(from "Kujira to Inbou" (Whales and Plots), by Yoshito Umezaki, 1986)

Note:
1. The words of conversations or statements which were made in English are not the exact wording as the original, because they were translated from Japanese texts in the book.

2. Remarks starting with an "*" are mine.

The IWC has been carrying out the IDCR (International Decade of Cetacean Research) program since 1979. In this program scientists from several countries study the Antarctic minke whales, and sighting survey and mark-recapture methods were adopted. Based on the number of whales sighted by researchers on a research vessel during the fixed time interval, the number of a whale stock population is estimated by the sighting survey. In the past a whale found on the track line was counted as one, but a whale sighted in an oblique direction was counted as 1.35 whales to calibrate the rate with the overlooked whales in the sea.

But in the 1984 meeting of the IWC Scientific Committee, anti-whaling scientists insisted on abolishing the overlook-rate and on counting a sighted whale as 0.69 whales. The reason was that there was the possibility to count the same whale on the sea twice. As a result, the discussion concluded to count a sighted whale as one whale, but the overlook-rate was abolished.

Along with the sighting survey, the mark-recapture research is one of the well-developed and accurate methods for population estimation. Small marking-harpoons are shot into whales' bodies and after they go back to the school and are mixed in well, some whales are caught randomly. Then the whale stock population is estimated from the ratio of marked whales in the whales harvested(*1). For example, suppose that 500 whales were marked and 500 whales are captured from the same stock. If marking-harpoons are found in every whale caught, the population of the stock is estimated as 500. The less that captured whales have marking-harpoons, the more the estimated population becomes large.

In the IDCR program which started in 1979, the rate to discover marking-harpoons in whales caught was as low as about 0.3% on average. Using this result and the sighting survey data, the IWC Scientific Committee estimates the Antarctic minke whale population every year, and the estimated population reached 405,000 in 1983 - the highest value since the start of the program. Surprised at the result, anti-whaling scientists insisted in the 1984 meeting of the Scientific Committee not to use mark-recapture data any more, in addition to the disuse of overlook-rate. The reason was: "The marking-harpoon may come off the whales' bodies." When shooting a marking-harpoon, a shooter fires it with two men beside for judgment. Only the whales which the two men recognized as "perfect hits" are counted in the validly marked whales. It is not likely to happen that a marking-harpoon comes out of a whale's body later.

Reasons for the disuse of the overlook-rate and mark-recapture data are artificial but we cannot deny the reasons completely. It may happen that a whale which comes to the surface is counted twice. It may also happen that a marking-harpoon which seemed to have perfectly hit the whale body in fact did not hit. "There's uncertainty" - anti-whaling scientists always prepared these words against the pointing out of something senseless in their assertion. They steamrolled: "If you cannot prove the data to be 100% accurate, we cannot use it."

Even if it is obvious that the reason not to use the data which had been used until last year is just tactics to make the results convenient for anti-whaling scientists, there is no means to stop it. Once two views are reported in the Scientific Committee report, what is adopted in the plenary session is politically the majority view of anti-whaling.

Jumping about a bit in time, when the 1983 meeting of the IWC Scientific Committee estimated the population of Antarctic minke whales at 405,000, Chapman (USA) was shocked because the figure was 100,000 greater than the previous year. On the contrary, Japanese scientists were not surprised at all at it. The figure was quite natural for them. It was the Japanese scientists' conviction that the total population of Antarctic minke whales would be 600,000 if areas not to have been researched were included(*2).

When making a recommendation for this year's catch limit, Chapman gave up the attitude of a scientist. To make the recommendation for the catch limit, it was a usual practice to estimate the current population first, then estimate the annual increment, i.e., RY (Replacement Yield), and then recommend a catch limit smaller than the RY.

In the case of abundant baleen whale stocks, it was a commonly accepted theory that the RY was 4% of the population. The 4% of 405,000 is up to 16,200. Japanese scientists insisted on 14,087 whales (3.47%), which is below the RY, as the catch limit. To this, Chapman insisted that RY of Antarctic minke whales is 1% of the current population, and insisted on a catch limit below this level. The 1% of 405,000 is 4,050. Stunned by this, Japanese scientists asked for the evidence for 1%, but he made a strong stand: "I have no evidence but I believe so." In the previous year, he had insisted on 0.7% as the RY to lead to the lower catch limit. Finally, a neutral scientist persuaded Chapman and a catch limit of 6,378 whales (1.57%) was adopted as the lower value of the catch limit. Due to this, the report of the Scientific Committee presented two catch limit recommendations - 14,078 and 6,378 - and it was forwarded to the Technical Committee.

As expected, the Technical Committee adopted by simple majority vote the lower value of the catch limit, but due to the effort of Yonezaya at the plenary session, the final catch limit was set to 6,655 whales. In the previous year, the catch limit was 7,072 whales with an estimated population of 305,000 whales. But this year's catch limit was lower than that although the estimated population was as high as 405,000. Chapman accomplished his mission. "Even if the estimated population becomes larger, don't increase the catch limit" - this was the policy of the USA. Chapman was entrusted with this political mission in the Scientific Committee. Today, he devotes himself to the manipulation of figures with Holt, to bring the whaling all over the world to an end.

Besides Chapman and Holt, there are some other scientists who came to the IWC to stop whaling. Among them, a trio of mathematicians, J.R. Beddington (UK), J.G. Cooke (UK), and statistician W.K. De la Mare (Australia), is unique. None of them has ever watched whales or has studied the biological data of whales. They started to attend the IWC since computers were introduced in 1975 for population estimation. They were hired by anti-whaling nations such as the USA, UK, and Australia to change the commonly accepted theories on whales.

Since Beddington teaches mathematics at the University of London, Cooke at the University of York, and De la Mare teaches statistics at Monash University, it is quite easy for them to make formulas of population estimation. They know which values of data and parameters will satisfy the wishes of anti-whaling groups. Therefore they devise figures to obtain the results they want. And when they refused the Japanese data, they used the reason of 'Uncertainty'.

"I have no interest in the protection of whales. Whales are just business for me. Depending on the request, I can deduce whatever results. If Japan wants to employ me, I may consider it."
- J.R. Beddington

At an informal chat outside the Scientific Committee, Beddington stated the above to a Japanese scientist. It is thought that a large amount of funds for 'research expenses' was given by anti-whaling organizations not only to Beddington but also to hired scientists like Cooke and De la Mare.

One point common to Holt, Chapman and other anti-whaling scientists such as the above mathematicians is that they are 'paper scientists' who do not know the whale biology. On the contrary, neutral and pro-whaling scientists know the realities of whales and whaling. Scientists such as P.B. Best (South Africa), J.W. Horwood (UK), D. Hembree (Australia), G.G. Joyce (USA) joined the IDCR program and went to the Antarctic as research team leaders. And after the research, they submitted reports that the "Antarctic minke whale resource is robust."

Anti-whaling scientists never get on research vessels when invited by Japan. Due to such paper scientists, the IWC Scientific Committee gradually lost the science. And then in 1982, the IWC adopted the moratorium. It was exactly ten years since the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm had adopted the recommendation of the whaling moratorium. As I will talk about it in more detail later, the US government finally achieved the objective.

1 Marking-harpoons were slim and short (about 6 inches) and were found inside the whales' bodies during the flensing process of commercial operations.

2 In the early 1990s, the estimated population (south of 60 degrees south, excluding whales below the pack ice) reached 760,000. Before the moratorium, Japanese scientists estimated the concurrent population as about 400,000 whereas estimation by anti-whaling scientists was about 60,000 to 100,000.

_