Makin' Waves

Politicians in anti-whaling countries are questioning the sustainability of Iceland's plans to issue commercial hunting permits for 9 fin whales in their coastal waters. Yet, even based on the International Whaling Commission's most pessimistic of estimates, 9 fin whales represents less than a mere 0.04% of the estimated population size in the North Atlantic. Given what we know of natural rates of reproduction and natural mortality in baleen whales, such a tiny level of catch will clearly be within the reproductive capacity of the stock.

Is it not time that the these anti-whaling governments developed a realistic, modern whaling policy? New Zealanders, Australians, the British etc may no longer be making a living out of whale slaughter, but that is no reason for those governments to make spurious arguments as to why Icelanders and others should not be able to do so, with the provision that where whaling is conducted it be on a sustainable basis. This is after all the same basis on which nations including New Zealand manage their own marine resource utilisation. Indeed, it was on this basis that New Zealand's Ministry of Fisheries set a conservative by-catch limit of 150 New Zealand sea lions in the Auckland Islands squid fishery this year.

The reality today is that it is 30 years since the International Whaling Commission first set catch limits for global Fin whale stocks to zero, back in 1976 (10 years prior to the general "moratorium"). By that time, other species such as the Humpback had already been protected. Various whale stocks are recovering under these protection measures, some to very robust levels. In the 1990's, the IWC adopted a "revised management procedure" that is exceedingly conservative in the way it sets commercial catch limits. This being the fact, there are no scientific grounds on which we can justifiably oppose what would be highly conservative, unquestionably sustainable whale harvests.

Anti-whaling nations may wish to oppose whaling on cruelty or ethical grounds, but given those nations' own history and practices of animal slaughter for human benefit, those would be very shaky grounds indeed.

Hi Lisa,

I'm on a virtual hunt for the porbeagle also known as the macarel shark or lamna nasus.

He has been seen in these waters. Beware of his habits of blackballing everyone that is not green enough for him.

Please tell him that I am looking for him.

Oldman'sea

Hi David,

Disingenuous as ever. Nine fin whales is not commercial whaling and well you know it. The whaling industry needs to start over from a small base, training crews and setting up new markets, ramping up demand in anticipation of buying enough votes with overseas development aid to resume commercial whaling; then the real slaughter begins and it will not be nine whales.

A commercial market requires increased returns ever year to satisfy shareholders and that means more whales every year.

This of course does not include false reporting of catches, the smuggling of products from protected species amongst the authorised catch and countries opting out of quotas as they are allowed to do under IWC rules.

The New Zealand government set a quota of 150 protected New Zealand Sealions because there was going to be bycatch anyway, the Squid fishery generates income and fishermen vote. Sealions do neither.

The IWMC is currently advising pro-whaling nations on the correct political mechanisms to remove whale species from the CITES protected lists to ensure that this is not a hinderence to hunting.

The largest market for whale meat is the Japanese Fisheries Ministry, which has an extremely poor record for conservation especially on products that come from international waters.

Japan admits overfishing and agrees to halve its tuna quota for five years as penance.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6057576.stm

While it is possible that the Japanese Fisheries Ministry may be coming around to the idea of genuine sustainable use, in view if the fact that they were caught overfishing, and have been doing so for years; this may be nothing more than political window dressing. As the BBC article points out 'almost all the southern blue-fin tuna caught in the world is sent to Japan.'

Since some tuna fishing nations have not agreed to recognise the international quotas set by the various tuna fishing regulatory bodies only time will tell if this has any conservation effect on tuna stocks or if the Japanese Fisheries Ministry maintains the current unsustainable pressure on tuna stocks through third party suppliers, but in view of past transgressions an the insatiable demand for tuna, there is no particular grounds for optimism.

The simple fact is only a couple of small nations on earth need to whale and they can be accomadated within Aboriginal hunt quotas. Norway, Iceland and Japan could satisfy their' 'cultural' requirements within their own sovereign waters.
International commercial whaling should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Hi Dr Kalla,

I just remembered...you told me at Jennifer's blog that you knew where my blog was (not sure why it took you so long, after all the name on my posts there is a link button) then you turn up here and not on my blog at all. Did you get lost?

A biochem entrepeneur like yourself taking time out to chew the fat with environmentalists? We are flattered to be sure however it must be costing you a fortune! After all time is money as they say.

Still you are here now ya bronzed adonis, what did you want to get off your chest big fella?
Remember its Lamna nasus or Mr Whingeing Pommy B*****d. The st*rs are important because this is a family site and SHE who must be obeyed, does not muck about.

Hi Patrick,

Seeing as you are avoiding answering questions on Jens blog ( as usual )I´ll ask you them here as well ..

" Disingenuous as ever. Nine protected fin whales is not commercial whaling and well you know it."

Between now and August 2007, Iceland will commercially hunt 9 fin whales and 30 Minke whales. ( as well as the rest of their Scientific quota ) After that, they will of course decide if they will continue a commercial hunt.

The current commercial license ends in August 2007.

Do you deny this? and do you deny that Norway and Iceland are hunting whales commercialy?

"The whaling industry needs to start over from a small base, training crews"

The Icelandic whalers are already at sea in case you had not noticed. They have also been whaling the last couple of years on their SC quota in case you had not noticed either.

"and setting up new markets,"

Of course they will try and set up markets, that´s the point of COMMERCIAL whaling ..

Still waiting for you to tell us where these markets would be, especially as the NGO´s you support claim that norwegian, Icelandic and japanese warehouses are full of unwanted whale meat .. so where is the "new" market Patrick?

" A commercial market requires increased returns ever year to satisfy shareholders and that means more whales every year."

Norway has been commercially whaling since 1993 - and the number of whales taken has remained static and average around 500 minkies a year - there is currently no major market for more in case you had not noticed. The market has remained relatively stable. If and ONLY if a major export market was opened, would we see a possible increase in the numbers taken - tell me, where is that "new" market? Do you know of one?

It´s moot anyway as Norway follows the RMP as if it was in place ( Albeit with a different tuning level )

"This of course does not include false reporting of catches, the smuggling of products from protected species amongst the authorised catch and countries opting out of quotas as they are allowed to do under IWC rules."

Cites please of proven cases of smuggling by Norway or Iceland - I´ll give you a clue, Peter mentioned one in a post on Jen´s blog, I´m sure you can find it...

Cites please of proven false reporting of catches by Norway or Iceland - another clue, I mentioned one on Jen´s blog too ..

" The simple fact is that only a couple of small nations on earth need to whale and they can be accomodated within Aboriginal hunt quotas. Norway, Iceland and Japan could satisfy their' 'cultural' requirements within their own sovereign waters. "

Once again Patrick, would you personally accept whaling by any of these three countries within their own sovereign waters / EEZ ?

The answer is of course NO ... feel free to correct me if I am wrong of course ... so why bother trying to use that as an arguement to support your cause when you would not accept it anyway? ..

one final question for you Patrick, are you proud that you played a large part in Anne Noveks decision to leave greenpeace?

I quote anne from Jen´s blog
" Lamna, I have left Greenpeace now, I hope you can forward this info to your GP webbie friend, much thanks to your and her childish behaviour...."

Would this blog belong to the un-named Webbie ? Just wondering ..

George McC wrote:

one final question for you Patrick, are you proud that you played a large part in Anne Noveks decision to leave greenpeace?

I quote anne from Jen´s blog
" Lamna, I have left Greenpeace now, I hope you can forward this info to your GP webbie friend, much thanks to your and her childish behaviour...."

Would this blog belong to the un-named Webbie ? Just wondering

Hi George. I welcome your comments here but they must stay on topic.

No personal insults and no going off topic. OK folks? If anyone has any off topic questions for me - they should be able to figure out how to ask me directly. :-)

Cheers
L.

'The current commercial license ends in August 2007.'

Are you saying the commercial licence will not be renewed?

Are you saying that in the event of international commercial whaling being re-introduced at the IWC, that the hunt will remain at 9 fin whales and 30 Minke whales?

'The market has remained relatively stable.' - George

Really? with an international moratorium at the IWC, the limited 'cultural' appeal of whale meat and the very large percentage of the whale carcass that has to be dumped at sea because of its toxicity? what a surprise!

'This of course does not include false reporting of catches, the smuggling of products from protected species amongst the authorised catch and countries opting out of quotas as they are allowed to do under IWC rules."

I've checked George and the words Iceland and Norway do not appear in that statement and the reason they do not appear in that statement is because I am refering to a scenario in which the IWC moratorium is overturned and international commercial whaling and its markets are fully operational globally.

As was recently revealed the Japanese Fisheries Ministry failed to prevent massive over quota fishing by its tuna fleet for years; the same Ministry's observers failed to report massive over quota whaling by the Soviet whaling fleet for decades and the same Ministry is happy to accept Tuna from countries who refuse to recognise international tuna quotas (there is also the possibility that it has been accepting over quota tuna from other countries that ARE supposed to recognise international quotas).

Any member of the IWC is free to register an objection to an IWC ruling at the time it is enacted and then proceed with its own arrangements. One country even illegally rejoined the IWC with a backdated objection and cast the deciding vote to do so despite not being a member until after the vote, and yes George I will categorically state that was Iceland.
There is nothing to force any nation to be a member of the IWC or to recognise its quotas and thats why the moratorium on commercial whaling must remain in place.
It keeps the market contained, as you freely admitted 'the market has remained relatively stable.'

George are you suggesting that Norway, Iceland and Japan are offering to restrict commercial whaling to their own sovereign waters / EEZ at the IWC?
The answer is NO, so why bother implying it as an arguement to support your cause?

'Of course they will try and set up markets, that´s the point of COMMERCIAL whaling .........Still waiting for you to tell us where these markets would be' - George

RAOTFLMAO! You cannot have it both ways George, either there is a commercially viable reason to overturn the moratorium at the IWC or there is not and David@Tokyo repeatedly claims there is a huge potential market just waiting for the end of the moratorium in Japan or are you calling David a liar?

Hi,
I found your blog via google by accident and have to admit that youve a really interesting blog :-)
Just saved your feed in my reader, have a nice day :)