Picture of the day | Home | My treat

Richella,

Like the Iceland government has been saying, they have become the nation they are today through the use of their living marine resources. Why should they not apply that tried-and-true principle evenly to all living marine resources?

Sure, whales are fun to watch (although to do so is a completely unnecessary activity that results in fuel being burned up), and some people think they are "smart" (although not many actual scientists - even Phil Clapham, who is against whaling, says that in his experience baleen whales aren't particularly bright).

But whales can also be eaten as food. People pay money for food. If Iceland's whalers can find people willing to buy whale meat, they can contribute to the further development of Iceland's economy. This can complement Iceland's marine product export industry and it's insignificant whale-watching industry.

Indeed, sustainable whaling operations could be a shining example of conservative use of living marine resources that would set a good example to rogue nations such as Australia (who recently failed to reduce their Southern Bluefin Tuna quota, despite the species being classified as "Critically Endangered").

You are right on the count that the whaling issue dose distract from the real issues of overfishing. But it's not the whalers who are making a big issue out of this. It's Greenpeace and co. leading the charge against the whalers. Why? Why not focus, like you say, on the real issues? Why does Greenpeace make such a big fuss about a few whales being killed when there are far far bigger problems that derserve more focus?

Overfishing of the SBT by Australia; North Korea nuclear weapons tests. These are issues on which Greenpeace should be focussing. The whaling "problem" is a figment of the imagination, today in the 21st century.

Greenpeace web editor Andrew replies:

Hello again David. Long time since we've heard from you, but glad to see you are apparently keeping up with the Ocean Defenders blog. In answer to your point:

Iceland's whale watching industry is far from insignificant. In fact, it brings in more money than Icelandic whaling did before it was shut down in the 1980's. So it is no wonder that there are also Icelanders speaking out against this hunt. They stand to loose far more economically than they stand to gain.

The commercial whaling industry has a long history of deception and mismanagement. There is no good reason to revive it. Iceland's unilateral decision to resume commercial whaling only reinforces this.

As for overfishing of the "SBT". Sometimes I honestly have to wonder if Japan's Fisheries Agency is paying you to say this stuff. I assume that by SBT you mean Southern Bluefin Tuna, which anyone who has followed this issue knows has in fact been massively and fraudulently overfished by the Japanese fleet...

Japan agrees to cut bluefin tuna catch after admitting overfishing

...which is regulated by the same people who oversee Japan's yearly whale hunts.

Whaling by 'rich' nations such as Norway, Iceland and Japan is unforgivable and is being treated as such by most press and other governments. However what is slipping under the radar is deals such as Gabon's President Bongo's (Who just happens to already be probably the Worlds 2nd richest man with +/- 30 billion dollars) with China, to allow Chinese vessels to Harvest 50 whales in 2006.
Are these deals unknown, or are people ignoring them?

People are rightfully targeting Western governments for Environmental abuses, but have a look at China's policies both environmental and human rights, and you will realise we have a very scary future as China gains power in a World with only a declining US and a fractured EU to oppose it.

i appreciate the effort that GP is putting in to protect the whales from being eaten up in iceland!
hope u get success in the same as well
but the petition that has been put online seems to tall to actualise inm reality
signing petition just by saying that some one will visit iceland if they stop whaling is based on an assumption that all those who are signing mught visist
however i have been a GP supporter since a long time and so far this appeal somehow dint sound real because i know while working in an NGO myself that foreign country visits are impossible for me and for many more of GP supporters.
i would rather ask the govt to boost its tourism by protecting the whales from being opened up in the hotels rather than asking people to sign something which is just a "onsideration"

Hi, I'm from Iceland and I don't think you guys know the main reason why we are hunting whales.
The number of whales has increased for the last decade and as they increase they eat more fish (worth 10.000.000$ per year). So if the icelandic nation is gonna keep on with the fishing industry which is the main recource in iceland we have to keep control of the whales, sad but true. Peace

Greenpeace web editor replies:

Hey, good to hear from someone in Iceland. I visited there on the Rainbow Warrior in 2003, and had some good conversations with people about the whaling issue.

But I have to point out that scientists overwhelmingly disagree on your point of view. From a recent commentary in the Iceland Review:

However, scientific models examining the effects one species has on another are complicated, so it’s difficult to say too many whales mean fish stocks will disappear. As Gísli Víkingsson, a scientist at the Marine Research Institute, told me a few years back, multi-species interaction is very difficult to understand because the ecosystem is so dynamic.

When wondering why fish stocks are disappearing, perhaps it might be a good idea to examine over-fishing.

To respond to the banal statement by a certain 'Richella'. (Did your sandwiches just full out of your picnic basket and condemn you to a life of incredulous stupidity)!!! The issue of hunting and killing such a special creature is to many a crime and something that should be resigned to the dark annuals of human mishaps against the environment!!
I agree there are many pressing environmental issues that are appearing on the horizon but they are all interlinked. The over-fishing of most species of marine life is solely related to greed and complete disregard for the balance of life in the oceans shown by us (people).
To try and get the last remaining dinosaurs (Japan, Norway etc) to stop whaling is ironically linked to these other problems. The overwhelming fact is that the oceans and all marine life got along swimmingly for many thousands of years until the 'sushi kings and co' decided that everything could and should be used up and ultimately depleted.
If the likes of GP and many others had not stepped into the breech the oceans would be waste lands today with the occasional rusty harpoon or net bobbing along the surface.

Richella says
Hi Roy, I'm not sure which of my banal statements you've been particularly offended by. I agree with you, the oceans have been getting on pretty well, bar natural catastrophes, before mankind invented such destructive fishing technology.

I am saddened that our ability to invent and exploit our natural resources far exceeds our ability to appreciate and protect them. I think greed, arrogance and ignorance are three key drivers behind a swaith of destructive interrelated activities.

Thanks for such a great response Andrew, and I appreciated the current UK Guardian article. Thanks for doing your homework there, ...as is your usual excellence for being informed. ...and I agree, it's good we have David still 'monitoring' the Ocean Defenders blog. Makes your common sense and Loving truth shine even more. You are truly the best Andrew. "...a figment of the imagination?" Not to the whale. Thank God there are people like you Andrew that have the decency to sense, ...and what you have personally wittnessed, ...what it feels like to have a metal shaft thrust into your head and explode. I know you've looked into their eyes and seen their agony and fear as they lie bleeding, ...and felt it deep inside you. Mercy David, ...please hope for mercy for all living creatures. Like Andrew says, there's no need for this.

Andrew, Greenpeace web editor, says:
David - For the sake of brevity, I have included my responses in [brackets] below.

Andrew,

Whale-watching in Iceland is "insignificant" compared with Iceland's marine product export market.

> They stand to loose far more economically than they stand to gain.

Greenpeace likes to portray there being some trade-off between whale-watching and whaling, but the reality is that both activities can co-exist, and both can contribute to the livelihoods of Icelandic people.

I'm actually planning on going whale-watching in Shikoku next month, just to prove this point :-) I should enjoy seeing a few Bryde's whales anyway.

By the way, Iceland's government has noted with interest that despite resuming scientific whaling, there has been no noticeable drop in tourism since, in fact I understand that tourism has increased.

[ David, I strongly suspect you are not the average tourist. :) And the Icelandic whale watching and tourist associations strongly disagree with your point of view. As reported in the Icelandic Review yesterday:

Already there are signs of whaling affecting tourism in Iceland negatively. Iceland’s government decided to resume commercial whaling last Tuesday.

Heimir Hardarson, marketing director of whale watching company Nordursiglingar in Húsavík, northeast Iceland, says tourists have already started canceling trips to Iceland.

> The commercial whaling industry has a long history of deception

Just like Greenpeace? I suppose you heard about the "ALARMIST FACTOID" mishap recently? That must have been embarassing.

[ Please excuse our occasional sense of humour. ]

> and mismanagement.

This much is true - it wasn't until the 1960's that the IWC actually moved to protect over-utilised stocks of whales, such as the humpback and blue, and when fin whale stocks crashed next and were protected in the 1970's this clearly indicated that there were management problems.

The IWC has the Revised Management Procedure now to prevent bad catch quotas, so all that is left now is to ensure that whale catch quotas are observed.

This is where Greenpeace can play a role. You guys can sail around the ocean and monitor the whalers. Working together with Sea Shepherd, through your joint media campaigns, the spotlight will always be on the whaling industry and this will ensure that there is limited scope for cheating on the rules.

[ Andrew says: Firstly, due to long standing differences, Greenpeace does not work with the Sea Shepherds. Yet, pro-whaling types always try to imply otherwise.

Secondly, Greenpeace only has three ships. We do our best, but the idea that we could replace proper regulatory systems doesn't work. And we've got a lot of work to do besides only the whales.

Thirdly, the whaling industry is already acting unilaterally. And the Fisheries Agency of Japan is engaged in a long-term vote buying drive to pack the International Whaling Commission with pro-whaling votes. A Commission where any member state can object to a rule, and not be bound by it.

Not exactly confidence inspiring. ]

Besides, at this point we have Norway, Iceland hunting whales commercial outside the IWC, and you guys at Greenpeace seem sure Japan's whaling programmes are commercial as well (not something I agree with).

How could the situation get any worse?

[ More whaling would be worse. Something the Iceland Fisheries Ministry is bringing about. ]

> There is no good reason to revive it. Iceland's unilateral decision to resume commercial whaling only reinforces this.

You can't beat it, so you have to work with it to ensure that it is sustainable, Andrew. You know, be constructive, rather than just a plain nuisance?

[ Wrong again. We can beat it. The facts and world opinion are on our side. There are even people in Iceland speaking out against whaling. ]

> I assume that by SBT you mean Southern Bluefin Tuna,

Yes. That's the stock that the IUCN regards as "Critically Endangered". Yet Australia continues it's destructive practice of removing juveniles from the stock for fattening before sending these luxury products to the Japanese sushi market for high prices.

There is no need for this industry.

Japan has rightly acknowledged it's recent 1,500 tonnes of over-catch, and agreed to reduce it's quota by more than 3,000 tonnes each year for the next 5 years.

On the other hand, Australia maintains it's 5,000 tonne + yearly quota.

This is a "Critically Endangered" species, Australia is hunting it (and it's fishermen too, like Japan's have been caught cheating on the rules - interesting that you don't mention that). Where is Greenpeace on this issue? The SBT may become commercially extinct, where as it is clear that this is not the case with whales.

[ Why are you so obsessed with Australia? Is it because Japan's Fisheries Agency oversees both their fishing and whaling industry? Is the fact that the same people who are allowing overfishing are championing whaling inconvenient for you?

And by the way, it's not just bluefin tuna that's in trouble. Quoting a Greenpeace Australia Pacific press release from last month:

In the Pacific, foreign fishing fleets from distant countries such as Japan, USA, Taiwan, China, Philippines and the EU take 90% of the tuna catch, and 95% of the USD $2 billion the fish is worth on the global market. Pirate fishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, is also rife in the region. Pirates give nothing back and leave a trail of environmental destruction in their wake.

As well as being a consumer of Pacific tuna, Australia, has a key role in the regional Tuna Commission and must use this to push for greater protection of the stocks.

Lagi Toribau continued: “Consumers in these fishing nation countries eat Pacific tuna, completely unaware that it is being stolen. It is the rich stealing from the poor, and if it’s allowed to continue at this rate, soon there’ll be none left for anybody.”

We need to end commercial whaling once and for all so we can focus more on issues like these. People can sign the Iceland Pledge to help. -- Andrew ]

Grateful Child,

There is no need for Australia to continue to catch "Critically Endangered" tuna for the Japanese sushi market. Why isn't Australia being pressed to reduce it's quota for the good of conservation of SBT?

