Tons of 'science' packaged up and ready to go | Home | Outraged? Take action

I wrote a letter to the IWC.

This is the answer i got.

Dear Mr Rabelius.

Thank you for your email. Your views are noted.

Yes, as the Secretariat to the International Whaling Commission we are fully aware of Japan's new research programme in the Antarctic.

While I acknowledge that you are very much opposed to Japan's activity and to the resumption of commercial whaling, it may be useful to explain the status of 'scientific whaling' within IWC and the range of views currently held by our member governments on whaling in general.
The right for a member government to issue permits for research programmes involving the killing of whales is enshrined within the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. And their right to do this is not affected by any other provisions related to whaling. Consequently the right to issue permits and conduct lethal research is not affected by the current moratorium on commercial whaling or the designation of sanctuaries. Thus Japan is not breaking any IWC rules.

The decision to issue 'special permits' and to decide how many whales of different species to take is entirely the responsibility of an individual government and they do not need the permission or approval of the Commission and the Commission does not have the authority 'to send the Japanese whaling fleet home'. Governments issuing special permits are required, however, to present their research plans and results from such studies to IWC's Scientific Committee for review and comment, but again they do not require Scientific Committee 'approval'.

Recent discussions within the Commission and Scientific Committee regarding scientific permits have centred on accusations that such permits have been issued merely as a way around the moratorium decision and that scientific whaling is simply commercial whaling in disguise as the meat and products from such whales are sold on the market and that lethal research is not required for management purposes. Such arguments have been countered by claims that the catches are essential to obtain information necessary for rational management and other important research needs. I should point out that the Convention encourages the utilisation of whales taken for research purposes by stating 'any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted'. With respect to Japan, I understand that the income generated from the sale of whale products from its research programmes is not sufficient to cover the costs of the programmes themselves.

While many member governments support Japan's research and its right under the Convention to perform lethal research, many are against it believing that, as I indicated above, this type of research is not necessary. A Resolution urging Japan to withdraw its JARPAII proposal or to revise it to only include non-lethal research was adopted at the Annual Meeting by majority voting (30 votes in support, 27 against, 1 abstention). Resolutions only require a simple majority to be adopted but are not legally binding. For Resolution 2005-1, there were 30 votes in support, 27 against and 1 abstention. Similar Resolutions have been passed frequently in the past.

The stated purpose of the 1946 Convention is 'to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry', i.e. clearly a dual mandate of conservation and management. Unlike in the 1940s when the Convention was signed and members of the Commission were all whaling countries, today there is a wide range of views held among our 66 member countries regarding the acceptability of whaling, including whaling for research. Some believe that whales are special creatures and should not be killed commercially under any circumstances regardless of their abundance, and some think whaling should not be conducted as whales cannot be killed humanely. Others believe that whales are a natural resource like any other that can be exploited provided it is undertaken sustainably. Some believe that sustainable use can only be achieved through whale watching. Such divergent views are unparalleled in any similar organisation and it does create a difficult working environment for the Commission. And when asked about where the organisation stands on a particular issue, it is necessary to provide an indication of the range of views held in those areas where there is no consensus.

Despite their differences, member governments continue to come to the table to talk with each other and our Scientific Committee is involved in a wide range of important activities related to cetacean conservation and management. These include developing better tools for the management of aboriginal subsistence whaling (and commercial whaling should it ever resume), assessing abundance of whale stocks and providing guidance on actions with respect to endangered stocks of whales, providing guidance on good whalewatching practice, looking at ways to reduce entanglement of whales in fishing nets and to assess the extent of and to reduce mortalities from ship strikes (note that bycatch in fishing nets and ship strikes are the two greatest threats for large whale species) and assessing the impacts of marine noise (shipping, seismic surveys, active sonar), habitat degradation, pollution, climate change etc.

The IWC is sometimes criticised for being 'toothless' because of the provision for scientific permits and a provision that allows governments to object (and therefore to not be bound by) decisions regarding the regulation of whaling. However, without these provisions the Convention would probably not have been signed and it could be argued that some international control is better than none. Some of our member governments would like to amend the Convention to remove the right to take whales for research purposes (some would also like to remove the possibility for objections) but this would not be a trivial task. However, that is not to say that they will not try.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Nicky Grandy
Secretary to the Commission,
International Whaling Commission,
The Red House, 135 Station Road,
Impington, Cambridge, CB4 9NP, UK

Tel: +44 (0)1223 233971
Fax: +44 (0)1223 232876
Email: Secretariat@iwcoffice,org
website: www.iwcoffice.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ken Rabelius
Sent: 08 January 2006 14:54
To: secretariat@iwcoffice.org
Subject: Whaling in the southern santuary

Hello.

My name is Ken Rabelius and im form sweden.

I think you are aware of the hunt that is going in the southern santuary?
The hunt that is conducted under a false flag of "science".

Im talking about the japanese whaling fleet.

Are you aware they have endangered species of whales in their quota?

Are you also aware how unnatuarally hight their qouta is in totla (for doing "research"?)

If you ask me its NOT science at all.

Its commercial whaling under a bad cover.

Are you aware the whalehunters have rammed the greenpeace and sea shepperd ships that is out there doing everything they can to protect the whales?

Please, i urge you to do anything you can to stop this slaughter!

Send the japanese whaling fleet home! where they belong.

and no matter how much preassure they put on you......NEVER alow commercial whaling to resume!

Thank you for your time.

Plz write back an tell what you think about his and what your planning to do about it.



/Ken Rabelius, Sweden

Lally - fantastic post. Made me LMAO! :-D

L.

This is hysterical--

Lally I hope you're laughing--

That way I can be absolutely truthful in my assertion that I'm not laughing AT you, I'm laughing WITH you--

you write marvelously, and I have no business laughing at all--
if I could commission a mermaid to deliver hot breakfast and fresh-brewed coffee to the Arctic Sunrise, I surely would. Bless you for your enormous patience and dedication, and thank God for the inner ear. When you get to land, you may find that you spend a lot of time with your feet planted firmly on the ground and your face, surprisingly, positioned with care about six inches above its surface.


what a delightful entry

godspeed Greenpeace

you are loved :o)

God Loves You..... Thank You

It's great you guys are down in the Antarctic fighting for the whales. I do have a suggestion though. Post like these and the one describing how your crew members actually talked and seemed to be friendly with those on the whaling ships undermine your ability to act forcefully. You are outnumbered by the whalers. You need the advantage of them fearing you. Familiarity breeds contempt--perhaps they felt comfortable ramming you since they knew you enough not to fear you. I suggest that you consider taking a page (or pages) from the Sea Shepherd playbook. Maintain the threat of force and mystery of unpredicability. Be the rammer and not the ramee. It will keep you safer and you can be more effective in protecting the whales.

I do understand your organization's position of non aggressiveness and think there is a place for that in the movement. But for your safety and effectiveness, please consider these suggestions.

All the best, with respect.

Instead of the Queens honours (OBe's, MBe's etc) going to pointless people like actors and sports personalities how about they go to people who are out their risking their lives for the good of our planet. The crews of the Artic Sunrise and the Esperanza deserve to be awwarded for their amazing efforts in the Antartic. Your dedication, passion, bravery and strength are a true inspiration to me, and i would say, to everyone who cares about environmental issues. I thank you from the bottom of my heart and i will pray for your safe return and that your mission is a success.

Lee Graham said that life at sea teaches us not how much we need to survive, but how little. I don't think he was including breakfast in that list - it is the most important meal of the day, you know.
But, hang in there. In the years to come, believe it or not, you will remember these days fondly. And you will be proud of what you've done.
You are to young people everywhere what Lee Graham was to me when I was young, a marvelous role model for courage, tenacity and hope.

Hi Lolly,

LOL! Quality diary report, Reminded me of Alan Coran's column in Punch magazine (Gods, I'm old!).
Respect to all on Arctic Sunrise and the Espy, keep up the good work!

Hello All!

Sounds like life is exciting way down there in the Southern Ocean!

I was wondering... On the news this morning it was reported that the 'Sea Shepherd' rammed one of the Japanese boats... Is that true? Did you guys see anything? I know that they are a touch more radical than Greenpeace...

Also does anyone know what is happening with the other whalers in the world? I know that there are some other countries (Iceland? Greenland? - Somewhere in that part of the world) that carry out whaling... So is there a boat out there annoying them? Why are you just focusing on the Japanese at the moment? (I know you can't be everywhere at once... So just wondering...)

Keep up the great work!

Ken,

This whole web site is about what Greenpeace is doing about the Japanese and their commercial whaling in the South Pacific... Read all the pages and you'll see it has been quite eventful and effective :)

YEs i know they have succesfull so far im just feeling so helpless just being able to sitt her, so i try everything i can to help out and show the ppl who might be able to influence this that there are alot of ppl out there who is against whaling.

Writing to iwc was just one of alot of emails i sent. Many emails didnt even get a reply or the reply was some automatic answer.....like some kind of answering machine :/.

Im with them 200% and that is why i try my best to help them in the ways i can :).

This was very funny, and really for me was the most clear so far in describing just how difficult it is living on a rolling boat like that. I mean, descriptions before were metaphorical and conceptual, but the way you did it, with outlining all the events and how much time actually goes by when you're trying to just eat some breakfast, was just awesome. Thanks for that.

In response to Ken Rabelius' communication with the IWC, the following suggestions for that august body occur to me.
In the interest of maintaining the highest scientific quality and credibility, perhaps nations who require lethal scientific culls should be required to publish on a regular and proscribed basis their research in the fora of critical review practiced in the international community of marine mammologists, biologists, and oceanographers. Perhaps the criteria for such publication should be that each submission present, as focal point or addendum, clear proof of the need for lethal, as opposed to nonlethal, methods of information collection, as well as a justification of these and any other unusual research practices.


Secondly, it seems important to spare scientists the libelous claims of an uninformed public. Therefore, it should be legislated as a binding agreement within the IWC that the remains of any cetacean specimen must be destroyed as soon as proposed research has been completed, thereby clearly separating any heinous commercial motives from the inquiry in question. The destruction of specimens should be undertaken by an IWC inspection team not unlike the international monitoring bodies authorized, in other situations, by the UN. Because of their insistence on the unimpeachable motives of their research, and their denial of any attachment to commercial bias, the Japanese should be happy to demonstrate such honorable characteristics by compliance with these new amendments.


Since the IWC has stated unequivocally that the costs of scientific research are not met by sale of remnant specimens, rerouting funding from whale meat factories to other sources should not be too daunting a task.

With the implementation of these two simple mandates, Japanese lethal scientific cetacean research might garner favor in the eyes of the world.
Or disappear, forever.

}:]


Arianne

Lally,

That post was hilarious. I will think of you tomorrow morning as I butter my toast and have my morning coffee on dry land.

Hey, I just heard theres an Orion on its way down to monitor the situation... maybe they could do a breakfast drop to you guys... although, no promises the toast would land butter side up!

Keep doing what you're doing as you're all doing us proud!! Wish I was there.

Kaycee

Heidi -

In answer to your questions...

No idea, we were far away by the then, chasing the whaler's factory ship.

And, Norway and Iceland are the only other two countries whaling commercialy. Greenpeace has an ongoing campaign to end whaling in both. Our work in Iceland has been especially successful. Their quota is down to 39 minkes. The Esperanza was there last year, and that crew weblog is at...

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/iceland/

More on Norwegian whaling here.

How are the whalers being refueled? In any battle, disruption of an enemy's supply lines means disruption of hostile activities.

E. Hawke -

I can only speak for myself but I feel that adding more fear and hatred to a world already full of it is not the way forward. Non-violent peaceful protest works and no matter what anyone says, it is possible to act forcefully without resorting to violence. If in doubt just remember what Ghandi achieved.

regards
lally (on board the Arctic Sunrise)

Jsan -

The whaler's are re-fuelled by a very unusual Panamanian flagged ship named the Oriental Bluebird. It is the same ship they are off-loading whale meat to so we think it must be a combination tanker/refrigerated cargo ship.

Thanks Andrew & lally,

It's probably a good idea to keep an eye on all the ships involved in the area.

jsan