Archives for February 17, 2006

There have been reports, including from the BBC, that there is a glut of whale meat in Japan and that whale meat is being fed to dogs.

Dr. Hiroshi Hatanaka from Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) responded yesterday with a media release:

“The way in which this story has been spun by anti-whaling lobbyists through naive journalists who didn’t check their facts demonstrates the lack of objectivity that some media have when it comes to whaling,” the ICR’s Director General Dr. Hiroshi Hatanaka said today.

This is an indictment on western media who do not question the information they receive on whaling and instead further reinforce falsehoods and wrong assumptions. It is the public that loses through receiving false information,” he said.

The particular sale of whale meat for pet food referred by the journalists was carried out by a company near one of the traditional small-type whaling bases on the Boso Peninsula, south east of Tokyo. This was sold as a jerky-type product and was made from less than 100kg of a batch of Baird’s Beaked whale, which the processor received from a local whaling company.

Baird’s Beaked whale is not one of the species regulated by the International Whaling Commission and is not included in the ICR’s research programs. The sustainable management of this particular species of whale is regulated by the Government of Japan’s Fisheries Agency.

“The whale meat used for the pet food was ‘hyakuhiro’ – the small intestine of the whale commonly referred to as tripe – and other cheaper cuts that are not utilized for human consumption,” Dr. Hatanaka said. Similarly, a small percentage of whale by-products from the research programs, ie some leavings after processing, that are not utilized for human consumption are also processed for the pet food market. This accords with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) where it states that whales taken under the research provisions “shall so far as practicable be processed”.

“As with other meat industries, such as cattle and sheep slaughtering for instance, not every part of the whale – intestines, some organs, etc – is appropriate for human consumption and these parts are processed for the pet food market.”

“To suggest, as these groups have done, that fine cuts of whale meat from Japan’s research programs is being turned into pet food because Japan has a glut of it is not true,” Dr. Hatanaka said.

The distribution of frozen whale meat from the research programs is highly regulated. The price range that Japanese consumers are expected to pay is set by the Government and the supply to the market is kept under tight control and drip fed to ensure that whale meat is available in selected areas throughout the entire year.

“Demand always exceeds supply. At any given time, there will be an amount of whale meat in storage to ensure supply is always available. Japanese are not losing their taste for whale, and if left to market forces, the price of whale meat would increase considerably and reach consumers at unaffordable prices,” Dr. Hatanaka said.

“The fact that the price of whale meat is well regulated by the Government means it is also affordable for some schools to reintroduce it as a protein-rich lunch option for pupils.”

The wholesale price of minke whale red meat is set at a fixed price of 1950 Yen per kilogram. The whale meat from the western North Pacific research is available to the public from mid-December onwards.

Dr. Hatanaka said anti-whaling lobbyists are told when the catch reaches storage and coincide their public relations campaign to falsely allege the augmented supplies mean whale meat is not in demand because there is a large amount of it.

“Obviously our stocks of whale meat increase when we start selling the by-products from the North Pacific after Government approval in December and again when selling by-products from the Antarctic in July. It is at these times that supplies of whale meat are at their highest,” Dr. Hatanaka said.

…………
*The original BBC News story has been updated and changed. If anyone has a copy of the original story quoting the conservation groups could they please email it to me.

And I should have checked ‘my facts’ before posting last Saturday.

The Northern Territory Government is yet again seeking support from the federal government, this time the new Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister for crocodile safari hunting, according to ABC News Online.

Last year the Federal Government rejected the Territory’s proposal that would see 25 crocodiles a year killed by trophy hunters.

A friend wrote to me at about that time:

“We in the NT are currently battling the Fed Government over our right to allocate 25 of the 600 wild crocs taken each year by landowners to safari hunters, which can increase the money landowners get for tolerating crocs.

The only difference here is who pulls the trigger and how much the landowner gets. It is all being held up because of concerns of “wounding”, with apparently Steve Irwin being the resident expert advising the Federal Minister.”

There were once less than 5,000 saltwater crocodiles in the Northern Territory. The population was decimated in the late 1940 and 1950s by hunters. A ban was placed on hunting and the exportation of skins in the early 1970s. Croc numbers have bounced back and are now estimated at 70,000.

Ecologist Dr Grahame Webb was involved with the program to rebuild croc numbers. He told me the following three principles were promoted:
1. Public education,
2. A program to contain problem crocs including trying to keep crocs out of Darwin harbor,
3. Ensuring crocs had a commercial value – so landholders saw them as an economic asset rather than a pest.

The program has been successful in so much as numbers are high and about 20,000 eggs and 600 crocs are harvested from the wild each year under a permit system. Eggs sell for about $40 each while crocs sell for perhaps $500.

Many locals, however, resent the crocodiles.

The following arguments have been progressed in favour of the safari hunting proposal:

1. The NT’s crocodile management program was implemented in the late 1970s against fierce opposition from animal rights NGOs, nationally and internationally. Their dire predictions all proved groundless. NT judgement on crocodile management in the NT has a long track-record of being proven correct, whereas the unsubstantiated claims of impassioned animal rights proponents have all proved spurious.

2. With the UN urging Government’s around the world to help achieve development based on environmental sustainability, and with Australia supporting these initiatives, the Federal Government should be proud and supportive of the model sustainable use program implemented in the NT with crocodiles. It is providing the international leadership the UN is seeking.

3. There can be no hunting or fishing of any species without risk of wounding and/or injury to the target species. Nor can there be farming without risk of injury to the species being farmed. Nor can there be cars on the road without road kills of wildlife. Animal welfare provisions and codes are in place throughout developed countries to reduce “unnecessary pain and suffering” within whichever context the human-animal interaction takes place.

4. If the Federal Government assumes wealthy experienced hunters, with the best hunting equipment money can buy, with experienced backup guides in place for a second shot, are amateurs that pose an undue threat to the welfare of crocodiles, then the assumption should be well grounded in fact. It should not be based on psuedoscience or the unsubstantiated opinion of people totally opposed to any hunting, of any species, for any reason.

5. If Government does assume wounding rates and injuries would be excessive – despite the complete lack of supporting evidence – then it raises a series of additional welfare issues Government must also deal with, for example:

* All other forms of hunting and fishing that lead to export would need to be re-evaluated,

* Indigenous people hunting with traditional methods such as spears would by default be labeled as grossly in breach of the Federal Government’s new animal welfare standards,

* Government officers having to destroy problem crocodiles for forensic or other purposes would be in breach of the Federal Government’s animal welfare standards.