Hi Clive,

I think you forgot to mention that the activists of an NGO called "Paxverdana" usually try to disrupt the hunting of Mr. Wooley Shorts. They usually come on motorbikes and put themselves between the hunter's Toyota 4x4 and the sheep. A device at the back of the bike allows them to spray water in order to make a water screen and thus reduce the hunter's visibility.

They also have a small helicopter which they use to take pics and footage of themselves in front pretending to defend Mr. Wooley Shorts for publicity.

Eventhough Paxverdana's tactics aren't really successfull as the sheep finally gets shot, it actually contributes to more suffering for the wild ovine.

For example, a Japanese Institute for cetaceans research (ICR) has published the effect of the same kind of dangerous actions by a NGO called Greenpeace during a whale research programme in the Antarctic :

(Numbers before Greenpeace's intervention are shown between parenthesis)
Average chase time (minutes) : 31.6 (11.2)
Average time to death (seconds) : 258 (104)
Rate of sudden death : 48.0% (57.6%)
Average rate of second strike : 12.0% (1.7%)
Number of samples : 25 (118)

We can say that the kind of tactics used by Paxverdana only provokes more suffering to the animal they intend to "defend".

Concerning the number of Minke whales in the Southern Ocean, according to the IUCN Red List's article on Antarctic Minke whales (balaenoptera bonaerensis), they "may be the most abundant baleen whale species today, with a total population of several hundred thousand."

So the sampling of 935 minkes is certainly not unsustainable, in my humble opinion.

1) Flannery is correct that sustainable utilisation is possible. The evidence is in the RMP, developed by the IWC/SC and unanimously recommended by it, and adopted by the IWC in 1994. If concerned about ensuring sustainability, we should aim for swift impementation of the RMP.
2) Antarctic minke abundance estimates are under review, but even the lowest estimate suggested using the methods under review was abundance of 300,000. This estimate itself is inherently negatively biased. Based on existing knowledge of stock structure, there is no argument that a hunt of just 850 whales could lead to over-depletion of numbers.
3) Arguments can made against the slaughter of any animal species on grounds of "cruelty", however unlike arguments of science there is no internationally agreed or clearly defined set of standards for how animals ought be handled in their distinct circumstances. Global environmentalism will falter so long as environmentalists put ethical preferences ahead of science/rational decision making.

" In addition there is legislation that ensures the slaugher process is nearly instantaneous." - Clive

I would be pleased if you whale huggers ( FYI I'm opposed to whaling) stopped stating that killing farm animals is humane.

Farm animals suffer at least as much as whales, as a matter of fact WSPA has stated that factory farming is world's biggest cruelty to animals.

Re the Aussie live export of sheep , this is as cruel as whaling. Check out Animals Australia.

An example , the sheep that are transported to the Middle East are marinated in their own urine and faeces.... and suffer tremendously.

So please don't forget other animals as well, otherwise you only look like hypocrites!!!

.

Why JARPA contributed greatly to our knowledge of Antarctic minkes, with very good estimates of abundance. Now were they increasing, decreasing or who the hell knows after 18 years of "research"...???

As humans are, by their very nature, emotional beings (something that supposedly sets us apart from many other species), the ethics of killing animals is something that is our inheritance and our responsibility. Animal welfare can not be ignored when humans influence and impact upon populations, however big or small, wild or captive.

The key word from the IUCN listing is "may", regarding minke numbers. It is well worth remembering that the Japanese choose to ignore listings when it suits them (eg Antarctic fin whales) and a recent press release citing media "misinformation" regarding listings was a case in point. In other words pro-whalers use information such as IUCN and IWC listings to suit their various arguments.

There are stocks of minke whales, and some of these are very small. Examples of small/endangered stocks are those around Asia, included in JARPA II and killed in nets in South Korea and Japan. More information is needed on live Southern Ocean minkes (of which there are more than one stock)regarding genetics, population movements and life history parameters. Killing these animals will not advance our knowledge, as JARPA has clearly shown, and is a pathetic excuse to discredit the science/rational decision making we are being told here to hold in high regard (over emotion).

Whilst it can be argued that some 900 animals will impact on the populations, the Japanese quotas are being raised, as always happens in whaling operations. History will repeat itself.

Hi Friends,
are those numbers / values provided by Isanatori correct ? Do you have recorded values for these parameters during the encounters with the Japanese fleet in 2005/06 ?
And, finally, are the ICR values in parenthesis been peer-reviewed by some independent observer ?
Thanks for commenting on that matter.
francois
wwwwwwwwwwww
(Numbers before Greenpeace's intervention are shown between parenthesis)
Average chase time (minutes) : 31.6 (11.2)
Average time to death (seconds) : 258 (104)
Rate of sudden death : 48.0% (57.6%)
Average rate of second strike : 12.0% (1.7%)
Number of samples : 25 (118)
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

More from Heckle and Jeckle, the two black crows here in our garden of Love, ...David and his all too cruel friend, Mr Insane-a-stori as it gets. I don't see the numbers you post, ...I only see the insideous words that preceed them, 'Average chase time', 'average time to death'. ...and 'sustainability'? Personally I don't care about your concept of sustainability. Your mask is transparent, and I think we all here see the reality of the unnecessary and inhuman cruelty of you and your masters of greed for each and every whale you choose to slaughter for profit. Your number is 935. My number is zero. Get out of the killing fields, go home, and the whales don't need you and your interference in the natural web of life to sustain them. You choose to not see the hurt and suffering of others and you disgrace yourselves here in the presence of good men, women, and even children who read this blog. Go back to your masters and tell them it isn't working, and that for all you say, you only strengthen the resolve in those who care.

More from Heckle and Jeckle, the two black crows here in our garden of Love, ...David and his all too cruel friend, Mr Insane-a-stori as it gets. I don't see the numbers you post, ...I only see the insideous words that preceed them, 'Average chase time', 'average time to death'. ...and 'sustainability'? Personally I don't care about your concept of sustainability. Your mask is transparent, and I think we all here see the reality of the unnecessary and inhuman cruelty of you and your masters of greed for each and every whale you choose to slaughter for profit. Your number is 935. My number is zero. Get out of the killing fields, go home, and the whales don't need you and your interference in the natural web of life to sustain them. You choose to not see the hurt and suffering of others and you disgrace yourselves here in the presence of good men, women, and even children who read this blog. Go back to your masters and tell them it isn't working, and that for all you say, you only strengthen the resolve in those who care.

Isanatori and David, Again..this is a GP site and (i would imagine) the majority of visitors are not interested in your pro-whaling statistics. We will not change our views on whaling.

The whaling should not be taking place and to blame GP for contributing to the suffering of the whales is ridiculous and obscene, any time to death that is not almost instantanious is unacceptable and in the vast majority of cases (if not all) the whales do not die instantly. And lets not forget - a huge amount of whales are killed before the fleet is even found and as they lie about the 'research' they probably lie about the statistics too. The ONLY people to blame for this suffering are the whalers and people like you who just dont care about the welfare of the whales - so long as they get their money for the meat and you get your fix and your taste buds satisfied thats ok.

How many whales die as a secondary effect of thier mothers being harpooned i wonder, and what about those babies in the womb. Like i said, you just dont care. Dont care about the whales and dont care about putting your offensive opinions on a GP website. Must be nice to not have a conscience.

Respect for scientists will always falter as long as they put their own particular god of emotionless rationalism ahead of compassion, empathy, and humility.

Hello Isanatori - and this will hopefully also answer your question Francois:

Message from John Frizell:

"These are figures for the 2005/06 hunt. But Japan has refused to make time to death data from this hunt available to the International Whaling Commision. It is not science to quote from a secret data set. The ICR must either release time to death data for all 853 minke whales killed in this hunt - those killed before Greenpeace arrived, those killed while we were there and those killed after we departed - so independent scientists can determine if there was an effect, or withdraw all allegations based on selective quoting of secret data. The figures quoted are not an honest representation of what happened and cannot be reconciled with independent observations from video.

If these figures were correct, they would demonstrate that the hunters have little regard for animal welfare. If they believe that our presence increases time to death, contributing to more suffering, then why would they persist in hunting when we are present? But objective evidence suggests these figures are wrong.

In the 16 cases where we had video of the whole hunt, so allowing an analysis of animal welfare aspects by non Greenpeace experts, no difference was found in the accuracy of the shots. Although the gunners may have felt that they were not able to get an accurate shot because of the presence of Greenpeace they carried on shooting anyway, with little regard for the consequences. In fact subsequent analysis showed that the shots obtained when Greenpeace was present were no less accurate than those of unimpeded hunts, during which it is also common to hit the whales' body a long way from the target area.

We operate by placing inflatables between the catcher and the whale in the hope that respect for human life will allow the whale a chance to escape. We note that a catcher that is taking extra time to catch a whale can't be off hunting for another one. The figures provided by the ICR show a total of 8.5 hours of extra catcher time spent on chasing; that means that some whales which might otherwise be dead were not chased at all. No wonder they came in well uner their quota that year.

We note that our video of minke whales being killed remains the most credible information by which Japan's whaling can be judged. This has been analysed by independent scientists, presented to the appropriate international fora for scientific review and discussion and the results published in a peer reviewed journal. The scientists concluded that "Fewer than one in five whales were killed instantaneously and the average time to death for the remaining whales was around 10 min. the presence of Greenpeace did not result in a reduced accuracy of harpoon shots when compared with previous studies."

If the ICR wishes to challenge these results by making accusations that Greenpeace caused greater suffering to whales that were being hunted, then they must also present adequate data for a proper scientific review. Just releasing a few figures and using these as a basis for making such accusations is simply not acceptable. If Japan wants to convince the rest of the world that its whaling is not cruel and inhumane then the international scientific community needs to be provided with video and data on every whale that is killed, including the endangered fin whales."

Forgive me for my ignorance, but is "several hundred thousand" a sustainable number when we are considering a species that, while considerably larger than the human mammal, is living in an ocean more vast than our current research can even "fathom"? (I love puns almost as much as I love the crew on Esperanza.)

While the sheep comparison was certainly relevant and well-executed, a human comparison would perhaps hit closer to home, eh?

Imagine Mr. Smelly Two-Legs, returning home from his work on the same farm where the deceased Mr. Wooley-Shorts had once been employed. Mrs. Smelly Two-Legs greets him lovingly, with a dinner of chops and chow, they both sit down with Little Snotty Two-Legs, and their beloved Fuzzy Four-Legs, in the kitchen once built by Mr. One-Leg, a WWI vet. Over dinner the happy family decides that the stress of the farm paired with the surplus of funds resulting from the slaughter of their farm-hands, was more than enough reason to purchase a timeshare off the coast of the Arctic. Naturally.

No sooner had they departed when they began to feel they were being followed. Airport security seemed tighter than usual, with Mrs. Two-Legs being cavity searched at each checkpoint, and Mr. Two-Legs being beaten and castrated. Little Snotty was stripped of his Heelies, and forced to watch his favorite game systems destroyed for the sake of “security.”

The slightly less happy family continued on their way, with a layover in New Zealand. Upon arrival, they were greeted by natives who fed them peas as green as they had ever seen, and invited them to partake in a ritual piercing ceremony, for luck and prosperity. The Two-Legs family didn’t quite understand how this was supposed to bring them luck, but agreed. Snotty couldn’t wait to show his friends back home. The next morning, they embarked on a journey across the Pacific, feeling a tad more secure, though nevertheless, still nagged by the thought that they were being watched.

When they arrived at the timeshare, they found other families, much like themselves, fleeing in fear. It was a massacre! Without hesitation, the Two-Legs joined the masses. They ran as fast as their two legs could take them. Screeching and flailing, blood abound, the sight was certainly what nightmares are made of. Everywhere they turned, was trap. Weapons were firing from every direction. Soon, Mr. and Mrs. Two-Legs discovered that Snotty was not beside them. They paused to call to him, when Mrs. Two-Legs was speared through her gut, killing the unborn Tiny Two-Legs, instantly, and her soon after. Mr. Two-Legs wailed and wailed. His family was dead, he knew he would soon follow.

I do not think it a coincidence that these beautiful creatures have evolved to migrate to the coldest and most remote areas of this vast ocean where their **natural predators** are less likely to follow. Declaration of these waters in the arctic as a sanctuary should have assured these baleen beach-goers that their timeshare was a wise investment. But alas....

This all should end-this insanely long comment, as well as this insanely long devaluation of life. The whaling industry is certainly only one of many types of cruelty that exist on the planet, but one that should and can be haulted with even more support.

Thank you Greenpeace volunteers and employees, and especially crew of the Esperanza, for your efforts to end the massacre. I am truly excited to be witness to the progress, and proud to support you in any way I can.

Peacefully and Sincerely,

Cassandra Williams
cassandrarenee@gmail.com

**natural predators, in my humble understanding, are those who survive on the flesh of the kill, and who are adapted to exist in areas where the prey live without expending excessive amounts of natural resources to do so.

Hi Iréne and John Frizell,

In response to Mr. Frizell, I would be interested to know to which appropriate international fora GP presented their videos of minke whales being killed.

Even though Mr. didn't mention it, the "independent" scientists who analysed the videos are Dr. Nick Gale from the Australian Antarctic Division and Russell Leaper and Vassili Papastavrou of IFAW, who are rather opposed to whaling. Their paper was published in Marine Policy.

As for the Japanese data, it seems Japan has decided to submitted its data to the NAMMCO where "constructive discussions took place."
Japan also pointed at the last IWC/WKM (workshop on killing methods) meeting that "all data submitted to NAMMCO is public and available."

Since Greenpeace seems to consider the humane killing issue as their main argument against (Japanese?) whaling, I suppose they also oppose to Aboriginal subsistence whaling in which time to death are longer and struck-and-lost rates are higher.

To come back to Tim Flannery, he published in 2003 an article in Quaterly Essay under the title Beautiful Lies - Population and Environment in Australia. He then said: "My view is that at present the anti-whaling lobby is frustrating the attempt to develop a sustainable industry based on these creatures, and is therefore frustrating good management of marine resources."
He also added: "I think the Japanese are right. They are actually trying to create a sustainable whaling industry."

Finally, I quoted the IUCN Red List purposedly, knowing that Greenpeace is often basing its argumentation on this source. In other words, anti-whalers use information such as IUCN and IWC listings to suit their various arguments.

Most cetacean scientists that engage in research on live animals have to carefully justify the research project's value and animal welfare considerations to animal ethics committees before their research is approved. Unfortunately this is at the discretion of each research centre, state and country. The Japanese obviously have quite different views of animal welfare when it comes to Taiji dolphins, cross bowing and impaling Dall's porpoises and exploding large whales with insufficiently sized grenades and charges and poorly-trained gunners. So in the real world of science, not meat consumption, animal welfare does matter and emotion does come into consideration.

Well I am wrong to say that we should try to show Isantori common courtesy since she keeps harrassing us with her cruelty and barbaric beliefs. Also, how do they condone feeding their people this meat anyway? I thought it was not healthy like the dolphins they kill as well? I guess they kill their own as well.

Hi Ann...,
This is a video for you concerning what you say, ...one I made some years ago, and with the kind permission and some video footage sent to me from the International Fund for Animal Welfare - http://www.ifaw.org, ...who have worked with Greenpeace in the past. It is a song by Anthony Phillips called, 'Now What (are they doing to my little friends)."
Please exercise caution in allowing young children to view this. ...and if you're reading this Jasmine, please ask your parents first if they think you should watch it. I give it a PG-13 rating. It's a high resolution video, so please allow a few moments for buffering:
http://www.gratefulchild.org/media/NowWhatHiRes.wmv

"As for the Japanese data, it seems Japan has decided to submitted its data to the NAMMCO where "constructive discussions took place."
Japan also pointed at the last IWC/WKM (workshop on killing methods) meeting that "all data submitted to NAMMCO is public and available."

Current struck and lost and TTD rates for JARPA II and JARPN II are not available here. The Norwegians at least attempt to be transparent and make improvements. The Japanese have gone sniffling to NAMMCO citing that their stats may be used against them - and with good reason!

"Finally, I quoted the IUCN Red List purposedly, knowing that Greenpeace is often basing its argumentation on this source. In other words, anti-whalers use information such as IUCN and IWC listings to suit their various arguments."

Then you are sillier than I thought Isanatori. Perhaps JARPA's results are more to your liking - suitably confused, based on poor methodology and with an alterior motive.

I want to briefly draw attention to an overgeneralization that is happening a lot on this and other related blogs.

The use of "The Japanese" in place of "The Japanese Whaling Association (and it's constituents)" is leaving a sour taste in my mouth. I realize it could be a slip of the lazy typist, but I encourage everyone, myself included, to be careful to choose words in ways that will not wrongfully accuse, assume, or label. There are many people who identify as Japanese who are not in favor of whaling. I do believe a few even comprise a section of the Esperanza crew?

Thank you, and I do hope this reaches people peacefully, and not naggingly, because that is certainly never my intention.

Sincerely,
Cassandra

Hi Ms Isanitori, ...and as I see, you are indeed a woman, ...not that it matters, ...except for what I have to say to you in a song. ...and yes, as you mention, ...these scientists from the IFAW are very much against the hunting of whales. I wish you could forget your numbers and statistics, and see things from their point of view.
I've yet another video for you, I hope you will view and take to heart it's meaning. It's all about women, and it even has some whales in it, ...and I hope there is something there that touches you as it does me.

And this is just as much for you Cassandra, in your reference to the Japanese people. It is a song and video by Jon Anderson, and one of my all time favorite human beings on this planet, Kitaro - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx0Q0Of_CXo

As for my personal feelings for the Japanese people, ...may I offer you 'Land of the Rising Sun', and the heartfelt account of cruelty through the eyes of Mikey, one of the Esperanza crew two years ago, and in the place where this crew (...and in my humble opinion, the very best, ...and in all their diversity of what this world has to offer), is now - http://www.gratefulchild.org/projects/gcweb/gc/html/audio/archive_7.html

Australian objections to whaling are racist, asserts a Japanese YouTube
video, reports The Daily Telgraph (07 JAN 08) (From news.com.au). ANY
objections to whaling are racist, asserts the website hosting the video
in a protracted exchange of Comments. To view the video and Comments,
go to:
http://3kun.wordpress.com/2007/12/25/all-opposition-to-japanese-whaling-is-racist/
.

"A JAPANESE pro-whaling video condemning Australia as a racist nation
using images of the infamous Cronulla riots has been launched on
YouTube.

"The 10-minute video, with English and Japanese subtitles, accuses
Australia of white supremacy, exclusionist nationalism, a racist
ideology and of prejudice towards the Japanese.

"It shows graphic images of slain dingoes, a wallaby being killed by a
child bashing it against a ute, and one horrific scene in which an
Australian-looking man takes a baby kangaroo from its mother's pouch
and stomps on it in the dirt."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23014405-2,00.html?from=mostpop

Do i understand you correctly, isanatori? According to the statistics you posted above, in the whaling "reserach" program cited, 118 whales were "sampled" (I take it that means killed?) before Greenpeace's intervention. But after Greenpeace intervened, only 25 whales were killed. Meaning, Greenpeace saved ninety-three whales from being slaughtered! Bravo Greenpeace for that! isanatori, have you ever stood on the deck of a boat surrounded by whales, and felt an immense awe and joy, and given thanks for this gift?

Well said Clive and thank you for helping to save the whales from being murdered.

I am sorry my message is so simple, after reading all the more informed messages above I was not sure whether to say anything, but when it comes down to it, the situation is black and white. The whales must not be killed.
Best wishes to you and all aboard.

Hi Clive,

I was thrilled to read in the Vancouver Sun newspaper this morning that the Esperanza had chased the Japanese whaling ships away from their prey. Congratulations on a job well done!
Dorothy Stowe