Despite Southern Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) being endangered,

.

<<The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora is abbreviated ‘CITES’.

The Australian federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Government is a signatory to CITES and since and CITES international trade regulations have been enforceable under Australian law since 27 October 1976. Every signatory to CITES is required to designate a management authority. In Australia this is effectively the Threatened Species Scientific Committee.

On 7 September 2005, Australia’s Threatened Species Scientific Committee concluded that the Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT)… “continues to be overfished despite the international management arrangements which have been formally in place since 1994.”

“The parental biomass is currently in the order of 3 to 14% of that in 1960 (its unfished size). In addition, BRS has classified SBT as being ‘overfished’ every year since the first BRS fishery status reports were first produced in 1992.

“Stock assessment models have shown a significant historic decline in the biomass of SBT. The mature population of SBT has declined significantly over its last three generations (since the 1980s) and is currently at a very low level.

Therefore, the species is eligible for listing as endangered under Criterion 1.”

The Threatened Species Scientific Committee recommended this to the Australian Government.

Australia’s then Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator the Hon Ian Campbell decided against listing the species under the EPBC Act…“as it may weaken Australia’s ability to influence both the management of the global fishing effort and the global conservation of the species.”>>

.

CITES COP15 draft resolution March 2010 on Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus)

.

* Fishing capacity is at least double that needed to catch the current legal quota and that recent estimated catches have been four times greater than the maximum catch recommended by scientists to prevent the collapse of the population.

* A 78.4% cut would be needed in the fishing effort by the fleet targeting East Atlantic and Mediterranean Atlantic Bluefin Tuna

* East Atlantic and Mediterranean stock status, fell by 80% in the southern Iberian
Peninsula between 2000 and 2006

* The loss of groups of older fish in the shoals present in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean fishery and the drastic fall in the reproductive biomass, which is currently only 36% of the level that existed at the beginning of the 1970s, are clear symptoms that this population is in imminent danger of collapse.

.

CITES has recommended to:

a)  Establish a science-based recovery plan for the East Atlantic and Mediterranean stock
… and to ban industrial fishing – particularly purse seining- during the entire spawning season (May, June and July)

b)  Establish immediately an interim suspension of the East Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna fishery

c)  Permit resumption of fishing activities only according to the strict science-based ICCAT population-recovery plan

d)  Set up protection zones for spawning grounds in the Mediterranean, including the waters within the Balearic Sea, Central Mediterranean, and Levant Sea, during the spawning season.

.

The Japanese, consumers of 80% of the world’s Bluefin, have rejected the ban and the recommendations, while Australia has not accepted the ban.  Australia’s federal minister for the environment etc, Peter Garrett, has refused to join the United States and the European Union in seeking a trade ban.>>

.

March 2010:  Peter Garrett rejects bluefin trade ban

.

<<Australia has refused to join the United States and the European Union in seeking a trade ban on imperilled northern bluefin tuna, sparking an outcry from conservation groups.

The fish’s plight is seen as a key example of poor global fisheries management, and its fate a potential precedent for Australian tuna fisheries.

The decision by the Environment Protection Minister, Peter Garrett, to go for trade controls instead of the ban has angered the groups, but Australian tuna fishers said it was a sensible outcome.

Listed as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the northern, or Atlantic, bluefin has lost 72 per cent to 82 per cent of its original stock under pressure from illegal or unregulated fishing for the sashimi trade.

”What’s driving it over the edge is that about 90 per cent of the catch is unregulated export to Japan,” said Glenn Sant, the global marine program manager for TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade network.

Mr Sant said a study he took part in for the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation showed that northern bluefin met the criteria for an appendix one listing under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

The appendix one listing, supported by the Obama administration and the EU, would prohibit international trade. It is strongly opposed by Japan and would need a two-thirds majority to be approved.

At the CITES meeting starting today in Qatar, Australia will argue for a lesser appendix two listing that provides instead for more tightly managed trade of the fish.

The Australian Marine Conservation Society said the fears of the domestic bluefin industry should not be allowed to dominate government decision-making.>>

.

CITES failed Bluefin Tuna in 2010

.

<<The triennial meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is still underway in Doha, Qatar, this week, but so far news coming out of the conference is a mixed bag. Some trees have been protected, tigers gained a few friends, and a rare salamander got some attention, but all hopes to save the critically endangered bluefin tuna were sunk in a secret ballot that put commerce ahead of science and conservation.

Populations of Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) have dropped 97 % since 1960, but the tasty fish remains in high demand in Japan, where sushi bars are willing to pay up to $100,000 or more per fish.

A possible CITES ban on bluefin tuna—supported by the U.S. and 27 European Union nations)—has been in the works for months. Japan, meanwhile, had already announced that it would not comply with such a ban if it were enacted.  Unfortunately, the ban failed, and fishing will continue. CITES’s own press release, titled “Governments not ready for trade ban on bluefin tuna,” is surprisingly candid about how this happened:

Japan, Canada and several members States of the Arab league opposed the proposal arguing that regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) as ICCAT [the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas] were best placed to tackle the decline of bluefin tuna stocks.

They added that an Appendix I listing [which would ban trade in the species] would not stop the fishing of the species. After a passionate but relatively short debate, the representative of Libya requested to close the deliberations and go for a vote. Iceland called for a secret ballot. The amendment introduced by the European Union and Monaco’s proposal were defeated (20 votes in favor, 68 against, 30 abstentions) in the middle of much confusion about the voting procedures and mixed feelings of satisfaction and frustration from participants.”

Obviously, pro-tuna groups were not happy about this series of events. “It is scandalous that governments did not even get the chance to engage in meaningful debate about the international trade ban proposal for Atlantic bluefin tuna,” said Sergi Tudela, head of fisheries for the WWF Mediterranean Programme Office, in a prepared statement.

Oceana, a conservation group devoted to the health of the oceans, called this “a clear win by short-term economic interest over the long-term health of the ocean and the rebuilding of Atlantic bluefin tuna populations.” And Greenpeace International oceans campaigner Oliver Knowles stated, “The abject failure of governments here at CITES to protect Atlantic bluefin tuna spells disaster for its future and sets the species on a pathway to extinction.”

We’ll be covering more CITES decisions—both good and bad—all week.>>

.

.

Call to Boycott Japanese Cuisine

.

Japanese cuisine includes sashimi, which typically is Bluefin Tuna. Bluefin is the raw fish used in Japanese ‘maguro’, and ‘o-toro’ dishes and in many sushi combinations.

The Australian Government may pasty to the Japanese, but that doesn’t stop ethically driven citizens boycotting Japanese restaurants and sushi shops, which sell raw fish which is typically the critically endangered Bluefin Tuna.

It’s time to send a blunt message to the Japanese that their fettish for Bluefin is backward!  Some are labelling the plight of  ‘BLUEFIN SUSHICIDE‘.

.

Japanese eating the Endangered into Extinction

.

Chinese Shark Fin Soup is the barbaric dish of backward Chinese following a primitive custom from the ancient Ming Dynasty.  

.

Mar 2013:  CITES Conference in Bangkok to decide on global Shark Finning Bans

.

<<World governments have agreed to restrict international trade in four shark species in a bid to save them from being wiped out due to rampant Chinese and Japanese demand for their fins.

The 178-member Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) voted at a meeting in Bangkok to control exports of the oceanic whitetip and three types of hammerhead shark, but stopped short of a full trade ban.  The move would require countries to regulate trade by issuing export permits to ensure their sustainability in the wild, otherwise they could face sanctions from CITES.

Asian nations led by Japan and China – where shark fin soup is considered a delicacy – tried in vain to block the proposals, which were pushed by countries including Brazil, Colombia and the United States.

The decision to add the species to CITES Appendix 2, which restricts cross-border trade, must still be formally approved by the conference’s plenary session later this week.  Members would then have 18 months to introduce the trade controls.

The four species would join the great white shark, the whale shark and the basking shark, which already enjoy international trade controls.  The Bangkok meeting was also set to vote on a similar proposal for the porbeagle shark and the manta ray.

Humans kill about 100 million sharks each year, mostly for their fins, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), and conservationists are warning that dozens of species are under threat.   About 90 per cent of the world’s sharks have disappeared over the past 100 years, mostly because of overfishing in countries such as Indonesia, the FAO says.>>

.

.

[Source:  ^http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/americans-shark-finning-09082012/]

.

<<Government representatives to CITES, have agreed to put the porbeagle, oceanic whitetip, three kinds of hammerhead shark and two kinds of manta ray on its Appendix II list, which places restrictions on fishing but still allows limited trade.

Joyce says “conservation groups have been trying for years to curtail the widespread killing of sharks for their meat and for shark fin soup.”

According to The Independent newspaper, scientists estimate that almost 100 million sharks are caught each year, and because they are slow-growing and slow to reproduce, they are especially vulnerable to overfishing.

“Although some regions, including the European Union, have banned shark finning, commercial fishing for fins, meat, liver oil, cartilage and other body parts is largely unregulated in much of the world, conservationists warn. Some countries have been reluctant to include marine species, which can generate large revenues, in the treaty that regulates or bans international trade in wildlife.

The shark fin business is worth an estimated $475 million a year.”>>

.

.

Shark Fin hacked off a live shark

.

Further Reading:

.

[1]   Stop Shark Finning, ^http://www.stopsharkfinning.net/boycott-australia.htm

.

Minke Whale mother and her calf

.

Feb  2008:

.

<<(Then Australian)  Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has vowed to do whatever it takes to end Japan’s whale hunt as the bloody slaughter continued yesterday.

Mr Rudd’s declaration came as Japanese companies scurried to try to minimise a consumer backlash over whaling.

A people-power campaign has begun against the Japanese whalers, spearheaded by The Daily Telegraph, with 100,000 people signing a petition of outrage.

Yesterday Mr Rudd joined the Australian people in demanding Japan cease its so-called “scientific whaling program”.

.

Mr Rudd: 

“I want to see an end to whaling.  I don’t have a magic wand, but the Australian Government will do everything within our power to put pressure on the Japanese whalers to bring this slaughter to an end.   Australia and Japan have a strong relationship, but that strength demands that we leave the Japanese in no doubt that Australia will continue to campaign to bring an end to whaling once and for all.”

.

Mr Rudd said he had instructed Foreign Minister Stephen Smith to “exert real pressure” on the Japanese to end the program.  However, talks this week between Mr Smith and his Japanese counterpart Masahiko Koumoura have been deadlocked.   As the Japanese continued to harpoon and slice up minke whales throughout the day, Mr Smith emerged from talks saying the two men had “agreed to disagree“.

[Ed: What is Japanese for ‘up yours‘ ?]

.

Consumers have now called for boycotts of all Japanese products, sending some of Japan’s biggest companies into a panic.   Hayley Wilson, 21, of Surry Hills said she thought boycotts were the only solution: “Nothing else seems to be working.”

Big name Japanese companies immediately went into overdrive.  Electronics giant Sanyo has written to the Japanese Consulate in Sydney voicing its concern about a consumer backlash.   Sony Australia called on Australians to reconsider the approach and Mazda also begged Australians not to target its products.>>

.

.

Jun 2008:

.

Australian PM Kevin Rudd :   ‘Whatever. You win’

.

<<Kevin Rudd has “agreed to disagree” with Tokyo on the issue.    Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has effectively conceded defeat on his plan to stop Japanese whaling, declaring after talks in Tokyo that Australia and Japan have agreed to disagree on the issue..

Ed:   ‘Whatever happened to the days way back, when the world was safe

And it seemed worth saving,

We search for leaders on our hands and knees..’

.

.

<<The long-awaited talks between Mr Rudd and his Japanese counterpart, Yasuo Fukuda, concluded yesterday with both leaders saying the Japan-Australia relationship was too important to be disrupted by their disagreement over whaling.

Mr Rudd later insisted that Labor’s policy had not changed from last year, when he demanded that the Howard government take Japan to the International Court and pledged that Labor would do so.

But he made it clear yesterday that Labor now had no plans to take Japan to court and would instead pursue its complaints through normal diplomatic channels and through its campaign to reform the International Whaling Commission.

.

Mr Rudd:

“Prime Minister Fukuda and I have agreed that you can have disagreements between friends” (with Mr Fukuda at Rudd’s side, who understands English). “This disagreement should not undermine in any way the strong relations between our two countries … we will be working diplomatically for the period ahead.”

.

This means, in effect, that after Labor’s election campaign pledge to haul Japan before the International Court, and after the Government spent $1 million sending a Customs vessel to follow the Japanese whaling fleet last summer to collect video evidence, Australia’s policy on whaling is now back where it started.

Mr Rudd immediately came under attack from anti-whaling groups and the Opposition, which said it was not good enough to “agree to disagree” and called on the Government to announce its long-delayed special envoy on whaling.

.

Last summer the Japanese killed 551 minke whales, the most abundant whale species. This was well short of its target of 850 minkes and 100 larger whales.

.

Japanese Sport Whale Meat

.

Ecologist and former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery has argued that Australia should not oppose the Minke kill, saying it frees up food in the oceans for the larger, endangered whales.

Darkside Ecology:  when ecological knowledge is applied to kill wildlife

.

Mr Fukuda was keen to talk about the whaling issue, raising it in private discussions over lunch as well as in formal talks. But the Australian side saw no shift in his stance, and in his public statement he emphasised that diplomacy had triumphed.

“We agreed to engage in further discussion, so that differences on this issue will not underline good bilateral relations,” he said.

The talks took place amid political turmoil in Japan, after Mr Fukuda was censured by the Opposition-controlled Upper House for making people over 75 meet more of their medical costs. But Mr Fukuda took two hours off his domestic troubles for an hour of official talks followed by lunch with Mr Rudd.

Importantly, he gave support to Mr Rudd’s initiative to try to tighten the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by setting up an international commission co-chaired by former foreign minister Gareth Evans and holding an international conference to discuss how the treaty can be made more effective.

In a communique, the two leaders did not mention whaling.  But they emphasised the strengths of the bilateral relationship, which has been questioned after the sharp dispute over whaling and after the Rudd Government’s decision to pull out of talks between the US, Japan, India and Australia – which China saw as aimed against it. Instead, the leaders agreed to strengthen bilateral and trilateral defence co-operation.

Responding to Mr Rudd’s retreat on whaling, Greenpeace Australia Pacific chief executive Steve Shallhorn said it was time to move on the appointment of a whaling envoy “because regular diplomatic channels are clearly not working”.

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said the failure to announce the appointment sent a message to Japan that Labor was only interested in the whaling issue for domestic purposes.   He also said the Government’s election promise to take Japan to the International Court “was always a fraud“.>>

.

.

Peace in Our Time

.

Dec 2009:

.

<<The Rudd Government has reneged on a promise to send an Australian ship to monitor Japan’s annual slaughter of 1000 minke, humpback and fin whales.

The Opposition said an Australian ship must be sent to gather evidence for use in a promised international courts case to stop the whaling.

The annual Japanese whale kill is in full swing despite a promise by the Rudd Government in May 2007 to take Japan to the international courts to stop the slaughter.

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt wrote to Environment Minister Peter Garrett and demanded he honour the Government’s promises to monitor – and ultimately bring an end – to the whale slaughter.

.

Mr Hunt:

“We are now facing the third whaling season since this promise was made and I ask that you agree now to dispatch a non-military observation vessel to the Southern Ocean by January 5, (2010).”

.

The Humane Society International (HSI) said Japan’s own figures, revealed in secret documents discovered at the International Whaling Commission meeting being held this week, showed the “true, disgusting nature” of the country’s whale hunting.

“The purpose of this would be both to chronicle the tragic slaughter of these majestic creatures and to act as an intermediary in the case of conflict between the Japanese whaling fleet and non-government organisations.”

A spokesman for Mr Garrett said the Rudd Government had honoured its promise to monitor the cull in 2008 when it spent $1 million sending the customs ship the Oceanic Viking to observe the cull.  That mission captured damning pictures of Japanese whalers killing a mother whale and its calf but the evidence was never used to take Japan to court, although it did reduce the Japanese whale cull that year.     [Ed:   See image at the start of this article.]

Japan’s whalers blamed “relentless interference” from environmentalists and the Australian surveillance ship for the fact they only took 551 minke whales out of a maximum quota of 935 in early 2008.>>

.

.

Research has become an internationally interpreted Japanese word for

.

Jan 2010:

.

A criminally violent blood sport

.

<<Japan has risked an open breach with the Rudd government by hitting back hard at Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s handling of last week’s whaling confrontation in the Southern Ocean.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials have accused Ms Gillard of aggravating the whaling controversy between Tokyo and Canberra, and called for Australian action to prevent further illegal activities by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

The officials warned a senior Australian diplomat on Friday that Ms Gillard’s statements immediately before and after the collision between Sea Shepherd’s speedboat and a Japanese whaling ship were inflaming public opinion in Japan and making diplomatic resolution of the underlying dispute harder to realise.

This is the toughest public stance a Japanese government has taken towards Australia on Antarctic whaling — or any other issue — in recent times and is also highly unusual in singling out for criticism a senior member of a friendly government.

The move betrays Japanese frustration with the Australians’ political management of the issue, including Kevin Rudd’s repeated threats of international legal action against so-called scientific whaling, while not obviously helping to curb hazardous protest activities, including Sea Shepherd’s efforts to disable whaling ships.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs senior officials told acting japanambassador Allan McKinnon it was “not appropriate” for Ms Gillard to urge Japanese whalers and the activists in equal terms to show restraint, “notwithstanding the Sea Shepherd itself was conducting the unlawful rampage”.

Sea Shepherd accuses the Shonan Maru 2 crew of deliberately running over Ady Gil during a day of confrontation in which the activists’ speedboat ran across the Japanese factory ship’s bow and allegedly tried to entangle its propellers.

Ms Gillard yesterday stood by her call for calm on both sides and for Japanese and Sea Shepherd skippers to ensure crews’ safety as their first duty.

“These are extremely dangerous conditions and it is likely Australia would be called upon to deploy a search and rescue mission if things were to go horribly wrong,” Ms Gillard said. “It is not therefore inappropriate for Australia to call for calm from both sides in these circumstances.”

Japanese officials questioned the jurisdiction of Australia’s Maritime Safety Authority to investigate last week’s collision.  Without access to the crew of Shonan Maru 2, any finding by an Australian inquiry into the collision is likely to be meaningless.

The Japanese have agreed to co-operate with a New Zealand investigation (Ady Gil was New Zealand-registered) and they are expected to vigorously contest a piracy complaint lodged in a Dutch court by Sea Shepherd on Friday.

Sea Shepherd leader Paul Watson said yesterday the group was aiming to secure a charge of attempted murder against the Japanese crew.

“That’s what the crew of the Shonan Maru tried to do, the video makes that clear,” Mr Watson said from the Steve Irwin, which continues to pursue the whaling fleet.

“If I rammed and sank a Japanese vessel in Australian territory, the Australian navy would be on its way down here right now to arrest me.”

Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials, in answer to questions from The Australian, have called for the Australian Federal Police to investigate Sea Shepherd’s actions the next time its vessels put into an Australian port.

Japanese officials were already annoyed that the Steve Irwin, which uses Australian ports for its annual Southern Ocean campaigns, was allowed to put into Hobart without question late last month after initiating the first clashes of the season.

They told Mr McKinnon that Ms Gillard’s call for the Institute of Cetacean Research to suspend charter flights monitoring the Sea Shepherd vessels that have been harrying the whaling fleet since mid-December “has already unnecessarily provoked the Japanese public opinion”.

“This has invited the Japanese public (to) call for a strong protest and it might impair both governments’ will to lead the whaling issue to a resolution through diplomatic efforts,” said a Foreign Ministry spokesman.

Japan aims to slaughter nearly 1000 minke whales this summer for “scientific research”, as well as 20 rare fin whales and 50 humpbacks. It has urged Canberra to distinguish between official Australian opposition to Antarctic whaling and illegal acts in international waters that put at risk Japanese crewmen and ships.

A culture that has long celebrated brutal killing

.

On Wednesday, before news of the collision and in response to a newspaper report about the charter flights, Ms Gillard said: “We do not condone this action by the Japanese government at all and we are certainly urgently seeking legal advice about this conduct.” On Friday, she said: “Ending whaling will happen through diplomacy or legal action; it’s not going to happen on the high seas. And because we are pursuing diplomacy, I am in a position to advise that our embassy in Tokyo has made high-level representations to the Japanese government.”

Ms Gillard said Australia’s diplomats in Tokyo had made clear to the Japanese the government’s strong view that Japanese whaling had to cease: “We are pursuing diplomacy with all of our force. We have made it absolutely clear we are not ruling out taking international legal action.”

At that stage, Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials would not confirm Thursday’s discussion with Mr McKinnon but The Australian understands that later on Friday they asked him for another meeting, at which they delivered the toughened message.

Ms Gillard yesterday maintained that the Australian government was “pursuing its anti-whaling position through the appropriate diplomatic and legal channels very strongly”.

“The government also respects the right of those who also oppose whaling to protest, and to do so peacefully,” she said.

Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Julie Bishop said yesterday the government’s handling of whaling was damaging Australia’s relationship with Japan.

She said Mr Rudd should either fulfil his pre-election promise to pursue international legal sanctions against Japan or withdraw the threat.>>

.

.

Feb 2010:

.

<<Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says Japan must stop Southern Ocean whaling by November 2010 or face an international legal challenge.

The diplomatic heat between Australia and Japan appears not to have deterred whalers in the Antarctic cold.

As Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada met Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in Sydney yesterday, the whaling factory ship Nisshin Maru was steaming through the heart of an Australian Antarctic whale sanctuary, anti-whaling activists aboard the Sea Shepherd vessel the Steve Irwin claim.

The pursuers took this image of the Nisshin Maru behind a GPS locator that showed its position as 65 degrees 11 minutes south, and 78 degrees 8 minutes east. That is only about 100 nautical miles from Australia’s Davis Station in eastern Antarctica, well inside the 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Sea Shepherd pursuers.

In protected waters … a GPS locator aboard the Steve Irwin shows the Japanese whaler is just 100 nautical miles from Davis Station and well inside the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone.

GPS confirms Japanese whaler illegally trespassing inside the Australia Exclusive Economic Zone

.

”It’s almost like a slap in the face,” Sea Shepherd leader Paul Watson said from the Steve Irwin. ”They were skirting the EEZ by about a mile until Friday and then they dove down into it.”
Advertisement

Mr Rudd has strongly objected to the ”slaughter of whales” in the sanctuary declared throughout the EEZ. Whaling is banned in all Australian waters and the hunt’s illegality in this polar sanctuary was upheld in a 2008 Federal Court case brought by Humane Society International.   In response to Mr Rudd’s warning on Friday that whaling must be brought to an end or Australia will go to an international court by November, Mr Okada reiterated Japan’s view that it was legal.

Mr Okada met Mr Rudd at Admiralty House in Kirribilli yesterday. His spokesman, Hidenobu Sobashima, said:

”In light of the importance of Australia-Japan relations … we hope that the two countries will confirm it is imperative to reach a diplomatic solution.”

Mr Okada will meet Foreign Minister Stephen Smith in Perth today before returning to Tokyo.>>

.

[Ed:  Came to nothing: …how’s your father, tasty food…Whatever. You win!]

.

.

Jan 2011:

.

<<The former prime minister Kevin Rudd launched legal action against Japan’s whaling program despite opposition from senior ministers and officials who warned it was likely to fail and strengthen the hand of the Japanese.

Leaked United States diplomatic cables also indicate that the decision to take Japan to the International Court of Justice was designed to divert public pressure on Labor over whaling.

The Department of Foreign Affairs warned that the case against Japan’s ”scientific” whaling would ”either fail completely or, at best, set up the Japanese to simply make changes to their program to improve the science”.

And a senior Australian diplomat told the Americans that both the then foreign minister Stephen Smith and the trade minister Simon Crean had made clear their opposition to an international legal challenge.

According to the cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and provided exclusively to the Herald, officials told US diplomats that even if successful, legal action against Japan would be ”unlikely to stop the whale hunt entirely”.

They added that ”equally importantly, such action would probably take a long time, removing some of the pressure on the government for the next few years”.

The government yesterday attempted to play down earlier revelations that Australia had been prepared to secretly negotiate a compromise to allow continued Japanese whaling.

The acting Attorney-General, Brendan O’Connor, said that the ICJ case demonstrated that the government was not soft on whaling. ”I think that underlines the seriousness of the matter and the fact that this government … opposes whaling and will continue to fight through the courts,” he said.

