The above post is just to demonstrate my astounding skills at these msgboards… sorry for double-posting.
The point was supposed to be something like this:
A few emails were written to Icelandic members and parliament and such but there was never really any pressure on us because of the whaling issues. I have not yet seen an anti-whaling activist here in Iceland yet besides Greenpeace. The only problem I remember was a british MP who wanted the UK to boycott our products to stop us from whaling, totally out of line and quite ludicrous. I don´t think we demanded an apology but then again we´re not that kind of people.
So regulated aboriginal subsistence is fine and dandy but scientific hunting of a small nuber of whales is horrible. Please explain what you mean because I really don´t understand it. I´m really not trying to a git about all this but I just don´t see your point of view. What exactly is the difference between regulated aboriginal subsistence and what we are doing here in your opinion? Isn´t the outcome the same?
Bear in mind that english is not my native language (nor am I a scholar of any kind) so (Abe) no need for 4 pages of linguistic masturbation. Not to impress me, anyway.
Observing and commenting on the fact that the minke whale is not an endangered species when considering this issue is “rubbish” in Abe’s book? :dubious:
And I doubt that spamming by armchair conservationists caused the Icelandic government to change it’s research methods. Sounds more like good old fashioned bargaining at the IWC to me.
Indeed, “there was never really any pressure”?? UselessGit, while you may accuse me of “intellectual masturbation”, my posts are in fact meant to explain a point of view and they do contain information and cites that it seems you are clearly unaware of – or that you are simply ignoring. I assure you, those times when I am interested in discussions for the sake of intellectual masturbation I choose to address people who are rather more receptive and able to understand, acknowledge, and address an argument than you and a number of others here have demonstrated. Let me also add that English is not my first language either (nor my second) however my philosophy is that if I decide to engage someone in debate in any language, I will make the effort to understand their output rather than dismiss it with a childish label. Or I will refrain from commenting entirely. So kindly quit your whining and try instead to support your comments and especially your challenges.
The pressure brought to bear on Iceland over the scientific whaling proposal – you will notice in one of my very earliest posts here I quoted the following, and I now add an extra paragraph at the beginning of the quote to make it absolutely clear:
I am surprised I am asked to explain this, especially to people supposedly knowledgeable in Iceland’s affairs. You will remember that in the late 1980s Iceland ceased whaling following strong international pressure. The broadcast of the point of view quoted above on behalf of the US State Department is pressure. It signals dissatisfaction with the situation, issues a warning, and sends the message that worse may come, all of which can be seen even more clearly in the proper historical context (i.e. what already happened in the late '80s). Right there you have public and quite prominent pressure, cited weeks ago yet blithely ignored by the likes of you and dagger.
Here is a bit more on the subject:
That was definitely pressure bearing down on Iceland, in the form of official dissatisfaction, channeling of consumer discontent, and hints of other threats. That you claim the opposite suggests you are simply airing your opinion on this matter – something that seems quite common in this thread. It may do you good to inform yourself by browsing through some of the many cites already provided. Here is more:
That doesn’t sound like pressure?
Seems like pressure of various forms. And note that pressure takes many forms – a nation doesn’t have to slap sanctions on Iceland in order to be seen as applying pressure, sometimes a mention can be more than enough to have an impact, and several comments more so.
I previously explained the difference between aboriginal subsitence whaling and commercial whaling. Now you come back and ask for the difference between aboriginal subsistence whaling and scientific whaling? Why? Apart from the simplistic idea that the whales end up dead just the same, what is the sense of asking that question? Aren’t the two terms clear enough? I repost what I previously wrote:
Now if you insist on equivocating ASW and scientific whaling I can do little to stop such silliness. However I should note that one is performed in the name of science (though scientific whaling often works as a front for commercial whaling) and its yield is sent to market, while the other is a traditional practice employed by small indigenous cultures in order to survive and preserve a traditional way of life (not for commercial gain, not to build up a surplus, not to stimulate a market, etc.). One of the arguments, detailed already in this thread, is that this scientific whaling initiative Iceland has adopted may be unnecessary – the original plan most definitely was not only unnecessary but also highly suspect. Additionally, no one apart from a few whalers will suffer if the scientific whaling program should end, but aboriginal whaling communities do rely on their catch. Which is carefully regulated by the IWC as already described.
Now let me stress, yet again, that a catch of 38 minke per year for scientific purposes --if genuine and not just a maneuver to resume commercial whaling-- is sustainable and shouldn’t necessarily be “horrible” as you claim that I claim (which I don’t). The question (assuming Iceland’s motives are genuine) is: is it actually demonstrated to be necessary? I won’t get into it again as I have already outlined that argument in previous posts.
Well this thread is certainly attracting the helpful posters, with so much to contribute to the discussion. Since you apparently fail to distinguish between personal insults and a vigorous discussion I will make it clear: I am attacking the arguments and methods of posters rather than directly insulting the posters themselves, though there’s one or two posters that could definitely stand to be blasted down to the Pit for incapacity to debate and for assuming a superior position without good cause. Since the overwhelming majority of the arguments I have had to address here were of startling silliness, it’s not surprising that my responses should not reflect too well on certain posters – nor is it surprising to find a degree of frustration after I have had to restate my arguments several times to meet exactly the same obstinate objections. Of course, that may be a distinction too fine for some people to discern, but I fail to see that as anything but an annoyance. I won’t get into using the cattle-prod for posters who think that a one-liner of automatic gainsaying makes a valid argument, that ought to be an evident enough matter for all.
It’s rubbish because (as I have explained a half dozen times and as you keep trying to play down) that was not part of the argument I was engaged in, it was only part of your posturing, which I see you are continuing with the above dishonest comment. The relevant part of the argument that comes even remotely close to this rubbish you repeat endlessly is the uncertainty in knowledge of whale stocks, which happens to be the reason there is a moratorium on commercial whaling, but I no longer expect you to understand these positions – if after all this effort I have dedicated here all you repeat is “minke are not endangered” while purposely ignoring everything I have said to clarify the topic then I suggest once again that you don’t have a position, nor a leg to stand on.
Well, Dagger, again you evade yet another argument with a wave of the hand and what you delude yourself into thinking is a sexy pose for the readers, all this without a single piece of evidence in sight. Do the US State Department, ministers of government and Fisheries, and the ambassadors or representatives of 23 nations fit your definition of “spamming by armchair conservationists” rather than the more appropriate “international pressure”? I hold out the faint hope that one day you will realize what is a discussion and what isn’t. You making vague assertions repeatedly without even a shred of support is not an argument. Cheap posturings without citations, theses, points, evidence, etc., are not arguments.
Laughable. Even more so than your brief appearances of strutting around and waving your (emtpy) hands. In fact I think that, considering your categorical avoidance of the arguments put forward here, your tendency to repeat a statement blindly, your difficulties in factually supporting a position, and your insistence on posting messages that in essence say nothing at all, well, I would say the one doing the baiting here is you. And it seems to have worked, congratulations!
Fact 1: The minke whale is not an endangered species.
Fact 2: These whale reproduce roughly once a year.
Fact 3: Iceland is hunting a measly 38 minkes out of a large whale population.
Fact 4: Iceland has a stellar record in protecting their marine life resources.
Now when these facts are taken together it becomes quite clear that it is very unlikely that Iceland will ever turn homicidal on the whales and start hunting them in unsustainable numbers if not because of disastrous PR, then at least because of economic considerations, since no large international market exists for whale produce.
Whale-On-A-Stick™. Not coming to a supermarket near you. Unless you live in Iceland I guess.
So apart from debating which super-intelligent whale species has the strongest telepathic link with aliens, the thread seems to be concluded.
In any case Abe seems to have conceded as much, since he has retreated into amateur psychoanalysis of me
What a surprise, avoidance of the argument. And once again a religious avoidance of all the points I have discussed to date. You leave issues that are shot down for a while, then recycle them in tedious repetition a few days later. I wonder if that is a problem with your attention span or your honesty.
The above, and your poseur methods, seem to be the key elements of your modus operandi. If you have anything else to offer now is long past the time, so I suggest you dig deep or finally shut up.
There are plenty of questions left for you should you decide at any point to answer any of them rather than keep repeating that the sky is blue while sticking your fingers in your ears – the latter especially is rather incompatible with your hand-waving and catwalk posing, and makes for a thoroughly ridiculous picture.
