“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
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 🙂
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....
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 !