Oh no Iceland!
Terrible news that Iceland is resuming commercial whaling after 20 years, and disastrous that they intend to include the endangered fin whale on their hit list. Metiria condemned the decision this morning:
Because Iceland’s neighbour Norway has also resumed commercial whaling, this move will place great strain on the whale population in this region.
Worse, there is no evidence of a commercial demand for whale meat in Iceland. As we have seen time and time again in Japan, consumers are not interested in eating whale meat in the numbers it would take to support a commercial operation. Icelanders have not been buying whale meat from scientific catches, so it is clear that the decision to resume commercial whaling is designed purely as a political affront to the International Whaling Commission.
As did Greenpeace:
Instead of investing in a one-man campaign to rejuvenate an outdated, unnecessary industry, that can only damage the reputation of the country internationally, Iceland should be capitalising on the value of a growing industry of watching and studying whales.
October 19th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
If our government [& others]WON’T enforce the various M.E.A.’s [multi-lateral environmental agreements] such as the ATS [Antarctic Treaty System] C.I.T.E.S. and the regulations of the I.W.C. by the use of Trade Sanctions or the enforcement of the UN Charter for Nature [the sanction Sea Shepherd is using to take direct action]–then what hope do we have of doing anything against Iceland & Norway who are not parties to the IWC?????
The fin whales [2nd largest whale] is endangered - it cannot be sustainably harvested [murdered] in fact the evidence strongly suggests NO species can be sustainably harvested.
My action against whaling is tp promote a “peoples Trade Ban” i.e Don’t Buy Japanese- via my web site http://www.stopwhaling.co.nz. To date no major NGO OR Political party [even the Greens!] has supported my proposal.
dave@stopwhaling.co.nz
C.E.A.C.Inc-Napier-Aotearoa-NZ
October 20th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
It sounds like Iceland have simply reclassified their existing whaling plans from “scientific” to “commercial”. What does this mean - perhaps they plan to ramp up their catch significantly in future years?
Norway seems to be catching a lot more - 1,000 whales a year as I understand it.
A few tens of thousands of whales/elephants/anything else vs 6 billion humans …. I am glad I am not a whale. We seem to be over-running the planet and killing a large proportion of those other animals that remain alive. It is most impolite.
Greenpeace should be trying to persuade people to go vegetarian and have fewer children.
October 21st, 2006 at 5:29 pm
While I don’t condone whaling I have to say that whales to Iceland are like cows to us. They have a right to farm in their waters as they see fit… I suppose. We cut down most of our forests and covered them with grass so we can eat meat. Until we replant our forests and severly curtail the amount of meat we eat I don’t think we have any legs to stand on in an attempt to tell them what they should or should not be doing.
People in the far north have always eaten more meat, and especially blubbery types, because they have to. It’s how you survive up there.
Let’s replant out forests and become vegetarian’s and hope they copy the good example we set. In the end it’s all we can really do. Condoning the big brother mentality, good or bad, ain’t a good thing. Teach by example.
October 21st, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Yes, it is quite rich of NZers to be telling off Iceland, when we have driven many of our NZ native species to the brink of extinction, and we eat a lot of meat. I think a lot of NZ’s meat and dairy production is for export -busily making $$$. Including shamelessly trying to persuade foreigners who don’t need more meat & dairy in their diet that they really do need all our Western diseases along with a huge ecological footprint. 39 whales out of a few tens of thousands (?) does not seem so bad. NZ has no right to the high ground.
A really good thing about Iceland is that almost all of its electricity is produced from geothermal energy - hardly any fossil fuel. Or so I understand.
I think that examples can be powerful inspiration that people follow. It would be great if NZ could be part of that.
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:26 am
good comment prim…
i agree 100%…
that blinkered-view that allows local ‘green/environmental activists’ to point the finger and go ’shame..!..shame.! at other cultures’ treatments of sentient beings..
all the while ignoring/doing nothing about..the ‘everyday-horrors/exploitations’ going on right under their noses…
(and even ‘chowing-down’ themselves on the end versions/results of those ‘everyday-horrors’)
and holding fundraisers/parties where they publicly cook and eat those ‘other sentient beings’…(and sneer/laugh at vegans/vegos (some that ‘way’ for decades) who are present..and perhaps offended by these gross sights and smells…)
(you know who you are eh..?….)
with nary a self-glimpse of the glaring ironies/denials/contradictions they present..eh..?
and..while standing/sitting around…wallowing in their pig-fat and other obscenities..they will no doubt wave those charred limbs they are eating in the air….and bitch/declaim about ‘how horrible’ the japanese/norwegians etc etc are…
they really haven’t got a feckin’ clue..have they..?
and are truely mired in their ignorance….
(mind-numbing/jaw-dropping..!..eh..?..)
oh..i think the official name for their ‘condition/mindset’ is ’speciesism..’
so..keep fighting the ‘good fight’..eh..?
and..as some form of minor consolation…we do have (some small degree of) schadenfreude from this ongoing horror-story..
that is..the aphorism ‘you are what you eat’ becomes more and more apparent…with the passing of the years..eh..?
so..eat pigs/offal/fat all your life..and the mirror/your face/body won’t lie to you…
will it darlings..?
go vegan..!..eh..?
and stop mouthing hollow platitudes at us….all the while your very lives deny those platitudes…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 22nd, 2006 at 1:07 pm
So Phil, what type of meat are you waving about?
Are you being ironic?
I can understand your anger at all the belligerent posturing out there but it seem’s that, though your weapon’s are different, you are still brandishing them.
I suppose I’m being critical of you because I can see some useful knowledge and understanding in your words but the vitriol it is served up with does you a dis-service. We will never win anyone over by alienating them. We have to be more mature than that.
As we are what we eat we are also of the land and conditions we live in. Polar bear liver is poisonus to us in these fair climes but in the far, far north where winter sunlight is scarce the natives, Inuit, find it a delicacy.
There may need to be consideration that the Icelander’s feel somewhat adrift in the modern world and that they are culling whales to try and re-instill their traditions after the world has told them that what they do is wrong. New Zealanders eat Turkey in the middle of summer for a far more subjective attachment to tradition.
Progress to a more mature state depends on those who make inroads to the future being of a calm and reasonable disposition so that those who are living in the past, and feeling the strain, will see the possiblities of the future as something worth striving for. But if the future is clothed in anger and frustration - for the past - then the past will only see it as a mirror of itself and not bother changing… for in effect, except for the subjective tools, it is the same.
October 22nd, 2006 at 2:01 pm
I feel some empathy for what Phil has said. When one perceives something one considers bad, one may experience denial, anger, etc. I think that there is value in emotion, and I’m not sure whether change is more driven by calmness or emotion. Perhaps it’s a case by case thing.
Artyone, I think you have raised really good points, which stimulated my thinking.
Looking farther into the future … I think that if all humans become vegetarians, there is a risk that the world’s human population might be allowed to expand until we are using all suitable land to grow crops to feed humans. It’s not the way things should be, in my opinion. Ultimately something will probably have to be done to get the human population back in balance with the rest of the world.
October 22nd, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Kiore1 wrote (on another thread, but I think intended for this one):
Q1…. Are you saying we should actively choose not to follow healthy lifestyles because our population will increase to fill the amount of resources available anyway. …
Q2…But it seems to take a rather pessimistic view of human society. If we become wise enought to realise our present diet is unsustainable both for our own health and that of the planet, then we shouldsurely also become wise enough to control our own population.
————-
Kiore1 -
Answers:
Q1: No, I did not say that.
Q2: see answer to Q1. Also, I merely pointed out a potential future risk if population issues are not addressed. Ideally, population issues will be addressed appropriately; however, reality does not necessarily correspond with the ideal. Events to date may be somewhat illuminating. I drew no firm conclusion about what will actually happen.
I would argue that humanity should be doing everything it reasonably can to live sustainably. I have said it again and again, including in my previous postings on this discussion. If I may quote myself :-):
“I think that examples can be powerful inspiration that people follow. It would be great if NZ could be part of that. ”
All the best.
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:44 pm
artyone said..
“..So Phil, what type of meat are you waving about?
Are you being ironic?..”
sheesh..!..was i that unclear/unsubtle..?..you missed that by a country mile ..eh..?
and just in case you missed the point..no..i wasn’t being ‘ironic’(!)..
and it’s been a few years since i’ve done anything with charred limbs..
artyone said..
“..I can understand your anger at all the belligerent posturing out there..”
um..once again you seem to have missed my point..
i’m as anti-whaling as those who are..
i am pointing out the double standard of expressing “shock!..horror..!” at the killing of creatures..(that b.t.w. have lived ‘full and happy’ lives)…while chowing down on the corpses of other sentient beings…beings that have had short brutal lives of unremitting/unrelenting misery/torture/pain/suffering..culminating in a premature death as brutal as their lives..
so these ‘green activists’ can have the temporary ‘gratification’ of eating their flesh/fat..?
artyone said..
“..We will never win anyone over by alienating them. We have to be more mature than that…”
sorry arty..that’s a crock…
i spent a decade in the green party being reasonably quiet about these issues…
only to face what i described above..
and nothing has changed since my departure…..i know other vegan people inside the ak party tried to present a remit to the ak greens asking them to consider having no meat cooked and eaten at green party functions..
do you know how the ‘charred limb eating jeerers’ buried that one..?
the ak co-convenor (richard green..there’s an irony..eh..?..that sirname..?) arranged for it to be debated at a ’special monthly green meeting”..out in deepest sth ak…papakura..(heart of vego-country..eh..?)
and then had a handful of his anti-vego mates go there and ‘bury it’..
the records will show that what i say is true..
so artyone..i know ..from experience..that talking softly softly about animal rights issues in the green party is like passing water into the wind..
what has ten years got us..eh..?
what..?..battery-chooks ‘living space’ to be increased by 10cm in the next ten years ?…or some other such pathetic ‘advance’..?
that’s it..!..that’s ten years work by the animal welfare/rights thread of the green party..?
dosen’t the fact that the green party spokesperson on animal welfare…eats them..?..make you go ..huh..?..
what the feck is that..?..eh..?
(now that’s ‘irony’..artyone..)
another priority is that i am not even talking to those hardcore carnivores..(they can go take a flying feck at themselves..eh..?)
i am talking to the ‘waverers’ who are reading this..
those who are ‘nearly there’..or ‘on the road there’..or ‘thinking about going there”…
those who are feeling mildly disgusted with themselves .
those looking at breaking their addictions to eating the cooked flesh of other (formerly) living creatures..
they are who i am trying to ‘get through to’..
and for what..?..
are those waverers/anyone still eating flesh/fat/gristle/offal..?
can’t be for health reasons..eh..?..(that’s a proven..eh..?..)
can’t be for humanitarian reasons ..eh..?
(so much suffering/pain/death is wrapped up in every mouthful of flesh you chew..eh..?)
and it is easy to stop…
you just stop..
and ‘google’ ‘vegan recipies’…..
( a site i recommend is ‘vegan outreach’…go there and read their pamphlet called “why vegan?”..
(it says what i am am trying to say..but does a much better job of it..)
i think that pamplet is one of the most powerful pieces of ‘awareness-raising’/agit-prop i have seen….
and has been known to stop many people in their tracks..)
and if i can just ‘testify’ to you for a moment..
i promise you it will be one of the most liberating/good things you will ever do in your life…
giving up meat…
and the health/anti-ageing benefits just keep on giving and giving…
and get better and better the longer you don’t eat flesh…
seriously..i promise you..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:14 am
Hey Phil, I’m on your side…kinda. I just thought the anger was colouring your reason. I was vegan for a coupla years and I’m tryin’ to get back there. To me it’s not so much about animal welfare, at least in the short term, as it is about the simple fact that it’s much cheaper to be vegan. When I cook for myself it’s usually vegan but lately people have been cooking for me… and they eat meat so I eat meat.
I admire your stance, and I can understand that the way forward must really contain the type of policy you believe in. But politics has always been about the frontline only ever being a step or two ahead of the status quo, maybe one or two radical idealogs to give a movement credibility, and that’s the way it’s always going to be. Being miles out in front, on any issue, has always been a lonely place - but it is needed. Maybe it’s the only place where the trickle down ideal ever works. That said it’s no use throwing whole buckets of the real stuff when droplets will only ever be felt… but they will be felt.
Maybe even being out at the absolute frontline is where we learn that subtleties, carefully targeted subtleties, actually have the greatest effect.
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Phil,
whales good
pigs bad
veggies good
people who eat whales, pigs, not veggies, bad
Have I got it now? Good!
Can we have a rest, please…. Not dissing vegans, but Phil, you take the rhetoric, plus the dangling, ungrammatical sentences, a bit far regularly.
cheers, katie
October 23rd, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Hey,
I eat meat, I even enjoy it, and I dont think I’m bad person because of that. Nor do I think the answer to the worlds problems is really as simple as people becoming either vegetarian and vegan. Most of those beans and lentils come from somewhere, usually overseas, and can be farmed in just as intensive a fashion as our New Zealand dairy farms. I appreciate the fact that people want to express their efforts through living ethically and making conscious decisions about the impact they have in our modern world, but it doesnt mean other people making different decisions is wrong. We all try to do our bit in different ways, bashing peole around the head with ones opinions isn’t going to help anyone.
Cheers
October 23rd, 2006 at 8:35 pm
hey katie..
p*ss off..with your moans about ‘rhetoric/dangling ungrammaticals..’
go do a tour of a killing field/slaughterhouse..
and see if you have a conciousness able to be raised..
you obviously don’t give a feck about those sufferings..do you..?
is ‘green’ just feckin’ trees ..is it..?
i’ve said my piece on this ssue only about three times..
and no amount of attempted shut-up’s/bullying by you..or anyone feckin’ like you will shut me up..ever..
“can we have a rest please..”
and you can ’stick’ that glib/patronising sneer too…
‘cos you obviously can’t/don’t hear/see/feel the screams/moans/miseries of the animals you eat..
do you..you ‘good little greenie’..you..?
(what a ’sick joke’..eh..?..)
you don’t even see your ironies do you.?…so mired are you in your ignorances..
..your glib dismissals of these concerns/realities actually makes me feel physically nauseous..and mildly in despair..
(and as such..is confirmation of my descriptions of you and yours..in the green party..and your group/institutional blinkers…)
just go back to sleep ..eh..?
or..it is labour weekend..
have you fired up the barbie yet..?
while you eat the flesh..you can stand around and (chew the fat’..and smugly congratulate yourself on what a ‘good person’ you are eh..?..for being a ‘greenie’..and ‘caring about the planet’..
bah..!..humbug..!
your hypocrisy has a stench to it..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:56 pm
o-bogle -
I think you have made some good points. Vegetarianism isn’t for everyone. We are after all omnivores. But some things do bother me, for example: (1) a lot of people such as NZers have traditionally eaten far more meat than is good for them or the planet, as I understand it; (2) there are so many people on the planet that all the meat eating combined has a very large impact. Everything we do is having a large impact, and a lot of farming is intensive. Like Phil, I am also uncomfortable about the living conditions that we place animals under.
I take your point that different people can do their bit in different ways. I think that’s right. But on the other hand, I do not think that many people realise just how big the changes have to be for our lifestyles to be sustainable. I also think that many people probably don’t realise that the decision whether or not to eat meat can make a significant difference to their “ecological footprint”. You might be interested in an ecological footprint calculator, eg at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/withyou/do/footprint/ .
Also, while people can certainly do their bit in different ways, experience to date is that change has been slow; if anything, it has been in the wrong direction in NZ, I think. As a hypothetical example, suppose 40% of the population reduce their ecological footprint by 10%. Overall, the population as a whole then reduces its footprint by … 4%. I think we need more people to change behaviour, and by more.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:29 am
I see Phil, that hijacking threads is not something you eschew yourself.
BJ
October 24th, 2006 at 6:31 am
i don’t see it as ‘hijacking a thread’..bj..
how is what i say ‘not on topic’..?
in fact..i would argue..it is the topic..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 24th, 2006 at 10:09 am
I agree with phil u here. He has been commenting that the Greens have pointed the finger at Iceland, while in his view the Greens have done little about, and have participated in, a system that is bad for animals in NZ - and here I am putting it mildly. He is encouraging people to consider vegetarianism. I think that his comments are highly relevant to this thread, although the comments might not be what the Greens want to hear!
I think that people are free to take these discussions in various directions. I think that this is fine in general, with a few exceptions.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Prim’s comments certainly make sene and I commend his calm approach. Phil’s use of language certainly can be intemperate, but I can certainly see where he is coming from.
It is not a question of whether eating meat makes you a “bad” person. I am sure most people who kept slaves were not “bad” people either, or most of those who watched public executions. One fo the major difficulties I have with being vegan in a world awash with animal products is that it is otherwise decent people who still participate in what must be the worst cruelty on the planet. If I could be convinced they were all evil psychopaths it would actually make things easier for me.
While I don’t think meat eaters are bad people, I certainly think that the institution of meat eating in Western societies is a bad system. Animals are not happy to be slaughtered, they are not happy while they are alive, in fact broiler chickens are in chronic pain for at least the last 20% of their lives. Battery hens are cramped in an area less than their body size for 18 months, and pigs in sow crates are literally driven insane.
Nor is extensive farming cruelty-free. Cows have their calves kidnapped from them at birth, they are dehorned, detailed and (if male) castrated without anaesthetic. Sheep and cows are transported long distances by sea and land to slaughter, in cramped conditions, and remember that the occupation of slaughterhouse worker is the most dangerous in the country. If that is the way humans are treated, then the cruelties inflicted on the animals don’t bear thinking about.
Meat is also not necessary to human health, and there is increasing evidence it is harmful. As Matthew Scully puts it so succinctly: if we start with a necessary evil, and remove the necessity - what’s left?
October 24th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
What a bizarre thread this has become. What started as a discussion about a threat to endangered species became “I have to say that whales to Iceland are like cows to us”. Since when have cows been endangered?
It then diverted to a sadly elitist “I’m greener than you because I’m vegetatian” debate. Get real! Being Green isn’t a competition in which you get “Green Points” for who can individually lead the most sustainable lifestyle. Being Green is a recognition that we are exploiting the planet beyond its sustainable capacity, and that to ensure a future for people and planet, there must be a collective effort to reverse this.
Sure, vegetarianism is more sustainable than eating meat - that can’t be denied on the facts. But, as someone who refuses to own and very rarely drives a car, I don’t get on my high horse condemning people who do own and regularly drive cars, and I don’t expect anyone to condemn me for my choice to eat meat. Collectively, though, humanity should, in the interests of ecological sustainability, be looking to reduce the amount both cars are driven and meat is eaten. Being Green is not just about ecological sustainability - it also about tolerance and respect for diversity - not putting people down because they don’t meet the personal lifestyle choices you make in trying to be Green.
SO back to the whales - the problem here is not that Icelanders may, to some extent that is debatable, choose to eat whale meat. The problem is that the Icelandic government has made a political decision that threatens endangered species.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Steady on there Phil. You’re pretty close to the line as far as personal attacks go:
“Comments that attack others in a grossly offensive way. Humour and sarcasm are fine, but attacks which seek to personally denigrate others are not.”
Take it easy please!
October 24th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
In reply to toad, the point I am making is that ecological wisdom is not the only green platform. Non-violence is just as important. The green party animal welfare policy recognises the intrinsic vlue of animals, and its policy of abolishing factory farming is more to do with ending animal cruelty than protecting endangered species. As you point out, hens, pigs and chickens are not endangered. No more are humans, but we oppose cruelty towards them.
Most people who saw Greenpeaces’ video of a whale being tortured to death for half an hour were reacting in horror not because it is an endangered species, but because it is a sentient being. It is therefore quite hypocritical of New Zealand to be condemning the torture of one sentient being while continuing to condone ritualised and routine mass torture of other sentient beings.
As far as personal attacks go, this blog is pretty mild even though some of us get carried away occasionally. Have a look at Sir Humphrey’s if you want to know what a *really* nasty blog is like.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Perhaps I missed it, but my understanding was that the Icelanders were not doing this so that they could eat whale meat, or fuel lamps with whale oil, Does anyone have any evidence that they are doing this? I don’t LIKE what they are doing, but if we’re going to diss ‘em for something it’d best be something they’re actually doing. No?
respectfully
BJ
October 24th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
I’d like to comment on the point that while the whales are endangered, cows are not. While this statement is most likely true, unless particular bovine diseases spread globally, I think that it takes an overly narrow view of effects.
To my mind, destruction of natural habitat for the creation of pastures to feed cows and sheep has most likely reduced the numbers of many kinds of NZ native species. While the cows themselves are not endangered, other species are. This thinking takes a wider view of our food chain and its effects on the environment, as compared to a view that considers only those animals that humans are actually killing.
BJ - I think that what is probably most relevant for the NZ-Iceland comparison are the numbers of animal deaths and context, rather than a comparison of their end uses by humans. In NZ, a common end use for the animals we kill happens to be food, as in quite a few other nations, and reducing meat consumption has potential to help put humanity back in balance with the planet. In Iceland the uses may be different. The fact that humans are killing and endangering very large numbers - of animals and species respectively - remains.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
I started with the first comment on this issue and I am staggered to find the path of this debate! I just want to save endangered whales-one person doing something he feels strongly about. Its no wonder we have trouble making progress on issues with all the sidetracking and barrow pushing going on. I will just keep my eye on the ball in play on the issue I have chosen to put most of my energy on. Any suggestions that help would be appreciated.
Dave
http://www.stopwhaling.co.nz
October 24th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
I don’t know if any of you have read “Nga uruora”. It seems to be a very under-rated book, possibly because the complexities of the Maori geneologies and politics were quite difficult to get into. But one point it does make is that so much of our lowland kahikatea forest has been removed for cattle and sheep pasture, and there are only a few remnants of it left. So Prim makes a valuable point about cattle. There is a lake near Levin where some remnants are preserved, and it is worth a visit, though it did make me sad to realise that the whole of the Horowhenua at one time would have been just as beautiful.
But I suppose one difference between eating the cow and killing the whales, at least from an environmental point of view, if not an animal rights one, is that it is now too late to preserve the Horowhenua forests, and not eating the cattle won’t bring them back now. In contrast, every whale killed contributes to the extinction.
Another point following on from Prim’s last comment is that we need to think beyond simply preserving a species. We could after all quite easily, at least in principle preserve every species in a kahikatea forest by putting it in a zoo or herbarium, and in fact I am not even sure whether any actual species extinctions resulted from the destruction of the kahikatea forests. Instead, we need to think about preserving assemblages of species and ecosystems because these are also real losses.
kiore1
http://www.epf.org.nz
October 24th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
I actually think this meandering about is quite useful. Never are problems as simple as we like to think they are.
Iceland is ice and volcanos surrounded by sea. The people who have lived there have always eaten from the sea. The ocean around them may, percentage wise, have as many protected species as unprotected species, so it may very well be quite hard for them to fish as they always have - given they follow guidelines as set down by the rest of the world.
Whales are really big and reasonable easy to catch because they have to come up for air - I’m sure we all know this.
In the analogy of the whale and the cow… Imagine if the rest of the world told us we couldn’t eat cows and had to just eat possums.
Dave, I suggest you go to Iceland and hang with the natives. I’m sure there is a big difference between Japanese whaling and Icelandic whaling, not in the methods used, so much as the reason they are doing it. They are a very small nation in a very hard part of the world to live and people like that usually have good reasons for what they do - as opposed to economic superpowers who do what they do because they… feel like it. Saying the Icelanders shuld know better is completely different from the Japanese - who should know better; they can afford to know better.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:07 am
artyone,
well said.
the main reasons i don’t like Japanese whaling are:
- whaling traditions never involved sending factory ships to the Antarctic
- no one outside a few small whaling villages is interested in whaling as a tradition
- whaling in Japan is just a right-wing nationalist show of power
Iceland may be in a completely different situation, i don’t know.
October 25th, 2006 at 6:29 am
I tried to go through the comments here above but very few of them had some real arguments with facts behind them so I kinda gave up.
First of all, Fin whales are not endangered around Iceland. The IWC even admits that there are at least 25.800 fin whales around Iceland. (http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm) The stock grows 10% annually and has done so for the last 17 years. (See the IWC scientific report 2006) This is another fact that IWC states. If you want to dispute IWC then it doesn’t make sense at all, because they don’t except numbers like these so lightly. This goes through a long process of verification and validation before approved by them. For everyone that really wants to know more about the real facts visit this site: http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm. This is again from IWC and is the most unbiased ground for statistics on the matter.
Minke whale are so far from being extinct now. Around Iceland it’s assumed that there lives 40.000 minke whales. In the north Atlantic it’s assumed that there are 176.000 minke whales (again IWC numbers). To even suggest that the hunt of 30 Icelandic minke whales will put pressure on the stock is ludicrous.
To base our animal eating decisions on how dumb we think animals are is kind of strange. Pigs for example are said to be highly intelligent but we still eat a lot of them. The idea that baleen whales are “intelligent” is disputed. Well-known anti-whaling scientists such as Phil Clapham have said:
“Having worked with these critters for many years, I’d support the general view that … baleen whales are not dreadfully bright (much as I love them)” (http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask99/0009.html)
Meat is meat, and actually whale meet is very good. Whales are no different then any other sustainable source of meat in the world. To say that they are so big and majestic that they should not be hunted is another strange annotation. There is no logic behind it. It just represents people opinion about them. And why should some people’s opinion, on the other side of the globe (NZ vs. Iceland) affect Icelanders. If there aren’t any facts or arguments behind the anti-whaling claims we can’t you just tolerate other people culture and viewpoints. Iceland is a small and barren island in the middle of the ocean that sustains it livelihood on their fisheries industries and the stocks of resource on the sea. The have managed to control their fishing in a very good manner while most other nations that are fishing face near extinction of their fish reserves (e.g. Cod in the North-Sea). Of course they want to use all the resources they have on their small island to make the best out of their life up in the north. And they would never even consider doing something that would harm their fish or whale stocks just because it would always come back to them in the end.
They don’t not brake any international or moral laws by starting to hunt whales. It’s very simple, they joined the IWC and stated that if the IWC hadn’t come up with any management regulations within 2006 they would have the right to hunt whales. IWC agreed upon that. Since 1994 have the IWC tried to put a management system in place for sustainable whaling. The IWC didn’t manage to agree upon management system and quotas for hunting whales, because of stalling form the anti-whaling body. Therefore Iceland is no longer obliged by the moratorium and can start whaling. Note further that IWC has stated the following:
“FURTHER NOTING that the moratorium which was clearly intended as a temporary measure is no longer necessary, that the Commission adopted a robust and risk-averse procedure (RMP) for calculating quotas for abundant stocks of baleen whales in 1994 and that the IWC’s own Scientific Committee has agreed that many species and stocks of whales are abundant and sustainable whaling is possible;
Everybody agrees that the best way to manage whaling is to have a management system that IWC regulates. But while that wouldn’t happen then the whaling nations have the right to start whaling. Now we have to see if IWC can stop to be about politics and starts to be about scientific facts. It’s all about that on this globe there are a lot of different cultures and nations that we need to respect. If there are not facts at all against whaling why not authorize sustainable whaling regulated by the IWC as many of the nations ask for?
October 25th, 2006 at 7:45 am
And by the way, the IUCN redlist looks at the species of fin whales on global level. That means that though the fin whale stock around Iceland is now 70% of it’s previous highest limit, then the species is still catagorized as being endangered. The reason is that the stocks in the southern hemisphere have not recovered as well as the North-Atlantic stock. These 2 stocks are totally independent and never go over the equator in either direction. In January IUCN will review the status of sea mammals so hopefully they will take this into consideration like they have done with other whale species.
October 26th, 2006 at 6:17 am
I must admit Ihavn’t had a chance to read the whole page.
But the part that I have angers me incredibly.
1) We are talking about whales not sheep or pigs, a highly intelligent animal, so an incedibly intelligent animal that man dosent understand, but the liitle information we are picking up is starting to prove this.
2) They die a horrible death, sometimes up to 4hrs,in pain. even cows/sheep(far less intelligent animals) get a fairly quick death
3) We dont farm them, their arn’t enough.
4) They are endangered, the crap Iceland is sending out at the moment, saying there are loads of fin whale, and they are well in control is a direct lie.
5) Whales will die if we don’t help them against mankind
I watch fin whales every summer, and the joy I get, and watching other people getting the same joy, there is something magical by watching them and you cant class them along side farm animals and if we let Iceland and Japan get away with it, dont count on your great grandchildren watching whales
Dave
October 26th, 2006 at 9:20 am
What do you think that Icelanders are? Do you really think they are barbarians that don’t care about the environment? They live on the nature, their whole economy is sustained by their fisheries. Why should they ever try to hunt whales or any other stock of nature to the brink of extinction. Whales are not being exterminated. Period.
Read my previous answer as an answer to your other comments. Note especially that the numbers are not from Iceland, they are from the International whaling commission!
The international whaling comission statement regarding Iceland and commercial whaling answers you also pretty well:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
October 26th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
dave said..
“..We are talking about whales not sheep or pigs, a highly intelligent animal, so an incredibly intelligent animal that man dosent understand, but the liitle information we are picking up is starting to prove this…”
just to bring you up to speed here dave…pigs(esp) are extremely intelligent creatures..(more so than dogs..urban legend has it..)
(and does intelligence …or lack of it..make such treatment acceptable..?..)
if so..i’ve got more than a few human candidates for you…
dave said..
“..They die a horrible death, sometimes up to 4hrs,in pain…”
um..dave..pigs and any other ‘farmed’ animals usually have whole lives of total misery and neglect….and pain..
i’m not defending whaling..but at least (before their horrible deaths) the whales have lived the lives intended for them…and haven’t spent them in what are animal concentration camps…living(?) lives of unimaginable horrors..
(as in pigs unable to lie down or turn around….just jammed into boxes only slightly larger than them…for their whole feckin’ lives..!..dave..!..
being ‘fattened’ just for you..eh..?
dosen’t that bacon/pork smell good..?..eh..?..
think on..!..eh..?..)
why do you think not one of those ‘farms’ will allow the media inside to film the conditions these animals (sentient beings..sharing major percentages of d.n.a. with us..and emotions such as fear etc..) live in..?
it’s because the realities of the flesh on peoples’ plates…and the journey there…would stop many people from buying their ‘product’…
can i suggest dave..that you (and others) open their eyes to the horrors here/around you…?….and do something about them..?
i see you also make the ‘numbers argument..(fatuous..to my mind)..that if they are ‘endangered’..don’t you dare touch them…!
oh..!..what..?..there’s plenty of them..?…go for it..!
(it’s a ’silly’ argument..eh..?..)
btw…i find it quite fascinating that whenever this subject/topic comes up..there are never those who come forward/stand up.to present any arguments for this cruel intensive farming/eating of living creatures..
‘cos they..and you and i..know there ain’t any..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 26th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
I agree with Dave and with phil_u ! (I’m also an old cynic, and think there is more to this than “national pride” and using “resources” wisely etc)
Other lifeforms on this Planet that are “not endangered” should NOT automatically be regarded as “fair game” for any humans who want to exploit or kill (even if they are in or near the “territiory” of those particular
humans, and even if they are reducing the available fish in those areas).
Some of our problems are:
We “Homo sapiens” evolved in small hunter-gatherer extended family groups.
Our “knee jerk” thinking remains at that level, despite the fact that our rational minds have enabled us to extend our “caves” and our “clans” into (in some respects) very spophisticated ways of living and “utilising” the world around us.
Underneath all the veneer, we are still that original “hunter-gatherer”, and behave as such, despite our attempts to talk “economics” and “regional development” and “national sovereignty” etc etc) Just watch the developmental stages of our babies and young children. Just watch and listen to human males when war is declared … etc etc … to reveal our roots.
Human religions that have given “Man” dominion over other lifeforms is another piece of anachronistic, self serving “thought”. Unfortunately many human religions are not adequately addressing the mismatch now created between human death control and lack of human birth control.
If we are short of meat, the most plentiful protein etc on the planet is in the bodies of “Homo sapiens” (self named of course) … If we don’t re-endorse the ideas of “Zero Population Growth” soon “Soilent Green” could be back on the menu … (Personally I have become a vegetarian!)
Meanwhile let’s collectively leave the poor old decimated whale species alone and let them eat whatever food they need in their home territories.
(Having said all that, I do understand the “feel good” historical claims that Icelandic people may have to an old way of life … However, how many of their population are FOR and how many AGAINST this latest move?
I wonder! )
October 26th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Hi
Note to others……sorry, killing any animals is barbaric.
I just think that comparing a whales intelligence against a pig, is like comparing a flys intelligence against a pigs (but the arguements got diddly to doing with that )
Sirpink get your facts right, Iceland have an invested interest in whaling so there fats and figures are different to the rest of the world.
Wdcs (whale and dolphin conservation society) Greenpeace, sea sheherd.
If anyone is reading this blog check these sites afterwards for the facts.
FACT: Fin whales is regarded as an endangered animal by the rest of the world ( only in Iceland and Japan is it not regarded ( where it is hunted. ucanny)
FACT: The fin whale does not always die a quick deatch, sometimes up to 4hrs
The scientists that carried out the research had an invested interest.
Iceland’s goverment and fisheries have come up with completely different records.
Sea shepherd is making a campaign, the facts will be revealed.
I’ve borried this bit from wdcs
In a backwards step for the conservation of whales, Iceland has announced that it will resume commercial whaling in defiance of the international ban. It plans to kill nine fin whales, an endangered species, and thirty minke whales in 2006/7.
The hunt will be in addition to Iceland’s current whaling programme, which it says is for scientific purposes, and which will end with the killing of at least 30 minke whales in 2007.
Iceland is also clearly planning to resume international trade in whale meat, as like Japan and Norway, its domestic market is stagnant and it cannot even sell the minke whales that it is currently killing.
Commercial whaling is cruel, unnecessary and threatens the survival of whale populations.
Iceland believes the world has stopped caring about whales. We need to send a message loud and clear that we still care and that we do not support the resumption of commercial whaling and international trade in whale products.
When quoting facts Sirpink look at the worlds not Ivelands narrow minded goverment.
Daveuk
October 27th, 2006 at 1:01 am
And that is why the facts are from the International Whaling Commission (http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm).
For the same reason as you should not look at numbers from the whaling nations then you should not look at “facts” from WDCS, Greenpeace and Sea Sephard. They as well are invested party.
IWC should be the only unbiased place that you can find statistics on the matter.
75% of Icelanders are for whaling and 20% oppose it according to Gallup poll in september. It doesn’t change the fact though that a lot of people don’t agree with the method that these whaling efforts were started. This decision was only taken by 1 man, without any consult from legislators or environmentalists, which is not the correct manner to take major decisions like these!
October 27th, 2006 at 1:55 am
Thanks for your answer.
I don’t see how
greenpeace charity to save the planet
wdcs charity to help save whales and dolphins
Sea shepherd charity set to kick arse of those that harm dolphins and whales…………………..All conservation charities
benefit from Iceland killing fin whales (ENDANGERED) second largest animal on the planet.
And as for facts from the IWC, well lets look what that stands for international whaling commission…….ummmmmmm something in that name gives me a clue…….ahhhhh whaling commission. just think if the whaling commission said no you cant hunt whales, now would they do that. I Dont think so, they would lose their living.
So who do you take your information from
One organisation set to kill.
Or several set to save.
Endangered Species Act is not just given to any animal, The fin whale is ENDANGERED. The IWC lets say the word…. International whaling (slaughtering) commision can say what they like, as they will do so for obvious reasons. whaling will be ban, I just hope there are some species left.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:14 am
Tell me when the world finally bans all forms of whaling, what will the Independent whaling commission be known as, the ex IWC, the artist formally known as IWC.
You rely on the whaling commission for the truth, maybe here lies the problem.
I read a little bit of an iceland paper and the glorified the death saying the fin whale died quickly, I was there but if it did it would be a first, some take up to four hours…………………..
Most westerners don’t at the end of the day if there were only 5 whales alive on the planet the IWC would still say its ok to hunt them because as long as there is whaling theres a IWC when there is no whaling………….
Iceland will of made themselves incredily unpopular with this slaughter, once the cogs get going…………sanctions and bans.
October 27th, 2006 at 6:17 am
The view is pretty simple, while the whales are a sustainable source of meat then Icelanders should have the right to hunt them.
Why shouldn’t we rely on the IWC for the truth? I don’t see why not, as they are organization that relys on scientific reasearch at the same time as listening to the views and opinions of both pro-whaling and anti-whaling lobbyists.
The harpoons with explosive do work in most of the cases. If this is the only time that a whale did instantanously then it most be the second time, as this whale died instantenously: http://icrwhale.org/eng/GPAS3.mpg
Nobody wants to make the whales extinct. Don’t try to even imagine anything like that. Icelanders as every other nations is all about preserving the nature. It’s is vital for them and their living that the resources that they get from the nature are conserved. But at the same time they have to use them in a sustainable way.
The reason why Iceland is geting bad attention is because people isn’t correctly informed. Most of the information going around is inaccurate and is in tabloid still.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:43 am
OK thanks for the reply.
IWC whaling commission….at the end of the day they are not a sit on the fence organisation, they are for whaling, they would be the last people to want whaling stopped.
As for Icelanders eating. I dont care what you do with your lives, live and let live, again you are hunting an ENDANGERED creature, one which I love.
Quick bit about me. Every Summer I drive 400 miles round trip, jump on a ferry, to go to Spain, takes about 4 days round trip for a day and a halve watching fin whales, I photograph them as well, I enjoy pointing these creatures out to the average person and explaining a bit about them and see the happiness. I do this four times a year.
I honestly do not mean any offence to any Iceland person but every time, an endangered fin whale is killed it is like losing a friend.
I have written to nearly every fishery minister, politicians, even politicians in America, actors, singers, anybody famous to stop iceland.
Believe me they are ENDANGERED(no matter what IWC say) , and the harpoons are not always successful. this isnt tabloid………
We are now going around in circles, enjoy your whale meat, and enjoy the wrath that will follow……………………………………………!
Good day to you…….!
October 27th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Sir Pink asks: “Why shouldn’t we rely on the IWC for the truth? I don’t see why not … ”
The last time I was paying attention, some very small, impecunious “nations” (Pacific Islands), with no whaling history (apart from the occasional historical salvage from a carcass floating by), or modern capability/interest, were joining the IWC at the behest of Japan to vote with the Japanese in return for “aid and development packages”.
The IWC was thus “stacked” by a very dubious “pro whaling” lobby.
The few remaining Great Whales face enough danger from container ships, flotsum and jetsom on the high seas, and other increasingly serious pollution without commercial whaling by humans for “products” that few people want and none need.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Yeah, those bloody island nations in the pacific that might want to whale as one of their ways to feed themselves. They shouldn’t be allowed to have anything about whaling. Maybe they just want to joint to express their opinion?? Instead we should fill the IWC of landlocked EU nations… or no wait, most of them, like Austria, Luxemborg, Hungary, Czech Republic and more are already in the IWC. Why should a nation that doesn’t have an access to sea want to be in the IWC? Maybe to put in their voice in against the whaling nations, just like this small pacific island wants to favor whaling?
Nothing has been proven about Japan buying votes.
This way of geting more votes in the IWC works in both directions, while the whaling nations try to ask other nations to join the IWC, the anti-whaling nations also do so. The last country to join IWC was Slovenia, with 40 km of sealine. There aren’t any whales by that small sealine and they advertise themselves as a country that you can come and hunt dozen of different wildlife animals in their forrests. But they are really concerned about whales, which they never see…
The IWC has been splitt in the middle in the last years, and I don’t see that changing soon. That makes it possible for both the whaling nations and the anti-whaling nations to get their view across…
One point about the IWC also. You could ask yourself why the Government of the USA doesn’t condem the whaling. The reason is that on last IWC meeting they said they would propose on the next meeting to renew the whaling license they have for 67 Bowhead whales per year until 2013 (if i remember correctly). Therefore, they know if they will condemn the actions of Iceland they will probably get some negatives votes from the whaling lobby. Japan has done so just to point out the hypocraticy of the US in this matter…
October 27th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Daveuk, Of course I understand that as you that has such a strong opinion about the fin whales would condemn this action, and nothing of what I will say will change that. I just wanted to try to lay the facts for you like I see them, and give some insight what my opinion, as being for whaling, is.
In light of what I’ve said about IWC, you must understand that IWC doesn’t allow over exploitation of the whale stocks. I don’t really know what to say more that I haven’t said already..
And of course you are true, we can’t really come to an conclusion in the end, we’ll always disagree about this. THank you for answering my posts here and giving me the opportunity to discuss these matters with you!
October 27th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Answering eredwin. yes these animals are under great global threat, thats why Murdering nations like iceland, Japan, Faroe Islands, Norway have to be stopped.
To answer you sirpink, tell me are you the fisheries minister for Iceland, or the guy that owns the whaling fleet.
You twist everything for your slaughtering own satisfaction. The USA are not for killing whales, they alllow some forms of aboriginal people to still take them. ie Alaska.
Japan is breaking the rules in everyones eyes.
The IWC is not protecting these whales, every other organisation say FIN WHALES ENDANGERED, the IWC with an invested interest are saying they are not endangered, is that protecting them,
The only way Iceland and Norway and Japan has carried on hunting whales is by lieing to the world, this is for scientific reasons, scientific reasons do not end up on the dinner plate.
I re-enforce a very strong opinion that Iceland and Japan have Lied to the world, continually and need to be brought to justice for their actions, and I will continue my efforts to do so.
Please if anyone reads these blogs, go to seashepherd.org
October 27th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Sirpink aka Iceland Govt. spokeperson [or at least is repeating answers I have got from them] should perhaps ponder this article which exposes the stupidity of whaling. Then again Sirpink could be Glenn Innes a NZlander paid by the Japanese Government to speak for them in very good english to give some respectablity [but little credibility] to their flawed logic.
See: http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2006/10/icelandic_wh aling_show_me_the.html#more
Dave [my real name] http://www.stopwhaling.co.nz
October 27th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Stopwhaling your doing a great job, good website, pictures made me vommit
Sirpink is good at writing in English, but not so good at listening.
He speaks very similar to a lot of the literature I have received from Icelands goverment.
Just in case people get bored of Sirpinks (alias whale killer) dribble about the IWC.
Iceland and Japan hunting endangered species, do something about it…..!
Thanks Stopwhaling keep up the great work……………………..
October 28th, 2006 at 12:36 am
Daveurk and Stopwhaling :
I’ve sent my letters of protest to the Icelandic officials and to the NZ Govt re IWC … and will tell my friends.
October 28th, 2006 at 12:41 am
Daveuk,
The whales that Iceland is taking are in no way in threat of extinction. The fact is that the IWC Scientific Committee recognises that the Fin stock was increasing at a rate of around 10% a year from 1987 through to 2001 (and the trend has probably continued since). This growth saw the stock increase from an estimated 10,000 - 11,000 animals back in 1987-1989 to 25,800 now (95% CI of something like 20,000 to 33,000).
Iceland has permitted but *nine* of these whales to be taken.
The USA most certainly is for killing whales when it suits them. They are currently planning their quota requests for their people to kill more than 60 bowhead whales a year. In constrast to Iceland’s hunt, there are only around 10,000 bowheads, and the stock has been growing much more slowly at only about 3% each year.
How can you criticise Iceland for this tiny insignificant hunt, but then defend the USA on the other hand? The USA is the richest country in the world. If necessary they could easily ship beef to their people on the north slope.
Stop the double standards. There are two types of whaling - sustainable and unsustainable, and what’s good enough for the USA is surely good enough for everyone else.
The IWC has not expressed an opinion on this matter yet - the IWC is the 71 nations who have signed the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The IWC Secretariat, based in England, is completely neutral and has only published the findings on the Scientific Committee on it’s homepage. Stop shooting the messenger.
Hey Dave - Glenn Innes is a rugby player, are you sure you are shooting the right messenger?
October 28th, 2006 at 12:49 am
By the way everybody, since some people are questioning the function of the IWC:
# The Right and Grey whale species were protected since before the formation of the IWC
# The IWC has protected the Blue whale species globally since 1966, although it has only finally started showing signs of recovery recently
# The IWC has protected the Fin whale species since 1976 (30 years ago now)
# The IWC has protected the Sei whale species since 1978
# The IWC protected the Humpback whale in the Southern Hemisphere by 1963, and globally by 1966, 20 years before the moratorium came into effect.
These species were all protected before the commercial whaling moratorium was adopted (which is why the moratorium is regarded as unnecessary).
It’s common sense that after being protected for so long some of these whale stocks are recovering to levels where whaling can recommence, and on a sustainable level this time, now that the greedy oil whalers from the UK, NZ, Australia and other places are gone now.
October 28th, 2006 at 1:41 am
Thanks eredwin
David @ tokyo
Probably another member of the IWC trying to justify what they do, or being from Tokyo an eater.
I didnt say anything about Glenn Innes yet…………….
I wasnt protecting America, and yes England has made mistakes in the past but they are trying putting them right.
When you send a letter of disapproval to Iceland you get their interesting facts back, part blaming America for their hunting. part quoting the local scientific (invested interest) tests that seem different to the worlds reports
Its funny when a finger is pointed at you, you turn straight around and say iwas their fault.
Iceland has lasted years without hunting, why start…………?
I love fin whales as I have already said when one dies its like losing s friend that is why I just one mere person will do all I can to save the slaughter
Any form of killing whales is wrong, I want to put a stop to the whole lot whether its in Japan/Norway/Iceland/Faroe Islands/Greenland.
I like “stopwhaling’s” website and will be creating my own shortly……….
October 28th, 2006 at 2:50 am
Daveuk,
I’m not a member of the IWC. The IWC is a group of nations who signed the ICRW. I’m not from Tokyo. I’m from Wellington (New Zealand). I live in Tokyo now. The people here are friendly and honest and they understand what “conservation” means.
I wasn’t talking to you about Glenn Innes, I was talking to the other Dave (from “stopwhaling”). How come everyone here is called Dave?
What information did you get from Iceland that seemed different to “the worlds reports”? I checked the factual information provided by the IWC Secretariat about what the IWC Scientific Committee has agreed on with regards to abundance and growth rates, and it looks like Iceland’s version of the story is completely accurate.
So what is Iceland saying that seems dodgy to you but isn’t mentioned in here:
http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
?
I’m not blaming just the UK, like I said “and others”. The fact is that the politicians of the IWC back in the 1950’s were too slow to act. They shouldn’t have allowed Australian whalers to kill 17,000 humpbacks in the decade prior to 1963. They should have curbed Australia’s catching in advance of this, to ensure the proper conservation of the humpback stocks. If they had, Australia might still have a whaling industry today, and maybe they’d be selling the meat to Japan, just like they are selling “critically endangered” blue fin tuna to Japan for high prices.
Iceland hasn’t hunted whales for years, but circumstances change. As I mentioned in 1987 there were only 10,000 or so fin whales, but new estimates for 2001 show that the population expanded by 2.6 times to 25,800. Iceland is saying “hey, we’ve protected the whales for long enough, now we can hunt them again, and so long as we do so sustainably then there is no conservation issue with doing so”.
Do you really seriously equate the life of a fin whale with the life of one of your friends? I can only guess that you have never actually lost the life of a friend. I just can’t understand how you could place the same value on the life of an animal as you could on the life of one of your own buddies. I guess we all have our own individual value systems.
Lastly, a few questions:
Have you written to the US government to ask them to stop killing Bowheads and Gray whales for food?
Have you written to the St. Vincent and Grenadines government to ask them to stop killing Humpbacks for food?
Have you written to the Solomon Islands to ask them to stop catching dolphins for food?
Have you written to Australia to ask them to stop killing dudongs for food?
Have you written to the Marshall Islands to ask them to stop killing turtles for food?
Have you written to St. Lucia to ask them to stop killing pilot whales?
Have you written to Russia to ask them to stop killing gray whales?
Have you written to Korea to ask them to stop letting so many whales die in fishing nets?
If so, did any of them respond?
October 28th, 2006 at 3:20 am
Wow now thats an answer dave.
Got to confess not yet but working on it.
I am probably just as guilty as everyone else by not doing enough in the past, so Ive just pledged a wedge to greenpeace, and joined sea shepherd hopefully as a active member.(fascinating website) the guys a legend.
If you want to look at the letter from Iceland, take a look at seashepherd.org he’s has the same one which we all got with Captain Paul Watson’s answers.
Yes it may be an obsession but these animals have something we dont understand…………………..
Get a famous peson to walk in to a group of 1000……………..800 will go wow their famous…………………………………a 100 will go, so what ………. a 100 will say i dont like them.
Stick a 1000 people on a boat get a large fin whale to role beside the boat and I bet every single person would be smiling. They bring happiness Ive seen it time and time again
Yes they do mean that much to me…………………….I suffer from winter lows, the thing that keeps me going, is the thought of Summer coming and being out there with the whales, its my hobby, its my passion and the thought of someone killing them makes me physically sick………..
Thats why Ive gotta try
Dave (john if it makes matters less confusing)
October 28th, 2006 at 3:32 am
This is the email that Iceland sends out.
Captain Watson’s replies in brackets, its great reading, take time to read it properly………………………………………………..!
Thank-you for your correspondence concerning Iceland’s policy on whaling.
I wish to assure you that Iceland has no intention of catching any of the endangered species of whales, killed on a large scale by other whaling nations in the past. Iceland’s resumption of sustainable whaling only involves abundant stocks and is linked to Iceland’s overall policy of sustainable utilization of marine resources.
[Captain Watson: This is of course a blatant untruth because Iceland has targeted fin whales and fin whales are regarded as an endangered species by both CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) and the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). The Scientific Committee of the IWC disagrees with Iceland that there are abundant populations of fin whales.]
Several countries catch whales, most of them on a much bigger scale than Iceland. The biggest whaling countries among the members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) are the United States, Russia, Norway, Japan and Greenland. The whaling operations practiced by all those countries, as well as Iceland, are sustainable and legal and in accordance with the rules of the IWC.
[Norwegian whaling is a blatant violation of IWC regulations. Both Iceland and Norway are in violation of the global moratorium on commercial whaling. Japanese whaling attempts to hide behind the guise of “scientific research whaling� but they are fooling no one. Japanese whaling is illegal, and because they are hunting fins and humpbacks they are violating CITES regulations, also. Whaling in Greenland and the United States is conducted only by aboriginal peoples in accordance with IWC regulations.]
Iceland fully appreciates the need for careful conservation of marine resources. Our economy depends on those resources as marine products constitute around 60% of Iceland’s revenue from exported goods and almost 40% of all Icelandic exported goods and services. Disruption of the ecological balance in Icelandic waters due to overfishing or other reasons could have catastrophic consequences for the livelihood of Icelanders.
[Iceland has already overfished their waters and Iceland is one of the leading causes of fish population diminishment in the North Atlantic. Iceland has not practiced careful fish management and has instead allowed Icelandic companies to over-exploit marine species.]
As you may know, Iceland was among the first countries in the world to extend its fishery limits to 200 nautical miles in the year 1975, in order to put an end to the uncontrolled fishing around Iceland by trawlers from other countries. Since then Iceland has taken great care in maintaining balanced and sustainable fishing in Icelandic waters by enforcing an effective management system for various fish species including cod, herring and capelin.
[Yes, Iceland did extend their territorial limits to force foreign fishing operations out of the area within 200 miles of their coastline. This simply meant that instead of British and Spanish ships over-exploiting the fish,100% of the diminishment that has occurred since 1975 is entirely the responsibility of Iceland.]
Iceland takes pride in its pioneering work in this field, which has been emulated by many countries in the world wishing to avoid unsustainable practices. The annual catch quotas for fishing and whaling are based on recommendations by scientists, who regularly monitor the status of the stocks, thus ensuring that the activity is sustainable.
[All scientists employed by industry and government with a vested interest in telling industry and government what they want to hear.]
For a number of years, Iceland has acknowledged the need for scientific research on whales to gain a better understanding of the interaction between the different whale stocks and other marine species and the role of whales in the marine ecosystem. Therefore, Iceland began implementing a research plan on Minke whales in 2003. So far, 161 Minke whales have been taken and we look forward to the completion of the research plan in 2007 when the sample size of 200 Minke whales has been obtained. Whaling quotas will take into account the number of whales that are taken in the implementation of the research plan, ensuring that the total number remains well below sustainable levels.
[All whales taken by Iceland since 2003 have been killed illegally. Their so-called “scientific� whaling was as unlawful as Japanese “scientific whaling.� Implementing commercial whaling activities is a violation of the IWC implemented global moratorium on commercial whaling which has not been rescinded.]
There are many different whale species and stocks in the world’s oceans. Some are in a poor state and in need of protection. However, many whale populations are far from being threatened or endangered. The total stock size of Central North-Atlantic Minke whales, for example, is close to 70,000 animals. Of those, around 43,600 live in Icelandic coastal waters. Fin whales in the Central North Atlantic number around 25,800 animals. Both estimates have been agreed by consensus by the Scientific Committees of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and the North-Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO).
[The Norwegians have been insisting there are 700,000 piked (Minke) whales in the North Atlantic. At least the Icelanders don’t exaggerate as much but they do exaggerate. There is no consensus on how many piked whales are in the North Atlantic. But even if there were 70,000 whales in the North Atlantic, that is the equivalent of a small European town. What incredibly audacity that a species with 6.5 billion refers to a species numbering 70,000 as overly abundant.]
Iceland’s decision to resume sustainable whaling involves takes of 30 Minke whales and nine fin whales, during the current fishing year which ends on 31 August 2007. This will bring the total catches of Minke whales in Icelandic waters during this fishing year to 69, including the Minke whales taken in completing the research plan. These takes equal less than 0.2% of the number of Minke whales in Icelandic coastal waters, an even smaller fraction of the total stock, and less than 0.04% of fin whales in the Central North Atlantic. Both are considered to be close to pre-exploitation levels and estimated sustainable annual catch levels are 200 and 400 fin and Minke whales respectively. As the catch limits now issued are much lower, the catches will not have a significant impact on whale stocks. A responsible management system will ensure that the catch quotas set will not be exceeded. The catches are clearly sustainable and therefore consistent with the principle of sustainable development.
[To suggest that the current population of piked and fin whales are close to pre-exploitation levels is absurd and has little scientific credibility. Sustainable development has become the catch phrase of every resource extraction industry. They are simply words that mean very little.]
