Agenda 21 sinks Norwegian Whaling Boat

[Annces]

We came to Henningsvaer. We saw the Skarbakk. We sank the bastard." This was the message left by the anonymous activists who scuttled the Norwegian whaling ship the Skarbakk last month.

On April 23 a group identifying themselves only as Agenda 21 — named after the UN programme for sustainable development that was often talked about in the 90s but seems to have been completely forgotten about today — crept on to the boat, anchored in Henningsvaer harbour, and used an adjustable spanner to open the salt water intake and flood the engine room.

Before the ship hit bottom fire crews had got to it. However, the ship had already filled with sea water, so damage was extensive and will certainly be expensive. And this is not the first time it's happened.

The action is the latest fulfilment of a longstanding promise that dates back to 1992 (when the UN agreed Agenda 21) by the head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Captain Paul Watson. One of the original founders of Greenpeace in the 70s, Watson warned whalers that if they did not comply with international conservation law, his organisation would sink their boats. He went ahead and did it too, sinking the Nybraena in 1992 and the Senet in 1994.

The group calling itself Agenda 21 took over after that. Watson denies all knowledge of this latest incident, but heartily congratulates them on their deeds. The Skarbakk is the fourth ship they've sunk in 12 years. Norwegian whalers pay huge insurance premiums as a result of their campaign, but it hasn't had much impact on whaling. The amount of whales caught by Norway has risen from 280 in 1994 to 592 in 2007.

Is this particularly ferocious aspect of the anti-whale campaign justified? Norwegian whalers, after all, are not killing endangered species. They hunt the Atlantic minke whale, which has a population of about 103,000. And they are not subject to the international moratorium on commercial whale hunting (in place since 1985-6) because they have lodged an official complaint about it.

Norway's exemption from the moratorium, however, is controversial, and just one example of the problems facing any kind of international law. After all, if I objected to a law in the UK I wouldn't be exempt from it.

But the reason that international whale conservation work continues is not just because whales are endangered. There is also profound concern about the methods used to kill these vast, intelligent creatures, shown in some studies to have similar intelligence levels to dolphins.

Harpoon killing is the technique most widely practised, but it is a cruel method of killing, involving shooting a harpoon that detonates inside the whale's body. Death in this way can take anywhere between a minute and an hour, or even longer. Even David Attenborough, who often prefers to stay out of these discussions, has added his voice to the debate, asking whether whale hunting "should still be tolerated by a civilised society." What do you think?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/may/06/whale-conservation

[tularetom]

1. Hope they don't get caught

First because they did the right thing.

Second, because they might be arrested and put on a diet of lutefisk which is more than cruel.

[Nihil]

2. .

:-):toast: :party: :applause: :woohoo: