whaling industry whistle blowers

[Ken Gargett]

i've done this in a separate thread as the previous one was getting a bit sidetracked.

colt questioned a suggestion as to what was behind the industry, if i am correct. i've been trying to find out a bit more since we have been posting. what i have got comes from public reports, court reports, info detailed in the weekend australian etc. all obviously public record. quite fascinating.

seems that there have been three whistleblowers from within. one is still pro whaling but anti the corruption in the industry.

the figures suggest that the japanese taxpayer cops the brunt of keeping the whaling industry (also known as the 'institute of cetacean research' - don't laugh) afloat. in 2009, their operating expenses were 13.9 billion yen - one report says trillion but i think that a misprint. 5.1 billion (which equates to about A$60mill) yen came from 'interest-free public loans', more than half a bill came from direct govt subsidies and almost as much was dubbed govt 'public research fees'. the rest comes from selling the meat (that would be the meat they claim is research).

the problem is that the public is not buying it, which supports what frenchkiwi has heard. in december 2009, the stockpile of unsold whale meat was 4,246 tonnes (that is one hell of a lot of whales that didn't need to be butchered). that is up from the previous year by 37% from december 2008. the irony is that the stockpile is anticipated to reduce, not because of any change in public tastes, which seems to be firmly swinging away from whale, but because of the activities of sea shepherd in preventing the japanese from slaughtering as many as they wish.

the first two whistleblowers have worked in the industry for more than 40 years each while the third is in 'whaling diplomacy'. all names etc kept quiet but he is the one believed to be still positive about whaling but not the corruption involved (it may be that it is one of the whalers rather than the 'diplomat' but to be fair, one is still positive, the others very much not so). their evidence suggests that the efforts of sea shepherd are very much alerting the japanese as to what their whaling industry has been doing and many japanese are apparently appalled by it. so the campaign by sea shepherd is bearing fruit. but there remains the huge problem that no country likes outsiders telling them what to do.

the whistleblowers have confirmed that there is no scientific sampling as claimed but rather the whalers target the most commercially viable species and they dump lesser whales that they have slaughtered under the alleged research program and their meat back in the ocean so as to free up their quota for the more valuable species. the whistleblowers claim the fleet operators which run the 'program' and the japanese fishing agency are both aware of this and allow it to continue.

in addition, the authorities are aware that at the end of every season, whaling crews illegally sell many tonnes of the best meat on the black market. again, tacitly approved.

there is another legal case in japan at the moment re the whaling. two individuals were arrested and subjected to constant interogation for 26 days before being granted bail (in breach of japan's obligations under various international treaties to which they are signatories). their alleged crime - stealing 23 kgs of whale meat. what is behind this is that these were two members of 'greenpeace japan' who were given the whale meat by one of the whistleblowers as evidence of the way a lot of the meat was being illegally disposed of on the black market. they had actually taken the meat to japanese prosecutors themselves and were then the subject of investigation and interogation.

the sooner this stops the better. for the whales, for humanity and not least for the international image of japan.

[armedak]

Ken, I can't say I'm too suprised by this information. How long will public opinion tolerate these jokers running about in huge factory vessels with "RESEARCH" emblazoned on their hulls slaughtering these magnificient creatures???

[El Presidente]

Now ken,

As a piece of research, I would just like to point out:

* Whistleblowers who are anonymous are not really whistelblowers.

* There is no research presented on amount whale meat sold today in comparison to amounts sold in the 70's/80's/90's etc. Is it dropping, stable or increasing.

All I am saying is that when in part critiquing a cultural pursuit you are not in favour of, Facts and figures to support a case would be better than supposition based on general reading.

Not that I am a lawyer

[El Presidente]

Apparently there are a couple of restaurants left.

http://www.neilhogan.com/japan/whalerestaurants.html

[Ken Gargett]

Now ken,

As a piece of research, I would just like to point out:

* Whistleblowers who are anonymous are not really whistelblowers.

* There is no research presented on amount whale meat sold today in comparison to amounts sold in the 70's/80's/90's etc. Is it dropping, stable or increasing.

All I am saying is that when in part critiquing a cultural pursuit you are not in favour of, Facts and figures to support a case would be better than supposition based on general reading.

Not that I am a lawyer

dear apologist for the butchers,

1. whistleblowers are often anonymous, at least for certain stages of the procedure. most times, if they are not anonymous in the early stages then it ain't gonna work. i refer you to russell crow's 'insider' movie (for which, as an aside, i could have understood him winning an oscar - or even 'a beautiful mind' rather than when he was poncing around with sword and sandals). had he not been anonymous, it would have been a very short film. more seriously, i refer you to the Shorter Oxford, which makes it clear that the definition of a whistleblower is not limited to either. in fact, i would suggest that very few whistleblowers up and announced their intention before taking the first step, anonmously.

2. how many bloody facts do you want? i've got dollars, tonnes, dates, which i think extends marginally beyond supposition. no, i have not got the entire history of whaling since someone first fashioned a harpoon, but i think that there is more than enough there to give the current picture, which was always the intent. i did not transcibe all the info but, and i apologise if i typed it too quickly for you, there is surely an inference that whale stocks are increasing. if i didn't convey that, i apologise but the information to hand certainly indicated that stocks are increasing from previous years and that demand is dropping.

3. culutual pursuit? bit like saying that the extermination of the aborigines in tassie was a cultural pursuit. and i also must apologise if you garnered the impression that i was only "in part" critiquing it. i intended no "in art" at all.

3. no, you are not a lawyer.

[El Presidente]

dear apologist for the butchers,

That's harsh

The European greenies are currently using "stats" to prove to the world that kangaroos will be extinct and hence the need to stop harvesting.

Stats used should be referenced to a document otherwise they are useless. It is only then that the document and methodology of collection can be scrutinised.

Every Greenie group has an "insider". Just easier to separate fact from fiction when one actually comes forward.

I digress. Get back to your cultural crucifixtion

[El Presidente]

dear apologist for the butchers,

That's harsh

The European greenies are currently using "stats" to prove to the world that kangaroos will be extinct and hence the need to stop harvesting.

Stats used should be referenced to a document otherwise they are useless. It is only then that the document and methodology of collection can be scrutinised.

Every Greenie group has an "insider". Just easier to separate fact from fiction when one actually comes forward.

I digress. Get back to your cultural crucifixtion

[Guest rob]

3. no, you are not a lawyer.

case of the kettle calling the pot... a pot?

[Ken Gargett]

case of the kettle calling the pot... a pot?

think of it like alcoholism (not that i am making light of that condition in any way), but once a lawyer...

no matter how much one might wish to rid oneself of that mantle.

[Ken Gargett]

That's harsh

The European greenies are currently using "stats" to prove to the world that kangaroos will be extinct and hence the need to stop harvesting.

Stats used should be referenced to a document otherwise they are useless. It is only then that the document and methodology of collection can be scrutinised.

Every Greenie group has an "insider". Just easier to separate fact from fiction when one actually comes forward.

I digress. Get back to your cultural crucifixtion

first, there are numerous posts from myself noting exactly that re stats - have a look at the recent afl/league debate (and while on afl, what a truly glorious win by those magnificent lions last night).

secondly, i never mentioned using stats. if you were to read my response accurately and not hear what you thought you wanted to hear, you would note i used the word 'fact'. completely different.

thirdly, my antagonism is purely re the whaling issue. otherwise, there is no problem whatsoever.

and you keep banning me from any discussion that might in any way offend any other nation, bar the kiwis.

[mazolaman]

For an acurate colation of stats,see"the end of the line".A worldwide documentary regarding the abuse of the oceans.Available online.

There isn't really an argument to dispute the near extinction of some whale species,the same as the tiger population,its bleeding obvious.

We are living in a mass extinction period.Fact.

[El Presidente]

For an acurate colation of stats,see"the end of the line".A worldwide documentary regarding the abuse of the oceans.Available online.

There isn't really an argument to dispute the near extinction of some whale species,the same as the tiger population,its bleeding obvious.

We are living in a mass extinction period.Fact.

I am not arguing the point.

I am always question "facts" that are not tested ala Michael Moores assertions on the greatness of Cuban hospitals or the "fact" that Kangaroos face extinction.

It is not that I don't necessarily believe them. It just takes more than a flash documentary or a Google cut and paste of some articles.

The worlds oceans are being over fished. Talk to commercial fishermen in Europe and North Africa and look at the yields. Modern commercial and recreational fishing technology doesn't give fish a chance. Throw in booming populations + pollution and it is a disaster.

Whale populations are increasing.....FACT. Counts off coastlines of annual migrations prove it. That doesn't mean that they should be opened up to slaughter.

What it does mean is that commercial fishing "green zones" would work for most ocean species.

It is an eminently solvable problem but comes with some prickly political domestic and international issues for all countries with a coast.

In the end nothing will be done. Commercial Fishermen will either go broke or become pirates fishing illegally. Countries will come to blows as navies sink commercial fishing vessels in their waters.

[Ken Gargett]

[quote

Whale populations are increasing.....FACT. Counts off coastlines of annual migrations prove it.

couple of things. if you check my other post re the slaughter of whales, you'll note that i gave details of exactly that - we see far far more whales off fraser etc these days than we did 20 years ago. BUT the reason that the whale population is increasing is that allegedly strict "quotas" were put in place and many nations voluntarily stopped whaling. the numbers are considered to be (according to every report and all anecdotal evidence - but no, i don't have it to hand and don't have the time to chase it - but i remember many conversations with my father who was about as far from a greenie as has existed, how many whales he see fishing up and down the coast of qld and as someone mentioned, tangalooma off brizzy was a whaling station - a very active one - and i believe it closed, not from public pressure but, like so many others, they ran out of whales to make it commercially viable) far far less than they were before the slaughter began. they have begun to recover, from a small base. if we allow further slaughter their chances are minimal.

to say "Whale populations are increasing.....FACT" completely distorts the truth and if i may suggest you revert to your early post, from when? they may be increasing from a decade or two ago. they have diminished enormously from 100 years ago or 200 years ago.

on a slightly different note, anyone interested in whaling, for or against (or just a wonderful book), should read 'moby ****'. great stuff, though i was cheering for the whales.

[Ken Gargett]

FACTS re tangalooma and aussie whaling.

it took a decade of whaling, even with quotas, to reduce the population from 15,000 to 500.

more power to sea shepherd!

Whaling Station History

In 1950 an Australian Company was formed ~

“Whale Products Pty Ltd” and Tangalooma was

chosen as a site for the largest land based whaling

station in the Southern Hemisphere for 4 main

reasons: the site was sheltered from the Ocean;

had a large supply of fresh bore water & was the

migratory path of Humpback Whales and was also

close to a major shipping Port ~ Brisbane.

Captain Alf Melsom was bought from Norway to direct the project as he had over

40 years whaling experience. Originally there were three 38metre Norwegian

Whale Chasers each complete with a 14-man crew. Australians were hired and

trained to eventually take over the enterprise from the Norwegians.

The first 2 Humpback whales were harpooned in June 1952 near Cape Moreton

and the operation was underway.

International regulation stipulated that all whales taken must be a minimum of

10.7 metres (35 feet) and no lactating females.

By October 1952 the station had caught and processed the yearly quota of 600

whales, with the season being only 124 days long!

The Whaling station was manned by 120 men who worked 12-hour shifts, 7 days

a week. A skilled tradesman was capable of making an award salary of 19

Pounds per week and could earn an average of 5 000 pounds per season.

In the first few years the Whaling Station was a thriving business with each

animal being worth approximately 1000 Pounds ($2 000). One whale yielded

approximately 9 tons of oil, the most valuable resource, which was used to make

margarine, glycerine, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. The meat was used for

pet food or human consumption overseas, and the bones, offal and low-grade

meat turned into a meal for stock or fertiliser.

In the late 1950’s vegetable oil was introduced and then in 1959 there was a fall

in world whale oil prices and the yearly quota of whales was increased to 660

whales per year.

By 1961 the whales were becoming scarce and light planes were being

employed to spot the whales from the air. In May 1962 in desperation the

Tangalooma Whaling Station purchased 2 new chasers, by August that year only

68 whales had been caught and the Whaling station closed on August 5th due to

economic reasons. Not long after this closure both Byron Bay and Norfolk Island

whaling stations also closed due to the lack of whales.

