The fate of the whales

Seagull76

Tomorrow begins the most important day of the IWC, the International Whaling Commitee and Japan has done a lot of work and spent a lot of money in bribing developing countries since they want to hunt more whales. I am asking myself why, when they do not even manage to sell the whale meat they are catching now (which they claim is for scientific research). They are selling it as dog food and launching a campaign to give it to school kids.
Some of the whale species they are catching are already endangered and now they want to catch more (together with Norway and Iceland).
For those that want to keep up to date with what is happening on the IWC I recommend this blog: http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/archive/2006/06/first_update_from_this_ye.html

damiand

Where in gods name are Benin, Nauru and Tuvalu. I know where Cote d'Ivore is. Do any of these countaries have a fishing not talking about a whaling fleet.

CJhaughey

Nothing wrong with whaling, given that Minke have an estimated abundance of >200,000 individuals there is absolutely nothing wrong with using them as food.
This is a form of cultural imperialism, Hindus revere cows, does the west stop eating burgers? Many cultures have different values and for the west to try and force them to stop whaling is pure racism.
Benin is in Africa, Nauru and Tuvalu are tiny Pacific nations and what has the absence of a fishing or whaling fleet got to do with the issue?
The IWC was set up to regulate whaling not to stop it.
The anti whaling nations managed to buy votes back when the ban on commercial whaling was introduced and this is just the latest twist in a long running story.
check http://www.highnorth.no/read.asp?which=363 for another view.

damiand

CJ. dont see any real reason why whaling should be taking place. That article says nothing. Its only some fellow gloating over how they will win eventually.

I am not aginst whaling in principle but there needs to be some debate in this area.

Oldtree

I have no problem with the food issue, but not to extinction as is always our way. I am very keen on a natural balance where possible. The thing that bothers me is the slow and painful deaths, so unnecessary today.

As a food source i would also have worries as i read, a few years ago, that due to all the heavy metals and waste dumped into the sea and ingested by the whales the US had them down at a similar level as hazardous waste.
So what about the fish??

damiand

Looks like the Japanese got their way !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

damiand

Japanese 'vote-buying' could spell a disaster for dwindling whale numbers



JAPAN: Less than a week since Japan and its allies scored a stunning victory at the International Whaling Conference - paving the way for a possible return to commercial whaling - the Japanese government has revealed how it was done: by buying the vote, writes David McNeill in Tokyo.



In a written reply to a query on Japan's "marine-aid" to developing countries, the government admitted to pouring 617 million yen (€4.2 million) last year into St Kitts and Nevis, the tiny Caribbean nation that hosted the IWC conference.



Nicaragua, the top recipient of Tokyo's largesse, was awarded about €8.1 million and the Pacific island cluster of Palau got €3.9 million.



All three countries voted with Japan, Iceland and Norway at last weekend's conference on the now notorious St Kitts and Nevis Declaration, calling for the 20- year ban on commercial whaling to be scrapped.



The pro-whaling camp won the vote - its first majority in over two decades - by just one vote. Environmentalists say the result, although largely symbolic, spells disaster for the world's dwindling stock of whales.



Japan has long been accused of using multi-million-pound aid packages to swing the IWC - which has had an anti-whaling majority for quarter of a century - away from conservation.



Many of the commission's 20 newest members such as the Marshall Islands and St Kitts and Nevis, have no history of whaling and several, including Mongolia and Mali, have no coastlines.



Japan's chief IWC negotiator, Joji Mori****a, denied last weekend that his country bought its way to victory.



"Japan gives aid to over 100 countries so why single out those that come to this conference?" he asked, saying the allegations were an "attempt by the anti-whaling bloc" to "smear those of us who want to return to sustainable use of whale resources".



An anonymous foreign ministry official, speaking to the Yomiuri newspaper this week dubbed allegations of vote-buying "Japan-bashing".



Greenpeace Japan's executive director Jun Hoshikawa however said it was "obvious" that Japan's aid influenced the St Kitts vote.



"Otherwise why is money being poured into the country? Tax money is being spent on something Japanese people do not want on a place they don't know."



Japanese environmentalists say the drive to end the 1986 ban is financed by a clique of nationalist politicians, who have spent billions of yen in public money despite most taxpayers' indifference to whaling.



Whale-eating has been declining in Japan since the 1960s and is now a specialist cuisine.



A Greenpeace survey released last week claims that more than 70 per cent of Japanese people oppose a return to commercial whaling on the high seas.



Conservationists also allege that Japan has sometimes paid the expensive International Whaling Conference subscriptions of poorer members such as Togo, which turned up late to the St Kitts conference with $10,000 in cash, although such allegations have never been proved.



The latest information however is the most detailed yet on Japan's direct grants to its supporters and will likely lead to calls for more openness on the murky relationship between aid and votes.



The aid question - which used the term "vote-buying"- was tabled by Shokichi Kina, a member of the main opposition Democratic Party of Japan and a well known Okinawa-based environmentalist.



Japan and Iceland currently engage in what is controversially called "scientific whaling" while Norway ignores the 1986 moratorium.



Pro-whalers need 75 per cent of the IWC votes to completely scrap the ban, but many fear they will use the momentum from what Mr Mori****a called the "historic' weekend vote, to dominate next year's International Whaling Conference conference in Alaska.



© The Irish Times

CJhaughey

Bad article, poor grasp of the facts and sensationalised.
Firstly The IWC was set up to regulate whaling as I said above not to ban it.
regulation means to allow the process to continue within boundaries, If the IWC was renamed the International Anti-whaling commission then fair enough but it is not.
Secondly the main species hunted is the Minke whale whose numbers have been assessed and found to be plentiful.
Why should these animals not be used for food? or is it just that people have bought into the whole hype of cetaceans being spiritual brothers to man?
I would hazard a guess and say that monkeys are probably closer to man but nobody seems too bothered about buying hardwood timber flooring for their new houses that comes from the forests that support the monkeys.
anyway back on topic what happened at the latest IWC meeting was really symbolic but nevertheless it is only what the anti-whaling nations did back in 1986 - buying votes and guess what, they are actively recruiting now to try and do the same next year.
If the IWC breaks up would you fancy uncontrolled whaling?
thats the option facing the IWC and the whaling nations if the revised management scheme is not brought into play.

muesli_offire

originally posted by CJhaughey:

The IWC was set up to regulate whaling not to stop it.

This seems to be one of the main arguments of the pro-whaling countries, even Japan. But surely the call for these countries for 'sustainable' whaling will depend on whatever framework of what they're calling 'normalisation' is proposed?

In order to operate properly within this framework, to reach whatever quotas are outlined, will countries not mess about quite a bit?

This question occured to me when I read that Greenland, a country who has its quotas adjusted to allow for the preservation of inuit whaling practices (although it never meets these quotas) proposed to supply their deficit in Minke catches with a few humpbacks and some bowheads. This must have conservationists fuming!

CJhaughey

What damage will a few humpbacks or bowheads do in the great scheme of things?
I can't see that a Inuit village is going to do any great harm if they happen to kill a handful of whales.
The principle is Sustainable use and not denying other cultures their right to practise whaling.

damiand

No one is saying that a few hundred or thousand inuit people should not hunt to use for food as they have done for countless years. The japanese are using the whale meet to make dog food. Surely that is a waste.

CJhaughey

The Japanese eat the whale meat, I cannot see that they would travel to the Southern Ocean to get dog food, that is highly unlikely in my book(I'm a open to correction if proof is posted)
And you are wrong the IWC is saying that traditional hunting should be banned. There is no clause saying that it is OK for inuits or any other traditional subsistence whalers should be allowed to continue, therefore I believe it to be a form of imperialism by the Aussies, Kiwis and The UK.

Capt'n Midnight

CJhaughey wrote:

The principle is Sustainable use and not denying other cultures their right to practise whaling.

absolutely

lets not forget though that notion of other cultures living in harmony with nature may be at odds with the general extinction of megafauna when humans arrive (cause and effect not proven yet) in europe, sibera, americas, madagascar, oz, new zealand.

But for the japanese commercial whaling you need to recoup the cost of the ships, they cost money whether used or not. It doesn't need to be sustainable because the nature of commerce is to make a profit, you can always reinvest in another type of venture later after you have killed all the whales. they may not be in it for the long haul. BTW: ever see the documentry Darwins Nightmare about the really nasty effects the booming Nile Perch industry has had ?

I'd be curious to see what original scientific results the whaling has found, and statistics I don't count as research.

golden

CJ you asked what damage can the the loss of hump whales well they are in the cycle of life if break the chain the whole ecosystem will be damaged. Look at the deforestation of the Tropics and the increase in CO2 emissions worldwide there are not enough plants to take in the CO2 and convert to Oxygen they all have a knock on effect.

People can still turn around the effects and in fact educate people and create jobs via tourism seeing whales in their natural habitat. Quite alot of the whaler boats have been changed to this effect and have made people more aware of the ecosystem.

Also the method of whaling is a rather barbaric way of slaughtering animals. How can one harpoon kill a large animal instantly!!!! Reports are saying that the eating of whale meat is declining so why do they want to do it in the first instance!!! In relation to it a traditional way of life. If we the Irish went along with the traditional route all the time would we still be in one room thatched cottages if you were even lucky to have your own home and not have a cottage owned by "Landlord" in a big house in the area!!!!

We have already quicken up the global warming and perhaps we should take stock in what we are actually doing before its too late.