Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Science > Sci Pry

May 11th, 2009, 06:58 GMT · By

Whaling Talks Have Failed This Year as Well

SHARE:

Adjust text size:


In the freezing waters of Antarctica, Sea Shepherd's flagship Steve Irwin has come under attack from the Japanese fleet, which has used water cannons to keep the environmentalists at bay
Enlarge picture
Despite hopes in this year's International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting to resolve the most pressing issues in the area at this point, little progress seems to have been actually made. Talks have now come to a standstill, as discussions between pro- and anti-whaling nations find no resolve. Nations such as Iceland, Norway and Japan argue for the right to maintain their fishing industry afloat with this activity, despite the fact that commercial whaling is expressly forbidden under a 1982 UN charter. In spite of these restrictions, Norway and Iceland have recently began to sell whale meat to Japan, which is marketing it for the general population.

The only opposition that these nations get is from environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd. Governments that would otherwise oppose whaling, such as that of Australia, cannot engage in drastic actions to stop the phenomenon, without running the risk of breaking off commercial ties with the nations they are protesting against. The southern nation has extensive business relationships with Japan, so the only thing it can do is support Sea Shepherd despite protests, and provide the environmental group with safe harbors to refuel.

At an earlier meeting this year, Japan announced that it was only willing to reduce its yearly whaling quota to 650 minke whales, which is just about two dozen whales less than it has captured this year. Admittedly, this year saw extensive interference from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's flagship, the Steve Irwin, which harassed the Japanese whaling fleet throughout the whaling season, and chased it out Australia's southern waters. The fleet caught little over half of its 900+ minke whale quota.

In addition, the Asian nation said at the meeting, which took place a few weeks before the official IWC one, in Madeira, that it also looked for approval on setting up minke quotas for four of its coastal communities, of which officials said that they had whaling as a part of their cultural background, the BBC News reports. However, environmental groups are very irritated by this demand, and say that there is no way of monitoring the way Japan conducts this hunt, as it mostly takes place in its territorial waters, where international ships have no jurisdiction.

Since 1982, when commercial whaling has been banned by the United Nations, Japan has set up its bogus Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), which manages the nation's whaling fleet. Representatives of this institution say that the country only goes after the whales to study them, but critics helpfully point out the fact that you don't need to kill about 1,000 whales per year to study them. Additionally, Australian officials share, modern innovation has endowed us with GPS locators and DNA-reading devices, so actually killing the whales is barbaric, cruel and unnecessary.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

1,263 hits · 3 comments · Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend · Subscribe to news

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


The Japanese Fleet Didn't Complete Its Whaling Target

Sea Shepherd Forces Japanese Whaling Fleet Away from Whales

Australia Hosts Sea Shepherd, Despite Japan's Requests

Sea Shepherd Docks in Tasmania

US Calls On Iceland to Stop Whaling

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: timmy on 12 May 2009, 07:42 UTC reply to this comment

"the fact that commercial whaling is expressly forbidden under a 1982 UN charter"

This is wrong, there is no such UN charter.

The 1982 agreement refered to was a decision by the IWC to temporarily set commercial catch limits to zero, and keep the situation under review until 1990, at which point the effects of the decision were to be reviewed.

Norway never agreed with the decision and is not legally bound by it, Iceland did agree but quit the IWC later after the IWC failed to set non-zero catch limits, and Japan's commercial whaling targets species not covered by the IWC's jurisdiction. Japan also uses the IWC's special permit provisions for catching whales for research purposes, and there's nothing illegal about it (those who disagree have had more than 20 years to prove otherwise).

"Japan announced that it was only willing to reduce its yearly whaling quota to 650 minke whales, which is just about two dozen whales less than it has captured this year."

They plan to catch 850 a year, so they are talking a reduction of 200 whales, which is not insignificant.

If the anti-whaling side could stomach Japan catching, say 50 whales in it's coastal waters, 150 whales could be "saved" each year - without putting human lives at risk as Sea Shepherd does. Japan has said it will accept international oversight of the coastal harvest as well, so the "environmental groups" that oppose it are simply making excuses. It's as if they want Japan to keep killing more whales, rather than kill less.

"so actually killing the whales is barbaric, cruel and unnecessary"

This sort of name calling is not going to make the whaling nations stop. They regard whales as a source of food, and we should expect that they will continue to study them as "resources" with a view to utilising on a sustainable basis in future.


Comment #2 by: Robert C on 13 May 2009, 13:21 UTC reply to this comment

timmy,

1. The zero take agenda vote was made in 1986, not 1982.
2. Japan set the catch quota at 935, not 850.
3. The taking of whales (or other marine mammals) in the southern ocean is illegal, not the opposition of such practice.
4. Check your facts on being in harms way. The Japanese fleet routinely practices actions the contravene admiralty law.
5. Japan has a surplus of frozen whale meat and is struggling to develop a market for it. Therefore, the furter killing of wahles is not required as a source of protein for the general public.
6. Whaling is economically unsound as the cost per pound of whale meat versus terrestial based protein sources requires the Japanese to kill a minimum of 650 (the un-magic number) to break even. Surely all that effort and expense could be applied to a more benovolent protein generating industry.
7. You fail to understand that the majority of ther planet disagrees with the killing of just one whale. Therefore, your stement in paragraph 7 is both inacurate and misleading.
8. Have you actually witnessed a whale being harvested? Do you have any knowledghe of cetacean biology or cognative abilities?

The killing of whales is unnessecary. The economic and ecolocigal parameters do not support it.


Comment #3 by: timmy on 14 May 2009, 04:57 UTC reply to this comment

Robert,
1) The vote was made in 1982. 1986 was when the decision was to come into effect. (http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_chair82_6.html)
2) Japan specifies it will catch 850 minkes, plus or minus 10%. 935 is the maximum of the range (765 is the minimum). (http://www.au.emb-japan.go.jp/pdf/Whaling.pdf)
3) What Japan is doing seems to be widely accepted as legal. Article 8 of the ICRW convention illustrates this. No one has ever proven otherwise in an international court.
4) I don't get your point.
5) I've read that assertion elsewhere, but I do not see any evidence of it. In any case food surpluses are normal in developed states that are free of starvation.
6) If your assertion that whaling is economically unsound is true, commercial whaling operations will never start again. Therefore, the moratorium is unnecessary and the argument is mute. However I disagree with your assertion, I think small scale whaling operations (compared with the past) are viable. There already are some commercial operations right now (Iceland, Norway, Greenland and Japan to an extent), and more are trying to start up (South Korea).
7) Most of the world doesn't seem to care about whaling. It seems to be a cultural disagreement between some nations (led by a group who themselves bear much of the responsibility for past over-harvesting) and the existing whaling nations.
8) What I do know suggests that sustainable harvests of whales are possible, both economically and ecologically. However, like many activities, regulations are required to ensure that what is possible in theory is achieved in practice. This seems to be the case with today's ongoing commercial whaling operations, but an organization like the IWC should be actively monitoring to ensure it.

Humans around the world utilise a variety of animals in a variety of ways, and whales are utilised as food resources by people from some places. I think you are unfair to disrespect people who want to eat whales.

Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM