Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Scientists Confirm: Arctic Sea Ice 'Collapse' at Our Door
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
- Nearly 50 Climate Activists Arrested Outside Obama's White House
- Quinoa: To Buy or Not to Buy... Is This the Right Question?
- Desmond Tutu Blasts US Drones: American or Not, All Victims Are Human
- Quinoa: To Buy or Not to Buy... Is This the Right Question?
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
- Watch a City-Sized Glacier Collapse
- Around the World, A 'Billion Rise' to Fight Violence Against Women and Girls
- Nearly 50 Climate Activists Arrested Outside Obama's White House
Popular content
Today's Top News
Whaling Commission Proposes Return to Commercial Whaling
CAMBRIDGE, UK - A working group of the International Whaling Commission today released a draft proposal that would allow the return of commercial whaling. An IWC moratorium on commercial whaling has been in place since 1986.
Minke whale on thedeck of a Japanese whaler. (Photo courtesy Institute of Cetacean Research) The compromise is aimed at unblocking the long-stalled
negotiation process between IWC member countries opposed to commercial
whaling and those that want to kill whales.
The draft Consensus Decision by the Small Working Group on the Future of IWC would allow only the countries that currently take whales under the "research" provisions of the treaty to hunt them under the proposed management regime. Those countries are Japan, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, which together kill some 1,500 whales a year. Indigenous subsistence whaling also would be allowed to continue.
The draft proposal would bring whaling by all 88 member countries under the control of the IWC. Currently, the IWC has no control over whaling under objection/reservation to the treaty or whaling under special permit, the so-called "research whaling."
The proposal establishes caps of takes that are "within sustainable levels" for a 10 year period, although most of those quotas are not specified in the draft document but are marked "TBD," to be decided. The draft comments that catches would be reduced "significantly" from current levels.
Currently, Japan has a six-vessel whaling fleet in Antarctic waters as part of its scientific whaling program. It targets up to 900 minke whales, which are not an endangered species, plus 50 endangered fin whales.
In 2009, Japan took 679 minke whales and one fin whale for a five-month effort in the Southern Ocean, spending much time and effort in clashes with the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Japan's goal had been to kill up to 935 minke whales and 50 fin whales.
The IWC proposal states that a fundamental component of the Consensus Decision is that the commission will "focus on the recovery of depleted whale stocks and take actions on key issues, including bycatch, climate change and other environmental threats."
But environmental groups are outraged by the proposal.
From its office in Amsterdam today, Greenpeace International called for the proposal by to be rejected out of hand, describing it as a dangerous throwback to the 20th century when whales where hunted to near extinction.
"The proposal rewards Japan for decades of reprehensible behavior at the International Whaling Commission and in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary," said John Frizell, Head of the Greenpeace Whales Campaign.
"We are at a critical junction for both whaling and ocean conservation," said Frizell. "A return to commercial whaling would not only be a disaster for whales but will send shock waves through international ocean conservation efforts, making it vastly more difficult to protect other rapidly-declining species such as tuna and sharks."
From its headquarters in Gland, Switzerland today, WWF-International said the new draft compromise on whaling "set a dangerous precedent that the international community must reject."
WWF said that while the compromise "contains many positive elements for whale conservation that would help bring the IWC into the 21st Century," the compromise could legitimize whaling by Japan in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
"If there is one single place in the world where whales should be fully protected, it is the Southern Ocean," said Wendy Elliott, species manager at WWF-International. "What we need is to eliminate all whaling in the Southern Ocean, including Japanese commercial whaling thinly disguised as 'scientific research.'"
"But what we have now is a deal which could make it even easier for Japan to continue taking whales in this ecologically unique place," Elliott said.
The IWC supposedly provides special protection to a critical whale feeding area, the Southern Ocean, surrounding the continent of Antarctica, which the IWC established as a 50 million square kilometer whale sanctuary in 1994. "This extra layer of protection signifies the importance of this area as the primary feeding habitat of many of the Southern Hemisphere's whale populations," Elliott said.
The proposal sets a process in motion that could endorse quotas which have not yet had a full and proper scientific review. "It is difficult to see how determining quotas through politics rather than science can be considered progress," said Elliott.
The draft Consensus Decision will be discussed by a group of IWC countries at a meeting in March, with the intention that it will be adopted by the IWC at its next full meeting in Agadir, Morocco in June.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

27 Comments so far
Show AllFor those who disapprove of killing whales, there is some consolation. The higher up the fish food chain one goes, the higher the concentration of mercury.
There might be some justice down the line.
Children getting mercury poisoning doesn't seem like justice to me.
What's next, cannibalism?
A whale is a MAMMAL! DUH!!!
And so are the cows, sheep and pigs killed for meat. But I bet you knew that, and you were probably trying to point out that a whale is not a fish, and also judging from your handle: both Kucinich and his wife are vegetarians (maybe vegans ?)
Since human beings are devoting their best brains and money on ways to annihilate each other, hopefully one of these days they will succeed, then other creatures might be able to live in peace again.
I totally agree.
Let's just hope that there's no hypocrisy and holier-than-thou attitude among the environmentalists who oppose whaling, seal hunt, etc., and that their concern is not just out of what they see on TV or YouTube and because whales and seal pups are cute. (A whale is also majestic!). There is a direct link between regular beef eating by whole populations and deforestation, soil erosion and climate change. So, at the very least, one hopes that the activists opposed to whaling and seal hunting are vegetarians. Otherwise it's just selective concern - like the "outrage" and "horror" expressed by some people when they heard that horses were routinely slaughtered for their meat in some places, once they outlived their "utility".
Let's hope concern does not have to be unselective to qualify as concern. One may be concerned both when a friend gets shot and when a stranger gets shot, but the concern is not likely to be equal.
Does that mean that there is no value at all to one's concern for strangers?
If you are vegetarian or vegan, does that not indicate selectivity? After all, carrots are living things.
Yup, carrots are living things and so are all the things that vegetarians and vegans eat. Scientifically, it's hard to prove that people cannot live a healthy, productive life WITHOUT eating beef. And I can show direct causal link between regular beef eating, deforestation, climate change, and going back in history, even genocide and imperialism. And then there is the simple and powerful measure - called "ecological footprint" which also includes carbon footprint and water footprint.
Even forgetting all the history, there have been reports that clearly show the environmental impact of meat production. So, are those activists fighting to stop whaling making an effort to become vegans or cut down on their meat? I don't know. But I hope they are.
There are many here who point out the evils of unfettered capitalism, but still many of us may actually be working for the system. At the very least, we have to acknowledge the effects that it is having on life on earth.
Many of us may be hypocrites at some level. The first step to stop being hypocrites is to acknowledge the reality - especially when someone points out. I would say that the environmental damage due to beef eating is greater than due to whaling - simply because of the large numbers of people who eat beef. Now, if eating whale meat were to catch on and become more popular, sure, that would be a bigger concern than it is today.
My point was not about "concern" for the whales. It's the "outrage" that is expressed. Like some westerners are outraged and horrified when they hear of other people eating dog meat. I love dogs, but I can also spot hypocrisy when I see it. Hypocrisy and ignorance - that cows are intelligent, sentient beings too.
It's one thing to have a habit that may have some harmful effects, even to be unable to kick that habit, but it is another thing to defend that habit even after its harmful effects are pointed out, or to look for some way to counterattack those who do the pointing out.
Being a vegan will indicate selectivity *only* if killing is argued as the only reason to not eat meat. Even then, there is the natural, scientific reality that all animals - including humans - have to eat to live, and that will involve killing. However, physiologically and anatomically, human beings are so much closer to herbivores than to carnivores or omnivores. Then there are the other reasons - such as having as small an ecological footprint as possible - out of considerations of fairness. Then there is the recent information, knowledge and data linking meat production and climate change. And there are of course the statistical information and the mechanistic explanations linking meat eating with diseases including cancer. So, no, I don't think being a vegan indicates selectivity in the same manner as outrage over whaling.
Whaling is as barbaric a practice as dog fighting and bear baiting. It's only suitable place is in the dustbin of history.
NO. We Must LIVE with our world and its whales.
The alleged "research" whale meat often ends up in Japanese markets. What a surprise. Aside from indigenous people doing some subsistence whaling, who really needs to do this? It's worse than shark fin soup.
Good comment. Research. For a peer reviewed journal? Yeah.
Joe
"Whaling Commission Proposes Return to Commercial Whaling"
Sad story.
Whale butchery is such a morbid business. When whales are slaughtered on the deck of whaling boats, the whaler-sailors in rubber suits and high rubber boots are literally wading in blood.
Murder, murder, murder - seems to be the current main occupation of humanity.
Whaling is disgusting treatment of quite intelligent fellow beings (the whales, not the whalers). - I thought we humans were beyond this now. Let's hope the IWC gets a grip and this proposal for renewed whaling is rejected.
OK... Sea Shepherd Counter-Proposes Return to Land-Based Corporate-Hunting Until Their Extinction.
If its any consolation, whale meat is toxic.
Not just whale meat; ALL meat is toxic. Cooking meat to kill the fauna and flora is only a partial solution. Animal farming operations rinse their product in chlorine is another ineffective solution. The practice of farming animals for consumption has given us most of the new viral contagions of the last 50 years. Heard of MRSA? Came from meat farming, as did the swine and avian influenzas.
But WTF do meat-eaters care? Animals, Afghanis, the poor, the down-trodden, the sick and infirmed, all the same.
It is so discouraging that we continually have to fight not to lose battles we once thought won. I propose a complete boycott of goods, services, and travel to any country that engages in whaling. Starting now.
Good idea. Can you give us a list of countries to boycott?
According to the article; Japan, Norway, Iceland, and The Faroe Islands.
The late environmentalist David Brower said "All of our victories are temporary, all of our defeats permanent."
Clearly all our victories are temporary, but extinction is the only permanent defeat. Where whales (and many other species) are concerned we cannot allow ourselves to be defeated.
what's next is species extinction for the great aquatic mammals and as the sea become more acidic more species lower down the food chain
Those useless Sacks Of Sh*t on IWC commission. Well, I'm going to donate some more money to the Sea Sheppards who stick it to Whaling ships by sabotaging them. Those Son of ##$@ engage in illegal or 'scientific' whaling, then they get the Sea Sheppards hounding their pink arsess.
t_g
Kevin Rudd, our Prime Minister has promised to take the Japanese whalers to court if they don't leave the whales alone on the Southern Ocean by the end of this year.
I'm just sitting on my patio with a nice cuppa tea in my hand and waiting for the pigs to fly by...
G'day from Down Under
The IWC might as well just have come out and said 'Let's get back to commercial whaling because we might as well kill off the few remaining whales anyway, Greenpeace and the rest of the treehuggers be damned. It's not like we haven't turned the oceans into a massive waste dump, so let's just get on with the business of wiping out an entire ecosystem and make a few bucks along the way.'