Whaling in Iceland. Wheres the argument?

Great Debates
81

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.

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, 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. 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:

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.

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 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.!

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

82

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.
**

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.
**

Here is some quotes regarding the study and assumptions.
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
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
“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
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).
**

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.

**

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.
**

**

See my quotes.

**

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.
**

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.
**

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.

83

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.

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.

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).

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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:

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

Second part of this post coming up.

84

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:

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:

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:

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

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.

85

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?

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

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:

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!

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

86

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:

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

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 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.

87

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.

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.

88

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.

89

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.

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.

90

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.

91

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.

92

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 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.

93

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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).

94

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.

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.

95

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.

96

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.

97

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). 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. 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. 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.

98

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

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,”.

99

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.

100

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.