International media reported back in August that Iceland will not issue new whaling permits for commercial whaling next season due to a “ lack of markets and demand”. Unfortunately for the whales , the Icelandic Government did a turn –around some weeks later and extended the commercial whaling season to November 1st , allowing whalers to kill the 23 minkes from last years quota.
It’s unclear what caused the turn-around , but according to the Foreign Minister “ whaling is a matter of compromises” . The Foreign Minister is herself opposed to whaling.
According to the Minke Whaler’s Association ,
The hunting did go well and the purchase of whale meat has never gone better since the resumption of whaling in 2003. All meat from the 45 minkes that have been killed during 2007 has been sold out and no more whale meat will not be available in the stores until next spring when commercial whaling starts again. ( Note this is VERY surprising that the Whaler’s Association states that commercial whaling will resume again next season).
Icelandic export market to Japan
In an article that has been published on mbl.is , is an agreement on export of whale meat from Iceland to Japan soon finished. Probably it’s about whale meat from last year’s hunt as well as from future hunts. This announcement comes from an interview with the Icelandic Fisheries Minister and a Japanese news agency.
According to the Whaler’s Association “ one should welcome the decision that Iceland and Japan have agreed on to resume trade in whale products , as there seems to be a market in Japan. In this interview it’s again stated that whaling permits will be issued for the next season, which resumes in the middle of of next year. However, the quotas will only be issued if there is a market.
Tourist industry
The Icelandic tourist numbers increased despite worries that commercial whaling should have a negative impact on numbers. From a report from the Icelandic Tourist Council , has never so many tourists visited Iceland as this summer. Despite of threats from NGOs.
In the first 9 months of this year, 379 000 tourists arrived to Keflavik Airport. This is an increase with 16,5 %. This is contrary to the prognosis that the tourist industry and the NGOs made. So it seems like commercial whaling has had no negative impact on tourism?
The Icelandic Minke Whaler’s Association makes finally this statement , “ they who claim that we sacrify bigger interests ( whale watching, my note) for lesser( whaling) , must now reconsider their arguments. Whalers claim as well that whaling has made Iceland more familiar and famous? for tourists , that’s why there has been an increase in numbers of tourists.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Green NGO’s claims exposed as bull$hit? Whats new.
The fact is that people will not go to Iceland if it is nothing more than a Euroclone. Good on them, vivre le difference.
” The fact is that people will not go to Iceland if it is nothing more than a Euroclone” – Ian
As a matter of facts there are ongoing negotiations between Iceland, Norway and the EU , regarding a membership of those whaling countries to the EU.
The biggest obstacle is however whaling to this membership.
Anyway, Iceland has a big European banking and financial ownership that is opposed to whaling. However, methinks that an EU membership of these whaling countries still is very distant?
Andy Ottawell, Director of the anti whaling NGO , Campaign Whale , who has btw made a comment here on Jen’s blog as well, did hand over a protest list to the EU Commissioner in October.
He stated :
” We want, and the public demands, that all whaling is banned and for whales to be protected forever under European Community law. With some EU countries now prepared to betray public opinion and compromise over the resumption of commercial whaling, it is more vital than ever that overwhelming public opinion opposing the cruel slaughter of whales is both heard and respected in Brussels’.
Campaign Whale is also calling for EU action against those countries that are currently killing whales by withdrawing preferential trade agreements over fisheries imports. Both Iceland and Norway are increasingly trying to justify whaling by spuriously claiming whales are a threat to commercial fish stocks. The United States has fisheries laws that link trade to conservation agreements so why not a European Marine Mammal Protection Act that does the same? ”
The countries that are pointed out as compromise willing on whaling and looked at as traitors are Sweden, Spain, Switzerland and Denmark.
PS. Another whaling news from Norway. The scuttled whaling boat the Willassen Senior’s owners will receive insurance money for the activist sabotage that sunk the whaler. The owners hope to buy a new whaler as soon as possible and resume whaling the next season….
“The United States has fisheries laws that link trade to conservation agreements so why not a European Marine Mammal Protection Act that does the same? “”
Because it would be regressive and hypocritical?
“The EU’s EFTA agreement allows preferential trade agreement on fisheries with Iceland, Norway and the Faroes, all notorious whale killing countries
Under the US’ Marine Mammal protection Act, trade sanctions can be taken against countries that violate international fisheries agreements such as the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling.” – Campaign Whale
As I see it , there will be no way that sanctions against fisheries in Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Icelands will ever be carried out by the EU.
The EU is too much dependent on these countrie’s seafood, for example , Norway exported farmed salmon for 1,5 billion Norwegian Crowns in October.
Link to Campaign Whales statements:
http://www.campaign-whale.org/latest_news.php?news_id=197
They are calling for a tougher EU position against whaling.
“They are calling for a tougher EU position against whaling.”
And so what Ann?
This is just another Caroline Lucas eco-stunt.
Are you going to keep providing u links to the same old rehashed “campaigns” for ever?
What’s new here?
I interpreted the Camapign Whale statement as if they were afraid that Norway and Iceland would seek membership in the EU , and in that way weakening the anti whaling stance of the EU.
This is a position that is quite new for me , as I have always thought that European anti whaling NGOs and people have wanted Iceland and Norway to seek EU membership as that might in turn make them abandon whaling in the long run.
And regarding anti whaling campaigns , nothing is really new and fresh, people that are not so familiar with the issue often ask me ” you guys still save whales after 30 years” !!!!!
So if there is to be only one policy in respect of whaling for all EU “nations”, and this is as a pre-condition of EU membership, then it is clear that there should only be one vote for the EU at the IWC.
If nations must surrender their sovereignty on whaling policy as a condition of EU membership then they have no right to retain an individual national vote in the IWC or any other international body dealing with the whaling issue.
Or is this just the usual bunch of Euro double standards and fraudulent dealing?
Thanks for the information Ann!
If the figures are true, the tourist response was interesting, wasn’t it.
I have also seen a report in the Japanese media with similar information regarding the trade agreement, apparently the Icelandic government representative who visited Japan (this was in October, or September I think, I forget which) said they were keen to have this wrapped up by next spring.
It’s an essential move for these nations to act, if they are really serious and not just policking themselves (as they are accused of by the anti-whaling lobby groups). Endless debates at the IWC are pointless, and until they show that they are really fed up and prepared to act in accordance with their stated desires they aren’t likely to see any compromises from their friends in other places, who are willing to exploit the point of difference.
Ian,
I’m not 100% sure if it’s a pre-condition to not whale if you seek EU membership, but the EU as it is now wants a consensus on this issue. As it is now Denmark is a rebel and votes with the pro whaling fraction on some issues in the IWC( due to Greenland and the Faroe Icelands)
I have no clue in which international fora , the EU votes with only one voice. Methinks the EU did that in the UN General Assembly when they were voting on a moratorium on high seas bottom trawling.
David,
The tourist numbers are indeed very interesting, methinks some anti whaling NGOs are not too pleased with those.
Greenpeace’s motto is ” visit Iceland IF they stop hunting whales” other NGOs seemed to choose to either boycott travels to Iceland or demanding that supermarket chains etc will boycott Icelandic seafood. A strategy that I myself find very contraproductive. The Icelanders will only be pissed and continue whaling as protest against such arguments….
Excerpt from the Iceland Review:
” Percy Westerlund, ambassador of the EU’s executive administration for Norway and Iceland who also attended the meeting, said Iceland could almost be considered an EU member already, though it is excluded from the union’s decision-making process.
Not being able to have full control over the local fishing industry has been the main reason for Iceland not wanting to join the EU until now, but according to Permanent Secretary of State Grétar Már Sigurdsson, the issue is losing importance.
Sigurdsson pointed out that the Icelandic fishing industry could benefit considerably from increased freedom in the trade of seafood products, no less than from a secure access to the catch itself.
Westerlund agreed, adding that whaling would probably prove a greater problem in Iceland’s application for EU membership than fishing, because Iceland and the EU have very different policies on whale hunting. ”
Even if it’s encouraging for Iceland with increased numbers of tourists despite the whaling , the old conflict between whaling vs whale watching pops up again:
From Iceland Review:
“Fewer minke whales in whale watching areas
According to a statement from the Whale Watching Association of Iceland, the number of minke whales spotted in whale watching areas has dropped significantly since 2003, when the Iceland Marine Research Institute began whaling for scientific purposes.
The statement claims the Marine Research Institute has killed dozens of minke whales within designated whale watching areas despite the Ministry of Fisheries promising that no animals would be killed in these areas.
According to the statement, minke whales, which used to swim alongside whale watching boats, now tend to avoid them, destroying the experience of tens of thousands of tourists who whale watch.
The Whale Watching Association said in its statement that it celebrates the Minister of Fisheries’ Einar K. Gudfinnsson’s decision not to issue a new quota for commercial whaling for the upcoming fishing season since whale meat cannot be exported to Japan.
However, the statement says, the Association regrets the minister’s decision to renew the quota for minke whaling for the local market, which will further harm the whale watching industry.”
Another prominent conflict in Iceland . Whales vs. Fisheries:
“Whales Eat More Cod Than Earlier Believed
The first results from a study undertaken by the Icelandic Marine Research Institute on the food of minke whales, indicate that the whales eat much more demersal fish, including cod, than earlier believed.
Sampling for the project, which began in 2003, finished last month, and preliminary results show that cod is seven percent of what minke whales eat, ruv.is reports.
Whale scientist Gísli Víkingsson, who is responsible for the Marine Research Institute’s study, said it is too early to determine how many tons of cod minke whales eat annually, because the animals feed on different animals depending on where they live”
The whale watching industry will try to put the boot into the whaling industry where they can (and vice versa I guess), but I recall seeing articles in some U.K. newspaper about minke whales seemingly having changing their location in recent years.
And how do they know it isn’t increases in whale watching tourism that is scaring the whales away!
Blaming a few tens of minkes getting harpooned for a decrease in whale sightings seems as if it could be jumping to conclusions a little.
” Are you going to keep providing u links to the same old rehashed ” campaigns ” for ever” ? – IceClass
As usual I have no clue what you’re talking about ! I have just provided you hard core prowhaling guys with a translation from Icelandic to English from the Icelandic Minke Whaler’s webite , something that anti whaling NGOs would NEVER publish. Excusively for you guys!
So methinks it’s only fair that I post something anti whaling as well , as this is my position.
You have also asked me for futher information regarding the Rieber affaire. I can provide you with a new Norwegian link from a sealers and whalers paper. You take contact with the Norwegian Embassy and ask for a translater as you don’t trust me!
Anyway , the short version. Norwegian whaling will probably end in a few years time. It gives the sealer bad reputation to burn seal skins and get subsidies etc. Link:
http://www.fiskeribladet.no/default.asp?side=101&lesmer=5652
>So methinks it’s only fair that I post something anti whaling as well , as this is my position.
Thanks Ann!
“You have also asked me for futher information regarding the Rieber affaire. I can provide you with a new Norwegian link from a sealers and whalers paper. You take contact with the Norwegian Embassy and ask for a translater as you don’t trust me!
Anyway , the short version. Norwegian whaling will probably end in a few years time. It gives the sealer bad reputation to burn seal skins and get subsidies etc. Link:
http://www.fiskeribladet.no/default.asp?side=101&lesmer=5652“
Hi,
Regarding the disposal of some of the seal pelts, my understanding is that Ann’s observation/translation is pretty correct.
The link provided is to a piece on sealing, without one single word about whaling, hence it did not at all say/suggest/indicate/conclude that “Norwegian whaling will probably end in a few years time”. Replace “whaling” with “sealing” and the piece is properly quoted.
Cheers,
R
Thanks Rune for the help and clarification re the Norwegian seal hunt. It has been vey difficult to convince IceClass about the burning of the pelts since he thinks this is something that is made up by the ” animal protest industry”. And the sources from which I have quoted the burning from are as far from NGOs as is possible!
I often quote Norwegian and Iceland prowhaling sources since they are hardly never reported in international media or by the NGO sites. Methinks it’s important for the discussions as well to know what both parts are thinking about the marine mammal issue.
So I have two more news today.One pro whales and the other an anti whale issue.
It was reported that the community Sund ( near Bergen) in Norway wants to expand whale watching as many whale observations have been noted. There are also plans for eagle safaris.
The Norwegian Fisheries Directorate reports that 592 minkes were killed in this years hunt and the turn over of whale meat was 762 tons ( now I sound as David :)! The profit for the sale was
24 million NOK.
According to the whalers they couldn’t supply the market with enough whale meat as there was a big demand for whale meat. Note this is contrary to what Greenpeace stated .
Most of the meat was landed in the northern communinties. Probably there is a big demand for whale meat in the North but not as much in the south and in the Oslo area.
As the whale watching (wanking) industry is so keen on defining the issue as an either/or decision between whale hunting and whale watching, then it is entirely appropriate that, in the event of an end to whale hunting, the whale watching tourists (alone) should pay an additional fee to compensate the whale hunters for their loss of livelihood.
Is it not the case that “user pays” is a core principle of ecological sustainability? If so, then if whale watching becomes the sole “use” of the resource then they must pay the full cost of that use.
Now lets see now, 24m NOK divided by (how many whale wankers was that, again?). Watch the operators scream.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22764069-3102,00.html
“A NEW venture on Queensland’s Gold Coast could help convince Japanese visitors of the importance of protecting whales, a marine scientist says.”
I read the article, but I couldn’t really get the bit about the importance of protecting whales. Why is it important that whales be protected, and not harvested (like the sharks which also get a mention in the story)?
As I have understood the case between whaling vs whale watching , the conflict beteen those two industries is bigger in Iceland than in Norway.
The whalers seem to hunt minkes in Iceland close to or within whale watching areas , but this is not the case in Norway.
Ian,
I read in a Norwegian paper that whale watching did bring in more revenues to some northern communities than whaling!
So why on Earth are the Norwegians whaling???
Especially when the revenues from whaling are only about 0,2 % of total revenues from fisheries.
Much is about tradition and pride . Most Norwegians are very proud of their whaling history. They have even had whaling operations and stations in Africa ( and did bring some whale stocks near extinction).( Whaling in Africa might be a good new thread????)
Actually it seems that a huge majority supports whaling due to nationalism , tradition, fisheries ” protection” , and ” we don’t want to listen to foreign NGOs to tell us what to do”, etc ….
I think there’s some truth in that (I know I’ve seen Japanese people say that although they don’t have a desire to eat whale meat they object to being told not to by kangaroo-killers from overseas).
The problem for the anti-whaling campaign groups is that if they try to de-politicise the issue, it becomes smaller and everyone forgets about it, and so it continues. But trying to stop it is the whole point, so they make a fuss about it, which annoys people, and the issue thus drags on. The anti-whalers can’t “win” really. If it’s the money they are in it for, big deal, doesn’t matter so long as there is whale meat on the table.
Trevor Long is not a marine ‘scientist’, and the only reference to ‘shark’ in the story was regarding the ‘shark nets’. Considering shark nets kill protected and unprotected species, the issue raised from this would surely be concerning the ‘nets’.
>But trying to stop it is the whole point, so they make a fuss about it, which annoys people, and the issue thus drags on.
Of course the converse is also true: ‘But trying to continue it is the whole point, so they make a fuss about it, which annoys people, and the issue drags on.’
Thus is the nature of the debate – two sides saying they are right when wanting different things.
The issue was that (for some reason) it’s apparently important that whales be protected (from harpoons) but no mention was made of any importance of protecting sharks and yes indeed by-caught species (from nets). This importance of protecting whales likely needs be explanation before a non-whale lover can grok it.
> ‘But trying to continue it is the whole point, so they make a fuss about it, which annoys people, and the issue drags on.’
Hmmmm, I don’t think the whalers would be making a big fuss about it if the anti-whalers shut up, but hey, I guess I can only speculate about such hypothetical situations. To me though it seems like inertia is on the side of the whalers, not the anti-whalers, but some fish like to swim against the current. I figure that the harder the anti-whalers object, the more whales the whalers will ultimately end up taking.
The issue of shark nets is raised in Australia on a regular basis, and in relation to sharks, not just incidental catch. They are there to give people ‘peace of mind’ despite the fact more sharks have been found entangled in the beach side of the nets than the ocean side. Who would want to risk removing them for fear some human was mauled? Who would want to risk upping the anti against Japan in case trade relations are damaged? In the end these issues are way beyond the animals or the public’s concerns.
>I don’t think the whalers would be making a big fuss about it if the anti-whalers shut up.
Of coure not!! And if the whalers did not make a fuss or do what they do the anti-whalers would not be making a fuss!
>I figure that the harder the anti-whalers object, the more whales the whalers will ultimately end up taking.
Sounds like childish rationale if it true. Again, nothing to do with the animals…If that is what it boils down to – thinking you are being dictated to by others and having to hold on to your pride no matter what, I wonder which side is the more ‘grown up’?
One reader of the blog wrote to me today:
” the Japanese fleet leave today for the Southern Oceans . It has really upset me, as it feels like the executioners are walking down the corridor preparing to get their prisoners for death”
I’m sure that we soon will be back wiht a whaling post on this.
Another extremely interesting rumour from the Greenpeace’s weblog:
” Here’s an interesting one: a rumour from a well-placed source that the Japanese Fisheries Agency has decided to quietly abandon plans to hunt 50 threatened humpbacks as part of their psuedo-research whaling efforts this year”
Here’s an example of Greenpeace’s forum discussions.
Cherubfish , who is a GP forum moderator wrote:
“Re Smokingkills,
Many whales are endangered, their population needs to grow.
Sustainable hunt although won’t push them nearer to extinction, it forbids them to get farther away from extinction.
Whale populations seriously need to grow.
We want whales to be as far away from extinction as possible,
without being over populated, of course.
When the whales get to that point, then I won’t be against whaling provided that the killing method is humane.”
What to say????
__________________
Continuation from the discusson from the GP forum.
Reply to Cherubfish:
“Some whale spiecies are endangered and some are not. Japan is hunting whale spiecies which are not critically endangered. Japan is mainly hunting minke whales and they are not endangered.
Save the whale movement is driven more by hate of Japan than the love of whales. For instance did you know USA hunted 60 Bow heads from a stock of 8,200 – 13,500? Japan will now hunt 50 humpback from a stock of 34,000 – 52,000.
The right whale is an another example. There are 300 left and decreasing due to reasons caused by man. It would be nice to see Green Peace mentioning it even. But they haven´t. ”
A decision by Iceland to resume commercial whaling would be based mainly on “market demand,” a fisheries ministry official said Monday. “Our whalers are currently searching for a market,” whaling commissioner Stefan Asmundsson said.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/144510.html