| Date posted 2009-06-24 |
 |
The USA Must Stand Up For the integrity of Aboriginal Whaling |
| We are calling on the United States and the member nations of the European Union to oppose Denmark's proposal on behalf of Greenland, to kill 10 humpback whales a year, under the banner of aboriginal subsistence whaling (AWS). |
|
Step 1: Please fill in your details (on the right) Step 2: Read the text and add your personalized message (please keep your language firm but polite) Step 3: Send! (and forward this link to friends, family, colleagues or anyone who you think will be concerned). |
| To: Philip H. Gordon, Assistant Secretary Of State For European Affairs |
|
President Barack Obama
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Comments: 202-456-1111 Switchboard: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461 president@whitehouse.gov CC: Mr Philip H. Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs The USA must stand up for humpbacks Dear President Obama, I write to you to bring your attention to the position of the US Government delegation to the International Whaling Commission’s 61st meeting in Portugal. We understand that during the meeting the outgoing USA delegation strongly and vocally supported the application by Denmark to add ten humpback whales to its Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) quota for Greenland. Despite these efforts by the US, many delegations remained unconvinced by the arguments made by Denmark as to the requirement for fulfilling the IWC’s definition of ‘need’. No whales should die in any ASW hunt unless there is a real and acceptable statement of need. Conservation and animal welfare NGOs do not oppose ASW proposals based on legitimate subsistence needs that have been fully considered by the IWC. The Danish proposal falls far short of the usual standards applied within IWC, indeed, far short of the requirements imposed upon US Inupiat citizens in Alaska. In particular: • that the needs arguments presented have been unconvincing, • that arguments are based on insufficient, contradictory and unvalidated data, • that the proposal would blur the distinctions between commercial and aboriginal subsistence whaling, • there is no agreed conversion factor for calculating the amount of edible products produced per whale, a key component in assigning quotas based on subsistence needs, and indeed the new figures submitted by Greenland suggest huge wastage of existing whale quotas. After last year’s vote rejecting the same proposal, the international community was expecting Denmark to come forward with a properly grounded proposal for an extension of its aboriginal subsistence-whaling quota. Instead, Denmark submitted the Greenland proposal at the last minute, depriving member states and the IWC technical committee to fairly evaluate it. Greenland’s hunt is the only ASW take that is based on a request per tonnage of whale meat, and the conservationists believe that Members of the IWC have no other option than to oppose the Danish request. The adoption of this humpback whaling would set a precedent opening a door for any arbitrary quota request to be approved, whether or not based on science and framed within the rules of the IWC. As noted above the IWC would be seen to apply different standards for different indigenous peoples, thus threatening the overall public acceptance of this whaling category, which would cause a detrimental fall-out effect for the Alaskan Inupiat bowhead whale hunt. President Obama, you pledged to make decisions based on sound science – yet the outgoing US delegation seemed poised to accept an arbitrary, last-minute proposal that has not been given full scientific scrutiny. The USA has now sponsored an intersessional meeting to be convened before Christmas 2009 to resolve this matter. We urge you to review the position of the USA before it reengages with this subject. Whilst we call upon the United States to ensure that the right to continue whaling for subsistence is allowed for certain indigenous communities (exempt from the ban on commercial whaling) we would urge you that the arguments for ‘cultural and nutritional’ needs are not hijacked for political and economic purposes. We look forward to your opposition to this damaging and wasteful proposal. Yours sincerely |
| Your addition to the letter |
| [Your Name and Address will be inserted here] |
|
|
Further information:
Read our reports
Sign up for our newsletter
Read our blogs
