world

IWC OKs new quota of indigenous whale hunting for Greenland

21 Comments

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

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

So the eskimos get to hunt whales because it is part of their culture? But the Japanese, Norwegians and Icelandians are not entitled to a culture of whaling. Hmmm! Sounds like favoritism. Reverse racism. Well, one thing is certain, you won't see that fat bastard anywhere near Alaska, Canada or Greenland throwing stinky-butter to save large whales that actually are endangered.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Did the aboriginal guy from Alaska really call himself an "eskimo?

It is a racist term equivalent to the "n" word.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bebert, that's cause it's too far away from home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Typically daft media coverage:

Others said lifting the ban—one of the most effective conservation measures in history—

Huh? The "ban" achieved nothing in terms of conservation. The "ban" was adopted (illegally) in 1982. Yet, the Blue whale was protected in the 1960s. The Humpback whale was protected in the 1960s. The fin whale and sei whales were protected in the 1970's.

The whaling that the "ban" stopped was essentially sustainable harvests of minke whales in the the Antarctic. And yet the media continue to spout crap like "this was a very effective conservation measure".

Of course the Greenlanders shouldn't have had to beg to get their humpback quotas, but that's just another sign of how screwed the IWC is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo;"Huh? The "ban" achieved nothing in terms of conservation. The "ban" was adopted (illegally) in 1982. Yet, the Blue whale was protected in the 1960s. The Humpback whale was protected in the 1960s. The fin whale and sei whales were protected in the 1970's."

Yes the moratorium has been the most successful conservation bill ever put through. As I am sure you are aware despite the previous bans you speak of countries continued to ignore them, & continued to hunt these banned whales, up until the moratorium, then other countries that continued to hunt whales abided by it, unlike 3 countries in the world who continue to ignore it! & that is why they earn the ire of countries around the globe. Because the rest of the world has moved on, & benifits from industries such as whale watching, while 3 rogue countries continue to flout the moratorium. & as we all know indigenous hunting is not carried out in Antarctic waters, nor was it 400 years ago by Japan! Nor does all the indigenous whaling in the world over several years even come close to the numbers Japan takes in an internationally agreed sanctuary annually.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

davidattokyo, oh & what was 'illegal' about the moratorium formed & agreed on from many countries around the world, in a democratic manner, unlike the bribery & corruption Japan has tried to over turn the moratorium.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is taking a factory ship that processes & freezes meat half way around the world what you call 'indigenous' hunting?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since the Japanese don't do "indigenous hunting" the answer is a resounding "NO".

But the Inuit, etc do "indigenous hunting".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An ethnic alm to the inuits, how nice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

I don't think anyone calls Japan's whaling indigenous hunting. But killing whales with modern harpoons, transporting the meat with planes across Greenland and putting it on supermarket shelves; perhaps you could explain how that qualify as indigenous hunting?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A 2008 investigation showed about one-fourth of the whales the Greenlanders caught were sold on the market in violation of the commission’s rules.

Then why was the quota not cut by one-quarter?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Th fin whale, the worlds second biggest animal, can get up to 100 tonnes. I wonder how the inuits killed these animals in pre-modern times...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - Yes the moratorium has been the most successful conservation bill ever put through. As I am sure you are aware despite the previous bans you speak of countries continued to ignore them, continued to hunt these banned whales, up until the moratorium,

And if the IWC is dissolved, the moratorium will be dissolved along with it.

IWC membership is voluntary. As was stated, "Unable to compromise after a determined push this week, some delegates suggested the talks should move outside the commission to a higher political platform — at least the level of cabinet ministers.

The non-compromising, anti-whaling zealots are willing to destroy the only organization that has been effective at properly managing whales. Strange, isn't it.

Do you think the zealots will be able to deny each individual nation their "right" to take whales?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul;"Do you think the zealots will be able to deny each individual nation their "right" to take whales?"

Actually it is a democratic organisation, & listens to the arguments of both sides. & in doing so properly manages whaling, if that decision is disagreed by a minority who try to corrupt & bribe for their own self interests, I would call that a success for the democratic process. Yes it is a voluntary organisation, & one that many whaling nations accepted the outcome of, despite their previous whaling history, & a select few,(3), choose to ignore while the rest of the world abides. So that is why they are considered 'rogue' states, & if they then choose to leave/ignore then they will be further distancing themselves, & giving more arguments to the majority of nations, & NGO's that oppose it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Despite these reservations, the IWC meeting, after a long and fairly acrimonious debate, approved an annual quota of nine humpbacks - but only on condition that the fin whale quota was lowered from 19 to 10.

This actually leaves the Greenlanders with less meat, as humpbacks are smaller than fin whales"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10419711.stm

I guess Greenland know how to negotiate, & compromise, not relying on bribery & corruption to get what they wish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They have been allowed to kill more than 200 of the common minke whale, but also 19 of the endangered fin whale.

The statement should that "indigenous tribes of Greenland shall catch NO MORE THAN 200 minke whales per year." period.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

should/should be

Japan claims the right to hunt under the commission’s exemption for scientific research, but nearly all the meat ends up in restaurants.

It makes me wonder if they really are capable of conducting decent scientific studies on whales in the first place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

Yes the moratorium has been the most successful conservation bill ever put through.

1) It was not a conservation success, it was a disaster. Conservation victories had already been won before the moratorium was illegally imposed 2) It wasn't a "bill". It's an IWC Schedule amendment, please (for once) actually read the convention and the Schedule to understand the legal context.

As I am sure you are aware despite the previous bans you speak of countries continued to ignore them, & continued to hunt these banned whales

Proof that "countries" were hunting Blue whales, Fin whales, Humpback whales and Sei whales in 1980, prior to the moratorium? Where is it? Besides in your imagination.

as we all know indigenous hunting is not carried out in Antarctic waters

Who cares? There are hundreds of thousands of minke whales in the Antarctic waters, even the US commissioner to the IWC has admitted that thousands of them could be taken on a sustainable basis each year, and the reason the IWC was established in the first place was to manage sustainable harvests of whales in Antarctic waters. Read the convention. If I'm not mistaken you'll struggle to find mention of the word "indigenous" a single time.

what was 'illegal' about the moratorium formed

It violates Article V of the ICRW, and it was also imposed through the corrupt immoral practice of instating anti-whaling activists as "representatives" of countries to which those activists had no connection at all. I have already shown you the information about this - names of anti-whaling activists are on the record as representing certain nations at the IWC in the early 1980's when it's clear that they had no business in doing so. The anti-whaling camp has also admitted it, so you can hardly deny it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo,

Actually it is a democratic organisation, & listens to the arguments of both sides. & in doing so properly manages whaling

Given that only 20% of whales taken are caught with explicit IWC approval (as opposed to implicit approval in the convention) any who thinks that the IWC is an appropriate or effective organization to properly manage whaling is clearly bonkers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan claims the right to hunt under the commission’s exemption for scientific research, but nearly all the meat ends up in restaurants.

Whale meat is supposed to end up in restaurants (read the ICRW, it's a whaling convention for the benefit of the whaling industry and consumers of whale products), so the "but" here is strange choice of words.

There is a lot of meat on a whale - the parts that don't end up in restaurants are limited to the interesting biological parts that help our understanding of the population dynamics of these populations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - arrestpaul;"Do you think the zealots will be able to deny each individual nation their "right" to take whales?"

Actually it is a democratic organisation, listens to the arguments of both sides. in doing so properly manages whaling, if that decision is disagreed by a minority who try to corrupt bribe for their own self interests, I would call that a success for the democratic process.

I'm glad to see you agree that the IWC properly manages whaling.

My question was based on the possibility that the IWC may not exist in the near future. An organization that is based on negotiation and compromise is pointless if compromise is no longer possible. The anti-whaling zealots admittedly have been stacking the deck against the "democratic process" and the whaling countries for 30 years.

Do you think the zealots will be able to deny each individual nation their "right" to take whales AFTER the IWC is disbanded?

0 ( +0 / -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