First night at sea | Home | Departure and the first 24 hours at sea

The nature protection organizations of Russia are ready To join
To the protest. But the help as the information is very necessary for us.
I wait for the answer
rock757@bk.ru

The nature protection organizations of Russia are ready To join
To the protest. But the help as the information is very necessary for us.
I wait for the answer
rock757@bk.ru

great ! great to have New Zealand Air Force helping and participating to document illegal Japanese whaling activities. I am politely urging the Australian government to join forces, and send navy vessels to the Ross Sea.
Hurry up, Espy-crew, to go there and stop the slaughter!
Good luck and calm seas - francois

This is indeed a stroke of luck. May it be a good omen for a successful campaign.

Japans' whaling as in bottom trawling needs the public. Public awarness has dwindled badly in the last few years. As a former canvasser in Canada in the early 80's, it was just as important to inform the public as it was to collect donations & memberships. Politicians have made unwanted inroads to a public who may be either ill-informed, or just unwittingly beleiving the spin put on by our Politicians, perhaps just frustrated into believing nothing can be done. But it can..once again. Take the time, write your concerns to your MLAs' & MPs', newspaper editorials. The government of Canada has brought tears to my eyes with its' reversals on things such as the seal pup kill(spun as "harvesting"), Kyoto, to name but a few outrages. Inform your freinds, work colleagues, parents, family and all who care about the future of yourselves and your future loved ones.

I'm deeply worried or disappoinetd that Greenpeace uses what might be called " misinformation" re the Japanese hunt in the Southern Oceans.

On Greenpeace Nordic's website you can read that Japan is carrying out a hunt in SOS , where hunting is not permitted, without mentioning that Japan's hunt in the SOS is in fact legal.

This is from IFAW: " Japan has lodged an objection to the extent that it applies to minke whales..."

You can also read that Japan will hunt humpbacks this year in the SOS...

How on earth will GP has an impact on governments when they can't have their facts straight?

Hi Ann - commercial whaling is NOT allowed in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. The Japanese government is carrying out so-called "scientific whaling" in the sanctuary, but somehow needs to kill 945 whales (935 minkes, 10 endangered fins) for "scientific research", and then sell the meat for commercial purposes.

Meanwhile, at the IWC, Japan is under criticism because of this "scientific whaling", while constantly pushing for a return to full blown commercial whaling.

On the humpbacks in 2007 - the Antarctic whaling season typically runs from December through to March. So, the season we're currently dealing with is, from the IWC's point of view, the 2006 season. The Japanese fleet intends to start hunting humpbacks in December 2007.

Make sense?

Hi Dave!
Thanks for your clarification re season/year...

GP Nordic states that the whaling is so called " scientific whaling" and " Japan decided this year to start hunt Fin whales and Humpbacks..."

Go go Greenpeace it is time to really go for it.

It's totally nonsense to use "scientific research" as an excuse to kill those whales. If that should be their case, why dont all of us study anthropology and start having "scientific research" on those Japanese whalers. any takers for that?

Ah look Dave, they're learning!

Ann, yes, the whalers claim that their hunt is "scientific" - that that need to claim 945 whales for "research" purposes. During 2007, the fleet will hunt both fins and humpbacks, but during two different seasons. Each summer whaling season in the Antarctic straddles two calendar years.

Hi Ann,

Greenpeace are often tricky like this with what they say - they seek to mislead while at the same time keeping themselves an escape route, by saying things that aren't strictly untrue - just they draw faulty conclusions.

In this instance they talk about killing humpback whales this year, which gives the impression that the ICR is hunting humpbacks in the current season. Maybe it's unintentional? Were Greenpeace looking to give people accurate information, they would say "hunting humpbacks next season". Perhaps this hasn't occurred to Greenpeace - well they have no excuse now that both you and I have pointed it out.

[Dave on the Esperanza: David - that's a load of rubbish. Why do you constantly need to be so disingenuous? The whaling fleet will start humpbacks later in 2007 - and you well know it. They're currently in the 2006 season, even though the calendar years is 2007. You're starting to hunt conspiracy theories where there are none! (but then, I'm probably part of the conspiracy). If you're truly interested in protecting the various whale species - as I assume you are, otherwise you wouldn't be hanging out here - then it seems unconstructive to be making such unsupported statements. ]

Same thing with the stockpile figures. They only refer to increasing average size of stockpiles as some kind of evidence that consumption in Japan is drying up - conveniently leaving out figures that show both the volume of whale meat coming on to the stockpile as well as the volume of whale meat moving off the stockpile has increased significantly in recent times. If one looks at other stockpile figures for other products, one realises that the most popular of products have stockpile sizes than are as much as 10 times the magnitude of the whale meat stockpile. When compared against the level of beef exports from New Zealand and Australia, whale meat again pales in significance. Both New Zealand and Australia export hundreds and thousands of tonnes of beef to overseas markets every year. New Zealand exports around 40,000 tonnes of kiwi beef to the Japanese market alone. A whale meat stockpile of 4,400 tonnes (and decreasing - the volume will probably be down to around 3,000 tonnes by the time JARPA returns, and even once it does the meat won't be sold until July) is insignificant in comparison.

