New whaling – the great betrayal? Are we, yet again, to attack the oceans…?
In The Independent today comes a major blow against the whales: Outrage as secret deal set to sweep away international moratorium
The moratorium on commercial whaling, one of the environmental movement’s greatest achievements, looks likely to be swept away this summer by a new international deal being negotiated behind closed doors. The new arrangement would legitimise the whaling activities of the three countries which have continued to hunt whales in defiance of the ban – Japan, Norway and Iceland – and would allow commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary set up by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1994.
Conservationists regard it as catastrophic, but fear there is a very real chance of its being accepted at the next IWC meeting.
MY VIEW: New Zealand, it seems, may be about to let down – the whale! Two weeks ago, I wrote in praise of my native country, saying how wonderful that New Zealand was pursuing whale watching as a major eco-tourism concept; it also leads the way in the setting up of marine reserves. A respondent then said there were many anomalies in what some people ‘saw’ NZ’s actions and what was actually happening … (see that blog for details). I stood corrected… Today, New Zealand stands ‘with’ those nations – not against as it has done certainly on some occasions – who wish to allow limited quotas on catching whales.
This ‘allowance’ smacks of our greed as human creatures, confusing that which we ‘want’ – and will take seemingly at any and all cost - with what we really ‘need’! We are jealously going after creatures that are already rare or endangered, and risking their individual lives and the seas’ very biodiversity, for what? The appetite for some protein, some whale meat, a scientific experiment or the thrill of the chase and be able to show we have dominion!?
But dominion means ‘looking after’ and valuing. Can we, as humans, only ’value’ something we have caught? Are whales to be martyrs to the cause of our cultural political indulgence? Do we have an inability to co-exist with Nature?
Full article:
The moratorium on commercial whaling, one of the environmental movement’s greatest achievements, looks likely to be swept away this summer by a new international deal being negotiated behind closed doors. The new arrangement would legitimise the whaling activities of the three countries which have continued to hunt whales in defiance of the ban – Japan, Norway and Iceland – and would allow commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary set up by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1994.
Conservationists regard it as catastrophic, but fear there is a very real chance of its being accepted at the next IWC meeting in Morocco in June, not least because it is being strongly supported by the US – previously one of whaling’s most determined opponents.
Should the deal go ahead, it would represent one of the most significant setbacks ever for conservation, and as big a failure for wildlife protection as December’s Copenhagen conference was for action on climate change.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/whaling-the-great-betrayal-1925387.html
End of line for our fisheries and sea life? Let’s take a stand!
The Independent reports:
European Union countries are still arguing about introducing a ban on the trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna. Conservationists say that such a ban is the only way to save the over-fished species from extinction.
Channel 4 featured ‘End of the Line’ http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-end-of-the-line
MY VIEW: We are, without apparent thought or concern, fishing out our marine resources as if they were a bottomless pit… Just because we live mostly on land, we seem to regard the sea and its life as ‘there for the taking’ and to hell with the consequences!? ‘Out of eyesight, so out of mindset??’ As the producer says: ‘This is not a film about what might happen, this is a film about what has happened.’
Resources: Marine Conservation Society’s downloadable sustainable fish guide
http://www.mcsuk.org/downloads/fisheries/MCSPocket_Good_Fish_Guide.pdf
End of the Line blog: http://endoftheline.com/blog/archives/1026
Full article from The Independent
The proposal is top of the agenda for the conference of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), which begins in Doha at the end of next week. The EU is divided over the issue between countries which have major tuna fisheries themselves, such as France, and those which do not, including Britain.
If adopted in full, the plan, which was put forward by Monaco, would save one of the sea’s most majestic fish from vanishing. Its highly-prized and hugely-valuable flesh is much in demand, principally from the Japanese. A single 500lb tuna fetched £111,000 on the Tokyo fish market two months ago, making it the most valuable fish ever sold.
If adopted in full, the plan, which was put forward by Monaco, would save one of the sea’s most majestic fish from vanishing. Its highly-prized and hugely-valuable flesh is much in demand, principally from the Japanese. A single 500lb tuna fetched £111,000 on the Tokyo fish market two months ago, making it the most valuable fish ever sold.
By listing the bluefin on Cites’ Appendix 1, all international trade in the species would be banned, and the Japanese, the biggest buyers by far, would no longer be able to purchase the thousands of tonnes of tuna caught by European fisheries each year. The end of the Japanese trade would undoubtedly torpedo the demand which is driving overfishing.
A streamlined predator which can grow to 12 feet in length, weigh half a tonne, and travel rapidly through the water, Thunnus thynnus, the bluefin tuna, has been celebrated for its culinary qualities since antiquity.
It was once plentiful, but stocks are now quickly tumbling, and there are widespread fears that it could soon become commercially extinct. It migrates from the Atlantic each year to spawn in the Mediterranean, where much of the fishery is concentrated.
The EU’s member states have been arguing about the trade ban proposal since it was first advanced last year. However, although the EU’s executive branch, the European Commission, finally recommended 10 days ago that member states should back it, it is becoming clear that substantial differences still exist with the community.
In particular, Europe’s six major tuna fishers – France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Malta and Cyprus – want an exception to be made for “artisanal fisheries”, using local fishing boats as opposed to “industrial” vessels.
But “artisanal” is not yet precisely defined, and it is clear that local fishing fleets could themselves be responsible for thousands of tonnes of the tuna catch which could then be sold on to Japanese buyers – thus negating the impact of the trade ban.
Britain is strongly opposed to the “artisanal” get-out clause, government sources made clear yesterday, as are other EU member states that are not involved in tuna fishing.
An official pointed out that “artisanal” fisheries might be responsible for between 10 and 40 per cent of the trade taking place at the moment.
Discussions are continuing in Brussels between officials, but if agreement cannot be reached the issue will have to go to a meeting of ministers.
The issue of the 27 EU member states taking a common line is key, as the European lobby is likely to swing votes if it is united. To secure the listing of the bluefin on the Cites Appendix 1, two-thirds of the delegates must vote in favour of the ban. Cites currently has 175 member nations.
The Doha meeting will also consider proposals to ban trade in polar bears, red coral and some sharks, including the probeagle and the spiny dogfish – the “rock salmon” of old-fashioned fish and chip shops in Britain – as well as proposals to tighten the trade in body parts of rhinoceroses and tigers.
It will further consider a request from Tanzania and Zambia to sell their stocks of legally held ivory – something Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, has already said Britain will oppose.
A race abusing an animal for its own purpose… Dr Who: humans v the environment?
Dr who saving the environment? Whether or not you are a Dr Who fan or into Sci Fi at all, it is hard not to see the parallells. After all, ‘explore new worlds and new forms of life’, often because Planet Earth has become decimnated and is now ‘unliveable’. Sound familiar/like the environmental castastrophe at its worst case scenario? this is actually from ‘star trek’
In this episode the population of Planet UK is living on a floating scenario, in ‘levels’ – basically skyscrapers. The ‘planet’ is travelling through space with the aid of and on the back of a giant whale-type creature.
Two issues:
1. In order to cope with a expanding population, would we be willing to live in a skyscaper?
2. Is it, any circumstances, morally accetable to use an animal for human endeavour (essentially, ‘vivisection’)?
What do you think?
Dr Who Offical Website http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw
The Guardian’s response: http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2010/apr/10/doctor-who-the-beast-below
“Is that how it works, Doctor, you don’t interfere with affairs of peoples or planets unless there’s children crying?”
Amy Pond’s maiden voyage is, on the surface at least, one for the kids. It’s all broad flourishes charged with the childlike wonder of seeing outer space for the first time. And the sight of a spaceship in a far future full of London Underground logos and modern-day school uniforms is the sort of thing that gets fans past puberty into wailing paroxysms of “No! The 29th century just isn’t like that!” (Granted, that might just be me.)
The Beast Below looks for all the world like a RTD story: a Technicolor morality play light on intricate plotting and heavy on modern moral parallels. But Moffat still conjures some magical ideas and takes the characters exactly where they need to go – rather than simply going in the Starship UK and putting the bad thing right, relationships are tested and solidified by differing reactions to what’s going on in there. With echoes of Donna Noble’s “Sometimes I think you need someone to stop you,” it’s only Amy who works out that once again (and this is becoming a Moffat trope) nobody has to die. Amy’s not nearly as badass this week – although you wouldn’t be, would you?
The anti-vivisection message does seem to get lost somewhere along the way – the ship’s inhabitants seem to get off with little more than a ticking off and a promise never to be so beastly ever again. But manatees are just inherently funny. Four out of five, we’re saying.
“You don’t ever decide what I need to know!”
The rage with which the Doctor reacts to a mistake that Amy doesn’t even remember making comes as a timely reminder of the weight of responsibility he carries, and that his instincts aren’t necessarily human, or even humane – something that definitely got lost toward the end of the Tennant era. (Tennant would also have given the poor girl a chance to get dressed – and he was supposed to be the all-hands Doctor.)
Neither does the Doctor fully understand things, or even himself, right away. The whole story hinges on Amy recognising in the starwhale, as in the Doctor, “something old and that kind, and alone”. It looks like that’s how the relationship between the Doctor and Amy is going to play out – which is just as well, seeing that as well as having those space-manatee qualities, this Doctor also thinks its sensible to pickpocket little girls in corridors for clues.
Share this:
Like this: