Thursday February 16, 2012

davidattokyo's past comments

  • -2

    davidattokyo

    Nessie,

    How can a species be endangered and a stock cannot, when a stock is a subgroup of a species?

    Not sure I understand what you are getting at, but an IWC "stock" can be depleted (IWC calls it "protection stock" below 54%), but the IUCN which uses the "endangered" terminology doesn't categorize stocks, but species.

    This from the IWC homepage may help to clarify:

    "The first thing to note is that at present, the classification of fin whales applies to the species worldwide (called ‘populations’ in the very specific IUCN terminology) not to ocean areas or ‘populations’ in the traditional biological sense. The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria were designed for global taxon assessments. When applied at national or regional levels, IUCN notes that ‘it must be recognized that a global category may not be the same as a national or regional category for a particular taxon’, thus regional populations may be either more or less threatened than the global assessment."

    http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm

    The point with the North Atlantic fin whales is that they are "less threatened" than the global assessment of the species. Iceland recognises this and is happy to hunt them, the US on the other hand ignores this and makes out that Iceland is driving species to extinction. As I think one IWC delegate once said, "it's like saying humans are endangered because there are not many people in Iceland".

    Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

  • -4

    davidattokyo

    Really David who cares if Japan has a good scientific program.

    Obviously :)

    And for the record she didnt admit anything she hesitantly said she thinks.

    How can you tell what she "hesitantly said"?

    So whales where hunted to the brink of extinction and now numbers are increasing you want all protections removed so

    No I want regulated sustainable whaling on those species which can sustain harvests.

    why stop at whales lets not protect anything, lets just have open slather.

    I think you need to see the shades of grey between the black and white options of "no whaling" and "open slather whaling".

    Everything is good in moderation.

    Its funny at 9:02 you where saying how good this report was and how it supported your argument.

    All I raised it for was to show that US officials recognise that Japan's activities are consistent with the whaling convention. I can see it riled you up a bit too though so that's a bonus!

    Now l have read it and called you on your selective quoting you are saying its full of preconceptions and the people you where praising are now shallow. David you have cherry picked quotes and been court out now you are damning the report. I guess that says more about attitudes than any quote from a report ever could.

    Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

  • -4

    davidattokyo

    Spidapig24,

    So Japan is killing what the IWC classify an endangered species then?

    No, the IWC doesn't classify "endangered species" etc. With respect to the Fin whales in the southern hemisphere, the term would be "protection stock", in the IWC terminology.

    But that only applies to IWC set quotas.

    It doesn't apply to special permit catches, which as we should all know by now, are exempt from the operation of the whaling convention.

    But, if you like, the IUCN does call the fin whale an endangered species. But then the IUCN calls southern bluefin tuna a "critically endangered" species, yet that doesn't stop nations including Australia from exploiting it on a commercial basis.

    Ain't the world just so FULL of these paradoxes!

    So even the US believes Japan is commercial whaling in disguise!

    Well, that Delahunt guy seems to. He and Medina may have missed Balton's comment about Japan probably having the best research as a result of their lethal research whaling, or ignored it because it doesn't match his preconceptions.

    And as for your quote from Ms Medina you missed the next line where she expressed concerns about whaling in the Southern Ocean due to the sanctuary and that whaling in the sanctuary isnt appropriate.

    Yeah, but she admits that thousands of whales could be taken sustainably. She thinks that they shouldn't be because of the sanctuary, but then my reply to that is - why is there a sanctuary in the first place? If thousands of whales can be harvested sustainably then a sanctuary is unnecessary in light of the objectives of the whaling convention.

    So although she is correctly informed that thousands of whales can be taken sustainably :) her justification for the anti-whaling policy being "oh we called it a sanctuary so therefore whaling should be banned" is a little too... shallow... I guess is how I'd call it. Enough to convince the choir but not the rest of us non anti-whalers.

    Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

  • -4

    davidattokyo

    Spidapig24,

    However Iceland isn't hunting these ones commercially (or at all).

    But Japan does?

    Japan isn't using an RMP implementation for commercial whaling of fin whales like Iceland, Japan is catching a few for research.

    So by your own admission the fact that the numbers fall below the 54% mark in the Southern Ocean they shouldnt be hunted.

    That rule only applies to IWC set quotas. E.g. the rule is no commercial harvests for depleted whale stocks.

    Japan is doing special permit whaling only, and Japan isn't catching a significant number of these whales at all. I think the number that they have caught since 2005/6 is something like 10 or 20 all up. Iceland on the other hand is talking about catching more than 100, each year, for commercial purposes. This is a completely different story.

    He isnt patting Japan on the back

    When he said that Japan probably has the best whale science as a result of it's work, I could swear that he was. How did you read it?

    he is being critical.

    Is he?

    By saying "Japan WHICH CLAIMS to observe the moratorium SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDED lethal scientific whaling in both the Southern Ocean and North Pacific"

    Japan does claim to observe the moratorium... Australia etc deny this... and Japan has significantly expanded "lethal scientific whaling". Balton has stated that Japan's research is probably the best as a result. Are you sure you aren't projecting your own preceptions on to what he said? (If you can give me a reason why I should ignore his statement, I will consider if it isn't me who is awry here).

    Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

  • -3

    davidattokyo

    Spidapig24,

    In particular the letter from Monica Medina where she says and l quote "The United States continues to support the moratorium on commercial whaling and will continue our efforts to end lethal scientific research whaling".

    Indeed this is US policy. So what's new.

    And Mr Balton's statement "Japan which claims to observe the moratorium significantly expanded lethal scientific whaling in both the Southern Ocean and North Pacific"

    So David both these people can see Japan for what it is doing, why cant you?

    Huh? I am the one who agrees with Balton that "Japan does perform scientific research on the whales they take", and that they "have the best whale science as a result", and I too recognise that they expanded scientific whaling after opting to observe the moratorium.

    You were the one who dismissed him as just ONE guy, etc

    Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

  • -2

    davidattokyo

    Tamarama,

    I did spot this though, under the 'Management Objectives' part of this RMP. It's item number 2: catches should not be allowed on stocks below 54% of the estimated carrying capacity;

    Indeed. This is an long standing rule dating back to the mid 1970's, long before the moratorium was imposed. The idea is that stocks below that level should be left space to recover, whereas stocks at 100% are in pristine condition and could thus support some level of harvest. 54% is the threshold for allowing catches, but the RMP would generally maintain stocks at above approx 75% of their natural carrying capacity over long periods of whaling.

    Now, 'carrying capacity' means the maximum population size of a species the environment can sustain indefinitely,

    In the IWC context, it refers not to species, but to what the IWC refers to as "stocks", or I suppose a sub-population of a species. E.g. the fin whales in the Northern Hemishphere are distinct from those in the Southern Hemisphere - they generally live distinctly apart in different parts of the world (in some places whale stocks do overlap but that's not relevant for fin whales here). Whale stocks are managed according to their individual circumstances. In the North Atlantic, the fin whale stock is recognised to be above that 54% threshold - in good shape - and the RMP has been implemented by the scientific committee for it, at the request of the Icelanders.

    The IUCN Red List on the other hand, does classify by species, rather than stock. So when the US talks about endangering the Fin whale species, I (and the Icelanders) believe they are being very deceptive.

    and given that the IWC site suggests this may have been 200,000 for the Fin whale, current population estimates seem to fall well below the prioritised point 2 guideline for Management Objectives.

    You would be correct with respect to the Southern Hemisphere fin whale stocks. However Iceland isn't hunting these ones commercially (or at all).

    The data do not exist to allow a full assessment of present status, as the surveys that have been undertaken (usually south of 60°S)

    That too would be the stocks of southern hemisphere Fin whales.

    Fin Whale populations are described as being 23,000 - 39,000 in the North Atlantic.

    That's right. (Also, when the IWC Scientific Committee uses the RMP to advise on catch limits, it would always use the lower 95% confidence limit of the abundance estimate in the calculations to play on the safe side.)

    I looked at the Revised Management Procedure on the site, and didn't find anything pertaining specifically to Fin Whales.

    Good point, one really has to dig into the scientific committee reports themselves to find such details. The latest one is here. http://www.iwcoffice.org/sci_com/screport.htm You can find a summary in the "Scientific Committee main report", and more details are in "Revised Management Procedure" (click the "Annex D" link). Admitedly one probably has to go back and read through reports from previous years to understand what has been happening, but basically where the IWC's scientific committee has run "implementation simulation trials" for the RMP with respect to a given stock of whales, they are in a position to provide advice on sustainable catch limits for that stock.

    Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

  • -1

    davidattokyo

    Spidapig24, just read my comment at Jul. 21, 2011 - 12:36PM JST, I supplied a link to a webpage containing details of the hearing...

    This is the guy:

    The Honorable David A. Balton Deputy Assistant Secretary Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs U.S. Department of State

    (sounds like he's the type of guy who might actually know a thing or two about this huh?)

    Also if you do read the document, also check statements from Monica Medina as well. She is the US IWC commissioner, and according to her, "there could be thousands [of minke whales] harvested sustainably in the southern ocean."

    Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

  • -2

    davidattokyo

    chewitup

    And the Natives are whaling to literally survive, not to profit.

    That's what the Americans would have you believe.

    However according to a Brazilian ex-IWC representative, "They have technology and government subsidies and they don’t hunt out of a need for survival" Full story: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=56331

    IMO they are whaling because it's their culture. America could feed these people other ways if they really had to, if that is what it were all about.

    And while I am not as familiar about conditions of Iceland, I imagine they also pretty much need whaling to literally survive, so that part may well be the hypocrisy you seek.

    I think it comes down to self-determination. Whether people make their own choices about how to live or whether they toe someone else's line. America recognises it for it's own people due to political issues but denies it for others due to political issues.

    Ultimately domestic politics of powerful nations shouldn't be brought into international fora where issues discussed cut across cultures.

    smithinjapan,

    I can't really see how it's political grand-standing, I don't think there's all too much to gain to announce there may be legislation put out there for sanctions.

    The animal rights NGOs are always campaigning on this, giving them the odd token PR spiel helps keep them on side.

    Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

  • -2

    davidattokyo

    Spidapig24,

    Yeah l do mock the comments of ONE US official when it comes to Japans research.

    Don't you want to try to reconcile this information that conflicts with your viewpoint though? Do you think he was bought out by the Japanese or something, is that why he said what he did under oath? Or does he believe what he said but you think he must just be clueless? (Or heaven forbid, might it be your viewpoint that is awry? Just sayin'...)

    you say "estimation work is undertaken by the IWC Scientific Committee, not Japan alone" yet the other week you said "besides numbers they are collecting biological data that can be used to determined trends in abundance. " so which is it David?

    Uh, both.

    Abundance - whale numbers - is a count.

    A TREND in abundance is what is happening to the numbers. Up, down, flat, oscillating, etc.

    E.g. you can have a number, but without information about the trend - whether the numbers are going up, down, or holding somewhere in between - your management decisions about how many whales can be caught will not be as good as they would be with that extra info. If the numbers are increasing, you can take more, if they are naturally decreasing you should take less. E.g. the extra info can help to eliminate this uncertainty and associated risk, and this may potentially lead to higher catch limits. In any case the management decisions will be safer than they otherwise might be. That's in a nutshell a part of what Japan's research contributes. Of course this is useless research for people who prefer there to be no whaling at all, but then that's not the point of the IWC, according to the whaling convention (and this is why I am 100% convinced that Australia will lose at the ICJ).

    Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

  • -2

    davidattokyo

    Tamarama,

    The Fin whale in the North Atlantic is perfectly abundant and the IWC's own Scientific Committee has advised that sustainable non-zero catch limits are possible for this stock.

    Where can I find this information?

    The IWC home page has it all. Check the IWC Scientific Committee's recent implementation work of the Revised Management Procedure for North Atlantic Fin whales for the details.

    The Fin whale is still classified as "Endangered", and even if aspects of the Scientific arm of the IWC think it is commercially exploitable, the IWC continues to maintain otherwise.

    The "Endangered" classification you are probably refering to is the IUCN Red List classification, which does not have anything to do with management of whaling and is comparatively generic in purpose.

    The IWC's Scientific Committee has it's own rules for providing advice relating specifically to sustainable whaling, that's what I mention above (RMP etc). Be the IUCN's classification of the fin whale on a global scale as it may, in the North Atlantic the local Fin whales are abundant and that's why the IWC Scientific Committee is able to provide advice on sustainable catch limits there (although it goes ignored by the IWC politicians).

    Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

  • -3

    davidattokyo

    Spidapig24,

    Yeah the Japanese scientific research is brilliant!

    You too mock the comments made in support of Japan's research even though they come from a US official under oath. Interesting.

    The "whale numbers" estimation work is undertaken by the IWC Scientific Committee, not Japan alone, and that work doesn't have anything to do with Japan's research whaling activities. Just FYI.

    Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

  • -3

    davidattokyo

    smithinjapan,

    The last thing Iceland needs at the moment is sanctions, giving its bankrupt economy.

    This just might hurt them. I suspect we'll see a lot of crying over the next 60 days or until Obama decides before then.

    I'll double that wager the other way. Obama won't do anything. This is just posturing by the US. They do this all the time. Norway has never had sanctions imposed on it for it's sustainable whaling, Iceland won't either. The US knows that the whaling convention is for the promotion of whaling industry, they won't want to open themselves up to litigation they know they will lose.

    "Japan does perform scientific research on the whales they take, and probably have the best whale science as a result"

    Yeah, which part goes best with mayonnaise.

    Mock the facts all you like, but that's a statement from a US official. Not your typical "pro-whaler", if I may...

    Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

  • -4

    davidattokyo

    NuckinFutz,

    Japan should be included as well, it's the only way to get through those thick nationalist skulls that the world isn't buying the "research" crap!

    You are jumping the gun and over-extending to suggest that "the world" has saying to say about it. Australia (alone) has taken that issue to the ICJ (where according to Wikileaks, Australian officials think they will lose, and Japanese officials think they will win.).

    As for the US, one of their officials last year stated under oath that "Japan does perform scientific research on the whales they take, and probably have the best whale science as a result"

    http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=1169

    So the US is unlikely to certify Japan too, under these circumstances.

    Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

  • -4

    davidattokyo

    “It’s critical that the government of Iceland take immediate action to comply with the moratorium,”

    Critical for US politicians wanting to suck up some fringe environmentalists votes maybe, but in reality what Iceland is doing is entirely consistent with the whaling convention and sustainable development.

    The Fin whale in the North Atlantic is perfectly abundant and the IWC's own Scientific Committee has advised that sustainable non-zero catch limits are possible for this stock. The US should be considering it's own role in the IWC failing to act on the advice of it's own scientific committee and the consequences of this.

    Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling

  • -1

    davidattokyo

    Kaio was a veteran when I first came to Japan yonks ago, if anything I will remember him for durability. Good on him for making history though, it was all worth it!

    Posted in: Ozeki Kaio makes his retirement official

  • -2

    davidattokyo

    Spidapig24,

    So there's no votes? Really?

    Yes, not for the past 3 or 4 meetings so far as I recall.

    As part of the "future of the IWC" process that you can read about on the IWC page, parties agreed to seek to agree on resolutions etc by consensus decision rather than by voting. They recognised that voting at the IWC had degenerated into pointless political posturing which never actually achieved anything useful for the organization. (Personally I think the meetings of the politicians are a complete waste of time and they should stop those too, as well as the voting, but not everyone is here yet...)

    Wasnt the commercial hunting ban passed by a vote

    Sure, but that was back in 1982, and also prior to any allegations of vote-buying by Japan too, I might add.

    And didnt the Japanese admit to buying votes back in 2001?

    Maybe you are talking about the Komatsu statement regarding use of ODA as a foreign relations tool? That wasn't an admission of vote buying.

    But David it hasnt been proven in a court of law.

    True, you have to catch the alleged criminal before you can prove their guilt in a court of law. But as for Japan, they are hardly running from Australia's court case, on the contrary Wikileaks revealed that the Japanese government was quietly looking forward to it. Australia could add those corruption allegations if they wished to. Watson on the other hand for some reason avoids visiting Japan... hmmm...

    Yeah back to that Japanese admission of vote buying, wasnt that one of the reasons the sanctuary didnt get up? Oh it was wasnt it.

    Do you have proof that the nations against the sanctuary proposal didn't simply think the proposal was deficient and inappropriate?

    When you stop complaining about Australia using its rights to try and stop Japans whaling.

    Oh I more than welcome Australia's taking Japan to court. This is exactly what we need.

    I do have a problem with Australia failing to deliver when it comes to their obligations under the SUA convention however. That's not Australia using their rights, that's Australia failing to act on it's international obligations.

    But David you ONLY comment on whaling stories. In fact since Jan 1 2011 you have made over a hundred comments of them 3 have been on non whaling issues. So you do only post on whaling issues.

    No, I don't post only on whaling issues. Apparently you've already confirmed this for yourself as well, so no point in arguing it!

    Yes l think you are passionately pro whaling

    Good judgement on your part.

    and l am while it may appear l am anti whaling l actually am not totally anti whaling. If the Japanese need whales for food so be it, but if they confined there hunting to Japanese waters l for one would remain silent about it.

    Good for you in that respect, although as for international waters the whalers have international law on their side. Of course you are welcome to disagree with and criticise the law. Just as we "pro-whalers" are welcome to criticise certain nations for failing to respect the sovereign rights of Japan in international waters (Australia being a prime example).

    The End.

    Posted in: Japan walkout throws whaling talks into disarray

  • -2

    davidattokyo

    Spidapig24,

    if they are unproven why did you say this "The IWC never votes on anything these days so allegations of "vote buying" are mute...".

    Because there is no voting anyway, so why anyone is concerned about vote buying is beyond me!

    As Japan has yet to take SS to court over its actions then l guess they are unproven allegations too and we wont hear anything from you about them?

    Well there is an arrest warrant out for Watson if that is any indication... he has evaded Japanese police so far.

    Seriously David l expect better than this, you know as well as l do that the case is about the legality of Japanese whaling in the Southern ocean. Not about Japanese corruption.

    Seems like two sides of the same coin if you ask me, but yeah I guess I'm kind of finding it hard to distinguish one flimsy argument from another. +1 to you there.

    I actually agree with you here, as these nations have equal say then they can also use an international organisation to put measures in place for the protection of a region. i.e. Whale sanctuaries etc.

    Which they have failed to do for the last 10 years because their sanctuary proposal has never been regarded highly enough to be adopted. The reasons for this are clear if one reads Article V of the whaling convention. (These whale convention sanctuaries are only supposed to be imposed under certain conditions - not the whims of anti-whaling nations.)

    Correct and the nations of the region are exercising their rights to protest against Japans actions. So everyone is exercising their rights correct?

    Yes, and you can thus stop complaining about Japan not heeding the protests, right?

    you only seem to turn up here when whaling is on the agenda

    I'm here, I just don't post mindlessly on every topic. It's not like JT is phoning me up when they run a whaling story.

    you have you blog which is 100% pro whaling, you have your pro whaling twitter site.

    Gee you checked me out thoroughly didn't you! I hope you checked the posts I blogged last year about the Australian ICJ case. Should be a good reality check. "Pro-whaling" or not, the ICJ will judge on the merits of the case, and that you should be worried about if you support Australia's position.

    So just so l understand where you are coming from, do you have a vested interest in whaling? Do you work in a whaling related industry?

    Nope. But I do admit to loving whale sashimi and tatsuta-age...

    You seem happy to admit you research and read almost all documents that come out of the IWC why is that?

    I'll admit I haven't been reading as carefully in recent years as I was back in the 2000's, but I still know what is going on and what to look for (e.g. minke whale abundance estimate work, plus trends in abundance work that uses data provided by Japan's lethal research - all science conducted by the IWC's own Scientific Committee). Why is that? I have a personal interest in the science of sustainable use of natural resources, whales especially, and I care about minority cultures not being discriminated against - this is my sense of fairness and justness if you will. Some people care more about whales than they care about people. I care more about people than I care about individual whales. I guess you can concede this is not so unusual.

    Now, I trust that you won't let your arguments descend into personal attacks on me, rather than the content of what I have been saying... It's very easy to label someone a "pro-whaler" and use that as flimsy justification for ignoring every logical argument they put forth. In fact, I'm 100% sure you're above that level!

    Posted in: Japan walkout throws whaling talks into disarray

  • 0

    davidattokyo

    Spidapig24,

    You know quite well that it wasnt made in a court, but the accusation has been made a few times by representatives of some countries and other countries have backed the allegations.

    Glad we could confirm that you are talking about unproven allegations.

    You might want to consider why Australia hasn't mentioned anything about it in it's flimsy court case at the ICJ. Would have been a good opportunity if anyone seriously believed the allegations... don't you think.

    Yes, Yes l realise David that inernational waters are international waters. So you are saying that the countries that border oceans and international waters have no right to have a say in what happens in them?

    Every sovereign nation has equal rights in international waters, so of course they have a say but their say is no more than Japan's, and they say certainly can't preclude the rights of other sovereign states.

    So let me get this right, the document l quoted states "world" and you claim it only refers to Antarctica.

    I claimed the reason the IWC was established was because nations were worried about whale stocks being depleted in the Antarctic. That they set up a generic organization to cover the entire world hardly disproves the historical catalyst for the creation of the IWC. You seem to be arguing this point for the sake of arguing, by the way.

    But lm grasping at straws.

    Glad we cleared it up.

    See what you are not grasping is this David, you are saying Japan which isnt even located near the place in question has more rights than the countries that border the region. Do you see the problem there David.

    Japan does not have more rights - it has exactly the same rights. The only difference is that Japan is exercising it's rights. Nothing wrong with that. And that doesn't mean that other nations don't have the exact same rights. This is straight up and down stuff.

    David you said that the Australian government wanted to stop world wide whaling.

    That's right, they do. If you seriously want to argue that Australia is not opposed to Japan's whaling in Japanese waters you are sadly misinformed. This is another point that you seem to be arguing for argument's sake. I'll prove you wrong with a simple Google search string. Google this: "Australia's stated policy of bringing about a permanent ban on commercial whaling world-wide". Then tell me if you still wish to claim that no one opposes Japan's whaling in it's own waters.

    I understand that what David is saying is that as international waters Japan can do as it pleases and that no-one has a right to object.

    They can say whatever they like but they can't take away Japan's rights. Freedom of speech does not mean when you say something you get to have it your way. If you don't like nations having rights in international waters your problem is with UNCLOS, ICRW etc, not with Japan (or me).

    Excellent l love the logic, just because its in international waters any country can do as it pleases regardless of what any other nation thinks.

    They can do what they are entitled to do under international law. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you have the law on your side.

    Especially when the activities are taking place in their own region.

    We have already established that we are talking about international waters which are no more the "region" of one nation than another's. UNCLOS, ICRW law applies, not meaningless opinion.

    Posted in: Japan walkout throws whaling talks into disarray

  • -1

    davidattokyo

    Spidapig24,

    the fact that the NZ, UK have accused the Japanese of rigging the IWC by paying for memberships and tying aid to votes is false is it?

    Which court was that accusation made in? Name the court and case number / reference. Or was it just some propaganda you are refering to??

    Yes they are international waters arnt they but who's region are they in?

    International waters by definition are ... international. They are no more one nations' region than they are anothers'. Check international law if you are confused on this point.

    But David the document doesnt say that does it?

    Sure but that doesn't change history. You are grasping at straws if you really want to argue this of all points.

    Well why doesnt Japan listen when the majority of countries that border this region say they dont want whaling there.

    International waters are ... international waters. I'm not sure what it is that you do not understand about this. If confused, check UNCLOS. Even land-locked nations have the same rights as Japan etc in international waters. Don't be crying to me about it if you don't like what the world has agreed.

    So the case is purely about the Southern Ocean whaling as you just said. My point exactly!

    Do you actually remember what your point was?

    Posted in: Japan walkout throws whaling talks into disarray

  • 0

    davidattokyo

    Tamarama,

    Course they have. But it has obviously been rejected to this point.

    Incorrect. IWC Scientific Committee advice is that sustainable catch limits for certain whale stocks can be set already. This has been the case for almost 2 decades (20 years) now. See "Revised Management Procedure"

    The politicians at the IWC refuse to act on this advice because "Whales are special", etc. They ignore science.

    Posted in: Japan walkout throws whaling talks into disarray

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

View all