The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is facing a revolt. The whaling nations of the North Atlantic, in defiance of the IWC, recently approved a quota of 10 humpback whales for Greenland.
The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), established in 1992 to provide international competence on conservation and management of whale and seal stocks in the region, normally makes recommendations to the IWC.
But after the IWC rejected Greenland’s request for a quota of 10 humpback whales at the meeting in Chile earlier this year, the countries of the North Atlantic decided enough was enough in particular because the quota had been approved by the IWC science committee and the aboriginal subsistence committee.
The quota was refused at a plenary session with Australia, New Zealand and the European Union key protagonists.
Opening statements from Norway at the meeting of NAMMCO on 2-4 September included:
“The debate about management of marine mammals today is mostly emotional. It is disturbing that the attitude towards science as the basis for managing whale stocks is vanishing. This is especially important as we have based our management of wildlife in general on science. Also, we have to solve international conflicts in the environmental field (global warming, biological diversity, fishing, effects of pollution, etcetera) on a scientific basis. Whaling and sealing is not a major issue in this context, but the actions of governments in this matter may create an international precedent for similar actions in more important issues. We cannot accept that a legal activity conducted with the best practice in one country is not accepted in another country because of emotions.”
The decision by the IWC to block the request by Greenland for a quota of 10 humpback whales, a decision spearheaded by Australia and New Zealand, is indeed seen by many as irrational with comment that, “So, whales are not only considered special by Australians, but humpback are even more special. How is this?”
Fed-up, Greenland, a Danish Protectorate, has reportedly written to its government asking that it withdraw from the IWC.
***********
You read it first at JenniferMarohasy.com/blog.
I'm leaving Tokyo for Sydney later today.
About meateating and vitamins:
It is possible to survive on a diet consisting almost entirely of what you can get from dead animals without any dietry deficiencies - thats how people used to survive in the extreeme north.
The secret lies in eating the parts most people today won't touch - stomach content, liver, kidneys, brain, heart etc.
Eg. liver is a good source for vitamin C - esp. when eaten raw. Calf liver contains almost as much as lemons! Raw oysters are also an excellent source.
Sorry for the off topic post but this is interesting:
...." The Lofoten islanders themselves, and an Icelandic fisherman, presented their situation and anxieties for the survival of their communities, livelihood and culture in a most moving and engaging fashion. The main argument from Norway was presented with passion but courtesy by the Bellona Foundation, a respected organisation campaigning for the purity of the northern seas (it has been much concerned with the parlous state of defunct Russian nuclear submarines, whether sunken or in harbour); it demanded that BNFL should immediately cease discharging technetium and instead provide means to store the stream bearing it until suitable methods of separation and disposal could be developed. The UK Environment Agency explained the considerations behind the currently required steps to reduce prospective discharges of technetium as far as practicable without incurring other risks or costs disproportionate to the benefit. A Russian parliamentary guest speaker, in a diatribe against his nuclear energy ministry, grossly over-ran his time slot without touching on the subject of the conference. Briefly appearing, the Norwegian environment minister dutifully followed the Bellona line, and skated over a challenge to his crucial assumption that a totally satisfactory way of trapping technetium was technically possible."
My note : the Lofoten Island is the headquarter of the whalers....
Hi IceClass,
Thanks for pointing out this with Nunavut, but since Jennifer quoted a Norwegian, I wrote about Norwegian coastal communities....the Norwegians really don't like nuclear power , they say it's leaking radiactive stuff from Sellafield that pollutes the North Sea....
I really never quite get the point of all Ann's various digressions but in this part of the North Atlantic, the uranium industry is busy making deals with native "development corporations" for access to uranium on native owned lands. Nunavut is on board and has a joint venture and the industry has just hired a native leader from Labrador to overturn a recently imposed moratorium.
Furthermore, at least one MLA has proposed mini-reactors in every community.
Not sure what this has to do with the IWC but just thought I'd stop Ann's blanket statements in their tracks.
I must once again point out my confusion over Jennifer's agenda.
The North Atlantic coastal communities are opposed to nuclear power and have organisations like " Stop Sellafield" , the whalers and NGOs alike believe in climate change and want carbon low meat etc, they are against off shore oil projects etc , all those things that Jennifer's think tank supports....
I see that Ann has successfully diverted the attention of the thread again. Back to the whales, eh?
The Greenlanders should reward the IWC wanker nations by doubling their harvest to 20 Humpbacks. Australia and NZ in particular have used this forum for entirely domestic diversionary purposes and have indulged themselves at the expense of other nations.
It doesn't even matter if there is no human market for the whale meat, these clowns need to be put in their place. At the very least it could be used as feed stock for fish farming.
One rarely achieves any long term beneficial outcome by indulging the whims of bullies or nutters. So the sooner they are sent packing the better, preferably with a disproportionate response.
The original point of having international forums was to minimise friction between nations by increasing dialogue and reducing the extent of misunderstandings.
But the IWC is a total abuse of that concept. It is a vehicle for active interference in the affairs of other nations, based solely on manipulation through rhetoric and misrepresentation.
The only rational response when confronted by such systematically abusive and dysfunctional behaviour is to put as much distance between yourself and the abusers as possible.
If there is such a thing as an Australian Embassy or High Commission in Greenland then it would be about time they completely dismembered a Humpback on the footpath outside it. (and left them to clean up afterwards)
Gordon, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about a high meat diet, rather an almost ALL meat diet. The Inuit seemed to get by on this for a very long time with extremely low rates of heart disease and cancer (pre-westernised Inuits of course).
Way O/T now, but I do take 2g of Vit.C/day =)