There is never anything very subtle or civil in Australia's approach to whaling. As a rich nation with politicians used to pandering to 'Greens' we are quite prepared to threaten and cajole to make our point on this issue which is simply that it is wrong to kill whales.
As a nation we never bother to explain why we believe it is wrong to kill whales or really attempt to understand why Japan, Iceland and Norway see things a bit differently.
Our media simply reports the rantings of our Environment Minister. Just today he was reported in our national daily newspaper, The Australian, telling the world that:
"countries that supported Japan would be outed and shamed", and
Pacific Island nations that support whaling should expect tourist boycotts, and
Japan's plan to expand its scientific program to include humpback was a "disgraceful tactic".
There was no comment from the Japanese government in the article. I am sure it would have been forthcoming if only the journalist had asked.
Japan's position is rarely reported in the Australian media and there is rarely any analysis of why Australia and Japan hold such different positions.
I've ponder why Japan, Norway and Iceland are so determined to continue whaling. On the eve of the 58th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) I will float one idea.
Japan and Iceland, in particular, are nations that have traditionally looked to the sea for their food. They are nations with research institutions that study whales and how many fish they eat. They have scientists who recognise that whales are potentially competition for food.
Consider the following statistics from the chapter by Tsutoma Tamura in 'Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem' published by CABI in 2003:
"Total annual prey consumption by the cetaceans of the world (whales, porpoises and dolphins) was estimated to be at least 249-434 million tonnes ... fish consumption by cetaceans in the southern hemisphere including the Indian Ocean was estimated to be 18-23 million tonnes and equated to 66-120 percent of the commercial fisheries catches in 1996. In the North Pacific, fish consumption was estimated to be 21-31 million tonnes, equivalent to 67-99 percent of commercial fisheries catches in 1996. In the North Atlantic, the fish consumption by cetaceans was 15-25 million tonnes, equivalent to 87-144 percent of commercial fisheries catches in 1996.
There was probably direct competition between cetaceans and commercial fisheries in the North Pacific and the North Atlantic."
Here's part of one of the many tables from the same report:
The numbers refer to millions of tonne per year based on estimates of daily prey consumption from average body weight (method 1). This is the most conservative of the three methods for estimating "prey consumption".
I am not suggesting that Japan or Iceland should be able to slaughter whales because they eat fish nor that the main reason that Iceland and Japan undertake 'scientific' whaling is because they see whales as competition for fish.
But let's try and understand the potential impact that whales have within marine ecosystems and lets also try and understand how this might influence how some of our neighbours and some of our friends see whales.
I think its odd. Anyway for my science coursework GCSE I need to gather infomation I want a pie chart or graph to show the amount of whale meat eaten compared to other meats eaten during 1955. Anybody have any or know any sites/links?
"The overwhelming evidence now is that Japan intends to indefinitely expand its unregulated whaling, as the major whale populations recover."
Leaving aside the "unregulated" rhetoric, the above statement is essentially correct. As whale populations recover, we can expect that whaling will be expanded (as long as markets for products can be found). This point is made in preamble of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling itself.
But just add in the extra spice of "unregulated" (which is due to the IWC's failure to do otherwise, something Mr. Holt could tell us more about), and those who know little of the issue have now had negative images implanted into their consciousness. It's fantastic propaganda - 10 out of 10.
"I have concluded that the authorities and commercial interests in Japan do not wish the moratorium on commercial whaling to be lifted, because conducting commercial whaling under Special permits for ostensibly scientific purposes is more convenient."
This part is not very clever at all, unless of course the intention is simply to reinforce the negative image created by talk of expanding "unregulated whaling". This propaganda is less effective as it's likely that this theory will be unceremoniously relegated to the dustbin, and the anti-whalers will revert to other methods of vilification. 5 out of 10 for good short term impact, but ultimately propaganda that will in time become obsolete will only shatter one's analytical credibility.
People who wish to learn about the true intentions of the Japanese can think for themselves about where they might get a genuine, accurate perspective. One thing is for certain - it won't be through reading commentary from one of histories most prominent and evidently still dedicated anti-whalers.