electro^plankton

Actually Iceland is quite right about fin whales not being endangered in their waters. The IWC Secretariat confirms this:
http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm

Why resume whaling?
1) Iceland's fishermen think protecting whales while continue to harvest fish could result in imbalance in their ecosystem, which they rely on - marine product exports are the backbone of Iceland's economy. And there is no denying that whales do consume marine resources. How much this affects human activities is not known at this time, but it's not inconceivable that fisheries could see better results were whale numbers controlled, at say 70% of their carrying capacity, as IWC rules would allow.

2) Whale meat can be sold for profit. There is a potential market for Iceland's small quota in Japan.

3) Despite hunting whales for science in recent years, it hasn't stopped tourists going to Iceland. Whaling thus can complement Iceland's existing economic activities. Sustainable whaling and whale-watching operations are not incompatible, so long as the operators co-operate.

^^^

The IWC does not directly participate in the counting and tracking of Fin and Minke whales. The IUCN is in charge of that and they still have both whales on the red list. For a species that once numbered nearly a million, 25,000-40,000 is not enough to sustain genetic variety without protection according to many scientific journals (Refer to the same article you linked).

Many of them swim closer to the surface and many die every year from ships moving along their migration routes. If commercial whaling is allowed, their numbers will further decrease.

There is no evidence that the whales are negatively affecting the number of fish in and around Iceland. And even if they were, it is not the place of humans to decide there aren't enough fish so we must directly manipulate the food chain to benefit us.

Iceland is Europe's leader in geothermal energy and it continues to grow every year as clean energy becomes a bigger issue worldwide. The country's economic growth could easily be sustained by further investment in their renewable resources - far outpacing any fishing export or whale export, especially to only one place in the world that can afford it and has demand for it (Japan).

There is no cultural stimulus in Iceland to argue overturning the whaling ban. At its height in the early 20th century, whaling in Iceland has always been for economic reasons, not cultural sustenance. This is nothing like the Inuit natives in North America and Greenland who hunt the whale to sustain their culture and survival.

And whaling and tourism can not exist together if the former is on the endangered list of many world wide organizations. When their numbers return to 800k+, then we can re-open talks about a bilateral existence for whaling and tourism.

Hi, thanks for your response!

> The IWC does not directly participate in the counting and tracking of Fin and Minke whales.

Well, the IWC Scientific Committee holds discussions on this topic for a range of species every year.

What the IWC Scientific Committee looks at is the health of *individual stocks* of whales. Their annual report has a whole section on "Whale Stocks"
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2006/SCREPNEW-GPD.pdf

For example, the Fin whale stock around Iceland migrates between Artic waters and lower latitudes, but never to Antarctica, where as the Southern Hemisphere stocks of fin whales migrate between Antarctica and higher lattitudes, but remain below the equator. This is the same for all baleen whales (except Byrde's whales maybe).

As the IWC Secretariat notes, the IUCN comes up with a *global* species categorization, clumping all off these individual stocks of a given species together. So even though Iceland's fin whales are abundant, the IUCN criteria mean that because of past over-hunting in the Southern Hemisphere, they can still describe the species (globally) as "endangered". The criteria can thus be quite misleading. Given the health of Iceland's stock there is no way the species will go extinct anytime soon, and especially not from hunting.

As the Icelanders note, the Fin whale in Iceland's waters is believed to be back to 70% of it's pre-whaling abundance:
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061023/full/061023-3.html
This is according to estimates agreed by the IWC Scientific Committee.

The IWC Scientific Committee does in fact oversee whale abundance estimate research, see the SOWER programme, for example.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/sower.htm

They also review research presented. The IWC Scientific Committee consists of scientists from all over the world, and is really the competent body on whale stocks.

In fact, the IUCN assessment of Fin whales was done by an IWC Scientist (A. Punt).

> For a species that once numbered nearly a million,

Globally maybe - certainly not on a stock by stock basis.

> 25,000-40,000 is not enough to sustain genetic variety

That's not true - many whale stocks only ever numbered in the 20,000 - 40,000 range. Consider the Eastern Pacific Gray whale population. It's currently at levels of about 25,000 whales, and scientists recognise that this stock has hit it's natural limit - it's ecosystem can not support any more whales than that.

> Many of them swim closer to the surface and many die every year from ships moving along their migration routes.

This is true, but the fact is that scientists recognise that the stock has been growing at a rate of 10% in recent decades. As noted on my blog (from the 2006 Scientific Committee report):

"The [IWC Scientific Committee] Workshop [on fin whales] had noted that estimated abundance west and southwest of Iceland increased at an annual rate of 10% (95% CL: 6% - 14%) between 1987 and 2001."

That is, even with threats from pollution, ship strike, entanglement in fishing gear, the population has been growing at 10% each year. That's very strong growth, and will hardly be impacted by Iceland taking just 9 fin whales (only 0.04% of the estimated abundance).

> If commercial whaling is allowed, their numbers will further decrease.

Given that the growth is 10%, commercial whaling will see a decrease in the rate of growth of the whale numbers, but so long as they don't increase their catch to levels that wipe out the annual increase, their numbers certainly will not decrease. We may see only 9.x% growth instead of the full 10%. No problem in terms of conservation, right?

Whales mate and produce offspring, just like every other animal. We need to accept this.

> There is no evidence that the whales are negatively affecting the number of fish in and around Iceland.

I don't know if the Iceland Marine Institute would agree. They probably know more about what is going on in their own waters than any one else, I suspect. Come on - we know that whales eat marine resources. There *could* be some impact.

> it is not the place of humans to decide there aren't enough fish so we must directly manipulate the food chain to benefit us.

Well, Icelanders would disagree. They would like to see their marine resources producing the optimum economic benefits for the people of Iceland.

I think every nation wishes to use it's natural resources to the maximum benefit possible. How about your nation?

> The country's economic growth could easily be sustained by further investment in their renewable resources

Right - but whaling can complement that even further. So long as it is sustainable, what is the problem?

> whaling in Iceland has always been for economic reasons, not cultural sustenance.

Again, what is wrong with economic diversification and development?

> This is nothing like the Inuit natives in North America and Greenland who hunt the whale to sustain their culture and survival.

Right. They need food. But Icelanders want to develop economically, just like other developed and developing nations. Every nation wishes to boost it's economic growth. Why should whaling nations not be allowed to do so through whaling activities (providing that it is sustainable)?

> And whaling and tourism can not exist together if the former is on the endangered list of many world wide organizations.

Well, like I said, the IUCN sets a general "endangered" category on the species globally. The last assessment was in 1996 as the IWC homepage says, but Iceland clearly has a healthy stock of whales, and Japan is also claiming that research shows numbers are increasing quite steadily in the Antarctic area as well, for that matter. We have to remember that the Fin whale was protected globally way back in the 1970's, 30 years ago. It's quite natural that numbers have rebounded during this time.

As the IWC homepage notes, a reassessment is due in 2007. Given recent evidence I'd note be surprised to see the status downdgraded to "threatened", like the humpback whales, which are also rebounding strongly in many parts of the world.

> When their numbers return to 800k+,

Why does Iceland have to wait for the rest of the world? Their own fin whale stock is in great shape, at around 70% of it's pre-whaling abundance estimate - and growing at around 10% by recent reports. Hunting isn't going to hurt that stock, and no one is suggesting that fin whales that remain in a depleted state will be hunted commercially.

And was the Fin whale ever at numbers like 800k+ globally anyway? In the Southern Hemisphere I heard estimates of maybe 400,000, but I believe there were never that many in the Northern Hemisphere.

I'd like to try one

On a further note I find it really funny that you (electro-plankton) are not ok with humans hunting whales but you think it's :

"not the place of humans to decide there aren't enough fish so we must directly manipulate the food chain."

Where is the fish love?