Plants and Animals

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.

I received a note from marine ecologist Walter Starck this morning. He wrote,

Here’s an interesting news item on whaling. A growing stockpile of unsold whale meat would seem to indicate that the Japanese whaling effort is driven by political rather than commercial considerations. If the situation is really as depicted (always a big “if”) it seriously undermines the whole cultural importance argument.

Walter was refering to a piece in UnderWaterTimes.com that included the comment,

Some 1,035 tons of whale meat hit the market in Japan last year, a 65 percent increase from 1995, the Fisheries Agency says. And sluggish demand means inventories have almost doubled in five years to 2,704 tons in 2004.

And all of this before the most recent expedition to the Antarctic.

The article continues,

But the glut of whale meat hasn’t stopped the harpoon guns. Tokyo plans to kill – under a research program – some 1,070 minke whales in 2006, over 400 more than last year. Japan will also hunt 10 fin whales, and a total of 160 Bryde’s, sei and sperm whales, fisheries official Kenji Masuda said.

The International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling in 1986, approving limited hunts for research purposes a year later. Opponents have called Japan’s hunts merely a way for it to dodge the whaling ban.

The government, which distributes the meat and uses profits to fund research, is working to promote whale meat and secure new distribution channels.

“Even if we capture 2,000 whales a year for 100 years, it’s OK because whale numbers are growing,” the pamphlet says.

Some local governments have begun offering whale meat in school lunches.

Wakayama, a prefecture with a whale-hunting tradition 280 miles southwest of Tokyo, has been aggressive in getting youngsters to eat whale, introducing whale meals at 270 public schools in 2005.

Nutritionists have even developed child-friendly whale dishes, including whale meatballs, hamburgers and whale spaghetti bolognese, said Tetsuji Sawada of Wakayama’s education board.

Chimney Co., which runs the Hana No Mai eateries, acknowledges customers are wary of new whale dishes.

So there is more whale meat from the ‘research efforts’ than the Japanese can collectively stomach.

So, according to BBC News whale meat is being turned into dog food.

The dog food is apparently promoted as “organic” and fished “freshly out of the water”.

………

Story updated here: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001190.html

Yesterday, the RSPCA announced the appointment of a new CEO,

Chief executive officer of Greenpeace, Peter Mullins, becomes chief executive officer of the RSPCA national body.

… Mr Mullins said community education would continue to be a key area for the RSPCA’s work, but that he was particularly keen to explore new partnerships with animal industry peak bodies, local, state and the federal governments.

Mr Mullins also outlined a number of areas of concerns for the RSPCA, including effective implementation of the new Australian Animal Welfare Strategy.

“Long-term priorities, including pet identification and desexing, egg production methods and the live export of animals for slaughter, will also remain at the forefront of our work,” said Mr Mullins.

Mr Mullins currently lives in rural NSW and runs a Devon cattle stud in conjunction with his wife Margie.

He said, “Like many Australians, I have spent most of my life surrounded by animals that I care deeply about.

“I believe our national character is reflected in the way we treat the animals that share our lives.”

When Mullins was appointed CEO of Greenpeace in 2000 the media release stated,

“Mullins takes over the helm of Greenpeace with a membership base that has grown by 29,000 supporters to a total of 94,000 in the last 12 months, an increase of 45%. Launching the organisation’s annual report Inside Greenpeace today, Mullins said he looked forward to the challenge of leading Australia’s preeminent environmental group.

I wonder why membership grew so quickly over the 1999-2000 period and how it is tracking now.

I didn’t expect Greenpeace Expedition Leader Shane Rattenbury to hesitate for so long and then to be so coy, when he was asked by Michael Duffy on ABC Radio Counterpoint (23rd January 2006) whether he would have blamed the Japanese if one of his men was hurt or killed in the Antarctic.

The text follows (for full transcript click here), but to hear the really long pause from Rattenbury, listen to the full interview (click here).

Michael Duffy: What if something went wrong? What if one of your people was killed or seriously injured? Would you blame the Japanese for that?

Shane Rattenbury: That’s something we desperately hope to avoid. We do place a real paramount on safety. All our activists are well-equipped, and you mentioned someone heading into the water…we did have that happen just last week and we were in a situation there were we were able to quickly retrieve that activist. He was suitable dressed for the occasion. I guess we do rely a certain amount on the whaling fleet in this case having a level of respect for human life as well and that they would not place…or take actions that would bring even greater risk upon our activists.

Rattenbury was not so coy when the Nisshin-Maru and Arctic Sunrise collided, click here. But that was perhaps just damage to a ship – not a life.

The Radio National interview is fascinating and includes Glenn Inwood explaining how and why the Nisshin-Maru was moving before the collision occurred, click here for my first blog on the issue.

The radio interview was just a few days after Greenpeace decided to leave the whales, the whalers, and the Antarctic, click here for Greenpeace’s summary of their campaign (20th January 2006).

That was only a few days after one of the Greenpeace campaigners ended up in the freezing waters of the Antarctic coloured red with the blood of a recently harpooned whale. The campaigner had maneuvered a small inflatable between whale and ship and then clung to a taut harpoon line. The Japanese version of events with a link to the Greenpeace video is at the end of this blog post, see below.

There is no denying the bravery of these righteous Greenpeace activists.

I say righteous, because they are so sure of themselves.

But I am not so sure.

They have left the Antarctic but will continue their campaign focused on whales and whaling.

But why not campaign for Sun Bears? It would seem there is much more real need here with the bears dwindling in number and being held in the cruelest of conditions. The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)claims about 7,000 bears are kept at more than 200 farms across China in excessively cruel conditions,
click here.

There has been a fair amount of arguing at this blog about how special whales are. All life is special.

As long as we eat meat, some animals are going to be slaughtered, but I like the idea that they have the opportunity to ‘stretch their legs’ and feel the sun before they are slaughtered.

To quote from the High North Alliance website:

…obviously, it is extremely difficult to compare the whale’s relatively short-lasting, but intense pain when being killed, with the other more long-lasting but less intense forms of suffering experienced in cattle farming. Personally, I have no problems in making such a comparison. The conclusion of this comparison is that,

I would rather be a minke whale living in freedom until the final few minutes of pain, than a …pig or hen [or a sun bear].

………………………………………………………..

ICR Media release about Greenpeace Activist in Water:

Greenpeace claims that their activist was thrown into the cold Southern Ocean by a taut harpoon line are shown to be false in new video released by the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) today.

The version of the story by Texas Joe Constantine that the harpoon line fell onto their inflatable, became taut and threw him out of the boat has been placed on their website:
http://tvyil.greenpeaceweb.org/default.asp?loadfilm=59&loadcat=10
Texas Joe said:

“The harpoon line came down onto our boat trapping us between the whale and the catcher. The line came tight at that point and threw me from the boat into the water. It was a few minutes before our boat was able to come around and pick me up out of the water.”

The ICR has today placed video footage on its website that shows the line was slack on the Greenpeace inflatable for some time while Japanese crew members told the activists to throw off the line before something dangerous occurred.

ICR Director General Dr. Hiroshi Hatanaka said, “Our crew were concerned about their safety and urged them to throw the line off their boat. This can be clearly seen by the video. They kept the line on their inflatable so long that eventually it became tight. The Greenpeace activists deliberately held onto the rope while they decided how to get the best PR from it.”

Dr. Hatanaka said that when you view the edited Greenpeace video it appears the event happened in a matter of seconds, but there was plenty of time available to throw the rope off. “This slick manipulation misrepresented what happened, and Greenpeace must come out and admit their man had enough time to avoid being thrown into the sea.”

He added that this was the second time edited Greenpeace footage had shown the organisation to make false claims. Greenpeace claims that the Japanese vessel the Nisshin Maru collided with the Arctic Sunrise have also proved false.

The latest video footage can be seen at:
http://www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm

I have just been reading about the High North Alliance, an organisation representing whalers, sealers and fishermen from Canada, The Faroes, Greenland, Iceland and Norway.

Their base is in Reine, Norway, which is a long way away from me here in Brisbane, Australia.

Last night I received an email from Rune Frovik from the High North Alliance with some comments in response to the letter that I published from Peter Corkeron, click here.

(Picture Copyright High North Alliance)

Here’s a picture of Rune (left) with the New Zealand Minister for Conservation, Chris Carter.

Rune responds issue by issue to the various claims made by Peter Cockeron:

1. Peter Corkeron wrote:

Minke quotas have trended upwards over time – the 2006 quota is 1052 animals. Some of this has come from carrying over untaken quotas from previous years – not a part of the RMP/RMS as far as I’m aware. Some has come from changing the “tuning level” – a multiplier built into the CLA/RMP to allow for uncertainty, and changing circumstances. Other problems with quota setting include that predominantly female minkes are taken, and (as I understand it) the CLA assumes a balanced sex ratio in a hunt.

Rune Frovik responds:

The carry-over mechanism for unused quotas is a part of the RMP. Such carry-over can take place within the five years quota periods.

The Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission recommended tuning level in the interval 0.60 to 0.72, the former calculates a higher quota than the latter. Until 2000, Norway set quotas with 0.72 tuning level. Since then various tuning levels have been used, and for 2006 Norway’s quota is based on 0.60 tuning.
The sex ratio is taken into account. Corkeron correctly points out that CLA assumes a balanced sex ratio in the hunt. But the CLA also has a mechanism in case of unbalanced sex ratios. So if the more than 50 percent of the harvested animals are female, this leads to lower quotas. This has been practiced for the Norwegian quota. If the sex ratio was balanced, the current quota could have been higher.

2. Peter Corkeron wrote:

The most recent survey series was not synoptic – the survey area was divided into 5, with one area surveyed in each of five years. These surveys are logistically difficult to run, and synoptic surveys are really hard to organize – I think the last was in 1995.
So a strong assumption (that is, an assumption that, if it’s wrong, the analysis wrong) is that whales don’t move between survey areas between years. This remains untested.

Rune Frovik responds:

Corkeron has a point. But the precautionary logic mainly goes the other way, since it is not proved that the stock is not comprised of sub-stocks, the scientists assume there could be sub-stocks.

Therefore quotas are set for smaller areas. However, scientific evidence now indicates that there is no need for sub areas. The whalers have always argued that the whales don’t respect these borders, that the whales go where there is ample food supply, something which varies between and within years.

The sighting surveys take into account that whales move between areas. But for logistical reasons not all areas are covered in one season, but in a five to six year period all areas are researched.

3. Peter Corkeron wrote:

I’ve never taken part in one of the minke surveys, but know how they work, as I’ve taken part in others elsewhere (US waters, Antarctic). Unlike virtually all other vessel-based surveys for cetaceans, the Norwegian team don’t use binoculars. They have their reasons for this, but it reduces their effective strip width, hence their survey coverage and so the precision of their abundance estimates.

Rune Frovik responds:

This is correct, except the conclusion that it reduces the precision of the abundance estimates. With binoculars you see both more and less. There are good reasons why the Norwegian whalers don’t use binoculars in the lookout.

4. Peter Corkeron wrote:

Over time (this has been going on for a little over a decade), quotas set have trended upwards, and now don’t bear much resemblance to quotas that would have been set under the way that the IWC Scientific Committee designed the RMS. So, this management procedure, developed to ensure sustainability (as far as humanly possible) hasn’t actually been implemented by the Norwegians.

Rune Frovik responds:

Norway is still using the quota calculation model developed and recommended by the IWC Scientific Committee. Only Norway has implemented this procedure.

5. Peter Corkeron wrote:

The final decision on quotas for the minke hunt is made by the Norwegian Sjopattedyrradet (marine mammal advisory board), comprised of industry representatives, based on advice from the Fisheries Directorate, who in turn receive advice from IMR.

Rune Frovik responds:

This is wrong. Final decisions are made by the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal affairs. The advisory board only supplies advise and their view to the Ministry.

6. Peter Corkeron wrote:

So in theory, the sustainable harvest of whales may be possible. As things are playing out in Norway at present, this remains theory.

Rune Frovik responds:

Well, Norway has taken more than 100 000 minke whales in this area since WWII. From the 50s to the early 80s the annual average catch was about 2000 minke whales. The IWC Scientific Committee has considered this to be a sustainable harvest in that period. While historic catch records are an indicator that this could also be a future sustainable level, it is not a proof. Current science however indicates so.

What Norway is doing is not theory, it is very hard reality.

7. Peter Corkeron wrote:

One aspect of whether Norwegian whaling is sustainable or not that gets missed completely – by both sides, it appears – is the economics of the Norwegian market for food. From an OECD report on agricultural subsidies in 2004, Norway is one of the five worst offenders internationally when it comes to overpaying their internal agricultural lobby.

Australians may be astonished to learn that one of the reasons against Norway joining the EU is Norwegian agricultural subsidies would have to be dramatically reduced to drop to EU levels.

So prices for meat in Norway are artificially high. Given the current population sizes of baleen whales in the northeast Atlantic, were a management regime for whaling that demonstrated a decent chance of being sustainable (the IWC’s RMS or something similar) ever implemented, the meat would be so expensive that it would probably price itself out of an open market.

Rune Frovik responds:

What Corkeron says about agricultural subsidies is correct, but I have some problems seeing where he is heading. I disagree with the statement that prices for agricultural meat in Norway are artificially high, I would rather say it is the opposite, that because of subsidies they are artificially low.

The seafood sector, including whaling, does not receive any subsidies at all. (In fact Norway argues strongly on the international arena that fisheries subsidies should also be removed in other countries.)

Since it has been difficult to compete with meat prices, and also because many Norwegians provide themselves with fish, the seafood industry has traditionally focused on export markets, but recently more efforts are put into the domestic market. The whale meat is currently only sold on the domestic market, and because of no subsidies, the consumers must pay the real price for whale meat.

This is certainly a challenge for the whale meat industry, but something which it tries to cope with.

8. Peter Corkeron wrote:

I’ve seen ‘fresh’ whale meat turning green as it sat on sale at the local fish market, waiting to be bought.

Rune Frovik responds:

Green?! Whale meat doesn’t like air, so it rapidly turns dark if it is not protected from air. For this reason vacuum packaging is commonly used. Anyway, you should absolutely complain if your offered poor quality meat.

9. Peter Corkeron wrote:

Sometimes at these markets, there was also a stand giving away free meals of whale meat, part of the government drive to encourage Norwegains to eat whale. Government-funded undercutting of small businesses run by enterprising migrants.

Rune Frovik responds:

The government does not encourage Norwegians to eat whale meat or not, that is not their business.

With the possible exception of the Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, who is portrayed in a new film documentary (Oljeberget), purchasing whale meat and preparing it for dinner, and smilingly exclaiming that, “whale meat is extremely good”.

The industry certainly attempts to encourage consumption and they pay their own marketing.

……………………….

For more information on whaling and the High North Alliance visit their website, click here. The site includes a collection of harpoon cartoons. One of the cartoons includes an Aussie talking to a sheep about eating whale meat, click here.

There has been much published at this blog about whaling including letters from Libby Eyre and Glenn Inwood. I have just today received a letter from Peter Corkeron which is posted below. The letter has been edited including through the addition of subheadings.

In the letter Peter explained he was employed to study the population biology of seals in Norwegian waters for nearly four years to 2004. He worked as part of the marine mammal research group, first at the Norwegian Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture Research (NIFA), then at the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (IMR), both in Tromsoe, northern Norway. He has a PhD from the University of Queensland in 1989 (on dolphins in Moreton Bay) and is the author of over 60 refereed papers and book chapters on aspects of the biology of marine mammals. He has worked on dolphins, whales, dugongs and seals.

Dear Jennifer

Is the Norwegian approach achieving a demonstrably sustainable harvest of baleen whales – in their case, northern minke whales, Balaenoptera acutorostrata?

Some Background

I guess if you’ve taken an interest in whaling, you’re aware that what the Norwegians claim to be doing is implementing the Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA) of the IWC’s Revised Management Program (RMP), developed by IWC Scientific Committee through the 1980s and finalized in the early 90s. The RMP is one facet of the Revised Management Scheme (RMS), which also includes things like an international observer programme, but the implementing RMS still hasn’t been resolved at the IWC. If you’re not aware of the details of this, there’s primary literature around that explains it.

What about the Norwegian implementation of the RMP? There are a couple of issues with what’s been done over the past few years, since Norway gave up scientific whaling in the early 90s and returned to commercial whaling.

Minke quotas have trended upwards over time – the 2006 quota is 1052 animals. Some of this has come from carrying over untaken quotas from previous years – not a part of the RMP/RMS as far as I’m aware. Some has come from changing the “tuning level” – a multiplier built into the CLA/RMP to allow for uncertainty, and changing circumstances. Other problems with quota setting include that predominantly female minkes are taken, and (as I understand it) the CLA assumes a balanced sex ratio in a hunt.

On the science side, one main data requirement is an estimate of abundance with associated estimate of error. The point estimates for northern minke abundance from Norwegian surveys increased, as you note. But the two survey series weren’t directly comparable as they covered somewhat different areas. The most recent survey series was not synoptic – the survey area was divided into 5, with one area surveyed in each of five years. These surveys are logistically difficult to run, and synoptic surveys are really hard to organize – I think the last was in 1995.

So a strong assumption (that is, an assumption that, if it’s wrong, the analysis wrong) is that whales don’t move between survey areas between years. This remains untested.

The actual surveys are vessel-based distance sampling surveys – I’m presuming that you know what distance sampling is (and if this goes to your blog, folks will read up on it).

I’ve never taken part in one of the minke surveys, but know how they work, as I’ve taken part in others elsewhere (US waters, Antarctic). Unlike virtually all other vessel-based surveys for cetaceans, the Norwegian team don’t use binoculars. They have their reasons for this, but it reduces their effective strip width, hence their survey coverage and so the precision of their abundance estimates.

There have been technical queries in past years regarding the Norwegian surveys – double counting (i.e. accidentally recording one whale as two) is an example I recall from the 90s. These have been published as papers in the IWC journal and details can be found there. You have to read through the dry, mathematical language to get at the points being made. There are others who know far more about the machinations within the IWC than I do as I’ve only been to one IWC Scientific Committee meeting.

Is the Harvest Sustainable?

To quote you: “I have repeatedly stated that Norway claims to be sustainably harvesting whales and to the extent that I have researched the issue there claim appears to hold up. I have repeatedly been told, however, that the sustainable harvest of whales is neither possible nor desirable nor ethical.”

Whether the sustainable harvest of baleen whales is desirable or ethical – well, my opinion is worth no more than anyone else’s so I won’t give it.

I’ll give some thoughts on whether the information we have on what the Norwegian minke hunt over the past decade or so tells me regarding the practical possibility for a sustainable harvest of baleen whales. Because it does seem like Norwegians are sustainability hunting minke whales. The devil is, as always, in the detail.

Once it became clear that the RMP/RMS deliberations were bogged down at the IWC, Norwegians decided to recommence commercial whaling, applying the CLA/RMP as seemed appropriate (I’m glossing over a lot of history in this sentence). Over time (this has been going on for a little over a decade), quotas set have trended upwards, and now don’t bear much resemblance to quotas that would have been set under the way that the IWC Scientific Committee designed the RMS.

So, this management procedure, developed to ensure sustainability (as far as humanly possible) hasn’t actually been implemented by the Norwegians.

So in practice, we don’t know whether what’s happening now is likely to lead to an increase, decrease or no change in the abundance of northern minke whales in the north-east Atlantic and Barents Seas.

It’s important to remember that demonstrating sustainability takes more than just doing some very simple back-of-the-envelope calculations about maximum likely reproductive rates of a mammal population. In the first place, the science of wildlife biology / population ecology involves much more, as I’m sure you’re aware. And second, calculating quotas is a small part of managing a fishery (or marine wildlife hunt) – just ask any anyone working in a fisheries management agency. Managing the behaviour of people once quotas have been established is also important. The final decision on quotas for the minke hunt is made by the Norwegian Sjopattedyrradet (marine mammal advisory board), comprised of industry representatives, based on advice from the Fisheries Directorate, who in turn receive advice from IMR.

So in theory, the sustainable harvest of whales may be possible. As things are playing out in Norway at present, this remains theory.

On Harvesting Dugongs

Could the CLA/RMP/RMS management approach (or some variant thereof) be applied to, for instance, dugong harvesting by indigenous Australians?

Possibly yes.

[Click here for Jennifer’s original question on this issue.]

And the IWC’s approach is being modified for application to what the IWC classes as Aboriginal Subsistence whaling, which may prove an even more useful model.

Food Subsidies

I’d like to touch on another point that’s been missing the blogdebate underway at your site.

Your comment[following the post by Libby Eyre] is an interesting one:

“You are rebelling as a romantic against science and economics. Romantics identify with natural systems, scientists study them, some economists recognise the reality of human nature and work with, rather than against it.”

I get a quiet chuckle when folks of an economic rationalist bent use Norwegian whaling for an example of wildlife utilization.

Norwegian markets for food are about as far removed as you can get from what IPA-type folks would consider acceptable.

One aspect of whether Norwegian whaling is sustainable or not that gets missed completely – by both sides, it appears – is the economics of the Norwegian market for food. From an OECD report on agricultural subsidies in 2004, Norway is one of the five worst offenders internationally when it comes to overpaying their internal agricultural lobby.

The other four are Japan, Iceland (notice the pattern?), South Korea and Switzerland. And tariffs on imported food in Norway are very high.

Australians may be astonished to learn that one of the reasons against Norway joining the EU is Norwegian agricultural subsidies would have to be dramatically reduced to drop to EU levels.

So prices for meat in Norway are artificially high. Given the current population sizes of baleen whales in the northeast Atlantic, were a management regime for whaling that demonstrated a decent chance of being sustainable (the IWC’s RMS or something similar) ever implemented, the meat would be so expensive that it would probably price itself out of an open market.

How Popular Is Whale Meat?

A couple of asides from living in northern Norway – I’ve seen ‘fresh’ whale meat turning green as it sat on sale at the local fish market, waiting to be bought. It’s not that popular. And folks from elsewhere in the world who’ve moved to Tromsoe set up stalls and sell their traditional food at weekend markets in summer.

Sometimes at these markets, there was also a stand giving away free meals of whale meat, part of the government drive to encourage Norwegains to eat whale. Government-funded undercutting of small businesses run by enterprising migrants.

Sincerely
Peter Corkeron