Andrew is a post-doctoral researcher in North Carolina focused on population and conservation genetics in hydrothermal vent communities.
Sea Shepherd claims that their actions in the Southern Ocean opposing Japanese whaling fleets has effectively reduced the number of whales killed. What always rubbed me the wrong way about these claims is that they always compare their success against the Institute for Cetacean Research (the Japanese organization that oversees ‘scientific whaling’) Quotas. So at some point you have to ask the question, in absolute numbers, has Sea Shepherd really reduced the number of whales killed?
To answer that we need three pieces of information:
- When did Sea Shepherd begin it’s campaign against Japanese ‘scientific whaling’?
- What are the ICR quotas for that time frame?
- What are the absolute catches for that time frame?
Sea Shepherd provides a comprehensive timeline for their whaling campaigns that indicates serious opposition in the Southern Ocean began in December 2002. For the two other questions, we turn to Whale and Dolphin Conservation International, who have produced a truly exceptional interactive graph of the history of whaling since the inception of the International Whaling Convention by the numbers. The relevant figure is reproduced below:
courtesy WDCS
From this graph, we can see that Sea Shepherd began its campaign when whale catches were at their lowest, and catches have increased since then. Despite their claims of preventing whaling, we can see that more whales were killed per year after 2004 than any year before 2004. In other words, more whales are dying on Sea Shepherd’s watch.
So where do they get the claim that SSCS is reducing the numbers of whales caught? Remember they always report whales saved in relation to the Japanese quota, a reasonable value since the quota provides the absolute upper limit for how many whales will be killed each year. What they ignore is that, in 2005, the quota increased from ~350 to ~1000, and at no point since that increase has Japan ever reached quota.
All of this points towards the fact that Sea Shepherd’s claim that direct action is saving the whales is bunk. More whales have been killed per annum on Sea Shepherd’s watch than during the 16 years before Watson declared a Whale War. Of course there is no causal link in these data. The only conclusion that can be drawn from these data is that Sea Shepherd’s claim that they are preventing whales from being slaughtered is not supported. Results matter.
Still interested? Check out our analysis of the real issues with Sea Shepherd and why their brand of environmental activism is ultimately ineffective.
~Southern Fried Scientist
UPDATE: It has been brought to my attention that the catch numbers reported from 2002 and 2003 are wrong. The Japanese caught 441 and 443 whales, respectively.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
24
You bring up a good point that needs clarifying, JARPA (Japan’s Research Program in the Antarctic) ended in 2005, the same year that JARPA II began. The graph is a combination of both the JARPA and JARPA II programs, with the increase in quotas corresponding to the program change.
What we do know is that the ICR estimates for Minke Whale populations is orders of magnitudes higher than independent estimates, so any quota set by the ICR is likely not to reflect real potential catches. In other words, the inability to meet quota may be reflective of the scarcity of Minke’s. Or maybe it is due to SSCS actions. Or maybe SSCS presence has caused ICR to beef up their whaling program, gain more support within their home country, and make it harder to end whaling forever.
But that’s all speculation. What we do know is that the absolute number of whales being killed is increasing. If Japan raised their quota to 20,000 minkes, then only killed 10,000, would that count as SSCS’s most successful year?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
3
LOL, the whaling fleet never smuggled whale meat to US or anywhere Cora, do try to keep your facts straight. Whether the restaurant owners in US or Korea decide to break the law by personally smuggling whale meat out of Japan, has nothing to do with the whaling fleet or ICR.
“It was also news recently that a couple of crew came forward to say that there is an illegal smuggling ring on the vessel as well.”
Proof please? Greenpeace brought up the so-called “whistleblower” a few years ago accusing the whalers of embezzling, but as they found out, the only people guilty of anything were Greenpeace themselves who stole whale meat from a whaler.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
22
Cora has a point but misses the mark. I think all parties involved would like to see an end to this. Barely impacting numbers of whales taken is not a solution, making up saved whale numbers even worse, which is SSCS raison d’être.
Whales will be killed next year, the next and the next. SSCS is managing a self fulfilling, self propagating, money and media machine, skillfully.
I ask “can we do better?”
Japan has the ability to pick up a phone and call voting nations to have them vote for whaling. SSCS does not have that ability. Why?
Japan builds airport, fishing ports, schools, you name it, and these countries vote to Japans will in gratitude.
What if the conservation side played this game?
Just a crazy thought, but if you want to really change a thing, get inside it, and play the game. Don’t sit on the outside and throw rotten butter…that’s so 1976.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
19
Um, I think you totally misinterpreted Patric’s response.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
22
It’s pretty well established that Japan has both the resources and political leverage to influence nations who otherwise have no stake in whaling.
An of course the 1986 moratorium came about by nations that opposed whaling using their political leverage and resources to influence nations who otherwise have no stake in whaling.
I doubt anyone on this site is challenging either point.
If conservationist want to continue to affect change, they need to play the political game. Vessel humping and stinky-butter shenanigans are not only not doing the job, they’re actually helping the whalers.
The IWC was created to neither conserve nor prevent whaling but to manage whaling sustainably. The data are conclusively pointing to the reality that there is no potential for commercial whaling to ever be done sustainably. The economic reality is that the cost of maintaining a whaling fleet is significantly greater than the profit that can be made while maintaining a viable population.
Which is part of the reason why SSCS’s claim that they will bankrupt Japanese whaling is laughable. If it were really about profit, it would have gone broke decades ago.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
1
and on this note…I can retire gracefully…
agreeing TOTALLY with your assessment
Time to watch MORE Great White Expeditions….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
19
Which is exactly our point. Japanese whale kills are independent of SSCS direct action.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
16
We did a thorough review of Palumbi’s work a while ago: The Krill Surplus Hypothesis and the Power of Data. You may be overstating Palumbi’s conclusion, he estimated historic population size and concluded the “the current abundance, is, if anything, smaller than it used to be.
You may also be interested in our explanation of how to calculate population size: Effective size of a population in flux.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
18
The data suggest no causal link between the number of whales killed and the presence of Sea Shepherd.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
This graph in conjunction with the statement “SSCS has caused a reduction in whales killed” reminds me a lot of those commercials for the home automatic soap dispensers. The commercials make a big fuss about how your soap pump is really disgusting and germy, but they miss the part where you’re going to be washing your hands anyways.
SSCS is missing the part about the raised quotas. When you raise quotas, it’s going to be harder to fill them. Unless SSCS has caused the whalers to abandon a whale currently being hunted/harpooned/whatever, they really can’t say they had anything to do with a reduced quota. They seem to forget that they have one (or three…or something…I’m not up on my “Whale Wars”) where the whaling fleet is more of a fleet.
To play devil’s advocate, though, you can’t really say that they aren’t reducing the percent of the quota caught. But we can go ’round and ’round with that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
22
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
21
“After increasing this quota by almost three times, there is nothing to stop them from reaching the higher quotas that they set.”
Actually, the natural abundance and distribution of Minke whales could stop them from reaching quota. The JARPAI quotas were based on historic catch rates, the JARPAII quotas are based on a desire to increase catches. We do know that the ICR uses population estimates for Minke whales that are higher than independent estimates, and their JARPAII quotas reflect that. There is no evidence to suggests that they would make those quotas in the absence of SSCS.
“If they didn’t go down and intervene I am sure your graph would be orange up to the 1000 whales mark for the previous 5 years.”
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that that is true. Hunches and gut feelings don’t replace data. The most that can be concluded here is that there is no correlation between Sea Shepherd presence and a reduction in the number of whales being killed, thus Sea Shepherds claim that they are saving whales in the Southern Ocean is not supported by the data.
When I support conservation organizations, I want to see results.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
16
So how much money did the Japanese whaling fleet make last year? Oh, wait, they received $5 million in government subsidies to offset their operating costs? Perhaps you’re using a different definition of profit than I am?
I would like to know where you get your numbers from though – $1 million per whale? 1000 whales? Let’s see the sources.
But please, check out this post – link to southernfriedscience.com and see why many conservationists disagree with SSCS tactics.
Why is it in 1986 we could pass an international moratorium on whaling, yet in 2010 several nations are trying to return to commercial whaling. I thought more people than ever know about the plight of whales? Or maybe it’s just that more people than ever are cheering Sea Shepherd on without demanding results?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
Judging by the television show, “Whale Wars,” the Sea Shepherd campaign is costly, and completely ineffective and pointless. Am I missing something? If this is reality, I am not happy. Before watching the series, I had in my mind, an idea that these folks(The Sea Shepherd, Green Peace, etc) were out there risking their lives and saving whale lives. I felt a little better just knowing they were out there. Now, it seems as if there are a bunch of well intentioned children out goofing around on the high seas(children often goof around and get hurt) with expensive toys. Also, there is very little talk of actual whaling, or about the death of the whales, or why whaling should be wrong. I should think that any television program about whaling would be chalk full of this stuff, since the audience for AP is so young. I, for one, want kids to KNOW how long it takes a whale to die, and that whaling should be stopped.
I hate being so negative about these guys, but I was really hoping to come away from the show feeling as if it would at least be a good educational tool. Sort of a consolation prize for not seeing any whales actually being saved.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
1
your data is too limited to be able to make a judgment either way, comparing catch numbers with a low quota in 2000 to catch numbers in 2008 with vastly higher quota under different research programs and objectives isn’t a valid comparison, only by directly comparing the same year, same quota, same population levels and territory could you really arrive at this answer through the data. With about 3-4 Japanese ships & 1-3 SSCS ships doing battle each year the variables are too great especially with a fluctuating quota and fluctuating presence of SSCS. This is basically a “one off” problem, it just might not be possible to use such a graph for such a determination
Perhaps the only way to even approach the answer would be to have observers on both ship who take note of incidents where a whale is physically blocked from harpooning, how many pounds of meat contaminated(costs money but doesn’t save a whale), and how many hours or days the SSCS can force the ICR in watercannon battles or a chase (even then how productive those hour would have been spent whaling is still in question)
Like or Dislike:
3 
12
You’ve essentially rephrased my point, which is simply that SSCS claim that they are saving whales is not supported by the data.
You may be interested in out follow up post – Whale Quotas and Sea Shepherd in which we show that all commercial whaling nations, regardless of SSCS involvement, are making roughly half their quota. In some years, Japan is actually doing better than average.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
16
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
16
Please provide sources if you’re going to attempt to pass off fiction as fact. Making wild accusations without any support is the tool of propaganda artists, not people actually trying to engage in discussion. That’s just downright irresponsible and shows a specific bias.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
16
The correct values can be found at the bottom of the post. This particular graphic is produced by Whale and Dolphin Conservation International and is not ours to change, only attribute. As the updated numbers (which are, again, in the post) do not alter my conclusions, I see no reason to produce a new graphic.
The only change in interpretation is that in the two years that SSCS were in the Southern Ocean while Japan was whaling under the lower quotas, there was no corresponding decrease in whale kills.
I’m curious as to how you think the conclusions would change with the updated numbers?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
16
No, actually it was the ICR that originally misreported the Southern Ocean scientific catches for those years. Nice try though, but despite your desire to create a controversy where none exists, there’s nothing significant about the change in catch data in 2002 and 2003. Just an innocent case of some intern submitting the wrong file.
Again, I’m curious as to how you think the conclusions change with the updated numbers?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
15
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
15
When I originally wrote this post, I double checked the WDCS graph against the ICR’s catch report, and both were in agreement. A few months later a reader e-mailed me to let me know that the numbers did not match. If I had thought that at some unidentified time in the future, someone would decide that this was some grand conspiracy against the ICR, I might have taken a screen capture, but as it is total insignificant it warrants no more than a simple correction, which is right there, clearly displayed in the body of the text.
I honestly have no clue why you think the ICR is being ‘demonized’ because someone, somewhere made a typo and then fixed it, but it’s clear that you’re not actually interested in having a discussion.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
15
Not at all, actually. A false dichotomy is when you reduce the possible positions in a deep and nuanced debate into two contrasting positions, such as “you’re either pro-Sea Shepherd or pro-whaling” when, of course, there is a a whole spectrum of views on the issue of whaling. What you’re looking at is called argumentum ad absurdum – taking a single fact (in this case someone making a typo) and drawing it to an irrational conclusion (organizations that are opposed to whaling don’t care about details and I’m trying to demonize the ICR for some reason – For the record, I’ve consistently contended that the ICR’s scientific research is sound but that many of their studies could be done without lethal sampling, and that there are political reasons for Japan to maintain an active whaling fleet).
From above:
Details, man, details.
No thanks, for two reasons: 1. The correct numbers are provided in the post (and the link the the catch reports you want are up there, too) and 2. You clearly have an axe to grind, and are no more unbiased than WDCS.
I agree, this entire exchange has been tedious and boring. Do you have any actual content to contribute or just biased and unsupported libel and pedantry?
edited for typo
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
11
So, no? No real content to add? Thanks for clearing that up.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Right here: link to icrwhale.org
It’s hard, I know, you’ll have to actually read the cruise reports from each year.
Although, actually, in looking at the way the page is laid out, it’s likely that as opposed to a typo, the hyperlinks just pointed to the wrong .pdf at some point. Probably anti-whaling hackers.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
11
Still wrong. Try again.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
Depending on what software you’re using, you should be able to set the blog to turn off comments on posts more than a few weeks old. In most cases, anyone showing up to the discussion later than that is probably either a spammer or a troll, although I suppose it’s possible they were just out on a whaling cruise.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
I tend to avoid doing that, as occasionally posts will get a second wind and fresh, insightful discussion months later. Not so much here though.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
The commenter Kujirkira is under moderation for violation of Comment Policy Rule #3 – Parroting
New commenters are invited to read the comment policy before posting.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0