Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 19:25:52 +0900
Dear X

|Question 1: about the population in the west pacific-Okhots sea where, in the Congress of IWC in 2003, Japanese government asked a permit of catching 150 mike whales per a year.

HM) I am unsure whether the reason why the increase of a permit of catch in scientific whaling at Pacific Okhotuk sea is increase of population size. I do not know whether Japan Government argued the increase of minke whales at Pacific or not. I hope the RMP will be enforced in Pacific minke whales and SH minke whales. If so, the catch limit depends on the population size.

|Question 2 |You stated, minke whale is abundant and not endangered. Which, abundant or endangered, should be the criteria to quit or resume commercial whaling ? In the first place, How do you define "abundant" and "endangered"? Do you cite the categorization by IUCN?

HM) The category "Endangered" that I used is based on the defninition of USEPA. By the definition of IUCN, this is called threatened. Sorry for confusion. IUCN/SSC determined the criteria for threatened, and the SH minke whales is not threatened. But, I do not know the quantitative threshold for "abundant". Sustainable fishery is possible even for Critically Endangered species. Southern bluefin tuna is listed as CR and commericially exploited under the international managenent (CCSBT). I think the IUCN criteria have still problem, as argued by Mrosovski (1997 IUCN's credibility is critically endangered. Nature 389:436) and Matsuda et al. (1996 Ecological Research 12:345-356), despite the fact that the future of SBT is not very optimistic (Mori et al. 2001 Population Ecology 43:125-132). However, minke whales is not threatened and commericially exploitable.

|Question 4|How do you define "endangered whalers". Minke whale is not endangered while whalers are endangered. Is that why whalers should be prioritized? So, if both whales and whalers are endangered, should we desert whalers and put efforts in conserving whales?Some might say "endangered whalers" is also an anthropocentric idea in the same way that protecting "pretty" and "intellectual" whales is nice. what do you explain it?

HM) Because commercial whaling is prohibited (under moratorium), it is clear that whalers are endangered. They cannot work their oritinal obligation. Therefore, I prioritize endangered whalers than non-endangered whales. Why do you think non-endangered animals should be prioritized than endangened human-being?
At International Mammalogical Congress held in this summer, Judy Zeh, the former chair of IWC/SC, will have a plenary talk, entitled "J. E. Zeh (Univ of Washington) "Can whaling be managed to protect whales and whalers?" (see http://www.imc9.jp/htm/plenary.htm?).
In addition, Cristfer Stone, one of the leader of the Rights of Nature movement, also supports the commercial whaling.Christopher D. Stone (2001) Summing Up: Whaling and Its Critics, In "Towards a sustainable whaling regime" (Ed. Robert L. Friedheim), University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, pp269-291.

|Question 5|The opponents address bycatch problems, incidental death by human activities, marine pollution, and low population growth rate . They sometimes say, even in the absence of whaling activity, there are still threats which potentially decrease the whale population.

HM) Yes, the global warming may threat whales and the entire marine ecosystems. If so, CO2 emmission is the one of the most concenrned issue even in whales. In addition, as you may know, ecological footprints of American people or Autsralian people are much bigger than that of European and Japanese. The probles is not whaling, but we should decrease the total ecological impacts by humans.

|(Q5 continuing) How do you defend your standpoint? and how should we incorporate these argument in decision making ? I think its very difficult to quantify these effects.

HM) I would like to ask American people, how do you defend your standpoint? The more important issue is to decrease the ecological footprint (still incomplete, but one of the best indicators that we have now) than anti-whaling movement. Whaling under the RMP is much more conservative than any other actual fisheries.

|Question6|there are other adverse ecological consequences of decreased whale population. Researchers suspects catastrophic decline of marine mammals' population in California was caused by the decimation of great whale.(Springer2003)Dan Ferber (2005) also pointed out the threats to the survival of creatures that live off whale carcasses. How do you defend your standpoint? Should such ecological consequences outside the whale population be considered in decision making?

HM) Why do you consider that catch of 2000 whales from >100,000 whales is critical impact? All human beings give impacts on the environment to survive themselves. Why do you consider whalers are worse than bigger ecological footprinters? I am impressed when I read the following :http://bible.gospelcom.net/ John Chapter 8

• 7 But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
• 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
• 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

I know many christians who still criticize whalers. I sympathize Chinese people who still critisize Japanese for the World War II because Japanese have not yet criticize themselves as much as Germans do. However, I do not sympathize bigger ecological footprinters who still criticize whalers even if the RMP is agreed. The problem is to keep the RMP, not to avoid whaling under the RMP.

|Question 7 (H.M.) "Again, we agree the fact that the tunas have been heavily over-exploited and the biomass has been substantially decreased. However, few international tuna-scientists considered the top predator biomass decreased by 90% (Myers & Worms 2003 Nature) or by >99% (Jennings et al. 2004 J Anim Ecol 73: 632)I suspect the fairness of conservation ecologists. "
By the statement above, do you mean that conservation biologists understate the decrease of high-trophic level fish and emphasize the decrease of whales too much?

HM) I do not understand "understate" in the above context. Anyway, >90% decrease in stock abundance is overstatement, but >90% decrease in CPUE is the fact.I did not wrote to you that anti-whalers argued too much decrease of whales.

Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 08:43:23 +0900

Dear X

|HM) tuna-scientists considered the top predator biomass decreased by 90% (Myers & Worms 2003 Nature) or by >99% (Jennings et al. 2004 J Anim Ecol 73: 632)I suspect the fairness of conservation ecologists.
Q) What do you mean by `I suspect the fairness of conservation ecologist? Could you explain more concretely?

HM) >99% reduction is definitely unrealistic. However, this paper is accepted and published. As you may understand, review process must be independent of political standpoints. I doubt it in this case. Mrosovsky (1997) wrote the same thing in IUCN/SSC decision about Red list.

Q) Do you have any scientific evidence (reference) which supports the hypothesis that global warming have adverse effects on marine mammal?

HM) I am not sure, even about the evedence of global warming itself. However, nobody said the recent "decrease" of whales is due to scientific whaling at IWC/SC. If this decrease (e.g., from 760 to 400 thousand minke whales) is true, the number of decreased whales is much larger than the total number of catch by scientific whaling and this is caused by some other factors than whaling. Anyway, decreasing ecological footprint is definitely a non-regret policy. Why do you consider that American people are allowed to be a bigger footprinter and still criticizes smaller footrpinters in envirionmental issues. First, they should reduce their footprint. This is not for whales, but for limit of the earth. If anyone consider the reduction of whale populations, why does she/he reject the possibility that global warming is a negative effects of marine ecosystems including whales? Why do they not adopt precautionary measures in this case? This is the case of unfairness.

Q) I can guess that whales which is associated with polar glacier would decrease when the ice melt. But I could not find any scientific paper about it.

HM) I do not know either. However, if the full scientific evidence is needed, we do not need any reason to prohibit whaling of minke whales. The RMP is made sufficiently precautionary too much. Why do you reject this, and why do you not reject any other issues?