Responses against all forms of whaling
Morris Amos, Tongariki Island, Vanuatu
Angella, Dominica
Christopher Bauer
Pedro Blandino, Dominican Republic
Bob Conrich, Anguilla
Gerald Crowson
Asha de Vos, Sri Lanka
Jadoo Dookun, Mauritius
Francesco Emmanuel, Trinidad and Canada
Guy Esparon, Aldabra, Seychelles
Leslie Farnel, Maui, Hawaii, USA
Maria Grech, St. Lucia
Derrick Harvey, Vancouver Island, Canada
Ping Luo
Tiaré Manutea, Germany
Erica Martin
Maryse
Makiro Mitchell, Cook Islands
Miguel Mosquera, Galapagos
Gina Moss, New Zealand
Gisa Fuatai Purcell, Samoa
Jon Rohde, South Africa
René Schärer, Brazil
Maraea Malaefono Slade
Robert Stephens, Jamaica
Paul Watson, San Juan Island, Washington, USA
Writer
Writer, Samoa

Responses in favour of subsistence whaling
Pedro M. Alcolado, Cuba
Paul Barker, Papua New Guinea
Yonette Belmar, St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Yonette Belmar, St. Vincent and the Grenadines (2)
Boedhihartono, Indonesia
Sabra Kauka, Kaua`i, Hawai`I, USA
Bård Bredrup Knudsen, Norway
Taneti Maamau, Kiribati
Tetoaiti Tabokai, Kiribati
Ursula, Papua New Guinea

Responses in favour of commercial whaling
Bruce Young, Cook Islands

Responses about the politics of small islands' voting patterns
Chris Beer, Azores
Solomoni Biumaiono, Fiji
Richard Butler
Albert DeTerville, St. Lucia
Richard Gordon, Prince Edward Island, Canada
Su Jilan, China
Francis Joseph, Dominica
John Maxwell, Jamaica
Nomeneta Saili, Samoa.
Kevin Sander, Fiji
Sanjay Singh, Fiji
Eunice Smith
Arthur Webb

Other responses
Mike Baker, France
Paul Clark, Hawaii, USA
Alan Deidun, Malta
John Elfick, Australia
Taati Eria, Kiribati
Edo Heinrich-Sanchez, Okinawa,
Ian, Grenada
Sitti Issulahi, Comoros
Kavita Khanna
Nico Kux, Mauritius
Heinz Otto, Germany
K.D. Pillay, Seychelles
Maleka Vakalevu, Unaisi Butukoro, Fiji.
Sonia Williams, Jamaica

 

From Morris Amos, Tongariki Island, Vanuatu

Although we do not fish for whales, we do have respect for them. In a [calendar] year whales do appear around this small island that we live in, and became a period in a year that people will refer to a specific season in the year. In other words, even without a written calendar, nature does have creations [like whales] that guide people in islands to live by and be able to plan and work.

From Angella, Dominica

It is a proven fact that man does better on vegetarian diets. Although I eat fish, there really isn't a real argument for whaling. Eskimos love fish, the ones that multiply fast, and all the people in the Caribbean, most love fish. You cannot even eat the whale meat. So you people trying to talk about whaling for subsistence need to examine what your forefathers lived on. For example: young pumpkin leaves have more nutritious value than even fish! Research it if you are honest enough. You will find that man was more a vegetarian before the barbaric days began.

From Christopher Bauer

I certainly agree that whaling should be banned. To do this, a campaign should be launched to have nations withdraw from the IWC. The sole purpose of the IWC is to maintain a healthy whaling industry; for nations to oppose whaling by becoming members of the IWC is not only dishonest, it is ludicrous and has made anti-whaling nations to be the but of popular humor in whaling nations.

From Pedro Blandino, Dominican Republic

I live in a small island named Dominican Republic and my position is no negotiation in regards to whales. Conservation and preservation of the whales. Everything else must be stopped.

From Bob Conrich, Anguilla

Yonnette Belmar from St. Vincent and the Grenadines wrote On Bequia, one of the islands in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the whaling industry contributed to the economy of our island since 1876. In my country, many children would be hungry and not be able to go to school if it were not for whaling. To support a family, the men in the family, (and I dare say some women) have to whale, whether it is humpbacks or what we call Black Fish (Pilot fish).

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human [and animal] freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, House of Commons, 1783

From Gerald Crowson

Thanks for sending us the thought-provoking article about whaling. You ask us what we think. There can be only one answer: that it is shameful! Shameful that a civilised nation like Japan should wish to destroy magnificent creatures for the sake of keeping alive an industry whose products it appears even the Japanese no longer want; and shameful that the beautiful island nations of the Pacific, which we all love so much, should sell their souls for the pathetic bribes of aid in this cynical ploy.

The best and only answer lies in education, the education of the Japanese public in all aspects of conservation of the natural world. New Zealand sets the standard for right thinking in these things, so let's see a new New Zealand export, the export of conservation education to all nations of the Pacific, including the islands!

From Asha de Vos, Sri Lanka

Firstly, what drives an Asian country with no real history of whaling to want to whale 'scientifically' or otherwise? It's a question I've been trying to answer for years and a question I've been asked for years. There are stories of excess meat being force-fed to school children at lunch time etc., so clearly there is no tradition to consume this product. So what is it that makes them tick? Secondly, perhaps this should be posted on the marmam mailing list?

From Jadoo Dookun, Mauritius

Ask for boycott of all products from countries who engage in whale killing. Stop whale killing

From Francesco Emmanuel, Trinidad and Canada

In this day of organic food, where North American culture has more food than anyone can eat, I really don't see the need to kill something as big and beautiful as a whale, it is nothing more than corporate greed. Nothing more than man trying to fill his pocket as fat as he can. When all the species are dead, we'll all say What happened here?' It's a shame and should be stopped. If the argument in favour is that it provides a living to many, how can you make a living off killing a creature bigger than you? These fishermen can be trained elsewhere, to catch smaller fish....what about farming...what about doing something that adds to our world rather than take away, what about the baby whale that lost a mother? What would these creatures say if they could talk?

It's greed, all for greed, not about economics at all. Maybe somebody will hunt us.

From Guy Esparon, Aldabra, Seychelles

My name is Guy Esparon and I am working on the World Heritage Site of Aldabra. I am very grateful to have contact with your organisation and I will help anyway I can. Aldabra is the most unique place on earth and the best kept secret. Check Web-Sites. I have a keen interest in whales and the interest goes a long way back. The Seychelles was the first country in the Indian Ocean to declare the Indian Ocean as a whale sanctuary and something we are very proud of. But I know mounting pressure on our government will change if the Japanese donates more boats and engine and we are weak and I will ensure that we will never let this happen. We have 7 species of whales recorded in our waters and while writing to you the Humpbacks are playing and teaching their young not far from me at the station. Please send me more details of how I can help.

From Leslie Farnel, Maui, Hawaii

I grew up eating whale meat. Where I came from they called it "arctic steak". My culture included the seal fur trade as well. There were times growing up when all we could afford was whale meat or flipper pie. Not only my family but my friends' families and people all over the Maritime Provinces of eastern Canada would have gone hungry, lost their homes, not had heat in winter if not for the butchering of seals and whales. Later I worked for the tourist trade in Hawaii promoting ocean conservation and whale protection. Now I make money showing people whales alive at sea and denouncing the culture I was raised in. Still, whether I was at Spears Point in Newfoundland or at Molokini Island off Maui Hawaii the sight of humpbacks out at sea was still breathtaking and somehow spiritual.

The US has the Federal Endangered Species Act protecting among other species humpback whales. So a few years ago when NOAA made certain waters off Maui a whale preserve one wondered why they needed a humpback preserve when they were already protected by a federal declaration. It reeked of deals made behind closed doors and unspoken plans for the future. So when I read about this whaling commission declaration, and read between the lines since not enough information is given here, I sense the same thing. For one reason or another, countries that depend a lot on aid from more developed countries - small countries that have no stock in whales - are voting to maintain a whaling industry. And again I ask why. Why did they choose to vote the way they did? Perhaps it was a convincing argument causing them to truly believe in their vote; perhaps it was an offer down the line. It must be on a need to know basis and I guess I don't need to know. Another thing appearing unusual is the way the vote is split, that each country no matter how big or small, no matter how much or how little population gets the same vote. This puts a lot of power into the hands of very small island nations that are easily controlled by financial aid. That's not to say that is what is going on here but you can see the possibilities I'm sure.

Ask anyone who knows me, I have never been known for my tact. I clearly remember the last time I stated something like this in public. It was in a restaurant in one of the pro-voting island nations listed here. I was suddenly whisked out before I could eat and reprimanded severely. So to all I may offend I apologize but you asked what we thought so here you have it.

From Maria Grech, St. Lucia

I read your email with great interest. It saddens me more than I can put into words that some people think we have a right to hunt and kill the most significant creature of our planet's oceans. We no longer have to hunt to survive. We have domesticated other animals like cattle and pigs and chickens so that they can be farmed for meat. There are also fish farms to supplement the dwindling stocks of fish that are hauled from the seas. There is a move to make people feel that we are actually competing with the whales for the fish that our fishermen expect to catch! But we are the intruders in that marine environment. I am attaching an article I wrote some time ago for the Vanguard newspaper. If people understood what complex and magnificent creatures whales are, would they really want to eat them?

From Derrick Harvey, Vancouver Island, Canada

Arthur Webb of Fiji brings up some interesting points in his perspective of whaling. However, his argument falls apart when he refers to the conservation of species by calling it the domain of a few concerned people in wealthy countries and that whales are a charismatic species. I wonder when we will stop killing off any species to the point where there is only one left, does that make that one charismatic.

Let's face it. All foreign aid is condition attached, some worse than others, but to sell off fishing rights to any and or all species for small island nations in exchange for some investment by another country, designed by the donor to benefit the donor and which ends up allowing a few politicians to buy brand new 4X4's does not do anything for anyone, so let's not kid ourselves.

I do agree that cynically or not, these votes are up for grabs to the highest bidder.

It is time for all of us to realize that we cannot cater to the charismatic demands of a few for fish eggs or whale tongues. Even if these items did at one time have a traditional role to play, tradition as they say "aint what it used to be." As a planet, we cannot afford to allow tradition to endanger what should be the right of everyone today and in the future to occupy a planet that has complete diversity in flora and fauna.

From Ping Luo

Thanks for the article. It happened that days ago I watched a documentary about commercial whaling and whale-meat eating culture of Japan. People responsible for the public relations and communications in the government agency propagating the bloody culture were arguing for their commercial whaling ships sailing to as far as South America oceans by asking the interviewer why beef, mutton and pork can be eaten, while they should feel guilty for eating whale meat?

To me, the shaky argument can be retorted in the following ways:

a) Japanese don't raise whales as livestock in their backyard. They only have the killing industry.

b) Japanese don't distinguish among different sub-species of whales when they kill.

c) Whale meat used to be an important protein source for people's health after the WWII, but now other alternatives are well accessible.

d) Whales are not fish, they are mammals like human beings, they breed one cub (or two) for each birth, and the gestation period is no shorter than human beings. It takes a long time to recover an effective population for the species' survival.

We should make our voice heard to the Japanese who stupidly promote this bloody industry.

From Tiaré Manutea, Germany

Do you want my comment to whaling? I say only don't kill the whale. It's a very intelligent animal. I can say, like my sister or brother, if you want to kill the whale then you want to kill me.

From Erica Martin

New Zealand whale watching trip demonstrates value of living whales

27 July 2006-Today Conservation Minister, Chris Carter, led a delegation of Ambassadors from Asian countries, including Japan, on a whale watching trip from the famous town of Kaikoura on New Zealand's South Island.

"By sharing the unforgettable experience of whale watching, Minister Cater is demonstrating that whales are worth far more alive than dead," said Darren Kindleysides, IFAW Asia Pacific Campaigns Officer.

An IFAW report released last year showed that whale watching injected close to $120 million into the New Zealand economy.

"The report found that more than 425,000 people went whale watching-more than double the number from the last survey in 1998," said Mr Kindleysides.

"This is a growing industry that relies on the very whales that Japan is targeting through its so-called scientific whaling program.

"We hope that Ambassador Masaki Saito will take from this experience an understanding of the need to protect the whales for future generations.

An IFAW report released earlier this year, Slaughtering Science: the case against Japanese whaling in the Antarctic, examined the impact Japanese 'scientific' whaling could have on whale populations in the region and proposes measures to bring Japanese scientific whaling to an end.

And an international panel of independent legal experts has found that Japanese 'scientific' whaling is illegal. In a report prepared for IFAW, the lawyers state that under international law the type of whaling undertaken by Japan can only be defined as 'commercial' whaling.

"We congratulate Mr Carter on sharing the experience of whale watching with the Japanese Ambassador. We look forward to him taking further action to protect whales to finally bring an end to so-called 'scientific' whaling," said Mr Kindleysides.

From Maryse

I don't agree with the comment of this lady from Bequia supporting whaling even if it is true that America is the first nation that agrees with whaling and a lot more unacceptable matters, and has no consideration for the future of Mother Earth. It is not because it has always been this way that we cannot change it. A lot of people think that as an individual they cannot change anything so they give up, but if you believe that it is the seed that you'll plant that eventually will grow into everyone, (even if you are the only one to speak out loud what everybody think privately). It takes time for sure, but it is our duty to act now for the future of our children and the world. Humans are the most dangerous predators, and believe me, I was brought up in Africa for 19 years and I can tell you that in the jungle, the animals have more respect about life than humans! They'll kill just what they need to eat, not kill as many as possible to make a profit or a trophy like human beings will! By not speaking out, you are allowing those terrible thongs to continue, you're as responsible as all those predators, that concerns not only the whales (they come to the Caribbean to feed and mate) but it concerns every species that the humans exterminate for no valid reasons. All animals and plants have a role to play in the balance of the universe, if that balance is not respected, chaos will be our legacy to our future generations. Is that what you want for your children and grandchildren? Not me alone but with a lot of people who think and speak out like me, I'll fight it!

From Makiro Mitchell, Cook Islands

Yes I live in the Cook Islands and we have a whale research centre run by Nan Hauser. Whales are sacred to my family and when we see one it is our omen. I understand that our country has signed up as a whale sanctuary and that is the way forward for us all.

From Miguel Mosquera, Galapagos

Galapagos es un patrimonio de la humanidad y hay que protegerlo, nosotros estabamos en el siglo pasado en los mismos problemas casi acabaron con las ballenas , hoy las tenemos para disfrutarlas con los turistas que nos visitan, pero nos gustaria tener algo mas, que nuestros jovenes las conozcan para que aprendadan amarlas y protejerlas, eso se deberia hacer en cada lugar, asi que empecemos una cruzada internacional para darle a todos los que vivimos en islas esta oportunidad. Educando venceremos

Galapagos is a part of humanity's patrimony and it is necessary to protect it. Problems in the last century almost finished the whales. Today we have them to enjoy and for the tourists who visit us. But we always want to have something more. Our youth must learn to love them and protect them so that they can have their own place. We must begin an international crusade to give all who live in small islands this opportunity. Through education we will win.

From Gina Moss, New Zealand

I come from New Zealand and hope that although my voice is one from a large island I can contribute to the discussion about commercial whaling that has been happening over the past few weeks. To begin with I will say that I am opposed to whaling and hope to see the ban on commercial whaling upheld.

I want to respond to the comment made by Eunice Smith that small islands and developing countries do not have the luxury of being able to focus on conservation issues because they need to focus on their basic needs like food, housing and health first. I agree. It seems to me that the real issues behind the debate about whaling are economic and should be addressed as such. Developed countries should not be forcing small islands and developing countries into a position where they need to use the fate of a species as a negotiating tool.

I do not agree however that securing a nation's well being should come at the expense of the environment. Jon Rohde says that "It seems high time to let something live for the sake of living"; I would go further and say that it is high time we realised that preserving the diversity of species of flora and fauna in both the earth's oceans and on land is essential to our survival. As a species we use more of the earth's resources than are truly available to us. According to the Global Footprint Network "Today, humanity's Ecological Footprint is over 23% larger than what the planet can regenerate. In other words, it now takes more than one year and two months for the Earth to regenerate what we use in a single year." http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=footprint_overview

We do not have the luxury of ignoring conservation issues. If we continue to deplete the earth's resources as we are currently doing the generations who follow us will be in a dire situation indeed. When it comes to the issue of environmental sustainability, protecting whales is only the tip of the iceberg. We should see it as a high profile tip and an opportunity for small islands to take the lead and set an example for the rest of the world. An example like the one New Zealand has set by remaining nuclear free.

From Gisa Fuatai Purcell, Samoa

I fully support putting an end to the slaughter of whales. I totally agree with Derrick Harvey and others. The key issue for the small islands to participate and vote against this ridiculous practice is finances. We cannot afford to pay for the participation of representatives of our countries to attend. And yes, those who could attend those conferences are those who have sold the right of every small island to those countries or companies who are earning a bulk of their income from the whales. I admit that catching whales was a pastime in Samoa but no one is doing that now. It used to be a traditional game but then, we use the whole fish for food but not just fins etc. So please, let's work out a strategy so participation from small island can be strong enough to fight off selling these rights to those with power and money.

I love my small country Samoa and all the small islands in the Pacific.

From Jon Rohde, South Africa

The arguments are generally cogent but somewhat cynical - take Arthur Webb who thinks taking bribes is an acceptable national policy. He is absolutely correct in saying that all aid comes with strings attached, but this is an open bribe from Japan to gain the votes they want. No one is naïve enough to suggest that these small islands will themselves pay the IWC dues, send delegates half way around the world to meetings and vote for slaughtering whales! There is lots of money in many tainted forms - drug running is another really big income producer!

As to native fishermen (i.e. the dugong slaughter cited in Australia) it is foolish to allow indigenous peoples to hunt traditional prey by modern methods. They may as well license the Japanese to do it for them! Obviously one can respect tradition by allowing the hunt by traditional methods only. An easy solution on that one.

The sadness is that whales, like so much of the life on our planet, are not ours. Humans have destroyed so much of life and continue in that inexorable trajectory. It seems high time to let something else live, for the sake of living, and for our moral structure to embrace the values so espoused by Albert Schweitzer: "pour toutes ce qui vivre, reverence!" The end to whaling would make a nice starting point!

From René Schärer, Brazil

What do I think?

Excellent article, which quite clearly shows the vulnerability of the whale convenience countries which voted against payment and for the whaling countries led by Japan, Norway, Iceland, Korea and the Russian Federations. Many of the small island countries' economies depend heavily on income from tourism, while Japan, Norway, South Korea and Russia are crazy for exports. On the whales-side are countries with large consumer and tourism markets and well organized environmental groups and mostly democratic societies.

We the defenders of whale conservation have to draw up a long term strategy to mobilize consumers, tourists, children, women and environmentalists to support our campaign against whaling. Here are a couple of ideas which I think have a great potential, but then you out there might have some other good ideas: a) There are more than 12 island countries which depend to a great degree from international tourism - we can pick one or two of them (just think how romantic it is to spend your honeymoon on an island that promotes the slaughter of baby whales) and promote a worldwide boycott. With success in these islands, the other countries will probably think twice about voting for Japan again b) Then we can pick a couple of countries like Japan and Norway, pick out their most vulnerable export articles and promote a world wide consumer boycott. The children's boycott of flippers and turtles caught in trawler nets and long line fisheries will be a great example for adults around the world to follow.

I can even tell you who can lead this movement, my friend José Truda Palazzo Jr. from the Brazilian Whale Delegation and the Conservation Project of Right Whales in Brazil (Projeto Baleia Franca Brazil). He likes to fight like hell. And I know a few hundred people who will get on the band wagon along with us.

That's what I think, how about you?

From Maraea Malaefono Slade

Whales, seals and dolphins are the most peaceful, beautiful animals of the ocean, and no one should kill and eat!! Whoever does and has should be totally ashamed of themselves and should spend the rest of their lives suffering with guilt!! God has surely provided enough food for human survival without human beings resorting to the killing and eating of these beautiful beings!! Please stop killing these beautiful ocean animals who do not hurt or cause human beings any harm. At every rare occasion I have been blessed with seeing them - they simply warm my heart and I thank God they exist in this planet we live in.

From Robert Stephens, Jamaica

Whaling should be condemned and banned worldwide and small islands should not be used as pawns in a global chess game by the major whaling countries. The fact is that more can be gained for small Islands from whale watching in economic terms from tourism than the gains to the whalers who are most often not from the islands or are merely employees of the major beneficiaries. This provides short term gains for a few at the expense of the loss forever of these wonderful species.

From Paul Watson, San Juan Island, Washington, USA

Yonnette Belmar from St. Vincent and the Grenadines asks if there has been any real human factor in the debate about whaling?

My answer to her is that is all that it has been about.

We are trying to change that. It should be about the whales and their right to survive unmolested, free from the cruelty and lethal utilization by humankind.

These are highly evolved intelligent social creatures with emotions and with families.

To say that they should suffer for the good of a particular culture is to justify the persecution of one culture by another because it is in the interest of the dominant culture.

This is the 21st Century and it is time to consign barbarism to the waste bin of history and whaling is cruel and savage barbarism. It should be abolished.

We have evolved socially to abolish slavery and the subjugation of women. We have abolished cannibalism and we have abolished human and animal sacrifices and we must now abolish the slaughter of the dolphins and the great whales. Whaling is a shameful practice. To drive a harpoon into an intelligent sentient being's body, to detonate a grenade inside their guts ripping and shredding their flesh and organs causing the whale to die a slow agonizing death is indeed shameful. I have witnessed many whales killed by humans and I felt ashamed to be human for seeing what I saw and thus by my own experience demonstrates that it is shameful.

What Yonnette does not explain is why Caribbean nations slavishly support illegal Japanese whaling in the Antarctic Sanctuary. They do it for the money Japan supplies to the various governments. The Caribbean nations that vote with Japan are bought and paid for vassals of the Japanese economic empire and that is also shameful.

Yonnette says that the four whales they are allowed to kill in Bequia "do nothing to the whale population."

I suppose killing four people at random in Bequia every year would do nothing to impact the local population but it would bring sorrow to those who knew the four just as the slaughter of the four whales brings sorrow to the families of the whales that are killed.

Of course as humans are inclined to do, Yonnette and many others will dismiss this as sentimental, but the observations by those who know whales indicates that whales feel loss and grieve for those that are killed.

I have dedicated my life to the abolishment of whaling. We will not be a civilized world for as long as we continue to inflict such bloody misery upon this great family of cetaceans.

Whaling in Bequia as in Antarctica or off the coast of Norway or in Canada's high Arctic is shameful murderous barbarism and the unnecessary infliction of gross cruelty and has no place in the 21st Century or among people who wish to call themselves civilized.

From Writer

The small Caribbean islands are for whale watching not whale hunting. That's my view.

From Writer, Samoa

Sorry we are not interested about that kind of hunting.

 

Responses in favour of subsistence whaling

From Pedro M. Alcolado, Cuba

I fully disagree with the St. Kitts and Nevis whaling declaration. Apart from other explained considerations, whales deserve also ethical and human sensitivity based considerations. Whales are among the most impressive and smart animals in the marine kingdom, whale watching provides high sustainable revenues, and human demand of whale consumption is not so critical and justified as to make whaling worthwhile and fair. In the present context, whaling seems to be a stake of greed and insensitive enterprises and persons that do not deserve support. I would provisionally exclude from any whaling restriction only to the few communities that hunt for subsistence, but it is much preferable to provide them with alternative attractive livelihoods to achieve a total ban on whaling for everyone.

The vote in favour of the pro-whaling declaration is based only on a one vote difference. For that reason the declaration should be rejected, even more if there are some nations with minimal whaling interests that seem to vote to foster economic support from Japan. We have to promote and support a strong boycott on whale products everywhere.

From Paul Barker, Papua New Guinea

It's easy to make provision to allow modest numbers of whales to be taken by traditional means for customary purposes, by those for whom it was traditional, without justifying or allowing commercial whaling.

From Yonnette Belmar, Bequia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines

I am from St. Vincent and the Grenadines. I grew up on an island that supported whaling.

The IWC defines Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling as: "whaling for purposes of local aboriginal consumption carried out by or on behalf of aboriginal, indigenous or native peoples who share a strong community, familial, social and cultural ties relating to a continuing traditional dependence on whaling and on the use of whales". To say that whaling is a shameful practice is not a fair comment. On Bequia, from 1876 the whaling industry contributed to the economy of our island. The whaling season on Bequia extends from February and ends in May. There is only a time period of about 4 months to catch a whale, and sometimes we do not catch any.

Countries like St. Vincent and the Grenadines have been whaling for many years and for someone to say that "For one reason or another, small countries that have no interest in hunting whales.....are voting to maintain a whaling industry." We are one Caribbean and we have to stick together and vote. If the other nations don't vote at the IWC meeting how will our little island continue to whale? It is also not fair to say that they have no interest in whaling. It must be recognised, that on the floor of IWC, there is one vote for every fee paying member country. Therefore The Mighty, Wealthy Developed countries do not possess any authority to dictate which issues we should vote for, against, or abstain from.

Outside of the IWC, they may and can, and are using their wealth and power to dictate the way SIDS operate, Thanks to one vote/one Nation, at IWC that is not possible.

In my country, many children would be hungry and not be able to go to school if it were not for whaling. To support a family, the men in the family, (and I dare say some women ) have to whale, whether it is humpbacks or what we call Black Fish (Pilot fish).

I am not against whale watching. The four whales allowed by IWC do nothing to the whale population. (So said the Scientific Committee of IWC)

Whalewatchers on the other hand project that there are sufficient whales to create a billion dollar industry, doing whalewatching all year. If that is the case, and there are so many whales remaining after we catch 1 or 2 whales per year, then there is absolutely no reason why the two industries cannot exist, and work side by side. Isn't it time that we put selfishness aside, and let the poor survive beside the rich? Have you given any thought to the fact that the poor families who are involved in the whaling industry, will never be able to buy a whalewatching boat, equip the boat, and pay the high cost of insurance for the boat and crew and passengers? Have you forgotten that we are in a hurricane prone zone which makes insurance premiums above the head of the average citizen? Have any real thought been given to the real human factor in this issue?

Why don't we hear of the large quota of whales that are hunted by American Natives. Does anyone dare call them the lap dogs of the Japanese and get away with it without a sanction against that country? Please remember America was partly responsible for the dissemination of the whales of the world, and that our men were taught to whale by them not only to feed their families after the decline of agriculture and slavery, but to harvest the oil which greased the wheels of the American textile mills, and produced the candles and oil for their lamps.

It seemed to be perfectly fine back then when they used to whale, but now that they have stopped and the small Caribbean islands are whaling, it is a problem. American whaling began in mass when they needed it most. Technology and the development of alternative products could take most of the blame for the decline in whaling in America. With the discovery of kerosene in 1859, a new form of fuel was found which burned cleaner was more economical as a whole. Since kerosene was the cheaper fuel, efforts were concentrated toward improving technology on land for better extraction of petroleum and so whaling declined.

Are you aware that we still grow or catch what we eat, or use all our precious resources to pay for the rest we import from you?

We have not yet found oil in our waters, except that in a whale

From Yonnette Belmar, Bequia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines (2)

I am delighted to read the recent postings. I have learnt from your response that my emotional response was not just personal, but one that many can appreciate if the real issues are critically analyzed.

I have seen that once we all factor in the human element and focus less on the immortalized beast, we would all agree that it is simply a matter of respect for each others culture, practices and sovereign rights.

Remembering that a great deal (I hesitate to say "most") of the persons screaming the loudest, and calling for embargoes at IWC meetings, are the wealthy NGO's who have not even or would never confront a whale, far less eat its meat for survival.

While I support sustainable harvesting, I seriously question the tears of the Developed Countries about commercial whaling.

I can easily see Japan conducting commercial whaling and serving whale in their restaurants and street bazaars. Can you imagine the public outcry and pressures on the USA if the moratorium is lifted, and a US company should decided to catch whales and market the meat in the USA? It just won't work.

Can you ever expect to walk into Wendy's or Mc Donald's and order a whale burger? Trust me, I know the smell and taste of whale meat. You won't be able to develop a special taste for it overnight. You would either have it or reject it altogether. Those burgers won't stand a chance. Imagine smelling like the whale for two days! The smell sticks to everything-money, clothes, bus, you name it.

Commercial whaling in my opinion can only survive among current whale eating nations. This I am sure can be regulated using the same laws imposed by the original chapter of IWC.

From Boedhihartono, Indonesia

Probably the idea of conservation leads to the idea that whaling is shameful, similar to the comment on illegal logging by the local people. I think as long as the number of whales is abundant and there isn't any other occupation that can sustain the local people, the practice could be supported. In my country in the Lesser Sunda Islands, in the vicinity of Komodo Island, the traditional whaling is also practiced by the local people and I think the number of whales sacrificed is limited. The kind of whales includes Peponocephalia electra, Balaeoptera musculus, Physeter macrocephalus, Balaeonoptera acutorostrata, Kogia spp., Feresa attenuata etc. But dolphins are protected and have never been disturbed by local people. The danger comes from industrialized countries that want to buy all marine products.

From Sabra Kauka, Kaua`i, Hawai`I, USA

I think we need to clarify that what most of us oppose is commercial whaling by industrialized nations such as Japan. I do not oppose subsistence whaling by the people who have depended on whaling and seals for their livelihood for thousands of years. The people who responded in the previous SIV message of 11 July 2006, and I, have the option of going to a store to purchase our food and clothing. Not so for those who live in the far north.

From Bård Bredrup Knudsen, Norway

Depleting renewable natural resources is shameful; man-made extinction of species even more so. That does not make all hunting of whales (or seals) shameful. There are species of whales that should be protected against all kinds of hunting until we are certain that the stocks are, beyond any doubt, both multiple and thriving. And for some species of whales, that may take a very long time, if it will happen at all. Whaling in the 19th and major parts of the 20th century certainly was shameful business.

But there are, as of today, some species of whales that are not threatened by extinction, that are both numerous and thriving. Why should it be more "shameful" to harvest a sustainable amount of these whales than to hunt deer, moose and other large mammals?

In India cows are a sacred animal for religious and cultural reasons. That does not prevent the rest of the world from slaughtering cows. And all butchery is, in fact, quite bloody business. But is it "shameful", provided that it is done for human consumption and not just for the "fun" or "entertainment" of killing, and provided that all reasonable measures are taken to ensure swift and painless death? Mammals are high on the evolutionary ranking of living creatures but that does not make whales (or seals) a "semi-human being" to be put in a category all by itself -- a new kind of "sacred cow" for all of humanity.

As a child, I grew up on the West Coast of Norway in the 1950s and we had whale meat for dinner at least once a week. It was fairly cheap, nutritious, and plentiful. These coastal whales are still very numerous in the Northeast Atlantic and not at all threatened by extinction. Given the disastrous situation for many species of whales some decades ago, after what I would call shameful and unsustainable whaling, particularly in the Antarctica (of which Norwegians had their fair share of responsibility), a moratorium on whaling was both a necessary and a responsible policy. Better scientific data was needed. Some species of whales needed complete protection, beyond any doubt, and it was wise to buy time.

Today, a growing body of scientific data is available, which makes it reasonable to distinguish between different species of whales and to make informed decisions on which species should be protected against all kinds of hunting, and which species may be hunted within annual quotas that are determined on a scientific and not a commercial basis.

To me, it seems like a number of non-coastal states that have decided to become members of the International Whaling Commission, bend to an irrational and populist (not to say ideological or semi-religious public sentiment) domestic political scene, in order to make an appearance of "environmental commitment". What a cheap trick. That's what I would call shameful. To sell indulgencies in order to take the political focus away from environmentally irresponsible actions of their own -- in areas where it would hurt politically or financially to something to improve a situation that is within their power to affect in a positive way. Someone who remembers the Pharisee who went into the Temple, turned his back to the others, and said the following prayer: "I thank you, God, that I am not as all these others.....".

To me, that attitude characterises many members of the International Whaling Commission. They sell indulgencies to their own domestic publics instead of acting rationally and in line with the main purpose of the original moratorium against whaling. I am quite proud that Norway has not accepted to be intimidated by that. Attempted tyranny by a majority is exactly that: tyranny. Now the previous majority is crumbling, and that's a good thing. A rational, scientifically based and environmentally sustainable policy is a far better alternative. Killed whales that are hoisted aboard a boat will show a lot of red blood on a TV screen. There is a reason why, for example the American beef industry, does not permit TV cameras in their slaughter houses: all the blood on the TV screen might make people less inclined to eat beef. Double standard -- not to say bigotry? Definitely so.

From Taneti Maamau, Kiribati

I am grateful to have accessed this small but very useful piece of information and I must admit that I do not know very much about the discussions on whaling and the debates going on over the pertinent issues.

However, I am naturally inclined, of course by coming from a very small island country, with a relatively large area of ocean, to say that my people have subsisted on whales for generations and that was normal food for us, but to tell us that it is now wrong to consume whales, without adequate justifications, is a bit shocking as this would affect our livelihood. In this regard, I am beginning to wonder whether all these debates over the economics or social aspects of whaling is favouring the needs of small island countries or the bigger partners.

From Tetoaiti Tabokai, Kiribati

Following the arguments made concerning whaling, our position depends relative to how we view the resource. For those who have never even seen nor touched a whale, their sentiments are emotionally expressed. They normally sway in favour of the conservationists, however, for those who actually rely on and see and touch a whale, the views expressed thenceforth should at best express some element of genuine interest.

What is a whale anyway? It is a mammal that lives in the sea. Its size allows for easy catching and a quick profit for the hunter. Expressed in another way, their size makes them vulnerable and therefore unlike other mammals they should be protected.

Japan and others feel that they have been deprived of a basic means for living. Whale meat can mean bacon to an English man etc. But not all Japan needs whale meat; only a portion of their population depends or lives on whale meat. Only when business is confused with basic human needs should the international community should intervene and set up corrective measures. Otherwise we in the Pacific eat whale meat. In Kiribati, the people are the best fishermen in the world, yet when a whale is grounded it is treated as food for the entire community. And because whales do not often beach themselves, it is a difficult food to come by and therefore the young women are restricted from eating such meat, for fear that she might develop a craving for it when she becomes pregnant.

There are therefore grounds to support the need for people to eat whale meat. This is a free world, our ocean our land is god given, we do what is best to allow us sustain through time. What has the Law of the Sea said about such resources. I believe the Law of the Sea is a comprehensive guide for the proper use of resources.

Vote buying is a natural consequence of utter desperation. To some degree all countries have been involved in this vote buying.

The final say on the matter rests on the people who made those choices in the end. It is a matter of preference. If one prefer a than b then it is a choice. There are always good reasons to prefer one over the other and contrary to some beliefs not all choices are made on a foundation of greed.

From Ursula, Papua New Guinea

My name is Ursula and I like you come from a small atoll in the middle of the Pacific, Bougainville, Papua New Guinea.

My people do not hunt whales for subsistence consumption. Perhaps we were and still are taken up with so much fish that we tend to keep to fish. However, due to the isolation and neglect by the relevant authorities, tuna fishing and poaching by foreign fishing ventures come and fish without much government monitoring and surveillance. This results in these fishing boats accidentally killing or purposely killing whales in our waters for commercial purposes. My people have witnessed a number of dying or dead whales washed ashore after being speared by foreign fishers.

It is only then that my people slaughter and distribute the flesh to almost all inhabitants to boil in order to extract the oil for cooking purposes. We do not kill them ourselves nor can we let them rot away.

You're right in saying that the richer nations have always had the privilege of having their say and their vote. But in terms of considering the human factor of smaller island nations like us, they horribly fail to do just that. There is really no guarantee that the distance built due to selfishness and for the sake of economic sustainability, richer nations will never tolerate the mere fact that island nations are blest with marine resources. Voting will continue to witness great disparities as well.

We island nations use whaling for purposes only known to us, but from our god fathers we use these harvesting purposes for the sake of environment protection and conservation. The industrialised and well-to-do nations however think otherwise. We have got to make them see this from our angle. How do we do this?

I'm glad that you have said. Lets continue to talk and discuss through this forum, we may find some answers.

From Bruce Young, Cook Islands

Whaling should be done commercially because of the oil increase over the years so the only way we can get cheap and the most richest of all earthly oils lies in this big huge giant from the depth of the sea.

Following international news on the TV, Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda have been rejuvenated and are going to bomb a mountain that contains all of the world's richest oils and once he has done this, then there is no way our cars will be running. So it is for that reason that yes I am for whaling.

 

Responses about the politics of small islands' voting patterns

From Chris Beer, Azores

Here in the Azores whaling finished in 1985 when the Azores, as part of Portugal, joined the EU, which has banned whaling. The whaling industry here had long since declined however, from it's heyday after the Second World War. By 1985 there were just a handful of people left in the industry and the products from the whales were unwanted and almost impossible to export.

Whale watching started here in 1992 by one guy and a small inflatable and the locals thought he was mad and regularly damaged his boat, as they felt he represented the outsiders who had killed their industry. In 2006 there are now around 35 to 40 boats offering whale watching to an estimated 30,000 people a year, not bad when you consider the islands have less than 300,000 tourists a year coming to visit. I got into the business as the 2nd whale watch company in the Azores, teaming up with my wife Lisa Steiner who had already spent 4 summers here, doing scientific research with an animal charity. We continue the research and fund it by having people on our boat for a holiday and we have seen big changes in the industry. One of the nicest things though is that the industry probably supports between one and three hundred people in employment, in an occupation that causes little disturbance to the animals and is truly sustainable.

I had a couple of Japanese "whale nuts" on my boat a few years ago. They told me they thought the government of Japan sees whaling as a high profile issue and if it gives in on whaling, it will have to give in to pressure on it's larger industries, such as mining, fishing and forestry (and everything else that keeps Japan where it is economically), all criticised for over exploitation of natural resources.

So the whole whaling issue is really about politics and not whether whales need to be killed any longer. So sadly it could be some time before the Japanese, Icelandic and Norwegian whalers lay down their harpoons.

From Solomoni Biumaiono, Fiji

Allow me to comment on the voting structure of the Pacific Island countries in the Whaling Commission. It is actually a story of the history of fisheries in the Pacific region.

Part of the Cold War was actually played out in the Pacific islands. Pacific island countries used to broker their resources to the highest bidder or putting superpowers against each other for their own benefit.

At the height of the Cold War - pitting the USSR and the USA against each other, some Pacific island countries did this when giving out licences to fish within their water - the two superpowers actually courted the attention of the Pacific island nations trying and showered them with money, technologies and perks - all in the name of which regime is better, bigger and powerful.

The French came much later with their nuclear bombs and their Renault trucks.

Well the Cold War is over and with it is gone the money and the perks but the diplomatic skills had been honed.

Their votes were not bought but they were simply looking after number one and that is the welfare of their people, most of whom are living in small islands and do not have big reserves of gas, gold ore or other land based resources.

In fact they have the ocean and that's what they do.

From Richard Butler

It is interesting to note that Small Islands Voice appears to be against the resumption of whaling, as I am, yet all the small islands in the list voted in favour of ending the moratorium. Presumably small islands are just as venal when it comes to accepting money instead of upholding sustainable values as anyone else. Rather disappointing.

From Albert DeTerville, St. Lucia

I am a Saint Lucian national and cannot remember the last time that the Government of Saint Lucia consulting Saint Lucians on the whaling issue. Nor has any scientific poll ever been taken by the State of Saint Lucia to ascertain the populations' views on the whaling issue. Any action by the Government of Saint Lucia or its agents to support Japan must be seen for what it is.

From Richard Gordon, Prince Edward Island, Canada

Excuse my naiveté, but what exactly are land-locked countries like Mongolia, Austria, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Mali, and Luxembourg doing on the International Whaling Commission

From Su Jilan, China

While I do not concur with the views expressed by Mr. Arthur Webb, it is futile to argue or criticize such views of people/countries similar to what Mr. Webb holds. I believe the pressure on us should be exerted on the ones who bribe other countries.

From Francis Joseph, Dominica

Small island states for example Dominica where I come from are always vulnerable to international aid and sometimes seems that we compromise our own beliefs as we are small, vulnerable and powerless. Throughout our history and currently, everyone offers aid for something in return; a study just has to be conducted to see how it has played and continues to play itself out. We have survived the cold war, colonial rule and everyone knows that if we go this way, this will happen unfavourable and we go that way something will happen favourable. It is a matter of the political climate, opportunity and your political agenda at that time.

Dominica as a poor, vulnerable state and has been voting in favour for years and during that time Dominica has seen its Dive Dominica and whale watching tourist industry grow, relative to Dominica. That industry is very small though. There are no immediate or foreseeable signs that it will be affected.

There are big countries that have both whale hunting and a whale watching tourist industry and there is no news or threat of it being disrupted or affected. Again we are small and vulnerable and we are led to believe that we will lose out big time. There is an element of fear, scaring tactics played on these small islands because of the vulnerability and smallness of our islands. It is used as a negative as against using the opportunity to boost our small and growing industry. I feel that anyone who goes out there at these international forums should wave a banner saying Come to Dominica...we have lovely whales...come and see them. Instead there are scary tactics saying we are voting one way and promoting whaling and indicating to the world out there that we are bad business people, when in fact the agenda, tone and industry is run by others, not us and we do not necessarily have the means and the power to lobby. Everyone plays politics with us because we have small economies, no industries and we need their money for investment, they know that.

From John Maxwell, Jamaica

(Article published in Jamaica Observer, 25 June 2006 http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20060624t220000-0500_107752_obs__and_swallowing_a_whale.asp)

The whale-killers have a new heroine. She is a pretty, petite lawyer, Joanne Massiah, a senator in the Antigua Parliament who possesses a sharp mind and an even sharper tongue.

At the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in St Kitts last week, Ms Massiah led the Caribbean delegations in a fierce rhetorical attack on their perceived enemies - countries like Britain, France, the United States, India, Mexico and Brazil. These countries are all opposed to the legalisation of whaling as demanded by Japan and her Caribbean and other allies.

All were tarred by the Caribbean orators with the same brush. They were perceived to be racist, imperialist and dismissive of the cultures of small nations. The Brazilians and their 'like-minded' friends protested time and again about the language used to describe them, but this did not stop the fiercely eloquent Caribbean partisans.

They were roused to particular fury when the black delegate from Martinique, Mme Grandmaison, announced that Martinique and Guadeloupe, part of France, would establish a whale sanctuary in their exclusive economic zones, bordering on several Eastern Caribbean nations.

According to Barbadian journalist Tony Best, Senator Massiah had become known at the IWC "for using the most eloquent of phrases and a calm tone to get her points across; so much so that even opponents of sustainable use of the world's marine resources, a policy she champions, felt compelled the other day in Basseterre to cheer her intervention, not because they agreed with her arguments but because of the sheer force of her words and their own inability to muster a comeback".

The problem was that the like-minded nations saw no point in making a comeback against arguments which were largely irrelevant, if often entertaining and provoking and not at all calm.

It was odd to hear Senator Massiah, who is alleged to be a vegetarian, defending the sacred right of people to eat whales, justifying the Biblical warning about "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel" or in this case, a whale.

But neither Miss Massiah nor her associates will be legally able to eat whale meat just yet.

That is despite the widely proclaimed victory of the whale-killing lobby on the second to last day of the conference. Many of the world's leading news agencies were hornswoggled by the whale-killers' propaganda. Interpress services reported:

"TOKYO, Jun 20 (IPS) - A closely contested vote on Sunday that gave whaling countries led by Japan, an edge over opponents, has been hailed here as a landmark in turning the tide against an international ban and boosting the domestic fisheries industry."

Since IPS was writing from Japan, one may forgive them, but the Independent of London also got it wrong, as did several other reporters who listened too closely to the whale-killers' anti-siren songs.

What happened on Sunday was a masterpiece in mischief and double-dealing. The Caribbean delegates suggested that it would be nice to have a terminal "declaration" that everyone could sign on to. It would be a "Declaration of St Kitts" in the style of other international meetings, representing a consensus. It would, the 'like-minded' countries were told, be non-controversial and harmless.

When it came to the floor, after at least one revision, the Declaration was a straightforward denunciation of the anti-legalisation group. Some countries protested at the deception and at the presentation of the declaration as a resolution. It was however accepted by the chair as a resolution and voted on.

The result, the whale-killers won by one vote.

But the Declaration was meaningless. All it represented was Japan's ability to get its automatic voting bloc in line. The real result of the conference was contained in four policy resolutions, all of which were lost by the whale-killers. And, even if they had won those votes, it would have changed nothing, since overturning the moratorium on whaling requires a three-quarters majority which the Japanese clearly cannot muster without recruiting another dozen or so destitute nations to vote on their behalf.

There was an interesting sidelight to this recruitment. People witnessed a Japanese delegate rushing to the Secretariat to hand over piles of cash to register the late-coming delegate from Togo, whose vote gave the whale-killers their 'victory' in the Declaration of St Kitts.

It is the destitution of the Third World which should have been the real concern of the whale-killing lobby.

The Caribbean delegates, having declared war on the anti-legalisation group, had one more trick up their sleeves.

According to another resolution by St Kitts, the Commission was urged to note "the urgent nature of the economic difficulties of the Government of St Kitts and Nevis resulting from the closure of its sugar industry and the failed materialisation of promised financial aid" and to realise that St Kitts, unable to meet some of the financial obligations related to the hosting of the conference, asked the Commission for a grant of £385,406 from the IWC to St Kitts. That is J$46 million or EC$15 million. The amount was required to "meet some of the financial obligations related to the hosting of the IWC".

The St Kitts request would effectively more than double the IWC's normal cost for holding its annual meetings.

As someone unkindly pointed out, St Kitts had competed vigorously and successfully against La Rochelle, France, for the chance to hold this meeting.

As it happened, the vote on increasing the subsidy was a tie, so St Kitts will have to appeal either to CARICOM or to its Japanese friends for the money.

It is possible, I believe, that notwithstanding St Kitts' position on whaling they might have got the money had the Caribbean spokesmen not been so gratuitously offensive to the like-minded group, who, I beg you to remember, includes such as India, Mexico and Brazil.

The urge to eat whale meat or to be allowed to slaughter whales comes out of a misconception. The Caribbean and Pacific clients of Japan appealed piteously for the legalisation of whaling to restore the rights of local communities to their coastal resources. "We want to eat, we want to survive," one South Pacific delegate whined. The problem is that whales are not the coastal resource of any nation. They roam the oceans without passports and are part of the natural heritage of life. Despite this, the Japanese insist on their right to 'scientific whaling' - an enterprise, they say, which will give them information allowing them to harvest whales more sustainably.

Japanese Sustainability:

Japanese ideas of sustainability may be gauged from the following paragraph, taken from the Japanese's own report on one of their scientific expeditions - JARPN II.

"Based on results from the two-year feasibility study carried out in 2002 and 2003 the coastal component was revised to be conducted twice a year and to sample 60 common minke whales in each spring and autumn.

"During the whale sampling, almost 5,250 nautical miles were surveyed, 202 schools (205 individuals) of common minke whales were detected and 60 animals were caught (23 males and 37 females). Of the males eight were sexually mature while 14 of the females had attained sexual maturity and all but one was pregnant."

We are talking about sustainability, which means using resources without wasting them, making sure that the species will continue to reproduce and maintain itself. Sustainability must clearly include allowing the species time to breed and allowing the young to come to maturity and breed. How can it be sustainable to kill 15 immature males, nearly two-thirds of the male catch?

But worse follows: only 14 of the females were sexually mature - just over one in three, and all of the mature females, except for ONE, were pregnant. The Japanese have been "scientifically" slaughtering whales now for two decades. Is it possible that after that period of scientific enquiry and thousands of whales killed, they still cannot tell the difference between mature and immature whales, or more important, between mature and immature females, and most important and baffling of all, between pregnant and fallow females?

We have to find something more expressive than 'boggle' for the contortions the mind undergoes on apprehending these facts, provided by the Japanese themselves. The IWC forbids the killing of whale calves and their nursing mothers, except that this is how they kill whales in Bequia, St Vincent. But Bequia is allowed just two whales a year on the ground of 'aboriginal tradition' going back all of 148 years. The Japanese have been whaling for millennia, and began factory ship whaling relatively recently, to supplement diets deficient in protein after the debacle of the Second World War.

The Japanese are among the richest nations on earth, and no longer need whale meat. Some of what they catch goes for pet food, some is warehoused. The real reason for their intransigence on whaling is to finesse the possibility of restrictions on fishing. The Japanese and many European countries and the Canadians have already strip-mined the ocean, vacuuming it of several species including the Canadian cod. Now, some of these same nations send out pirate vessels to steal fish from the Atlantic fisheries of West African nations.

Recently Greenpeace has been helping these West African nations defend their local marine assets and have helped arrest European pirate ships and confiscated their cargo for the benefit of the plundered nations. Some of these same plundered nations want to terminate Greenpeace's 'Observer' status at the IWC, while neglecting to lobby on behalf of their own fisheries, which produce food their people actually eat. Instead, they are swinging along with Japan, advancing arguments which are eventually counter-productive to their own real interest.

In the Caribbean, it is clear that the people of the islands do not agree with their politicians and bureaucrats in supporting the legalisation of whaling. As I reported last week, in Miss Massiah's Antigua, 80 per cent of the people polled disagreed with their government and there were absolute majorities against whaling in St Kitts and St Lucia. Only in Grenada did whale-killing sentiments come close to prevailing with 40 per cent for and 39 per cent against legalisation.

Curiously, in St Kitts, the people we met were either against whaling or non-committal, saying they didn't know enough to express an opinion. In a highly literate, extremely rational population it was strange therefore that many people did not wish to be quoted and appeared to be afraid of something when I spoke to them. Perhaps it was my face that frightened them.

We will probably never know. But I wonder where St Kitts is going to find EC$15 million. Will CARICOM oblige? And if it does, will the like-minded nations regard that as an endorsement of the behaviour of their smaller brethren?

One of the Eastern Caribbean delegates told me that part of their problem was that the Marriott hotel had overcharged them for the conference facilities. I would have thought that such a modern, God-fearing company as the Marriott should find this particular whale a lot easier to swallow than the people of St Kitts or of CARICOM. Or perhaps Mr Sanford, Antigua's resident Texas millionaire, might oblige?

From Nomeneta Saili, Samoa

I do agree with Eunice Smith in that small island states don't have the luxury to focus on conservation issues such as whaling. If given the choice of schools, clean water and roads or conserving whales, which one would you choose? Whales as far as I know don't have a connection to our history or culture here in Samoa which makes the case for conserving whales even harder. I don't know if whaling was actually used as a negotiating tool between Pacific island states and Japan but what I do know is that Japan has provided a lot of aid for us here in small Pacific states and our governments in my opinion feel obligated to vote for them which is fine with me. It's not like we voted to kill people or anything like that. It is interesting to note though that it seems that Australia is more interested in saving whales than combating global warming and sea level rise with them not ratifying the Kyoto protocol which by the way Japan already has. When Japan restarted scientific whaling I remember watching Australia's Minister for Environment on ABC news giving a passionate speech about doing all they can to stop Japan's scientific whaling to save the whales. What went through my mind was that if only he was as passionate about saving Tuvalu which is sinking under rising sea level by at least ratifying the Kyoto protocol. If whaling was actually used as a negotiating tool to improve the lives of Pacific people then I have I don't have any serious problems with it. All in all I also do believe that we should conserve, preserve, protect our environment especially in cases where lives of people will be affected.

From Kevin Sander, Fiji

Why is Fiji not listed amongst the voting nations?

From: Sanjay Singh, Fiji

Gerald Crowson wrote "shameful that the beautiful island nations of the Pacific, which we all love so much, should sell their souls for the pathetic bribes of aid"

Although I do not supporting whaling, I feel that that this is a very unfair statement.

The lives of the people in our countries are often judged by what people see in tourist brochures or from the few weeks in a tourist resort. The reality for many people is very different.

Many small island nations rely very heavily on aid from Japan (and other countries) to better the lives of their people. This aid goes towards essential activities such as building hospitals in rural areas etc. The sudden withdrawal of this aid would have a crippling effect on many of the poorest people in our countries.

In light of the welfare of our people, the protection of whales means little to the smaller island countries. Governments can give attention to this as a society when they have more basic needs met.

Richer countries need to realise that small countries have other more pressing demands. They need to realise that the preservation of whales (and many other living things that are in danger of extinction) is their responsibility. Let's be honest, in many cases the problem was created by the initial exploitation by these same bigger countries.

You cannot fairly expect us to pay the price for your wrongs.

We will do our best to support your activities the best we can, but in the end, the lives of our people are more important.

From Eunice Smith

The political argument put forward by Arthur Webb of Fiji finds resonance with me although I have not taken a particular stand on whaling. Yes, we should protect and preserve our environments but at the same time, as human beings our primary motivation would be to protect and preserve human life. Once our basic and I daresay secondary needs are being met, then like developed countries, we have the luxury of being able to focus on meeting other needs that go beyond water, food, housing, health and education. But developed countries are not facilitating SIDS and other developing countries the opportunity to even get to that point where in our development process we can consider issues such as human security and environmental conservation and preservation. A recent article on the collapse on the Doha round of talks of the World Trade Organization (http://opinion.inq7.net/inq7viewpoints/columns/view_article.php?article_id=11543) pointed out how the developed and industrialized nations would have benefited at the expense of developing states had the proposed trade reforms been successful. According to the article a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development study predicted that losses to developing countries under Doha could range between $32 and $63 billion annually in government revenues. Whereas according to the World Bank (2005) developing countries would gain only $16 billion over 10 years of Doha. Faced with lopsided trading agreements which under-develop primary industries and services and decreasing government revenues and development assistance to meet the primary and secondary needs of their population, is it any wonder why SIDS do not have the luxury of focusing on conservation issues and use whaling as a negotiating tool?

From Arthur Webb, Fiji

I've lived in the South Pacific Islands for many years and I'll start by saying I also agree that a return to commercial whaling would be tragic beyond words. But I'm concerned that you seem to lay at least part of the blame here at the feet of those SIDS (small island developing state) who have sided with St Kitts.

I would urge you to step aside from the emotion of this issue - development aid to SIDS decreased significantly through the 90s (no doubt because the western world is [ironically] busy fighting an oil war) and some Asian countries have stepped up and partially filled that gap and kept greatly needed $$ moving into these countries. Now I know that this money has "strings" attached but let's not be so naive as to think aid from western nations wasn't similarly tainted - indeed if "developed" nations were really serious about whale conservation they would simply just buy the SIDS back (cynical I know but it's the truth). Otherwise, the fact remains that if we want SIDS to come on board with whale conservation, positive support of their very real environmental concerns and priorities would be the fastest and cleanest way to make it happen.

You must in view of your childhood understand that whale conservation (indeed many conservation issues) is the luxury of richer countries which can afford the time and expertise to indulge in them. Most importantly ask yourself why should poorer small island nations risk missing out on substantial aid and assistance $$ simply to earn favour with conservation priorities of some groups, in some developed nations when some of these same nations totally fail to support SIDS environmental priorities? Lets remember that in the South Pacific low, small island states are among the most vulnerable environments on the planet to accelerated climate and sea level change and whilst important first world nations fail to support the limitation of CO2 emissions how can we possibly ask SIDS to consider the conservation of a few charismatic species when their entire island, culture and way of life is at threat?

These people are neither ill-educated nor lacking in environmental conscience, they are sending the west a clear message - support us and we'll support you. An interesting example is the country of Kiribati one of the worlds least developed atoll nations (which also supported St Kitts and incidentally, they have a higher literacy rate than many developed nations). This country has just designated a vast area of their ocean territory and land resources in the central Pacific (Phoenix Islands) as a marine protected area. It is one of the most truly pristine and untouched corners of our equatorial marine biosphere, Kiribati undertook this magnificent, far sighted act without prompting from any of the regional powers and will undertake to manage the area with their own resources. All this from a nation with so little? How can it be that on one hand they can make an environmental commitment of global importance at their own cost (vast considering their scant resources) and yet will sign away whales with the other - how can this be?

Understand that for SIDS (in our region anyway) this issue is not about cheap meat, for many of these peoples whales still have spiritual / traditional significance which is as strong now as it was when industrialised nations were busy slaughtering whales by the thousands to make lamp oil, face paint and fashion items. This issue is sadly about survival and politics and be sure that our respective developed nations are playing the game just as hard and far more cynically than the SIDS - sadly for developed nation governments whale conservation is today's version of "baby kissing" and god help the whales if in their collective A.D.D. (attention deficit disorder's) they find a new type of baby to kiss any time soon.

I've written at length because I'm frightened you see the fault in this issue lying elsewhere than our own (developed nations) feet and I don't believe we can appeal to the conscience of the SIDS until we have clear conscience ourselves. I would further bring your attention to a study by Atkinson et al (2004) Nature 432. It would seem that for those whale species dependant on krill, the rapid decline in krill numbers since the mid 70s is likely a far greater threat than Japan. As Tim Flannery (2005) points out, the link between the Atkinson et al study and anthropogenic climate change is undeniable and in the longer term (as sea ice presumably continues to recede - as CO2 concentration increase) the ecological shifts it causes are likely to make our present whale conservation efforts meaningless anyway.