But the new embassy cables show that the government’s advisers were deeply pessimistic about the prospects of success in any legal action.

In October 2008, as officials were working to develop their case, the US embassy reported to Washington that domestic political considerations were high in Mr Rudd’s thinking. It said he was likely to eventually see legal action ”as the least damaging politically of his limited choices in dealing with public anger over whaling”.

However, the embassy also reported the Foreign Affairs Department’s environmental strategies director, David Dutton, had admitted that his department and the Attorney-General’s Department ”had long shared the view that international legal action against Japan’s whaling program has a limited chance of success”.

Mr Dutton told US diplomats that the Attorney-General’s Department had ”recently done an about face” to argue that the prospects for success at the ICJ were ”high enough to justify taking action”.

Mr Dutton said the Foreign Affairs analysis was that the only basis for effective action was that Japan’s whaling violated the International Whaling Convention because it did not achieve substantive scientific outcomes.

”[Foreign Affairs] continues to believe that such a challenge will either fail completely or, at best, set up the Japanese to simply make changes to their program to improve the science,” the US embassy reported to Washington.

The cables also reveal that the Rudd cabinet was ”very divided” over how to deal with whaling, with the prime minister reported to have been ”increasingly worried that the Japanese will forge ahead despite Australian concerns”.

The embassy reported that Mr Dutton had said that Mr Smith and Mr Crean ”had made clear their opposition to an international legal challenge, but opined that … DFAT and by extension [Mr] Smith had ceased to have much relevance in influencing the PM’s office on this issue”.

When they announced the legal challenge in May last year, Mr Smith and the then environment minister Peter Garrett said the government had ”not taken this decision lightly”.

However, the cables also reveal that domestic politics featured prominently from the start of the government’s consideration of possible legal action against Japan.

Soon after the election of the Labor government, the embassy reported Australian government contacts were saying that referring Japan’s whaling program to the ICJ ”would be unlikely to stop the whale hunt entirely, but could well force modifications that would make it more difficult for the Japanese”.

The embassy’s contacts also suggested that ”equally importantly, such action would probably take a long time, removing some of the pressure on the government for the next few years”. Australia is not required to file its detailed arguments with the court until May and Japan is not obliged to respond until March next year. A hearing may not take place until 2013.

The leaked cables also reveal Japanese confidence that Australia’s legal challenge would fail and vindicate Japan’s position.

In February last year the US embassy reported that the Japanese deputy head of mission in Canberra had observed that the then foreign minister Katsuya Okada had ”made clear his growing annoyance with Australian complaints about whaling”.

”Okada is very confident that Tokyo will win a legal challenge and has suggested internally that it would be good for Japan to show that its whaling program is on firm legal ground,” the embassy reported.

The Greens and the opposition yesterday attacked the proposed Australian government compromise with Japan.

The opposition environment spokesman, Greg Hunt, said Labor had damaged Australia’s case against Japanese whaling.

”It’s absolutely clear that the Australian government was saying one thing publicly and then another thing privately about whaling so as to allow the continued hunting and slaughter of whales, all of the while this was being denied by the government.”

The Greens leader, Bob Brown, also said the proposed compromise was ”very troubling”.

”Hopefully this may help the current government take a stronger line,” he said.

He urged the government to use all available legal and diplomatic means, as well as naval surveillance, to increase the pressure on Japan to end the slaughter of whales.>>

.

.

Oct 2011:

.

<<The Australian Government condemns Japan’s decision to continue whaling in the Southern Ocean this year under the guise of science.  Australia remains resolute in its opposition to all commercial whaling, including Japan’s so-called ‘scientific whaling’.

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said the Government was particularly disappointed that this whaling will take place in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary established by the International Whaling Commission.

.

Mr Rudd:

“There is widespread concern in the international community at Japan’s whaling program and widespread calls for it to cease.  The Government has always been firm in our resolve that if we could not find a diplomatic resolution to our differences over this issue, we would pursue legal action. This is the proper way to settle legal differences between friends.”

.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the decision to commence proceedings in May 2010 was not taken lightly.

“Australia believes Japan’s whaling is contrary to international law and should stop,” said Mr McClelland.  “That is why Australia is taking our case in the International Court of Justice to bring to an end Southern Ocean whaling permanently.”

Environment Minister Tony Burke said the decision to take legal action demonstrated the strength of Australia’s commitment.

“The Australian Government remains opposed to all commercial whaling, including so-called ‘scientific whaling,” Mr Burke said.  “We will keep working to achieve a permanent end to all commercial whaling.”>>

.

.

Japan uses grenade tipped harpoons

.

Dec 2011:

.

<<Japan’s whaling authorities are suing militant environmentalists Sea Shepherd for ‘harassing’ whale hunters.

It is the first time that Japan has attempted legal action abroad against anti-whaling campaigners, who have sometimes used extreme methods against ships involved in the hunt, carried out under rules that allow research whaling.

“Today, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha and the Institute of Cetacean Research along with research vessels’ masters filed a lawsuit against the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) and Paul Watson,” they said in a statement.  “The Institute of Cetacean Research and Kyodo Senpaku are seeking a court order in the US District Court in Seattle, Washington that prevents SSCS and its founder Paul Watson from engaging in activities at sea that could cause injuries to the crews and damage to the vessels.”

Kyodo Senpaku owns ships, while the cetacean institute operates the whaling programme under the authority of the Japanese government.

Sea Shepherd, based in Washington state in the US, regularly sends vessels to harass the whalers. In previous years it has thrown stink bombs onto the decks of the Japanese fleet, while vessels from both sides have repeatedly clashed.

The Japanese statement said the whaling programme was “greatly contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge of whale resources in the Antarctic”.

Commercial whaling was banned under a 1986 International Whaling Commission agreement. “Lethal research” is allowed, but other nations and environmental groups like Sea Shepherd condemn it as disguised commercial whaling.

Tokyo says the whale hunts are needed to substantiate its view that there is a robust whale population in the world. However, it makes no secret of the fact that whale meat from this research ends up on dinner tables and in restaurants.

The statement condemned Sea Shepherd’s actions as “life-threatening”.

“Sabotage activities against the research fleet by SSCS and Paul Watson have been escalating over several years,” it said.  “The activities perpetrated by SSCS and Paul Watson not only put at risk the safety of the research vessels at sea but are also affecting the scientific achievement” of the program, it said.

In February, Japan cut short its hunt for the 2010-2011 season by one month after bagging only one fifth of its planned catch, blaming interference from Sea Shepherd.

.

Mr Watson (Sea Shepherd founder): 

“We are not down there protesting whaling, we are down there intervening against criminal activities. We defend ourselves from being rammed, hit with water cannons, shot at, have concussion grenades and bamboo spears thrown at us, so yes, we defend ourselves.  The United States government and courts have no authority over these ships so I don’t know what they are hoping to achieve.”

.

Mr Watson – who travels to Australia each year to lead activists in their efforts against the whale hunt – said that the ships his organisation used were not owned by Sea Shepherd USA, nor were they US-flagged vessels.

The Japanese legal action came after the whaling fleet left port on Tuesday for this season’s annual hunt.

The coast guard has deployed an unspecified number of guards to protect the ships from anti-whaling activists, and the Japanese government has confirmed it will use some of the public funds earmarked for reconstruction after the massive March earthquake and tsunami to boost security for the hunt.

Three ships from the Sea Shepherd fleet are due to set sail over the coming days to once again confront the Japanese whalers, the organisation said.  The Steve Irwin and the MV Brigitte Bardot will leave from Albany in Western Australia and the MV Bob Barker will depart from Hobart.>>

.

MV Brigitte Bardot – whale defender

.

.

.

Criminal Whaling

.

Jan 2012:

.

<<Japan’s whaling fleet has left its home port for another turbulent season in the Southern Ocean, this year courtesy of extra money from the nation’s earthquake recovery fund.

Three vessels have set sail from the port of Ishinomaki, in western Japan, with a mission to catch 900 whales over the next three months.

The Japanese fleet will have beefed-up security this year after its last season was cut short by the Sea Shepherd anti-whaling group.

The fleet did not get anywhere near its target last season and Sea Shepherd is hoping for a repeat performance.

But there is anger in Japan and elsewhere this year about the source of new funds for the trip.

.

The Japan Fisheries Agency says the trip’s use of $28 million from the earthquake recovery fund is legitimate, because it is taken from the government’s own quake recovery fund.

.

Once again, the male dominated Japanese Government turns its back on its own

.

Greenpeace Japan executive director Junichi Sato says it is a massive stretch to link whaling to the earthquake.

“It’s not related to the recovery at all,” he said.  “It is used to cover the debts of the Whaling Programme because the Whaling Programme itself has been suffering from big financial problems.”>>

.

.

.

Jan 2013:

.

Former Greens leader Bob Brown says fear of a diplomatic fallout is preventing Australia from standing up to Japan on whaling.

.

Watch Video:

Click image to play video

Dr Brown, who is now a member of the Sea Shepherd board, also stood behind Sea Shepherd skipper Paul Watson, who jumped bail in July in Germany while being detained over an incident off the coast of Costa Rica in 2002.

The former senator says he wants the Australian Government to seek an international court injunction to stop Japan’s annual whale hunt in the Southern Ocean.

“They’re worried. They want a free-trade agreement, they’re worried that this is going to, in some way or other, annoy politicians in Tokyo,” he said.

“There’s a lot of Australians who are annoyed that the Australian Government, and indeed the Opposition when it was in government, haven’t stood up to the Japanese. And it’s time they did.”

Dr Brown said he has nothing but praise for Watson.

Interpol has issued an arrest alert for Watson, who is wanted in Costa Rica over charges relating to a confrontation over shark finning.

Watson has since said he is back on board an activist vessel and ready to confront whalers.

“I’ve admired Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd for 30 years,” Dr Brown said.

“They have done a fantastic job. It’s been non-violent, they have never harmed anybody in that process.”

The former senator also wants the Government to ensure the safety of the Sea Shepherd’s four ships and crew.

“This time they (the Japanese) have armed coastguard people – this is men with guns on their ships coming into the demilitarised zone in Antarctica – while our Government and governments elsewhere sit on their hands and allow this international law-breaking,” he said.

“It’s Sea Shepherd that’s upholding the law here.”

.

Paul Watson and his Sea Shepherd Crew

.

.

30 Jan 2013:

.

<<Anti-whaling activists Sea Shepherd say they have made their first contact with Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean this season.

The group says its vessel the MV Brigitte Bardot intercepted harpoon ship the Yushin Maru 3 yesterday.

In a statement, Brigitte Bardot captain Jean Yves Terlain said the position of the whaling boat indicates it has not yet killed any of the mammals.

“The Yushin Maru 3 was on a westerly course, indicating that the fleet has been in bad weather for the past several days,” he said.

“The latitude at which they were found was rather far north and given that the large concentrations of whales are found further south, closer to the Antarctic Continent where there are high concentrations of krill, this would indicate that they have not yet begun whaling.”

Sea Shepherd says this year’s mission is its largest to date, involving four ships and more than 120 crew.

Mission chief and former Greens leader Bob Brown say it is also shaping up to be the most successful.

“We’re one day short of the end of January, the prime killing month for these whaling fleets, and they haven’t yet been able to kill a whale,” he said.  “Sea Shepherd is very, very happy.”>>

.

.

Feb 2013:

.

.

<<Japan has begun injecting new tax-payer-funded subsidies into its whaling program in a bid to keep the fleet afloat, the ABC has learned.

It is believed the “profitable fisheries program” is helping to keep the so-called scientific research program’s ongoing debts at bay and to help refit the whaling fleet’s flagship.

With the Japanese fleet now entering Antarctic waters, the annual whale wars are again expected to flare any day.

Militant Sea Shepherd activists have been able to all but scupper the fleet’s catch over the past few years.

This, plus lower demand for whale meat, means the government has been forced to prop up the whaling program.

Some of the money has come from funds set aside for the rebuilding of communities shattered by the 2011 tsunami.

And now it appears more cash has come from the new taxpayer-funded subsidy.

“This subsidy is supposed to help fishermen in financial trouble,” investigative journalist Junko Sakuma said.

“Now it’s propping up the unprofitable whaling fleet, and if they keep running a loss, they won’t even have to pay it back.”

