As Iceland Starts Whaling Season, The Country Stands Divided On Economy Issues

As the whaling season takes to the seas around the coasts of Iceland this week, small mercies have been granted by the government making sure than numbers slaughtered this year will be down to 40 from the previous 100 for trade, for "commercial reasons."

It is something to certain wail about this week as we still ask, why is it so important to kill these beautiful creatures? Yet the whaling season will set to continue this week for Icelandic fishermen, yet there will be in place, one small "minke quota" - they will only be allowed to kill 40 instead of the usual 100 for commercial use. The county's government has put the order in place this year as they have stated that 40 will be more commercially viable than the original number of 100. The decision has come at the 11th hour as the agreement, it has been said, is actually weeks overdue. Fin whales, another needed target for the whaling ships, have not been given a quota for whaling this year. Naturally the decision has been met by angry criticism especially by environmental groups who say that the

"decision would damage the Icelandic economy which is already badly affected by the international debt crisis."

Speaking on behalf of the minke whaling association was the head of the organisation, Gunnar Bergmann Jonsson. He told BBC News,

"It all depends on the weather, but if the weather is good then we hunt tomorrow (Tuesday) morning..."

Yet the government are standing it's ground on the decision still stating that the decision was made purely on commercial grounds on the demanding market for whale meat within the country. This will be the third hunting season since the county opened their commercial hunts in 2006. Said the county's whaling commissioner Stefan Asmundsson,

"We issued... a minke quota which limits the catch to 40 animals, and that's similar to the amount that was caught last year..."

Yet he also says that the decision will mean that demands from the market which were reflected in last years season will not cover the demand this year. He told BBC News that the meat caught from last years hunts has already been sold. The demand for 100 slaughtered whales needs to be met this year to keep up with these demands in the market. He said,

"We caught 45 whales last year and sold it all, so if we can sell all the meat from 40 animals this time I believe we can get more quota, but we'll see how it goes."

Yet according to the rest the subject of whaling in the county goes totally against the idealistic images we have of a country which is supposed to be famous for it's "greener" way of living. Although the figures for whaling in Iceland are still no where near those figures caught each year by Japan and Norway, we are still, shocked, that the portrayal of the country which has taught the rest of the world so much about how we should live, is tarnished with shame, almost, over the barbaric "sport" commercial or otherwise, of whaling. Speaking to BBC News was Robbie Marsland for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, he said,

"We strongly urge the Icelandic government to rethink this decision. The resumption of commercial whaling could prove to be extremely damaging to the already fragile Icelandic economy and its international reputation."

As the law stands on the subject of whaling in Iceland, the "legalities" are as follows as stated in the BBC report... "THE LEGALITIES OF WHALING

Objection - A country formally objects to the IWC moratorium, declaring itself exempt. Example: Norway

Scientific - A nation issues unilateral 'scientific permits'; any IWC member can do this. Example: Japan

Aboriginal - IWC grants permits to indigenous groups for subsistence food. Example: Alaskan Inupiat...." As the "eco- friendly" country we know as Iceland struggles to meet borrowing needs on the platform of the world's economy, we wonder if the need for whaling is simply to keep the country afloat, yet when a national is surviving on giant loans from three banks, we have to ask the question, where does the pull for a greener and more animal friendly environment start and the desperate need for food on the table stop...? As Mr. Asmundsson said,

"There can be no question that this is a sustainable activity..."