OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

I thought you were concerned about the impossibility of killing whales humanely Olga

In the first place the existing agreement among the signatory nations to the whaling conventions (Your country is one) was itself a compromise among the competing interests of the various parties.

This is not a position that itself appears to permit much compromise.

“This is a proposal for the long-term conservation of whaling, not whales,” said Patrick Ramage, IFAW’s Whale Program Director. “In return for insignificant, short-term concessions from Japan, Iceland and Norway, the IWC would legalize commercial whaling in the 21st century.”....

.....“This deal would be a sea change in a quarter century of whale conservation. It puts science on hold, the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary on ice, and no restrictions whatsoever on the international trade in whale meat. And after ten years, all bets are off -- no more moratorium and much more whaling,” said Ramage.

You and other conservationists in Australia appear to have sufficiently aroused your government to at least rhetorically challenge the Japanese. I'm not aware that any of the other national parties to the conventions in question have expressed support of PM Rudd's demands. That leaves your government with a dilemma. It must either frustrate some of its aroused constituents, or risk the consequences of damaged relations with an important trade partner and political ally.

For you personally, it leaves you with the chore of coming to terms with whatever it is that your government eventually accepts in this matter. If you and Australia are unable to accept any compromise there are two available alternatives; prolonged impotent rage or war. In these circumstances I cant really offer you any suggestions: you must decide.

And "impotent rage or war" are certainly not the only alternatives should the IWC vote to legitimize whaling again. ......I'd probably become much more active than I have been with the organizations which support the beliefs I hold. I suspect this might be the reaction of many conservation-motivated people, & not just Australians, if/when there's a return to commercial whaling.

I really don't know the history of the U.S. government positions on this issue.

It may be the the recent actions of the U.S. government with respect to the whaling issue have something to do with the wish to avoid added stresses on a new Japanese government now in the midst of redefining its strategic relationships and sorely pressed by various domestic crises.

Only zealots see the world and its issues in stark black and white terms: and zealots usually do a lot of harm.

The IWC also (currently) provides special protection to a critical whale feeding area, the Southern Ocean surrounding the continent of Antarctica, which the IWC established as a 50 million square kilometre whale sanctuary in 1994. This extra layer of protection signifies the importance of this area as the primary feeding habitat of many of the Southern Hemisphere's whale populations.

Additionally, the proposal sets a process in motion that could endorse quotas which haven't yet had a full and proper scientific review. "It is difficult to see how determining quotas through politics rather than science can be considered progress," added Elliott.

But you see, George, that has nothing to do with IWC issues & (in my opinion) shouldn't even enter into, say nothing of influence, IWC decisions about whaling. Say nothing of allowing whaling to proceed in a designated whale sanctuary. Conservation issues appear to have been side-lined for purely pragmatic political reasons which have nothing to do with IWC concerns. You might understand that conservationists might not consider these reasonable motives for such serious changes?

I'm no fan of the current U.S. administration. It's OK by me if you don't like it.

But the IWC is merely the creature of the governments that created it.

Only zealots see the world and its issues in stark black and white terms: and zealots usually do a lot of harm.

Australia proposes end to whaling
Updated Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:38am AEDT



A dead minke whale sits next to the Japanese whaling vessel Yushin Maru
(Australian Customs Service, file photo)

The Federal Government says it wants whaling in the Southern Ocean to be phased out over the next five years and for all whaling to be brought under the control of the International Whaling Commission (IWC).

An Australian proposal which has been submitted to the IWC also calls for other whaling programs to be phased out over a reasonable period of time.

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett says a proposal released by the IWC's working group earlier this week falls well short of any outcome the Australian Government could accept.

Conservation groups have welcomed the Government's proposal, which demands closure of the loophole that allows Japan to conduct so-called scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean.

The proposal also calls for an end to whaling in sanctuaries.

Mick McIntyre from Whales Alive says Australia's proposal is a good step, but it must be emphatic in its demand to stop - not just phase out - the inhumane practice.

"It's great to see that the Australian Government has rejected the original proposal from the IWC, which would have effectively lifted the moratorium on commercial whaling," he said.

"And although short in detail, it's heading much more in the right direction for stopping whaling."... <cont>

However this won't exactly reflect wonderfully on the US, either. But you mightn't care about that all that much, either, so long as everyone is free to do pretty much what they choose, on & to the oceans of the world, hey?

IWC draft plan sees end to commercial whaling ban
Rob Taylor
CANBERRA
Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:23am EST

Protesters hold up food products made from whale meat during a rally in support of whaling in front of the Australian embassy in Tokyo February 23, 2010. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Whaling nations including Japan could be allowed to resume limited commercial hunting for the first time in 24 years under a draft plan drawn up by a working group of the International Whaling Commission.

The draft aims to sharply reduce the number of whales culled under a loophole in the international ban which allows hunting for scientific purposes, in return for strict limits on the number of mammals killed. It did not suggest a quota limit.

Scientific whaling would also be brought under the control of the 88-member IWC in a compromise aimed at ending a split in the IWC between anti-whaling nations and pro-whaling countries Japan, Norway and Iceland.

"The commission will establish caps of takes that are within sustainable levels for a 10-year period," the draft said.

The proposal, released by International Whaling Commission support group chairman Cristian Maquieira, of Chile, hopes to prevent the collapse of the IWC over long-running differences between countries.

Other proposals drawn up over more than a year of closed-door talks include a reduction in scientific catches from current levels of around 1,000 whales each year, and limiting commercial whaling to the three nations that currently hunt them.

The draft called for improving the animal welfare aspects of whaling and close monitoring of the impact on whale populations of climate change and other environmental threats.

The draft, to be debated by a small group of countries in Florida from March 2 to 4, could overcome deep divisions over whaling because it would give anti-whaling countries some control over self-imposed quotas set by the whalers.

Commercial whaling was banned under a 1986 moratorium, but Japan aims to harpoon up to 935 minke whales and 50 fin whales, classified as endangered, in the Southern Ocean during the current Southern Hemisphere summer for research purposes. ...<cont>

....the Libyan delegate started “screaming and calling everyone liars…He said the science was no good and that it was part of a conspiracy of developed countries. It was theatre. Then he stopped screaming and called for an immediate vote”. Another witness, Sergi Tudela, a fisheries expert with the WWF, agreed. “The Libyan representative accused the FAO of serving political interests and said there was no scientific basis for the listing.......The Americans, in particular, are disappointed. A number of agencies had been working hard to prepare for the meeting, none more so than the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).”

The fall of the Soviet Empire instantly transformed the United States from defender and champion, or least obnoxious potential oppressor (take your pick) to the dangerous, unbridled elephant in the room in the eyes of former friends and foes alike.

What's with Japan - it's not just the whales, now they've sided with Libya (of all countries, presumably for their oil and gas) in an effort to block international action to save the bluefin tuna: