Don’t Fail the Whales, Mr. President
When the social networking phenomenon known as Twitter goes “over capacity,” microbloggers trying to access the site are met with the image of a smiling whale floating above the waves, caught in a net held aloft by a flock of Tweeting birds. This is known as a “fail whale.” Twitter’s smart creators do nothing by accident; they doubtless selected that delightful image because the world’s largest mammal has impressively high ratings with political animals of all walks. According to the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW):
From the shores of Cape Cod to the California coast and across the political spectrum, Americans love whales. Five national surveys commissioned by [IFAW] over the past decade show overwhelming majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents want these intelligent, gentle creatures protected for future generations. Voters of all subgroups — from rural, conservative GOP members to urban, liberal Democrats — want our government to [protect] whales.
But given the environmental horrors developing daily via news reports on the marine devastation that continues unabated in the Gulf of Mexico, the “fail whale” has taken on tragic, symbolic significance. And now, the Gulf’s suffering birds, fish, and other marine wildlife are not alone: the world’s largest mammals may soon have no protection either. At the International Whaling Commission’s 62nd annual meeting, taking place this week (June 15-18) in Morocco, the IWC’s 88 member nations will vote on a controversial proposal that would effectively allow commercial whaling for the first time in 25 years.
The hauntingly beautiful, sophisticated song of the humpback whale, discovered by biologist Roger Payne in 1967 and recorded in 1970, galvanized the worldwide “Save the Whales” movement. It’s some of the most beautiful music ever made; Payne described the whales’ sonic arrangements, memorably, as “exuberant, uninterrupted rivers of sound.” But nature’s master musicians are only now beginning to recover from more than two hundred years of commercial whaling, which destroyed 95 percent of historic populations. Whales face the very real threat of extinction thanks to marine pollution, destruction of critical habitats, entanglements in fishing gear, and collisions with high-speed ships.
High-profile environmental activists are calling on President Obama to protect the world’s largest mammals from decimation. What does the actor formerly known as James Bond have in common with the philanthropist famous for offering a $25 million prize to the first entity to provide a safe, effective, and practical non-surgical sterilant for use in cats and dogs? Compassion for whales. Pierce Brosnan and Dr. Gary Michelson are partnering with the National Resources Defense Council, the Humane Society of the United States, and the IFAW to urge President Obama to extend protection to whales. Brosnan, who also appears in a compelling PSA urging Americans to sign an online petition, has co-authored an open letter to President Obama. It begins:
Dear Mr. President,
Is it possible that the Obama Administration will capitulate to a proposed plan that permits Japan, Norway, and Iceland to resume commercial whaling? As unlikely as it sounds, the answer is yes. The Obama Administration has indeed supported, behind closed doors, a dangerous new proposal to overturn the global whaling ban.
Although Brosnan’s Twitter account reveals that he follows only one person — Al Gore — this open letter he co-wrote on the whales’ behalf gives credit where it’s due: to a Republican. To wit:
Since President Ronald Reagan first helped usher in the international ban on commercial whaling, every American President has reasserted our nation’s strong leadership in the fight to save the whales. … All the more stunning then, to learn that U.S. government bureaucrats, together with fisheries representatives from a dozen other countries, have emerged from three years of closed-door meetings with a proposal to lift the ban on whaling. The proposal not only rewards Japan, Iceland, and Norway for flouting international law, but also gives these three nations “a license to kill” whales commercially. The group’s final proposal, which was released on April 22nd (Earth Day!), and which will be voted on this June, is as unwise as it is out of the American mainstream.
Despite the moratorium, Japan, Norway, and Iceland harpoon around 2,000 whales annually, arguing — with the support of almost half the IWC’s 88 member nations — that many species are “abundant enough” to justify continuing the hunt. Environmentalists fear, rightly, that the new proposal spells disaster for whales; in 007 terminology, it’s a “license to kill.” The letter continues:
In 1986, after whale populations were plundered to near extinction, the IWC declared a ban on commercial whaling. It remains one of the 20th century’s most iconic conservation victories. However, since the ban was enacted, more than 30,000 whales have been killed — most in international whale sanctuary around Antarctica. Why? The Government of Japan claims it kills whales exclusively for research purposes. It’s an outrageous assertion rejected by the scientific community and undermined by the fact that Japan hunts whales on factory ships and sells whale meat commercially. Japan is now rumored to be seeking a new, state-of-the-art $100 million whaling vessel.
Iceland and Norway, emboldened by ongoing negotiations to undo the whaling ban, have recently ramped up their illegal whaling efforts to lock in higher quotas that will be made possible under this new agreement.
Like the situation in the water for whales, the situation inside the IWC is precarious. Conservation-minded countries now find themselves consistently outmanned by Norway, Iceland, and a fifty-person strong Japanese delegation flanked by a steady stream of small island states and landlocked developing countries recruited by the foreign aid to vote lockstep with Japan.
That last point was driven home by the Oscar-winning documentary The Cove, which revealed how Japan allegedly “buys” votes in the IWC, recruiting other nations (Cambodia, Ecuador, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Laos, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands) to its commercial whaling agenda. The consequence is devastation for whales, as Brosnan’s letter describes:
As a result, United States influence inside the IWC has waned. The Government of Japan has remained engaged and aggressive, inside and outside the IWC, in pursuit of its declared objective to hunt more whales.
Faced with this challenge, the Obama administration has apparently decided to sound retreat. Five of the last six meetings to hammer out the final “lift-the-ban” proposal have been held on U.S. soil.
Instead of endorsing this sellout of the world’s whales, the American government must work to end the savagery of commercial whaling forever.
Brosnan doesn’t hesitate to remind the president that he risks breaking a major campaign promise in letting down whales and their supporters. In April of 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama promised, “As president, I will ensure the U.S. provides leadership in enforcing wildlife protection agreements, including strengthening the international ban on commercial whaling. Allowing Japan to continue commercial whaling is unacceptable.” But the proposed deal on the IWC table this week guarantees whaling for the next ten years.
The letter concludes with this impassioned plea:
For more than a decade Japan, Iceland, and Norway have worked harder to keep killing whales than our government has worked to protect them. However, it is not too late the turn the tide. The Obama administration must send a clear signal that it intends to end commercial whaling forever. “Change we can believe in” can then extend beyond our shores to benefit our planet’s great whales. Mr. President, please stay in the fight! Stop the sellout, and save the whales!
It’s a call to action every right-thinking American can get behind. Please sign the petition. Let’s not fail the whales.
They’re animals. Most are not endangered. Why should whales have such absolutist rhetorical protection not available to a deer, squirrel or pig?
Why don’t we ban all hunting. Cultural beliefs and ways of life that stretch from Japan to Alaska to Norway are small beer. What’s important is that we can all look our host in the eye at our next soiree when talking about our empathy for with ancestors not fortunate enough to remain among the land dwellers. Besides nobody I know would ever make a living at such a disgusting occupation as killing the innocent.
So, by all means ban whale hunts. And while we’re at it lets ban slaughterhouses for other animals. Maybe we could even require every household to take mandatory sensitivity training so we can understand what it’s like to be one of God’s chosen — the few, the brave, the cetaceans. Only then will we fully embrace our destiny as Gaia’s guardians
“Why should whales have such absolutist rhetorical protection not available to a deer, squirrel or pig?”
Heck, such protection’s not available to pre-born human beings. (And the West is experiencing a dearth of those. Among other sources, check out Mark Steyn’s “America Alone”.)
Pierce Brosnan and fellow navel gazers, get a life.
The hauntingly beautiful, sophisticated song of the humpback whale, discovered by biologist Roger Payne in 1967 and recorded in 1970, galvanized the worldwide “Save the Whales” movement.
So what? No one hunts humpbacks. Only minke and bowhead whales, and in tiny numbers compared to the population of those species. Argue that the moratorium shouldn’t be lifted because they are intelligent animals or whatever if you like, but hunting is not threatening extinction of any species. And yes, previous unrestricted hunting nearly wiped out several species, but that was mostly for whale oil and other products, not meat, all of which have been replaced by better alternatives. There’s no way you would see a return to that if the moratorium was lifted, there just isn’t enough demand for whale meat.
Norway definitely isn’t flouting international law, that’s simply not true – they objected to the moratorium and aren’t breaking any rules according to the IWC. Iceland’s position is a little more controversial but legal. Japan got pressured into dropping their objection then got screwed over.
And why not mention the U.S. catch? Which by the way is about double Iceland’s.
Did you know that the Hubble telescope is powered by whale oil? Just learned that the other day.
Whales should be protected because (1) they are intelligent, and they are mammals; and (2) because they are beautiful and one of the last majestic beings on earth. It has nothing to do with eating meat or hunting deer. And Japan, Iceland and Norway no longer need whale oil to fill their lamps. They have just come back from being hunted down to their last 5% on earth; let’s let them thrive and enjoy their beauty.
1) So are pigs
2) So are pigs
3) So are all animals
Um, Biloxipat, I did say that whale oil was no longer the reason. And that the arguments you make are about the only reasonable ones (although I still disagree). My point was that the claims made in the article are misleading, ignorant, and omit many facts. Whether you support or oppose lifting the moratorium, surely this is a bad thing?
It has nothing to do with eating meat
Tell that to the Alaskans who buy it in supermarkets. Perhaps Pierce Brosnan could try going there first, once he’s stopped the U.S. hunt he might look more credible. Of course, I doubt he knows about it. It probably wasn’t in the Greenpeace leaflet he memorised.
First, they came for the Japanese’s whale meat, then they will come for our cheese burgers. Why is it that we cannot mind our own business.
I’m surprised that anyone is surprised by the Administrations actions. After all this is the man who threw his grandmother under the bus. why would he do anything for whales? They don’t vote or make campaign donations, so what good are they except perhaps as sushi?
Obam hates whales and unborn children.
Looks like the god-fearin’ rednecks are out in force peddling their usual shallow minded cliches.
I guess hypocrisy is lost on you.
Activists lying and misleading the public don’t seem to bother you either. And I’m an atheist thanks very much.
At least there are no Muslim countries looking to hunt whales; if there were, Brosnan’s body would be found in an alley somewhere.
Articles like this one frustrate me no end. Unvarnished advocacy is all very well but I’d really prefer to be given information about BOTH sides of an argument before I’m asked to support one of them. There must be some reason the IWC and Obama are preparing to lift the whaling ban, since I doubt they are motivated by the sadistic wish to make adorable singing whales suffer. What is the reason, please? Do people in Japan and Norway need the protein? Do some whale populations need hunting controls, comparably to US deer populations? Come on, provide a clue. Writing that imagines that readers don’t realize there must be another side to the argument is not just propaganda, but also insulting to the readers’ intelligence. It also suggests that the author doesn’t know how to counter the other side of the argument and therefore has to pretend there isn’t one – fingers in the ears, la la la la la!
Yes, whales sing. But in other ways they are surprisingly similar to cows — in fact I think I read somewhere, a long time ago, that whales and cows might be two branches from one long-ago evolutionary source. Here in America I think we’d get pretty bent out of shape pretty quickly if Japan and Norway tried to shut down all of our McDonalds’ to protect the pretty cows grazing in the pastures. It takes more than an emotional oh-but-they’re-so-CUTE argument to justify interfering with a nation’s imperative to feed its population, and this article does not provide one.
Japan is by no means ‘in need of more protein’, as far as I can tell they could live just as well without it. And as for comparing them to deer hunting? Good gosh! I would never hunt deer but I understand why they ARE hunted. In Wisconsin they’re known as large mice,with a gigantic population all over the midwest.
And please don’t compare whales with chickens and cows, you’re only showing your stupidity. Take a biology course for crying out loud……
Since your such an expert, please explain why they are different.
No, Norwegian, Japanese and Icelandic does not NEED additional protein.
However whale meat is delicious and very healthy (and great on the barbecue)
None of the whale species that are hunted today are endangered, on the other hand they eat plenty of fish, but so does seals, another of the, far form endangered, species that are to cute to be hunted.
“It takes more than an emotional oh-but-they’re-so-CUTE argument to justify interfering with a nation’s imperative to feed its population, and this article does not provide one.”
Well, I hardly think any of the countries that hunt whale absolutely require whale meat to feed its population, but it is a part of their culture.
On the other hand the whales are cute and have plenty of rich friends that want to save them.
Mrs Whatsit, they can’t give you the facts you ask for because that would expose the lies in their argument. The arguments for and against pretty much boil down to:
Against
- Whales are majestic, intelligent, cute, people like watching them, etc. This is subjective opinion, no way to argue whether it’s true or not, you either think that or you don’t.
- Whaling is cruel. So is fishing. Whales are killed a lot more humanely than fish. Next.
- No one really needs whale meat. True, but so what? You could say that about any one specific meat animal.
- Whales are endangered. Absolutely untrue. The Antartic minke population, from which Japan hunts about 1000 a year, is estimated at something like 600,000 (I’ve gone with the low estimate).
For
- The moratorium has worked, populations have recovered, and a limited hunt can be resumed without endangering any species. No one can seriously argue against this without being as ignorant as Pierce Brosnan.
- People like whale meat, part of their culture, etc. Provided the previous reason is true, it’s a bit hard to justify denying a product people want.
- Whales compete for food/territory with fish and hence reduce fishing stocks. Extremely controversial and given no one is talking about hunting enough to actually cull populations fairly irrelevant.
The argument for public opinion then pretty much comes down to – does the beauty etc of whales trump the fact that whale meat is yummy? (Not in my book, but opinions differ).
On the specific topic in this article – lifting or maintaining the moratorium – Obama’s problem is that he doesn’t really have a leg to stand on. The moratorium was justified originally as a temporary measure (that’s what the word means after all) to allow stocks to recover. It was not put in place because whales are cute. So if the IWC’s own research shows that populations have recovered, and he votes against lifting it, Japan can just pull out of the IWC (Iceland have done so in the past) and claim that the U.S. and others are ignoring the IWC’s advice and have reneged on the temporary nature of the ban. At which point we lose all control over what they do. Better to sign them up to a controlled program supervised by the IWC than have them go their own way.
You are 100% right Bobo. He feels nothing for anyone or anything until he is told to and how he should react. He is the most disconnected president I’ve ever seen.
“Environmentalists fear, rightly, that the new proposal spells disaster for whales;”
There is the problem with the article. Since Environmentalist are a bunch of chicken littles. If they aren’t falsifying information and lying, then environmentalists greatly exaggerate a situation.
I am a Conservationist, but I can’t trust if what you are writing about is truthful cause you are using environmentalist as a source and some Hollywood celebrity (they always know what they are talking about!!) who was a halfway decent James Bond.
Here is another tip, put numbers in context. You write about 2,000 whales being harpooned. What species? Why is that supposedly alot? What are whale populations (please use a source besides James Bond or Greenpeace)? What were whale populations 20 years ago? How many whales can the oceans support?
Come on PJM, you guys can do better than this.
As long as the level of harvesting is sustainable, go ahead and hunt them.
@MarkTheGreat
Agreed as long as the quotas ensure a sustainable harvest then it should be allowed.
Most of the whales harvested eat fish (lots of fish). Keeping their numbers in check is not only good for the fisheries and humans but good for the whales in the long run as well as they are dependent on these same fisheries.
I thought most whales ate krill?
Regardless, fish eat krill, or they eat other fish that eat krill. The more krill available for other fish, the more other fish there will be.
I said ‘most of the whales harvested’ eat fish. The big whales that are protected species and not harvested eat mostly krill like blue whales some eat good portions of both like the humpback. Also like most predators whales are opportunistic and will not pass up a school of fish on their way to krill.
The main point was that whales are apex predators and it is good to keep their numbers in check if the population can be harvested in a sustainable way. Whether its krill or fish they are huge consumers of both and if there populations are allowed to exceed what the food chain will provide the whale populations will crash.
Let’s get beyond subjective animal advocates and subjective criteria. Let’s simply make those who produce from the environment in question accountable for the advocacy and sustainability of that environment at, at least, present levels IAW third party audits. Now, I do NOT advocate a third party like Green Peace, Earth Liberation Front, World Wildlife fund et al as being a credible auditor, as their clearly socialist agenda undermines their credibility as such. But a new line of work could be established in each and every environment from which we consume from scientific to administrative to active laborers in the service of both sustainable resource management and environmental sustainability. It would be vitally important tot avoid unions, government domination or corporate corruption. I guess we are doomed.
If you want to ensure the survival of a species, eat it. Beef, dairy, hogs and chickens aren’t likely to go extinct any time soon. But being comfortable at the pinnacle of the food chain does, I think, engender at least some responsibility for those animals we displace. Thus I echo the complaints of – 8. Mrs Whatsit. This article presents few fact or numbers, just emotion; the hallmarks of the liberal, touchy-feely approach to solving issues.
“Under the IWC draft proposal, Japan would be allowed to catch 120 whales a year in its coastal waters.”
-from ABC News, Australia
“Under the IWC draft proposal, Japan, Iceland and Norway would reduce their whale kills over the next decade, subject to tight monitoring, with Japan eventually cutting its Antarctic whale culls by three-quarters. ”
-from the Straits Times, Singapore
It doesn’t look like the IWC is opening the floodgates on no-holds-barred whaling.
That said, I still think that we take the oceans for granted, and that our combined activities in the oceans are probably having a net negative effect, with negative feedback loops. I think my argument to ‘save the whales’ is not because they are majestic, or smart, these are our own anthropomorphic values – but that the ocean ecosystem is in danger from many pressures, and that preserving that ecosystem is integral to maintaining our own quality of life.
I guess I will just be called another ‘animal- rights- touchy- feely- mean- out- to- get- us’ type person, but why Not leave the whales alone? There’s never going to be an over population of them and more likely the reverse, Japan does not only limit hunting to their own waters, they hunt where they please. If the argument is “they’re just large beautiful creatues who almost became extinct, why not hunt them, we need the meat/oil/whatever it is I want from them”, why not plow over Yellowstone too while you’re at it? It’s not doing anything, it’s just there. Use the timber, the water the oil, whatever you want out of it. It could be the same argument.
Also, before agreeing with the idea of harpooning whales, take a look at The Cove,directed by Louie Psihoyos. Yes they’re dolphins, but imagine whales being slaughtered. It’s not a quick death. Unlike trying to give a cow or chicken a quick death……