In a recent whaling thread Andy Ottaway, director of the anti-whaling NGO, Campaign Whale, wrote “If whaling can’t be conducted humanely , it should not be conducted at all”.
There is a real unwillingness to address the issue of aboriginal whale killing methods including by NGOs and the International Whaling Commission.
Now the National Geographic Magazine has featured the Inuit narwhal hunt in Arctic Bay, Canada, and the significant associated problems.
This has elicited a negative response from the hunters and a ban on the filming of whale hunts in Arctic Bay.
Philippa Brakes from The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society has commented:
““It is shocking and disappointing that an article published in National Geographic about the significant problems associated with this narwhal hunt, has elicited such a negative response from these hunters. Rather than face up to addressing the issues raised in the article about the welfare of these whales – including the fact that a 13 year-old boy was permitted to shoot narwhal all day, wounding many but landing none – the decision to ban the filming of these hunts does little other than confirm that these hunters have something to hide from the eyes of the world”.
Joe Tigullaraq, chair of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, said he worries that the portrayal of the Arctic Bay hunt will be seen by National Geographic’s many readers around the world as representative of all Nunavut hunters.
“We do have 20 other communities in Nunavut that hunt narwhals,” he said. “These other communities in Nunavut should not be painted with the same brush.”
However, Tigullaraq said he hopes the article’s publication may draw attention to flaws in present hunting techniques. “I think it’s an opportune time to consider the problems.”
Paul Nicklen, the article’s author, grew up in Kimmirut. He wrote on the National Geographic website that the narwhal story “was the most stressful thing I’ve ever done. I feel as if I’m betraying my friends.”
“But at the same time I hope that, ultimately, the DFO will work with the Inuit and help them find a better way so that their kids and grandkids can continue their traditions.
“In the end, I told this story because it’s obvious that the narwhals do not have a voice, and I’ve done my best to fairly represent them as well as the Inuit. As a journalist, I have to tell truthful, unbiased stories of what I see, no matter how difficult it may be at times.”
Ann Novek
Sweden
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Corn has no voice but it’s harvested each year without questioning them.
I will not describe how corn is killed–a full description would be offensive to many.
Who will give corn a voice?
Corn doesn’t have eyes, even though Greenpeace depicts them as having eyes. Mouths, even. But with carnivore teeth not well-suited to verbal expression.
But corn *does* have *ears.* Perhaps someone clever could preach to them and urge a revolt.
Thanks Ann. Aboriginal and small cetacean hunts are often, it seems, forgotten, yet can have extremely cruel elements. It is not just Arctic aboriginal whaling, but many indigenous hunting practices which could develop a more humane approach without seriously compromising their traditional ways.
Schiller’s flippant comment and mandatory dig at an NGO suggests he should spend more time apologising to other posters for not representing the facts rather than boring us with dopey remarks.
Portraying aboriginal whaling as inhumane is a disingenuous attempt by pro-commercial whaling interests to force aboriginal whaling to conform to modern commercial whaling standards in a cynical attempt to destroy the differential separating the two markets, yet pro-commercial lobbyists also attempt to portray TTD as a ‘moral’ issue that has nothing to do with the bigger picture of sustainability… they cannot have it both ways… I would also remind readers that current TTD stats are based on Minke whales, one of the smallest species of large cetacean…. there are records from the fifties of large cetacean species towing diesel engine whaling ships for HOURS after being harpooned…..
” It is not just Arctic aboriginal whaling, but many indigenous hunting practices which could develop a more humane approach without seriously compromising their traditional ways. ” – Libby
Yes, it seems like we don’t know much about indigenous hunting practices. For example, I checked out the walrus hunt and saw it was more inhumane than the whale hunt with big struck and lost numbers.
Methinks, hardly nobody wants that the indigenous people abanbdon their traditional hunting practises?? But how traditional are they today?
( I’m not talking about people in the Amazonas and the Kalahari Desert , that hunts with arrows laced with poison ( curare similar substances).
The hunting methods seem to be something between traditional ones and ” very modern”. Saw a Norwegian link on Russian aboriginal whaling. They used pansar weapons and Kalashnikovs. Sometimes the TTD was 9 hours.
In Greenland they use rifles. The Norwegians have offered the indigenous people to help to improve hunting methods.
Are not much about tradional whale hunting about the spirits and souls and the connection to the community??
In Brazil, they believe that the dolphin souls belong to handsome men that want to seduce women!
” Methinks, hardly nobody wants that the indigenous people abanbdon their traditional hunting practises?? ” – Ann
A little clarification. Methinks that many people want to improve killing methods without compromising traditions( as Libby mentioned).
Another factor re the article on the Canadian Inuit hunt. Canada stepped out of the IWC 1982, and I dunno if there are any stats about TTDs?
“But how traditional are they today?
( I’m not talking about people in the Amazonas and the Kalahari Desert , that hunts with arrows laced with poison ( curare similar substances).”
Yep Ann, that’s what I mean too.
Lamna, regardless of commercial whaling, do you agree that these aboriginal hunts can be inhumane? I wrote a big piece on TTD (including of other species) on another thread.
Hi Libby,
Beware poisoned chalices, TTD is the least important of the arguments concerning commercial whaling and the one most easily subverted by pro international commercial whaling pundits… ‘Cultural tradition’ is a favorite war cry of the pro-commercial whaling faction but ‘tradition’ requires hand held harpoons and rowing boats….. They cannot have it both ways and if aboriginal whaling is ‘modernised’, the pro commercial whaling lobby will say: ‘See how they are whaling exactly like us, it is not an ‘aboriginal’ hunt at all! How dare the USA lecture us at the IWC! Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!’… ‘Time to death of your food critter is NOT an environmental issue.’ – Posted by: IceClass at August 22, 2007 11:44 PM
Beware poisoned chalices….
Excerpt from the Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues( 22 May 2007).( IWC)
Eugene Brower, Chairman of the Alaska Whaling Commission ( AEWC) Weapons Improvement Committee, provided a description of the AEWC hunt in the USA.
The primary weapon used by the hunters is the harpoon, and the secondary weapon is a shoulder gun.
They do everything to ensure that the whales die quickly, in order to prevent suffering of the animal and to protect the whaling crew.
They have undertaken a program to improve hunting methods, and appreciate the help of Dr. E.O. Öen from Norway for his help in the weapons improvement program.
They have also developed a training manual for captains and crew for use of black power in the Alaska hunt.
Sweden asked if the US had a timeline for when the penthrite projectile would replace the use of black power in the Alaska hunt.
Mr. Brower responded that there have been some problems regarding procurement of the delayed fuse of the projectiles that resulted in a temporary setback.
He noted that Norway has helped to adress the issue , and they are in the process of ordering 100 projectiles that they hope will be ready for the fall hunt.
Thanks Lamna, but you have not answered my question:) No need to quote IceClass thanks! I’m afraid I see the welfare side of whaling (and any animal utilization) as very important (which is not to say I don’t find other aspects of whaling important too), but I see your point. Ann’s last comment helps to blur the lines of “traditional” even more.
This is a bit off-topic but still regarding whaling (sorry Ann):
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/26/2015207.htm
Aboriginal whale hunts must be stopped.
Just like Aboriginal CO2 emissions.
Everyone else’s whale hunts and CO2 emissions must be stopped, of course, but it’s easier to force these measures on Aboriginals.
Let’s go after them first and then they can be a lesson to us. Just like they prove the viability of “living with nature” and “organic farming” and “native wisdom.” and so forth.
After “native” people are pressed completely into illiteracy and superstition, greenpeacers will be able to hold them up as pristine exemplars for the rest of the world.
Excerpt from the National Geographic Magazine , which methinks was very balanced , and I really don’t understand why the hunters complained.
“Inuit culture has always been a hunting culture, but the coming of rifles changed the rules. Turning a blind eye to obvious abuses serves neither the Inuit nor the animals whose lives are intimately bound up with their own. As wildlife officials and hunters meet later this year, now seems an opportune moment for change. In the light of new realities, every hunter must rediscover the old wisdom of conserving game. Failure to do so denies their own proud heritage.”
“Medieval royalty coveted the Arctic whale’s long ivory tusk. So do modern hunters, and that’s taking a toll on the population. ”
Link to the National Geographic article :
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0708/feature3/index.html
‘Time to death of your food critter is NOT an environmental issue.’ – Posted by: IceClass at August 22, 2007 11:44 PM
The narwhal hunt seems to be much about struck and lost rates , that are very huge. This means a huge waste of natural resources and is of course an environmental issue as well as an animal welfare issue.
As most people don’t read the links I’ll post this comment by the author of the National Geographics article on the Inuit hunt of narwhals.
“I’ve spoken with Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) on several occasions, but—although there are many good people in the organization—it seems that no one wants to touch this issue because it’s too politically sensitive. Hunting is an Inuit right, but both the DFO and the Inuit need to find a better way of hunting small whales.”
As Libby already have mentioned , we don’t talk much about the Japanese hunt of small cetaceans ( except maybe the Taiji drive hunts) and much is focused on the big ” IWC-whales”.
Oops: Read ” As Libby and Travis have already mentioned…”
Environmental issues and animal welfare are not of necessity directly related or even complimentary and confusing the two merely muddies the waters on both issues and wastes resources.
Struck and lost, is not necessarily the same as dead without a great deal more verifiable data.. a fact that Paul Nicklen acknowledges in his article –
‘Wound it, and it will swim away and possibly die later — though many narwhals apparently survive. I’ve seen more than a few bearing MULTIPLE (my emphasis) bullet wounds.’
– Paul Nicklen, National Geographical
It should also be noted that narwhals are currently killed and lost, precisely because the hunters are using modern technology for hunting which if successful is more ‘humane’ than traditional methods…. so in this case the animal welfare issue and the environmental issue are from certain perspectives actually on opposing sides…
The humane hunting issue on the first page of the article was given undue prominence, considering that the ivory trade forcing affecting future sustainability issue covered mainly on the second page was of far more importance –
‘Until the mid-20th century, narwhals and other sea mammals were the mainstay of Inuit existence. The tusked whales provided meat and blubber for food, oil for fuel, and raw material for everything from thread and tools to tent poles and sled runners. Hunters took the game they needed, and used all they took. But as more and more Inuit left the semi-nomadic life of their ancestors and settled in towns, narwhal ivory became a coveted source of cash. As the number of whales killed has increased, so have concerns about the species’ long-term health….
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES, lists Monodon monoceros among the animals that could be threatened with extinction if trade in their parts is not monitored and controlled. The United States and Mexico ban imports of all marine mammal products, including narwhal ivory. But demand for the spiral tusks in other parts of the world continues to fuel the trade….
Today prices paid to hunters for narwhal tusks run about $125 a foot (0.3 meter). Don Oliver, manager of the Northern Store in Arctic Bay, bought 75,000 dollars’ worth of tusks from hunters in 2005, including a rare double tusk for which he paid $11,000….
at least one stock is in serious decline, owing mainly to over hunting. Along Greenland’s west coast, narwhals plummeted from 10,500 in 1986 to 1,500 in 2002. Throughout those years Greenland’s Home Rule government imposed no limits on the number of narwhals hunters could take. Catch rates in Greenland during the 1990s averaged 750 narwhals a year.
As the severity of the situation became apparent, scientific bodies sounded the alarm. A commission of marine mammal experts stated in a report, “New information seriously challenges our previous confidence that the hunting has been sustainable.” In 2004 the same group was adamant in its call for action: “West Greenland narwhal are heavily depleted, and substantial reductions in catch are required immediately to arrest the decline in numbers.” If the whales were to have any chance of recovery, the scientists stated, the annual kill would have to be slashed to no more than 135.
The Greenland government responded by setting a quota of 300 narwhals. Scientists and conservation groups complained that the limit was far too high. But rather than lowering the limit the government has increased it to 385, all but assuring that the stock will continue dwindling.
In Canada, concern centers on Admiralty Inlet. In 1984 the inlet’s summering population was estimated to be 15,000 strong. An aerial survey in 2003 counted just 5,000 narwhals. Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) notes that the survey missed large groups of whales, casting doubt on its accuracy. Even so, after reviewing all the available research, a select committee of scientists decided to bump the narwhal’s status in Canada from “not at risk” to “special concern.
Running like a refrain through the committee’s report are laments about the absence of solid data to answer vital questions: How many narwhals summer in Canadian waters? How many distinct groups exist? What number do Inuit hunters kill each year?
In recent years the annual reported kill in the Canadian Arctic has averaged about 500 narwhals, but hundreds more may go unreported. No one knows how many are “struck and lost,” meaning shot but not landed. The number varies from year to year, depending on ice conditions and hunting methods. Researchers who observed hunts in the 1970s and early 1980s reported that in some cases, more than 70 percent of the whales killed or wounded were lost. More recent surveys indicate the average rate may be closer to 30 percent, but figures remain unreliable.”
– Paul Nicklen, National Geographical
Libby I take your point about ethical animal treatment but I do not regard it as an overriding primary concern for wildlife, where sustainability is at issue (the question of how the DFO can issue quotas based on such a paucity of evidence and why it has not properly funded scientific population studies, migration patterns and hunt monitoring is left unanswered) compared with domesticated species, where sustainability is not an issue.
I missed your big piece on TTD, if you can post a link I would be interested to read it.
In Australia the argument about aboriginal “right to hunt” and “traditional methods” was settled years ago by separating the two.
The right to hunt takes precedence. The method used, whether traditional, or using vehicles and firearms, is secondary. This recognises that technology can change methods without affecting culture that much. It also recognises that use of more efficient “tools” can be controlled to some extent by regulations.
While this is not directly related to this topic, it may help to separate and clarify the two arguments that I see in it.
Thanks a lot Helen for this interesting information.
Ann
Hi Lamna,
The TTD comment is here:http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002101.html
“Wildlife” remaining as true to the word should not have to be overly concerned about ethical treatment from humans. Sustainability is to ensure there is something for future human utilization. I agree that these are two separate issues, however where struck and lost rates are high, it can impact on the population so little is known about. Granted, the individual animal’s suffering is not likely to come into consideration here, but by ensuring shots are accurate and clean you are killing two birds (so to speak) with one stone.
The fact narwhal tusk is so prized, partly due to its association with the mystical unicorn, is ironic, given that without proper management some populations of narwhal may become just as mystical.
Hi Libby,
Thanks for the link, your post confirmed a number of things I had strongly suspected about TTDs but hadn’t seen the data for until now.
Interesting that the TTD details supplied by commercial whalers were careful to refer to time only in minutes rather than hours and minutes where appropriate, indeed some appeared to be getting very reluctant to supply the information at all…
‘In 2007 Japan also announced it will not be providing welfare information from JARPN II to the IWC, despite the fact it is recognised that the welfare considerations of killing larger whales has not been properly researched or addressed.’
Well quite, after all its not like they are they are conducting scientific research on whales is it?… D’oh!
Sorry Ann, a bit off-topic again:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/27/2015865.htm
Talks of eating feral cats in Australia.
Good one Libby, methinks this could be something for a new thread???
BTW, watch out for a new whaling thread soon ( maybe today). Some interesting news…
From CITES:
“Reports of Narwhal catches in both Greenland and Canada are believed to be incomplete, and under-reporting is significant in some areas. Undocumented mortality of Narwhals that are wounded and escape,or sink and are lost (‘struck and lost’) in Canada is higher than 30%19. The JWG agreed that data from the Canadian hunt can be used to provide a general indication of loss rate in Greenland20. Making reasonableallowances for struck and lost animals, mortality due to hunting by Canada and Greenland certainly exceeded 1,000 Narwhals annually in the 1990’s over 1,500 Narwhals”
” ‘Wound it, and it will swim away and possibly die later — though many narwhals apparently survive. I’ve seen more than a few bearing MULTIPLE (my emphasis) bullet wounds.’
– Paul Nicklen, National Geographical
It’s a common phenomena in all huntings that struck animals are wounded and escape. However, hunters ethics demand in all civilized societies to make an after search with dogs for a wounded animal and kill it. We have no idea how much the wounded animals suffer!
Those who work with marine mammals often witness animals with big wounds that have survived from polar bear and killer whales attacks. The salinity of the water cleans the wounds.
Iceland ends whaling due to lack of demand –
Iceland’s fisheries minister Einar K. Guofinnsson said that it made no sense to issue new quotas if the market for whale meat was not strong enough.
He said in an interview with Reuters that he would not issue a new quota until the market conditions for whale meat improved and permission to export whale products to Japan – which Iceland has been seeking – was secured.
“The whaling industry, like any other industry, has to obey the market. If there is no profitability there is no foundation for resuming with the killing of whales.”
– Charles Clover, Daily Telegraph, 24th August 2007
Cat stew may be off the menu:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/27/2016825.htm
Interesting news from Iceland, not to mention Africa.
I’m not the right person the point out spelling errors, but I see that the international media have spelled the Icelandic Fisheries Minister’s name : Guofinnsson.
The Icelandic letter for D is missing on foreign keyboards, but instead of ” o” , write a ” d”!
So his near correct name is ” Gudfinnsson”.
Air picture from Torshavn’s harbour , the Faroe Islands http://www.fiskaren.no/incoming/article142062.ece yesterday after the annual pilot whale hunt
They kill some hundreds pilot whales each year, some other small cetaceans and killer whales.
Correction re the article from the Faroe Islands:
They don’t hunt killer whales but white sided dolphins.
231 pilot whales were killed yesterday and the meat and blubber were distributed for nothing to the public, about 5 kg for each citizen.