Whaling meeting 'ignores needs of whales' (IWC Censures Sea Shepherd)

bbc ^ | 14 July 2011 | Richard Black

[tlb]

The International Whaling Commission's (IWC) annual meeting has closed after a tense final day when relations between opposing blocs came close to collapse.

Latin American nations attempted to force a vote on a proposal to create a whale sanctuary in the South Atlantic.

Pro-whaling countries walked out, but eventually it was decided to shelve any vote until next year's meeting.

Earlier in the meeting, governments agreed new regulations designed to prevent "cash for votes" scandals that have plagued the IWC in the past, and passed a resolution censuring the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society for putting safety at risk during its annual missions to counter Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean.

But the sanctuary issue threatened to derail the entire session.

"We didn't come here to win the sanctuary on the vote, but we wanted to put it to a vote - we believe our conservation agenda cannot be put forward, be stressed, be highlighted, be defended in some issues without a vote," said Brazil's commissioner Marcus Henrique Paranagua.

The pro-whaling bloc said this could herald a return to the fractious days of the past, and walked out in an attempt to bring the meeting below the quorum needed for votes to count.

The compromise eventually hammered out, after private discussions lasting nearly nine hours, asks countries to strive to reach consensus during the coming year.

"Acrimony is often the enemy of conservation - in this case, it meant that a critical meeting on whales failed to address the greatest threats they face," said Wendy Elliott, head of environment group WWF's delegation.

[MarMema]

Ok. Thanks. :-)

[laotzu]

I disagree with you on this topic; but as promised, you really have smoked them out.

[SevenofNine]

Ping a Roo Pan

[RedMonqey]

But there is NO valid reason for hunting whales at present. These whalers are a pointless brutal anachronism.

I read your statement with some interest. Certainly there is "no valid reason" for alot of what humans do. Nowadays people eat what they eat because it gives them pleasure

Today there is no reason why humans eat meat of any kind. Or certain plants for that matter. If it's a matter of nutrition, a mixture of daily requirements is served to patients by nasal gastric tubes who other couldn't eat regular food. This nutritious gruel, however unpleasant, nullifies the "need" for restaurants, home kitchens and cooking in general. Freeing up wasted time cooking, fossil fuels and saving thousands if not millions of acres that could be rendered back to wilderness.br />
If you looked hard enough I imagine one could get the government to ban a whole list of items that are "pointless","brutal", or "anachronistic" But would you want to live like that? Would you want to be FORCED to live like that?

But if you insist forcing your values upon someone else's, then why should they be able to force their ways upon you?

And because there's always someone who would be offended by your dietary habits and ways of preparation and why consider it wasteful or "barbaric"(eating pork, cows shellfish, wildlife, eggs, cow milk,palm oil, processed foods, fatty foods, salty foods fried foods, etc, etc.) we all will be according to governmental degrees, mandated to eat the less objectionable food and it most likely will be a tasteless but inoffensive gruel.

Or maybe it's best to let the people to decide what they prefer to eat as long as it doesn't drive an species into extinction. I know I don't want some government hack or UN bureaucrat knocking on my door and take my fried chicken away from my table.... BTW: Whale were not hunted to near ectinxtion because people ate them, they were hunted to render them into lamp oil. And until we run out of electricity by coal, natural gas etc, the whales will be safe...

[Lurker]

Very well said.

[Carry_Okie]

I do native plant habitat restoration. I can tell you for a fact that biodiversity and productivity cannot be optimized without harvesting. Every plant and animal produces more of its kind than the system can support without consumption, whether it be grazing, browsing, or predation. The same is true for the maintenance of the foundations of the marine food pyramid.

I lived on the water in an estuary for nine years. The flow of food into the water may not make it clean, but it sure as heck supports more life. People are capable of managing even that system on a spot by spot basis as a service to maintain those productive spawning and rearing systems, complete with metrology, telemetry, information systems, validation, and risk management architectures.

THAT is a 21st Century idea. "Preservation" per se, has become a demonstrably backward and destructive model.

[RedMonqey]

Thank you, Lurker

[RedMonqey]

I do native plant habitat restoration. I can tell you for a fact that biodiversity and productivity cannot be optimized without harvesting.

I understand completely. I live on our family farm and every twenty years or so we harvest the woodland part of our property. Not clear cutting, we take out the largest trees before they die and rot. It opens up the floor and allows new growth to sprout, some plants are crowded out because the sunlight is blocked by the more mature trees of a single species. Cutting allows for diversity. It good for the deer and other animals and allows younger trees to grow and helps prevents fires from accelerating. It also helps with the farm budget.

[Carry_Okie]

Your activities also produce a more productive soil, particularly if the amount of light and disturbance permits the periodic introduction and maintenance of perennial grasses and forbs. Without periodic disturbance, those forb seeds can lose viability and therewith locally adapted alleles are then lost, a big problem in our area.

Alienation of people from wildlife and land management in order to "protect Nature" has to be one of the most destructive urban myths in history. It is an idea destined to imprison the people from lands no longer capable of supporting them, and at the mercy of a corporate fascist umbilical system that threatens their existence, never mind their freedom. Worse, it deprives the land of the people who know how to care for it.

Believe it or not, but my recent translation work in Genesis 4 indicates that this is precisely the original teaching of the Cain and Abel parable. Instead of a murder story, Abel as a people is "killed" one at a time, more likely by assimilation than by violence. The result is that the land around Cain's farm goes bad, and takes Cain soil down with it. Once that soil loses viability, Cain as agro-urban Settler (which is what his name means) can no longer stay, a fugitive and a wanderer he shall be. Compared to the nomad, it is the farmer who is ephemeral. It's taken me over a year to untangle it, but the findings have been fascinating, and might even have been prompted by the beginnings of desertification of the Near East some 6-8,000 years ago.

[RedMonqey]

Your activities also produce a more productive soil, particularly if the amount of light and disturbance permits the periodic introduction and maintenance of perennial grasses and forbs

I don't know the technical aspects of this or why I just know this is the way we have been managing our land and woods for over 170 years and it works well.

As for the Genesis interpretation I think it is plausible. Although I'm no theologian, your unique translation could have merit. The Bible is full of allegories that teach important lessons and morals and the Cain and Abel certainly is open to interpretation

[ZULU]

Do you regularly scan dated posts for commenting?

I don't think hunting whales is quite in the same category as hunting deer, bear, etc.

Your point about whale oil being a justification for killing them in the past is really a good example of why there is no reason to kill them now.

No one, to my knowledge, eats whale meat except some Arctic tribes, and, of the course, the Japanese, who have a penchant for consuming ANY kind of biological product because of alleged health benefits, or merely because they want to.

Its my understanding that lot of the whales harvested wind up in dog food - hardly a justification for killing them.

In my opinion, the MAIN reason these people want to hunt whales is because they always HAVE and want to generate revenue to keep their ships and crews employed in this business.

Let them fish for orange roughy.

In short, since we no longer need whale oil, and since whales are still in short supply, and since they are such magnificent,. intelligent creatures, its my OPINION that whale fishing should continue to be banned.

If their numbers increase to the point where they pose some kind of problem for marine traffic - highly unlikely, this subject can be revisited in the future.

I resent people trying to pigeon hole me as some kind of Greenpiece nut or anti-hunting fanatic as I am not. I have no problem with hunting. But as an intelligent individual, I think each case should be reviewed on its own merits, as stewards of the world, human beings need to exercise some discretion in situations like this.

[RedMonqey]

My post was mainly to state that personal or cultural preferences shouldn't be codified into a universal law. Or any law at all for that matter. Not to put you in the "Peta camp". I have an a "to each their own" philosophy. It doesn't concern me what others eat as long as the species isn't in danger of extinction. Many people right here in the US don't want deer hunted even though their populations now outnumber the pre-Columbian herds.

The Japanese hunt primarily minke whales which are far from endangered. Whales that are very low in numbers, such as the Blue whale and Grey whales are not hunted.



The relative intelligence of an animal has little to do with it's viewpoint as a source of food. Whales intelligence isn't any greater than a pig's. And a horse's is much less than a cow's yet most would be horrified(well maybe not the French) at eating horse flesh. I have expericence with these animals this because I was raised (and still live) on a farm and know through experience and by reading science articles about the size and intelligent of animals compared to their brain size.

It also has alot more to do with cultural conditioning. Animals that are perceived as "cute" or beautiful or graceful like dolphins are less likely to end up on the plate than less adorable creatures, like tuna fish or crabs.

Before the anthropomorphism or"Disneyfication" of cute animals, few ever thought of giving whales and animals in general, human like traits or rights.

As for "dated posts" I didn't see any 'expiration" date on posts ....

[ZULU]

RedMonqey, have a Great Weekend ! - and I am ALSO horrified at eating horses - but then - I’m not French, just American (Thank God!)