Shark Bait Blog

2011-10-06T22:40:00.001+01:00

RIP

Image Courtesy of Apple Inc.

2010-06-21T18:47:00.011+01:00

Whalegate -

Anthony Liverpool's IWC credibility lies in tatters -

Japanese pay for whale delegates

Anthony Liverpool, chairman of the IWC summit, has accepted free flights and the £4,000 cost of staying at a luxury hotel
The chairman of this week’s international summit on whaling is being secretly funded by a Japanese company to stay in a luxury hotel.

Anthony Liverpool will open the crucial International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Morocco tomorrow which could vote to lift a 24-year ban on commercial whaling.

He has accepted free flights and the £4,000 cost of staying at a hotel with a private beach during the meeting. The hotel bills of five other countries’ delegates are also being paid.

The payments will increase concern that Japan is bribing delegates to secure support for whaling and may be in breach of the IWC convention which says: “The expenses of each member of the commission ... shall be determined and paid by his own government.”

Richard Benyon, the minister for fisheries, will raise what he called “these very serious allegations” at the IWC meeting.

On Friday Liverpool, the Antiguan IWC vice-chairman who will stand in as chairman at the meeting, said he did not know who was paying for his trip. “I am just aware of getting support through agencies,” he said.

However, inquiries have shown that his bill at a hotel in Agadir is being paid by Japan Tours and Travel of Houston, a company said to be linked to Hideuki “Harry” Wakasa, who has previously been identified as the middleman who makes secret payments to the pro-whaling Caribbean countries.

Sunday Times, 20th June 2010

ORLY?.. I call shenanigans.. Mr Liverpool needs to immediately give a detailed explanation of how it is possible for his business expenses to be paid for by Japanese pro commercial whaling lobby interests, without him being aware of it, since it appears he may be in breach of IWC regulations -

The IWC convention states: “The expenses of each member of the commission ... shall be determined and paid by his own government.”

Mr Liverpool should step down from his position with immediate effect, until this matter has been thoroughly investigated.

.. and while we are on the subject of Japanese government support for unsustainable, international commercial whaling -

Whistleblower aims to expose dark side of Japanese whaling

He refers to himself only as "Kujira-san" (Mr Whale), a precaution necessitated by a genuine fear for his safety. But the personal risks will be worthwhile, he says, if it means the world learns the truth about the dark side of Japan's whaling industry.

"Even before we arrived in the Antarctic Ocean," he says of a recent expedition, "the more experienced whalers would talk about taking whale meat home to sell. It was an open secret. Even officials from the Institute of Cetacean Research [a quasi-governmental body that organises Japan's whaling programme] on the ship knew what was happening, but they turned a blind eye to it."

Kujira, who worked aboard the Nisshin Maru mother ship, saw crew members helping themselves to prime cuts of whale meat and packing them into boxes they would mark with doodles or pseudonyms so they could identify them when the vessel reached port. "They never wrote their real names on the boxes," he said.

Some whalers would take home between five and 10 boxes, he said, while one secured as many as 40 boxes of prime meat that fetches ¥20,000 (about £148) a kilo when sold legally. One crew member built a house with the profits from illicitly sold whale meat, he said. "Another used the money he earned to buy a car," he said. "They were careful to select only the best cuts, like the meat near the tail fin. I never dared challenge them."...

- The Guardian, 14th June 2010

.. and not forgetting -

Revealed: Japan’s bribes on whaling

A SUNDAY TIMES investigation has exposed Japan for bribing small nations with cash and prostitutes to gain their support for the mass slaughter of whales.

The undercover investigation found officials from six countries were willing to consider selling their votes on the International Whaling Commission (IWC).

The revelations come as Japan seeks to break the 24-year moratorium on commercial whaling. An IWC meeting that will decide the fate of thousands of whales, including endangered species, begins this month in Morocco.

Japan denies buying the votes of IWC members. However, The Sunday Times filmed officials from pro-whaling governments admitting:

- They voted with the whalers because of the large amounts of aid from Japan. One said he was not sure if his country had any whales in its territorial waters. Others are landlocked.

— They receive cash payments in envelopes at IWC meetings from Japanese officials who pay their travel and hotel bills.

- One disclosed that call girls were offered when fisheries ministers and civil servants visited Japan for meetings.

Barry Gardiner, an MP and former Labour biodiversity minister, said the investigation revealed “disgraceful, shady practice”, which is “effectively buying votes”.

The reporters, posing as representatives of a billionaire conservationist, approached officials from pro-whaling countries and offered them an aid package to change their vote.

The governments of St Kitts and Nevis, the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Grenada, Republic of Guinea and Ivory Coast all entered negotiations to sell their votes..

The Sunday Times, 13th June 2010

image courtesy of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

2010-05-05T06:08:00.015+01:00

UK Election 2010.. the year to let 'em hang.

This year, the General election is the evil of three lessers (conducted in a brash X Factor style) all vying to tell us that we, the electorate need to tighten our belts to help bail out the institutionalised shortcomings of the western economic model.. that is quite frankly, no longer good enough.

The major UK parties are telling us that the financial community would throw up its hands in horror, at the prospect of a hung parliament.. tough, the financial community owe us a favor.
We just pulled their unmentionables out of the fire and will be paying to sort out the mess that their untrammeled enthusiasm for deregulation has created, for a good few years to come.

A hung parliament is the surest way to finally achieve electoral reform in the UK.

The fact is that at the last election in 2005 the percentage of the electorate who decided not to vote at all, was greater than those who voted for the Labour party

The 'First Past The Post' system is specifically designed, not with the best interests of the British public at heart, but those of career politicians from just two political parties.. who at each General election attempt to rest power and influence from their opponents by lavishing the largest number of disingenuous blandishments on a disenchanted electorate.

The 'First Past The Post' system has given us the Poll Tax, Privatised Uitilities, Outsourcing in Hospitals, The Iraq War, Deregulated Banking, Selling off over 50% of the UK's Gold Reserves at the bottom of the market, Surveillance Society, Taxation of Pension Funds, etc, etc, etc.

This has occurred because the current system allows the political party in power, to drive often farcically flawed, ideological policies into effect, simply because the opposition is unable to adequately modify, much less halt the legislative juggernaut of an outright majority in the House of Commons.
Indeed it was for this reason that the Allies imposed proportional representation on Germany after WW2 and it certainly doesn't appear to have stymied germanic economic potential.

Labour's percentage of votes - at 36% (down by 5% from 2001) - is the lowest any winning party has ever achieved...

There was an overall turnout of 61% - up 2% from 2001. But this still means that 1/3rd of those registered to vote did not do so.

More people opted not to vote (38.7%) than voted for Labour (36%).

Labour's share of the total possible electorate was 22%.

Labour got 55% of the seats but 36% of the votes cast
The Conservatives got 30% of the seats but 33% of the votes cast
The Liberal Democrats got 10% of the seats but 22% of the votes cast.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/2005_british_general_election.htm
(my emphasis)

To be fair to the Labour Party, that figure of 38.7% of the electorate opting not to vote, is a damning indictment of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as well.

The current electoral system represents the vested interests of the Conservatives and the Labour party, with the Liberal Democrats riding on their coattails.. and we still do not have a directly elected Upper Chamber to replace the archaic House of Lords.

Mr Straw's proposals (cutting member numbers from 733 in the current Lords to a mere 300) are propaganda window dressing of a particularly tawdry nature, designed specifically to neuter its legislative power.

Use a tactical vote to send a very clear message to Westminster, we want change, we want modernisation and we want it now!

We want our vote to represent us in Westminster, whichever political party we chose to support. That would be a valid reason for the public to re-engage with politics.

No taxation, without proportional representation.

(image courtesy of Man vyi)

2010-04-29T22:22:00.006+01:00

Marine Pollution

The risks of bowing to pressure from the oil industry to allow exploratory drilling less than 5 miles off the coast of Florida are being graphically demonstrated 52 miles from the coast of Louisiana -

'The US government has designated the Gulf of Mexico oil spill as an "incident of national significance".

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told reporters that this move would allow resources to be ordered in from other areas of the US.

Up to 5,000 barrels of oil a day may be now be leaking into the water after last week's explosion on a BP-operated rig, which then sank.

The US Coast Guard says oil is expected to start washing ashore on Friday.

A state of emergency has been declared in the state of Louisiana, whose coastline is the most threatened by the spill....

She told a White House briefing: "Today I will be designating that this is a spill of national significance. What that means is that we can now draw down assets from across the country, other coastal areas... (and) that we will have centralised communications because the spill is now crossing different regions."

Later, President Barack Obama said "every single available resource" of government, including the military, would be used to help with the oil spill.

"The entire US government is doing everything possible, not just to respond to this incident, but also to determine its cause," he said.

Meanwhile, the government has ordered inspections of all deep-water oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico to see if anti-spill regulations are being followed...'

(my emphasis)

How reassuring to discover that the US Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't appear to currently know if the oil industry is actually adhering to anti-spill regulations...

Needless to say the disaster on the BP-operated, Deepwater Horizon rig is not just an environmental problem, it will also impact on commercial interests -

'A resident of Bay Saint Louis in Mississippi, John Gerger, told the BBC the smell of oil was becoming stronger along the Gulf Coast.

"It's as though a diesel truck is parked in the front yard," he said.

"The potential impact of the slick could be devastating on an area that has just recovered from [Hurricane] Katrina.

"Fishing and shrimping is such an important industry here, and could take a massive hit.

"Local fishermen have been advised to go out and try to recover as much as they can before the slick approaches land."

- BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8652686.stm

(image courtesy of Mila Zinkova)

2010-04-29T21:53:00.004+01:00

It seems Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit took great exception to my posting a request for greater transparency regarding his involvement with the Climate Denialist political movement, on his blog.. resulting in the excision of my posts.

It would therefore appear his support for freedom of speech and dislike of alleged media 'bias' regarding anthropogenic forcings to Climate change, doesn't extend to his own editorial policy.. unless its the freedom to agree with him and his coterie of fanboys?

So in the interests of freedom of speech, countering media bias and holding Climate Audit's editor to account.. here is the final, approved 'Ministry of Truth' Climate Audit version -

.. here is the thread after the editorial knife had been wielded.. amusingly, a post referring to one of my own Blog threads appears to have been temporarily overlooked -

..and here is the censored material -

The Climate Audit thread can be found here -
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/23/yamal-and-the-vaganov-network/#comments

The comments on my Blog (referred to by James Smyth) can be found here -
http://sharkbaitblog.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html

2010-01-27T20:04:00.005Z

UK economy climbing out of recession?

Wishful thinking, 0.1 of a swallow does not a summer make.. and 'Quantitative Easing' is the economic equivalent of duct tape.. the real cost of more than a decade of fiscal irresponsibility, lax regulation and conducting UK foreign policy while wearing a Poodle costume, will be felt after the general election.. and in all probability it will make Margaret Thatcher's first term in office look like a cakewalk.

(pic by Aviceda)

2010-01-27T19:15:00.005Z

iTipping Point?

With its new iPad, Apple may have just redefined a big chunk of a significant number of markets for portable high tech gadgetry, indeed its quite possible that every ebook reader currently available just became obsolete.. and virtually every other manufacturer of portable computer devices has broken out in a cold sweat.

I'm looking forward to seeing the full technical specification of this gizmo, at a safe distance from the intense power of Steve Jobs' reality distortion field.. I expect the retail price will be interesting too..

2009-12-19T18:09:00.008Z

'Tis The Season To Be Jolly!

..so I am posting not one, but three cartoons.

Morten Moreland

Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson

2009-12-07T23:15:00.007Z

Evolution.. and anthropogenic forcings

A study recently caught my attention that incorporated evolution, climate change and an anthropogenic forcing.. of particular interest was how rapidly this appeared to have occurred under suitable conditions.

'Researchers have discovered that the enthusiasm of many Britons for feeding birds in winter and the gradual warming of the British Isles due to climate change have helped change the appearance of the blackcap, a warbler as commonly recognized in European gardens as robins are in North America.

The differences have been modest, involving a slightly altered beak size and wing shape, according a paper on the finding published online in the journal Current Biology, but they've occurred in just a few decades, a pace that has stunned scientists.

“What's really catching people's attention with this paper is the speed at which evolution can manifest itself in short periods of time,” said Keith Hobson, a research scientist in Saskatoon with Environment Canada who helped with the study. Mr. Hobson said it was like seeing evolution “happening before our eyes.”

Scientists have been able to detect natural selection at work in the blackcaps because one population group of the birds began changing its annual migration route in the 1960s, appearing in Britain in significant numbers during the winter.

Until then, all blackcaps breeding in southern Germany and Austria each summer migrated south to the warmer Mediterranean areas of Spain to escape the central European winter.

The first blackcaps wintering in Britain were reported in 1959, and then with increasing frequency in later years, indicating the change in migratory route is a relatively new development.

The practice of putting suet and other rich foods in feeders and relatively warm winters in recent years allowed a British migratory population to evolve separately from its Spanish kin. Researchers believe the birds ended up in Britain, about 1,200 kilometres north of their regular winter grounds, because they flew off course from their usual migration routes.

If winters had been colder and bird feeders didn't exist, these wayward birds would have soon died due to starvation and inhospitable weather, but they thrived and now amount to about 10 per cent of the blackcap population.

“The British are very avid bird watchers and so I think we can be fairly certain … [the northward migration] only started in the 1960s,” said Martin Schaefer, a professor in the department of evolutionary biology at the University of Freiburg in Germany and lead researcher of the study.

The British blackcaps don't have as far to migrate to get back to southern Germany each summer, only about two-thirds of the distance of those that travel from Spain, so they arrive in the breeding grounds about 10 days earlier. This has created a condition known as reproductive isolation that is helping to maintain the different populations.

The birds have begun to look different because the British birds have evolved to have rounder wings better adapted for manoeuvrability and not as good for long-distance flying. They also have developed longer, thinner beaks because they no longer need an adaptation for eating large fruits, like olives, as they do in Spain.'
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/british-birds-rapid-evolution-signals-human-impact/article1387804/

(photo courtesy of Jakub Stančo)

2009-12-07T18:09:00.008Z

Climategate.. or to be more accurate, Swifthack.

The neoconservative propaganda machine has been in overdrive (with all the usual denialist jihadi smoke and mirrors) as the Copenhagen Climate Conference gets underway.. however swiftboating is the surest proof that the neocon stormtroopers haven't got a scientific leg to stand on and smear campaigns against the scientific community are all they have left.. this rebuttal demonstrates just how flawed the denialist smear campaign is -

2009-09-02T17:09:00.006+01:00

Government Health Care is not Stalinism.. Shock Revelation!

The US neoconservative political lobby has apparently decided that Great Britain's health care service is a fascicommunistic plot to murder Stephen Hawking and anyone over 50.. So I enjoyed Jon Stewart's take on the American health care reform issue -

2009-08-13T00:46:00.004+01:00

Climate Change

While the reputable scientific community continues to study climate change.. and the denialist jihadis continue to kick up a political fuss on behalf of their corporate sponsors.. I came across this short video which addresses the issue as risk management.. enjoy -

(shamelessly pinched from bermewjan77's YouTube favourites list)

2009-04-14T16:23:00.006+01:00

Great White Sharks

I first saw this video by Tom Walker, about cage diving with Great White sharks in Mexico a couple of months back and I liked it so much, I keep going back and watching it again.

Make sure you are in full screen mode at 2 mins 15 secs!

Blue Water, White Shark from Tom Walker on Vimeo.

2009-02-23T13:51:00.004Z

Climate Change

In view of the increasingly vociferous, political propaganda being circulated in the media regarding Climate Change by industry funded, Skeptic lobby organisations.. who are fighting a desperate rear guard action now that there has been a change of administration in the United States; it made a pleasant change to read the recent article by Dr Vicky Pope of the Met Office Hadley Centre, in the Guardian newspaper.

I found these comments particularly cogent -

'For climate scientists, having to continually rein in extraordinary claims that the latest extreme is all due to climate change is, at best, hugely frustrating and, at worst, enormously distracting. Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening. Both undermine the basic facts that the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically and swiftly over the coming decades.

When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we "believe in climate change". Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity's activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.'

- Dr Vicky Pope

The Guardian 11th February 2009

('Blue Marble' image courtesy of NASA)

2009-02-23T11:58:00.007Z

Cartoon of the Month

I do enjoy a good, thought provoking cartoon and came across this one today, so here is the first in an occasional series -

2008-12-13T18:49:00.005Z

'Wake Up, Freak Out - then Get a Grip'

This short animation by Leo Murray looks at the problem of passing the tipping point of Climate Change.

Watch more cool animation and creative cartoons at aniBoom

2008-12-05T15:12:00.013Z

New Shark Film

Simon Spear won a Gold Medal at the 'Under the Blue 2007' International Underwater Photography and Video Competition, by powerfully communicating the global threat to shark populations from overfishing.. and he did it in 60 seconds:

In December 2008, Simon is releasing a new film -
"Sharks in British Seas"
Based on the book of the same name by Richard Pierce, through Elasmo Films UK, This film documents some of the fascinating species of shark found around the coast of the UK; from the diminutive Catshark to the majestic Basking shark.. and who should genuinely be afraid of being eaten by who.

(Basking Shark image courtesy of Chris Gotschalk)

2008-09-16T23:24:00.004+01:00

A Very Large Chicken Comes Home To Roost

(pic courtesy Justin Brandt)

It will be interesting to see whether the current dramatic events unfolding in various western financial markets, herald the beginning of a re-enactment of the disastrous financial turmoil of the 1930s and if so, how great a part of the blame history lays at the feet of globalisation and the neo-conservative pursuit of ever greater, international free-market liberalisation.

Will the de-regulation of international markets be the very petar upon which its enginers are hoist and have we reached the tipping point where the West slowly starts to relinquish international primacy to the East?.. Only time will tell.

How ironic if those riding the tiger of market forces discover their survival depends on the type of government interventions they have spent decades deriding and considerable sums undermining.. Hubris however will demand that they spend an inordinate amount of media time blaming those interventions for their fall.. the general public will of necessity, have to pick up the tab for corporate incompetence.. as usual.

'We learn from history that we learn nothing from history'
- George Bernard Shaw

2007-10-27T01:46:00.001+01:00

Censorship of Inconvenient Truths

(image courtesy of Wikipedia)

The inconvenient truth for Paul Biggs, one of the new co-editors of the Jennifer Marohasy Blog is that a considerable amount of the Climate Change denialist and other anti-environmentalist propaganda being circulated in the media is sponsored by corporate self interest.. what to do when someone starts posting facts and figures about that sponsorship on the same neo-conservative Aussie blog where you have just got your feet under the editorial table..

Censorship of course..

So Mr Biggs made the decision to permanently ban yours truly's IP from posting on the Marohasy blog.. interesting editorial approach for a media source that regularly attempts to suggest it is a balanced forum (in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary) and deserving of public archive status, as it continues its slide into yet another cut and paste anti-greenie soap box, as if the web wasn't littered with enough of those already... but then perhaps that is the reason for archiving one.

Since I no longer have a right of reply on the JM blog, might as well begin rebutting the neo-conservative propaganda machine here.

Starting with a recap on the posts that were removed a week or so before the decision to ban my IP, followed by a quick look at the Scientific Alliance:

Paul Biggs has stated that - 'Blog Posts are for discussion - We don't necessarily agree with the content ' .. considering the avalanche of anti-green cut and paste work he does (Its already harder to tell if its the Marohasy or the Marc Morano blog) and the fact he is a member of the anti-environmental corporate lobby group, the Scientific Alliance, Paul's statement is completely laughable.. but it does explain why he didn't want anyone looking into the background of individuals involved with the Scientific Alliance and why he censored my posts in response to his cut and paste of this article..

September 25, 2007

Greenpeace Rumbled

Posted by Paul, at 04:54 PM

I rather liked this letter in yesterday's UK Daily Mail, so I thought I would share it:

Red alert on Greenpeace

IS GREENPEACE more powerful than UK voters? Its lawyers are demanding a judicial review of the Government's decision to reconsider its attitude towards nuclear power.

Would that we could do the same about Greenpeace's undemocratic decision to cover the world with useless and damaging windfarms, a course of action which almost all governments are following.

I know why we can't: it would take too much money. How democratic is a democracy which allows rich lobby groups to influence its policy? Greenpeace seems to be awash with money: how much of it comes from the wind industry (i.e. taxpayers' money)?

Greenpeace's co-founder Patrick Moore was right: 'They (Greenpeace' s new management) have become far more extreme, their politics little more than neo-Marxism in green garb.'

As he points out, much of the environmental movement today tends to be strongly anti-human, anti-science, anti-business and anti-civilisation - as well as highly misleading. Greenpeace isn't green and doesn't want peace. It's red and it wants power.

I don't particularly care for nuclear power myself, but I don't like an organisation that pretends to be green while destroying our natural surroundings for its own gain - financial and political.

MARK DUCHAMP,

Pedreguer, Spain.

........
(for anyone wishing to read the censored version of the Marohasy blog thread, there are three missing posts)

.........

'their politics little more than neo-Marxism in green garb.'

Thats a very interesting quote Biggsy...
Would you like to start a discussion about Living Marxism, Spiked, the Revolutionary Communist Party and its friends and associates.. we could start with the Scientific Alliance's Advisory Forum member Bill Durodie..eh?'
- Lamna nasus

-----------------------------------------

'Just change the goal posts why don't you Paul?' - Steve

Not just moving the goal posts Steve, Biggsy is now censoring posts..

'their politics little more than neo-Marxism in green garb.'

Thats a very interesting quote Biggsy... Would you like to start a discussion about Living Marxism, Spiked, the Revolutionary Communist Party and its friends and associates.. we could start with the Scientific Alliance's Advisory Forum member Bill Durodie..eh?' - Lamna

Seems the answer is NO!.. followed by CENSORED!..

Sunday 24 March 1996
Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1

'LIVING MARXISM CONFERENCE THIS WEEK

The Myth of Empowerment and the Reality of State Power

While government institutions are generally held in low esteem, a comprehensive critique of state power is singularly lacking. Global trends in economics, communications and population movement are widely believed to make the nation state a redundant institution. But the theory that the state is ineffective in the face of globalisation serves only to close down the debate about politics and state power.

This conference aims to redress the balance by taking a critical look at the unchallenged concepts of contemporary political theory like
empowerment, governance and the enabling state.

The goal of the conference is to develop an up-to-date critique of the modern forms of state power-the better to challenge these in practice.

Agenda

9.00 Registration

10.00 Opening Plenary

* Who Needs a Written Constitution - James Heartfield

11.30 Workshops

* Globalisation and Power - Norman Lewis

* Judging Democracy - Daniel Lloyd

* European Superstate - Bill Durodie

* Northern Ireland: Government by Peace Process - Kevin Kelly

* Living Marxism and the Net-nanny State - Andrew Calcutt/Nico Macdonald

* Citizen School: Training Stakeholders - Claire Foster

12.30 Lunch

1.30 Plenary

* The Myth of Empowerment - Frank Furedi

2.30 Workshops -

* Policing the Police - Rob Knight

* Battered Women and the Courts - Sara Hinchcliffe

* Welfare Rights and Advocacy - Duleep Alirajah

* Anti-social Courts - Martin Mitchell/Liam Harris

* The Myth of the Powerless State - Phil Murphy

3.30 Tea break

4.00 Workshops

* Include me out!-Tackling Participatory Democracy - Bruno Waterfield

* Doctoring the State - Mike Fitzpatrick

* The Feminist State - Ellie Lee

* Tolerance or Free Speech - Jenny Bristow

* The Welfare Debate - Jo Herlihy

5.15 Final plenary

* Independence, power and the question of control - Mick Hume'

-Lamna nasus

---------------------------------------

The third post was a repeat of the second one with a postscript -

'Keep it up Biggsy, continuing to censor my posts on this subject makes it ever clearer to the readership that you do not have a rebuttal...'

Posted by: Lamna nasus at September 28, 2007 11:02 PM

------------------------------

Paul Biggs claims he has trouble remembering what his annual membership fee for the Scientific Alliance is.. unusual statement for someone who spends so much time cut and pasting their propaganda and is also a media spokesperson for the Association of British Drivers.. but then most of the Scientific Alliance's scientific advisors have very little 'scientific' expertise on some of the major subjects the Scientific Alliance likes to pontificate about, particularly Climate Change..

The Scientific Alliance's Scientific Advisory Forum -

Bill Durodié - Not a climate scientist - Corporate Risk Analyst

Professor Sir Colin Berry - Not a climate scientist - toxicologist.

Dr Jack Barrett - Not a climate scientist - chemist

Professor Tom Addiscott - Not a climate scientist - Soil expert

Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen - Not a climate scientist - Geographer and Political Analyst.

Mark Cantley - Not a climate scientist - Mathematician(economics, accounting and finance)

Professor Anthony Trewavas - Not a climate scientist - Plant Biochemist
Trewavas is one of the UK's most strident supporters of GM agriculture, and critics of organic agriculture. He makes frequent appearances in the media.

Professor Mick Fuller - Not a climate scientist - Biotech Plant Physiologist.

Professor Anthony Dayan - Not a climate scientist - toxicologist

Professor Vivian Moses - Not a climate scientist - Biochemist

Professor William Wilkinson - Not a climate scientist - Chemical Engineer

Professor Michael Laughton - Not a climate scientist - Engineer

Makes you wonder why the BBC has got into the habit of letting representatives of the Scientific Alliance appear on Climate Change debates as 'experts'...

Until recently another member of the Scientific Advisory Forum was:

Professor Philip Stott - Not a climate scientist - BioGeographer

Stott appeared in the recent anti-green documentary by Martin Durkin, The Great Global Warming Swindle... (Durkin was also responsible for another anti-green documentary diatribe, Crimes against Nature).
Although Stott presents himself as an expert debunker of environmental myths, he does not appear to have had a single paper published in a scientific journal in the fields in which he most frequently applies this 'expertise'....

The Scientific Alliance like many industry lobby groups is extremely reticent about releasing detailed information concerning its major sources of funding but in the case of the SA, some of the information is already out there..

'The founders of the Scientific Alliance were Mark Adams and quarryman Robert Durward, the director of the British Aggregates Association. Durward says he is 'a businessman who is totally fed up with all this environmental stuff... much of which is unjustified, such as the climate change levy. We also have the aggregates tax, which will put the UK quarry industry out of business.'

Durward and Adams established the Scientific Alliance in 2001. Two years later The Scotsman newspaper reported that on contacting the Alliance to ask about Durward's role, 'after some uncertainty, the switchboard it shares with a number of other firms denied any knowledge of Mr Durward’s existence. Matthew Drinkwater, the one person responding to calls to its offices, could also be contacted by ringing the offices of Foresight Communications.'

Foresight Communications is a PR firm established by Mark Adams in January 2001. As well as The Scientific Alliance, its client list includes the British Aggregates Association and the New Party for Britain (also known as the People's Alliance). The New Party - also the name of Oswald Mosley’s first party* - is so right-wing that the Tory leader in Scotland, where it operates, has called it 'fascist and undemocratic'. Like the Scientific Alliance, this 'People's Alliance', was established by Durward and Adams.
According to The Scotsman, Durward has spoken out on many issues, including the 'witch-hunt' against drink drivers, the 'media-fuelled circus of Kyoto', and the 'bluster emanating from the collective witch-hunt referred to kindly as the green movement'. He has also written,'Perhaps it is now time for Tony Blair to try the "fourth way": declare martial law and let the army sort out our schools, hospitals, and roads as well. Who knows, they might even manage to put the ‘great’ back into Britain.'

The website of the Scientific Alliance seems designed to downplay any sense of extremism. Its colours are muted. The prose style is generally measured and its logo combines a microscope with a pair of scales. However, a careful reading of the views it projects reveals something less than balance.

On organic farming, for instance, the Scientific Alliance says:

'Many scientists maintain that the organic movement follows ideological principles which are not supported by science. Indeed, Dr Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, has argued that if all farming were to be organic, productivity would be so low that almost all forests around the world would have to be destroyed to make way for agricultural land. If the whole world went organic, it could support only 3-4 billion people, with a high risk of pest and disease epidemics.'

Organic farming, then, if widely adopted, would bring ecological catastrophe, mass starvation and in all probability pest and disease pandemics. Not mentioned is the fact that, since leaving Greenpeace nearly 20 years ago, Patrick Moore has spent much of his time countering environmental concerns as a paid front man for Canada's lumber industrialists.'
- GMWatch

* - Note for younger readers - Oswald Mosely was the leader of the fascist movement in the UK in the 1930s and pro Nazi.

2007-08-17T10:48:00.001+01:00

The Shark Fishing Industry is an Ecological Disaster.

(Oceanic Whitetip Shark photo courtesy of Thomas Ehrensperger)

A while back I was asked to contribute an article on the environmental damage being caused by the international Shark fishery industry for a friend's web site. Pepijn is a member of Greenpeace and regularly blogs about environmental topics -
http://www.myfavouriteplaces.org/wl/

Since it compliments my new shark video (see below), I'm now going to post it here as well.

The instantly recognisable theme tune of the movie 'Jaws', masks the fact that Sharks of all species have a great deal more to fear from Homo sapiens than the other way round.
More people are killed by lightning strikes, falling coconuts and the domestic dog each year than are attacked (let alone killed) by sharks.

In contrast the gigantic number of sharks killed by the international shark fishing industry (much of it destined for the Shark Fin soup market) are so mind bogglingly vast that the figure is in danger of losing its impact through its sheer size. The IUCN's Species Survival Commission, Shark Specialist Group estimates that tens of millions of sharks die worldwide each year as a result of directly targeted fisheries or exploitation of by-catch, in particular the long lining Tuna fisheries.

Unlike some other commercially targeted fish species (although it is becoming ever more evident that the majority of fisheries in international waters are currently being unsustainably overexploited) the vast majority of Shark species simply do not reproduce anywhere near fast enough to sustain the level of exploitation of modern industrial commercial fisheries.

There are a number of recent historical examples of shark populations fished to commercial extinction and since many schooling shark species congregate in single sex groups the possibility of real extinction of localised shark populations is often the result.

Gavin Maxwell is famous for writing the book Ring of Bright Water about his pet otter, what is not so well known is that during the 1950s, Mr Maxwell owned a Basking shark fishing company on the island of Soay, off the coast of Scotland and in the space of a few years using relatively primitive harpoon equipment, decimated the local Basking shark population; ruining his business in the process.

The history of the international porbeagle shark fishery in the northwest Atlantic (NAFO subareas 3 - 6) repeats this pattern. in 1961 the fishery was started on a previously unexploited population of Porbeagle sharks, peaked in 1963 and had already crashed by 1965; the population has not significantly recovered (Campana et al 2002).

Bull sharks are renowned for their ability to tolerate fresh water (the Bull Shark has been recorded some 2,600 miles (4,200 kilometres) upriver from the mouth of the Amazon) and until recently Lake Nicaragua in South America actually had a resident population of breeding Bull sharks... however the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza permitted a shark-fin processing plant to be built on the shores of the San Juan River. So during the 1970s, thousands of sharks were caught and killed each year then processed through this Japanese plant, as a result the shark population collapsed; few if any sharks now remain. The last media reports of a sighting date back to the year 2000, there have been few recent scientific investigations and the shark population is considered to be virtually wiped out.

These are just three specific examples, far more worrying is the fact that now vast areas are being affected.

(Illegal fin shipment photo courtesy of Envirowatch)

A report by Julia Baum and Ransom Myers published in Nature in 2004 found that the Oceanic White Tip, once one of the most common sharks in the world; according to their census in the Gulf of Mexico are now almost extinct there, over the past 50 years Oceanic Whitetip numbers in the Gulf have crashed by more than 99%. (1)
The crisis had not been noticed before simply because of a lack of data. Myers found a government survey of the number of whitetip sharks accidentally caught on tuna fishing lines in 1954 in the Gulf of Mexico. No further record was kept of the sharks' numbers until 1992, because the sharks weren't being 'intentionally' fished in the Gulf.

The study adds to a body of work that points to a massive decline in numbers of large predator species in the oceans. Baum and Myers previously found that silky sharks in the Gulf of Mexico have declined by around 90% since the 1950s. And hammerhead shark numbers in the Atlantic have plummeted by 89% in the past 15 years. (2) "Sharks are in a global extinction crisis," says Myers. "Wherever you look around the world the story is the same."

Myers has called for a worldwide ban on shark-finning. Canada, Australia and the United States have outlawed the practice, although enforcement has proved difficult and anti-finning laws in other countries have in many cases been based on the short term economic requirements of fishing industry interests rather than long term conservation. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) is spearheading a campaign for countries to recognize the damage caused by the trade in shark fins.

References

* (1) - Baum, J. K. & Myers, R. Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology Letters, 7, 135 - 145, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2003.00564 (2004).
* (2) - Baum, J. K. et al. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science, 299, 389 - 392, (2003).

Despite an increasing level of publicity over the Shark finning Industry in the international media, more action is desperately needed in 2007.

Expert findings show even the fastest, widest ranging sharks are threatened by overfishing as more species added to IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: More oceanic or "pelagic" sharks are being added to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species based on the findings of this week's international expert workshop, convened by the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC), that examined the conservation status of these highly migratory sharks against Red List criteria.

"The qualities of pelagic sharks - fast, powerful, wide ranging - too often lead to a misperception that they are resilient to fishing pressure", said Sarah Fowler, Co-Chair of the IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group (SSG). "This week, leading shark scientists from around the world highlighted the vulnerability of these species to overfishing and concluded that several species are now threatened with extinction on a global scale." - http://www.sharktrust.org/content.asp?did=26868

Many shark species are slow to mature and produce few offspring which means they are simply unable to support international fishing industry exploitation.

Whatever the claims of quacks and snake oil salesmen, shark products have NEVER been medically proven to prevent, let alone cure cancer. - http://www.nautilusproductions.com/sandtigersharks/scam.html

Other Links -
http://www.projectaware.org/uk/english/hotissue/Global-Ban.asp

http://www.sharkwater.com/

2007-07-26T20:32:00.001+01:00

Apologies to all my readers, I have been most remiss in not posting for ages.. rest assured I have given myself a stern talking to!

Hopefully this short film I shot 15 miles off the coast of Cornwall will make up for it....

2007-02-10T15:12:00.001Z

Seasonal and Local Produce.

photo courtesy of Nevit Dilmen

The environmental advantages of eating locally produced, seasonal vegetables and fruit has attracted a lot of attention in the UK press recently, unfortunately information on exactly what is seasonal and local has received rather less publicity; so here is a link for UK readers to a convenient list of seasonal local produce for each month of the year on the WFU website, followed by links to two companies who provide a delivery service for seasonal organic vegetables along with a variety of other organic groceries; and finally there is a link listing local farmers' markets -

http://www.wfu.org.uk/seasonalveg.htm

www.abelandcole.co.uk

www.riverford.co.uk

www.farmersmarkets.net

2006-11-23T13:13:00.000Z

'Sustainable' international commercial whaling is an oxymoron.

(image courtesy of Wikipedia)

There is no way of creating a 'sustainable' international commercial whaling market in international waters. The IWC quota system called the RMP and the supervision system known as the RMS are advisory only. Any pro-whaling nation can register 'reservations' to them and then set their own quotas or ignore quotas, regardless of sustainability.

Japan is the largest market in the world for seafood, it is also a market that has consistently put profits before sustainability. Japan was recently caught red handed ignoring its own Tuna quotas -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6057576.stm

Japan also buys over quota Tuna from other nation members of international commercial supervisory organisations like ICCAT and buys Tuna from countries which refuse to recognise international Tuna quotas.

Japan, Norway and Iceland, the driving force behind attempts to overturn the IWC's international moratorium on commercial whaling already have cynical 'reservations' registered against most of the endangered whale species under CITES, as a result the Icelandic and Japanese whaling fleets are hunting protected whale species this season.

2006-11-14T23:09:00.000Z

Urgent! ACT NOW to Protect North Atlantic Right Whale

Image courtesy of the Marine Mammal Commisssion

It appears that there is a very real chance that a significant number of the remaining (approx.350) critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale are about to be directly affected by the the start of the Canadian Lobster fishing season this week.

'Thirty to fifty of the world’s remaining North Atlantic right whales are in mortal danger. Lobster season has begun in the Bay of Fundy, and the whales which have usually left the area by this time of year are in grave danger of becoming ensnared in fishing gear and dying.'
- Defenders of Wildlife

Please use the link below immediately to send a message to the Canadian government to postpone the start of the lobster season for long enough for the whales to leave the fishery area in the Bay of Fundy.

Message supplied by Defenders of Wildlife, please add your name and address then cut and paste to Canadian Minister of Fisheries, Loyola Hearn -

Hearn.L@parl.gc.ca

Dear Minister,

As a supporter of Defenders of Wildlife and someone who cares about protecting endangered whales, I am writing to urge you to delay the opening of the Canadian lobster season in the Bay of Fundy in order to protect the highly endangered North Atlantic right whale.

As of early November, scientists reported that there were between 30 and 50 highly endangered right whales still present in these Canadian fishing grounds.

Fishing gear entanglements is the second-leading cause of death of right whales. And, with only an estimated 350 North Atlantic right whales left on the planet, the species simply cannot bear the risk of the fishery opening on top of such a significant percentage of the population.

While we recognize that a delay may impose some short-term hardship for fishermen, failing to delay the season for a reasonable amount of time until the whales have left may be fatal to some of the last remaining right whales on earth.

Because so few right whales are left, the loss of even one animal would contribute significantly to the risk of extinction for the entire species. Please act now to help protect them from Canadian lobster gear we can't afford delay.

Yours respectfully,

2006-09-16T14:50:00.000+01:00

Aquaculture - Is it ecologically sound?

Image courtesy of the United States Department of Agriculture

Unfortunately Aquaculture (with the possible exclusion of farmed oysters, clams and mussels) currently has a number of major ecological flaws:

Degradation of the environment -
http://www.wrm.org.uy/deforestation/shrimp.html

Pollution of the environment -
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Aquaculture/Salmon/Pollution.asp

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/aqua-ch.htm

Parasite and disease transfers from farmed to wild stock -
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:U3bnbr0maSMJ:www.puresalmon.org/pdfs/diseases.pdf+fish+farm+parasites+and+disease&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=7

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/problems/aquaculture/parasites_disease/index.cfm

Probably the biggest problem of all; many aquaculture industries depend on an unsustainable harvesting of wild species to be processed into fish meal for the farmed species -
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:ZPb9mDl9g8AJ:www.esa.org/science/Issues/FileEnglish/issue8.pdf+fish+farms+require+fish+meal&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=12

There is also the risk posed by the escape of proposed farmed GM transgenic stock into the wild-
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:F6LGTksw4BoJ:www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/2217_NOCtestimonyJul2002.pdf+transgenic+fish+farm+escapes&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2

However this does not mean that there is no potential to improve the sustainability and ecological footprint of aquaculture and such efforts will be extremely important to future food production. -
http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/rcbtoa/services/aquaculture.html

2006-09-13T15:38:00.000+01:00

Data File 5 - The GM Debate

Image courtesy of Brian0918

I am not hostile to all technology, merely technology designed around unsustainable practises and technology that is disingenuosly promoted as some kind of 'magic wand' that will solve a global problem at a stroke, but in reality does nothing of the sort.

Biotechnology is often promoted solely on its own terms to fulfill very narrow requirements and no legal responsibility is taken by GM or GE corporations if anything goes wrong, these issues are classed as 'externalities'.
Indeed most GM, GE and chemical corporations go to great lengths to ensure they cannot be held legally accountable for 'accidents'; just ask the citizens of Bhopal (Methyl isocyanate the chemical that was produced at Union Carbide's facility in Bhopal is used in pesticides).

Rachel Carson in 'Silent Spring' was concerned not just with the quantities of chemicals being used by the intensive agriculture industry but that corporations do not test the effects of combinations of chemicals, merely the regulationary 'safety' requirements for their own individual products.

People are now exposed to a vast number of man-made chemicals in all aspects of their daily lives and the fact is very little study is dedicated to how combinations of those chemicals effect us long term.

Tobacco corporations spent decades and millions on 'scientific' propaganda that there was no link between their products and cancer.

The concept that no winds or fauna occur around GM farms is another classic example of corporate propaganda.
The suggestion that it is impossible to have cross pollination between GM and non-GM crops is a scientific fallacy.
This of course is of no concern to GM corporations since it expands their market share by covertly destroying their competition, while at the same time those corporations claim that they are happy to compete with non-GM products on 'merit' alone. However they also consistently campaign against labelling that allows consumers to make an informed choice.

'Monsanto and its allies have created the clunky-sounding Coalition Against the Costly Labeling Law. They've set a $6 million spending target, 40 times the amount pro-labeling forces plan to spend.'
- St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Editorial, September 26, 2002

'Oregon Genetically Engineered Food Label Bid Fails
Early returns showed more than 73 percent of voters rejecting Measure 27 compared with 27 percent in favor, prompting local media outlets to declare that the initiative, which would have produced the first such labeling law in the country, had been defeated.
Campaign finance reports showed the food industry and other opponents raised more than $5 million to combat the initiative.'
- Reuters, 11/12/2002

'The giant chemical maker Monsanto has failed in its attempt to convince the state of Maine to abandon its Quality Trademark Seal program for milk, which the state adopted in 1994. Maine Attorney General G. Steven Rowe has informed Monsanto that the use of the seal is entirely appropriate for the Maine milk market. "Consumer choice is not impaired in any way," Rowe told Monsanto. "Rather, consumer choice is broadened." Monsanto had requested that the use of the seal be suspended and legal proceedings brought against Oakhurst and H.P. Hood for alleged unfair trade practices.'
- Sharon Kiley Mack
Daily News, February 26, 2003

If GM corporations achieve sufficient market share in a farming community, they quite simply win by contamination.
Any suggestion that GM corporations are unaware of this, would require a level of stupidity amongst their scientific experts which would prevent them from identifying any significant difference between their a*** and their elbow.

All GM products are designed to lock customers (and by extention the consumer) into an exclusive commercial relationship with the supplying corporation.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN10436446&from=business

“What you’re seeing,” he explained, “is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain.”
- Monsanto representative, Robert Fraley, describing his company’s corporate strategy in the magazine 'Farm Journal' in 1996.

Roundup (glyphosate) and genetically engineered 'Roundup Ready' crops are simply a revenue stream, Monsanto's patent on Roundup ran out in 2000 so to protect revenue before that happened, Monsanto patented genetically modified crops that were resistant to glyphosate, thus perpetuating their patent by other means.

In 1997 the New York attorney-geneneral’s office forced Monsanto to withdraw adverts claiming that Roundup is “biodegradable” and “environmentally friendly”.

According to the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, glyphosate is the third most commonly-reported cause of pesticide illness among farm workers and the commonest cause among landscape maintenance workers.

'Scientists' funded by Monsanto to produce a study of their growth hormone 'Posilac' reported that cows treated with the hormone suffered only a minor increase in udder infections. But when the results were re-examined by independent researchers, they found to their astonishment that only part of the data had been processed. A complete analysis revealed that the “somatic cell count” (that is pus, to you and me) increased by 20 per cent in the udders of cows treated with Posilac.

http://www.unsafescience.com/bgh.html

There is also scientific evidence that cows given growth hormone injections pass elevated hormone levels on in their milk and that this is linked to breast cancer and prostate cancer.

'among pre-menopausal women increasing levels of IGF-1 in blood were strongly associated with increasing risk of breast cancer in a consistent dose-response relationship. Adjusting for other known breast cancer factors (age at which menstruation began; age at birth of first child; number of children; family history of breast cancer; and weight in relation to height) did not change the results'
- The Lancet (May 1998)

Science (January 1998) reported a four-fold increased risk of prostate cancer "a strong positive association" among 152 men who had elevated, but still "normal," levels of IGF- 1. The study found that men, aged 60 and older, with high levels of IGF-1 (300-500 nanograms/milliliter) were eight times more likely to develop prostate cancer than men with the lowest levels (100-185 ng/ml).

According to the researchers, these results "raise concern" that an intake of rBGH or IGF-l, over time (and especially so for the elderly), "may increase the risk of prostate cancer." Researchers suggested that IGF-1 levels in the blood might be a useful predictor of prostate cancer risk.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:2VJnU8RJSo0J:www.corporations.org/cancer/r598.doc+posilac+study+Samuel+S.+Epstein&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=10

http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn382.htm

Environmentalists are often accused of corporation bashing, however bashing certain corporations is a perfectly justifiable activity when you start investigating the behaviour of those corporations:

'Monsanto fined $1.5 million for bribery'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4153635.stm

'Roundup Ready® canola is like other canola. It’s nutritional qualities and food safety are equivalent to conventional canola.
In a paddock, it looks the same as other canola. With the exception of glyphosate based herbicides (such as Roundup®) unwanted plants can be effectively controlled with the same herbicides as conventional canola.'
http://www.monsanto.com.au/layout/canola/rr_canola/default.asp

So to sum up the only benefit to Roundup Ready® canola is that it is glyphosate resistant but since persistant use of the same pesticide causes 'weeds' to develop resistance, this is not a benefit either.

Monsanto reps somehow forgot to mention that the yields from their GM product are lower than conventional canola.

'The success of RR soybeans is remarkable in light of the magnitude of the so-called Roundup Ready® "yield drag." Under most conditions extensive evidence shows that RR soybeans produce lower yields than possible if farmers planted comparable but non-engineered varieties.'

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/RRS-Yield-Drag.htm

So bearing all this in mind why the rush to use GM products by famers? Simple, at the current time intensive agricultural processes are the only way for agricultural suppliers to meet the demands of ever lower prices by corporations like WalMart.

Farmers are increasingly unable to afford more agriculturally sustainable practises like proper crop rotations and varied chemicals because the drive for ever cheaper food is destroying normal farm economics and intensive farming methods are the only way of delivering the necessary economies of scale.

If farmers can use the agricultural equivalent of Agent Orange (another chemical Monsanto used to produce) then they do not have to apply it as often (initially) and this saves money (initially) although these benefits are rapidly eroded.

GM pundits like to claim that food is now cheaper than it has ever been.
It certainly is in the developed world, because the consumer is not being informed of the real cost of all that 'cheap' food in biosphere degredation or the way the farming community is being impoverished by the corporations supplying food to consumers at bargain basement prices.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4742949.stm

There is no such thing as a free lunch and there never will be.

To put the financial interests of GM companies into some sort of perspective, here are some figures from the biotech company Monsanto:

'Monsanto made $4.9 billion in sales in the fiscal year ended 31st August 2003.
Of that, $1.9 billion came from biotech seeds, such as corn and soybeans genetically modified to resist certain insects and withstand applications of Roundup or generic glyphosate weed-killer.

Sales of Roundup® were $1.8 billion. And the company made $1.2 billion in revenue from other agricultural productivity products, primarily its Posilac® growth hormone for dairy cows.'

'For the full fiscal year, the company made a profit of $68 million' after taking a one time hit to pay '$396 million to help settle a liability lawsuit over decades-old contamination of Anniston, Ala., with polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs.'
- St Louis Post

GM companies are heavily involved with research and development some of which is carried out in commercial association with colleges and universities, it is unclear if this is skewing research away from conventional crops in areas where there is currently little GM product and whether this is a commercial attempt to develop new markets.

'New Biodiesel Team
North Dakota State University and biotechnology company Monsanto have agreed to work together on ways to improve oilseed crops for biodiesel fuel and other products.
School officials say the partnership makes sense because the state leads the nation in the production of canola, a preferred ingredient in biodiesel.
"This is a great big deal for us," said Ken Grafton, dean of agriculture at NDSU. "In talking to my colleagues across the country, we don't see this level of partnership with private industry."
- Northern Canola growers Association, 8/1/2006.

Certainly biotech R&D has an added benefit for the biotech company Monsanto, through its patent on the 35S promoter, a genetic mechanism used extensively in the biotech industry.
'All biotech companies using the promoter must pay Monsanto a technology use fee. By 2004, the company had a 29.82 percent share of all research and development in the biotech industry.'
- Center for Food Safety, 2005

Some GM lobbyists like to say that GM products are succesful because they are popular with farmers and cite examples of products that have been withdrawn due to 'poor sales' however they are being economical with the truth. A number of these products were actually withdrawn because they were substandard or the company that created them was taken over by a larger corporation which chose to sell its own products instead -

BXN cotton was produced by Calgene, the company was bought by Monsanto in 1997, and Monsanto promply replaced BXN cotton with Roundup Ready® product.

Would Monsanto's spending $8 billion acquiring, or establishing relationships with, US and foreign seed companies have anything to do with the popularity of its products and farmers 'choice'?

Certainly the 2005 report by the Center for Food Safety stated that one of the factors contributing to Monsanto’s cornering of the GM market is its control of these seed companies.

“These companies (often owned or indirectly controlled by Monsanto) had to agree that 90 percent of the sales of herbicide-tolerant soybeans would contain Monsanto’s patented technology.
This requirement was later dropped to 70 percent after Monsanto came under scrutiny from government regulators. Through this sort of ownership and control of seed companies, Monsanto has been able to ensure that competition [will] remain small and that its patented genetically engineered crop varieties [will] be the ones most readily available".

http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=seeds_tmln&startpos=0#gm-3

The UK Soil Association’s 2003 report, Seeds of Doubt, shows that virtually every benefit claimed for GE crops since 1996 has not occurred.

'Instead farmers using GE seeds are reporting lower yields, continuing dependency on herbicides and pesticides, loss of access to international markets and a loss of profitability.

The Soil Association estimates that GE soya, maize and oilseed rape could have cost the US economy US$12 billion since 1999 in farm subsidies, lower crop prices, loss of major export orders and product recalls.'

http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/ed0930aa86103d8380256aa70054918d/a72f34ecca9b64e880256cd70037de0a!OpenDocument

A Dutch report found that given the choice, rodents would avoid eating GM crops and those given a GM only diet actually suffered health problems.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MicePreferNonGM.php

It also appears that at least one GM corporation's (Monsanto) own reserach confirms these results however they are less than willing to share those results with the public:http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:N58WHjYmZRsJ:eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/MON863briefing0601.pdf+rats+gm+maize&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3

Another interesting facet to the Canola debate is that GM varients are now being classed as problem weeds in some parts of Canada.

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/view?/news/2001/06/21/gm_canola010621

Recently yields for GMO crops are claimed to have improved however research shows that this information is only part of the story -

In the University of Melborne's 2003 report by Dr Robert Norton, those higher yields are based on a theoretical scenario and disingenuously use both GM (50% of current triazine tolerant) canola and conventional canola (only 40%) not only that but the report's scenario has the audacity to allow 160,000 hectares of ADDITIONAL (my capitals) GM canola planting.
Which means any attempt to use it as a comparison with existing conventional canola yields is meaningless.

This report also uses the additional planting area as the basis for its claimed increased wheat yields (as a rotational crop).

Everything else being equal if you increase the area planted with GM crops you will increase yield. Dr Norton's report is therefore a self fulfilling prophecy and as a result valueless

'GM canola enables an efficient hybrid system to be created and theoretically you'd expect a hybrid to yield more because of the increase in crop genetic biodiversity and strees tolerance through heterosis, otherwise known as hybrid vigour' - Dr. Tribe, GMO lobbyist

This kind of pro-GM argument is completely disingenuous since so does non-GM selective improvement of natural hybrids to improve yields and counter local pests and growing conditions, like the Lyamunga 90 bean in Africa; facile attempts to claim this as a unique benefit of GM crops dare laughable.

http://www.unsystem.org/ngls/documents/publications.en/voices.africa/number6/vfa6.10.htm

GM Canola yields from GM farming areas like Manitoba have been cited as examples of how GM yield lag has now been eliminated from some GM products and that therefore they are now the de facto answer for world agriculture.

