Letter: Mythical mammals that deserve special treatment from mankind
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I have followed with interest your coverage of the proceedings of the International Whaling Commission, here in Glasgow. As I write, the government of France has asked for a decision on its proposal to designate most of the southern ocean as a whale sanctuary to be deferred until next year. Most of the major member states, except Japan and Norway, have spoken in strong support of the French proposal, but a decisive vote was uncertain because of the unclear position of the four Caribbean islands that appear to be siding with Japan ('Protesters trap Norwegian whaler', 1 July).
Your short piece 'Minke (whales) found in abundance' (1 July) may be misleading. The new rules, proposed unanimously by the scientists for the calculation of acceptably safe catch limits, are not designed merely to avoid the extinction of stocks; they are supposed to meet the IWC's declared objectives of allowing whale populations to recover or be maintained at high levels (at least 72 per cent of their original numbers), while allowing strictly limited catching from some of them.
Iceland left the IWC, and Norway has opted out of the new rules because they follow 'the precautionary principle' endorsed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio - that is, they would only allow catches in numbers smaller than the whalers want for adequate profit.
The Norwegian diplomat quoted yesterday ('Move designed to appease fishermen') is misinformed when he tries to represent whales as 'mythical', 'pretty' or 'intelligent' creatures on the one hand, and at the same time wants to continue the whaling tradition. Certainly many people consider whales to be 'special' in some way and deserving of special treatment among marine life - and both the law of the sea and the Rio report Agenda 21 make that clear distinction formally, in international law. But the root of the difference between governments is the utilisation of resources according to modern ecological and ethical concepts. The IWC is required under the 1946 treaty to act in the interest of future as well as present human generations.
Yours faithfully,
SIDNEY HOLT
Glasgow
1 July
The writer is scientific adviser to the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments