Talk:Whaling

For older items see Talk:Whaling/Archive1

"Legitimate" Norwegian Whaling

Can anyone explain what the justification for saying the Norway "legimately" continues commercial whaling in defiance of the IWC moratorium? They've been members since 1960, and are thus obligated to comply. The current phrasing seems like a definite POV issue to me.--12.15.238.50 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"In 1982, the IWC adopted a moratorium on all commercial whaling, to take effect from 1986. Norway formally reserved its position on the IWC moratorium, but nevertheless introduced a temporary ban on minke whale harvesting from 1987, pending more reliable information on the state of the stocks.

The moratorium included a clause stating that “by 1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision [the moratorium] and the establishment of other catch limits.” This meant that new, more reliable stock assessments for the stocks from which catches might be taken, and a revised procedure for their management, were to be available by this deadline. The Scientific Committee met both these requirements, but at its Annual Meetings since 1990 the Commission has nevertheless been unwilling to re-evaluate the moratorium and catch quotas. Instead, it has specified new conditions that must be fulfilled before catch quotas can be discussed.

This could only be interpreted as delaying tactics, and was the basis for the Norwegian government’s unilateral decision to resume whaling in 1993. Norway sets an annual quota for the minke whale hunt on the basis of the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) adopted by the Scientific Committee. The quota for 2004 is 670 animals.

Norway’s legal right to hunt minke whales is not in question, since Norway formally reserved its position on the IWC moratorium when it was adopted. This reservation was made pursuant to Article V of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the agreement on which the establishment and activities of the IWC are based.

The express objective of this convention is to ensure “increases in the numbers of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources”. Moreover, the Convention lays down that the harvesting level shall “be based on scientific findings”, shall provide for “the conservation, development and optimum utilisation of the whale resources [...] and shall take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products”. In other words, the objective of the Convention is not to protect whales for their own sake, but to regulate catches of whales for the benefit of mankind both now and in the future. The position of member countries of the IWC which oppose whaling on principle is in fact in conflict with the Commission's own objectives."

Source: Norwegian governmental site

--Arnejohs 19:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a look at the text of Article V subsection 3 (http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm). The language appears to require that at least two contracting governments object in order to trigger an exemption. Do you happen to know the second government (or more) that objected? Also: 1) Can we incorporate a reference to the relevant governing language to short-circuit this discover process for future readers?, and 2) Isn't "legally" a more neutral wording than "legitimately"?

--12.15.238.50 22:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read the subsection carefully you will see that any country with a valid objection is exempted from the amendment, even if alone. I guess what confuses you is 3(b), which gives guidelines for how the deadlines are extended for other countries, following an objection. Norway, Soviet Union (followed by Russia), Japan and Peru objected to paragraph 10(e) (the moratorium) of the schedule. Japan and Peru later withdrew their objections. Iceland withdrew from IWC and later rejoined with a reservation to the moratorium (after a close vote), and is therefore in an unclear situation. But for Norway (and Russia) the situation is clear, the IWC schedule site says:

"The objections of Norway and the Russian Federation not having been withdrawn, the paragraph is not binding upon these Governments."

I have no problem with replacing "legitimately" with "legally" (my inferior English skills fail to catch this nuance anyway)

--Matt77 05:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

History

Sorry in advance if what I'm doing is improper - I'm kind of new around here. Just wondering why the article is so sparse about the actual history of whaling and the whaling industry. It seems like it should be a bigger part of the article than it is. Thanks. --Jonathan P. Whelan 17:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Because more people are interested in politics of whaling than whaling itself. In wikipedia, there is no distinction of readers and editors. Vapour

Whales Conservation Status

"these populations, whilst not regarded as separate species, are considered to warrant sub categorisation.". Does Red List state the reason for subcategorisation? If not it should merely state that these population is categories into different population.FWBOarticle 20:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Download the Cetacean Specialist Groups PDF I mentioned earlier. Then search for "genetic". There are 61 references, several of which are about maintaining genetic diversity.

No specific mention which justify this edit. Please make a quote if you want to restore the claim that these different whales are sufficiently unique. btw, I'm FWBOarticle. Vapour

And I really believe that we should archive this page. There has been significant rearrangement of the original article by you and me. It is good point to start anew. Me don't know how to archive a page. :)FWBOarticle 20:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I already archived it. The discussions still are too new. Pcb21| Pete 22:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I can't use your link. Can you past link to PDF of the Cetacean Specialist Gropus. Secondly, "No species of Whales has gone extinc" is a fact. And that canpt be censored by your anti-whaling agenda. You can mention about the extinction of Atlantic Gray Whales population in Gray Whale section. FWBOarticle 08:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/actionplans/cetaceans/cetaceans.pdf

For crying out loud, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THE ATLANTIC GRAY WHALE IS A SPECIES. Thus no-one is saying that a species of whales has gone extinct (at the hands of whalers). Please refrain from making that accusation again. That you wish to hide facts about extinct and critically endangered populations that the IUCN point out, not me, by putting them in the "Lower Risk" column is a pure indication of your POV.

It is also indicative of your lack of knowledge in this area. Let me ask you this - the last time you asked a whaler, or a conservationist, which ever side of the debate you like, do they talk in terms of species, or do they talk about populations?

I ask this because you seem under the delusion that species are the be all and end all. They are not. This is not just me saying this - this is absolutely the standard practice across all of zoology. My instinct is that you don't have that much familiarity with this area, and parroting what you have read on whaling.jp. Pcb21| Pete 08:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for the link. And it appear the reason for giving difference conservation status of population is not attributed to genetic difference. It merely describe some population to be genetically different. Therefore, I will alter it.

What DO you think that the status of populations is listed? When you read that PDF (just the opening ten pages or so will give you a feel) where is the emphasis? Populations! Again I repeat the suggestion that you do not have much familiarity with this area.

Secondly, I know you are not saying that atlantic gray whale is a species. Problem is that puting that into "IUCN List" is incorrect because it's conservation status is defined as the status of "taxion" and Atlantic Gray Whale do not have this classification. I have made allowwance to your insistence of inclusion of population gropus as appendix. But Atlantic population of Gray Whale cannot be presented in contradiction with IUCN LIST's conservation status qualification. If you are not happy about it, you can present these population's conservation status outside IUCN RED LIST. You are free to mention that souce of conservation status of each population come from IUCN or source quoted in IUCN. And yes, I know these different subspecies of whales can crossbreed. And me, you or zoologist can debate about the definition of species. The point I'm raising is that we should not distort IUCN RedList. IUCN says under the definition set by IUCN, EXTINCT category do not have whales taxtion. Four Species of whale are categorised as ENDANGERED. Mink Wales are "Near Threatened". Each category are specifically defined by IUCN and you ought to leave these definitions as they are. FWBOarticle 10:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have always only presented the same information available from the IUCN. In fact, for the last few revisions, I have presented exactly the same information as you. It is only the manner of presentation that we haven't agreed on. You want a "critically endangered" column empty for your own political purposes. You might say I don't want it empty for MY own purposes. My point is that as a scientist in the field, I am confident my presentation would meet with general scientific approval, and yours would not. Pcb21| Pete 10:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

O.K. then you can have whale population which has proper IUCN classification included in IUCN Red List. That means, Atlantic Gray Whales is out. You are free to mention its extinction somewhere else. FWBOarticle 10:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have repeatedly refused to listen to me - as evidenced by your new claim that the extinct population of AGWs is not recognised by the IUCN. It is mentioned in three places in the IUCN AGW entry. Removal of valid, IUCN-approved information will from now on result in automatic revert. Pcb21| Pete 10:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not clear of your reference. Can you provide me with links and page number. If Atlantic Grey Whales is accorded separate population status with proper IUCN conservation category, then go ahead. It appear that several population of Righ Whales among others indeed have proper IUCN status assigned so I apologise for the deletion of these whale population.FWBOarticle 10:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I won't delete AGW till then.

From http://www.redlist.org/search/details.php?species=8097

"The Gray Whale was extirpated from the North Atlantic within the last 300–400 years, so the only extant representatives of the family Eschrichtiidae are the Gray Whales in the North Pacific."

"The Gray Whale became extinct in the North Atlantic in early historical times but survives in the North Pacific, where there are two geographically separated populations."

Pcb21| Pete 11:07, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've reconsidered and taken the AGW out of the table, as the other Gray species are granted specific codes, but extinct populations are not - that just the way the IUCN list works. I mention the extinction beneath the table. Sorry for the fuss. Pcb21| Pete 16:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

no problem. You were right abcout Critically Eandangered list anyway. FWBOarticle 17:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re-org

Re new sections: Hi FWBO. I know we've had a tricky time building a working relationship, so I wanted to try to take things slowly with your most recent additions... however a lot of what you adding is repeating what we have at International Whaling Commission. We need to take a look at the logical arrangement of sections... things seem to getting a bit out-of-hand. Maybe we should draw up some a layout plan here? Pcb21| Pete 19:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FWBO - I reverted some changes that seemed to make the article even more all over the place. Where are you going with this? Pcb21| Pete 23:00, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree we are having some significant change in the presentation. It is my view that having some concise history, political mechanism and three whaling category of IWC is just so important in modern whaling that it should be discussed as a separate section. Once the text become too big, then it could be farmed out to the separate IWC article for further reading. I have noticed that IWC article itself is not that detailed. Secondly, I felt that the argument in regard to pro and anti whaling in term of conseration status of whales section were getting too big and the information ought to be split between the debate about conservation (anti whaling) and resource utilistion (prowhaling) and the scientific facts about conservation status of whale. I thought that the conservation status can be more appropriately placed in the modern section. I will do bit of copy and paste to see how it works. FWBOarticle

Using a table for conservation status

I saw you converted to a table. Although I think the list looks neater (and others do too in general see Wikipedia:How to use tables and its talk page), lets stick with the table so that I don't revert everything you do :)! However we cannot have, for example, the Pacific Blue Whale subspecies in the Endangered column - it must go in the Lower Risk/CD column where it belongs - similarly for the other populations - else the table simply has data in the wrong columns. Note this means that some populations "move to the right" (i.e. are listed under a less endangered column" and others "move to the left" - it is not all one way. Pcb21| Pete 07:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note on species

I saw you undid my change wrt to right whales species. Actually the North Pacific and North Atlantic Right Whales are two separate species ( Eubalaena glacialis and Eubalaena japonica)

Gray Whale

The Gray Whale northeast population appears both in the 'critically endangered' column and the 'lower risk' column. The gray whale page has it as lower risk. Should it be under both?

Revert, please

Could someone revert the document back to last version made by Apyule? 61.91.145.67 vandalized the article, and I don't know how to revert.

Done. If you want to see how to revert a page, have a look here. --Apyule 05:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

POV: User:Hokanomono

It is my belief that Hokanomono has a chip on his shoulder against Greenpeace or anything anti-whaling. I base this on the fact that he reverted one of my updates with the description of 'removing greenpeace propaganda'. I have no affiliation with any 'animal rights' group.

I recently updated the Japan section to reflect the global trends and reactions to Japanese incursions in Australian coastal waters, the current trend of whale being on Japanese school menu's and the argument that it is 'culturally acceptable' to slaughter whales under the guise of 'research' yet use the produce for food.

This is all based on various media sources (Reuters, news.com.au, CNN) and citing references would be moot as it was global news in each instance. Therefore the validity of my edit is not in question.

I wish to ask that Hokanomono cease unthought reverts on his knee-jerk POV receptiveness on this subject and instead heed to a more Wikipedian code of conduct on the matter. I am writing this for the benefit of those who noticed my revert and for Hokanomono. Jachin 23:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, in a moment of rage I deleted too much. I was upset by the paragraph which states as a fact that Japan would try to buy it's way back to commercial whaling. Allegations like this should be quoted as what they are: allegations from greenpeace and media citing greenpeace, but not facts so far. However, it may be that this section is not the right place to discuss these allegations.

Phrase your text to just explain the state of discussion and it will not be POV but a valuable contribution to the article. -- Hokanomono 07:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

POV: User:Jachin

Part of your entry states:

"In recent years, through its fisheries aid funding, the Japanese Fisheries Agency has been amassing a group of small, impoverished island states such as Tuvalu, Palau and Grenada (among many others, plus African countries such as Guinea and Benin, and even the landlocked Mongolia) to create a pro-whaling bloc in the International Whaling Commission, in an attempt to "buy" its way back to commercial whaling."

That "may" or "may" not be the case, but if you wish a NPOV, you should also include the anti- whaling lobbying to include countries such as Switzerland and various other landlocked countries who do not or have never been whaling countries. As it stands, your first paragraph really does resemble Greenpeace propaganda. I really "should" write a paragraph or two on how the present state of affairs at the IWC is a direct result of anti-whaling "gaming" of the politics and make-up of the IWC Plenary commitee. Whilst I´m at it, I´ll include how the plenary committee politicians have ignored many aspects of the scientific committee´s recommendations for the last 15 years or so

That wasn't posted by me. Check the history. That was part of the original Japan entry as far as I'm aware. Jachin 08:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Switzerland argument does not seem to be valid. A landlocked country could still consider whaling to be a cruel practice that should be banned, while it is more difficult to see why a landlocked country like Mongolia would fight for a resumption of commercial whaling which it does not have any economic interest in. Tomtefarbror 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As for this :

"This is backed up by the fact that all whale meat from 'research harvested whales' is sold to resteraunts, recently even becoming a menu item in certain Japanese school cafeteria's under the guise of it being a 'cultural dish'. This indicates that the whales were killed for cultural dining purposes and not research, which would be in direct breach of the IWC's mandates."

It´s a requirement of their permit that the meat be sold to offset costs - It´s an IWC requirment / rule. I suggest you read the ICRW in detail, particularly Article VIII

So where is the 'research' factor? I don't think a carcass used in scientific research is safe for human consumption, but then again Japan has never published any of it's 'whale' research to date, so we'll never know whether it's safe or not.  ;) Jachin 08:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What you "think" is your personal opinion ;) ...

Here are a list of papers submitted to the IWC by the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research ( ICR ) to the IWC scientific committee

http://luna.pos.to/whale/icr_papers.html 217.83.102.114 10:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a rather gross error to forget that is what IWC rules say. We should also note who lobbied to have that rule put in ;). Pcb21| Pete 09:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, just for the sake of fairness, have a read here http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_vb.html Propaganda or facts ? makes interesting reading either way - ( what´s good for the goose etc (eg) )217.83.127.249 15:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Numbers :

Japan Kills around 470 minke whales whales in the antartic each year - they plan to increase that to 900 and to add some fin and humpback whales in the antartic to the total number. So they do not " kill almost a thousand whales for ´research` - they do have a dolphin drive fishery which would knock the numbers up however, but that´s another subject entirely and has no place in this article.

Please do not rely on "media" sources in your edits - they are notoriously unreliable and biased in their own right.

Again you're jumping the gun, check the history, that was from the original article.  :) Jachin 08:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

07:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The numbers are a matter of public record (indeed they are on the iwcoffice.org website. It should be trivial to note the correct numbers with a citation - indeed the articles used to do this, and it would be a shame to make articles worse! Pcb21| Pete 09:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Done ;o)11:12, 3 November 2005

This article still seems to be strongly POV. For such a large quantity of material devoted to Japanese whaling, there is a tiny amount given to the views of the critics of the Japanese whaling programme. The only reason I can see for having such a large section devoted to Japan is because there is a lot of controversy surrounding it. Of course the best thing would be to cut this section down significantly, and include prominent mention of the controvertial nature of the subject. Certainly get rid of obviously POV wording such as "it is hypocritical and inconsistent". I might come back in a while and if no-one else has done a clean-up, I'll either attempt it myself or post "POV" and "Controversial" boilerplates on the article. Fuzzypeg 04:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you post in the IWC article as that is where any controversy arises concerning the legality of the Japanese hunt.SammytheSeal 07:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the Japan section in this article concise

A detailed description of all the various allegations and counter-allegations can go the Whaling in Japan and IWC articles. Pcb21| Pete 12:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite agree with you Pete, but in that case, lets remove or transfer the obvious bias out of the article. For Example : In recent years, through its fisheries aid funding, the Japanese Fisheries Agency has been allegedly amassing a group of small, impoverished island states such as Tuvalu, Palau and Grenada (among many others, plus African countries such as Guinea and Benin, and even the landlocked Mongolia) to create a pro-whaling bloc in the International Whaling Commission, in an attempt to "buy" its way back to commercial whaling. Such attempts have been hampered so far by the scarcity of further sovereign nations willing to surrender to what has been called the "Yen Diplomacy".

or comments such as this " under the guise of 'scientific research' "

it´s fairly plain that the article is anti-whaling biased SammytheSeal 12:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I am happy to work with you on improving it. Remember that you may have your own biases, that are hard to recognise in yourself. For example I thought I was writing neutrally when I wrote a lot of this article (and related articles) a year or so ago. Now I think that then I was biased and not giving the whaling viewpoint a fair crack. Now I probably have some other bias :) even though I think I understand the subject pretty well. Pcb21| Pete 13:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As an example, take a look at the BBC News article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4417462.stm - published today about the beginning of the South Pacific season. Is the BBC neutral on this issue, in your opinion? Pcb21| Pete 13:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No Pete, I don´t think that the correspondent that wrote that article was completely neutral - It´s a combination of (mainly )fact and (some )mis-representation. We should be striving to present just the facts in the Whaling article - loopholes, politics, gaming and who said what when don´t really have a place there. I would like/intend to remove /rewrite various sections when time allows -(much of which Mattopia has already done incidentally )SammytheSeal 11:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

While I think that Whaling in Japan and IWC are good places for the details, I don't agree that there is an anti-whaling bias. --Apyule 13:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that most of the stuff in this section is crap that should be moved somewhere else. Given that this article is an overview of whaling, the section on Japan should really provide details on the history of whaling in Japan (which is the detail that is sorely missing. Anyone who knows when whaling was first introduced, etc. would be very useful), and Japan's current desire to push for an end to the moratorium, as well as the numbers and types that it catches. The bit about Australia's opinion is just out of place (there is a Japanese section in the article that tell's all about Australia's opinion, but doesn't mention anything from the Japanese opinions). Perhaps if people want to write Australia's opinion there should be another section of the article about Anti-Whaling countries, and the actions/threats of Australia/NZ and other antiwhaling nations could be moved there. Alternatively, there could be another page created about Aus vs. Japan on the whaling issue (hopefully where arguments from both sides can be included).

I also agree with SammytheSeal that the one section about buying votes is not totally NPOV. For a start, it doesn't state which organization is asserting that Japan is buying votes. The BBC article doesn't make that assertion. I think the comment can only really stay if the source can be tracked down. It seems pretty obvious that an allegation about this by an impartial group such as a UN commitee carries far more weight than the same allegation made by an anti-whaling group.

By the same token, the edits that SammytheSeal made include similarly out of place assertions that don't belong in this section (particularly because they are about IWC). I think all of the stuff about how the IWC has turned into a political forum of pro- vs. anti-whaling countries/organizations should be moved to the IWC section. Mattopia 14:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mattopia, Agree that the NGO vote manipulation assertions are out of place in this article, but not when the japanese vote-buying assertions are allowed to stand. Allowing one, you have to allow the other, or remove both and add to a completely new page / and or IWC article SammytheSeal 15:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to PCB21 - Apyule

Hi Pete, We actually have met once upon a time in a cold faraway place;). Yes, I try hard to keep my edits neutral or present a neutralising (opposite )point of view but it´s not the easiest of things to do when most folk rely on media as fact. I do understand the field/ subject pretty well from a professional standpoint as you might remember;). How´s about this - I´ll look over what "I" think should be changed / edited to provide a less biased article, communicate that to you for ummmmm review/discussion and we can go from there?. Be warned though, there are swathes I intend to adress/add to when I find the time;) some of which I´ll detail below in my reply to Apyule SammytheSeal 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

To Apyule, I´ll answer you here as opposed to your talk page so as to save repeating myself. Some anti-whaling bias ....

• " Anti-whaling groups say there is insufficient demand for even this relatively low level of whaling and that "Icelandic freezers are full with up to 40 tonnes of unsold whale meat and blubber".

Looks like a media article / NGO quote but whatever, If someone can provide independant references ..I see similar "facts" in the media even today regarding Norway´s "blubber mountain" ( which has´nt existed for a number of years )I´ll do some extra research of my own and get back to you on that one

• " In recent years, through its fisheries aid funding, the Japanese Fisheries Agency has been allegedly amassing a group of small, impoverished island states such as Tuvalu, Palau and Grenada (among many others, plus African countries such as Guinea and Benin, and even the landlocked Mongolia) to create a pro-whaling bloc in the International Whaling Commission, in an attempt to "buy" its way back to commercial whaling. Such attempts have been hampered so far by the scarcity of further sovereign nations willing to surrender to what has been called the "Yen Diplomacy".

Has no place in the whaling article - If anywhere, it should be in the Whaling in Japan article ( which incidentally, would probably be more correctly called Japanese whaling as most of their whaling operations are in the antartic ) it should also be pointed out ( as it did until you reverted it )that anti-whaling NGO´s did exactly the same in the lead up to the 1982 moratorium - and have continued to recruit anti-whaling nations into the IWC ever since. The politics or gaming in the IWC should´nt really be in the whaling article at all - they should really be in the appropriate articles ( IWC, whaling in Japan etc )

• " In 2005, the Japanese whaling fleet, under the guise of 'scientific research' "

(Sigh...) Japan conducts research under the auspices of the ICRW and has presented the results of said research to the IWC scientific committee. To allege that the hunt is commercial is simply flawed in view of the $/yen figures. It does not make a profit even when partially subsidised. (20% of total program cost in 1999 ) Here´s a quote from Dr Ray Gambell, former Secretariat of the IWC : " When the 1946 Convention under which we operate was signed, one of the major articles introduced by the USA was the provision for a government to be able to issue permits for research purposes. That has always been in the Convention and many governments over the years have caught quite large numbers of whales for research purposes but associated with that provision is whales are too valuable just to catch, measure and throw away. If you catch whales for research purposes, the requirement is that they are fully utilised and the products disposed of in a way that the government decides. In other words, the products have to be fully utilised and Japan is doing what every other government has done in previous years. It's using the whales for research, getting the research results which are sent to the Scientific Committee of the IWC and it's putting the products into the market place"

BTW Pete, it was the US who pushed to have that clause put in - they wanted to continue to hunt Sperm whales for Spermacetti oil, which was used as gyroscope lubricant.

• "The Australian government often criticizes the Japan government's actions on whaling, and threaten to initiate diplomatic and international court action against Japan. However, this is based on the fact that some of Japanese whaling is carried out in waters claimed by Australia as part of the Australian Antarctic Territory. While there is evidence that more than 400 whales have been killed in Australian Antarctic waters since 2000 by Japanese whaling vessels, the validity of claims to Antarctic territories are largely disputed internationally and have not been tested under international law."

This should also be in the whaling in Japan article

• " justified by the Norwegian industry as for scientific purposes."

Justified? It was for scientific purposes - I´d remove that.

• "Those opposed to whaling say that this export is a violation of the spirit of the IWC moratorium, which the High North Alliance says it adheres to. Commenting in June 2003, British fisheries minister Elliot Morley said "We believe the Norwegian whaling is against the spirit of the moratorium. Norway say that their commercial whaling is legal because they registered an objection when the moratorium was agreed by the commission, so under IWC rules they're allowed to continue hunting. But we think it goes against the spirit of the ban, and certainly their attempts to export the meat are illegal. They're desperate to find an export market, and that shows the whaling isn't for domestic consumption - and it's not sustainable."

Belongs elsewhere - The Norwegian hunt ( and export )is legal despite what Morley thinks - Norway conducts a sustainable hunt and their self- imposed quotas are way below what they would be allowed if the IWC finally adopted the RMS/RMP.

• "Anti-whaling campaigners say this method of killing is cruel, particularly if carried out by inexperienced whalers "

There are NO inexperienced whalers ( actually, that should read gunners ) onboard Norwegian whaling boats - there is a rigid program in place to test and check the abilities of the gunners, which they must attend yearly before the whaling season starts.( at their own cost incidentally )If they don´t pass the course, they have their gunner licence taken away. I suspect a similar program in Japan but will check. As to the rest of the " Organic growth; Method of killing " paragraph, I´d like to point out that there is NO 100% humane method of killing - the arguement that all whaling should be stopped because whales cannot be killed humanely is ridiculous - following that arguement, we´d all be vegetarians..

I´m not going to go anywhere near the subject of loopholes in the IWC at the moment. way too much work;)

Okey dokey, enough for now ;) comments? SammytheSeal 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Japanese section - reorg

I reorganized the Japanese section into more of a historical time-line. I hope this makes it NPOV enough that everyone is happy. There is already a huge section on vote-buying allegations in the International Whaling Commission page, so I added a link to that, and removed from this page. Mattopia 16:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the vote buying aspect is pertinent enough to be covered in this article, or at least mentioned. Along with the vehement protestations of Australia against the Japanese illegally fishing in Australian coastal waters as we speak, for the fourth day, with calls from the Prime Minister stating, "Over twenty years of whaling and still no research papers published, scientific research, yeah .. right." (Sydney Morning Herald, 24/12/2005).

Well, If your Prime Minister would bother to read the article on Wikipedia, he´s find this link to papers presented to the IWC scientific committee. http://luna.pos.to/whale/icr_papers.html SammytheSeal 08:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I fear the recent 'reorganisation' has made it too NPOV to the point where it is POV and not reflective of the abhorrent distaste of humanity. Whaling is one of the worlds most universally agreed upon 'evils' as such by all people except a minority of countries that still practise it.

Please try and avoid tarring "all people" with the same brush. I don´t find it "evil" at all and I don´t come from a whaling country either.SammytheSeal 08:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that had Wikipedia been originated two hundred years ago, I would like to think POV or not, when slavery was begining to be phased out of the world it would have had the same outlook as enlightened and educated fellows and not be 'worried about npov' and instead detail it factually with no sugar coating. 211.30.80.121 06:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you equating slavery with whaling?SammytheSeal 08:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Recipe link

A link to a whale meat recipe page is not needed in this article. It adds nothing to the content of the article and would be like having a link to elk recipes in the hunting article. Plus, this is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. --Apyule 12:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Re : The economic argument

This section : " In particular, not a single country in the Southern Hemisphere is currently whaling or intends to, and proposals to permanently forbid whaling South of the Equator are defended by the abovementioned developing countries plus Peru, Uruguay, Australia, and New Zealand, which strongly object to the continuation of Japanese whaling in the Antarctic under the guise of " scientific catches".

Is´nt strictly true, Indonesia (Lamalera) has a small Sperm whale hunt and small numbers of killer whales, beaked whales and small cetaceans are taken, last time I looked, Indonesia is in the Southern Hemisphere.SammytheSeal 23:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If there are nations that object to uteriorly motivated 'scientific catches' they should force the US to lift extortion of sanctions against Japan if it should lodge an objection against the IWC moratorium but they don't seem to care (mind you these nations' governments have a long tradition of imposing voodoo economic policies). Copue441 14:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Section from Whaling in Japan deleted

I edited the following because it was biased in its point of view, calling non-whaling governments hypocritical and written in a style that was very hard to follow (I would assume that the author was not a native speaker of English). It also included several conjugational errors:

The Japanese government point out that IWC regulation require whale meat to be fully utilised once it's been caught. Moreover, it is hypocritical and inconsistent, on one hand, to insist that scientific evidence on whale population is inaccurate and/or insufficient in term of commercial whaling while at the same time insist otherwise in case of scientific whaling, which Japanese government says is needed in order to ascertain the sustainability of any commercial whaling operations, and to provide evidence on repealing the moratorium.

to this:

The Japanese government points out that IWC regulations require that whale meat be utilised upon the completion of research. The Japanese government insists that it be allowed to continue research into whale populations and breeding habits in order to refute claims that commercial whaling threatens the sustainability of the populations. Bobby1011 07:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The accusation of hypocracy is clearly attributed to come from the Japanese government. It is not NPOV to censor view which has clear POV attribution. I would say better disambiguation is to differentiate the legal case (iwc regulation) and moral case (accusation of hypocracy). Moreover, the Japanese side is allowed to hunt whales on scientific ground under iwc regulation whether anti whaling side likes it or not. Therefore, to say "Japanese government insists" is slanting the presentation to make it looks like it is a POV of prowhaling side.

The Japanese government point out that hunting of whale for research purpose is specifically sanctioned under IWC regulation and IWC regulations specifically require that whale meat be fully utilised upon the completion of research. Furthermore it argue that it is hypocritical and inconsistent, on one hand, to insist that scientific evidence on whale population is inaccurate and/or insufficient in the context of commercial whaling while at the same time insist that the scientific whaling is uncecessarily.

Feel free to rebut two different arguments with proper POV attribution 82.21.35.176

Japan's price of whale meat

I think it's important to note that the Japanese younger generation do not like whale meat. Large numbers of Japanese are not buying it, as the price drop reflects. The older generations of Japanese are not buying it. I think it's possible to add the price of whale meat as a encyclopedic fact to reflect this change in Japanese culture, and to whaling as a whole. --Masssiveego 06:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Massiveego, there were a couple of reasons that I removed the price reference. The first is that the price given is the wholesale price. There is no way you can simply convert the number to $US and compare it to the retail price of beef in the US to get a fair comparison of the price. If you wanted to get a fairer comparison of the price, it would be best to compare supermarket prices of whale in Japan to the supermarket prices of beef or chicken. However, retail prices of whale meat are still so expensive that most Japanese supermarkets don't even consider stocking it, so it is fairly hard to draw a true comparison.

The other problem is the comments by some Japanese saying thay dislike whale meat. It is obvious that some Japanese would not like the taste of whale meat, no different to some people disliking the taste of beef or chicken. It is POV to include comments by the people that dislike the taste and exclude comments by people that like the taste. I wouldn't care if comments from both sides (like the taste and dislike the taste) were included, but I think it would start an edit war over a completely subjective sensory perception. The idea that young people in Japan do not like whale meat is crap. Its not hard for a reporter to walk down the street and find a young Japanese who hates whale meat, but it equally not hard for a reporter to walk down the street and find a young Japanese who loves whale meat. That kind of anecdotal evidence is POV. It needs some kind of more scientific polling.Mattopia 09:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I find this kind of local info too detailed for the general whaling page. We have a Whaling in Japan article. Why not put it there? And as Mattopia says, it has to be based on proper statistics, not just what answers a western journalist in Tokyo got on the street. Actually, I think the Japan section is big enough as it is. Because of the controversy around Japanese whaling, we have to be careful so this section doesn't grow out of control. It should suffice with one paragraph on each of the following topics: history, present scientific whaling, critisism and quotas. Details, including the Australian Antarctic Territory paragraph, should go to the Whaling in Japan article. Matt77 15:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Whale meat taste like any other meat to be honest. The reason the price of whale meat was kept so high was much to do with hightened demand generated by the fuss. In Japan, the issue of whaling is sort of regarded as dying out. Even in the West, it is getting harder and harder to argue for the prohibition of hunting for mink whale, for example. If the moratorium continue, then that would give justification for scientific whaling. So one way or another, it pretty much have zero impact on whaling activities. The support for whaling still remain high. Just that public is not that interested in the issue anymore, which is reflected in the price of whale. Whale still remain cheap meat from the cost of production POV though. To be honest, the change in attitude is reflected in the wikipedia article as well. FWBOarticle 23:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Although whaling isn't the most appetizing profession, it still deserves a neutral article. I see some blatant anti-whaling stuff in the tagged section of this article. Just ignore this if I'm being a moron. -63.229.27.236 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

minke whale's diet

A minke whale's daily diet consists of 10 kilograms of fish per kilogram of body mass

It doesn't seem to be correct. Even the very small animals don't eat 10 times their mass per day, and the bigger the animal the smaller the ratio. Taw 12:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Taw, you are right. The 10 kg per kg body mass must refer to the annual intake, not the daily. --Arnejohs 13:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

News

Please read and integrate this articol from independent: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article358190.ece It deals with the oncoming Japan control of IWC.

And did you know that wikipedia isn't supposed to be a soapbox? :D Vapour

Organically grown?

Whale meat is "Organically Grown?" That's wrong on so many levels... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.144.105.220 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. It makes whales sound like a plant crop, rather than wild animals. --Apyule 12:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Want to call them farmed instead? ;)Or "game" ? If you can come up with a better "description" then go ahead.."Organically Grown" fits better than anything I can think of offhand ... in many european countries, Minke whale meat would be classified as "Bio-meat" - strange but true ... SammytheSeal 12:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

US whaling history

The comments that the US has "killed more whales in its history than all other nations in the world" needs checking and citing. I have added the relevant templates. I would have considered moving the relevant text here for discussion, but I suspect that might get into people just reverting the comments back into the article without discussion.

I have removed the unsubstantiated assertion. Feel free to provide a source and replace it. Isopropyl 13:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Whaling vs. Pro-Conversation

To whoever is trying to anonymously change the term "anti-whaling" to "pro-conservation", can you stop it? Some of the main advocates on the "anti-whaling" side are national governments. They are not conservation groups. While many conservation groups are part of the anti-whaling side of the argument, they are only part of the anti-whaling side. It seems fairly NPOV to me to have "pro-whaling" and "anti-whaling" as the opposing sides in an argument against whaling. Perhaprs if you want to call the anti-whaling side "pro-conservation", then the pro-whaling side could be called the "pro-sustainable management" side. Neither term mentions the word whaling, though, which is a bit of a wank when that is the central topic. Mattopia 08:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Whale Meat and Environmental Toxins

I´m going to research actual figures and facts before I edit this section - although there is no doubt about toxins in whales, in many cases, they are concentrated in the blubber, with much lower ( and in some countries acceptable ) concentrations in the meat itself. I´ll link to the relevant papers once ( and if ) I edit SammytheSeal 12:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, "whale meat" is the generic term most often used to describe whale food products. See [1].

By making a distinction between "meat" and "blubber" you are obfuscating the general danger of consuming whale food products.

