US government hates whales (2 Viewers)

[Katy Penland]

My apologies for the delay in responding. I had too much to do yesterday, and then I was skywatching most of last night, trying to see if my Zeiss 85 T*FL would pick up the rings of Saturn in the planet's closest proximity to earth for the year. It didn't, but it may be due to my needing to change my contacts. I'll try again tonight. Mars was pretty, though.

"What are these high-latitude groups to do? They may not be living in igloos anymore, but they're also not near the kind of shopping described earlier in this thread. "

Katy-would you be so kind as to point me at any data which decribes the way of life & need to consume whale in the communities you mention.

The only community (singular -- please re-read what I had to say about generalizations regarding aboriginal subsistence hunting) for which I personally believe a whale hunt is justified is for North Slope Alaskan Inuit (Inupiat, to be precise) and Siberian Inuit (Chukotka). In fact, there's a wonderful book published in 2000 written by Bill Hess called The Gift of the Whale, which certainly gave me a better understanding of this issue from the Inuit perspective. Hess is a former newspaper journalist and photographer but has written for magazines such as National Geographic among many others, and this was his first book. I was introduced to it when I was asked to appear on a radio talk show in Los Angeles (when I was president of the American Cetacean Society) along with him to discuss "both sides of the aboriginal question." I had exactly 48 hours to find a copy of his book, since I had no idea who he was or his position. After reading it -- indeed, unable to put it down once started -- I called the show's producer to say I didn't think it would be a very exciting show because I couldn't disagree with Hess's position in the least; still, it would give us a chance to discuss other aboriginal hunts in the context of this one, which might still be interesting to their audience. In all honesty, I think they went ahead with the program only because they didn't have time to line up somebody else from a more animal rightist point of view to pick a fight with Hess.

At any rate, this book simply confirmed my feelings about this one hunt (on top of the IWC and NMFS data on this stock). It's a "coffee table" book, with hundreds of photos, allowing the pictures of the people going about their lives to speak for them but with Hess's narrative filling in historical, cultural and scientific facts.

"I hope you'll agree that at least in this one subsistence hunt, the size of the hunt is sustainable."

This -I understand -is the IWC position on Bowheads
The IUCN position is "vulnerable":-
http://www.sarkanniemi.fi/oppimateriaali/form.html
How confident are you that the IWC "quotas" for this species will not push Bowheads into the IUCN "endangered" category?

I'm curious why, if you're going to quote IUCN data, you don't use the IUCN's site and its own tables to do so? The link you've provided is from where? The homogenous data provided at your link's site just reinforces the need to go to the source of information if you want accurate data.

The bowhead species is divided into 5 discrete stocks, and each stock is assessed as to its status. Globally, the Bowhead is classified as LR/cd (Lower Risk/conservation dependent). But here's how the 5 stocks are classified based on the latest IUCN data (2004):

(Baffin Bay-Davis Strait stock) EN (Endangered)

(Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Sea stock) LR/cd (Lower Risk/conservation dependent)

(Hudson Bay-Foxe Basin stock) VU (Vulnerable)

(Okhotsk Sea subpopulation) EN

(Spitsbergen stock) CR (Critically endangered)

I did not include all the sub-criteria in the above categories because it would require several paragraphs of explanation as to what they mean. Here's the link to the table on bowheads at the IUCN site if you want to read more:

http://www.redlist.org/search/search.php?freetext=Bowhead+whale&modifier=phrase&criteria=wholedb&marine=1&taxa_species=1&taxa_stock=1&redlistCategory%5B%5D=allex&redlistAssessyear%5B%5D=all&country%5B%5D=all&aquatic%5B%5D=all&regions%5B%5D=all&habitats%5B%5D=9.&threats%5B%5D=all&Submit.x=100&Submit.y=9

So to answer your question, my confidence level is very high that, as I said previously, this one stock (Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Sea) can sustain the limited aboriginal hunting currently taking place and is in no danger of decline. In fact, this one stock also has an "↑" (up arrow) meaning its abundance is on the increase.

"Are you saying that if Japan's hunt were sustainable (based on stock abundance), it would be okay for them to continue to hunt in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary?"

No . I have been trying to understand the topic for myself on the basis of the data. I find the IWC proceedings & classifications confusing -but that's my problem. Since it is Biodiversity which (IMHO) is important, sustainability of hunts could clearly be an argument in mitigation. So I tried to understand the data -for all whale species being killed. It seemed to indicate that the Bowhead population-a species which can be "legally" killed, is being impacted to a greater extent than Minke-a species which cannot be "legally" killed-at least not by the Japanese!.( forgive me for not being word perfect on the IWC regulations)
This seemed to me to be an inconsistent regulation, which may mitigate against the moral high ground required to persuade the Japanese to stop hunting.

Well, Colin, I really don't quite know how to keep saying what I've been saying. You're neither breaking down the species into stocks, as the IWC does, in order to understand the reasoning behind what you call their "arbitrary" decision-making in the approving of aboriginal quotas or in the assessment of abundance, nor are you breaking down the legality of the Japanese hunt into the legal component (hunting in a protected Sanctuary) and biological component (killing too many of what may be discrete stocks). If you're going to continue to generalize and not dig into the detail required for understanding, I don't know what else I can tell you here. :h?:

"Japan would simply try to find some other avenue to coerce "compromise."

Yes I suppose so-so I can understand the need for whalestock "management" law I suppose-it's just that I feel that law is not applied consistently.-that's just my view & I'm stuck with it.

You're only stuck with it if you decide that what you know now is enough on which to base your view. You obviously care a great deal about the subject, and I'll be the first one to say it's an extremely complex one. We're all definitely entitled to our opinions. My own perspective is very much colored by having worked for several years at the international level on some of these issues and knowing that unless you go beyond what's in the press, what's put out by NGOs (on both sides of the issue), and what's disseminated by countries and special interests, and get to the underlying data provided by entities such as IWC's SciComm, IUCN, and other acknowledged neutral bodies; read what the laws themselves say; and take into account myriad other political and cultural information, you're not going to have the true picture. I don't expect you to even believe what I say here as I have an anti-whaling bias. And I would also be the first to say that, should this one stock of bowhead whales be downlisted, then I would change my opinion on the management of the subsistence hunt there.

"I am against all whaling. However, I am not against the right of people to eat the food they need in order to survive"

You accused me of using a non-sequitur!
You clearly prefer to sit on the above fence.I have tried to come off it -but I don't know if I jumped to the correct side yet!!

LOL, I'm not sitting on any fence. I am against all whaling -- and remember that "whaling" means "commercial whaling." Killing a whale for food in order to survive isn't "whaling" it's hunting, and subsistence hunting at that.

 

[Katy Penland]

...If it is a survival issue then surely it would take far less energy and effort to kill seals than to hunt whales? Seals are an exploding population (although they may take a hit in this area this year because so far there doesn't seem to be any ice for them to whelp on).

I don't know that much about seal hunts, especially in eastern Canada, but as with the whale issue, each region and the stocks that inhabit that region have to be taken separately. To my limited knowledge, I don't believe seal abundance in the Beaufort Sea area is anywhere near what it is in eastern Canada (which is on the order of hundreds of thousands). Thin or breaking ice can actually be in the seal's favor because it makes access by humans so much more dangerous. As for whether the western North American Inuit can supplant whale with seal, I honestly don't know. I would assume that if seals were abundant and provided the same nutrition and "by-products" needed for their survival, they would be more favored for the reasons you surmise. Good question, though. I'll see what I can dig up about that.

Here there is a native lobster fishery than was intended to be for cultural reasons. It has become an issue for a number of reasons but one is because there is out-of-season harvesting for re-sale. That hurts the reproductive process by removing breeding lobster. This sort of thing is definitely done for cash not culture. No one objects to a few lobster being taken for ceromonial use but it has gone way beyond that.

Couldn't agree more with your view here. Don't know anything about lobsters, but the same rationale can be applied to any taxa. This is one reason why I object to "cultural" hunting. I'm not even sure how I feel about "ceremonial use" unless it's better managed than what I've seen with other species.

To move the thread away from pure conservation, I'll throw this out.
I'm not sure how to phrase it but I believe that whales are different than other species in that they may be sentient beings just as humans are. I hope that I've used the right word, what I mean is they may be self-aware. They are certainly highly evolved. I believe that they deserve a better fate than to be slaughtered. There now, anyone who wishes to are welcome to have a good chuckle at my strange view of whales.

Well, not to get all uppity as a mod, but I think we've gone pretty far off the original topic already by going so deeply into the aboriginal issue, so if you guys want to discuss sentience, maybe start another thread on it?

Although you could have titled your message "50 governments hate whales." As only 16 of the 66 IWC membership signed the demarche.

First of all, the Commission is just about split down the middle between anti- and pro-whaling interests, and then there are a few countries who would automatically abstain from such participation, so at the most optimistic there would be 30-something participants. This is also assuming that all 66 are current on their dues, which they never are. However, usually only a handful of like-minded countries participate in resolutions, demarches, and the like, and usually only those who've played leadership positions do so. It would otherwise take so much time to get things like just the wording approved that no document would ever be finalized.

A demarche (an official diplomatic letter from one country to another) has been sent to Japan signed by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, protesting Japan's most recent whaling foray in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary off Australia. Notice whose name is conspicuously absent?

Most conspicuously absent from the list were both Denmark and South Africa which presently hold the posts of Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively. So if leadership is what is needed perhaps looking to the IWC leadership might be a good starting point.

Normally I would agree, but Denmark isn't considered an anti-whaling country although it sometimes votes against Japan at the IWC based on technical points of law, so its lack of participation is understandable. Why South Africa wasn't included, I don't know. I can try to find out, if you'd like? I do know that at the 2004 IWC meeting, South Africa's commissioner was unable to even be there due to a change in their government, so perhaps there was a political reason for their lack of participation.

Perhaps the 50 non-signatories were also aware of the futility of handing another country a piece of paper. I doubt Japan was quivering in fear upon receiving it. Why should they? Here is an explanation of Convention Article 5.3 directly from the IWC site.

“THE OBJECTION PROCEDURE (Convention Article 5 (3))
Any government can 'object' to any decision which it considers to seriously affect its national interest, provided it is done within 90 days of notification of the decision. Should this happen, further time is allowed for other governments to object. The government or governments that object are not then bound by that particular decision. This mechanism has been strongly criticised as rendering the Commission 'toothless', but without it the Convention would probably have never been signed. In addition, without such a right (common to many international agreements), a government would still have been able to withdraw from the Convention and thus not be bound by any of the regulations. “

So while Japan is a member of the IWC, it can ignore any decision the Commission renders while adhering to the IWC rules, or simply withdraw and not be bothered.

That's not what the Objection Procedure is for. This is strictly for lodging an Objection within 90 days of passage of any 3/4 majority Schedule Amendment (or other procedure requiring a 3/4 majority), e.g., the moratorium. Norway lodged an official objection to the moratorium within the proscribed time limit, which is why they can commercially whale to this day. The Resolutions passed each year are done by simple majority and have no truly binding effect except to put the offending country(ies) on notice that the Commission as a whole objects to the subject activity.

This, however, has nothing to do with demarches that originate from individual countries.

Why would Japan take the demarche. any more seriously than a public relations ploy from an organization that it knows is powerless to do anything to curtail their activities.

Again, the demarches do not originate from the Commission. I can't speak for other countries' procedures, but when a demarche is issued from the US, this gives us then the legal foundation on which to pursue economic sanctions if necessary, e.g., certifying Japan under the Pelly Amendment or imposing other trade embargoes. But without such official notification first, we couldn't take the next step.

Katy-this is from Wikipedia on the Greenland hunt:-

"Anti-whaling groups such as Greenpeace and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society have remained neutral on the Greenlandic hunt. Greenpeace says "[we do not] oppose (but nor do we support) aboriginal subsistence whaling." This has led nations in favour of a commercial hunt such as Japan and members of the High North Alliance to accuse anti-whaling bodies of hypocrisy. Much of the Greenlandic hunt is carried out using modern explosive harpoons and substantial boats rather than the single man canoes and spears as in the past. Moreover the Greenlandic hunt has a commercial aspect - whale meat can be purchased in shops in northern Greenlandic towns such as Ilulissat. Japan has said that it regards this silent approval of the commercial Greenlandic hunt by the IWC but continued opposition to coastal hunting in Japan as "racist" and reeking of "cultural imperialism", particularly because the Japanese plans indicated that the local catch would be consumed locally. This apparent double standard has caused fury amongst the Japanese public more than even the prohibition of commercial whaling."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling

Unless consistency is applied in IWC rulings , I cannot see how Japan will ever be persuaded to act as we would all wish.

I don't get your rationale here. What has two NGOs' opinions about the Greenland hunts have to do with the IWC? I'd suggest you contact Greenpeace and WDCS and ask for clarification as Wikipedia isn't exactly known for its accuracy in many areas (don't even get me started on that particular subject ). Here's why:

This alleged quote from Japan about the IWC's "silent approval" is typical of poor research by Wikipedia and is also typical Japanese propaganda. The IWC has repeatedly -- for years --objected to the management of Greenland's "aboriginal subsistence" hunt, and has repeatedly demanded the required data from Greenland which Greenland has become more and more recalcitrant in providing (with, by the way, Denmark's complicity, as Greenland Home Rule is a cultural community in the Kingdom of Denmark).

This argument Japan posits for their use of "local catch being consumed locally" (referring here to the four communities for which Japan has petitioned the IWC for 16 years to allow "coastal whaling") is also pure propaganda: Why doesn't the Japanese government provide the thousands of tons of "scientifically" killed animals to these allegedly disenfranchised communities? (I can also go into detail as to what these four communities are and their alleged "hardships" if anyone really wants to know.)

Finally, I can provide poll after poll that completely negates the last bit of propaganda here about the "Japanese public's fury," which Wikipedia would have known had it done even a perfunctory search. I'm sure the Institute of Cetacean Research in Tokyo, the Ministry of Fisheries, and the companies who own the whaling ships are the ones who are "furious" over being stymied by the IWC.

 

[Tyke]

Thanks Katy for your further detailed responses.
It sure is a complicated issue-or has become so.And there are some polarised viewpoints clearly.

Will continue to ponder on two things you state :-

"and remember that "whaling" means "commercial whaling." Killing a whale for food in order to survive isn't "whaling" it's hunting, and subsistence hunting at that."

That is certainly at the heart of it -but there is another viewpoint-one I feel confident is shared by the whales.

I think we've gone pretty far off the original topic already by going so deeply into the aboriginal issue, so if you guys want to discuss sentience, maybe start another thread on it?

This is also key to the topic-but what you call "the aboriginal issue", and "sentience" may quite legitimately be considered on thread for a topic about killing whales. I think the whales would agree too.

Thanks for the information.

Colin

 

[Katy Penland]

The primary reason I suggested starting another thread is that unfortunately when subjects like "sentience" and "self-awareness" get brought up, we're getting into areas that deal less with hard and fast data/facts than they do peoples' belief systems. I love talking about that stuff, just didn't think it was apropos to the current discussion. Which I'm shortly going to get back onto why the US government hates whales by bringing up the other thread-starting subject: The US Navy's continued and increased use of sonar.

So who wants to start the new thread?

 

[TexasFlyway]

This, however, has nothing to do with demarches that originate from individual countries.

Again, the demarches do not originate from the Commission. I can't speak for other countries' procedures, but when a demarche is issued from the US, this gives us then the legal foundation on which to pursue economic sanctions if necessary, e.g., certifying Japan under the Pelly Amendment or imposing other trade embargoes. But without such official notification first, we couldn't take the next step.

In reference to your response to snowyowl on message #13:

…… -- Canada isn't a member of the IWC and therefore would not be a signatory to this demarche to Japan

Hence I limited my discussion to the 66 members.

If we take your new definition, then perhaps the title should be “The World except for 16 governments hate whales.”

 

[Cuckoo-shrike]

"Demand and sales for whale-meat for dog-food in Japan are soaring" see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4700418.stm

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

"Demand and sales for whale-meat for dog-food in Japan are soaring" see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4700418.stm

Same page:- "But the latest news suggests demand from Japan's human population is running some way behind the recently expanded supply." (My bold)

They have a stockpile of whale flesh that they haven't been able to use, prices are falling - halved in five years? - they'll do anything to try to create a demand for this 'product'.

If there is a surplus from the whales they have been killing recently, why don't they reduce the number of mammals killed?

Why does their 'scientific research' demand that even more whales are killed?

Andy.