In a media statement, he said that "the Icelandic government has bloodied not only its pristine waters but its international reputation."
The conservation group says that whale-watch tourism has more economic benefit to Iceland than does the sale of whale meat.
Kieran Mulvaney, a whaling consultant to Greenpeace in Washington, D.C., agrees. He says the group is disappointed at Iceland's decision and concerned about the rationale for the hunt.
"On the face of it, it doesn't make any sense," he said. There is little market for whale meat in Iceland, he adds, and Japan, the biggest consumer of whale meat, already has a stockpile in cold storage.
The rationale behind the hunt appears to be a misguided approach to fisheries management, Mulvaney says.
"This is part of a global movement toward blaming whales for fish stock declines and managing or culling them to protect fish stocks," he said.
Ending the Ban?
Citing concerns over their fisheries, pro-whaling nations led by Japan have been pushing for some time to overturn the 20-year ban on commercial whaling.
At a June meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) on the Caribbean Island of St. Kitts, member nations voted 33 to 32 in favor of lifting the ban. That was short of the 75 percent needed for approval. (Related story: "Majority Votes to Legalize Whaling" [June 19, 2006].)
Mark Simmonds, director of science at the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society based in Wiltshire, England, told New Scientist magazine that Iceland's resumed commercial whale hunt could add pressure to end the moratorium.
Greepeace's Mulvaney, however, says such a plan may backfire.
"This alone is not going to lead IWC to overturn the moratorium," he said. "If anything, it may actually stiffen the resolve of non-whaling countries."
Free Email News Updates
Best Online Newsletter, 2006 Codie Awards
Sign up for our Inside National Geographic newsletter. Every two weeks we'll send you our top stories and pictures (see sample).
|
SOURCES AND RELATED WEB SITES
|
