On December 19, 2007 Australia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Honourable Stephen Smith, issued a joint media release with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Peter Garrett.
The release states that "Australia strongly believes that there is no credible scientific justification for the hunting of whales and is opposed to all commercial and 'scientific' whaling" and notes that "the Australian Government will step up efforts to end this senseless and brutal practice, using a range of diplomatic, legal and monitoring and surveillance initiatives" that "the Government is giving serious consideration to a range of options for international legal action against Japan" and that "the Government will develop its own proposal for improving and modernising the IWC, which will include closing the loophole that allows for scientific whaling."
In the proper context of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) and the International Whaling Commission (IWC) these comments of the Government of Australia are provocative and absurd. The fact is that the ICRW is about properly managing the whaling industry by regulating catch quotas at levels so that whale stocks will not be diminished. The Convention is not about protecting all whales irrespective of their abundance.
Further, the fact that Australia was a whaling country when it agreed to and signed the ICRW and subsequently changed its position to an anti-whaling position following the closure of its industry in the 1970s does not change the Convention. If Australia can no longer agree to the Convention it should withdraw rather than subvert its purpose. Smith and Garrett can ignore these facts but they cannot change them.
Australia together with other anti-whaling members of the IWC have sacrificed the principles of science-based management and sustainable use that are the world standard (and supported by Australia in other international fora and for the management of their own resources) as a political expediency to satisfy the interests of non-government organizations.
This has made the IWC dysfunctional and threatens much-needed international cooperation required to properly manage and conserve all marine resources.
It is of considerable concern therefore that Australia's stepped up efforts to end commercial and scientific whaling will undermine the work of the current IWC Chairman (William Hogarth of the United States) to resolve the dysfunctional nature of the organization and return it to its proper functioning as a resource management organization.
Japan's whaling is not "senseless and brutal". Neither is it illegal in any way. The most recent review of Japan's research whaling program in the Antarctic by the IWC's Scientific Committee in December 2006 concluded that "the dataset provides a valuable resource to allow investigation of some aspects of the role of whales within the marine ecosystem and that this has the potential to make an important contribution to the Scientific Committee's work in this regard as well as the work of other relevant bodies such as the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources". The Scientific Committee also agreed to its earlier (1997) conclusion that the results from the research program "have the potential to improve management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere".
The suggestion of Smith and Garrett that somehow Japan's whale research program is a violation of international law and that Japan is not acting in accordance with its international treaty obligations is totally without foundation. Article VIII of the ICRW unequivocally provides the right of members of the IWC to kill whales for research purposes and further states that "the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention." Conversely, the fact that the Government of Australia has publicly stated that it no longer accepts the terms of the ICRW and yet continues to participate in the IWC is a self indictment that it has failed to meet its legal obligation to interpret and implement its treaty obligations in good faith.
Finally, Smith and Garrett note that "Australia values its extensive and mutually beneficial relationship with Japan" and that "as in any close relationship there are some issues on which we cannot agree". In the face of this disagreement on whaling, Australia's determination "to play a leading role in international efforts to stop Japan's whaling practices" is arrogant and an insult to Japanese people and their culture.
A more constructive approach with less media hype is needed.
Keiichi NAKAJIMA
President, Japan Whaling Association
28 December 2007
"especially if it can be weighted towards males and post breeding females"
And how do you propose this happens? Oh that's right, tag and sex animals and track them to maturity. Now how many pregnant and resting female minkes made up JARPA II's 2006/2007 hunt Ian???
"And the current harvesting activity appears to have produced no evidence of a reluctance on their part to allow tour boats to get close to them."
Give us evidence for this please. You have made a statement about Southern Hemisphere minkes. Are you talking dwarf or Antarctic minkes Ian, and tour operations on the GBR or in Antarctic waters? What methods were used to assess whether targeted species had become boat shy or not? Who made this assessment?
"In any event, it is illegal for tour operators to get close to any whales so that is a total non-issue."
What???
Yeah, right, a Master Seargent, as you have this pathetic need to continually advise us that you were, was privy to the detailed nuances of policy at the Pentagon. You are a legend in your own lunchtime.
The term Whale Wankers was obviously a general reference. If anyone chooses to include themselves in that category it is their own choice.
The reason why an examination of current cost/volume/profit relationships in the whale industry is totally fatuous is that volume is restricted by regulation without any regard for the actual size of the Minke or Humpback population. The Minke population is generally accepted to be well above 700,000 so an annual harvest of 900 is only 0.128 of 1%.
And given the life cycle and reproduction rates of these animals, an annual harvest of 1%, especially if it can be weighted towards males and post breeding females, would produce only a minor reduction in the rate of population growth.
And given that a large portion of current costs are of a fixed or overhead nature, any increase in volume will substantially reduce the proportion of overhead costs that must be covered by each whale. Ergo, the cost per animal will decline and any need for state support will rapidly disappear. It is the simplest of Management Analysis 101, but apparently beyond the wit of anti-whalers.
It also seems to have escaped the keen intellects of the whale wallies that there is currently only minimal reliance by the whale watching industry on Minkes. And the current harvesting activity appears to have produced no evidence of a reluctance on their part to allow tour boats to get close to them. In any event, it is illegal for tour operators to get close to any whales so that is a total non-issue.
But have fun with your boycott, Moebus. Readers can view for themselves, from your previous posts, exactly where all the off-topic raving is sourced from.
Yeah, right, a Master Seargent, as you have this pathetic need to continually advise us that you were, was privy to the detailed nuances of policy at the Pentagon. You are a legend in your own lunchtime.
The term Whale Wankers was obviously a general reference. If anyone chooses to include themselves in that category it is their own choice.
The reason why an examination of current cost/volume/profit relationships in the whale industry is totally fatuous is that volume is restricted by regulation without any regard for the actual size of the Minke or Humpback population. The Minke population is generally accepted to be well above 700,000 so an annual harvest of 900 is only 0.128 of 1%.
And given the life cycle and reproduction rates of these animals, an annual harvest of 1%, especially if it can be weighted towards males and post breeding females, would produce only a minor reduction in the rate of population growth.
And given that a large portion of current costs are of a fixed or overhead nature, any increase in volume will substantially reduce the proportion of overhead costs that must be covered by each whale. Ergo, the cost per animal will decline and any need for state support will rapidly disappear. It is the simplest of Management Analysis 101, but apparently beyond the wit of anti-whalers.
It also seems to have escaped the keen intellects of the whale wallies that there is currently only minimal reliance by the whale watching industry on Minkes. And the current harvesting activity appears to have produced no evidence of a reluctance on their part to allow tour boats to get close to them. In any event, it is illegal for tour operators to get close to any whales so that is a total non-issue.
But have fun with your boycott, Moebus. Readers can view for themselves, from your previous posts, exactly where all the off-topic raving is sourced from.
Ian Mott wrote: “Meanwhile back on topic, you guys had best swat up on peak oil and the likely impact on food production and prices before you go making half baked pronunciamentos on the economics of whale meat. The economic $hit has only just begun to hit the fan and the current view in some quarters that there are ample alternatives to whale meat is likely to be way off the mark.”
Back on-topic. I know all about Peak Oil, Mr Mott. It is, in fact, exactly why the Terror Event of September 11 happened: to provide a pretext for the United States to establish a large scale military presence in the Middle East and South West Asia so as to be able to have direct military control over 70-80% of the known remaining easy-to-get-to oil reserves on this planet. And if Team Cheney hadn’t succeeded in doing it, someone else would have been sent to DC to do it.
How do I know all that? Why, because I’m a retired US Army Master Sergeant who spent a little bit of time back in the early 90s doing Military, Political, and Economic Threat Analysis and Long-Term Strategic Planning for the Boys in Green up in the Pentagon and their bosses, the rich white guys in suits. And, more importantly, because I know how to play Connect-The-Dots.
So there are two time frames within which to consider the “economics of whale meat,” are there not? There is the economics of whale meat NOW (about which you steadfastly refuse to provide any date or facts), and there is it at some point in the future, when the “$hit hits the fan” (clever...I like that...Bu$h....$eptember 11...the po$$ibilitie$ are endle$$) (about which you cannot provide any data or facts, but about which there may be projections from who knows who’s think tanks). And so, other than to make noise, your point is what?
Apparently, Mr Mott, you are now asserting that Japan (and Norway, etc) is in fact providing a service to humanity by keeping alive the whale meat procurement industry for the time coming in the not-too-distant-future when we hairless hominids will need to be able to eat the whales to extinction in order to be able to survive the oil crash that will, in turn, kill off domesticated animal sources of protein? Is that your rain/reign/drain/train of thought?
And that the Japanese pro-whaling lobby’s (I’m not smart, Cassandra, but I am trainable) pending overthrow of the ban and bar on commercial whaling is in fact a boon to mankind that will be, in time, recognized for the great humanitarian act that it is, and will ultimately earn the ICR the Nobel Peace Prize at some point in the future? Is that what you are indeed saying?
Hmmmm. Interesting hypothesis. Let me give you one more chance to be an active participant in the pursuit and propagation of actually factually demonstrated Truth, as opposed to mere Propaganda and Power: before going any further, do you agree that, at this time on this Blog, your assertion is nothing BUT a hypothesis and not a statement of fact? Do you agree to that? Yes or No?
I am almost afraid to ask this, based on recent personal experience, but: do you have ANY information, data, facts, evidence, or proof to back up this assertion? ANY whatsoever? Or, like the Man Behind The Curtain, is it just that The Great Mott Has Spoken?
By the way, I thought Peak Oil was just another enviro-whacko leftist smokescreen to justify the seizure of more power by the State. Sort of like Global Warming.
Ooops. Guess what happened? With Peak Oil as the driving force, since September 11, your kind of people have succeeded in pulling off the biggest grab for government power on this planet since Stalin’s Russia in the 20s, Hitler’s Germany and Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 30s, and Mao’s China in then 40s. No wonder you are so smited with Peak Oil.
JG Moebus
S/V WayFinder
Half Moon Bay, CA
Mr Mott. Why don't you provide a community service to those of us who are new to your realm, and tell us exactly WHICH posts on this blog have "thoroughly debunked" assertions that whale slaughter is not a threat to whale watching. Exactly where can we go to find this alleged de-bunking, and how do we get there? As Libby says, perhaps a second opinion is in order. A little de-Bunking of the de-bunkers, anyone?
Thank you for your assistance.
JG Moebus
"And the guff about the whale watching industry being threatened by whaling has been thoroughly debunked in past posts on this blog."
In your mind perhaps Ian. Readers might like to make up their own minds, particularly from other sources.
CORRECTION TO: PS to MOTT BOYCOTT
The Mott Blog URL is:
http://ianmott.blogspot.com/
I keep forgetting about those damn periods.
Sorry.
Jeff
Cassandra? Don't..... at least not until you have read this:
PS to The Proposed MOTT BOYCOTT
Whereas Mr Ian Mott is apparently uncontrollably driven to continue to attempt to deflect genuine rational discourse, analysis, and exploration of the issues presented on this Blog by various means including but not limited to ad hominid (sic) attacks, “red herrings,” straw man and/or woman “arguments” and other tricks of the trade, as well as distortions, omissions, obfuscations, overt falsifications, insults, and other sundry and sundering off-topic plots and ploys of one whose objective is not information and knowledge, but propaganda and power; and,
Whereas it is, for some of us, actually fun (albeit in a probably adolescently perverse and certainly positively “wankerish” sort of way, as pointed out by the esteemed Lady Cassandra) to play Word Games with the Ian Motts of the world when we have absolutely nothing of any use to anybody else on the planet with which to occupy our time and attention;
It is hereby Proposed that any and all further responses to any and all further above-cited bellowings and belches of Mr Ian Mott NOT be posted to this, Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog, but to Mr Ian Mott’s Blog, found at: http://ianmott.blogspot.com/.
It is further hereby proposed that, unless and until Mr Mott creates an article on his Blog entitled something like, say, "Reactions and Responses To My Off-Topic Blatherings, Bellowings, and Belches On Jennifer Marohasy’s BlogSite," that all Comments that would come under this Subject be posted to the currently most current article on Mr Mott’s Blog: “New perspectives on temperature change,” dated July 20, 2007.
The first such Comment has been posted to the Mott Blog by the undersigned on 07 JAN 08. It is Comment #2 to the original Blog post.
Respectfully submitted for your Consideration and Appropriate Action on 6 January 2008, 2115 UCT, by your faithful servant, Jeffrey G. Moebus, Master Sergeant, U.S. Army (Retired) aka S/V WayFinder, Half Moon Bay, California, USA.
"And the guff about the whale watching industry being threatened by whaling has been thoroughly debunked in past posts on this blog.
Whale wankers have this overwhelming desire to simply and dumb down consideration of the issues."
--Am I to believe these statements are directed to me? If so, than you certainly have not taken the time to read the music before you began tooting your horn.
Moebus, the people I know who have served their country would cringe at the boorish manner in which you seem to believe that your record of service is all that is needed to negate someone else's opinion. And it is out of respect for them, and the potential for collateral damage, that I refrain from dismembering your pathetic conceit.
Meanwhile back on topic, you guys had best swat up on peak oil and the likely impact on food production and prices before you go making half baked pronunciamentos on the economics of whale meat. The economic $hit has only just begun to hit the fan and the current view in some quarters that there are ample alternatives to whale meat is likely to be way off the mark.
And the guff about the whale watching industry being threatened by whaling has been thoroughly debunked in past posts on this blog.
Whale wankers have this overwhelming desire to simply and dumb down consideration of the issues. And for someone so blatantly leftist like Moebus to try wrapping himself in a veneer of gonzo economic rationalism indicates a remarkable capacity for hypocrisy.