It is good to hear that Japan's proposal to hunt minke whales commercially has been rejected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

Apparantly Japan, Norway and Iceland argued that growing whale numbers threatened declining fish stocks. I ask you...... :x

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3736042.stm

"back door whaling"???? %$^&$^%#%*^*^ :x

Apparantly Japan, Norway and Iceland argued that growing whale numbers threatened declining fish stocks. I ask you...... :x

Awww COME ON!!!! :roll: + :x
Geeez... what next?!

TPOTH

The vote, considering the number of abstentions, is perilously close! This isn't something that is going to go away.

didn't whales just get out of the threatened/endangered list?

BAD WHALERS!!! :x :evil: :x :evil:

Big applause from me, blood boilin stuff that.


For very pint of guinness i drink this weekend im goin to donate a big applause to those that eventually took the humungous step (cough) of banning this.


:beer:

Saw this on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/26/right.whales.ap/index.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_re_as/japan_whaling

Wasn't sure whether or not our friendly Yahoo! news thingy was working so I posted this here (I cannot post in the news forum). As Steve said earlier in this thread, its not over yet. I just can't believe that some people can still think like this. Maybe Greenpeace could arm the whales with laser beams attached to their heads. :madsci: I'm sure its possible, I mean the US government has apparently trained killer dolphins!

Cheers!

:mad:

Heard on the radio news they were planning to take Humpbacks too

:mad:

j

Yeah, I heard that somewhere too (though apparently not in that article). I just can't believe that they're still allowed do this. On the surface it doesn't seem like they're killing a lot (just number wise) compared to other hunted species, but then you remember that these are WHALES and that absolutely everyone is precious and special and cannot be lost. Again, I just can't understand how organizations let whaling happen. Is there nothing more than can be done about this? I mean, they aren't just going to stop themselves, they're not even slowing down!!! There just has to be something more that can be done.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

and whales have SUCH a slow reproductive rate........mind you I get just as irritated and :mad: when I hear of large shark captures..for the same reasons!

J

I dont mind if they kill whales, (I personally love them), but if they are were a sustainable resource it would be fine with me. However its obviously not very sustainable, and they just pretend that it is.
A humpback whale is worth about $3 million dollars, so its a pretty lucrative business and you can see why Japan yeilds a lot of power over the system.
The next whale conference isnt going to be as happy as the outcome of this one. Japan keeps persuading new countries to join, by bribing them, changing the vote count.
Why would landlocked Mongolia be interested in whaling? With the stupid current system they now have as poweful a vote as any other country.

Im sure the enormous mongolian fishing industry is angry :smile: All none of them.

Why would landlocked Mongolia be interested in whaling? With the stupid current system they now have as poweful a vote as any other country.

Fair enough but the flip side is then "who should be allowed to vote on those issues?". Only countries with access to the sea? Only countries with access to oceans with whales in it (e.g. not the Mediterranean countries)? Only the countries with the required technical might (removing poorer countries from the talks)? Only the countries with an interest (past or present) in whaling?
Easy to see that as we consider a smaller group of countries, the relative weight of the pro-whaling increases and they wouldn't have to spread themselves thin lobbying so many countries.

But yeah, i get (and agree with) your point in that whaling countries are generally rich and well able to buy other countries' votes with trade promises (or threats for that matter).

Solution? beats me.... A environmental dictatorship that would enforce the ban on whaling with submarines allowed to sink whalers on sight? Where do I sign for that? :twisted:

Im sure the enormous mongolian fishing industry is angry :smile: All none of them.
I would move house if I were you. Just in case....

TPOTH

I find myself in a quandry. While I abhor whaling (one of the best moments of my life was swiming with a pod of dolphin out in the gulf stream), I also remember growing up poor in the mississippi delta and making extra money trapping beaver, raccoons, mink and nutria. Japan and Norway obviously don't need the money, while some of the Inuit people do. maybe we could put a moritorium on whaling techniques using anything besides canoes and hand harpoons. If the whalers have a little danger maybe there won't be so many. let's give the whales a chance to take out a few whalers.

Well, soon it's just going to be us and jellyfish... The fishing industry is starting to piss me off. No, wait, we can eat jellyfish. Well, us and plankton.

I tried my first jellyfish last nite as a matter of fact. No flavour, more of a texture, similar to squid but more gelatinous. Personally I think whale would be fantastic - enormous steaks. If only aquaculturing them was a vaible option. I would love to go swimming with whales, I have only ever seen them from the shore.

Why would landlocked Mongolia be interested in whaling? With the stupid current system they now have as poweful a vote as any other country.

I just mean the current system is openly exploited by Japan ect to join "token" members. The thing is that the money gained(or bribed) can actually make a difference to a country like Mongolia, so they are even more likely to vote for whaling. Its a tough problem. But with each new member its looking worse for the whales.

I hate the downward spiral everything seems to be going in. I think the answer is by appealing to pop culture. Super hero - Captain Planets of the environment, like Steve Irwin.
Personally I hate the idea of pop, but it sells. Imagine international man of mystery Steve O'Shea, "pimping up" research vessels donning a set of bright gold teeth spelling "Squid'. :grin:

Its kinda like that guy who discoverd a new species of monkey. He is auctioning off the right to name the species, and the money goes into their protection. I would rather see a Starbuck coffeus monkey than no monkey at all.

Now to sell the idea to NBC or some other acronym.

Japan and Norway obviously don't need the money, while some of the Inuit people do. maybe we could put a moritorium on whaling techniques using anything besides canoes and hand harpoons. If the whalers have a little danger maybe there won't be so many. let's give the whales a chance to take out a few whalers.

Absolutely agree 100%! Besides, the Inuit and other aboriginal peoples have always known and been able to hunt sustainably without any science or governmental regulations. They know that you don't kill more than is necessary, as when you do it is you run the risk of dying out.

I think all environmental bodies everywhere should be turned over to the aboriginal people of the area until us westerners (or whoever else lives there) catch up.

Cheers!

Well, soon it's just going to be us and jellyfish... The fishing industry is starting to piss me off. No, wait, we can eat jellyfish. Well, us and plankton.

Welllllll actually just us! Antarctic Krill is made into surimi paste yummmmeeee :yuck: and good ol' spirulina is a brackish water phyto stuff!

j

Disturbing news indeed from the International Whaling Commission. Several new countries have joined the pro-whaling bloc, this could tip the hand of the voting to a partial return to commercial whaling on Friday. The pro-whaling bloc will be in the majority in the IWC.

How could this happen? Behind the scenes dealing, back-handers and trade agreements in return for votes?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5066538.stm

I say block the bloc.

Extremely disturbing, and probably not much we can do about it except contribute a lot more to Greenpeace.

I was at a conference last November and the keynote speaker Sir geoffery Palmer (An ex-prime Minister of NZ and at that time our representative) predicted that this would happen as they only just stopped it the last vote.

Good news (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-06-16T204431Z_01_N15391921_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-WHALES.xml&src=rss)

Saw that on Yahoo! News just a few minutes ago and breathed a small sigh of relief. I still can't believe some people think this way. At the very least, most of these animals contain too much mercury and other biotoxins for people to safely consume them. And thats forgetting the intrinsic value these creatures have, how much is still unknown about them, etc.

Does anyone know how long this meeting is? All weekend? I guess I'll be holding my breath for a bit longer...

Cheers

Duplicating yours Monty, but it's worth it - further signs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601186.html) of good news!

"Pro-whaling nations, led by Japan, lost two key votes Friday at the International Whaling Commission's annual meeting - an indication they may not have the majority necessary to take control of the body and try to repeal its ban on commercial hunting.

In the first vote, Japan sought to remove the issue of hunting dolphins and porpoises from the agenda of the 70-member IWC meeting on the Caribbean island of St. Kitts. But it failed by a 32-30 vote.

In the second vote, Japan lost its bid to introduce secret ballots, something the group has never done for major initiatives in its 60-year history, officials said. The resolution failed by a 33-30 vote, with the Solomon Islands - a nation that usually sides with Japan - abstaining."

Any good news is welcome.:smile:

:smile: :grin: :mrgreen: :cyclops: :shock: ...:razz: :yinyang:

It's just a matter of waiting and keeping the land-locked but somehow pro-whaling countries happy before Japan can resume the ole' killing endangered mammals (read: whales) thing. Fun!!!! :mad:

It's just a matter of waiting and keeping the land-locked but somehow pro-whaling countries happy before Japan can resume the ole' killing endangered mammals (read: whales) thing. Fun!!!! :mad:
But stacking the whaling commission with non-whaling Nations was a tactic first used by the conservation lobby 25 years ago to introduce the whaling ban - so now that the pro-whaling lobby is doing the same thing it 's a bad tactic?:confused:

It's a matter of goals. The original goal was admirable, this one isn't.

It's a matter of goals. The original goal was admirable, this one isn't.

uh-oh, the epistemological can of worms of "the ends justify the means" has been breached... :alarm:

It's a matter of goals. The original goal was admirable, this one isn't.

We harvest wild populations of fish and other organisms - why not carry out sustainable harvesting of whales?

Folks, M is playing devils adcocate; in doing so he raises very good points.

A wee update (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3704576a10,00.html)

... I think we should also trawl the coasts to catch all of those pesky swimmers; we could process them into surimi aboard the factory ships!

We aren't doing a very good job of sustainable fishing either, and when animals mature slowly, as whales and many species of fish do, we are flirting with extinction of species. We need to have across the board protection for many species, not just whales.

We need to have across the board protection for many species, not just whales.
My question was why not carry out SUSTAINABLE harvesting? Why should just some selected species be protected? If the proposal is to protect species where do we stop - who has the right to decide which species are "good" and which are "bad'? For example should the global plan to exterminate Smallpox be abandoned? Smallpox is another lifeform with an evolutionary history just as whales are - but doesn't have the benefit of a good PR agent!

Current vote tally is Japan 0, us 4 at the IWC conference. So far....so good....

My question was why not carry out SUSTAINABLE harvesting? Why should just some selected species be protected?

I think the point was that some species cannot be sustainably harvested. And whales, in their current status, are definitely not ready to be harvested in any way. Maybe before whaling began there would have been sufficient numbers for a sustainable industry, but we all know how well that was managed. They need further protection before any whaling should even be considered. Besides population numbers, there are many other valid arguments against whaling.

In regards to why some species can be protected and others not, an easy out is that viruses aren't considered alive (at least I don't think yet) and therefore don't fall into this discussion. However, basically it falls down to if it negatively impacts humans or not. Smallpox did so we took care of it.

Cheers!

sigh (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3705391a10,00.html)

"FRIGATE BAY: Japan and other whaling nations today for the first time in more than two decades won support for a motion criticising a global whaling ban, signaling they might finally have the muscle to challenge the moratorium."

I now endorse the selective culling of persons surplus to requirement in the global population! Grind 'em up and make 'em into chowder!

sigh (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3705391a10,00.html)

I now endorse the selective culling of persons surplus to requirement in the global population! Grind 'em up and make 'em into chowder!

hmmm, there are some who would be inedible because of the nicotine residues........

hmmm, there are some who would be inedible because of the nicotine residues........
Just renders us an addictive substance M; no doubt they'd pass some law about smoking or snorting O

I agree, O'Shea. The way we act, everything not-human is in season-let's even the playing field-Human(TM) brand chowder, for all yer little fishies!

A concern I have is that if there is a return to whaling at sustainable levels, who polices this while the vessel is at sea? I can't imagine that every whaling vessel would have IWC observers onboard to ensure that the catch type and quantity is within limits. I am not stating that illegal catches would take place for certain, but am curious as to the effectiveness and logistical workings of the control checks that would be enabled.

sigh (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3705391a10,00.html)

"FRIGATE BAY: Japan and other whaling nations today for the first time in more than two decades won support for a motion criticising a global whaling ban, signaling they might finally have the muscle to challenge the moratorium."

I now endorse the selective culling of persons surplus to requirement in the global population! Grind 'em up and make 'em into chowder!

I disagree! Grind' 'em up and make 'em into fertilizer. That could benefit meat eaters, vegans and everyone in between.

Personally, I think we should put some effort into researching how to grow bits of meat in vats. We can then cut out the whole hunting, killing, destroying angst. However, since that's what our species does, I don't hold out much hope.

Personally, I think we should put some effort into researching how to grow bits of meat in vats. We can then cut out the whole hunting, killing, destroying angst. However, since that's what our species does, I don't hold out much hope.

Now THERE'S an idea...genetically engineered "stew-beasts"/vat lump-meat TV dinners!

Now THERE'S an idea...genetically engineered "stew-beasts"/vat lump-meat TV dinners!
Isn't that called Tofu?

A concern I have is that if there is a return to whaling at sustainable levels, who polices this while the vessel is at sea? I can't imagine that every whaling vessel would have IWC observers onboard

No need to police at sea - simple DNA tests will identify species & individuals

But with factory ships where whales are already processed by the time they get back to port, it could mean a lot of DNA tests in order to test every piece of whale flesh. Could end up being expensive.

A sad, sad day in SpiceWorld...

No need to police at sea - simple DNA tests will identify species & individuals

So who is to guarantee that every specimen caught will have a DNA test? If a whaling vessel harpoons and kills a species not on the target list, either deliberately or inadvertently, why would they turn genetic results over if they identify it as rendering them potentially liable to prosecution? Unless there is an independent control check onboard or inspectorate team waiting at port with full access to the catch, DNA testing is meaningless, and liable to bias. Notwithstanding this, a catch of an illegal non-target species is liable to be simply dumped at sea.

Who would have discretion over testing, the captain? Unless applied absolutely to 100% of catches, DNA testing does not even remotely equate to policing, and I can't imagine that anything but a small percentage will actually be tested by the IWC.

Ok, after re-reading the news release I have to ask: why would there even be a vote on such a subject? I know that this vote could really help Japan and is a big defeat, but it seems like an odd thing to have to vote on each year for the last few decades. Creation of a pro-whaling declaration that is likely largely false or at the very least is not strongly based on science (as this information is just not known)?!?!?! Who thought up that stunned idea. Maybe thats just me.

Cheers

Isn't that called Tofu?
No, see, this would be actual, lab-grown MEAT (and stuff).

A couple of articles on the subject from the Independent U.K..
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1090433.ece

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1090214.ece

A couple of articles on the subject from the Independent U.K..
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1090433.ece

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1090214.ece

Good god...:shock:

Just out of curiousity, why are those nations so seemingly fixated on whaling?

Is there anything that we, the average person not involved in the policies, the politics, or the industry, can do some to stop this killing of these endangered whales (specifically the resumption of whaling humpbacks before it even starts. I think if that were possible it would be easier than trying to stop them once the start again.)?

I can't think of anything that would really mean something to the Japanese. As in, I don't think they're going to give a hoot if we collect 1000 or 10 000 internet signatures. They don't seem to care that the whale flesh is poisonous with mercury and other toxins, that apparently most of their population isn't pro-whaling, and least of all that these whales are endangered! (By the way, this information has been published in peer-reviewed science journals) I mean even scientific studies don't persuade them, and we are certainly not capable of something on that stature. Again, just something I want people to think about, brainstorm.

Cheers...

Ok, I was just reviewing the membership list for the IWC on their website and my jaw dropped! Canada doesn't have a representative anymore! I am very, very disappointed with my country right, especially considering that we still participate in aboriginal whaling. All I can find on the net is that we were a member, but aren't any longer. Does anyone know anything more or can point me in the right direction?

Furthering the above point, does anymore know what steps are necessary to get another representative? Is it a member of government that goes to the annual meeting or a distinguished scientist? I get the idea it is the former given the state of affairs. I guess if its a politician then I could start by writing to the Environmental Affairs minister or Fisheries minister requesting we be represented (in more words then that of course). Any more ideas?

One final point: the opening post in this thread links to an article (still up for those wishing to refresh themselves) that states that CITES rejected Japans request for downgrading minke whales to Appendix II, which would allow for controlled trade of the species. They are currently list on Appendix I. "Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction. Trade in specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances." - directly from their website. Minke, humpback, and fin whales are all on the Appendix I list, so doesn't this mean that Japan cannot hunt any of them? Or does CITES only deal with trade, imports and exports. The more I think about it the more I think that that is the case, and since Japan isn't trading the whale meat, CITES has no control. :evil:

Ok, I apologize if I have talked on too long about something not exactly related to TONMO. I just don't have any other place to ask these questions right now. Hope you can help!

Cheers!

I stumbled upon this while trying to find something else..YOu might want to give it a look.
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Management_Regimes/IWC/th-in-wh.htm

Good read about the history of management in the IWC. Thanks! Oh, and I found out last night (after posting) what happened with Canada and the IWC.

Cheers!