Being an Icelander, I often find it hard to understand the heated emotions whales seem to generate amongst some people. Iceland is a very modern country and has respect from most if not all the countries around the world, we are not blind savage cavemen stupidly killing whales with out thinking about the impact that could have.

I think most Icelanders are rational thinkers and we find it a bit hard to understand why so many people put all this time in something that seams so small in comparison to all the other problems the world is facing, global warming, US imperialist wars, starvation etc.

Iceland deserves more trust then this. I'm not saying some of the attention isn't good for us, its always good to have a healthy discussion about things, to keep us on our toes. It just seams a bit over the top at times.

So please just back off for awhile and go use your time to save some other poor animal, the Homo sapiens seams to be struggling a lot in some areas.

I think Greenpeace should focus on putting all this whale meat to good use. Pressing our government to ship it to a place where people don't have food, no that would be a noble thing!

Peace!

Thanks, Iwona, for the update.

If what's left of the toxic meat IS exported to Japan, do we know how it will get transported? I know that SAS airlines made a commitment many years ago not to accept whale meat on any of its flights for export. Has Icelandair made a similar promise?

And Andri, thanks for a very rational post! I've been to Iceland and I do understand the perception that our concern for whales is out of proportion to the problem. But in the culture I grew up in, the United States, efforts to "Save the Whales" came to the fore in the public's perception at the same time that "ecology" first became a popular issue. And at a time when the poor treatment of the environment in the US was killing people (Love Canal), nearly wiping out entire species (DDT), destroying our forests (Acid Rain) and causing widespread cancers (nuclear weapons testing.) All at a time when we truly feared the end of the world from nuclear annihilation.

One of the catch phrases at the time still rings true for many of us: If we can't save the whales, we can't save ourselves.

So on top of the very good conservation reasons for saving whales, add that emblematic value as well and pehaps you'll understand where some of us come from.

In a sense that's much more than metaphorical, the fate of the whales represents a test case for the fate of our planet.

Do you eat the bones and incestines of the chicken you eat at KFC?

Well?

No you don't! They are desposed!

Stupidity knows no law!

Hey Brian,

If you are worried about "saving whales", don't you think there are other species that are far far far more endangered than the species that Greenpeace focuses on?

Various scientists have noted that the major threats to whales today are entanglement in fishing gear, ship strike, pollution, and perhaps the effects of global warming.

If you are serious about saving whales I recommend that you put much more focus and emphasis on those other risks.

Brian, re: comment on the transport of whale meat and Icelandair.
Back in 2001 Greenpeace asked a number of airlines to officially state that they would not be transporting Norwegian whale meat- over 20 airlines supported this request. Icelandair was not on this list, but last Autumn they declared their stance against commercial whaling. It will be interesting to see if they follow through on their promise if Loftsson will be able to dump his meat on the Japanese market.

David,

Greenpeace does in fact work on protecting other species. Our overall goal is to establish a global network of marine reserves as part of this strategy.

This trip to the Southern Ocean is the end of a global voyage called Defending Our Oceans, which you can read about on the Esperanza crew weblog.

I think a grenade tipped harpoon is a pretty direct threat to whales - and we are not about to abandon them to the whaling industry.

You're right though, that whales face a multitude of threats these days. All the more reason to end commercial whaling.

Wouldn´t the world be a better place if the so called friends of the environment worried more about the fate of the world´s children than a few unendangered species of marine mammals. The world would be a better place if they fought for adopting children instead of whales. Millions of children die of curable diseases. The money is there. It should be spent on children not on whales.
Eidur Gudnason

Personally, Eidur, I'd like my children to grow up in a world with biodiversity. A world where they can eat proper food, walk outside without some kind of pollution filter and not get fried by temperatures over our natural range, where there are still four seasons and their homes aren't destroyed by increasingly random weather events and they don't have their blood contaminated with toxic chemicals resulting in reproductive and endocrine problems or nuclear waste polluting their environment and causing untold health problems, where they don't have to be subjected to water restrictions and genetically modified artificial nutrients, where there is a balanced ecosystem to provide for their every need. Where your "curable diseases" aren't becoming more widespread because of flooding caused by climate change.

I don't want my kids to live in a world where children are starving because of the unfair distribution of the world's decreased natural resources -- including fish which is increasingly stolen from poor African nations and sold at exorbitant prices in rich Western ones, or where war breaks out over the last few barrels of oil, or where there is the threat of nuclear warfare hanging over their heads.

"A few marine mammals" are part of that equation. And working on environmental issues is working for everyone's future.

Here's an excerpt from an interesting article from 2003:

>" ...The head of the Whale -watchers Association told the US Embasssy that
>he tried to discourage Greenpeace from sending its ship, but pressure from
>especially Germany, convinced the organization that it had to take action.
>He explained that anti whaling groups in Iceland feel they stand best chance
>of swaying domestic public opinion if foreign anti whaling interests like
>Greenpeace keep their (physical) distance."
>
>http://www.buyusa.gov/iceland/en/97.html
>-----

I find it ironic that the people at Greenpeace are keen to spend time worrying harpoons killing whales when the species that are facing much much higher risks of extinction are not currently threatened with whaling (and probably won't be within our lifetimes).

Rather than hear about Greenpeace's imaginative interpretations of issues regarding whaling, I'd much rather hear about Greenpeace's imaginative ideas about how to prevent entanglement of endangered species of whales (you know, the ones that really are possibly going to die out in the next couple of decades) in fishing gear, and prevent shipstrike.

It's threats of this nature that threaten biodiversity - not whalers harpooning relatively small numbers of whales each year, as is the case at the present time.

Seriously - who here believes that the Japanese, Norwegians and Icelanders are currently hunting minke whale populations to extinction?

And why is the only "conservation" that Greenpeace recognises with regards to whales a "conservation" that demands that not even a single whale be utilised by humans?

Is that really "conservation"?

As I know no one of the species and stocks targeted are endangered.

Funny that some of the anti-whalers in this log are talking about biodiversity, since whales compete for their food and too many of one specie can be a threat to another specie (f.ex minke's versus blue's).

The best way to secure the biodiversity is controlled hunting, whether it is commercial, scientific or aboriginal! (And you absolutely don't secure it just being against whaling!)

David - at this stage in the history of interaction between whales and humans, that would be my position. Outside of the local, subsistence whaling of some cultures, I see no reason to kill whales at all!

Seems that another Icelander is at home on a whaling ship...

Bjork!? Go figure.

http://unit.bjork.com/specials/dr9/

Arfivik, the fin whale is endangered. Your comments on controlled hunting are not based on reality. Biodiversity is not something humans have to bring about themselves. It means leaving natural systems intact, the result of which will be biodiversity. "Controlled hunting" will only interfere with this system and most likely create an imbalance. When humans interfere in natural systems, the most common result is the degradation of that system. Unfortunately being pro-whaling won't secure the biodiversity of whales. That sounds to me like the opinion of someone on the side of those who stand to make a profit from whaling, and as such is unwilling to consider the possible consequences that whaling might have.

Cris, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and i think someone who commented such has his own point of view and basically, he has a point too. We need to respect each other as individual and as human being and for being smart enough. Pride is nothing, opinion is everything.

Dear Friends,
There should be something sacred, untouched...like the whale. Why do we have to hunt, kill and sometimes eat every single animal on earth ? why cant we live whales alone, for a while (100 - 200 years)? Why do you Icelandic have to pursue this tradition of killing whales ? Is it the fun of it ? The adrenalina ? The kick of killing the biggest animal on Earth ? Or cant you do a diet for a while renagating whale meat ?
Why ? Why ?
I honestly would expect an sort of evolution from one the wealthiest countries on Earth. Evolution in the sense of enjoying life without that primitive kick of dominance over big , huge creatures !
Besides being threaten by our consumption and way of life, we add up the hunting, as if other problems werent serious enough.
One last advice: Icelandic instead of spending so much money on coke and hunting whales why dont you help hungry children. Imagine that, just for a second.
João Vaz
Portugal