Saturday, May 18, 2013     News feed

You are here: Home / Business / Whaling protests die down

Whaling protests die down

July 5, 2011  

After years of being on the defensive, Norwegian officials reportedly have begun to relax a bit after a marked decline in international protests over their controversial whaling activity. Now the Foreign Ministry even seems ready to hand over responsibility for whaling to the Fisheries Ministry.

The Norwegians don't think their whaling is as controversial as it used to be. PHOTO: IFAW - International Fund for Animal Welfare

“We have noticed that there’s more calm around the whaling issue,” Norwegian diplomat and Arctic adviser Karsten Klepsvik of the Foreign Ministry told newspaper Aftenposten this week. “This has been a gradual development over several years.”

He said he and his colleagues have had “an ongoing evaluation” of when they could relinquish control over whaling and transfer responsibility for the whaling issue to the ministry where it belongs in a professional sense, Fisheries. “We now think the time is ripe,” Klepsvik told Aftenposten.

Several countries including the US protested loudly when the Labour Party government led by the otherwise environmentally oriented Gro Harlem Brundtland decided to revive Norway’s whale hunt in 1993. Her decision to relaunch whaling came just a few years after the International Whaling Commission (IWC) had placed a moratorium on all commercial whale hunting.

The Norwegians’ decision to resume whaling inflamed Greenpeace, other “Save the Whales” activists and even prompted then US-President Bill Clinton to suggest sanctions against Norway. Aftenposten recalled how many celebrities such as Paul McCartney and Brigitte Bardot called Norwegians “barbarians” for insisting on killing whales.

The Norwegians, citing a long tradition of whaling, felt it was their inherent right to hunt whales and many believe it still is, despite a huge decline in the markets for both whale meat, oil and blubber.

Industry a shadow of its former self
Now the Norwegians seem emboldened and encouraged by a lack of indications that whaling protests will churn up once again. Klepsvik said the Foreign Ministry will continue to monitor whaling closely, but he said he sees no signs that anti-whaling activists will launch new protests.

It’s unclear why the protests died down, but one former US ambassador in Oslo wrote in a report revealed by WikiLeaks that most of the anti-whaling activists are targeting Japan’s so-called “scientific” hunt. Norwegian whalers, it’s believed, are no longer fighting against the activists but rather the falling demand for their products. Whaling now seems simply unprofitable.

Klepsvik chooses to believe that Norway’s arguments that its whaling is sustainable have finally been heard. This year’s hunt runs through the summer with a quota of 1,286 whales, but whaling is no longer a big industry despite all the attention and support it gets from the government. Only around 30 boats are taking part, with their catch valued at around NOK 28 million, a tiny fraction of the salmon industry’s value.

Views and News from Norway/Nina Berglund
Join our Readers’ Forum or comment below.

To support our news service, please click the “Donate” button now.




Filed under Business, News · Tagged with: , , ,

  • Ana Flavia Borges

    Norway is wrong, nobody is accepting the slaughter of whales be it Norway, Japan, Iceland or Denmark. I live in Brazil and here we consider the killing of whales as barbaric!

  • AnimuX

    Apparently, the author of this article neglected to research the WSPA videos of “cruel” Norwegian whalers hunting minke whales – environmentalist organizations and Wikileaks revealing demand for whale meat has significantly declined as well as Norway’s annual catch – Paul McCartney joining in protest against Norway’s whaling industry – and even the Agenda 21 attempt to sink a whaling ship.

    All of this occurred during 2010.

    So, is this “article” just wishful thinking or willful ignorance of the fact that Norway’s illicit whaling and subversion of international conventions and resolutions has not gone unnoticed or unopposed in recent years?

  • Margaret Morton

    Come on people of Norway! I’m sure many of you hate the killing of whales let them know that you oppose this.
    Whale watching trips bring more money into your country. That’s the way to go.
    I would love to visit Norway but I am put off by Norway killing whales.

  • Neal

    I don’t know any Norwegians who eat whale, none of the supermarkets in my town stock whale meat, the govt has to subsidise the industry, so what is the point to it all? Btw whale doesn’t taste very nice, a good steak is much nicer.

  • http://www.wdcs.org/stop/killing_trade/index.php Chris Butler-Stroud

    This is a great piece of campaigning by Ambassador Klepsvik. But in reality opposition to whaling has remained high and is as resolute as it has ever been.

    What has happened is that campaigning has moved away from mass street protests and country boycotts and into more sophisticated campaigns targeting the actual whaling interests. People who oppose whaling are not anti-Norwegian or anti-Icelandic, simply anti- the practice of killing whales.

    I would note that a majority of UK food retailers and wholesalers have in the last few months stated that they will not purchase fish from companies that have any connection to whaling.

    The initial focus has been on Iceland, but these policies are global and I would suggest that continued Norwegian fisheries access to European and US markets should be being considered a priority by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry rather than the interests of a few people who benefit from an unnecessary and, as the article points out, increasingly irrelevant industry.

  • andrew

    I do not see what the big deal is as long as the hunts are not posing a threat to the existence of the particular species of whale that is being hunted.

    Ana-The people of Brazil have no room to talk. You’ve destroyed so much of your rainforest and nearly forced some of your indigenous peoples into extinction. Give me a break. Killing whales is barbaric, but what of cows and other mammals slaughtered for use as a source of food?

    AnimuX-How many countries ignore conventions and resolutions regarding far more serious issues? Not to mention, if they are not a signatory, Norway can do as it pleases, especially in it’s own waters.

    Margaret-If Norway’s killing of whales is a deciding factor in you not visiting the country, then I feel sorry for you. You must have a horribly difficult time planning vacations, if something such as this prevents you from visiting foreign countries.

    • Ana Flavia Borges

      There is no nation entirely free of mistreating animals and people.
      I wonder if you have ever seen the slaughter of a whale, they are so big there is simply no humane way to kill them. A country like Norway who feels it sets standards for other nations,( it donated a fortune to help save the Amazon forest, mind you it got a lot of favours in the oil industry in return)should have grown out of dark age practices like killing such intelligent and sentient creatures like whales.

  • AnimuX

    Pro-whaling antagonists respond with some typically ignorant statements.

    1) There are activists protesting on behalf of other environmental and animal rights issues in MANY countries. So, the straw man argument of “well your country does…” is irrelevant. Try to stick to the subject, if you care to defend whaling.

    2) Another straw man argument is to claim whaling is no more cruel than any other slaughter. As previously stated, other industries are the subject of protest as well. However, it’s also true that there is NO humane way to kill a whale. The animals suffer horribly.

    3) Some claim whaling is an unimportant issue when, despite nearly a century of efforts to regulate the industry, nearly every species of large whale was driven to the brink of extinction and MANY species and populations remain ENDANGERED today. Why? Because nations like Norway violated and subverted international conservation efforts for decades.

    4) They act as if Norway should not honor its international obligations but offer no compelling reason as to why. Their attitude is: “we will kill as many whales as we want and nobody can do anything about it”…

    Is that what the people of Norway really want to be known for around the world?

    • Hideyoshi Toyotomi

      1. Conservational, Environmental and animal welfare concerns should be based on science and reason. The anti-whaling cause is sentimentality-driven and in the case fo Sea Shepherd it is financially driven. Many species of whales are in abundance and perfectly able to be harvested sustainably. Therefore the disproportionate attention given to the non-issue of whaling is actually detrimental to proper consevation as it draws attention away from real conservation issues.

      2. The “cruelty” of whaling is just another lie perpetuated by the anti-whaling industry. The IWC Scientific Committee itself has acknowledged that modern harpooning methods using penthrite grenade harpoons results in instantaneous death in the vast majority of cases. Where death is not instantaneous, it is very quick. There is nothing cruel about it.

      3. It is true that many species of whale were endangered as a result of over harvesting in the 20th century. However, the 1986 moratorium has been tremendously successful in restoring many species of whale to abundant levels. In particular, the minke and humpback species populations have exploded in recent years. These species can easily be harvested sustainably.

      4. It is not for whaling nations to justify their hunt, provided they are carried out sustinably and within the law. It is for anti-whalers to show why whales should not be harvested. And as it stands, the anti-whaling industry can only provide arguments against whaling based on sentimentality and emotional nonsense. Which, I regret to inform you, is not acceptable.

      • AnimuX

        More common straw man arguments from the pro-whaling crowd…

        They claim environmentalists have purely emotional arguments against whaling when the truth is that the “Save the Whales” movement came about when the public was informed of the near extinction of so many whales due to hunting.

        They often claim environmentalists are just out to get donations for personal financial gain. In this case the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is listed specifically. However, Sea Shepherd has repeatedly received high ratings from independent charity evaluations for putting the vast majority of its donations toward operational expenses rather than administrative overhead.

        They claim whales are all so abundant that hunting can be allowed again, ignoring the fact that so many species are still endangered and recovering from the damage done by commercial whaling. Some endangered species are still commercially hunted today by Japan and Iceland. Regardless, there is no scientific consensus on the biological “optimal” numbers of any whale population and the International Whaling Commission has prohibited all commercial whaling.

        To put this into perspective, marine biologist and former IWC scientific committee member, Dr. Sidney Holt, has publicly stated:

        “The biomass of the still numerous minke whales is less than one percent of the biomass of the Southern Hemisphere baleen whales at the time Suarez reported to the League of Nations.

        Think about that. We’re talking endlessly about how to sweep up the crumbs left on the table after the feast. If anything’s dysfunctional, that’s it.” –Sidney Holt

        Pro-whalers also ignore the fact that the Least Concern status bestowed on some species of whales by the IUCN is often contingent on a lack of exploitation by commercial whaling.

        They claim anti-whaling protest is merely a distraction. Well, millions of people around the world do not agree.

        The cruelty of whaling is obvious and apparent in the act of killing whales. In some cases, whales have been filmed struggling with gaping wounds from explosive harpoons for more than 15 minutes while whalers attempt to finish them off with rifles.

        There simply is no justification for whaling in the 21st century other than the possible exception of nutritional subsistence for tribal people with no other abundant food source. Whaling is not necessary for food security or economic prosperity in any industrialized nation.

      • http://www.wdcs.org/stop/killing_trade/index.php Chris Butler-Stroud

        Hideyoshi Toyotomi says: “In particular, the minke and humpback species populations have exploded in recent years. These species can easily be harvested sustainably.”

        With respect to the Antarctic minke whale, the IWC states The Commission is unable to to provide reliable estimates at the present time. A major review is underway by the Scientific Committee. (http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm).

        In recent years assessments have not been able to explain what appears to be a significant decrease in numbers of minkes in the southern oceans. The IWC Scientific Committee is looking at this issue again this year, and it will be interesting to see what are the results.

        In the North Pacific Japanese whalers hunt on a highly endangered population of minke whales. Analysis of hunts of Kushiro indicates that 17% of 228 whales caught in this area between 2002 and 2007 were identified as being from teh highly endangered J stock.

        In addition, in 2009, published DNA analyses of whale meat from Japanese markets indicted that as many as 150 large whales, from vulnerable coastal stocks were taken annually as bycatch by Japanese fishers. In 2001, Japan changed its legislation to allow the commercial sale of whales caught incidentally; entangled in fishing nets designed to catch coastal fish.

        A high percentage of the whales sold (as much as 46%) proved to be from an endangered J stock of minke whales. According to IWC population estimates, this high rate of bycatch poses a significant threat to the survivability of the J-stock; if these trends continue, the stock could face extinction within a few decades.

        So not only does Japan hunt on what appears to be decreasing (and in one case recognizably endangered) populations of minkes but it also demands that the Japanese tax payer should continue to pay for this luxury. A study by WDCS and WWF indicated that overall, Japanese subsidies for whaling have amounted to US$164 million since 1988.

        And just so you don’t think this is directed at Japanese whaling interests I would note that in the northern hemisphere, according to the paper by Icelandic scientists Thorvauldur Gunnlaugsson and Gisli Vikingsson and Canadian researcher Daniel Pike, sightings surveys from 2007 indicate that the abundance estimate for the minke whale population in Icelandic waters is now estimated to be between 10,000 – 15,000 animals, only 24% of the estimate published in 2001.

        So, its not so clear cut when people claim that species are abundant and hunts are sustainable :-)