-
Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
- Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
- Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
- Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
- Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
- All this and much more...
You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
'Researchers: Dolphins use sponges as tools
- Thread starterDeepThought
- Start date
Thread Status: Hello
, There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
Re: Researchers: Dolphins use sponges as tools.
Haun
I only started getting personal because of your run for John Howards Job comment, so dont act as though it was me that started it.
One thing you should know about Australiains and you can tell from Poida and I that most Australians have a little bit of Mungrell in them and we never run from a fight, we stand up for our Mates and what we Bellive in.
So next time you want to get personal dont blame me its in my blood
Crusty
Haun
I only started getting personal because of your run for John Howards Job comment, so dont act as though it was me that started it.
One thing you should know about Australiains and you can tell from Poida and I that most Australians have a little bit of Mungrell in them and we never run from a fight, we stand up for our Mates and what we Bellive in.
So next time you want to get personal dont blame me its in my blood
Crusty
Re: Researchers: Dolphins use sponges as tools.
Sorry to wade in here but.....
4 per year is a lot different than the numbers that the Japanese floated to the IWC when they stated that they were going to start taking Humpbacks again. IIRC, it is an order of magnitude smaller.
By a "healthy" population, the definition is that the population can sustain itself without a major risk of inbreeding but also one that is not so large that they are in danger of over-grazing or devastating their own food supply. That doesn't mean that there are enough to go out and start culling. A case in point would be Elk in Colorado (my home state). They used to be a "healthy population" but since humans have killed all the predators, they population has boomed to the point where, if there is a hard winter, there is a massive die-off. That is NOT a "healthy" population. There are now more elk in the state than there were in the late 1800's when the white man was just arriving in the back country looking for gold. The other side of the coin can be seen in the reintroduction of wolves. There are now a couple of places where there is a sustainable (aka "healthy") population but there are nowhere near enough to be able to open a hunting season on them.....
If, by referring to the "whaling that the US practices," you are referring to the allowance of 2 per year that the Inuit Indians are allowed to take, you would be correct. However, we are NOT talking about a community-based survival thing. We are talking about commercial whaling under the guise of "science." I think that is what gets the ire up of most people. Call it what it is and accept the consequences - Commercial whaling! Period. "Science" and "research" projects don't usually end up in your local corner supermarket butcher counter, neatly wrapped in white paper, weighed by the kilo and sold for general consumption.....
By the way, whale meat is NOT generally eaten in the US except for the Inuits. I don't know where this tidbit of information came from that you said above but it is a misstatement of scope to say that whaling is practiced and whale meat is eaten in the US. :naughty It is akin to saying a Top Fuel Dragster race car is a "commuter special." True, if you have a need to get from point 'A' to point 'B' at 250 mph+ in a straight line but in no relation to the reality of the situation.... In fact, possession of whale meat is restricted BY LAW to those tribes that are allowed for cultural and survival reasons to take a whale during the year.
BTW - Iceland was soundly rebuffed at the IWC for wanting to resume commercial whaling and, in the end, found that they were making a LOT more money by promotoing whale-watching than they would by hunting them. Greenland is covered by Danish law and the Danes are signatory to the Whaling Convention.
Huan said:
Sorry to wade in here but.....
4 per year is a lot different than the numbers that the Japanese floated to the IWC when they stated that they were going to start taking Humpbacks again. IIRC, it is an order of magnitude smaller.
By a "healthy" population, the definition is that the population can sustain itself without a major risk of inbreeding but also one that is not so large that they are in danger of over-grazing or devastating their own food supply. That doesn't mean that there are enough to go out and start culling. A case in point would be Elk in Colorado (my home state). They used to be a "healthy population" but since humans have killed all the predators, they population has boomed to the point where, if there is a hard winter, there is a massive die-off. That is NOT a "healthy" population. There are now more elk in the state than there were in the late 1800's when the white man was just arriving in the back country looking for gold. The other side of the coin can be seen in the reintroduction of wolves. There are now a couple of places where there is a sustainable (aka "healthy") population but there are nowhere near enough to be able to open a hunting season on them.....
Huan said:
If, by referring to the "whaling that the US practices," you are referring to the allowance of 2 per year that the Inuit Indians are allowed to take, you would be correct. However, we are NOT talking about a community-based survival thing. We are talking about commercial whaling under the guise of "science." I think that is what gets the ire up of most people. Call it what it is and accept the consequences - Commercial whaling! Period. "Science" and "research" projects don't usually end up in your local corner supermarket butcher counter, neatly wrapped in white paper, weighed by the kilo and sold for general consumption.....
By the way, whale meat is NOT generally eaten in the US except for the Inuits. I don't know where this tidbit of information came from that you said above but it is a misstatement of scope to say that whaling is practiced and whale meat is eaten in the US. :naughty It is akin to saying a Top Fuel Dragster race car is a "commuter special." True, if you have a need to get from point 'A' to point 'B' at 250 mph+ in a straight line but in no relation to the reality of the situation.... In fact, possession of whale meat is restricted BY LAW to those tribes that are allowed for cultural and survival reasons to take a whale during the year.
BTW - Iceland was soundly rebuffed at the IWC for wanting to resume commercial whaling and, in the end, found that they were making a LOT more money by promotoing whale-watching than they would by hunting them. Greenland is covered by Danish law and the Danes are signatory to the Whaling Convention.
Re: Researchers: Dolphins use sponges as tools.
Okay here we go again *rolling up sleeves*
I am starting to feel like Tyson!
Firstly
When you quote me please use the whole section, don't take my words out of context.
I stated that Japan wasn't the only country taking humpbacks, and it isn't. I never said that Japan was taking 4 a year or anything to that effect.
Japan as far as I know wanted to take 44 per year out of a population that is conservatively estimated at 10,000
Is this going to affect the stock?
I think not, however I am not the biologist who assesses the humpback population, the Japanese scientific whaling programme is there for a reason.
Unless you have proof/ scientific evidence that there are too few whales to support hunting.......
It is not good enough to simply say; Hey stop that there are not enough of them and I don't like you eating whale meat.
You have to use science.
Fact: Iceland,Norway, Greenland, Faeroes, USA, Canada, Japan, Commonwealth of Grenada and St Lucia , Indonesia, Philipines, and Russia are all WHALING nations.
Whether or not the whales are taken by native people or not is irrelevant.
The people that take the whales are citizens of the country.
Don't wag your finger at me I am simply stating the truth.
It is not for you or me to decide that because the people that whale are not part of your community that your country doesn't whale.
Whether or not 2kg or 2000 kg of Whale meat is eaten is also Irrelevant.
Whale is eaten in the USA.
Greenland
Bowhead and humpback were among the species traditionally hunted in Greenland. Greenland had an IWC quota for humpback until 1985. Now, species such as pilot whale, minke whale, fin whale, harbour porpoises, narwhal and beluga are also being hunted.
The fin whale and most of the minke are hunted with boats equipped with a mounted cannon. About 50 minkes are allocated to what is called "the collective hunt", using boats with outboard motors, rifles and harpoons.
Narwhal and beluga are being hunted from kayaks and small boats, using rifles and hand-held harpoons.
Catch data:
* 179 minke whales (2004)
* 13 fin whales (2004)
* 666 narwhals (2003)
* 429 belugas (2003)
* 2317 harbour porpoises (2003)
* 195 pilot whales (2003)
The products from the hunt are shared among the crews, with a portion being sold in open-air markets, supermarkets and small stores.
The Home Rule Government of Greenland participates in the IWC as part of Denmark. Greenland participates independently in the Canada-Greenland Joint Commission on the Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga, as well as in the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO).
Iceland
After a hiatus since 1989, Iceland resumed whaling in 2003 with a take of 36 minke whales for scientific purposes. Last year, the Icelandic whalers harvested the 25 minke whales that the Government authorised. The Marine Research Institute’s proposal for this year’s hunt is 39 minke whales, but the formal decision has not yet been made.
At the IWC-meeting in 2003, Iceland submitted a two-year research program to the IWC with an annual take of 100 fin, 100 minke and 50 sei whales. The main objective is to study the whales role in the ecosystem, e.g. what they eat and how much.
One of the programme’s sub-projects involved tracking the movements of minke whales by satellite telemetry. This part of the programme is conducted in cooperation between the Marine Research Institute and the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. According to the most recent sightings survey, approximately 44,000 minke whales inhabit the Icelandic continental shelf area during the summer. Most of these animals leave Icelandic waters during autumn, but the whereabouts of the species during the winter breeding season is virtually unknown. During the period 27 August-23 September 2004 seven minke whales were instrumented with satellite transmitters in Faxaflói Bay, South West Iceland. The results of the trackings can be found here: http://www.hafro.is/images/frettir/des3allt_ens.jpg, http://www.hafro.is/images/frettir/hrefna151004_ens.jpg
Iceland left the IWC in protest in 1992, and rejoined in 2002. The membership is accompanied with a reservation to the whaling moratorium, which means that the whaling ban does not apply to Iceland. However, Iceland promised to not start commercial whaling before 2006.
Iceland’s formal instruments of adherence said: “The Government of Iceland will not authorise whaling for commercial purposes by Icelandic vessels before 2006 and, thereafter, will not authorise such whaling while progress is being made in negotiations within the IWC on the RMS.”
Further information from Iceland’s Marine Research Institute:
Iceland’s research proposal submitted to the IWC Scientific Committee, May, 2003
http://www.hafro.is/images/upload/Iceland_proposal.pdf
Research takes in 2003
http://www.hafro.is/undir_eng.php?REFID=15&ID=121&REF=2
Icelandic minke whale migrates into tropical waters
http://www.hafro.is/undir_eng.php?ID=19&nanar=1REF=3&fID=697
Okay here we go again *rolling up sleeves*
I am starting to feel like Tyson!
Firstly
When you quote me please use the whole section, don't take my words out of context.
I stated that Japan wasn't the only country taking humpbacks, and it isn't. I never said that Japan was taking 4 a year or anything to that effect.
Japan as far as I know wanted to take 44 per year out of a population that is conservatively estimated at 10,000
Is this going to affect the stock?
I think not, however I am not the biologist who assesses the humpback population, the Japanese scientific whaling programme is there for a reason.
Unless you have proof/ scientific evidence that there are too few whales to support hunting.......
It is not good enough to simply say; Hey stop that there are not enough of them and I don't like you eating whale meat.
You have to use science.
Fact: Iceland,Norway, Greenland, Faeroes, USA, Canada, Japan, Commonwealth of Grenada and St Lucia , Indonesia, Philipines, and Russia are all WHALING nations.
Whether or not the whales are taken by native people or not is irrelevant.
The people that take the whales are citizens of the country.
Don't wag your finger at me I am simply stating the truth.
It is not for you or me to decide that because the people that whale are not part of your community that your country doesn't whale.
Whether or not 2kg or 2000 kg of Whale meat is eaten is also Irrelevant.
Whale is eaten in the USA.
Greenland
Bowhead and humpback were among the species traditionally hunted in Greenland. Greenland had an IWC quota for humpback until 1985. Now, species such as pilot whale, minke whale, fin whale, harbour porpoises, narwhal and beluga are also being hunted.
The fin whale and most of the minke are hunted with boats equipped with a mounted cannon. About 50 minkes are allocated to what is called "the collective hunt", using boats with outboard motors, rifles and harpoons.
Narwhal and beluga are being hunted from kayaks and small boats, using rifles and hand-held harpoons.
Catch data:
* 179 minke whales (2004)
* 13 fin whales (2004)
* 666 narwhals (2003)
* 429 belugas (2003)
* 2317 harbour porpoises (2003)
* 195 pilot whales (2003)
The products from the hunt are shared among the crews, with a portion being sold in open-air markets, supermarkets and small stores.
The Home Rule Government of Greenland participates in the IWC as part of Denmark. Greenland participates independently in the Canada-Greenland Joint Commission on the Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga, as well as in the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO).
Iceland
After a hiatus since 1989, Iceland resumed whaling in 2003 with a take of 36 minke whales for scientific purposes. Last year, the Icelandic whalers harvested the 25 minke whales that the Government authorised. The Marine Research Institute’s proposal for this year’s hunt is 39 minke whales, but the formal decision has not yet been made.
At the IWC-meeting in 2003, Iceland submitted a two-year research program to the IWC with an annual take of 100 fin, 100 minke and 50 sei whales. The main objective is to study the whales role in the ecosystem, e.g. what they eat and how much.
One of the programme’s sub-projects involved tracking the movements of minke whales by satellite telemetry. This part of the programme is conducted in cooperation between the Marine Research Institute and the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. According to the most recent sightings survey, approximately 44,000 minke whales inhabit the Icelandic continental shelf area during the summer. Most of these animals leave Icelandic waters during autumn, but the whereabouts of the species during the winter breeding season is virtually unknown. During the period 27 August-23 September 2004 seven minke whales were instrumented with satellite transmitters in Faxaflói Bay, South West Iceland. The results of the trackings can be found here: http://www.hafro.is/images/frettir/des3allt_ens.jpg, http://www.hafro.is/images/frettir/hrefna151004_ens.jpg
Iceland left the IWC in protest in 1992, and rejoined in 2002. The membership is accompanied with a reservation to the whaling moratorium, which means that the whaling ban does not apply to Iceland. However, Iceland promised to not start commercial whaling before 2006.
Iceland’s formal instruments of adherence said: “The Government of Iceland will not authorise whaling for commercial purposes by Icelandic vessels before 2006 and, thereafter, will not authorise such whaling while progress is being made in negotiations within the IWC on the RMS.”
Further information from Iceland’s Marine Research Institute:
Iceland’s research proposal submitted to the IWC Scientific Committee, May, 2003
http://www.hafro.is/images/upload/Iceland_proposal.pdf
Research takes in 2003
http://www.hafro.is/undir_eng.php?REFID=15&ID=121&REF=2
Icelandic minke whale migrates into tropical waters
http://www.hafro.is/undir_eng.php?ID=19&nanar=1REF=3&fID=697
Re: Researchers: Dolphins use sponges as tools.
That's not very conservation-minded I think. First you have to ban. Approve only when the facts say you're not doing an irreversible damage, not the other way around.Huan said:
Re: Researchers: Dolphins use sponges as tools.
There is already a ban and the Japanese want to take some for research. They are not talking about a commercial take only a research take of 44 animals.
I don't doubt that this will be fiercely debated in this years IWC meeting in Korea.
I forecast the break up of the IWC if the anti-whaling stance of some countries is not modified.
This would open the doors to unregulated whaling which would not be desirable in my opinion.
There is already a ban and the Japanese want to take some for research. They are not talking about a commercial take only a research take of 44 animals.
I don't doubt that this will be fiercely debated in this years IWC meeting in Korea.
I forecast the break up of the IWC if the anti-whaling stance of some countries is not modified.
This would open the doors to unregulated whaling which would not be desirable in my opinion.
Re: Researchers: Dolphins use sponges as tools.
"Research" doesn't end up as a product in restaurant menus and on super market shelves.
You are playing with semantics and calling it science. I never denied that the Eskimos (Inuits) are engaging in a hunt for the purpose of eating the whale and using the rest of it for things like candles, tent skins etc.
To clothe what they are doing in the mantle of "science" is simply failing to come to terms with the facts that they are engaging in a commercial hunt.
44 Humpbacks.. and how many Minke's? and how many Bowheads? and how many...?
By the time your so-called "science" has determined that the population can no longer sustain itself due to hunting, it is too late..... Look at the Buffalo. There used to be hundreds of thousands in the wild. Now?
Since you are saying that the facts are hard to dispute, how about these?
====================
Bowhead Whale Information
The International Whaling Commission's 1991 estimate of the size of the western population of the Bowhead Whale was 7500 whales, compared with an estimated 14,000-20,000 whales prior to commercial whaling. The Eastern Arctic stock is even more seriously depleted: only about 250 whales remained in the Baffin Island area in 1991, compared with at least 11,000 in the early 1800s. The number of Bowheads in the Hudson Bay area is thought to have been much less in 1991 than in 1860, when at least 500-600 whales summered there.
Throughout the range of the species, the total population in 1991 was probably less than 10,000 whales, or about 15% of the pre-whaling abundance.
Threats
The severe depletion of the Bowhead stock by whalers is the main reason why this species is now endangered throughout the world. These whales are still harvested in Alaska. It is possible that climatic factors which influence ice conditions may also affect both the survival and the distribution of Bowhead Whales. Offshore developments in the Beaufort Sea may be an additional problem: both the traffic and the noise associated with such developments can adversely affect whale populations.
Consider that these whales give birth once every 2-3 years, it is clear that in 15 years, the stock can not have significantly increased
More Bowhead info
=====================
Whaling in the world today - Who does it and how many they take
=====================
Article on possible side effects of whaling on other species
=====================
Pure statisical info
Stats for 2003 only
=====================
Info on Gray Whales
========================
On the Pro-whaling side
Huan said:
"Research" doesn't end up as a product in restaurant menus and on super market shelves.
You are playing with semantics and calling it science. I never denied that the Eskimos (Inuits) are engaging in a hunt for the purpose of eating the whale and using the rest of it for things like candles, tent skins etc.
To clothe what they are doing in the mantle of "science" is simply failing to come to terms with the facts that they are engaging in a commercial hunt.
44 Humpbacks.. and how many Minke's? and how many Bowheads? and how many...?
By the time your so-called "science" has determined that the population can no longer sustain itself due to hunting, it is too late..... Look at the Buffalo. There used to be hundreds of thousands in the wild. Now?
Since you are saying that the facts are hard to dispute, how about these?
====================
Bowhead Whale Information
The International Whaling Commission's 1991 estimate of the size of the western population of the Bowhead Whale was 7500 whales, compared with an estimated 14,000-20,000 whales prior to commercial whaling. The Eastern Arctic stock is even more seriously depleted: only about 250 whales remained in the Baffin Island area in 1991, compared with at least 11,000 in the early 1800s. The number of Bowheads in the Hudson Bay area is thought to have been much less in 1991 than in 1860, when at least 500-600 whales summered there.
Throughout the range of the species, the total population in 1991 was probably less than 10,000 whales, or about 15% of the pre-whaling abundance.
Threats
The severe depletion of the Bowhead stock by whalers is the main reason why this species is now endangered throughout the world. These whales are still harvested in Alaska. It is possible that climatic factors which influence ice conditions may also affect both the survival and the distribution of Bowhead Whales. Offshore developments in the Beaufort Sea may be an additional problem: both the traffic and the noise associated with such developments can adversely affect whale populations.
Consider that these whales give birth once every 2-3 years, it is clear that in 15 years, the stock can not have significantly increased
More Bowhead info
=====================
Whaling in the world today - Who does it and how many they take
=====================
Article on possible side effects of whaling on other species
=====================
Pure statisical info
Stats for 2003 only
=====================
Info on Gray Whales
========================
On the Pro-whaling side
Save the Whales - so we can kill them
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1283/Japan_Save_the_Whales_So_We_Can_Kill_Them
nassty!
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1283/Japan_Save_the_Whales_So_We_Can_Kill_Them
nassty!
Whaling - Ban it or not?
Good question. I think (don't know for sure - the Grand Poobah of DB would know for sure) that either the Thread originator could change the Thread title OR The GP himself would have to do it. Might be worth tossing a shout in his direction.....
As long as the debate stays factual and doesn't devolve into personal attacks, the more the merrier!
I changed the subject of my reply but I don't know what effect it will have...
A link from an article that the WWF released today (15.06) to the news about "research" whaling in Japan
B
crusty said:
Good question. I think (don't know for sure - the Grand Poobah of DB would know for sure) that either the Thread originator could change the Thread title OR The GP himself would have to do it. Might be worth tossing a shout in his direction.....
As long as the debate stays factual and doesn't devolve into personal attacks, the more the merrier!
I changed the subject of my reply but I don't know what effect it will have...
A link from an article that the WWF released today (15.06) to the news about "research" whaling in Japan
B
Re: Whaling - Ban it or not?
It changed only my first post's title.
Summon the Grand Poobah!
Tried, failed.bdurrett said:
It changed only my first post's title.
Summon the Grand Poobah!
Re: Whaling - Ban it or not?
do you want me to change it?
i work for beers....
DeepThought said:
do you want me to change it?
i work for beers....
Re: Researchers: Dolphins use sponges as tools.
The question is, who works for less beer, you or stephan?
O, and Israeli beer is :yack IMO.
The question is, who works for less beer, you or stephan?
O, and Israeli beer is :yack IMO.
Re: Researchers: Dolphins use sponges as tools.
i think Stephan beats me on that one! do you want the title changing?
Please also... keep the debate to a debate.. and not a personal attack on anyone's questionable heritage or body part
DeepThought said:The question is, who works for less beer, you or stephan?
O, and Israeli beer is :yack IMO.
i think Stephan beats me on that one! do you want the title changing?
Please also... keep the debate to a debate.. and not a personal attack on anyone's questionable heritage or body part
Re: Researchers: Dolphins use sponges as tools.
The IWC Ban on Whaling was originally intended to run from 1986 to 1990 and the wording of the original document reflects this.
The IWC has neglected the promise that the moratorium was meant to only be a temporary measure from 1986 to 1990, and maintains the moratorium contrary to scientific advice.
As the moratorium is outdated and illegal, nations that wish to engage in commercial whaling are free to do so. Therefore they do not need the RMS. However, with no quotas established by the IWC, the whaling nations should decide catch quotas that are based on scientific findings.
Hence the need for scientific whaling.
The RMS and RMP (Revised Management Scheme and Revised management Procedure) are a scientific model designed to allow the safe harvesting of whales.The core of the RMP is a quota calculation method, which is extremely cautious and precautionary. The larger the uncertainty surrounding important biological data (such as stock size), the smaller the quota allocated. The RMP also requires monitoring of stocks by means of sighting surveys.
Scientific Advice from the IWC's own chief scientist has been ignored.
In 1993, a unanimous Scientific Committee recommended the IWC to adopt the RMP. When the IWC refused to adopt and implement it, the Chairman of the Scientific Committee, Dr Philip Hammond of the UK, resigned in protest.
"What is the point of having a Scientific Committee if its unanimous recommendations ... are treated with such contempt," Dr Hammond asks in his letter of resignation. "I can no longer justify to myself being the organiser of and spokesman for a Committee whose work is held in such disregard by the body to which it is responsible. Nor can I justify asking other members of the Committee to spend their valuable time working hard ... knowing how the results of this work may be treated. (...) I am left with no alternative, therefore, but to resign as Chairman of the Scientific Committee."
This is a very poor way to run an institution such as the IWC
It is precisely the way that anti-whaling countries are continuing that will eventually fracture the IWC which in turn will allow unregulated whaling.
Which would you prefer? A controlled harvest subject to strict quotas or high seas whaling free from any regulation or control?
This is the choice facing the IWC.
After 30 years of debate, I feel something is going to happen.
The IWC Ban on Whaling was originally intended to run from 1986 to 1990 and the wording of the original document reflects this.
The IWC has neglected the promise that the moratorium was meant to only be a temporary measure from 1986 to 1990, and maintains the moratorium contrary to scientific advice.
As the moratorium is outdated and illegal, nations that wish to engage in commercial whaling are free to do so. Therefore they do not need the RMS. However, with no quotas established by the IWC, the whaling nations should decide catch quotas that are based on scientific findings.
Hence the need for scientific whaling.
The RMS and RMP (Revised Management Scheme and Revised management Procedure) are a scientific model designed to allow the safe harvesting of whales.The core of the RMP is a quota calculation method, which is extremely cautious and precautionary. The larger the uncertainty surrounding important biological data (such as stock size), the smaller the quota allocated. The RMP also requires monitoring of stocks by means of sighting surveys.
Scientific Advice from the IWC's own chief scientist has been ignored.
In 1993, a unanimous Scientific Committee recommended the IWC to adopt the RMP. When the IWC refused to adopt and implement it, the Chairman of the Scientific Committee, Dr Philip Hammond of the UK, resigned in protest.
"What is the point of having a Scientific Committee if its unanimous recommendations ... are treated with such contempt," Dr Hammond asks in his letter of resignation. "I can no longer justify to myself being the organiser of and spokesman for a Committee whose work is held in such disregard by the body to which it is responsible. Nor can I justify asking other members of the Committee to spend their valuable time working hard ... knowing how the results of this work may be treated. (...) I am left with no alternative, therefore, but to resign as Chairman of the Scientific Committee."
This is a very poor way to run an institution such as the IWC
It is precisely the way that anti-whaling countries are continuing that will eventually fracture the IWC which in turn will allow unregulated whaling.
Which would you prefer? A controlled harvest subject to strict quotas or high seas whaling free from any regulation or control?
This is the choice facing the IWC.
After 30 years of debate, I feel something is going to happen.
Whaling - Continue the Ban or not?
One of the problems that I see (and there is genetic evidence dating back to at least 1998) is that we already HAVE illegal whaling on the high seas.
Rare whale from Iceland identified in Japan meat market via DNA fingerprinting
In addition, science has thrown a bucket of cold water on some of the "reasons" that are cited for reduction of the whale population. Whales don't eat fish, FISH eat fish!
Look Ma! No fish in MY guts!
and the very IWC Scientific committee that you quoted as being ignored is also on record as saying that the estimates that the Japanese use could be too high by a factor of 3
Bad math, bad guessing, or bad information?
"The scientific committee at the 2002 IWC meeting found that the Japanese estimate of the number of minke whales in the Southern Oceans (760,000) may be too high by a factor of three.
(Source: Animal Welfare Institute) "
Not only that, but my government is doing its fair share to kill off as many as possible by running them over with warships, representing an additional threat to survival
Damn the Cetaceans, FULL SPEED AHEAD!
Run 'em Over and let God sort 'em out - Part 2
and, if they can't run them over, they blast them out of the water using Low Freq Sonar (I was in the Navy for 10 years and I have experienced "normal" sonar at a distance of 5 miles inside the skin of a Battleship (16" thick armor, 50,000 gallons of water, about a million gallons of Marine Diesel in the fuel tanks, and 2" steel inner bulkhead between you and the water). It was still so loud that we had to wear ear plugs...) Low Freq is about 10,000 times worse
What? WHAT? I can't HEAR you!
The so-called "science" used to justify the hunt is really of dubious integrity
Science? We don't need no stinkin' science!
Finally, due to the amount of pollution that we humans have been so kind to dump into our oceans and air, it really isn't even SAFE to eat the stuff anyway....
Japanese, Faroe Islanders, etc. suffering from Mercury poisoning as result of eating whale and dolphin
and the Japanese government doesn't seem to care too awfully much...
Health Ministry Allows Sale of Mercury-contaminated Whale Meat
==================================
It is quite clear that there appears to be a lack of application of good scientific methodology on both sides of the issue and instead emotions, big money, and politics are ruling the debate. Therefore, I would tend to err to the side of caution before killing off any more of a potentially endangered species until it can be scientifically proven that the species can survive. Scientifically proven means peer-review, open publication, and honest and unbiased research, not the kind of tripe similar to that which allows big tobacco companies to fund studies regarding links between cigarettes and cancer and call it "science." "Proven Science" is NOT done by firms that are profiting by selling the meat on the market to the tune of about $1 BILLION per year (estimated profit among all "whaling nations" for last year).
Many of the larger whale species have not yet recovered from the devastating hunting that was the reason for the moratorium in the first place (See the links I posted on the bowfins previously). They calf every 2-5 years, it takes the females up to 6 and the males up to 12 years to become mature enough to reproduce (unlike humans that sometimes are NEVER mature enough to reproduce responsibly) and (consider yourselves lucky in this respect ladies), for some species, the pregnancy lasts over a year!
Next!
Huan said:
One of the problems that I see (and there is genetic evidence dating back to at least 1998) is that we already HAVE illegal whaling on the high seas.
Rare whale from Iceland identified in Japan meat market via DNA fingerprinting
In addition, science has thrown a bucket of cold water on some of the "reasons" that are cited for reduction of the whale population. Whales don't eat fish, FISH eat fish!
Look Ma! No fish in MY guts!
and the very IWC Scientific committee that you quoted as being ignored is also on record as saying that the estimates that the Japanese use could be too high by a factor of 3
Bad math, bad guessing, or bad information?
"The scientific committee at the 2002 IWC meeting found that the Japanese estimate of the number of minke whales in the Southern Oceans (760,000) may be too high by a factor of three.
(Source: Animal Welfare Institute) "
Not only that, but my government is doing its fair share to kill off as many as possible by running them over with warships, representing an additional threat to survival
Damn the Cetaceans, FULL SPEED AHEAD!
Run 'em Over and let God sort 'em out - Part 2
and, if they can't run them over, they blast them out of the water using Low Freq Sonar (I was in the Navy for 10 years and I have experienced "normal" sonar at a distance of 5 miles inside the skin of a Battleship (16" thick armor, 50,000 gallons of water, about a million gallons of Marine Diesel in the fuel tanks, and 2" steel inner bulkhead between you and the water). It was still so loud that we had to wear ear plugs...) Low Freq is about 10,000 times worse
What? WHAT? I can't HEAR you!
The so-called "science" used to justify the hunt is really of dubious integrity
Science? We don't need no stinkin' science!
Finally, due to the amount of pollution that we humans have been so kind to dump into our oceans and air, it really isn't even SAFE to eat the stuff anyway....
Japanese, Faroe Islanders, etc. suffering from Mercury poisoning as result of eating whale and dolphin
and the Japanese government doesn't seem to care too awfully much...
Health Ministry Allows Sale of Mercury-contaminated Whale Meat
==================================
It is quite clear that there appears to be a lack of application of good scientific methodology on both sides of the issue and instead emotions, big money, and politics are ruling the debate. Therefore, I would tend to err to the side of caution before killing off any more of a potentially endangered species until it can be scientifically proven that the species can survive. Scientifically proven means peer-review, open publication, and honest and unbiased research, not the kind of tripe similar to that which allows big tobacco companies to fund studies regarding links between cigarettes and cancer and call it "science." "Proven Science" is NOT done by firms that are profiting by selling the meat on the market to the tune of about $1 BILLION per year (estimated profit among all "whaling nations" for last year).
Many of the larger whale species have not yet recovered from the devastating hunting that was the reason for the moratorium in the first place (See the links I posted on the bowfins previously). They calf every 2-5 years, it takes the females up to 6 and the males up to 12 years to become mature enough to reproduce (unlike humans that sometimes are NEVER mature enough to reproduce responsibly) and (consider yourselves lucky in this respect ladies), for some species, the pregnancy lasts over a year!
Next!