A group of North Atlantic MPs wrote recently to the Parliamentary Committee on Planning and Environment in the Danish Parliament that "we would rather catch the whales commercially, like we catch shrimps and halibut, than being reduced to cultural weirdos, who most gratefully are allowed to slaughter a couple of sacred cows...This would make our whaling a normal industry instead of an ethnic alm" they wrote.Item 5.5 on the meeting agenda indicates that the appropriateness of the term "aboriginal" will come up for debate.
"We expect the same treatment to be given to any proposal from Japan for a quota for our traditional coastal whaling communities, where the whales would be caught locally, processed locally, distributed locally and consumed locally"Of course, how many of the IWC delegates see it that way is the big question for which we must await an answer.
"People need to ask themselves the question: does it matter whether a whale is hunted under the US's so-called Aboriginal Subsistence, or Iceland or Norway's commercial whaling or Japan's traditional coastal whaling?"
"Of course not. What is of the utmost importance is that the practice is sustainable. And it is"
-- Joji Morishita
Quotas that allow isolated tribes in Alaska and Greenland to hunt using traditional methods are up for renewal. New Zealand supports the quotas, however Japan has said it will veto them, unless the IWC allows wider coastal whaling.Completely wrong information, as I noted a few days ago. Wake up guys - where are you getting your story?
-- New Zealand's Newstalk ZB/One News
"Those of us who are in favour of very limited whaling are willing to reach a compromise and to give them probably the best (whaling) management scheme for any marine species at all, the most strictest one with the lowest quotas but this doesn't seem to be enough for them," Mr Klepsvik said.
"And accordingly, they seem to be happy by continuing to insist on zero quotas and insisting that the moratorium should be maintained."
Preliminary exchanges here have been in a much more conciliatory spirit, with delegates on both sides talking of finding common ground.However...
Many environment groups are deeply unhappy about the message of compromise and conciliation, and about any notion that anti-whaling countries would settle for less than enforcing and enhancing the current global ban on all scientific and commercial whaling.Black also has some details on the IWC's response to the Sea Shepherd organization's extremist tactics:
[Japan's delegation] will also seek a strong resolution against the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society which disrupted Japan's 2006-7 Antarctic hunt, holing one of the Japanese vessels.
In the first concrete sign of a new rapprochement, Japan is working on a joint resolution with New Zealand, one of the fiercest critics of Tokyo's scientific whaling.
Nothing particular new in that - Resolution 2006-2 from last year's meeting concerning the safety of whaling and whale research vessels was also co-sponsored by Japan, New Zealand, the US, and maybe the Dutch and one other nation, as I recall.
Labels: IWC 59
June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 January 2010 February 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 February 2011 March 2011 May 2013 June 2013