David @ Tokyo

The Los Angeles Times has run an editorial on whaling, and notes that

"the current system — an undefined temporary ban — isn't feasible anymore"

The editorial concludes:

"If the world agrees that limited hunting of recovered stocks should be legalized (a big if), countries should draw up a clear regulatory system based on reasonable quotas according to region and species. If whaling is just too abhorrent for activists, they should lobby the United Nations for a permanent ban. Because letting the status quo unravel is a recipe for bringing back whaling, like it or not."

This is reminiscent of the comments of incoming IWC Chairman Bill Hogarth of the USA, who said after the conclusion of IWC 58 in St. Kitts this year that

"What the United States wants to do is try to find a way to protect whales but at the same time recognize some harvest".

The US is to be commended on this pragmatic, realistic approach. Of course, they have little choice given that the US plans to argue for a continued bowhead whaling quota for it's own people next year.

Elsewhere, IWMC President Eugene Lapointe, commented on the lack of progress at the IWC in establishing regulatory systems, saying in a press statement that

"It is the anti-whaling countries and animal rights groups that have hamstrung the IWC and prevented it from doing its job. Iceland set a reasonable target date for the IWC to establish a management system but the usual suspects thought they could be clever and delay progress forever. They were wrong. When you equivocate endlessly, the world has a tendency to move on without you."

Several years ago a survey conducted by Responsive Management indicated that moves to establish regulated whaling of abundant whale species would not be offensive to most Americans under certain conditions.

Labels: Eugene Lapointe, Whaling