Documents seen by the ABC suggest the subsidy has already been used to partly refit the whaling fleet’s mother ship, the Nisshin Maru, with a smoking room and internet connections.

Patrick Ramage is the whale program director at the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Tomorrow he will release a report into just how the Japanese whaling industry is propped up financially.

“The most important finding of this new report is really three things: first, that whaling is an economic loser in the 21st century, second, that the Japanese people have lost their appetite for whale meat, and third that whale watching rather than whale killing is the economically beneficial whale industry for the 21st century,” he said.

Even the strongest supporters of whaling in Japan are pessimistic about the future of the hunt, especially with the government forced to pump in more subsidies into the fleet to keep it afloat.

Masayuki Komatsu is a former Japanese delegate to the International Whaling Commission and one of the architects of the country’s scientific research program.

He warns that the injection of this new subsidy is a sign that program is in big trouble.

“It’s not sustainable, right. How long can you get such money from the government? Everybody likes money, particularly other people’s money,” he said.>>

.

.

1 Feb 2013:

.

<<The Federal Government has ordered a Japanese whaling vessel to get out of Australia’s exclusive economic zone.

The Shonan Maru Number 2 – a Customs vessel which travels with the whaling fleet – entered the zone off Macquarie Island in the Southern Ocean yesterday afternoon.

Environment Minister Tony Burke said he had made it clear to Japan that vessels associated with the whaling program “are not welcome in in Australia’s exclusive economic zone or territorial sea”.

“Our embassy in Tokyo has conveyed these sentiments directly to the Japanese government,” Mr Burke said in a statement.

Former Greens leader Bob Brown, now the mission leader of the Sea Shepherd anti-whaling group, says he believes the vessel has armed Japanese personnel aboard.

.

Mr Brown:

“It is accompanying the whaling ships into the killing fields off Antarctica.  When the Sea Shepherd ship Bob Barker made contact with the factory ship, this ship tailed Bob Barker and has been doing so for a couple of days. The Bob Barker has lost the [factory ship] Nisshin Maru but that was after it was hunted out of the whaling area and this Customs vessel, this government vessel, has kept with the Bob Barker through to Macquarie Island and into Australia’s economic zone waters.”

.

Mr Brown says the Shonan Maru stopped this morning just outside Australia’s territorial waters.  He says there may be legal arguments about who has control over exclusive economic zones.

.

Mr Brown:

.

“Tokyo has ignored the call from the Federal Government for this part of the whaling fleet not to enter our exclusive economic zone.  It’s stayed outside the direct territorial waters but it has not obliged that request and protest from Australia that it should not enter our exclusive economic zone.  That is a matter of some affront to Australia and one that I’ve no doubt the Federal Government will be looking to deal with during today.” >>

.

.

.

Japanese Whale Blood Sport

.

One would assume that an organisation entitled the ‘Australia Strategic Policy Institute‘ would be a government body or a body at least having Australia’s strategic interests at heart.

But its director, Dr Anthony Bergin, with a title one would assume would be capable of research, has written an article for Fairfax media supporting Japan’s strategic interests.

Bergin’s article: ‘Ban Protest Vessels from using our Ports‘ dated 16th January 2010 in The Age newspaper sides with the Japanese whalers and calls on the Australian Government to support Japan in denying protesters access to Australian ports.

Perhaps Dr Bergin should take up residency in Taiji and become an employee of  their Institute of Cetacean Research.

If Dr Bergin were respectful of the democratic rights to protest we have in Australia and recognised the Japanese incursion in Australia’s whale sanctuary in the Southern Ocean, and respected the existence rights of whales, then perhaps his article for Fairfax would have instead read like this…

The Australian Government has been far too even-handed in its statements about the reckless actions of the Japanese whalers trespassing in the Southern Ocean in breach of commercial whaling prohibitions.

By not condemning this annual intrusion by Japanese ships undertaking commercial whaling, Australia is in effect acquiescing in illegal poaching of whales, while Sea Shepherd does Australia’s naval monitoring of illegitimate Japanese whale poachers.  Harassment will not change Japan’s position on whaling. And not condemning these Japans actions is counterproductive for Australia trying to secure its protection of endangered whales with the International Whaling Commission.

Whale Watching: 

.

Australia could legitimately take Japan to court and hold Japan in breach of the Antarctic Treaty at the next meeting of the commission in Morocco in June 2010.  Australia could legitimately and formally demand Japan to cease its whaling actions immediately.

Given the public interest in these matters, the Australian Government has sensibly asked the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to examine the recent events in the Southern Ocean.  Yet it is hard to see how, on any reading of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, that the ramming of the Sea Shepherd vessel, the ‘Ady Gil‘, by the Japanese whaling vessel, could argue his actions were in compliance with it.

On January 6, 2010, the New Zealand flagged tri hull wave piercer, Ady Gill, was stationary in the water at the time of the ramming and no action was taken by the Japanese whaling vessel to avoid a collision.  In fact the ship’s master the Japanese whaling ship, the ‘Shōnan Maru 2‘ deliberately turned away from its course toward starboard to deliberately ram and sink the Ady Gil.

.

Japanese Attack Formation – caught on video by Sea Shepherd’s MV Bob Barker

.

“The crew of the Ady Gil claimed that, at the last moment, the ‘Shōnan Maru 2′ turned to starboard, changing its heading to 30 degT6 and colliding with the port sponson and then smashing off a 3 metre section of the bow of the Ady Gil.”  

At the time the Shōnan Maru 2 was believed to be under command of Master Toshiyuki Miura, an employee of Japanese company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha.

.

Watch Video:

.

Piracy and criminality at sea deserve more than a token ‘fact finding report‘ that concludes nothing:

<<On the basis of the available evidence, AMSA has been unable to determine whether either vessel took any action intended to cause a collision. In the absence of face-to-face interviews with all the parties involved, the value of the publicly posted video footage was limited. The lack of confirmation of the validity of the source of this footage and therefore its limited evidentiary value prevented definitive conclusions being drawn.”>>

.

Read Report:  >AMSA Report on Ady Gil Collision (2010).pdf  (22 pages, 1.1MB)

.

It’s called a diplomatic whitewash.  Australia and New Zealand didn’t even receive an apology from the Japanese Government.

.

To demonstrate that Australia does not support the activities of the Japanese whalers, the Australian Government should ban the entry of its vessels into Australian ports.

In deciding whether to grant consent to vessels to enter its ports, a state is free to impose conditions as it wishes – access to a port of a state is a privilege, not a right.

Australia banned port access to Japanese fishing vessels in 1998 when Japan would not agree on a total allowable catch for Southern Bluefin Tuna in the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. The port access ban was lifted in mid-2001. Why? It is an offence under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for a whaling vessel to call at an Australian port unless the master has written permission from the environment minister to bring it into the port.

If the Federal Government is serious about ending whaling and shifting the Japanese Government’s position – one that has hardened in response – it should directly monitor all whaling activities in the Southern Ocean, follow through on its promise to take legal action against Japan, ban all whaling vessels from Australian ports and ban all use of aircraft from Australian airports for use by Japanese whalers.

Dr Anthony Bergin needs to continue his research and then get back to us with what he has learnt.

.

To Japanese Whale Sportsmen, it’s just big game fishing

.

.

Comment by Anonymous 20100117:

.

<<We urgently need leadership.

How is it that whaling authorities, or ‘spies’, were allowed to hire Australian planes to spy on anti-whaling protest ships!

Where are our border controls, our security forces? Australia is a sovereign nation, one to be proud of and patriotic towards. However, we have leaders cowering to Japan’s superior powers, and all their rhetoric about “legal options” and “diplomatic pressure” are just forms of procrastination, a smoke-screen for the public.

It is becoming clear that some agreement has been made between Japan and Australia to prevent any “interference” to their whale slaughter.

Head of the Australian whaling envoy, Sandy Holloway, is set to receive up to $200,000 for 100 days work. Costs could escalate to one million dollars as bureaucrats travel the globe in a futile effort to stop Japan killing whales.

Mr Holloway’s ‘formal representations’ to Japan, on a $1,800 a day retainer, were designed to fail and are really an expensive smokescreen to fool the Australian public.

Such was the ambiguity of diplomatic pressure that Japan even asked Australia for help against the “eco-terrorists” upholding the laws in the Antarctic!

Public money is being wasted. Australia’s Antarctic Territory, a $300 million whale-watching industry, domestic and international laws and Treaties are being abandoned in an effort to secure economic agreements with Japan.

Our government’s “anti-whaling” stance, despite pre-election pledges, is a charade.  It is time we see some leadership from our Federal government and have Japan’s illegal whaling fleet permanently removed from the Antarctic.  We urgently need leadership at this time, but clearly we won’t be getting it from our present government!>>

.

Comment by Peter Bright   (20100117):

.

The Prime Minister has to overview the whole picture in the national interest, long term as well as short term. Although a Green, I believe that he and his government are being unfairly criticised and insultingly abused with insufficient cause.

A better understanding of any problem may sometimes be gleaned by putting oneself in the position of one’s despised target and considering matters from his point of view.
To protect the welfare of this nation Mr Rudd has to very carefully consider the reciprocal benefits of trade between Australia and Japan, as well as a whole lot of other factors and subterranean international innuendos the likes of which we could only guess at. Mr Rudd surely realises this, and so do his advisors.

In Mr Rudd’s position, with his huge and numerous responsibilities, I would not expect to last even a minute. Personally, I’m grateful he’s there.

Because of trade matters, and in the interests of keeping the peace, I suspect that the Japanese whalers down south could ram half the Australian navy without provoking Mr Rudd into showing retaliatory muscle.

Of course if I was the commander of an Australian naval ship that had just been rammed down there, I would, um, deal with the problem there and then.

It’s likely that my response would be something less than one fully loaded with diplomatic tact and courtesy.

[Ed:  Like seizing and impounding the Japanese vessels, arresting the crews, and summoning the Japanese ambassador to the Australian Prime Minister’s office.]

.

If Australia’s Prime Minister sides with Japan against Australia, what right does Rudd have to represent Australia as Prime Minister.

Rudd already sides with China and speaks fluent Chinese. Does he have similar allegiances to Japan?

Australia must escort Japanese vessels (which have a home territory 5000 or more kilometres north) out of Australian waters.  Rudd has become a treacherous Prime Minister, favouring the rights of foreign powers over Australian sovereign rights. In doing so, Rudd has breached the Australian Constitution and must be sacked immediately.

1. Australian Antarctic Territory breached

2. Whale Protection Act, 1980 breached ‘Part I – Preliminary 6. Application of Act

(1)   This Act extends to every external Territory and, except so far as the contrary intention appears, to acts, omissions, matters and things outside Australia, whether or not in a foreign country.

(2)   Subject to subsection (3):

(a)    to the extent that a provision of this Act has effect in and in relation to any waters or place beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone, that provision applies only in relation to Australian citizens domiciled in Australia, Australian aircraft and Australian vessels and the members of the crew (including persons in charge) of Australian aircraft and Australian vessels; and

(b)   to the extent that a provision of this Act has effect in and in relation to Australia or any waters other than waters referred to in paragraph (a), that provision applies in relation to all persons, aircraft and vessels, including foreign persons, foreign aircraft and foreign vessels.

(3)    This Act has effect subject to the obligations of Australia under international law, including obligations under any agreement between Australia and another country or countries.

Part II – Preservation, conservation and protection of whales

9. Killing, taking etc. of whales prohibited

(1) A person shall not:

(a)  in waters to which this Act applies, kill, injure, take or interfere with any whale; or

(b)  treat any whale that has been killed or taken in contravention of this Act or has been unlawfully imported. ‘

.

Japanese whalers keep poaching whales in Australian territorial waters contravention of Australia’s Whales Protection Act.  Kevin Rudd, as Australia’s Prime Minister is dutifully bound to protect Australia’s sovereignty and enforce Australian legislation. But he is not.
3. Prime Minister’s failure to enforce Australian territorial legislation constitutes a breach of the Australian Constitution The COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 122 ‘ Government of territories’ states:

“The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.”

.

Under the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 120 ‘Custody of offenders against laws of the Commonwealth’

‘Every State shall make provision for the detention in its prisons of persons accused or convicted of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth, and for the punishment of persons convicted of such offences, and the Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws to give effect to this provision.’

.

Australia’s federal parliament has enacted the above legislation. The Japanese whalers have breached those laws, yet our Prime Minister fails to enforce these laws. But Rudd lets them go unpunished.

Indeed, Rudd is so appeasing of the Japanese as to be in allegiance with Japanese interests to the detriment of Australia’s interests. Under Section 44 of the Constitution sets out restrictions on who can be a candidate for Federal parliament.

It reads:“

‘Section 44 (i). Any person who..is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power…shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.’

.

So Australia’s Prime Minister Rudd needs to work out whether he is siding with Japan or Australia.

If Rudd recognises Australian Antarctic Territorial Waters, then he needs to uphold and enforce Australia law.

If he sides with the Japanese, he is in breach of Section 44 and must be sacked from the House of Representatives forthwith. Q.E.D.

I also refer to a pertinent well researched letter by Mr Graham J. Clarke (President of Whales in Danger) dated 6th January 2003 to Minister for the Environment and Heritage, David Kemp.   I also point out that since the Prime Minister has confirmed he will challenge Japan legally on this issue, indicates that the Australian Government considers Japanese whalers have breached the law and have a case to answer.

.

Comment from Vivienne (20100306):

.

<<What a disgrace our Federal leaders are! Instead of arresting the criminal whale killers, they actually act on their behalf and use our AFP to “investigate” Sea Shepherd.

What about Peter Buthane held captive? The cowards we have in government are grovelling to Japan to ensure safe trading relationships and “friendship”, and protected whales are just ignored.

Japan’s bogus “research” is a cover to return to commercial whaling, and due to our government’s incompetence and ignorance, Japan is winning the wars against whales.

This is a totally contemptible action by our Federal government, using the taxpayer-funded AFP contrary to our Australian interests. They have surrendered Antarctic security, and the blood of magnificent and gentle whales are heading towards becoming just another red meat!.”

..Trade with Japan is a different topic. Our economic relationship with Japan should not depend on their being allowed to audaciously break International and domestic laws and treaties. According the the Federal Court, 2008, we would be quite within our rights to stop Japan’s illegal whaling. Whether they are arrested and impounded should not depend on the economic power of the law-breaking nation. Setting a precedent that allows powerful nations to break the laws in our economic zones is dangerous and unfair.

Kevin Rudd is morally obliged to complete his pre-election promises and force Japan to respect our sovereignty. Anything else maligns us to being nothing but cowardly.

“Protected” whales are not political or economic pawns to be traded or betrayed so cruelly.>>

.

Common Sydney (‘Gloomy’) Octopus  (Octopus tetricus)

.

Common Wildlife Derided

.

They want to stop labelling species as “common” like the “Common” Wombat.  Many once ‘common’ wildlife species like the Koala, Thylacene, Platypus are either extinct or approaching extinction due to Humanity’s dismissive common treatment, disrespect and slaughter.

Many wildlife species with the word ‘common’ in their name:  Common Brushtail Possum, Common Ringtail Possum, Common Wallaroo are mostly treated with common contempt as if vermin. Look at Lenah Meats of Launceston in Tasmania. Common Possum and Common wallaby are native wildlife but are being poached for butchering, fur and profit.   Lenah claims it is a company with “a deep ethical position“…operating from “a climate change perspective“.  ^http://www.lenah.com.au

.

The intrinsic value of  ‘Home Range’

.

Many species of wildlife are territorial.  It does not so much mean that they are aggressively territorial, as modern society has come to interpret the word ‘territorial’, but that the wildlife adopt a ‘Home Range‘.  They live, feed, breed within that home range, because Nature has endowed sufficient food richness and sanctuary to enable them to survive in an ecologically sustainable population.  Territorial wildlife that are forced outside their home range, generally die.  Deforestation and large bushfires do this.   The cumulative impact is regional extinction, particularly given that much wildlife habitat has long been reduced to remnant disparate islands barely large enough to sustain territorial wildlife populations.

Similarly, when people live in a place for a while, they become more acquainted, familar, fond and attached to the place.  They get to know the local characteristics, habits, patterns, and idiosyncracies of a place that are particular to that place.  Their knowledge about the place deepens to an insight and a local wisdom and this instils affection and a sense of belonging to the place and an empathy and custodial, if not parental, responsibility for its inhabitant creatures and their habitat.   Personal attachment to a place is the when a place becomes valued as a home.  One’s home is not just a roof over one’s head.  It is the immediate surroundings, connections and amenity – the Human Home Range.   The place becomes ‘special’.

A home and a home range hold personal value and over time, one’s daily life, lifestyle and home and home range become intertwined.    This naturally engenders a need to preserve and protect the place almost in a territorial sense, because without it one’s own daily life and lifestyle values are impacted.  After all humans are animals and have derived common primordal instincts and behaviours.

And so it is wholly understandable that when external harm impacts upon one’s home and home range, response is powerfully emotive and vocal because the sense of loss is personal and soulful.

This month’s tale about the killing of the local Wylie’s Baths Octopus may seem to outsiders to be a relatively ephemeral case in point.  But what matters is the impact on people and their home and on wildlife and their home.    Another example could equally apply to BP oil covered Pelicans along the Lousianna coast, firestorms and tempest that have ripped through human and ecological communities.   It is about a place that has become special and this is revealed in the emotive way the tale is told and the feelings expressed by locals.

.

Coogee’s historic Wylie’s Baths, Sydney’s seaside pool at Coogee since 1907

.

<<It was an unusual whodunit: a much-loved octopus found dead at Coogee’s historic Wylie’s Baths.  But it did not take long to find the likely perpetrator – an overzealous cleaner armed with chlorine.

”I’ve been swimming there for 11 years and I’ve never seen anything remotely like this,” said Coogee resident Matthew Martin who described the scene at the tidal bath as a ”dead sea”.
Wylies Baths Coogee.

”Not only was every marine fibre bleached white and dead, so was every marine creature that usually lives in the pool.”

The Wylie’s Baths Trust, which runs the site, has posted a mea culpa on its website about the death of its resident octopus ”apparently as a result of chlorine contamination”.>>

.

<<As you may be aware, very regrettably our resident octopus recently died, apparently as a result of chlorine contamination in the pool. Chlorine has been used to clean the pool surrounds for many years. It is a necessary function of our duty of care to manage serious slip hazards caused by the build-up of marine growth.

The success or otherwise of the cleaning process is a complex issue, dependent upon many factors including frequency, volume, timing, tide, temperature and swell. It appears in this instance, we got it wrong.

Wylie’s Baths Trust and Management are engaging Randwick City Council and the EPA on the matter and will be reviewing our pool cleaning procedures as part of the investigation. We look forward to patrons ongoing support in our endeavours to maintain the pristine, safe and natural Wylie’s Baths environment we all hold so dear.>>

.

.

<<The notice said the ”success or otherwise of the cleaning process” – to routinely remove slip hazards posed by algae growing around the pool – was dependent on a range of factors including ”frequency, volume, timing, tide, temperature and swell”.

”It appears in this instance, we got it wrong,” it said.

But that was not enough for Randwick City Council, which said the pool must come up with another cleaning method to prevent slip hazards at the baths.

Although some Sydney councils use chlorine or another algicide to do this, all pools cleaned by Randwick – including the neighbouring ladies’ baths – are cleaned using a hot-water pressure system.

”We are committed to safe maintenance practices which do not harm our local marine life,” a council spokeswoman said.

A spokesman for the trust, Tony Cousins, said it had asked the Environmental Protection Authority to help it review its cleaning.

”If there’s a good option for us to use other than chlorine, we’ll be dead keen on using it, I can assure you,” Mr Cousins said.

But he said he did not think the incident had stirred lingering disquiet about management changes last year, which were part of an attempt to make the pool more financially sustainable.

Regular swimmer Fiona Giles said the mishap was ”arguably a direct result of the communication problems that persist” at the site.

Wylie’s had recently returned to cleaning the pool with chlorine after using grit and a bristle brush proved ineffective.

Sydney Institute of Marine Sciences director Peter Steinberg, a professor at the University of NSW, said the effect of chlorine on marine life was localised and short-term, but its use had ”diminished significantly in recent years”.

”It’s frowned upon by the agencies that worry about those kinds of things,” he said.

Work was ongoing to develop non-toxic wax coatings to control algae, he said, but other experiments using small grazing snails have been abandoned.

”It was difficult to corral the snails in the end,” he said.

A Coogee local, Reg Chappell, said management might have made an error cleaning the pool. But he and fellow regular swimmer Sam Camer said the marine life – which in the past has included bream and a Port Jackson shark – would return with the tide.  Less conventional methods have been deployed in the past to clear Wylie’s of unwanted marine visitors: a persistent wobbegong was once hurled back into the sea by its tail.

”We threw him over the corner, but then he just came back in again,” Mr Camer said.>>

.

.

Watch Octopus retreat from Human

.

.

.

Clovelly’s ‘Bluey’ Legend

.

This month’s tale about the killing of the local Wylie’s Baths Octopus at Coogee compares with a previous tale just a few beaches up at Clovelly about the killing of a well known Blue Groper fish affectionately known by many locals simply as ‘Bluey‘.

Clovelly’s much loved Blue Groper – a gentle giant

.

“In the old days (1940’s and 1950s) my friends and I used to be able to go to Rottnest (Perth’s holiday island) and spear a boat load of dhuies (best fish around).  These days there’s nothing there – I don’t understand it.”

~ 85 year old veteran Western Australian spear fisherman Maurie Glazier quoted by niece Jo Buckee 20040908.

.

2005

.

<<Outraged beachgoers have accused divers of spearing one of Sydney’s friendly, much loved blue gropers at Clovelly Bay, a repeat of the “murder” of a similar fish which sparked a public outcry three years ago.

NSW Fisheries and Randwick Council (Sydney) are investigating claims that two men emerged from the water with a 1.5-metre spear and a mesh bag containing a female groper at about 9.30am on Sunday.

In 2002, the then premier, Bob Carr, expressed outrage at the killing of a groper at Clovelly which was initially thought to be Bluey – an inquisitive fish which was something of a local character.

Sam Zahedi, a member of Clovelly Surf Club, was among those who remonstrated with the divers involved in Sunday morning’s incident.

“I saw two men come out of Clovelly baths – both of them had diving suits on,” he said.

“One had a spear about five-and-a-half feet long and one had an underwater bag with a groper in it.” He said the fish had the distinctive yellow and grey-brown colouring of female gropers.

Kelly Stevens, a spokeswoman for NSW Fisheries, said: “We have had a report of this incident and we are investigating.”

A council beach inspector spoke to the men about spearfishing, although it is unclear whether the officer saw a groper.

Gropers are a cherished element of Sydney’s sea life and are famed for their tame behaviour. The coast between Bronte and Coogee is an aquatic reserve and killing gropers carries a fine of up to $11,000.

Among their fans is Mr Carr, who enjoys snorkelling at Clovelly and who described those responsible for the 2002 death as “mongrels”. It later emerged that Bluey was still alive and that the victim had been another groper.

Geoff James, president of Clovelly Surf Club, said that any attack on a groper would be deplored by local people: “All the members of Clovelly Surf Club and the Clovelly community abhor any such event or practice. The gropers are part of the unique nature of our little beach and community.”

.

Gentle Giants

• The blue groper has been the official fish of NSW since 1996.
• Known to snorkellers and divers for their fearless, inquisitive nature, the fish can grow to 1.2 metres long and have distinctive large eyes.
• Gropers are born female, with a grey-brown colouring. Some turn into bright blue males later in life.
• They are natives of Australian waters and largely found between southern Queensland and Wilson’s Promontory, Victoria.>>

.

.

2008

.

Clovelly’s iconic Blue Groper

.

<<He’s probably Sydney’s favourite fish, popular with tourists and locals alike – even though nobody’s really sure if he’s still alive.  Bluey – the eastern blue groper that was thrust into the public spotlight when it was “murdered” at Clovelly Bay in 2002 – is somewhat of a local character.

On January 22 that year, the Courier published an article titled ‘Appeal to find groper killer‘, after it emerged that a spear fisherman was seen holding a metre-long groper.

“Bystanders saw the young man emerge from the water with the groper still alive and watched as he bashed the fish with a diver’s knife,” the report read.

Locals were outraged and the then premier Bob Carr, a close friend of Bluey, described his killer as “a mongrel”.

A week later, in the Courier’s January 29 issue, it seemed the tide had changed for Bluey.

“Stop nailing that coffin,” journalist Andrew London wrote, as he explained of how two readers, both avid scuba divers, claimed the Clovelly fish was not the groper killed.

Fred Angles of Randwick said he had fed Bluey after the spearing incident and reckoned the fisherman killed one of the smaller female gropers in the area.

“Bluey is huge,” Mr Angles said in the report. “There is no way he could have paraded Bluey on his spear because he is so heavy.”

Phew!  Bluey was still alive, and his legend would live on.

Then in November 2005, outraged beachgoers accused divers of spearing another groper at Clovelly, but this one was definitely a female, so it seemed Bluey was off the hook once again.

All gropers are born female, with a grey-brown colouring, and some turn into bright blue males as they age.

Greg Towner, a diving instructor for Deep Six Diving, said at least two blue gropers were seen regularly at Clovelly, and about four or five frequented the area further out to sea near Shark Point.

“They are pretty much everywhere along the Sydney coastline, but you can be reasonably sure that Bluey is still there [at Clovelly],” he said.

But Clovelly surf club captain Alan Kane said it more was likely that the fish which swimmers, snorkellers and scuba divers call Bluey is another blue groper.

“The name ‘Bluey’ seems to get passed down a fair bit,” he said. “Where the original Bluey is, I’m not too sure, but there’s a bit of a hand-me-down arrangement to whoever is the dominant blue groper at the time.”

Whether or not the true Bluey is still nibbling on the toes of swimmers at Clovelly is not that important, Mr Kane said.

“We love our Bluey,” he said, “and lots of people from all over the place come out to see him, so we think they love him, too.”>>

.

.

Says John Rowe of Clovelly/Gordon’s Bay:

“I’ve been diving at Gordon’s Bay since 1965.  I’m a big supporter of the aquatic reserve. It just gives people an opportunity to interact with wild animals and I believe that enhances their life. Because they also get a better appreciation of their environment.  Nothing’s going to give me greater pleasure than my grandchildren are old enough to take them for a dive and introduce them to Bluey. And I think that would be just a wonderful thing.”

[Source:  ‘Blue Groper’, Catalyst Programme, ABC TV, 20100225, ^www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2830467.htm]

.

2012

.

[Image: ^diving.abyss.com.au]

<<Bluey’s back. Or is he?

The legendary Clovelly Bay groper, famed for befriending many a Sydney snorkeller, may have returned. Or he’s spawned a family.

Intriguingly, the new Bluey on the block could also be a female that has changed sex and simply replaced him, a phenomenon characteristic of the eastern blue groper species.

Bluey was thrust into the spotlight in 2002, when he was “murdered” by an unknown spear fisherman. So loved was the fish, the then NSW premier Bob Carr called the killer ”a mongrel”, before announcing five new aquatic reserves near Sydney beaches to protect marine life.

”I have seen the groper,” the premier pronounced at the time. ”I have swum with him. I know the groper, he was a friend of mine.”

But then a year or so later, Clovelly swimmers sighted Bluey, sparking debate on whether rumours of his death had been greatly exaggerated. And this summer a large bright blue dominant male has been spotted.

A Coogee Pro Dive scuba master, Evan Batten, confirmed a Bluey lookalike was in the area, but said it was impossible to verify whether it was the original. Such sightings are so regular Mr Batten calls Bluey the ‘Elvis of the Sea‘.

”Bluey is definitely a legend, he was extremely large, 1.2 metres long and a very rich blue. But did he get killed? Was it really Bluey they speared? Maybe he escaped and now has come back?”

To John Rowe, the secretary of the Gordons Bay Scuba Diving Club, Bluey is ”the Phantom”, named after the comic-strip character who never dies. While he was a long-time fan of Bluey, Mr Rowe said no one knew when the legend began ”especially because when the dominant Bluey dies a dominant female becomes the new Bluey,” he said.

All eastern blue gropers start life as greenish-coloured females, though some will change sex and colour to become blue males.

Professor Steve Kennelly, the director of fisheries research at the Department of Primary Industries, doubts the original Bluey is still alive and suggested another fish may have simply replaced him. ”It’s safe to say a Bluey or Bluey’s relatives are back but it’s definitely not him or his son,” he said. ”I’d be very surprised if it was the original as he wouldn’t have lasted this long.”

Professor Kennelly said public outrage over Bluey’s death had helped promote a need to protect the species. It has been illegal to spear gropers since 1969 – they can only be fished with a rod and line. In 1998, the eastern blue groper was announced the official fish of NSW.

News of Bluey’s possible return excited Mr Carr.

”I snorkelled at Clovelly a few weeks ago and was happy to see a family of gropers enjoying the crystal clear water with me,” he said. ”Why anyone would spear them is still beyond my understanding.”>>

.

.

2012  Eden (NSW South Coast)

.

<<The NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI) has fined a man for spearing four Blue Groper, which is the official fish of NSW, at Twofold Bay at Eden.

The 49-year-old man was caught as a result of a routine fisheries inspection by NSW DPI Fisheries Officers.

NSW DPI Director of Fisheries Compliance, Glenn Tritton, said there are strict rules for catching Blue Groper in NSW.

“It is very disappointing to see the illegal taking of our State emblem, especially when it has been protected from spear fishing for more than 40 years,” Mr Tritton said.  “Anyone who undertakes any sort of fishing on our waterways needs to know the rules, ignorance is no excuse.

.

“NSW DPI will not tolerate the spearing of Blue Groper and penalties can range up to a maximum of $11,000.”

.

Mr Tritton said the 49-year-old man was found snorkelling, carrying a speargun, adjacent to a small inflatable boat on the southern side of Twofold Bay.

“Fisheries Officers approached the man and the small vessel and allegedly observed four Blue Groper in the boat that had wounds consistent with those made by a spear,” he said.

“When interviewed, the man admitted to spearing the four Blue Groper.”

The man was formally interviewed and was issued a $500 penalty notice on the day.

.

Fishing Rules for Groper:

.

• A recreational fishing licence must be held for all methods of fishing in NSW
• In NSW Groper can be only taken by using a rod and line or a handline
• Groper cannot be speared and have been protected from spear fishing since 1969
• Groper cannot be taken and/or sold by any method of commercial fishing
• There is a bag limit of 2 Groper per day
• There is a size limit of 30 cm (only 1 of which can be longer than 60 cm)
• People must also comply with any additional restrictions which apply in marine parks and aquatic reserves.>>

.

(Ed:  It is about time the Blue Groper was respected properly as a legally protected species nationally under Australia’s EPBC Act, without having to wait for its numbers to further decline.  Why should wildlife species be denied a right to ecological protection unless their numbers have become endangered?  The rarity basis for wildlife protection is but base moral relativism, and exploitative convenience.)

.

<<The Blue Groper became the official fish of NSW following the death of “Bluey” at Clovelly in 2002, who was killed by an unknown spear fishermen.  It is protected from spear fishing because it is so tame and inquisitive, so it is highly vulnerable to this method of fishing.

The Blue Groper presents in several different colours including blue, green, brown and red and changes sex from female to male during its life cycle.  The largest specimens are males that are coloured the bright blue from which it takes its name.

Anyone witnessing illegal spearing of Groper is urged to contact their local fisheries office immediately.>>

.

.

Ban  Spearfishing!

.

Further Reading:

.

[1]    >’The Impacts of Spearfishing‘, by Jon Nevill, 2006,  (Word Document, 30 pages, 320kb),  ^http://www.onlyoneplanet.com/marineSpearfishing.doc

.

Asian Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus)

.

<<When extracted, the bears’ bile is a valuable commodity for sale as an ingredient in so-called ‘Traditional’ Chinese Medicine (TCM).   The bears are also known as moon bears because of the cream-colored crescent moon shape on their chest.

The Asian black bear, the one most commonly used on bear farms, is listed as ‘Vulnerable to Extinction’ on the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN’s) Red List of Threatened Animals. Bear bile collection occurs in China, South Korea, Laos and Vietnam.

Traditional Chinese medicine has been practiced for more than 3,000 years, but the popularity of some TCM cures has helped drive certain species close to extinction, including Tigers and Rhinos.  The use of the term ‘traditional’ connected with Chinese medicine is debatable anyway.  The term ought to be replaced by ‘gullible’.

.

The use of endangered animal parts must be stopped completely.

TCM is immoral wildlife quackery only practiced by backward asians

.

Because of their use in medicines — along with other factors like habitat loss — tigers have almost disappeared, with as few as 5,000 to 7,000 left in the wild. If the use of their bones for TCM continues, the powerful and majestic wild tiger may not be around for future generations. Rhino horn has been used in Chinese medicines for centuries. But now only 3,100 black rhinos survive in Africa. In Asia, the situation is even more dire, with only about 2,800 of all three Asian species combined.

Although many TCM practitioners now reject the use of these and other endangered species, poaching continues. The use of these animals’ parts and products is deeply rooted in traditional East Asian cultures and these ancient practices are slow to change.

The Chinese Medicine Council and Ministry of Health, must therefore condemn the use of endangered animal parts by de-registering any practitioners found to be using them.>>

.

.

Cruel TCM Bear Bile

.

His conclusions will delight campaigners who for years have fought against the farms and freed hundreds of bears from captivity.They claim that opposition to the industry is growing as China’s burgeoning middle class become increasingly opposed to such cruelty.

Bear gall bladders have no proven medicial qualities.

.

On the farms, the bears are milked while alive for their bile through crude holes cut into the abdomen wall and the gall bladder.

Photo: EPA

.

Dr Feng will warn the World Traditional Chinese Medicine Congress conference, however, that opponents face a hard battle with traditionalists who remain convinced that real bear bile can help cure many ailments including stomach and digestive disorders and kidney problems. Many people, including government officials, will refuse to accept substitutes, he will say.

On the farms, the bears – mostly Asiatic black bears – are kept in tiny, cramped cages and milked for their bile through crude holes cut into the abdomen wall and the gall bladder.The wounds are deliberately left open, leaving the bears exposed to infection and disease.

They are kept hungry and denied free access to water because this helps produce more bile.The farms are still found in many parts of China and other Asian countries, fuelling poaching and illegal trade in the animals.

..Jill Robinson, the English founder and chief executive of the charity, which has a sanctuary for rescued bears in China, said: “Bears are dying in droves across the country in conditions that are just as horrendous as they were when we began rescuing bears in 1995.   This appalling trade has to end.

 

“There are over 54 different herbal alternatives and man-made synthetics that can take their place.

No one is going to die from a lack of bear bile.”

 

In December 2009, 19 of China’s mainland provinces committed to becoming bear farm free. Another province, Shandong, closed its last bear farm in 2010.  But there is growing concern that the bear bile trade is still widespread throughout Asia.  The Chinese government estimates that there are currently between 7,000 and 10,000 bears kept for their bile in China. There are an estimated 16,000 Asiatic bears living in the wild.

A report in May 2011 by ^TRAFFIC, the wildlife monitoring network, found that poaching and illegal trade of bears, “continues unabated”, and on a large scale..

..mostly in east asia, namely:

• China
• Hong Kong
• Malaysia
• Myanmar
• Vietnam

.

The most common products on sale were pills and whole bear gall bladders where the bile secreted by the liver is stored.International trade in the bears, and their parts and derivatives, is prohibited under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The report found that the ban was widely flouted.

Domestic trade of bear bile is legal but regulated in China and Japan and illegal in other countries.

Bear bile has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for more than 3,000 years.Until about 30 years ago, the only way to acquire bear bile was by killing a wild animal and removing its gall bladder.

In the early 1980s bear farms began appearing in North Korea and quickly spread to China.  Bears rescued from farms by Animals Asia are found to be suffering from liver cancer, blindness, shattered teeth and ulcerated gums. Contaminated bile from sick bears poses a threat to human health.

..We must all help the thousands of bears suffering terrible cruelty.

Dr Jidong Wu, president of the UK association of traditional chinese medicine at Middlesex university, which prohibits the use of bear bile by its practitioners, said extracting bear bile was “inhumane and unethical” and “against the general principle and law of traditional Chinese medicine which emphasises keeping the balance between mankind and nature.”>>.

.

.

Traditional Chinese Medicine?

The quackery spin:

.

The cruel reality:

.

.

Poachers of Manta Ray ‘gill rakers’ scam $US251/kg from Chinese

.

Giant Oceanic Manta Ray (Manta birostris) – a free one

.

The Giant Oceanic Manta Ray (Manta birostris) is listed as ‘Vulnerable to extinction’ by The International Union for the Conservation of Nature due to overfishing.

They are the gentle giants of the ocean, weighing as much as 1400 kilograms. But an emerging market in Chinese (‘traditional’) Medicine for gill rakers is threatening global populations of giant manta rays.

An investigation last year found the main driver of the manta ray’s decline is rapidly increasing demand from Chinese and other markets for gill rakers – thin filaments that rays use to filter food from water – to be dried and boiled as medicines.

The group’s report found gill rakers were fetching on average $US251 a kilogram in Guangzhou in southern China, where 99 per cent of the world’s product is sold. Targeted fishing of rays occurs predominantly in India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Peru and China.

.

Gill rakers, extracted from a slaughtered Mobula Ray to cater to backward asians

.

.

.

How to properly boost the human immune system:

According to the Harvard Medical School:

.

<<Our first line of defense is to choose a healthy lifestyle.

Following general good-health guidelines is the single best step you can take toward keeping your immune system strong and healthy.

Every part of your body, including your immune system, functions better when protected from environmental assaults and bolstered by healthy-living strategies such as these:

.

So why do such backward asians perpetuate the dodgy ‘Gill Raker’ trade’?

.

<<Just in the last fifteen or twenty years we’ve seen a new market opening up for a product from the manta rays, whereas before they were never really fished in significant quantities.

This product is the actual mechanism inside the gills of both manta and mobula rays. This structure of the body is called the gill raker, which is the part of the gill that strains their food out of the water.

Now this gill raker is chopped out of the manta’s body and are then dried and exported to Asia and they are then bought and consumed in a broth with other ingredients. The main ingredient is the gill raker because it’s believed that this has some medicinal properties that can treat a variety of different illnesses.>>

.

Ed: Which is a lot of baloney.

.

Gill rakers filter particles from water, allowing manta rays to feed.

.

Murdoch University manta ray researcher Frazer McGregor said the increasing affluence of the Chinese market was driving demand in animal products and the manta ray had been affected. He said the danger to the species was intensified by its slow rate of reproduction.

Now, amid increasing international efforts to curb the decline, the Australian Government will today protect the species – found predominantly in the tropical waters of northern Australia – under national environment law.

Under the protections, the giant ray will be listed as a migratory species, making it an offence to take, trade, keep, or move the species from Commonwealth waters. Fishers will now also have to report any interactions with a giant manta ray as is the case with other protected species such as dugongs and whale sharks.

Environment Minister Tony Burke said while Australia’s populations of giant manta rays were fairly secure, globally the species’ numbers have declined 30 per cent. Last year, the giant manta ray was listed as threatened under the international Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species.

”The giant manta ray is a highly migratory species – with some being known to travel more than 1000 kilometres – and threats often arise outside of protected areas,” Mr Burke said.
”For this reason, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species and our national environment law are an excellent way to achieve international co-operation and co-ordination to better protect the species.’‘>>

.

.

Poaching the Ocean’s Giants

.

Ed:

It is about time that the Australian Government formally outlawed the poaching of all Australian wildlife and outlawed the use or importation of any wildlife or their body parts.

It is also about time that the Chinese Medicine Board of Australia and the  Australian Acupuncture & Chinese Medicine Association Ltd publicly renounce the use of wildlife parts across its entire practice.

.

.

.

Further Reading:

.

[1]   ‘Manta Rays Under Attack – Will CITES Save the Manta?‘, 20121005,  by Shawn Heinrichs, ^http://www.bluespheremedia.com/2012/10/manta-rays-under-attack-will-cites-save-mantas/

The following photos were taken at Raja Ampat Islands, located off the northwest tip of Bird’s Head Peninsula on the island of New Guinea, in Indonesia’s West Papua province, Raja Ampat.  These photos are copyright of Shawn Heinrichs:

.

.

.

.

[2]  ^MantaRayOfHope.org

.

[3]  ^WildAid.org

.

[4]   ^SharkSavers.org

.

[5]  ^ The Manta Trust

.

[6]  ^Manta Fisheries

.

[7]  ^Gill Raker Trade

.

[8]   Animals Asia, ^http://www.animalsasia.org    Go To:  >Campaigns  > ‘End Bear Bile Farming’

..

[9]   ‘Bear gall bladder uses popular search term illegal activity‘, ^http://www.thirdage.com/news/bear-gall-bladder-uses-popular-search-term-illegal-activity_11-29-2010#ixzz16o2bZTKE

.

[10]   ‘Bear Gall Bladders: Illegal And Ineffectual, But Lead Web Searches‘, 20101130, by Samantha Ellis, Global Animal, ^http://www.globalanimal.org/2010/11/30/bear-gall-bladders-illegal-and-ineffectual-but-leads-internet-searches/25331/
.

<<Bear gall bladders are dominating Internet searches and are widely used in ancient Asian medicines. However, not only is the trafficking and trade of bear organs illegal, but it has been found that the gall bladders have no medicinal purpose.

Why do people continue to slaughter endangered animals – tiger, rhino, bear – for small useless organs, when there is proven, legal medicine available? The world is too small to continue consuming these beautiful animals in the name of cruel tradition.’ For anyone trolling the internet and contemplating the galling act of buying a bear’s gall bladder on the black market, may we suggest going to a doctor to get something that works? Anybody involved in killing one of  the last 3,200 wild tigers for ‘medicine,’ consider for a moment what you are doing to this iconic and disappearing species. And to those foolishly using Rhino horn as an ‘aphrodisiac,’ learn to love Viagra and make everybody, especially the rhino, happy! — Global Animal

Bear Gall Bladder uses is being searched widely on the internet giving the impression that many are curious about the use of this organ. However, trafficking or killing the animals for organ parts is illegal and should be discouraged.

The bear gall bladder has been used typically in ancient Chinese medicine. The bile stored in the bladder is said to cure several ailments and is used in anything from eye drops to pharmaceutical drugs.

The price for these organs ranges from $400 to $600 each. The practice of killing the bears and trafficking in their organs is highly illegal spurring an underground trade in the organs.

“There’s a hot black market for black bears,” Chinese officials say.  “Like the drug trade, this business spawns a seamy underside of big money, international smuggling and murder.  But unlike the drug trade, the illegal goods in this operation travel from west to east.”

Bear gall bladders have no proven medicial qualities.>>

.

A staff member extracts bile from a live bear at a bear farm of Guizhentang Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., which makes medicine by using bile extracted from live bears, in Hui’an, southeast China’s Fujian Province,Feb. 22, 2012. [Wei Peiquan/Xinhua],

.

Snow Petrel  (Pagodroma nivea) over Antarctic Ice

.

‘An alliance of 30 global environment organisations today launched a report calling for greater protection for the East Antarctic marine environment, on the eve of an international meeting where the future conservation of this region will be decided.

The Antarctic Ocean Alliance (AOA) report “Antarctic Ocean Legacy: Protection for the East Antarctic Coastal Region”, supports a proposal from Australia, France and the EU for East Antarctic marine protection but also calls for additional important areas to be included such as the Prydz Gyre, the Cosmonaut Polynya, and the East India seamounts.

In just four days, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), will begin meetings in Hobart, Tasmania to debate several proposals for marine protection, including the East Antarctic coastal region and the Ross Sea. The Ross Sea was the subject of an AOA report in February this year.

“The AOA is calling on CCAMLR Members to support the current East Antarctic coastal region proposal put forward by Australia, France and the EU, but to also consider additional areas in subsequent years that our report shows are critical to ensuring the wildlife in the region gets the protection it needs,” said AOA Director Steve Campbell.

“We are calling on CCAMLR Members to support the establishment of the world’s largest network of marine reserves and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Southern Ocean as a legacy for future generations,” Mr. Campbell said. “Decisive protection for the East Antarctic coastal region and Ross Sea would be a great start to that process.”

The remote East Antarctic coastal region is home to a significant number of the Southern Ocean’s penguins, seals and whales. It also contains rare and unusual seafloor and oceanographic features, which support high biodiversity.

Adelie Penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) in Antarctica

.

“While the AOA supports the conservation gains included in the proposal from Australia, France and the EU, we hope that CCAMLR delegates will consider expanding on the area to be protected to include additional areas that are critical habitats for Adélie penguins, Antarctic toothfish, minke whales and Antarctic krill in the future,” said Mr. Campbell.

Antarctic marine ecosystems are under increasing pressure. Growing demand for seafood means greater interest in the Southern Ocean’s resources, while climate change is affecting the abundance of important food sources for penguins, whales, seals and birds.

In October 2011, the Antarctic Ocean Alliance proposed the creation of a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) and marine reserves in 19 specific areas in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica.

This report, ‘Antarctic Ocean Legacy: Protection for the East Antarctic Coastal Region‘, outlines a vision for marine protection in the East Antarctic, one of the key regions previously identified by the AOA.

Currently, only approximately 1% of the world’s oceans are protected from human interference, yet international agreements on marine protection suggest that this number should be far higher.

The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the body that manages the marine living resources of the Southern Ocean (with the exception of whales and seals), has set a target date of 2012 for establishing the initial areas in a network of Antarctic MPAs.

One of the key places for which the AOA seeks protection is the East Antarctic coastal region. This remote area, while vastly understudied, is home to a significant proportion of the Southern Ocean’s penguins, seals and whales. The East Antarctic coastal region also contains large seafloor and oceanographic features found nowhere else on the planet.  The AOA offers this report to assist in designating marine reserves and MPAs in the East Antarctic coastal region. This is the third in a series of “Antarctic Ocean Legacy” proposals from the AOA.

This report describes the geography, oceanography and ecology of this area. The AOA acknowledges the scientists and governments that have studied the region and welcomes and gives support to the proposal that has been submitted for marine protection in the East Antarctic by Australia, France and the EU, but is cautious that constant vigilance and additional marine reserves will be required to ensure that the conservation values of the proposal are not compromised in the future.

Killer Whales breaching in Antarctic waters

.

The AOA proposes that in addition to the seven areas referenced by Australia, France and the EU, four additional areas also be considered for protection in the coming years. A network MPAs and marine reserves encompassing these additional areas and those proposed by Australia, France and the EU would span approximately 2,550,000 square kilometres.
Because the East Antarctic coastal region is “data‐poor”, the AOA plan is based on the application of the precautionary approach, one of the core concepts at the centre of CCAMLR’s mandate.

This proposal includes:

1. A representative sample of biological features at the species, habitat and ecosystem scale to ensure broad scale protection.
2. Areas of protection large enough to encompass broad foraging areas for whales, seals, penguins and other seabirds.
3. Protection of many of the region’s polynyas, which are sources of food for many species.
4. Protection of unique geomorphic features, including the Gunnerus Ridge, Bruce Rise, a trough mouth fan off Prydz Bay, various seamounts and representative areas of shelf, slope and abyssal ecoregions.
5. Full protection of Prydz Bay, an area that supports large numbers of seabirds and mammals as well as likely nursery grounds for krill and toothfish.
6. Protecting areas of scientific importance that may serve as climate reference areas.

.

Weddell seal  (Leptonychotes weddellii) in Antarctic waters

.

Currently only 1% of the world’s oceans are protected from human interference, yet international agreements on marine protection suggest that this number should be far higher.

The designation of a network of large‐scale MPAs and marine reserves in the East Antarctic coastal region would be an important and inspirational step for marine protection in the Southern Ocean. CCAMLR Members have an unprecedented opportunity to establish a network of marine reserves and MPAs an order of magnitude greater than anything accomplished before. With such a network in place, key Southern Ocean habitats and wildlife, including those unique to the East Antarctic coastal region, would be protected from the impacts of human activities.

The AOA submits that with visionary political leadership, CCAMLR can grasp this opportunity and take meaningful steps to protect critical elements of the world’s oceans that are essential for the lasting health of the planet.

.

Notes:

.

1. The AOA’s research has identified over 40% of the Southern Ocean that warrants protection in a network of large-scale marine reserves and MPAs, based on the combination of existing marine protected areas, areas identified within previous conservation and planning analyses and including additional key environmental habitats described in the AOA’s report.
2. The AOA is campaigning for CCAMLR to adopt its ‘Vision for Circumpolar Protection’ while this unique marine environment is still largely intact. CCAMLR has agreed to create a network of marine protected areas in some of the ocean around Antarctica this year but the size and scale is still under debate.
3. CCAMLR is a consensus body that meets with limited public participation and does not provide media access. The AOA believes that, without public attention during the process, only minimal protection will be achieved. It has launched the ‘Join the Watch’ campaign focused on CCAMLR, which now has more than 100,000 participants from around the world.
4. Antarctic waters make up almost 10% of the world’s seas and are some of the most intact environments left on earth. They are home to almost 10,000 unique and diverse species such as penguins, seals and whales.’

.

.

.

.

Further Reading:

.

[1]    East Antarctica targeted by dodgy fishing

.

Read Report:  >’Antarctic Ocean Legacy: Protection for the East Antarctic Coastal Region.pdf  (1.6MB), 2012, by the Antarctic Ocean Alliance (AOA), ^http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/11352_aoa_east_antarctic_report_web__2_.pdf]

.

[2]     Antarctic Toothfish?

.

Antarctic Toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) the Ross Sea, Antarctica

.

‘Antarctic Toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) are by far the dominant fish predator in the Ross Sea. Whereas most Antarctic fish species rarely get larger than 60 cm, Ross Sea toothfish can grow in excess of two metres in length and more than 150 kg in mass.

Being top predators, they feed on a variety of fish and squid, but they are also important prey for Weddell seals, sperm whales, colossal squid, and a specific type of killer whale that feeds almost exclusively on toothfish.

While these fish have long been studied for their ability to produce anti-freeze proteins that keep their blood from crystallizing, very little is known about their life cycle and distribution. We do know they live to almost 50 years of age and grow relatively slowly. They likely mature between 13 and 17 years of age (120-133 cm in length).

In the Ross Sea, toothfish are caught throughout the water column from about 300 metres to more than 2,200 metres deep. While most fish control their buoyancy with a swim bladder, toothfish actually use lipids or fats (lending to their popularity as a food fish).

Recent research suggests that toothfish have a complex life cycle which includes a remarkable spawning migration. In the Ross Sea region, adults feed over the continental shelf and slope, and then migrate from the Ross Sea continental shelf to northern seamounts, banks and ridges around the Pacific-Antarctic Ridge system. Here in the northern offshore waters, fish release their eggs, which are then picked up by the Ross Gyre and brought back to the shelf. This hypothesis is likely, but not yet proven because Antarctic toothfish eggs or larvae have never been found. Small juveniles have been found in other regions, but never in the Ross Sea, lending even more mystery to the life cycle of this fish.’

.

.

[3]     Antarctica’s  ‘Ross Sea’?

.

The Ross Sea ecosystem is the last intact marine ecosystem left on Earth. Unlike many other areas of the world’s oceans, the Ross Sea’s top predators are still abundant. Here they drive the system, shaping the food web below in a way that’s totally unique.

While comprising just two percent of the Southern Ocean, the Ross Sea is the most productive stretch of Antarctic waters. It has the richest diversity of Southern Ocean fishes, an incredible array of benthic invertebrates and massive populations of mammals and seabirds.

More than a third of all Adélie penguins make their home here, as well as almost a third of the world’s Antarctic petrels and Emperor penguins. Also found here are Antarctic Minke whales, Weddell and Leopard seals, and Orcas, including a population specially adapted to feed on Antarctic toothfish, the top fish predator of the Ross Sea.

The Ross Sea Map

.

The Ross Sea’s rich biodiversity and productivity puts it on a par with many World Heritage sites, like the Galapagos Islands, African Rift lakes and Russia’s Lake Baikal.’

.

.

[4]     Ross Sea dodgy fishing escapades

.

Dec 2011:  Dodgy Russian-flagged fishing rust-bucket ‘Sparta’

.

Jan 2012:  Dodgy Korean-flagged rust bucket fishing vessel ‘Jeong Woo 2’

.

[5]     Mar 2012:   ‘US retailer says no to ‘Ross Sea’ seafood’   

.

‘A third US retailer has announced it will not stock seafood from Antartica’s Ross Sea for environmental reasons, reports Greenpeace.

Harris Teeter joins US supermarket chains Safeway and Wegmans by taking the ‘Ross Sea Pledge’ which means it will not buy or sell seafood from that area. It is also calling for the entire Ross Sea to be protected.

“We have pledged not to buy or sell any seafood harvested from the Ross Sea,” the company states on its website.  “By taking the “Ross Sea Pledge,” we encourage the nations who are members of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources to designate the entire Ross Sea as an MPA [Marine Protected Area],” it continues.

The Ross Sea has been identified as the least human affected large oceanic ecosystem remaining on Earth.  Many Scientists are advocating for it to be designated as a fully protected marine reserve. However, a longline fishery for Antarctic toothfish, started by New Zealand vessels in the late 1990s, is operating in the Ross Sea and supplying the luxury market.

“The delicate balance of the fragile Ross Sea is under threat from commercial fishing,” says Greenpeace New Zealand Oceans Campaigner Karli Thomas.

“Although technology has made it possible, it is simply not sustainable to be fishing every last corner of our ocean. The Ross Sea is a special place that we should be protecting as the home to diverse and unique wildlife, and a refuge in the face of climate change – not exploiting to feed the wealthy.”

In 2010, Greenpeace published a report outlining the role that seafood traders, retailers and chefs can play in protecting the Ross Sea.  “The announcement by Harris Teeter shows there is a growing awareness by retailers that the Ross Sea should be protected as no-go area,” says Thomas.

The recently formed Antarctic Ocean Alliance, a group of environmental organisations, last week launched a report calling for a large-scale marine reserve to be established in the Ross Sea.’

.

.

[6]   Carting Away the Oceans…

.

Read Report:   >’Carting Away the Oceans V.pdf‘, by Casson Trenor, Greanpeace USA 2011,  ^http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/planet3/publications/oceans/CATO_V_FINAL.pdf, 2MB]

.

[7]   Indiscriminate illegal gillnetting

.

Illustration of a bottom gill net
(Michigan Sea Grant)

.

Significant progress has been made in reducing the level of IUU catch through the cooperation of CCAMLR, its Member nations and legal fishers.  However, a number of IUU fishers still operate primarily in the South Indian Ocean and directly off the East Antarctic coastal region.

The conservative catch limits remain in place today, as IUU fishing remains a problem and is unlikely to further decline. In recent years, IUU fishers have increasingly used deepwater gillnets in the area, making IUU estimates nearly impossible to calculate.

Gillnets are banned by CCAMLR because they pose a significant environmental threat due to their high levels of bycatch and the risk of “ghost fishing,” which refers to nets that have been cut loose or lost in the ocean and continue catching marine life for years.

The amount of toothfish caught in IUU gillnets remains unknown, but is likely substantial. For example, gillnets found by Australian officials in 2009 spanned 130 km and had ensnared 29 tonnes of Antarctic toothfish.

IUU fishing and the uncertainty associated with toothfish populations severely compromise fisheries management and has led to the rapid decline of some toothfish stocks.

Moreover, like many deep dwelling fish, toothfish live a long time, grow slowly as adults and mature late in life, all characteristics that make them vulnerable to overfishing.

Local depletions of toothfish may easily occur, as has happened over BANZARE Bank. Scientists have yet to understand the Antarctic toothfish’s life history in the East Antarctic, which further compromises management.’

.

.

[8]   Illegal Unreported Unregulated (IUU) Fishing’

.

[9]    Antarctic Ocean Alliance

.

^http://www.antarcticocean.org

.

[10]    The Last Ocean:  Ross Sea

.

‘The Last Ocean was started in 2004 to promote the establishment of a marine protected area (MPA) in order to conserve the pristine qualities of the Ross Sea, Antarctica.

In August 2009, the Last Ocean Charitable Trust was created as an extension of this project, specifically to raise awareness of the Ross Sea within New Zealand. The Trust is based in Christchurch, New Zealand’s gateway to Antarctica.’    Visit website:  ^http://www.lastocean.org/

.

[11]   Ross Sea Dependency

.

^http://www.rosssea.info/

.

>Listening Post:  ‘Antarctica’

.

DENMARK:  A coalition of NGOs has today (September 4, 2012) written directly to the Prime Minister of Denmark’s Faroe Islands, Kaj Leo Johannesen, to express their deep concerns about the high number of pilot whales killed there so far this year.

In the year to August 24, 590 long-finned pilot whales have been killed on the Islands, bring the total number of pilot whales killed since the beginning of 2010 to 2,423 and raising serious human health, animal welfare and conservation concerns.

The coalition sending the letter comprises the Environmental Investigation Agency, Animal Welfare Institute, Campaign Whale, Cetacean Society International, Dyrenes Venner, Humane Society International, OceanCare, Pro Wildlife and Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society.

In the year to August 24, 590 long-finned pilot whales have been killed on the Islands, bring the total number of pilot whales killed since the beginning of 2010 to 2,423 and raising serious human health, animal welfare and conservation concerns.

Meat and blubber from the animals are distributed and sold in the Faroe Islands for human consumption, despite evidence of high levels of mercury and PCBs. Long-term research undertaken by Danish and Faroese scientists has revealed that consumption of pilot whale meat and blubber has detrimental effects on the development of foetal nervous and immune systems, and increases the risk of Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, arteriosclerosis of the carotid arteries in adults and Type II diabetes.

The Faroe Islands’ Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientist have jointly issued health warnings several times. In an open letter to the Government on August 8, 2008 they stated that pilot whale should no longer be used for human consumption.

This conclusion was recently repeated in the 2012 review article “Dietary recommendations regarding pilot whale meat and blubber in the Faroe Islands” by Pál Weihe and Høgni Debes Joensen, based on additional long-term studies.

There is broad scientific agreement on the strong link between mercury in cetacean (whale, dolphin and porpoise) products and a variety of human diseases and medical conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, arteriosclerosis, immune suppression and hypertension. Threats to children include autism, Asperger’s Syndrome and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

In July 2012 at its annual meeting, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) adopted by consensus a resolution proposed by the European Union IWC members including Denmark, requesting increased cooperation with the World Health Organization (WHO). It encourages the WHO to review scientific publications regarding contaminants in cetacean products and provide updated advice for consumers. It also urges governments to remain vigilant in responsibly informing consumers of the health effects associated with the consumption of polluted cetacean products, and taking steps to counter any negative effects based on rigorous scientific advice and clear risk assessments.

Unfortunately, the Government of the Faroe Islands has so far failed to adopt the recommendations of its own scientific experts to end the consumption of pilot whale, and instead supports continuation of the ‘grinds’ (the traditional name given to the style of kill in which whales are stranded and then slaughtered) and the consumption of these polluted whale products.

Indeed, if all the meat and blubber of the 590 whales killed this year is consumed, it will by far exceed the Faroese Government’s June 2011 guidelines which recommend a maximum of one meal per month.

Pilot whales tend to migrate to the calmer waters around the Faroe Islands to give birth from April to July. Pilot whale hunts frequently occur during the breeding season, despite there being agreement internationally that hunting during breeding seasons should be avoided to allow for stable populations to endure. For this reason, targeting animals accompanied by calves is expressly forbidden by the IWC – the world’s expert cetacean management authority.

The status of cetaceans occurring around the Faroe Islands is uncertain in many cases and the impacts of the hunts which take entire family groups is also unknown. Pilot whales are protected under EU law; many of the pilot whales occurring in Faroese waters also travel to EU waters.

The methods used to kill whales in the Faroe Islands have been subject to international criticism for decades. In the hunts known as ‘grinds’, large family groups of whales are driven by boats into a bay where they are crudely killed with hooks and knives. Pilot whales are known for their highly social behaviours and close-knit family groups.

Although Faroese authorities claim killing methods have improved, there is no documentary evidence to prove this. The grinds are a lengthy process that also involves extreme distress for the whales associated with the chasing, separation of social groups, and individual whales experiencing close family members being slaughtered. This is in addition to the inherent cruelty associated with the killing methods..

In conclusion and in consideration of the serious concerns raised, the nine signatory organisations – EIA,  Animal Welfare Institute, Campaign Whale, Cetacean Society International, Dyrenes Venner, Humane Society International, OceanCare, Pro Wildlife and Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society – have urged Prime Minister Johannesen, his Government and the Faroese people to bring a permanent end to the hunting of pilot whales and other cetacean species in the interests of human health, animal welfare and conservation.

.

.