The International Whaling Commission has upheld the ban on whaling:
Commission members voted 29-23 against the Japanese proposal for regulated sustainable whaling, which needed a three-fourths majority of ballots cast to pass. There were five abstentions, including countries such as Pacific Island nation Kiribati that have voted with Japan on other issues at the annual meeting.
If you’ve ever seen any of these creatures up close, you’ll know why this is important.
But before that, there’s more:
Japan maintains that whaling is a national tradition and a vital part of its food culture. It says whale stocks have sufficiently recovered since 1986 to allow the resumption of limited hunts of certain species.
Countries led by Australia and New Zealand and conservation groups including Greenpeace reject that view. They advocate protecting all whales and encouraging alternative ways of profiting from them, through tourism and whale-watching.
One of my favorite things to do is go whale-watching off the coast of Cape Cod.
The boats go out to Stellwagon Bank, a National Marine Sanctuary. It is a protected critical zone where lots of fish and whales come to eat and play.
On my first trip, I saw almost two dozen humpbacks. They were breaching (where they jump out of the water and land with a huge splash!) left and right. It was a lucky trip for me and my friends, and I’ll never forget it.
Other times I’ve seen finback and minke whales. I saw a mother and baby swim up to the boat and “wave” at us.
They are amazing creatures.
We almost hunted them out of existence. I’m glad to see that in this era of global-warming denial and spotted owl vilification, at least one of our fellow inhabitants of this planet is getting the protection they deserve.
If you ever get a chance, please go out and see a whale.
You’ll never forget it.
Good news that commercial whaling is banned except for Norway which defies the ban.
Norway can not only kill whales but every year their quota goes up.
Norway will kill 797 Minke Whales in 2005
http://tinyurl.com/ca563
The Norwegian Government has claimed that hunting the minke whale poses no threat to the species, which it estimates number about 100,000 individuals in the North Atlantic.
http://tinyurl.com/cookk
http://tinyurl.com/dgm2v
Thanks. I should have come up with a better title.
Ack, you remind me of the piece on whaling I should have done today – nay, actually yesterday – over at European Tribune. Well, in theory the sun also rises tomorrow.
As to your remarks; well, I’m afraid we can still kill whales, the pronoun referring in this case to whaling nations. Doing so is still legal, both for Norway, which lodged an objection to the 1986 moratorium, and Japan, which carries on its scientific program – though the latter really is a commercial season in disguise.
And frankly, like most Norwegians, I don’t see what the huge deal is apart from the conservation issue, which at least for North Atlantic minke whales is not acute. (It’s not an endangered population, and it is the only one harvested by Norwegians.) Humpbacks may be another matter, though current estimates run on 30,000 in the southern hemisphere. About fin whales I’m not up to date, but according to the BBC there are some signs of recuperation after past excesses.
While I don’t enormously trust Japan in this question, that seems to me a good case for reviving the original purpose of the IWC, namely to regulate whaling in a way informed by science. This as opposed to the de facto free for all that exists today, with the IWC an arena for symbolic politics by countries with an often awful environmental record and in a growing number of cases, not even a coastline.
You’re right, I should have a better title to this.
As far as what’s the huge deal, I think after nearly slaughtering all of them, we should give them a break. And if you get to see them up close, you may think twice about it.
I’m afraid I don’t get the point about ‘break’ in the case of non-endangered populations. In the case of threatened ones, certainly.
Having seen minke whales up close, I’d say their magnificence is somewhat overstated (and they have foul breath!). But then of course, magnificence is in the eye of the beholder. And isn’t it a tenuous basis for ethics? Perceived magnificence? Innumberable pigs, say, are suffering in tortuous captivity this very minute. Apparently their magnificence is insufficient, though they have the intelligence of human toddlers.
Full disclosure: I work at Earth Island Institute, home of the International Marine Mammal Project (the dolphin-safe tuna people). This is my opinion, not my employers’, but you know, take this with however many grains of salt you want as a result of my bias.
Minkes are not endangered, but they are still considered a threatened species under iinternational law. Their numbers have indeed been on the rise, but that’s because of the ban. They’re not out of the woods yet.
(I know, you didn’t know a whale could be in the woods.)
As far as I’m concerned, the population would have to be a lot higher before I’d be happy with even incidental hunting. The oceans are in huge trouble right now – fisheries collapsing and so forth – and there’s no need to go hunting the megafauna while they’er still recovering.
Thanks for your response!
Minke whales are not threatened but near-threatened. And that’s according to the IWC. There are hundreds of thousands in the North Atlantic, so it’s a stretch to call the culling of a few hundred individuals unsustainable.
Personally, I have reasonable confidence in the estimates of Norway’s own maritime researchers here. These guys are leading in their field and I see no basis for doubting their independence. So the quotas based on their recommendations I regard as sustainable until proven otherwise.
Japan’s hunt may (or may not) be another matter. I can’t answer for that.
If it is such a benign hunt, why did Norway pay a
US lobbyist $250 USD per hour for years to spin the hunt.
Comparisons with domesticated livestock just don’t fit here.
I look forward to your diary, some questions I would like to see answered.
-What are population numbers specifically of the minke species that Norway hunts in the North Atlantic, from objective sources.
-Is this population declining because of other factors, like global warming, ship traffic etc.
-What is the rate of decline (if any) over the last ten years.
-Why Norway needs this hunt since it comes under Fisheries and is government subsidized. Furthermore, Norway has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.
-Why some Norway whalers pretend that this is an indigenous hunt when Norwegian commercial whaling only began in 1930.
may I suggest a wonderful book titled “Eye of the Whale-Epic Passage from Baja to Siberia” by Dick Russell. It follows the migration of the gray whales from their birthing spot in Bajas’ Scammons Lagoon to the Bering Strait.
Living in San Diego, with easy access to gray whale watching, via land or sea, makes one feel a special relationship with all whales.
Norway and Japan increasing their catch for “scientific purposes” is nothing short of an end run around the treaty ban. I am thrilled the IWC upheld the ban, and hope those countries are sanctioned and heavily fined.
Norway is not increasing its catch for scientific purposes, so you get your facts wrong. And its minke whale hunt is completely legal under int’l law.
‘Fines’ are not a feature of international relations. But if it’s trade sanctions you have in mind, my hope – a pipe dream, to be sure – would be for the countries of the world to impose sanctions on the United States for its legio real violations of the Law of Peoples.
Norway’s whaling is not exactly legal.
Norway defies the international ban on whaling considering itself above international law, and for what?
Is it because its oil resources are drying up?
You are misinformed. Norway lodged an objection to the 1986 moratorium (which in any case expired in 1990) and so is not legally bound by it under the rules of IWC.
See this BBC story if you don’t believe me.
The ethics is another matter, and a fair one for debate.
Oil resources drying up? Yeah, that’s a good one. I bet whaling represents all of 0,00005% of GNP.
bet whaling represents all of 0,00005% of GNP.
Okay then, why the need to continue whaling for a country
with one of the highest per-captita incomes in the world?
More [mis]information:
“$55-63 for a meal of minke”
“One Minke whale could easily fetch $200,000 US on the Japanese market”
Nobody has said the country as such needs to continue whaling. However, some individuals and local communities have such a need. The country merely allows them do so on strict conditions.
The [mis]information you quote does not stem from me, nor from the BBC source I cited, so I don’t what you hope to achieve by your quotations.
The quotes were from good sources but I added the
[mis] as irony in response to your assertion that
I was misinformed.
Please, by all means, correct me when I am off the mark.
I want to ‘draw conclusions’ as Bill Moyers would say,
I am not interested in just displaying a mere opinion.
Looking forward to your diary on the subject. Please email me an alert.
Thank you.