Seal demand outstrips supply
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
1. On April 18, 1996, Mark Small, president of the Canadian Sealers Association,
estimated the 1996 Canadian seal hunt will generate between $10 million-$15
million (Can.) in Newfoundland and Labrador.
2. Ches Coish, president of the Northeast Coast Sealer's Co-operative, says his
company has a market for an additional 56,000 seal pelts. The company is
having troublegetting the pelts because of the strong market demand and the
quota, which is almost achieved, which is limiting the supply.
3. John Efford, Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland and Labrador, says seal
markets are calling for another 150,000 seals (in addition to the current
250,000 animal quota). The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans has
said the quota will not be raised.
4. The industry cannot keep up with the demand for seal fur, in particular from
European markets.
So far this year, the market demand for seal products (pelts, meat, innards,
oil) has far exceeded the supply. The seal hunt was scheduled to end on May 15,
but it looks like it will end much earlier (and perhaps sometimes later this
week). The millions of dollars generated by the industry is a real economic shot
in the arm to rural, coastal communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
All this is the result of an ecologically sound, rigidly controlled harvest of
the animals that is regulated and managed by officials of the Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Stig (in Newfoundland)
Stephen Best
>Some items of note:
>
>1. On April 18, 1996, Mark Small, president of the Canadian Sealers Association,
>estimated the 1996 Canadian seal hunt will generate between $10 million-$15
>million (Can.) in Newfoundland and Labrador.
>
The quota for harp seals is about 250,000 which means to generate
$15,000,000 each seal must attract $60 ($15,000,000/250,000 = $60).
How is this figure, the highest in modern history, being achieved?
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
I posted a simple analysis of the value to be derived from sealing last
week. you must have missed it. But suffice to say that the $10 million-$15
million guestimate of mr. Small is very much achievable.
Pelts will bring about $20 per, that's $5 million there.
The meat is going for $0.27 per pound and there will be somewhere
around 12.5 million pounds derived from the 250,000 seals harvested. That
brings another $3,375,000.
The oil is going for $0.15 a kilogram. That'll bring in another couple of
million.
Then there's the innards. And not to forget the infamous seal penis,
which animal rightist have been saying is the only real product. How muchdo
they go for? One loon here suggested they go for $25 each. But let's be
more conservative and take half that amount. We'll also assume that only
half the seals taken were males (125,000). That's another $3,125,000.
That's well within the range estimated by the president of the Canadian
Sealers' Association.
I await Stephen Best's next argument ad nauseum as he shifts emphasis from
pillar to post in his futile efforts to discredit the seal hunt, a valid,
and ecologically sound human enterprise.
The most amazing thing is that the Steven Best types would regret greatly
the end of the seal hunt as it would mark the end of the most lucrative
fund-raising icon animal rightists like themselves have ever employed.
Stig (in Newfoundland)
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
>
> The meat is going for $0.27 per pound and there will be somewhere
> around 12.5 million pounds derived from the 250,000 seals harvested. That
> brings another $3,375,000.
OOPS...that should read $1,562,500 - but it doesn't change the overall
success of the enterprise.
Stig (in Newfoundland)
Dave Wheeler
pm> From: pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
pm> Newsgroups: talk.environment
pm> Subject: Seal demand outstrips supply
pm> Message-Id: <1996Apr19.102044.1@leif>
pm> Some items of note:
pm> 1. On April 18, 1996, Mark Small, president of the Canadian Sealers
pm> Association, estimated the 1996 Canadian seal hunt will generate
pm> between $10 million-$15 million (Can.) in Newfoundland and Labrador.
It will be nice to see actual figures instead of estimates
from the seal killer association.
pm> 2. Ches Coish, president of the Northeast Coast Sealer's Co-operative,
pm> says his company has a market for an additional 56,000 seal pelts. The
pm> company is having troublegetting the pelts because of the strong
pm> market demand and the quota, which is almost achieved, which is
pm> limiting the supply.
Then why don't they get the million pelts stored in Norway?
pm> 4. The industry cannot keep up with the demand for seal fur, in
pm> particular from European markets.
What European markets?
Remember that seal pelts are illegal in Europe.
pm> So far this year, the market demand for seal products (pelts, meat,
pm> innards, oil) has far exceeded the supply. The seal hunt was scheduled
pm> to end on May 15, but it looks like it will end much earlier (and
pm> perhaps sometimes later this week). The millions of dollars generated
pm> by the industry is a real economic shot in the arm to rural, coastal
pm> communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
It remains to be shown that there will be millions of dollars
generated, but even if so, it is a cruel practice.
pm> All this is the result of an ecologically sound, rigidly controlled
pm> harvest of the animals that is regulated and managed by officials of
pm> the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
I can envision a Nazi death camp officer saying essentially
the same thing.
... "Careful, we don't want to learn from this." - Calvin
Dave Wheeler
pm> From: pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
pm> Newsgroups: talk.environment
>
> The meat is going for $0.27 per pound and there will be somewhere
> around 12.5 million pounds derived from the 250,000 seals harvested. That
> brings another $3,375,000.
pm> ^^^^^^^^^
pm> OOPS...that should read $1,562,500 - but it doesn't change the overall
pm> success of the enterprise.
pm> Stig (in Newfoundland)
Of course it does. Particularly when Canada spent millions
to develop the penis market and $400,000. in regular subsidies,
and I presume about another $2,000,000. in per pound subsidies.
And, of course, Mr. Stig is mistaking the selling of a few pounds
at a local market with finding a market for 12.5 million pounds.
The real figures are probably $25,000. from meat sales, based on
past total returns of about $150,000. from dead seals.
The Norwegians are even worse and spend many times more in subsidies
than is returned from the sale of dead seal parts.
Cruel. And stupid.
... Demand an end to Norwegian and Canadian seal kill subsidies.
David S. Eitelbach
wrote:
> Then why don't they get the million pelts stored in Norway?
> What European markets?
>
> Remember that seal pelts are illegal in Europe.
Where you figure Norway is, Dave?
--
David S. Eitelbach
dse...@crl.com
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
> -=> Quoting pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca to All <=-
>
> pm> From: pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
> pm> Newsgroups: talk.environment
> pm> Message-Id: <1996Apr19.102044.1@leif>
>
> pm> Some items of note:
>
> pm> 1. On April 18, 1996, Mark Small, president of the Canadian Sealers
> pm> Association, estimated the 1996 Canadian seal hunt will generate
> pm> between $10 million-$15 million (Can.) in Newfoundland and Labrador.
>
> It will be nice to see actual figures instead of estimates
> from the seal killer association.
Yes, perhaps we could use figures from such unbiased sources as Animal
people magazine. Who would best know the value of the industry, those
actively involved in it, or those who snipe at it from the long-distance
sidelines?
> pm> 2. Ches Coish, president of the Northeast Coast Sealer's Co-operative,
> pm> says his company has a market for an additional 56,000 seal pelts. The
> pm> company is having troublegetting the pelts because of the strong
> pm> market demand and the quota, which is almost achieved, which is
> pm> limiting the supply.
>
> Then why don't they get the million pelts stored in Norway?
Source o this datat, please??
> pm> 4. The industry cannot keep up with the demand for seal fur, in
> pm> particular from European markets.
>
> What European markets?
>
> Remember that seal pelts are illegal in Europe.
This is not true. There is a ban on whitecoat seal pelts in the European
Community. Other seal pelts are sold through the Community and other
European countries. You really should try some unbiased sources the next
time you do your research.
> pm> So far this year, the market demand for seal products (pelts, meat,
> pm> innards, oil) has far exceeded the supply. The seal hunt was scheduled
> pm> to end on May 15, but it looks like it will end much earlier (and
> pm> perhaps sometimes later this week). The millions of dollars generated
> pm> by the industry is a real economic shot in the arm to rural, coastal
> pm> communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
>
> It remains to be shown that there will be millions of dollars
> generated, but even if so, it is a cruel practice.
"Even if so, it is a cruel practice" -- Therein lies the totality of Dave
Wheeler's arguements against sealing. The rest of the tripe he serves up is
nothing more that, to borrow a phrase, "insult and denial". I recently used
the phrase "shifting sands" to describe this approach to seal-hunt
opposition. Looks like a sand storm to me.
> pm> All this is the result of an ecologically sound, rigidly controlled
> pm> harvest of the animals that is regulated and managed by officials of
> pm> the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
>
> I can envision a Nazi death camp officer saying essentially
> the same thing.
Careful with the Nazi analogy, Wheeler. It has been pointed out many times
in the past that your approach to propaganda places you firmly to the right
of Josef Goebbels.
Stig (in Newfoundland)
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
> -=> Quoting pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca to All <=-
>
> pm> From: pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
> pm> Newsgroups: talk.environment
> >
> > around 12.5 million pounds derived from the 250,000 seals harvested. That
> > brings another $3,375,000.
> pm> ^^^^^^^^^
> pm> OOPS...that should read $1,562,500 - but it doesn't change the overall
> pm> success of the enterprise.
>
> pm> Stig (in Newfoundland)
>
> Of course it does. Particularly when Canada spent millions
> to develop the penis market and $400,000. in regular subsidies,
> and I presume about another $2,000,000. in per pound subsidies.
Wheeler, you've got it wrong again. You keep quoting this $400,000 figure,
yet your only source is an article in Animal people magazine. Sealing will
generate $10 million to $15 million this year in the Newfoundland economy.
Your economic arguments don't hold water. Go back to your "Stop it, because
I think it's cruel" approach. You may win more converts with this sordid
emotional appeal.
Wheeler should travel to this area of the world and observe for himself the
intense activity around those plants that are processing seals and
operating 24-hours a day employing thousands of rural people -- plants that
would be closed and people who would be unemployed. And all these benefits
derived from an ecologically sound, nature-respecting enterprise. Ain't it
nice.
Stig (in Newfoundland)
Dave Wheeler
pm> From: pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
pm> Newsgroups: talk.environment
pm> Subject: Re: Math correction Re: seal demand outstrips supply
pm> In article <a21_960...@salata.com>, dave.w...@salata.com (Dave
pm> Wheeler) writes: > -=> Quoting pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca to All <=-
> Of course it does. Particularly when Canada spent millions
> to develop the penis market and $400,000. in regular subsidies,
> and I presume about another $2,000,000. in per pound subsidies.
pm> Wheeler, you've got it wrong again. You keep quoting this $400,000
pm> figure, yet your only source is an article in Animal people magazine.
$400,000. is the average subsidy from 1988 to 1994. Note that
Mr. Stig does not deny that this figure is correct.
Nor does he deny the accuracy of the $2,000,000. in per pound
subsidies.
pm> Sealing will generate $10 million to $15 million this year in the
pm> Newfoundland economy.
This is an unpublished, unattributed, unsupported claim
that Mr. Stig allegedly heard from some seal killer.
It is contradicted by the seal marketing study conducted
by the government, among many other facts.
pm> Your economic arguments don't hold water. Go
pm> back to your "Stop it, because I think it's cruel" approach. You may
pm> win more converts with this sordid emotional appeal.
Both economic and cruelty arguments are valid.
In fact, there are few valid arguments in support of the slaughter.
pm> Wheeler should travel to this area of the world and observe for
pm> himself the intense activity around those plants that are processing
pm> seals and operating 24-hours a day employing thousands of rural people
pm> -- plants that would be closed and people who would be unemployed. And
pm> all these benefits derived from an ecologically sound,
pm> nature-respecting enterprise. Ain't it nice.
Martin Sheen and Capt. Paul Watson were almost lynched last
year when they went to Newfoundland to show the natives a
non-violent way to earn money from seals.
Also, Canada should be boycotted until it stops the
seal slaughter.
Of course, arguments about uselessly killing seals as make
work for subsidies can apply to any activity, many of them
more productive than killing seals.
... Real men don't kill seals for penises.
David S. Eitelbach
wrote:
> Also, Canada should be boycotted until it stops the
> seal slaughter.
No, no, Dave -- can't do that! Sea Shepherd Paul Watson's latest book was
published in Toronto. Also, Stephen Best and his demonizing web server are
in Ontario as well. So, it's all right to boycott all of Norway -- but not
all of Canada. You're only supposed to boycott Atlantic Canada, get it?
That way, people can still send in money to the International Wildlife
Coalition with a clear conscience after they have visited Mr. Best's
demonization mill and seen Norwegian whalers shown as faceless, shadowy
figures whose "cold eyes scan the gentle waves ahead searching for
innocent prey".
<http://www.webcom.com/~iwcwww/whale_adoption/gallery.html>
And, shoppers, you can go right on to see Newfoundlander sealers demonized
as savage, vicious brutes as well...
"Shots ring out. Blood stains the white ice and the blue water.
Alone, bleeding from a bullet hole in its side, a terrified baby
seal just 17 days old squirms in a struggle to escape. Held in
place with the sealer's foot, the pup's stomach is sliced open
from chin to tail. These days, with the seal fur market dead
only one part of this baby is sought -- a seal penis for the
aphrodisiac trade in the Orient! The hunter probes the genital
region with his knife. He spits out a curse; this little seal is
a female. The sealers time and the cost of the bullet has all
been wasted -- wasted, just like the life of this lovely wild
animal."
<http://www.webcom.com/~iwcwww/seal_hunt/hunt.html>
And, just on the next aisle, you can also find a rationalization for
boycotting all the sealers *and the non-sealers* who live in the poorest
part of Canada. Feeling somewhat bad about that? Don't -- there's a free
rationalization right on the same page. Guilt-free hate is the best hate.
<http://www.webcom.com/~iwcwww/seal_hunt/boycott.html>
Yes, now you can love animals and hate people and feel good about all of
it! Just by visiting the International Wildlife Coalition web server.
So, let's not boycott ALL of Canada, and in the process cut off the funds
to the International Wildlife Coalition demonizing web server, the virtual
heart of gonzo environmentalism in North America.
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
dse...@crl.com (David S. Eitelbach) wrote:
>figures whose "cold eyes scan the gentle waves ahead searching for
>innocent prey".
>
> <http://www.webcom.com/~iwcwww/whale_adoption/gallery.html>
Went there to check it out. Wording highly emotional as David notes.
David writes:
>
>And, shoppers, you can go right on to see Newfoundlander sealers
demonized
>as savage, vicious brutes as well...
> <http://www.webcom.com/~iwcwww/seal_hunt/hunt.html>
Went there to check it out. Photo of cute whitecoat. Thought there
would be a photo of the Newfoundlander skinning and grabbing for the
genitals only to find it was a female. No photo.
David writes:
>rationalization right on the same page. Guilt-free hate is the best
hate.
>
> <http://www.webcom.com/~iwcwww/seal_hunt/boycott.html>
>Yes, now you can love animals and hate people and feel good about all
of
>it!
Went there. Wording clearly aimed at the emotions and therefore my
immediate reaction is to turn my Bullshit Detector to high.
For the take of any resource, there ultimately is but one question to be
asked. Can the population sustain the take? Whether the animals are
cute isn't an issue. Whether humanity should regard the creatures of
this planet here for his use isn't the issue.
Simply can the resource handle the take? I found this at the page.
There is no scientific evidence that harp seal populations are
increasing, remaining stable or
decreasing, much less that they are "exploding". The last survey of harp
seal populations was
done in 1990. The scientists estimated that there were approximately 3
million seals.
Now there is a problem here. One. When I get to an activist website, I
have to keep in mind that what is before my eyes is THEIR stats. Should
I visit the Newfoundland Sealer Page, the same would be true.
The only question is this. Can a population of 3 million seals sustain
a take of 250 000 annually?
For that answer, I would not go to the Coalition or what the sealers
have to say. I would seek out the stats and opinions of sealing experts
in respected peer reviewed literature. And while that too is no
guarantee, it is the best I've got.
^ Ursula Keuper-Bennett
0 0 Mississauga, Ontario
/V^\ I I /^V\ Email: how...@io.org
/V Turtle Trax V\ Visit the Turtle Trax Toon at:
/V Forever Green V\ http://www.io.org/~bunrab/toon.htm
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
after they have visited Mr. Best's
>demonization mill and seen Norwegian whalers shown as faceless, shadowy
>figures whose "cold eyes scan the gentle waves ahead searching for
>innocent prey".
>
> <http://www.webcom.com/~iwcwww/whale_adoption/gallery.html>
This site was very interesting. Don't know much about Norwegian
whaling and this site wouldn't rank high as a way to find out
objectively what is going on.
I am pulling off these two pieces of information.
"Norway's policy is clear. Ignore the upcoming International
Whaling Commission meeting where they will, once again, be branded a
pirate whaling nation. Cover up the fact that Norway’s own scientific
research is severely flawed, grossly and conveniently over-estimating
the population of minke whales. Wreck the international protection for
whales so they can sell their kill to Japan." Daniel J. Morast
These "scientific" estimates referred to here. Do they show up in
respected scientific literature or just in Norwegian government
documents? How does the international whale community of respected
researchers regard Norwegian "researchers"?
We all know there are tobacco "researchers" who work very hard to
convince us that smoking really isn't a problem. Researchers can be the
most despicable of whores. I guess to really find out I would have to
do my own investigation but there just isn't the time. (I remain
focussed on marine turtles)
Here is the other quote from the website:
"I presume that there is currently being done a lot of work
in Norway to try to find further factors which could bring the [minke
whale] abundance estimate back up to the old level. But I have also
identified additional factors which, if they are taken into account,
would reduce the abundance estimate to about 40,000." Dr. Justin Cooke
(Researchers have concluded that zero animals can be caught if the
population is under 50,000.)"
Dr. Justin Cooke's name was blued and I followed the link figuring it
would explain who he is and what institution he respresents but all I
got was "Cooke is one of the world’s most famous whale researchers He
has 15 years behind him in the IWC,"
I would have preferred knowing the institution from which he does his
research so I could follow up. I can tell you who the top most
respected marine turtle researchers are so I assume in the whale
community there exists an equally high regarded group of people. I
wanted to know if the good doctor was one.
And also important, it looked like what Dr. Cooke said came from a TV
programme and what I would want to know and see is whether his stats and
commentary made it into a respected journal.
I am not implying that respected journals don't publish errors.
In a previous post I mentioned that for take of animals, the issue is
not how cute they are, or whether humans have the right to regard other
life as here for their convenience. The only real question is can the
population sustain the take in the numbers allowed?
I am not sure the Minke thing is that clear. The seals are in Canada
are a Canadian resource. The take is by Canadians only. If Minkes stay
only in Norwegian waters then the issue is like the seals, can the
population sustain the take?
But if the whales (as I suspect) roam in international waters, then any
nation has a right to that resource. What would happen if other nations
decided they wanted the revenue from these animals?
That right now is where I want to stop and would appreciate an answer.
Regards
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
> -=> Quoting pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca to All <=-
>
> pm> From: pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
> pm> Newsgroups: talk.environment
> pm> Subject: Re: Math correction Re: seal demand outstrips supply
>
> pm> In article <a21_960...@salata.com>, dave.w...@salata.com (Dave
> pm> Wheeler) writes: > -=> Quoting pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca to All <=-
>
> > Of course it does. Particularly when Canada spent millions
> > to develop the penis market and $400,000. in regular subsidies,
> > and I presume about another $2,000,000. in per pound subsidies.
>
> pm> Wheeler, you've got it wrong again. You keep quoting this $400,000
> pm> figure, yet your only source is an article in Animal people magazine.
>
> $400,000. is the average subsidy from 1988 to 1994. Note that
> Mr. Stig does not deny that this figure is correct.
Stig also does not acknowledge that it is accurate. Stig doesn't know. But
Stig is less inclined to believe Dave Wheeler than more immediate sources
closer to what actually happens in the seal hunt. Stig used Wheeler's stat
to prove a point.
> Nor does he deny the accuracy of the $2,000,000. in per pound
> subsidies.
Nor does he acknowledge the accuracy of them. Wheeler, you're really losing
it. Surely you know that Stig has little regard or faith in most of what
you post.
> pm> Sealing will generate $10 million to $15 million this year in the
> pm> Newfoundland economy.
>
> This is an unpublished, unattributed, unsupported claim
> that Mr. Stig allegedly heard from some seal killer.
> It is contradicted by the seal marketing study conducted
> by the government, among many other facts.
This is the estimate of the president of the Canadian Sealers Association.
Now if we're looking for unbiased, unsupported sources that are published,
I guess we should all read Animal people. Get real! The seal market study
conducted by A government (not THE government) is old -- if it ever did
have validity. It certainly doesn't reflect the present reality of a very
successful 1996 seal hunt with markets for the hides, the meat, the oil and
the innards world-wide -- an industry that will generate $10 million to $15
million in the Newfoundland economy.
> pm> Your economic arguments don't hold water. Go
> pm> back to your "Stop it, because I think it's cruel" approach. You may
> pm> win more converts with this sordid emotional appeal.
>
> Both economic and cruelty arguments are valid.
Only in your dreams.
> pm> Wheeler should travel to this area of the world and observe for
> pm> himself the intense activity around those plants that are processing
> pm> seals and operating 24-hours a day employing thousands of rural people
> pm> -- plants that would be closed and people who would be unemployed. And
> pm> all these benefits derived from an ecologically sound,
> pm> nature-respecting enterprise. Ain't it nice.
>
> Martin Sheen and Capt. Paul Watson were almost lynched last
> year when they went to Newfoundland to show the natives a
> non-violent way to earn money from seals.
What's your source for this? Martin Sheen wasn't in Newfoundland last year
and the only reason Paul Watson was here was to answer charges to
endangering life at sea (he was convicted). You really should take a
geography lesson. You seem to know as little about this area of the world
as you know about sealing.
Watson and Sheen went to the Magdalen Islands in the Gulf
of St. Lawrence. It's part of the province of Quebec. They incited an
almost riot and left the island at the request of the police for their own
protection, but not before Watson attacked several sealers with a Stun Gun.
Nice non-violent philosophy. What a bunch of hypocites.
Stig (in Newfoundland)
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
>
> For the take of any resource, there ultimately is but one question to be
> asked. Can the population sustain the take? Whether the animals are
> cute isn't an issue. Whether humanity should regard the creatures of
> this planet here for his use isn't the issue.
>
> Simply can the resource handle the take? I found this at the page.
>
> There is no scientific evidence that harp seal populations are
> increasing, remaining stable or
> decreasing, much less that they are "exploding". The last survey of harp
> seal populations was
> done in 1990. The scientists estimated that there were approximately 3
> million seals.
>
> Now there is a problem here. One. When I get to an activist website, I
> have to keep in mind that what is before my eyes is THEIR stats. Should
> I visit the Newfoundland Sealer Page, the same would be true.
>
> The only question is this. Can a population of 3 million seals sustain
> a take of 250 000 annually?
>
> For that answer, I would not go to the Coalition or what the sealers
> have to say. I would seek out the stats and opinions of sealing experts
> in respected peer reviewed literature. And while that too is no
> guarantee, it is the best I've got.
The 3 million figure is inaccurate. The 1990 survey estimated a herd in the
order of 4-5 million. Curent estimates available from the federal
Department of Fisheries and Oceans lean towards the 5 million figure. You
can check with them for unbiased information.
BTW, it is a relief to see a tone of civility entering the thread. I admit
I'm sometimes guilty of turning up the heat, but I would much rather prefer
a discourse based on fact or at least well-stated opinion, than the attack
politics of some of the posters here.
Stig (in Newfoundland)
Anders Jelmert
how...@io.org (Ursula Keuper-Bennett)
wrote:
>
> In article <317d7b8d....@165.113.1.21>,
> dse...@crl.com (David S. Eitelbach) wrote:
>
> after they have visited Mr. Best's
> >demonization mill and seen Norwegian whalers shown as faceless, shadowy
> >figures whose "cold eyes scan the gentle waves ahead searching for
> >innocent prey".
> >
> > <http://www.webcom.com/~iwcwww/whale_adoption/gallery.html>
>
> This site was very interesting. Don't know much about Norwegian
> whaling and this site wouldn't rank high as a way to find out
> objectively what is going on.
With your ability to scrutinize information, let me suggest
Tirpitz, the Norwegian web-page on whaling. You'll find it at:
http://tirpitz.ibg.uit.no/wwww/ss.html.
I welcome your opinion on the information, and I would
like to hear if you find some difference in ethical standard.
> I am pulling off these two pieces of information.
>
> "Norway's policy is clear. Ignore the upcoming International
> Whaling Commission meeting where they will, once again, be branded a
> pirate whaling nation. [...] snip
> These "scientific" estimates referred to here. Do they show up in
> respected scientific literature or just in Norwegian government
> documents? How does the international whale community of respected
> researchers regard Norwegian "researchers"?
The figures as well as the methodology are annually presented and
discussed the scientific committee in IWC (That is the Int.
Whaling Commission, not the fund-raising variety with same acronyme).
On the Tirpiz web-site you will find a lot of information that illuminates
the modern whaling controversy. You will also learn about the difference
between the scientific part(Scientific committee) and the political part
(Int., Whaling Commision).
I think you should be able to follow several fascinating threads, there.
Of course you may wish to consult second opinions. On Tirpitz they have
the candour to include links to organizations which oppose whaling as well.
Just a tip on stock assessment in general. The yearly stock asessments
are usually not found in peer reviewed journals. The numbers are the
basis for scientific advice to the decicion-makers on the quotas.
(By then, the numbers are "dragged" into the political realm)
Usually the time-factor itself prohibits the peer-reviewing process.
Post-hoc studies and other analyses of previous stock asessment will
however usually be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
> We all know there are tobacco "researchers" who work very hard to
> convince us that smoking really isn't a problem. Researchers can be the
> most despicable of whores. I guess to really find out I would have to
> do my own investigation but there just isn't the time. (I remain
> focussed on marine turtles)
Again I trust your judgement when you have visited Tirpitz and
compared that information to the various other scources.
After you inquiry I expect the issues you addresses later in your
post should also should become much clearer.
You are absolutely welcome to return to them.
>
> ^ Ursula Keuper-Bennett
> 0 0 Mississauga, Ontario
> /V^\ I I /^V\ Email: how...@io.org
> /V Turtle Trax V\ Visit the Turtle Trax Toon at:
> /V Forever Green V\ http://www.io.org/~bunrab/toon.htm
Cassanders
To distinguish the real from the unreal, one must experience them both.
(S. Gorn's Compendium of rarely used clichés).
Simen Gaure
David writes:
>rationalization right on the same page.
>Guilt-free hate is the best hate.
> <http://www.webcom.com/~iwcwww/seal_hunt/boycott.html>
>Yes, now you can love animals and hate people and feel good about
>all of it!
Went there. Wording clearly aimed at the emotions and therefore my
immediate reaction is to turn my Bullshit Detector to high.
Hmm, not only that. An interesting passage is the following:
"Is it fair to boycott the poorest part of Canada?
Due to the lack of alternative jobs and low educational levels,
poverty has been endemic in this region of Canada even when the
cod fishery and seal hunt were at their height. The sealers will
not suffer economically fromthe boycott as they willcontinue to
be subsidized by Canadian tax-payers whether or not they kill seals."
In light of IWC's recent condemnation of subsidies of sealers, it's
strange that subsidies form a major part of their rationalization
for why boycotting the poorest part of Canada is completely
unproblematic.
--
Simen Gaure, Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo
Simen Gaure
Keuper-Bennett) wrote:
[From Int'l Wildlife Coalition's web-server]
"Norway's policy is clear. Ignore the upcoming International
Whaling Commission meeting where they will, once again, be branded a
pirate whaling nation. Cover up the fact that Norway’s own scientific
research is severely flawed, grossly and conveniently over-estimating
the population of minke whales. Wreck the international protection for
whales so they can sell their kill to Japan." Daniel J. Morast
These "scientific" estimates referred to here. Do they show up in
respected scientific literature or just in Norwegian government
documents? How does the international whale community of respected
researchers regard Norwegian "researchers"?
The research shows up in the journal of the International Whaling
Commission and is under close scientific scrutiny.
The "severely flawed" above probably refers to objections which
were raised at the annual IWC meeting in 1994(?) concerning
the 1990 survey, and to a computer
programming error. The programming error turned out to be of
less importance, the other objections have been adressed in a paper
"Effective search width in shipboard surveys of minke whales
in the northeastern Atlantic; concepts and methods", T. Schweder
and G. Hagen (in Developments in Marine Biology, 4, Elsevier,
ISBN 0-444-82070-1), presented to the International Symposium
of Marine Mammals in the North East Atlantic, Nov 29-Dec 1 1994.
As far as I know, these changes have not lead to large
deviations from the original estimates.
To get an idea of what's going on:
When estimating abundance of whales, this is done by what
is called "line transect experiments". This means that one
makes several runs across the area in straight lines and record
whale sightings (distance and direction from the ship, and apparent
course of the whale). Standard line transect experiments are well
known, but there are some deviations in this case.
Mainly that whales are not spotted with absolute certainty.
The further apart from the ship, the less is the probability that
one detects a whale, also whales spend a lot of their time
under water.
This has lead the researchers to estimate the probability that
a whale is sighted. This estimate
has been done with separate experiments.
It has been objected that this probability has been incorrectly
estimated, and also that the data from the observers used to identify
duplicate sightings (the same whale is spotted twice) have been
inadequate due to subjectivity of the observers.
The old measure of the probability (sometimes referred to as g(0),
i.e. the probability of detecting a whale at the line, i.e. at zero
distance) has now been replaced (I believe, I haven't seen this
year's report) by what is called "Effective Search Width", a
probability measure which covers the entire area visible from
the ship (i.e. it's not extrapolated from g(0)).
The subjectivity of the observers has also been adressed in
the paper, with a new automated procedure (which incidentally
agrees well with the old method.)
In short, Morast's "severely flawed" is not founded in reality,
and at the very least, not up to date.
Here is the other quote from the website:
"I presume that there is currently being done a lot of work
in Norway to try to find further factors which could bring the [minke
whale] abundance estimate back up to the old level. But I have also
identified additional factors which, if they are taken into account,
would reduce the abundance estimate to about 40,000." Dr. Justin Cooke
(Researchers have concluded that zero animals can be caught if the
population is under 50,000.)"
Dr. Justin Cooke's name was blued and I followed the link figuring it
would explain who he is and what institution he respresents but all I
got was "Cooke is one of the world’s most famous whale researchers He
has 15 years behind him in the IWC,"
You should definitely contact Mr. Cooke about the quote above.
Unfortunately I don't know where he resides.
You might try and contact the Int'l Whaling Commission to
hear whether they know anything about this.
For more information on whaling, try the web-site
<http://tirpitz.ibg.uit.no/WWWW/ss.html>
David S. Eitelbach
wrote:
> In article <317d7b8d....@165.113.1.21>,
> dse...@crl.com (David S. Eitelbach) wrote:
[...]
> >And, shoppers, you can go right on to see Newfoundlander sealers
> >demonized as savage, vicious brutes as well...
>
> > <http://www.webcom.com/~iwcwww/seal_hunt/hunt.html>
>
> Went there to check it out. Photo of cute whitecoat. Thought there
> would be a photo of the Newfoundlander skinning and grabbing for the
> genitals only to find it was a female. No photo. [...]
Yes, no photo. Mr. Best paints a picture in the reader's imagination,
using only words.
Still, on April 18, in the "1996 seal hunt unqualified success" thread,
Mr. Best threw down the gauntlet to Stig (in Newfoundland):
"We use video and stills of the seal hunt to 'sell' our view that the
seal hunt is a cruel and barbaric practice that ought to be ended.
"I challenge you to use the same, accurate and truthful pictures of
the slaughter to 'sell' your seal products."
But, as Ursula Keuper-Bennett notes, there is no photo of the "slaughter"
on Mr. Best's International Wildlife Coalition web server.
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
dse...@crl.com (David S. Eitelbach) wrote:
>In <4liasc$n9c...@net7b.io.org> how...@io.org (Ursula Keuper-Bennett)
>wrote:
>
"slaughter"
>on Mr. Best's International Wildlife Coalition web server.
Yeah.. but let's face it. It didn't come as a surprise because I think
anyone who tried to photograph that would have to use an
ultra-deluxe-flux-capacitor-mega-resolution telephoto lens.
I got a feeling no anti-sealer photographer would have intact kneecaps
attempting to get such a photo right?
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
Anders Jelmert <Anders....@auste.imr.no> wrote:
> Again I trust your judgement when you have visited Tirpitz and
> compared that information to the various other scources.
>
> After you inquiry I expect the issues you addresses later in
your
> post should also should become much clearer.
> You are absolutely welcome to return to them.
Anders. I am a teacher and today we had parent interviews til almost 9
pm. It is now 10:35 here and I've been on the Net too long. Your
message deserves a decent response and I just want to let you know I
have saved your message but it will have to wait til tomorrow. I
scanned it quickly and yes, I am interested in objective information and
I usually turn to respected scientific literature for that.
I have to warn you that it usually takes me a couple of months of
intensive netsurfing before I figure I have a remote idea of what is
going on.
Best and good night.
David S. Eitelbach
wrote:
> In article <317e6ada...@165.113.1.21>,
> dse...@crl.com (David S. Eitelbach) wrote:
>
> >But, as Ursula Keuper-Bennett notes, there is no photo of the
> >"slaughter" on Mr. Best's International Wildlife Coalition web server.
>
> Yeah.. but let's face it. It didn't come as a surprise because I think
> anyone who tried to photograph that would have to use an
> ultra-deluxe-flux-capacitor-mega-resolution telephoto lens.
>
> I got a feeling no anti-sealer photographer would have intact kneecaps
> attempting to get such a photo right?
That might explain then why the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society the last
time they lambasted the Canadian seal hunt resorted to using pictures of
sealing brutality that came apparently from Azerbaijan.
<http://www.crl.com/~dseitel/sealpix.html>
It wouldn't explain why Mr. Best didn't put up on his demonizing webserver
portions of the "videos and stills of the seal hunt" that he said he has.
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
Thanks Simen for the careful explanation re. estimating abundance. The
same problems arise when trying to estimate marine turtle populations in
foraging areas.
Simen then wrote:
>
>You should definitely contact Mr. Cooke about the quote above.
>Unfortunately I don't know where he resides.
>You might try and contact the Int'l Whaling Commission to
>hear whether they know anything about this.
I guess I can do a web email search. I am just loathe to get distracted
from my turtle readings and investigations though.
Simen then wrote:
>
>For more information on whaling, try the web-site
><http://tirpitz.ibg.uit.no/WWWW/ss.html>
I will read the site over the weekend. At this point, I am more
interested in Norwegian whaling than Nfld sealing. It doesn't appear to
me that the seal population is in any immediate danger of collapse. I
would only be wondering right now if government welfare cheques still go
to sealers who are presently celebrating the money they made and whether
monthly benefits will be modified accordingly. (Fact is, I am not sure
what bucks the average sealer even made off the hunt. I might be
sweating the small stuff here and appear mean-spirited and stingy.
Anyone know?)
See next message re. Norwegian whaling, please.
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
> In article <317e6ada...@165.113.1.21>,
> dse...@crl.com (David S. Eitelbach) wrote:
>>
>>But, as Ursula Keuper-Bennett notes, there is no photo of the
> "slaughter"
>>on Mr. Best's International Wildlife Coalition web server.
>
> Yeah.. but let's face it. It didn't come as a surprise because I think
> anyone who tried to photograph that would have to use an
> ultra-deluxe-flux-capacitor-mega-resolution telephoto lens.
>
> I got a feeling no anti-sealer photographer would have intact kneecaps
> attempting to get such a photo right?
By this you're insinuating that sealers, or others, would do physical harm
to the anti-sealing photographer. This is stereotyping at its worst.
sealers are no more likely to use violence to make their case against their
opponents than you are. Where did you get this notion? Paul watson, one of
the most vehement anti-sealing animal rightists spent several weeks last
year in Newfoundland while he was standing trial on charges of endangering
lives on the high seas (he was convicted). He roamed free around our city,
unhampered and unharassed. He's not worth the hassle of getting upset.
Neither would be his (or others) photographers. We are not, as a rule, a
violent people in Newfoundland.
Stig (in Newfoundland)
Alan Macnow
Consultant, Japan Whaling Association
Dr. Justin Cooke has money links to the International Fund for Animal
Welfare, the World Wildlife Fund and, reportedly, Greenpeace.
Mr. Best's organization, the International Wildlife Coalition, was
spun off from the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
> I will read the site over the weekend. At this point, I am more
> interested in Norwegian whaling than Nfld sealing. It doesn't appear to
> me that the seal population is in any immediate danger of collapse. I
> would only be wondering right now if government welfare cheques still go
> to sealers who are presently celebrating the money they made and whether
> monthly benefits will be modified accordingly. (Fact is, I am not sure
> what bucks the average sealer even made off the hunt. I might be
> sweating the small stuff here and appear mean-spirited and stingy.
> Anyone know?)
See my previous post re. sealers and welfare. The average sealer can expect
somehwere in the order of $2,000-$3,000 from this year's hunt. There are
about 4,000 sealers.
Dave Wheeler
pm> From: pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
pm> Newsgroups: talk.environment
> pm> Sealing will generate $10 million to $15 million this year in the
> pm> Newfoundland economy.
>
> This is an unpublished, unattributed, unsupported claim
> that Mr. Stig allegedly heard from some seal killer.
> It is contradicted by the seal marketing study conducted
> by the government, among many other facts.
pm> This is the estimate of the president of the Canadian Sealers
pm> Association.
When? Where? Who was present? Where published?
Then again, perhaps the chief seal killer whispered it
in Mr. Stig's ear alone.
Of course, just giving the seal killers the subsidy money
would also "generate $10 to $15 million this year in the
Newfoundland economy" depending on how far you want to follow
the money.
In fact, the only relevant figure is the amount paid to the
seal killers. Whether they get it by killing or by sitting
on their asses, the money has the same economic benefit following
it through people's hands.
pm> real! The seal market study conducted by A government (not THE
pm> government) is old -- if it ever did have validity.
The study was published in November, 1994. As Mr. Stig is
usually fond of pointing out, it was paid for by the government
of the Northwest Territories. That government had every incentive
to identify seal markets, and the report identified the penis
trade as the only viable market. And, of course, it is the most
recent published seal marketing study.
Here is an excerpt from the government report.
From "Animal People", April 1995, page 10:
" A seal marketing strategy report researched for the Canadian
government by RT & Associates, issued last November, confirmed
that penises are the only parts of seals now in any demand.
Newfoundland sealers sold 10,024 penises last year to Asian
aphrodisiac merchants for about $75,000. US - but that was more
than half of the total Canadian return from sealing. And even that
market is drooping.
'The market for seal penises is confined almost exclusively to
Hong Kong and is limited to approximately 20,000 organs a year,'
the report said. ' Larger organs are preferred, and Norway has
captured almost 50% of the market, shipping approximately 8,000
last year. The average price paid to sealers for a seal penis over
10 inches long was $26.; seven to ten inches long was $20.'
The report found no viable market for seal meat, noting that while the
Chinese will eat it at 50 cents a pound, it can't be shipped to China
for under $1.00 a pound. Prospects for selling seal meat as animal
feed were written off, as was most of the possible seal oil market.
Seal fur markets in both Europe and Canada were deemed 'poor', while
fur demand in Asia was said to logistically difficult to supply.
Meanwhile, the report noted, ' Since 1985, the Canadian government
has spent between $8 and $10 million on various sealing initiatives
in Newfoundland.' plus more in other provinces. "
David S. Eitelbach
In <281_960...@salata.com> dave.w...@salata.com (Dave Wheeler)
wrote:
> pm> From: pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca (Stig (in Newfoundland)):
>
> > pm> Sealing will generate $10 million to $15 million this year
> > pm> in the Newfoundland economy.
> >
> > This is an unpublished, unattributed, unsupported claim
> > that Mr. Stig allegedly heard from some seal killer.
> > It is contradicted by the seal marketing study conducted
> > by the government, among many other facts.
>
> pm> This is the estimate of the president of the Canadian Sealers
> pm> Association.
>
> When? Where? Who was present? Where published?
"Who wrote the mailing? Who sent it? When did they send it?
What was their purpose? When did you receive it? What was
the context? What did they mean by it? Which part did you
reference? What is the quote? Who wrote the quote? What
was their purpose? Was it typed or handwritten? Did it have
pictures? Who took the pictures? Were they paid? Who paid
them? Who paid you? Who pays the pope?"
© Copyright, Dave Wheeler, Oct. 6, 1995, talk.environment
Seem familiar?
ROFLMAO!
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
What do you mean by "spun off". Is it the same kind of spin off that
resulted in Paul watson splitting from Greenpeace? Did Stephen Best and
Brian Davies (IFAW) have a tiff? Let's hear some of their history.
Thanks in advance.
Stig (in Newfoundland)
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <281_960...@salata.com>, dave.w...@salata.com (Dave Wheeler) writes:
> -=> Quoting pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca to All <=-
>
> pm> From: pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
> pm> Newsgroups: talk.environment
>
> > pm> Newfoundland economy.
> > This is an unpublished, unattributed, unsupported claim
> > that Mr. Stig allegedly heard from some seal killer.
> > It is contradicted by the seal marketing study conducted
> > by the government, among many other facts.
>
> pm> This is the estimate of the president of the Canadian Sealers
> pm> Association.
>
> When? Where? Who was present? Where published?
Mark Small, president of the Canadian Sealers Association, said this in an
interview aired on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation nightly news
program Here and Now in Newfoundland. The CBC is the national public
broadcaster in Canada.
Mr. Small also repeated the figures on NTV,
the CTV affiliate, their nightly news. CTV is the national, private-sector
television network in Canada.
I guess the next thing we can expect is an attack on Mr. Small from Wheeler.
The fact that sealing is a growing, viable industry must boil his butt. But
he had better get used to it.
Stig (in Newfoundland)
Stephen Best
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>> I got a feeling no anti-sealer photographer would have intact kneecaps
>> attempting to get such a photo right?
>
>
>By this you're insinuating that sealers, or others, would do physical harm
>to the anti-sealing photographer. This is stereotyping at its worst.
>sealers are no more likely to use violence to make their case against their
>opponents than you are.
My colleague Dan Morast had a helicopter completely destroyed by
sealers on the Magdalen Islands, all under the watchful eye of the
Quebec police.
I was in a pickup truck that was stoned by a dozen sealers at Savage
Harbour, Prince Edward Island, and only the intervention of an RCMP
constable stopped the assault.
To prevent me and others, including members of the international
press, from visiting the seal hunt, I have been held captive by
sealers in St. Anthony Nfld. And only the intervention of an RCMP riot
squad of two dozen officers, jetted in from Ottawa, gained us our
freedom.
I have been personally assaulted by sealers in Prince Edward Island,
Newfoundland, and the Magdalen Islands.
I have never assaulted or threatened any person in any of these areas.
And my only purpose was to exercise my human and democratic rights
afforded me as a Canadian citizen.
I have also been party to three court actions pertaining to the seal
hunt: one on false arrest, one to press libel charges against the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and one to challenge under the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms the provisions of the Seal Protection
Regulations that control access to the seal hunt. We won or settled
all the cases in our favor.
The sealing industry, many sealers, and seal hunt proponents --
including sympathetic police officers and fisheries officers -- can be
violent, anti-democratic, and dishonest, as court records attest.
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <3180c0f...@news.inforamp.net>, sb...@inforamp.net (Stephen Best) writes:
> pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>
>>> I got a feeling no anti-sealer photographer would have intact kneecaps
>>> attempting to get such a photo right?
>>
>>
>>By this you're insinuating that sealers, or others, would do physical harm
>>to the anti-sealing photographer. This is stereotyping at its worst.
>>sealers are no more likely to use violence to make their case against their
>>opponents than you are.
>
> My colleague Dan Morast had a helicopter completely destroyed by
> sealers on the Magdalen Islands, all under the watchful eye of the
> Quebec police.
When?
> I was in a pickup truck that was stoned by a dozen sealers at Savage
> Harbour, Prince Edward Island, and only the intervention of an RCMP
> constable stopped the assault.
When?
> To prevent me and others, including members of the international
> press, from visiting the seal hunt, I have been held captive by
> sealers in St. Anthony Nfld. And only the intervention of an RCMP riot
> squad of two dozen officers, jetted in from Ottawa, gained us our
> freedom.
When?
> I have been personally assaulted by sealers in Prince Edward Island,
> Newfoundland, and the Magdalen Islands.
Please provide more details, especially about the Newfoundland assaults.
> I have never assaulted or threatened any person in any of these areas.
> And my only purpose was to exercise my human and democratic rights
> afforded me as a Canadian citizen.
No taunting involved, either implicit or explicit, was there Best?
> I have also been party to three court actions pertaining to the seal
> hunt: one on false arrest, one to press libel charges against the
> Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and one to challenge under the
> Charter of Rights and Freedoms the provisions of the Seal Protection
> Regulations that control access to the seal hunt. We won or settled
> all the cases in our favor.
>
> The sealing industry, many sealers, and seal hunt proponents --
> including sympathetic police officers and fisheries officers -- can be
> violent, anti-democratic, and dishonest, as court records attest.
While your at it, check the docket for trials and convictions of anti-
sealing types for a myriad of illegal and dangerous activities.
In none of the examples above did Best indicate that all he wanted to do
was take photos of seals. yet the original post suggested that someone who
wanted to take photos of seals would be "kneecapped". What Best doesn't
provide is context. Why were people outraged with he and his colleagues ine
ach of these alleged incidents? Was there provocation? Or did this stuff
happen at all?
A regular tactic of some anti-sealing advocates is to incite violence. Then
they use the incidents they incite to suggest that the people involved are
somehow, inherently violent. It's called stereotyping and demonization. But the
problem is, it doesn't work so well any more. sealers and others have
become familiar with the tactic and don't fall into the propaganda trap.
The general public has also become familiar with this fabricated
confrontation technique and with familiarity comes contempt.
Most, if not all, of what Best posts above happened years ago. The St.
Anthony incident, if I recall correctly occurred in the early to mid 1970s.