During the 10 years of operation at the Tangalooma Whaling Station 6 277

Humpback Whales and 1 Blue Whale were taken. This operation seriously

decimated the East Coast population of Humpback Whales to less than 500

individuals from the original population which was estimated at approximately 15

000.

In June 1963 the Tangalooma Whaling Station was sold to a syndicate of Gold

Coast businessmen who turned it into a Resort.

In 1965 / 1966 Humpback Whales were placed onto the “Protected Species” List.

It is estimated that approximately $32 000 000 was earned each year from

whaling in Australian waters. Currently Whale Watching in Australian

earns around $70 000 000 per annum.

[Ken Gargett]

from the aust govt whaling website.

When southern right whales and blue whales became

scarce, Australian whalers began to target humpback

whales, killing approximately 8300 off the east coast

between 1949 and 1962. By the time the International

Whaling Commission banned humpback whaling in the

Southern Hemisphere in 1963, over-exploitation had

already reduced the population to an estimated 3.5–5%

of pre-whaling abundance, leading to the collapse of

When southern right whales and blue whales became

scarce, Australian whalers began to target humpback

whales, killing approximately 8300 off the east coast

between 1949 and 1962. By the time the International

Whaling Commission banned humpback whaling in the

Southern Hemisphere in 1963, over-exploitation had

already reduced the population to an estimated 3.5–5%

of pre-whaling abundance, leading to the collapse of

Australia’s east coast whaling industry. Whalers from the

Soviet Union continued to whale illegally throughout much

of the Southern Ocean, killing 48 702 humpbacks between

1947 and 1973. More than half of these were taken in

the two whaling seasons of 1959–60 and 1960–61.

Whaling in Australia, though mainly targeting sperm whales,

continued until 1978, by which time the industry was no

longer viable. A change in public attitude against whaling

encouraged the Australian Government to hold an Inquiry

into Whales and Whaling in 1979. Following this the

government, with bi-partisan support adopted a

permanent ban on further whaling.

The Whale Protection Act 1980 has now been replaced by

the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999 (the EPBC Act). The Australian Whale Sanctuary,

established under the EPBC Act, includes the entire

Commonwealth marine area, beyond the coastal waters

of each state and the Northern Territory. Within the

Sanctuary it is an offence to kill, capture, injure, harass,

chase or herd whales, dolphins and porpoises. The EPBC

Act lists humpback whales as vulnerable and state

legislation of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland

provides similar protection.

It is estimated that when the Australian east coast

whaling industry ended in 1963, the east coast population

of humpbacks had been reduced to a little over 100

individuals. Thankfully, this population has shown

steady recovery of around 10 –11% a year, and in

2006 was estimated at around 8000.

Australia’s east coast whaling industry. Whalers from the

Soviet Union continued to whale illegally throughout much

of the Southern Ocean, killing 48 702 humpbacks between

1947 and 1973. More than half of these were taken in

the two whaling seasons of 1959–60 and 1960–61.

Whaling in Australia, though mainly targeting sperm whales,

continued until 1978, by which time the industry was no

longer viable. A change in public attitude against whaling

encouraged the Australian Government to hold an Inquiry

into Whales and Whaling in 1979. Following this the

government, with bi-partisan support adopted a

permanent ban on further whaling.

The Whale Protection Act 1980 has now been replaced by

the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999 (the EPBC Act). The Australian Whale Sanctuary,

established under the EPBC Act, includes the entire

Commonwealth marine area, beyond the coastal waters

of each state and the Northern Territory. Within the

Sanctuary it is an offence to kill, capture, injure, harass,

chase or herd whales, dolphins and porpoises. The EPBC

Act lists humpback whales as vulnerable and state

legislation of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland

provides similar protection.

It is estimated that when the Australian east coast

whaling industry ended in 1963, the east coast population

of humpbacks had been reduced to a little over 100

individuals. Thankfully, this population has shown

steady recovery of around 10 –11% a year, and in

2006 was estimated at around 8000.

[El Presidente]

from the aust govt whaling website.

individuals. Thankfully, this population has shown

steady recovery of around 10 –11% a year, and in

2006 was estimated at around 8000.

[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/size][/font]

Thanks Ken. Point proven

[Ken Gargett]

Thanks Ken. Point proven

did you read nothing? it proves absolutely the contrary point?????

[El Presidente]

did you read nothing? it proves absolutely the contrary point?????

Not the way I read it

[Colt45]

on a slightly different note, anyone interested in whaling, for or against (or just a wonderful book), should read 'moby ****'. great stuff, though i was cheering for the whales.

I've read it, and a few weeks ago watched a program about American whaling on PBS called Into the Deep - well worth the time if you can see it.

Ken, you might find what happened to the ship Essex of particular interest.

[Ken Gargett]

I've read it, and a few weeks ago watched a program about American whaling on PBS called Into the Deep - well worth the time if you can see it.

Ken, you might find what happened to the ship Essex of particular interest.

ta colt, will keep an eye out.

[skindiver]

ta colt, will keep an eye out.

Ok. Now what can you do about Vic Hilsop and his relentless killing of all types of sharks up there in Queensland? That guy is over the top, no?

I don't even need to talk about the threat to the oceans he presents.

[Ken Gargett]

Ok. Now what can you do about Vic Hilsop and his relentless killing of all types of sharks up there in Queensland? That guy is over the top, no?

I don't even need to talk about the threat to the oceans he presents.

please. everywhere has its whackjobs. we have vic, though to be honest, so little is heard of him these days, i thought he was dead.

he doesn't limit himself to qld. all australia is his abbatoir.

i think he is right in his assertion that there are more deaths thanks to sharks than are recorded (if someone goes missing, unless there is clear evidence of a shark attack, it is considered just a drowning and i'm sure that some of them are shark-related - mate of mine runs the govt shark-netting program etc and he has so many stories that if you listened, you'd never go back in the water) but i do not subscribe to his kill all sharks crap in any form (would love to see a complete boycott of all restaurants serving shark fins).

[skindiver]

please. everywhere has its whackjobs. we have vic, though to be honest, so little is heard of him these days, i thought he was dead.

he doesn't limit himself to qld. all australia is his abbatoir.

i think he is right in his assertion that there are more deaths thanks to sharks than are recorded (if someone goes missing, unless there is clear evidence of a shark attack, it is considered just a drowning and i'm sure that some of them are shark-related - mate of mine runs the govt shark-netting program etc and he has so many stories that if you listened, you'd never go back in the water) but i do not subscribe to his kill all sharks crap in any form (would love to see a complete boycott of all restaurants serving shark fins).

He says that swimming pools and bathtubs are the only safe places, otherwise you are subjected to an attack by these dangerous and vicious predators. These are truly maqnificent animals that have been demonized by movies and old wives tales. This killing needs to stop as well.

[El Presidente]

please. everywhere has its whackjobs. we have vic, though to be honest, so little is heard of him these days, i thought he was dead.

he doesn't limit himself to qld. all australia is his abbatoir.

i think he is right in his assertion that there are more deaths thanks to sharks than are recorded (if someone goes missing, unless there is clear evidence of a shark attack, it is considered just a drowning and i'm sure that some of them are shark-related - mate of mine runs the govt shark-netting program etc and he has so many stories that if you listened, you'd never go back in the water) but i do not subscribe to his kill all sharks crap in any form (would love to see a complete boycott of all restaurants serving shark fins).

Here we have some agreement ken!

killing for shark fins should be banned. They should be forced to use the whole carcass.

I am a lover of Flake (as long as it is sustainable harvesting). High nutritional value and low cost. If anyone ever bothered, Shark farming would work. Highly tolerant piscatorial species. Good growth rates, annual breeding, non specific diets.

Just trying to help

[Ken Gargett]

He says that swimming pools and bathtubs are the only safe places, otherwise you are subjected to an attack by these dangerous and vicious predators. These are truly maqnificent animals that have been demonized by movies and old wives tales. This killing needs to stop as well.

stan, could not agree more. one of the saddest sights i've ever seen was a crowd gathered around something on fraser. when i checked it out, it was a 15 foot shark which had washed up. it was missing its dorsal. had just been sliced off and the thing tossed back in to the sea to die slowly - i'd feed anyone who did that to the sharks without any qualms. horrendous butchery.

as a judge in this year's wine list of the year awards, i tried very hard to have the chairman rule as ineligible any restauant which had shark fin on its menu. sadly, to no avail.