********* whalehunting

[anaconda]

You probably already know. I was flicking through the newspaper and I found this. In the first place, I was annoyed that it got no-where near the front page. I don't know how to explain my next feeling, which was to go up to the people who have authorised this and do something to them that I will not specify for the sake of the more sensible members. We have simply an angry smiley, not a raging one, so I cannot express my emotions fully without spending an hour at the keyboard (I am, as I have often said before, a very slow typer). So I'll have to leave it to your imagination. Something between this and a volcano.

[bigdoglover]

Sounds like Iceland is up for a challenge in the legal aspect. Why on earth would you hunt an endangered species anyway?????

[Swiftwind]

I hate it how they say the killing of wales is for 'scientific research' - what a load of crap! Just what we need, another country on the 'whale killers' list. It really upsets me to see that not enough is being done to stop this kind of behaviour (especially in Australia). It's disappointing.

[rottielover]

I have always been against any type of hunting. BHALCH

[Cassiepeia]

That just makes me want to cry.
I'm not against hunting animals for food, nor am I against farming them for it. I'm not a vegetarian....but these animals are different. Different because they're endangered and it's completely unnecessary for us to kill them for food (and the whole 'scientific research' thing is getting old and no one believes it).

I saw a recent episode of the 'Iron Chef' (it was a repeat of course) where the challenger actually used whale tongue in a dish. The only non-japanese judge on the panel refused to eat it. It made me sick just seeing him (the chef) put it in the dish. I would have refused to eat it too.

*sigh* I don't even know what we, your average person, could do to stop these whaling countries.

Cass.

[Sayuri]

Makes me sad too. It's ridiculous. When will people understand that the creatures we have on this earth are NOT REPLACEABLE? If they are gone they don't come back. That's it for them. That's the destruction of an irreplaceable LIVING treasure.

People spend scads of money and care making sure that art works by famous individuals are restored and saved for all eternity...no one seems to think this is a waste of time or effort. And yet ask people to extend the same kind of care of a living being that is wholly unique, that cannot even be replicated or reproduced in the manner that art work can (not that I am against preserving art, of course), and people want to get into a whole bunch of rigmarole about "scientific purposes," "food sources" (even when they're not needed for this reason, and culture. By all means, culture is important, but I don't think it supercedes the right of a singular, one-of-a-kind species to exist, or of the entire world's right to enjoy that species.

If this is really in the name of science, why don't people study something fascinating about the LIVING creature, like whalesong and interspecies communication? Now THAT is something I'd be interested in. Not new and different ways to slice up a dead behemoth, jumpstart and tweak its organs, and sell the rest to makeup companies.

Can you tell this ticks me off?

[Swiftwind]

Sayuri, what a wonderful post!

[Sayuri]

Aww thank you Swiftwind. I just go a little nuts when I think of whale hunting. It makes me beyond sad.

[TribalRats]

Sayuri,
I always look forward to reading your posts.

Makes me sad too.

[anaconda]

I signed a petition a while ago to ask Iceland stop the whale hunt, and received this e-mail in return.

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 utilisation of marine resources.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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 authorise commercial whaling before 2006 and thereafter not to
authorise such whaling while progress was being made in negotiating the
IWC?s Revised Management Scheme (RMS), a management framework for
commercial whaling.

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 judgement 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.

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 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?.


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.



Sincerely yours,

Stefán Haukur Jóhannesson
Ambassdor of Iceland



For information on the governance of Iceland?s living marine
resources on the web, please refer to, www.fisheries.is Forinformation on
various scientific research projects on whales and other marine mammals in
the North Atlantic please refer to the web site of the Marine Research
Institute: www.hafro.is as well as the North Atlantic Mammal Commission:
www.nammco.no

[Sayuri]

First off, thank you Anaconda for posting the email you received.
And thank you Tribal

Here's my take on it:

[Several countries catch whales, most of them on a much bigger scale
than Iceland.

Sigh - when arguments go this way, I get frustrated again. It's called passing the buck. "Other people are doing it, and they're a LOT worse than us, so why are you picking on US?" Just because other people do it, and do more of it, doesn't make it right.

Furthermore, while I appreciate and do not underestimate the use of the cadaver in scientific research, I think there comes a time when we have to value the contributions that the *live* animals can make to research gains, and to the world in general. I still hold that studying the live animals would be far more fascinating - and while I understand that makes things harder in many aspects, I think understanding communication between species is going to come from actually observing and working with living animals that can and do still communicate. Organs are part of it yes, but think how much can be gained from observing the living animals.

And finally, I think the family dynamic of whales needs to be taken into consideration. While not all whales live in pods, many species do, and when you capture or kill members of that pod, it means you're doing some serious damage to the family structure - we can say this without even anthropomorphising the creatures. Anyone who has seen a pod of whales in distress when one of their members is separated or beached knows what I am talking about. While we have no way of, at this point, knowing how they actually feel and think, it is immediately apparent that the animals are incredibly stressed. I don't typically try to assume that all of my feelings can be extended to animals, but I'm sure others would agree, that they appear to react, in such situations, the way we might react should one of our family members be in peril. I

I don't like to loose sight of the individual for the sake of my own comfort. I confess that I am not a complete vegetarian - but in so doing I also do my best to make my negative impact on other living creatures as small as possible. This means looking at the decisions I make, the products I buy, and seeing that what I do buy is the least harmful option. I'm not about to scream that we need to all become vegans - in many ways this is unrealistic, and furthermore, I won't turn a blind eye to the way humans and other creatures are biologically developed - you aren't going to turn a dog vegan, are you? But I do think it's important to be *mindful* of other beings - *especially* seeing we know so little about them.

This is why I am against, for example, whaling, bullfighting (yes it's cultural, but it's also the systematic and slow torture of a creature that does not have a realistic chance at defending itself), the capture of macaws and other tropical birds, etc etc. I don't want to forget that, even if that animal IS a part of a larger, unendangered population, it is also an individual. It's the only one exactly like that one, it is a being with value, and IT only gets that one chance at a life. I think when we have a position of power over another being, whenever conceivable we should give it the best chance at a decent life as possible