Whale Hunts: Discussions on Lifting the ‘Ban’

February 25, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (4)

By Janet Raloff, for Science News' Science & the Public Blog

The International Whaling Commission will formally address its future, next week, at a meeting in St. Petersburg, Fla. Once comprised of whaling nations, the IWC now includes member states just as likely to condemn any hunting of cetaceans. That internal tension is guiding the meeting’s agenda. On it’s plate: whether to overturn the organization’s long-standing moratorium on commercial whaling.

Which is only a partial moratorium, since three of the IWC’s 88 members — Norway, Iceland and Japan — engage in commercial whaling. Or at least what looks to most of the rest of the world like commercial whaling.

IWC chairman Cristian Maquieira, the commissioner from Chile, issued a report earlier this week that lays out a proposed “consensus decision to improve the conservation of whales.” This document is meant to serve as a centerpiece of next week’s discussions.

Without question, the tenor of the document is one that seeks to respect whales and “reduce catch levels significantly.” That last statement, however (appearing on the opening page of the 37-page draft document) points to the schizoid nature of this group. It acknowledges that significant numbers of whales are harvested by some of its member states, even as an ostensible ban on whaling has been in place for a quarter-century.

In his intro to the report, Maquieira observes that “Since the imposition of the commercial whaling moratorium in 1985/86, over 33,000 whales have been killed by whaling . . . over which the IWC has no control. And these takes have been increasing each year” — from roughly 300 a year in 1990 to about 1,800 a year since 2005.

IWC’s internal rules possess such big loopholes that its members can kill nearly 2,000 whales a year without qualifying for any sanctions. Those loopholes come in three varieties.

-- Members were allowed to “object” to IWC’s whaling ban at the time it was first imposed. Several nations did, but only Norway and Iceland (which for a time left the IWC, then returned) have maintained the objections. These allow them to continue to hunt whales, and they do.

-- Member states can also issue reservations on the species covered by the moratorium, which includes all cetaceans listed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species as being endangered with extinction or threatened with becoming endangered. CITES put all great whales on this list. “Several countries [including Japan] made reservations, so presumably that allows them to engage in commercial trade,” notes Scott Baker, associate director of Oregon State University’s Marine Mammal Institute.

-- Finally, the IWC allows nations to make a case for special permits to conduct “scientific whaling.” In recent years, Japan has obtained special permits to kill more than 1,000 whales annually for “research” — whales that were ultimately sold as meat to restaurants and consumers. Last year, one quarter of the whales that Japan’s “scientific” pursuits hauled out of Antarctic waters — a region that was supposed to be closed to any whaling — were pregnant. A few others were lactating.

There are many promising proposals in the draft document released this week, notes Sue Lieberman, director of international policy for the Pew Environment Group, based in Washington, D.C.

For instance, it calls for international observers — people from nations other than those conducting the whaling — on every major whaling vessel and at every major landing port. And the report proposes that each government “under whose jurisdiction whaling operations are carried out shall have in place a national inspection scheme to ensure compliance with the provisions of the [International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling] and national regulatory measures.”

In addition, all whaling ships must use global positioning system devices that relay to the IWC at all times where they are and must keep records on each whale that is killed or maimed (but lost) — including its apparent gender (and if female, whether it was pregnant), size, age and precise site and date of capture. Tissue samples must be retrieved from all whales killed (including any fetuses), preserved and stored indefinitely. DNA fingerprinting of each sample must be conducted and shared with the IWC for later comparison against surveys of meat that will be conducted in regions where whale meat is sold.

Tags:
whales,
science,
animals

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

2004 pnas 2100 references major intense

coopersmit of CA 12:16PM April 12, 2010

All whaling ships should be destroyed. The International Whaling Commission must disolve.

Whaling must die forever, with all its associated infrastructure. A complete, international and permenant ban on all whaling needs to be created, with penalty of war on any nation that kills a whale.

It's time to end the compromise. Its time to end the destruction of our planet's ocean ecosystems.

Stop all whaling. Forever.

Christopher Stephens 3:15PM April 02, 2010

It is all about money for these three countries that are engaged in commercial whaling. They are lying when ever they say it is "scienctific" study.

I support every effort to end all whaling, including ending the capture of these creature for public displays at places such as Sea World.

Moina of OR 7:19PM March 01, 2010

National Science Foundation

NSF

Hydrogen Gas in the Universe

Researcher believes it is key ingredient to Universe.

Chemistry and Clouds

Researchers look at water droplets and chemical reactions.

Learning and Play

Researcher studies children's unstructured playtime.

advertisement

Science Discoveries

Science Discoveries

iTunes icon RSS icon

advertisement