Whale meat ship returns to Iceland

I may have been mistaken, but saw an ad for whale meat on the TV ver the weekend. Can it be?

The whaling company will get all their money back and probably more.

Well after he gets all his money plus more back from Samskip, he will already be ahead. And why does it have to go through an EU port? There is the option of a Scandinavian port or with the record melting in the Arctic a Russian port is also possible. Then we can't forget Canada as a possibility, they quit the IWC over the anti-whaling shenanigans.

They have shipped whale meat repeatedly in the past, I am sure they will figure it out.

Why do you think he'll get his money back from Samskip, it wasn't the fault of the company the whale meat cargo was stopped?

They couldn't deliver a shipment they promised to deliver. They knew exactly what the shipment was. They routed it through a port where it might be stopped (it is not like it hasn't happened before). So, YES, it was their fault it wasn't delivered.

You seem to be implying it has to go the whole way by ship. Ship it to Canada, then across Canada by rail to a Western Canadain port, then back on a ship to Japan. There are loads of Japanese car carriers that travel back from western North America virtually empty every week, 130 tons is 5 or 6 semi-trailers and would be no problem.

Then there is the Russia possibility. The last few years cargo vessels have crossed the Arctic Ocean during mid to late summer. A much shorter trip than any other choice.

And as I said, whale meat has been shipped from Iceland to Japan a number of times over the past 5 or 10 years.

Someone shipped it in the past, so what has changed that would prevent them from doing it now?

RORO car carriers can transport such other cargo such as heavy machinery, trailers and loose static loads.

It does not have to go the whole way in one of those massive container ships.

It was not an illegal shipment of whale meat.

Germany had no basis to confiscate the whale meat.

You keep claim that certain things wouldn't make economic sense. Do you have any numbers to back that up or just your opinion?

They couldn't deliver a shipment they promised to deliver. They knew exactly what the shipment was. They routed it through a port where it might be stopped (it is not like it hasn't happened before). So, YES, it was their fault it wasn't delivered.

Samskip, the firm that transported the whale meat from Iceland to Rotterdam, did deliver its shipment. From Rotterdam to Hamburg, where the shipment was stopped, the meat was carried by Evergreen Line, which claims the cargo was listed as 'frozen fish', the full bill of lading describing the cargo as 'frozen edible produce (Balaenoptera Physalus)' not being received until after departure from Rotterdam.

Samskip is doing Loftsson a favour by returning his butchered whales to him; they had already completed their part of the deal and owe him nothing.

Mike O'BrienJUL. 18, 2013 - 05:29PM JST

And that information was where in this article? Oh, that is right, it wasn't in this article. So as I have said all along the information provided here did not say FIN WHALE.

what it does say it in this article.

We wanted to make people aware of how pointless the whale hunt is, especially the finback hunt.

Iceland only resumed the hunting of fin whales this year, the second largest animal on Earth after the blue whale, after suspending whaling in 2011 and 2012, partly because its largest market, Japan, was suffering from an economic downturn.

So doesnt say exactly in this article either, we know from the cargo bill of lading but not written word for word in this article alone - no. Evergreen Line said Samskip was trying to hide the contents......

Robert RooJUL. 18, 2013 - 08:05AM JST

even the packing documents were deceptive and up to interpretation - According to Evergreen Line........ the labeling read: Frozen Edible Produce (Balaenoptera Physalus) - the words in brackets are the Latin term for fin whale.FIN WHALE in Latin - so the contents were FiN WHALE by customs declaration

So Samskip sounds liable to Evergreen Line,

highlighted the pointlessness of the trade

and Samskip losing even more money to send it back.

Evergreen Line claims that the containers, on their way to Japan, were labelled as frozen fish and did not know they contained whale meat. The containers held about the amount of 10 fin whales

. - Yes for those who still dispute the contents - 10 Fin Whales.

See more at: http://www.worldfishing.net/news101/industry-news/samskip-plans-to-stop-transporting-whale-meat#sthash.rqc0Cs3d.dpuf

what it does say it in this article.

When my comment specified the article where it was made, what this article says is irrelevant. And this article was published how many days after I made that comment?

So u agree they were Fin Whales being exported?

So u agree they were Fin Whales being exported?

I never said they weren't. I said THAT article never said they were Fin whales.

And this article was published how many days after I made that comment?

Mike O'BrienJUL. 17, 2013 - 10:13PM JST

Sure they do they almost all say FIN WHALE

fyfyvvbbnkl

As my quotes show, and as anybody who reads this article can plainly see, NONE of them say the meat is Fin Whale. And Greenpeace is not really a good source now is it?

sure they did, there were dozens of articles written before JT and they all said Fin Whale and Green Peace is a very good source. Thats why the whales were stopped in the first place.

And so long as you know they are exporting and you are supporting the export of that endangered species.

sure they did, there were dozens of articles written before JT

But those weren't the article that I was saying didn't ever claim the meat was Fin whale. Why can't you understand what my comments palinly stated?

and Green Peace is a very good source.

LOL

And so long as you know they are exporting and you are supporting the export of that endangered species.

Is there a point to this statement? Did I ever claim otherwise?

And this article was published how many days after I made that comment?

Mike O'BrienJUL. 25, 2013 - 02:00AM JST

And so long as you know they are exporting Fin Whales and you are supporting the export of that endangered species.

Is there a point to this statement? Did I ever claim otherwise?

Unbelievable, so you support them eating an endangered species - what will u eat when they are all eaten Mike? What will your grandchildren eat?

Unbelievable, so you support them eating an endangered species

As long as it is sustainable, which in this case it is. Unbelievable that you don't understand reality.

what will u eat when they are all eaten Mike?

Well I have never had Fin whale before, so if they were all gone it wouldn't affect my ability to continue eating the same things I currently eat. But since their population is increasing there is no real risk that they will be all eaten.

What will your grandchildren eat?

I assume the exact same things they eat now.

Duuurrr that's why it's called endangered

Duuurrr that's why it's called endangered

No actually it isn't.

You might want to read up on the various reasons a species can be listed as endangered.

So wait, you are using a US law? Is that because the US is the only country that counts? Also why would Iceland care about a US law? And then there is the fact that the US Endangered Species Act is more often a political statement than scientific.

Have an answer for everything don't you. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 7 U.S.C. § 136, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) is one of the dozens of United States environmental laws passed in the 1970s. Signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973, it was designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation."" It's not off topic as they are endangered fin whales that are being shipped back to the sender for that very reason, they are endangered and some people obviously don't understand that and don't understand the reason for the laws.

Don't have an answer for anything do you? The US law doesn't matter as no other country, including Iceland, follows US laws, and that is true no matter how many times you post it.

I agree, you obviously don't understand the reasoning behind international endangered species listings. Some people also obviously don't understand that national laws only apply in and to that nation and are thus irrelevant to discussions of international issues.

Wikipedia on Ask.com

<>http://answers.ask.com/Science/Other/what_is_endangered>

Endangered species An endangered species is a species of organisms facing a very high risk of extinction. The phrase is used vaguely in common parlance for any species fitting this description, but its use by... Us law is just an example as to the meaning of the word you obviously dont know or care about.

The 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species This link is an external site. lists fin whales as "endangered."

Some people also obviously don't understand that national laws only apply in and to that nation and are thus irrelevant to discussions of international issues.

Not irrelevant at all that is the reason the whale meat was sent back. If there wasn't a problem with the shipment they would be able to ship them now wouldn't they but instead they are going all the way back to Iceland and in reality the items should have been seized and disposed of.

Not irrelevant at all that is the reason the whale meat was sent back.

The US Endangered Species Act is why it was sent back? I hardly think so, as Germany doesn't follow the US law either.

If there wasn't a problem with the shipment they would be able to ship them now wouldn't they but instead they are going all the way back to Iceland and in reality the items should have been seized and disposed of.

No actually refusing to allow the shipment through, much less seizure, would have been a WTO violation. The whole reason it was sent back was political and the belief, probably correct, that Iceland won't want the PR of bringing the issue to the WTO.

@dingbat

Wikipedia on Ask.com

And now you are using a definition from Wikipedia? That is even less legally relevant than the US law.

Us law is just an example as to the meaning of the word you obviously dont know or care about

No actually I do know and I do care about the meaning of the word, the legal meaning. Why don't you try reading the IUCN definition, the whole thing not just the parts you like.

Not what you said at all, not what I said either. Again u r just cherry picking bs. "Some people also obviously don't understand that national laws only apply in and to that nation and" German national laws I believe are local, national yes and no one ever said they had to follow or use USA laws. Never said it was sent back because of "US Endangered Species Act is why it was sent back" either. US Endangered Species Act just shows what endangered is and wiki also shows definition of the word that no u obviously don't know about. So if you know so much and more than Wikipedia even - tell us the meaning? What does endangered mean mike? If they could have sent it on to Japan they would have.

Never said it was sent back because of "US Endangered Species Act is why it was sent back" either.

So then what did you mean by this statement?

Not irrelevant at all that is the reason the whale meat was sent back.

US Endangered Species Act just shows what endangered is and wiki also shows definition of the word that no u obviously don't know about.

No, the US ESA shows what it's definition of endangered is. While Wikipedia shows what the last person to edit the entries definition is. While the relevant definition is the international definition from the IUCN. And that defnition is pages long, so I won't waste space posting the whole thing here. Anyone who really cares and wants to have an actual discussion can follow my suggestion and go to the IUCN website.

oh ho hum

IUCN endangered species (IUCN) Definition: One of the three degrees of "rarity" drawn up by the International Union for the Conservation of Natural Resources. All plants and animals in these categories need special protection. Endangered species are those species in danger of extinction unless steps are taken to change the cause of threat and decline. (Source: BRACK)

http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/concept?ns=1&cp=2702

-1 Good Bad Mike O'BrienJUL. 29, 2013 - 10:14PM JST

"US Endangered Species Act is why it was sent back" So then what did you mean by this statement?

OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH and that is what u said not I.

-1 Good Bad Mike O'BrienJUL. 29, 2013 - 05:17AM JST

The US Endangered Species Act is why it was sent back? I hardly think so, as Germany doesn't follow the US law either.

I said it was sent back because it is endangered FIN Whales. Twist that around. I quoted The US Endangered Species Act merely to show those whom dont know the meaning of endangered.

And as you said the IUCN website has very good definition of Endangered. Maybe u should read it and actually quote it next time ur asked for a meaning of endangered? Instead of BS. Mike O'BrienJUL. 29, 2013 - 10:14PM JST

so I won't waste space posting

For all to read from IUCN website,

ENDANGERED (EN) - A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as defined by any of the criteria (A to E) as described below. A) Population reduction B) Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 5000 km2 or area of occupancy estimated to be less than 500 km2, and estimates indicating any two of the following: 1) Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than five locations. 2) Continuing decline, inferred, observed or projected, 3) Extreme fluctuations C) Population estimated to number less than 2500 mature individuals and either: 1) An estimated continuing decline.... 2) A continuing decline, D) Population estimated to number less than 250 mature individuals. E) Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 20% within 20 years or five generations, whichever is the longer.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/static/categories_criteria_2_3#definitions<>

Eat your hat

I said it was sent back because it is endangered FIN Whales

No you didn't. I quoted exactly what you said: "Not irrelevant at all that is the reason the whale meat was sent back." Which you wrote after I said the US ESA was irrelevant. And which I notice you decided to ignore in your quote.

as defined by any of the criteria (A to E) as described below.**

So the criterea are the definition not "ENDANGERED (EN) - A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very **high risk of extinction"

Especially when your futher quote says "Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 20% within 20 years or five generations, whichever is the longer."

Sorry but 20% is not "a very high risk". That is why the ACTUAL defintion of what endangered means is all the pages describing the criterea, which is almost 3 pages long.

But it will make it easy for the simple minded. The criteria for the Fin whale is A1(d)

A. Reduction in population size based on any of the following:

An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reduction of ≥70% over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased, based on (and specifying) any of the following: (d) actual or potential levels of exploitation

Notice the words "AND ceased". The endangered tag was placed AFTER Iceland recommenced whaling and they haven't changed their rating since 1996. Thus the IUCN took the Icelandic whaling into consideration, meaning they determined the level of Icelandic whaling DID NOT rise to a level that would have put it into critea A2 "may not have ceased".

And if you look at their assesment for Fin whales almost ALL of the ≥70% was in the Southern Hemisphere where population between 1920 and 1980 went from about 325,000 to less than 25,000. While the North Atlantic population that Iceland hunts went from about 40,000 in 1920 to about 40,000 in 1980 and about 52,000 in 2001. So if considered each population area seperately, which is appropriate since they admit there is little mingling, then the North pacific population wouldn't even meet any of the criterea.

Didnt ignore anything - as I said - I quoted The US Endangered Species Act merely to show those whom dont know the meaning of endangered.

now u say Mike O'BrienJUL. 30, 2013 - 01:00AM JST

I said it was sent back because it is endangered FIN Whales

No you didn't.

Sure I did. Right here Mikey M

dingbatJUL. 28, 2013 - 08:43AM JST

It's not off topic as they are endangered fin whales that are being shipped back to the sender for that very reason,

That reason being as I said they are endangered species as listed by your own reference. If you think I said something different then where is it written? What time what date, where?> Then U say

The endangered tag was placed AFTER Iceland recommenced whaling and they haven't changed their rating since 1996

So havent changed the rating then they are still endangered then MM

So if considered each population area seperately, which is appropriate...........

blablabla appropriate for you - lucky you dont get to decide if they are endangered or not or what is appropriate. It is very clearly written same as it was very clearly written FIN Whales before -

The 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species This link is an external site. lists fin whales as "endangered."

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria: Endangered A1d ver 3.1 Year Published: 2013 Date Assessed: 2008-07-01 Assessor/s: Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., R.L., Butterworth, D.S., Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, A.N. Reviewer/s: Taylor, B.L. & Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. Contributor/s: Justification: The cause of the population reduction in this species (commercial whaling) is reversible, understood, and is not currently in operation. For this reason, the species is assessed under criterion A1, not under A2, A3 or A4. The analysis in this assessment estimates that the global population has declined by more than 70% over the last three generations (1929-2007), although in the absence of current substantial catches it is probably increasing. Most of the global decline over the last three generations is attributable to the major decline in the Southern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic subpopulation may have increased, while the trend in the North Pacific subpopulation is uncertain. History: 1996 – Endangered 1994 – Vulnerable (Groombridge 1994) 1990 – Vulnerable (IUCN 1990) 1988 – Vulnerable (IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre 1988) 1986 – Vulnerable (IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre 1986)

Listed as Endangered 1996, Assessed again 2008, published 2013

No Change to the assessment means still endangered.

then u say

"ENDANGERED (EN) - A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very **high risk of extinction"

Yes *high risk of extinction"

Then 20% is not a high chance of extinction.

you dont get to make the criteria but it fits and so is listed as ENDANGERED

Readers, please stop bickering.