tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14039752.post114579672744081602..comments2023-08-10T21:14:14.933+12:00Comments on Insolent Prick: Sing Bravo Bravo!Insolent Prickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438163323894858558noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14039752.post-1146029933471610722006-04-26T17:38:00.000+12:002006-04-26T17:38:00.000+12:00Oh, and I admire your view of the word "conservati...Oh, and I admire your view of the word "conservation".<BR/>Indeed in NZ the general public and Minister of Conservation Chris Carter tend to use "conservation" to mean "protection".<BR/><BR/>The concepts are fundamentally different.<BR/><BR/>"conservation" implies that there is some degree of utilization, but that the degree is limited such that the utilized resource will continue to exist into the future.<BR/><BR/>"protection" is only useful as a conservation implement when a certain species is endangered. There is little "conservation" value in protecting species that are not endangered, and on the contrary, giving blanket protection to one species in the eco-system may over time lead to imbalances where the individually protected species threatens the survival of it's prey species.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, this view of "conservation" is regarded as "hard-right" in some circles, presumably because it advocates use, which in turn can generate economic benefits (which can be funneled back into conservation efforts, it should be added).<BR/><BR/>If you are interested in an NGO that DOES hold such a view of "conservation", check out http://www.iwmc.org, which was founded by a former head of CITES, Eugene Lapointe. He cops a lot of criticism from the "protection" brigade, and their character assasination campaign against him in the early 90's saw him lose his position at CITES. A UN Tribunal later declared his dismissal as "arbitrary and capricious". His crime was supporting the sustainable use of elephants in parts of Africa where elephant populations are abundant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14039752.post-1146029046314002092006-04-26T17:24:00.000+12:002006-04-26T17:24:00.000+12:00IP,Yes, I totally agree with the general gist of w...IP,<BR/><BR/>Yes, I totally agree with the general gist of what you were saying, I was just getting picky ;)<BR/><BR/>People are very critical of Japan for what they believe is "commercial whaling in disguise" (although the JP govt has subsidised the research every year since it's inception - it runs at a financial loss as do many R&D projects), but fail to be critical of the NZ government argument against whaling. <BR/><BR/>There is no doubt that the real reasons that most people oppose whaling are<BR/>a) they believe that they are endangered<BR/>b) they simply think that whales are really lovely creatures that just shouldn't be killed.<BR/><BR/>The NZ government tries to dress up this opposition in scientific arguments, but it's very very hard to come up with a convincing scientific argument that says no level of whaling could ever be sustainable, thus justifying a ban for all time. <BR/><BR/>The NZ government should:<BR/>1) Drop the silly pretense that it believes a permanent whaling ban for all eternity is required for scientific reasons. Just simply come out and state that we oppose whaling, just because it's our culture in NZ. Nothing wrong with that.<BR/>2) Withdraw from the ICRW. NZ's position is diametrically opposed to so many clauses of this convention that it's embarassing that we remain party to it. <BR/>2a) Accept that whaling is going to happen regardless of our feelings, and at least contribute rationally to scientific debate at the IWC to ensure that the best management decisions are made (i.e., behave in good faith with regard to the content of the ICRW).<BR/><BR/>I'd personally prefer NZ took option 2a, but 2 would be better than nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14039752.post-1146026831366457762006-04-26T16:47:00.000+12:002006-04-26T16:47:00.000+12:00In general I agre with your points 100%But I would...In general I agre with your points 100%<BR/>But I would point out that the ancestors of domestic cattle are extinct but then so are a lot of other specis 'cause that is the name of the game<BR/>RayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14039752.post-1146026620854593742006-04-26T16:43:00.000+12:002006-04-26T16:43:00.000+12:00David,Good points. I suppose my general point is ...David,<BR/><BR/>Good points. I suppose my general point is that opposition to whaling has little to do with whale conservation. I have never read anything in the New Zealand media about just how endangered certain whale species are. The general impression in New Zealand media is that the hunting of any whale species, in any number, will lead to whales as a whole drifting closer to extinctinction. That impression is overwhelming wrong.<BR/><BR/>That view is fundamentally dishonest. The reality is that only a small number of whale species are on the brink of extinction. Conservation should be about conservation to avoid extinction. It should not be used as a stalking horse for a philosophical view that whales are somehow sacred for sanctity purposes alone.Insolent Prickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438163323894858558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14039752.post-1146015203226317922006-04-26T13:33:00.000+12:002006-04-26T13:33:00.000+12:00Some points: 1) Studies have actually been unable ...Some points: <BR/><BR/>1) Studies have actually been unable to provide any scientific basis to claims of great whale intelligence. Pigs have been demonstrated to be more intelligent. Ever heard of pork bacon? Well they have whale bacon in Japan. Not that intelligence would be reason to protect any animal from hunting anyway. The opposite side of the coin says that it's ok to eat stupid animals. Thats pretty indefensible, at least from my point of view.<BR/><BR/>2) Japan and Norway are acting completely within the rules of the ICRW convention (see my recent comments at http://whaling-faq.blogspot.com), although you are right in recognising frustration in those countries at the hijacking of the IWC by the anti-whalers.<BR/><BR/>3) It is correct that the various whale species of the world have differing conservation statuses. "Whales are endangered" is only true if you are talking about certain species such as the Blue whale, the Bowhead whale, etc (none of which the Japanese or Norwegians hunt - Alaskans do hunt the Bowhead in a sustainable fashion however, under IWC approval). However, the Pilot whale is not considered to be under the IWC's competence by nations such as Japan. Only 13 of the largest most migratory species of whale were explicitly noted in a document attached to the original convention. <BR/><BR/>4) Judgements about how many whales humans could chomp through without negatively impacting individual whale stocks should be left to the IWC's Scientific Committee, not internet bloggers :) I don't know where you got your numbers.<BR/><BR/>5) Farming works well for animals such as cows that are land based. For migratory great whales species it would be silly :) The animals are best left to roam the oceans freely. Commercially farmed animals may not have been driven to extinction, but it does not hold true that animals MUST be commercially farmed to be conserved. 20 years of Japanese lethal scientific research, and a decade of Norwegian commercial whaling continues to prove this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com