The seal hunt of that era is different than today, as are the reactions of
sealers, the media and others to the manufactured-drama strategy of some
animal rightists. This is the 1990s, Best. Wake up and smell the coffee!
Stig (in Newfoundland)
Stephen Best
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>>>By this you're insinuating that sealers, or others, would do physical harm
>>>to the anti-sealing photographer.
My post was meant to demonstrate that your statement (see above) is
simply factually incorrect, as is so much of what you write. The fact
is many sealers "would do physical harm to anti-sealing
photographers," have done physical harm, and will likely do so in the
future. For any photographer to assume otherwise would be, at the
very least, unwise. Add what you want to the thread to obscure this
fact, but it does not justify sealers assaulting people and destroying
property.
But if I happen to go out and photograph or video the seal hunt again,
which is not unlikely, I'll let the sealers I'm taking pictures of
know what you said and how you expect them to conduct themselves.
As you question my portrayal of events at the seal hunt, you should
bear in mind (correct me if I'm wrong) that I'm the only person
participating in this thread who has actually witnessed the seal hunt
first hand, witnessed it, in fact, over many years off Prince Edward
Island, off the Magdalen Islands in the Gulf, and off Newfoundland at
the Front, the last time on April 18, 1989. The hunt is practiced
today exactly as it was six years ago; the regulations have not
changed.
Your accounts of sealing are all second hand, served up by the trade
and pro-sealing government sources. You have no idea of what you are
talking about.
Alan Macnow
FROM: Alan Macnow
Consultant, Japan Whaling Association
I don't think there was a tiff. I just think Dan Morast and Steve
Best decided they could make the same kind of money in the U.S. and
Canada that Brian Davies was making with IFAW in Europe.
There also is the possibility that IFAW helped finance the two in
order to create another animal protection "brand name", the same
as commercial companies do when they want to add another profit line.
IFAW, after all, also formed GLOBE, and probably some other "environmental"
organizations.
S. Jordan
In article <1996Apr26.104649.1@leif>, pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
> In article <3180c0f...@news.inforamp.net>, sb...@inforamp.net (Stephen Best) writes:
>> pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>>
>>>> I got a feeling no anti-sealer photographer would have intact kneecaps
>>>> attempting to get such a photo right?
>>>
>>>
>>>sealers are no more likely to use violence to make their case against their
>>>opponents than you are.
>>
>> My colleague Dan Morast had a helicopter completely destroyed by
>> sealers on the Magdalen Islands, all under the watchful eye of the
>> Quebec police.
>
> When?
>
>> I was in a pickup truck that was stoned by a dozen sealers at Savage
>> Harbour, Prince Edward Island, and only the intervention of an RCMP
>> constable stopped the assault.
>
> When?
>
>> To prevent me and others, including members of the international
>> press, from visiting the seal hunt, I have been held captive by
>> sealers in St. Anthony Nfld. And only the intervention of an RCMP riot
>> squad of two dozen officers, jetted in from Ottawa, gained us our
>> freedom.
>
> When?
etc.
Nice try Stig.
You lost this one big time...
Steve J.
pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
> My post was meant to demonstrate that your statement (see above) is
[blather deleted]
> Your accounts of sealing are all second hand, served up by the trade
> and pro-sealing government sources. You have no idea of what you are
> talking about.
First, Best has conveniently failed to answer any of the questions I asked.
Why? Because some of the incidents he alleged happened (and I believe some of
them may well have) actually happened over two decades ago. He's using
revisionist history to make a present case. He should move over the
alt.revisionism to find some soul mates. C'mon, Stephen, won't you answer
the questions?
Secondly, he has observed sealing through the tinted glasses of an avowed
anti-seal hunt advocate. I'm sure everything he posts is factual and
unbiased, just like every other posting of every other anti-seal hunt
advocate is factual and unbiased (;-). It doesn't matter if he's two feet away,
as he claims he has been, or the two thousand miles away he actually is
from the hunt (and from which lofty perch he sits pontificating on the seal
hunt every day. He only sees what he wants to see.
Lastly, he suggests I have no idea what I am talking (sic) about (maybe he
meant "typing" about). I'll leave it to the unbiased readership of this
group to make that judgement and continue to post information on the seal hunt
from a variety of sources, although my main source is the news media (and one
would expect them to be slightly less biased than avowed advocates for either
side of the seal hunt issue). It's certainly better than his "best" source.
Stig (in Newfoundland)
"Careful, we don't want to lose our lunch over this.
Paul Roberts
>Welfare, the World Wildlife Fund and, reportedly, Greenpeace.
A curious complaint, coming as it does from a "consultant" to the
Japan Whaling Association.
Paul
David S. Eitelbach
In <1996Apr26.145643.1@leif> pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
> In article <3180f2c3...@news.inforamp.net>, sb...@inforamp.net
> (Stephen Best) writes:
[...]
> > Your accounts of sealing are all second hand, served up by the trade
> > and pro-sealing government sources. You have no idea of what you are
> > talking about.
>
>
> First, Best has conveniently failed to answer any of the questions I asked.
> Why?
Because he's a propagandist and what he's good at is appealing to people's
emotions -- not anwering questions.
Even more of a reason may be because you came off as insensitive, even
callous, Stig.
> Because some of the incidents he alleged happened (and I believe some of
> them may well have) actually happened over two decades ago.
There have been more recent incidents involving Watson, have there not?
> He's using revisionist history to make a present case. He should move
> over the alt.revisionism to find some soul mates. C'mon, Stephen, won't
> you answer the questions?
You're not handling this well here, Stig. In fact, you're making his point
for him.
> Secondly, he has observed sealing through the tinted glasses of an avowed
> anti-seal hunt advocate.
He certainly does have tinted glasses. Most people in this discussion do.
Nobody but a fool reads without discounting.
Still, if those things happened to him, and I bet they did, they are
extremely disturbing. They should be condemned, not trivialized, Stig.
These violent incidents would also explain to some extent Mr. Best's
animus, on a human level, at least to me. If those things happened to me,
I would be angry and bitter for some time. Nothing angers me more than
someone threatening my physical safety. I never forget it when it happens.
Mr. Best is first and foremost a human being. He has the same fears about
his physical safety that all of us have. Imagine sitting in a pickup truck
and being stoned, for crying out loud! I'd have probably wet my pants.
Mr. Best's anger is as understandable as that of the Newfoundlanders who
felt their livelihood threatened. The physical violence of the
Newfoundlanders directed at Mr. Best is as reprehensible as the
metaphorical violence directed by Mr. Best at Newfoundlanders (and
Norwegians) on his demonizing web server. But it does not justify it.
It's all so very sad.
David S. Eitelbach
In <3180f2c3...@news.inforamp.net> sb...@inforamp.net (Stephen Best)
wrote:
> pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>
> >>>By this you're insinuating that sealers, or others, would do physical harm
> >>>to the anti-sealing photographer.
[...]
> As you question my portrayal of events at the seal hunt, you should
> bear in mind (correct me if I'm wrong) that I'm the only person
> participating in this thread who has actually witnessed the seal hunt
> first hand, witnessed it, in fact, over many years off Prince Edward
> Island, off the Magdalen Islands in the Gulf, and off Newfoundland at
> the Front, the last time on April 18, 1989. The hunt is practiced
> today exactly as it was six years ago; the regulations have not
> changed. [...]
I believe what we are discussing is the aberrant behavior of some sealers,
or, more precisely, whether or not that aberrant behavior is typical or
not typical of sealers.
The fact that the regulations haven't changed in six years tells us
nothing about the likelihood of continued aberrant behavior, does it?
David S. Eitelbach
In <4lree2$q...@news.informix.com> prob...@lynx.informix.com (Paul
Roberts) wrote:
At least he's up front about it -- he puts it at the top of every post he
makes, for the whole world to see. He never hides what he is, unlike some.
Anyway we weren't talking just about having links, but rather about having
links no one can easily see. That's the critical difference.
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
Re. photographing the hunt, I wrote:
>>
>> Yeah.. but let's face it. It didn't come as a surprise because I
think
>> anyone who tried to photograph that would have to use an
>> ultra-deluxe-flux-capacitor-mega-resolution telephoto lens.
>>
kneecaps
>> attempting to get such a photo right?
To which, you, Stig, wrote:
>
>
>By this you're insinuating that sealers, or others, would do physical
harm
>to the anti-sealing photographer. This is stereotyping at its worst.
>sealers are no more likely to use violence to make their case against
their
>opponents than you are.
I am NOT stereotyping sealers here. What percent of our Canadian
population has a criminal record and is prone to violence? 5%? 10?
Let's say 1% which is laughably low but let's use it anyway.
Statistically then on that ice floe, 1% of the sealers (just part of our
regular Canadian population) would have a tendency to handle frustration
through violence.
A photographer in their faces, documenting the blood and guts you admit
go on in hunt would threaten these people and therefore piss them off
royally. Sorry Stig, I am not going to buy your implication that I am
stereotyping. That means you are trying to convince me only Boy Scouts
and Girl Guids are on these floes.
Won't wash. What a photographer would be is a THREAT... both to the
sealers' livelihoods but also to the reputation of the province. I am
NOT stereotyping these people. I am not maligning them.
I am saying that a small percent of any society has a violent element
and at least a few are on those floes with hair trigger sensitivities.
And even me, if I were sufficiently provoked and threatened would aim
for the kneecaps. (But I am short)
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
Gentlemen (don't know if ladies are in this thread):
I have decided to pull out of this sealing thread. I am having a tough
time with it. My husband is Newfoundland born and raised. I have had
the pleasure of visiting the Rock on two occasions.
Newfoundlanders are a remarkable and generous people and I admire them
greatly. Their lives are harsh. They are tenacious and face hardship
with a humour I couldn't possibly summon.
During this thread, I have tried to debate objectively but I have found
I have raised some points I was loathe to do. I can't go further
because it is hard to be objective when you like a people so much. The
photographer on the ice flo did for me.
It was the second time Stig had suggested I am stereotyping
Newfoundlanders. It is hard to debate facts objectively and still try
to be fair to both sides. I really do believe photographers would have
a tough time and I stand by that. But it has occurred to me that people
not reading this thread carefully might think I have something against
the people of this fine province.
Rather than take that chance any further, I am dropping out of this
debate. I can't contribute objectively trying to be fair to both sides
when I love a Newfoundlander. I realize that now.
I wish both sides well. Can't say it was fun but it was informative and
certainly interesting while it lasted.
Best and take care of yourselves.
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
In article <APC&1'0'58665539'a...@igc.apc.org>,
Hello Alan,
I have posted this question in talk.environment twice now still haven't
gotten an answer. Perhaps you or Stig missed it because I started a new
thread with the question. Fortunately I have a copy-self file and it
was easy to retrieve. Here it is:
[old message begins]
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: how...@io.org (Ursula Keuper-Bennett)
Subject: Previous question not yet answered.
Organization: Turtle Trax
Message-ID: <4ll0da$12c8...@net7b.io.org>
Lines: 19
Status: O
Last night I came home tired and didn't notice an important question I
had asked in the thread "Norwegian Whaling Question or two" still hadn't
been answered.
I copied this from my keepers file and offer it again. I said:
I am not sure the Minke thing is that clear. The seals are in Canada
are a Canadian resource. The take is by Canadians only. If Minkes stay
only in Norwegian waters then the issue is like the seals, can the
population sustain the take?
But if the whales (as I suspect) roam in international waters, then any
nation has a right to that resource. What would happen if other nations
decided they wanted the revenue from these animals?
That right now is where I want to stop and would appreciate an answer.
Regards
[old message ends]
(Posting this again, is now the third time I have asked this question
and not received a response).
Anders Jelmert
27 Apr 1996 11:19:55 GMT
how...@io.org (Ursula Keuper-Bennett)
wrote:
-A request for info on "ownership" to marine mammal
harvest with respect to National /Intnl. borders.
[...] Big snip
Please be patient. I tried in the end of last week, but the
fellow at Fisheries Dep. was not available.
I think your question is interesting and relevant, and I'll
return as soon as I have got the info.
Cassanders
Simen Gaure
In article <1996Apr26.090858.1@leif>, pmo...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
In article <APC&1'0'58665536'5...@igc.apc.org>, Alan Macnow
<ama...@igc.apc.org> writes:
> FROM: Alan Macnow
> Consultant, Japan Whaling Association
>
> Dr. Justin Cooke has money links to the International Fund for Animal
> Welfare, the World Wildlife Fund and, reportedly, Greenpeace.
>
> Mr. Best's organization, the International Wildlife Coalition, was
> spun off from the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
What do you mean by "spun off". Is it the same kind of spin off that
resulted in Paul watson splitting from Greenpeace? Did Stephen Best and
Brian Davies (IFAW) have a tiff? Let's hear some of their history.
From the IWC web server <http://www.webcom.com/~iwcwww/iwcwho.html>:
(Note the prominent reference to wildlife habitat, I find it strange that
the Vice President, Mr. Best has such a vague understanding of it).
<QUOTE>
The International Wildlife Coalition (IWC) was founded in 1984 by Dan
Morast, with the help of
Donna Hart, Stephen Best, and Margaret King. Collectively, they brought to
the IWC four
decades of experience in conservation and wildlife protection and
organizational management,
gained through senior management and program positions at the Sierra Club,
the Cousteau
Society, the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, and the
International Fund for Animal
Welfare.
The fledgling IWC's first wildlife protection program was the Whale
Adoption Project, created by
IWC's president, Dan Morast. The monies raised are dedicated to the
support of endangered
Humpback whale research and to fund the IWC's protection and rescue work
on behalf of all
marine mammals.
During its first tentative year of operations the IWC gained the support
of 3,212 contributors.
Today the IWC has earned the confidence of over 100,000 people, helping
with wildlife
protection, education, and research programs that now span every continent.
The IWC was founded specifically to be an advocacy organization with three
part mandate:
Prevent cruelty to wildlife
Prevent killing of wildlife
Prevent destruction of wildlife habitat
It is against these objectives that the success or failure of all IWC
programs and projects are
evaluated.
The meaning of the word "advocate" as one who pleads for another
succinctly defines the IWC's
role. The IWC does not presume to judge whether the actions of an
individual, group, or society
perpetrated on a single animal, group of animals, species, or habitat are
appropriate or not, but
rather in the true spirit of the "advocate" vigorously defends the
interests of the creatures or
habitat affected. Interest is defined in this context as the natural claim
of all wildlife to be free to
live under natural conditions, subject only to natural pressures.
The International Wildlife Coalition is legally constituted in four
countries: the United States,
Canada, the United Kingdom and Brazil and has permanent representatives in
two others: Sri
Lanka, and Australia. In the United States, the IWC is a charitable trust,
recognized by the
Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. In Canada
and the United
Kingdom, the IWC maintains separate non profit and charitable entities. In
Brazil, the IWC is a
charity.
<END QUOTE>
--
Simen Gaure, Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo
Simen Gaure
In article <4lqbl1$aio...@net7b.io.org>, how...@io.org (Ursula
Keuper-Bennett) wrote:
[Note: You should include the date when you reference an old article]
I have not seen your question before.
[old message begins]
[...]
But if the whales (as I suspect) roam in international waters, then any
nation has a right to that resource. What would happen if other nations
decided they wanted the revenue from these animals?
That right now is where I want to stop and would appreciate an answer.
If other nations decided to take part in the hunt, the IWC's
Revised Management Procedure (RMP) must still be used to set the
total quota. I.e. the nations would have to bargain to
share the quota. Experience with fishery quotas has shown
that this often leads to a higher total kill than what
is desireable. It all depends on how responsible the nations
involved are. In the unlikely event that the EU would be involved
in such bargaining, experience with fishery quotas shows that
the result probably will be biologically disastrous.
(North Sea herring, North Sea cod, Black turbot off Newfoundland, etc)
Therefore, consider it healthy that only responsible countries
like Iceland and Norway are interested.
(Though Iceland does no whaling at the moment.)
To account for possible future funny bargaining, the current Norwegian
quota has been set much lower than what the RMP allows.
Simen Gaure
FROM: Alan Macnow
Consultant, Japan Whaling Association
I don't think there was a tiff. I just think Dan Morast and Steve
Best decided they could make the same kind of money in the U.S. and
Canada that Brian Davies was making with IFAW in Europe.
There also is the possibility that IFAW helped finance the two in
order to create another animal protection "brand name", the same
as commercial companies do when they want to add another profit line.
IFAW, after all, also formed GLOBE, and probably some other "environmental"
organizations.
From the High North Web (The High North Alliance, <http://www.highnorth.no>),
News section
<http://wwwt.forum.no/scripts/dbml.exe?Template=/cfpro/hna/news/viewnews.dbm>
(Other articles follow below)
<QUOTE>
International Fund for Animal Welfare: Subterfuge in Russia 24. April
1996: The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has built a Trojan
horse for use in Russia, their new front in the war against sealing. In
September last year, the Russian "Marine Mammal Council" was established.
The object of the Council is ostensibly to act as "an independent
organisation to unite scientists researching marine mammals." The truth of
the matter is, however, that the Council is a direct extension of an IFAW
programme designed to provide "assistance to Russian researchers working on
marine mammals" whereby in 1995 IFAW handed out $300 a month to 28
researchers and also donated larger sums to 5 or 6 institutions. The
scientists in turn are obliged to advocate so-called "non-lethal" research.
"This is a plan to repeat the strategy used in Canada where the
International Marine Mammal Association appears to be an independent and
science-based critic of Canadian sealing, but is in fact an IFAW
subsidiary," says High North Alliance secretary, Georg Blichfeldt (see
separate issue).
"I was offered such a contract (by IFAW) myself last year," says Vladimir
Potelov, leader of the Marine Mammal research Programme in North West
Russia, to the Norwegian newspaper "Fiskaren". Potelov refrained,
however. "The directors of PINRO, the Marine Mammal Research Institute in
Murmansk, have looked into the matter and deemed it reprehensible," says
Potelov. He fears that in the long run, such salaries from IFAW will
influence the scientific recommendations in such a way that the harvest of
healthy harp seal stocks will be stopped. "One must realise that $300 a
month is a small fortune given the state of the Russian economy," he says.
In October last year, IFAW arranged a marine mammal conference in Moscow
that, according to last year's "Report on IFAW's Work" was intended to
review the current results of a 3-year IFAW programme "for assistance" to
researchers of marine mammals. A document from the Marine Mammal Council
sows doubt as to who was actually responsible for the conference. On the
Council's membership invitation to Russian researchers it says that the
conference was arranged by the Council itself "with active support from
IFAW." The Council has also handed out research grants to 51 Russian
researchers working for various organisations, again with the active
support of IFAW. In view of this, it would seem that the Council, even as
early as one month after its establishment, has taken over a number of
IFAW's activities in Russia.
IFAW has also secured the support of Russian politicians. In the spring
of 1994 "a helicopter turned up in Nizjnjaja Zolotitsa with Brian Davis,
founder and president of IFAW, on board, accompanied by Duma deputy
Mikhail Danilov ..." reports the newspaper Pravda Severa on July 16, 1995.
Davis was on a round trip seeking to persuade the fishing cooperatives in
Murmansk to stop the sealing. He offered large sums of money, in US
dollars, as compensation if the sealing was stopped. "Danilov is so
persistent in his propaganda for Davis' ideas, that one involuntarily gets
the idea that he is on the fund's payroll," Pravda Severa comments.
Amongst other things, Danilov has written favourable articles on IFAW's
activities in the Russian press. He was invited to Canada as Brian Davis'
guest, together with the chairman of the fisheries cooperative in
Nizjnjaja Zolotitsa. Tickets and visas were acquired at the fund's
expense, reports the newspaper Gandvik TV (no.12, 95).
The chairman, however, declined the invitation, writes Gandvik TV. It is
not known whether Danilov made the journey.
President Boris Jeltsin's Special Advisor on Ecology and Health, Alexey
Yablokov, is a member of the board of the Marine Mammal Council and is one
of those who exercise most influence on Russian environmental and resource
policy.
And IFAW have support on an even higher level: "The Patriarch of all
Russia has blessed our fund's activities in Russia. This is a great
honour for us," says Brian Davis in an interview with Pravda Severa
(19/10/95).
IFAW has attempted to get out onto the ice to film the hunt: "But even
though the Americans offered the leader of the hunting expedition 2
million rubles a month for the rest of the year to take them out to the
hunting grounds, bribary of a civil servant did not occur," writes Pravda
Severa (11/04/95).
High North Web News has been promised a comment by IFAW on their
activities in Russia and their relationship with the Marine Mammal
Council. We have been referred to leader for IFAW Russia, Marja
Vorontsova, by the fund's UK offices, but she is away on business at
present. Her comments will be published in High North News Web's columns
as soon as they are available.
<END QUOTE>
From <http://www.highnorth.no/if-bu-ru.htm>
<QUOTE>
IFAW Buys Russian Scientists to Help Prevent Sealing
The International Fund for Animal Welfare is offering Russian marine
mammal researchers contracts worth 300 US dollars a month in
exchange for their integrity. The contracts put the scientists
under an obligation to refrain from using seals killed for research
purposes or seals from the commercial seal hunt.
This was revealed to the Norwegian newspaper, Nordlys by Professor
Vladimir A. Potelov of the Archangel department of the Russian
Institute of Marine Research (PINRO). Potelov is one of the
scientists who have received such an offer. 300 US dollars is a
fabulous salary for a Russian researcher. As employees of PINRO we
are given far less, and we are not even guaranteed that our wages
will be paid at all. I find it extremely disturbing that rich
organisations in the West can operate in such a way. This can hit
both our research, and a hunt that people in Northern Russia are
totally dependent on. Should IFAW succeed in such procurement, the
foundations on which we base our advice on how to manage harp seals
will be taken away, says Potelov to Nordlys . He believes that one
or two scientists have already accepted IFAWąs offer. I can easily
understand them, the Russian economic situation being as it is, but
as scientists we cannot waive the right to use the scientific data
necessary to provide the best possible advice on how to manage
sealing, says Potelov.
Personal Grants Founder of IFAW, Brian Davis, visited the Institute
in Archangel this autumn. During talks with Mr. Yuri Timochenko,
the leader of the Institute, he made an offer of financial support
on condition that PINRO was willing to sever all contact with the
sealing trade. At first, this was to take place in the form of an
annual grant of 250 million rubles to the Institute over a period of
three years. Later, the arrangements were altered to consist of
offers of personal grants to each individual scientist in addition
to an annual 20,000 US dollar grant to the Institute. It is PINROąs
responsibility to secure the knowledge necessary for the management
of marine mammal stocks in the Barents Sea and along the northern
coast of Russia. PINROąs institute in Archangel has 70 employees.
8 researchers work on marine mammals, including the substantial
stocks of harp seals.
Norway and Russia work together on the management of the harp seal
stocks. Both countries operate a seal hunt. Both we and the
Russians carry out a hunt for research purposes in addition to the
fact that we make use of data from the ordinary seal hunt, says
professor Tore Haug of the Norwegian School of Fisheries in Tromsř
to the newspaper Nordlys . Data from the hunt provides us with
knowledge which would be difficult to obtain in any other way.
