A new NGO called Species Management Specialists (SMS) has criticised Australia’s stance at the International Whaling Commission and called for a resumption of negotiations to complete a commercial whaling management regime. Following is their media release:
“In March this year, International Whaling Commission (IWC) negotiations to develop the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) for commercial whaling broke down and the impasse is unlikely to be bridged.
“The world’s whale populations are at greater threat with the current impasse at IWC than with an approved management and regulatory regime for commercial whaling, and Australia must take a lot of the blame for this result,” Dr Graham Hall, the Executive Officer of Species Management Specialists, said today.
The majority of the world’s population from more than 20 countries around the world continue to hunt whales, dolphins and other cetaceans for food.
“Our Government’s stance at the IWC is un-Australian – it is extremist and uncompromising and is ensuring the world’s whale populations remain at threat from illegal, unregulated and unreported activity.”
“We have a reputation of ensuring sound management of our fisheries and should be leading by example rather than pandering to right-wing environmental groups who provide nothing to this country’s economy. Japan is a nation with whom this country is very good friends but yet we continue to vilify them for their desire to sustainably hunt whales for food,” he said.
Dr Hall, an Australian game management expert, says the Government takes similar stances with crocodiles and sea turtles. “Ian Campbell would rather take wildlife advice from a crocodile entertainer [Steve Irwin from Australia Zoo] than look at detailed submissions from the most highly qualified reptile scientists in the world.
It’s time to take wildlife conservation seriously and not continue with the ignorant and puerile manner in which it’s dealt with now by the Federal Government.”The Chairman of Species Management Specialists, Hank Jenkins, has worked on wildlife conservation and management issues throughout the world, including 9 years as Chairman of the main technical committee for the convention on international wildlife trade, CITES.
He says Australia’s stance at last year’s IWC meeting in Ulsan, Korea, was an embarrassment. “Australia’s wildlife management experts are as good as they come. Good science and management experience is often ignored in the interests of bad politics – politics that depends on ignorance rather than education in the community.”
“These are serious concerns in a nation committing itself to a knowledge economy, that promotes cutting-edge technology and knowledge as the answer to all problems,” Mr Jenkins added.
Charlie Manolis, an experienced scientist who works internationally, says many government advisers from nations around the world view Australia’s, and New Zealand’s, stance on whaling completely hypocritical given our stance on domestic wildlife populations that have a commercial value, such as kangaroos and crocodiles.
“Minke whales in the southern oceans are abundant. Yet the average Australian thinks they are endangered and the Government does nothing to educate them otherwise to maintain an indefensible political position.”
“The IWC was established in 1948 as the agency responsible for the sustainable management and commercial use of whales. It was not established as a whale protection agency or a whale-watching organisation, which is what Australia and New Zealand are conveniently forgetting,” Mr Manolis said.
SMS while having key spokesmen in Australia, is global in its reach and focus, with members on every continent in the world. The new organisation has published recommendations for CITES in English, French and Spanish at their new website, click here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Golly, everyone comes out of the wood-work at this time of the year, don’t they? Fancy being labelled as un-Australian. And those no-good environmental groups who contribute nothing to the economy. Bugger them. Look at what the Japanese do for this great nation of ours. They’re more Australian than those whale hugging hippies, or that bloke in the khakis. Of course we’re being hypocritical culling kangaroos and crocodiles and not those cockroaches of the sea. Those crocodile farms that have stud books and stock reports, and those kangaroo wranglers with their population census reports, radio tracking and GIS maps, years of pretty reliable counts from helicopters and the back of utes – they are crying out for those blasted minkes to contribute to the world’s economy. Everyone knows minkes have a bun in the oven, one in the pouch and another at the fluke. Harpoon the lot of them, and some of them worthless Greenies whilst the Japanese are at it. People could even pay for the priviledge, with the Southern Ocean becoming a game park and a lucrative trade developing in wall-mounted minke heads (and dreadlocked greenie heads too). Then they’d earn their bloody keep, and be managed proudly. Proudly Australian.
I am agreement with many of these points.
I find it interesting that the Australian and NZ governments are willing to support the harvest of endangered whales, but not abundant whales like the minke.
Both governments do not oppose the hunting of endangered whales, if it is done for customary use.
This is the second time I read in this blog that whale huggers come from hard right-winged countries or from right-winged NGOs.
Ususlly, we greenies are accused to be lefties, so which way is it going to be?
BTW, Greenpeace is unpolitical!
Well, Charlie Manolis has assisted in a couple of Cuban hawksbill proposals at CITES.
Maybe the left-wing/right-wing divide just isn’t the way to be thinking about this issue. The SMS argument is that it is about the politically expedient versus the international commitments/science that NZ and Australia are alleged to support.
Its a bit like the nuclear debate, whilst Australians argue the toss about nukes India and China are going full steam ahead with their nuclear powered generation program.
Australians can declare a moratorium on nuclear power but so what? – the rest of the world will have moved on.
Australia should be reasonable and work to be included in policy not adopt of policy of denial.
As de Gaulle said, it is better to be inside the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in.
When we are talking about the “abundance” of minke whales, I would like to point out that Norwegian prowhaling paper “Fiskeribladet” wrote this morning that this years minke whale catches are at a historical low and very few minkes have been spotted.
Ann, if Fiskeribladet report a low number does that mean that all minkes in the world are now low in numbers?
I mean, what is the scope of their reportage?
Maybe they went somewhere else, just a suggestion.
Hi Rog,
I just think we must be very careful when we talk about minke whale abundace !
Well, what was the Norwegian article about? Never had the beginning of the whaling season been so bad and never had a minke been shot so close to the shore, just 50 metres from the “hvalmottak”, the whale meat processing factory!!!! Very sad indeed!According to the paper, the world’s shortest whale hunt!
Perhaps it’s time to start a whale farming operation.
But they’d protest against that too, I suppose.
Two articles from Aftenposten;
Annual hunt yields few whales
Norway’s controversial whale hunt is off to a poor start, from the whalers’ point of view. Anti-whaling forces are either cheering, or worried.
Norway’s whalers are allowed to hunt down as many as 1,000 minke whales this season, which began two months ago.
So far, they’ve only brought in 50 whales, compared to 200 by this time last year, reports Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK).
The whalers are blaming both bad weather in the areas off Norway’s northern coast where the hunt takes place, and few whales. Either the whales are evading the hunters’ spears, or the whale population has declined despite Norwegian claims to the contrary.
The whalers, meanwhile, are setting a new course to Vesterålen, where they hope their hunting will be better. Norwegian authorities have reported that they harpooned 639 minke whales last year, compared to 543 in 2004.
++++++++
Whaling begins amid protests
Norway’s controversial whaling season is underway, and another international protest has been launched in the hopes of halting it. Norwegian officials acknowledge the protests, but have no plans to stop the slaughter.
The season officially started April 1, but most whalers don’t begin the hunt until early May. A letter of protest signed by representatives of 11 nations was delivered by a representative from the British Embassy to Norway’s Foreign Ministry late this week, just as whaling along the Norwegian coast is warming up.
Around 30 boats will participate in this year’s hunt, and they have authority to kill 1,052 whales, 250 more than last year.
The hunt seems more symbolic and seeped in tradition than backed by commercial reward. The market for whale meat is small, and it’s not the staple of the Norwegian diet that it once was. The market for whale blubber is also restricted, and exports are limited.
But Norway decided to defy an international ban on whaling in the early 1990s and has stuck to what it sees at its right to harvest local waters. Others disagree.
The written protest delivered to the foreign ministry is backed by Great Britain, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the Czech Republic, Germany and Austria. British officials claim Norway’s decision to boost its whaling quota was taken hastily and isn’t based on the best scientific evidence.
Britain’s fisheries minister said it was “disappointing” that the Norwegian government pressured scientists into trying to justify an “unnecessary” hunt.
A Norwegian foreign ministry spokesman said the Norwegians, meanwhile, were equally disappointed that countries opposed to whaling weren’t making a greater effort to find a compromise within the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
SPIEGEL ONLINE – May 26, 2006, 09:55 AM
Opinion
You Can Have Your Whale and Eat It, too
The time has come for regulations that recognize that whaling, handled right and in moderation, can be sustainable.
When the International Whaling Commission convenes this week, its worldwide moratorium on commercial whaling will be under attack. It should be. The time has come for regulations that recognize that whaling, handled right and in moderation, can be sustainable.
The moratorium, in place since 1985, has accomplished a great deal. Most countries, including the United States, have given up whaling, and as a result, many species that were dwindling are now on the rebound. But there are also loopholes that a handful of persistent whaling nations have managed to slip through. Norway has never recognized the moratorium; Japan and Iceland claim that they kill whales for research, though they sell surplus meat for food. Now these countries are clamoring to hunt larger species and to do so in international waters.
In April 2004, I spent two weeks on the Norwegian whaling ship Sofie, living with its five-man crew. I saw the Norwegians shoot six minke whales with grenade-tipped harpoons, drag them to the boat and kill them with blasts to the skull from a .458-caliber rifle. Once onboard, the whales dwarfed us all. But at an average of seven tons, the minke is small for a whale.
There are 120,000 to 182,000 minkes in the North Atlantic. Norwegian whalers hunt them every spring and summer along the fjord-carved coast of Arctic Norway, shooting 639 in 2005 and selling their red, beef-like meat for about $10 a pound. Given the animal’s healthy numbers, killing and eating limited numbers of minke whales is sustainable, despite the Norwegian quota increase to 1,052 whales for 2006.
Whalers cite success with the minke programs to make their case for going after larger, more profitable species. But minkes have never been heavily hunted; as a result, their numbers far exceed those of larger whales like humpback or fin, two species Japan plans to hunt in 2006.
For its part, the International Whaling Commission, which is essentially a trade organization founded to preserve whale numbers for future hunting – not for conservation – is predisposed to serve whalers, not the public good. That’s why it has failed to come up with a nuanced framework that can accommodate both environmental and economic needs.
The commission focuses on specific whale numbers rather than on general ocean health. But the old saw that all whales are in danger of extinction simply isn’t true. Seven of the mammal’s 37 species are still endangered, but only two are in serious trouble. Environmentalists need not bother with saving every whale. They’d be better off coming up with a plan to save the oceans.
Whales can become endangered by the loss of other ocean life that sustains them. And when whales are hunted, rather than allowed to die from natural causes and feed back into the ecosystem, that endangers the habitat, which in turn endangers whales. The debate over how to save the whales, therefore, needs to move its focus away from whaling and onto ocean health.
With proper management, whaling need not cause extinctions or deplete ecosystems. But as it stands, the fox is guarding the chicken coop. Whales need at least 50 more years to repopulate before hunting of larger species should resume. The commission, however, has proved incapable of allowing stocks to replenish fully, as we’ve seen with the moratorium’s sloppy loopholes.
A more disinterested body needs to govern whale hunting. I suggest the United Nations. Fifty years would give the UN time to configure a global fishing commission, and the International Whaling Commission time to dismantle.
Limited whaling of certain species would continue, while the others would be given a rest. Conservation is the best option not just for the environment, but for the fishing industry as well. Whaling, however distasteful, needs to be reinvented with global resources – not just whales – in mind.
Philip Armour is the former editor of the Swedish edition of Outside magazine.