GREENPEACE AUSTRALIA PACIFIC Internet Petition

[satyr]

We're at a crucial point for protecting the planet's whales and the people who defend them.

The upcoming International Whaling Commission (IWC) meets in June, and on the table is the very future of the moratorium on whaling that so many activists fought to achieve.

The US is backing a deal that would legalise commercial whaling for the first time since the international ban was introduced over 20 years ago. Nations will vote on the deal at the IWC meeting.

If it goes ahead, whaling in the Southern Ocean could be locked in for 10 years!!

Greenpeace Australia Pacific

[dundee]

Whats up with this whole Whaling gig, why do Japanese boats sail into Australian waters and do as they please, aussie government is all talk and no balls

[tripsis]

Because our government is too cowardly to do anything about it. We're not about to go to war over whaling and heaven forbid our wonderful economic relations with Japan be jeopardised for the sake of a few whales. It's bullshit that Japanese whaling ships do sail into Australia waters and do as they please, but it's reality too.

Thanks for posting satyr, but I couldn't find a link to the petition...

[Amazonian]

Its bullshit that the Japanese sail into any water to kill whales. They need a good dose and wake up to themselves.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Amazonian

[tripsis]

Agreed. There is nothing remotely sustainable or "humane" about whaling and as such, it should be stopped completely, whether or not there is a cultural history of it.

[occidentalis]

The US is backing a deal that would legalise commercial whaling for the first time since the international ban was introduced over 20 years ago. Nations will vote on the deal at the IWC meeting.

 

I have an alternative view that may prove unpopular; I believe that regulated commercial whaling (of some whale species) would be far better for whale conservation than unregulated 'scientific' whaling, which is what we have now.

This only applies to species of whales whose numbers have increased to levels where they can be sustainably taken (ie without reducing the long term viability of the population). Any whale species still under any threat of extinction should be outright banned from hunting.

Without getting into too much conspiracy theory, I think the current state of affairs actually suits all the powers involved - Japan basically gets to continue doing whatever it wants while being able to complain about western interference, Australia and other anti-whaling nations get to feel morally superior without actually having to do anything, and Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd get to raise funds and make their supporters feel good. The losers in all this are the whales who basically have no protection.

Remember, the IWC is entirely voluntary; Japan could just choose to leave it as Iceland did. Iceland can now legally do whatever type of whaling it wants. Japan could do that, but it doesn't, because wants to stay in the IWC so that it can play a particular role in international whaling politics, so it can present a particular narrative to its citizens.

[tripsis]

Even if whaling of some species can be done sustainably, there is no way that it can be done "humanely". We simply cannot kill an animal the size of a whale swiftly enough that they do not die an agonising death, unless they were shot with an extremely high dose of a sedative which would lead to permanent sleep, something that would never happen due to cost, etc.

[occidentalis]

Fair point, but animal welfare is not the stated reason behind the IWC moratorium; and it would be impossible for western nations (and particulary the US) to make any argument against whaling on animal welfare terms because of their horrendous treatment of animals in factory farms.

Edited January 9, 2011 by occidentalis

[shortly]

While I agree a petition is a good idea, this far out from an election i doubt it will have much impact.

Perhaps an Internet "boycott Japanese goods" campaign might get a reaction?

After all if you want to get someones attention, hit them where it hurts.

In this case right in the yen.

If the currency markets even just thought it might work the yen would drop like a stone.

[dundee]

Do any petitions actually do anything??? how many times are the majority of the people want something done, but the government just ignores it and follows its own course

[Amazonian]

I believe that regulated commercial whaling (of some whale species) would be far better for whale conservation than unregulated 'scientific' whaling, which is what we have now.

This only applies to species of whales whose numbers have increased to levels where they can be sustainably taken (ie without reducing the long term viability of the population). Any whale species still under any threat of extinction should be outright banned from hunting.

 

I hear what you are saying occidentalis, but who will be there to ensure that particular whale species is the one being hunted and slaughtered. Is there even a bag limit?

Scientific research ,PFFT.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Amazonian

[tripsis]

Fair point, but animal welfare is not the stated reason behind the IWC moratorium; and it would be impossible for western nations (and particulary the US) to make any argument against whaling on animal welfare terms because of their horrendous treatment of animals in factory farms.

It may not be the stated reason behind the moratorium, but it is valid nonetheless. Despite there having been population increases in some whale species, we simply have not been recording data long enough to know what the natural fluctuations in their populations should be, so to assume that because a population is increasing, we can suddenly sustainably harvest from it, is misguided. There really is no reason for us to harvest whales from the oceans. If we must eat meat, we should be farming it. If we must hunt wild animals, we should only be hunting those which breed prolifically and mature rapidly. Whales fall into neither of those categories.

[occidentalis]

Despite there having been population increases in some whale species, we simply have not been recording data long enough to know what the natural fluctuations in their populations should be, so to assume that because a population is increasing, we can suddenly sustainably harvest from it, is misguided.

 

No, it's actually quite easy to calculate if you know enough about the biology of the species, and although I'm not an expert on whales I'd guess that for most of the whale species that would be hunted we would know enough to be able to predict population sizes and calculate a sustainable harvest rate. You really just need to know the rate of reproduction, the lifespan, and a bit about the ecology to fairly accurately predict population sizes and determine sustainable harvest levels, which is how all fisheries are managed (or should be). In fact because of their long lifespan whales should be even easier to do long term population modelling with, because a bad year will not wipe out the fishery like it would with sardines, it will just result in less reproduction for that year.

There really is no reason for us to harvest whales from the oceans.

The baleen whales may be some of the most sustainable meat out there... they feed from the bottom of the food chain which means they are extremely efficient at converting something humans can't eat (plankton) into something humans can eat. On the other hand, whale meat is highly contaminated with mercury; the baleen whales less so than the toothed whales but still not something I would eat simply for that reason regardless of the other issues.

If we must eat meat, we should be farming it. If we must hunt wild animals, we should only be hunting those which breed prolifically and mature rapidly. Whales fall into neither of those categories.

 

I think what we 'must eat' is whatever it is that sustains the highest number of people with the lowest environmental, social, and animal welfare cost. Why draw a line between farmed and wild? If it's sustainable, and the animal had a happy and healthy life and a humane death, what difference does it make? Considering much of the world either can't get enough to eat at all, or is obese and diabetic from eating the shit spewed out of the industrial food system, we need to consider all options from a rational perspective. That's why I'm asking people to step back from the emotive 'environmental' rhetoric around whaling and see it for what it is, international politicking at its best with little to no relevance to the real issue at hand (ie the conservation of whales).

I hear what you are saying occidentalis, but who will be there to ensure that particular whale species is the one being hunted and slaughtered. Is there even a bag limit?

That's the thing, under the scientific research loophole there is no bag limit. Under a commercial whaling arrangement there will be.

As for how to actually police it, I can't answer that - but there are dozens of other international treaties that would have very similar enforcement protocols and I'm sure if you did a bit of googling on international law you would find some examples of regulatory mechanisms that would work in this situation.

What are the regulatory mechanisms in the IWC that prevent commercial whaling under the current moratorium?

Edited January 9, 2011 by occidentalis

[synchromesh]

An Open Letter To The Public From The President Of The Makah Whaling Commission

I'm alright with that I think. Anybody else?

[tripsis]

No, it's actually quite easy to calculate if you know enough about the biology of the species, and although I'm not an expert on whales I'd guess that for most of the whale species that would be hunted we would know enough to be able to predict population sizes and calculate a sustainable harvest rate. You really just need to know the rate of reproduction, the lifespan, and a bit about the ecology to fairly accurately predict population sizes and determine sustainable harvest levels, which is how all fisheries are managed (or should be). In fact because of their long lifespan whales should be even easier to do long term population modelling with, because a bad year will not wipe out the fishery like it would with sardines, it will just result in less reproduction for that year.

Fair enough, we can use data and models to predict what constitutes a sustainable population and what does not. These only work if all else is equal, which is not the case. Everything is connected and this is especially true in ecology. Just because we think a particular whale population is stable at the moment, doesn't mean it will be the year after or the year after that. We exploit the oceans as much as we can and this affects most, if not all, marine animal life. Take a link out of the food chain and the entire chain could collapse. Even if we could sustainably whale, our actions (in another area of the oceans or even on land) could cause an entirely unrelated species to crash/explode, causing a knock-on effect which could then cause a whale population to crash as a result. This is all just conjecture, but the point of it is too highlight that no matter what we think we know, we actually know very little. To assume that our science, and especially our extremely limited understanding of ecology, is good enough to decide whether we can sustainably harvest a whale species or not, is giving ourselves to much credit.

The baleen whales may be some of the most sustainable meat out there... they feed from the bottom of the food chain which means they are extremely efficient at converting something humans can't eat (plankton) into something humans can eat. On the other hand, whale meat is highly contaminated with mercury; the baleen whales less so than the toothed whales but still not something I would eat simply for that reason regardless of the other issues.

What is your reasoning, that because baleen whales eat plankton, they are somehow incredibly sustainable? That doesn't really hold water with me, and it doesn't make harvesting baleen whales sustainable. If you try to feed even one tenth of the world's human population baleen whale meat, you'll soon find every species extinct. Goats convert something humans can't eat (grass) into something we can eat (meat). Contrary to whales however, goats can be farmed in great numbers to feed large populations and can be done so in about as a sustainable fashion as you'll get from any meat yielding food source.

I think what we 'must eat' is whatever it is that sustains the highest number of people with the lowest environmental, social, and animal welfare cost. Why draw a line between farmed and wild? If it's sustainable, and the animal had a happy and healthy life and a humane death, what difference does it make? Considering much of the world either can't get enough to eat at all, or is obese and diabetic from eating the shit spewed out of the industrial food system, we need to consider all options from a rational perspective. That's why I'm asking people to step back from the emotive 'environmental' rhetoric around whaling and see it for what it is, international politicking at its best with little to no relevance to the real issue at hand (ie the conservation of whales).

If what we must eat is "whatever it is that sustains the highest number of people with the lowest environmental, social, and animal welfare cost", then harvesting from populations of any slow-growing, long-lived animals, which also have relatively small populations, is unlikely to work well with that ethic. A humane death? Whales do not get that. Whales will not get that. If we whale, whales will suffer. I draw the line between farmed and wild because no wild population can sustainably meet the growing demands of our population. If out population were a stable fifty million, things would be different, but it's not. I think you are too readily discrediting the issue of whaling as "international politicking at its best with little to no relevance to the real issue at hand (ie the conservation of whales)", as there is plenty of serious conservation concern stemming from whaling. Sure, there are those like Tim Flannery which promote it as a sustainable industry, but there are plenty who disagree. Who's to say either side is right? But also, why not err on the side of caution? Why assume we have our science right and that greed and power won't just keep pushing those "sustainable" quotas ever higher? As a species, we have a long history of environmentally disastrous mistakes, often because we think we know what we're doing, when the reality is closer to us stumbling through the dark swinging a sword around and hoping that everything will turn out fine.

That's the thing, under the scientific research loophole there is no bag limit. Under a commercial whaling arrangement there will be.

As for how to actually police it, I can't answer that - but there are dozens of other international treaties that would have very similar enforcement protocols and I'm sure if you did a bit of googling on international law you would find some examples of regulatory mechanisms that would work in this situation.

What are the regulatory mechanisms in the IWC that prevent commercial whaling under the current moratorium?

Having a limit doesn't mean much when there's a moratorium currently in place and the Japanese are successfully ignoring it while the world stands by and does nothing. The Japanese illegally whale in our waters, but nothing happens. The world knows the scientific loophole is a façade, but it makes no difference. Look at bluefin tuna. They are spiralling rapidly towards extinction, despite there being limits on the number of fish that are legally allowed to be caught. Of course, these limits are not respected and the over harvesting continues. There's a decent section dedicated to bluefins in the film the End of the Line (if you wish to learn more). Everyday international laws are broken and nothing happens. Why would we do anything if a few extra whales were killed?

[occidentalis]

To assume that our science, and especially our extremely limited understanding of ecology, is good enough to decide whether we can sustainably harvest a whale species or not, is giving ourselves to much credit.

I don't think so. Have a look at some fisheries modelling stuff. There is LOTS of research in this area because there is lots of money involved, and fish are important food for millions of people. Of course there are always varying levels of confidence with all modelling and there may be other factors involved (like illegal catch as you say with bluefin tuna) - and that's where the precautionary principle comes in.

What is your reasoning, that because baleen whales eat plankton, they are somehow incredibly sustainable? That doesn't really hold water with me, and it doesn't make harvesting baleen whales sustainable. If you try to feed even one tenth of the world's human population baleen whale meat, you'll soon find every species extinct. Goats convert something humans can't eat (grass) into something we can eat (meat). Contrary to whales however, goats can be farmed in great numbers to feed large populations and can be done so in about as a sustainable fashion as you'll get from any meat yielding food source.

Baleen whales may be a more sustainable food source than tuna, or shark. Both of which eat from higher up the food chain which means much less efficiency.

Goats are also good.

Too tired to discuss all the other points in detail - I agree with a lot of what you have said but none of it has done anything to convince me that the current situation is any better for conservation or welfare of whales than a regulated commercial catch. Japan is not going to back down and the actions of Sea Shepard et al. just give their government further ability to maintain their rhetoric to their people. Just like with the drugs trade, if you can't stop it completely, a regulate and control approach will result in less harm than allowing criminals to have their way - even if that regulation and control is not perfect.

If Japan breaks the rules, deal with that when the problem arises. If you start with an assumption that they will, then you will never be able to reach any lasting agreement.

[nabraxas]

it should be stopped completely, whether or not there is a cultural history of it.

there appears to be no long tradition ov eating whale meat. it's use peaked after the second world war when other forms ov meat production had declined.

if it wasn't for the Japanese government putting whale meat into school dinners the whole tradition/industry would collapse.

According to the survey, 61% of the Japanese ate whale meat, if ever, for the last time when they were children, and only 1% of them answered that they eat whale meat about once a month. And no one answered that he/she eats whale meat more frequently than about once a month.

It means that regardless of gender, age, and locality of residence, Japanese people rarely eat whale meat. The answer, "I have eaten whale meat when I was a child", probably indicate that these people ate whale meat in the 1960's when the supply of whale meat was active. For example, one of the five major supermarkets in Japan sells canned "whale meat boiled with soy sauce, sugar, and ginger" (50g, made by Kyokuyo) for 348 yen, however, the sales of the product per shop is only 5 cans/month, having only 0.1% share of the canned food sales. The fact that the price of the canned whale meat is higher than canned "beef boiled with soy sauce, sugar, and ginger" (80g/60g, sold for 108 yen) is not a factor to restrain the consumption of whale meat. Canned "boiled salmon" (50g, sold for 348 yen, made by Akebono), which is the same price as the cooked whale meat sells 34 cans/month per shop. By the way, the Japanese eat 3.83 million hamburgers per day. Presuming the population to be 120 million, the annual hamburger consumption in Japan is 11.6 hamburgers per person. The average annual consumption of whale meat is 30 g per person so the average Japanese eats 40 times as much meat in hamburgers as compared to whale.

Since these figures come only from the member companies of the Japan Hamburger Association, actual consumption of hamburger must be larger. It was in 1971 when the production of hamburgers started in Japan, and younger generations are more familiar with hamburgers. The fact that many chose an answer, "I ate whale meat for the last time when I was a child", in the following graph indicates that these people ate whale meat in a menu of school lunch. In Japan, the School Lunch Law was established in 1954. At that time, whale meat was getting less popular in spite of its moderate price, since the production of pork, chicken, or beef was getting stable in Japan, and the government began to use oversupplied whale meat for school lunch aggressively. The children who were in the first grade of elementary school in 1954 are 54 years old now. Thus, an eating experience of whale meat became widespread through school lunch in the compulsory education period. This is the reality of the "memory of eating whale meat in their childhood".

But, whale meat was not used for school lunch any more after the catch decreased and the price rose, and more people in younger generations chose the answer, "I have never eaten whale meat". It is true that there are more people who have enjoyed whale meat depending on area or in higher generations. However, even such people do not eat so much whale meat as before.

http://www.greenpeace.or.jp/campaign/oceans/factsheet/index_en_html

[Amazonian]

^ Thats interesting. What are they using the whales for then?. There is probably some minuscule part of the whale that is an aphrodisiac or something, you know, like the sharks are killed for the fins and the rest is left to rot. Its not only the Japanese that are hunting whales.I don't dislike them as a race, only the individuals who are part of hunting the whales.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Amazonian

[Slybacon]

"It does not matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

- Dr. Patrick Moore, President of Greenpeace Canada 1981

This year's annual appeal to save whales by Greenpeace is just the latest public relations strategy in a global campaign to fleece money from people of good conscience. The Greenpeace Foundation, of which I was a co-founder back in 1972, is today simply a multi-million dollar feel-good organization. They are selling the illusion of making a difference to a gullible public. Paul Watson (Sea Shepherd) 2006

Edited January 10, 2011 by Slybacon

[dundee]

 

yeah sounds like other "charity" foundations, like sponsor a child, oxfam etc, just another money scam, so very little of the money actually makes it to the poor, read some article about Bonos foundation only passing on 1% of the money collected, I stopped donating to oxfam years ago when I read about a couple of managers stealing thousands of dollars.

[tripsis]

I don't think so. Have a look at some fisheries modelling stuff. There is LOTS of research in this area because there is lots of money involved, and fish are important food for millions of people. Of course there are always varying levels of confidence with all modelling and there may be other factors involved (like illegal catch as you say with bluefin tuna) - and that's where the precautionary principle comes in.

I'm not saying there's not plenty of research, nor that it's not the best we can produce with our current knowledge, but our understanding of the complexities of ecology are still very limited. We make too many mistakes for me to feel that our modelling is sufficient to allow us to sustainably harvest whales. When do you ever see decent precautionary principles in place when it come to fishing anyway?

You have to keep in mind that all the term "sustainable" means, in the context of harvesting from wild populations, is that we can push a population to its limits without causing it to plummet. It does not reflect the health of a population, it does not allow a population to remain robust. It simply means that we are allowing for the bare minimum number of individuals to keep a population sustained. So for example, what may have been a population of ten million before human interaction, may be reduced down to one hundred thousand, but still be considered sustainable, as there are sufficient numbers to keep the species afloat. Doing this to a species put it in great danger. Species which are reduced to a minimum number are far more susceptible to population crashes from which they cannot recover, caused by natural disasters or human influenced issues, such as overfishing, habitat destruction, pollution, etc.

Baleen whales may be a more sustainable food source than tuna, or shark. Both of which eat from higher up the food chain which means much less efficiency.

Maybe, maybe not. Do you have any information to support the idea that they are more sustainable? I agree that because they consume the lowest level of the food chain to survive, they are less susceptible to population crashes from food chain collapses, but this isn't sufficient reason alone.

Too tired to discuss all the other points in detail - I agree with a lot of what you have said but none of it has done anything to convince me that the current situation is any better for conservation or welfare of whales than a regulated commercial catch. Japan is not going to back down and the actions of Sea Shepard et al. just give their government further ability to maintain their rhetoric to their people. Just like with the drugs trade, if you can't stop it completely, a regulate and control approach will result in less harm than allowing criminals to have their way - even if that regulation and control is not perfect.

If Japan breaks the rules, deal with that when the problem arises. If you start with an assumption that they will, then you will never be able to reach any lasting agreement.

You have a good point, relating this issue to that of the drug trade. However, to take the stance that whaling cannot be stopped completely, is to preemptively give up on the issue. I agree that even if there was a total ban on whaling, it would still go on illegally, but even if there are legal quotas in place, it would still happen (as can be seen with bluefin tuna). Take the slave trade for example. Slavery is illegal, it still happens, but on a smaller scale than it once did. If slavery were legalised in a regulated fashion, it is likely there would still be an underground market for it. Regulating something doesn't stamp out the underground markets, unless the demand for the product is met through legal means (which in terms of delicacies, drugs and sex is not likely to happen).

yeah sounds like other "charity" foundations, like sponsor a child, oxfam etc, just another money scam, so very little of the money actually makes it to the poor, read some article about Bonos foundation only passing on 1% of the money collected, I stopped donating to oxfam years ago when I read about a couple of managers stealing thousands of dollars.

Bush Heritage is a good organisation.

[occidentalis]

You have to keep in mind that all the term "sustainable" means, in the context of harvesting from wild populations, is that we can push a population to its limits without causing it to plummet. It does not reflect the health of a population, it does not allow a population to remain robust. It simply means that we are allowing for the bare minimum number of individuals to keep a population sustained. So for example, what may have been a population of ten million before human interaction, may be reduced down to one hundred thousand, but still be considered sustainable, as there are sufficient numbers to keep the species afloat. Doing this to a species put it in great danger. Species which are reduced to a minimum number are far more susceptible to population crashes from which they cannot recover, caused by natural disasters or human influenced issues, such as overfishing, habitat destruction, pollution, etc.

Yeah you're right, but that's why I mentioned confidence levels. A properly managed fishery should only be harvested to the point where there is a high probability the population will survive whatever contingency is likely to occur.

And yes, very few fisheries are properly managed. But I am interested to see how many whales the Japanese actually want to take in the commercial hunt because I suspect it would be very low.

Maybe, maybe not. Do you have any information to support the idea that they are more sustainable? I agree that because they consume the lowest level of the food chain to survive, they are less susceptible to population crashes from food chain collapses, but this isn't sufficient reason alone.

No I don't have any specific information - I'm going off general ecological principles

Basically the rule is that each trophic level passes on 10% of its energy to the next one up

that means zooplankton get 10% of the energy photosynthesised from phytoplankton (the rest is used in the growth of the phytoplankton)

small fish get 10% of the energy that the zooplankton have (the rest is used in the growth of the zooplankton)

bigger fish get 10% of the energy that the small fish have (you get the picture)

by the time the top level predators get involved, they only contain a fraction of a percentage of the original energy that was fixed from the sun

Baleen whales cut out all the middlemen, and go straight to the source

so they are a very direct pathway from solar energy to edible protein

It's also why they're so big

they need to be in order to actually filter enough water to make a meal

another species that has done a very similar thing is the whale shark, which are the largest shark

The same kind of thing occurs terrestrially with cows, elephants, sauropod dinosaurs, and other grazers.

Anyway

eating lower on the food chain is almost always more sustainable

although as you hint 'sustainable' is a highly complex and contested word.

However, to take the stance that whaling cannot be stopped completely, is to preemptively give up on the issue.

I don't know, the moratorium has been in place over 20 years, and Japan just keeps getting more stubborn about it. I don't think either diplomatic pleading or Sea Shephard activism is going to change things.

I actually just want to see what they do when they are allowed to whale. I kinda wonder if they will do it for a few years and then give up on it. It's only fun when you're not allowed to ;).

Edited January 10, 2011 by occidentalis