13
   

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 05:21 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
"As a result of this investigation, the cargo in the seven containers has been cleared as legal and duly authorised to be shipped."


The alternative was to impound them until the debate was concluded. Unthinkable I should imagine. Get them outa here.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 05:25 pm
@JTT,
JTT

The point of the article, though, was that it shouldn't have been cleared in the Netherlands.

Quote:
"It's an absurd situation," said Helmig, the Greenpeace spokeswoman. "It's illegal to import this meat into the Netherlands, but the authorities turn a blind eye when it passes through."

It is unclear what will happen with the meat now. Helmig said the containers have been moved to a part of the harbour where Greenpeace is unable to track them further.

She said police had promised the meat would not leave the port, but De Jonge said that was in the hands of customs officials


http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/activists-target-whale-meat-transfer-20100403-rkje.html
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 05:28 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
but the authorities turn a blind eye when it passes through."


Which is understandable in view of the harbour dues, lighterage, pilot's fees etc. And making space for other ships to come and go. We don't want the docks clogged up with ships while Greenpeace goes through the courts now do we?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 05:51 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
"It's an absurd situation," said Helmig, the Greenpeace spokeswoman. "It's illegal to import this meat into the Netherlands, but the authorities turn a blind eye when it passes through."


Who says it shouldn't, MsO? It wasn't being imported into the Netherlands, it was merely in transit.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 06:36 pm
@JTT,
Well, it sounds like it's illegal in the Netherlands, JTT.

(I don't know how much further I can go with this. Wink )
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 11:59 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
Well, it sounds like it's illegal in the Netherlands, JTT. (I don't know how much further I can go with this.


I don't think too much further, MsO. It's been pretty much milked out.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 02:11 am
@JTT,
I think we are in agreement on this, JTT! Smile
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 02:07 pm
@msolga,
Sad news on baby humpback briefly beached near New York city - poor animal was extremely ill; no autopsy results yet. The local inhabitants (and many visitors) kept a candlelight vigil all nights since baby humpback was spotted, TV stations reported round-the-clock, etc ....
http://www.examiner.com/x-42722-Long-Island-Classic-Movies-Examiner~y2010m4d11-Beached-humpback-whale-in-the-Hamptons-echoes-classic-New-Zealand-film
Quote:
...With the unfortunate goings on out in East Hampton this week concerning the beached humpback whale and the torturous and prolonged attempts to euthanize her, images of a fictional account of a similar event (sort of) meant to have taken place on the other side of the world, on another island all together, were brought to mind. Far away, over land and sea, off of New Zealand's North Island in the community of Whangara, is where you'll find the setting for one of the most unforgettable motion pictures of the past decade; 2002's Whale Rider. .....
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 02:59 pm
@High Seas,
In order to bring such matters into a proportionate perspective we really ought to consider Mr Charles Darwin potting birds, mammals, insects and anything else which took his fancy in order to pursue his hobby.

Possibly the great outpouring of compassion in this sad case is caused by a need for some light catharsis among the steak and chicken eaters of the USA.

I'm a vegan myself.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 03:05 pm
Fool

.. & bore.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 04:57 pm
@msolga,
A blurt. A speechless and empty blurt. Bereft of any other response.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 10:59 pm
Quote:
A speechless and empty blurt.


And you'd be in an excellent position to recognize an empty blurt when you see one. Wink
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 01:16 am
A repeat post, originally posted by Spendius not long ago. And well worth a repeat read as the IWC gears up for its Madrid meeting in June. This will be the critical meeting which decides whether the moratorium on whaling stays or goes (whatever the IWC chooses to call the decision)..... & at this point in time things are looking very grim for conservationists.

Quote:
Leading article: The moratorium on whaling must stay
Tuesday, 23 March 2010/the INDEPENDENT

In the month when the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, meeting in Doha, failed to take action to protect the bluefin tuna from extinction, it is even more depressing to learn that the International Whaling Commission is now seriously considering plans to end the moratorium on commercial whaling.

Of course the Commission plans " being hatched by committees meeting behind closed doors reading for the next meeting in Morocco in June " are not being presented as a step back in the protection of arguably the world's most majestic mammals. Perish the thought. The idea, according to its proponents, is to produce a new compromise agreement under which whaling can take place under controlled circumstances and tight quotas. In place of the old regular rows between those in favour of the ban and the three countries " Japan, Norway and Iceland " who simply ignored it, there would now be an agreement to keep everyone happy. The whalers will be allowed to go about their trade officially sanctioned, but their catches will be limited, supervised and DNA testing of whale meat will be introduced to test its origin. But there will be commercial whaling for the first time since the moratorium was introduced in 1986. The word "moratorium" will be kept but the principle will be broken and the practice allowed.

We all know the reasons. It is the same whether you are talking about selling ivory stocks, allowing the trade in rare animals or stopping the fishing of bluefin tunas. There are powerful vested interests involved, particular national industries, local economies and ethnic particularities. To understand political motivations, however, is not to accept them. The simple reality of the seas is that stocks can be rapidly depleted to a point where the breeding grounds cannot recover and whole species can be made extinct.

The moratorium on commercial whaling was the first great international agreement to cope with a threatened catastrophe in the oceans by imposing a near-total ban on commercial exploitation of this endangered mammal. Its reversal now would be a tragedy.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-the-moratorium-on-whaling-must-stay-1925432.html
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 04:30 am
@msolga,
AS I LIVE AND BREATHE. I saw this on my on-line edition of the NYT this morning while I sat in the restaurant and waited for Mrs F to check-out.



Quote:
WASHINGTON " The United States is leading an effort by a handful of antiwhaling nations to broker an agreement that would limit and ultimately end whale hunting by Japan, Norway and Iceland, according to people involved with the negotiations.

The compromise deal, which has generated intense controversy within the 88-nation International Whaling Commission and among antiwhaling activists, would allow the three whaling countries to continue hunting whales for the next 10 years, although in reduced numbers.

In exchange, the whaling nations " which have long exploited loopholes in an international treaty that aims to preserve the marine mammals " would agree to stricter monitoring of their operations, including the placing of tracking devices and international monitors on all whaling ships and participation in a whale DNA registry to track global trade in whale products.

Officials involved in the negotiations expressed tentative hope that they could reach an agreement in coming weeks. But ratification by the overall group remains uncertain.

“This is one of the toughest negotiations I’ve been involved in in 38 years,” said Cristián Maquieira, the veteran Chilean diplomat who is the chairman of the commission. “If this initiative fails now, it means going back to years of acrimony.”

Some pro-whale activists say the deal would grant international approval for the continued slaughter of thousands of minke, sei and Bryde’s whales. They also say that the agreement does not prevent Japan and the other nations from resuming unlimited whaling once the 10-year period is up.

“From our point of view, it’s a whaler’s wish list,” said Patrick R. Ramage, global whale program director at the International Fund for Animal Welfare. “It would overturn the ’86 moratorium, eviscerate the South Ocean Whale Sanctuary, subordinate science and I.W.C. precedent to reward countries that have refused to comply by allocating quotas to those three countries.”


“Rather than negotiate a treaty that brings commercial whaling to an end,” he concluded, “they have created a system under which it will continue.”

But Monica Medina, the No. 2 official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the American delegate to the whaling body, said that Mr. Ramage and other critics were demanding a complete halt to whaling, an impossible goal, at least today.

“We can’t stop it; we can only try to control it,” Ms. Medina said in an interview.

“If we can prevent thousands of whales from being hunted and killed, that’s a real conservation benefit. This proposal would not only help whales, we hope, but also introduce rigorous oversight, halt the illegal trade in whale meat and bring respect for international law back to the I.W.C.,” she added. “Are we there yet? We’re not, and we have hard negotiations to go yet.”

Despite a 1986 international moratorium on commercial whaling, the numbers of whales killed annually has been rising steadily, to nearly 1,700 last year from 300 in 1990, as the three whaling nations have either opted out of the treaty or claimed to be taking whales only for legitimate scientific study. Most of the meat from the slaughtered whales is consumed in those three countries, although there appears to be a growing international black market in whale products.

Some officials warn that if this effort at compromise fails, the commission’s efforts to police whale hunting, long crippled by irreconcilable political divisions, will collapse.

“The I.W.C. is a mess. It’s a dysfunctional international organization,” said Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a former prime minister of New Zealand and chairman of the I.W.C. group trying to negotiate a deal. “I think this is probably the last chance the I.W.C. has to cure itself.”

Representatives to the whaling commission from more than a dozen nations " including the three whaling countries and New Zealand, Australia, Chile and other nations backing the compromise proposal " are in Washington this week to negotiate terms of the agreement, which would protect as many as 5,000 whales from hunting over the next decade, officials said. They said they hoped that the reduced hunt would give whale stocks time to recover and give negotiators time to write a new treaty that would bring an effective international ban on all commercial whaling.

The group plans to release a new draft of the compromise proposal next week, but it still must win the approval of three-quarters of the members of the whaling commission at its annual meeting in Agadir, Morocco, in late June.

The Japanese, who killed 1,001 whales last year, are the linchpin of any deal. Although the Japanese taste for whale meat is steadily declining, the Japanese see their ability to continue to hunt whales, not only in their coastal waters but in the open ocean around Antarctica, as a question of sovereignty. Critics say that the practice survives only with heavy government subsidies. But a single whale can bring as much as $100,000 in Japanese fish markets. Japan is driving a hard bargain to demonstrate strength at home and perhaps to use as leverage in other international negotiations, officials involved in the talks said.

Joji Morishita, a senior official of the Japan Fisheries Agency and Tokyo’s representative to the whaling talks, said in a brief telephone interview that he was not authorized to discuss his country’s negotiating position. But he confirmed that Japan was at least willing to talk about a new whaling program that may result in a substantial reduction in its whale harvest over the next decade.

“We are fully engaged in this process,” he said.

Populations of some whale species have been growing since the moratorium ended decades of uncontrolled hunting, but whales around the world remain under threat, not only from hunting but also from ship strikes, pollution, habitat loss, climate change and entanglement in fishing nets.

Under terms of the compromise deal, which is being negotiated behind closed doors and remains subject to major changes, the three whaling nations agree to cut roughly in half their annual whale harvest. That would result in the saving of more than 5,000 whales over the next 10 years, compared with continued whaling at current levels.

The deal also proposes that no new countries be permitted to take whales, whale-watching ships would be monitored by the whaling commission and all international trade in whale products be banned.

In addition, whalers would have to report the time of death and means of killing of all whales and provide DNA samples to a central registry to help track the end use of the dead animals.

Limited subsistence whaling by indigenous peoples in the United States, Greenland, Russia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines would be allowed to continue.

“Our goal is a significant reduction in the number of whales killed, but some limited whaling will be authorized as a price for that,” said Mr. Maquieira, the whaling commission chairman. “This is highly controversial and very difficult. I would prefer something different, but there is nothing out there.”

A version of this article appeared in print on April 15, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.





It appears to me that, with several different readers of anything, three different people will have three different opinions about the interpretation of a STOP sign (or an M&M fa Gods sake)
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 04:47 am
@farmerman,
What is the estimate of the number of whales lost from ship strikes, pollution, habitat loss, climate change and entanglement in fishing nets?

What is the estimate of the number of whales lost by limited subsistence whaling by indigenous peoples in the United States, Greenland, Russia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines?

Are there any other factors? Strandings for example.

What is the estimated population of whales which are the subject of the deliberations reported on?

What is the estimated cost of the deliberations?





msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 04:50 am
@spendius,
Why don't you try Googling to see what you can find out for yourself, like the rest of us, Spendius?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 05:26 am
@msolga,
In spndis fevered mind he feels that if one negative assault is made on a species, then its ok to multiply the assaults. His logic is perfectly clear to his senses.

I do not have the benefit of such a limiting worldview Smile
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 05:50 am
@farmerman,
You mean you are not going to stay up all night to research & supply the answers to all those intriguing questions, farmer? Wink
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 06:13 am
@farmerman,
Not at all fm. I was wondering what your position was on stopping the other activities which are a threat to whales because it could look like you are being a bit biased if you're only making a fuss about one of them and I know how horrified you are when subjectivity comes into play.

I thought my "worldview" was a bit more expansive than your's. I did take my cue from your post which took space to mention the matters although I expect the writer assumed you would glom over them quickly and try not to notice.

Olga wrote-

Quote:
Why don't you try Googling to see what you can find out for yourself, like the rest of us, Spendius?


As I assumed you are an expert on these things Olga I thought you might save me the trouble and also give at least one of your posts some "meat".

Obviously I have overestimated this thread. I ask a few simple questions and all that is forthcoming are two sarcastic responses neither of which address the points. Which probably explains why you two have not been invited to the expensive junkets where the deliberations are taking place and the fun that goes down when the PR handouts have been distributed to approved recipients.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 06:29 am
@spendius,
Quote:
As I assumed you are an expert on these things Olga I thought you might save me the trouble and also give at least one of your posts some "meat".


I am no expert, Spendius.
Just a very interested amateur.

And as for posting a list of questions like that, did you seriously expect anyone to spend the time researching the answers for you? I research & post about the things that I find interesting, on a fairly regular basis. And I think that's a fair enough contribution from one person. I have no desire to take on extra work. Seriously, I think it's reasonable that you do your own research.

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 08:36:32