I am forced to note again that (with the exception of your update regarding Iceland’s scientific whaling quotas) I have not conceded anything that I didn’t already state long before you showed up with your simplistic and deliberately misinterpreting arguments. And I haven’t psychoanalyzed you, I have simply highlighted behaviour that is so obvious that you must be the only one who thinks it’s concealed. After all, avoidance of real subject matter, lack of supporting evidence, hand-waving, obstinate insistence on inapplicable or flawed arguments, and empty posturings to communicate correctitude and superiority can add up to little else and certainly nothing flattering.
Real Fact 1: No one ever said it was, and this has been explained a dozen times by now, along with the rest of the main arguments.
Real Fact 2: irrelevant to this discussion (and the first time you mention it)
Real Fact 3: the original whaling quotas (which you studiously avoided discussing) were actually much higher, and it seems they were lowered following the international pressure you claimed (with another tiresome wave of the hand) didn’t exist. Real Fact 3, addendum A: the original Icelandic scientific whaling program was hauntingly similar in scope to Japan’s scientific program, a cover for commercial whaling, and it would have entailed the catch of at least 100 specimens of an endangered whale. Real fact 3, addendum B: the necessity of lethal scientific whaling has been questioned and not demonstrated, whereas non-lethal alternatives are shown to exist. Real Fact 3, Addendum C: there are other very real issues to consider beyond the idiotic insistence on turning whales into an isolated country-by-country fraction game.
Real Fact 4: this hand-waving, faith-based point was already addressed in detail a number of times – Iceland has instituted good (and sometimes drastic) practices in an attempt to conserve their marine resources, but those methods have yet to produce solid results. They’ll have something closer to a “stellar record” once Icelandic cod stocks are replenished and well out of the danger range, not before then (see the cites I have provided on this subject). At any rate this point is moot, as I said before Great Debates is not a place for your hand-waving and faith-based arguments.
The funny thing is that earlier on you accused me of making an argument from ignorance when I stated the IWC position on the uncertainty of whale population knowledge as one of the supporting arguments for another point. Leaving aside the obvious fact that you clearly didn’t know what an argument from ignorance was, I have to point out that an argument based on faith is no better than one from ignorance around here.
That’s once again rubbish hardly related to the discussion. Firstly, Iceland supposedly adheres to IWC regulations, among them the current ban on commercial whaling – so your implicit suggestion that Icelanders know how to police themselves is quite unnecessary, because (as we have seen) international pressure if not the IWC is likely to set them on the straight path if they stray.
More importantly, Japan is the world’s largest market for whale products and every whaling nation would like to get a piece of it, including Iceland (in fact, Iceland used to have a piece of it until 1991 or 92). You will find a look at Japan’s market for whale meat (and the way it is being actively stimulated into expanding by the Japanese government) in one of the threads linked in my first post here. Here’s something that may further help that eyesight problem you display repeatedly:
See also:
Further, you are deliberately ignoring the domestic markets of the whaling nations themselves. They are unlikely to ever be as sizeable or lucrative as Japan’s (which, it must be noted, is a luxury market), but they apparently remain significant enough to make whaling some sort of priority for the governments of Norway and Iceland. Lastly, countries like South Korea, where whaling is theoretically banned, are also nonetheless good markets for whale products. Are you ignoring all these facts as you deliberately ignored the international pressure applied to Iceland, the original Icelandic scientific quotas, not to mention the other points where I demonstrated that your position seems to float magically in mid-air?
Now I will once again repeat myself on the issue of whaling 38 minke for legitimate scientific purposes. I must repeat myself over and over because you, dagger, have consistently tried to misrepresent my position in your photoshoot fantasy pose posts (which is further evidence – as if any more is required – that you are not interested in real debate, you are here simply to propagandize, rather clumsily, Iceland). Whaling 38 minke for science shouldn’t be a problem, if it is demonstrated that the scientific program is genuine and not the kind of nonsense Japan engages in; that it is indeed necessary; and that it is not a program that will spiral out of control (c.f. my drawing attention to an apparent lack of definite quotas) or that will be used to stimulate market demand. You’d think that after various variants of this same statement were repeated and restated nigh a dozen times certain readers would be able to comprehend the jist, but I suppose you enjoy your posing and hand-waving a good deal more than understanding a position or addressing an argument.
Abe I’ve posted at least two times the fact that the minke whale reproduces roughly once a year. Since you’re a well-read guy you probably already know this. Only the most blinkered ideologue would argue that the conservation status and biology of these whales was irrelevant when it comes to this issue.
As to your argument that the Icelanders management of their marine life resources is being less than stellar because of the condition of the cod stock I can simply refer you to Iceland’s marine institute. The cod certainly isn’t considered endangered by them although they would like the spawning stock to be larger than it is today. Big difference. Plus, you can check out their utilization of every other marine resource. None of them are even remotely threatened.
When it comes to your peripheral argument about the Evil Whale Eating Japanese I will simply say that the Norwegians haven’t been able to sell a single container of whale produce to Japan since their resumption of commercial whaling. Why will the Japanese government all of a sudden change it’s mind because Iceland starts conducting scientific whaling?
And I’d love to see you work out the math on Icelanders and Norwegians eating their whales in numbers sufficient to endanger them. Keep in mind that agriculture and livestock raising has reached their forlorn shores.
I may have missed your previous mention of the reproductive rates of minke, or, more likely, I dismissed it since I see little relevance to the argument.
How many different ways must I restate my position that everyone acknowledges that minke are not endangered, and that their non-endangered status is not a component of or obstacle to my argument? Weeks ago, one of the ways I justified the cautionary position was thus:
And thus:
Not to mention the various other repetitions of that same position that I have been forced to make following some clumsy challenges, quite a few from you. According to the latest evidence, which may or may not be accurate but seems rather more promising than historical eyesight estimates, minke have recovered to about 56% of historical stocks. That’s not a whole lot of margin for the IWC whaling criterion (which is 54%) but what’s important is that the IWC has set up certain initiatives in order to properly regulate commercial whaling if and when it resumes. Part of the reason behind the moratorium on whaling is not that whales are endangered, but that the data on whale populations is difficult to collect and varies quite a bit. Faced with uncertainty, the IWC (citing such uncertainty) issued the moratorium we all know and love and that moratorium is scheduled to remain until the RMP and RMS are deemed sufficient to cope with the problems and abuses involved in whaling (e.g. reliable and approved DNA tracking standards).
That is why it is ridiculous to come in here claiming that Iceland can sustainbly harvest 300 minke if it wants to. Regardless whether that is or is not the case, it’s simply irrelevant because there is a moratorium in place and harvesting is not supposed to take place. The only exception is, of course, scientific whaling permits, rather a different matter with (ideally) different motivations from those of harvesting.
Aside from the fact that the above misinterprets my argument, I have shown that one of the biggest problems Iceland faces in spite of their generally good environmental record is severely reduced cod stocks, which are yet to recover within safety levels for full sustainable fishing (as cited and discussed in more than one previous post).
I once again quote an argument I already made weeks ago:
I note that the Iceland Fisheries site you linked seems to be in agreement with the ICES report I provided, as the assessment of cod they cite is the following, with a couple comments from me:
To repeat: cod is still very much an issue – particularly with fishing being such a relevant part of the Icelandic economy and the country being so tiny. Let’s see a full recovery of a battered stock like cod, and then I will grant you that Iceland’s fisheries record is closer to stellar. However that still will not and never will translate to unquestioning faith when it comes to whaling.
The MRI site did explain something else though. Apparently the official Icelandic plan is to hunt 38 minke for scientific purposes this year, and next year “it is assumed” the quotas will be those of the full original plan. In other words Iceland could be testing the thickness of the ice: they announced their original plans, international outcry ensued, then they backed down and broadcast the more modest 38 minke quota – but it would seem they intend to go ahead with the original plan if the chance is there, no doubt relying on the inconsistency of media attention and the short memory of the public. The announcement of the original scientific plan and permit gives a provision for fairly large-scale whaling, but if it looks like a sufficiently strong outcry will result, they can simply cut back to a sensible quota like 38 minke once again and ride the turbulence. Pretty cunning.
Misinterpretation, and if you think the Japanese situation is a peripheral argument then you’ve probably been reading your posts more closely than mine. First, let’s leave aside 1) that fact that Norway wanted to sell whale products to Japan very badly, and even sent some top ministers there to try convince the Japanese to take the poisonous blubber off their hands; and 2) smuggling and similar pleasantries. The Japanese case demonstrates that scientific whaling, even per legitimate IWC permits, is a practice that is abused and sometimes even used to hunt whales that are protected (Iceland apparently still intends to hunt 100 sei).
Suspicions are aroused when Iceland announces a scientific whaling plan: 1) the plan is similar in scope to Japan’s “scientific” whaling, known to be a cover for commercial interests 2) Iceland’s plan is also similar to Norway’s commercial whaling 3) still no adequate justification is provided for lethal research methods when scientists, representatives of fisheries, activists, etc. claim that non-lethal methods are available 4) history has shown that considerable commercial interests considered legal or not are the primary drivers of whaling, etc., etc. Only an innocent’s suspicions wouldn’t twinge violently.
Now, as discussed already, Iceland reduced its original plan dramatically and has restricted it to a few non-endangered specimens only. That’s great and they get a gold star for that as long as this isn’t a ploy, a cunning possibility I described just above, however there are still questions and challenges that have not been met. What is the real quota for the next two years of scientific whaling? Why, given the loud opposition and the fact that this is scientific whaling (i.e. not engaged for commercial gain) hasn’t there been an attempt to demonstrate that lethal research is unavoidable? And if there was such a justification, why has nobody cited it in the weeks this thread has been sapping my will?
This is again irrelevant. Firstly, I note that, though in recent years demand for European whale blubber has stalled in Japan owing to the discovery of high levels of toxic contaminants, that doesn’t mean Japan is removed from the picture, only that certain Norwegian plans to make a killing on stockpiled blubber were dashed. Secondly, what about the whale meat? Contaminants tend to accumulate mostly in fatty tissue such as blubber, but if the meat is good enough for European consumption I assume that the Japanese market also remains a primary target for export. Legal or illegal export, I might add – see the cites that indicate 1) smuggling of whale meat, such as the consignments that cleared Norwegian customs and were identified (by accident) closer to destination in Japan, 2) DNA analysis of whale meat that indicates there were certain species on the menu in Japan that couldn’t possibly have been the catch of Japanese scientific efforts.
Even without Japan, I am not aware of constraining hard limits on the markets when it comes to whale meat. Clearly if such a strong push to resume commercial whaling exists in countries like Norway and Iceland, then there must be a corresponding demand somewhere fuelling the pro-whaling lobby. Without demand for whale goods, particularly local demand, I doubt there would be a whaling industry at all. 7.15 Kg of whale meat per person per year sounds like quite a lot, but Iceland’s fisheries didn’t seem to think it was too much to put on the market when they first announced their 500 whale scientific plan – the edible proceeds of which must by law be sold and not wasted. There are strong, overpowering almost, indications that Japan has repeatedly stimulated its domestic market for whale meat; why wouldn’t Iceland do the same, since the majority of the population appears to be in favour of whaling anyway?
The one exception that springs to mind is, of course, what Norway tried: moving large quantities of whale products to a foreign market where they are considered luxury items. This would, of course, be a move that breaks both the moratorium against commercial whaling, and the ban on export of whale products. Since Iceland is small and more easily affected by foreign opposition sentiments and pressure than Norway is, I don’t think that is what they plan; nonetheless I trust I have (again) provided grounds for scrutinizing very closely what the commercial whaling nations are aiming at.
I can´t imagine that there will ever be commercial whaling again in Iceland. Even in my unfathomable stupidity and ignorance of Icelandic matters I know that there is no demand for it. End of story.
To my knowledge there are 2 restaurants in Reykjavik that offer whale meat, only a small percentage of people here have ever tried whale and I think most don´t like it that much. It simply wouldn´t be worthwhile to hunt them, in fact catching these 38 minkes cost quite a lot.
I could not care less about what the US say about our scientific whaling. We have every right to use our fishing zones if we are not endangering anything and we have absolutely nothing to answer for, nor do we need any arguments like you are asking for. We are not commercial whalers. Iceland has come a long way since the 1980´s. Really.
Abe - I´m sorry if you have such poor faith in Iceland. Let me know if you come round, I could show you the sights and explain better what Iceland is all about (but that wouldn´t do much good here, I´m afraid). You are obviously an intelligent man and I did not in any way try to insult your intellingence, what I meant was that you seem to write (and quote) an awful lot without saying much. I actually used the phrase “linguistic masturbation”, which was uncalled for and I apologize.
Since the discussion is just going round in circles I think I´ll withdraw for the time being. Just a few points before I leave,
I work in the travel industry and there is no pressure on us from anywhere in the world regarding the whaling issue.
There are no plans to resume commercial whaling in Iceland, although we have every right to.
There are actually countries in this world that practice (and have been for years) whaling including Norway, Japan and not last and certainly not least, the US of A. Pick your battles more wisely or I´m afraid you´ll never win the war.
What exactly are those “historical levels” Abe, that the minke whale population has to recover to before harvesting becomes acceptable to you? The levels they were in 1915 when Iceland instituted a moratorium on whaling, the first of it’s kind? The numbers the whales were at when the Norse were colonizing Iceland? Their numbers before Homo sapiens evolved? Your disputed study which showed the minke whale population to have been once at 265,000 individuals?
If it’s the last one then my advice to Iceland would be to simply shrug off the eco-fundies and their insane ideas and focus on their sensible TAC conservation policies, whales included. One might as well argue that the US. buffalo population must be returned to their “historic” pre-European colonization numbers before any exploitation can occur.
The minke whale population around Iceland is estimated to be around 43.000 animals. Assuming equal sex ratios that leaves us with about 21-22 thousand females. And let’s say that the number of cows of breeding age (keep in mind that the numbers of males are mostly irrelevant) is around 9000, the rest having either not reached sexual maturity or calves less frequently than once a year. Of those 9000 calfs who are born roughly every year let’s assume that around 50% never make it through their first year.
That leaves about 4000 new members entering the population every year. Even assuming further mortality of juveniles one still has a healthy population growth. Now toss in Icelanders resuming their harvesting of minkes with their historic numbers of taking around 200 animals a year and explain to me how that will threaten their numbers
And I’d have more faith in your slippery slope argument if Iceland were ,say, a Third World hellhole with low living standards, a history of gross mismanagement of it’s marine life resources and eager Japanese businessmen waiting in the wings to pay big money for whale produce.
None of these conditions apply since Iceland enjoys a high living standard, has taken excellent care of it’s fisheries and the Japanese won’t touch the meat and blubber that the Norwegians, who are engaged in hardcore commercial whaling, are offering them.
Not that there’s anything wrong with commercial whaling per se, so long as it’s done in a sustainable manner.
No doubt. As I have noted about twenty times to date, it doesn’t bother me if Iceland rounds up a few minke for scientific whaling purposes, but there’s a distinct difference between a few and 500, one fifth of that number from an endangered stock. I can’t help noticing though that when countered with a set of arguments – several arguments and thoroughly supported – you have chosen to simply dismiss them, and here I refer to phrases such as “I could not care less what the US says about our scientific whaling” and “we have absolutely nothing to answer for” and so forth. At first you questioned the existence of international pressure on Iceland. When shown incontrovertible evidence of pressure, you switched to the position that it’s all irrelevant even if it exists.
Look, Iceland is a great place and a remarkable little country. What I am attacking here is the suspicious behaviour of Iceland when seen in the light of flagrantly whaling nations like Japan and Norway. Nothing more. Regular readers of these boards will have seen me attacking the farcical government of Italy and the idiotic unilateralist policies of the US, among many, many others. It doesn’t mean I bear these nations ill will, I am simply addressing specific perceived problems.
When I said I had no faith in Iceland I was responding specifically to Dagger’s faith-based argument. But thanks for the offer and the apology, as it happens I enjoy rugged and cold places.
You may question the efficiency of my prose, but I have stated an argument that is still well supported in spite of the best efforts of a number of nordic objectors. Now, it’s true I have been forced to repeat and restate a number of arguments several times, but that is hardly my fault, and with each reiteration of the argument I have provided additional supporting evidence for it – only to have it largely ignored. I’ve analyzed and discussed the evidence too, I haven’t just linked to the main page of a web site and left readers to search for the relevant material. This is all part of the process of debate.
Anecdotal, and not exactly the point. Perhaps you in the travel industry have felt no pressure, but that doesn’t mean the government didn’t (pressure was addressed to the government, not to the travel industry). As for the warnings from the tourism heads, well they are in black and white on a number of news sources. The tourism heads may be wrong, but I haven’t seen any solid evidence to suggest that and simply the fact that they felt they had to warn people on this subject is enough to suggest that whaling may adversely impact Iceland.
Quite a categorical statement. Can you support it? How do you reconcile the argument I have made, indicating suspicious behaviour, with the above view that there are “no plans” to resume comm whaling? I’m not saying Iceland will resume, but my arguments ought to show more than enough reason to be suspicious of recent actions.
I have discussed all the above point already at least three times. Norway is an whaling nation (illegal). Japan is a whaling nation (covert). USA is not a whaling nation proper, it is a nation that permits, in conjunction with the IWC, aboriginal subsistence whaling for a few of its ‘first nation’ indigenous communities. The notion that the US is a whaling nation seems to come (from what I can tell) mostly from pro-whaling propaganda leaflets and similar materials. If you insist on defining a whaling nation as any country where aboriginal subsistence whaling takes place, then Greenland is a whaling nation too. However, by the definitions I am familiar with, whaling nations are those where whaling is performed for non aboriginal subsistence needs, and for commercial gain of course.
That’s true. However, since the very moment I entered this thread, when I asked both sides of the debate to stick to real evidence and real issues, I have had non-arguments thrown at me continuously and well beyond the capacity of my endurance – often the same non-arguments time and again. It’s clear that most of my opponents are not reading the thread and handling arguments therein as wholes – the preferred techniques seem to be unsupported or anecdotal denial, selective reading, biased citations or positions, a handling of only small portions of arguments, and a refusal (in some cases even stated) to go near certain points that would seem crucial. I leave out the particularly despicable techniques from this list.
Nothing gets to me quite as much as non-arguments, so I apologize if I went into excoriating mode.
As already stated, the relevant figure is pre-exploitation levels, over which there exist certain controversies and differences in estimates and calculations. Note that I don’t make the rules – the IWC does. 54% of pre-exploitation population is the mark, as already explained ad mortem. A number of other points usually follow from here (RMS etc.), but I am tired of repeating them – make constructive use of your scroll bar to refresh your memory.
Funny, because it appears that minke are recovered to about 56% of historical population according to the mtDNA study and the present estimated number of northern minke, which means that, by that criterion alone, they could be whaled according to the IWC, and your invective against insane eco-fundies is once again misplaced. Unfortunately there are other matters to consider as well in addition to the 54% mark. Again, I won’t repeat them, rather I will let your mouse do the walking – I note though your mouse would have a hard time taking more than three steps without bumping into a reiteration of the arguments relevant to this portion of the subject.
Another funny item, and one that has already been addressed (without mentioning buffalo though). Buffalo are maintained on ranches. In those cases where they are hunted, they are nonetheless hunted on a ranch and hunters must obtain permission from the management of the ranch (and pay for it too). Otherwise ranch managers kill the animals needed for commercial purposes. Therefore the exploitation taking place is of an animal easy to track and under controlled conditions – this is not wildlife the way whales are. I am no expert in these matters but the only free-ranging (not ranched) herd of buffalo in the US is that of Yellowstone Park in Montana, which as far as I know is not hunted. A quick search reveals that there are several issues with Montana’s management of the Yellowstone buffalo, including some culling that may be completely inappropriate – this NRDC cite explains some of those issues and provides a quick look at the situation. Note the “insanity” of the “eco-fundies”.
There was a suggestion at one point, from Iceland I think, to set up whale farms. It’s probably not a feasible idea, but it shows you that some pro-whalers do seem to understand some of the issues involved.
I see, so the IWC moratorium doesn’t apply to your reasoning? It’s OK for Iceland to go whaling just like Norway does? I am sick of repeating this, but there are some good reasons behind the commercial whaling moratorium beyond simply the endangered or non status of one species of whale. Your mouse can again be of assistance if you need to refresh your memory.
Apart from the more recent links to the Japanese market (links Iceland also had until the early 90s), is there that much of a difference on the above counts between Norway and Iceland? Neither are 3rd world hellholes by any means, neither have low living standards, and neither have a history of gross mismanagement of marine resources. They both desire to engage in commercial whaling. Yet one will do as it pleases in defiance of the IWC regulations and concerns. Why? Perhaps I’m being cynical, but possibly because one is several times the population and economy of the other, and can therefore command greater political and economic power.
Which is the same reason that the US withdrew from the Kyoto protocol a few years ago, to cite another environmental issue. Because it was in the US’s short-term commercial interest to abandon the protocol and because they knew they could get away with it, being a political and economic superpower. Of course Norway isn’t a superpower, but look at these facts:
Norway Total area: 324,220 sq km Population: 4,546,123 GDP per capita: 31,200
*GDP:* 143 billion
(High natural resources – only Saudi Arabia and Russia export more oil than Norway)
Iceland Total area: 103,000 sq km Population: 280,798 GDP per capita: $25,000 GDP: 7 billion
(no natural resources other than hydrothermal and geothermal power)
Norway’s total GDP is over 20 times, its population 16 times those of Iceland, and Norway has oil too. If you argue that Iceland’s environmental record is better than that of Norway I won’t object, but let’s have a little realpolitik here: given that both countries would like to whale commercially, why is it that one does so and the other is holding off? You keep referring to having faith in Iceland, but the above should show that Iceand is far more vulnerable to international pressure than Norway could possibly be. Compared to Iceland’s small population and necessarily smaller economy, Norway is a superpower, and able to get away with rather more. Iceland, on the other hand, is vulnerable to international caprice such as boycotts of fish exports.
Maybe there is more to this matter than simply faith and a history of conscientious governance?
High living standard: yes, Iceland has a very high standard, but what is the pro-whaling lobby going on about if not chasing, loosely speaking, a higher living standard? Do they want to whale just for the sake of whaling, or are there interests of an economic nature behind their push? Could it be that the fulfilment of economic interests confers a higher standard of living?
Has taken excellent care of its fisheries: addressed, addressed, addressed already. Note the part where I say that past good behaviour with fisheries is no guarantee of future good behaviour. The opposite would be an argument from faith, which wouldn’t be that bad if I hadn’t provided evidence of grounds for tangible suspicion that ought to invalidate the faith you keep bringing up (see also the Realpolitik issues)
The tainted blubber: It would seem there is some reluctance now on the part of the Japanese to accept the blubber Norway had hoped to sell off. This is, however, only a recent development. Historically speaking, both Iceland and Norway exported to Japan, quite lucratively. It is hardly sensible to assume that because the Japanese are finding a Norwegian product unacceptable right now for the first time, that this condition will persist a year or five or more from now and that it must apply to Iceland’s whales. Even then, The Japanese might relax their standards (for example, most saltwater fish {and a lot of whale} is contaminated with mercury, but that doesn’t stop people from eating it), or Japan could decide to purchase only the less contaminated meat instead of the toxin-laden blubber. It may turn out that Icelandic catch is substantially less contaminated than Norway’s. In other words, I don’t see the current and almost certainly temporary inaccessibility of the Japanese market as long-term reassurance as regards Iceland’s motives. At least not until it is demonstrated that Japan will avoid European whale goods for a reasonable while – and even then that says little about domestic markets or other markets (such as South Korea, where commercial whaling is not permitted but a market for whale meat seems to exist).
And of course, I must repeat, the issue is not 38 minke. I am calling attention to an unacceptable scientific plan that originally involved taking 500 whales without justification much a la Japan, a plan that is still in effect since it has been concealed – not permanently altered – by this year’s potentially misleading quota of only 38 minke. A plan that if carried out will deliver 4,000 tons of whale meat to the Iceland domestic market (which means they already know what to do with all that meat locally, or they may be trying to stimulate a market, or they may earmark some of that total for potential export). I have stated and explained these arguments before, if you make me repeat them on and on UselessGit will further accuse me of writing a lot and not saying much.