However since these examples give no comparisons between climate, soil quality, pest susceptibility differences, etc between Manitoba amd places like Europe, Australia and Africa this argument is disingenuous and hopelessly flawed.

"There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disreali

During my research into yields of conventional and GM crops, it suddenly occurred to me that perhaps I should be looking behind the statistics at the causes of yield improvements and as a result I came across a very, very interesting piece of data.

Improved yields are directly related to research into the most 'successful' stock. 'Success' for these purposes is measured purely by the largest quantities of seed sold. GM corporations are doing a similar trick with yields that they are attempting to do with contamination.

Once GM products reach tipping point on commercial sales, research into improving yields automatically switches from conventional crops to GM crops, regardless of any other factor.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:7KPYStUhRlcJ:www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/FAPM/2002proceedings/gaskaroundupready.pdf+gm+yield+lag&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=12

The way GM lobbyists burble on, readers might be misled into believing that conventional breeding was unable to provide equivalent benefits, this is of course a complete fallacy:

'Scientists of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service (ARS) developed two salt tolerant wheat lines by conventional breeding. Salt tolerance of wheat is an important trait. In the irrigated wheat producing regions in the west of the USA, the improper irrigation accelerates building up of salts. The two breeding lines W4909 and W4910 resulted from one parent containing genes from wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), a wild relative from wheat that had shown salt tolerance before. The other parent contains genes that schedule another gene that would otherwise block the transfer of wheatgrass genes into domestic wheat, which is called PH1b gene-inhibition. The scientists want to reveal the mechanism of salt tolerance. The article „New Plants Shrug Off Salinity“ is published in Agriculture Research/January 2003 and can be downloaded from the internet (http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jan03/salin0103.pdf).'

While we are on the subject of GM crops in Manitoba:
http://list.wayground.ca/pipermail/canada-activist/2005-September/000510.html

On the subject of GM crops 'benefits' for biodiversity or otherwise:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/monarch.cfm

The US government is only now finally running its first full environmental impact assessment of a GM plant.
Why? Because an unapproved one escaped:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food/mg19125643.100-escaped-golfcourse-grass-frees-gene-genie-in-the-us.html

Of course GM scientists are not saying that conventional crops are not interesting, merely that they have not pirated the genetic material for a patent, so they cannot 'own' conventional crops properly; therefore though GM corporations buy seed banks of conventional crops in order to plunder their genetic diversity, those crops cannot be regarded as a 'commercial' success.

That in a nutshell is the real 'benefit' of GM crops, they allow corporations to 'own' nature.
In the same way that indigenous people around the globe have had their land rights stolen (GM has accelerated this); GM corporations are in the process of stealing nature then selling it back to us with a very real and legally binding patent.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food/mg19125643.900-waterproof-rice-can-outlast-the-floods.html

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1604

Environmental groups learnt the hard way from Corporate sponsored scientists and lobby groups that to ignore the political arena results in being outflanked by cynical and machiavellian opponents. Now corporate sponsored scientists and lobby groups have discovered their traditional propaganda is no longer fooling an increasingly well informed public, who after the cigarette industry's classic example of fake science, can no longer be relied on to unquestionlingly accept corporate press releases and 'expert' corroboration. Understandably corporations are far from happy about this situation and are funding greenwashing NGOs and scientists in an effort to strike back and protect their revenue streams.

Think about it, are multibillion dollar companies and industries really going to sit idly by while environmental organisations point out all their ugly secrets and in so doing reduce the profits that corporations are legally required to maximise for their shareholders ?
Of course not! It would be wholly illogical and fly in the face of all corporate history in a multiplicity of industries.

'Monsanto Lines Up Heavy-Hitters As Lobbyists'
'Once upon a time, Monsanto Co. had a corporate slogan that said, "Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible." Today, under fire for its genetically modified agricultural products and the constant topic of rumors as to the company's possible merger or sale, Monsanto's top brass appears to be placing its bets on lobbyists instead. The firm of Griffin, Johnson, Dover & Stewart Inc. and several of its members registered with the Senate last month as lobbyists for Monsanto. That's Griffin as in Patrick J. Griffin, former chief congressional lobbyist for President Bill Clinton, and Johnson as in David E. Johnson, former director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Not to slight the GOP, the Griffin firm also lists on its roster of Monsanto lobbyists Leonard Swinehart, a top aide to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and Keith Heard, from the staff of Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.

Monsanto spokeswoman Lori J. Fisher confirmed the new hires with deft understatement: "I'm told that they are currently working with Monsanto on a variety of biotech issues," she said. "As you know, they have experience with both congressional and administration circles in D.C." They almost sound like volunteers. We'd guess not, although the first report on fees isn't required until early next year. Monsanto's own most recent report says that for the first half of 1999 it shelled out $2 million on D.C. lobbying activities.'
- by Jon Sawyer, Terence Samuel and Nahal Toosi
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 21, 1999,

To corporations environmental problems are an externality, only to be dealt with after a very protracted legal battle to minimise or escape the penalties and even if the legal case is lost, a good accountancy firm should be able to get tax benefits to offset against those losses. If even that isn't possible, then getting taken over by another corporation and ceasing to exist as an entity that can be held legally accountable is a permissable legal strategy. Big round of applause for Union Carbide...Not!

Monsanto's lawyers preempting liability to an externality:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/wheatdefeat021003.cfm

Anyone wishing to keep up to date with Monsanto's activities can do so here -
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/monsanto.html

Indian cotton farmers:
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/ip250505.txt

Completely objective science never claims to have a definitive answer, which is all the 'wriggle' room corporations and their lobbyists need.

Interesting further reading on GM crops:

http://www.greenpartysask.ca/GPS_Principles_Platform/Backgrounder_Articles/Agriculture/GM%20Crops%20_%20Going%20Against%20the%20Grain.htm

http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=280

http://www.biotech-monitor.nl/4802.htm

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=5790

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2000/Jul/msg00118.html

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmnebraskasoycomment.htm

http://www.safe-food.org/-news/1999-12-04.html

All of these flaws have not prevented GM corporations and their lobbyists from continuing to claim that thay alone can feed the worlds poor and they have started a serious campaign to get their products into third world countries under the guise of 'aid' -

'In 2005 Syngenta decided not to go commercial with Golden Rice in developed countries, a main reason being that there is practically no vitamin A deficiency in such countries. Thus, it would be probably a vitamin-enriched product with little commercial interest, even though antioxidants are very fashionable, and provitamin A is such an antioxidant. But still, Syngenta continues to support the project with advice and scientific knowhow.

The essence of the Sublicensing Agreement

* The inventors have assigned their exclusive rights to the Golden Rice technology to Syngenta.
* Syngenta added some further technologies, and arranged licences with other companies for some additional technologies to be included in the original Golden Rice.
* Syngenta, in turn, has given the inventors a humanitarian licence with the right to sublicense public research institutions and low-income farmers in developing countries, to the full set of necessary technologies.
* Syngenta retains commercial rights, although it has no plans to commercialize Golden Rice.
* ’Humanitarian Use’ means (and includes research leading to):
o Use in developing countries (low-income, food-deficit countries as defined by FAO)
o Resource-poor farmer use (earning less than US$10,000 per year from farming)
o The technology must be introduced into public germplasm ( = seed) only (see below).
o No surcharge may be charged for the technology (i.e. the seed may cost only as much as a seed without the trait)
o National sales are allowed by such farmers (in this way urban needs can also be covered)
o Reusing the harvested seed in the following planting season is allowed (the farmer is the owner of his seeds
* Regulatory imperative and national sovereignty, i.e. Golden Rice may not be released in a country lacking biosafety regulations, and the decision to adopt the technology is a national matter.
* No export allowed (except for research to other licensees): this is a humanitarian project, i.e. the seeds are meant to cover the daily requirements of the poor populations that are deficient in vitamin A.
* Improvements to licensed technology:
o Commercial rights of improvements to the technology go to Syngenta, but
o Humanitarian Use of such improvements is guaranteed under the same terms of the original agreement (in this way any improvements to the technology will serve the humanitarian purpose).
* No warranties are given by licensor(s) (this is also related the fact that every receiving country will determine what biosafety and agronomic requirements to impose before approval of a Golden Rice variety.
* Liabilities and costs — each party is responsible for what it controls (this follows also from the fact that this is a humanitarian project and not a commercial enterprise).

Selection of locally adapted varieties as receptors of the Golden trait:
While countries adopting the technology are free to introduce the trait into their preferred varieties, there are some criteria on which strategic decisions for selection should be based. For example, receptor rice varieties should preferably be widely used by farmers. Those varieties should also be expected to maintain prominence over time and be grown by most productive farmers in vitamin A deficiency-prone regions (for local and regional supply).

See also:
# Kryder D, Kowalsi SP, Krattiger AF. 2000. 'The Intellectual and Technical Property Components of pro-Vitamin A Rice (GoldenRice™): A Preliminary Freedom-To-Operate Review', ISAAA Briefs No 20. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. 56 p.'
- Dr Tribe, GMO lobbyist.

Unfortunately this 'altruistic generosity' is not what it seems.

The GM 'wonder' solution to vitamin A deficiency conveniently ignores the fact that there are conventional crop solutions to the problem:

http://www.futureharvest.org/news/sweetpotato.bckgrnd.shtml

Cynics might suspect that free distribution of a patented crop that farmers can be charged for in the future might have something to do with the 'generosity' of Syngenta's free distribution. It also has the additional benefit for the biotech industry of contaminating the food chain in new areas with patented GM product.

Lets have a closer look at the small print:

Syngenta's commercial business model -

1. 'Syngenta retains commercial rights, although it has no plans to commercialize Golden Rice.'

Translation - This of course can be changed at any time

2. 'The inventors have assigned their exclusive rights to the Golden Rice technology to Syngenta.
Syngenta added some further technologies, and arranged licences with other companies for some additional technologies to be included in the original Golden Rice.
Syngenta, in turn, has given the inventors a humanitarian licence with the right to sublicense public research institutions and low-income farmers in developing countries, to the full set of necessary technologies.'

Translation - This addition of new technologies to the product gives Syngenta total commercial control of the product just in case the inventors should try to recover their exclusive rights, as indicated by the fact that the inventors now need a 'humanitarian licence' to 'sublicence' their invention from Syngenta.

3. 'Improvements to licensed technology:
Commercial rights of improvements to the technology go to Syngenta.....technology will serve the humanitarian purpose'

Translation - Anyone improving the product, including farmers through normal hybridization will automatically cede the commercial rights of those improvements to Syngenta, though Syngenta will not penalise farmers for this as long as they remain in poverty.

4. 'No export allowed' -

Translation - Syngenta will keep the African farmers in poverty or the farmers will pay for the crops.

This is a covert commercial enterprise to contaminate the food chain with GM product. Some enterprises have a short term profit cycle and some require a longer term investment before reaping dividends.

Syngenta have also employed the standard biotech legal avoidence of any and all liabilities for environmental externalities -

1.'Regulatory imperative and national sovereignty, i.e. Golden Rice may not be released in a country lacking biosafety regulations, and the decision to adopt the technology is a national matter.'

2. 'No warranties are given by licensor(s)'

3. 'Liabilities and costs — each party is responsible for what it controls '

Translation - Syngenta knows these countries do not have the wherewithall to ensure biosafety regulations so this is a clear and legally binding disclaimer that any biosafety failures are the national responsibility of the sovereign government concerned using the Union Carbide model.

Addendum

1. 'this is a humanitarian project and not a commercial enterprise.'

Translation - Syngenta intend to use poverty stricken countries to conduct field trials with no liabilities and contaminate new markets with GM product but because Syngenta are currently giving it away free, this is not a commercial enterprise.

To back my interpretation of GM 'aid' up, here is an example of existing biotech corporate behaviour in other markets -

'During the early years of introducing transgenic soybean into Argentina, Monsanto did not charge farmers royalties to use the technology. But now that farmers are hooked, the multinational is pressuring the government for payment of intellectual property rights, despite the fact that Argentina signed UPOV 78, which allows farmers to save seeds for their own use. Nevertheless, Paraguayan farmers have just signed an agreement with Monsanto to pay the company $2 per tonne.
- Prof. Miguel A. Altieri, University of California, Berkeley and Prof. Walter A. Pengue, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SDILA.php

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6435

http://bittergreensgazette.blogspot.com/2005/04/monsanto-marches-on.html

2006-08-23T13:21:00.000+01:00

Sustainable Development?.........I don't think so.

(photo - courtesy of California Department of Fish and Game)

The fall-out from the recent revelation that the Japanese Fishing Ministry has been brazenly ignoring quotas set by the CCSBT to preserve sustainable Southern Bluefin Tuna stocks, while the Japanese fishing industry has additionally been fiddling the books for 20 years continues.

The Japanese Fisheries Ministry says that from next year it will be introducing a tagging scheme. However since the issue is accepting quotas and preventing the falsification of documentation exactly how this is anything more than political window dressing is currently unclear.

'Japanese boats exceeded their quota of 6,065 tons by AT LEAST (my capitals) 1,500 tons' -

$22 per kilo*
1000 kilos to the metric ton(tonne)= $22,000
'at least' 1,500 metric tons = $33,000,000
20 years @ $33,000,000 per year= $660,000,000

Those are conservative ballpark figures from details on the web and do not currently take into account that the scale of overfishing may greatly exceed 1,500 metric tons per year.

Tsukiji’s Tuna Auction keeps accurate records of prices and the Japanese Fisheries Ministry keeps less accurate records of quotas and how much they have been exceeded by........so why the delay in releasing those figures?

The Japanese Fisheries Ministry need to spin the story through the 'sustainable development', 'picking on Japan', 'there are worse culprits than us' and 'we have learnt from past mistakes and are now taking steps to rectify the situation' filters and all that stuff takes a while to research. The blame game should go to extra time.

'Since 1997, the CCSBT has failed to reach agreement on the global TAC for its members...............Japan, the final destination for 99% of SBT, has not previously agreed to be limited to its national allocation of 6065 tonnes..............Member governments of the SBT commission agreed in October 2003 that the way to bring major players to the table was to INCREASE (my capitals) the TAC to 14,030 tonnes/year.
- INFOFISH
Fishing Technology Digest for Asia-Pacific
Issue No. 48 • Kuala Lumpur • Oct - Dec 2004

* - In actuality the tuna price per kilo, depending on the quality can be substantially more. The record for a single tuna is 100,000 yen per kilogram, approx.$840 per kg.

2006-08-18T19:08:00.000+01:00

Data File 4 - Unsustainable Commercial Fisheries in International Waters.

(illustration courtesy of Liftarn)

The 'tragedy of the commons' is a metaphor describing the destruction of public resources (the commons) by private interests when the best strategy for those interests conflicts with the common good.
The idea first came to prominence in a book on population by William Forster Lloyd, published in 1833. Garrett Hardin then developed the concept in his 1968 essay "the Tragedy of the Commons" published in Science.

Each individual interest seeks to maximise the benefit to itself because it does not bear the entire cost of those actions and so ignores the costs borne by others which are classed as 'externalities'.

The most successful commercial strategy for an individual private interest is to exploit more than its share of public resources for as long as the benefits exceed the penalties.
Since every rational private interest will follow this strategy, to avoid being disadvantaged by the other private interests, the public resource always gets overexploited.

Nowhere is this better exemplified than the free for all that is currently going on in international waters for global fish stocks; although the actions of globalised corporations (corporations have a legal requirement to put maximising profits for share-holders above all other considerations) provide another excellent example.

There are a two solutions which can prevent this 'tragedy', if efficiently enforced.

1. The creation and enforcement of conservation measures by an authority, which may be an outside agency or created by the private interests themselves, with agreement to cooperate to conserve the resource.
This is the political solution and as a result is often not as effective as it should be or worse, a self interest talking shop disguising the continued unsustainable exploitation of the commons with weasel words and toothless agreements.

http://www.admiraltylaw.com/fisheries/Papers/unclos.htm

2. To convert each 'common' or part thereof, into private property which can be traded nationally / internationally, giving the owner of each an incentive to enforce its sustainability. Failue to do so has a direct and unambiguous financial penalty .
The risk here is of an inequitable hidden transfer of wealth; if compensation for this privatisation is inadequate or non-existant.
This is the commercial solution, which although by no means perfect does have some record of success.

Internationally tradable quotas (ITQs) backed by international enforcement, where any ship caught fishing illegally would have its owning company issued with a crippling fine (which should counter the cynical 'flag of convenience' practise), its captain imprisoned and the ship scrapped, would go a long way to dealing with the current unsustainable exploitation of fish stocks in international waters.
Iceland already operate a system very similar to this, combined with an annual scientific survey of all commercial fish stocks within the Icelandic EEZ.

It is also important to realise that ruinous over-exploitation of one 'commons' can have a drastic 'domino' effect on other 'commons'

Over fishing of coastal Africa is now having an effect on land -

'By comparing fish harvesting data to changes in the estimated biomass (weight of living creatures) of large mammals in Ghana, researchers were able to track the relationship between the two resources over a 30-year period. They found that years with poor fish harvests for locals coincided with large drops in mammal biomass and vice versa. This correlation was further substantiated by annual counts of hunters found in nature reserves.'

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly11190401.asp

2006-08-14T14:42:00.000+01:00

Freedom of Speech re-instated?..........No. :o)

In an interesting development, the last two comments of mine that were censored by David@Tokyo, have now mysteriously re-appeared.
David has suggested in the past that I didn't know what a 'reload'/'refresh' button was. However since I do and last time this happened the censored comment was there after using the 'reload', then disappeared the next day, before re-appearing after David was upbraided for censorship.......
Perhaps this time Blogger have experienced a technical glitch? :o)

I think we are getting a little closer to the truth now, the comments have just been re-censored, but this time I caught my IWMC comment with only half of the comment displayed and then none of it displayed; so readers are safe to conclude that David is playing games, in the hope of obtaining a debating advantage.
Nice try David but no cigar. :o)

The blue ribbon is a symbol for freedom of speech on the net.

2006-08-14T13:03:00.000+01:00

Censorship IV - Update to David@Tokyo's campaign to keep the world safe from 'unwelcome' debate. :o)

(photo courtesy of Geek Philosopher)

David has censored another comment that doesnt fit his anti environmentalist propaganda; he has also moved the blog entry it was posted on from his current list to his archive list....coincidence? :o)

---------------------

IWC 2006: More on NZ's unsustainable ecotourism

Dolphins could face extinction says expert

One of the most pathetic things I saw when watching the IWC 58 meeting in St Kitts back in June was a New Zealand representative (not sure, but I think it was Mike Donohue from the DoC) taking issue with a report from the scientist mentioned in the article linked above about whether the Doubtful Sound tourism ventures were dolphin watching cruises or Fjord viewing cruises.

Honestly. It doesn't matter what the cruises are for.

What's important is sustainability. Vehicle traffic, regardless of it's intent, appears to be putting the sustainability of this unique dolphin population at great risk.

Eco-tourism advocates should not live in a dream world and think that whale-watching or other activities are environmentally benign.

Conservation should not be confused with doing the Disney thing and "saving" animals from natural phenomenons like predation.

The world is not a zoo. We have to look after it properly.

- David@Tokyo, 15th July 2006

-------------------------------------

Censored Comment -

David claims that the Japanese whaling fleet should be allowed to kill Minke whales 'sustainably' because they are not an endangered species and the ICR ships are operating within the legal framework drawn up by the IWC.

David also claims that Bottlenose Dolphins should be protected from non lethal ecotourism because allegedly he believes it is not 'environmentally benign'; but Bottlenosed dolphins are not an endangered species either, the ecotours are operating within a legal framework drawn up by the New Zealand Department of Conservation and the Doubtful Sound dolphins can and will move, if they dislike the attention. Harpooned Minke whales on the other hand.............

How can David hold two conflicting viewpoints at the same time?
David is a supporter of the New Zealand political party ACT and here is what Wikipedia has to say about ACT -

'Critics of the party point out that ACT is more interested in scoring political points and gaining media exposure than in participating in constructive dialogue...Many of its rank-and-file members are also perceived to have more in common with neo-conservatism than classical liberalism'

David has on several occasions in the past mentioned the Japanese Fisheries Ministry's support for a lowering of its Tuna quotas as a demonstration of its good faith over 'sustainable' exploitation. Indeed David repeatedly claims that 'sustainability' is his only concern.
Turns out that environmental NGOs concerns are correct.

It appears that quotas mean absolutely nothing to the Japanese Fisheries Ministry apart from convenient propaganda tools; whether they ask for them to be lowered, raised or stay the same, business will continue as usual regardless...unsustainably!

Good reason for the IWC to treat the Japanese Fisheries Ministry delegation's disingenuous 'sustainable' pro whaling propaganda with justified skepticism.

- Lamna nasus

http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/07/iwc-2006-more-on-nzs-unsustainable.html

2006-08-14T12:20:00.000+01:00

Censorship III -

David@Tokyo, who recently tried to portray himself as a champion of democracy on Wavemakers Blog is still unable to meet democratic standards on his own blog. :o)

(image courtesy of Wikipedia)

'Instead of making up excuses for things to try to twist the world in your favour, first decide on your principles.
Do you really believe in democracy, or don't you?'
- David@Tokyo, 14th July 2006

David's comment reminded me that I had been most remiss and had not actually posted the justification for my criticisms of the IWMC (David's favourite 'greenwashing' NGO) in response to David's challenge on his blog.
I had posted it on my own, with a link since I was sure that David would immediately censor the comment if it was posted on his blog. After his comments on Wavemaker's blog however, I thought I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Needless to say it has been censored and there is no record of it or the fact it has been censored on David's blog.
Go David! Champion of freedom and democracy! :o)

So here is David's challenge and my censored response for anyone who hasn't read / doesn't have time to read the full unexpurgated debate -

Deleted again.

> Which fact about the IWMC did you believe inaccurate and why? -

Read what you wrote again (it's at your blog). Then justify every single one of those "facts" you stated about the IWMC with evidence.

You will not be able to do so, because your post included verifiably false information. Ann and I discussed the lies for which your post was deleted. When I showed counter-evidence to Ann previously, she agreed that her attribution of the position in question was not correct. You have either failed to see this exchange, or you ignored it.

You are welcome to search the comments on my blog (on your own time) to find it.

I simply refuse to deal with such nonsense more than once. If you would grow up and actually not post verifiable lies, you'll not find your posts getting deleted. Behave like an adult - simple as that. I'm looking for discussion here, not endless tirades of nonsensical abuse.

In the meantime, until you show that you have some integrity by acknowledging the verifiable lies that you have posted with regards to IWMC, you are banned indefinitely, and you are also banned without further response. I simply don't have time to waste on you, if this is the way you intend to behave. My time is better spent on people with integrity. It is not my goal to communicate with those people who demonstrate that they have no integrity.

David@Tokyo

-----------------------------------

Censored Post

Why is David so upset about my comments about IWMC? Well it appears that Eugene Lapointe and his organisation are something of a touchstone for David and indeed many adherents of the discredited 'sustainable development' theory.

The IWMC is a greenwashing lobby organisation which has recently decided to broaden its scope by appealing to the gun lobby in the USA, a very valuable source of revenue, just ask the NRA.

On the IWMC website there is an 'IWMC Forum' –

This forum claims - ’The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various authors and participants in the IWMC Internet Forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of IWMC.org or official policies of IWMC World Conservation Trust.’

However since the only way to be published on the forum is via IWMC and since the forum specifically states it is only for ‘friends and supporters’ clearly anything published has the approval of the IWMC –

So when in June 2006 the article mentioned below was given headline billing on IWMC’s homepage, any suggestion that it is not IWMCs express intention to raise its profile with the pro-gun lobby is laughable.

'Why gun bans don’t work…and what to do. However well-intentioned, gun bans are likely to get the opposite results of what they are intended to achieve. To stop them, the shooting/hunting community needs to get pro-active.'
By James A. Swan, Ph.D.
Author of "In Defense of Hunting"

It is worth noting that using its usual political spin, the IWMC is making a link to 'hunting' to justify this new angle. However since the majority of the article concerns itself with hand guns in San Francisco........

I had a particularly good laugh at this piece of historical revisionism -

'The well-armed Swiss militia dissuaded the Nazis from invading in World War II'

The combined might of the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe was deterred by some well armed Swiss policemen?! RAOTFLMAO.

So thats the gun part of my comments about the IWMC covered, now for the rest.

The IWMC's president Eugene Lapointe is a former CITES dismissed Secretary General.
Lapointe (a French Canadian lawyer) was fired from CITES in 1990 after being found campaigning against a ban on the ivory trade.
In a very strange postscript to this sacking, a tribunal of three people awarded financial compensation to Lapointe for a 'capricious and abitrary' dismissal; yet Lapointe was not re-instated.
It would be extremely interesting to locate more information on this tribunal but Lapointe appears to be the only person on record regarding its findings.
In his book, "Embracing the Earth's Wild Resources" Lapointe notes that an official at the US State Department when asked about the campaign to remove Lapointe from office commented "Our actions were motivated by the necessity of protecting valuable species such as elephants, whales..."
Well DAH! Lapointe was abusing his position as Secretary General of CITES, an organisation designed to protect endangered species in order to exploit them!

Lapointe now advises Japan, Norway, China, Canada and many industries on how to legally avoid animal trade legislation.

His organisation actively supports Whaling, Sealing, the Ivory trade and Shark finning; as listed on the IWMC website

Lapointe admits that he has been at the forefront of resistance to eliminate the secret ballot in CITES. Despite the fact that a secret ballot is beneficial in protecting the man on the street during elections; it is open to huge abuse in international political organisations where transparency becomes a much more important issue. After all if the scientific argument for 'sustainable development' is so incontravertable there is no reason for any nation to vote for it in secret.

Since Lapointe is an Ex Secretary General of CITES, you would expect his organisation to demonstrate a mature and statesmanlike approach to politics?
In which case you would expect wrong! :o)

MOST TIRESOME SPEAKER New Zealand's didactic Commissioner Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Blah blah blah.
-IWMC, 2004

IWMC intends to do its part to see that the obstructionist tactics of do-nothing delegations and their NGO colleagues do not carry this or any other day.
- IWMC, 2003

You might also expect the IWMC to be in favour of scientific research to back 'sustainable development'?
Wrong again I'm afraid! -

The United States plan to research its bowhead stock structure, thereby delaying any tough decisions on its quota for years.
- IWMC, 2004

Although funding details for the IWMC are far from easy to come by, IWMC receives some funding from the World Conservation Trust Foundation.
WCTF is a corporation registered in Canada
WCTF's President is...Eugene Lapointe.

Lapointe is on record as saying IWMC funding comes from Japan, Norway, China, Canada, and "two small European countries."

Oslo Dagbladet reported on 24 May 2000: "Before the CITES meeting in Nairobi on the trade in endangered species in April, the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave large sums of money to Norwegian and foreign lobby organizations in order to ensure a majority for commercial whaling. Some of the lobbyists have very dubious reputations."

"IWMC, an American organization with a questionable reputation and strong economic interests, received 50,000 Norwegian kroner ($6,250) from the Ministry of Fisheries," the newspaper stated. A March 2000 letter from the ministry to IWMC head Eugene Lapointe stated that the government funds were "to carry out activities related to CITES COP 11 and IWC 52 as described in your application to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Support from other Norwegian sources will be allocated separately."

Eugene Lapointe is also on the National Advisory Board of the National Wilderness Institute, some of the funding sources for this organisation will give readers an idea of the corporate sources likely to be contributing funds to the WCTF and the IWMC.

National Wilderness Institute Foundation Grants -

Mobile Foundation - $5000 - 1996

Monsanto Fund - $1000 - 1996

Mobile Foundation - $5000 - 1995

Monsanto Fund - $1000 - 1995

Mobile Foundation - $10,000 - 1995

National Wilderness Institute Corporate Grants -

Chevron - $5000 - 1996

ExxonMobil - $15000 - 1995

Chevron - $5000 - 1995

Chevron - $5000 – 1994

The real reason David does not offer a link to his insubstantial defence of IWMC with Ann is because he couldn't find it on his own blog since it was never there. David has forgotten that he actually had that discussion with Ann on someone else's blog and she was not in total agreement with him.

- Lamna nasus

-----------------------------

:o)

:o)

:o)

http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/iwc-2006-greedy-greenpeace-to-cash-in.html

2006-08-13T15:06:00.000+01:00

Data File 3 - The Canadian Seal Hunt.

(photo courtesy of AP Photo/IFAW, Stewart Cook, HO)

A 'raggedy-jacket' harp seal pup shot by a seal hunter.
Harp seal pups start with white fur and molt over a period of a few weeks. This pup is so young, it is only just beginning to molt. It is illegal to hunt 'whitecoat' pups but the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans allows pups just starting to molt to be killed (12 to 14 days after they are born).

The Canadian Seal Hunt is a thinly disguised effort by the Canadian government to excuse subsidising the politically powerful Canadian fishing community. It also negatively impacts on the economic benefits which should be available to sustainable First Nation hunting.

The pro Seal Hunt lobby have picked up on the new trend by commercial operations and their supporters of attempting to 'greenwash' unsustainable harvesting of natural resources. This is achieved in part by using the disingenuous propaganda that the commercial industry are performing a vital 'environmental' service to protect one or more 'really' endangered species, supposedly 'threatened' by the species they are exploiting.

Needless to say this kind of propaganda is a complete fabrication and has no scientific basis. It also usually disguises the fact that the commercial industry in question is the real culprit for the 'really' endangered status (by unsustainable over harvesting) of the species they now claim to be trying to 'protect'.

This 'greenwashing' theme will recur in other Data Files, notably my Whaling Data File (when I have completed it).

The Seal Hunt lobby have disingenuously tried to 'greenwash' their operation twice over.

First, by blaming harp seals for the lack of cod in Canadian waters; however it was the Canadian commercial cod fishery not seals that caused the decimation of cod populations in Canadian waters. Even the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans has officially stated that the Seal Hunt is not a cull to protect cod stocks.

What do harp seals eat?
In the St. Lawrence River they eat capelin from December to February, prior to the pupping season. Lactating females and moulting harp seals feed infrequently, although mothers forage intensively on capelin in the St. Lawrence River after weaning their pups.
Atlantic cod, including the northern cod stock, is a minor component of the annual harp seal diet.
- Wallace, S.D and J.W. Lawson. 1997. A review of stomach contents of harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) from the Northwest Atlantic: an update. IMMA Technincal Report 97-01. 99pp.

The pro Seal Hunt lobby's second 'greenwashing' allegation is that harp seals are outcompeting walruses for food. This propaganda is as false as the claim about cod.

(photo courtesy of Geek Philosopher)

What do walruses eat?
Walruses prefer molluscs, mainly bivalves such as clams. They suck bivalve animals from the shells. Walruses also eat many other kinds of benthic invertebrates including worms, gastropods, cephalopods, crustaceans, sea cucumbers, and other soft-bodied animals. Walruses may occasionally prey on fishes such as polar cod.

Walruses may eat the remains of young seals when food is scarce.

There are some rare but habitual seal-eating walruses. Their diet consists mainly of ringed and bearded seals. These are usually male walruses, recognizable because they are usually larger than other males with powerful shoulder and chest muscles. Their skin may become grease-stained from the blubber of the seals.

So the allegation that harp seals compete with walruses is clearly untrue.

To return to the cod allegation, here are the comments of Doug Sweetland a Canadian Inshore cod fisherman, who is still a politically active lobbyist for the Canadian Inshore cod fishing industry.

'Doug Sweetland is even-handed in dishing out blame. "Everyone contributed to the decline of the cod. The main culprits were the draggers because of high grading".
High Grading is where fishermen keep catching fish and throwing away the ones they don't want until they have achieved a hold of premium-size fish.
"The plant in Catalina employed 1,500 people. They were getting so much fish in the mid-1980s that they said 26 inches (65cms) is the smallest fish we want. You know where the rest was going - over the side dead. That destroyed a million pounds of fish to get 400,000lb (180.000kg)."
Doug remembers how quickly the end came.
"In the winter of '92 there was good cod. Within three months there was nothing. The offshore fishery had shot itself down."
- Doug Sweetland, Newfoundland cod fisherman refering to the Canadian Cod Fishery between the mid 1980s and 1992, from The End of the Line by Charles Clover.

Readers will notice that Doug Sweetland doesn't mention harp seals at all.

The false allegation that seals are a threat to fishermen continues to hound them, even when the seal species in question is a seriously endangered one.

‘Furthermore, I am reminded from my work on endangered Mediterranean monk seals that as long as seals and fisheries overlap, someone will want to remove seals from the system. Today, only some 500 Mediterranean monk seals exist in the Mediterranean and in the Northeast Atlantic off the coast of Northwest Africa. They are one of the most endangered of all seal species. Yet fishers in the Mediterranean still kill them because they perceive them to be competing with them for their livelihood.’
- David Lavigne, PhD
http://www.imma.org/fishcomm/#cull

Common sense points out that for thousands of years before industrialised commercial fishing methods were introduced (in the 1950s) there was clearly no threat to what where vast cod stocks from their natural predators; who actually demonstrate what genuine ‘sustainable harvesting’ means.

(illustration courtesy of NOAA)

Why is the Canadian Seal Hunt so important to the Canadian fishing industry?
Very simple, for political reasons the Canadian government only requires people in the fishing industry (which includes Seal hunters) to work for 14 weeks of the year to qualify for employment insurance benefits, other Canadians have to subsidise them for the rest of the year. Individual seal hunters only earn approximately $1000 from the Seal Hunt itself.

Larry Tremblett - Ex Inshore cod fisherman,
'He makes enough in the 14 week spring season for crab to qualify for employment insurance...which the government pays for the rest of the year.'

Doug Sweetland - Ex Inshore cod fisherman,
'catches crab. lobster, and lumpfish to qualify for his EI.'

Ransom Myers - Ex Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
'With employment insurance it is not inconceivable that a couple can make C$60,000 (£25,000) a year, spending 14 weeks catching or processing crab or other fish.....for fishermen all business expenditure is allowable against tax........' Myers says you won't hear a peep of criticism of this state benefit system coming from the DFO's big, modern building in St. John's. 'For an academic in Newfoundland to say anything against employment insurance is totally unthinkable. It's not even discussed'.
- first person interviews from The End of the Line by Charles Clover.

St. John's, Newfoundland - 'Former employees in Harbor Breton haven't worked for more than two years, except for projects to extend their employment insurance claims.'
- Tara Brautigam, The ChronicleHerald, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 22nd May 2006

"It's sad to say when you [have] to talk about EI with a million-dollar boat, but you know, that's what's in the fleet, people with million-dollar enterprises just looking to break even,"
- Dwight Spence, fishes from Port au Choix for shrimp and snow crab
CBC News. 24th April 2006

Canadian Employment Insurance (EI) Fishing Benefits -
http://www.sdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=en/ei/types/fishing.shtml&hs=

'EI is especially important in the Atlantic provinces, which have higher rates of unemployment. Many Atlantic workers are also employed in seasonal work such as fishing and go on EI over the winter when there is no work. There are special rules for fishers making it easier for them to collect EI.'
- Wikipedia

'The purpose of the proposed regulation amendment is to put in place a pilot project designed to test the labour market impacts of DECREASING (my capitals), for new entrants and re-entrants to the labour force who have access to employment programs established under Part II of the Act, the number of hours of insurable employment required in order for them to qualify for benefits.'
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2005/20051008/html/regle4-e.html

'The Government of Canada will increase the duration of parental benefits'
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2000/20001108/html/sor394-e.html

(hooded seal illustration courtesy of NOAA)

To give readers an idea of the large number of voters in receipt of these benefits and therefore the massive sums involved -

'fishing benefits paid $217.0 million' - 2000
http://www.rhdcc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=/en/ei/reports/eimar_2000.shtml&hs=aed

'fishing benefits increased 8.6% to $235.6 million' - 2001
http://www.rhdcc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=/en/ei/reports/eimar_2001.shtml&hs=aed

'fishing benefits increased by 4.8% to $246.9 million' - 2002
http://www.rhdcc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=/en/ei/reports/eimar_2002.shtml&hs=aed

Interestingly in 2003, 2004, 2005, someone in the Canadian government appears to have decided that providing the fishing benefits figures so straightforwardly in the Executive Summary was politically imprudent and so it stopped doing so; however the figures are still there, just better hidden.

Fishing benefits paid $274.3 million - 2002 to 2003

Fishing benefits paid $298.1 million - 2003 to 2004

Fishing benefits paid $293.2 million - 2004 to 2005

- Canadian Department of Human Resources and Social Development,
2005 Monitoring and Assessment Report, Annex 2

The Pro Seal Hunt propaganda suggests that the hunt is only designed to keep Harp Seal numbers at their existing levels, this is also untrue.

"When such hunting pressure last occurred, the harp seal population declined rapidly by over 50 percent," said Harris. "Given seals only reach breeding age at about five to six years old, it could be too late to intervene by the time the impacts of current hunting levels are understood."
- Professor Stephen Harris of Bristol University
'Harp seal populations in the northwestern Atlantic: modelling populations with uncertainty'

'Harris notes that the current DFO population estimate for harp seals relied on a very small sample size. Less than two percent of the breeding site was evaluated to extrapolate the population.
Harris points out that several other Canadian fisheries, such as the cod fishery, have collapsed over the years as a consequence of many variables, including environmental change and mismanagement. The harp seal management plan does not apply a precautionary principle, Harris says, and so threatens the survival of seal populations.

The 2006 hunt quota of 325,000 harp seals, as well as 10,000 hooded seals and 10,400 grey seals (the TAC over the last 4 years are the highest kill levels since the 1950s) depresses the value of the additional 10,000 allocation to aboriginal hunters but that does not appear to be a genuine concern for anyone benefiting from the welfare subsidies available through taking part in the larger hunt.

While Greenland has a seal hunt, the Greenland government ordered its publicly owned tannery, Great Greenland, to stop buying Canadian seal pelts as of January 1, 2006 because of its opposition to the Newfoundland seal hunt.
- Environmental News Service 28 May 2006.

(Grey seal photo courtesy of Erik Christensen)

The Pro-Seal Hunt propaganda likes to points out that these seals are not 'endangered'.
Sustainability is about making sure that animals do not become endangered, not waiting until they are!

The Canadian fishing industry (like many other nations' fishing industries) has had ample opportunity to join forces with environmental NGOs to highlight the unsustainable nature of modern industrialised fishing practies and to lobby for improved fishing practises and draconian legislation efficiently enforced, to protect their fish stocks.
That the Canadian fishing industry prefers to create another unsustainable industry to assist them in qualifying for welfare benefits, informs readers exactly how little some of these communities value their traditions and culture.

http://www.fish4ever.org/sustainablefish.php

2006-08-13T14:11:00.000+01:00

Data File 2 - Intensive Agriculture and its effects on 'Wild' and Agricultural BioDiversity

(photo courtesy of 'Tarquin')

Intensive agriculture reduces biodiversity –

'It is now widely accepted that changes in farming practices are the root cause of the large declines that have occurred in populations of most specialist farmland birds'
http://www.bto.org/research/advice/lowland/lowsection3.htm

'Above ground, natural enemies and pollinators are essential for profitable and sustainable agriculture. Many modern agricultural practices (eg, monocultures, poor crop rotation, pesticides and heavy machinery) reduce biodiversity to low levels and trigger even greater adverse responses (eg, pesticide treadmills).'
http://www.science.org.au/nova/071/071key.htm

'The industrial agriculture system consumes fossil fuel, water, and topsoil at unsustainable rates. It contributes to numerous forms of environmental degradation, including air and water pollution, soil depletion, diminishing biodiversity, and fish die-offs.'
- Abstract from 'How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture.'
Authors - Leo Horrigan, Robert S. Lawrence, and Polly Walker
Published in - Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 110, Number 5, May 2002
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p445-456horrigan/horrigan-full.html

'Among the key findings emerging from all countries involved in this project is that intensive agriculture can significantly reduce soil life forms and therefore its fertility and productivity,” said Mr Huising.
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=471&ArticleID=5236&l=en

'Yet, the loss of biodiversity is alarmingly high worldwide. Up to 60,000 plant species could be lost by 2025 if the present rate of extinction is maintained. The FAO has estimated that, since 1900, about three-quarters of the genetic diversity of domestic agricultural crops has already been lost.'
http://www.greenrice.net/keyissues/page.php?id=3

'These locally diverse food production systems are under threat and, with them, the accompanying local knowledge, culture and skills of the food producers. With this decline, agricultural biodiversity is disappearing and the scale of loss is extensive and with the disappearance of harvested species, varieties and breeds goes a wide range of unharvested species.

* More than 90 per cent of crop varieties have disappeared from farmers' fields;

* Half of the breeds of many domestic animals have been lost.

* In fisheries, all the world's 17 main fishing grounds are now being fished at or above their sustainable limits, with many fish populations effectively becoming extinct.

The genetic erosion of agricultural biodiversity is also exacerbated by the loss of forest cover, coastal wetlands and other 'wild' uncultivated areas, and the destruction of the aquatic environment. This leads to losses of 'wild' relatives, important for the development of biodiversity, and losses of 'wild' foods essential for food provision, particularly in times of crisis.'
http://www.ukabc.org/ukabc3.htm#f

'Modern intensive agricultural grasslands are very different from the grasslands of even 50 years ago. At this time, many other plants, including different grass species, grew in the fields. Not only were these grasses of low yield but they were also of less nutritional value to livestock. Because the modern grassland contains few plant species, its biodiversity is much reduced.'
http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/ag_grasslnd/biodiv.htm

2006-06-27T13:21:00.000+01:00

Censorship II -

(photo courtesy of NOAA)

David@Tokyo appears to have now discovered a way of disguising the fact that he has censored a contribution. Interesting that despite his earlier protestations of righteous indignation, he does not wish others to know. :o)

So here is the latest censored item, readers who visit David's blog will note that there is no mention of a post having been removed from the comments. :o)

-----------------

IWC 2006: Samoa also for sustainable use

I'm still trying to figure out exactly how to interpret this, but it seems like Samoa's government is also in favour of the sustainable use of marine resources - yes, even whales.

The English in this report is pretty hard to follow though, so I could be mistaken.

Samoa supports whales sustainability

Samoa’s prime minister says it has full support of the sustainability of marine resources for its use by all Pacific people.

His comments comes after New Zealand criticised six Pacific island countries who have voted in favour of Japan’s pro-whaling resolution at the International Whaling Commission meeting in St Kitts and Nevis.

Tuila’epa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi recently attended the Pacific leaders summit in Japan where Samoa was amongst other Pacific countries supporting Japan’s initiative to be a member of the United Nations Security Council.

Samoa is not a member of the International Whaling Commission.

But the prime minister thinks the depletion of fish stocks such as yellow-fin tuna found in pacific waters three year ago could be the reason behind the support of his Pacific counterparts.

Tuila’epa says that under his current government policies sustainable development of marine resources are a priority.

Good on the Prime Minister of Samoa for not brainlessly regurgitating the "bribery" allegations.

In other news, my email to Matangi Tonga Online was published, in addition to an email I sent to Caribbean Net News a few days back. My strike rate is pretty good at the moment :-)

- David

---------------------------

Here is the post David did not want you to read or know about -

'depletion of fish stocks such as yellow-fin tuna found in pacific waters three year ago could be the reason behind the support of his Pacific counterparts.'

The article merely demonstrates that Tuila’epa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi has apparently been duped by disingenuous pro-whaling propaganda about whales being responsible for depletions of commercial fish stocks.

Unsustainable commercial tuna fishing fleets are responsible for the collapse in Pacific Yellow Fin Tuna stocks, not whales.

Interestingly tuna stocks are under threat globally due to unsustainable commercial hunting; despite the fact that tuna fishing is regulated for 'sustainable development' in both the Pacific and the Atlantic and has been since the early 1980s: SPREP, CEPTFA and IATTC amongst others.

For an interesting update on regional tuna fishing -

http://www.ecsiep.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=617&Itemid=63

- Lamna nasus

-------------------------

Despite David's diatribe about my lack of integrity in an earlier post; on my blog his posts get a working link, readers can make up their own minds as to who has integrity issues. :o)

http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/iwc-2006-samoa-also-for-sustainable.html#comments

2006-06-22T20:36:00.000+01:00

Censorship -

Is sadly what happens when a pro-whaling supporter incorrectly predicts the results of the majority of the important votes in advance of this years IWC meeting and now feeling foolish; lashes out at the environmental movement he dislikes so much.

(image courtesy of Wikipedia)

Readers unfamiliar with David@Tokyo's unique brand of anti-environmental invective, re-interpreting of media stories, IWMC / ICR propaganda and hypocrisy over the definition of trollish posting may wish to visit his blog (I have posted the link at the bottom of this article).

David is the second pro-whaling blogger to remove my input from his forum, the first - Isanatori, appears to have gone as far as discontinuing the English language version of his blog so that our discussion about the history/culture of industrial Japanese whaling or rather the lack of it would not be available to anyone looking for balanced debate.

This is the full, uncensored thread from David@Tokyo's blog (I have not bothered to use David's red highlights in the quoted article; since they merely present his bias. Readers can form their own opinions without such cheap tricks).

-----------------------------

"IWC 2006: Greedy Greenpeace to cash in again"

Despite previously ruling out harrassing the ICR research programme in the Antarctic this next austral summer, Greenpeace has now done an about face, in an apparent attempts to cash in on powerful anti-whaling propaganda campaigns.

A few days ago a revealing article into the the organisation of Greenpeace appeared in the Australian media. Particularly revealing bits highlighted in red:

"Leading the good fight"

What do you do when your brand is your best asset, your organisation needs money, but your 'customers' have very high standards? Peter Weekes reports.

Steve Shallhorn is sitting tightly on a potential pot of gold that other chief executives can only fantasise about - a brand recognition for his business of more than 90 per cent.

However, unlike other CEOs, Mr Shallhorn has no intention of leveraging his brand to generate a regular and stable source of income. "Greenpeace Approved" tinned tuna will not be on the supermarket shelves any time soon, says the recently appointed head of the Australian Pacific arm of the multi-national activist organisation.

"If we went down that road we would have to be absolutely sure that the product is what we say it is all the time," Mr Shallhorn argues. "We figure the monitoring it would take to make sure the product is what we say it is is not worth the risk of damage to the brand."

Over its 30-odd years, Greenpeace has created its household name by doing everything from chasing down Japanese whalers in Antarctica to abseiling down skyscrapers to hang protest banners. In the process they have frustrated, annoyed and generally earned the wrath of most governments around the world, and the applause of supporters.

The chief executive of global brand consultant Interbrand, Sam Osborn, argues that commercialisation would not necessarily harm Greenpeace's brand, and would have an important upside by moving away from society's fringe and broadening public support.

"You have to measure the objectives they set themselves and the change in views of the broader public. They can keep doing what they are doing and get the support of the minority, but to get greater support some of those behaviours might need to change," he says.

"Commercialisation is an opportunity for them to become less ideological and more approachable and accessible. Their extremism, which may be viewed as an expression of the their passion for what they believe in, also disenfranchises broader support."

Osborn cites Oxfam, which has shed its political edge and runs 16 shops nationally. "It's kinda cool to buy a pair of non-sweatshop sneakers from Oxfam. Even though you pay a little bit more but you know you are doing something good for society."

Indeed, Greenpeace is so concerned about reputational risk and perceived conflicts of interest that it will not accept donations from governments or corporations. This leaves only one source of income to keep the organisation afloat and punching above its weight - donations and bequests from Joe and Josephine Public.

However, times are changing and the environmental activist market is becoming more fragmented, meaning Greenpeace no longer has a monopoly on green donations.

It is a testing time for the 50-year-old Canadian activist, who was appointed chief executive six-months ago, but he believes Greenpeace still has the edge over his competitors in what he describes as "collaborate rivalry" with each group agreeing to focus on their own particular issue.

"We all realise that there is a certain amount of competition when it comes to fund-raising but we all have our niches. Greenpeace has some advantage as we tend to be more activist-oriented so we retain people better than other organisations," he says, adding that many young people are attracted by the spectacular protests.

Still, he concedes it is costing more money to raise money due to a high turnover of volunteers. "Return on investment on direct dialogue has been in decline for last five years and a big part of that is the competition," he says.

Mr Shallhorn has taken the reins at Greenpeace Australia, which has stemmed the tide of supporters deserting the organisation. Last year, it expanded its supporter base by 7000 to about 117,000, after it had shrunk 17,720 the previous three years.

The new boss puts this down to a concerted recruitment drive and high-profile campaigns such as the anti-whaling action in the Antarctic that received widespread international coverage.

Shallhorn says the organisation is starting to think afresh for a very different world to when he was first headhunted by Greenpeace to work as a disarmament campaigner straight out of college in 1987.

Like any new CEO, one of Mr Shallhorn's first jobs was to run a review of the Australian organisation that has just merged with Fiji and Papua New Guinea, and develop a strategic business plan.

He says over the past few years a view has emerged that television images and centimetres in newspapers that their protests created was no longer enough to win environmental campaigns.

"We have a very high brand recognition," he says. "In most countries it's over 90 per cent, but we felt there was a need to reinvent the organisation, to move with the times."

"There was a feeling shared by most of the staff that we needed to change our tactics, that just doing the same old, same old was not having the same effect and was starting to be ignored by the media and the public. We also needed to get more people involved."

As most CEOs attempting to shift a business' culture will testify, it can be a hard slog. But Mr Shallhorn says implementing the review's changes has not met "too much resistance".

Among other things, the review called for mass-marketing activities (fund-raising) to help fund its ongoing campaigns after it reduced its operating income reserves to what Mr Shallhorn says is "a more appropriate level" of 21/2 months.

"It is one thing to get people to sign a petition against whaling, it is another thing to get them to agree to give you $25 a month to stop whaling.

"When people are out on the street with clipboards, campaigning, they are talking to people directly about Greenpeace, which is giving us a profile, as well as building support for our campaign," he says.

Last year Greenpeace Australia Pacific raised $14.98 million, up from $13.28 million the previous year. Citing independence, it accepts no donations from government or corporations.

About 90 per cent of the funds come from supporters who have set up direct-debit accounts. This has sustained the Australian operation and finances other international campaigns.

A true "company man", before arriving in Australia, Mr Shallhorn had a short stint as head of Greenpeace Japan. In 1993, he was involved in action that led to a significant global treaty banning the dumping of nuclear waste at sea, and more recently he fought against illegal logging of the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia in his native Canada.

"I have the benefit of my skills and experience as a Greenpeace activist to bring to senior management. I have been in all sorts of campaign situations in many different countries. This allows me to anticipate campaign needs and ensure that the organisation is in the best position to support campaigns," he says.

Shallhorn himself is a veteran campaigner. He vividly recalls being held by a squad of Soviet soldiers who boarded his boat during a Greenpeace action he was leading against secret nuclear tests near the islands of Novaya Zemlya in the Soviet High Arctic during the Cold War in 1990.

The soldiers used a battering ram to break down the door of the radio room where Mr Shallhorn and a couple of others were hiding. Unknown to the Soviets at the time, it was broadcast live around the world and became the last time the Soviets tested the devices.

Mr Shallhorn laughs good-heartedly when asked how you manage a not-for-profit activist multimillion-dollar operation made up of necessarily overtly opinionated staff and volunteers - something not often encountered in the for-profit sector.

"I am a very firm believer in participatory management, but, yes, I am the boss and at the end of the day, Greenpeace is a hierarchical organisation, not a democratic organisation. I am responsible for all aspects of the organisation.

"The participatory management is: I go and ask people or my senior managers go and ask people who are actually doing the work. Sometimes that can take a little bit longer but I make better decisions."

Mr Shallhorn says he will measure the success of his time in the job on three criteria: the number of supporters, fund-raising success and political change.What business does a non-democractically elected, heirarchical organisation have attempting to achieve political change?

And why is whether conservation objectives achieved or not, not a measure of his time in the job?

The IWC will do well to revoke Greenpeace's observer status this Tuesday in St Kitts.

posted by David at 4:19 AM on Jun 18 2006

--------------------------------

Very interesting, that article, David.

If only people could realize that Greenpeace have much interests in spreading misleading informations about whaling and other so-called conservation issues.

Environmentalism has well become a prolific business. That's sure.
It is clearly : "Give money to Greenpeace, and you'll be in peace with your consciousness about the environment".

I wonder how much money Shallhorn is making a month...We'll certainly never know, but he's no volunteer, that's for sure.

- Isanatori

----------------------------------

Yes, it really confirms everything we hear about Greenpeace.

Their interests in misleading people are clearly exposed, by their own leader.

By the way, have you read Eugene Lapointe's book "Embracing the Earth's Wild Resources"? If you are interested in more information about the "environmental" confidence scam that Greenpeace represents, it should be an interesting read :-)

You can order it from http://www.iwmc.org

See you later!

- David

------------------------------------

Here is my post, which David chose to delete -

Hi David,

Would that be well known 'environmental' scam artist Eugene Lapointe, president of IWMC, the pseudo conservation organisation that could not survive on contributions from members, so relies on lobbying for bear bile farming, whaling, shark finning etc. to generate cash from governments and globalised big business.

I wonder how much money Mr Lapointe is making a month...We'll certainly never know, but he's no volunteer, that's for sure. :-)

Indeed IWMC is now so greedy for funds it is ignoring the fact that it is supposed to be an 'environmental' organisation and openly appealing to proto-fascists of the NRA persuasion, by lobbying for pro hand gun legislation.

http://www.iwmc.org/IWMC-Forum/JamesSwan/060129.htm

It really confirms everything we hear about IWMC. Their interests in misleading people are clearly exposed, by their own website. :-)

Nice to see Isanatori-san has sorted out the 'technical problems' with his blog. Disapointing but predictable to see that it is now only available in French, so that he could remove our interesting debate on whaling and its history, which he clearly felt was causing him unacceptable 'loss of face'?

- Lamna nasus

---------------------------------

Troll,

Your post is deleted because you are posting verifiable lies.

I will no longer tolerate such nonsense.

- David

---------------------------------

David partially censored my next post which was so short I did not bother to keep a copy of it. David reproduced the first part, what followed was merely the observation that since David personally indulges in direct insults and misrepresentations about individuals, politicians, NGOs and governments and also tolerates tirades of invective by Anonymous pro whaling contributors against specific targets; it was a bit rich to start censoring posts merely because he did not approve of their content, since there is no basis for his accusation of 'lies'.

----------------------------------

From Lamna Nasus:
"Readers who do not agree with censorship and wish to read the deleted post may do so at my blog -

http://sharkbaitblog.blogspot.com/"

Readers are welcome to visit Lamna Nasus' page.

But I don't have time to repeatedly debunk the same lies over and over, and you have repeatedly shown that you have no credibility.

I've already taken up the lies you posted with Ann previously, as she made the same statements herself originally (perhaps that is where you got it from). Ann agreed with me that it was a mistake. Maybe Ann will visit your homepage and confirm to you that you were regurgitating lies.

Thus, if you want to continue to post nonsense anyway, you rightly should make like Paul Watson and do it on your own page, so I congratulate you. I have no problems in permitting the above link to your page for readers who have LOTS of free time on their hands.

I will continue to delete any objectionable parts of your posts at my own descretion until you acknowledge the lie that you posted here.

It is simply not acceptable to attribute positions to people that are clearly inaccurate.

That lowers the level of the type of debate that I wish to foster here. Drop your ad hominems and participate like a grown-up instead of a troll and you may find your comments are let stand as they were posted.

I should note that I've never had to delete any of Ann's posts

-David

--------------------------------------------

Hi Lamna,

I'd like to note that I just visited your blog - couldn't find the lies you said you would repeat (perhaps you thought better of it), but I did see this choice comment:

"I will edit offensive material,
moderator's judgement is final! :-)"

Interesting that you criticise me for editing your lies-ridden post, yet are more than happy to do so at your own blog.

Your presence is not welcome here, but I'm glad it is so easy to show that you have no integrity at all.

- David

-----------------------------------------------

That comment was from
http://sharkbaitblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-originally-created-blog-account.html
by the way.

- David

------------------------------------------------

David censored all of my next post except one sentence, so here is the full version -

Hi David,

'I'd like to note that I just visited your blog - couldn't find the lies you said you would repeat'

Really thats odd because the post is there and I remember you telling me in the past that if I could not find my way round a blog perhaps I would be better off working in a fast food outlet if indeed that wasn't too challenging.

Interesting how you can throw ad hominem insults around (not least about people who work for fast foood outlets) but not regard it as trollish behaviour.

Of course you posting -

'You Greenpeace guys are filthy greedy devils.Tricking people into wanting to give their hard earned money to you is just downright dishonest.You disgust me......donating you scum money....You disgust me, you conman... '

on the Greenpeace USA discussion board was also non-trollish reasoned debate. :-)

Indeed it would be possible to put together a rather long list of your blog's ad hominem insults about politicians, governments, NGOs and individuals except the final result I fear would look very...trollish.

Odd that you repeating unpublished ICR data is debate but my repeating anti-commercial whaling data from a wide range of sources including the IWC and sources you have cited is 'repeating the same lies over and over'.

The warning on my blog about offensive material is perfectly reasonable and conforms with the Precautionary Principle, I have seen some of the primitive hate material posted by anti-environmentalists on environmental discussion boards.

Which fact about the IWMC did you believe inaccurate and why? -

The fact that they cannot rely on membership donations to remain solvent?

The fact that they are funded by governments and corporations to greenwash cetain agendas?

The fact that they have dedicated a page to the pro handgun lobby on their website?

The fact that their financial details are not transparent?

Free speech can be so very inconvenient but now you have summoned the courage to justify your illiberal censorship to yourself, I'm sure you will find it extremely useful in the future.

You have to admit the second time was so much easier than the first and the second post merely listed my blog and the evils of censorship of debate.

It will be so much easier to avoid debate or insult me now, simply by restricting my unwelcome right of reply.....just say it was 'lies' everytime. Easy isn't it eh?
You will of course be able to 'justify' all this by saying that you never have to censor Ann........oh, you already did.

:-)

:-)

:-)

- Lamna nasus

--------------------------

Deleted again.

> Which fact about the IWMC did you believe inaccurate and why? -

Read what you wrote again (it's at your blog). Then justify every single one of those "facts" you stated about the IWMC with evidence.

You will not be able to do so, because your post included verifiably false information. Ann and I discussed the lies for which your post was deleted. When I showed counter-evidence to Ann previously, she agreed that her attribution of the position in question was not correct. You have either failed to see this exchange, or you ignored it.

You are welcome to search the comments on my blog (on your own time) to find it.

I simply refuse to deal with such nonsense more than once. If you would grow up and actually not post verifiable lies, you'll not find your posts getting deleted. Behave like an adult - simple as that. I'm looking for discussion here, not endless tirades of nonsensical abuse.

In the meantime, until you show that you have some integrity by acknowledging the verifiable lies that you have posted with regards to IWMC, you are banned indefinitely, and you are also banned without further response. I simply don't have time to waste on you, if this is the way you intend to behave. My time is better spent on people with integrity. It is not my goal to communicate with those people who demonstrate that they have no integrity.

- David.

--------------------------------

Why is David so upset about my comments about IWMC? Well it appears that Eugene Lapointe and his organisation are something of a touchstone for David and indeed many adherents of the discredited 'sustainable development' theory.

The IWMC is a greenwashing lobby organisation which has recently decided to broaden its scope by appealing to the gun lobby in the USA, a very valuable source of revenue, just ask the NRA.

On the IWMC website there is an 'IWMC Forum' –

This forum claims - ’The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various authors and participants in the IWMC Internet Forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of IWMC.org or official policies of IWMC World Conservation Trust.’

However since the only way to be published on the forum is via IWMC and since the forum specifically states it is only for ‘friends and supporters’ clearly anything published has the approval of the IWMC –

So when in June 2006 the article mentioned below was given headline billing on IWMC’s homepage, any suggestion that it is not IWMCs express intention to raise its profile with the pro-gun lobby is laughable.

'Why gun bans don’t work…and what to do. However well-intentioned, gun bans are likely to get the opposite results of what they are intended to achieve. To stop them, the shooting/hunting community needs to get pro-active.'
By James A. Swan, Ph.D.
Author of "In Defense of Hunting"

It is worth noting that using its usual political spin, the IWMC is making a link to 'hunting' to justify this new angle. However since the majority of the article concerns itself with hand guns in San Francisco........

I had a particularly good laugh at this piece of historical revisionism -

'The well-armed Swiss militia dissuaded the Nazis from invading in World War II'

The combined might of the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe was deterred by some well armed Swiss policemen?! RAOTFLMAO.

So thats the gun part of my comments about the IWMC covered, now for the rest.

The IWMC's president Eugene Lapointe is a former CITES dismissed Secretary General.
Lapointe (a French Canadian lawyer) was fired from CITES in 1990 after being found campaigning against a ban on the ivory trade.
In a very strange postscript to this sacking, a tribunal of three people awarded financial compensation to Lapointe for a 'capricious and abitrary' dismissal; yet Lapointe was not re-instated.
It would be extremely interesting to locate more information on this tribunal but Lapointe appears to be the only person on record regarding its findings.
In his book, "Embracing the Earth's Wild Resources" Lapointe notes that an official at the US State Department when asked about the campaign to remove Lapointe from office commented "Our actions were motivated by the necessity of protecting valuable species such as elephants, whales..."
Well DAH! Lapointe was abusing his position as Secretary General of CITES, an organisation designed to protect endangered species in order to exploit them!

Lapointe now advises Japan, Norway, China and Canada and many industries on how to legally avoid animal trade legislation.

His organisation actively supports Whaling, Sealing, the Ivory trade and Shark finning; as listed on the IWMC website

Lapointe admits that he has been at the forefront of resistance to eliminate the secret ballot in CITES. Despite the fact that a secret ballot is beneficial in protecting the man on the street during elections; it is open to huge abuse in international political organisations where transparency becomes a much more important issue. After all if the scientific argument for 'sustainable development' is so incontravertable there is no reason for any nation to vote for it in secret.

Since Lapointe is a an Ex Secretary General of CITES, you would expect his organisation to demonstrate a mature and statesmanlike approach to politics? In which case you would expect wrong! :o)

MOST TIRESOME SPEAKER New Zealand's didactic Commissioner Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Blah blah blah.
-IWMC, 2004

IWMC intends to do its part to see that the obstructionist tactics of do-nothing delegations and their NGO colleagues do not carry this or any other day.
- IWMC, 2003

You might also expect the IWMC to be in favour of scientific research to back 'sustainable development'? Wrong again I'm afraid! -

The United States plan to research its bowhead stock structure, thereby delaying any tough decisions on its quota for years.
- IWMC, 2004

Although funding details for the IWMC are far from easy to come by, IWMC receives some funding from the World Conservation Trust Foundation.
WCTF is a corporation registered in Canada
WCTF's President is...Eugene Lapointe.

Lapointe is on record as saying IWMC funding comes from Japan, Norway, China, Canada, and "two small European countries."

Oslo Dagbladet reported on 24 May 2000: "Before the CITES meeting in Nairobi on the trade in endangered species in April, the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave large sums of money to Norwegian and foreign lobby organizations in order to ensure a majority for commercial whaling. Some of the lobbyists have very dubious reputations."

"IWMC, an American organization with a questionable reputation and strong economic interests, received 50,000 Norwegian kroner ($6,250) from the Ministry of Fisheries," the newspaper stated. A March 2000 letter from the ministry to IWMC head Eugene Lapointe stated that the government funds were "to carry out activities related to CITES COP 11 and IWC 52 as described in your application to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Support from other Norwegian sources will be allocated separately."

Eugene Lapointe is also on the National Advisory Board of the National Wilderness Institute, some of the funding sources for this organisation will give readers an idea of the sort of corporation sources likely to be contributing funds to the WCTF and the IWMC.

National Wilderness Institute Foundation Grants -

Mobile Foundation - $5000 - 1996

Monsanto Fund - $1000 - 1996

Mobile Foundation - $5000 - 1995

Monsanto Fund - $1000 - 1995

Mobile Foundation - $10,000 - 1995

National Wilderness Institute Corporate Grants -

Chevron - $5000 - 1996

ExxonMobil - $15000 - 1995

Chevron - $5000 - 1995

Chevron - $5000 – 1994

The real reason David does not offer a link to his insubstantial defence of IWMC with Ann is because he couldn't find it on his own blog since it was never there. David has forgotten that he actually had that discussion with Ann on someone else's blog and she was not in total agreement with him. 'Nuff said! :o)

Sadly it seems if the pro-whaling lobby cannot carry the day democratically they will simply attempt to expunge critical debate; particularly if it has the timerity to quote chunks of their own propaganda back at them. That's the problem with neoconservatives, no sense of humour! :o)

http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/iwc-2006-greedy-greenpeace-to-cash-in.html

2006-06-03T15:56:00.000+01:00

Data File 1 - Climate Change

Its the biggest problem facing mankind, yet it is often difficult to get real scientific facts rather than tabloid generalisations.

I am going to start producing data files about a variety of environmental issues. These will include scientific links and comment, as well as my own opinion.

These files will be updated as I find new resources and materials, so hopefully they will build into a useful resource for environmentalists or indeed anyone who is interested in an issue covered.

If anyone reading this, knows where online it is possible to view the much referenced study -

Stabilization Wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technology' S. Pascala, R. Socolow, Science vol. 305 Aug. 13 (2004) p968.
please post the details in the comments section, many thanks in advance.

http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/index.html

http://www.whoi.edu/science/PO/arcticgroup/

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

http://www.whrc.org/carbon/index.htm

Recommended reading -

The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart
Published by Harvard University Press
ISBN number - 0674016378

Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report: Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Contribution of Working Groups I, II, III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Editor - Robert T.Watson
Cambridge University Press
ISBN - 0521015073

For those who prefer a media approach to the subject, one of the better providers is the BBC Radio 4 weekly transmission 'Home Planet'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/homeplanet.shtml

2006-06-03T13:27:00.000+01:00

Good News From Indonesia

(photos courtesy of Avery Fish)

The WWF recently sent me an update on the status of some endangered Sumatran elephants (discovered chained up with no food or water) which have now been relocated to a wildlife reserve but the really good news is that the wildlife reserve, Tesso Nilo National Park is soon to be almost trebled in size:

On 14 May eight endangered Sumatran elephants were released into Tesso Nilo National Park, seven weeks after they were found chained to trees without food or water in central Riau, Indonesia. Local forestry officials had captured the elephants after they had damaged crops and homes near Libo Forest.

WWF, which provided daily care and medical treatment for the elephants
after their discovery, accompanied the authorities as they released the
elephants to ensure that the release was done safely.

We were concerned, however, that Tesso Nilo was not a suitable release site as it was too small to provide habitat for more elephants.

But more good news followed just a few days ago when the Indonesian
Ministry of Forestry and the Government of Riau Province publicly committed to expand the Tesso Nilo National Park from 38,000 to 100,000 hectares.
This will provide much larger habitat for the elephants and help ensure
that future conflicts with humans can be reduced.

This is great news and we applaud the quick action of the Indonesian
authorities in showing a strong commitment to protect remaining elephant
habitats in Riau and also prosecuting those who have killed elephants or
destroyed elephant habitats.

Thank you to everyone who took action. With your help we are making a real difference.

The WWF Passport team

Readers interested in becoming WWF cyber activists (its free and signing up only takes a moment) should go to -

http://passport.panda.org/index.cfm?uNC=16668146

The Sumatran Elephant is an excellent example of how large animals have great difficulty adapting to human encroachment on their habitat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumatran_Elephant

2006-02-21T23:04:00.000Z

Diving Eleuthera Island in the Bahamas.

(photo - © L.nasus)

This guide relates my experience travelling ‘freestyle’ from the UK, rather than booking a packaged holiday.
British Airways fly direct to Nassau from Heathrow and Virgin Atlantic fly direct from Gatwick. Indirect flights from the UK can be cheaper but sometimes require more than one stopover/plane change (even one stopover/plane change adds hours to the journey and increases the risk of luggage being misdirected).
There are flights direct to North Eleuthera Airport from Miami and Fort Lauderdale.

Nassau International Airport on New Providence Island is small and friendly, unless you are travelling during peak holiday periods, you may well be through passport control, baggage reclaim and customs in less than fifteen minutes.

The British Airways direct flight from Heathrow on a Saturday; gets you into Nassau at 15:00hrs, too late to catch the ferry to Eleuthera or to get down to Stuart Cove's Dive Centre, for a dive; on the day you arrive.

The taxi ride (7 miles) from the airport into the centre of the Bahamian capital takes approximately 25 minutes.
Ask the driver to take the coastal road, it takes slightly longer but the ocean views are much better than the vista on the direct route.
Expect to pay approx US$23 for this taxi journey however you may wish to tip a bit extra and ask the driver to turn up early the following morning; to take you to Potters Quay for the ferry to Spanish Wells or Harbour Island. (US$ and Bahamian$ are interchangeable and you may receive change in either).
Local taxi drivers think the ‘O’ in 07:00hrs stands for "Oh my God, that’s early!" as did the hotel staff ie. Too early for breakfast.

To avoid spending an arm and a leg on a fancy hotel for one night; the Nassau Palm Resort on Bay Street, opposite Junkanoo Beach is fairly central (if the taxi driver doesn’t recognise the name Nassau Palm Resort, say it used to be the Holiday Inn). At US$75 per room for double occupancy with additional 3rd and 4th persons at US$10 per head per night in February, it is cheap and cheerful, if rather ‘well used’.
This room tariff does not include 12% tax or US$9.75 per head for ‘maid service’.
I do not regard what you can see from the access landing and door as a room's 'sea view', so check if they intend to charge you extra for this!

The hotel has a bar and restaurant, but we didn’t try out the restaurant, If you like to play pool, do some shopping in town and ask for a load of quarters in your change. The hotel doesn’t keep much change in coins and the bar’s pool table takes four quarters. All the other games machines take tokens, go figure.

The centre of Nassau is more touristy than a very touristy thing. The shops are gaudy, the casinos and hotels are kitsch, restaurant food and bottled beer expensive.
There are lots of jewelry shops but if you want to buy inexpensive, genuine bling, visit Sri Lanka instead.

(photo - © J. Steinhart)

Apart from drinks with a meal, there are few bars in Nassau. The Pirate Bar next to the Pirate Museum was the only one we located. Do not waste money, paying extra for imported beer. Kalik the local Bahamian beer is very drinkable (proceed with caution, the Gold version is 7% rather than the regular 5%).
If you are travelling in a group I would suggest visiting one of the liquor stores and buying enough Kalik or vodka / rum and fruit punch to organise a room party, it is considerably less expensive (US$9 for a six pack of Kalik).

We ate at a ‘locals’ restaurant but the food wasn’t particularly good or particularly cheap; so no name check.
Conch is on every menu but is also a heavily over fished species. Consider carefully before ordering it. The only truly sustainable source of conch currently, is the Caicos Conch Farm in the Turks and Caicos Islands, who are licensed by CITES.
Surprisingly, Turtle is also on some menus, despite all turtle species being endangered. Needless to say do not order it or purchase any souvenirs made from Turtles.

If you enjoy pleasant evenings out then be aware, the Bahamas are not ’bitey’ free.
The local mosquitos will politely leave you alone if you use a little bug repellent, pale coloured, long sleeved tops and lightweight trousers.
The ‘no-see-ums’ are another matter altogether. Mandatory use of heavy duty bug repellent, is required to keep these voracious critters at bay!

Note - We were on a very tight schedule on this trip and consequently did not get the opportunity, but if you enjoy diving with sharks; I would strongly recommend scheduling an entire day, to go down to Stuart Cove’s world famous Dive Centre on the coast, south of Nassau. Remember to take an underwater camera!!! –
http://www.dive-bahamas.com/pages/diving/shark-adventure.html

After a relaxing evening with friends and a good nights sleep….its 06:45!..We are supposed to be on holiday!
Time to get up and get organised for the morning ferry.

The mv. Bo Hengy is a 177 seater catamaran, which will get you to Spanish Wells in an hour and a half or Dunmore Town, Harbour Island in two hours and fifteen minutes. It is the only ferry and it only makes the voyage once per day; we had been warned that it always leaves on time, at 08:00.
You can book online (return tickets cost US$110 per person) but you still have to collect your paperwork at the ticket office –
http://www.bahamasferries.com/index.asp

Note - If you are not on the quayside, with your ticket in hand by 07:30 (ferry ticket office closes at 07:30) then you are going to be spending another 24 hours in Nassau or spending a lot of money on a local air taxi!

An 06:45 start, means the initial ‘hot’ water for the shower has had time to cool down in the pipes overnight but it does wake you up in a hurry.
The taxi ride down to the dock takes approx. 10 minutes and US$15,
A selection of breakfast snacks are available on the ferry (If like us, you have a weakness for Jamaica Patties, you are going to be particularly happy).

Spanish Wells, Russell Island and Harbour Island are classed as part of the larger Eleuthra Island (160km long but only 5km across at its widest point)

(photo - © L.Badham)

We stayed in a self catering house - Atlantic Ocean at the bottom of the garden and the Caribbean three minutes walk from the front door. - in a secluded corner of undeveloped Russell Island, which is joined to Spanish Wells by a narrow bridge. The house slept eight and cost US$200 per day plus a one off charge of US$100 for cleaning at the end of the stay.

Note - If you are arriving on a Sunday for a self catering holiday in Spanish Wells or on Russell Island, the shops will be shut. So plan to eat out and check restaurant ‘early closing on Sunday’ times.

Spanish Wells and Russell Island are very picturesque. Brightly painted, clapboard houses and long, almost empty, white sand beaches. The large bay to the right of the bridge crossing to Russell Island is very shallow and perfect for kids.

(photo - © J. Larter)

If you are not staying close to the harbour in Spanish Wells and need to get around, then Golf Carts are probably the best option. Abner Pinder’s two seater carts cost a flat US$250 for a week, four seater carts are US$275. Abners’s is just across the quay from where the mv. Bo Hengy docks in Spanish Wells. Be aware, you are liable for any damage caused to the cart, yourself or others and their property, by the cart. Check with the rental supplier that taking your cart along the less than perfect road on Russell Island is OK (this road is scheduled to be resurfaced at some point). Also check that all the tyres are adequately pumped up to avoid punctures! Hire should include a full tank of fuel (you do not have to fill up before returning the cart) this should be adequate for a week.

Take the main road out to the bridge connecting Russell Island and you will see virtually all the shops and services available on Spanish Wells (the only buildings on Russell Island are residential).

This is not a destination for 24 hour party people. Spanish Wells and Russell Island are ‘dry’. Non-teetotalers will be relieved to hear there is no ban on the consumption of alcohol, it is simply not for sale. The nearest liquor store is on nearby Eleuthera (20 minute round trip, the store is on the quay) US$5 each way per head.

Note - On small government ferries linking the local islands, large groups can normally negotiate a discount on the $5 per head charge, speak to the captain.

Monday was sunny but so windy that surface swell precluded diving (cold fronts moving in from the West, can cause strong winds in the Bahamas during February).

A foiled attempt to arrange some offshore diving with Tiger sharks through a captain from Spanish Wells, meant no diving on Tuesday.

Unless you have contacts on Spanish Wells, the nearest official scuba diving operation is Valentines Dive Centre on Harbour Island -
http://www.valentinesdive.com/index.html

The best way to get to Valentines from Spanish Wells is to get the local government ferry (US$5) to Eleuthera, then a taxi from the quay (approx US$25) across the island north of Lower Bogue, to the east coast and get the local government ferry (US$5) to Harbour Island.
It is possible to travel round the Devils Backbone reef from Spanish Wells to Harbour Island on the mv. Bo Hengy. However the trip is only available once per day, will get you to Harbour Island too late to dive in the morning and you risk missing the return journey, if you do two dives in the afternoon!

For early settlers, Dunmore Town on Harbour Island, was the capital of the Bahamas. It is built in the old colonial style and there are craft shops and several good restaurants and bars (including the one at Valentines Marina) so you may wish to linger after a days diving. Chat to your taxi driver on the journey over, you should be able to arrange an evening pick up and most importantly a seat on ‘Night Rider’, back across the channel from Eleuthera to Spanish Wells. This appropriately named ferry runs…. most of the night!

Valentines provide a professional, friendly, ‘can do’ dive service.
A two dive pack is US$75, which includes tanks and weights.
Valentines boats are a remodelled version of the local game fishing boats with a half cabin, inboard engines and large flying bridge. They are spacious, carry emergency oxygen, have a camera rinse tank and bench seating with tank clips. The water level, dive platform at the stern has a large ladder; so entry and exit are a piece of cake.

Note – In addition to Valentines’ regular guided dives and PADI training facilities; they will hire out tanks to qualified divers for US$12 per filled tank, per 24 hrs. You will need to sign a credit card slip, provide a contact telephone number and have the name of your charter boat and its skipper in order to rent a tank (to charter a boat privately, will cost approx. US$500 for half a day and approx. US$750 for a full day).

Since February is a quiet time of year for tourists, there were only two other divers on the boat when our group went out.

(photo courtesy of Jan Derk)

Potatoes and Onions Wreck.

Depth – approx.10m.

The Vanaheim was an 86 foot coastal freighter carrying a cargo of potatoes and onions. She ran into Devil's Backbone during a storm in February, 1969 and the force of the sea pushed her over the barrier reef.

The boat moors up in a sandy area to avoid damage to the reef. Descend to approx. 4m and swim over a ridge to get to the wreck. There are lots of soft corals on the ridge. Due to the proximity of the surface as you pass over the ridge, good buoyancy control is important. There is a certain amount of surge on the ridge. In order to conserve air, hold your position into the surge and fin fast when it sucks back (it gets so shallow at one point, its slightly surprising Valentines’ don’t opt to snorkel over the ridge from the boat and descend once on the other side). The wreck was named after its cargo, which has long since disappeared but a considerable jumble of steel plating and a couple of huge boilers remain. The boilers are large enough for a comfortable swim through and offer a good photo opportunity. Beyond the wreck there are a number of channels leading through the reef. A large eagle ray hangs out in this area and is apt to appear when you least expect it. We did see it but it was feeling bashful and did not make any close passes. Keep an eye out for barracuda here as well.

Viz. Approx.15 to 20 metres.

Tunnel Reef.

Depth – approx.10m.

Dive boat again picks a sandy patch for mooring to protect the reef.
A lot of the reef around Eleuthra is rock rather than hard coral and it is very porous, which has led to a lot of erosion. This particular site is unusual in that it allows you to go marine ‘pot holing’ without the need for specialist cave dive training. The rock is bare so you are not damaging marine life in the swim-throughs. You are always close to an escape route to the surface and you can always see the light.
That said, our dive guide made Keith Richards look fat and I did wind up with a certain amount of sand in my BCD from a couple of particularly snug ‘letterbox’ style gaps. I was considerably relieved that no electric rays had decided to snooze though the daylight hours in that particular area of substrate. I am not a massive fan of this type of diving but it was an interesting experience and as cavern diving ‘lite’; a good introduction for those who have not tried semi enclosed environment diving before, but judge your wet suit size to reef gap ratio with honesty, you do not want to get stuck!
Keep an eye out for tiny, iridescent, cuttlefish and schools of large Bermuda Chub.
Viz. approx 15 to 20 metres

The only gripe about the diving, was one that comes up unfortunately often, in many different countries. Experienced divers can squeeze an hour out of a standard tank of air, more on shallow dives. It is therefore extremely frustrating,, that many dive guides insist all of the divers in their group surface at the same time, if novice divers need to surface after only 35 to 40 minutes.
It should not be necessary to haggle for those buddy pairs with plenty of air left, to bimble about the reef, next to the boat, for another 20 minutes.
Over two dives, that is 40 minutes of dive time that an experienced diver has paid for, but been expected to give up. In novice terms, that is one complete dive lost!
Sorry novice divers, that why some grizzeled, old sea dogs go rather quiet, if they discover nobody else on the boat has more than twenty dives logged.

Thursday was another very windy day, so no diving.

Friday dawned calm and sunny. Our final opportunity to dive, respecting the 'no diving for 24 hours before flying' rule.

Current Cut is regarded by many, as one of the top ten drift dives in the world.
Valentines need to have six divers signed up for this dive, before they will go to the site and it costs US$135 per head. This is partly because it is the furthest site from Harbour Island that they visit and partly because of the nature of the dive site - you will get three or four dives. The good news, if you are staying in Spanish Wells is that it is your nearest site and Valentines’ boat will pick you up and drop you back at the quay (be at the dock for 10:00hrs, sharp).

Current Cut

Depth - approx. 18m, mostly 15m or less.

Current Cut is a narrow, shallow gap between North Eleuthera and Current Island and the tide whips through this channel, two and a half hours either side of high or low water at up to 10 knots! There is some low lying soft coral but this site is about adrenaline and the chance to see large pelagic species enjoying the roaring current.

Caution - there are some very large, though relatively shallow holes in the seabed in some places, which if the current is going fast enough can produce a ‘washing machine’ effect. Even when the current is not at full throttle, these holes can entail dropping and rising approx 4 to five metres in a couple of seconds. Try to skirt round the edge, but close enough to check out any wildlife taking a rest, out of the main current.

The boat does not drop anchor. Make sure all your equipment is safely tethered in close to your body. Divers line up on the dive platform at the rear of the boat with NO air in your BCD. Everyone must have an SMB for the end of the dive (Valentines have loan units, if you do not own an SMB).
When the guide says GO! You enter and descend immediately!
Keep a close eye on your dive buddy, it is very easy to get separated at this point, particularly as the viz. can be a bit murky.

This dive is timed (to avoid divers being swept too far out to sea). Exactly 15 minutes after you descend, you start your ascent and inflate your surface marker buoy as soon as you reach the surface.
There may be hundreds of metres between surfacing groups of dive buddies who descended at the same time; depending on which route and depth they took through the Cut. Deeper is slightly slower but means dodging the seabed as it races towards you.
The sea floor here is distinctly uneven, regardless of holes, breathe fast and light; don’t worry about air, you will have loads left when you surface (We used the same tanks for two dives, still had plenty, 110+ bar) but being whisked 4 metres upwards while concentrating on something else, is not a good idea!

Ever had that dream where you can fly? This dive site is that dream made real!

We dived the site four times, with the boat moving the entry drop point across the Cut from right to left so that the dive was different each time.

First dive, the speed of the current left us awe struck and a very large and curious eagle ray came along for the ride.

Second dive, we were slightly more acclimatised to the current but strangely saw very few fish. Lots of experimenting with body positioning and streamlining, to go up or down and faster or slower.

Third Dive, getting used to the current when an ENORMOUS barracuda turned up.
I have heard tales about monster barracuda before and always dismissed them as exaggerations. I mean, I have seen big barracuda underwater, right? No, this fish was BIG! Explains why all the fish had scarpered on the last dive.
If you dive this site, keep a look out for ‘Big Jo’, Valentines nickname for this behemoth.

Fourth Dive, the site had saved the best until last. There were very large eagle rays all over the place for almost the entire dive. Sadly, we didn’t see the Hammerhead shark the other group saw, but this particular trip just wasn’t doing sharks for us; sometimes life’s like that.

Viz. on all dives approx 10 to12 metres

Normally a dive trip with only two days diving and no sharks would have been a deep disappointment but Current Cut made up for all that.

The mv. Bo Hengy leaves Spanish Wells for Nassau at 16:35 on Saturday, so no early morning rush. We arrived back in Nassau at 18:15 with plenty of time to catch our flight home at 21:45.

(photo - © J.Larter)

Note – The tap water looks and smells ok but bottled water is what the locals drink.

Note - Valentines Dive Centre accepts credit cards but many local shops do not. There is an international ATM on Spanish Wells but as we all know, machines can be out of order just when you need them most. Make sure you have sufficient 'green'!

Note – The nearest recompression chamber facilities are in Nassau.

Note - I heartily recommend ‘The Dive Sites of….’ range of books. Written by authors who know their dive locality well; these books are packed with useful details on international dive destinations, in depth comments on individual dive sites and graced with stunning underwater photography.
Sadly, some titles in this series may be out of print, check Amazon for 'used' deals, many of these books are 'as new'.
My only small gripe is that they could be revised more often to keep contact details up to date. Still, you can’t have everything.

‘The Dive Sites of the Bahamas’ by Lawson Wood.

(photo - © J.Savage)

There will be another expedition to explore the shark diving potential of Eleuthera.
When this happens I will post the results, along with reviews of Stuart Cove’s shark dive sites and Valentines’ ‘Pinnacle’ and ‘Plateau’ dive sites.

2006-02-13T16:00:00.000Z

New Blogger.....Do I need to get out more? :o)

(photo - © L.nasus)

I originally created a blog account purely so I could post comments on other blogs with a recognised 'Nym.
However contributing to blogs on various platforms, made me aware that I could provide a useful information resource; particularly for fellow scuba diving enthusiasts plus some environmental activism links.

It may take me some time to get this blog fully operational but in the meantime, here are the ground rules -

The right to free speech is recognised, the 'right' to abuse others and behave like a muppet is not. I will edit offensive material.
Moderator's judgement is final! :o)

The next installment will be a rough guide to diving near Eleuthera, in the Bahamas.