Category Archives: Whaling

Posted on by
4

Japan is accused with “Crime Against Nature”

Japan is accused with “Crime Against Nature”

http://www.albanydailystar.com/science/japan-is-accused-with-crime-against-n
ature-12242.html

After a judgment by an international court pressured Japan to stop hunting
whales in Antarctica for a year, the country is scheduled to send whaling
ships there again .A Japanese whaling fleet set sail for the Antarctic on
Tuesday, on a mission to resume the slaughter after a one-year pause, with
environmentalists slamming the move as a “crime against nature”.Government
officials and families of crew members stood on the quayside and waved as
ships—at least one fitted with a powerful harpoon—left a southern port,
television footage showed.

Despite a worldwide moratorium and opposition from usually-friendly nations
like Australia and New Zealand, Japan persists in hunting whales for what it
says is scientific research

“Two whaling ships departed from Shimonoseki with a Fisheries Agency patrol
boat this morning, while the factory ship also left another port to form a
fleet,” an agency official told AFP. “A fourth whaler already left a
northeastern port yesterday to join the fleet.”

Tokyo claims it is trying to prove the whale population is large enough to
sustain a return to commercial hunting, and says it has to kill the mammals
to carry out its research properly. However, it makes no secret of the fact
that the animals’ meat ends up on the dinner table or served up in school
lunches.

In 2014, the United Nations’ highest court, the International Court of
Justice (ICJ), ruled that Japan’s annual Southern Ocean expedition was a
commercial hunt masquerading as science to skirt the moratorium.
In response, Japan’s 2014-15 mission carried out only “non-lethal research”
such as taking skin samples and doing headcounts.

Large-scale whaling in Japan began after World War II, when meat was scarce,
according to the Whale and Dolphin Conservation. The Japanese government
heavily subsidizes the industry, although, the organization says, demand for
whale meat has fallen significantly over the past few decades.

Japan is not the only country with an active interest in whaling

Although an international moratorium on whaling was put into effect in 1986,
Iceland and Norway continue commercial whaling. Whale hunting for research
is regarded as separate from commercial whaling and is unaffected by the
moratorium.

Patrick Ramage, the whale program director at International Fund for Animal
Welfare in Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts, said minke whales were historically
considered too small to be commercially viable for whalers. Many countries
have “worked their way down from the blue whale through the fin whale,
humpback whale and other species. It’s now the little guy — minke whale —
that Japan is targeting.”

Australia took Japan to the United Nations International Court of Justice in
The Hague over its Antarctic whaling activities. Last year the court ruled
in favor of Australia and ordered Japan to halt its special permit program
in the Antarctic, known as JARPA II. The court, which found that Japan was
using its scientific research program to disguise commercial whaling, said
that JARPA II involved the killing of 3,600 minke whales over several years
and that “the scientific output to date appears limited.”

Japan halted its whaling operations in Antarctica because of the court’s
decision. But rather than let its Antarctic whaling operation fade away,
Japan has apparently reinvented it with a program called the New Scientific
Whale Research Program in the Antarctic Ocean (PDF), which it plans to
launch on Tuesday.

An IWC representative, who requested anonymity because the person was not
authorized to speak with the media, said that when the commission’s
scientific committee reviewed Japan’s newly named plan, “they didn’t agree
whether the research Japan was proposing required lethal research or whether
you could do it using nonlethal methods, for example, DNA.”

But the government has said for months it intended to resume butchery in the
current season, which runs to around the end of March.

The announcement Monday that the hunt was to begin drew condemnation from
around the world

Claire Bass, executive director for Humane Society International, said Japan
had chosen to ignore the “universal opposition” represented by the ICJ
ruling.

“Once again we have Japan’s whaling fleet setting sail to commit a crime
against nature,” she said in a statement, stressing “Japan’s long history of
whale persecution”.Other conservationists called for another legal
challenge.But consumption has dramatically declined in recent decades, with
significant proportions of the population saying they “never” or “rarely”
eat whale meat.

Atsushi Ishii, an expert on international relations at Japan’s Tohoku
University, said Japan’s refusal to give up the Antarctic mission despite
censure by the international court is largely due to a small group of
powerful politicians.

“Why resume whaling? Because a group of pro-whaling lawmakers don’t like the
image that they succumbed to pressure from Sea Shepherd,” he told AFP,
referring to an environmental group that has repeatedly clashed with
Japanese whaling missions.Sea Shepherd Australia said Monday it would follow
the latest mission, which Japan said would aim to kill a total of 333 minke
whales—some two-thirds under previous targets.

Tokyo said in response that it would try to secure the safety of the 160
crew members by sending patrol boats to guard the fleet and strengthening
“self-protection measures.”The International Fund for Animal Welfare and the
Australian Marine Conservation Society said a panel of legal experts asked
to consider Japan’s latest whaling mission had found it broke international
law.

“The panel concluded that Japan’s new whaling programme violates
international law and that Australia or other countries still have options
to challenge Japan’s actions before international courts,” said chair and
Australian National University professor Donald Rothwell.

Japan has hunted whales for centuries, and their meat was a key source of
protein in the immediate post-World War II years when the country was
desperately poor. Japan began its so-called scientific whaling practices in
1987, a year after an worldwide whaling moratorium took effect. A protester
in 2008 sits on a Japanese flag covered in red blood outside the Japanese
consulate in Melbourne, Australia, to protest whale hunting.

Sea Shepherd, a conservation group that sent boats annually to disrupt
whaling activities by Japan warned Tokyo that returning to hunt whales will
be illegal. It was Australia which brought the case against Japan to the
International Court of Justice and is clearly not happy with Japan’s
decision to continue its hunt. Japan accuses opponents of being emotional
about the mammals and disregarding what it says is evidence to support its
position.

The country’s officials have said many times that most whale species aren’t
endangered, and noted eating whale is part of its culture. Greenpeace along
with Dolphin & Whale Action Network, Friends of the Earth and twelve other
animal rights and environmental groups issued a joint statement calling on
Japan to stop its whaling operations.

Why We Can’t Compromise With the Whale Killers

Posted on by
2

A whale's eye peeks out of the sea.

Commentary by Captain Paul Watson
Response to Arizona State University News Article

A Professor at the University of Arizona wants save the whales by advocating the killing of whales.

Just another one of these wishy-washy, self-proclaimed academic experts pandering to the whaling industry by posing as a conservationist. The same kind of mind-set as Texas big game hunter Corey Knowlton who justifies killing rhinos because he calls himself a conservationist.

Leah Gerber is a marine conservation biologist and professor at Arizona State University’s School of Life Sciences. She wants a compromise with the whale killers.

She is one of those academics who seem to know everything about whales except for what is really important. She has advocated “culling” (killing) whales to increase fisheries which in my opinion is a very ignorant approach to ocean ecology. She has also advocated placing a value on whales saying that conservationists should be willing to buy their lives. In addition she tends to use other utilitarian wordage like “take” and “harvest instead of kill and “stocks” instead of population. She most definitely lacks empathy for the whales themselves or an understanding of the true value of the whales to the oceanic eco-systems. Leah Gerber boasts of being a sushi lover and is an advisor to the seafood industry which explains her commercially oriented viewpoint on whales.

This is my point-by-point response to this “expert” on whales who lives in that “maritime” state of Arizona.

Arizona State University

ASU: Is it time to cut a deal with Japan on whaling?

Captain Paul Watson: Why is it time to cut a deal with Japan on whaling? Because a professor in Arizona says so.

ASU: The three-decade international moratorium on commercial whaling isn’t working. Animal-rights activists insist the ban remain absolute, while the three rogue nations still pursuing the world’s largest mammals refuse to quit hunting.

Captain Paul Watson: Yes they are rouge nations and they should be dealt with like rogue nations. Japanese whaling has already been condemned by the International Court of Justice. When nations violate international agreements the solution is not to simply legalize their activities because they refuse to stop. Gerber reveals her bias here by referring to whale conservation activists as animal tights activists. This is the mindset that sees only animal rights activists as opposing whaling. Gerber works with WWF, NOAH and other utilitarian groups that see whales as a commodity and thus they see conservation as management, that includes lethal exploitation.

ASU: Leah Gerber, a marine conservation biologist, professor at Arizona State University’s School of Life Sciences and founding director of ASU’s Center for Biodiversity Outcomes, floated the idea of a compromise in the September issue of scientific journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

Captain Paul Watson: She may have floated the idea but it’s an idea that needs sinking.

ASU: Rebounding whale populations, the predominance of other threats, and stubborn stakeholders make the moratorium a “failed management system,” Gerber said. The past 30 years of the International Whaling Commission’s conversation has been stalled by disagreement on the ethics of killing whales.

Captain Paul Watson: The laws to enforce the moratorium exist. There is simply a lack of political and economic will to do so. The moratorium needs strong leadership from the conservation oriented majority members of the International Whaling Commission. The USA should invoke economic sanctions as provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce specifically to uphold the moratorium. This is like saying it is illegal to rob a bank but the bank robbers continue to rob banks despite the law therefore we should allow them to rob some small banks to satisfy their greed.

ASU: “It really boils down to an ethical argument: that it’s not right to kill a whale,” Gerber said. “Personally I don’t like the idea of killing a whale, but that’s my value, and other people have other values. Insisting on our values in discussions about whaling has resulted in a global stalemate.”

Captain Paul Watson: It is both an ethical argument and an ecological argument. Plankton has been diminished by some 40% since 1950 and this has happened in part because of the removal of a very large part of whale biomass. When you consider that one Blue whale defecates 3 tons of iron rich, nitrogen rich feces every day and we removed some 300,000 Blue whales since 1946 alone and whale feces provides a nutrient base for plankton, what whaling has done is to diminish these farmers of the sea. Lower whale populations means lower plankton populations means lower oxygen production and diminished carbon sequestering by plankton. We need to revitalize bio-diversity in the sea and to do that we need to bring back whale populations to pre-exploitation levels.
And there is an ethical argument. Slavery was abolished and was no acceptable compromise that allowed some people to own slaves so that other slaves could be freed. Whales and dolphins are highly sophisticated, intelligent social, self aware, sentient beings. They communicate on a very high level and they have their own cultural units. There cannot be any justification for killing whales or dolphins by any group of humans for any reason, anywhere. The very idea of a compromise is unethical when you consider that to a great many people the idea of killing a whale is simply murder. There is no global stalemate. Commercial whaling is illegal. It just needs to be enforced.

ASU: Changing course and allowing Iceland, Japan and Norway to legally hunt under regulations and monitoring might break the current stalemate. Currently Japan whales under a loophole allowing for scientific research. The other two countries hunt whales commercially in protest of the ban

Captain Paul Watson: Since 1974 my course has been set on 100% abolishment of the slaughter of whales and dolphins. I have no intention of changing course because a professor in the desert somewhere has decided that Japan, Norway, Iceland and Denmark should be allowed to kill whales.

ASU: “If our common goal is a healthy and sustainable population of whales, let’s find a way to develop strategies that achieve that,” Gerber said. “That may involve agreeing to a small level of take. That would certainly be a reduced take to what’s happening now.”

Captain Paul Watson: I have a major problem with anyone who refers to killing as taking. You don’t take a whale’s life, you kill an intelligent sentient being. A so-called “small level of killing” simply keeps an industry alive that should be tossed onto the dustbin of history. Whaling needs to be abolished 100% by everyone, everywhere for any reason. Sea Shepherd has seen to it that the Japanese kill quota has been substantially reduced.

ASU: Since the moratorium was declared in 1982 and begun in 1985, whale populations have rebounded across the board, Gerber said.

Captain Paul Watson: First Gerber says the moratorium in not working then in the same breath she says the moratorium has caused whale populations to rebound. Whale populations are indeed slowly recovering but there is still a long way to go before returning to pre-industrial whaling levels. We need more whales to address climate change and the health of the Ocean. We do not need whale meat on anyone’s plate. Economically whales are more important alive than dead both to what the contribute to the ecology of the Ocean and in terms of the revenue generated by the whale watching industry which is far more lucrative than commercial whaling.

ASU: “Overall the whaling that’s happening is not threatening any population,” she said.

Captain Paul Watson: I disagree. The loss of every whale is a loss to the planet in a world where whales and dolphins are dying from pollution, reduced fish populations and habitat destruction.

ASU: “With the exception of the J stock (a population that lives in the East China Sea, the Sea of Japan and the Yellow Sea) of minke whales, current levels of take are fairly sustainable.”

Captain Paul Watson: Gerber has not provided any evidence to back this ridiculous statement up. To say that Bowheads, Southern and Northern Right whales, Humpback whales, Fin whales, Blue whale populations can be sustainably slaughtered is absurd. The Icelanders want Fin whales. The Greenlanders want to kill Bowheads, Humpbacks, Fins and Minke’s.

ASU: The appetite for whale meat has been on the decline in Japan. An April 2014 poll by Asahi Shimbun,Japan’s newspaper of record, revealed that 14 percent of respondents occasionally or rarely ate whale meat. (Thirty-seven percent said they never ate it.) Consumption in Japan peaked in the 1960s and has steadily decreased; today, whale-meat consumption is about 1 percent of its peak, according to the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Captain Paul Watson: Having stated this, it is a puzzle as to why Gerber feels there is a need to allow a legal return to whaling.

ASU: The Japanese have argued that it’s part of their cultural heritage. They also call American protests hypocritical because Alaskan Inuit tribe members hunt whales every year.

Captain Paul Watson: Whaling is not part of Japanese culture historically. It was an activity that took place in a few isolated communities. It was never a national traditional activity. 95% of Japanese people never ate whale meat until General Douglas MacArthur introduced the modern whaling fleet in 1946 to provide cheap protein for post war Japanese populations. Whaling was part of Ainu culture but Japan passed laws to ban whaling by the Ainu. It is hypocritical of Gerber to compare Inuit whaling allowed by the U.S. government to Japan where aboriginal Ainu whaling has been banned.

ASU: Norwegians have eaten whale meat since medieval times, but that habit has slowed in more recent times. Whale was served in school cafeterias and as military rations during the 1970s and 1980s, making it the mystery meat for a generation who won’t touch it anymore. It’s seen as something your grandparents ate. (Oddly, it’s enjoying a renaissance among young Norwegian foodies.)

Captain Paul Watson: Norwegian whaling is a blatant violation of IWC regulations and the global moratorium and economic sanctions should be invoked against Norway, Japan and Iceland by the signatory members of the IWC.

ASU: The 2015 catch netted about 700 tons of whale meat, while the Norwegian market won’t bear much more than 500 tons.

Captain Paul Watson: Norway’s whaling operations are illegal under international conservation law. The killing of these whales is not only illegal but ecologically senseless and economically unnecessary.

ASU: “Good catch is all very well, but we have challenges in the market,” Åge Eriksen, CEO of a seafood supply company, told Norwegian public broadcaster NRK last year. “We’ve got more meat on land than we can sell, and it is not a desirable situation.”

Captain Paul Watson: Unfortunately that is the situation with the commodity market over all – over production resulting in huge wastage.

ASU: Minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere have such a large population that taking a few wouldn’t be a big deal, Gerber said.

Captain Paul Watson: Gerber lacks the data to make such an assumption. In fact in a paper she wrote Minke whale populations are not as large as they need to be. We need a great increase in whale populations in order to repair the ecological instability in the Ocean, Also from an ethical point of view, killing (not taking) of a highly intelligent sentient being should not be allowed. In one of her papers she stated that the moratorium failed to increase whale populations and now she contradicts herself.

ASU: The media perception of whaling is often that it’s evil, but there are worse threats to the whales’ livelihoods, Gerber said. For instance, she said that whale mortality numbers are also driven by the mammals being hit by ships. For instance, blue whales off the coast of Long Beach, California, simply didn’t know to get out of the way of ships, according to a Stanford University study released in April. Because they are the biggest creatures in the sea, they’ve never had to avoid threats.

Bycatch entanglement, where whales are snagged in nets, and contaminants in seawater are two other serious threats.

Captain Paul Watson: To say that there are worse threats is like saying that murder is not the worst evil because more humans die in auto accidents so we should allow for a few murders. Stopping ship strikes is something that must be worked on and there is the technology to address this threat. There are many other threats to the whales like radiation, chemical and plastic pollution, climate change and diminishment of plankton and fish. These other threats to the survival of the whales cannot be used to justify the slaughter of whales.

ASU: “For most populations, whaling actually makes up a pretty small fraction (of whale deaths),” she said, pointing out that International Whaling Commission members know this. “We don’t have to agree on everything, but let’s take some baby steps.”

Violent action by animal-rights groups has not had an effect, either.

Captain Paul Watson: Baby steps may be fine for the whalers but the whales need abolition of whaling now. The prejudice of Gerber can be seen in her reference to “violent action.” There has been no violent action by anti-whalers. Not a single whaler has ever been injured by a whale defender. Japanese whalers have violently attacked whale defenders and have caused injury. Sea Shepherd may be aggressive but certainly not violent. You cannot describe the saving of the lives of whales from harpoons as violent. Whaling is violent, saving whales is not. Blocking a weapon of violence is a non-violent act.

ASU: “A lot of the (non-governmental organizations) like Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd raise a lot of money in advocating for saving whales by chasing whaling vessels in the open ocean,” Gerber said. “What success has that had?”

Captain Paul Watson: Gerber needs to do some research. Over 6,000 whales saved in the Southern Ocean is what I call success. The Japanese have failed to get their quotas every year since 2007 and in most years they took less then 30% and sometimes as low as 10% and in the last season (2014/2015) they took zero whales. The ICJ ruled against them. The IWC ruled against them. The campaign has been quite successful Leah Gerber, thank you very much. As for collecting money, Sea Shepherd has raised a fraction in donations to oppose whaling compared to the profits that whalers made before Sea Shepherd intervened.

ASU: Japanese whaling delegates have said they’re open to compromise arrangements, Gerber said.

“The animal-rights groups, on the other hand, are like, ‘Nope. My deal or nothing.’ To me, it’s not the best way to lead to change.”

Captain Paul Watson: You do not compromise with lives. We will not compromise on the lives of whales. One position is to kill whales. The other position is to not kill whales. The only possible compromise is to allow the killing of some whales which means killing whales, but if our position is against killing whales how can that be justified? To get what they want in a compromise the whalers can agree to accept lower profits. However we cannot morally agree to accept lower deaths. Whales are not a commodity to us. They are distinct individual living sentient beings. It would be extremely cold hearted for us to barter their lives in exchange for allowing whalers some profit.

My position is clear I cannot respect any scientist who advocates the killing of whales or dolphins. There is nothing scientific about killing whales. Advocating lethal exploitation benefits only those who profit economically. It does not benefit the species and it does not benefit science. All my life I have had to battle these scientists who act as apologists for the exploitation industries. Many years ago I coined a name for them. Biostitutes, the appeasers of those who profit from inflicting cruelty, death and diminishment.

Russian Permit of Passage for the Winter Bay is a Dark Day for North Atlantic Whales

Posted on by
Reply

page20

__________________________________________________________

Paul Thompson 2/8/15

As the Winter Bay slipped out of Tromso this afternoon heading north there was confusion about whether the Russian Government was allowing passage of the vessel with its 1700 tonnes of endangered Fin whale meat through Russian waters to Japan. Clarification has now ben provided and its confirmed that a Russian Permit has been granted allowing passage through the waters of the Northen Sea Route from West to East and return East to West. This in effect establishes a “safe” trade route of whale products from the North Atlantic whaling nations of Iceland and Noway through to Japan and is a dark day for Fin and Minke whales in the northern hemisphere.

Ice conditions from the latest satellite data would indicate that conditions may be suitable for the vessel to pass despite the fact it is only single hulled and contact with ice could have serious consequences for the structural integrity of the vessel

http://www.paulthompson.info/blog/2015/8/russian-permits-the-icelandic-bay-to-travel-through-the-northern-sea-route-to-japan

Don’t Allow Whales to be Slaughtered off the Washington Coast!

Posted on by
1

Don't Allow Whales to be Slaughtered off the Washington Coast!

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is considering an appalling plan to allow gray whales to be slaughtered off the Washington coast. Allowing a hunt would set a dangerous precedent that undermines the global moratorium on whaling.

Please submit your public comment opposing the hunting of gray whales off the coast of Washington.The risks of a hunt are significant. Proponents suggest that “only a few” whales will be killed for subsistence and cultural reasons. But even one whale is too many, regardless of who hunts them. Scientific evidence makes it clear these magnificent, sentient creatures are under grave threats from far too many sources.

The threats to gray whales are vast — from navy sonar and other underwater noise, to climate change, ocean acidification, ship strikes and pollution. The impact of this hunt on delicate gray whale populations has the potential to be huge. Not to mention, there are only a few individuals left in some populations, and there is a virtual certainty that whales from these populations will be killed because it’s nearly impossible to tell the difference between them during a hunt.

Please sign the petition today to submit your public comment to NFMS opposing the hunting of gray whales off the coast of Washington.

PETITION CLOSED

This petition is now closed. You can still make a difference in the Care2 community by signing other petitions today.

BROWSE PETITIONS ▸

Don’t Allow Whales to be Slaughtered off the

25,053

30,000

we’ve got 25,053 signatures, help us get to 30,000 by July 31, 2015

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is inappropriately considering allowing gray whales to be slaughtered off the coast of Washington. Pierced with harpoons and riddled with numerous bullets, these magnificent creatures will suffer extreme pain if NMFS permits the hunt.

The hunt threatens not only a recovering population of Eastern North Pacific gray whales, but the few remaining individuals left in the endangered Western North Pacific and also the Pacific Coast Feeding Group populations. There is a very strong chance that whales within these smaller groups will be killed because it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between the populations, particularly given that hunts are often chaotic and conducted in tumultuous ocean conditions.

There is far too much scientific uncertainty about the impact a hunt would have on gray whales and the environment. Additionally, NMFS is not adequately considering the cumulative impacts of all the other threats to gray whales – such as navy sonar and other underwater noise, climate change, ocean acidification, oil and gas development, ship strikes and pollution.

The proposed hunt in Washington is just the first step toward a dangerous precedent that would undermine the global moratorium on whaling. Whale watching is a meaningful and economically lucrative alternative that helps maintain the gray whale’s iconic role in numerous cultures.

Gray whales have been known to migrate up to 22,000 kilometers, nearly 14,000 miles, crossing the jurisdictions of multiple countries. So this is an issue of international concern.

Please sign this petition to submit your official public comment opposing the hunt of gray whales and requesting that NMFS deny any permits to hunt gray whales in Pacific Coast waters.  less

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is inappropriately considering allowing gray whales to be slaughtered off the coast of Washington. Pierced with harpoons and riddled with numerous bullets, these magnificent creatures will suffer extreme pain if NMFS permits the hunt.

The hunt threatens not only a recovering population of Eastern North Pacific gray whales, but the few remaining individuals left in the endangered Western North Pacific and also the Pacific Coast Feeding Group populations. There is a very strong chance that whales within these smaller groups will be killed because it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between the populations, particularly given that hunts are often chaotic and conducted in tumultuous ocean conditions.

There is far too much scientific uncertainty about the impact a hunt would have on gray whales and the environment. Additionally, NMFS is not adequately considering the cumulative impacts of all the other threats to gray whales – such as navy sonar and other underwater noise, climate change, ocean acidification, oil and gas development, ship strikes and pollution.

The proposed hunt in Washington is just the first step toward a dangerous precedent that would undermine the global moratorium on whaling. Whale watching is a meaningful and economically lucrative alternative that helps maintain the gray whale’s iconic role in numerous cultures.

Gray whales have been known to migrate up to 22,000 kilometers, nearly 14,000 mil… more

An Egregious Mass Murder in the Faroes Islands This Morning

Posted on by
5
Captain Paul Watson's photo.
by Captain Paul Watson .

20 to 30 dolphins were viciously slaughtered within the last hour on the beach at Havannasund on V…idoy Island.

The police mobilized quickly to block off a tunnel to the island and to set up a restricted zone to keep people away from the killers as the blood coloured the water a deep red and the screams of dying dolphins echoed across the beach, as laughing and cheering Faroese whalers splattered themselves with hot blood in a perverse orgy of sadistic lust.

The police closed the tunnel to the island to prevent anyone from reaching Havannasund.

The police are aggressively assisting the dolphin killers.

The Brigitte Bardot was unable to reach the location in time. The dolphins had been quickly spotted and driven with stones and bang poles onto the beach where their drooling killers waited with their knives eager to extinguish the lives of these gentle creatures.

The Faroe Islands continue to encourage the barbarity of slaughtering dolphins with the full complicity of the government, the media, the police with new authoritarian special laws and now the Danish government and the Danish Navy.

The Faroese have decided to pull out all stops in their defense of this savage cultural obscenity.

It appears that many people in the Faroes are so traditionally and morally bankrupt that they can only find identify in the bloody ritualized culture of sadistic slaughter, as if to proclaim to the entire world that they, the Faroese require blood sacrifices to illustrate their lack of complete lack of empathy and morality. It is their way of spitting in the face of common human decency by declaring their uniqueness in the only way that has any meaning for them – the deliberate and prideful infliction of suffering and death to innocent, intelligent, self aware, socially complex sentient beings.

