Victory! Japan’s Proposal to Bring Back Commercial Whaling REJECTED

Posted by Carly Day | September 16, 2018

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has rejected a proposal from several countries — led by Japan — calling for the ban on commercial whale hunting to be lifted.

The pro-whaling nations argue that the ban — which has been in place since 1986 — doesn’t take into consideration the species of whales that have healthy populations and complain that the IWC is too focused on conservation. Their proposal, entitled “The Way Forward,” suggested creating a “sustainable whaling” program.

Fortunately, the motion was denied by a vote of 41 to 27. Iceland and Norway were two of the countries who voted in favor — not surprisingly, as they are the only countries that continue to hunt whales commercially in objection to the moratorium — but the vote was also supported by Cambodia, Kenya, Cambodia, Morocco, and several other nations.

“This decision sends a clear message to governments around the world that the exploitation of animals will no longer be tolerated, and animals must be protected at the highest level,” said Kate Nustedt, global director of wildlife at World Animal Protection. “All eyes are now on Japan to respect this decision. Neither commercial nor scientific whaling have any place in the 21st century, and we urge all governments to increase pressure on Japan to end its whaling once and for all.”

Japan’s proposal to the IWC included a request for permission to hunt minke whales — one of the few species of whales not currently in danger of extinction. The nation claims that minke whaling is part of their economy and history. Although Japan technically — and reluctantly — adheres to the moratorium on commercial whaling of minke, they do still catch and kill hundreds of these whales every year, claiming that the whales are killed for research purposes. Japan’s quota of minke is 333 per year, while Iceland and Norway are estimated to slaughter around 600 each year.

However, the IWC has now agreed to stop supporting Japan’s excuse of hunting whales for “scientific research,” putting the pro-whaling nation further at odds with the commission.

Following the rejection of the proposal, Japan has hinted that it may withdraw from the IWC.

“If scientific evidence and diversity is not respected, if commercial whaling is completely denied … Japan will be pressed to undertake a fundamental reassessment of its position as a member of the IWC,” said Japan’s vice-minister for fisheries, Masaaki Taniai.

But for now, animal activists are breathing sighs of relief after the IWC decision to maintain the whaling ban.

“Japan’s proposal to resume commercial whaling would be like jumping from a plane without a parachute,” said Claire Bass, director of Humane Society International. “Whales face so many threats in our increasingly degraded oceans; it’s critical that the IWC focuses its time and resources on tackling the many problems that we create for whales, such as entanglements in fishing gear and pollution.”

Guns and Wolves: How Hunting Culture Has Plundered America’s Last Wild Frontier.

By Denise Boehler

Grey wolves. Grizzly bears, black bears, brown bears. All are living in ecosystems on more than 95 million acres of Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuges (funded by American taxpayers) and Denali National Park, wandering, romping and bearing young on the last wild frontier.

It’s a magical place: the mere mention of Alaska evokes imagery of wild wolves and majestic bears. At one time, people visited and relocated there just to be in their midst. That’s been changing, however, since the early 1990s, when the Alaska Board of Game (Board) began implementing aggressive predator policies that blame predators for only doing what nature intended. By taking as many predators out of the ecosystem as is arguably sustainable through increasingly efficient and often unfair hunting practices, the Board aims to boost moose and caribou populations for indigenous and out-of-state trophy hunters, bringing millions of dollars into the state. These policies are much debated; conservationists see other explanations than over-predation for reduced prey populations. In the meantime, Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuges are becoming game farms, in the words of Alaskan biologist Francis Mauer.

Alaska received statehood in 1958. At the time, the federal government created a mandate for conservation of wildlife as its highest priority through the passage of the Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act (ANILCA). Alaskan governors, the Board and out-of-state trophy hunters have had a different priority: Economics. Disregard for the federal mandate and moves toward state control have given rise to not only the question of states’ rights versus federal authority, but a mentality of treating some of the last of this country’s apex predators as an inexhaustible resource. The adoption of these policies is an ongoing controversy, replete with politics and indigenous rights issues, legal arguments and conservation challenges. In the meantime, apex predators are in the literal crosshairs each time a governor appoints a Board member, a Board resolution is signed or a policy enacted.

It can be disheartening to realize that the Board itself is comprised of hunters and those with vested hunting interests. At least one of the members, Vice-Chair Nate Turner, is an owner of an outfitting company directly profiting each time a decision is made to increase bag limits, allow aerial hunting or look the other way when wolf pups are lethally removed from dens. While these specific practices may not bring in direct revenue for Mr. Turner’s company, they are part and parcel of the domination of economics over conservation.

Turner is joined by Chairman Ted Spraker, lifetime NRA member and member of Safari Club International, a proud sponsor of HJRes 69 (a measure stripping Alaska’s right to manage fish and wildlife on federal refuges). Many Alaskans feel that the consumptive makeup of the Board is directly responsible for the increasingly aggressive predator control policies. With none of its members coming from the ecotourism industry that reveres animals as sentient beings, this constitution treats Alaska’s apex predators as animals to be consumed, not conserved. All of its seven members appointed by the governor adhere to this philosophy.

Must Alaska resort to consuming its wildlife to survive? One need only point to the $2 billion annual income in the ecotourism industry, nearly twice the revenue generated from the trophy hunting industry, to answer in the negative. Why, then, do they not support the viewing of wolves and bears from tour buses and the revenue derived from tourism and honor the federal mandate of conservation?

Again, the answer for some Alaskans is simple: The Board consists of hunters. Their philosophies (and conflicts of interest) supersede the conservation priority. Grizzly bears, black bears, brown bears, grey wolves, are resources. Wealthy trophy hunters pay outfitters handsome sums to take the life of a grizzly (wolves are free, if they are trotting through a hunter’s crosshairs).

Vice-Chairman Turner’s company, Turners Alaskan Adventures, enjoys receiving $6,000 to $14,500 for the life of a grizzly bear, depending upon if it is alone or in the company of a moose. For the lives of three black bears, one can expect to pay $14,500. For the life of a brown bear, checks are written from $23,500 – $29,000, depending upon the days out in the bush.

All of the Board members’ terms remain active, which means that for now, Alaska’s apex predators will continue to be held in the crosshairs and in peril. While these aggressive predator control policies persist, it is not unsurprising to see individuals acting out this philosophy for all to witness. This past winter, in a malicious act of violence, a disturbing image made public of a clearly triumphant masked man with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle held high over his head, posing behind the carcasses of ten grey wolves gunned down just outside Denali National Park. It begs the question, was this man acting on his own volition, or was he supported by Alaska’s aggressive anti-predator culture at large?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-45113932

Animal poaching: British soldiers’ Malawi mission to stop poachers

The Majete Wildlife Reserve sits in a large basin in the south of Malawi, and the roads that lead there are busy at 6am.

Not with vehicles, but with endless cyclists as Malawians make the most of the low light and cooler air to start their days.

The appearance of two British Army 4x4s turns heads as they leave the sights and smells of the villages, and head into the bush.

Lance Corporal Chad Spalding is one of those on board.

The 23-year-old is about to spend the next few days with local rangers Boston Phiri, who’s pretty new to the job, and Retief Chomali, with ten years’ experience.

“You don’t really have time to think,” explains Chad. “Most of the time you’re concentrating on the environment itself.

“You’re constantly looking, watching dangerous game, anything that might sneak up on you.”

Chad, who’s originally from Zimbabwe, is one of 14 British soldiers in Malawi trying to help stop poaching. Ministers announced the British Army’s involvement after a successful pilot last year.

Chad says the wildlife and the environment are important to him and he feels a sense of responsibility to make sure that others get to experience them.

“If we start chopping down trees and killing animals what will be left for future generations? Just a bunch of pictures in a book,” he reflects.

Chad remembers working with lions when he was growing up on a project in Gonarezhou, Zimbabwe.

“After I’d seen the wildlife and what it’s actually like out in the bush, I just really really bit into it. As soon as this came across the table, I took it straight away.

The illegal wildlife trade is a big business, thought to be worth £17bn a year worldwide. A rhino horn is more expensive than cocaine, heroin or gold.

In the last 50 years global black rhino numbers have dropped from 70,000 to 5,500, African Parks says. The organisation runs the Majete Reserve and two others in Malawi.

“Most jobs out here don’t pay well, whereas if they get a rhino horn it’s a pretty big pay day,” Chad says.

“I know in Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mozambique, Tanzania there’s quite a lot of heavy poaching.

“Most of the poaching that goes on is organised by higher syndicates which are funding these Chad knows what he would say to a poacher if he met one though.

“I would ask his reasons for doing it, and what he thinks the consequences will be if he does get caught.

“It’s not a matter of if he gets caught it’s a matter of when he gets caught. If he does carry on he is going to get caught, and he will go to jail.”

Follow Newsbeat on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter.

Listen to Newsbeat live at 12:45 and 17:45 every weekday on BBC Radio 1 and 1Xtra – if you miss us you can listen back here.

“Which is making it a lot hard for the rangers to keep up with the funding they’ve got. For now the rangers seem to be winning, let’s hope it stays that way.”

The military-style approach, along with tougher sentences, seems to be working for now though.

No elephants or rhinos have been poached in Majete for 15 years.