Comments SirPink has made

Facts about whaling in Iceland

First of all, Fin whales are not endangered around Iceland. The IWC even admits that there are at least 25.800 fin whales around Iceland. That is 70% of what the stock was before exploitation and this stock has been conserved now for more then 30 years (Iceland imposed ban on fin whale hunting long before IWC did so). The stock grows 10% annually and has done so from 1989-2001 and there is no reason why that should change drastically. (See the IWC scientific report 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?
On Iceland resumes commercial whaling posted 3 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses