Whaling: the great betrayal

Whaling: the great betrayal

www.independent.co.uk

The moratorium on commercial whaling, one of the environmental movement's greatest achievements, looks likely to be swept away this summer by a new international deal being negotiated behind closed doors. The new arrangement would legitimise the whaling activities of the three countries which have continued to hunt whales in defiance of the ban – Japan, Norway and Iceland – and would allow commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary set up by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1994.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
environment.change.org
en.wikipedia.org

I am disgusted to hear that commercial whaling may now be allowed again, even in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary!

Since Japan, Norway and Iceland have defied the ban, they have killed over 30,000 great whales. The already decimated population cannot support losing these numbers.

And what has happened to the USA? They were always one of whalings biggest opponents, now they look set to support commercial whaling.

The proposal has some powerful backers, even among countries which were formerly solidly opposed to commercial whaling's return – a fact which substantially increases its chances of adoption at Agadir. Principal among them is the US, whose officials in the negotiations have been strongly backing the proposal. This is thought to be in part because of a specific problem – the subsistence whaling quotas for indigenous Inuit peoples in Alaska, which the US is obliged to seek from the IWC every few years.

www.independent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Even our Australian Government appears to be afraid to upset the Japanese when it comes to whaling in the Antarctic Reserve. Greenpeace also appears to be very quiet about the subject lately. It seem all the whales have going for them at present is the lonely ship following the Japanese whaling boats trying to stop them. We won't have big headlines until the last whale has gone from this planet. The Japanese use 'scientific research' as an excuse to harvest whales. My opinion is that if they haven't discovered anything about whales by now then they are not very intelligent and should pick something else to study. Whales harm no one.

reply to post by Australian


Now, now....thats not entirely true...

The Japanese have "discovered" that whale meat is still as tasty as it ever has been

Seriously tho , the way the Australian government has suddenly gone cold on the idea of taking action against the Japanese for this makes me sick to the pit of my stomach

Well the Australian government is putting forward an alternate proposal and are strongly against this new one. So make of that what you will.

Japan has described an Australian proposal calling for an end to commercial whaling as "extremely regrettable", while maintaining its annual whale hunt is for scientific research. The Rudd government has presented a proposal to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) calling for an end to whaling in the Southern Ocean within five years. The proposal also calls for the practice of so-called scientific whaling to be abolished by bringing all whaling under the control of the commission

news.theage.com.au...

For anyone interested in what's actually IN the proposal,

go here: www.iwcoffice.org... and download the PDF file
"Chair’s Report to the Small Working Group on the Future of IWC" (IWC-M10-SWG4)

Bear in mind that the document was put together by representatives from Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Brazil, Cameroon, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, St. Kitts and Nevis, Sweden and the USA.

In my opinion, it addresses quite a few important points. Ship strikes and by-catches currently supply 100% of the whale being sold in Korea - and this draft has a few mechanisms in place to deal with that (not the least of which is a unified stream of data to be collected and submitted in those instances). Mandating observers is another interesting proposal that is also worth a look.

If your definition of conservation is "Zero Use", it's probably not going to satisfy you.

If you recognize that conservation of resources = using resources in a sustainable manner, it seems like a good way forward.

There's a significantly increased research capacity, significantly increased transparency of the industry, mandated tracking to keep the lid on poaching... worth a read, if you're interested in getting the facts on the issue, as opposed to the latest Sea Shepherd press release.

Originally posted by pazcat
Well the Australian government is putting forward an alternate proposal and are strongly against this new one. So make of that what you will.

I just read it (it's on the page I linked above).

It would have a bit more weight if Australia hadn't contributed to the first document.

In other words: it's a political piece.

I don't expect much from the 'KRUD' government except 'lip service' He doesn't appear to to have much of an interest in whales. After all, he is a steak man...Look at the 'wobbly' he threw when he didn't get his steak on his flight back home. Maybe we could convince the Japanese and Koreans to eat kangaroo instead of whales. They to are tasty. Australians don't eat whales but we do eat our own national symbol.

I concur! Whaling should not be allowed period! It is a disgraceful activity for anyone, be it nation or group, to participate in. It is my hope that such organizations as Sea Shepards will form a bulwark of resistance against such a heinous idea.

Once again big business wins. I could understand if it was a tribal custom where a few whales a year get harvested. Is there any programs for whale conservation in these countries that have a taste for the meat? How about growing it in a lab?

Here's the objectives from the report posted by vox2442 (thanks for the link!)

Fundamental components of the draft Consensus Decision are that the Commission will:

• focus on the recovery of depleted whale stocks and take actions on key issues, including bycatch, climate change and other environmental threats;

• bring whaling by all members under the control of the IWC (IWC has no control over whaling under objection/reservation or whaling under special permit – ‘research whaling’);

• reduce catches significantly from current levels;

• limit whaling operations to those members who currently take whales;

• establish caps of takes that are within sustainable levels for a ten year period;

• enhance monitoring and control measures and animal welfare aspects of whaling operations;

• recognize the non-lethal use of whales, such as whalewatching, as a management option for coastal states and address related scientific, conservation and management issues of such uses;

• create a South Atlantic sanctuary;

• provide a mechanism for enterprise and capacity building for developing

These objectives look pretty sound. But my worry would be "reduce catches significantly from current levels;". How is this possible? Only a few nations commercially whale at the moment. I certainly don't believe that if they sign up to this they will suddenly reduce the numbers they are already bringing in, and surely more nations whaling = more whales killed?

It may the a case that if the members don't agree with the quota, then they don't sign up and catch what they want anyway just like Norway and Iceland are already doing.

Worth keeping a close eye on once the numbers are added.

Originally posted by Nammu
These objectives look pretty sound. But my worry would be "reduce catches significantly from current levels;". How is this possible? Only a few nations commercially whale at the moment. I certainly don't believe that if they sign up to this they will suddenly reduce the numbers they are already bringing in, and surely more nations whaling = more whales killed?

As far as reducing the overall catch, if solid regs are put in place on dealing with by-catches and verification of the sale of meat via DNA tagging, as well as on board observers, I don't think it's anything near impossible. It's a compromise (and if you'll read the Japanese statement, you'll see their eager for one), but because it's up for review in 10 years I think it's one that is one that will likely be stuck to.

From what you posted, it seems to be saying that it will be limited to nations currently whaling - so the number of nations won't increase, and thus the last point you make above is kind of moot.

It's a draft, and it's a compromise, and it's all rather hypothetical, but it's easily the best such document to come out of the IWC in years.

I'm pretty sure it'll be scuttled by the Aussies, though.