Whale wars thinking

I will start by disclosing that I am basically ambivalent about whaling. I only care about two things (1) that healthy and sustainable whale non-endangered populations exist, and (2) if hunting must occur, that it be done in as humane a way as possible.

I've been trying to get my head around this show, and it seems that the fundamental issue most people have about it is that the Japanese are perpetrating a bogus research program for profit. I think there are a lot of reasons why this makes no sense, the primary being that since the IWC is voluntary, why the charade?

However, back to the research.

There seems to be an aspect of the Japanese research program that doesn't get discussed or considered by the casual observer. Why the lethal sampling?

From what I have come to understand, the stomach contents tell them what their diet consists of. They can use that data to determine to what degree the Minke whales are directly competing with other whale populations for food. This knowledge may help improve endangered whale stocks.

They sample reproductive organs to determine how fast the Minke population is growing. The Minke population has been estimated to be between 200,000 and 400,000 whales... so the research take is only 1/4 to 1/2 a percent.

They sample every year because trend data is the most valuable data... data over longer periods of time are also the most powerful for creating statistical models that are used to understand the dynamics of these populations.

Finding the balance between a healthy population and an allowable take is the goal. This can only be done with a clear understanding of population dynamics, which can only be found with a long-term scientific study. This can't be figured out by guessing.

And in the long-term endangered species may benefit. Many whale species are endangered due to over-hunting over the past century while Minkes were ignored. Nature abhors a vacuum Minke whales no doubt filled that niche.

We have admittedly knocked the system out of whack, but we need to work with the situation as it is now. How much does the Minke population directly compete with endangered species? This can only be determined by a scientific research program. Can endangered populations recover absent man's intervention? If you leave it to mother nature, you're rolling the dice.

I'm ambivalent about whaling, but if given the choice between a controlled commercial program that culls Minkes and creates a situation that endangered populations are allowed to recover, I'll take it. Certainly over leaving it to chance.

I recognize this is unsatisfying to those who place a high value on individual animals, but healthy sustainable populations are what is important over time.

What disturbs me is that Sea Shepherd have obtained the mantle of leaders on this issue. They just happen to have a TV program where they pretend to intervene on the whales' behalf. It is very dramatic. Unfortunately, as much as Paul Watson disparages them, there are organizations doing unglamorous work and don't get nearly the funds, yet are are more likely to affect whales in the long term than Sea Shepherd ever can. You can't really put the violence genie back in the bottle and expect to have a rational discourse about a controversial issue. I don't care what Sea Shepherd says, hurling bottles of unknown liquids (unknown to the Japanese) and ramming ships are violent acts; intent is irrelevant.

This is really too bad because whales are best served by a cooperative environment where interested parties can have frank discussions using science to determine the best course of action for the whales. This takes time; people are impatient. Watson doesn't believe in diplomacy, but diplomacy still works. Watson always says that he's been doing this for 30 years. That is pretty damning if you ask me, because it clearly shows how ineffective they've been at accomplishing meaningful change.

So it's sad, because people will give money to Sea Shepherd out of ignorance because they're caught up in this "direct action' nonsense, and violence may rule the day, and whales will lose.

That doesn't mean I give the Japanese a pass. I think their research program should be held accountable, but I also think that accountability and transparency is nearly impossible while Sea Shepherd is on the prowl. The Japanese are open to negotiation, although they make it clear their ultimate goal is hunting a sustainable whale population (presently I have no problem with that concept)... however they are open to peaceful measures...

http://www.sunjournal.com/node/101153


That's my thoughts... sorry if this issue has already been hammered into the ground.

and Japan has repeatedly ignored bans on whaling by the International Whaling Commission, yet no one seems to give a damn.

Maybe you have a better idea than "direct action nonsense"?

We were both horrified as we watched them kill those whales. How many times did the Japanese crewman shoot that one whale with that shotgun? That one whale suffered for over 35 mins!

The video clearly shows them doing no such weighing of stomach contents as they claim they are doing. All they did was process that whale meat and toss all the organs over the side of the boat.

The Sea Shepherd needs to equip their vessel with one of those powerful water guns like the Japanese have but have it flood the Japanese Whaling ships decks with that butyric acid that they toss over in the bottles. The bottles seems to be quite ineffective.

Question?

Are the not allowed to drop the butyric acid from the helicopter? They need to find a better way to utilize it's use

In an earlier episode Watson is seen telling the crew that they can only attack from the RIBs, not the Steve Irwin or the Netherlands could pull their registration. That is a big hairy deal in maritime law and could ground the SSCS. However the teaser for the next episode showed them attacking from the Steve Irwin, and I believe that they still have their Dutch registry.

As for dropping things from the helo...that would be even more risky. The Japanese would then be justified in shooting at it, even if its manned. It doesn't take much of a hit to take out a civilian helo like that. Makes for great footage, but even Watson won't risk that. Besides the LRADs seems to be more than capable of keeping it away from the ships.

The last episode I have seen is Crazy Ivan. While watching, it occurred to me that the Japanese tactics looked improvised and unplanned. They missed a number of opportunities to take the Steve Irwin out of the fight. With a little forethought and coordination they could easily have prop fouled the Steve Irwin during the small boat recovery. Its not a mistake I would expect them to make next year. Watson is really going to have to up his game to have any effect and he is also going to have to think defensively. Clearly the whalers are not just going to run anymore,

Direct non-violent action against illegal whaling by the Japanese in Australia's whale sanctuary.

The Dali Lama supports Sea Shepherd and he is as non-violent as they get. Richard Dean Anderson of MacGyver and Stargate SG-1 fame is on Sea Shepherd's board of directors. The late Steve Irwin was planning on sailing with Captain Watson before he died and Irwin's wife gave Watson permission to name his ship after her late husband.

I can't sail with Captain Watson, but I can help fund his campaign against illegal whaling and I will continue to financially support him as long as I have a job.

I beached a whale once, but it is a rather inappropriate story.......probally against international law as well.

That is what it means if they resign. (I wasn't sure you'd made the point about the consequences clear enough.)

... because if they didn't care, they'd just drop out.

All I personally _want_ are healthy, sustainable, non-endangered whale populations. Given the fact that the system is so disturbed, I don't think that leaving it to nature will necessarily yield the desired result of bringing endangered species back to their original prominence.

Those who eat it are literally poisoning themselves.

I listened to Captain Watson's interview on Treehugger radio yesterday. He said that Japanese whaling industry is now very dependent upon the Japanese government because Sea Shepherd, despite this years' whaling done in front of them, still managed to make the Japanese whaling fleet to miss their quota and the whaling industry is losing money. Watson thinks the end is near for the Japanese whaling fleet. He also said that whaling is NOT native to Japan. It was introduce by General MacArthur.

I'm sure that weather, sea conditions, and plain luck as a lot to do with it as well.

Watson has been caught in numerous lies. For instance, on the program he claims that the Minke whales are worth $250,000 and Fin whales are $1,000,000. The Japanese can't make a profit when they take 400-600 whales? In fact the Government only has to subsidize them for $12 million? The numbers don't add up.

He's been quoted as saying a good strategy for dealing with the press is to make numbers up if you don't know them. That's the way to run a conservation program. I favor science, study designs, statistical models, and a plan.


You're point about the mercury content is certainly a good reason not to eat whale meat. I don't know anything about that side of it. I've never eaten it, and try to eat seafood from sustainable sources (I carry a list in my pocket to help me remember). However, that doesn't solve the problem that Minkes outnumber endangered species by orders of magnitude. I don't believe these endangered populations automatically return to previous prominence by letting mother nature take the wheel.

the only whaling is done by Native American and Inuit groups, who don't kill thousands of whales a year for a commercial market.

Whale meat along with other ocean fish are contaminated by mercury, so maybe the Mother Nature is exacting revenge against those who eat whales. We put the mercury in the oceans and those who eat whale meat and consume lots of ocean fish are getting mercury poisoning. Stephanie Miller can tell you about that.

But I fell off my chair and snorted coffee on the carpet.

Thanks!:toast:

Or gullibility.

Yeah. The Japanese whalers are harvesting a thousand whales each year because they want "a controlled commercial program that culls Minkes and creates a situation that endangered populations are allowed to recover ..."

Or ... your "ambivalence" is just a fig leaf for what you really mean: "... they make it clear their ultimate goal is hunting a sustainable whale population (presently I have no problem with that concept) ...

Well, whatever you are, you're certainly no environmentalist.

I see and feel positives and negatives. This is reflected in my post.

I have an unglamorous 16-year career and three degrees in disturbance ecology and natural resources that I'll put up against Watson's 30-years of "direct action" non-progress any day. I've done research that's actually changed laws and behavior. I know one thing from that experience. Taking your hand off the tiller and letting mother nature do her thing, doesn't necessarily result in your desired end-product.

Hence my ambivalence about whaling. I'd be happy if they ended it tomorrow... just recognize that some of these threatened and endangered species may not return to pre-whaling prominance if Minke populations outnumber them by orders of magnitude.

It's too bad Sea Shepherd has poisoned the well and made the whole situation as insular and uncooperative as they possibly can.

They have kept the issue public, and that alone is palpable progress. Hard to know for sure, but IMO several species would be extinct by now.

Sea Shepherd are not leaders, they're goons... well meaning, but goons none the less.

And the initial responses to a reasonable argument were personal attacks... so I'm not sure everyone is interested in having a discussion on science.

- If you criticize Watson, you support whaling
- Its not possible to oppose Watson and whaling at the same time.
- Greenpeace are collaborators.

Its easy to take such childish positions on the Internet where the real world seldom if ever interjects.

Americans are still resolute (an admirable trait), but now they're inflexible and uncompromising... and worse, if they can't have something their way they'd just as soon make impossible for anyone to have it another. There are a lot of hard decisions being made these days being made with emotional rather than cold logic.

It is/was/might be one of the traits in Obama that I was so drawn to... but with this health care derision (death camps?) actually working.

Sigh.

Good luck whales.

> Americans are still resolute (an admirable trait), but now they're
> inflexible and uncompromising

Interesting to note that you only think those traits have occurred recently.

> It is/was/might be one of the traits in Obama that I was so drawn to

...

> but with this health care derision (death camps?) actually working.

...

At least you're consistent: happy to spout the GOP lies whilst pretending
to be "drawn to" Obama and happy to spout the pro-whaling lies whilst
pretending to be an environmentalist ...

:shrug:

Politeness (and the DU rules) restrain me from pointing out precisely where
your kind of consistency frequently originates.

I'm infuriated about the people tearing down the an honest health care debate with the asinine claims that Obama wants death camps. I have quite a bit of admiration for Obama and hope he sticks to his guns. Health care is a huge problem and some very careful thought needs to be done... but there are people more interested in polarizing parties than solving problems.


In fact, people don't seem capable of rational debate anymore. They just call you names, compare you to a nazi, or attack your character and move along... as you do with your passive aggressive "politeness" that prevents you from using certain words to inaccurately paint me but couldn't bring yourself to... how big of you.


Ecologically, my points have scientific merit, although there are tons of unknowns. I readily admit the Japanese have a conflict of interest, which is why I say their research should be scrutinized, but no one else is funding the research.

Fundamentally, there's merit to human involvement in balancing whale populations. No one here has bothered to make any real counterpoint to my original post, just character comments.

...and how that might impact the recovery of endangered species.

The concern seems legitimate, however it requires a fair investment of time to gain the necessary skills to evaluate whether the next part, the need for lethal research, is accurate. Given that most here don't have that skill set, what sort of response do you expect from people who think killing whales is like murder?

I've read a fair amount on the topic and it is the first time I've heard this specific rationale. May I ask how you learned or and came to be interested in representing this point of view?

I personally agree that Watson's actions are extremely counter-productive; however I do not wish to see research whaling continued or commercial whaling resumed. Since I haven't the expertise to validate the argument you make, I have to admit that perhaps it really is necessary. If so, I'd expect the proponents of that position to make their case before the IWC and that the decision to conduct lethal research whaling be a joint decision of the entire body's scientific committee. As it stands, the decision to conduct this whaling is a unilateral one arrived at by Japan in response to heavy handed pressure from the West to cease commercial whaling. On the surface that certainly creates the impression that the position you advocate is post-hoc 'scientific' rationalization designed to support what is actually a political decision to continue whaling.

On your side you could argue that the existence of such a conflict-of-interest doesn't invalidate the need, if that need is real. To which I again reply that the best way to remove even an appearance of political conflict-of-interest would be for the entire body of the IWC to recommend a plan supporting this research. But the majority of the IWC is aligned with the anti-whaling interests, you say? So Japan's proposal wouldn't be judged on its merits, you say?

Isn't that objection a little self serving? Caring for the whales, wanting an end to whaling on ethical grounds and good science are not mutually exclusive propositions. I know a cetacean expert who had to euthanize a beached whale recently. If there is a genuine need for lethal research I feel certain she would not hesitate to support it. However, she wouldn't support window dressing - and she would know the difference. I think she is probably fairly representative of most people qualified to judge a proposal for lethal research based on the reasons you articulated.

For my part I think a blurb from the Japanese Whaling Association's FAQ website is very telling not only about why the approach used by Watson is counter productive, but also what the real hurdle is in changing Japanese public opinion to one that leads to the end of all whaling by Japan.


I've considerable experience in Japan and I've discussed this issue with literally hundreds of Japanese from all walks of life. I think the underlined parts of this FAQ response represent very nearly universally held beliefs among the Japanese. All the parts that aren't underlined are thin, petulant excuses often offered by people trying to publicly defend whaling. Most of the people really don't believe or don't care about those excuses, however, they still believe strongly that the underlined parts are true.

What I'd love to see would be a mass peaceful rally of foreigner's and the Japanese who are opposed to whaling on the basis of the ethical belief stated in the FAQ question above. This belief explicitly stated is that: "We believe killing whales is a violation of the social taboo against murder."

Then we should apologize for trying to force our belief systems on the Japanese.

Then we should ask the Japanese to understand how our feelings are that this is like murdering someone.

Then we should apologize for our inability to accept such killing.

Then we should ask the Japanese to understand our feelings that killing whales is, to us, like killing a person.

Then we should again apologize for our miserable failure to consider their feelings when we try to FORCE them to stop whaling.

Then we ask for their understanding of our feelings.

Then do go through it all again.

And again...

And again...

500-1000 people doing this at high volume subway stations scattered around Japan would generate a great deal of public interest.

This plea would be accompanied by leaflets containing a more detailed argument that includes research from anthropologists on the nature of intelligence and the nature of human taboos.

500-1000 people doing this with a lot of media coverage of the detailed arguments in the handout would, by their ethical standards, put the Japanese in a nearly inescapable ethical bind.

I should mention that the general population is much more focused on and accepting of cultural diversity than 80% of all Americans, and they love coverage of social scientists in other countries. This means that it is possible to make a sophisticated argument directly to the populace.

I have a very high level of confidence that such an approach would end the Japanese practice of whaling. There are many types of pressure and the Japanese are as conditioned to respond to properly made pleas for cooperative behavior. It is important when evaluating my proposal that people understand the the FORM of the plea is extremely critical to whether or not the plea is successful. This is the proper form to elicit the desired resolution of this conflict.

As always when I post this, if anyone is interested in trying to make this plan actionable, please PM me.

"The concern seems legitimate, however it requires a fair investment of time to gain the necessary skills to evaluate whether the next part, the need for lethal research, is accurate. Given that most here don't have that skill set, what sort of response do you expect from people who think killing whales is like murder?"

I accept your admonishment... what was I expecting? I've been watching the show. I've been having some thoughts. I suppose I am in search of some conversation about it.

"I've read a fair amount on the topic and it is the first time I've heard this specific rationale. May I ask how you learned or and came to be interested in representing this point of view?"

They are my own thoughts on the problem. Whale wars has been my first real introduction to the topic; I had a very cursory knowledge before. I'm actually quite surprised the Japanese haven't thought of my points; they seem self-evident. As far as a credible research program goes, it is almost a knock against them that they aren't doing a better job explaining their research program by thinking about things like this. It's hard to say because the show is exclusively presented from the Sea Shepherd's perspective.

My own background is that I'm a researcher who has done a fair amount of work in disturbance ecology; specifically, this includes how to re-establish forests on highly disturbed sites like reclaimed minelands, agricultural sites, etc. I know from this experience that "mother nature" can follow divergent paths for recovery, some of them not very desirable. I know from limited coursework in wildlife management that exotic species can be the scourge of healthy or recovering native populations.


"On your side you could argue that the existence of such a conflict-of-interest doesn't invalidate the need, if that need is real. To which I again reply that the best way to remove even an appearance of political conflict-of-interest would be for the entire body of the IWC to recommend a plan supporting this research. But the majority of the IWC is aligned with the anti-whaling interests, you say? So Japan's proposal wouldn't be judged on its merits, you say?"

The lack of cohesiveness of member nations, and lack of a coherent plan appear to be the central problem here. To Japan's credit they haven't dropped out of the IWC as other whaling nations have, but I have read some blurbs that there is infighting. I don't like dealing with politicians. I really don't understand how anyone has the patience for it these days. I guess that's part of the reason I got into research. Even amongst those with different perspectives/requirements, it's usually easy to agree on the problem.


I am a meat eater (although I've never eaten whale). I am an agnostic about whether killing whales is equivalent to murder, but your final outline for how to stop whaling in Japan is exactly what I would have in mind. You have to approach the problem from the demand-side; only pressure from within is going to end it. Someone may have made a point upthread about mercury content of whale meat. If that is indeed so high, it seems that would be very persuasive. I also think that whale hunting has some ethical vulnerabilities with regards to the methods used. That may also be persuasive if presented honestly. Specifically, I don't think the shock-approach is particularly effective, but instead a rational case that 20-50% of the time the whale doesn't die immediately isn't good enough. I also think that one shouldn't expect things to change overnight; however, one could reasonably expect that the changes that did occur would be permanent.

Until that day, it seems that we should exploit scientific opportunities that present themselves. That is the underlying motive of my original post. I'm not a population ecologist. What I presented in my first post may or may not be realistic in the context of whales. I spoke strictly from my own experience (which I would still line up against Watson's)


Thank you for your considered reply.

Regards.

Ho Chi Minh and General Giap were not ineffective.