There has been much discussion about whaling at his blog and some discussion about why the Japanese continue to hunt whales in the name of research.
It is a very foreign and offensive concept to many of us in countries like Australia even though, we had our own whaling fleets not so many years ago.
Yesterday I was sent a link to a recent story in the Japan Times explaining that despite efforts from surfers and local residents about 50 melon-headed whales were recent stranded and died in Chiba Prefecture.
The newspaper article goes on to explain that some of the dead mammals were examined by experts to try to learn the cause of death, while the remaining were to be buried in the town.
I have heard about whale cemeteries in Japan. And one reader of this blog has told me how he attended a buddhist ceremonies in Nagato where thanks was given to whales that had been killed through whaling, as well as those foetuses that have been found in pregnant females.
The ceremony also included the naming of these foetuses in a book.
Whales and whaling evidently has a deep cultural resonance in at least some parts of modern Japan.
Good question, Phil. Do you have time for the 40 page document or the Sunday night top of the head job?
The first step should be to scrap the definition of clearing, being the cutting or otherwise destroying any tree. This approach of defining all tree destruction as clearing and then implementing a range of exemptions has clearly failed.
It should be replaced by a definition based on material change of vegetation. At present, a guy with 3 million trees, that he may even have regenerated himself, can get busted for cutting one tree without the right exemption. A "material change" based definition would obviously have an element of scale so the guy with only 5 trees on 500 hectares will be deemed to be clearing if he cuts one down while the guy with 3 million trees would be deemed to be clearing when the total area covered by canopy has been reduced by 20% or where the proportion of canopy cover has been reduced by 51%.
And it would be a cumulative question of fact. So a person who removes all trees from 5% of his land each year for 3 years would then be advised that 5% more would constitute clearing for which, depending on the status of the regional vegetation, may require consent. The landowners options would then be, apply on merits or regenerate some more forest elsewhere.
We should go back to the Regional Vegetation Management Planning process and fill it with real stakeholders who actually reflect the communities in those regions. We should consider each issue on a proper, state of the science, basis with positions presented by the major players. And with formal right of reply on each point.
The process needs to distinguish between statements of perception or opinion and formal inputs of fact to the policy process. It should distinguish between uncontested fact, contested claim of fact, accepted assumption, contested assumption, and identify the person, or persons, who will accept responsibility for it's introduction to the process.
The implementation of measures must comply with the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment and it's requirement for full and proper consideration of all relevant matters to develop proportionate measures to address the realistic assessment of risks in the particular region.
These assessments would need to assess the rate of new remnant creation and clearly identify past remnant creation so the rate of clearing can be seen in the context of total flux, over time.
And the veg mapping process must be properly funded and subject to fully transparent assessment and consultation with forest owner prior to completion of the map.
Nuffsaidfornow.
Apologies to all for keeping off thread - but we're having an interview here with Ian on an issue of some import - just go around us.