Oh, dear, here I go again.
Abject apologies for the length.
Tyke said:
I compiled the data myself from such sources as are available on the Net.
My purpose was to achieve some understanding of who is killing what, and at what level so that I can try & understand more of this hugely complicated & emotive topic.
The population figures are clearly uncertain-hence the ranges. The Kills are, I believe up to date.
The problem lies, as it always does, in how statistics are used. On its face, it could look like the "minke whale population" is robust. However, as research is beginning to emerge about this species, it appears that there are multiple genetically and/or geographically discrete stocks in Antarctic waters alone, something not known prior to a few years ago and only now known because the IWC's Scientific Committee has undertaken long-term studies of this species under their SOWER (Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research) program (non-lethal research, I hasten to add). Also revealed through this research is that the total number of minke whales in this one area is far, far lower than Japanese "data" have shown. We have consistently heard in Japan's delegation materials and in the press that there are 760,000+ minkes in this part of the world, but the SciComm has said in at least two reports that the figure is "appreciably lower" and one year, its Chair said to me, off the record, that the estimate is "less than half" what is being promulgated by the Japanese delegation.
The latest info on IWC's website for this species says: "
The Commission is unable to provide reliable estimates at the present time. A major review is underway by the Scientific Committee." I have not read the SciComm report from the 2005 IWC meeting so do not know the specifics behind the wording on the website's population table.
(FYI, the IWC's Scientific Committee is comprised of scientists from both sides of the whaling aisle so their findings cannot be criticized for bias either way.)
Minke whales are also being hunted in Greenland by its Inuit peoples. In 2003, Greenland, and by extension Denmark (as Greenland is a cultural community in the Kingdom of Denmark), came under harsh criticism for not only the number of minke whales being taken but that they were being hunted on ground where 92% of the take were females, many of them pregnant. The SciComm in its 2003 report used the strongest possible language to express its concern for stocks about which very little is known and for which data are extremely difficult to obtain (weather being the most often cited reason). However, there has also been a dramatic drop in tissue samples (for genetic matching) submitted, from 110 in 1998 to a mere 30 in 2002. Yet during those same years hundreds of whales were killed, including orcas and belugas for which they are not granted a quota (Denmark claiming the IWC has "no competency" to manage small cetaceans). It was interesting to note that Greenland had no problem killing as many whales as they wished, yet could only provide 30 tissue samples!
Denmark came under additional criticism for changing its story about what was being done with all this whale meat. They said in the Working Group (the pre-Plenary meetings) the meat was sent to the mainland for "sick people in hospitals for traditional consumption" and in the Plenary said it was for "aboriginal children" going to school there. Denmark was also closely questioned about the trade in fin and minke whale bones and sperm whale teeth with Indonesia (it claimed no knowledge of such activity).
But I digress... So it's really impossible to empirically say "minke whales can be hunted because of how many there are" without qualification.
Tyke said:
My conclusion is the one I gave-the species appearing to be most impacted is the Bowhead, which is, I believe, endangered. It is being killed by Inuit peoples.
Any species or stock of whale that is a small fraction of what its pre-whaling numbers were is considered endangered. However, in the case of the bowhead, the two stocks being hunted by indigenous peoples have to be considered separately.
The Chukchi-Bering-Beaufort Sea stock (i.e., Alaska and Siberia) is estimated to be 10-14,000 animals, and the annual takes from this stock by Alaskan and Siberian Inuit are considered to be sustainable.
However, the eastern Canadian stocks, which I believe number two, which is causing all the controversy over being hunted, are estimated to be in the low hundreds from a pre-hunting estimated North Atlantic population of 22,000. Some pre-hunting estimates go as high as 90,000 based on commercial whale ship records. In any case, these two relict stocks of a once burgeoning population are considered highly endangered, particularly as the latest kill was an adult female thought to have been still nursing a calf. With a species as long-lived as the bowhead, the loss of one productive female can be catastrophic for that stock. (Estimates of bowhead age are from 115-200 years based on earplug examination; the wax contains "growth rings" similar to those on trees. Scientists still disagree whether each ring equals 1 or 2 years.)
Tyke said:
The species being least impacted appears to be the Minke , which is not endangered-is it?
As a species, no, the minke is not considered "endangered." However, I must stress that its global population is unknown, and if the global stocks of this species are genetically or geographically discrete, as appears to be the case in the Southern Ocean, then each of the stocks must be carefully managed so as to not deplete one to extirpation. This could have negative impacts on other neighboring stocks over time with the loss of genetic contribution. Not to mention possible ecosystem impacts in the area of the extirpation.
Tyke said:
As a result of comments in this thread, and indeed other BF threads on hunting recently, I have changed my concept of cultural or native hunting.
I had rose tinted specs on I think! Modern armaments & chase boats aren't a cultural or traditional method of hunting by aboriginal peoples are they?
I have a different take on this. If whales must be killed for food, I'd much prefer indigenous peoples to use the most modern technology available only because it means shorter times-to-death for the hunted animals. Whales, especially the "great whales," can take a long time to die when hit with multiple hand-thrown harpoons. The older, "traditional" methods also resulted in more "struck and lost" animals, meaning those whales wounded probably ended up dying anyway, necessitating the hunters to continue until they've landed their kill. In fact, even now, "struck and lost" animals are taken into account in all IWC quotas.
It's not a lovely thought, certainly, and I've had endless debates with people in the NGO community who don't want to see any whale or dolphin killed for any reason whatsoever. But what are these high-latitude humans supposed to eat? There will come a time, however, that even indigenous groups will have to take a long, hard look at how they're living, such as the Nunavut, and the Alaskan Inuit who hunt belugas in Cook Inlet: What are they going to eat when there are no more whales, or seals, or dolphins, or walrus? Will these indigenous groups die out themselves, or will they migrate to areas where more food resources are available?
In which case, in the best of all worlds, it would be wonderful if indigenous groups would take in the long-term picture and decide that neither the small stock of XXXX (fill in whatever animal you like) they're hunting, nor their own human group, should be required to cease existing. That they should begin to look to other food resources -- which they
can do. Unfortunately in the case of the whales, their food resources are extremely limited by geography. They can't simply migrate somewhere else. But humans certainly can. I guess it comes down to who's more important, whales or humans.
Tyke said:
Your knowledge of the labyrinthine proceedings of the IWC is clearly immense, and you knowledge & love of whales manifest.But to be honest , the semantics & legalistic language by which one set of whale hunters are distinguished from another does not have the ring of logic or fairness about it.
Unfortunately, the reality is, there
are distinctions between whalers whether it sounds logical or not. This is exactly why the Convention regulating whaling was written the way it was. And I couldn't agree with you more, the semantics of international treaty law, its management, and more importantly, how individual parties to those laws interpret them, is mind-boggling. And infuriating, too. This is why the Makah issue was and still is so hotly debated. They don't deserve a "subsistence" quota of whales because they haven't eaten whale since the early part of the 20th Century, and the only reason they stopped whaling then was because it was more lucrative for them to hunt and trade in various seal products than whale. But that's another issue.
Tyke said:
I agree with this from Dan:-
I am completely against the killing of whales by anyone including aboriginal groups.
And that's certainly your right.
Tyke said:
Let me ask you a question. Supposing there were no aboriginal quotas ( or whatever the correct expression is-it doesn,t matter!), and hunting Bowheads -& Grays by native peoples stopped.
Would that not then allow the USA & Canadian governments to join the moral high ground of protest at whale hunting by the Japanese & Norwegians, without fear of being compromised because of hunting by their own citizens?
So because an outlaw whaling nation like Japan uses extortion, the US and other countries who have aboriginal interests, should simply cave? Don't forget, Japan (aided by its bought minions) had an ulterior motive for blocking the bowhead quota: It wanted to start "coastal whaling" for itself, which technically is a new type of "commercial" whaling. I'd call that the moral low ground, myself. The fact is, there is aboriginal whaling going on and it needs to be properly managed. To speculate on what would happen if there were no aboriginal quotas is, IMHO, a waste of time as it wouldn't change Japan's, Norway's, Iceland's, or their ilk's primary agenda: A return to commercial whaling. 
