We condemn violence in the Southern Ocean | Home | At the whaler's club

Dave,

The pro-whaling nations aren't anti-conservation. The pro-whaling nations are simply anti-blanket protections-without-scientific-basis.

The "pro-conservation" nations you describe are confused. Protectionism is a subset of conservation.

The CCAMLR convention text explicitly includes "rational use" in the definition of "conservation". The biggest hurdle for the environmental movement today is recognising this. Failure to recgonise it spells a continuing failure of the "environmental" movement to gain greater acceptance.

The whaling issue is one of pro-conservation nations (Japan, Norway, Iceland, etc) versus pro-protection nations such as New Zealand, Australia and the UK.

Please stop trying to give your readers the misleading impression that whaling nations aren't interested in conserving whale stocks.

David, --nice to see you haven't disappeared completely, by the way, we've missed you over in the forum ;-)

I think webbie Dave is merely stating the obvious, considering the track record of the IWC and whaling nations. However, you have misused CCAMLR here. (Which, for the uninitiated out there, is the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources).

The CCAMLR Convention does not apply to whales. I quote: "The Convention applies to all marine living resources (except seals south of 60°S and whales in general)".

Even if it did apply to whales, CCAMLR also clearly states "A ‘precautionary’ approach has been implemented to minimise risk associated with unsustainable practices in conditions of uncertainty."

"Unsustainable practices in conditions of uncertainty." Hmm. To my ears, that sounds far more like "scientific" whaling than "rational use" does.

And commercial whaling as the Japanese government intends it would be even further from "rational use" considering how whaling nations "conserved" whale stocks last time around.

Adele,

1) The CCAMLR text recognises the jurisdiction of the IWC to conserve and manage whale resources, but that does not change the meaning of the term 'conservation'. Obviously the aim to utilise whales for food is entirely consistent with the terms in which other (more modern, if you like) international agreements operate.

The precautionary principle is fully incoporated into the IWC's Revised Management Procedure. If you deny this you are denying the scientific advice of the IWC's Scientific Committee. As former chair of the IWC SC, Judy Zeh has said: "it's certainly true that if commercial whaling were resumed under the revised management procedure, it could be managed safely."

Science is incompatible with Greenpeace's "no whaling" position. Thus you should change your position and try to save your credibility before you lose it at the expense of trying to save your corporate brand.

2) Your memory appears to have malfuctioned somewhere as last as the 1960's or early 1970's.

Before the unnecessary moratorium was imposed in 1982, the UN FAO observer to the IWC stated that "Where commercial whaling is still being carried on, the catches are, by and large, within the productive capacity of the stock and should be sustainable indefinitely."

As I noted elsewhere, at the time even anti-whaling Switzerland refused to vote for the moratorium because they agreed that it the measure was not based on scientific findings. Today on your weblog Greenpeace suggests that Switzerland has no "common sense", and that any nation who supports the view that whales can be used by humans as food on a sustainable basis in accordance with the advice of the IWC Scientific Committee must have been bribed by Japan - yet even Greenpeace recognises there is no proof of this and that only 2/3rds of the nations that receive official development asssistance from Japan are actually members of the IWC in the first place.

What do your arguments against whaling boil down to?

Nothing than a stubborn corporate desire to save your brand. Greenpeace was a grass roots conservation organization once. I don't know why it can't be once again.

Actually the moratorium is what has (so far) kept minke whales from being devastated by commercial whaling.

So necessary from that point of view.

Japan is holding a commercialization meeting. Pure and simple.

Tokyo David - But thanks for the dubious and un-referenced minute.

You got a name for this FAO person?

And Switzerland? Dave didn't even mention Switzerland.

And what's with the multiple repetitive posts?

There's no text limit to the size of comments - something someone as loquacious as your self must have noticed.

Might be a good idea if we added one though.

Dave in Tokyo? You're not the same Dave with whom I had a bit of a "chat" cyberally speaking over my article on OhmyNews, perchance?

Whaling - A White Elephant?

Heh. I like this:

"Where commercial whaling is still being carried on, the catches are, by and large, within the productive capacity of the stock and should be sustainable indefinitely."

Should be? Hasn't mankind's history of involvement with the environment taught us that should-be's should be avoided at all cost particularly when there is room for doubt?

Going back to the days of Captain Ahab is not a progressive step forward.