical scientist quoted by the BBC that you have latched on to so tenaciously: "If the genetics is right, then either our estimates of past catches are very wrong or there’s been some major ecological shift in the oceans.” I invite you to either make use of those words in a concrete and substantial manner without your customary hand-waving, or to find other words that are more pertinent to the argument at hand. Let me point out, again, that the sceptic’s words state his concern with the results obtained by the study, not with the _methods_ or the data employed. Not liking the results is hardly invalidating scientific criticism. If the methods aren’t addressed, the criticism isn’t even sceptical, it’s just an observation that the study’s results do not match closely with those of other studies – a different matter entirely.  
> \*\*

See my quotes.

\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> The whole point of the discussion involving the mtDNA study was the uncertainty that exists regarding whale populations. That is the very same type of concern that prompted the IWC to vote in favour of a suspension of whaling in 1982, and that’s the same concern that partly accounts for the ban’s existence today. So why don’t you sit tight and let the scientists at the IWC do their work and reach their conclusions?
> 
> Aboriginal subsistence whaling makes a difference too. That’s why it too is regulated as much as possible: [IWC on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling](http://www.iwcoffice.org/Catches.htm#Aboriginal). You can imagine what a disaster it is when someone kills even just a few of something as endangered as the blue whale – of which there could be as few as 400 specimens left.  
> \*\*

The question is, why is Aboriginal subsistence whaling allowed but not comercial whaling. This whaling includes minke but for some reason isn’t considered to make any difference for a whale the IWC says is threatened. This is evidence that the IWC has an agenda against comercial whaling.  
\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Is this any kind of argument? Besides, right now no whale may be hunted for commercial purposes, it’s that simple.
> 
> If we cut through the majority of your painfully indirect writing, what you are really asking above is “how come certain types of relatively abundant whales may not be hunted?” I must have repeated the answer to that question at least a half dozen times so far: for the previously stated reasons that the ban on commercial whaling was instituted to begin with, and for the simple fact that the IWC says so; secondly, opening the door to commercial hunting of, say, minke, could easily lead to a massive escalation in commercial whaling without stricter controls and measures in place to prevent the kind of dishonesty we have seen in the past and continue to see today. Encouraging a market for whale products (anywhere) can be just as bad for whales as hunting them, since an existing and sizeable market means that someone is going to find a way to hunt whales regardless of the ban. Norway and Japan did so flagrantly, and now Iceland looks like it’s heading the same way, since there seems to be, strictly speaking, no reason to engage in lethal scientific research when other options are available. Rather disappointing given Iceland’s excellent record in environmental and conservation matters.  
> \*\*

The ban came because a lot of species where threatened. Now we know that some whales can be hunted and the lack of control from the IWC makes them look like a conservatioon society.  
\*\*

> [@](#):
>
> Nothing of the sort. My claim, which actually consisted of a couple of cites based on claims put forward by tourism experts, indicated that whale-watching can match and exceed the revenues of certain types of whale-hunting, not that hunters should turn watchers or anything like that. If you had read the articles I linked on that topic you would have seen the specific commentary that the whaling boats and whale-watching boats are in direct competition, two completely different industries. I never implied that one ought to turn into the other, however there are certainly worse suggestions – in some African wildlife reserves, former poachers have been persuaded to stop killing and start assisting park guards, so anything can happen.
> 
> \*\*

The cites where from Iceland, much of Norway’s whaling takes place a long way from our coasts which means that there is little competition.  
I still don’t understand how whalewatching could compare favourably to whaling when it means that new boats would have to be purchased and old ones wouldn’t be used, but without the article in question it is hard to argue against it.

I would like to ask you to keep the namecalling and statements that could be seen as an accusation of trolling(Bark’s Dog Food, I suspect you are deliberately wasting my time. Find another form of entertainment or engage in real debate.  
) to a minimum.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/83 "2003-09-09T09:53:26Z")

</div>

I am pleasantly astounded, you have contributed to the discussion! - and it only took one week and several incitements to produce some results. Not bad.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Barks’ dog food \*  
> A quote from a biased source. I haven’t seen any quotes by scientists claiming that minke whales are endagered but I may have missed them so could repost of I have?

What quote from a biased source? You mean the IWC?

The endangered or not status of minke is not the point. No one has made the claim that minke are endangered today, since they are relatively abundant as far as whales go. Rather, as the IWC agreed by vote in 1982, the argument is that a proper understanding of whale populations ought to be attained before the resumption of commercial whaling, further supplemented by the agreement that whaling ought to be a carefully controlled and regulated industry affording little chance for illegal or damaging catch (hence the RMP and RMS).

If you think these approaches are biased and somehow invalid, by all means do some work to demonstrate that they are.

> [@](#):
>
> The problem arises when the IWC doesn’t admit that some whales can be hunted. Then it has stopped existing for the whalers. I hope that the IWC someday will set the quotas so that everyone can see that whaling isn’t evil.

I see, so the IWC is a reliable body worthy of being listened to only as long as they indulge certain requests from certain countries? That’s ridiculous. The reasons for the ban on commercial whaling have been stated in this thread over and over. The fact that some nations may not like such considerations is no justification to ignore the IWC - particularly when one is a _member_, which represents the height of dishonesty (picking and choosing one’s commitments).

> [@](#):
>
> AFAIK there is a marked for whalemeat in Norway, if you post cites saying othewise I will read them although they should explain how the whalers made money for 10 years without selling anything.

See Greenpeace assessment already linked, also see material I will post later. The phrase “there is no market for x” doesn’t necessarily mean that there is absolutely zero chance of moving x for a price; it means that the market may be too small to be meaningful in the larger scale of things – in Japan, by contrast, there is definitely a sizeable market for whale meat and blubber. In Norway, from what I am reading, it’s a much smaller niche market for whale meat, and zero market for the blubber.

> [@](#):
>
> Here is some quotes regarding the study and assumptions.  
> [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001237046\_whales25.html](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001237046_whales25.html)
> 
> Tim Smith, a government fisheries biologist in Woods Hole, Mass., and head of U.S. scientific delegation to the IWC, said that data from the ship logbooks are much better than the study said. The figures have been cross-checked carefully with customhouse records, Smith said.
> 
> “The population of humpbacks could not have been greater than 40,000 based on historical data and was probably substantially less than 40,000,” he said. “Their estimate of 240,000 (humpbacks whales) cannot be true. They just don’t understand.”

There is zero guarantee that ship logbooks and customhouse records provide information that is accurate _in the first place_. As the very article you quoted repeats, whales are difficult to count, and they are even more difficult to track. They move fast, and they range far and wide. Reliable quantitative observations of them are particularly hard if all you’re relying on is eyesight, since whales are capable of diving rather deep for long amounts of time. And the fact that these logbook observations were, for the overwhelming majority of cases, not made by scientists is of course further cause for concern.

Secondly, again here we have a sceptic who claims that the mtDNA study cannot be right simply because it disagrees with previous surface eyesight observations, in some cases dating back to the 16th century, and in many cases predating the major scientific advancements of the 20th century, not to mention the steam age!

> [@](#):
>
> [http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/943075.asp?0cl=cr#BODY](http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/943075.asp?0cl=cr#BODY)  
> The study does, however, have its skeptics.  
> “My evaluation is that those historical catches, although there are uncertainties, can’t be off as far as those numbers imply,” said Tim Smith, fisheries biologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This is the same fellow you used above, and his argument remains the same. Not much of an argument.

> [@](#):
>
> ```
> Johann Sigurjonsson, head of Iceland’s Marine Research Institute, called the new estimates “impossible.”
> Roman and Palumbi assume that whale fertility and age at maturity are constant, he said, while these are actually variable, which could affect how much their DNA varies.
> 
> ```

Possibly. Let’s see it tested and find out what the margin for error, if any, due to whale fertility at maturity actually is. It may be significant, it may not.

> [@](#):
>
> Roman and Palumbi acknowledged that their estimates could be affected if North Atlantic whales had significant exchanges with whales elsewhere, which would increase genetic variation. DNA sampling of other whales, particularly from the South Atlantic, is needed, they wrote.

Precisely – which is what the IWC already voted on: an understanding of whale populations prior to any hasty moves. Further _scientific_ observation and analysis. Not to mention testing, to corroborate, refine, or throw out existing results.

> [@](#):
>
> [http://www.mcbi.org/News/whale\_number.htm](http://www.mcbi.org/News/whale_number.htm)  
> “The result is a paper with unproven methodology that doesn’t serve science well, and doesn’t serve fisheries management well.”

Gee, that happens to be Tim Smith going off yet again – third time you quoted him so far in three different articles, and still he hasn’t presented a single real argument criticizing the study. I note that in this last reference to him you avoided quoting Smith’s name and his previous line (which you already used earlier) from the above article. Not trying to disguise your sources, are you?

> [@](#):
>
> [http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/6408107.htm](http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/6408107.htm)  
> Critics point out that the new study does not pinpoint the number of whales that plied the oceans just before intensive hunting began. Instead, it estimates the average population over tens of thousands of years. There have been a lot of climate changes during that time, including an ice age that ended 11,500 years ago, and the ocean’s capacity to support whales may be vastly different today than it was back then.

Yes, and the above fits the descriptor “pre-whaling” quite nicely. Palumbi and Roman did not claim that their results _necessarily_ indicated whale populations _immediately_ before the explosion of commercial whaling.

> [@](#):
>
> ``The main issue is that these estimates may be true, but we don’t know what time period they actually cover,’’ said Robert Brownell, a whale biologist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Pacific Grove.

Here we finally have a reasonable comment to address. In fact, Palumbi already addressed it, and it’s printed right after the segment you quoted:

> [@](#):
>
> \*From [Mercury News: New study revises estimate of early whale population](http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/6408107.htm) \*  
> Palumbi concedes the point. By expanding the study to look at more genetic data, he said, it should be possible to determine how big whale populations were about 1,000 years ago, closer to the time that commercial whaling started.
> 
> He said it would also be interesting to apply the technique to gray whales, which migrate along the California coast and are thought to have recovered to their pre-whaling level of about 20,000 animals.
> 
> `I think there's intense interest in doing that, because right now we have a gray whale population that is thought to be at about its carrying capacity,'' Palumbi said. `It becomes very important to know how reliable that number of 20,000 is. Could it have been more? If so, then conservation targets for gray whales might need to be changed.’’

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Bark’s dog food_  
> And I am not impressed with the 95% confidence 265 000 (176 000-415 000) even without the possible faults in the assumptions (which the authers admit might exist).

Perhaps you could restate this as a more comprehensible argument.

Now for a few rather important things that you ignored while selectively quoting for sceptics to the new study, with my emphasis:

> [@](#):
>
> \*from [MSNBC: Whale DNA study makes waves](http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/943075.asp?0cl=cr#BODY) \*
> 
> Mike Donoghue, a whale expert with New Zealand’s government, welcomed the new figures [by Palumbi & Roman] inasmuch as he doesn’t have much confidence in earlier estimates. **The new numbers are “entirely consistent with other recent work on prehuman abundance of marine megafauna,”** he said.
> 
> \<snip\>
> 
> Palumbi said experts should also take a new look at whaling logs from a century ago. “Are they complete? Have there ever been large hunts of whales that weren’t recorded?” he asked. “These are things that we have to find out.”
> 
> \<snip\>
> 
> ```
> Palumbi said the DNA sampling technique has also been used for other land and marine animals, but that for most other species it tends to underestimate historic population sizes due to factors like sudden population shifts, natural selection and even mating habits.
> 
> ```
> 
> Still, he said, “even if the diversity is lower than expected, there is a huge amount of data about historic changes in population sizes buried in the genetic patterns.”

> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by Bark’s dog food_  
> You said:“Yet, scientifically speaking, the mitochondrial DNA research is orders of magnitude superior in quality to previous estimates that relied on suspect data, and ought to be considered much more important in reaching decisions on the resumption of whaling.”  
> My cites shows there is some doubt about this.

The existence of doubt is not any sort of scientific invalidation, as I said before when I challenged your assertions. Additionally, as I have shown once again, you are relying for the most part on statements to the effect that the results from the new study do not match the results from a previous study, which is an observation, not criticism or scepticism (which is about methods, not results). And finally, as I already explained, mtDNA variation analysis is a solid, scientific, quantifiable field of study, with the material being studied right under your hands in a controlled setting: scientifically speaking these are infinitely better data to work with than a patchwork of logbooks and similar historical records whose fallibility for scientific purposes has been noted repeatedly.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by Abe: \*  
> > You will note in one of my very first messages in this thread the following words: “If Minke whales really have recovered to above 54% of historical stocks – a fact that is not yet obvious – then I suppose that the decision to hunt them may be discussed by the IWC.”
> 
> _Originally posted by Bark’s dog food:_  
> But when the IWC doesn’t have a discussion why should anyone listen to them? No evidence has come that shows anything but the fact that minke whales are at least 54% of historical stocks but the absense of discussion makes one think that IWC might have other agendas.

Who says there isn’t discussion? It just so happens that it’s not discussion of the kind you or perhaps Norwegian/Icelandic/Japanese whalers would prefer to hear. Here is a link to a summary of the 55th IWC Annual Meeting from a couple months ago, and **the** top item is the following, with my emphasis:

> [@](#):
>
> _From [55th IWC Annual Meeting Final Press Release 2003](http://www.iwcoffice.org/FinalPressRelease2003.htm)_
> 
> **Although the Commission has accepted and endorsed the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) for commercial whaling, it has noted that work on a number of issues, including specification of an inspection and observer system must be completed (called the Revised Management Scheme) before the Commission will consider establishing catch limits other than zero**. This work is ongoing and the Commission agreed to establish an intersessional group of Commissioners’ under the new Chair to explore ways to take the RMS forwards.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Bark’s dog food_:  
> See my quotes.

I did, and your cites have little or no relevance to the points I made earlier. Nonetheless, I have already addressed your cites in this post, so I will let my previous points stand.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _Originally posted by Abe_:  
> > The whole point of the discussion involving the mtDNA study was the uncertainty that exists regarding whale populations. That is the very same type of concern that prompted the IWC to vote in favour of a suspension of whaling in 1982, and that’s the same concern that partly accounts for the ban’s existence today. So why don’t you sit tight and let the scientists at the IWC do their work and reach their conclusions?  
> > \<snip\>  
> > Aboriginal subsistence whaling makes a difference too. That’s why it too is regulated as much as possible: IWC on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling. You can imagine what a disaster it is when someone kills even just a few of something as endangered as the blue whale – of which there could be as few as 400 specimens left.
> 
> _originally posted by Bark’s dog food_:  
> The question is, why is Aboriginal subsistence whaling allowed but not comercial whaling. This whaling includes minke but for some reason isn’t considered to make any difference for a whale the IWC says is threatened. This is evidence that the IWC has an agenda against comercial whaling.

With such reasoning you can construct an entire fantasy world to suit whatever preconceptions you like. I would say the real question in this discussion is what is your point, and what do you hope to achieve? If we look at the IWC links I already provided in this discussion we see the following important note:

> [@](#):
>
> \*From [IWC Catch limits for aboriginal subsistence whaling](http://www.iwcoffice.org/Catches.htm#Aboriginal) \*  
> The Commission sets catch limits for stocks subject to aboriginal subsistence whaling.  
> The Scientific Committee is continuing its investigation of potential new management regimes for aboriginal subsistence whaling.

Which indicates that ASW instances are under observation and review, and that aborigines are not permitted to go out and whale to their hearts’ content but are set specific guidelines that you may peruse at the link provided. If we look at the very terminology of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling we can identify its purpose. The word “subsistence” can be defined as “the means of supporting life; a livelihood” (OED 9th edition). The word usually refers to a minimum standard. You may be familiar with terms such as “subsistence farming” (i.e., farming that directly supports a farmer’s household without producing a significant surplus for trade) and “subsistence level” (a standard of living providing the essential necessities for life, but not much more than that). ASW is by definition the _opposite_ of commercial whaling, which specifically seeks to produce a significant surplus of goods for trade, not for subsistence. ASW assists the survival of aboriginal communities who preserve traditional ways of life, most often in remote locations. Commercial whaling, on the other hand, is a practice that has already demonstrated its propensity to spin out of control and wipe out huge swatches of cetaceans, a practice carried out not for subsistence but for simple monetary gain.

So I should hope the reason why ASW is permitted but commercial whaling is not is quite obvious. Without recourse to conspiracies and evil agendas.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Bark’s dog food_:  
> The ban came because a lot of species where threatened. Now we know that some whales can be hunted and the lack of control from the IWC makes them look like a conservatioon society.

**You** _think_ you know that some whales can be hunted. However, the items the IWC signed on to accomplish starting from 1982 onwards are not in fact accomplished, no matter how much moaning is directed at the IWC. Let me also add that the IWC **is** a conservation society of sorts. First of all, let me link, yet again, to this page so that you can **read** up on what the IWC actually is, as opposed to obtaining information from dubious sources like some of those Norwegian pro-whaling propaganda pamphlets:

> [@](#):
>
> - From [IWC History and Purpose](http://www.iwcoffice.org/iwc.htm#History) \*  
> The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was set up under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which was signed in Washington DC on 2 December 1946 (Click here to view full text). The purpose of the Convention is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.
> 
> The main duty of the IWC is to keep under review and revise as necessary the measures laid down in the Schedule to the Convention which govern the conduct of whaling throughout the world (Click here to view the full text). These measures, among other things, provide for the complete protection of certain species; designate specified areas as whale sanctuaries; set limits on the numbers and size of whales which may be taken; prescribe open and closed seasons and areas for whaling; and prohibit the capture of suckling calves and female whales accompanied by calves. The compilation of catch reports and other statistical and biological records is also required.
> 
> In addition, the Commission encourages, co-ordinates and funds whale research, publishes the results of scientific research and promotes studies into related matters such as the humaneness of the killing operations.

Second part of this post coming up.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/84 "2003-09-09T10:08:03Z")

</div>

I hope we can agree that the IWC has a clear conservational mandate as part of its responsibilities. Now, just to be sure about that let’s look at the groundwork for the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, from which the IWC was created:

> [@](#):
>
> _From the text of [the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Washington December 2 1946](http://www.iwcoffice.org/Convention.htm)_
> 
> The Governments whose duly authorised representatives have subscribed hereto,  
> [ul]  
> [li]Recognizing the interest of the nations of the world in safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks; [/li][li] \*\*Considering that the history of whaling has seen over-fishing of one area after another and of one species of whale after another to such a degree that it is essential to protect all species of whales from further over-fishing; \*\*[/li][li]Recognizing that the whale stocks are susceptible of natural increases if whaling is properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources; [/li][li]Recognizing that it is in the common interest to achieve the optimum level of whale stocks as rapidly as possible without causing widespread economic and nutritional distress; [/li][li]Recognizing that in the course of achieving these objectives, whaling operations should be confined to those species best able to sustain exploitation in order to give an interval for recovery to certain species of whales now depleted in numbers; [/li][li] **Desiring to establish a system of international regulation for the whale fisheries to ensure proper and effective conservation and development of whale stocks** on the basis of the principles embodied in the provisions of the International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling, signed in London on 8th June, 1937, and the protocols to that Agreement signed in London on 24th June, 1938, and 26th November, 1945; and [/li][li]Having decided to conclude a convention to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry; [/li][/ul]

My emphasis above on a couple of important points related to conservation. Furthermore apparently the IWC was getting a bit tired of hearing the same nonsense accusations from angry uninformed pro-whalers and thus moved to further emphasize the commission’s conservational aspect:

> [@](#):
>
> _From [55th IWC Annual Meeting Final Press Release 2003](http://www.iwcoffice.org/FinalPressRelease2003.htm)_  
> Conservation Committee
> 
> The Commission passed a Resolution (25 in favour, 20 against and 1 abstention) to establish a Conservation Committee, comprising of all members of the Commission, whose functions are:
> 
> (1) The preparation and recommendation to the Commission of its future Conservation Agenda; (2) The implementation of those items in the Agenda that the Commission may refer to it; and (3) Making recommendations to the Commission in order to maintain and update the Conservation Agenda on a continuing basis.

> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by Bark’s dog food_  
> I still don’t understand how whalewatching could compare favourably to whaling when it means that new boats would have to be purchased and old ones wouldn’t be used, but without the article in question it is hard to argue against it.

I could not find the article, which I read months ago anyway. However it was not talking about the same thing you are. It is disingenuous to claim that the cost of buying whale watching boats precludes whale watching from comparing favourably to whaling. Boats are replaced all the time, and a modernized vessel is itself an advantage regardless of its purpose. Anyway, a search on whale-watching and Norway resulted in several links to information and tourism agencies, and I thought this brief mention was interesting:

> [@](#):
>
> \*from [http://www.whaleroute.com/areas/norway/](http://www.whaleroute.com/areas/norway/) \*  
> The Lofoten Islands have always been a prime hunting ground for Norwegian whalers. However, these days cameras are replacing harpoons. Whale watching off northern Norway has become so popular that Norwegian authorities have set up a special whale route with car ferries linking the various islands in the area.

This article discusses some of the economic advantages of whale-watching:

> [@](#):
>
> \*From [WDCS on whale watching](http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/970C1E4F001E2BC78025689300569CFB) \*  
> As demand for, and value of, whale products has declined, so has the demand for and profitability of whale watching increased. Between 1992 and 1995, the number of countries or overseas territories where whale watching is practised more than doubled from 31 to 65. Whale watching is now carried on in some 295 communities worldwide and contributes to the economies of 69% of IWC Parties, including Norway and Japan. Erich Hoyt calculated that 5.4 million people went whale watching in 1994, spending US$504 million.
> 
> Whale watching is growing in popularity in the traditional whaling countries.
> 
> Norway
> 
> Norway’s four whale-watching communities attracted 11,227 whale watchers in 1994 and received a total revenue of over £2 million. Norway’s whale watching potential is assessed as “outstanding”; some of it realised at Andenes, site of the one of the best whale-watching operations in Europe. Main species observed are sperm whales, orcas and minke whales.
> 
> Despite the obvious incompatibility of whaling and whale watching, Norway insists that the two can co-exist.

> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by Bark’s dog food_:  
> I would like to ask you to keep the namecalling and statements that could be seen as an accusation of trolling(Bark’s Dog Food, I suspect you are deliberately wasting my time. Find another form of entertainment or engage in real debate.  
> ) to a minimum.

It’s very simple: conduct your argument in a manner worthy of Great Debates, with reasoned and supported positions, and you won’t have to worry about responses to your arguments reflecting poorly on you (which **will** happen if you display a critical mass of hand-waving, failure to address the majority of arguments meaningfully or seriously, automatic gainsaying, etc.). I have outlined my objections regarding the style of debate you displayed in previous messages, and I am ready to stand by what I said on that topic. But I must say I’m glad to see that I may have stimulated an improvement judging from your last message, which actually made use of citations and displayed a shift away from gainsaying small snippets of the argument and towards the development of a position.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/85 "2003-09-09T10:56:57Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by YourOldBuddy \*  
> Im trying to find out what this debate is about now. I dont think its about if Minke whales around Iceland are endangered or not.

Well, that’s why five days ago I specifically asked the following:

**Your Old Buddy** , perhaps it would be best to sort out this problem in this manner:

Is your issue here with the worldwide resistance to scientific whaling in Iceland, which has been widely decried as unnecessary?

Or are you upset because there is such strong opposition to whaling in general and by extension to whaling in Iceland?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by YourOldBuddy \*  
> There seems to be some confusion still about just how smart/dumb whales are. I linked to a valid scientific study of whale intelligence (albeit from a biased source). Abe hasnt shown anything to contradict my link so I think the onus is on him to show a link to the contrary, unless he can show that something is wrong with the methodology used in the study.

Let me remind you what happened. Way back, you claimed this:

> [@](#):
>
> Whales are smart (Tallayan again) -\> Not really. The only semi smart whales are Dolphins and Iceland doesnt hunt them. I would like a semi scientific study showing just how smart whales are. Heres mine [http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-be-an.htm](http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-be-an.htm)
> 
> Whales speak with each other. -\> Not really. See link above.

Which is not true. Firstly, at least one species of cetacean that has displayed quite remarkable intelligence, as I noted in an earlier post, is the orca. Secondly, whales _do_ indeed communicate with each other, though they don’t talk – obviously, because only humans and a few trained animals can do that. Anyway, I am reposting this commentary:

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Abe_:  
> the article you linked to a few posts ago is deliberately simplistic on the subject of cetacean communication, and the best they can do is conclude that even though whales and honeybees both communicate (you claimed that whales don’t) they don’t necessarily have to be intelligent. Not a very scientific treatment, I guess we humans also communicate but we aren’t necessarily intelligent either. In fact it seems that honeybees developed a complex symbolic language that is limited to communicating information about type, source, direction, distance, etc. of flowers, _and not much else_. The temporal and spatial cognitive capacities of the bee and the bee communication systems are impressive for an insect, however severely limited to bees’ biologically-dictated needs, and can therefore be viewed as a variation of the strategy insects are the very best at: specialization. Biological, reflex computers. Markedly different from language acquisition in less specialized animals like humans or other primates, or even among dogs or some cetaceans.

Note that your link has this rather stunning conclusion implying that the communication systems of cetaceans may be dismissed when discussing intelligence: “Again, what could be more “sophisticated” than the multiple communication systems of bees? And how do we usually regard bees?”

I sincerely hope that we would regard bees that are able to communicate (albeit in a limited fashion and under certain conditions) with humans as _rather_ interesting.

So I hope you see how I have addressed some of the key reasoning behind that article, not all of it by any means and I do indeed agree with a fair bit of it, but I already provided a valid objection last week!

> [@](#):
>
> There is also the off topic of just how much ecotourism in Iceland is affected. I read the original statement from the Icelandic tourist chiefs (acutally just heads of large tourist companies) and all they ask is that their interests be considered in the whole whaling deal. [http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/innlent/frett.html?nid=1046138](http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/innlent/frett.html?nid=1046138) Link in Icealndic. They also warn that tourism might be affected. So far tourism in Iceland is only growing. This year included.

I came across something more on this subject while researching Norway:

> [@](#):
>
> \*From [WDCS on whale watching](http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/970C1E4F001E2BC78025689300569CFB) \*
> 
> In 1998, the Icelandic Board of Tourism announced the results of a survey of tourists leaving Iceland, conducted in summer 1997. 54% of respondents said that a resumption of whaling by Iceland would have had a negative effect on their decision to come to Iceland.

So there is at least some data that supports the point I made earlier about Icelandic tourism as reported by the BBC story I linked. It would be interesting to find more recent data. I don’t know Icelandic so your link is of no help to me.

> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted Your Old Buddy_:  
> On the effects whaling had on Norwegian whale watching and the number of tourists in Iceland who already think we hunt whale (pre scientific whaling) Im having a hard time finding links. Its off topic anyway. We Icelanders are never gonna change how we do things because misguided foreigners think we are killing the last surviving whales.

Misguided Icelanders, starting to sound like certain Americans on global warming and the Kyoto protocol. But I think you realize by now that opposition to Iceland’s “scientific” whaling is not borne of a desire to save the last surviving whales, rather it arises from serious concerns (that I have outlined, particularly to Bark’s dog food but also to you).

> [@](#):
>
> There is also the research on historical numbers. The only source to that effect Abe has offered specifically mentioned that Minke are closer to historical numbers and “hunting decisions regarding them must be based on other data.”. Those are the words of the scientists that made the study. I certainly think historical numbers are not a factor in Icelandic Minke whaling since the scientists who made the study dont think it is. I hope this argument is hereby out of the table.

For an update to the above argument (it seems you misunderstood my point when I started talking about the mtDNA study) please see my replies to Bark’s Dog food.

> [@](#):
>
> Here is the scientific study in detail:  
> [http://www.hafro.is/myndir/Iceland\_proposal.pdf](http://www.hafro.is/myndir/Iceland_proposal.pdf)  
> Every whale caught is studied in detail.

An interesting link. I notice, however, that the section that explains why lethal research is preferred over non-lethal alternatives is rather short and lacking – it could have easily been more detailed and convincing.

> [@](#):
>
> Then there is the question whether or not Anti Whaling movements are environmentalist. I would say that this link is proof enough. Minke are many enough (according to historical numbers and IWC numbers) to be hunted. Anyone who finds the time to whine about Iceland hunting 38 Minke is not doing his/her best for the environment. Blasting Iceland which to my knowledge is the most environmentally sound western country in the world is pure hypocracy. I never blasted environmentalists in general like Abe indicated. I consider myself an environmentalist.

One only has to backtrack to your insistent rants about Tibetan monks, aliens, dolphin adoptions, and whatnot to realize that you attempted to tar anti-whaling groups with the same brush of ridicule. You also accused them of being uninformed on a wholesale scale, etc., simply because (I presume) they were in opposition to commercial whaling, or suspect “scientific” whaling as carried out by Iceland. I trust I have provided another viable alternative to the problem, that is establishing the possibility that anti-whaling groups may be motivated by valid concerns. I’ve certainly written several thousand words on that topic in this thread, I’d hate to see them go to waste.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/86 "2003-09-09T12:46:00Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by YourOldBuddy \*  
> \*\*  
> Whales are smart (Tallayan again) -\> Not really. The only semi smart whales are Dolphins and Iceland doesnt hunt them. I would like a semi scientific study showing just how smart whales are. Heres mine [http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-be-an.htm](http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-be-an.htm)
> 
> Whales speak with each other. -\> Not really. See link above.  
> \*\*

I hate to tell you this, but science isn’t published on web-sites handpicked to concur with your opinion. Especially not with such ridiculous pamphlets as this one:

> [@](#):
>
> But as the species with the biggest brains also tend to be the ones with the biggest bodies, it might be that large animals just need larger brains to control and maintain their larger bodies.

Yeah. That’s why Brachiosaurus was known for his huge brain.

> [@](#):
>
> Even when we talk of “intelligence” in a general way, we mean something more than the sum of body control systems. A simple way to make allowance for different body weights is to express brain weight as a percentage of body weight (Table 2).

What meaningful data is this supposed to generate? Should we assume that a 400lbs human also needs a larger brain than Carl Lewis for the sheer fact that he has tons of fat hanging around on his body?

> [@](#):
>
> The neocortex is the part of the brain which most clearly differentiates mammals from non-mammals, and there is a wide belief that the growth of the neocortex is responsible for the evolution of “intelligence”. The anatomical characteristics of mammalian neocortex are that it has six layers and that different functional areas (e.g. that dealing with vision) have somewhat different organisation of these layers. The anatomical studies cited above demonstrate that cetaceans only have five layers in the neocortex (layer IV is missing) and that there is no anatomically different organisation of these Iayers according to function. In some views (e.g. Kesarev et al.,1977) this means that cetaceans have no true neocortex, or only a preneocortex. If a neocortex is really essential for the development of “intelligence”, cetaceans are clearly disqualified. However, Macphail (1982) comprehensively demolishes the idea of a special role for the neocortex in “intelligence”.

The author ‘proves’ over a whole paragraph that they can’t be intelligent dropping in a tiny remark at the end that the data cited really proves no such thing.

Not the least, the literature cited is in large parts so old that a responsible scientist would be embarassed not to be able to cite more current literature. Given the advances in neuroscience thanks to molecular biology over the last 15 years, the references provided are pretty much meaningless.

Not to mention that the article itself is over 5 years old, and as such, without corroboration by newer data, suspect.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YourOldBuddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/bc79bd/32.png) [@YourOldBuddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YourOldBuddy)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/87 "2003-09-09T12:49:25Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Is your issue here with the worldwide resistance to scientific whaling in Iceland, which has been widely decried as unnecessary?

My issue? I didnt start this thread. I have tried to keep my arguments on the ethics of Icelands scientific whaling as outlined by the OP.

Saying whaling as unecessary is silly. Killing just about any animal for food is unecessary. A brain is a terrible thing to waste and filling it up with silly arguments is bad.

> [@](#):
>
> Or are you upset because there is such strong opposition to whaling in general and by extension to whaling in Iceland?

I do my best to fight ignorance and there are ppl reading this thread that think whales are somewhat special and somehow better than the cows, pigs or sheep that they by consumption “kill” often after a life of misery. I take issue when ppl who have the wrong ideas about the numbers of Minke, their intelligence, character and hunting methods. When the same ppl coupled with organisations trying to make money of said misconceptions try to change my habits and those of my countrymen through coercion (mostly economic, the hijacking of the IWC and spam) I get irritated.

Coercion is bad. Coercion because of something really stupid is worse. Being coerced because of something really stupid by someone who is guilty of what he/she accuses you of is really bad (namely the not so environmentally sound whale-exterminating UK and US) is really really bad.

Work now. More later.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/88 "2003-09-09T12:56:18Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Barks’ dog food \*  
> \*\*  
> You said:“Yet, scientifically speaking, the mitochondrial DNA research is orders of magnitude superior in quality to previous estimates that relied on suspect data, and ought to be considered much more important in reaching decisions on the resumption of whaling.”  
> My cites shows there is some doubt about this.  
> \*\*

No, they don’t. What they show is that a bunch of people don’t want to believe them. That’s all. You have not shown that there is any significant degree of doubt, and you have not shown that the doubt is well-founded. You have blindly cited newspaper articles and use them as proof against a study in one of the most thoroughly reviewed scientific journals. That is about as convincing as citing an eye witness on an LSD trip as proof there is some doubt over the data provided by a surveillance camera.

If the doubts by these people were important, you would have found it in a letter to “Science”, not in a local newspaper.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cohen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Cohen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cohen)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/89 "2003-09-09T15:01:58Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Abe_  
> Which is not true. Firstly, at least one species of cetacean that has displayed quite remarkable intelligence, as I noted in an earlier post, is the orca

Just wanted to point out that the killer whale is a dolphin. And to say that because a killer whale shows some intelligence when hunting in a pack that this is somehow an indicator of how intelligent minke whales are or indeed whales in general is like saying that the intelligence visible in a wolfpack on the hunt is an indicator of how smart the moose is.

Most studies on whale intelligence have been done on dolphins and porpoises. Data from those studies can not be extrapolated to include all cetaceans as they are a very diverse group of animals.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Abe_  
> Is your issue here with the worldwide resistance to scientific whaling in Iceland, which has been widely decried as unnecessary?

Could you please provide some cites that point out why the Scientific whaling done now by Iceland is unnecessary? I have been having problems finding cites that specifically counter the scientific arguments for the whaling.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YourOldBuddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/bc79bd/32.png) [@YourOldBuddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YourOldBuddy)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/90 "2003-09-09T18:30:39Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by OliverH:  
> No, they don’t. What they show is that a bunch of people don’t want to believe them. That’s all.

Methodological shortcomings can easily be pointed out by other scientists and do not require another study. Studies with methodological shortcomings like this one are often published despite their shortcomings. You should read just what they say about the methodology of the study in question. Anyway the scientists who made it state that the Minke is close enough to its historical estimate that it is not a concern so its pretty much off topic for Minke.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/91 "2003-09-09T22:06:07Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by YourOldBuddy \*  
> \*\*Methodological shortcomings can easily be pointed out by other scientists and do not require another study. Studies with methodological shortcomings like this one are often published despite their shortcomings. You should read just what they say about the methodology of the study in question. Anyway the scientists who made it state that the Minke is close enough to its historical estimate that it is not a concern so its pretty much off topic for Minke. \*\*

Sorry, but you’re wrong. Methodological problems are only methodological problems if they are generally accepted as such. The mere fact that someone tells the press that there are problems with a study doesn’t make that a fact. Quite the contrary, the fact that he tells the press that there are, rather than submitting his own dissent to peer review, i.e. possible rebuttal, through publication of a letter to Science, shows that he rather wants to pee in someone’s drink than make a valid contribution to the discussion.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dagger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/41988e/32.png) [@Dagger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dagger)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/92 "2003-09-09T23:56:15Z")

</div>

If Icelandic and Norwegian scientists are such Whale Killing Bastards then why not simply check the IWC’s own numbers, presumably compiled by non-biased scientists. Their [estimates](http://www.iwcoffice.org/Estimate.htm) indicate that the minke is far from endangered. Nevermind the measly 38 (18 to go) whales left to be hunted.

That only leaves the “awww, cute” Disney-esque argument left as a logical response to the numbers being hunted.

Hell, Iceland could, according to these population statistics, harvest around 300 minke whales without any ill effect on the minke whale’s continuing population growth.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\
**Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/93 "2003-09-10T04:37:43Z")

</div>

It’s rather obvious some people simply are not reading the thread with much comprehension – something I recommend to do at the very earliest. Perhaps then they will be able to contribute meaningfully to the argument rather than air bland opinion that serves no purpose.

> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by YourOldBuddy_  
> Saying whaling as unecessary is silly. Killing just about any animal for food is unecessary. A brain is a terrible thing to waste and filling it up with silly arguments is bad.

Give me a break, it looks like you’re reverting to the former silliness I criticized you for earlier: attempting to dismiss the argument as foolish, yet failing to provide sufficient counter-argument or support.

> [@](#):
>
> I do my best to fight ignorance and there are ppl reading this thread that think whales are somewhat special and somehow better than the cows, pigs or sheep that they by consumption “kill” often after a life of misery. I take issue when ppl who have the wrong ideas about the numbers of Minke, their intelligence, character and hunting methods. When the same ppl coupled with organisations trying to make money of said misconceptions try to change my habits and those of my countrymen through coercion (mostly economic, the hijacking of the IWC and spam) I get irritated.

It’s a bit difficult to talk about domesticated animals and wildlife as if they are one and the same thing. I have provided arguments to that effect already – and you’ll note that I didn’t resort to concepts such as cruelty.

Whaling is all about monetary gain. It’s curious that you should accuse _a few_ animal welfare etc. organizations of trying to make money. And you haven’t yet demonstrated that they are out to scam first and ask questions later, you have simply blasted them and backed up your assertions with some Google searches – which make for weak support to a position.

As for the IWC, I have just discussed its roles and responsibilities. There was no hijacking that you were able to dermonstrate, whereas I demonstrated that conservational aspects of the commission existed even before the commission was officially created.

> [@](#):
>
> Coercion is bad. Coercion because of something really stupid is worse. Being coerced because of something really stupid by someone who is guilty of what he/she accuses you of is really bad (namely the not so environmentally sound whale-exterminating UK and US) is really really bad.

I understand the frustration involved here, but, honestly, that is not an argument. Yes, Britain etc. were largely responsible for the extermination of whales, but yours is not a valid case, and even resembles xenophobia somewhat. If I may draw from an example from recent international politics, you’re saying something like, “Germany today has no business insisting on peace when they were the greatest militarized butchers and aggressors of the 20th century”.

> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by Cohen_  
> Just wanted to point out that the killer whale is a dolphin.

True. Which is of the order _cetacea_, yes? Yup. To be accurate, orcas are toothed whales, also known as the sub-order _odontoceti_. Family _delphinidae_, yes, but the sub-group _odontoceti_ also includes belugas and sperm whales in addition to dolphins. Since there is some confusion as to what a whale actually is, dolphins are certainly close enough.

> [@](#):
>
> And to say that because a killer whale shows some intelligence when hunting in a pack that this is somehow an indicator of how intelligent minke whales are or indeed whales in general is like saying that the intelligence visible in a wolfpack on the hunt is an indicator of how smart the moose is.

Very nice, although you stretched the classification there in the second example so that it doesn’t parallel the relationships first set of animals but provides more shock value. Is there an argument in there somewhere? Did I somehow imply that because orcas display intelligence then minke must necessarily be intelligent? No, of course I didn’t.

> [@](#):
>
> Could you please provide some cites that point out why the Scientific whaling done now by Iceland is unnecessary? I have been having problems finding cites that specifically counter the scientific arguments for the whaling.

Links to such claims are in my posts on this thread, some of the earlier ones IIRC. No time to search for them now, but if you read the posts in question I have no doubt you will find them.

**Dagger** , your comments don’t merit a response, all I can say is read this thread and try your best to understand that the level of discussion is a little bit above your ramblings on the “awww, cute” factor or the exact number of minke. The former wasn’t really discussed, and the latter has been addressed repeatedly and expanded on (clue: the argument is not that 38 minke killed will devastate the minke population).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cohen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Cohen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cohen)\
**Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/94 "2003-09-10T10:32:13Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Abe_  
> Links to such claims are in my posts on this thread, some of the earlier ones IIRC

That´s just the problem. They´re only claims. I´m interested in seeing some reasoning behind the claims. So far you have not provided any cites to that effect. So far the only argument against the scientific whaling is the slippery slope one, although that is indeed a valid argument. But I want to see some arguments against the actual science in this particular study. Note that I´m not saying there aren´t any, I just havent found them yet and it appears, from your statements in this thread, that you have.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Abe_  
> True. Which is of the order cetacea, yes? Yup. To be accurate, orcas are toothed whales, also known as the sub-order odontoceti. Family delphinidae, yes, but the sub-group odontoceti also includes belugas and sperm whales in addition to dolphins. Since there is some confusion as to what a whale actually is, dolphins are certainly close enough.

I am fully aware that dolphins are cetaceans. It just appeared from your previous posts that you did not realise killer whales were dolphins. **YOB** stated that the only “semi-smart” whales were dolphins and it appeared to me that you were arguing that this was not the case using the killer whale as an example. I apologise if I was mistaken.

The main purpose of my post was to emphasise what many people forget. That cetaceans are very diverse and signs of intelligence in one group (dolphins) is far from evidence of intelligence in another (i.e. baileen whales). (Not to mention the debate about just how much intelligence dolphins exhibit.) Glad to see you acknowledge that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YourOldBuddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/bc79bd/32.png) [@YourOldBuddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YourOldBuddy)\
**Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/95 "2003-09-10T12:47:45Z")

</div>

The IWC recently passed the Berlin initiative and henceforth conservation efforts are central to its puprose from here on. I would call that hijacking the IWC.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YourOldBuddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/bc79bd/32.png) [@YourOldBuddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YourOldBuddy)\
**Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/96 "2003-09-10T12:49:21Z")

</div>

Recently the IWC started going into whale killing methods. That is outside of the original aim of IWC and I would call that symptomatic of the IWC hijacking.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\
**Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/97 "2003-09-11T07:28:09Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Cohen \*  
> That´s just the problem. They´re only claims. I´m interested in seeing some reasoning behind the claims. So far you have not provided any cites to that effect.

No, you will find the reasoning along with the claims. One of the references I used was to an article published by IWC scientists criticizing “the deficiencies in Iceland’s proposal and stating that there is no need to kill whales to gather the scientific data for managing whales”. They also suggest alternatives such as biopsy methods.

I’m looking for a link to the article in question, however it may be a pay-only or even print-only affair, as I have not yet found it. The claims that lethal research is mostly unnecessary can be found in a number of my links.

The closest answer to the cited argument that killing the whales is unnecessary for scientific purposes was an Icelandic study proposal PDF kindly linked by **YOB** that, I already noted above, was rather weak in the lethal research justification department.

In this matter I think your burden of proof compass may be pointing in the wrong direction, **Cohen**. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable for Iceland to demonstrate the value and necessity of killing whales for scientific research in the first place? After all, they are making the claim (in the face of strong opposition) that killing these minke is necessary to science. It is not unreasonable to expect that claim to be supported and justified to begin with.

If you want to champion Iceland in this matter by all means present the relevant material for discussion. One has to start at the beginning, after all.

Never mind expecting anything from Japan on this matter. But we know Iceland is better than that – as mentioned several times their environmental and fisheries track records are superior to the vast majority of other countries.

Besides, let me add that the Icelandic scientific whaling program does not end with the lethal examination of 38 minke whales that made the rounds in the media just recently. The full program proposed by Iceland spans 2 years and entails the killing of at least 250 whales: 100 minke, 100 fin, and 50 of the **definitely endangered** sei whales. In the IWC’s assesment, “the take of 50 sei whales under the Icelandic feasibility programme would likely threaten its recovery” (from [Resolution 2003-2 Resolution on Whaling under Special Permit](http://www.iwcoffice.org/Resolutions2003/Resolution%202003.htm#Permits)). At least _4,000_ tons of whale produce will hit the markets as a result of this 2-year scientific effort.

That’s not all though. Iceland is a tiny nation, with a population of about [280,000](http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ic.html). That means that on average every living person in Iceland will each have access to 14.3 Kg of whale produce as a result of this “scientific” whaling (assuming the ban on exports is not flouted, though it would seem iceland may be unwilling to adhere to that either), or 7.15 Kg per head per year. That is a nontrivial amount; by quick and dirty comparison, in Finland (another well-off northern country of that part of the world and the only one I could find clear statistics for) [annual per capita game meat consumption is 1.2 Kg](http://www.gr.is/nsfs/markkula.pdf). I chose game meat because of is generally hunted – it would be inappropriate to select something like pork or beef to compare against, because the animals those meats come from are essentially farmed in huge numbers, whereas whales and game are both wildlife.

It would seem to me that if commercial interests are not the reason behind Iceland’s scientific whaling – and there are grave doubts about that – then at the very least a market is being pandered to, or possibly primed for future use.

If all the above arguments and those of previous posts coupled with the other whaling nations’ execrable record to date doesn’t strongly signal a slippery slope coming up, I don’t know what does.

Whale intelligence is indeed a murky field of study, and I don’t know an awful lot about it. I may have misunderstood YOB’s statement earlier, as you point out. Nonetheless my point remains the same. I was not impressed by an old cite presented on a clearly biased web site, an essay that reaches at least some of its conclusions fallaciously as was already pointed out. Whales do indeed exhibit clear signs of intelligence; it so happens that the whales we have studied most for intelligence are delphinoids, that of course doesn’t suggest that other families of whales are not intelligent. And if, as it seems, other whale families **are** less intelligent, that still does not make them necessarily not intelligent–merely less so than dolphins, orcas, etc.

**YourOldBuddy** , regarding your last posts: come on now. Firing off one-liner assertions is not an argument and you know it, or you certainly ought to after this thread. If you’re short on time then do what I do, wait until the opportune moment to post. Better seed and framework for discussion than those lines are required.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YourOldBuddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/bc79bd/32.png) [@YourOldBuddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YourOldBuddy)\
**Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/98 "2003-09-11T17:27:45Z")

</div>

You are right. I should have clarified a bit about what the Berlin initiative was about. Heres a link to that effect: [http://www.oceania.org.au/soundnet/jun03/kemp.html](http://www.oceania.org.au/soundnet/jun03/kemp.html)

Mr. Kemp of the Aussie env ministry had this to say: “The Initiative recognises that the primary objective of the IWC is to conserve whale populations for the benefit of all humankind and for future generations,”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dagger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/41988e/32.png) [@Dagger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dagger)\
**Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/99 "2003-09-11T21:16:50Z")

</div>

The problem with the Slippery Slope Argument like Abe is using in this instance, is that it cuts both ways. If Iceland dosen’t stop it’s 14 year whaling hiatus then eco-fundies like Greenpeace will next be telling the natives that they can’t fish cod and haddock because it’s inhumane or something similar.

Just by looking at the IWC’s own estimates it becomes quite clear that the minke can be safely harvested by taking, say, 300 animals a year. The IWC certainly dosen’t list the species as endangered.

Plus, it’s not the 19th century anymore, whale blubber has **distinctly** gone out of fashion as a source of oil. The market simply isn’t there.

That leaves just the Bambi factor standing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\
**Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127/100 "2003-09-12T03:31:56Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> he problem with the Slippery Slope Argument like Abe is using in this instance, is that it cuts both ways. If Iceland dosen’t stop it’s 14 year whaling hiatus then eco-fundies like Greenpeace will next be telling the natives that they can’t fish cod and haddock because it’s inhumane or something similar.

Hardly, **Dagger** , hardly. I have already addressed this version of this argument: see the drastic measures I highlighted regarding conservation of cod for a more realistic version. It would also be nice if you were able to provide a shred of support for your position. You will note the slipperly slope argument is researched and supported rather well in this thread, whereas your output is not supported at all. Nor do I think you have read this thread attentively, as you are still failing to display an understanding of the issues being discussed.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127.md?page=4)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whaling-in-iceland-wheres-the-argument/197127.md?page=6)