English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2 answers

i could not find the date but it is illegal
Source: US Note To Iceland, May 1993, (copy in High North archives)
Author: Hans Jakob Helms

".... weigh the risks against the costs" (sic!)
U.S. Whaling Policy

The United States has always remained silent on whether it would agree to a lifting of the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling once all the required scientific assessments and management procedure are in place. The U.S. government has just finished reviewing its policy.

-- The United States has been working in good faith in the IWC in recent years to develop reliable scientific data and a revised management scheme which could serve as a basis for a decision on whether to lift the moratorium on commercial whaling.

-- Since that process is nearing completion and scientific analysis now shows that some populations of minke whales are likely to be able to sustain a limited harvest , it was time to review U.S. policy.

-- As evidenced by the unanimous vote in the House for a resolution to ban commercial whaling, there is presently no support in the U.S. Congress or among the American public for commercial whaling.

-- Therefore, the United States has decided not to support resumption of commercial whaling, whether pelagic or costal, and will abstain or vote against commercial quotas in the IWC.

-- We will continue to work within the IWC, however, to perfect the revised management scheme, and will recognize any decisions taken by the appropriate majority of commissioners.

-- In making this decision, the United States is not challenging the IWC's scientific assessments upon which a resumption of commercial whaling might be based.

-- We urge all whaling countries to remain in the IWC as the appropriate international forum to discuss all matters relating to the exploitation of whales.

-- If a country chooses to ignore the IWC conservation program and resumes commercial whaling without requisite IWC approval, that country's actions will be reviewed for certification under U.S. law and sanctions will be considered where appropriate.

-- The United States sees a distinct difference between commercial whaling and aboriginal subsistence whaling as presently regulated by the IWC. We will continue to support the latter where there is a demonstrated cultural and subsistence need.

-- We trust that even though it has left the IWC, Iceland will continue to abstain from commercial whaling.

-- We urge you, to approach this issue in the context of broader political and economic interests and to weigh the risks against the costs. It is a calculation only Iceland can make, but it is a calculation that must be made.

-- The key thing is to avoid precipitous actions that could isolate Iceland, trigger sanctions, undermine Iceland's international image, and set in train developments over which we both will have little control.

2006-10-06 12:51:15 · answer #1 · answered by steamroller98439 6 · 0 0

I'm not sure about the state of Hawaii, where there is actual ocean within the state boundaries.
But, in the continental U.S., whaling is simply impossible. No oceans, equals no whales.

I'm guessing PETA could tell you.
Or the Dept of Natural Resources.
Or the Coast Guard.

2006-10-06 12:34:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers