 |
[ login or create an account ]
|
|
[ login or create an account ]
|
Pro-whaling countries have hiked up their whaling quotas in an attempt to skew the negotiations at the upcoming IWC meeting, and are manipulating New Zealand's negotiating position, the Green Party said today.
"Norway's quota is the highest in 25 years. It is neither a reflection of consumer demand nor scientific need, but a political decision to skew negotiations," Green Party Oceans Spokesperson Gareth Hughes said.
According to the Telegraph newspaper in London, Norway's quota has jumped from 885 last year to 1286 this year.
Australian Environment Minister Peter Garrett has called the move 'unhelpful and provocative.'
Mr Hughes said: "Pro-whaling countries are setting themselves up to make a mockery of these negotiations, just as they have made a mockery of the good faith of the IWC Convention in the past. The New Zealand Government should not change the law to suit those who break it.
"Sir Geoffrey Palmer entered negotiations in good faith, but it is now clear this approach is not working. New Zealand needs a stronger stance.
"The New Zealand Government needs to focus on an end to whaling, because clearly whaling nations intend to abuse any compromise deal at the IWC. We must stand beside our Australian partners in this battle and take international legal action," Mr Hughes said.
LINKS
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100032535/noway-aims-to-overtake-japan-as-main-whaling-nation/
Popular competitions and giveaways from Gimme.co.nz: NZ's People Powered Guide to Free Stuff. Links will open on Gimme.
Health Tips, Recommended Movies, Recommended Books, Recommended Places.
Links will open on recommended.co.nz.
All articles and comments on Voxy.co.nz have been submitted by our community of users. Please notify us through our contact form if you believe an item on this site breaches our community guidelines.
Voxy: Your Voice - Uncensored
Got Something to Say But No One’s Listening?
Message to Spread? – Distribute News
Product to Promote? – Run a Promotion
We Can Help You Spread The Word.
Comments
Norway has a set procedure
Norway has a set procedure for setting catch limits based on a method developed by the IWC Scientific Committee.
For the Greens to suggest that Norway has set the catch limits higher for political purposes illustrates only their ignorance. Norway's quotas are set with respect to sustainability. Not demand. And the quotas are for commercial purposes, not for scientific purposes.
Norway's is good fisheries management.
If the Greens are suggesting that quotas for marine resources should be set based on demand, instead of what is sustainable, then I fear that the oceans would already be bereft of fish.
Perhaps the Greens should visit Norway and learn what "green" means.
Norway didn't make their
Norway didn't make their lower quota in the past, so why suddenly raise it? Only to have more negotiating room in case any limits are discussed. Supergreen Norway obviously didn't have a hand in the collapse of the Atlantic cod, did they? Although they did support the recently proposed ban on grossly overfished bluefin tuna, but probably only because they knew that supercivilised Japan will be against it, as it takes 80% annualy. So the ban has failed, and "good fisheries management" in the Atlantic is to continue. As for the whales, obviously, the notion of blasting majestic ocean creatures with explosive harpoons and letting them die slowly doesn't count in Norway's green credentials. Actually, one may not need to visit Norway to check how green it is, as some Norwegians come here and have heaps of fun shooting at anything that moves in NZ national parks, be it protected wildlife or not. Maybe they think: "look, there's a quite a few of them here, it must be sustainable!".
You don't 'make' your quota.
You don't 'make' your quota. The quota is the maximum number that can be safely taken but if there is only a demand for 1/2 the quota then you will only take 1/2 the quota. The don't need negotiating room, they can keep legally hunting as they have in the past with no problem. If they don't like any proposal that comes out of the June IWC meeting then they just don't sign-on and they can keep doing what they have been doing.
And Japan doesn't take 80% of the Atlantic Bluefin tuna. They take about 10%.
In regular fishing industry
In regular fishing industry quotas are meant to be and are used up to the full and likely over as much as they can get away with it, as the demand usually exceeds the supply. Whaling "quotas" are rather a matter of misguided national pride than economics and may envolve heavy state subsidies to keep a relative few employed. As for the 80%, google "japan bluefin tuna". http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100408f1.html may be interesting.
Very nice link. Of course it
Very nice link. Of course it says the 'consume' 80% not 'take' as you said. Bit of a difference there. From ICCAT in 2008 Japan's take was 2923 tons and the entire quota was 22,000 tons. So their take was just over 13%. No need to apologize.
And how many different explanations are you going to give about whaling quotas? This is the second. First it was for negotiating room, now it is national pride.
You are saying the Japanese
You are saying the Japanese are catching only 13% themselves, the rest 67% is being catched by others and the Japanese buy the lot off them, but somehow it doesn't matter. Very clever.
Not clever, the truth. All
Not clever, the truth.
All that would have to happen to protect the tuna would be for the other countries, like Australia, to not sell tuna to Japan. They won't do that because they like making the money from the sales. You want to blame Japan as the end-user for the depletion, I believe the fault lies with the seller.
Just like with most drug laws the seller faces stiffer penalties than the user.
Gunnar explained the
Gunnar explained the situation excellently.
The quota is based on how many whales could be taken without harming the overall population level. I believe they use a system very similar to the IWC's own Revised Management Program to set the number.
But the quota is not a target number they are planning or expecting to take. It is just the upper limit of what could safely be taken.
In Ohio, they set a quota every year for whitetail deer. I have yet to see the hunters of the state come anywhere close to the quota.
I am sure that Mr Hughes fully understands where and how the Norwegians get the quota numbers, but he has chosen to use this as a way to stir up trouble because he knows most of the world does not understand the situation. He is a rabble-rouser trying to cause problems so he can get his way no matter what.
According to you, it is
According to you, it is Norway whalers who are doing scientific research out there, not the Japanese. You can hold on to your faith that free-whaling Norway uses "a system very similar to the IWC's". I bet they just scratch their heads and decide that that's just the number they like this year. I am sure you don't understand in the least how they set their quota, let alone Mr. Hughes that you claim does.
Most IWC members are dead set against commercial whaling, "revisedly managed" or not, with the exception of the known few, who think they have God-given right to ride over others' concerns, just because they think they can.
The Norwegians are doing
The Norwegians are doing some research, but I don't see where you get that from my post. And you can bet on whatever you like but I know the basics of how the Norwegians set their quota. Mr Hughes may not but if he doesn't then he would do better to shut up until he understands the topic.
No the 'known few' have a ICWR-given right to hunt whales over the whining of others, just because they know it is legal.
Your depth of knowledge
Your depth of knowledge about "systems" and "programs" is amazing, only the facts are lacking. You also truly believe that the IWC-sanctioned whaling for the sake of science is taking place, not commercial whaling in disguise, which is what everybody who doesn't live in a cuckoo land knows.
No, I believe whaling that
No, I believe whaling that meets the requirements of the ICWR regulations is taking place. The Norwegians don't claim to be conducting research whaling under Article VIII. They are conducting commercial whaling based on their objection to the moratorium.
Again, if you google
Again, if you google anything other than the website of Japanese Institute of Cetacean Rape, you will likely find out that the IWC "scientific whaling" caveat is grossly and outrageously abused by Japan. As for the Norwegeans, it's nice to know that we agree.
The Japanese are following
The Japanese are following all the requirements of ICWR Article VIII. Is it a stretching of what Article VIII was probably meant for? Yes. But it is still legal and still meets all the requirements. The anti-whaling nations had the opportunity to change Article VIII in the 80's at the same time as they passed the moratorium. The fact they didn't is their own fault and now they are living with the results of their decision.
If you aren't Glen Inwood,
If you aren't Glen Inwood, you should get in touch - he'll give you a cut.