Norwegian research would also suffer if Russian researches were
bought in order to prevent the use of data from the hunt, says Haug.
IFAW has also financed projects for seal researchers in the West,
but similar conditions to those found in conjunction with the
Russian contracts are unknown.
<END QUOTE>
The above references the Canadian International Marine Mammal Association,
for a case-study of their methods, here's a piece I wrote a couple of
months ago:
<QUOTE (from folder ":Envirocheat:IFAW:methods">)
A lie is born (Ammonites and Moabites)
=======================================
As described in "Super Whales" by Arne Kalland (11 Essays on Whales
and Man, High North Alliance 1994, [see e.g.
<http://www.highnorth.no/su-wh-th.htm>]), the creative construction
of myths is important in some areas of modern animal protectionism.
During the fall of 1995 I witnessed the early stages of a
myth creation. Unfortunately I wasn't aware of it then, but here's
the story.
August 25, 1995: Volume 269 of the scientific journal "Science" hits
the streets. On pages 1106--1108 it contains an article with the title
"Population Dynamics of Exploited Fish Stocks at Low Population Levels"
by Ransom Myers et al.
The article investigates a particular phenomenon in fish stocks known
as "depensation". Normally, if a natural population of animals is reduced
for some (external) reason, the reproductive success of each individual is
not affected, or increases. This means that the population will be
able to recover to its previous size should the reason for the decline
disappear.
Depensation is when this fails, i.e. when the reproductive success
declines when the population is reduced. This can be disastrous for the
population's ability to recover.
The article concludes that depensation is not a big problem, i.e. that
fish stocks depleted by overfishing generally have the *potential* for recovery
once the overfishing ceases. However, the article says nothing about
the speed of recovery, nor about factors affecting the speed,
simply because the methods they use don't convey such information.
So far, so good.
There's nothing mystical, mythical or anecdotal about this.
However, the myth's created in a particular context.
Cod stocks in Newfoundland have been severely depleted by overfishing.
All fishing has now been stopped. An alternative to fishing is
to hunt seals for food and fur, and Newfoundlanders do this,
as they have done for a very long time.
(See e.g. <http://www.ncr.dfo.ca/communic/seals/understa/under_e.htm> )
It is known that seals are preying on the depleted
cod populations. The seal population is growing.
It is feared that a growing seal population may slow down
the recovery of the overfished cod stocks. Currently
this has not been fully investigated, so little concrete is known about it.
Research is going on to get a better understanding of the ecological
interactions in the area.
This scientific vacuum can be filled with speculations.
How can the article described above be utilized by the
merchants of science? The following is an example.
September 8: Opportunists have chewed on the Science article mentioned
above for a fortnight or so, and found that it can be used in their
struggle to bring an end to the Canadian seal hunt. Animal welfare groups
which oppose seal hunt on ethical grounds now have concocted an interpretation
of the article to counter the contention that seals may slow down
recovery of depleted fish stocks. And, at the same time, they manage to
cast doubt on all possible future findings supporting such a theory.
The Vice President of the "International Wildlife Coalition" (IWC) in the
Internet newsgroup sci.environment:
"The paper "Population Dynamics..." is evidence that the equation
'less seals = more cod' is probably not valid, despite its obvious
appeal to many. The researchers examined two questions. Do low
population levels prevent recovery of depleted fish stocks? And does
a large number of predators prevent populations from rebounding?
Predators, in this case, means the whole range of predators from
seabirds, to seals and other marine mammals, to other fish species.
The researchers [...] could not conclude that
either low population numbers or the presence of predators prevented
or inhibited the recovery of a stock. [...]
Clearly, the best evidence to date suggests that an increased cull of
seals (or any other predator of cod) is not necessary to hasten the
recovery of the cod stocks."
At that time I had not read the article, nor am I an expert in this field,
so I asked the VP how the authors explain why reduction of human fishing
would hasten the cod recovery, while reduction of other predation has no
such effect. Insult was the response.
The following week more people questioned the VP's interpretation.
September 16: The VP responds
"We also checked this interpretation out with the International Marine
Mammal Association in Guelph Ontario. This is Dr. David Lavigne's, a
University of Guelph professor and one of the world's leading marine
mammal experts and recognized as the authority on harp seals, independent
research facility."
Here we have something. An independent research facility,
leading experts, an authority and all.
For those who know more than the average it is known that IMMA is far from
being an independent research facility: IMMA is an affiliate of IFAW, the
International Fund for Animal Welfare, and IFAW is IMMA's primary funder.
IFAW has been profiting on anti-sealing campaigns for 20 years and brag
about being responsible for the European Union's ban on the importation of
seal products. Thus, IWC's use of IMMA in animal welfare issues
has been figuratively described in ancient jewish literature (Genesis 19:31-36).
However, I didn't know about IMMA's connection with IFAW at
that time, so my alarm bells didn't ring (nor any other of my bells for
that matter.)
Anyway, I got entangled in other, more interesting work.
A couple of months later, encouraged by a marine biologist who had
followed the debate, I finally got around to read the Science article. I
had forgotten IMMA, instead I consulted fishery biologists who were not
funded by IFAW.
I found that IWC does not have any foundation for their interpretation.
The article doesn't deal with the rate of recovery of fish stocks, only
with their theoretical potential for recovery. Another point is that
the presence of depensation is a serious sign that something is wrong, but
the lack of depensation doesn't necessarily mean that all is well.
That is, the erroneous interpretation is a case of the classical
logical fallacy termed "affirming the consequent", or "reversing the
arrow" as we loosely say in my field.
I told IWC about their misinterpretation in a private letter.
They responded with insult. I posted my criticism to the
same forum where the original interpretation appeared. No response.
I took a break from all this, and reviewed the discussion so far.
Then I looked at what IMMA presents. It transpired that they have released
a Technical Briefing called "Seals, cod, ecology and mythology" in which
it is written
"[...] the prestigious journal
Science published a study [...] in which it
is concluded that predators (including seals) generally play no
discernible role in the population dynamics of recovering fish stocks
(including cod) (Myers, et al. 1995)."
January 1996:
I write privately to the author and explain to him that his interpretation
is wrong, to accentuate this I point him to a contradiction in his own
report, namely that he also claims that seals may have a positive impact
due to them preying on predators of cod. That is, he both claims that
predators (seals in particular) have no impact and that there may be other
predators (fish?) which have an impact. Insult ensues.
I decide to go public with my criticism, the only question is how and
where. Then, in January, Georg Blichfeldt of the High North Alliance sends
an enquiry (January 27) to the electronic mailing list of the world's
marine mammal scientists, MARMAM. Mr. Blichfeldt has attended a European
Parliamentary hearing where Dr. Lavigne of IMMA/IFAW among other things
has suggested that a reason for the slow recovery of Newfoundland cod isn't
seals, but rather that cod are cannibals, i.e. that cod preying on cod
slows down cod recovery, and that seals, by eating cannibalistic cod
actually help the cod population to recover. Blichfeldt wants to know
whether anybody can shed some light on this novel theory of Lavigne's.
Unfortunately I can not, but I point MARMAM readers to the contradiction
that IMMA already wants us to believe that predators play no role, so they
can't logically claim that some predators actually do play a role. IMMA
responds in a non-material way, but they confirm that IFAW is their
primary funder. I repeat my criticism in different words
(February 16), detailing what is wrong with their interpretation of the
Science article, hoping they will respond so that we can have
a debate.
This time there's no response. No insult, no nothing.
I don't know whether this is the end of the story, I hope so, but I fear
that too many people have already read IMMA's misrepresentation and copied
it, because they trusted IMMA. As far as I've seen, IMMA has done
nothing to alleviate the situation. The Technical Briefing 95-01 "Seals,
cod, ecology and mythology" is still available unaltered from IMMA.
I've seen statements linking "a recent article in Science by Myers et al"
to the seal/cod discussion several places, and I expect to see it in more
places in the future. I wonder how many people will take this interpretation
as the truth, and what they will think if, after thorough examination of
the seal/cod interaction, it turns out that seals do indeed have an impact.
Who will be accused of cheating?
Whenever you see a reference to an article by Myers et al in Science,
August 1995, which purportedly shows that seals have no effect on cod
populations, you now know that this interpretation is an anecdote, and you
know how and where the anecdote originated.
I'm interested in tracing how this anecdote spreads, so if you come
across it, please drop me a letter stating when and where you found it.
Incidentally, you also know that Dr. David Lavigne's independent
research facility, the International Marine Mammal Association isn't
independent at all, but rather very dependent upon the money from
an advocacy group by the name of the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
The fate of Lavigne's cannibal theory is also open, IMMA didn't respond
to Blichfeldt's enquiry. Nor did anybody else.
Oslo, March 7, 1996
Simen Gaure <Simen...@math.uio.no>
<END QUOTE>
Stephen Best
Alan Macnow <ama...@igc.apc.org> wrote:
>I don't think there was a tiff. I just think Dan Morast and Steve
>Best decided they could make the same kind of money in the U.S. and
>Canada that Brian Davies was making with IFAW in Europe.
>
>There also is the possibility that IFAW helped finance the two in
>order to create another animal protection "brand name", the same
>as commercial companies do when they want to add another profit line.
>
As someone, in fact the only one involved in this thread, who has
direct knowledge of the events under discussion, I suppose an argument
can be made that I should intervene with the facts.
But I don't think I will, as this topic is turning into not only a
preverse delight, but also a lesson in human thinking, for lack of a
better term.
Here we have a crop of people, completely ignorant about the subject
they are discussing, taking each other seriously.
Run this theory of human intelligence by me again. Fascinating!
Wouldn't you say so, Mr. Spock?
Carry on,
Stephen Best
I'm unable to determine from your post if you believe that the way
IFAW funds marine mammal research is inappropriate or not.
David S. Eitelbach
In <31852f68...@news.inforamp.net> sb...@inforamp.net (Stephen Best)
wrote:
> dse...@crl.com (David S. Eitelbach) wrote:
>
> >Your pout in the other thread garnered some sympathy -- why not try again
> >in here? You'd still be 1 for 2, even if you blew it.
> >
> A pout? I'm not sure either what you mean or what point you're trying
> to make.
It was meant to be a slap in the face to you, as you had done to other
participants in this thread. The point was to communicate to you the (in
my view) objectionable nature of your snotty response by mimicking it.
> I was pointing out factual errors in Stig's comments and
> showing that at least a part of his opinion about some sealers, at
> least, is unsupportable. As I have direct knowledge of these events,
> I thought they might be useful.
Indeed they were, at least to me. Probably to many silent others reading
as well. But your post in this thread to which I responded was not
similarly constructive. On the contrary.
As you have a different version of events, I respectfully suggest you
consider putting it up so those of us who don't know enough to have an
opinion about these relationships, can better judge by hearing both sides.
You've got as much credibility as anyone else in the discussion, why not
use it to make your case? Don't be so sure no one will listen to you. Go
review my next-to-last post to you, unless you dismiss it as a set-up.
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
In article <Simen.Gaure-29...@mattemac1.uio.no>,
Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
>Therefore, consider it healthy that only responsible countries
>like Iceland and Norway are interested.
>(Though Iceland does no whaling at the moment.)
"Though Iceland does not whaling at the moment"? So that leaves only
Norway as the responsible whaling country? A good thing Iceland isn't
whaling huh? Would certainly cut into either what Norway could claim or
would cut badly into the minke population.
Look Simen, I don't know all that much about Norwegian whaling but don't
try to convince me Norway is a responsible country ok? From what I know
the world says minkes shouldn't be hunted but Norway and its
"scientists" know better.
That's like all the world's scientists demonstrating overwhelmingly
smoking causes all manner of diseases and yet the cigarette companies
pack entire harems of whore researchers who do their best to damage
control.
Your whaling "scientists" likely skate some major thin ice. On the one
hand they have to keep the whalers happy. On the other they have to
cough up stats and figures that are vaguely reasonable so they don't
become the laughing stock of the entire world. Or is credibility not a
concern for Norwegian whale researchers?
Finally re your comment. Let's do some playing ok? Let's time travel
back to the late 50's/early 60's and let's rewrite this a bit.
>Therefore, consider it healthy that only responsible countries
>like Iceland and freedom loving Soviet Union are interested.
>(Though Iceland does no whaling at the moment.)
I can see Mr. Kruschev now, shoe in hand. You know I confess. I was in
my very early teens but he taught me about double-speak before I even
knew there was something like that.
"Therefore, consider it healthy that only responsible countries"
Thanks, Simen for tossing that to me. Takes me back to my youth!
Best regards
David S. Eitelbach
In <3184b8e...@news.inforamp.net> sb...@inforamp.net (Stephen Best)
wrote:
> As someone, in fact the only one involved in this thread, who has
> direct knowledge of the events under discussion, I suppose an argument
> can be made that I should intervene with the facts.
>
> But I don't think I will, as this topic is turning into not only a
> preverse delight, but also a lesson in human thinking, for lack of a
> better term. [...]
Your pout in the other thread garnered some sympathy -- why not try again
in here? You'd still be 1 for 2, even if you blew it.
--
David S. Eitelbach
dse...@crl.com
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
In article <3184DE...@auste.imr.no>,
That's ok Cassanders. I found out that Minkes spend several months in
Norway ocean and then migrate but they aren't sure where by which I
assume that means they lose them which is hard to believe considering
they are so big and there are 500 000 of them a long awkward sentence I
know.
I remember someone telling me through email that the Minkes migrate down
the African coast. A good thing those responsible African nations don't
hunt the minkes during the other parts of the year.
In some respects minkes are like marine turtles in that they complete
some rather impressive migrations. It makes the job of conserving them
more difficult though. Little use in legislating no hunting of adults
when another country where these turtles nest allows poaching of eggs.
Not quite the same problem though. Seems Norway is the only nation
going after these animals.
Stephen Best
dse...@crl.com (David S. Eitelbach) wrote:
>
>Your pout in the other thread garnered some sympathy -- why not try again
>in here? You'd still be 1 for 2, even if you blew it.
>
A pout? I'm not sure either what you mean or what point you're trying
to make. I was pointing out factual errors in Stig's comments and
showing that at least a part of his opinion about some sealers, at
least, is unsupportable. As I have direct knowledge of these events,
I thought they might be useful.
Regards
David S. Eitelbach
In <4m0qch$am0...@net7b.io.org> how...@io.org (Ursula Keuper-Bennett)
wrote:
[...]
> Seems Norway is the only nation going after these animals.
Ursula, the Japanese also take them. See, for example:
<http://www.a-web.co.jp/~golgo13/whale/vari_jrw.html>
(main URL for the site is: <http://www.a-web.co.jp/~golgo13/whale.html>)
I believe the Japanese have also requested and been denied by the
International Whaling Commission (IWC) a small quota for coastal minke
whaling. I'm having a little trouble finding a reference for that right
now and I have to go do the dishes because my wife comes home soon.
Anders Jelmert
29 Apr 1996 22:08:32 GMT
Ursula Keuper-Bennett wrote:
> [...] Snip
> That's ok Cassanders. I found out that Minkes spend several months in
> Norway ocean and then migrate but they aren't sure where by which I
> assume that means they lose them which is hard to believe considering
> they are so big and there are 500 000 of them a long awkward sentence I
> know. The estimate for North-east Atlantic was 87,500 Minkes
subsequently adjusted to some 70,000 animals for 1996.
The valid estimate for Southern Minke whale are >750,000 animals,
based on the last survey in 1990.
Given the fecundity of Minkes, and adding the stocks in Northern
hemisphere, the actual numbers would probably be closer to 1 million
than to 500,000.
Putting Minke whales on any list of endangered species, is really
to destroy any meaningful content of the expression.
> I remember someone telling me through email that the Minkes migrate down
> the African coast. A good thing those responsible African nations don't
> hunt the minkes during the other parts of the year.
Excuse me, but I will have to ask: What are your criteria for
dividing nations into "responsible" and "irresponsible" classes,
when it comes to environmental matters?
Is it harvest of natural resources _per se_, or does it have something
to do with the way it is accomplished?
> In some respects minkes are like marine turtles in that they complete
> some rather impressive migrations. It makes the job of conserving them
> more difficult though. Little use in legislating no hunting of adults
> when another country where these turtles nest allows poaching of eggs.
In general the the whale stocks from Northern and Southern hemisphere
are separate (thus the the East-West geographical boundaries between
the oceans are operative).
The nineteenth century whalers identified a longitudinal zone close
to equator where they could hope to catch sperm whales in almost
every season. They called it "on the Line" grounds. The whales
encountered there varied very likely with the seasons. In the
northern winter, the northern sperms were near equator, and in
the Southern winter, the southern sperms were "on the line".
In southern hemisphere, the blue, fin and humpback whales are the most
migratory species, while Minke is one of the least migratory species.
I believe the Northern Minke whales are more migratory then the Southern
but i don't have the details here.
> Not quite the same problem though. Seems Norway is the only nation
> going after these animals.
No, Japan would like to hunt Minke as well.
> Best regards
>
> ^ Ursula Keuper-Bennett
> 0 0 Mississauga, Ontario
> /V^\ I I /^V\ Email: how...@io.org
> /V Turtle Trax V\ Visit the Turtle Trax Toon at:
> /V Forever Green V\ http://www.io.org/~bunrab/toon.htm
Cassanders
Still politely, I hope
Frode Skarstein
In article <4m0qch$am0...@net7b.io.org>, how...@io.org (Ursula
Keuper-Bennett) wrote:
[snipperz]
>That's ok Cassanders. I found out that Minkes spend several months in
>Norway ocean and then migrate but they aren't sure where by which I
>assume that means they lose them which is hard to believe considering
>they are so big and there are 500 000 of them a long awkward sentence I
>know.
The minke whale can roughly be divided into northen populations and
southern populations. Total they number in the 800.000 +. The population
thought to migrate from the north east atlantic (from what you call
"Norway ocean"), is estimated to number 75.600. This is lifted from
http://tirpitz.ibg.uit.no/WWWW/FAQ/stock.html:
-----begin quote
A new stock estimate of 75,600 individuals with a 95% confidence interval
of <56,400 - 107,200> was proposed by Norway at the 1995 annual IWC
meeting (Ref.). This estimate was not considered by the IWC at this
meeting since they wanted to do a thorough examination of the complete
stock estimation procedure before agreeing on a new estimate. Also, there
were still controversy over the g-nought value. The working group is to
finalise its work and propose a new stock estimate at the annual IWC
meeting in May 1996. The IWC has no official stock estimate for the North
Eastern Atlantic minke whales until then.
Norway reponded to the reduced stock estimates by reducing the 1995 quota from
301 animals to 232 animals.
-----end quote
So, they (??) "lose" track of 75.000 animals, not 500.000. I don't find it
hard to believe. Data on the whereabouts of the minke in the northern
hemisphere winter is scarese, and anecdotal evidence suggests that
North-Africa north of 10°N is a relevant area.
[snip]
>In some respects minkes are like marine turtles in that they complete
>some rather impressive migrations. It makes the job of conserving them
>more difficult though. Little use in legislating no hunting of adults
>when another country where these turtles nest allows poaching of eggs.
>
>Not quite the same problem though. Seems Norway is the only nation
>going after these animals.
Japan has a stiff quota, not accepted by the IWC.
>Best regards
>
> ^ Ursula Keuper-Bennett
> 0 0 Mississauga, Ontario
> /V^\ I I /^V\ Email: how...@io.org
> /V Turtle Trax V\ Visit the Turtle Trax Toon at:
> /V Forever Green V\ http://www.io.org/~bunrab/toon.htm
Sincerely,
Frode Skarstein
http://tirpitz.ibg.uit.no/wwww/ss.html
--
Frode Skarstein, Department of Ecology/Zoology, University of Tromsoe
Frode Skarstein
In article <4m0p9s$am0...@net7b.io.org>, how...@io.org (Ursula
Keuper-Bennett) wrote:
>In article <Simen.Gaure-29...@mattemac1.uio.no>,
> Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
>
>>Therefore, consider it healthy that only responsible countries
>>like Iceland and Norway are interested.
>>(Though Iceland does no whaling at the moment.)
>
>"Though Iceland does not whaling at the moment"? So that leaves only
>Norway as the responsible whaling country? A good thing Iceland isn't
>whaling huh? Would certainly cut into either what Norway could claim or
>would cut badly into the minke population.
What do you mean by "cut badly into the minke population"? You have now
been made aware of the current stock estimates and current quotas taken.
Do you still support your bold statements?
>Look Simen, I don't know all that much about Norwegian whaling but don't
>try to convince me Norway is a responsible country ok? From what I know
>the world says minkes shouldn't be hunted but Norway and its
>"scientists" know better.
>
>That's like all the world's scientists demonstrating overwhelmingly
>smoking causes all manner of diseases and yet the cigarette companies
>pack entire harems of whore researchers who do their best to damage
>control.
*Sigh*
We're talking a calculating error. An error corrected and accounted for.
Go take a look at http://tirpitz.ibg.uit.no/WWWW/FAQ/stock.html
>Your whaling "scientists" likely skate some major thin ice. On the one
>hand they have to keep the whalers happy. On the other they have to
>cough up stats and figures that are vaguely reasonable so they don't
>become the laughing stock of the entire world. Or is credibility not a
>concern for Norwegian whale researchers?
*sigh*
Again, go take a look at http://tirpitz.ibg.uit.no/WWWW/FAQ/stock.html
There, you'll learn what the error was about, how it was discovered and
the consequences this had for the norwegian minke whaling. Most
interestingly, you'll learn that the new stock estimate was well within
the confidence interval of the first stock estimate.
>Finally re your comment. Let's do some playing ok? Let's time travel
>back to the late 50's/early 60's and let's rewrite this a bit.
>
>>Therefore, consider it healthy that only responsible countries
>>like Iceland and freedom loving Soviet Union are interested.
>>(Though Iceland does no whaling at the moment.)
>
>I can see Mr. Kruschev now, shoe in hand. You know I confess. I was in
>my very early teens but he taught me about double-speak before I even
>knew there was something like that.
>
>"Therefore, consider it healthy that only responsible countries"
>Thanks, Simen for tossing that to me. Takes me back to my youth!
>
>Best regards
>
>
> ^ Ursula Keuper-Bennett
> 0 0 Mississauga, Ontario
> /V^\ I I /^V\ Email: how...@io.org
> /V Turtle Trax V\ Visit the Turtle Trax Toon at:
> /V Forever Green V\ http://www.io.org/~bunrab/toon.htm
Well, Ursula.
Poof goes your attemts at objectively understanding a controversial issue.
Simen Gaure
I'm unable to determine from your post if you believe that the way
IFAW funds marine mammal research is inappropriate or not.
Hmm. I'd say the way they try to prevent marine mammal research.
I'm more concerned about the quality of the
research than about the nature of the funding.
When IFAW demands that certain scientific methods
should not be used, it's not a funding operation.
It's a meddling operation totally unacceptable
to serious scientists.
One might be lead to believe that IFAW is not interested in
increasing our knowledge about marine mammals.
The way they disguise their scientists as
"independent" (e.g. David Lavigne and his IFAW affilated
research facility, IMMA) is highly unethical.
(You have yourself described IMMA as an independent research
facility.)
Simen Gaure
Look Simen, I don't know all that much about Norwegian whaling but don't
try to convince me Norway is a responsible country ok? From what I know
the world says minkes shouldn't be hunted but Norway and its
"scientists" know better.
It's not Norwegian scientists. The entire scientific committee
of the IWC agrees that the RMP would be safe to use should the
moratorium be lifted.
You're making very serious allegations against
an international group of scientists.
The time has come for you to put up or shut up.
Please be specific about what's wrong with the RMP
and/or the abundance estimates. Or shut up.
You should preferably present your objections to
the scientific committee also.
Your whaling "scientists" likely skate some major thin ice. On the one
hand they have to keep the whalers happy. On the other they have to
cough up stats and figures that are vaguely reasonable so they don't
become the laughing stock of the entire world. Or is credibility not a
concern for Norwegian whale researchers?
Please specify in detail what your objections are. Or refer this
to specific criticism by someone who knows what he's talking about.
You're making very serious allegations. Put up or shut up.
>Therefore, consider it healthy that only responsible countries
>like Iceland and freedom loving Soviet Union are interested.
>(Though Iceland does no whaling at the moment.)
I can see Mr. Kruschev now, shoe in hand. You know I confess. I was in
my very early teens but he taught me about double-speak before I even
knew there was something like that.
"Therefore, consider it healthy that only responsible countries"
Thanks, Simen for tossing that to me. Takes me back to my youth!
Please be specific about what you think is wrong with the science
of the scientific committee of the IWC, and/or the implementation
of this by the Norwegian Government. You're making very serious
allegations. I have provided you with quite detailed descriptions
of the quota calculation algoritm, from several scientists of
different nationality. Please address the matter at hand.
Simen Gaure
In article <31863A...@auste.imr.no>, Anders Jelmert
<Anders....@auste.imr.no> wrote:
29 Apr 1996 22:08:32 GMT
Ursula Keuper-Bennett wrote:
> Not quite the same problem though. Seems Norway is the only nation
> going after these animals.
No, Japan would like to hunt Minke as well.
Though the stock Japan would like to hunt in the southern hemisphere
is a genetically different stock.
Even the population in the North East Atlantic is actually
made up of genetically different stocks.
West Greenland, Iceland and Norway. See e.g.
"Genetic markers and whale stocks in the North Atlantic ocean: a review",
by A. Arnason, pp 91-103 in "Whales, Seals, Fish and Man", Developments
in Marine Biology 4, Elsevier, The Netherlands, 1995, ISBN 0-444-82070-1.
And "Genetic variation in northeastern Atlantic minke whales", by
A.K. Danielsdottir, S.D. Halldorsson, S. Gudlagsdottir and
A. Arnason, pp. 105-118, op.cit.
(Both papers presented to the International Symposium on the
Biology of Marine Mammals in the North East Atlantic,
Tromsø, Norway, November 29 - December 1, 1994)
Stephen Best
Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
>When IFAW demands that certain scientific methods
>should not be used, it's not a funding operation.
>It's a meddling operation totally unacceptable
>to serious scientists.
>
Can I assume that you're referring to IFAW's policy of funding only
non-lethal research? If so, this is entirely consistent with IFAW's
objectives and philosophies. And a great deal of valid and important
scientific research can be done using non-lethal methods. Indeed,
lethal methods are often used when they are not necessary; Japanese
scientific whaling in Antarctica has been accused of this. Certainly,
lethal research can reveal many things, but this does not mean that
research that does not require lethal methods are compromised in any
way because the funder of that work chooses not fund lethal programs.
Use of lethal methods in any research is a serious ethical issue,
recognized as such by every reputable educational and research
institution, and ought not to be dismissed so readily as "totally
unacceptable to serious scientists."
>One might be lead to believe that IFAW is not interested in
>increasing our knowledge about marine mammals.
>
IFAW is funding vital scientific work. In fact it was IFAW funded
scientists who revealed the flaws in the research used by the
Norwegian government to support its minke whaling policies. This work
indeed helped increase our knowledge about marine mammals and assisted
the Norwegian scientists in improving the accuracy and quality of
their research efforts.
If IFAW is hoping to make discoveries about marine mammals that
traditional government and industry scientists are not funded to seek
out, then this serves the overall good. Wouldn't your agree? More
will be known about marine mammals; and wouldn't that be better than
knowing less?
Just as the Canadian government, the Norwegian government, and the
Japanese government do not fund all possible areas of study concerning
marine mammals neither does IFAW. And just as these pro-whaling
pro-sealing entities tend to direct their scientists to study areas
that will support their policies and objectives, so does IFAW. This
is a general condition that pertains to all scientific research, in
every field.
>The way they disguise their scientists as
>"independent" (e.g. David Lavigne and his IFAW affilated
>research facility, IMMA) is highly unethical.
>(You have yourself described IMMA as an independent research
> facility.)
>
David Lavigne and IMMA have never obscured the fact that they are
funded in part by IFAW. And I can also tell you that IFAW has never
interfered with the integrity of the work of IMMA, Justin Cooke,
Sydney Holt, etc. or of any other scientist. Indeed in all the years
that I worked for IFAW no one in the organization in any way did
anything to compromise any scientific work that was being done or
funded. Furthermore, scientists funded by IFAW are for more
independent than any government or industry scientists working on
marine mammal issues, because IFAW never censors the work they are
doing.
To make this point more strongly, there is no scientist that I'm aware
of working in the marine mammal community, including those at the
Canadian and Norwegian governments, who questions the scientific
integrity of Dave Lavigne or his team at IMMA or the work of other
IFAW funded scientists such as Cooke and Holt -- lobbyists, partisans,
and propagandists might, but not scientists.
Stephen Best
dse...@crl.com (David S. Eitelbach) wrote:
>
>It was meant to be a slap in the face to you, as you had done to other
>participants in this thread. The point was to communicate to you the (in
>my view) objectionable nature of your snotty response by mimicking it.
>
Thought so. This is "Aussie rules" debating, David. And it's the
game you yourself play. Nobody here is conducting themselves they way
they would if they really wanted to learn or understand anything.
Dave Wheeler
-=> Quoting Stephen Best to All <=-
SB> From: sb...@inforamp.net (Stephen Best)
SB> Newsgroups: talk.environment
SB> Subject: Re: Norwegian whaling question or two
SB> dse...@crl.com (David S. Eitelbach) wrote:
>Your pout in the other thread garnered some sympathy -- why not try again
>in here? You'd still be 1 for 2, even if you blew it.
Stephen Best replied:
SB> A pout? I'm not sure either what you mean or what point you're trying
SB> to make. I was pointing out factual errors in Stig's comments and
SB> showing that at least a part of his opinion about some sealers, at
SB> least, is unsupportable. As I have direct knowledge of these events,
SB> I thought they might be useful.
Mr. Eitelbach believes that insult and denial are
arguments worthy of bandwidth. I added him to my
twit filter some time ago and when I see posts like
that above, I can see I am not missing anything. <G>
... Mean people suck.
David S. Eitelbach
In <31860eaa...@news.inforamp.net> sb...@inforamp.net (Stephen Best)
wrote:
> dse...@crl.com (David S. Eitelbach) wrote:
>
> >It was meant to be a slap in the face to you, as you had done to other
> >participants in this thread. The point was to communicate to you the (in
> >my view) objectionable nature of your snotty response by mimicking it.
>
> Thought so. This is "Aussie rules" debating, David. And it's the
> game you yourself play.
Yes, I certainly do it too. Not exclusively, however. That's neither fair
nor accurate. Your writing is unusually crisp this time and qualifiers
needed for accuracy are missing. And the "the" should be an "a".
I've gone back and reread the relevant posts and I'm sorry but I honestly
think you had it coming. You were condescending and mocking, calling a
group of people "completely ignorant", sneering at them as fools. It was a
bit much for me, your secret knowledge notwithstanding.
This discussion all stems from you disingenuously calling for a film of
the seal hunt -- the "bloodbath", as you termed it.
> Nobody here is conducting themselves they way they would if they really
> wanted to learn or understand anything.
Too stark. It is in the main true and probably true at the moment.
However, it is not at all a fair characterization of participant behavior
over time -- not mine, not yours, not that of some others. You yourself
twice tried to seed a discussion on the role of science in such issues as
we discuss. Was that merely a stratagem? I think not. Nor was it when I
have asked some questions, most recently, why isn't it preferable to kill
younger animals (seals). Besides, how much goodwill does there have to be
for it to be worthwhile to build on it?
Meantime, rancor just feeds on itself then consumes us all, every one.
I thought the last exchange between you and Simen Gaure, while not all it
might have been, was remarkable for its having culminated in a friendly
way. It even seemed to be building in a positive way toward the end. I
took heart from that, hoping for more such exchanges someday. I know from
your posts you two don't like each other, but it is possible for people
who have different values to talk with mutual respect. You just did it.
But making it better isn't what it's about, I guess. Counting coup is.
This round goes to you, Stephen. You did get to me by calling my sincerity
into question in such a total way. Give yourself points.
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
In article <frodes-3004...@skarstein.ibg.uit.no>,
fro...@ibg.uit.no (Frode Skarstein) wrote:
>
>What do you mean by "cut badly into the minke population"? You have now
>been made aware of the current stock estimates and current quotas
taken.
>Do you still support your bold statements?
Sorry I have been away from this debate for a couple of days. My body
turned to liquid on me. In email I jokingly asked a Norperson if there
was a Norwegian god of Getting Even.
Do I still support my bold statement? No, Frode. I don't. I have
visited the Tirpitz site and a bit of the High North. At Tirpitz I read
the FAQ and the news. That is all I got to but I will be back, I
promise.
You wrote:
>We're talking a calculating error. An error corrected and accounted
for.
>Go take a look at http://tirpitz.ibg.uit.no/WWWW/FAQ/stock.html
I don't have to take a look. I did that. A Norwegian person I am
talking to in email was most upset with the whore reference. I now know
about the computer error. However, keep in mind, your site itself said
this:
The results from the 1995 survey will be published at the annual IWC
meeting in 1996. The 1995 survey was conducted by scientists from
several countries since the integrity of Norwegian scientists has
been questioned by anti-whaling organisations.
Me, I questioned them too. But I learned something while at Tirpitz and
that is the Japan grabs about twice as many whales as you Norwegians do
and yet all the talk around here is about you guys. Why?
If I were to launch an anti-whaling thing, I'd be more concerned with
Japan. That's what *I've* learned so far.
re. the stuff I wrote about Kruschev and comparing Simen's words re.
"responsible country" to what the Soviets might have said. I still
stand by that to SOME degree. In email a lot of people are writing me
about the whaling. I am getting it from both ends of the spectrum....
and I rankle because some of it is propaganda.
I can't even understand why because I am just a layperson interested in
sea turtles who got trapped into Norwegian whaling because I wanted to
defend Newfoundlanders from being called murderers only now I won't even
go into the Newfoundland thread because I just made things worse...
You wrote:
>
>Poof goes your attemts at objectively understanding a controversial
issue.
>
>Sincerely,
>Frode Skarstein
>http://tirpitz.ibg.uit.no/wwww/ss.html
Wrong. I am still trying Frode. I will continue to visit your site. I
tried to find the IWC which I believe would be my best source of
information. That is where I will try to head. But I will continue to
drop by your site as well.
You put a lot of your time into tirptiz. I can tell and I respect the
dedication and commitment that took. I won't read the stuff about
morality or humanity like you have up. You could argue those your
entire life and won't get anywhere.
You mentioned Norwegian whaling is controversial.. I would have used the
word "complex" myself.
Stephen Best
how...@io.org (Ursula Keuper-Bennett) wrote:
>The results from the 1995 survey will be published at the annual IWC
>meeting in 1996. The 1995 survey was conducted by scientists from
>several countries since the integrity of Norwegian scientists has
>been questioned by anti-whaling organisations.
It's worth noting that the errors in the Norwegian stock estimates
were discovered by scientists funded by "anti-whaling organizations,"
not by the Norwegian researchers. Left to Norwegian researchers it is
highly unlikely, in my opinion, that the errors would have been
discovered.
The questions about Norwegian integrity were raised, quite properly,
because it took so long, for reasons that were never adequately
explained, for the Norwegian researchers to release their data and
methodology to independent analysis, a standard scientific practice --
this after they successful persuaded the IWC Scientific Committee to
accept their conclusions without independent review.
As the Norwegian conclusions turned out to be incorrect and they were
used to scientifically justify the take levels of minke whales by the
Norwegian whaling fleet, neither the Scientific Committee nor
environmental organizations are prepared to accept Norwegian
conclusions or research without independent verification and review.
Also as the Norwegian methodology was seriously flawed (again revealed
by scientists funded by an environmental organization), in favor of
higher population figures, independent researchers were required to
participate in the basic data collection for the 1995 survey.
This can only be described as being properly cautious under the
circumstances.
We look forward to the IWC meeting this year and the possiblity of
stock estimates for minke whales that can be agreed upon by all
concerned.
Simen Gaure
In article <3187cef1...@news.inforamp.net>, sb...@inforamp.net wrote:
how...@io.org (Ursula Keuper-Bennett) wrote:
It's worth noting that the errors in the Norwegian stock estimates
were discovered by scientists funded by "anti-whaling organizations,"
not by the Norwegian researchers. Left to Norwegian researchers it is
highly unlikely, in my opinion, that the errors would have been
discovered.
Hmm, why do you think so? Do you know anything else about these
Norwegian researchers than what you have heard from anti-whaling
organizations? (Which have every reason to claim Norwegian
reserachers are deliberately introducing errors in their research.)
The questions about Norwegian integrity were raised, quite properly,
because it took so long, for reasons that were never adequately
explained, for the Norwegian researchers to release their data and
methodology to independent analysis, a standard scientific practice --
this after they successful persuaded the IWC Scientific Committee to
accept their conclusions without independent review.
Where did you learn about this? Have you checked this with
the IWC sci.comm. or are you relying on statements from anti-whaling
organizations which have every reason to claim this was the case?
As the Norwegian conclusions turned out to be incorrect and they were
used to scientifically justify the take levels of minke whales by the
Norwegian whaling fleet, [...]
Now wait, as far as I know (which is in fact quite far), the
correction of the programming error caused the new point estimate
to be well within the old 95% confidence interval, although
lower than the old point estimate. In fact,
it is not publicly known to what extent the conclusions were
incorrect (taking into account other modifications presented below.)
The sci.comm. group which deals with the 1995
survey will also re-evaluate the old estimates. Their
conclusions have not been published yet. Hence it's not
known to what extent the old conclusions were wrong.
Also as the Norwegian methodology was seriously flawed (again revealed
by scientists funded by an environmental organization), in favor of
higher population figures, independent researchers were required to
participate in the basic data collection for the 1995 survey.
"methodology seriously flawed" you say. Will you please point
to what part of the methodology is seriously flawed in favour
of higher population figures.
With all due respect, I do think you don't know what you're
talking about, please prove me wrong by pointing out to this forum
the nature of these flaws and why they are to be considered serious.
(I point out those problems I know about below.)
I have enquired several anti-whaling groups about
what they think was wrong with the methodology. They all
point to Justin Cooke, but without proper reference to anything
published by him. As it happens, the IWC sci.comm. has received
a paper from Justin Cooke, "A re-analysis of experimental data to
estimate G(0) for shipboard surveys of minke whales in the North
Atlantic." Paper SC/46/NA7 presented to the Scientific Committee
of the IWC, 1994. I assume this is what is used to conclude "severely
flawed". As it happens, the objections in this paper has been
addressed in a paper "Effective search width in shipboard surveys
of minke whales in the northeastern Atlantic: concepts and methods."
by T. Schweder and G. Hagen which I have previously referenced.
Once again I will briefly summarise:
The criticism raised by Cooke was that the interpretation
of data from independent observer experiments to identify duplicate
sightings of whales might be biased. Let me quote Schweder and Hagen:
In the North Sea experiment in 1990, two barrels were mounted on the
mast of the vessel, one above the other. The observer teams in the
two barrels could not communicate, but both were linked to a common
computer for coherent time measurements, and to the coordinator at
the bridge. This will also be the setup for all the vessels
participating in 1995.
Independently of each other, the observations of surfacing minke
whales are made from the two platforms, both with respect to time
and relative positions. These cues are linked together in tracks,
supposedly belonging to individual whales. This is done on the spot,
and the track identification is based on all "information" available
to the observer at the time. Platform A produces one set of observations,
and so does platform B.
At the stage of analysis, the two independent, but concurrent, sets
of observed cue-tracks are converted to two sets of spatial occurrence/
exposure data, one for each platform. An exposure for platform A
is a surfacing seen by B of a whale which A had not sighted before.
This exposure is an occurrence if A successfully sights the cue. The
occurrence/exposure data for B are defined in the same way, but now
with A as the control platform.
The identification of occurrence/exposure data in Ref [4] [the 1990
survey, my comment] was done by visual inspection of graphical
representation of the data from the two platforms. This was done
independently by several scientists. For the 1990 data, the four
judgements were in good agreement. This was taken as evidence for
the agreed occurrence/exposure identification to be close to correct.
It has, however, been argued that the judgements could be wrong,
in spite of the agreement. A different occurrence/exposure
identification was, in fact, presented in Ref [6] [Cooke's paper].
This identification was more explicitly based on observed error
distributions in measurements of times and relative positions,
but a substantial subjective element remained in the judgements.
The paper goes on to explain an automated analysis of the data to
identify duplicate sightings, and concludes:
This duplicate rule applied to the 1990 data identified all exposures
and occurrences used in Ref [4], except one.
The conclusion must therefore be that Cooke did not point to
a severe flaw, he pointed to a possible source of bias, which
on closer scrutiny turned out not to be of much importance.
If you have objections to the automated rule, please present
them, I attach it at the end of this message.
(You see, when discussing with scientists it's not enough
to make general remarks, you must be specific.)
Or, are you suggesting that Schweder and Hagen are lying above?
Furthermore, it was suggested in Rep Int Whal Commn 1992;42:252-258
(Report from the ad-hoc working group on g(0)) that errors in the
radial sighting distance and angle measurements was a potential
source of bias in the independent observer experiments.
An experiment (Rep Int Whal Commn 1992;42:407-412) revealed
that there was significant variability and some bias.
This bias also had consequences for the calculation of g(0)
(the probability that a whale at distance 0 from the transect
line would be seen).
The previous method estimated the probability
of detecting a whale at distance 0 from the transect line
and computed the probability for other distances.
This computation relies on a certain "distance model"
for how this probability varies with the distance.
The method has now been replaced by a more direct method, computing what
is called "effective search width" (essentially the integral
of the function g) directly. This method does not
rely on an explicit distance model. A description of how this
is done can be found in the above paper.
It is my understanding that
this change didn't lead to very different values in the end.
(Though I have no public reference for this yet.)
That is, there's no reason to assume that the old estimates
were wrong, nor that errors were deliberately introduced
to tilt the estimates in a particular direction.
As promised above, here's the automated rule for detection of duplicates.
Please point out your objections to this forum.
(from "Effective Search Width in shipboard surveys of minke whales
in the northeastern Atlantic: concepts and methods", T. Schweder and
G. Hagen, in "Whales, seals, fish and man", Developments in Marine
Biology 4, Elsevier, 1995, The Netherlands, ISBN 0-444-82070-1)
<QUOTE>
From the measurement error experiment reported in Ref [3], we
estimated the expected value, mu, and the standard deviation, sigma,
of the distance DP = |P1 - P2| between two indpendently recorded
positions, P1 and P2, for a duplicate sighting. These values are
represented as two spatial functions of the mean of the two
observed positions, Pbar, and they are used in the automated
identification rule given below.
1. Cues from platform A and B are mathced with respect to time.
The track of an A-cue and that of a B-cue are classified as
a possible duplicate pair if the time difference between the
two cues is less than 30s. For a possible duplicate pair
of tracks, the A-cue and B-cue closest in time are classified
as a possible pair of duplicate sightings. If this pair is not
unique, choose arbitrarily one of the pairs. The cues for the
two tracks of a possible duplicate pair are matched in serial
order, with the possible duplicate sighting as the reference.
If all the matched cues have time difference less than 30s,
and if at least some of those with non-zero seconds are closer
than epsilon seconds (epsilon = 8, 10 or 15s), the pair
remains a possible duplicate pair of tracks.
2. A pair of tracks remains a possible duplicate pair if
DP < mu(Pbar) + alpha*sigma(Pbar) for at least one of the
mathced pair of cues. The coefficient alpha is set to 1 if position
is recorded for both cues, to 2 if position is recorded for one
of the cues, while the other position is found by interpolation, and
to alpha=3 if both positions are found by interpolation. To further
remain a possible duplicate pair of tracks, none of the mathced
pairs of cues must have one of its cues more than 0.2nm away
to the port side of the track line while the other is more than
0.2nm away to the starboard side.
3. If an A-track is paired with more than one B-track as possible
duplicates, the following pruning is done. Pair the A-track
with that or those B-tracks which minimize the minimal time
difference in mathced pairs of cues. If multiple pairs remain,
choose that or those which minimize the maximum time difference
in matched pairs. If there still are multiples, choose that
or those with minimum minimal spatial distance within mathced
pairs. If multiples remain, choose that with minimum maximal
spatial distance within matched pairs. If the pruning is not
complete at this stage, make an arbitrary choice. The remaining
pairs of tracks are classified as duplicate observations of
the same whale.
4. A-tracks not a member of any duplicate pair provide exposures
for B. The exposures have spatial coordinates from the A-cues,
and they are all classified as failures (non-occurences).
An A-track which is a member of a duplicate pair provides
failure exposures for B if it has cues before those matched
with B-cues. If the first B-cue in the pair is matched with
an A-cue, this is classified as a duplicte sighting or an occurrence
for B. The position of this successful exposure is that of the
A-cue. Exposures and occurrences for A are found in the
same way, with A and B interchanged.
<END QUOTE>
Simen Gaure
In article <4lich9$n9c...@net7b.io.org>, how...@io.org (Ursula
Keuper-Bennett) wrote:
Here is the other quote from the website [Int'l Wildlife Coalition]:
"I presume that there is currently being done a lot of work
in Norway to try to find further factors which could bring the [minke
whale] abundance estimate back up to the old level. But I have also
identified additional factors which, if they are taken into account,
would reduce the abundance estimate to about 40,000." Dr. Justin Cooke
(Researchers have concluded that zero animals can be caught if the
population is under 50,000.)"
Dr. Justin Cooke's name was blued and I followed the link figuring it
would explain who he is and what institution he respresents but all I
got was "Cooke is one of the world’s most famous whale researchers He
has 15 years behind him in the IWC,"
I would have preferred knowing the institution from which he does his
research so I could follow up. I can tell you who the top most
respected marine turtle researchers are so I assume in the whale
community there exists an equally high regarded group of people. I
wanted to know if the good doctor was one.
And also important, it looked like what Dr. Cooke said came from a TV
programme and what I would want to know and see is whether his stats and
commentary made it into a respected journal.