Greenpeace appear to only be interested in obtaining support for their campaign - they have no qualms about whether the support is well informed or not. This is what gives so many people a bad impression of Greenpeace and brings the true motives of their anti-whaling campaign into question.

Dave on the Esperanza: David, you seem to insist on trotting on these same old stories, again and again on our blogs. You're repeating yourself! Your number-crunching has been dealt with adequately elsewhere on this blog and over on making waves.

What's our "true motives"? We want industrial whaling to end, in this case, to see an end to so-called "scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean.

Now, what part of that don't you understand? I'm all ears. As are the 2.8 million who have such a good impression of Greenpeace that they financially support us, willingly. Unlike the the financial support that the taxpayers give the whaling fleet...

Dave,

I guess there must be something wrong with me (and Ann) then for getting the wrong impression. I accept your assurance that there was no intention to give the impression that humpbacks are already being hunted. I hope you'll recognise that this may lead to confusion, and in the interests of good faith discussion, make your points in such a way as to avoid this. No one is perfect of course, and I'm sure you recognise that everyone (including me) can look to improve their communication skills. It's only through clear communication that we can discuss these issues and (hopefully!) one day resolve it to everyone's satisfaction.

My interest is not in "protecting the various whale species". My interest is in the appropriate conservation of the various whale stocks, acknowledging the scope for sustainable use of whale stocks that are agreed to be able to sustain a harvest in accordance with the Revised Management Procedure (or any management procedure that the IWC may agree to replace it with at some point in the future, on recommendation from it's scientific committee). In cases of species such as the Blue whale, which is believed to number less than 2,000 in the Antarctic (albeit showing signs of increases - something we should all be pleased about) I most agree that complete protection is certainly appropriate and desirable. However for species that are more advanced in recovery, or already recovered, I believe that protection is not necessarily appropriate, as this precludes consumptive use of such resources under the RMP, which the IWC has adopted for use as a part of the fulfillment of it's mandate. Why do I believe this? Because it isn't the 1970's anymore, and after years of protection, some stocks have recovered sufficiently for us continue where we left off, having addressed the problems of the past (although the issue of agreeing to an RMS remains - this is simply a matter of political will, we have the technologies available to facilitate this).

Finally, if we are to believe Greenpeace's own polls, around 44 million of Japan's people support their government's desire to resume commercial whaling (given that this was a Greenpeace poll, I expect the true number is significantly higher). So believe what you like about whale stockpile figures and related consumption, but be aware that what you believe is irrelevant to those people who are munching down whale meat, certainly in increasing volume, and most likely in increasing numbers, as well. It's my opinion that you will fail to convince the Japanese public if you display ignorance (or wishful denial) of such realities in your statements on the matter. I leave the decisions about your campaign strategies over to you, of course - whether intellectual honesty is a criteria used in assessing campaign strategy is your business.

Hope y'all aren't too sicksick...

Nah, no sicksickness here, most people on board are fairly used to this kind of thing, and several are southern ocean veterans.

Also, thanks for your message above - good for us to cool off a bit. I can tell you, I've been working Greenpeace for nearly three years, and if I thought someone was deliberatly trying to mislead, I'd be outa here like cowdung off a shovel. I accept that the whole humpback/fin thing is a bit confusing - probably like yourself, I spend a lot of time going "uh?" over documents soaked in bureaucratic language.

I'm still raising an eyebrow over the accusations of intellectual honesty though. Maybe I'm not intellectual enough to know whether I'm being honest?

Dave,

Re: my intellectual honesty comment, perhaps it is harsh - in all fairness I probably can't claim to be an objective judge, although I think that I am, as I'm sure we all do.

At the end of the day, (speaking with respect to the stockpile figures) if you guys truly and honestly feel that the increases in outgoing volume of whale meat from stockpiles can still be reconciled with the conclusions that you have drawn about whale meat being "unsold" / "unwanted" - fine. Make it a cornerstone of your anti-whaling arguments if you are so sure, and you think the argument benefits your campaign. But if (treat this hypothetically if you please) it becomes widely recognised that this is a dodgy egg you've been putting in your basket of anti-whaling arguments, is it beneficial to the long term goal of your campaign (purportedly to stop whaling)? It's not too late. You guys can still spin it - say that "oh you know, the whaling lobby in Japan has managed to stimulate up some extra demand" (some truth in that), and "all the excitement after the IWC 58 meeting gave the issue some media attention" (more truth there), "fin whale meat hitting the market for the first time in ages stimulated demand" (another truth) and "highly publicised claims of unsold whale meat backfired with consumers and subsequently retailers responding by going out and finding it" (more truth - I've seen comments on the net as well as heard from Japanese people that "if there is so much whale meat then wheel it on out!"). I'd be taking my advice if I were you :) Or of course you could just stop talking about it. There's some ideas for you to consider anyway, when you decide the time has come.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I think Greenpeace tries too hard to come up with new arguments against whaling. New arguments aren't necessary, especially not ones that are full of holes.

The reasons for the whaling nations to continue to catch whales today are the same reasons that they were catching whales years ago. You guys need to argue on more philosophical grounds than trivial things like the price of whale meat or temporal trends in whale meat stockpiles (which I maintain that you have completely wrong anyway).

It's a philosophy that will win this argument, not trivial stuff.

My impression is that the reason why the "anti-whaling" mentality in the west is most popular is because so many people believe that "whales are endangered". This belief has served you well for many years, but it's becoming increasingly untenable as various whale stocks continue to recover. Without a shift to a new persuasive philosophical argument, the majority of the Japanese media will continue to regard the anti-whaling campaign as a fundamentally emotional one, and I am predicting that more in the west will lose interest in the campaigns as time goes by (any person who eats meat is potentially a lost cause for you unless you find a new reason for them to maintain their stance).

... so git y'all filosphaahs to work! :)

David, thanks for all the tips - but I do fear that philosophically, we may be on different wavelengths here. For a start, I see no issue in whaling being a matter of emotion. Emotion is what drives our behaviour - e.g. wars between countries are often sparked over emotions or difference in beliefs.

If this is an emotional issue, then its one of morals and ethics - not one of "resources" or management. I don't think it's right to kill whales. You, on the other hand, see them to see them as mere livestock (I've seen you compare them to sheep and cows, for instance).

Now, as far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on cetacean intelligence - I've had closeup encounters with them in the wild, and while their clever, I don't know how clever. It's quite possible that their form of "intelligence" is utterly beyond our ken - hell, they might suspect that we're intelligent too, but damned if they understand the nature of our society or communication.

But this is all by the by. I see the pro-whaling argument as one of shifting baseliness - "look, they've recovered a bit so we can kill more" - regardless of what you might say about minkes, other species of whales have been consistently decimated for hundreds of years. Minkes were ignored because they were too small and too fast. Now they're the target, another "resource" to be mined.

I personally find it wholly unnecessary that we should be hunting any whales in the 21st century, regardless of "cultural traditions" or natural resources or whatever.

If we continue, as you say, to argue "on trivial" grounds, we do it for specific reasons.

When stocks recover to, say the levels they were at in 1500AD, then lets talk about "sustainable whaling".

Anyway, always interesting to talk to you...

David, thanks for all the tips - but I do fear that philosophically, we may be on different wavelengths here. For a start, I see no issue in whaling being a matter of emotion. Emotion is what drives our behaviour - e.g. wars between countries are often sparked over emotions or difference in beliefs. The claims over Southern Ocean whaling being a "cultural tradition" could be interpreted as being an emotional response to calls to end industrial whaling. Personally, I don't think it is, I think it's a cynical response from the industry.

Perhaps whaling is an emotional issue, but one of morals and ethics - not one of "resources" or management. I don't think it's right to kill whales. You, on the other hand, see them to see them as mere livestock (I've seen you compare them to sheep and cows, for instance).

Now, as far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on cetacean intelligence - I've had closeup encounters with them in the wild, and while they're clever, I don't know how clever. It's quite possible that their form of "intelligence" is utterly beyond our ken - hell, they might suspect that we're intelligent too, but damned if they understand the nature of our society or communication.

But this is all by the by. I see the pro-whaling argument as one of shifting baseliness - "look, they've recovered a bit so we can kill more" - regardless of what you might say about minkes, other species of whales have been consistently decimated for hundreds of years. Minkes were ignored because they were too small and too fast. Now they're the target, another "resource" to be mined.

And what all the smoke and mirrors of "scientific whaling" and vote buying at the IWC - it's pretty hard to find any justification for trusting the whaling industry when they make claims about "sustainable whaling".

Maybe it should be an emotional issue. How about we organise a trip where the decisions makers at the FAJ and ICR go swimming with dolphins or whales, so they get to experience the animals first hand, rather than at the end of a balance sheet? It's an idea...

I personally find it wholly unnecessary that we should be hunting any whales in the 21st century, regardless of "cultural traditions" or natural resources or whatever.

If we continue, as you say, to argue "on trivial" grounds, we do it for specific reasons.

When stocks recover to, say the levels they were at in 1500AD, then lets talk about "sustainable whaling".

Anyway, always interesting to talk to you...

Here's the footage from the New Zealand Air Force on YouTube

Dave,

Re: your comments on "no issue in whaling being a matter of emotion". That's your campaign decision. The reason why I think that line of thought is a loser is because there are other people who think whales are tasty and valuable food resources, and their emotions lead them to different conclusions. So how are they supposed to react to hearing about your emotions? How are you supposed to react to hearing about theirs? "Oh yeah, gee, let's all just transplant our emotions for some new ones"?

The general impression I have through reading the Japanese media on this issue is that the "anti-whaling" movement is indeed regarded as simply sentimental, emotional, arbitrary (potentially a dangerous precedent for all resource users), and easily ignored. Most Japanese newspaper editorials I have seen call for steady-as-she-goes, continued attempts at dialogue at the IWC to help the people of the anti-whaling nations to understand the perspective of the people who value whales as a food source. With an emotional campaign, at best you're asking for more of the same. But the whalers have been at this for 15-20 years already. Do you think the whalers are so patient / gullible that they'll continue to be played as fools forever?

Cetacean intelligence? I don't care either way. I understand that pigs are more intelligent than shrimp, but that doesn't make me less likely to eat pork than I am to eat shrimp. I'm not interested in completely arbitrary lines being drawn that determine what is good for eating and what is not.

You're dead right that I regard whales as a natural resource that can potentially be utilised by humans, just like cows and fish. I understand that some people don't think the same way, but who's way of thinking is "right"? The whalers are going to kill whales, and you are not - that's the reality. It's not about "right" or "wrong". All that remains is to ensure that the people of future generations are left to make the same choices as various peoples of the world are today. To that extent, IMO where this discussion should be at primarily is the sustainability question, where agreement should be able to be had. I'd like to see whaling conducted under provisions agreed at the IWC for the benefit of long term conservation of these whale resources. I'm seriosuly worried that the "win or lose" approach that the anti-whalers are following is going to see the IWC implode this decade (perhaps even in 2007). To my mind this increases the risks for successful medium/long term whale conservation, where as a good-faith compromise at the IWC has lower associated risks. Have you guys thought about what you might be able to compromise on, if for example Japan offered to hold off on further hunting of the Antarctic fin whale for the time being?

The history of whaling is indeed one of mismanagement, but what concerns me is a lack of willingness on the part of the anti-whalers to recognise any of the differences between 2007 and 1957 (one could write pages). We now have IWC agreed scientific procedures for determining sustainable catch limits. All that's left is to ensure that such catch limits are sufficiently enforced.

"Scientific whaling" and "vote buying" = sideshows. Crapping on about that to the average Japanese person who doesn't care much to form a strong opinion one way or the other is just going to turn them off you. If you are going to have a discussion with them you need to respect their views more, and stop expecting them to think that your emotions matter more than the emotions of the people who eat whales. No good reasons why they shouldn't be able to eat whales? I predict no favourable response (at least you guys get to protect your 1970's Greenpeace brand though).

Finally, I don't think you are seriously prepared to talk about sustainable whaling of recovered stocks of whales. It's just a filibustering tactic, isn't it? The whalers are going to call your bluffing sometime soon, and you can either go for outright defeat or at least aim for a tie through compromise. If you continue to think you can win this with your emotional arguments, I guarantee an eventual loss. And a loss for Greenpeace runs the highest risk of a potential a loss for medium/long term whale conservation.

Back up there a second David - I think you've got the wrong people. We never said we support sustainable whaling - yes, we've criticised various claims of "sustainable whaling", but not because they aren't sustainable enough, but because they attempt to legitimise the concept of commercial whaling.

Greenpeace doesn't support any form of commercial whaling - including Japan's so-called "scientic whaling". Our aim is to end commercial whaling. End of story.

That's hardly filibustering, now is it? I think you're the one filibustering, I think. For instance, what's all this about "scientific whaling" and "vote buying" being sideshows? What in the world would be diverting attention away from?

Face it David, "scientific whaling" is a crude form of filibustering, being used to draw the public's attention (not the IWC's attention) away from the fact that the FAJ and ICR would dearly like to return to untrammelled commercial whaling.

BTW, I don't recommend eating shrimp. It's one of, if not THE most destructive industrial fishing practice. According to the FAO 85% of what's dragged aboard shrimp trawlers is bycatch, which is discarded as unwanted.