“This due to their campaigns against whaling and sealing. Their campaigns are against a reasonable and sustainable harvesting of marine resources,” states the Head of the Norwegian Fishermen’s Union, Reidar Nilsen, yesterday in paper, Fiskeribladet Fiskaren.
His reply was a response to WWF Norway that had made statements that the fishermen overfished the marine resources and thus were a threat to the world’s food resources, but Nilsen said the NGOs are a bigger threat to the world’s food resources through their anti whaling and anti sealing actions. According to Nilsen, it was in the fishermen’s own interest to conserve and harvest marine resources in a responsible way.
It seems as well that Mr. Nilsen’s statement has not as much to do with eating whale and seal meat but again as an “whales eat too much fish” argument. Nilson states that the whales are consuming 4 or 5 times as much fish than the fishermen are harvesting.
According to Norwegian animal welfare organisation, Dyrebeskyttelsen, It’s wrong to make scapegoats of the whales. They state, “The whales belong in the eco system, and that the fish the whales are eating are brought back to the eco system. Humans on the contrary are removing both fish and marine mammals from the system.”
We have also heard that the Norwegian IWC Commissioner, Mr. Klepsvik , has stated that the Norwegians are managing their marine resources in a holistic approach, meaning if they take out fish from the seas, they must also harvest whales.
Cheers,
Ann
Sweden
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Mmmmm, but whale tastes great. If anyone has any “spare unwanted and unsold” meat from any so-called “scapegoat” whales, feel free to send it this way. Or I can provide good recipes (picked up a very handy booklet of whale recipes the other day).
And since when were humans not part of the ecosystem? Crazy statements. Those people seem really out-of-touch. Next they’ll be suggesting that birds (having wings) shouldn’t be eating fish too.
Mr. Klepsvik has the right idea.
Interesting post from Ann that shows the tension created between those that hold different values when they define sustainability. The fisherman or the forester rightly demands sustainable management of the resource and seeks the best in scientific evidence in management decisions, as without fish a fisherman has nothing to catch, or without a tree a logger nothing to be harvested. As they have an economic, and social stake in this environmental issue they are very concerned when ENGOs seek political decisions made on the basis of confronting imagery and media induced crisis.
I recall an excellent presentation by Dr Walter Starck, Marine Biologist – Marine Resources and The Growing Cost of Precaution available from
http://www.aefweb.info/display/conference_program_2006.html that examines the lost oppotunity of resource management decisions being based upon politicians willingness to acede to demands of the ENGOs. (PS there are some great photos in the pdf of his presentation!)
I think it’s amazing that an advanced country as Norway, with research institutions like IMR ( Institute Marine Reasearch) are spouting official archaic propaganda such as the hungry whales are a threat to the fisheries.
I’m not totally opposed to a small consumption of whales by the locals , but this nonsense just make the Norwegians look ridiculous. (Sorry norrbaggar !) They look ridiculous together with their pro whaling allies spouting craziness such as this.
In other countries , including Sweden , there’s a culling of cormorants as well, because they eat commercial fish and are a threat to fisheries, this is pure nonsense as well. People ought to be ashamed spouting such thingies , and blaming animals for their own mistakes.
In Norway’s case , the depletion of fish stocks are partly due to big trawlers vaccuming the oceans. Note , I’m not especially critical of Norway’s and Iceland’s fisheries policies, just their arguments that the hungry whales are eating too much fish.
” Mr. Klepsvik has the right idea.” – David
I recall the BBC report, that Dr P.Corkeron posted here on the blog. Klepsvik was talking about ” hard facts”. That meant the minke whales stomach content, but what about the complex interactions between species in the oceans?
Save the planet – drown a greeny daily.
Anne,
What about complex interactions between species in the oceans?
What?
1. Killer whales arguing over which species of seal to eat?
2. Have plankton any legal representation for indisriminate ingestion by whales?
3. Have Portugeuse Man of Wars any protection from mischievious legal action by lawyers acting for the bitten?
Anne,
What about complex interactions between species in the oceans?
What?
1. Killer whales arguing over which species of seal to eat?
2. Have plankton any legal representation for indiscriminate ingestion by whales?
3. Have Portugeuse Man of Wars any protection from mischievious legal action by lawyers acting for the bitten?
In the Stockholm archipelago, there was found about 400 seabirds , maimed and killed brutally, due to the claim , that some animals are a threat to the fisheries.It happened some months ago.
Maimed seals have also been found in the archipelago , due to this nonsense that they eat too much fish. Btw, there’s a limited hunt for seals that destroy fishing gear, so this needless ” revenge slaughter” is totally mindless!
“Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable.”
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8403&news_iv_ctrl=1021
Pleeaaze Ivan, stop posting such stupid clichees!!! Aren’t there organisations such as ” Doctors for Forests” and ” Doctors against vivi-sections”????
Other cases of humans that are both compassionate about animals and humans are for example those M.Ds that conducted Magnetic Resonance Tomograhpy MRT, on my dog in a human hospital. There are as well examples of hippos undergoing MRT and CT in human hospitals in Sweden
Ann, again I find myself observing the only one saying things like “hungry whales” and “eat to much fish” is your good self.
> what about the complex interactions between species in the oceans?
Precautionary principle?
We know that whales can be harvested sustainably, but as we can’t be sure that protecting whales while consuming other marine resources would not cause an imbalance in the ecosystem, we had better catch a sustainable number of whales to be sure. Besides, as I said, whales taste good.
“Pleeaaze Ivan, stop posting such stupid clichees!!!”
Sorry – I will try and be more politically correct in future. For a brief moment there I thought that blogging was all about the free exchange of ideas. My mistake.
Ivan,
I hate political correctness and appreciate free speech and a hot discussion between greenies and neocons 😉 !!!!
Thanks … but please don’t pigeon-hole me as a greenie!
Well David,
We have already been through this ” whales eat too much fish ” discussion, but the quote ” hungry whales” is from Remi’s blog.
And if you want, I can post you some dozens of Norwegian articles and statements from the Parliament , where the Norwegians state that the whales are eating too much fish. As a matter of fact , they are using much worse words. Like whales are ruining coastal communities and whales are worse than pirate fishing in the Barents Sea.
Of course the articles are in Norwegian , but you can ask George to translate them for you.
Secondly, the issue with whales are eating too much fish is as well opposed by the Norwegian Society for Protection of Nature , that supports whale meat eating BUT is opposed to this whales eat too much fish argument.
I’m confused by the moral dilemma emerging here.
If I understand the logic above, killing whales is bad (not a little bit bad, but a lot bad – a big no-no).
However, killing a few whales is OK – but only if it’s done by locals (so ‘few’ is OK).
But — how many is a few? Are we talking single digits here, or dozens. Clearly less than the 1000 that the Japanese want to kill each year.
So – where does moral outrage kick in: 10, 20 – less than a hundred?
Any why should Japanese deserve moral outrage when ‘locals’ do not? Or would ‘locals’ also be subject to this if they crossed the ‘moral outrage’ line ?
Help me out here – I’m trying to understand this sliding scale of moral outrage concept?
A very good post D.S !
This is just my personal view here. Why shouldn’t the Norwegians and Icelanders eat a ” few” whales?As it is know the minke whale quota this year will be set about 30-50 whales? This is a reasonable quota IMO.
The Japanese and the Norwegians are both hunting about 1000 minke whales each. Maybe sustainable , maybe not. Greenpeace thinks hunting about 600 minke whales in Norway is nothing to make a big fuss of as long as they don’t increase quotas.
We have also mentioned that the Japanese are hunting minkes in a Sanctuary, the Norwegians and the Icelanders in their own EEZ. So it’s their ” own ” whales.
I have made a proposal here on the blog re my view ( it’s similar to the former US Commissioners proposal) re a solution of the whaling conflict:
1) No scientific whaling
2) No whaling in the Sanctuary
3 ) Let the Japanese whale in their own EEZ Only minke whales are allowed to be hunted etc.
Also another solution could be RFMOs ( Regional Fisheries Management Organisations) , meaning different solutions for whaling in different parts of the world.
Of course I don’t want to see ANY whales ( or any other ) animals to be killed at all , but that is totally unrealistic. The whaling nations won’t stop whaling in the near future, let’s face that, and look at the solution where the least whales will be killed. Is that an uncontrolled IWC or an RMS?
A clarification here . The quota in Iceland will be probably about 30 to 50 minke whales. My personal view is that animals will be killed for meat, be it cattle , sheep or whales and I don’t like to discriminate between animals. And probably it won’t be long before the minkes are downlisted….and international trade in whale products should not be allowed….
As long as people aren’t vegetarians I can’t see much moral dilemma why whales are a big no-no , but other critter is OK? Good discussions !
To Skummis!
Your points are very good , but we have covered this much in earlier whaling threads, so look in the archive for different views.
I can’t participate in discussions here on the blog for some months, will be away for a longer period , so I say good bye to all readers for now ( even IceClass) !
PS. I’m vegetarian btw , not eating whale meat or any other meat. So there’s no dilemmas for me….
Ann,
I am not surprised that the phrase “hungry whales” was dreamed up by someone other than a whaler.
Are “the Norwegians” saying “whales eat too much fish”, or “whales eat fish”? If you have one that you are sure says “too much” fish I’ll take your word for it.
I agree that “whales eat too much fish” statement is silly. Whales are big animals, they have lots of meat on them, so they obviously have to eat lots. Sumo wrestlers don’t get so big on a light breakfast each day.
But it’s not false to suggest that whales eat fish (depending on the species and area we are talking about).
Dear Denialist Scum,
The important thing is of course sustainability, whether it be 1 or 10,000 (and where and which ones you catch too etc). I think the issue stems from many people in non-whaling places thinking that some arbitrarily “small” number is “obviously sustainable”. The whalers are of course interested in being a little less arbitrary, so as to secure higher quotas to the extent that it is sustainable. And the conservationists are a bit worried about people thinking arbitrarily “small” quotas are so low that they are “obviously sustainable” when that may not always be the case.
This is why I don’t much fancy Ann’s “This is a reasonable quota IMO” statement regarding upcoming Iceland whaling quotas. Words like “reasonable” and “IMO” shouldn’t come in to the decision making process. What’s not reasonable about taking 1,000 minkes if it is sustainable? What would be unreasonable about taking 5,000 minkes if it were known with sufficient scientific certainty to be sustainable?
On the contrary, it seems completely unreasonable to me to think that quotas should be set lower than conservative levels that are scientifically believed with a very high level of certainty to be sustainable.
Whether the full quota is actually caught or not is another issue.
“Of course I don’t want to see ANY whales ( or any other ) animals to be killed at all … look at the solution where the least whales will be killed”
Unless the idea of “the least” matches up with scientific advice about sustainable quotas, this thinking is why the IWC is destined to disolve.
And, you don’t need to ban scientific whaling to ensure catch levels are within sustainable limits, massive sanctuaries taking up the entire space of established whaling grounds are just baggage from years of IWC mismanagement.
I really don’t understand the resistance towards sustainable whaling, unless the idea is to strangle whaling just enough to ensure that the restrictions eventually see it die out.
“And probably it won’t be long before the minkes are downlisted….and international trade in whale products should not be allowed….”
Why not? If you don’t like to discriminate between animals presumably you want to ban trade in other animal products too.
Anyway Ann, have fun while you are away 🙂