world

EU votes down Greenland whaling

12 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

12 Comments
Login to comment

The article goes on about how Denmark/Greenland have been told "no" but the bigger news (down at the end of the article) is surely that South Korea has decided to follow Japan's lead and start up 'research whaling', much to the disgust of Australia and New Zealand.

So, add South Korea to the list of whaling nations?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Greenlanders should just ignore IWC as they suggest. So should Japan, South Korea, Iceland, Norway, Russia, St Vincent, and all whaling nations.

Why do they need to ask the permission of anti-whalers?

Whaling nations have many good scientists. They can check safety of whaling by themselves.

I was glad United States could support Greenland. They should, as they are whaling nation themselves. But they should also support Japanese, Icelandic and Norwegian whalers also. So next step, fix double standard.

For Greenland, why is "supermarket" wrong? It is where people buy the food! Where else should people in Greenland get whale meat? Do they hope Greenland should ban the tourist from entering supermarket there?

Let them eat their whales, if it is sustainable. United States even agrees it is.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

For Greenland, why is "supermarket" wrong? It is where people buy the food! Where else should people in Greenland get whale meat?

The dictionary is your friend. Look up 'subsistence'.

I agree with you though, about the double standards; the US is opposed to whaling, except for its own indigenous whaling.

Having a separate rule for indigenous peoples is a bit racist and derogatory, I think; it sends the message, 'These people are primitive and don't know any better'.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

cleo, I must say, I agree with you. 95%. Almost 100% :) Although I believe in whaling for everyone, perhaps you believe in whaling for no one. At least we agree there is nasty double standards.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The IWC is nothing more than a joke and a waste of (taxpayers) money when a member nation says "I'm going to do what ever I want" anyway. The U.S. is clearly wrong by saying it''s OK for some but not for all, especially when it could easily provide other meat to the indigenous people. I recall hearing in grade school how scientists were saying that the oceans were vast enough to provide food for the whole world, well because of greed and mis-management they were wrong, the oceans are dying and are now so horribly polluted that those scientists now tell us not to consume more than a few grams of seafood per year. I fear that I shall outlive the whales and many other sea creatures.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Time for Denmark / Greenland to just walk away from the IWC.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

They won't be happy until there are no whales left in the seas... we don't need to eat everything that lives and breathes.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Good on the EU. If it looks like a whaling business, produces stock for a wide range of shops like a whaling business and gets traded in open sale to anyone....its a whaling business. There is a moratorium on commercial whaling. How could Denmark's EU partners vote any other way?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Indigenous "substenance" whaling does not put packaged whale meat in supermarkets. Cleo, you're going to be hard-pressed to find whale for sale at a U.S. supermarket. This is the apparent reason for the vote against Greenland. If you're trying to argue that you need more substenance whaling, yet you've already got store shelves stocked with whale meat, SOMEONE is not telling the truth.

Personally, I don't have a problem with whaling as long as it doesn't put subpopulations of species in danger of extinction. Japan's whaling industry seems to be fading on it's own. Even with the Sea Schlepers interrupting their whaling operations, they still ended up with unsold whale meat after the season ended. Demand is not meeting supply, so the price will have to drop to allow demand to rise. If the price drops too much, then the cost of harvesting will exceed the income from the sale. Once that happens, it doesn't make sense to continue whaling on any large scale.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you're going to be hard-pressed to find whale for sale at a U.S. supermarket. This is the apparent reason for the vote against Greenland.

The US voted for Greenland.

If the price drops too much, then the cost of harvesting will exceed the income from the sale. Once that happens, it doesn't make sense to continue whaling on any large scale.

The cost of harvesting already exceeds the income from the sale, hence the huge government subsidies. Large-scale commercial whaling hasn't made sense for a long time now.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Samsing even insisted that Greenland had the right—theoretically—to kill whales with baseball bats if it so decided.

Completely agree, given the inhumane conditions at slaughter houses in the US don't see how members of IWC opposing whaling have any case.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Fadamor,

If the price drops too much, then the cost of harvesting will exceed the income from the sale. Once that happens, it doesn't make sense to continue whaling on any large scale.

That wouldn't be such a bad thing, but it seems like whenever someone has TOO much of a product, instead of producing less. They produce the same amount and sell it to the government. Basically, subsidies for NOT farming. I suspect the same thing will eventually happen to the Japanese whalers. They will be anachronisms with no skills other than commercial whaling to fall back upon. I guess they could sell encyclopedias or something.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites