The Icelandic government is opening the oceans of the world to the wholesale slaughter of the gentle giants known as 'Whales'. Their recent decision to ignore world opinion and recommence the killing of the Miinke & Fin whales, after years of adhering to a world-wide ban, is giving the green light to other countries to follow suit.
While humanity at last is coming to a slow realisation that its actions are having possibly an irreversable negative effect on the earth's climate and biodiversity that will undermine the survival of our own species, Iceland decides to implement this stupid action. Why?
It is not that Icelanders have a fetish for whale meat- less than 3% want to do so. They don't need the money generated by the export of the meat- the country is amongst the top wealthiest nations. Furthermore, the country has an international reputation for marine conversation and sustainable management of its fisheries.
Having lived in Iceland for a number of years, I love the county and its people with a passion. But this move is crazy and the Icelanders should overturn their own government's retrograde decision.
By the way, the picture of the Minke and Fin whales was drawn by my 6 year old son Dáire.
8 comments:
The new Icelandic whaling can not fairly be described as "wholesale" slaughter. They are only allowing 9 fin whales to be killed in the first year. Their Marine Research Institute says that as many as 150 could be killed each year on a sustainable basis. The IWC Scientific Committee has accepted estimates for the population of around 25,000 (and still increasing), putting this stock already at around 70% of it's pre-exploitation level of abundance. Killing just 9 is hardly going to make a dent in the recovery, which will be complete in the near future. Minke quotas are similarly conservative.
"World opinion" can also not fairly said to be against Iceland's move. Only 25 nations participated in a formal protest against Iceland - a clear minority of the world's nations.
If other nations also decide to resume sustainable whaling in a similar manner, I see little issue, so long as their is co-operation amongst these nations to ensure that they do not make the mistake of believing that they are acting in a vacumn. The IWC is a perfect venue for whaling nations to co-operate amongst themselves to ensure the sum of their harvests is sustainable.
A recent Gallop poll showed that the majority of Icelander's are in favour of sustainable whaling.
The money generated through export to the Japanese market is by no means insignificant. Just because Iceland is relatively wealthy already, why should they not look to further develop and diversify their economy?
Why would Iceland's international reputation for marine conservation and sustainable management of it's fisheries be damaged by the application of these same principles to it's whale resources? On the contrary, Iceland's healthy reputation is probably the reason that so few nations decided to protest against their whaling resumption. The rest of the world possibly believes that they will do a fine job of sustainably utilising their whale resources.
Interesting points David. But not ones that I could agree on.
1. You say that"...their Marine Research Institute says that as many as 150 could be killed each year on a sustainable basis...& killing just 9 is hardly going to make a dent in the recovery..."
-So we can see already that vested interests in Iceland are planning a much larger scale slaughter of 150. Interesting & alarming!
Furthermore you ignore my point that Iceland's decision to ignore the IWC will be used by other countries to follow suit. Then the global slaughter begins in earnest.
2. "...Only 25 nations participated in a formal protest against Iceland..."
-Only? Wow- that is quite a initial large bloc of resistance to Iceland's move based on my analysis of environmental global issues over the last few decades. You can be sure too that many citizens in other countries have expressed anger to the recommencement of the slaughter.
3. "...if other nations also decide to resume sustainable whaling in a similar manner, I see little issue...".
-Well I do. Unlike 19th century Europe, modern society doesn't need the killing of whales for mainstream economic activities as we have developed less gruesome sources of substitute materials or energies.
4. "...The money generated through export to the Japanese market is by no means insignificant. Just because Iceland is relatively wealthy already, why should they not look to further develop and diversify their economy?..."
-Yea, sure why not support economic growth in African and southern Asian countries & slaughter tigers, rhinos and elephants in order to satisfy the culinary and sexual tastes of elements within Chinese and Japanese society?
5. "...Iceland's healthy reputation is probably the reason that so few nations decided to protest against their whaling resumption..."
-25 governments and NGOs and thousands of concerned citizens is not insignificant in any person's language.
Trust me- we will keep the campaign going to end the slaughter of the innocents in order to save the whale and hope that mankind is learning to view the planet as more than just something that exists for his own selfish destructive ends.
In your other thread you said;
It(Iceland) has caved in to the pressures mounted by a few businessmen who have used the country's proud nationalism for their own self-glorification agenda.
Well done. May I also add that the pressures mounted include ridiculous scientific data.
Thanks for your comment Kristjan. I concur wholeheartedly with the view expressed regarding the questionabilty of the scientific evidence provided to justify the resumption of whale slaughter.
Iceland's economy and its people do not need this move which has tarnished the image of this wonderful country.
By the way, is there any public campaign by Icelanders to overturn this government policy?
Ohhh please dont give me that "animals are people to" why dont you go and save one of the estimated 9 billion chickens slaughtered by the usa every year.
Iceland wasnt always one of the richest countries in the world in fact during the first years iceland could have been classified as a third world country. My family was also poor when I grew up and I was feed on whale meat cus its was the cheapest meat.
The Icelandic Marine Research Institute is also correct in their estimations of the population because lying in their estimations is a felony and they answear to noone (their rulings cannot be changed by the goverment, although their rulings can be overturned in court and thats never happened) not long ago they put a full stop on all cod or carp fishing to maintain the sustainable fishing in the future. Fishermen went mad held protests and the goverment tried their best to change their decision unsuccessfully. They are scientists after all.
Also the killing of whales also helps in the sustainabilaty of fish that are fed on or more available food for fish.
Just think of it this way we kill one whale and we will save litterally millions of chickens ;)
To the environmentalist (or vegetarian) all life is equal right. (to lazy to spellcheck)
In reply to 'Meateater':
Meateater says "..why don't you go and save one of the estimated 9 billion chickens slaughtered by the usa every year..."
Answer: Campaigning on one issue does not mean that we preclude or ignore other issues. But as mortals, our powers and energies are limited. So each of us needs to focus on those issues that we feel are most important and that we as individuals can make a difference.
2. Meateater says "...Iceland wasn't always one of the richest countries...My family was also poor when I grew up and I was feed on whale meat 'cus it was the cheapest meat..."
Answer: So? Needing to eat whale meat to survive is a thing of the past for Icelanders. Anyway as I said in my article, only a very small percentage the island's population eat, or have an interest in eating, whale meat.
Furthermore, Iceland can't find a market even for all the whale meat that it has already butchered/
3. Meateater says "...The Icelandic Marine Research Institute is also correct in their estimations (of sustainable killing of whales by Iceland).
Answer: You miss the point. As I say in my article, if Iceland starts killing whales, it will give the 'green light' for other countries to follow their lead. This has already happened- Japan has decided to dramatically increase their whale kill.
4. Meateater says "...Also the killing of whales also helps in the sustainability of fish that are fed on or more available food for fish..."
Totally untrue & against the principles of science & nature.
An ecosystem has a natural mechanism of self-regulation & sustaining its different component elements.
It is mankind's destructive involvement in the planet that has destroyed the natural equalibrium of things and led to the elimination of countless species.
It is now time for us to finally correct humanity's traditional cancerous input to nature before it is too late, starting with tackling climate change & safeguarding endangered wildlife ('endangered' because of man)
hie speedie...i totally agree to your viewpoint and highly appreciate it as now a days there are very few people who actually care about nature and environment and are selfish enough to care about themselves...
but i believe that even a single person can create a difference...i am ready for any help you need...although i am presently in India but still if u need any do tell...
regards
Thanks for your comment above.
You can, like all of us, do your bit to save the environment and therefore the human race.
No problem that you are in India, I am in Ireland and the whales are being slaughtered near Iceland.
Don't feel in any way helpless in the face of global warming and destruction of biodiversity on a worldwide scale.
Just adopt the international Green motto of 'Think Global, Act Local'.
We can individually make a difference and become in the process part of an action movement of worldwide change
Best wishes!
Post a Comment