Another Reply to Mr. Baldursson
by lizardfish on 02 July 2004 @ 02:17 AM
Nice one Ann.
I plucked up the motivation in the end and wrote my own.... felt like it would pack more of a punch if we sent different e.mails. ;-)
Here it is.
************************************************
Dear Mr. Baldursson,
This letter is in response to your automatic reply going to out to the latest Greenpeace cyberaction..
In addition to the fact that whaling is typically cruel and inhumane and the fact that the market for whale meat and blubber is quickly disintegrating due to a raised level of awareness about contamintation levels, I would like to add some specific points against scientific and commercial whaling in Iceland in response to the argument, which you have brought forward.
You insist that stocks of sei, minke and fin whales are "abundant".
While the IWC suggests that the pre whaling population of fin whales was 40,000, last year scientists discovered strong evidence from genetic analysis that the population more than likely consisted of around 360,000 animals. Similarly, the IWC pre whaling estimate for minke whales is 130,000 while this new study suggest 265,000 [Roman et al. 2003]. The IWC says there can be no whaling until populations have returned to at least 54% of their historic levels. Other arguments aside, that could mean North Atlantic humpbacks being killed again some time within the next decade. But the genetic analysis suggests whaling should not start for something like 70 or 100 years.
Stefan Asmundsson has expressed concerns that whales are taking 10-20% of Icelandic cod stocks yet Icelandic scientists state that fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus), the largest cetacean consumer in Iceland, feeds mainly on krill (Meganyctiphanes norvegica) and prey only on some fish species like capelin (Mallotus villosus) whereas the minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), take krill and a variety of fish, including some capelin and gadoids (e.g. cod, Gadus morhua) [Stefansson et. al 1997]. That doesn't seem like whales are a big problem for your cod stocks to me and given that scientists knew this 7 years ago, why is there a need to kill more whales in order to count cod pieces?
You insist that "Iceland has taken great care [since 1975] in maintaining balanced and sustainable fishing in Icelandic waters by enforcing a strict quota system for various fish species, including cod, herring and capelin, based on rigorous scientific assessment and monitoring."
However, only last year Gudyon Kristjonsson, a member of Iceland's Parliament and former trawler skipper admitted that he thinks the reason why cod stocks have declined is because Iceland has made mistakes. He said "A single boat used to catch 3-4,000 tonnes a year when I was going to sea. The catches aren't as good now, because there aren't as many cod left. "It's partly because of over-fishing, partly the fault of our quota system - and there've been other mistakes, too."
He went onto say that " at one time the Icelandic fleet was over-fishing but I think the real problem is our transferable quota system, which lets skippers buy and sell their allocated catch limits. It means the big companies are getting bigger all the time, and the smaller ones are disappearing. Ten companies now control half the quotas."
Please note: Mr. Kristjonsson did not blame whales for any significant part of cod stock decline and suggest that Iceland control whale stocks to solve the problem.
You say that Iceland's " scientific program is based on a research plan Iceland put forward within the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission. According to the plan, a total of 100 sei whales, 200 fin whales and 200 minke whales are to be taken during the whole research period. In implementing the plan, Icelandic authorities are exercising utmost restraint."
Firstly, it makes no difference that the plan was put forward to the IWC when Iceland had every intention of going ahead with the plan no matter what the Scientific Committee had to say. Secondly, if butchering 300 great whales is an example of "utmost restraint" I'd hate to see how many whales the scientific research program would take if unrestrained.
Mr. Baldursson, if all the assertions you make are correct why is the UK Ambassador to Iceland, the Charges d’affaires from France, Germany, Sweden and the US, against you along with 18 other countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Peru, San Marino, Spain and Switzerland) who also condemn Iceland’s scientific whaling?
Do you feel that the representatives from all of these countries have ignored your "genuine" rationale behind scientific whaling? Do you think that these countries have not taken Iceland's economy and welfare into consideration?
I am sorry Mr. Baldursson but after taking into consideration all the points, which you have put forth, I fail to see the sense in Iceland's current actions regarding whaling. It concerns me that you are misleading many people with propaganda (lacking in scientific evidence) about fish stocks and whale abundance when there is greater evidence to suggest that profit from the whale meat market is Iceland's priority in this issue. I truly believe that Iceland would stand to gain a lot more profit from eco-tourism if all whaling ceased.
Although I commend and respect the positive environmental steps Iceland has taken in other arenas I am disappointed with your unconvincing argument for whaling and once again I urge you to choose a future for Iceland, without whaling.
The Fine Print: Comments and articles posted on this website
are owned by the person who posted them and do not necessarily represent
the views of Greenpeace.
Hello Liza, Your letter to Mr.Baldursson is excellent! MUCH better than mine.(When it comes to tricky parts, my English is somewhat limited,and I don't always find words /expressions sophisticated enough, my English is vey simple!
Thanks to our Oceans campaigners we now have an official Greenpeace response to Mr Baldursson. I am posting it here but as soon as I can I'll set up an action alert to make it easier for everyone to send this.
Anyway, here it is ... thanks Ann and Lizardfish for all your hard work on this!
That address again is:
Mr. Ragnar Baldursson, Councellor Ministry of Foreign Affairs Department of Natural Resources and Environment Raudararstigur 25; IS-150 Reyijavik, ICELAND E-mail: ragnar.baldursson@utn.stjr.is
--------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Baldursson,
Thank you for your email response to my message about Icelandic whaling, but its distortions and half truths have only served to increase my concerns about your country's whaling. I support recycling and reuse but your letter is almost identical to one sent out by the Icelandic authorities in the fall of 2003. The debate has moved on since then and I wish the Government of Iceland would recognise that.
You seem not to know your country's record on whaling, saying that 'as signs of overexploitation of whales emerged ... Iceland declared a ban on whaling in Iceland 1915-1935.' Industrial whaling was established in Iceland by Norwegians after catches of large whales in Norwegian waters began to fall. By 1903 there were 10 Norwegian whaling companies operating in Iceland and an attempt by parliament to ban whaling failed. The lone Icelandic whaling company imported everything from Norway - its manager, crew, machinery, catcher boats and even houses for the factory crew. By 1907 it was obvious that catches were declining and some Norwegian companies began moving out. But it was not until 1913, when the Icelandic company closed down due to lack of whales, that parliament was able to pass a ban on whaling, to come into effect in 1915.(1)
Suggestions that sei, fin and minke whales may be taking over the ecological niches of other species are unscientific and false. These species existed together in the oceans for tens of millions of years before human fishing began. If one could have out competed the other, it would have done so and the other species would be known only from the fossil record. If species are depleted, we should look to human mismanagement of the oceans as the most likely cause. It is absurd to argue that the 'scientific' program is being undertaken with great restraint. The reason for the relatively small catch is commercial - not scientific. The Icelandic press (2) quoted fisheries Minister Arni Matthiesen as saying " The Icelandic market is very small, hence it is a precondition for any whaling around Iceland that it will be possible to export whale products to the Japanese market." Japan did not grant import permission and so the 'scientific' hunt was drastically scaled down.
To suggest that whales threaten fisheries, that minke whales are threatening cod is equally absurd and also frightening. It is absurd because we all know that before human fishing began, whales and fish populations co existed at much higher levels than we see today. Whales are part of the web of life in the oceans. Killing a whale does not release the fish it might have eaten to be caught by a commercial fisherman - since some fish whales eat are predators of commercially valuable fish it is equally likely to decrease the fisherman's catch. Your logic is frightening because, if believed, it leads to massive kills of whales, far beyond anything officially admitted by the Government of Iceland.
Icelandic scientists claim that that 12 cetacean species found in Icelandic waters take 6 million tonnes of food annually and the minke whales take one third of this including about 60 thousand tonnes of cod.(3) To reduce this take by 25%, Iceland would need to remove 25% of the minke population - about 12,000 minkes, which amounts to a quota of 2,400 a year for 5 years. And the 'saving' would be 15,000 tonnes of cod, less than 1% (4) of Iceland's annual fisheries catch.
Is this what you are advocating when you refer to the impact of whales on the marine ecosystem?
You claim that "Icelandic authorities are extremely attentive to the conservation of marine resources" . However, when Iceland ratified the Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Habitats in 1993, it lodged a reservation on several whale species, including blue whales, bowhead whales and the critically endangered northern right whale. The right whale is so rare that there have been only a handful of sightings of right whales in Icelandic waters in the 20th century. The objection of Iceland to legal protection for even this rare species indicates an obsessive rejection of all forms of international whale conservation measures.
I am not convinced of the Icelandic government's desire to conserve whale populations. I urge you to take a concrete step to convince me, and millions of other people, by ending the hunting of whales in Iceland.
(signed)
References
1. The history of modern whalling, Toennessen and Johnsen 1982
2. Morgunbladid 14 March 2003
3. Press release from Iceland's Marine Research Institute, based on 1997 estimates
4. Based on the statement in your letter that Icelands annual fisheries landings are 1.5 to 2 million metric tons. --------------------------------------------------
Hi missy m and GP Oceans folk, Thanks for the great reply, to Mr.Baldursson.
In the meanwhile we read such articles as "Whaling hits 15-year high" and "Moratorium soon be over-thrown",we have also this positive poll from Iceland.
If a political party has 15% of the votes,it constitutes quite a powerfull fraction,so with this backing of the nation, whaling should not be impossible to stop in the near future.
BTW. Was the IFAW ship "Song of the Whales" at the same time in Reykjavik as the Esperanza?
(The PM, the minister of fisheries, and the environmental minister of Iceland)
L.
The Fine Print: Comments and articles posted on this website
are owned by the person who posted them and do not necessarily represent
the views of Greenpeace.