With the power and force of the Kingdom of Denmark defending their little backwater vassal entity in the Islands of Sheep, the whalers are intent to cowardly continue killing, believing they have God on their side (“Gott mit us”) and knowing they have the politicians in their pockets.

Protect Gray Whales From A Hunt

Posted on by
Reply

The Makah Tribe in Washington State is pushing to resume hunting of gray whales.

The HSUS has a strong relationship with Native American tribes across the country, and we are working with them to stop the trophy hunting and trapping of wolves, to provide free veterinary services to pets on reservations and on other animal welfare issues. This proposed hunt is a rare disagreement between The HSUS and the Native American community.

The methods used to kill these whales are inherently inhumane and there is no way to ensure they will not take a whale from the endangered western Pacific stock of gray whales. During an illegal hunt in 2007, after repeatedly striking the whale, Tribal members watched it slowly die over many hours, until the whale’s body sank.

The Makah Tribe stopped hunting whales legally in the 1920’s — this is an old tradition that is best left in the past. Please tell the National Marine Fisheries Service to deny the Makah Tribe’s request to resume hunting gray whales in the U.S.
Wayne Pacelle
Wayne Pacelle, President & CEO

Also see: http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2015/05/wa-noaa-sea-lion-shooting.html?credit=web_id93480558

Reward Offered in Washington Sea Lion Shooting Death

The Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is investigating the death of a sea lion who was shot in the head on the Cowlitz River in Washington. The Humane Society of the United States and The Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust are offering a reward of up to $5,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible.

Around April 25, concerned citizens alerted authorities to a stranded sea lion. The animal was unable to eat, drink or move off a sand bar on the Cowlitz River near Gerhart Gardens Park for several days. The sea lion suffered from a wounded eye and a probable broken jaw and was euthanized a few days later. The body was taken to Portland State University for a necropsy, which revealed the animal had been shot in the head. There have been other reports of dead sea lions floating down the river during the previous week.

Dan Paul, Washington state director for The HSUS, said, “The immense suffering inflicted on this animal from such a pointless crime is unacceptable and a violation of federal law. We implore anyone with information to come forward and thank the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for seeking justice in this case.”

Harming a sea lion is a violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and is punishable by criminal penalties up to $100,000 and one year incarceration. Civil penalties up to $11,000 per count may also be assessed.

Anyone with information concerning the shootings is asked to call NOAA’s Enforcement Hotline at 1-800-853-1964. Callers may remain anonymous.

Poaching:

  • Wildlife officials estimate that nationwide, tens of millions of animals are poached annually.
  • It is estimated that only 1 percent to 5 percent of poached animals come to the attention of law enforcement.
  • Poachers injure or kill wildlife anytime, anywhere and sometimes do so in particularly cruel ways. Wildlife officials report that poachers often commit other crimes as well.
  • The HSUS and HSWLT work with state and federal wildlife agencies to offer rewards of $5,000 for information leading to arrest and conviction of suspected poachers.
Photo @ Jim Robertson

Photo @ Jim Robertson

The HSUS and HSWLT work to curb poaching across the country. Visit humanesociety.org/poaching for more information.

Gray Whale Threats

Posted on by
1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_whale#Threats

Threats[edit]

According to the Government of Canada’s Management Plan for gray whales, threats to the eastern North Pacific population of gray whales include:[106]

  • Increased human activities in their breeding lagoons in Mexico
  • Climate change
  • Acute noise
  • The threat of toxic spills
  • Aboriginal whaling
  • Entanglement with fishing gear
  • Boat collisions
  • Impacts from fossil fuel exploration and extraction

Western gray whales are facing, the large-scale offshore oil and gas development programs near their summer feeding ground, as well as fatal net entrapments off Japan during migration, which pose significant threats to the future survival of the population.[32]

The substantial nearshore industrialization and shipping congestion throughout the migratory corridors of the western gray whale population represent potential threats by increasing the likelihood of exposure to ship strikes, chemical pollution, and general disturbance.[33][97]

Offshore gas and oil development in the Okhotsk Sea within 20 km (12 mi) of the primary feeding ground off northeast Sakhalin Island is of particular concern. Activities related to oil and gas exploration, including geophysical seismic surveying, pipelaying and drilling operations, increased vessel traffic, and oil spills, all pose potential threats to western gray whales. Disturbance from underwater industrial noise may displace whales from critical feeding habitat. Physical habitat damage from drilling and dredging operations, combined with possible impacts of oil and chemical spills on benthic prey communities also warrants concern.[33][58]

Along Japanese coasts, four females including a cow-calf pair were trapped and killed in nets in the 2000s. There had been a record of deceased individual thought to be harpooned by dolphin-hunters found on Hokkaido in 90s.[107][108] Meats for sale were also discovered in Japanese markets as well.[109]

Captivity[edit]

A gray whale in captivity

Because of their size and need to migrate, gray whales have rarely been held in captivity, and then only for brief periods of time.

In 1972, a three-month-old gray whale named Gigi (II) was captured for brief study by Dr. David W. Kenney, and then released near San Diego.[110]

In January 1997, the newborn baby whale J.J. was found helpless near Los Angeles, California, 4.2 m (14 ft) long and 800 kilograms (1,800 lb) in weight. Nursed back to health in SeaWorld San Diego, she was released into the Pacific Ocean on March 31, 1998, 9 m (30 ft) long and 8,500 kg (18,700 lb) in mass. She shed her radio transmitter packs three days later.[111]

Washington state tribe’s whale hunting request triggers new backlash

Posted on by
2

dead whale

http://planetark.org/wen/73140

Date: 30-Apr-15
Country: USA
Author: Eric M. Johnson

A Native American tribe’s request to resume its sacred canoe and harpoon hunts of federally protected gray whales off the Washington state coast has drawn fresh opposition while the treaty-enshrined proposal is weighed by U.S. fisheries managers.

The application is at the heart of a decades-long quest by the Makah Tribe to hunt the marine mammals for both subsistence and religious purposes, which the tribe says it has done over millennia in the Pacific Ocean and Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Conservationists have criticized the practice as an unnecessary and barbaric death for animals that have high sentience and intelligence levels.

“The bottom line is that the Makah don’t have a legitimate need to kill the whales,” said D.J. Schubert, a biologist with the Animal Welfare Institute, a non-profit group.

The Makah Tribe is the only Native American tribe outside Alaska to hold whaling rights, enshrined in an 1855 U.S. treaty, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is evaluating the request.

The Makah tribe ceased the practice in the early 20th century as whale populations dropped. But after gray whales were de-listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1994, tribe members harvested one whale in 1999 with the U.S. government’s approval.

In 2004, a U.S. appeals court ruled the Makah must seek a waiver from the Marine Mammal Protection Act to hunt whales, and that NOAA officials must analyze the environmental impact of the request.

The tribe sought a waiver a year later, asking to take as many as five gray whales annually from an estimated stock of 20,0000, NOAA said.

The tribe did not respond to requests for comment. It says on its website that “whaling and whales are central” to its culture, describing capturing an animal that can weigh 80,000 pounds (36 metric tonnes) using little more than a harpoon thrown from a canoe. NOAA says whalers use .50-caliber gun for the final kill.

In 2007, lacking government approval, Makah whalers killed a gray whale.

A NOAA study from March looked at range of options, including allowing the tribe to hunt up to five whales a year during limited seasons and under other restrictions.

The final analysis, which NOAA hopes to finish by year’s end, will be evaluated during a hearing by an administrative law judge who will decide whether to grant the hunting request.

(Editing by Daniel Wallis and Bill Trott)

Reuters

 

Pre-registration required for Makah whale hunt hearing‏ on Monday

Posted on by
5
Just a heads up if you are planning on attending the Monday April 27th hearing on the DEIS for the Makah whale hunt.
According to the Federal Register, they are requiring you to pre-register by 4 pm PDT Sunday April 26th.  It says that prospective attendees for the public meeting in the NOAA Auditorium in Seattle, Washington should submit their first and last names and affiliation, if appropriate, via the NMFS email makah2015deis.wcr@noaa.gov
Also, for access to the Federal government building in Seattle, Washington, the Department of Commerce Western Region Security Office has advised that all attendees must have valid government-issued identification (e.g., driver’s license, tribal identification card, or passport).
See the following for further information.