The recent decision by Iceland to resume whaling, and to blatantly ignore the nearly two-decade-old moratorium established by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), is infuriating and puzzling.
Iceland's Ministry of Fishing justified its decision by arguing that the "catches are clearly sustainable and therefore consistent with the principle of sustainable development," but conveniently left out the fact that the fin whales now on their whaler's list are also on the International Conservation Union's "red list" of endangered species.
Within hours of the decision, the first harpooners were off on their mission of "sustainability," and the first two fin whales have already been caught.
Iceland's actions make the next IWC meeting all the more important. In the meantime, let's tell Iceland to call the fleet back in.
Comments
View as Flat
Bluewhale Posted 4:49 am
24 Oct 2006
About sustainablelity The International Whaling Commission has a very informative article on Iceland and commercial whaling http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
Save The Whales - For Dinner!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:38 am
24 Oct 2006
thank you for the IWC page on Iceland's resumption of whaling, and on the status of the North Atlantic population(s) of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus).
I have seen fin whales several times in the Gulf of Maine. I do not know if those whales are considered part of the Greenland-Iceland population.
It is always a treat to see them during a whalewatch cruise, because they do not stay at the surface as long as the more spectacular humpbacks (Megaptera novaeangliae). The naturalist on one of those cruises told us that that was probably the largest animal that any of us would ever see, since it is the second largest animal in the world. That is almost certainly true in my case; I would love to see a blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus; strange specific epithet), but do not expect reasonably to be ever traveling to a place where that might be possible.
Fin whales are not least interesting for their asymmetrical coloring. Large sections of the right side of their heads are white. It is not understood what adaptive purpose this serves.
I do not begrudge your Greenland Inuit the whales that they (you?) kill and eat. Same with other native peoples: e.g. the Inupiat, the Aleut, the Makah. First, you do not take very many. Secondly, in Arctic and sub-Arctic latitudes, you need meat to survive. (Does that exclude the Makah, though?) Thirdly (for the sake of argument let us assume this is true; in fact I am not quite convinced), it is believed that the First Peoples of the Americas cultivate a spiritual relationship with the animals that they kill, and are reluctant to let them suffer much. (That is certainly not beyond ethical scrutiny.)
But for Europeans, and Euro-Americans (none at present, thankfully), and Japanese to kill whales is ethically indefensible.
I do not know enough about the food supply of Greenland Danes and Icelanders to comment yet on the ethics of their whaling. You all in Greenland are much more remote than are the Icelanders, so your situations are not the same.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:22 am
25 Oct 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:55 am
25 Oct 2006
If it's about the method: 'native' hunters are not as likely to use the big guns, which would reduce the time to death, thereby reducing suffering. So I'm missing the argument entirely, I guess.
P.S. Native to where and when? We're all 'native' to Africa, but as a spp. spread so far that it's hard for me to say 'native' without holding my tongue in cheek.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:59 am
25 Oct 2006
Permalink
SirPink Posted 5:51 am
25 Oct 2006
The IUCN red list lists fin whales as being endangered. That's because no numbers have been released about the size of the stock in the southern hemisphere. On the other hand IUCN admits that there are accurate numbers of whales in the Northern Atlantic (http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/2478/summ) but because the IUCN looks at fin whales on global level they list them as endangered. In January 2007 will IUCN review the status of the whales, and they might list them correctly, endangered in the southern hemisphere and not endangered in the North Atlantic like they have already done to some other species of whale.
Iceland didn't brake any international or moral laws by starting to hunt whales. It's very simple, they joined the IWC and stated that if the IWC hadn't come up with any management regulations within 2006 they would have the right to hunt whales. IWC agreed upon that when they joined. Since 1994 have the IWC tried to put a management system in place for sustainable whaling. The IWC haven't managed to agree upon management system and quotas for hunting whales, because of stalling form the anti-whaling body. Therefore Iceland is no longer obliged by the moratorium and can start whaling.
Meat is meat, and actually whale meet is very good. Whales are no different then any other sustainable source of meat in the world. To say that they are so big and majestic that they should not be hunted is another strange annotation. There is no logic behind it. It just represents people opinion about them. How can you say that cattle meat should be eaten and whale meat not? Why do you want to imprison cattle all of their life instead of eating meat from free whales that have until now lived their entire life in complete freedom! If there aren't any facts or arguments behind the anti-whaling claims why shouldn't you just tolerate other people culture and viewpoints.
Iceland is a small and barren island in the middle of the ocean that sustains it livelihood on their fisheries industries and the stocks of resource in the sea. The have managed to control their fishing in a very good manner while most other nations that are fishing face near extinction of their fish reserves (e.g. Cod in the North-Sea). Of course they want to use all the resources they have on their small island to make the best out of their life. And they would never even consider doing something that would harm their fish or whale stocks just because it would always bite them in the back.
Everybody agrees that the best way to manage whaling is to have a management system that IWC regulates. But while that wouldn't happen then the whaling nations have the right to start whaling. Now we have to see if IWC can stop to be about politics and starts to be about scientific facts. It's all about that on this globe there are a lot of different cultures and nations that we need to respect. If there are not facts at all against whaling why not authorize sustainable whaling regulated by the IWC as many of the nations ask for? Why can't these two bodies within IWC meet in the middle?
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:11 am
25 Oct 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:16 am
25 Oct 2006
You are also right to reject the loose way in which I was using "native." I do not like using it myself, for the same reasons pretty much as those you mentioned. I intended it as a shorthand expression, really a colonialist-era relic, for aboriginal, traditional, pre-industrial peoples, and not for Europeans or for their descendants scattered around the world.
And for that matter, none of those epithets work very well either. "Aboriginal" suggests an odd conception, neither scientific nor biblical, that different groups of people somehow appeared spontaneously in the lands that they were found to occupy in the early modern period, and so were there "ab origine," from their origin. As you correctly point out, we are all Africans, in fact. All of us, including Euro-Americans such as myself, and the Inuit, and the Icelanders, and the Australian "aborigines."
"Traditional" is partly OK and partly not, for such groups as the Makah, who lost for a while their tradition of whaling, and felt a need to re-learn it.
"Pre-industrial" is absurd, when e.g. the Inuit use guns and motor-boats.
"Native American" is obviously an unsatisfactory term. I am as much a Native American as any Cherokee or Navajo. But the term seems to have caught on, at least in this country (I rather prefer the Canadians' "First Peoples"), so it seems difficult to avoid.
You make an excellent point about the methods by which whales are killed, and the suffering that that causes the whales. I do not know much about those methods. My understanding is that the Arctic and sub-Arctic peoples, from the Greenland Inuit all around to the Aleuts, are now accustomed to using firearms. And whether that means hunting rifles or gun-powered harpoons is also unclear. On the other hand, the Makah, I believe, insist on using traditional hand-thrown harpoons.
I entirely agree that death by the latter method is likely to be more painful than death by the former method. Probably both methods must include an earlier stage of attaching drag-floats to the whales, which is surely inevitably very painful, and very frightening.
Really, I am not committed to a position on this, and am only trying to comprehend all the various ethical arguments that can be made pro and con regarding the acceptability of whaling by any group from anywhere. Regarding the Icelanders, I have not too much doubt that there may actually be a few of them who like eating whale meat, and I have no doubt that they are prudent enough to do nothing unsustainable, fisheries-wise. Still, it is not at all clear what necessity they are confronted by, which is forcing them to resort to this cruelly procured food source.
In my heart of hearts, I wish all whaling would cease, altogether, everywhere. But I am willing to listen to the appeals of such groups as the Greenland Inuit, whose food sources are extremely limited. Also, my understanding is that the hunting, killing and consuming of animals by such traditional groups in North America are activities that have a religious significance for them. That matters. No, it does not necessarily trump other considerations, but it matters.
I strongly suspect that many other supporters of animal rights would view my slow process of observation and decision (yes, I am the slow one) with disgust and horror. Good for them, I admire their zeal. But my job is not to preach a gospel, my job is at present to observe and listen.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink