Blog

In the following blog post Adele Major, Web Editor, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, explains why Greenpeace does not believe sustainable whaling is possible and provides links to more video evidence:

Last I read you are an “environmental blogger” so logically I would assume you are interested in the actual environmental impact of whaling, rather than entire threads devoted to your interpretation of an inconclusive piece of footage on a pro-whaling website.

Is sustainable whaling possible?

I am not a marine mammal expert, and don’t claim to be, although I have read a lot about this issue. However the information below was prepared by John Frizell, whale campaigner and Greenpeace’s representative at the IWC, who is an expert on issues related to whaling.

“Everywhere whaling has been practised, including around the coast of Japan, it has lead to depletion of whale populations. That’s why Japan started Antarctic whaling in the 1930s, their own coastal waters were already showing marked drops in catch after 30 years of whaling using imported technology.

The statistics say it all. The blue whales of the Antarctic are at less than 1 percent of their original abundance, despite 40 years of complete protection. Some populations of whales are recovering but some are not.

Only one population, the East Pacific grey whale, is thought to have recovered to its original abundance, but the closely related West Pacific grey whale population is the most endangered in the world. It hovers on the edge of extinction with just over 100 remaining.

For this reason we believe commercial whaling should not be attempted again. In the case of the Southern Ocean, the IWC has made it a whale sanctuary where no whaling is permitted. So Japan’s ‘research’ program is gathering data to set commercial catch limits on a population for which commercial whaling has been forbidden.

Recent DNA evidence shows that the impact of commercial whaling may be even worse than previously thought. Most estimates of historic whale population size have been extrapolated from old whaling figures, but this method is often very inaccurate, argues marine biologist Steve Palumbi of Stanford University’s Hopkins Marine Station in California, USA.

In 2003 Palumbi and his colleagues used DNA samples to estimate that humpback whales could have numbered 1.5 million prior to the onset of commercial whaling in the 1800s. That number dwarfs the figure of 100,000 previously accepted by the IWC based on 19th century whaling records. Humpback whales currently number only 20,000.

In the case of the Southern Ocean, Japanese delegates to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) constantly refer to a 1990 estimate of the Antarctic minke population of 760,000. But that figure was withdrawn by the IWC in 2000 because recent surveys found far fewer minkes than the older ones. The new estimates are half the old in every area that has been resurveyed. The IWC’s scientists do not understand the reasons for this and so far have not been able to agree a new estimate. A substantial decline in Antarctic minke population has NOT been ruled out.

Additonally, whaling is no longer the only threat to whales. The oceans, or rather, human impacts on the oceans, have changed dramatically over the half-century since whales have been protected. Known environmental threats to whales include global warming, pollution, overfishing, ozone depletion, noise such as sonar weaponry, and ship strikes. Industrial fishing threatens the food supply of whales and also puts whales at risk of entanglement in fishing gear.

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. Sadly, this assumption is no longer valid. This is why we believe that whaling in all forms must be stopped.”

This year, fin whales will be added to the hunt. Fin whales are the second biggest creature on earth after the blue whale, and are listed as ‘endangered’. There is no justification for hunting an endangered species. Very little is known about southern fins and most civilised cultures recognise the need to preserve biodiversity and conserve species that are endangered and protected (such as in Australian waters which they migrate through).

By the way, in the interests of a balanced approach for your readers, I would suggest you also link to our footage, available in longer form here and with a voiceover here. And since it seems you are also an expert on maritime navigation regulations and are calling for the resignation of Captain Sorensen based entirely on this piece of video, you can read his own account of his actions, click here.

As I have mentioned previously, Greenpeace is committed to a long history of non-violent protest and ramming is not a tactic we use.

End of text from Adele Major.

The Institute for Cetacean Research has now uploaded two videos of the ramming by Greenpeace of their ship the Nisshin-Maru in the Antartic last Sunday, click here. The videos taken from the Nisshin-Maru show Greenpeace’s Arctic Sunrise heading for, and ramming the Japanese boat.

There are now at least three videos and two photographs that contradict the Greenpeace media release and in particular the claim by Greenpeace Southern Ocean Expedition Leader Shane Rattenbury that

“…the Nisshin Mura suddenly disengaged from the supply vessel coming around a full 360 degrees before making for the Arctic Sunrise and striking it on the port side.”

When will Greenpeace stand Rattenbury aside and relieve the captain of the Arctic Sunrise of his command?

Someone in authority has to take control at Greenpeace, or it will lose much of its credibility. Since yesterday Greenpeace has posted at least three versions of their collision with the Japanese whaling mother ship on Sunday.

This is a serious matter that might even have repercussions in criminal law. Greenpeace has to tell the truth, discipline its operatives and move on. Otherwise the organisation that drew so much credibility from the criminal actions against it of the French government will lose its own credibility, not just on whaling, but on all of its campaign issues.

Story 1:

On Sunday, 8th January, 2006 Greenpeace Southern Ocean Expedition Leader Shane Rattenbury was quick off the mark in a media release entitled ‘Whalers ram Greenpeace Ship in Southern Ocean’.

“…the Nisshin Mura suddenly disengaged from the supply vessel coming around a full 360 degrees before making for the Arctic Sunrise and striking it on the port side.

Story 2:

Well, this picture posted by Greenpeace says it all. This is the Greenpeace ship, these are its injuries, and Greenpeace claims it was rammed? The damage is to the bow because as the video, also posted by Greenpeace shows, their ship struck the whaling vessel amidships.

Story 3:

Rattensbury also said,

The ship’s captain tried to pull out of the way of the oncoming whaler.”

In the Greenpeace video, their Captain says that because their ship the Arctic Sunrise had right-of-way,

“I maintained course at speed”.

Greenpeace’s own video contradicts Rattenbury’s story.

In order to restore its credibility Greenpeace’s first move is obvious. It has to stand aside its frontline operatives, specifically Rattenbury, and explain why they misled the press, the public, and their own supporters.

This is a serious matter. Damage has been done to private property. It could fall within the ambit of the criminal law. A respectable organisation cannot allow itself to even potentially shelter wrong-doers.

Japanese whalers in the Antarctic claim their boat the Nisshin-Maru was rammed by Greenpeace’s Arctic Sunrise earlier today, while Greenpeace claim they were rammed by the whaler’s Nisshinn-Maru.

Photographs emailed to me by the Japanese Institute for Cetacean Research appear to show the bow of the Arctic Sunrise approaching and then colliding with the starboard side of the Nisshin-Maru.

The first photo appears to be taken from the starboard side of the Nishhin Maru looking at the port side of the Arctic Sunrise. The second photo appears to be from the same side of the Nisshin Maru looking back at the starboard side of the Sunrise.

Greenpeace prides itself on the photographs and video images its has taken over recent days and weeks showing its war against whaling in the Antarctic, click here.

There’s obviously two sides to this story, and I’m keen to post Greenpeace’s photos and their explanation here.

Update 10.15pm, 8th January 2006
Greenpeace now have a media release with a picture showing damage to the bow of the Arctic Sunrise at their website, click here. This picture is consistent with the claim by the Japanese that they were rammed by Greenpeace, however, in the caption to the picture, Greenpeace claim the Japanese boat cut across the front of their boat thus the damage to the bow. In the text of the media release Greenpeace claim the Japanese boat struck their boat port side. What really happened?

Update 9am, 9th January 2006
Greenpeace have now uploaded video of the collision at their website, click here. The video shows the Arctic Sunrise (which appears the size and shape of a tug next to the very large and apparently near stationary Nisshin Maru) heading towards and then ramming this much larger ship port side. There is then an interview with presumably the captain of the Arctic Sunrise, in which he explains that the large Nisshin Maru should have given way to the Arctic Sunrise because Greenpeace had right-of-way. The interview ends with the Greenpeace Captain stating: “I maintained my course at speed”. The video shows that Greenpeace took no evasive action, maintaining its course which appears to have been to ram the Japanese ship.