Talk:International Whaling Commission

Norway

"Since 1986 only Norway, Iceland and especially Japan have been issued with permits, with Japan being the sole permit holder since 1995 as part of their 16-year programme. Norway lodged a protest to the zero catch limits in 1992 and is not bound by them."

Could someone expand on Norway's legal objection? It sounds like if you protest then you are not bound by the ban and it's OK to whale as far as the IWC is concerned, which doesn't sound like much of a ban. —Tokek 17:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's correct and its just the way things are with international agreements. For example the United States hasn't signed the Kyoto Agreement and so it can pollute like billy-o if it wants. Basically the same deal with Norway. Pcb21| Pete 19:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Details about countries

Would a table of members, describing details such as when they joined the commission, whether they used to or currently hunt whales, and if they are landlocked (and perhaps their overall voting stance), be useful? Andjam 04:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Allegation of vote buying

It appear that only allegation which get publicity is the one which put unfavourable light on pro-whaling side. I will change the section to "Allegation of Politics". I will also add issues which get more prominence in prowhaling countries such as Japan. Vapour

Changed the title to "Politics". What U.S. did isn't allegation. I might later add Revised Management Scheme section, where pro whaling side is accusing anti whaling side of filbustering the scheme. Moreover, (allegedlly, of course) it was anti whaling side which initially inflated their vote by lobbying for countries such as Switzland (a land locked countries) to join IWC. IWC's purpose is to make whaling sustainable. To be a member of IWC while being against whaling on principle is just plain politics. Oh well, that what pro side claim, anyway. Vapour

Allegations link removed - Why? - I noticed there was a broken link at the bottom of this page "Greenpeace allegations of vote buying". This link had been there for many months. I simply fixed it so it went to an updated and working URL. Now Sammytheseal has deleted the link. Offering the explanation that the claims are "unproven". I think the Greenpeace page (which I wrote) does a very good job of substantiating these allegations. Please read the page (and briefing it links to), and judge for self.

Knowing about Japan's vote buying is vital to understanding what is happening with the IWC at this time. Therefore, the link should go back in. However, this page already contains some quotes concerning vote buying, but in a bit of a mish mash. Maybe a separate section would be warranted to sort it out, but since I am new I'm reluctant to create one on my own.

Furthermore, these sentences in the current version are not quite accurate:

Greenpeace alleges that Japan's aid activities and these countries voting patterns are correlated. The fact that these poor countries, many of which have no history of whaling either culturally or commercially, are prepared to pay IWC membership and send delegates is assumed to be linked to aid from Japan.

Greenpeace's allegations are based on public statements of government officials and an analysis of voting patterns compared to aid received - not assumptions. I will correct the second sentence accordingly.

Apologies for my wordiness on the discussion page. I am new here and want to make my thinking clear. Advice welcome. Andrew-Galvanize-Davies

RMS

I shifted RMS to Politics section simply because the content is about politics of RMS rather than what RMS is. I do not object to RMS being revived. Just that this time it should be about what RMS is. Vapour

Adding countries to Notes section

Anyone care to add the four new member countries to the notes section? could´nt figure out how to ( it´s late :) SammytheSeal 21:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of Japan try to force a whaling industry

Is it wise to add the allegations that whale meat is no longer particularly popular in Japan and even the scientific whaling meat is supposedly difficult to sell requiring various measures such as giving it away for free etc to try and entice customers and keeping whaling alive or is this best left for other articles? Nil Einne 22:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say no, Figures from whale meat stock movements show that whale meat shipped in July 2006 was 1723 tonnes, hardly a small amount... If that continued, demand would outstrip supply ..

Here are some partial figures for 2006 : ( all figures in Tonnes )

March - Stockpile size at previous month end 2898 -Incoming stock 539- Outgoing stock 827- Stockpile size at current month end 3610

April - 3610......2920......561.....5969

May - 5969.......129......357.....5741

June - 5741.......163......414.....5490

July - 5490.......905.....1723.....4672

Best I can do without knowing how to insert a table - hope it´s legible ;) SammytheSeal 23:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Andrew Re vote buying

Hi Andrew,

Firstly, it would be great if you can add at the end such as I´m doing now, makes a discussion / thread easier to follow - if you need any help, just ask on my talk page.

Regarding the removal of the link, it´s been on my list of things to do for a while now, and seeing it come up on my watchlist reminded me. I´m not against the link per se, but I believe it would be more relevant in either the whaling article and or whaling in Japan or even the Greenpeace article ( if there is a consensus otherwise then fair enough ). The article itself says that the accusations are unproven - and as such, presents a POV ( Greenpeace´s )

By all means, rewrite the article / section to include the accusations with independant links and cites ... I think you´ll find that other editors may very well include the ICR / Japanese viewpoint to counterpoint it and or edit it ... but be my guest .. welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia ;) SammytheSeal 15:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The link has been restored as it discusses the single most profound recent IWC development, i.e. pro-whalers' achieving a simple majority. The allegation, properly described as such, is in itself not POV in that it is discussed widely and impacts the IWC. Although the source is POV (its their business to be) the ref should stand to be replaced by a better one, not simply deleted. As this impacts IWC directly, this article is the best place for it. István 17:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Istivan,

so now it´s linked to twice in the article? ( see 32 ) you´ll notice I did not delete Andrew´s second linking to the page as referenced in the article. Fair enough, you won´t mind then If I restore / broaden /add discussion of the 1990´s Forbes article discussion on alleged Greenpeace/WWF/NGO Vote buying/ manipulation in the lead up to the moratorium in the 80´s? ( see GP talk page - It´s been on my to do list for ages anyway )

It would be relevant in view of allegations and certainly profound in view of how the moratorium was arrived at in the first place ( Alleged manipulation of sovereign states by GP, WWF and other NGO´s) I´ll quite happily broaden the article, though to be honest, the article is already a mess, too long by far .. SammytheSeal 18:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sammy,

Scanning the (current) news coverage, one sees almost uniform reference to this allegation, per se (in fact its hard to write an IWC story today without mentioning it) yet nothing as in-depth as the current link provides. It's obvious that there is not only aid for votes but also a quite open recruitment drive by both sides, ostensibly to gain votes, but this too is unproven (open admission would be the only "proof" standard). re: the 1980s allegations; of course I dont mind if you put that in; I would only suggest it is more suited to a "background-" or "history of IWC" section/article.

I agree with your observation that the article is getting too long and unruly. Because it attempts to summarise each annual meeting, it will only grow in complexity. I agree that this article should be simplified to inform the casual browser of "what is the IWC" and provide a link to the more in-depth summaries of its history and each annual meeting (which will eventually become "history" material)István 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Istvan,

One reason possibly why there is "uniform reference" to the allegations is good PR - some NGO´s these days have some very slick PR and media folk - there´s also a tendency I´ve noticed for PR handouts being reproduced practicaly word for word by many journalists - ( google "whaling" in Google news and click on sort by date to see what I mean - some footwork can usually track down the source ;) ) However, thats neither here nor there at the moment - I intend to figure out how to set up a page and will remove large swathes from the article, placing the content in their own page(s) .... the IWC politics and vote buying and who did what to who etc can then be lumped together, I´ll get onto it asap ;) SammytheSeal 14:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sammy,

I think the only universally accepted "proof" of such allegations would be open admission which, I was suprised to find, exists here [1]. Be careful when re-arranging the content to avoid creating a POV Fork. IMHO, I would suggest the main article IWC, sub articles History of the IWC, IWC meeting in 2006, IWC meeting in 2007 etc. linked by a cat:IWC annual meetings. Its probably the best structure to handle recent and near-future developments now before the fur starts flying again. István 15:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Istvan,

I´ve removed the doubled text and added links for each year to the IWC website reports for the respective years - More to follow ;) RE: the guardian link, Komatsu says that he ( personally?) sees nothing wrong - the Japanese government denies it - a crucial point—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SammytheSeal (talk • contribs) 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Sammy,

The section looks much better now with the table, great work! Perhaps a line or two in summary could be added back to inform the casual reader of the current state of play on the IWC. Ive noticed the individual meeting articles could do with an Infobox-style template - I'll try my hand at that. Yes, it is indeed a crucial point that the Japanese Government denies buying IWC votes. They have made these denials thousands of times, and increasingly over the last few years - another crucial point. István 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yearly IWC meetings

I´d like to propose that we split off the yearly meetings onto a separate page - only leaving a brief description and link -it would go a long way towards cleaning up the article...opinions? I´m willing to attempt it anyway. SammytheSeal 19:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have begun to do so. Thus far, Ive only created the pages, brought over some text, linked sections to the daughter articles, etc. Next steps: 1. Put the daughter articles into order (for expansion) and 2. Summarise the relevant sections in the main IWC article. István 15:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Allegation of politicising science

Excuse me, new to this discussion but the following paragraph could be read to indicate that Canada is not a whaling country, when in fact it has had a long term aboriginal subsistence hunt. Maybe the first line 'Non Whaling nations have expressed similar sentiments', should be removed or anoither example used.

Non-whaling nations have expressed similar sentiments. Canada withdrew from the IWC after the vote to impose the moratorium, claiming that "[t]he ban was inconsistent with measures that had just been adopted by the IWC that were designed to allow harvests of stocks at safe levels."

Where be the truth 11:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Endgame

Whaling is over. With the latest find that bowhead whales live anywhere from 120 to 210 years (sic!), people of the world will turn against those groups that kill these mathuselam animals. The great age of whales is supported by harpoon fragment finds as well as amino acid measurements in eyeballs and study of layerings in the whale's inner ear, the proof is scientifically irrefutable. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6751175.stm

A person who kills a bicentennial giant turtle whould be treated like a terrorist, so why should we take a different stance toward whalers? Especially considering that they kill mammals, which are much closer to humans than turtles. 82.131.210.162 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

the intro - edit dispute

Hi Geronimo (and any others who may be reading -- although things seem pretty quiet on here)

Just to lay out the changes Geronimo made to my formulation of the intro (I revamped the intro significantly because it basically read like the intro to an article on the 1986 IWC moratorium rather than the IWC, and was fairly poor on the whole, IMHO):

Original intro (ie my recent formulation), with changes made by G in bold:

Since the late 1970s, however, the IWC has become dominated by governments who appear to be largely opposed to the practice of commercial whaling. The result of this shift is most evident in the IWC's adoption of a five-year moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986, which has been extended up until the present, and in the 1994 creation of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

The role of the IWC has thus come under strain, with an anti-whaling faction pushing for the indefinite continuation of the moratorium and the creation of ever more sanctuaries and a pro-whaling faction pushing for the end of the moratorium and the return of annual quotas.

Geronimo's edit (with changes similarly highlighted):

Since the late 1970s however, most member governments of the IWC have been opposed to the practice of commercial whaling. The result of this shift is most evident in the IWC's adoption of a five-year moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986, which has been extended up until the present, and in the 1994 creation of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

The role of the IWC has come under strain, with an anti-whaling faction pushing for the continuation of the moratorium and the creation of more sanctuaries and a pro-whaling faction pushing for the end of the moratorium and the return of annual quotas.

[ends]

Geronimo's edit summary was that it was 'pro-whaling POV' and 'weasel'.

First of all, the comma should definitely not have been deleted, unless the comma *after* the 'however' was also deleted (you can either have commas around 'however' or none, but you can't have just one of them -- it's simply incorrect).

Second, saying 'most member governments of the IWC have been opposed to commercial whaling' is poorly worded grammatically, and I don't think it accurately sums up that the IWC has indeed 'become dominated' by anti-whaling governments -- partly because of the massive expansion in membership, which was indeed deliberately pushed by anti-whaling groups and governments for that intended purpose. Also, it has indeed 'become dominated', in that it was a gradual process.

While it may seem (and indeed may be) a little bit 'weasel-wordy' to say that the anti-whaling governments 'appear to be largely opposed to the practice of commercial whaling', I think it is a pretty true reflection of the reality, certainly more so than saying 'they have been opposed to commercial whaling'. Why? Because they don't come straight out and say that they oppose commercial whaling per se, in all circumstances. Rather, they talk about sustainability, welfare and other such issues.

However, I accept my wording could possibly be improved.

I don't know why anyone would remove the word 'thus'. It's totally true, and is what is written in the body of the article (and leads should summarise/reflect the upcoming content of the article). Furthermore, it's good English, otherwise it doesn't seem like there is any connection between the two paras, when there obviously is.

As for 'indefinite', I'd argue it is a neutral word, and one which reflects the reality, HOWEVER I can see that it POSSIBLY betrays a certain bias and/or 'crystal ball' mentality in that I can't know whether anti-whaling governments will ever relent in their opposition to having the moratorium lifted.

Finally, the 'ever more sanctuaries' probably IS a bit loaded, I accept that, and haven't re-inserted it.

In conclusion, I hope we can discuss the concerns you have with things in a bit more detail so I can understand a bit better what you're objecting to, and how best to resolve any dispute.

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My 2c worth .. ;)

The moratorium has not been extended to the present - various blocking manouvers have led to an impasse requiring x number of votes to lift it - a crucial point. The IWC tactically "approves" Norwegian whaling - it´s conducted as if under IWC oversight and the RMS ( albeit with a differnet tuning level ). Norway reports to the IWC numbers taken and methods and continually updates the Sc. Committee on sighting survey numbers and other work yearly. At the 2008 Sc. com meeting they presented a new abundance estimate for the NÉ Atlantic, these numbers were accepted by the IWC. Norway is (and has) conducted commercial whaling since 1994 tactically under the auspices of the IWC.

"Most member governments" is weasel wording indeed - if this was true, how come the St Kitts and Nevis declaration got passed? SammytheSeal (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sammy (are you really a seal, BTW? ;-)

Nice to hear your 2c, they were very informative.

I was wondering, isn't the Norway situation partly due to the fact that they lodged a formal objection to the moratorium at the time it was introduced, and so aren't bound by it?

Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Me a seal? -- well, certainly slippery enough ;op..

RE:Norway, Partly, Norway had a few years of Scientific hunts ( last was in 1994 ) and unilaterallly resumed commercial whaling in 1994 - even although they opted out via a formal objection, they conduct the hunts as if the RMP/RMS was in place under IWC oversight ( albeit with a different tuning level, but thats also within IWC / RMP_RMS limits ) The IWC asks for and recieves data from the Norwegians and also request that the norwegians conduct research into certain areas (ie: Satellite tagging ) and Norway obliges. Basically, as far as the IWC SC com. is concerned, Norway is acting within the framework of the IWC - the yearly political crap from the plenary meetings notwithstanding. What happens in the SC meetings and in the Plenary political meetings are two completely different fettles of kish ;) cheers

PS .. regarding the moratorium, read through the yearly IWC meeting minutes if you ever get the time - the moratorium was 5 years - stacking of the IWC votes by anti whaling countries ( and Pro )means that the voting make up of the IWC has been stalled ever since.( incidentally also resulting in Phil Hammond, the then Sc. committee chairman quitting in view of the contempt that the plenary committee had then for the Sc. Com recommendations )making it impossible to pass any meaningful resolution ( and vice versa by pro sustainable use countries ) However, the St. Kitts and Nevis declaration basically declared the moratorium to be uneccessary - but did´nt have the neccessary 75% of votes. Additional recruitment of anti whaling countries the next year turned that around of course...

Quite frankly, the IWC is a dead horse - it just has´nt realised it´s dead yet and some folk keep flogging it ÖÖ SammytheSeal (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling the moratorium "a five-year moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986, which has as yet not been lifted" is POV. First of all, if it was a five year moratorium, it wouldn't need to be lifted, it would automatically expire. Second of all, the moratorium, which text is in the article, could perhaps be interpreted that way, but I don't know of any government that does. Not Japan, not Iceland (who withdrew and rejoined with a reservation to the moratorium), and Norway doesn't need to care. On the other topic, "the IWC has become dominated by governments opposed to commercial whaling" would be a pretty accurate description of the current situation. I can't really see that this is a controversial statement to any of the sides. But we could add a sentence to the end of the introduction, something like "However, none of the sides are able to gather the 3/4 majority necessary to pass binding resolutions, thus IWC has reached a state of impasse." Matt77 (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt,

In What way is it POV? If you can find any vote in the plenary committee to EXTEND the moratorium, then by all means change it. The Scientific commitee recommended it be lifted and limited quotas be issued - that was ignored by the plenary committee ( and which was why phil hammond quit as chairman of the Sc committee). Even although the moratorium was for 5 years, it still requires a 3/4 majority to VOTE in favour of lifting it - that has´nt happened and we all know why don´t we? ;) cheers SammytheSeal (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sammy, I am not saying there has been any votes to extend the moratorium. In fact, it hasn't. So if the interpretation "IWC's adoption of a five-year moratorium" is correct, then the moratorium expired in 1990, and is thus not valid anymore. That, however is POV (and I don't mean true or false, but POV), and I can not find a single government that interpret paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule in that way. Whether the SC has recommended lifting the moratorium or not is not relevant to the legal validity of the moratorium. Matt77 (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Again Matt,

"and is thus not valid anymore" - Does´nt work that way in the IWC. Any schedule amendment has to have a 3/4 majority to be adopted. As there has been no schedule amendment on ending the moratorium, it is still in force by default, even though it was supposedly to be for 5 years until the Sc. committee could give recommendations based on further work / surveys/research into population numbers ( + RMP RMS etc ). The Sc. Committee gave their recommendations and it was ignored by the political arm ( plenary ). Thus the Moratorium is "still" in affect as there has been no schedule amendment or vote to lift it. This is not a POV, it is the legalities of the IWC system. Many countries do not recognise Iceland as being a valid member once they rejoined with a reservation - however, that IS a POV of these countries, as Iceland have been legally re - admitted by vote under the IWC auspices.

Here´s some relevant info from the IWC :

The commercial whaling moratorium sets commercial catch limits on all whale species in all areas to zero. The practical consequence of removing the paragraph that instigated the commercial whaling moratorium is that commercial whaling catch limits would remain at zero until the Commission decides otherwise. The setting of catch limits other than zero would require three-quarter majority support. If an RMS was introduced today and the moratorium lifted, the Scientific Committee’s work on implementing the RMP would only allow it to make recommendations on safe removal limits for some stocks of common minke whaleSammytheSeal (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sammy, I know how IWC works, my point it simply: the moratorium is open-ended. Thus, calling the moratorium a five-year moratorium is misleading, it should read an open-ended moratorium. Matt77 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I believe that would be just as misleading - I´d suggest something along the lines of "The result of this shift is most evident in the IWC's adoption of a five-year moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986, The moratorium remains in effect today as no vote to end it has yet been held" Or words to that effect - it´s not an open ended moratorium - even although practically, due to the IWC system it "is" It´s a crucial point.SammytheSeal (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

it´s not an open ended moratorium - even although practically, due to the IWC system it "is" So both practically (de facto) and legally (de jure) it is an open-ended moratorium, still you insist on it not being one. Sammy, I appreciate our civilized discussion, however, I think we both have said what we want to say, and continuing this discussion would be going around in circles. And I have no time for edit-warring. Thus I would really appiciate som input from other contributers. I would really not like tagging the entire article as POV because of one sentence. Isn't there some way of tagging an individual sentence as disputed? Matt77 (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt, Appreciated as well, but ;)... I see no problem with wording it in a way that we´d both be happy - I also have no time for edit wars and I think you´ll find that it will be edited by others but be my guest. RE: and I can not find a single government that interpret paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule in that way Try Iceland, Norway and Canada ;) SammytheSeal (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. Frankly, I don´t believe it should be in the intro at all, it would serve the article much better to have details in the moratorium section explaining the whys and whereforesSammytheSeal (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we either reword five-year moratorium to moratorium, or leave it as is, and I tag the sentence disputed (just have to find out how), and wait for someone else to get involved. I do believe a reference to the moratorium belong in intro, since it is kind of the most (anti?)climactic event in the history of IWC, and is the cause for the continued friction that dominates the committee. The reference to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is perhaps not that important. RE: Try Iceland, Norway and Canada They were all against the moratorium from the start. Norway objected, Canada withdrew and Iceland reluctantly accepted it because they believed it would be lifted quite soon (as the text indicates, I have no problem seeing that). However, I have not heard any of these country interpret the moratorium as anything else than legally open-ended. The reason they are all whaling today is not because of a different interpretation, it is because of an (undisputed) objection, a (disputed) reservation and not being member. Matt77 (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

International agreements

Hi Vapour, I reverted your edit " unlike formal international treaty " - It´s common in many international treaties. Here´s the IWC comment on it "The government or governments that object are not then bound by that particular decision. This mechanism has been strongly criticised as rendering the Commission 'toothless', but without it the Convention would probably have never been signed. In addition, without such a right (common to many international agreements), a government would still have been able to withdraw from the Convention and thus not be bound by any of the regulations." Plus, you are directly contradicting what it says a few sentences later SammytheSeal (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)