jennifer

Members of a Murray River recreational fishing club took me fishing soon after the IPA published my controversial Backgrounder ‘Myth and the Murray: Measuring the Real State of the River Environment’. They wanted to pick my brains on various issues including the future of fishing along the Murray.

That afternoon I remember one of the group John, showing me the Murray Cod he had just caught. He had this fish, about the size of a 3 month old baby, cradled in his arms and he was bringing it up to his face to give it a kiss in the same way a mother might kiss her baby. I thought it was gross, but he clearly adored the fish he had just caught and killed.

According to today’s ABC Online,

The Federal Government says an animal welfare bill introduced by the Democrats could mean the death of recreational fishing in Australia.

Under the the National Animal Welfare Bill the ‘capture and killing of wild animals for the purpose of entertainment and sport’ would be outlawed, a concept federal Fisheries Minister Ian Macdonald says will mean the end of outdoor sports like angling.

“It would mean a lot of people along the West Australian coast, a lot of families who love to go fishing together as a family, wouldn’t be able to do that any more,” he said.

However, Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett says the bill has nothing to do with fishing.

“The legislation seeks to outlaw things such as tail docking of dogs, cock fighting, it does not mention fishing in any way shape or form,” he said.

The bill is currently before a Senate Committee and a report is expected by the end of June, for more information click here.

Is fishing hunting? On Monday, ABC Online published a piece about hunting lions in Africa:

Regional governments and conservationists have agreed on initial steps that need to be taken to save the African lion, which has been pushed to the brink of extinction throughout much of its range.

The strategies were worked out at a workshop on lions in east and southern Africa, which wrapped up at the weekend.

“The reduction in the lion’s wild prey base, human-lion conflicts and habitat degradation are the major reasons for declining lion populations and need to be addressed,” the World Conservation Union (WCU), one of the workshop’s organisers, said.

Government officials, local community representatives, lion biologists and safari hunters attended the meeting.

“Regulated trophy hunting was not considered a threat, but rather viewed as a way to help alleviate human-lion conflict and generate economic benefits for poor people to build their support for lion conservation,” the statement said.

Trophy hunting of lions already takes place in several African states including South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe.

But expanding these lucrative operations to other states is bound to be opposed by animal welfare groups, which view hunting as cruel.

With its iconic status as “King of the Beasts,” the hunting of the lion is an emotive issue sure to stir controversy, even if it does generate revenue for poor rural communities from licensing fees and jobs created.

Other strategies agreed on at the meeting include: action to prevent the illegal trade in lions and lion products; developing management capacity; and creating economic incentives for poor rural folk to live close to lions.

The lion’s overall situation is dire in the face of swelling human populations on the world’s poorest continent.

“Over the past 20 years, lion numbers are suspected to have dropped dramatically from an estimated 76,000 to a population estimated to be between 23,000 and 39,000 today,” the WCU said.

“Across Africa, the lion has disappeared from over 80 percent of its former range.”

In West Africa, lions number fewer than 1,500.

Conflict between humans and lions is a huge problem with attacks on people on the rise in Tanzania and Mozambique.

For those still reading this long post. Here are a few ideas to ponder:

1. Animal welfare, animal rights (including animal liberation) and conservation are three independent issues, which are often in conflict. Boundaries need to be placed on each to better understand their role in different context?

2. Society can justify pursuing animal welfare on anthropogenic grounds (benefits to people). It does not require any commitment to biocentric philosophies. Science is and will continue to be the most effective tool in improving animal welfare, so actions aimed at constraining research with animals may have limited utility in advancing animal welfare?

3. The core business of animal welfare is the reduction of unnecessary pain and suffering in captive and wild animals within different contexts. It should be objective and scientifically-based. Different contexts will always involve different levels of pain and suffering. When assessing the right to exist of individual contexts, such as the live export trade, battery hens or hunting, animal welfare is but one of many variables that society needs to consider?

I have just checked my dictionary on the meaning of bigot. It says “obstinate and intolerant adherent of creed or view”.

Glenn Inwood describes New Zealanders as bigots because they are opposed to whaling. He was writing for the Sunday Star Times in New Zealand last Sunday.

It’s a passionate piece and begins:

You asked for an article that explains why I have chosen to work on the side of the whalers; why I provide strategic public relations advice to the organisation that, according to our Conservation Minister, “slaughters the magnificent whales” in the Southern Ocean.

The simple answer is because they have the right to do it. That’s not to say that I don’t think whales are magnificent creatures. I just don’t believe they are sacrosanct – despite the best efforts of the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 to make them so. The other answer is more complicated but is related to the environmental belief that the best way to monitor and protect whale stocks and achieve transparency is to end the moratorium and bring about a return to commercial whaling where the regulations are obeyed and seen to be obeyed.

We Kiwis were passionate whalers once. We joined the rest of the world in taking our share when whale oil was a high-priced commodity, and we only ended the practice in 1964 when it became uneconomic to continue – not because whales were running out; but because there was no longer the need for whale oil, which had been replaced by petroleum-based products.

Anthropological studies have also shown that pre-European Maori were the southern-most whalers in the world, with evidence of small cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) caught using stone-tipped harpoons and utilising beached whales for food. There is still debate over whether we should in fact push beached whales back out to sea: an insult to Tangaroa some say.

Whaling these days is for food for a very limited market. Some people love lambs because they taste good with a dash of mint sauce. Some people, however, enjoy a whale steak or whale sushi. So why can we not accept that of others? When did we begin to think that our beliefs should override those of others? How did we turn into a nation of bigots? Why is whaling bad and watching them the only commercial thing that should happen to whales?

For years we have been told that all whales are endangered and need saving. It is a view that fits the fundraising aims of numerous environmental groups because the public feels good when contributing to such a cause. But it is a view that goes by unchallenged. We don’t have a whaling industry to satisfy so there’s no need for the Government to correct the information. And our Conservation Minister jollies us along with every public statement condemning the “slaughter” of whales by Japan. (Apparently, whales are only ever slaughtered, never hunted or killed!)

But that doesn’t seem to matter. Now that ‘save the whales’ is imprinted apparently into our national psyche, we don’t seem to question the veracity of that statement. We let our politicians and environmentalists tell us ‘slaughtering’ whales for research is wrong if that research is used to determine whether a commercial whaling regime would be sustainable. Yet our media is quick to print allegations from Forest and Bird that we aren’t doing enough science on our own fishing industry and we should stop fishing. Our Government on the one hand establishes a Ministry to ensure we get the right science for our commercial fishing yet we decry another country’s decision to do the same thing for whales. The hypocrisy is quite outstanding.

New Zealand originally quit the International Whaling Commission because it ended commercial whaling and no longer needed to belong. However, it joined again in 1976 on a preservationist stance justified on our history of commercial whaling. But there is no denying the fact that the role of the IWC is to find a way to end the moratorium and permit the resumption of whaling when it can be demonstrated to be a sustainable activity. Our Government is resolutely one of the blockers towards achieving that legally binding requirement.

Happily, I don’t believe your average (mainstream) Kiwi is a bigot. I believe that most New Zealanders are reasonable people who would say, “If whaling has no effect on the status of the population, then what’s the problem? It’s just like killing (slaughtering) a cow or a sheep.” It’s clear that minke whales are ultra-abundant and even taking a few thousand out of the Southern Ocean isn’t going affect the population of those stocks.

When I travel overseas, one of the things I most look forward to is sampling the local cuisine. I have eaten things in other countries that I can’t even name. Our dietary custom is one of the things that make us who we are. I recall the words a Norwegian friend who said, “I love whales, but I couldn’t eat a whole one!”

My first blog post on whaling was in June last year and followed my pondering that food really is cultural, click here.

Following is a media release from The Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) responding to calls made today in both New Zealand and Australia for legal action to be taken against its research program in the Antarctic.

This issue was raised in comments following an earlier blog post, click here.

Media release

… ICR Director General Dr. Hiroshi Hatanaka said today: “Our research is perfectly legal in every aspect referred to by anti-whaling opponents and scientifically necessary to ensure the best decisions can be made for sustainable resource management.”

The ICR research is conducted under a special permit issued by Japanese Government based on its right under Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), which reads that:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government [including Japan] may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention.”

“The fact that Article VIII begins and ends by categorically stating absolutely nothing in the ICRW or its Schedule affects research carried out under this provision. This means that the current moratorium on commercial whaling, which in our view expired in 1990, and the Southern Ocean Sanctuary provide no legal basis on which to stop this research.”

Dr. Hatanaka added that while Japan’s Antarctic research was perfectly legal, the data obtained would ensure the proper management of whale resources under a future commercial whaling regime.

“While we have one eye on the law, the other is on the need to ensure that whale stocks are utilized sustainably for future generations and our research will help us achieve that.”

He added that Japan was also meeting its obligations under the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. “The Antarctic Treaty does not apply to the research activities conducted on the high seas.”

Some media coverage in Australia alleges that Japan is conducting its research in an area called the “Australian Antarctic Sanctuary”. “Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty freezes all claims to the Antarctic. Japan, like most other nations in the world, does not recognize Australia’s territorial claim: the Antarctic is for everyone,” Dr. Hatanaka said.

Furthermore, Article VI of the Antarctic Treaty says: ” …nothing in the present Treaty shall prejudice or in any way affect the rights, or the exercise of the rights, of any State under international law with regard to the high seas within that area.”

“The ‘rights’ of any State under international law with regard to the high seas include freedom of fishing,” Dr. Hatanaka said.

Finally, Dr. Hatanaka said that the necessary permits had been duly provided by the Japanese Government under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and that nothing in the CITES is violated.

“The legality of Japan’s research in the Antarctic has been discussed ad infinitum at the IWC and other fora. The legal basis is very clear; the environmental basis is even clearer: the marine resources in the Southern Ocean must be utilized in a sustainable manner in order to protect and conserve them for future generations,” Dr. Hatanaka said.

End of media release.

I would be keen to post the alternative(s) legal views with respect to whaling in the Antarctic at this blog. Email me at jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com .

In the following blog post Dan Goodman, Councillor, Institute of Cetacean Research, Tokyo, responds to an earlier post by Greenpeace’s Adele Major in which she quotes John Frizzel explaining why whaling can not be sustainable, click here to read the Greenpeace position.

In this response Goodman puts the case for sustainable whaling and explains the importance of the current research effort in Antarctic waters:

Greenpeace has been misleading the public on issues related to whaling for many years (If Greenpeace told the truth about whaling, The Japan Times, 2nd January 2002). They clearly have an economic interest in continuing their campaign of “hype, half-truths and posturing” as it was described by a former director of Greenpeace International (Nature Vol. 396, December 10/98).

John Frizzel’s arguments are simply more of the same with additional errors of fact and omission. His advocacy is for the most part fiction rather than science.

Frizzel’s argument that because past commercial whaling depleted whale stocks, whaling should never be attempted again ignores the fact that science related to whales and resource management has very substantially progressed in the last 50 years.

His argument also ignores the fact that past whaling was for whale oil which was a commodity valued worldwide whereas current and future whaling is for food for a very limited market. The argument is also contrary to the views of the IWC’s Scientific Committee which developed and unanimously recommended to the Commission a risk-averse procedure for calculating catch quotas for abundant species of baleen whales. Clearly the Scientific Committee, and indeed the Commission itself which adopted the procedure in 1994, were of the view that sustainable whaling is possible.

Frizzel notes that the blue whale is only showing slow signs of recovery from past over-harvesting but he should also have informed readers that data from Japan’s research program is providing important information to explain why this is the case.

Flawed logic also leads Frizzel to conclude that because the IWC has established a sanctuary in the southern ocean, “Japan’s research program is gathering data to set commercial catch limits on a population for which commercial whaling has been forbidden” but he omits the fact that Paragraph 7 (b) of the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which established the Southern Ocean Sanctuary includes the words “However, this prohibition shall be reviewed ten years after its initial adoption and at succeeding ten year intervals, and could be revised at such times by the Commission.”

Presentation of data to the IWC from Japan’s research program clearly shows that the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, which was established without advice from the Scientific Committee was required for conservation reasons, clearly shows that the sanctuary is not required. If the IWC followed the requirement of the Convention for its regulations to be based on scientific findings the sanctuary would be abolished. In addition, Japan filed an objection to the Southern Ocean Sanctuary with respect to minke whales as is the right of any member of the IWC. The meaning of this in legal terms is that the sanctuary does not apply to Japan.

Frizzel quotes a genetics study by Roman and Palumbi (2003) suggesting that pre-whaling abundance was much higher than previously thought however, he fails to note that this study has been severely criticized in the scientific literature and that in 2004 the IWC’s Scientific Committee agreed that “figures presented by Roman and Palumbi could not be considered reliable estimates of pre-whaling abundance”.

Work by Palumbi and colleagues following the 2004 meeting of the Scientific Committee did not resolve issues raised by the Scientific Committee (IWC/57/REP 1 page 38).

Frizzel also mis-stated the findings of the Scientific Committee concerning recent preliminary and not-agreed estimates of southern hemisphere minke whales when he says that “The new estimates are half the old in every area that has been resurveyed.” The fact is that the estimate for Area VI is higher from the more recent surveys (IWC/57/ REP 1, page 24).

He is, however, correct that the possible reasons for the differences in estimates derived from circumpolar surveys conducted more than 20 years ago and more recent surveys are not yet understood. Factors such as differences in survey design and areas covered, differences in ice and whale distribution and species interactions where increasing abundance of fin and humpback whales may be reducing the availability of krill for minke whales may all be contributing to the difference in estimates of abundance.

On the other hand, data from Japan’s 16 year whale research in the Antarctic (JARPA) which used the same survey method each year shows a stable level of minke whale abundance and there are no indications that biological parameters such as natural mortality rates, pregnancy rates and age of sexual maturity have changed to the degree which would be required to reduce the population by half over the past 20 years.

It also needs to be pointed out that even if minke whale abundance was half of the 1990 estimate of 760,000 animals, the current level of take under JARPA II (the new Japanese research program begun this year) is approximately only 0.02%. Clearly this level of removal is not a conservation concern.

Frizzel states the Greenpeace view that “whaling in all forms must be stopped” because of threats to whales other than whaling. Here again he fails to note that the Revised Management Procedure for setting catch quotas developed by the IWC’s Scientific Committee takes account of uncertainty including uncertainty related to environmental change. His statement that “Expectations for the recovery of whale populations have been based on the assumption that, except for commercial whaling, their place in the oceans is as secure as it was a hundred years ago” is therefore simply false.

Finally, Frizell opines that very little is known about southern fin whales and that most civilized cultures recognize the need to preserve biodiversity and conserve species that are endangered and protected. The fact that little is known about southern fin whales is precisely the reason we will sample a few whales of this species