ahoo! urged to stop selling the meat of endangered whales
October 2011. The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) has confirmed that another 131 tonnes of Icelandic Fin whale meat has been shipped to Japan and renewed its call for global retailer Yahoo! to immediately prohibit the sale of the endangered species via Yahoo! Japan.
The latest shipment brings the total of Fin whale exported to Japan since Iceland resumed commercial whaling to more than 1,500 tonnes, despite the CITES Appendix 1 listing of Fin whales clearly prohibiting international trade.
In July, the EIA report Renegade Whaling identified Icelandic company Hvalur and its multi-millionaire boss Kristján Loftsson as hunting Fin whales for export to Japan via a company he helped to set up.
US sanctions
But despite Iceland being certified under the US Pelly Amendment later that same month, it has now been confirmed that in August a new export to Japan took place of 131 tonnes of Fin whale product with an estimated value of 209 million Icelandic króna ($1.7 million).
On September 15, US President Barack Obama stated that Iceland's whaling and trade in the meat threatens the conservation status of an endangered species and undermines multilateral efforts to ensure greater worldwide protection for whales. Stopping short of targeted trade sanctions, he nevertheless announced diplomatic measures aiming to push Iceland to halt the trade.
Yahoo!
Yahoo Japan! sells numerous Icelandic Fin whale products, including large (1.5kg) blocks of meat, bacon (blubber) and canned products. As of September 2011, these products and many more were still available on the internet from Yahoo! Japan shopping sites; a survey by EIA found 10 different retailers offering Icelandic Fin whale meat products for sale via Yahoo! Japan.
"At a time when the US Government is applying international pressure to force an end to Iceland's whaling and international trade, Yahoo! Japan is effectively encouraging further hunting of the species by selling endangered Fin whale meat products on its website," said EIA Senior Campaigner Clare Perry.
"It's long past due that Yahoo! put its house in order and stopped profiting from, and stimulating, this bloody and wholly unnecessary slaughter."
EIA first called on Yahoo! Japan in April 2010 to ban all sales of whale, dolphin and porpoise products on its store and auction websites after discovering that many products contained high levels of the neurotoxin mercury.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/whale-meat.html
Showing posts with label whaling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label whaling. Show all posts
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
NZ Minister condemns Japan's whaling plans
Mark Willacy, agencies
The Japanese Agriculture Minister, Michihiko Kano, has said the annual hunt will start around November.
New Zealand's Foreign Minister, Murray McCully said this meant Tokyo was isolating itself from the international community.
"Japan's decision is increasingly out of step with international opinion," Mr McCully said. "It is also entirely disrespectful of the strong concerns expressed by Australian and New Zealand people for whom the Southern Ocean is our neighbourhood."
McCully also said he is concerned at Japan's plans to boost security for its whaling fleet, as well as comments from environmental activist group Sea Shepherd, suggesting its vessels could use life-threatening tactics to stop whalers.
"The New Zealand government has consistently urged all parties to act responsibly during the whaling season, and to avoid actions that may put their lives, or the lives of others, at risk."
Activists
The anti-whaling group, Sea Shepherd, says it will do everything possible to intervene in Japan's upcoming whaling season.
Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson says Australia and New Zealand are offering only empty rhetoric against the Southern Ocean hunt.
He told Radio Australia his organisation will not buckle to Japan's increasingly aggressive tactics.
"We're not going to hurt anybody, but we're certainly going to take the risks that are necessary to block them," he said. "That's the key to the whole thing. Blocking their operations. And if they can't load whales, they can't kill them".
He said Japan is spending $US40 million to send their whaling fleet, and another $US20 million on security.
Legal move
The Australian Opposition is urging the Government to seek an injunction at the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea against Japanese whaling.
The Environment Minister, Tony Burke, has condemned Japan's decision to continue its annual whale hunt in the southern ocean this summer.
Last year, Australia launched legal action against Japan in the International Court of Justice.
But the Oppostion's environment spokesman, Greg Hunt, says the ICJ will take too long to make a decision.
"We expect that on behalf of the Australian people who don't want to see whaling in Australian waters in Australian territory for whales that are travelling in the southern ocean, this is the moment to begin an injunctive action," he said.
http://abcasiapacificnews.com/stories/201110/3332117.htm
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Whale Activist Vows To Fast Till Death
by brightpathvideo
Tuesday Jan 18th, 2011 3:17 PM
Tom Falvey is a friend of mine. We go way back to Greenpeace days. Tom is determined to hold onto this life threatening fast until Japan ends its hostile aggression against both the whales in the arctic seas (Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary) and against the brave Sea Shepherd crew desperately trying to protect the whales.
Please help him by writing letters to the Secretary of State and Embassy of Japan. Addresses below.
Hunger Strike Against Aggression
Japan has sent its whaling fleet to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in defiance of international law. It has also sent armed cost guard personnel with them in response to nonviolent activists upholding the law. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has deployed the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists' ships. The threat of deadly force in support of an illegal enterprise constitutes armed aggression.
I will fast until death unless Japan renounces the use of force against those defending the integrity of the Sanctuary.
If Japan does so I will gladly end my fast. If it refuses then it will be clear that Japan intends to physically subdue them. In that case the world community will be forewarned and have a duty to prevent such violence.
I want to live. But some things are worth dying for. If necessary I will join the countless individuals who have given their lives for two fundamental principles:
For the 2010/11 season Japan has unilaterally decided to take 935 Minke, 50 Fin and 50 Humpback whales, in an “objection” to IWC rules. A dead whale is worth about $200,000 on the meat market. This is actually a commercial operation; an industrial scale slaughter for profit.
This year Japan has also sent armed coast guard personnel with its fleet. This is in response to nonviolent activists defending the integrity of the Sanctuary. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has mobilized the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists’ ships. Obviously such tactics would put human life at risk.
The possible use of armed force to suppress opposition in a protected conservation zone takes the whaling issue to a new level. This is no longer simply about the whales. It challenges the very concept of international law. Can one nation violently impose its will on the global commons in defiance of the recognized regulatory body (IWC)?
There are good reasons for the Sanctuary’s existence. Antarctica itself is a desolate ice sheet. The cold nutrient rich ocean surrounding it is spectacularly alive. Whales are its dominant life form. Yet most whale species have been hunted to the brink of extinction. Now Japan is going after the last and smallest survivors.
This issue also has an ethical dimension. All whales have bigger brains than ours, and some seem to be as complex. We cannot prejudge beings so high on the evolutionary scale as mere natural resources. Real scientists would wait to determine the truth about their intelligence before butchering them for food.
Another ethical aspect is whaling’s extreme cruelty. An exploding harpoon rarely kills outright. The wounded whale is winched to the killer ship’s side, stuck with a probe and electrocuted with thousands of volts. It often takes 15-20 minutes for the whale to finally drown. Such prolonged agony would not be tolerated in any slaughterhouse.
Few people care about the ecology of the remote Southern Ocean. Or the possibility of advanced consciousness in marine mammals. People do care about a stable world order governed by the rule of law.
In this case, Japan has explicitly stated that it is exempt from the rule of law. It claims the right to exploit the oceanic commons as it sees fit, regardless of others’ interests. Its military presence implies a right to physically subdue anyone who stands in its way. That is a breathtaking assertion of jurisdiction over the Southern Ocean, 6000 miles from Japan.
The United States, with many other nations, has long voiced opposition to Japan’s illegal whaling. However, it has tolerated some state sponsored poaching in the Sanctuary because Japan is a major creditor that finances much of our deficit. Now its military deployment presents a direct challenge. It cannot be evaded. The threat of deadly force in support of a criminal enterprise constitutes armed aggression on the high seas.
The world community must act to ensure that Japan renounces the use of force against those who are upholding international law. The real stakes here are far higher than those of power and pride. If Japan gets away with this then it kills any hope for effective ocean conservation. It, then others, will just grab what they want. The degradation of a vital planetary ecosystem will accelerate. We will all pay a heavy price. Is the world so intimidated by Japan’s economic clout that it will allow this to happen?
Japan is unique but not privileged. It cannot make its own rules and enforce them by violence. The oceans are not Japan’s for the taking.
Current Situation – January 17, 2011
The Sea Shepherd activists are now with the whalers' supply ship. They will block any attempt at refueling. That means the whalers would have to return home at least a month early, thus saving hundreds of whales. During this process the Sea Shepherd ships will be essentially immobile and thus vulnerable to whatever action the armed coast guard personnel may have planned. This moment of truth could come at any time.
World governments have a duty to ensure that Japan does not resort to force. Failure to act means they would share responsibility for any injuries or deaths that may occur.
To express your concern please contact:
Ambassador Ichiro Fujisaki
Embassy of Japan
2520 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20008-2869
Tel: (202) 238-6700
Fax: (202) 328-2187
Email: jicc [at] ws.mofa.go.jp
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Department of State
2201 C St, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Tel: (202) 647-9572
Fax: (202) 647-1579
Email: colemancl [at] state.gov (her personal assistant)
Or the appropriate officials in your country.
About Tom Falvey
Tom Falvey, 61, is an environmentalist and writer in San Diego, CA. He is not affiliated with any organization. He does not represent the Sea Shepherd activists. This is a personal statement of conscience.
You can contact Tom Falvey at:
Tel: (619) 618-5713
Email: tefalvey [at] gmail.com
About this Hunger Strike
I began this hunger strike at noon on December 28, 2010.
The credibility of this protest depends on its sincerity. I will only drink water during this fast. If I fall unconscious, or into a coma, I refuse any feeding, even if death is imminent. If I develop any medical condition as a consequence, even a life threatening one, I refuse all treatment.
The only condition under which I will accept feeding or medical intervention is if Japan renounces the use of force against nonviolent activists upholding the integrity of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
http://tomfalvey.blogspot.com/
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/18/18669504.php
Tuesday Jan 18th, 2011 3:17 PM
Please help him by writing letters to the Secretary of State and Embassy of Japan. Addresses below.
Hunger Strike Against Aggression
Japan has sent its whaling fleet to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in defiance of international law. It has also sent armed cost guard personnel with them in response to nonviolent activists upholding the law. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has deployed the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists' ships. The threat of deadly force in support of an illegal enterprise constitutes armed aggression.
I will fast until death unless Japan renounces the use of force against those defending the integrity of the Sanctuary.
If Japan does so I will gladly end my fast. If it refuses then it will be clear that Japan intends to physically subdue them. In that case the world community will be forewarned and have a duty to prevent such violence.
I want to live. But some things are worth dying for. If necessary I will join the countless individuals who have given their lives for two fundamental principles:
- The rule of law must prevail, and
- Armed aggression on the high seas is unacceptable
For the 2010/11 season Japan has unilaterally decided to take 935 Minke, 50 Fin and 50 Humpback whales, in an “objection” to IWC rules. A dead whale is worth about $200,000 on the meat market. This is actually a commercial operation; an industrial scale slaughter for profit.
This year Japan has also sent armed coast guard personnel with its fleet. This is in response to nonviolent activists defending the integrity of the Sanctuary. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has mobilized the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists’ ships. Obviously such tactics would put human life at risk.
The possible use of armed force to suppress opposition in a protected conservation zone takes the whaling issue to a new level. This is no longer simply about the whales. It challenges the very concept of international law. Can one nation violently impose its will on the global commons in defiance of the recognized regulatory body (IWC)?
There are good reasons for the Sanctuary’s existence. Antarctica itself is a desolate ice sheet. The cold nutrient rich ocean surrounding it is spectacularly alive. Whales are its dominant life form. Yet most whale species have been hunted to the brink of extinction. Now Japan is going after the last and smallest survivors.
This issue also has an ethical dimension. All whales have bigger brains than ours, and some seem to be as complex. We cannot prejudge beings so high on the evolutionary scale as mere natural resources. Real scientists would wait to determine the truth about their intelligence before butchering them for food.
Another ethical aspect is whaling’s extreme cruelty. An exploding harpoon rarely kills outright. The wounded whale is winched to the killer ship’s side, stuck with a probe and electrocuted with thousands of volts. It often takes 15-20 minutes for the whale to finally drown. Such prolonged agony would not be tolerated in any slaughterhouse.
Few people care about the ecology of the remote Southern Ocean. Or the possibility of advanced consciousness in marine mammals. People do care about a stable world order governed by the rule of law.
In this case, Japan has explicitly stated that it is exempt from the rule of law. It claims the right to exploit the oceanic commons as it sees fit, regardless of others’ interests. Its military presence implies a right to physically subdue anyone who stands in its way. That is a breathtaking assertion of jurisdiction over the Southern Ocean, 6000 miles from Japan.
The United States, with many other nations, has long voiced opposition to Japan’s illegal whaling. However, it has tolerated some state sponsored poaching in the Sanctuary because Japan is a major creditor that finances much of our deficit. Now its military deployment presents a direct challenge. It cannot be evaded. The threat of deadly force in support of a criminal enterprise constitutes armed aggression on the high seas.
The world community must act to ensure that Japan renounces the use of force against those who are upholding international law. The real stakes here are far higher than those of power and pride. If Japan gets away with this then it kills any hope for effective ocean conservation. It, then others, will just grab what they want. The degradation of a vital planetary ecosystem will accelerate. We will all pay a heavy price. Is the world so intimidated by Japan’s economic clout that it will allow this to happen?
Japan is unique but not privileged. It cannot make its own rules and enforce them by violence. The oceans are not Japan’s for the taking.
Current Situation – January 17, 2011
The Sea Shepherd activists are now with the whalers' supply ship. They will block any attempt at refueling. That means the whalers would have to return home at least a month early, thus saving hundreds of whales. During this process the Sea Shepherd ships will be essentially immobile and thus vulnerable to whatever action the armed coast guard personnel may have planned. This moment of truth could come at any time.
World governments have a duty to ensure that Japan does not resort to force. Failure to act means they would share responsibility for any injuries or deaths that may occur.
To express your concern please contact:
Ambassador Ichiro Fujisaki
Embassy of Japan
2520 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20008-2869
Tel: (202) 238-6700
Fax: (202) 328-2187
Email: jicc [at] ws.mofa.go.jp
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Department of State
2201 C St, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Tel: (202) 647-9572
Fax: (202) 647-1579
Email: colemancl [at] state.gov (her personal assistant)
Or the appropriate officials in your country.
About Tom Falvey
Tom Falvey, 61, is an environmentalist and writer in San Diego, CA. He is not affiliated with any organization. He does not represent the Sea Shepherd activists. This is a personal statement of conscience.
You can contact Tom Falvey at:
Tel: (619) 618-5713
Email: tefalvey [at] gmail.com
About this Hunger Strike
I began this hunger strike at noon on December 28, 2010.
The credibility of this protest depends on its sincerity. I will only drink water during this fast. If I fall unconscious, or into a coma, I refuse any feeding, even if death is imminent. If I develop any medical condition as a consequence, even a life threatening one, I refuse all treatment.
The only condition under which I will accept feeding or medical intervention is if Japan renounces the use of force against nonviolent activists upholding the integrity of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
http://tomfalvey.blogspot.com/
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/18/18669504.php
Whale Activist Vows To Fast Till Death
by brightpathvideo
Tuesday Jan 18th, 2011 3:17 PM
Tom Falvey is a friend of mine. We go way back to Greenpeace days. Tom is determined to hold onto this life threatening fast until Japan ends its hostile aggression against both the whales in the arctic seas (Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary) and against the brave Sea Shepherd crew desperately trying to protect the whales.
Please help him by writing letters to the Secretary of State and Embassy of Japan. Addresses below.
Hunger Strike Against Aggression
Japan has sent its whaling fleet to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in defiance of international law. It has also sent armed cost guard personnel with them in response to nonviolent activists upholding the law. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has deployed the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists' ships. The threat of deadly force in support of an illegal enterprise constitutes armed aggression.
I will fast until death unless Japan renounces the use of force against those defending the integrity of the Sanctuary.
If Japan does so I will gladly end my fast. If it refuses then it will be clear that Japan intends to physically subdue them. In that case the world community will be forewarned and have a duty to prevent such violence.
I want to live. But some things are worth dying for. If necessary I will join the countless individuals who have given their lives for two fundamental principles:
For the 2010/11 season Japan has unilaterally decided to take 935 Minke, 50 Fin and 50 Humpback whales, in an “objection” to IWC rules. A dead whale is worth about $200,000 on the meat market. This is actually a commercial operation; an industrial scale slaughter for profit.
This year Japan has also sent armed coast guard personnel with its fleet. This is in response to nonviolent activists defending the integrity of the Sanctuary. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has mobilized the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists’ ships. Obviously such tactics would put human life at risk.
The possible use of armed force to suppress opposition in a protected conservation zone takes the whaling issue to a new level. This is no longer simply about the whales. It challenges the very concept of international law. Can one nation violently impose its will on the global commons in defiance of the recognized regulatory body (IWC)?
There are good reasons for the Sanctuary’s existence. Antarctica itself is a desolate ice sheet. The cold nutrient rich ocean surrounding it is spectacularly alive. Whales are its dominant life form. Yet most whale species have been hunted to the brink of extinction. Now Japan is going after the last and smallest survivors.
This issue also has an ethical dimension. All whales have bigger brains than ours, and some seem to be as complex. We cannot prejudge beings so high on the evolutionary scale as mere natural resources. Real scientists would wait to determine the truth about their intelligence before butchering them for food.
Another ethical aspect is whaling’s extreme cruelty. An exploding harpoon rarely kills outright. The wounded whale is winched to the killer ship’s side, stuck with a probe and electrocuted with thousands of volts. It often takes 15-20 minutes for the whale to finally drown. Such prolonged agony would not be tolerated in any slaughterhouse.
Few people care about the ecology of the remote Southern Ocean. Or the possibility of advanced consciousness in marine mammals. People do care about a stable world order governed by the rule of law.
In this case, Japan has explicitly stated that it is exempt from the rule of law. It claims the right to exploit the oceanic commons as it sees fit, regardless of others’ interests. Its military presence implies a right to physically subdue anyone who stands in its way. That is a breathtaking assertion of jurisdiction over the Southern Ocean, 6000 miles from Japan.
The United States, with many other nations, has long voiced opposition to Japan’s illegal whaling. However, it has tolerated some state sponsored poaching in the Sanctuary because Japan is a major creditor that finances much of our deficit. Now its military deployment presents a direct challenge. It cannot be evaded. The threat of deadly force in support of a criminal enterprise constitutes armed aggression on the high seas.
The world community must act to ensure that Japan renounces the use of force against those who are upholding international law. The real stakes here are far higher than those of power and pride. If Japan gets away with this then it kills any hope for effective ocean conservation. It, then others, will just grab what they want. The degradation of a vital planetary ecosystem will accelerate. We will all pay a heavy price. Is the world so intimidated by Japan’s economic clout that it will allow this to happen?
Japan is unique but not privileged. It cannot make its own rules and enforce them by violence. The oceans are not Japan’s for the taking.
Current Situation – January 17, 2011
The Sea Shepherd activists are now with the whalers' supply ship. They will block any attempt at refueling. That means the whalers would have to return home at least a month early, thus saving hundreds of whales. During this process the Sea Shepherd ships will be essentially immobile and thus vulnerable to whatever action the armed coast guard personnel may have planned. This moment of truth could come at any time.
World governments have a duty to ensure that Japan does not resort to force. Failure to act means they would share responsibility for any injuries or deaths that may occur.
To express your concern please contact:
Ambassador Ichiro Fujisaki
Embassy of Japan
2520 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20008-2869
Tel: (202) 238-6700
Fax: (202) 328-2187
Email: jicc [at] ws.mofa.go.jp
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Department of State
2201 C St, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Tel: (202) 647-9572
Fax: (202) 647-1579
Email: colemancl [at] state.gov (her personal assistant)
Or the appropriate officials in your country.
About Tom Falvey
Tom Falvey, 61, is an environmentalist and writer in San Diego, CA. He is not affiliated with any organization. He does not represent the Sea Shepherd activists. This is a personal statement of conscience.
You can contact Tom Falvey at:
Tel: (619) 618-5713
Email: tefalvey [at] gmail.com
About this Hunger Strike
I began this hunger strike at noon on December 28, 2010.
The credibility of this protest depends on its sincerity. I will only drink water during this fast. If I fall unconscious, or into a coma, I refuse any feeding, even if death is imminent. If I develop any medical condition as a consequence, even a life threatening one, I refuse all treatment.
The only condition under which I will accept feeding or medical intervention is if Japan renounces the use of force against nonviolent activists upholding the integrity of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
http://tomfalvey.blogspot.com/
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/18/18669504.php
Tuesday Jan 18th, 2011 3:17 PM
Please help him by writing letters to the Secretary of State and Embassy of Japan. Addresses below.
Hunger Strike Against Aggression
Japan has sent its whaling fleet to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in defiance of international law. It has also sent armed cost guard personnel with them in response to nonviolent activists upholding the law. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has deployed the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists' ships. The threat of deadly force in support of an illegal enterprise constitutes armed aggression.
I will fast until death unless Japan renounces the use of force against those defending the integrity of the Sanctuary.
If Japan does so I will gladly end my fast. If it refuses then it will be clear that Japan intends to physically subdue them. In that case the world community will be forewarned and have a duty to prevent such violence.
I want to live. But some things are worth dying for. If necessary I will join the countless individuals who have given their lives for two fundamental principles:
- The rule of law must prevail, and
- Armed aggression on the high seas is unacceptable
For the 2010/11 season Japan has unilaterally decided to take 935 Minke, 50 Fin and 50 Humpback whales, in an “objection” to IWC rules. A dead whale is worth about $200,000 on the meat market. This is actually a commercial operation; an industrial scale slaughter for profit.
This year Japan has also sent armed coast guard personnel with its fleet. This is in response to nonviolent activists defending the integrity of the Sanctuary. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has mobilized the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists’ ships. Obviously such tactics would put human life at risk.
The possible use of armed force to suppress opposition in a protected conservation zone takes the whaling issue to a new level. This is no longer simply about the whales. It challenges the very concept of international law. Can one nation violently impose its will on the global commons in defiance of the recognized regulatory body (IWC)?
There are good reasons for the Sanctuary’s existence. Antarctica itself is a desolate ice sheet. The cold nutrient rich ocean surrounding it is spectacularly alive. Whales are its dominant life form. Yet most whale species have been hunted to the brink of extinction. Now Japan is going after the last and smallest survivors.
This issue also has an ethical dimension. All whales have bigger brains than ours, and some seem to be as complex. We cannot prejudge beings so high on the evolutionary scale as mere natural resources. Real scientists would wait to determine the truth about their intelligence before butchering them for food.
Another ethical aspect is whaling’s extreme cruelty. An exploding harpoon rarely kills outright. The wounded whale is winched to the killer ship’s side, stuck with a probe and electrocuted with thousands of volts. It often takes 15-20 minutes for the whale to finally drown. Such prolonged agony would not be tolerated in any slaughterhouse.
Few people care about the ecology of the remote Southern Ocean. Or the possibility of advanced consciousness in marine mammals. People do care about a stable world order governed by the rule of law.
In this case, Japan has explicitly stated that it is exempt from the rule of law. It claims the right to exploit the oceanic commons as it sees fit, regardless of others’ interests. Its military presence implies a right to physically subdue anyone who stands in its way. That is a breathtaking assertion of jurisdiction over the Southern Ocean, 6000 miles from Japan.
The United States, with many other nations, has long voiced opposition to Japan’s illegal whaling. However, it has tolerated some state sponsored poaching in the Sanctuary because Japan is a major creditor that finances much of our deficit. Now its military deployment presents a direct challenge. It cannot be evaded. The threat of deadly force in support of a criminal enterprise constitutes armed aggression on the high seas.
The world community must act to ensure that Japan renounces the use of force against those who are upholding international law. The real stakes here are far higher than those of power and pride. If Japan gets away with this then it kills any hope for effective ocean conservation. It, then others, will just grab what they want. The degradation of a vital planetary ecosystem will accelerate. We will all pay a heavy price. Is the world so intimidated by Japan’s economic clout that it will allow this to happen?
Japan is unique but not privileged. It cannot make its own rules and enforce them by violence. The oceans are not Japan’s for the taking.
Current Situation – January 17, 2011
The Sea Shepherd activists are now with the whalers' supply ship. They will block any attempt at refueling. That means the whalers would have to return home at least a month early, thus saving hundreds of whales. During this process the Sea Shepherd ships will be essentially immobile and thus vulnerable to whatever action the armed coast guard personnel may have planned. This moment of truth could come at any time.
World governments have a duty to ensure that Japan does not resort to force. Failure to act means they would share responsibility for any injuries or deaths that may occur.
To express your concern please contact:
Ambassador Ichiro Fujisaki
Embassy of Japan
2520 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20008-2869
Tel: (202) 238-6700
Fax: (202) 328-2187
Email: jicc [at] ws.mofa.go.jp
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Department of State
2201 C St, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Tel: (202) 647-9572
Fax: (202) 647-1579
Email: colemancl [at] state.gov (her personal assistant)
Or the appropriate officials in your country.
About Tom Falvey
Tom Falvey, 61, is an environmentalist and writer in San Diego, CA. He is not affiliated with any organization. He does not represent the Sea Shepherd activists. This is a personal statement of conscience.
You can contact Tom Falvey at:
Tel: (619) 618-5713
Email: tefalvey [at] gmail.com
About this Hunger Strike
I began this hunger strike at noon on December 28, 2010.
The credibility of this protest depends on its sincerity. I will only drink water during this fast. If I fall unconscious, or into a coma, I refuse any feeding, even if death is imminent. If I develop any medical condition as a consequence, even a life threatening one, I refuse all treatment.
The only condition under which I will accept feeding or medical intervention is if Japan renounces the use of force against nonviolent activists upholding the integrity of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
http://tomfalvey.blogspot.com/
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/18/18669504.php
Monday, September 6, 2010
Whaling and fishing for the largest species has altered carbon sequestering in oceans
September 6, 2010
(PhysOrg.com) -- Decades of whaling and fishing for the largest species have altered the ability of oceans to store and sequester carbon, according to a team of marine researchers from the University of Maine, the University of British Columbia and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI).
An individual whale contains a huge amount of carbon, an amount only exceeded by the largest trees, says Andrew Pershing, a research scientist with a joint appointment at UMaine and GMRI who led the team. A century of whaling equates to burning more than 70 million acres of temperate forest or 28,000 SUVs driving for 100 years, he says.
“We tend to think of carbon storage in peat bogs, trees and grasslands, not in animals,” Pershing says. “By removing whales, sharks and large fish, we’ve reduced the amount of carbon stored in these populations.”
Conserving larger marine vertebrate species and the largest individuals in the species should be a top conservation priority, according to the researchers, whose findings on the impact of whaling on the ocean carbon cycle were published last week (week of Aug. 30) by the international Public Library of Science (PLoS).
Carbon credits could provide additional incentive to rebuild fish and whale populations, Pershing says.
Ocean iron fertilization is the most widely discussed idea for sequestering carbon in the ocean. But calculations by Pershing and the other researchers — Line Christensen at the University of British Columbia; Nicholas Record and Peter Stetson from UMaine and GMRI; and Graham Sherwood from GMRI — suggest that rebuilding whale and large fish populations would be even more efficient means of storing carbon.
“The big surprise was in our calculations comparing carbon exported by sinking whale carcasses to the carbon exported by iron fertilization,” says Pershing, whose research was supported by NASA and the National Science Foundation. “If we had all the whales we used to have, they would remove the same amount of carbon in a year as 200 of the most efficient iron fertilization events. What that tells me is that we can get significant carbon savings by conserving resources in the ocean, protecting whales, larger fish and sharks.”
Dead, sinking phytoplankton cells are the primary means of removing carbon from the ocean’s euphotic zone near the surface. Marine vertebrates play a much smaller role in the movement and storage of inorganic and organic carbon in the ocean ecosystem. However, their contributions cannot be underestimated, considering the inherent metabolic efficiency of the large animals.
A blue whale has a biomass of 90 tons, with 9 tons of carbon stored in its tissues. Only a large tree has more carbon, Pershing says.
Compared to phytoplankton that have life spans measured in days, whales and large fish live for decades. Carbon accumulated in their bodies is sequestered — out of the atmosphere — for the life of the animal. Because of their potential to store carbon for years, marine vertebrates such as whales are comparable to trees.
And because of their size and few predators, whales and other big marine vertebrates can efficiently export carbon from the surface waters to the deep sea. Those that die natural deaths transport their carbon to the ocean depths, away from the atmosphere.
To study the consequences of removing these large animals on the ocean’s ability to store carbon, the researchers looked at populations of whale species, reconstructing their pre-whaling and modern abundances. Those species include blue whales in the Southern Ocean, whose numbers have been reduced by more than 99 percent.
The researchers estimate that 100 years of whaling removed 23 million tons of carbon from marine ecosystems. Populations of large baleen whales now store only 15 percent of the carbon they had before whaling.
In those ecosystems heavily impacted by whaling, the populations of smaller species increased. But such a shift toward smaller animals could decrease the total community biomass by 30 percent or more, according to the researchers. The larger animals require less food per unit mass, more efficiently storing carbon than smaller animals.
Compared to smaller animals, bigger species require less food (carbon) per day to support each gram of tissue. The same amount of food can support a greater tonnage of whales than penguins, Pershing says.
“In many ways bigger is better,” Pershing says. “Larger organisms are more efficient, requiring less food per unit in their bodies.”
Provided by The University of Maine
http://www.physorg.com/news202985104.html
(PhysOrg.com) -- Decades of whaling and fishing for the largest species have altered the ability of oceans to store and sequester carbon, according to a team of marine researchers from the University of Maine, the University of British Columbia and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI).
An individual whale contains a huge amount of carbon, an amount only exceeded by the largest trees, says Andrew Pershing, a research scientist with a joint appointment at UMaine and GMRI who led the team. A century of whaling equates to burning more than 70 million acres of temperate forest or 28,000 SUVs driving for 100 years, he says.
“We tend to think of carbon storage in peat bogs, trees and grasslands, not in animals,” Pershing says. “By removing whales, sharks and large fish, we’ve reduced the amount of carbon stored in these populations.”
Conserving larger marine vertebrate species and the largest individuals in the species should be a top conservation priority, according to the researchers, whose findings on the impact of whaling on the ocean carbon cycle were published last week (week of Aug. 30) by the international Public Library of Science (PLoS).
Carbon credits could provide additional incentive to rebuild fish and whale populations, Pershing says.
Ocean iron fertilization is the most widely discussed idea for sequestering carbon in the ocean. But calculations by Pershing and the other researchers — Line Christensen at the University of British Columbia; Nicholas Record and Peter Stetson from UMaine and GMRI; and Graham Sherwood from GMRI — suggest that rebuilding whale and large fish populations would be even more efficient means of storing carbon.
“The big surprise was in our calculations comparing carbon exported by sinking whale carcasses to the carbon exported by iron fertilization,” says Pershing, whose research was supported by NASA and the National Science Foundation. “If we had all the whales we used to have, they would remove the same amount of carbon in a year as 200 of the most efficient iron fertilization events. What that tells me is that we can get significant carbon savings by conserving resources in the ocean, protecting whales, larger fish and sharks.”
Dead, sinking phytoplankton cells are the primary means of removing carbon from the ocean’s euphotic zone near the surface. Marine vertebrates play a much smaller role in the movement and storage of inorganic and organic carbon in the ocean ecosystem. However, their contributions cannot be underestimated, considering the inherent metabolic efficiency of the large animals.
A blue whale has a biomass of 90 tons, with 9 tons of carbon stored in its tissues. Only a large tree has more carbon, Pershing says.
Compared to phytoplankton that have life spans measured in days, whales and large fish live for decades. Carbon accumulated in their bodies is sequestered — out of the atmosphere — for the life of the animal. Because of their potential to store carbon for years, marine vertebrates such as whales are comparable to trees.
And because of their size and few predators, whales and other big marine vertebrates can efficiently export carbon from the surface waters to the deep sea. Those that die natural deaths transport their carbon to the ocean depths, away from the atmosphere.
To study the consequences of removing these large animals on the ocean’s ability to store carbon, the researchers looked at populations of whale species, reconstructing their pre-whaling and modern abundances. Those species include blue whales in the Southern Ocean, whose numbers have been reduced by more than 99 percent.
The researchers estimate that 100 years of whaling removed 23 million tons of carbon from marine ecosystems. Populations of large baleen whales now store only 15 percent of the carbon they had before whaling.
In those ecosystems heavily impacted by whaling, the populations of smaller species increased. But such a shift toward smaller animals could decrease the total community biomass by 30 percent or more, according to the researchers. The larger animals require less food per unit mass, more efficiently storing carbon than smaller animals.
Compared to smaller animals, bigger species require less food (carbon) per day to support each gram of tissue. The same amount of food can support a greater tonnage of whales than penguins, Pershing says.
“In many ways bigger is better,” Pershing says. “Larger organisms are more efficient, requiring less food per unit in their bodies.”
Provided by The University of Maine
http://www.physorg.com/news202985104.html
Whaling and fishing for the largest species has altered carbon sequestering in oceans
September 6, 2010
(PhysOrg.com) -- Decades of whaling and fishing for the largest species have altered the ability of oceans to store and sequester carbon, according to a team of marine researchers from the University of Maine, the University of British Columbia and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI).
An individual whale contains a huge amount of carbon, an amount only exceeded by the largest trees, says Andrew Pershing, a research scientist with a joint appointment at UMaine and GMRI who led the team. A century of whaling equates to burning more than 70 million acres of temperate forest or 28,000 SUVs driving for 100 years, he says.
“We tend to think of carbon storage in peat bogs, trees and grasslands, not in animals,” Pershing says. “By removing whales, sharks and large fish, we’ve reduced the amount of carbon stored in these populations.”
Conserving larger marine vertebrate species and the largest individuals in the species should be a top conservation priority, according to the researchers, whose findings on the impact of whaling on the ocean carbon cycle were published last week (week of Aug. 30) by the international Public Library of Science (PLoS).
Carbon credits could provide additional incentive to rebuild fish and whale populations, Pershing says.
Ocean iron fertilization is the most widely discussed idea for sequestering carbon in the ocean. But calculations by Pershing and the other researchers — Line Christensen at the University of British Columbia; Nicholas Record and Peter Stetson from UMaine and GMRI; and Graham Sherwood from GMRI — suggest that rebuilding whale and large fish populations would be even more efficient means of storing carbon.
“The big surprise was in our calculations comparing carbon exported by sinking whale carcasses to the carbon exported by iron fertilization,” says Pershing, whose research was supported by NASA and the National Science Foundation. “If we had all the whales we used to have, they would remove the same amount of carbon in a year as 200 of the most efficient iron fertilization events. What that tells me is that we can get significant carbon savings by conserving resources in the ocean, protecting whales, larger fish and sharks.”
Dead, sinking phytoplankton cells are the primary means of removing carbon from the ocean’s euphotic zone near the surface. Marine vertebrates play a much smaller role in the movement and storage of inorganic and organic carbon in the ocean ecosystem. However, their contributions cannot be underestimated, considering the inherent metabolic efficiency of the large animals.
A blue whale has a biomass of 90 tons, with 9 tons of carbon stored in its tissues. Only a large tree has more carbon, Pershing says.
Compared to phytoplankton that have life spans measured in days, whales and large fish live for decades. Carbon accumulated in their bodies is sequestered — out of the atmosphere — for the life of the animal. Because of their potential to store carbon for years, marine vertebrates such as whales are comparable to trees.
And because of their size and few predators, whales and other big marine vertebrates can efficiently export carbon from the surface waters to the deep sea. Those that die natural deaths transport their carbon to the ocean depths, away from the atmosphere.
To study the consequences of removing these large animals on the ocean’s ability to store carbon, the researchers looked at populations of whale species, reconstructing their pre-whaling and modern abundances. Those species include blue whales in the Southern Ocean, whose numbers have been reduced by more than 99 percent.
The researchers estimate that 100 years of whaling removed 23 million tons of carbon from marine ecosystems. Populations of large baleen whales now store only 15 percent of the carbon they had before whaling.
In those ecosystems heavily impacted by whaling, the populations of smaller species increased. But such a shift toward smaller animals could decrease the total community biomass by 30 percent or more, according to the researchers. The larger animals require less food per unit mass, more efficiently storing carbon than smaller animals.
Compared to smaller animals, bigger species require less food (carbon) per day to support each gram of tissue. The same amount of food can support a greater tonnage of whales than penguins, Pershing says.
“In many ways bigger is better,” Pershing says. “Larger organisms are more efficient, requiring less food per unit in their bodies.”
Provided by The University of Maine
http://www.physorg.com/news202985104.html
(PhysOrg.com) -- Decades of whaling and fishing for the largest species have altered the ability of oceans to store and sequester carbon, according to a team of marine researchers from the University of Maine, the University of British Columbia and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI).
An individual whale contains a huge amount of carbon, an amount only exceeded by the largest trees, says Andrew Pershing, a research scientist with a joint appointment at UMaine and GMRI who led the team. A century of whaling equates to burning more than 70 million acres of temperate forest or 28,000 SUVs driving for 100 years, he says.
“We tend to think of carbon storage in peat bogs, trees and grasslands, not in animals,” Pershing says. “By removing whales, sharks and large fish, we’ve reduced the amount of carbon stored in these populations.”
Conserving larger marine vertebrate species and the largest individuals in the species should be a top conservation priority, according to the researchers, whose findings on the impact of whaling on the ocean carbon cycle were published last week (week of Aug. 30) by the international Public Library of Science (PLoS).
Carbon credits could provide additional incentive to rebuild fish and whale populations, Pershing says.
Ocean iron fertilization is the most widely discussed idea for sequestering carbon in the ocean. But calculations by Pershing and the other researchers — Line Christensen at the University of British Columbia; Nicholas Record and Peter Stetson from UMaine and GMRI; and Graham Sherwood from GMRI — suggest that rebuilding whale and large fish populations would be even more efficient means of storing carbon.
“The big surprise was in our calculations comparing carbon exported by sinking whale carcasses to the carbon exported by iron fertilization,” says Pershing, whose research was supported by NASA and the National Science Foundation. “If we had all the whales we used to have, they would remove the same amount of carbon in a year as 200 of the most efficient iron fertilization events. What that tells me is that we can get significant carbon savings by conserving resources in the ocean, protecting whales, larger fish and sharks.”
Dead, sinking phytoplankton cells are the primary means of removing carbon from the ocean’s euphotic zone near the surface. Marine vertebrates play a much smaller role in the movement and storage of inorganic and organic carbon in the ocean ecosystem. However, their contributions cannot be underestimated, considering the inherent metabolic efficiency of the large animals.
A blue whale has a biomass of 90 tons, with 9 tons of carbon stored in its tissues. Only a large tree has more carbon, Pershing says.
Compared to phytoplankton that have life spans measured in days, whales and large fish live for decades. Carbon accumulated in their bodies is sequestered — out of the atmosphere — for the life of the animal. Because of their potential to store carbon for years, marine vertebrates such as whales are comparable to trees.
And because of their size and few predators, whales and other big marine vertebrates can efficiently export carbon from the surface waters to the deep sea. Those that die natural deaths transport their carbon to the ocean depths, away from the atmosphere.
To study the consequences of removing these large animals on the ocean’s ability to store carbon, the researchers looked at populations of whale species, reconstructing their pre-whaling and modern abundances. Those species include blue whales in the Southern Ocean, whose numbers have been reduced by more than 99 percent.
The researchers estimate that 100 years of whaling removed 23 million tons of carbon from marine ecosystems. Populations of large baleen whales now store only 15 percent of the carbon they had before whaling.
In those ecosystems heavily impacted by whaling, the populations of smaller species increased. But such a shift toward smaller animals could decrease the total community biomass by 30 percent or more, according to the researchers. The larger animals require less food per unit mass, more efficiently storing carbon than smaller animals.
Compared to smaller animals, bigger species require less food (carbon) per day to support each gram of tissue. The same amount of food can support a greater tonnage of whales than penguins, Pershing says.
“In many ways bigger is better,” Pershing says. “Larger organisms are more efficient, requiring less food per unit in their bodies.”
Provided by The University of Maine
http://www.physorg.com/news202985104.html
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Reports of Japan Bribing International Whaling Commission (Via Matt Williams)
Investigation Supports Longtime Sea Shepherd Reports of Japan Bribing International Whaling Commission
BY Ariel SchwartzTue Jun 22, 2010
Japan is so desperate to preserve its whaling industry that the country has resorted to bribing small nations with cash and prostitutes, according to a recent investigation from The Sunday Times of London. Undercover reporters from the newspaper disguised themselves as representatives of a Swiss billionaire seeking anti-whaling votes at the next International Whaling Commission's meeting, set to take place later this month in Morocco. The reporters found six countries (St Kitts and Nevis, the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Grenada, Republic of Guinea, and Ivory Coast) willing to part with their votes--as long as the undercover reporters could give them more than what Japan was already offering.
The investigation also caught delegates revealing on camera that Japan offers call girls to visiting fisheries ministers and civil servants. A fisheries representative from Guinea admitted that Japan offered officials at least $1,000 in spending money per day during IWC event, and a fisheries official from the Marshall Islands told undercover reporters, "We support Japan because of what they give us."
None of this comes as a surprise to Captain Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. "I've posted about this on our Web site for years. It's no secret," he tells FastCompany.com. "Japan has been bullying and bribing to get their way."
Watson believes that the IWC, which is supposed to oversee whale conservation, is irrelevant because it has been so tainted by scandal. While Sea Shepherd is officially banned from IWC meetings, Watson recounts one incident in 1997 when the organization was allowed to attend an IWC reception. "I walked in and the entire Japanese, Icelandic, and Norwegian delegations walked out. Other countries did too. They followed like puppy dogs after the Japanese. It was the greatest compliment I ever received."
So if the IWC can't change Japan's whaling culture, what can? Unsurprisingly, Watson believes that Sea Shepherd can help sink the whaling industry. Many environmental groups disagree--Greenpeace, for example, believes Sea Shepherd's actions (sinking whaling boats and destroying equipment) are too violent. But Japan will do almost anything to keep its valuable whaling industry alive. Direct intervention may be the most effective solution--and it makes for good television, too.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1662729/investigation-reveals-that-japan-bribes-countries-for-votes-on-the-international-whaling-com
BY Ariel SchwartzTue Jun 22, 2010
Japan is so desperate to preserve its whaling industry that the country has resorted to bribing small nations with cash and prostitutes, according to a recent investigation from The Sunday Times of London. Undercover reporters from the newspaper disguised themselves as representatives of a Swiss billionaire seeking anti-whaling votes at the next International Whaling Commission's meeting, set to take place later this month in Morocco. The reporters found six countries (St Kitts and Nevis, the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Grenada, Republic of Guinea, and Ivory Coast) willing to part with their votes--as long as the undercover reporters could give them more than what Japan was already offering.
The investigation also caught delegates revealing on camera that Japan offers call girls to visiting fisheries ministers and civil servants. A fisheries representative from Guinea admitted that Japan offered officials at least $1,000 in spending money per day during IWC event, and a fisheries official from the Marshall Islands told undercover reporters, "We support Japan because of what they give us."
None of this comes as a surprise to Captain Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. "I've posted about this on our Web site for years. It's no secret," he tells FastCompany.com. "Japan has been bullying and bribing to get their way."
Watson believes that the IWC, which is supposed to oversee whale conservation, is irrelevant because it has been so tainted by scandal. While Sea Shepherd is officially banned from IWC meetings, Watson recounts one incident in 1997 when the organization was allowed to attend an IWC reception. "I walked in and the entire Japanese, Icelandic, and Norwegian delegations walked out. Other countries did too. They followed like puppy dogs after the Japanese. It was the greatest compliment I ever received."
So if the IWC can't change Japan's whaling culture, what can? Unsurprisingly, Watson believes that Sea Shepherd can help sink the whaling industry. Many environmental groups disagree--Greenpeace, for example, believes Sea Shepherd's actions (sinking whaling boats and destroying equipment) are too violent. But Japan will do almost anything to keep its valuable whaling industry alive. Direct intervention may be the most effective solution--and it makes for good television, too.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1662729/investigation-reveals-that-japan-bribes-countries-for-votes-on-the-international-whaling-com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Graphic anti-whaling video released in protest of 'whale hunting plans'
A graphic anti-whaling video featuring Alice Dellal, the British model, appearing to paint with whale blood has been released, ahead of a key international meeting that could allow limited commercial whaling.
By Andrew Hough
Published: 7:00AM BST 16 Jun 2010
The one minute 21 second protest video, which has been posted on YouTube, was released by campaigners ahead of next week’s International Whaling Commission gathering in Agadir, Morocco.
Members of the international body, which regulates whaling, will meet to consider a controversial plan to legitimise the practice for the first time in a quarter of a century.
It is expected the 88 member nation body will approve a compromise between pro and anti-whaling countries, which could include allowing commercial whaling on a limited scale.
Conservationists fear any overturning of the ban on hunting whales could “potentially open the floodgates to whaling across the globe once again”. Britain is a strong supporter of the whaling ban.
On Tuesday, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) released the video in protest against the controversial practice.
It also started an online petition, where protest messages will be sent to world leaders who favour overturning the ban, including Barack Obama, the US President.
The video, narrated by Christopher Eccleston, the former Doctor Who star, shows Miss Dellal, 22, painting a wall with a brush that appears to be soaked in whale blood and animal body parts.
Miss Dellal, also a socialite who has been dubbed the new Kate Moss, said she was happy to lend her name to the short film.
“The whole thing (whaling) just sounds so wrong to me,” she said.
Profit-driven whale hunting has been banned for 25 years and international trade in whales or whale parts is forbidden under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
Japan, Norway and Iceland, the three countries which still hunt whales, have used loopholes in the moratorium to continue to track and kill the animals.
Japanese ministers on Tuesday threatened to pull out of commission if no progress was made to ease the banning.
It is estimated around 35,000 whales have been slaughtered since the ban was introduced in 1986.
Japan particularly hunts whales under the legal loophole that allows killing of the ocean giants for "scientific research" despite failing to hide the fact whale meat is sold in shops and restaurants throughout the country.
Japan targets culling up to 935 whales in the Antarctic each year although it was able to catch only about half of that number in its latest hunt because of harassment by militant anti-whaling activists.
But under the IWC draft proposal, the three countries would reduce their whale kills over the next decade, subject to tight monitoring, with Japan eventually cutting its Antarctic whale culls by three-quarters.
The whaling states would each be granted annual kill quotas through 2020, totalling nearly 12,000 specimens, in return giving up the right to invoke unilateral exemptions.
The 10-year deal is designed to create a pressure-free zone for hammering out a durable agreement.
But anti-whaling groups fear it will legitimate commercial hunting and provide an incentive to push for an overturn of the ban once the decade-long deal expires.
They also warn that ending the moratorium will threaten the long-term survival of whale populations and will be a symbolic defeat for countries trying to preserve the endangered species.
Anti-whaling states, including Australia and New Zealand, have also called the proposed whaling quota system unacceptable.
It is thought that Britain's opposition to whaling will go uncounted because EU members of the IWC vote as a block and Denmark is expected to support lifting the ban.
“This deal is not in the interests of whales and means a return to a world of industrial whaling,” said Chris Butler-Stroud, the WDCS chief executive.
The Australian government has announced that it will take Japan to the International Court of Justice in The Hague in an attempt to stop whaling in the Southern Ocean.
Reports in the US have suggested the White House was leading a push within the commission to lift the ban on whaling against. Critics say Mr Obama was breaking a campaign promise to support such a lifting.
The US is said to have been concerned that if it blocks the plan, Japan will veto the renewal of IWC permission for small-scale whale catching by indigenous American peoples in Alaska.
Japan, which would be allowed to catch 120 whales a year under the plan, needs three quarters of the vote to lift the ban on whaling. It is thought it currently has support of just under half of the nations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7830002/Graphic-anti-whaling-video-released-in-protest-of-whale-hunting-plans.html
By Andrew Hough
Published: 7:00AM BST 16 Jun 2010
The one minute 21 second protest video, which has been posted on YouTube, was released by campaigners ahead of next week’s International Whaling Commission gathering in Agadir, Morocco.
Members of the international body, which regulates whaling, will meet to consider a controversial plan to legitimise the practice for the first time in a quarter of a century.
It is expected the 88 member nation body will approve a compromise between pro and anti-whaling countries, which could include allowing commercial whaling on a limited scale.
Conservationists fear any overturning of the ban on hunting whales could “potentially open the floodgates to whaling across the globe once again”. Britain is a strong supporter of the whaling ban.
On Tuesday, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) released the video in protest against the controversial practice.
It also started an online petition, where protest messages will be sent to world leaders who favour overturning the ban, including Barack Obama, the US President.
The video, narrated by Christopher Eccleston, the former Doctor Who star, shows Miss Dellal, 22, painting a wall with a brush that appears to be soaked in whale blood and animal body parts.
Miss Dellal, also a socialite who has been dubbed the new Kate Moss, said she was happy to lend her name to the short film.
“The whole thing (whaling) just sounds so wrong to me,” she said.
Profit-driven whale hunting has been banned for 25 years and international trade in whales or whale parts is forbidden under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
Japan, Norway and Iceland, the three countries which still hunt whales, have used loopholes in the moratorium to continue to track and kill the animals.
Japanese ministers on Tuesday threatened to pull out of commission if no progress was made to ease the banning.
It is estimated around 35,000 whales have been slaughtered since the ban was introduced in 1986.
Japan particularly hunts whales under the legal loophole that allows killing of the ocean giants for "scientific research" despite failing to hide the fact whale meat is sold in shops and restaurants throughout the country.
Japan targets culling up to 935 whales in the Antarctic each year although it was able to catch only about half of that number in its latest hunt because of harassment by militant anti-whaling activists.
But under the IWC draft proposal, the three countries would reduce their whale kills over the next decade, subject to tight monitoring, with Japan eventually cutting its Antarctic whale culls by three-quarters.
The whaling states would each be granted annual kill quotas through 2020, totalling nearly 12,000 specimens, in return giving up the right to invoke unilateral exemptions.
The 10-year deal is designed to create a pressure-free zone for hammering out a durable agreement.
But anti-whaling groups fear it will legitimate commercial hunting and provide an incentive to push for an overturn of the ban once the decade-long deal expires.
They also warn that ending the moratorium will threaten the long-term survival of whale populations and will be a symbolic defeat for countries trying to preserve the endangered species.
Anti-whaling states, including Australia and New Zealand, have also called the proposed whaling quota system unacceptable.
It is thought that Britain's opposition to whaling will go uncounted because EU members of the IWC vote as a block and Denmark is expected to support lifting the ban.
“This deal is not in the interests of whales and means a return to a world of industrial whaling,” said Chris Butler-Stroud, the WDCS chief executive.
The Australian government has announced that it will take Japan to the International Court of Justice in The Hague in an attempt to stop whaling in the Southern Ocean.
Reports in the US have suggested the White House was leading a push within the commission to lift the ban on whaling against. Critics say Mr Obama was breaking a campaign promise to support such a lifting.
The US is said to have been concerned that if it blocks the plan, Japan will veto the renewal of IWC permission for small-scale whale catching by indigenous American peoples in Alaska.
Japan, which would be allowed to catch 120 whales a year under the plan, needs three quarters of the vote to lift the ban on whaling. It is thought it currently has support of just under half of the nations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7830002/Graphic-anti-whaling-video-released-in-protest-of-whale-hunting-plans.html
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Japanese whale meat 'being sold in US and Korea'
Scientists say they have found clear proof that meat from whales captured under Japan's whaling programme is being sold in US and Korean eateries.
The researchers say they used genetic fingerprinting to identify meat taken from a Los Angeles restaurant as coming from a sei whale sold in Japan.
They say the discovery proves that an illegal trade in protected species still exists.
Whale meat was also allegedly found at an unnamed Seoul sushi restaurant.
Commercial whaling has been frozen by an international moratorium since 1986.
But a controversial exemption allows Japan to kill several hundred whales each year for what is termed scientific research.
The meat from these whales is then sold to the public in shops and restaurants in that country.
Criminal proceedings
A team of scientists, film-makers and environmental advocates say they collected samples of whale meat being sold in sushi restaurants in both the US and South Korea late last year.
A genetic analysis of meat found in Los Angeles showed that it was identical to meat from a sei whale being sold in Japan in 2007. This species is said by environmentalists to be in danger of extinction.
Criminal proceedings have started against the Los Angeles restaurant caught selling the whale meat.
It has now closed but its chef and owners face heavy penalties.
Writing in the Royal Society journal, Biology Letters, the researchers involved say that trading in this meat is banned between countries that have signed the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
The researchers also visited an unnamed restaurant in the South Korean capital Seoul where they say they purchased 13 whale products on two occasions in June and September 2009.
Four came from an Antarctic minke whale, four from a sei whale, three from a North Pacific minke, one from a fin whale and one was from a Risso's dolphin, the researchers say.
The DNA profile of the fin whale meat genetically matched meat that had been bought in Japanese markets in 2007, they report.
They argue that Japan should be required to make public a register of the DNA of all the whales it catches so that illegally traded meat can be tracked.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8619051.stm
The researchers say they used genetic fingerprinting to identify meat taken from a Los Angeles restaurant as coming from a sei whale sold in Japan.
They say the discovery proves that an illegal trade in protected species still exists.
Whale meat was also allegedly found at an unnamed Seoul sushi restaurant.
Commercial whaling has been frozen by an international moratorium since 1986.
But a controversial exemption allows Japan to kill several hundred whales each year for what is termed scientific research.
The meat from these whales is then sold to the public in shops and restaurants in that country.
Criminal proceedings
A team of scientists, film-makers and environmental advocates say they collected samples of whale meat being sold in sushi restaurants in both the US and South Korea late last year.
A genetic analysis of meat found in Los Angeles showed that it was identical to meat from a sei whale being sold in Japan in 2007. This species is said by environmentalists to be in danger of extinction.
Criminal proceedings have started against the Los Angeles restaurant caught selling the whale meat.
It has now closed but its chef and owners face heavy penalties.
Writing in the Royal Society journal, Biology Letters, the researchers involved say that trading in this meat is banned between countries that have signed the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
The researchers also visited an unnamed restaurant in the South Korean capital Seoul where they say they purchased 13 whale products on two occasions in June and September 2009.
Four came from an Antarctic minke whale, four from a sei whale, three from a North Pacific minke, one from a fin whale and one was from a Risso's dolphin, the researchers say.
The DNA profile of the fin whale meat genetically matched meat that had been bought in Japanese markets in 2007, they report.
They argue that Japan should be required to make public a register of the DNA of all the whales it catches so that illegally traded meat can be tracked.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8619051.stm
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Whale watchers report large drop in sightings of grey whales
Captains of boats operating whale-watching expeditions for tourists in California said sightings have dropped from 25 a day in good years to just five a day this year.
The grey whale had been considered a success story by environmentalists and it was taken off the endangered list in 1994 after numbers rose.
In recent years the 30-tonne creatures have become a common sight migrating along the coast between Alaska and Mexico.
In June the International Whaling Commission will consider allowing 1,400 grey whales to be hunted over the next decade but some scientists said the latest anecdotal evidence showed it was too soon to allow hunting.
When grey whales were listed as endangered in 1970 an estimated 12,000 remained. A moratorium on commercial hunting and close monitoring helped the population reach more than 20,000.
But the recovery in numbers led to a decline in efforts to monitor them and the last count being looked at by the commission was conducted in 2006.
A separate study last year showed the number of calves fell from more than 1,000 in 2006 to 312 in 2009.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7582723/Whale-watchers-report-large-drop-in-sightings-of-grey-whales.html
The grey whale had been considered a success story by environmentalists and it was taken off the endangered list in 1994 after numbers rose.
In recent years the 30-tonne creatures have become a common sight migrating along the coast between Alaska and Mexico.
In June the International Whaling Commission will consider allowing 1,400 grey whales to be hunted over the next decade but some scientists said the latest anecdotal evidence showed it was too soon to allow hunting.
When grey whales were listed as endangered in 1970 an estimated 12,000 remained. A moratorium on commercial hunting and close monitoring helped the population reach more than 20,000.
But the recovery in numbers led to a decline in efforts to monitor them and the last count being looked at by the commission was conducted in 2006.
A separate study last year showed the number of calves fell from more than 1,000 in 2006 to 312 in 2009.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7582723/Whale-watchers-report-large-drop-in-sightings-of-grey-whales.html
Monday, February 15, 2010
Sea Shepherd skipper boards whaling vessel
ANDREW DARBY
February 15, 2010 - 2:20PM
The skipper of the Sea Shepherd vessel that was sunk in a Southern Ocean collision last month has today boarded the Japanese whaling security vessel that hit his boat.
New Zealander Pete Bethune used a power-ski, under the cover of darkness, to clamber aboard the Shonan Maru No 2, said the anti-whaling group's leader, Paul Watson.
“His mission is to attempt a citizen's arrest of the skipper of Shonan Maru No.2 for the destruction of the Ady Gil and attempted murder of six Ady Gil crew,” Captain Watson said.
He said Mr Bethune had a bill for $3 million to present to the Japanese boat's skipper and a demand for surrender.
But Captain Watson said he anticipated Mr Bethune would be taken prisoner on the vessel when the Japanese crew discovered he was there.
Captain Watson said the boarding in darkness was very difficult for Captain Bethune.
"The first attempt he actually fell in the water and the jet-ski went back and retrieved him. [The crew] still didn't notice," Captain Watson told AAP.
"It was extremely dangerous. He was boarding a ship going at 15 knots in total darkness in Southern Ocean waters, which are extremely frigid."
Captain Bethune clambered aboard despite nets and anti-boarding spikes, and evaded detection by hiding on top of the wheelhouse for 90 minutes.
When dawn broke he knocked on the door and presented his orders for the skipper to surrender.
Captain Watson said a Japanese crew member emerged to look for the boat on which Captain Bethune had arrived. Finding none, the crew member then went back inside, leaving Captain Bethune standing there.
"Pete opened the door and walked into the wheelhouse ... that's the last we've heard of him," Captain Watson said.
The boarding took place in international waters, not in Australian waters.
- with AAP
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/sea-shepherd-skipper-boards-whaling-vessel-20100215-o0cf.html
(Submitted by Matthew Williams)
February 15, 2010 - 2:20PM
The skipper of the Sea Shepherd vessel that was sunk in a Southern Ocean collision last month has today boarded the Japanese whaling security vessel that hit his boat.
New Zealander Pete Bethune used a power-ski, under the cover of darkness, to clamber aboard the Shonan Maru No 2, said the anti-whaling group's leader, Paul Watson.
“His mission is to attempt a citizen's arrest of the skipper of Shonan Maru No.2 for the destruction of the Ady Gil and attempted murder of six Ady Gil crew,” Captain Watson said.
He said Mr Bethune had a bill for $3 million to present to the Japanese boat's skipper and a demand for surrender.
But Captain Watson said he anticipated Mr Bethune would be taken prisoner on the vessel when the Japanese crew discovered he was there.
Captain Watson said the boarding in darkness was very difficult for Captain Bethune.
"The first attempt he actually fell in the water and the jet-ski went back and retrieved him. [The crew] still didn't notice," Captain Watson told AAP.
"It was extremely dangerous. He was boarding a ship going at 15 knots in total darkness in Southern Ocean waters, which are extremely frigid."
Captain Bethune clambered aboard despite nets and anti-boarding spikes, and evaded detection by hiding on top of the wheelhouse for 90 minutes.
When dawn broke he knocked on the door and presented his orders for the skipper to surrender.
Captain Watson said a Japanese crew member emerged to look for the boat on which Captain Bethune had arrived. Finding none, the crew member then went back inside, leaving Captain Bethune standing there.
"Pete opened the door and walked into the wheelhouse ... that's the last we've heard of him," Captain Watson said.
The boarding took place in international waters, not in Australian waters.
- with AAP
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/sea-shepherd-skipper-boards-whaling-vessel-20100215-o0cf.html
(Submitted by Matthew Williams)
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Big Oil still refusing to act to save some of world’s rarest whales
Scientists find whales more endangered in Exxon, BP and Rosneft oil areas
June 2009. Oil and gas exploration by energy giants Exxon, BP and Rosneft is seriously threatening one of the world's most critically endangered whales, according to a panel of top scientists in a new report.
The Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel (WGWAP), composed of 11 scientists and representatives from Shell and Sakahlin Energy, met in April to discuss how oil and gas development affect the whales' main annual feeding area off the northeastern coast of Sakhalin Island, Russia.
Whales scared away by seismic activity.
The scientists found that in 2008 there was a large decrease in the number of whales in their annual feeding area near the shore during a period of loud industrial activity, including a seismic survey. This is significant because if the whales are displaced from this primary annual feeding area, they will have less success reproducing.
"Western gray whale cows with their calves feed near the shore, but the industrial noise resulting from oil and gas development activities is pushing them out of the area," Doug Norlen from Pacific Environment. "Any disturbance of these critically endangered whales' behavior is particularly concerning as there are only 130 of them left."
Exxon, BP and Rosneft refuse to act
However, Exxon, BP and Rosneft have refused to address their threats to the Western Gray Whale and these oil giants plan to carry out further activities in 2009 including seismic testing, construction and other loud activities that could displace whales from their annual feeding area.
"The new information presented at this meeting has heightened rather than diminished the Panel's concern that whale distribution and behaviour may have been seriously affected by industrial activities - on land and offshore - in 2008," according to the panel's report. PetitionMeanwhile, 35,000 people from across the world have signed on to a petition calling on five major oil companies including Exxon, BP and Rosneft to postpone any new development work in the vicinity of the Western Gray Whale feeding area this summer, and to work with experts find adequate measures to protect the critically endangered population. WWF is sending the petitions to oil companies this week, urging them to act immediately as the gray whales will start to arrive at their summer feeding area near Sakhalin in a couple of weeks."Tens of thousands of people are calling on Exxon, BP and Rosneft to immediately halt their potentially destructive activities at Sakhalin Island this summer, and these companies can either choose to act responsibly or stay their course and help push the western gray whale further toward extinction," said Aleksey Knizhnikov, WWF Russia.
The panel reiterated it call for a moratorium on all development activities in the area this summer. Because of those concerns, Sakhalin Energy - a partnership between Shell, Gasprom and other sharholders - agreed in April to cancel their proposed 2009 seismic activities in the whales' feeding area.
The Western Gray Whale is one of the world's most endangered whales, with only 25-30 breeding females remaining.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/western-gray783.html
June 2009. Oil and gas exploration by energy giants Exxon, BP and Rosneft is seriously threatening one of the world's most critically endangered whales, according to a panel of top scientists in a new report.
The Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel (WGWAP), composed of 11 scientists and representatives from Shell and Sakahlin Energy, met in April to discuss how oil and gas development affect the whales' main annual feeding area off the northeastern coast of Sakhalin Island, Russia.
Whales scared away by seismic activity.
The scientists found that in 2008 there was a large decrease in the number of whales in their annual feeding area near the shore during a period of loud industrial activity, including a seismic survey. This is significant because if the whales are displaced from this primary annual feeding area, they will have less success reproducing.
"Western gray whale cows with their calves feed near the shore, but the industrial noise resulting from oil and gas development activities is pushing them out of the area," Doug Norlen from Pacific Environment. "Any disturbance of these critically endangered whales' behavior is particularly concerning as there are only 130 of them left."
Exxon, BP and Rosneft refuse to act
However, Exxon, BP and Rosneft have refused to address their threats to the Western Gray Whale and these oil giants plan to carry out further activities in 2009 including seismic testing, construction and other loud activities that could displace whales from their annual feeding area.
"The new information presented at this meeting has heightened rather than diminished the Panel's concern that whale distribution and behaviour may have been seriously affected by industrial activities - on land and offshore - in 2008," according to the panel's report. PetitionMeanwhile, 35,000 people from across the world have signed on to a petition calling on five major oil companies including Exxon, BP and Rosneft to postpone any new development work in the vicinity of the Western Gray Whale feeding area this summer, and to work with experts find adequate measures to protect the critically endangered population. WWF is sending the petitions to oil companies this week, urging them to act immediately as the gray whales will start to arrive at their summer feeding area near Sakhalin in a couple of weeks."Tens of thousands of people are calling on Exxon, BP and Rosneft to immediately halt their potentially destructive activities at Sakhalin Island this summer, and these companies can either choose to act responsibly or stay their course and help push the western gray whale further toward extinction," said Aleksey Knizhnikov, WWF Russia.
The panel reiterated it call for a moratorium on all development activities in the area this summer. Because of those concerns, Sakhalin Energy - a partnership between Shell, Gasprom and other sharholders - agreed in April to cancel their proposed 2009 seismic activities in the whales' feeding area.
The Western Gray Whale is one of the world's most endangered whales, with only 25-30 breeding females remaining.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/western-gray783.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)