For some information about the above, have a look at
<http://tirpitz.ibg.uit.no/wwww/hna/g0_HNA.html>.
Press Release, April 12, 1995, The High North Alliance.
<QUOTE>
On April 4th, Justin Cooke said the following to the Norwegian TV
station, TV2, "The effect would be to reduce the population estimate
substantially, down to about 60,000, and it would reduce the number of
whales that could be caught according to the Revised Management
Procedure, also quite substantially ... from about 300 to about 100."
According to TV2 this comment came in reply to the question of what
effect the errors disclosed by the Norwegian scientists might have.
Cooke told the High North Alliance that this comment had been taken out
of context, and that what he had replied to, was a general question on
what stock estimate a certain G-nought value would lead to. He had made
it quite clear to TV2 that he would not comment upon the work of the
group, or contributions made to the group in the form of documents.
In an April 5th news bulletin on TV2, Cooke says, "I presume that there
is currently being done a lot of work in Norway to try to find further
factors which could bring the abundance estimate back up to the old
level. But I have also identified additional factors which, if they
were taken into account, would reduce the abundance estimate to about
40,000." TV2 presented this as a comment to Walloe's assurance that the
errors would not have any substantial effect on the estimate. Cooke
told the High North Alliance that his answer had been in response to
information he had received that the Norwegian scientists had come up
with new factors after the working group's last meeting in January,
factors that would lead to an increase in the estimate.
Commenting on this, Walloe says that, "We are working solely on the
sources of error and improvements that were discussed at the working
group's meeting in January, and that the group agreed we should continue
with. We are not looking for "additional factors"." Walloe goes on to
say that some of these factors will have negative effects on the
estimate, and some positive effects.
During the eighties, Cooke worked on assignments for Greenpeace, and
during that period, too, his task involved the scrutiny of Norwegian
minke whale research. "My work on the examination of the G-nought
is funded by the International Fund for Animal Welfare and Greenpeace,"
Cook[e] replied when asked by the High North Alliance.
<END QUOTE>
So, there's definitely a possibility that the International
Wildlife Coalition has been tricked to quote Cooke out of context.
Let's wait and see what the Int'l Whaling Commission working group
comes up with in a month.
Stephen Best
Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
> Left to Norwegian researchers it is
> highly unlikely, in my opinion, that the errors would have been
> discovered.
>
>Hmm, why do you think so?
No doubt for the same reasons you are suspicious of and have a lack
confidence in IFAW funded research. In both cases, the funder and
employer of the researchers has a clear political objective which it
hopes the science will support.
>Do you know anything else about these
>Norwegian researchers than what you have heard from anti-whaling
>organizations? (Which have every reason to claim Norwegian
>reserachers are deliberately introducing errors in their research.)
>
"Deliberately introducing errors" is a stronger term than I would use,
but I have no doubt that given the policies of the funders of their
work, and the fact that funders of research tend to hire scientists
who are sympathetic to their policies, there may be a natural and
innocent tendency or bias to interpret data, use models, and
incorporate assumptions that will tend to support the hoped for
outcome. I believe that this concern is one raised or at least
implied by you and others who are sympathetic in favor of whaling
about scientists employed by and research conducted by environmental
organizations.
That is why -- in the interest of scientific quality -- peer reviews
and open access to data and other information is freely, or ought to
be freely, made available. That did not happen in this case.
>Where did you learn about this?
From Sidny Holt and Justin Cooke.
>Have you checked this with
>the IWC sci.comm. or are you relying on statements from anti-whaling
>organizations which have every reason to claim this was the case?
>
Are you saying that the pertinent information and data was made
available by the Norwegian researchers in or prior to 1992 and that
the information being disseminated about not making it available is
untrue? The fact is that the data and information necessary to
corroborate the Norwegian abundance estimates was not made available
to the Scientific Committee for the 1992 meeting and did not become
available until 1995. Why the three year delay?
>
> As the Norwegian conclusions turned out to be incorrect and they were
> used to scientifically justify the take levels of minke whales by the
> Norwegian whaling fleet, [...]
>
>Now wait, as far as I know (which is in fact quite far), the
>correction of the programming error caused the new point estimate
>to be well within the old 95% confidence interval, although
>lower than the old point estimate. In fact,
>it is not publicly known to what extent the conclusions were
>incorrect (taking into account other modifications presented below.)
>The sci.comm. group which deals with the 1995
>survey will also re-evaluate the old estimates. Their
>conclusions have not been published yet. Hence it's not
>known to what extent the old conclusions were wrong.
>
The rest of your post is a series of selected quotes and references
from various articles and studies that are all subject to review,
analysis, debate, and discussion. They will all no doubt play a part
to some extent at the 1996 IWC meeting in determining stock sizes.
The bottom line, however, is that, as the IWC pointed out, in part, in
1995 "Resolution of Northeastern Atlantic Minke Whales,"
"1. The process followed by the Committee when accepting the abundance
estimate at its 1992 meeting was not satisfactory. An important
factor arising out of the experience of the last two years is that the
Committee is developing procedures to minimise the likelihood that
similar mistakes happen in the future.
"2. The Committee does not consider the 1992 [Norwegian] estimates
valid."
The Norwegian researchers and the Norwegian government representatives
caused at the 1992 meeting the Scientific Committee to accept
abundance estimates that were not valid. Had the Norwegian
researchers followed normally accepted scientific practices and made
their data available for the Scientific Committee and other
scientists, the errors would have been discovered.
It is legitimate and useful, given the policy objectives of the
Norwegian Government, to raise questions about the integrity of the
science being performed. Just as it is legitimate for you to raise
questions, as you have, about the research being conducted or funded
by Greenpeace, IFAW and other environmental groups. Should not all
science be subjected to equal scrutiny or are there to be different
standards of scrutiny applied to different groups?
And no amount of posting of selected articles will replace the debate
that will occur between the various researchers who have the
competency to discuss these matters at the upcoming meeting of the
IWC. To repeat myself, hopefully abundance estimates for minke whale
stocks can be produced that most of those involved in the issue can
agree on.
Stephen Best
Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
>Let's wait and see what the Int'l Whaling Commission working group
>comes up with in a month.
>
On this point we have complete agreement.
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
In article <Simen.Gaure-30...@mattemac1.uio.no>,
Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
>
>You're making very serious allegations against
>an international group of scientists.
>
>The time has come for you to put up or shut up.
>Please be specific about what's wrong with the RMP
>and/or the abundance estimates. Or shut up.
>You should preferably present your objections to
>the scientific committee also.
Come ON, Simen. This Norwegian whaling thing is a sideline for me. I
got to CARE before I would bother with a scientific committee are you
kidding? Besides, I know scientific committees, they treat laypeople
with contempt. If you are lucky, they patronize you.
You wrote:
>
>Please specify in detail what your objections are. Or refer this
>to specific criticism by someone who knows what he's talking about.
>You're making very serious allegations. Put up or shut up.
smile.. I really must have touched a nerve re. that whore comment. Good
thing I am in Canada and you're in Norway huh?
You wrote:
>
>Please be specific about what you think is wrong with the science
>of the scientific committee of the IWC, and/or the implementation
>of this by the Norwegian Government. You're making very serious
>allegations. I have provided you with quite detailed descriptions
>of the quota calculation algoritm, from several scientists of
>different nationality. Please address the matter at hand.
Simen, I had to quit the message at this point yesterday because we had
thunder and lightning and I had to shut off the computer and disconnect
the modem. Your Norwegian god of Getting Even must be looking mighty
smug about now... Hmmm... the last thing I said was "Good thing I'm in
Canada and you're in Norway huh?" Nahhh.. just coincidence... :-)
I know you provided me with lots of references. I was given many papers
to wade through as well by others. Weeks of work if I spent two, three
hours an evening. My goal is to get through the entire tirpitz site
first.
I was sick for two days and so I didn't feel like getting on here and
yesterday was the lightning. Now I look at talk.environment and there
is a whole pile of Norwegian whaling messages strung together and now I
have to wade through them. I am not complaining, Simen. I am just
pointing out I have to play lots of catch up right now.
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
>So, they (??) "lose" track of 75.000 animals, not 500.000. I don't find
it
>hard to believe. Data on the whereabouts of the minke in the northern
>hemisphere winter is scarese, and anecdotal evidence suggests that
>North-Africa north of 10°N is a relevant area.
Went to the tirpitz site and found it interesting that whales are hard
to see when the ocean is rough. I DEFINITELY know that from experience
with turtles but was surprised that whales would be difficult to spot.
Frode then wrote:
> >Not quite the same problem though. Seems Norway is the only nation
> >going after these animals.
>
>Japan has a stiff quota, not accepted by the IWC.
Stiff quota? According the tirpitz site they're upping it to 400 just
like that and of course it's for scientific purposes only then the
"meat from protected whales was openly sold in South Korea and Japan at
prices of up to $100 a pound." (tirpitz)
Must have some MAJOR scientific programme going down this year to up
their quota to some 400 animals...
Still don't know much about Norwegian whaling but I do know this. 400
is about double 232 which is Norway's quota. Norway is at least up
front about stuff and says it is for their coastal communities. Japan
will increase their take this year (what?) by 25% because of its intense
scientific interest in these animals at $100.00 a pound.
I have just ONE BIG QUESTION at this point. How come we don't have a
JAPANESE WHALING thread? (I think I know why but I would be interested
in the input of others first)
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
>The way they disguise their scientists as
>"independent" (e.g. David Lavigne and his IFAW affilated
>research facility, IMMA) is highly unethical.
>(You have yourself described IMMA as an independent research
> facility.)
See Simen? This is what I meant. You, yourself are implying some
scientists can't be objective about this thing. You are just use the
word "independent" and "highly unethical".
I used the term "whore". Same old same old.
Any scientist working on this whale thing who enters into the pot
something other than FACTS and his own integrity (by which I mean doing
his very best to get at the truth) is in my estimation whoring himself
to whomever is prepared to fund him.
I know there is a truth in Norway ocean. There is a true population of
whales out there and there is a true amount of take they should be able
to sustain. You mentioned complex algorithms and all that other stuff I
can't possibly even begin to understand.
I do understand integrity though and respect that in others. You
shouldn't get so mad at me for that whore comment because that is what
you essentially implied by your above statement.
As a scientist, you just stated things way more subtly than I decided to
do.
Best regards
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
In article <3187cef1...@news.inforamp.net>,
sb...@inforamp.net (Stephen Best) wrote:
>
>The questions about Norwegian integrity were raised, quite properly,
>because it took so long, for reasons that were never adequately
>explained, for the Norwegian researchers to release their data and
>methodology to independent analysis, a standard scientific practice --
>this after they successful persuaded the IWC Scientific Committee to
>accept their conclusions without independent review.
See when I read that error thing at tirpitz, first thing I figured was
the error would go in Norway's favour. You now confirm it did. An
error such as stock assessment can occur for two reasons, Stephen and
therefore there are two possibilities here.
The Norwegians did it on purpose.
The Norwegians just made a boo boo because they didn't know any better.
(My math was never so great either :-) )
Simple.
Of course it all works out the same. Their results will require
considerable monitoring which your organization and others are doing.
You wrote:
>
>This can only be described as being properly cautious under the
>circumstances.
Yes. Absolutely. I got a question though. Are the Japanese scientific
expeditions at a hundred bucks a pound also receiving such intense
scrutiny?
You wrote:
>We look forward to the IWC meeting this year and the possiblity of
>stock estimates for minke whales that can be agreed upon by all
>concerned.
I will actually look forward to this as well. But I have become more
fascinated in Japan adding another 100 whales for its scientific work.
My own focus is turning in their direction.
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
In article <Simen.Gaure-02...@mattemac1.uio.no>,
Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
that I (Ursula Keuper-Bennett) wrote:
>
> It's worth noting that the errors in the Norwegian stock estimates
> were discovered by scientists funded by "anti-whaling organizations,"
> not by the Norwegian researchers. Left to Norwegian researchers it
is
> highly unlikely, in my opinion, that the errors would have been
> discovered.
>
> The questions about Norwegian integrity were raised, quite properly,
> because it took so long, for reasons that were never adequately
> explained, for the Norwegian researchers to release their data and
> methodology to independent analysis, a standard scientific practice
--
> this after they successful persuaded the IWC Scientific Committee to
> accept their conclusions without independent review.
>
> As the Norwegian conclusions turned out to be incorrect and they were
> used to scientifically justify the take levels of minke whales by the
> Norwegian whaling fleet, [...]
>
> Also as the Norwegian methodology was seriously flawed (again
revealed
> by scientists funded by an environmental organization), in favor of
> higher population figures, independent researchers were required to
> participate in the basic data collection for the 1995 survey.
Hey Simen! I didn't write that stuff. Stepen Best did in response to
something *I* wrote. You will need to go back and check the old
threads.
You paid me a HUGE compliment though. At this point I am just not
informed enough to cough up the above statements. But thank you for
thinking I was capable of them.
Regards
Simen Gaure
Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
> Left to Norwegian researchers it is
> highly unlikely, in my opinion, that the errors would have been
> discovered.
>
>Hmm, why do you think so?
No doubt for the same reasons you are suspicious of and have a lack
confidence in IFAW funded research. In both cases, the funder and
employer of the researchers has a clear political objective which it
hopes the science will support.
Hmm. It's new to me that the University of Oslo has a clear political
objective. There's a big difference between the researchers funded
by the Norwegian Government and researchers funded by IFAW.
IFAW specifies which scientific methods to use (cf. the PINRO story
I submitted a couple of days ago) while the Norwegian Government
at most specifies the field in which to conduct resarch.
I can imagine the riot in the faculty board should the
Norwegian Government try to meddle with the methods used.
For decent scientists it's not acceptable that the funder
meddles with the methods, the method is the responsibility
of the researcher, not the funder. That's the big difference.
>Do you know anything else about these
>Norwegian researchers than what you have heard from anti-whaling
>organizations? (Which have every reason to claim Norwegian
>reserachers are deliberately introducing errors in their research.)
>
"Deliberately introducing errors" is a stronger term than I would use,
but I have no doubt that given the policies of the funders of their
work, and the fact that funders of research tend to hire scientists
who are sympathetic to their policies, there may be a natural and
innocent tendency or bias to interpret data, use models, and
incorporate assumptions that will tend to support the hoped for
outcome.
Rather than general opinions you should come up with something
specific in this case. I.e. something which indicates that
the errors were not just errors. You're making very serious
concrete accusations, you should have something more than general
views.
I believe that this concern is one raised or at least
implied by you and others who are sympathetic in favor of whaling
about scientists employed by and research conducted by environmental
organizations.
I have never raised such a concern. I have pointed out that
IFAW is willing to meddle directly with the science, i.e. that
they want to control which scientific methods should be used.
IFAW qua funder does not have the competence to do this,
it should be left to the scientist. Anything else is
highly inappropriate.
>Have you checked this with
>the IWC sci.comm. or are you relying on statements from anti-whaling
>organizations which have every reason to claim this was the case?
Are you saying that the pertinent information and data was made
available by the Norwegian researchers in or prior to 1992 and that
the information being disseminated about not making it available is
untrue? The fact is that the data and information necessary to
corroborate the Norwegian abundance estimates was not made available
to the Scientific Committee for the 1992 meeting and did not become
available until 1995. Why the three year delay?
Until fall 1994, I believe. Though I'm uncertain when the sci.comm.
requested it. Perhaps you know?
The bottom line, however, is that, as the IWC pointed out, in part, in
1995 "Resolution of Northeastern Atlantic Minke Whales,"
"1. The process followed by the Committee when accepting the abundance
estimate at its 1992 meeting was not satisfactory. An important
factor arising out of the experience of the last two years is that the
Committee is developing procedures to minimise the likelihood that
similar mistakes happen in the future.
So, we have a statement from IWC: "the process followed by the
*Committee* [...] was not satisfactory." And you conclude:
The Norwegian researchers and the Norwegian government representatives
caused at the 1992 meeting the Scientific Committee to accept
abundance estimates that were not valid.
You're misrepresenting the resolution. It says the scientific
committee, not the Norwegian scientists nor representatives,
failed to follow appropriate procedures. You should blame
the sci.comm., not the Norwegian researchers.
Simen Gaure
In article <4m8iqh$fm8...@net7b.io.org>, how...@io.org (Ursula
Keuper-Bennett) wrote:
Still don't know much about Norwegian whaling but I do know this. 400
is about double 232 which is Norway's quota.
The Norwegian quota will be at least 360 this year, according
to a news release.
From
<http://wwwt.forum.no/scripts/dbml.exe?Template=/cfpro/hna/news/viewnews.dbm>
<QUOTE>
24. April 96: On April 12, the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries announced
that the quota for the 1996 minke whale harvest will be set to at least
360 minkes, reports the Norwegian Telegram Agency, NTB. This means that
the Norwegian authorities are confident that the new minke whale stock
estimate based on counting surveys carried out during the summer of 1995,
will be higher than the estimate based on the 1988/89 surveys which
amounted to 86,700 minkes.
The estimate based on the 1995 counts will be compiled by an international
research group appointed by the International Whaling Commission (IWC)
Scientific Commitee, and will be submitted to the Scientific Committee for
approval when it meets in early June. The estimate will not be announced
until the Scientific Committee report is published on June 24. The
Norwegian authorities, however, will set the 1996 quota when the
international research group has completed its work in late April or early
May. The harvest will commence on May 20. The best season for minke
whaling in Norwegian waters is may and june.
In response to the error in the computer programme used to calculate the
estimates that was discovered early last year, the international research
group will also submit a revised estimate based on the 1988/89 counts.
The error had led to the estimate being set too high.The 1995 quota was
originally set to 301 minkes, the same as in 1994, but was reduced to 232
after the error had been detected.
The IWC has introduced a general ban on the commercial harvest of whales,
but pursuant to the Commission's own regulations, Norway lodged a
reservation against the ban and is therefore legally able to set its own
quotas. Even so, the Norwegian authorities have opted to base their quota
calculations on the IWC stock estimate and new quota calculation model
(recommended by the Commission in 1994).
<END QUOTE>
I have just ONE BIG QUESTION at this point. How come we don't have a
JAPANESE WHALING thread? (I think I know why but I would be interested
in the input of others first)
There's a web-site on Japanese whaling at
<http://www.a-web.co.jp/~golgo13/whale.html>
Simen Gaure
In article <4m8jf6$fm8...@net7b.io.org>, how...@io.org (Ursula
Keuper-Bennett) wrote:
In article <Simen.Gaure-30...@mattemac1.uio.no>,
Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
>The way they disguise their scientists as
>"independent" (e.g. David Lavigne and his IFAW affilated
>research facility, IMMA) is highly unethical.
>(You have yourself described IMMA as an independent research
> facility.)
See Simen? This is what I meant. You, yourself are implying some
scientists can't be objective about this thing. You are just use the
word "independent" and "highly unethical".
In the case of the IFAW funded IMMA, I not only imply. I know, because I've
caught them in deliberately misrepresenting science, and David Lavigne
has spread rumours which he can't substantiate to the EU Parliament.
I wrote a piece on this a couple of months ago.
I've posted it before, I'll post it again.
<QUOTE>
A lie is born (Ammonites and Moabites)
=======================================
As described in "Super Whales" by Arne Kalland (11 Essays on Whales
and Man, High North Alliance 1994), the creative construction
of myths is important in some areas of modern animal protectionism.
During the fall of 1995 I witnessed the early stages of a
myth creation. Unfortunately I wasn't aware of it then, but here's
the story.
August 25, 1995: Volume 269 of the scientific journal "Science" hits
the streets. On pages 1106--1108 it contains an article with the title
"Population Dynamics of Exploited Fish Stocks at Low Population Levels"
by Ransom Myers et al.
The article investigates a particular phenomenon in fish stocks known
as "depensation". Normally, if a natural population of animals is reduced
for some (external) reason, the reproductive success of each individual is
not affected, or increases. This means that the population will be
able to recover to its previous size should the reason for the decline
disappear.
Depensation is when this fails, i.e. when the reproductive success
declines when the population is reduced. This can be disastrous for the
population's ability to recover.
The article concludes that depensation is not a big problem, i.e. that
fish stocks depleted by overfishing generally have the *potential* for recovery
once the overfishing ceases. However, the article says nothing about
the speed of recovery, nor about factors affecting the speed,
simply because the methods they use don't convey such information.
So far, so good.
There's nothing mystical, mythical or anecdotal about this.
However, the myth's created in a particular context.
Cod stocks in Newfoundland have been severely depleted by overfishing.
All fishing has now been stopped. An alternative to fishing is
to hunt seals for food and fur, and Newfoundlanders do this,
as they have done for a very long time.
(See e.g. <http://www.ncr.dfo.ca/communic/seals/understa/under_e.htm> )
It is known that seals are preying on the depleted
cod populations. The seal population is growing.
It is feared that a growing seal population may slow down
the recovery of the overfished cod stocks. Currently
this has not been fully investigated, so little concrete is known about it.
Research is going on to get a better understanding of the ecological
interactions in the area.
This scientific vacuum can be filled with speculations.
How can the article described above be utilized by the
merchants of science? The following is an example.
September 8: Opportunists have chewed on the Science article mentioned
above for a fortnight or so, and found that it can be used in their
struggle to bring an end to the Canadian seal hunt. Animal welfare groups
which oppose seal hunt on ethical grounds now have concocted an interpretation
of the article to counter the contention that seals may slow down
recovery of depleted fish stocks. And, at the same time, they manage to
cast doubt on all possible future findings supporting such a theory.
The Vice President of the "International Wildlife Coalition" (IWC) in the
Internet newsgroup sci.environment:
"The paper "Population Dynamics..." is evidence that the equation
'less seals = more cod' is probably not valid, despite its obvious
appeal to many. The researchers examined two questions. Do low
population levels prevent recovery of depleted fish stocks? And does
a large number of predators prevent populations from rebounding?
Predators, in this case, means the whole range of predators from
seabirds, to seals and other marine mammals, to other fish species.
The researchers [...] could not conclude that
either low population numbers or the presence of predators prevented
or inhibited the recovery of a stock. [...]
Clearly, the best evidence to date suggests that an increased cull of
seals (or any other predator of cod) is not necessary to hasten the
recovery of the cod stocks."
At that time I had not read the article, nor am I an expert in this field,
so I asked the VP how the authors explain why reduction of human fishing
would hasten the cod recovery, while reduction of other predation has no
such effect. Insult was the response.
The following week more people questioned the VP's interpretation.
September 16: The VP responds
"We also checked this interpretation out with the International Marine
Mammal Association in Guelph Ontario. This is Dr. David Lavigne's, a
University of Guelph professor and one of the world's leading marine
mammal experts and recognized as the authority on harp seals, independent
research facility."
Here we have something. An independent research facility,
leading experts, an authority and all.
For those who know more than the average it is known that IMMA is far from
being an independent research facility: IMMA is an affiliate of IFAW, the
International Fund for Animal Welfare, and IFAW is IMMA's primary funder.
IFAW has been profiting on anti-sealing campaigns for 20 years and brag
about being responsible for the European Union's ban on the importation of
seal products. Thus, IWC's use of IMMA in animal welfare issues
has been figuratively described in ancient jewish literature (Genesis 19:31-36).
However, I didn't know about IMMA's connection with IFAW at
that time, so my alarm bells didn't ring (nor any other of my bells for
that matter.)
Anyway, I got entangled in other, more interesting work.
A couple of months later, encouraged by a marine biologist who had
followed the debate, I finally got around to read the Science article. I
had forgotten IMMA, instead I consulted fishery biologists who were not
funded by IFAW.
I found that IWC does not have any foundation for their interpretation.
The article doesn't deal with the rate of recovery of fish stocks, only
with their theoretical potential for recovery. Another point is that
the presence of depensation is a serious sign that something is wrong, but
the lack of depensation doesn't necessarily mean that all is well.
That is, the erroneous interpretation is a case of the classical
logical fallacy termed "affirming the consequent", or "reversing the
arrow" as we loosely say in my field.
I told IWC about their misinterpretation in a private letter.
They responded with insult. I posted my criticism to the
same forum where the original interpretation appeared. No response.
I took a break from all this, and reviewed the discussion so far.
Then I looked at what IMMA presents. It transpired that they have released
a Technical Briefing called "Seals, cod, ecology and mythology" in which
it is written
"[...] the prestigious journal
Science published a study [...] in which it
is concluded that predators (including seals) generally play no
discernible role in the population dynamics of recovering fish stocks
(including cod) (Myers, et al. 1995)."
January 1996:
I write privately to the author and explain to him that his interpretation
is wrong, to accentuate this I point him to a contradiction in his own
report, namely that he also claims that seals may have a positive impact
due to them preying on predators of cod. That is, he both claims that
predators (seals in particular) have no impact and that there may be other
predators (fish?) which have an impact. Insult ensues.
I decide to go public with my criticism, the only question is how and
where. Then, in January, Georg Blichfeldt of the High North Alliance sends
an enquiry (January 27) to the electronic mailing list of the world's
marine mammal scientists, MARMAM. Mr. Blichfeldt has attended a European
Parliamentary hearing where Dr. Lavigne of IMMA/IFAW among other things
has suggested that a reason for the slow recovery of Newfoundland cod isn't
seals, but rather that cod are cannibals, i.e. that cod preying on cod
slows down cod recovery, and that seals, by eating cannibalistic cod
actually help the cod population to recover. Blichfeldt wants to know
whether anybody can shed some light on this novel theory of Lavigne's.
Unfortunately I can not, but I point MARMAM readers to the contradiction
that IMMA already wants us to believe that predators play no role, so they
can't logically claim that some predators actually do play a role. IMMA
responds in a non-material way, but they confirm that IFAW is their
primary funder. I repeat my criticism in different words
(February 16), detailing what is wrong with their interpretation of the
Science article, hoping they will respond so that we can have
a debate.
This time there's no response. No insult, no nothing.
I don't know whether this is the end of the story, I hope so, but I fear
that too many people have already read IMMA's misrepresentation and copied
it, because they trusted IMMA. As far as I've seen, IMMA has done
nothing to alleviate the situation. The Technical Briefing 95-01 "Seals,
cod, ecology and mythology" is still available unaltered from IMMA.
I've seen statements linking "a recent article in Science by Myers et al"
to the seal/cod discussion several places, and I expect to see it in more
places in the future. I wonder how many people will take this interpretation
as the truth, and what they will think if, after thorough examination of
the seal/cod interaction, it turns out that seals do indeed have an impact.
Who will be accused of cheating?
Whenever you see a reference to an article by Myers et al in Science,
August 1995, which purportedly shows that seals have no effect on cod
populations, you now know that this interpretation is an anecdote, and you
know how and where the anecdote originated.
I'm interested in tracing how this anecdote spreads, so if you come
across it, please drop me a letter stating when and where you found it.
Incidentally, you also know that Dr. David Lavigne's independent
research facility, the International Marine Mammal Association isn't
independent at all, but rather very dependent upon the money from
an advocacy group by the name of the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
The fate of Lavigne's cannibal theory is also open, IMMA didn't respond
to Blichfeldt's enquiry. Nor did anybody else.
Oslo, March 7, 1996
Simen Gaure <Simen...@math.uio.no>
<END QUOTE>
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
In article <3188c4f...@news.inforamp.net>,
sb...@inforamp.net (Stephen Best) wrote:
>The Norwegian researchers and the Norwegian government representatives
>caused at the 1992 meeting the Scientific Committee to accept
>abundance estimates that were not valid. Had the Norwegian
>researchers followed normally accepted scientific practices and made
>their data available for the Scientific Committee and other
>scientists, the errors would have been discovered.
By this is it fair for me to assume that if not for the vigilance of
Greenpeace, IFAW and other environmental groups, those bogus estimates
would still be in place and take correspondingly too high?
>
>It is legitimate and useful, given the policy objectives of the
>Norwegian Government, to raise questions about the integrity of the
>science being performed. Just as it is legitimate for you to raise
>questions, as you have, about the research being conducted or funded
>by Greenpeace, IFAW and other environmental groups. Should not all
>science be subjected to equal scrutiny or are there to be different
>standards of scrutiny applied to different groups?
I am a new member of the mailing list SCIFRAUD. Judging from the
enthusiastic and revealing messages generated in there, numerous
examples exist of "scientists" fudging stats or just bungling stats for
an impressive number of reasons (career advancement, continued funding,
career advancement, continued funding, ca...)
I am a layperson but I do know this about good science. Good science is
conducted by knowledgeable researchers who conduct themselves in an
exemplary manner and who will welcome any review of their data and
conclusions because they're got nothing to hide and they did their best.
Reluctance/delay in revealing data/stats, blowing smoke, bluster about
being called to question all would be signs to me, somebody's armpit
deep in it.
Two strong paragraphs you just coughed up, Stephen.
Best regards
Leif Roar Moldskred
Ursula Keuper-Bennett wrote:
> Went to the tirpitz site and found it interesting that whales are hard
> to see when the ocean is rough. I DEFINITELY know that from
> experience
> with turtles but was surprised that whales would be difficult to spot.
Minke whales aren't all that big, and as they only surface for a couple
of seconds at a time and because the only part of the body that is above
water is part of their back, they can be difficult to spot in _calm_
waters.
> >Japan has a stiff quota, not accepted by the IWC.
>
> Stiff quota? According the tirpitz site they're upping it to 400 just
> like that and of course it's for scientific purposes only then the
Scientific whaling does not come in under the IWC charter - and a quota
of 400 is certainly far below what the NMP (the, yet to be adopted, new
management procedure developed by the IWC sci. committe) would allow
from the southern stocks.
> "meat from protected whales was openly sold in South Korea and Japan at
> prices of up to $100 a pound." (tirpitz)
While the scientific _whaling_ isn't covered by the IWC charter is - the
_products_ of it is. The IWC charter actually demands that meat from
scientific whaling goes to the commercial market.
> Must have some MAJOR scientific programme going down this year to up
> their quota to some 400 animals...
Yes, it is likely that these "scientific" programs of Japan might be, at
least in part, fueled by commercial and/or political interests rather
than scientific.
>
> Still don't know much about Norwegian whaling but I do know this. 400
> is about double 232 which is Norway's quota. Norway is at least up
> front about stuff and says it is for their coastal communities. Japan
> will increase their take this year (what?) by 25% because of its intense
> scientific interest in these animals at $100.00 a pound.
Japan also have extensive _cultural_ interests in whaling and
whale-meat. (I suggest the book "Japanese whaling - end to an era?"
which is most informative.)
> I have just ONE BIG QUESTION at this point. How come we don't have a
> JAPANESE WHALING thread? (I think I know why but I would be interested
> in the input of others first)
Probarly because we have more Norwegians than Japanese in this
newsgroup. And perhaps becase Norwegian whaling have been given more
attention by animal right's organisations than Japanese.
We do, however, often discuss Japanese whaling, US whaling and whaling
in general hereabouts.
Leif Roar Moldskred
Simen Gaure
In article <318A22...@stud.unit.no>, Leif Roar Moldskred
<le...@stud.unit.no> wrote:
Scientific whaling does not come in under the IWC charter - and a quota
of 400 is certainly far below what the NMP (the, yet to be adopted, new
management procedure developed by the IWC sci. committe) would allow
from the southern stocks.
You're out of date (and out of TLA's (three letter abbrevs)).
The NMP was the management procedure prior to the RMP.
The IWC has now adopted the RMP, it was done last year.
The RMP has still not replaced the moratorium, against
the recommendations of the scientific committee.
Simen Gaure
A couple of things I forgot to comment on.
In article <318606f3...@news.inforamp.net>, sb...@inforamp.net wrote:
David Lavigne and IMMA have never obscured the fact that they are
funded in part by IFAW.
Not true.
- IMMA's web page doesn't say where their money comes from.
- David Lavigne, when writing about IFAW issues for
BBC Wildlife doesn't say that he works for IFAW.
- David Lavigne doesn't even think this is relevant.
See e.g. his letter to BBC Wildlife, April 1996.
- David Lavigne, when speaking in the EU Parliament
fails to mention that his IMMA is a subsidiary of
IFAW.
- New Scientist, March 16, 1996 has a cover story
where David Lavigne is presented as a "seal biologist"
and "professor at the U of Guelph",
while his employee Peter Meisenheimer in IMMA is correctly
presented as an IMMA employee. Surely, Lavigne ought to have had
some influence on how he was presented, don't you think?
All this is obscuring the fact IFAW is IMMA's primary
funder. And that IMMA is in fact an affiliate of IFAW.
In fact, one of the IFAW directors acts as chief executive
officer of IMMA. That's the "independent" IMMA of which
David Lavigne is a director.
And I can also tell you that IFAW has never
interfered with the integrity of the work of IMMA, Justin Cooke,
Sydney Holt, etc. or of any other scientist.
IFAW would no doubt cut the funding should the scientists
decide that lethal research was necessary. This is a consequence
of IFAW's policy of only funding non-lethal research.
That is, the scientists funded by IFAW doesn't have the
freedom to choose which method to use.
I.e. it's puppet science.
[...] Furthermore, scientists funded by IFAW are for more
independent than any government or industry scientists working on
marine mammal issues, because IFAW never censors the work they are
doing.
That's probably not needed, it's reason to believe that IFAW
would cut the funding should the scientists choose to use
a scientific method not accepted by IFAW.
Few governments would dare to interfer this directly with the
science they fund.
Stephen Best
Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
>Few governments would dare to interfer this directly with the
>science they fund.
>
It's difficult to conceive of a more hopelessly naive statement than
the above.
For an excellent case study of exactly how and why governments
interfere in science and, in particular, fisheries management, I would
recommend Finlayson, A.C., "Fishing for Truth: A Sociological Analysis
of Cod Stock Assessments from 1977-1990, Institute of Social and
Economic Research Books, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St.
John's, Newfoundland, 1994 and Myers, O., "Democracy or Bureaucracy:
Fisheries at the Crossroads," Fisheries and Marine Policies Review,
Vol 2, No 1, St. John's, Spring, 1993. Or read this this months issue
of "The Ecologist."
These are Canadian case studies. And you may well choose -- and will
likely choose -- to believe that nothing like it happens in Norway.
As I say, that is the definition of naive.
Stephen Best
Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
>A couple of things I forgot to comment on.
>
>In article <318606f3...@news.inforamp.net>, sb...@inforamp.net wrote:
>
> David Lavigne and IMMA have never obscured the fact that they are
> funded in part by IFAW.
>
>Not true.
>
>- IMMA's web page doesn't say where their money comes from.
>- David Lavigne, when writing about IFAW issues for
> BBC Wildlife doesn't say that he works for IFAW.
... and more.
Well it would appear that if Lavigne is trying to obscure IFAW's
funding of IMMA, then he isn't doing a very good job. The evidence
being that you know all about his funding sources.
Do you not detect a lack of basic internal logic here?
Dave Wheeler
-=> Quoting Stephen Best to All <=-
SB> From: sb...@inforamp.net (Stephen Best)
SB> Newsgroups: talk.environment
SB> Subject: Re: Norwegian whaling question or two
SB> Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
> Left to Norwegian researchers it is
> highly unlikely, in my opinion, that the errors would have been
> discovered.
>
>Hmm, why do you think so?
Stephen Best replied:
SB> No doubt for the same reasons you are suspicious of and have a lack
SB> confidence in IFAW funded research. In both cases, the funder and
SB> employer of the researchers has a clear political objective which it
SB> hopes the science will support.
Of course, it was Mr. Best's point that the anti-whaling
scientists pointed out errors in the Norwegian estimates.
Despite the funding of the anti-whaling scientists, they
discovered significant errors in the "work" of the
Norwegian biostitutes.
Mr. Gaure is just ignoring what Mr. Best wrote, and engaging
in bald denial.
>Do you know anything else about these
>Norwegian researchers than what you have heard from anti-whaling
>organizations? (Which have every reason to claim Norwegian
>reserachers are deliberately introducing errors in their research.)
SB> "Deliberately introducing errors" is a stronger term than I would use,
SB> but I have no doubt that given the policies of the funders of their
SB> work, and the fact that funders of research tend to hire scientists
SB> who are sympathetic to their policies, there may be a natural and
SB> innocent tendency or bias to interpret data, use models, and
SB> incorporate assumptions that will tend to support the hoped for
SB> outcome. I believe that this concern is one raised or at least
SB> implied by you and others who are sympathetic in favor of whaling
SB> about scientists employed by and research conducted by environmental
SB> organizations.
Note here that Mr. Gaure distorts Mr. Best's position and then
asks him to defend the distortion.
Enough of Mr. Gaure's distortion and denial for today.
[snip]
... Real men do not defend seal and whale killers.
Dave Wheeler
-=> Quoting Ursula Keuper-Bennett to All <=-
UK> From: how...@io.org (Ursula Keuper-Bennett)
UK> Newsgroups: talk.environment
UK> Subject: Re: Norwegian whaling question or two
UK> Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
>
>You're making very serious allegations against
>an international group of scientists.
>
>The time has come for you to put up or shut up.
>Please be specific about what's wrong with the RMP
>and/or the abundance estimates. Or shut up.
>You should preferably present your objections to
>the scientific committee also.
Ms. Keuper-Bennett responded:
UK> Come ON, Simen. This Norwegian whaling thing is a sideline for me. I
UK> got to CARE before I would bother with a scientific committee are you
UK> kidding? Besides, I know scientific committees, they treat laypeople
UK> with contempt. If you are lucky, they patronize you.
I wouldn't worry too much about Mr. Gaure's insult and denial
if I was Ms. Keuper-Bennett.
Mr. Gaure is a notorius liar and insult, distortion and denial
are his tactics.
Here is a sample:
SG>From: Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure)
SG>Newsgroups: talk.environment
SG>Date: Fri, 09 Jun 1995 11:37:59 +0100
SG> SG>Mr. Wheeler, as a lawyer you have worked for an animal rights
SG> SG>group known to spread lies (yes, again I will document that
SG> SG>upon request).
SG> Please do so. You are incorrect.
SG>Ok, I only have your word it. You have previously said you
SG>have assisted the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in legal issues,
SG>that is, you have worked for them.
I didn't say I have assisted the SSCS in legal issues.
You said that. You said you would document on request. I
requested. You didn't document. Why not?
Were you lying?
Worse, were you lying while accusing someone of lying? <G>
Do you often lie to make a point? It seems you did this time.
Of course, all you have to do is post the documentation you
promised. Right. Sure. ROFLMAO!
SG>That is, Sea Shepherd has spread lies. You have worked for them.
Nope. Now you said it twice. Prove it or you have
demonstrated that you will lie to make your point, even to the
extent of promising non-existent documentation.
SG>You are making a fool of yourself Dave.
Everybody is a critic. <G>
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
In attempting to refute an argument against whale-killing, Simen
Gaure wrote that I have represented and assisted the Sea
Shepherd Conservation Society as their lawyer. He said he would
document on request. I have requested. He has no documentation
because he is wrong.
Despite the fact that I have informed Mr. Gaure that his
statement is not correct and have requested his promised
documentation, he continues to publish the statement and has
failed to provide any documentation.
Mr. Gaure's statement is false. I have never represented or
assisted the Sea Shepherd Conservation society as a lawyer. [ I
have never given them money, either, although I will for the
libels on Capt. Watson, but that's another issue.]
Since he has promised documentation of a statement I never
made, and will not provide it or retract his statement, Mr.
Gaure is a proven liar.
Any of his posts should be taken in that light.
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
Questions from the tirpitz site.
This is one of the tirpitz paragraphs I didn't quite understand:
[quote begins]
Many will probably maintain that Norway gets little in return for the
next highest membership fee in the IWC - 540000 crowns (approx $75000).
A cold comfort is that the nation paying the highest fee - Japan - which
annually pays 740000 crowns, gets even less: an annually repeated
application for quotas for four small coastal communities in the
north-eastern part of the country has been flatly denied by the IWC!
[quote ends]
The way I figure it $75 000 divided by 232 whales is $323.28 a whale.
I wanted to see if the comment about the Japanese paying even more was
correct.
740 000 crowns is about $102 778.00. The Japanese are grabbing 400
whales and that works about to $256.95 a whale.
Each of THEIR whales are $66.33 cheaper!
Conclusion: Antarctic sanctuary whales are cheaper if you up your
quota from 300 to 400.
(Simen, you're the math guy. Please verify my arithmetc on this one.)
I don't need verification of my conclusion though...
Best regards,
Anders Jelmert
On Fri, 03 May 1996 20:27:03 GMT
Stephen Best wrote:
>
> Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
>
> >Few governments would dare to interfer this directly with the
> >science they fund.
> >
>
> It's difficult to conceive of a more hopelessly naive statement than
> the above.
It is obvious that governments have a major influence on the scientific
community by allocating funds to different sectors based on political
priorities. This is trivial, and I guess we agrees on that.
But it's is a far cry from this to a direct innterference with the methodolgy,
what conclusions that should be drawn from the data etc. which it may seems
you are indicating.
> For an excellent case study of exactly how and why governments
> interfere in science and, in particular, fisheries management, I would
> recommend Finlayson, A.C., "Fishing for Truth: A Sociological Analysis
> of Cod Stock Assessments from 1977-1990, Institute of Social and
> Economic Research Books, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St.
> John's, Newfoundland, 1994 and Myers, O., "Democracy or Bureaucracy:
> Fisheries at the Crossroads," Fisheries and Marine Policies Review,
> Vol 2, No 1, St. John's, Spring, 1993. Or read this this months issue
> of "The Ecologist."
I must admit that some of your Canadian sources are somewhat remote
for me. I will however try to return more specificly when I've
got myself a copy of The Ecologist.
> These are Canadian case studies. And you may well choose -- and will
> likely choose -- to believe that nothing like it happens in Norway.
> As I say, that is the definition of naive.
Mr. Best, if you had demonstrated some understanding of the how,
whom and why's in fisheries management, your remark would have been
rather insulting, at least to the employees at the Institute of
Marine Research. IMR is owned by the Fisheries Department, who
gives the laws and by-laws for the fisheries in Norway.
However, to give you a chance to be truly insulting in the future :-),
let me inform you how fisheries management is accomplished in Norway.
It is my collegues at IMR i Bergen who do the stock asessment for the
majority of fish stocks and for marine mammals.
(The asessment of a few Norhtern stocks have been allocated to
The Institute of Fisheries Research i Tromsø.)
The goals for the stock asessment is simply to give the most accurate
estimate for the different stocks, including age composision, current
growth, discernable interactions with other stocks, etc.
Based on these estimates, and on current understanding of the biology
of the species, the scientists then gives advice on catch quotas.
The objective for these advices is to ensure MSY, which means Maximum
Sustainable Yield (equivalent to Long-Term Potential Yield).
The scientists also usually states the probable consequences if the
quotas are exceeded.
The results from the annual surveys are regulary presented and discussed
with scientists from other countries at ICES, the International Council for
Exploration of the Sea. Simultaneously, methodological improvements etc.
is discussed and eventually implemented.
Based on the scientific advice from IMR, and implementing other, completely
different judgements(e.g. community development), THE FISHERIES DIRECTORATE
will determine the quota for the different stocks.
These quotas may again be adjusted, when international negotiations
on the division of qoutas between countries are finished.
In the Fisheries Directorate, there are numerous lawyers, economists etc,
i.e. bureaucrates, but few, if any scientists.
At the fisheries Directorate they are used to being bashed from both sides,
-from the fishermen who nearly always think they get too small quota,
-and from the scientists at IMR every time the adviced quota are superceeded.
Cassanders
Leif Roar Moldskred
Ursula Keuper-Bennett wrote:
> Simen, I had to quit the message at this point yesterday because we had
> thunder and lightning and I had to shut off the computer and disconnect
> the modem. Your Norwegian god of Getting Even must be looking mighty
> smug about now...
By the description, that would seem to be Tor up to his old tricks, but
I wouldn't be surprised if Loke was in on it as well.
Leif Roar Moldskred
Leif Roar Moldskred
Wasn't it a main point of the moratorium, when it was adopted, that it
would only be in place until the adoption of the RMP? I thought the
moratorium would be lifted automatically by the adoption of the RMP?
Leif Roar
David S. Eitelbach
In <1c8_960...@salata.com> dave.w...@salata.com (Dave Wheeler)
wrote:
> -=> Quoting Ursula Keuper-Bennett to All <=-
>
> UK> From: how...@io.org (Ursula Keuper-Bennett)
> UK> Newsgroups: talk.environment
> UK> Subject: Re: Norwegian whaling question or two
>
> UK> Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
> >
> >You're making very serious allegations against
> >an international group of scientists.
> >
> >The time has come for you to put up or shut up.
> >Please be specific about what's wrong with the RMP
> >and/or the abundance estimates. Or shut up.
> >You should preferably present your objections to
> >the scientific committee also.
>
> Ms. Keuper-Bennett responded:
>
> UK> Come ON, Simen. This Norwegian whaling thing is a sideline for me. I
> UK> got to CARE before I would bother with a scientific committee are you
> UK> kidding? Besides, I know scientific committees, they treat laypeople
> UK> with contempt. If you are lucky, they patronize you.
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about Mr. Gaure's insult and denial
> if I was Ms. Keuper-Bennett.
>
> Mr. Gaure is a notorius liar and insult, distortion and denial
> are his tactics.
>
> Here is a sample:
[...]
> I didn't say I have assisted the SSCS in legal issues.
> You said that. You said you would document on request. I
> requested. You didn't document. Why not?
>
> Were you lying?
>
> Worse, were you lying while accusing someone of lying? <G>
>
> Do you often lie to make a point? It seems you did this time.
Did he? Or did you?
See below.
--
David S. Eitelbach
dse...@crl.com
=============================================================
Path:
nntp.crl.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!dkuug!Norway.EU.net!oslo3.osl.mbs..no!Norway..EU..n
et!nntp.uio.no!ma-mac17.uio.no!user
From: Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Seals and fish
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 13:16:03 +0200
Organization: University of Oslo
Lines: 155
Message-ID: <Simen.Gaure-13...@ma-mac17.uio.no>
References: <b10_950...@salata.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ma-mac17.uio.no
In article <b10_950...@salata.com>, dave.w...@salata.com (Dave
Wheeler) wrote:
SG> [...] (Paul Watson has specialized
SG> in harassing fishermen for his own pleasure, see e.g.
SG> <http://envirolink.org/archives/seashep/0041.html>)
Well, I guess we have to consider the source.
Yes, let's do. It's a media release from the Sea Shepherd
Conservation Society:
"Captain Watson will appeal the
decision. He believes that the judge is wrong because he was not paid to
command the ship and the harassment of the Cubans was done for his
"pleasure"
which constitutes a proper use for a pleasure vessel."
[...]
Comments to the following below:
And let us not forget that Mr. Gaure is an unrepentent
liar:
Simen Gaure wrote:
SG> SG>Mr. Wheeler, as a lawyer you have worked for an animal rights
SG> SG>group known to spread lies (yes, again I will document that
SG> SG>upon request).
> Please do so. You are incorrect.
SG>Ok, I only have your word it. You have previously said you
SG>have assisted the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in legal issues,
SG>that is, you have worked for them.
I didn't say I have assisted the SSCS in legal issues.
You said that. You said you would document on request. I
requested. You didn't document. Why not?
Were you lying?
Worse, were you lying while accusing someone of lying? <G>
Do you often lie to make a point? It seems you did this time.
Of course, all you have to do is post the documentation you
promised. Right. Sure. ROFLMAO!
SG>That is, Sea Shepherd has spread lies. You have worked for them.
Nope. Now you said it twice. Prove it or you have
demonstrated that you will lie to make your point, even to the
extent of promising non-existent documentation.
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
In attempting to refute an argument against whale-killing, Simen
Gaure wrote that I have represented and assisted the Sea
Shepherd Conservation Society as their lawyer. He said he would
document on request. I have requested. He has no documentation
because he is wrong.
Despite the fact that I have informed Mr. Gaure that his
statement is not correct and have requested his promised
documentation, he continues to publish the statement and has
failed to provide any documentation.
Mr. Gaure's statement is false. I have never represented or
assisted the Sea Shepherd Conservation society as a lawyer. [ I
have never given them money, either, although I will for the
libels on Capt. Watson, but that's another issue.]
Since he has promised documentation of a statement I never
made, and will not provide it or retract his statement, Mr.
Gaure is a proven liar.
Any of his posts should be taken in that light.
SG>Mr. Wheeler, as a lawyer you have worked for an animal rights
SG>group known to spread lies (yes, again I will document that
SG>upon request).
Please do so. You are incorrect.
Let us try one more time:
1. I have not "as a lawyer...worked for an animal rights group
known to spread lies." I have not worked for any animal rights
group as a lawyer or otherwise. Your statement is incorrect.
2. I did not previously say and I have never "assisted the Sea
Shepherd Conservation Society in legal issues, that is I have"
NOT "worked for them." At all. In any capacity. Period.
Thus, you have now made two incorrect statements about my
non-relationship with SSCS.
3. You promised to document. You have not. You just
accuse without proof. Your deception in promising such proof
but not delivering is reminiscent of a US Senator named
McCarthy. It is an old and boring tactic.
Since you continue to accuse, insult and sidetrack, and
since you have refused to produce your promised documentation,
you are a *proven* liar.
Perhaps if you admit the error of your accusations, I won't
remind you of your false statements in every post. <G>
=================
The following is from the archives of Sam McClintock
(Sam.McC...@delta.com)
Read it carefully. Compare it to Mr. Wheeler's statements above.
****
>From a message on 12/7/94 to Doug Blakely:
DB>Tell me, Dave, what do you believe about this issue and how did you
DB>find out about it?
DW> I believe that the post was sloppy and biased.
DW> I found out about it because I have a client accused of sinking
DW> whaling ships.
****
>From a message on 12/20/94 to Sam McClintock:
SM>In several posts on this subject you have referred to yourself as a
SM>lawyer.
DW> California Bar number 101499.
SM> You also went as far as to refer to the Sea Shepherds as one of
SM>your "clients." However, when I contacted the Sea Shepherds they had
SM>record of you in the membership or in their volunteer pool of
SM>attorneys.
DW> I was consulted privately by one of the Sea Shepherds in
DW> reference to a visit from the FBI over the sinking of a whaling
DW> vessel in Norway. He was referred by a member of Earth First!
****
Again, a typical lawyer's trick. Present only your own evidence,
ignore whatever evidence others may have. Do you claim that
you never wrote what's in McClintock's archives? I.e. that he faked them?
If you need more documentation on the other statement, that Paul Watson
has spread lies, please contact me.
David S. Eitelbach
> I have never represented or
> assisted the Sea Shepherd Conservation society as a lawyer. [ I
> have never given them money, either, although I will for the
> libels on Capt. Watson, but that's another issue.]
Never given them money -- other than for the "libels"? Really, Dave?
From: dave.w...@salata.com (Dave Wheeler)
Date: 30 Jul 95 12:47:36
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Dirty Seal Pictures
Message-ID: <9a1_950...@salata.com>
"Needless to say, these seal killers are cowards and
sadistic bullies who don't deserve to live. I know I'd
like to meet one face-to-face, one-on-one for a little
personal revenge and justice. Since that isn't possible,
I'll just send another hundred dollars to SSCS."
Just send *another* hundred dollars to Sea Shepherds, eh?
...Real men don't tell lies.
--
David S. Eitelbach | "I'll just send another hundred dollars to SSCS"
dse...@crl.com | -- Dave Wheeler, July 30, 1995
Ursula Keuper-Bennett
>
>Yes, it is likely that these "scientific" programs of Japan might be,
at
>least in part, fueled by commercial and/or political interests rather
>than scientific.
No kidding... When you consider the claim that dead whales means you
can get right inside there and REALLY learn something, one might expect
the Japanese to cough up not only more scientific articles on the minke
whales, but to have the most world experts residing there, AND likely
spawn one or two scientific journals devoted EXCLUSIVELY to the minkes.
I loved the Japanese whaling site. Figured I'd get lots of scientific
stuff but only two or three topics down I saw whale meat recipes.
How AWFUL! How CYNICAL! How TYPICAL! You know, if I had to cast my
vote today I would be against whaling (Simen, Leif, I am sure you know
that) but at LEAST I give the Norwegians credit. They are OPEN about
why they whale.
"scientific" reasons... There's just one word to describe that.
Whattacrockawhaleturds!
Leif then wrote:
>Japan also have extensive _cultural_ interests in whaling and
>whale-meat. (I suggest the book "Japanese whaling - end to an era?"
>which is most informative.)
This whole cultural traditional thing doesn't wash with me. The U.S.
south had a "fine tradition" based on slavery. People were proud of
that and had the Net been around back then there would be plenty of
debate between slavery-ers and anti-slavery-ers.
In my own city of Toronto I found out that 50-60 years ago there was a
"fine tradition" that Jews were not welcome in some parts of the city.
That too was an accepted cultural way of life.
I won't accept the whaling is our tradition argument. Traditions CHANGE
and over time some traditions change so much because humans have GROWN
that we look back on them with abhorence.
I won't read about Japanese whaling traditions any more than I would
about whether whaling is inhumane. Neither are issues that go anywhere.
Leif wrote re. why there is no Japanese whaling thread.
>Probarly because we have more Norwegians than Japanese in this
>newsgroup. And perhaps becase Norwegian whaling have been given more
>attention by animal right's organisations than Japanese.
Reminds me of the Mighty Duck movie. I read about this. Seems they
needed a nasty bad guy team to play the Little Ducks in the movie. They
couldn't do the Soviets like in the "good ol' days" and they also didn't
want to offend them.
Seems like they had a tough time finding an appropriate bad guy team.
They finally decided on Iceland because and this is what the article
said, fewer people went to the movies there!
Seems like that here too. Again, I am just skimming the surface of this
whale thing, ok? But Japan is really forking a major raspberry to the
world community here when you think about it. One, they go with the
well, our scientific needs are 33% greater this year so we need another
100 more whales on top of the 300 we already cut up for science and sell
for a hundred bucks a pound.
And they do all that in a whale SANCTUARY for crying out loud!
I've been pondering on this and maybe Norway is a tad like Iceland in
the Mighty Ducks? Easier to get at YOU guys than the Land of Honda,
Toyota, Sony, Mitsubishi, Canon et al.
(Oh.. and Honda, Toyota, Sony, Mitsubishi et al do NOT refer to Japanese
scientists working on minke biology :-) )
Simen Gaure
Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
>A couple of things I forgot to comment on.
>
>In article <318606f3...@news.inforamp.net>, sb...@inforamp.net wrote:
>
> David Lavigne and IMMA have never obscured the fact that they are
> funded in part by IFAW.
>
>Not true.
>
>- IMMA's web page doesn't say where their money comes from.
>- David Lavigne, when writing about IFAW issues for
> BBC Wildlife doesn't say that he works for IFAW.
... and more.
Well it would appear that if Lavigne is trying to obscure IFAW's
funding of IMMA, then he isn't doing a very good job. The evidence
being that you know all about his funding sources.
I know it only because I've checked it out with the UK company
registry. IFAW UK is registered as a private company (*not* a charity)
with a special permit to not have "Ltd" added to its name
and is required to inform the company registry about their
monetary operations. However, they don't inform anybody
else about it.
Do you not detect a lack of basic internal logic here?
No. IFAW is not open about that David Lavigne is the director
of IMMA, an IFAW subsidiary, when IFAW refers to him in their
campaigns. They usually refer to him as a "Canadian scientist"
or a "U of Guelph professor". Similarly, Lavigne (and in general
IMMA) is not open about their affiliation when they comment
on aspects of IFAW's campaigns.
Stephen Best
Anders Jelmert <Anders....@auste.imr.no> wrote:
> let me inform you how fisheries management is accomplished in Norway.
>
... and much material about the quality of work done in Norway.
With sincere respect, this description of how work is done at the
Institute of Marine Research is precisely how each and every such
institute describes its work, including the Canadian Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. It is also what, I believe, the attending
researchers truly believe is happening.
However, every research group carries with it inherent biases, and
this is even more pronounced in areas of research directed at
commercial biological resources such as marine mammals, fish, and
other marine species, due to the inherent ambiguities and assumptions
in the models and methodologies.
The bias begins with the choice of research to be done, which
inherently creates an extreme bias, and the scientists and researchers
hired to work on the research.
For example, let's suppose the research question -- or rather
government policy -- was not to determine the MSY of a particular
species desired by commercial fishing operations, but rather to
restore the marine ecosystem to its pre-modern human diversity. With
this question, methods of research and analysis and intervention would
change dramatically, as would the backgrounds of those who would be
hired to work on the problem.
The same species and eco-system are being researched, but the change
of policy and bias would tend to change everything about how we would
view the system and study it and the kind of answers we would get.
As of now most fisheries scientists would assume that they could
create numbers to safely meet an MSY criteria in a multi-species
ecosystem. In other words, they feel they can advise commercial
interests and governments how to take the system apart safely. But
given that they don't know how to put it back together again, because
no one has asked them to do it, how can they presume that it can be
taken apart safely in the first place? Because their personal biases
and belief systems give them a faith in their abilities.
Simen Gaure
However, every research group carries with it inherent biases, and
this is even more pronounced in areas of research directed at
commercial biological resources such as marine mammals, fish, and
other marine species, due to the inherent ambiguities and assumptions
in the models and methodologies.
The bias begins with the choice of research to be done, which
inherently creates an extreme bias, and the scientists and researchers
hired to work on the research.
For example, let's suppose the research question -- or rather
government policy -- was not to determine the MSY of a particular
species desired by commercial fishing operations, but rather to
restore the marine ecosystem to its pre-modern human diversity. With
this question, methods of research and analysis and intervention would
change dramatically, as would the backgrounds of those who would be
hired to work on the problem.
This is an entirely different discussion than what we started with.
You have indicated that Norwegian scientists have used faulty
methods because they wanted to fulfill some political goal of their funder.
I.e. that the opinions of the funder have influenced not only the
area of research (and therefore the selection of scientists
working on it) but also the *quality* of the research.
That's a very serious allegation which you have still not substantiated.
Instead you now make general remarks which are variations
over the theme that scientists have very specialized fields
and interests.
(A side remark, please note that the word "bias" has at least two different
meanings. One is the regular meaning, the other is the technical
meaning in the field of statistics. If a scientist says that
a certain method may be "biased" (as has been the case with the
Norwegian whale research) it doesn't mean that he accuses anybody
of being biased, it's merely a technical statement about the method.)
The same species and eco-system are being researched, but the change
of policy and bias would tend to change everything about how we would
view the system and study it and the kind of answers we would get.
Clearly, the answers depend on the questions.
There's no doubt about that.
As of now most fisheries scientists would assume that they could
create numbers to safely meet an MSY criteria in a multi-species
ecosystem. In other words, they feel they can advise commercial
interests and governments how to take the system apart safely. But
given that they don't know how to put it back together again, because
no one has asked them to do it, how can they presume that it can be
taken apart safely in the first place? Because their personal biases
and belief systems give them a faith in their abilities.
I have some problems with this paragraph. I assume you mean
that the analysis of multi-species interactions is still not
advanced enough to predict every possible consequence of a
particular intervention. Surely, if such complete knowledge
should be required in natural science, every natural scientist
could as well give up his field of study and become a mathematician
or theologian. Almost all science, and political decisions based on it,
is on a "reasonably safe" basis, not "absolutely safe".
The latter concept doesn't exist in natural science.
The only way to resolve the problem you describe will be to
abandon science as a decision tool. The alternative is a purely
political decision process, I'm not entirely certain that is what
we want. Experience with e.g. political fishery quota bargaining
isn't very promising in that respect. The quotas tend to be
set way too high. If the quota authority doesn't have good
scientific backing, few forces may prevent overfishing.
I can understand your concern wrt to whaling since the science
in this case doesn't point your way, but in the majority of wildlife
management cases in this country, science is a factor limiting
the quotas in a bargaining process which faces tough demands
from fishermen and hunters. This is also the case with whaling.
Leif Roar Moldskred
Ursula Keuper-Bennett wrote:
> No kidding... When you consider the claim that dead whales means you
> can get right inside there and REALLY learn something,
Well, it's not all _that_ simple. A lot of the research is of a
statistical nature and needs a fairly large number of whales. I don't
have the numbers in my head right now, but the previous Norwegian
scientific whalings were for annual quotas of 100-200 animals. I don't
know much about the southern minke stocks, but I would hazard a guess
that a larger sample would be needed simply due to the larger area.
> one might expect
> the Japanese to cough up not only more scientific articles on the minke
> whales, but to have the most world experts residing there, AND likely
> spawn one or two scientific journals devoted EXCLUSIVELY to the minkes.
>
> I loved the Japanese whaling site. Figured I'd get lots of scientific
> stuff but only two or three topics down I saw whale meat recipes.
Well, a badly designed web site doesn't necessarily indicate that there
is nothing to be had.
>
> How AWFUL! How CYNICAL! How TYPICAL! You know, if I had to cast my
> vote today I would be against whaling (Simen, Leif, I am sure you know
> that) but at LEAST I give the Norwegians credit. They are OPEN about
> why they whale.
>
> "scientific" reasons... There's just one word to describe that.
>
> Whattacrockawhaleturds!
I don't agree with the Japanese way of handling the issue, but I still
support their decision to continue whaling. Quite frankly, Japan (as
well as Norway and Iceland) has taken a lot more crap about whaling then
they have handed out. The IWC has become an animal rights organisation,
discarding science for politcal power-games and publisity stunts. The
moratorium was never supposed to be permanent, wasn't needed in the
first place and should have been lifted years ago. When Japan lies and
calls their whaling scientific to get it out of the IWC's playground, I
don't like it - but I certainly do understand it.
Japan could just as well left the IWC and whaled to their heart's
content. Instead they've decided to be patient, take the crap and try to
form the IWC into a viable organisation to manage the resource and
control the whaling. If nothing else, I believe that dedication earns a
bit more respect than you are giving them.
> >Japan also have extensive _cultural_ interests in whaling and
> >whale-meat. (I suggest the book "Japanese whaling - end to an era?"
> >which is most informative.)
>
> This whole cultural traditional thing doesn't wash with me. The U.S.
> south had a "fine tradition" based on slavery. People were proud of
> that and had the Net been around back then there would be plenty of
> debate between slavery-ers and anti-slavery-ers.
>
> In my own city of Toronto I found out that 50-60 years ago there was a
> "fine tradition" that Jews were not welcome in some parts of the city.
> That too was an accepted cultural way of life.
The analogue to slavery and anti-semitism doesn't wash with me.
Traditions _do_ have values, but sometimes this value is insignificant
compared to other things - human rights as a good example. But I can't
accept that culture and tradition is generally waved away as a no-issue.
> I won't accept the whaling is our tradition argument. Traditions
> CHANGE
> and over time some traditions change so much because humans have GROWN
> that we look back on them with abhorence.
Sometimes. Other times we look back at what we have lost with feelings
from the other end of the spectrum.
> I won't read about Japanese whaling traditions any more than I would
> about whether whaling is inhumane. Neither are issues that go
> anywhere.
Not on their own, no. But they are both part of the greater picture and
neither should be neglected.
> Seems like that here too. Again, I am just skimming the surface of this
> whale thing, ok? But Japan is really forking a major raspberry to the
> world community here when you think about it. One, they go with the
> well, our scientific needs are 33% greater this year so we need another
> 100 more whales on top of the 300 we already cut up for science and sell
> for a hundred bucks a pound.
I doun't think that the Japanese whaling is performed mainly for
economic gains - at 400 whales pro anno, the gains are insignificant
compared to the potential damages from bad publisity etc. I would guess
that they are more concerned with keeping the know-how and skills alive
and preventing the tradition from dying out completly.
>
> And they do all that in a whale SANCTUARY for crying out loud!
The whale sancturay do _not_ encompass scientific whaling, is _not_ in
accordance with the IWC's own charter and has absolutely _no_ scientific
basis. This is a no-argument.
Leif R. Moldskred
Stephen Best
Simen...@math.uio.no (Simen Gaure) wrote:
>You have indicated that Norwegian scientists have used faulty
>methods because they wanted to fulfill some political goal of their funder.
>I.e. that the opinions of the funder have influenced not only the
>area of research (and therefore the selection of scientists
>working on it) but also the *quality* of the research.
>
First, you should re-read my 1 May posting; your first sentence above
is incorrect.
But, yes, I would be concerned that your "i.e" above is indeed correct
and for that reason data, methodologies, models, assumptions, etc.
should all be open to independent review and analysis and criticism by
qualified and/or interested people.
>That's a very serious allegation which you have still not substantiated.
>Instead you now make general remarks which are variations
>over the theme that scientists have very specialized fields
>and interests.
>
I am not accusing Norwegian scientists of a conspiracy to distort data
or engage in some form of malfeasance. I am simply recognizing that
they are human that they have careers, that they have personal
ambitions, that they have personal beliefs, and that they have been
retained or funded by an entity with a political policy which the
science produced will either support or not support.
I am also pointing out that the researchers were not chosen at random
by the funding agency, but were deliberately selected based on a
criteria established by the funding agency that would best serve its
needs.
If your boss -- or funder -- is hoping for a particular set of
conclusions, and you, the researcher, would be pleased also if those
conclusions could be found because you support the political policy
that's driving the research -- and having a happy boss is more
comfortable and personally beneficial than having an unhappy boss --
then the potential for bias is very really. Innocent though it may
be.
Also it's not lost on most scientists involved in biological resource
management research that it's often possible to find completely
ethical and respected researchers who can provide the conclusions
hoped for by the funder if the current researchers are not producing
the desired results.
That's why in biological resource management -- like medicine -- it's
always a good idea to get a second opinion and even a third opinion.
Anders Jelmert
Mon, 06 May 1996 12:26:43 GMT
>
> Anders Jelmert <Anders....@auste.imr.no> wrote:
>
> > let me inform you how fisheries management is accomplished in Norway.
> >
> ... and much material about the quality of work done in Norway.
>
> With sincere respect, this description of how work is done at the
> Institute of Marine Research is precisely how each and every such
> institute describes its work, including the Canadian Department of
> Fisheries and Oceans. It is also what, I believe, the attending
> researchers truly believe is happening.
Mr. Best, I have a feeling that you have not quite understood
why people become scientists in the first place. It's not
particulary well paid, it does not give much prestige.
-It is however fascinating, and gives you possibilities to
understand parts of the world around.
> However, every research group carries with it inherent biases,
As the word bias has multiple meanings, I would like you to be
more specific here.
> and this is even more pronounced in areas of research directed at
> commercial biological resources such as marine mammals, fish, and
> other marine species, due to the inherent ambiguities and assumptions
> in the models and methodologies.
I don't quite follow you on this. I can agree that there are
inherent factors in a research group, like assumptions
for the models, and methodology preferences (I could also add a
few others: Personalities, amount of funding, etc). which are
all contributing to how the group is functioning.
But could you please tell us why these factors should be particulary
pronounced when you are dealing with commercial biological
rescources?
And inherent ambiguities??? ..You mean methodological weaknesses?
> The bias begins with the choice of research to be done, which
> inherently creates an extreme bias, and the scientists and researchers
> hired to work on the research.
> For example, let's suppose the research question -- or rather
> government policy -- was not to determine the MSY of a particular
> species desired by commercial fishing operations, but rather to
> restore the marine ecosystem to its pre-modern human diversity.
For your information, the government policy is not to provide
MSY for the species desired by commercial fishermen, but to
assure that human activities, including fisheries don't injure
the function of marine ecosystems. This means that quota lower
than MSY might be allocated.
Unless your agenda is to close every utilization of the worlds
oceans, it might in fact not be all that much difference
between what you suggested as a policy, and what the government
might want.
One source of descepancy between reality an goals, will be the
trade-offs between biological optimal soloutions, and
other value-based decicions.
> With this question, methods of research and analysis and intervention
> would change dramatically, as would the backgrounds of those who would
> be hired to work on the problem.
Not necessary. I assume you are thinking on non-lethal research
-especially for your financial source: Marine mammals :-).
-Or are you really revolutionary and "visionary" here, -are you
suggesting non-lethal reseach for all the organisms in the sea??
> The same species and eco-system are being researched, but the change
> of policy and bias would tend to change everything about how we would
> view the system and study it and the kind of answers we would get.
>
> As of now most fisheries scientists would assume that they could
> create numbers to safely meet an MSY criteria in a multi-species
> ecosystem.
> In other words, they feel they can advise commercial
> interests and governments how to take the system apart safely. But
> given that they don't know how to put it back together again, because
> no one has asked them to do it, how can they presume that it can be
> taken apart safely in the first place? Because their personal biases
> and belief systems give them a faith in their abilities.
No scientists don't think so. The curse of fisheries science
has always been a rather high degree of incertainty.
The dicipline has definitely improved, but the non-deterministic
factors are so profound, that a 100% secure predicition is
impossible. Scientists will have to give their advises
with limits of accuracy, and this is usually stated.
But mind you, this does not mean that they don't have any knowledge
of what's going on.
Cassanders