Iceland’s resumption of sustainable whaling is legal under international law. At the time of the re-entry of Iceland into the IWC, Iceland made a reservation with respect to the so-called moratorium on commercial whaling. As a part of that reservation, Iceland committed itself not to authorize commercial whaling before 2006 and thereafter not to authorize such whaling while progress was being made in negotiating the IWC’s Revised Management Scheme (RMS), a management framework for commercial whaling.
[Iceland can spin it anyway they wish but the bottom line is that in the eyes of the IWC and the International public, Icelandic whaling is illegal.]
At the IWC’s Annual Meeting in 2005, Iceland went on record expressing its regret that no progress was being made in the RMS discussions. At this year’s IWC Annual Meeting, Iceland’s judgment of the situation was reconfirmed as the IWC generally agreed that talks on an RMS had reached an impasse. As a result, Iceland’s reservation has taken effect. Therefore, Iceland is no longer bound by the so-called moratorium on commercial whaling. In this respect, Iceland is in the same position as other IWC members that are not bound by the moratorium.
[The reason no progress has been made on the Revised Management Scheme is that is simply a scheme to resurrect commercial whaling. Because Iceland, Norway, and Japan have not been getting what they want, they claim no progress has been made. Iceland remains bound to the global moratorium on whaling. You can’t avoid the law by simply stating that you do not recognize the law. If that was so the world’s prisons would be empty.]
Iceland was one of the first countries in the world to realize the importance of a conservation approach to whaling. As signs of overexploitation of whales emerged early in the last century, Iceland declared a ban on whaling for large whales around Iceland in 1915. Whaling was not resumed until 1948, except for limited catches 1935-1939. Strict rules and limitations were applied to whaling in Iceland from 1948 to 1985 when all commercial whaling was halted again following a decision by the IWC.
[Iceland was forced to stop whaling in 1939 because of the war, not because they were concerned for conservation. Icelandic whaling has never been managed responsibly. What Iceland is not getting, however, is that the killing of whales has no place in the 21st Century. It is a barbaric practice and is grossly inhumane.]
Iceland has been a leading advocate for international cooperation in ensuring sustainable use of living marine resources, including whales. This has been the position taken by Iceland within the IWC, based on the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling from 1946. The stated role of the IWC, according to its founding Convention, is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.
[In other words, Iceland has been a leading advocate in ensuring continued economic exploitation of marine species. The objectives of the IWC have changed since 1946 and the Committee is now composed of a majority of members who have voted to ban whaling and have chosen to protect and conserve whales and not to kill them.]
I hope that this information will be useful to you in understanding Iceland’s position on sustainable whaling. You may rest assured, that the desire to ensure the conservation of the whale stocks around Iceland and elsewhere is fully shared by the Icelandic Government.
[We are not assured and we intend to oppose illegal whaling by Iceland by all legal means.]
October 28th, 2006 at 4:04 am
OKey, so you like Paul Watson. Paul Watson is nothing but a terrorist. IWC has even condemned him for his actions. His life threatening atrocaties should not belong in a discussion like this. He boosted of sinking the whaling boats in the harbor of Reykjavik, Iceland, and sabotageing the whaling station, for over 2 years, but when he was brought to questioning by the Icelandic police he denied doing as he faced long jail sentence. From that time he will not be allowed to come into the country again. He has been banned form any IWC activity and there have been numerous account of him both shooting and raming vessels conducting totally lawful behaviour.
His reply to the letter of the icelandic government includes numerous lies and nice little twists of the facts.
>The Scientific Committee of the IWC disagrees with Iceland that there are abundant populations of fin whales.
Wrong! - http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
>Both Iceland and Norway are in violation of the global moratorium on commercial whaling.
Wrong! - http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
>Iceland has already overfished their waters and Iceland is one of the leading causes of fish population diminishment in the North Atlantic.
Probably one of the most blatant lies. Greenpeace has appraised the efforts of the icelandic government in their fishery management. Which one is then lieing Mr. Watson or Greenpeace?
>[All scientists employed by industry and government with a vested interest in telling industry and government what they want to hear.]
IWC scientist don’t probably want to be called icelandic….
>To suggest that the current population of piked and fin whales are close to pre-exploitation levels is absurd and has little scientific credibility.
Again wrong - http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
>[Iceland can spin it anyway they wish but the bottom line is that in the eyes of the IWC and the International public, Icelandic whaling is illegal.]
Why didn’t he read the IWC page before he posted these lies? I don’t understand how he can just post something like this without even.. uh thinking!
>The objectives of the IWC have changed since 1946 and the Committee is now composed of a majority of members who have voted to ban whaling and have chosen to protect and conserve whales and not to kill them.
And once again - wrong. He should read the objectives and resolutions from the last meeting. Here is one small part of it:
UNDERSTANDING that the purpose of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) is to ‘provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry’ (quoted from the Preamble to the Convention) and that the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is therefore about managing whaling to ensure whale stocks are not over-harvested rather than protecting all whales irrespective of their abundance;
Paul Watson is just a propaganda machine and a spin doctor that thinks that he can say everything, doesn’t matter if it’s the truth or not. And no, i’m not connected to the icelandic government nor the whaling industry. I’m just a measily little university student in Gothenburg, Sweden that thinks that the world is not thinking logicaly when it comes to whaling.
October 28th, 2006 at 4:06 am
How nice coincidence… i didn’t even know that you were going to post the letter before I wrote my objections.
Btw, always nice to read what you have to say david@tokyo.
October 28th, 2006 at 4:48 am
Paul Watson really said: “The Scientific Committee of the IWC disagrees with Iceland that there are abundant populations of fin whales.”
????
What was he smoking?
The information on the IWC Secretariat’s homepage clearly states that the IWC Scientific Committee has agreed on an abudance estimate for the stock in question, and Iceland has been using this same figure to support it’s argument.
Maybe someone should tell him, because it could be very embarassing for him to get caught out telling such obvious lies like that. Who would support someone who tells such obvious lies?
SirPink,
You too, my friend! You might enjoy reading some of the whaling posts over here:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/
I’ve been illustrating the huge jump in whale meat consumption in Japan over the past year with figures on stockpile movements (maybe you saw them already on my blog)
October 28th, 2006 at 4:52 am
SirPink I think your a liar…………….!
You talk just like the goverments and fisheries.
Your probably even paid to try and justify the slaughtering of innocent ENDANGERED animals.
In fact you know to much………. even about Paul watson
And as for for Paul Watson…….the mans a god, read more at
seahepherd.org
He believes in something so strongly that he’ll put his own life on the line.
And as for nothing understanding, what all the fuss about in slaughtering innocent endangered animals
Well…………………
Take youself on a whale trip, take a good long look into one of these endangered animals eyes, then think do I have the right to kill it.
As I say there is something there we dont understand but it brings a smile to our face……
I hopefully you’ll be meeting captain Paul Watson next year.
October 28th, 2006 at 4:53 am
Yes, I too can confirm that the IWC in the past condemned Paul Watson’s acts of terrorism.
I mean, seriously. You want to think very very carefully about supporting someone who using violence, even if you agree with the cause. It is never justified. If you think otherwise, just remember the London trainbombings and 9/11.
Terrorism is never, never justified. Particularly note when we are talking about animal slaughter, which is something that Australians, Kiwis, Americans, and of course those in Britain practice every day.
Just think - if you were on the receiving end of a terrorist attack by Hindi extremists wanting to “save the cows”, how would you feel?
Violence is not the solution. If your arguments are truely the correct ones, they should be strong enough to win people over without the attraction of violence.
October 28th, 2006 at 4:58 am
Daveuk,
Take a look at what you are saying. You are just shooting the messenger. SirPink is but reporting the facts of the matter, refering to the IWC Secretariat’s information. The IWC Secretariat is based on England, and is undoubtedly unbiased.
> He believes in something so strongly that he’ll put his own life on the line.
I’ll believe that when I see him take a harpoon in his bloated belly. Until then I regard him as a lying terrorist coward desperately seeking attention.
> what all the fuss about in slaughtering innocent endangered animals
Iceland is not killing animals that are in any danger of extinction.
> Take youself on a whale trip
I hope to go on one as early as this time next month!
> take a good long look into one of these endangered animals eyes,
They don’t have many endangered whales here off the coast of Japan, only abundant ones. I’m hoping to see some Bryde’s whales. Japan has plans to hunt them commercially in the near future too, if the IWC permits it.
See? We can share the whales. I’ll go watching some. Then I’ll possibly eat some sometime. The two activities are complementary.
> As I say there is something there we dont understand
Mmmm, I guess I’ll have to wait to experience that eh.
October 28th, 2006 at 5:14 am
Now this is getting silly……………………………….!
Paul Watson is not a terrosrist, and you start talking about bombings….are you on drugs……!
I am not for any bombings but yes I support sea shepherd
Anybody into hunting whales will say this, just to put people off him and the great work he does.
Ive learnt something from this blog…..and that is people will say anything to Justify whaling…..
These amazing creatures:
Fin Whale ENDANGERED. Humpback ENDANGERED
Japan are after both of these, Iceland the fin whale……
Intelligent animals…………………………………….needless deaths
I would love to speak to you after youve seen them, to see if your opinion changes
October 28th, 2006 at 5:24 am
Daveuk,
“Expelled From the IWC
After the sinking of the Icelandic whaling vessels in 1986, Sea Shepherd lost its status as an observer at the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
In February of 1994, IWC Secretary Ray Gambell reiterated – after Sea Shepherd claimed it was merely enforcing IWC rules – that “the IWC and all its members ardently condemn Sea Shepherd’s acts of terrorism.�
http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/pr2001/ocean_warriors_confront_lucian_fisher men.htm
Why don’t you support a slightly more reputable group such as WWF?
Fin whales are not in any danger of extinction.
Humpback whales are not in any danger of extinction (around Australia they will be back to pre-exploitation levels of abundance within the next 10-15 years). It’s amazing what happens when the Australians aren’t slaughtering them willy nilly.
I’ll definitely put it on my blog if I do get to go whale watching next month (24th of Oct - a friday in Shikoku), so by all means visit.
October 28th, 2006 at 5:41 am
Im getting bored of this
Go to Endangered Species Act.
FIN WHALE ENDANGERED
HUMPBACK ENDANGERED
Oh sorry your into whaling you dont you recognise the endangered species act……………..!!
IWC whaling commission of course there not going to like Paul
whaling commission
anti whaling
do you expect these to be buddies
October 28th, 2006 at 5:49 am
The Fin Whale was regarded as “Endangered” globally as of 1996, but as the IWC page points out, in individual regions the species could be rated differently to the species as seen from a global perspective.
Iceland has looked after it’s Fin whales, so it’s a bit ridiculous to suggest that they shouldn’t be able to hunt a small number just because the whalers who hunted around Antarctic went overboard, so to speak.
And, the Humpback is actually not “Endangered” according to the IUCN, it’s only rated “Vulnerable”, and as I say, it’s in fantastic shape pretty much everywhere - the North Atlantic, North Pacific, around Australia’s west and east coasts - just some south pacific stocks that are really struggling to recover properly, and no one is planning to hunt those.
As for the IWC, as noted, Paul Watson claimed he was enforcing the IWC’s rules. The IWC rejected him and called him a terrorist. Make of it what you will. By the way, the IWC has been anti-whaling ever since the late 1970’s when Greenpeace bought the votes of lots of small countries to push the moratorium through.
October 28th, 2006 at 6:14 am
sir pink says..
“..Which one is then lieing Mr. Watson or Greenpeace?..”
(ahem)…now that question is opening a whole new can of worms..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 28th, 2006 at 6:22 am
well they are both still on the endangered species act.
and the iwc is at the end of the day a whaling commission.
who are you………………..?
the facts, the figures, the knowing and veing able to twist.
if you have a hobby you get to know alot about it, and what you said about paul Watson, the average Jo bloggs wouldnt know that
but you wouldnt have a hobby for whaling.
fisheries minister, IWC………?
David@tokyo and Sirpink involved in the slaughter (invested interest)
You lot are obviously getting worried if you are either sent or come on blogs trying to convince people there’s nothing wrong with it.
I would not take numbers from a whaling commission i would rather take them from the world endangered species act…!
Iceland looking after there whales, what hae they done gone out and fattened them up, the whales would be there regardless, same as they are in the Biscay
Whaling is barbaric and it will be stopped one day,
October 28th, 2006 at 6:53 am
You want to kill and eat Humpbacks? You and your family might be a little gamey, but with the right sauce?
Of course if the meat isn’t really that good we always could feed it to dogs.
This is not merely about scientifically measuring sustainable catches and farming the sea. This is about an emotional attachment as well and while I do not understand it, it is a real thing. Killing whales and dolphins is widely perceived as immoral by those of us who’ve heard and interacted with them.
I suspect that this is what you wish to draw out, that our objections are not entirely scientific. Perhaps you should re-examine your basis of operations then, because from a scientific standpoint there’s lots of people who are handicapped enough that the whales are smarter, but we don’t cull them and eat them or feed them to our dogs. Maybe we should? Shades of “Soylent Green”
As much as I follow science and engineering, I am yet a human, and I deny that at my peril.
BJ
October 28th, 2006 at 8:58 am
>(ahem)…now that question is opening a whole new can of worms..eh..?
Please, phil, lets open it!
It’s really basic, sea sheperd, condemned by IWC and other nations, says one thing and Greenpeace says another thing. Which one should we believe? And if Sea Shepherd is lieing there why wouldn’t they lie about everything else (like they nearly did)?
>David@tokyo and Sirpink involved in the slaughter (invested interest)
I wish i would get paied for the time that I’ve used in replying to people in different blogs and chats around the world!
I see this as a chance to try to show people the facts, the truth behind whaling. As I said before, I’m just a university student in Sweden that can’t understand how people can turn a blind eye to what I see as the facts. I’ll just use the example of the holy cows of India again. What would you say if all Hindu nations of the world would bind together and form an alliance of nations that would oppose the unholy treatment of cows? Wouldn’t you think it would be unlogical and just ridiculous that they could affect the nations of the world to stop “farming” cows.
bjchip, I know that this is reason why people are so strongly against whaling. And in these times of cultural differences that we are experiencing now, I can’t see why cultural values of few nations should be thrust upon other nations, without them wanting it. When we come down to it, it’s all about culture. In Australia, NZ and UK they have managed to build a strong whale culture, a culture that believes that whales should not be touched. In other coutries, like Norway, Japan, Russia, China and Iceland they have the strong culture of useing the reserves that the nature provides them to their benefit.
The cultures of the countries can’t and should never be aligned in the same direction. In reality the only way to solve these difference is to compromise, the whaling nations to accepts quotas set by IWC and the anti-whaling nations to lift the moratorium. Even the official of the US in the IWC has stated that the moratorium should be lifted! The godlike worshiping of the whales isn’t logical at all, they are just like any other species of animals.
And yes, I’ve seen whales numerous times, and I love to watch them. I have also seen sheps, llamas and oustriches, but I still love to eat them.
October 28th, 2006 at 9:46 am
Sirpink you dont listen to the facts your obviously paid to convince people that iceland and Japan arnt doing anything wrong.
You and david tokyo pretend to be this average guy who dosent care either way.
You quote the IWC like its a bible, you class paul watson as a terrorist (only whalers or people connected with whaling call him a terrorist )
You deny the facts that the fin whale and the humpback is endangered although they are both on the Endangered species act.
You say most whales die quickly which is a lie.
Every message youve quoted according to the IWC
you turn and twist the truth to suit whaling aspect.
Who the hell are you………………..?
As far as I am concerned you are a slaughterer……..one of many that will be brought to justice…………..! of the same breed of those that put the second largest animal, an extremely intelligent animal through unnecessary pain and eventual death.
Iceland have broken an international law by hunting endangered animals, and they will be brought to justice……1
and dont even think about quoting me again………!
October 28th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Great comments Daveuk. you hit the nail on the head. These goons are being paid or have some other motivation to spread half-truths on the basis that if you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe it. Paul Watson SSCS acts in accordance with the UN charter for nature-the law of the sea and a shit load of MEA’s that whaling nations are in violation of that no govt. has the intestinal fortutude [balls] to take action on. His organisation has for many years protected our oceans from the rape & pillage of environmental vandals-especially Japan, who are destryoing ecosystems in ‘everyones backyards. They are beneath/beyond contempt.
Dave http://www.stopwhaling.co.nz
October 28th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Paul Watson states that the IWC disagrees with Iceland’s abundance estimate. Sir Pink states that Watson is wrong , and cites a position statement of the IWC on the website
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
This website confirms that the fin whale is endangered, though the IWC are scientists, not activists and are careful not to extrapolate beyond the evidence.
“The fin whale species as a whole was classified as ‘Endangered’ under the IUCN system in 1996 using their 1994 criteria. The classification of Endangered can be made on the basis that the species fulfils at least one of five major and wide ranging criteria. Its definition is:
‘A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as defined by any of the criteria ….’
It was noted2 that the current status of fin whales ‘is poorly known in most areas outside the North Atlantic’. The global categorisation of ‘Endangered’ was made on the basis of one of the criteria, namely ‘an estimated decline of at least 50% worldwide over the last three generations (assumed generation time 20-25 years)…..the greatest decline was in the Southern Hemisphere, which had the largest original population’. It should be noted that there will be a major review of the IUCN Cetacean Red List in January 2007, although this will again be at the global level.”
They nowhere say that the fin whale is “abundant” though they do use the same figures of 43,000 cited by Iceland.
It is SirPink who is wrong, and I would recommend he/she actually reads references before citing them.
Watson also states that Iceland and Norway are in contravention of the moratorium. Sir Pink again disputes this.
The IWC website states that the moratorium is still in force until a revised management scheme has been put in place.
“The Commission, while adopting the RMP, agreed not to lift the commercial whaling moratorium until an RMS is in place to ensure that agreed catch limits are not exceeded1. The Commission has been working on such a regime for many years but has not yet reached agreement. At the Commission’s 58th Annual Meeting in St. Kitts and Nevis in June 2006, the Commission confirmed its view that discussions on the RMS remain at an impasse and no further collective work was scheduled. It was understood, however, that this does not prevent individual governments or groups of governments working together on the RMS if they so choose.”
Again SirPink is in