Further research on the subject indicates that most scientific references refer to whale blubber in the case of environmental toxins in minke whales - there is no question that in TOOTHED whale meat - such toxin levels are reported to be high - but as the focus is on minke whales in whaling for the most part, I have changed the paragraph to reflect this .. here is one Scientific cite [2]

I will add more as and when I can dig them out of the net - feel free to reference scientific cites opposing this view SammytheSeal 08:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, both the meat and the blubber are consumed. Many subsistence cultures consume blubber, whether fresh or dried; in Japan, on the other hand, the muscle meat is preferred. Cf. [3]. --Graham^talk/mail/e 08:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is completely incorrect to say that muscle meat is preferred in Japan. In fact, blubber, fatty whale "bacon", and whale organ meat are popular. Please see the peer-reviewed scientific study on whale food products in Japan [4].

I just self-reverted; I was misreading your comment to refer to all consumed whale products, when in fact (I think) you were referring only to the fact that studies of toxicity have centered on blubber. Sorry 'bout that. --Graham^talk/mail/e 08:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Graham - yes, most of the studies ( actually all that I have found to date ) center on blubber contamination - toxic levels in minke whale meat Seem to be under acceptable limits - toothed whale meat is another story howver - I will try and edit to reflect this in the corresponding article(s) ..SammytheSeal 08:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a brief statement on the presence of toxins in whale, you should avoid obfuscating the issue which is that whale meat *can* contain dangerous toxins, not necessarily that it *does* in all species. If you would like to suggest that whale meat is safe for certain species and not safe for others, then the onus is upon you to write a more detailed summary with appropriate citations to back up your claims. Most reports I've seen find toxins in both meat and blubber. By toxins I mean not only PCB's but also mercury. You have re-phrased the section in such a way to imply that whale meat is safe, which is simply irresponsible given some of the reported findings.

I am curently n the process of Beefing up ( excuse the pun ) the paragraph on the subject - as it stands / stood, the paragraph implied that all whale meat was unsafe and a danger to eat ..I´ll leave it be until I can cite the scientific/government relevant sources and rewrite the paragraph reflecting which species in which whaling nations and what parts of the species are safe to eat or not - fair enough? SammytheSeal 19:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To be responsible, any statement in the Wikipedia has to highlight the danger of whale food products. Some whale meat may be safer than others, however the majority of samples studied have dangerous toxicity [5]. It would have to be a rather long article to given a definitive guide to what is relatively safe and what is dangerous. Are you really in a position to write that article? Furthermore, it has been found that the whale meat sold in Japanese markets is often mislabelled. So someone who thinks they are consuming Antarctice Minke muscle meat, might actually be getting some dolphin, with a nice cocktail of PCBs and mercury. Then there's the school lunches ... Would you really want your kids to be forced to eat whale meat?

Here is another - from Greenpeace International of all people ;O) .. [6].

I quote the Conclusion of the rather long paper :

" Conclusions Whale blubber is contaminated with various halogen-organic contaminants.The most conservative guidance value for tolerable intake of PCB is exceeded by consumption of only 0,05 g of the highest contaminated blubber. Even the least conservative value is exceeded by consumption of only 16 g of the blubber of the highest contamination level. Food limit values for PCB are exceeded up to 90-times.The most conservative guidance value for tolerable intake of DDT is exceeded by consumption of only 2,3 g of the highest contaminated blubber. Even the least conservative value is exceeded by consumption of 45 g of the blubber of the highest contamination level. Food limit values for DDT are exceeded 3-times (WHO, FDAvalue) to 333-times (EU-value for fat). The contaminations in whale meat (only data for CPs and PBDE) do not exceed guidance values for tolerable intake. These values are also not exceeded by CPs or PBDE in blubber. "

Nuff said ..SammytheSeal 08:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical statistics

I know this is a matter of controversy, but it is also a matter of research, but it would be nice to have some data on the numbers of whales harvested per year over time. I have seen some numbers cited in policy books, and they might be highly speculative or controversial, but it would be useful to include them. This is what I was looking for when I referenced this article. I've seen some numbers in this area used in discussion energy policy, and in particular, the end of (cheap) oil. Tied to this data is the market demand for whales, for which I will add another section.

Mulp 05:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Market forces driving whaling

As I noted above, I have seen selective statistics used in the discussion of such policy matters like oil depletion. In one of the books on oil policy, the history of whaling was discussed related to the market for whale oil as used for lighting. The competition was tallow candles, with one having an advantage due to smoke/smell, details are vague. Other alternatives esisted, but those were listed as the precursors to the initial boom in the oil market, which when combined with the depletion of whale stocks which was driving up the price of whale oil, resulted in a rapid switch over to petroleum.

I believe a similar situation occurred with one of the other major drivers of whaling demand, balen, with plastics being developed, plus a change in fashions. This might have been driven by the war.

I came to this article hoping to find an "energy" related set of statistics or similar useful "quotes" for an essay. If I can find some sources in my library, I'll endeavor to return and add them...

Mulp 05:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)