Subsistence Whaling Wasn't Really The Issue, It Was A Political Statement

The first vote of this years meeting has happened but lacks the ¾ voting majority to go through. I’m still not sure why Denmark would bother being the only country out of 81 demanding a vote.  We’re all here trying to work on giving the IWC a tune up so it runs smoothly for the next 60 years. Denmark’s request derailed those efforts so that both the whaling and conservation sides lost.  They knew they wouldn’t get the votes needed, so why put it forward and erase all the trust that’s been built.

I wonder if all bets are off when it comes to not holding any votes.  Could be now that there has been a vote Latin American country's will propose the South Atlantic Sanctuary for a vote.  Of course with the bias in voting around here, the pro-whalers can block that from going through.  It's amazing what a strange world the IWC is.  It's as if it's devoid any logic or reason.

This was a surprise for me as I'd like to think I'm an advocate for science based solutions.  This issue is different. It's not about quotas, culture, or even subsistence whaling really.  It's about improving a process.   Regardless of how you feel about subsistence whaling and sustainable use, suspending the issue of Greenland humpbacks until the IWC cleaned house would have helped pave the way for the IWC in the 21st century.  Having a vote on this just seems sort of short sighted. 

Subsistence whaling wasn't really the issue today, it was about making a political statement.  A political statement about the IWC and willingness to work for it's improvement in the future. Unfortunately, the only the only statement made is a delay in protection for whales around the world.

Post a comment