Ban on whaling might be lifted, better for whales?

[Volum]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100621...DeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDbmF0aW9uc2Rpdmlk

A showdown looms this week over the 25-year ban on commercial whaling: Should it be eased, which might mean fewer whales are killed? Or should it remain — leaving Japan, Norway and Iceland to hunt down as many whales as they want?

The International Whaling Commission begins a five-day meeting Monday in Morocco's Atlantic Ocean resort of Agadir — arguably its most important gathering since 1986, when a moratorium on commercial whaling halted the factory-style slaughter of tens of thousands of animals every year.

A compromise that would suspend the whaling ban has been drafted by the agency's chairman, but it's an unhappy option for nations that abhor whaling. The deal would legitimize commercial hunting in exchange for a drop in the number of whales actually killed by those claiming exemptions to the ban — Japan, Norway and Iceland.

The proposal, the agency says, would end the wildcat whaling that still kills up to 2,000 whales a year, including species on the verge of extinction. Japan's unrestricted whale hunt, allegedly for "scientific research," currently sends more whale meat to sushi bars than laboratories.

Since the ban took place, about 33,600 whales have been killed, according to the Animal Welfare Institute in Washington.

The 88-nation whaling commission also hopes to dispel what its chairman calls an "atmosphere of confrontation and mistrust" that has frozen the agency's work for decades, and to reaffirm its relevance as a regulatory force.

The IWC "is fundamentally broken and must be fixed," the chief U.S. negotiator, Monica Median, told reporters earlier this year.

IWC Chairman Cristian Maquieira published his proposal in April to bring the three whaling nations back under the agency's control by allowing them to hunt commercially under closely monitored quotas.

Advocates say 5,000 whales will be saved over the 10-year life of the deal. Opponents question that claim, and say the proposal would legitimize hunting for profit and throw a lifeline to a dying industry that has constant confrontations with environmental groups on the world's oceans.

"The points of view differ a lot," Marie-Josee Jenniskens, head of the Netherlands' delegation, told The Associated Press. "I wish I could be more optimistic."

She said Maquieira's original compromise was being modified and a new draft was likely to be unveiled Monday. Maquieira himself is not attending due to illness, and the convention will be chaired by his deputy, Anthony Liverpool of Antigua and Barbuda.

Maquieira says his proposal tried to strike "a delicate balance" that admittedly will satisfy no one.

Under it, Japan would be allowed to hunt in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary, officially declared a no-go zone in 1994 but where Japanese whaling ships haul most of their catch now anyway. The draft says the quotas would involve a "significant reduction" from today's levels but leaves open the question whether whale meat and other whale products can be traded internationally.

Objections to the draft have been swift and firm.

"The Australian government cannot accept this proposal as it currently stands," Environment Protection Minister Peter Garrett said. Australia has already launched a complaint against Japanese whaling at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the U.N.'s highest court.

The German parliament urged its government to reject the proposal, saying "we can only guess at how fatal the consequences will be for marine ecosystems."

The United States also has voiced reservations, especially over the number of whales the three countries will be allowed to hunt.

Conservationists say the catch quotas must be based on scientific evaluations of whale populations rather than on recent catches.

"The quotas have more to do with political science than biological science," said Patrick Ramage of the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Ramage is worried that the U.S. is too anxious for a deal, partly because Washington fears Japan could veto the approved catch by Alaskan Inuit hunters, which falls under a clause allowing Aboriginal subsistence whaling.

"There has been decades of steady progress in conservation. All of that is threatened with reversal by a politically expedient proposal that some governments are trying to rush through," Ramage said.

Several environmental groups said they would favor a deal only if endangered species are excluded from the hunt, whaling is stopped in the Antarctic sanctuary, trade in whale products is outlawed and no country is exempt.

"If we leave Agadir with no decision, that is not a victory, because we are not doing what the whales need," said Susan Lieberman of the Pew Environment Group.

WWF said a compromise was clearly needed to end the exemptions claimed by the three nations and bring whaling back under the commission's control.

"But we will not support a compromise at any cost," said WWF's Wendy Elliott. "The IWC is at a crossroads, and the integrity of the commission is in the balance."

So, will this actually work? If Norway or Japan is going to accept something like this they can't set the legal quota to low, but opponents of whaling are going to want it as low as possible. "A good compromise makes everyone unhappy

Right now we can hunt as many whales as we want, even with the ban. I don't see Japan or Norway accepting a deal that would make a large cut in the number of whales they could kill just to make it "legal". Right now "illegal" or "legal" makes no difference.

So, what thinks the people?

 

[Cheetah]

Whales taste good.

But seriously:

Norway's case:
- We objected to the IWC's moratorium and are thus not bound by it.
- We only hunt Minke whales, and only in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean.
- There are about 102,000 Minke whales in that area.
- We have a quota of about 800 animals a year, but last year only caught about 400.
- The uncaught quota is moved to the next year, so the quota for next year is 1200. Still, the most we have ever caught was 592 animals in 2007.

Japan's case:
- First officially objected to the IWC's moratorium. However, the US threatened to cut Japan's fishing quota in US territorial waters unless Japan withdrew their objection, so Japan withdrew their objection. Japan started to do "scientific-research whaling" and the US cut off Japanese fishing privileges in US waters.
- As far as I can tell, Japan hunts and/or have hunted or plans/considers to hunt Minke whales, Sperm whales, Fin whales, Humpback whales, Sei whales and Bryde's whales.
- There are about 380,000 Minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere; Sperm whales are estimated in the hundreds of thousands; Fin whales around 16,000 (in 1984); Humpback whales only around 5000 in 1966, when hunting it was mostly banned (Many countries, the US in particular, had taken about 200,000 animals prior in just the 20th century); Sei whales around 54,000; and Bryde's whales between 90,000-100,000.
- Japanese quotas today includes 850 (or maybe 340?) Minke whales annually; 10 Sperm whales annually; 50 Bryde's whales annually, 100 Sei whales annually, they took 10 Fin whales annually between 2005 and 2007, upgraded quota to 50 animals annually, but caught none in the 2007-2008 season; considers 50 Humpback whales (waiting for agreement with IWC).

Iceland's case:
- Iceland did not object to the IWC's moratorium, but continued scientific catches of about 60 animals every year. Following the IWC's 1991 refusal to accept its Scientific Committee's recommendation to allow sustainable commercial whaling, Iceland left the IWC in 1992. Rejoined in 2002 with a reservation to the moratorium. Reopened commercial whaling again in 2006.
- Iceland hunts Minke whales and Fin whales, in the central and eastern North Atlantic.
- There are about 174,000 Minke whales and 30,000 Fin whales in these areas (between 40 and 56,000 in the whole North Atlantic).
- Iceland have an annual quota of 30 Minke whales and 9 Fin whales!

The International Whaling Commission is a joke anyway: As Norway and Japan bribe poor countries to vote for whaling, and the US, Australia and others bribe poor countries to vote against whaling.

Finally, note that 90% of whale deaths happen from collision with ships, and by-catching (catching whales while trying to catch other species) kills more whales than direct hunting!

If the anti-whaling people really want to help the whales, they should do something about whale-ship collisions, fishing techniques and ocean pollution!

 

[Camikaze]

The Australian public would not go for this at all. As far as they are concerned, whaling is an evil. Compromising on a perceived evil, even for pragmatic reasons, would not at all be popular.

 

[The Imp]

If it is better for the whales in terms of numbers, sure.

I doubt that that will be the case though.

But... is this overarching Western "regard" for the whale born out of a concern about the potential extinction of the whale more than anything else? If in a hypothetical scenario the whale was not threatened with extinction at all, would people still feel the need to stop whaling?

 

[Volum]

I think its also because the whale is seen as a intelligent beautiful animal and so on, wich i guess it is.

 

[The Imp]

I think its also because the whale is seen as a intelligent beautiful animal and so on, wich i guess it is.

Well of course, but there are other beautiful intelligent animals being slaughtered in even higher numbers then the whale but are not under threat of extinction.

I'll give you a hint. They are called pigs.

 

[Camikaze]

People don't like it partly because of the threat of extinction, partly because of the fact that it is seen to be done in a rather inhumane manner, and partly because people don't like the thought of killing big or exotic animals. And whales are pretty big, and regarded as rather exotic (in the sense of being rare/wild).

 

[Formaldehyde]

If the anti-whaling people really want to help the whales, they should do something about whale-ship collisions, fishing techniques and ocean pollution!

A most excellent post. Based on the numbers the countries want to kill and the total count, I really don't see any problems with any of their programs with the possible exception of the humpback whales. If there are still only 5,000 in the world today as there apparently were in 1966, I don't think Japan should kill 50 of them. I don't think they should kill any of them in that case.

Whales are also notorious for colliding with sailboats. Hitting a whale or a submerged shipping container that has fallen off a ship are probably the greatest threats you face.

 

[Bill3000]

As I hate Norway, Iceland, and Japan, the ban should be made permanent and trespassers invaded, annexed, assimilated, and civilized into the USA.

 

[Agent327]

A most excellent post.

Not really... In the olden days all of the whale was being used, which was quite economical. Nowadays its economical to kill giant mammals and throw away most of it, since nobody wants it. Sort of like with sharking, you might say. Or tigers. You kill an animal, use only a tiny portion of your catch and dump the rest. What a waste. Modern economy in a nutshell.

 

[warpus]

As long as nobody's hunting or killing endangered whale species, and Japan's kill-whales-for-"scientific-research" practices stop, I'll be happy

 

[Cheetah]

Not really... In the olden days all of the whale was being used, which was quite economical. Nowadays its economical to kill giant mammals and throw away most of it, since nobody wants it. Sort of like with sharking, you might say. Or tigers. You kill an animal, use only a tiny portion of your catch and dump the rest. What a waste. Modern economy in a nutshell.

Nitpicking: As far as I know, almost everything on a Tiger is used when it is hunted... Hunting species that close to extinction though is simply crazy!

Anyway, the problem that not the entire whale is used have two major reasons:
- An international embargo against whale-products, meaning that we can almost only sell stuff within our own countries! (Norway exported some whalemeat to Japan recently, Japanese customs spent half a year before approving it...)
- These aren't the immediate post-war years anymore - nobody want to buy whale oil when they can afford better products!

I guess we could do like other meat-industries do with their animals: Grind up what is left of the carcases and feed them back to the animals. That works wonders I've heard...

 

[Cheetah]

As long as nobody's hunting or killing endangered whale species, and Japan's kill-whales-for-"scientific-research" practices stop, I'll be happy

As I already said, Japan only labels its whaling as "scientific-research" because they haven't wanted to leave the IWC and they withdrew their objection to the moratorium when they didn't have the balls to defy the US for a while. If they had lodged their objection then the only difference today would be that they would be legally within their rights to hunt whales for commercial purposes, just like Norway and Iceland does.

 

[Ekolite]

Are whales actually consumed in Iceland and Norway or is everything exported to Japan?

 

[JtheJackal]

If the anti-whaling people really want to help the whales, they should do something about whale-ship collisions, fishing techniques and ocean pollution!

With that "logic" I guess activists trying to reduce murder rates in our cities should put all thier efforts in making traffic safer since traffic accidents kill more people!

With these other unatural ways whales are killed then we better worry about something we can control like hunting. Ship collisons didn't make whales an endangered species.

 

[Formaldehyde]

With these other unatural ways whales are killed then we better worry about something we can control like hunting. Ship collisons didn't make whales an endangered species.

And neither does killing a tiny fraction of the whales currently in existence in a very controlled and regulated manner.

So you would be opposed to finding some sort of technological solution to whales being struck and killed by ships, likely while they were asleep?

 

[Theige]

Looks like we have a new axis of evil.

If we can't get them to sign a new agreement, I would support an invasion.

 

[Cheetah]

Are whales actually consumed in Iceland and Norway or is everything exported to Japan?

We consume it ourselves. Very little international trade happens with whale products.

Whale steak is lovely.

In Japan I found that whale sashimi is great too.

With that "logic" I guess activists trying to reduce murder rates in our cities should put all thier efforts in making traffic safer since traffic accidents kill more people!

I'm sure you think you made a good point with the sarcasm, but I would argue that such action would actually be the correct thing to do! There is lots and lots of possibilities to make traffic safer, and far more people are killed or maimed in traffic than by pure murder or murder-attempts...

With these other unatural ways whales are killed then we better worry about something we can control like hunting. Ship collisons didn't make whales an endangered species.

I'm not sure how much the whales would have fared with modern ocean traffic if there never would have been any whaling.

But I think it is reasonable to say that unlimited whaling made many species endangered. However, todays whaling is not unlimited or uncontrolled. We are simply catching a sustainable number of animals, just like one does should do with all kinds of fishing or hunting today.

There are several species of fish that are in greater danger of being fished to extinction today than any specie of whale is! If, for some instance, you really want to criticise Japan, I am for instance very worried about the survival of the Bluefin Tuna. The status of most fisheries should worry the general human population far more than whether we maintain sustainable, modern whaling.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is also depriving a very specific element of the Japanese population the livelihood they have practiced for centuries now.


Link to video.

 

[Cheetah]

^ Shouldn't they be able to continue whaling anyway as a form of 'aboriginal culture' or something anyways?

Allowing people to kill whales with sticks and stones seems so much better than killing a few more whales - still way within any limits of sustainability - with modern, effective methods that don't have the animals suffering for longer than necessary...