Expressing Sense of Congress that the United States Should End Commercial Whaling

EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD END COMMERCIAL WHALING -- (House of Representatives - June 18, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 350.

Next week the International Whaling Commission will host its annual meeting in Santiago, Chile, and representatives from 80 nations will come together to discuss the future of international whale conservation efforts. This presents a rare opportunity for our country to exercise real leadership in the fight to strengthen whale protection measures, preserving these rare creatures for future generations.

The meeting comes at a historic time in the debate over commercial whaling. International outrage is at an all time high while support for ending scientific whaling permits is also at its peak. In certain countries such as Japan, whaling is no longer even profitable and must be subsidized by the government.

For these reasons and many more, the IWC should seize this opportunity to close the loophole in the 1985 ban on commercial whaling that has allowed far too many countries to continue their commercial whaling programs which have been disguised as ``scientific'' whaling efforts. It's time for the world to abolish whaling practices altogether, and I'm hopeful that the IWC does not squander this opportunity to put an end to this brutal practice.

Phasing out all forms of commercial whaling is the only way to deal with this crisis. Those who suggest that fewer whales may be killed if a compromise is reached with pro-whaling nations to allow costal or community-based whaling could not be more ill-advised; this type of compromise would squander this historic opportunity we have to finally put an end to this brutal practice.

The fact remains that whaling is simply not sustainable in our world. Though some would have us believe that whale populations have recovered sufficiently to renew hunting, recent studies have shown increases in global populations over the last 20 years are only marginal. These small increases in no way signal that the populations have fully recovered, for in reality, past population estimates indicate that some species were once 6 to 20 times more populous than they are today. For example, scientists believe there were once 240,000 humpback whales in the North Atlantic; today only 10,000 remain.

Even if whales have recovered to their pre-industrial numbers, sustainable whaling would still be nearly impossible. Most people do not know that whale populations are local, and groups rarely mingle or interbreed. For instance, scientists believe that a distinct population of Minke whales off the coast of Japan is already on the verge of collapse. Allowing unfettered ``community'' whaling or any form of commercial shore-based whaling would quickly lead to the Minke's extinction in the Sea of Japan.

The United States must firmly oppose any form of commercial whaling; to allow even limited commercial whaling puts the entire species at risk. Multiple whales would be fraudulently sold under the same permit because short of genetic testing, there is no way to distinguish the meat of two different whales. This is already a problem in Korea and Japan, where it is common to market poached whales under the guise of an accidental kill, which is eligible for sale.

Some have also falsely claimed that this bill will harm the ability of Native Alaskans to continue subsistence whaling, when in reality no one is disputing the right of Alaskan natives to continue their way of life. In fact, the bill protects Native Alaskans' way of life by defending their food source from overexploitation and extirpation. Additionally, if coastal whaling is allowed, Natives would be forced to compete for permits with commercial operations, and the resulting difficulties would do more to endanger their culture and way of life than this bill ever could.

Ending whaling does not merely promote humane treatment of animals, nor is it solely about conserving natural resources. It is also an issue of global health. With high concentrations of mercury and other toxins in their blubber, whales make an unhealthy meal with vast public health risks. Mercury has been found in concentrations that are hundreds of times higher than the acceptable levels. Japan has already ceased including whale meat in school lunches and warns pregnant women about the hazards of eating whale.

Congress's positions must reflect the views and values of our country. We do not see whales as a source of food or a resource to be managed; we view them with respect and awe rather than with hunger. Their strength, intelligence, and beauty are far more valuable than their blubber. In an age where warming seas and pollution already threaten their existence, we should not contribute to their decline by hunting them with exploding harpoons.

The world looks to the United States for leadership and we must rise to this occasion and meet our responsibilities. By opposing any new forms of whaling and working to end so called ``scientific whaling,'' we can protect an integral part of the ocean's ecosystem. I urge my colleagues to live up to this responsibility by supporting H. Con. Res. 350.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source