First, my apologies for a horrifically long post, but you guys were really busy while I was out errand-running for a few hours!
I've tried to snip out anything I wasn't directly replying to, and it's still ridiculous. Maybe I should've used a smaller font?
Flybefree said:
The problem is, the US has no reason to mess with Japan, they need Japan in this fight. In a sick way (I don't agree with them; I'm saying this is their thinking).
Sorry, FBF, but I have absolutely no idea what you mean here unless you're talking about the bowhead thing, which I've addressed below.)
Flybefree said:
Japan gathers other countries to join the IWC that don't even have a stake in whaling because they're inland, like Mali. All these countries vote at the IWC and if Japan can gather enough, their whaling -vested- interests are kept well. Tokyo is the world's market for whale meat.
Japan's sole interest in buying IWC votes is to obtain a 3/4 majority, which is needed to lift the global moratorium on commercial whaling.
Flybefree said:
And Japan has a -legal- 'scientific exemption' to hunt whales, which means they don't have to have an aboriginal subsistence exemption' or even a 'cultural substistence exemption.' A 'scientific exemption' is a 'bull**** exemption' -that's my wording, of course. It gives them the legal right to hunt whales even though there is a moratorium on whaling just because so-called 'scientists' think its okay. They're only getting away with this baloney because they have so much power at the IWC.
Don't confuse "scientific" whaling with "aboriginal subsistence" whaling. Apples and oranges, even in Japan. Yes, Japan has the legal right to conduct scientific research on whales (as does any IWC member; called "scientific permit whaling"). However, nowhere is it said this research has to be lethal -- in fact, Japan has for at least 15 years been condemned for their lethal "research" program in IWC resolution after resolution because they are taking advantage of this legal loophole to conduct what is a de facto commercial hunt and because their methods are not making any contributions to the scientific knowledge of the species they're killing -- data that could all be gleaned through non-lethal methods. They're not getting away with it because they have so much power; they simply don't care. The previous Commissioner from Japan, Komatsu, calls whales "cockroaches of the sea." The reason Japan continues this travesty is that there's no political will on the part of the like-minded, anti-whaling nations to do anything about it.
Flybefree said:
And the US needs Japan because, if they push Japan too far away (by signing what your referring to, even though the US has a lot of power at the IWC -indirectly, too, with sanctions in other political areas, etc.) then Japan will form its own organization for whale quotas and leave the IWC. And it doesn't HAVE to be in the IWC if it doesn't want to -nobody does.
This threat to leave the IWC is a paper tiger. The actively whaling nations -- Norway and Japan -- have been threatening to leave the IWC for years, but they all know that if they do, the political fallout would be devastating. Hell, even Iceland rejoined three years ago so it could start killing whales -- for "scientific" purposes, of course. This is an international treaty, not a whalers' club. I don't really want to go into too much depth here because it would take waaaaay too long and waaaaaay too much space, and I'm certainly no legal or political expert here, but if Japan or any other whaling country thought they could get away with dropping out of the IWC in order to commence commercial whaling, they would've done it long ago.
Flybefree said:
There is a moratorium now but only if you are a member of the International Whaling Commission. Otherwise, you can kill whales (not in the US b/c of the MMPA).
No one can
commercially kill whales whether they're signatory to the IWC or not. There are multiple international treaties and laws in place that, as I said above, would create such huge political (and legal) problems for anyone who did, it simply would not be worth it. Not to mention the fact that CITES prevents trade in whale products, what would these countries do with the added whale stuff they can't unload now, e.g., Norway?
Flybefree said:
So it's a horribly fine line. Because, if Japan leaves the IWC, there will be more whales killed. So, do you harp (pun intended) on Japan and make them stop (and they already kill illegally, too) or do you let them slide, knowing whales are killed and yet, knowing that trying to stop Japan by putting too much pressure on them might very well make them leave the IWC and therefore hunt even more than they already are. It's horrible. I don't know if this makes sense. I'm trying to say that it's a fragile bond, the IWC.
Sorry, but all this is predicated upon the false assumption that Japan or any other whalers will leave the IWC.
Flybefree said:
Japan is notorious for illegal hunting, and for whaling, period. And they see it like people here see killing cows. I don't eat cows so I'm not on that side, either. But this is there way. And there are Indians/Native Americans who buy fish from Japan here that want a connection with Japan (and have strong bonds with NMFS- like the Makah) so they can start hunting whales and selling whale meat to Tokyo.
You've lost me here. I don't understand this fish-for-whales connection. The Makah issue is a whole 'nother can of worms and I'll be happy to get into that if you guys want to. But I
can tell you that fish had nothing to do with it.
Flybefree said:
And Canada is an entirely different story and just up the road from us. And no one in the US at NMFS wants to sever a tie with a Native American population, even though there's public outcry.
You referring to the Makah here? If so, don't worry, NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) is so far into bed with the Makah, that tie will probably never be severed.
Flybefree said:
But I have a question for you. I don't understand what you mean. The Alaska Inuit's and Japan -are they both hunting bowheads? Is that what you mean by them jeapordizing the US quota? Are you saying that Japan may kill too many whales for the US to kill whales -that they might take up US whales?
No, only Russian Chukotka and US Inuit are granted a quota of bowhead whales by the IWC. Every 5 years aboriginal subsistence hunt quotas are renewed, and a 3/4 majority vote is required to do so. At the 2002 IWC meeting, when the bowhead quota was up for renewal, due to procedural maneuvering by Japan, Norway and the pro-whaling bloc, the quota failed to achieve the 3/4 majority needed to be granted. The reason? The pro-whaling countries stated that Japan had been trying to get "coastal whaling" quotas (a new category of commercial whaling which Japan has been pushing for 15 years) for four of its former whaling villages, and until they did, the sub-Arctic bowhead quotas would be blocked. The situation required an intersessional meeting of the Commission (meaning, between its regularly scheduled annual meetings) to resolve the issue. It was resolved all right, with the bowhead subsistence quota granted as it should have been in the first place, but at a price: The US voted
for Japan's coastal whaling proposal! Fortunately, the US vote didn't matter that year as the rest of the Commission still turned down Japan's proposal. However, in 2004, my last year at the IWC, instead of Japan's proposal coming to a vote, the proposal was passed by consensus -- meaning, no one objected -- and this after the US helped reword the proposal to make it more palatable to the Commission. The bowhead quota should be up again for renewal in 2007, so it looks like the US is still playing patty cake with Japan by not being a party to the recent
demarche.
SnowyOwl said:
If you do look into Sea Sheperd, keep in mind that Paul Watson was expelled from Greenpeace as too extremist. He has also done some excellent work but ramming ships at sea is perhaps going too far.
People do seem to love Paul or hate him, no middle ground.
I liken him to an Old West sheriff, like Matt Dillon or Gary Cooper's "High Noon" character (whose name escapes me at the moment). He's got the law on his side, and even if it means he's out there by himself, he's going to uphold the law no matter the personal consequences and regardless of what people think of him. I've gotta say, I really admire the guy. I'd never have the guts to do what he does, but morally, ethically and legally, he'll get my vote over these illegal whalers and fishers who continue to flout international law for their own gain -- and to the detriment of the species being killed.
Tyke said:
This whole business looks pretty murky to me.:-
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing....0256F3500551510
Is it really as simple as Japanese whale killing is bad-all other whale killing is OK? And if "cultural" killing of whales by US Inuit is considered acceptable, then why is the their Government castigated as "hating whales" for trying to protect those rights?
What is the real
unbiased truth here?
The info on this particular page of WDCS's website is several years old and doesn't touch on the current issues. But you're right in one respect, Colin, and that's that none of this is really simple. It isn't a case of okay for us, bad for Japan. As I mentioned above, comparisons cannot be made between the so-called "scientific" killing of whales by Japan and "aboriginal subsistence whaling" by indigenous groups. My somewhat tongue-in-cheek title for this thread is derived from several years' observation of the US compromising its own domestic marine mammal protection laws whenever it's politically expedient (a la the Makah issue, for example, or the sonar issue), and compromising international treaty law.
The "cultural" killing of whales isn't acceptable to anyone. IWC member countries must demonstrate that there is a clear subsistence need in addition to any "cultural" needs an indigenous group may have. This is contained in Paragraph 13(b) of the Intl. Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW).
Also, the whole issue of US "protecting" Inuit rights got really murky when it went to Russia almost a decade ago to say, in effect, we'll let you have a couple of "our" Alaskan bowheads if you'll let us have a couple of "your" gray whales for the Makah tribe. I.e., robbing Peter to Paul Paul. But I'm getting ahead of myself...
Flybefree said:
Paul is not one of them because he leaves the legal whaling ships alone; he is not fighting the hunting of whales; he is fighting the hunting of illegal whaling vessels. That's a very different stance.
There is no such thing as a "legal whaling ship." While Japan may be hiding under the "scientific permit" ruse to kill whales, it's where they're doing it in this case that's the problem -- in an international sanctuary. That's what makes their hunt illegal and why Watson and others were there.
Flybefree said:
No one is out there in the open seas monitoring the waters to oversee 'overfishing,' and that is a problem (and hard to undertake). But essentially, that is Why the IWC was created in the first place -to have an org. set up for whalers that made sure whale populations could withstand hunting.
To be accurate, the IWC was formed "... to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry." The problem that has arisen since the 1982 moratorium is that whale stocks have not recovered and some have continued to decline. Whalers, of course, think that a 23-year moratorium is enough time to wait to start whaling again, even if the science doesn't support their position. Perhaps the biggest bone of contention is the need for whaling at all in the industrialized age. With the advent of synthetic lubricants, electricity and women refusing to wear girdles (hallelujah, sistah, and amen!), etc., the need for human consumption of whale products has long since passed.
But I have to disagree with you that preventing overfishing or whaling is "hard to undertake." It isn't if countries with navies and economic clout have the political will to take action. Problem is, they don't.
Flybefree said:
**Tyke, the US does not have a 'cultural subsistence exemption.' The US has an 'aboriginal existence exemption.' 'Cultural' is a more loosely defined term and could allow for any 'culture' to hunt whales. You can go on the IWC website and see the countries that have those exemptions. I believe there are 4.
Please see above for the correct aboriginal subsistence definition.
Flybefree said:
Plus Japan has a scientific exemption. From a moralperspective, it's hard to answer your question because from *their* moral perspective, Japan doesn't consider hunting whales immoral. They have their own spiritual and religious beliefs. This is food. From a conservation perspective, if the idea to uphold IWC law is to consider not killing out a species/for the conservation of the whales (not the preservation, the conservation) --then scientists are vital in the equation (and they are) because they would relay information to the IWC (and they do) on what species are and aren't on the brink of extinction/endangered/etc.
Japan does not hunt for "spiritual" or "religious" beliefs. They do it because whale meat brings over $US100/pound as sushi in markets and restaurants. Some of it is canned for human consumption. The rest of the whale is sold to pet food companies. They don't eat it because they need to -- it's simply a delicacy to the older generations. The Japanese government is doing its damndest to get whale on school lunch menus, sold as steak and hamburger in markets, and generally trying to create a market where none currently exists. Oh, and they finally got shamed into warning women against eating it in their first trimester of pregnancy because of high levels of toxic contaminants, especially mercury.
I don't know what you're saying in terms of the scientific "equation."
Flybefree said:
And by the way, bowheads in Alaskan waters were considered endangered by scientists (and those findings were later retracted) and now the Inuits can hunt them (those same Inuits were leaving the IWC and now formed their own org. and are still at the IWC).
Again, lost here. Can you clarify?
Flybefree said:
But the problem with Japan, to try to answer your question, is that the IWC presently has a moratorium on the killing of whales, and the only 'exemptions' are (I may be wrong if this has changed since last year) for 4 countries that have aboriginal subsistence exemptions and for Japan, who has a scientific exemption.
To be accurate, "scientific permit whaling" is not an exemption. It is a self-issued quota that any member country of the IWC can have. This is why Iceland rejoined and immediately announced it was going to commence "scientific permit whaling" (as a ramp-up to full-scale commercial whaling). This is why "scientific" whaling is a joke. There is no regulation, no limits, no accountability as Japan has well-demonstrated.
Tyke said:
I don't know...I don't like the idea of butchering these intelligent creatures at all -but found this interesting:-
Minke
Kill-Norway 796/Japan 1155/ Iceland 39/ Greenland 187. = 2177.
Population-643k to 1371k
Kill %=0.2 to 0.3
Gray
Kill-Alaska& Siberia 140
Population-22k to 32k
Kill %-0.4 to 0.6
Bowhead
Kill-Alaska & Siberia-67
Population-6900 to 9200
Kill %-0.7 to 1.0
So... the species being most impacted by hunting is the Bowhead, followed by the Gray.
These species are being killed by Inuit peoples.
Why isn't there a protest about Bowheads & Grays-as well as Minkes?
Why isn't there a Greenpeace boat chasing kyaks as well as Japanese whalers?
May I ask where you got this table, and are these global figures or for specific areas? I've snipped all but three, since I'm most familiar with these species. The reason I ask is because the figures for these three are wildly inaccurate; two vastly overstated, one vastly understated. And cold numbers don't tell the whole story. Where whales are killed, and what sex are killed and in what proportions, are critical to the management of any stock of a given species.
But before I go into even more verbiage (assuming anybody's still reading this ridiculously long post), I need to know what these population figures represent, and whose figures you're quoting.
Isurus said:
I couldn't agree more with the last sentence. IMO Sea Shepherd are walking down a razor's edge of public opinion and could do real damage to the whale protection movement and conservation more generally in the eyes of the public. If they were to conduct one of their rams and unintentionally kill or badly hurt someone below decks in a freak accident (lets not forget there is already precedent involving environmental ships, sinkings and a tragedy), it would, i think, result in whalers having a lot more lattitude than they do now as a result of the present climate regarding terrorism.
The sinking of the
Rainbow Warrior by the French secret service using bombs is hardly analogous to what Paul Watson's doing. At least I assume you were referring to the
RW? Yes, I'm sure there's always the potential for someone getting hurt when big ships collide on the high seas, but Watson doesn't sneak up on them in the middle of the night. There is plenty of warning given and, if the ship does not cease its whaling activities and/or leave the area, the whaler's crew are told to vacate that part of the ship.
I'm sorry, Isurus, and don't take this personally, but I for one am getting heartily tired of the word "terrorism" every time somebody on this planet does more than pick up a pencil and waggle it at someone else. Watson isn't a terrorist for all his activities. The French bombers of the
Rainbow Warrior certainly were. I don't understand what you mean about whalers gaining "a lot more latitude" as a result of Watson's actions. In the case of Japan, they already can do whatever they want vis-à-vis "scientific" quotas.
Isurus said:
Don't get me wrong - something needs to be done and I'm glad Paul Watson is active as policing the high seas is next to impossible I just have a concern they may cross a line.
And I can guarantee you that this is an even bigger concern to Paul Watson than it is to his detractors -- that someone someday may get injured or killed, because that is not his mission nor is it his philosophy.
Isurus said:
On a lighter note am I the only one who finds this hilarious from their website:
"The article states that Paul Watson’s lifetime Greenpeace membership number is 008. It is in fact 007."
[url="http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_060102_1.html"]http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_060102_1.html[/url]
:clap: Pretty funny!
Ookpik said:
Canada has a whale hunt. Why is this okay?
If you're referring to Canada's aboriginal bowhead hunt, it isn't okay, not by the IWC, not by Canadian conservation groups, not by top Canadian marine mammal scientists. It's only okay by the Nunavut corporation (representing about 20K Canadian Inuit) and the Canadian government. But I know next to nothing about Canadian politics so can't comment except as an outsider looking in.