Andrew,

Just again on the tourism thing (hope you don't mind the copy and paste):

Q: Is there a reason to believe that sustainable whaling will have a negative impact on tourism in Iceland?

A: Statistics show that the number of tourists to Iceland for the past few years has increased. Iceland’s implementation of a program that includes the taking of whales for scientific purposes does not seem to have affected tourism to Iceland in any way.

Q: Will resumption of sustainable whaling hurt whale-watching operations in Iceland?

A: There is no reason to believe that the sustainable whaling will affect the whale-watching industry as whale-watching areas are mostly confined to locations near the harbours of departure. The stocks to be harvested are both highly abundant and distributed over a much wider area.

Whaling and whale-watching can coexist with good cooperation between the parties involved. This has been the case in other countries where whale-watching and whaling are practiced side by side.

Prepared by the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, in October 2006.
(from http://eng.sjavarutvegsraduneyti.is/news-and-articles//nr/1299)

Basically, like I said, you chaps are all into trying to portray and trade-off between whaling and whale-watching. The government of Iceland sees it differently. If you are right, and they are lying, then they are only hurting themselves.

I'm sure you guys mean well, but I don't think your version of the story is plausible.

Again, I look forward to you guys giving North Korea a hard time for it's nuclear tests (living in Japan, I'd probably donate you 25$ myself if you would go take a stand). If you would campaign against Australia's on-going abuse of the SBT (and not just single out Japan) I'd give you 5$. There's my pledge.

Andrew, Greenpeace web editor, replies:

Hmm. What does the Ministry of Fisheries have to do with tourism? Never mind.

About your pledge...

Link to the Greenpeace press release titled, "North Korean nuclear test condemned":

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/north-korean-nuclear-test-cond

Link to a Greenpeace webpage condemning Australian (and Japanese and EU) financial support for bluefin tuna ranching:

http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/our-oceans/tuna

Link to Greenpeace donation page:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/supportus

Looking forward to having you as a Greenpeace supporter.

Hi Richella, ...Roy,
...and sorry, I don't get it Roy. I see very little difference in your rhetoric, other that what Richella already mentioned.
But hey, enough already. You don't need to start calling people names here. Especially directed to one very Loving and obviously very intelligent human being. You rock Richella. Your articles and contribution here are nothing short of magnificent. ...and by the way Roy, did you sign the petition your friend Richella has out of the kindness of her heart offered you? I did, ...thanks so much girl. ...GC

Another link for a protest - from WDCS.
Please send a protest e-mail to the Icelandic Government now by going to: http://uk.wdcs.org/go/NL061019whaling

Ongoing threats to Oceans and Ocean life:
Published on Thursday, October 19, 2006 by Reuters
U.N. Says Number of Ocean "Dead Zones" Rising Fast
by Daniel Wallis
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines06/1019-09.htm

Andrew,

I made some comments about the Iceland tourism impact on this blog:
http://www.blather.net/zeitgeist/archives/2006/10/iceland_restarts_commercial_wh
.html
... so I'll not give you my interpretation of that info again here. I guess at the end of the day, official statistics about tourism and trade will show us the picture.

Whether you like it or not, both GP and SSCS are in the Southern Ocean, basically trying your best to stop whales being killed (although the ICR again took it's quota again last year - despite this being double the quota of the previous yea
rs). Essentially what both your groups realistically achieve is draw attention to the whale hunt. I respect that independant watchdogs can be useful from a conservation enforcement perspective, and thus see GP and SSCS as equally useful, although actual interference with the whaling activity doesn't serve any conservation purpose, nor any animal welfare purpose (I argue it has the potential to be counter animal welfare objectives).

You criticise the whaling "industry" (one fleet is an industry? :-)) for acting "unilaterally". Surely you recognise the injustice at the IWC where many whale stocks have had protection for more than 30 years, a new catch quota setting proc
edure that is sure to set sustainable limits is in place, and yet the IWC has failed to permit even the smallest of commercial operations as a trial? Surely you can understand the frustration that has led Iceland to grant these commercial permits?

You talk about "vote-buying"... well, believe what you will. This is not at all related with the conservation issue, it's more a political argument, so I'm going to skip here, but suffice it to say that I have seen (and recently heard first hand) much information that leads me to believe otherwise.

Yes, IWC members can object to any decisions made.
You see this as a problem. The reality is that no nation is oblidged to be a member of the IWC in the first place. Canada to this day remains a non-member, yet it's people kill cetaceans. The objection procedure means that decisions will only be accepted if they are fairly adopted. The moratorium and failure to implement non-zero catch limits are quite unfair actions on the part of the IWC from the perspective of nations with people who wish to catch whales, so really, I see your criticism as an indication that the IWC has failed to carry out it's mandate properly, than reflecting bad on the ICRW.

You talk about "more whaling" from Iceland. The fact is that this is their last year of scientific whaling (for the time being). The number of whales taken under commercial permit will be less than those taken under scientific permit.

Again, I dispute that you can beat whaling (they haven't lay down and died even after 20 years), and certainly your claim that facts are on your side:
1) many whale stocks are abundant and in cases growing at close to the theoretical maximum rates that are biologically possible.
2) the IWC Scientific Committee is agreed in that it is able to give advice on sustainable catch limits
3) whaling is highly controversial (Greenpeace is of course contributing to this, which has it's benefits), and this is likely to ensure that it is highly regulated and closely monitored in future, meaning (I believe) a low risk of rule breakers bringing about over-depletion of targetted whale stocks. Even if such over-depletion was detected, the IWC could be pressured to implement another moratorium, or ban whaling in the problem area again very easily - I myself would support such moves strongly if such a situation did arise).

"World opinion" is not on your side, either. Even the USA's IWC commissioner this year suggested that it was time for the IWC to set limited quotas, in light of the pro-sustainable use bloc at the IWC winning the Sk. Kitts Declaration vote.

Even the USA commissioner was saying this, Andrew.

When we hear about "world opinion", all it really seems to mean today is less than 20 mainly European nations and some of their colonies. Most of the world doesn't have a problem with whaling, and some that claim to (such as India) are just "following the leader" (USA) on the matter.

I explained my "obsession" with Australia on the blather blog. You talk about people "allowing overfishing championing whaling", but unfair. The JFA acknowledged 1,500 tonnes of overfishing of SBT, and (back in April) enacted strict measures to prevent this from happening again. They also agreed to reduce SBT quota to help the stock recover. These are great moves. Is it too much for Greenpeace to ask to objectively praise this? Further, the government brought about a reduction by something like 30% in tuna fishing capacity several years ago after such a call from the FAO - the Japanese industry was not happy of course, but this came about. I think you ought to recognise that the industry and the government which regulates the industry are not one and the same. This is the same in Japan, as it is everywhere. It would be nice if Greenpeace could support governments in their efforts to conserve the world's resources.

> We need to end commercial whaling once and for all so we can focus more on issues like these.

I truely believe that you are putting the cart before the horse.

Whaling isn't a big conservation issue at the current time (by any stretch of my imagination). So long as the IWC follows the advice of the IWC Scientific Committee, and so long as governments implement appropriate regulatory systems to minimise the impact of any whaling rule-breakers on the whale stocks, this won't be an issue for quite some time indeed.

If Greenpeace would support these efforts, rather than oppose commercial whaling on any grounds whatsoever - a totally unpragmatic and unrealistic position IMO - you would be able to focus on issues such as Tuna overfishing - and you'd get a donation from me to boot. I promise you that.

---------

Regarding my pledge, I should have made it clear that it only applies if Greenpeace were to show me that it is not just in the anti-whaling business for the donations that the protests generate. I will not donate to Greenpeace while there is a chance that my donation could be spent opposing activities that I believe are not conservation / environment problems (i.e. whaling, versus nuclear weapons tests).

It's nice that Greenpeace has diverse campaigns, but they all need to have solid basis for me to support you. I'm sure you have gotten to where you are today believing that your anti-whaling campaign does have a genuine conservation benefit to it, but I urge you to reconsider, again.

We've seen many scientists recently pointing out that the real threats to whale conservation today are ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear, not whaling activities. I truely hope that Greenpeace will acknowledge this as well.

It makes me very upset that many of us Canadians don't even realize that Canada has been a whaling nation for the past decade+. There are communities in the north which hunt smaller whales but are also given permits for bowheads. How can we be critical of other nations when we issue permits? The Inuit clainm to hunt for tradional purposes. Well, many countries and peoples hunted whales tradionally!

The IWC Secretariat has prepared some information surrounding Iceland's recent move:

http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm

People who wish to criticise Iceland will need to reconcile their arguments with these facts as noted by the IWC Secretariat.

Nobody knows how many whales are left, but we do know that they are the gods of the ocean. Larger than any dinosaur, more ecofriendly than any living thing on earth. Whales have just as much right to live on this planet in peace as humans. It whales and dogs that I trust more than humans. Human is more likely to shoot you than a whale would be to harm you. Whales deserve to be protected at any cost. We can count 6.5 billion people thats 70,000 people for every whale. It's a crime that is unforgivable and needs to be enforced at all costs.

Lets just all eat green and see how that will affect the humanity, please be reasonable. We live in a society where people have to make a living. Some whale others dont so we are not stoping whaling unless there is a great reason for it. We are not seeing a reason to stop whaling for the sake of the international community because we have been doing this for a long time and this is ours to harness. We are at the top of the food chane and we are not steping down because of some treehugging idiots. Whaling is a part of our culture and we are in the belife that whales eat too much fish. If we can get some cash for it that can buy us beautiful things then we are more likely to be happy. Stay cool. Eat meet. Peace.

WEB EDITOR'S NOTE:
Hi Björn
You might want to check out the discussion thread in our Ocean Defender forum for an explanation of why we oppose whaling.
Thanks
http://forum.greenpeace.org/int/showthread.php?t=17

Great post Stanley. Thought you'd all like to know, I received a very long personal letter of justification from Júlísus Hafstein, ambassador,
Department of Overseas Business and Tourism in Iceland.
Well, the letter was so long I won't include it here, but I thought you all could read between the lines in my response to him.

Hi Julius...,
...and thank you for taking the time to write all this. But I'm sorry, you have not convinced me to turn away in indifference to the suffering of so many majestic creatures. I have one concept, go veggie and stop exploiting our resouces from this earth. You talk about sustainability of stocks, as if they were objects, instead of pain. But the truth is, this earth was doing just fine and has progressed fruitfully for millions of years, until people like you interfered in the balance of nature. Whale watching trips, ...sure, I'd Love to go. And if you think your business is commendable, do you offer whale watching trips with exploding harpoon in hand? Perhaps people would like to see exactly what it feels like to watch a thinking and feeling animal suffer and die in absolute cruelty and unnecessary intervention. You don't have to hurt anything to feed this world. In fact, all the world's hunger, and so many serious health problems would dissapear if we all became what all primates were intended to be, ...vegetarians. Quit your job Julius, ...become a warrior of the rainbow. Greenpeace could use a guy like you. I mean it, let's start giving to the earth, rather than seeing how much money we can line our pockets with. And that's what it's really all about isn't it. I wish you Love and Light, ...and real pain and concern in your heart for all those that suffer today. ___GC

I agree completely with Stanley Small. It seems like the only species thriving are humans. Thats not fair. And if we were teaching our young to be compassionate and to care about animals and the earth it would be different, but most people don't even do that. People just pop out children with no regard thinking its their right. Its also other animals right to pro-create and live and thrive. We aren't the only ones here. Whales are so majestic and peaceful and I pray for their survival.