by Jennifer Mishler
Categories: Animals, People
Tags: , .

Hayden Panettiere has voiced her support for President Obama’s stance on Iceland’s whaling.

In 2006, Iceland resumed its whaling operations despite a moratorium on commercial whaling established by the International Whaling Commission in 1986. While many have criticized Obama for backing down on his campaign promises to protect whales and supporting efforts to lift the ban on commercial whaling, the president is now condemning Iceland’s disregard for the moratorium. According to the Associated Press, Obama’s administration “will cite Iceland under a domestic law that allows the president to act against foreign nationals or countries who flout international animal conservation rules.” The United States has now threatened political and trade sanctions against Iceland.

Hayden Panettiere, a vegetarian and spokesperson for The Whaleman Foundation‘s Save The Whales Again campaign, has said “We commend President Obama and his administration for taking this strong action against Iceland and its barbaric whaling industry…and we urge the President to take similar action against Japan and Norway as well!” Japan and Norway continue to whale, with Japan claiming that their hunt is for research purposes, however the Obama administration has said they are especially concerned with Iceland’s hunt of endangered fin whales and exporting of whale meat to pro-whaling countries.

Hayden has also gone to Japan in defense of dolphins. She was featured in the documentary The Cove, which brought light to the annual dolphin slaughter in Taiji. In 2007, she joined activists from Surfers for Cetaceans in a peaceful protest in the waters of the cove, before they were chased out by the dolphin hunters in boats. On her decision to stand up for whales and dolphins, the actress has said “because I am in the public eye I feel the need to be a voice of worthy and important causes whose efforts impact the lives of every person on Earth. These animals are being brutally and unnecessarily slaughtered – and who are we to say to they have less of a right to exist than we do.”

 

 

About Jennifer Mishler

Jennifer Mishler is a writer, and a vegan and animal activist. When she's not writing, you can often find her volunteering or advocating for animal, environmental and human rights causes. Along with writing for Ecorazzi, she has contributed writing for nonprofits like Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, and enjoys blogging. She resides in the Washington, DC area (and loves all the vegan food it has to offer). Follow Jennifer on Twitter: @jennygonevegan.

View all posts by Jennifer Mishler →
  • AnimuX

    The United States Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke, has formally certified that Iceland is guilty of subverting international conservation efforts under the Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen’s Protective Act!

    The United States has national laws that allow for unilateral action against other nations that diminish the effectiveness of international conservation efforts regarding whales.

    The Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman’s Protective Act was enacted in 1971 to conserve Atlantic salmon. The Pelly Amendment grants the President discretion to prohibit the importation of fish or fish products originating in a country that is diminishing the effectiveness of an international fishery conservation program. The Packwood-Magnuson Amendment of 1979, an amendment to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA), allows the President to impose trade sanctions pursuant to the Pelly Amendment if a country is diminishing the effectiveness of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

    WDCS and other conservation organizations are seeking trade sanctions against Iceland under U.S. domestic law because of Iceland’s ongoing destruction of endangered Fin whales.

    YOU CAN HELP!

    Write to President Obama!

    Ask the U.S. President to enact sanctions against Icelandic marine products (under the 1971 Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman’s Protective Act and 1979 Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act) until the commercial slaughter of whales, especially endangered species, is stopped!

    http://www.internationalwhaleprotection.org/campaigns/iceland/

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jamie-McCroskey/100001196054130 Jamie McCroskey

    Is Hayden still making calfskin handbags? Fin whales are not ‘endangered’ in Iceland, they are actually doing better than the minke whales there. I doubt he can use the Pelly since they aren’t killing whales in USA waters and Iceland isn’t part of CITES either. The USA needs to worry about their own whalers killing ‘endangered’ bowhead whales or maybe Canada killing ‘endangered’ narwhals and belugas unless he really wants to be a hypocrite about the whole thing like Paul Watson, the Canadian/American.

    More detail available here: http://www.highnorth.no/library/publications/iceland/wh-th-us.htm

    • AnimuX

      Concerning U.S. laws as defined by the government of the USA:

      The Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman’s Protective Act was enacted in 1971 to conserve Atlantic salmon. The Pelly Amendment grants the President discretion to prohibit the importation of fish or fish products originating in a country that is diminishing the effectiveness of an international fishery conservation program.

      The Packwood-Magnuson Amendment of 1979, an amendment to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA), allows the President to impose trade sanctions pursuant to the Pelly Amendment if a country is diminishing the effectiveness of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

      http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/gov_oceans/Protective.PDF

      So, domestic law clearly enables the President of the USA to enact sanctions against Icelandic marine products specifically because Iceland is undermining the International Whaling Commission.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Rideough/516534860 Dave Rideough

        Holy loophole, Batman! By that token, the Pelly Amendment lets the President impose trade sanctions against practically every member-state of the IWC.

      • AnimuX

        Once certified by the Secretary of commerce the President’s embargo powers could apply to Iceland, Norway, AND Japan.

        Ronald Reagan enacted sanctions against Japan in this manner in 1988:

        “Given the lack of any evidence that Japan is bringing its whaling activities into conformance with the recommendations of the IWC, I am directing the Secretary of State under the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to withhold 100 percent of the fishing privileges that would otherwise be available to Japan in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Japan has requested the opportunity to fish for 3,000 metric tons of sea snails and 5,000 metric tons of Pacific whiting. These requests will be denied. In addition, Japan will be barred from any future allocations of fishing privileges for any other species, including Pacific cod, until the Secretary of Commerce determines that the situation has been corrected.” – U.S. President Ronald Reagan

      • Rafn

        Iceland objected the ban on whaling in the IWC, and therefore is not bound by the ban according to international law.

        It is highly hypocritical of the USA to be imposing sanctions when the USA is actually guilty of whaling as well.

        Iceland is not whaling endangered whales and therefor, there is no logical explanation for those actions by the USA.

        I think the USA should concentrate more on domestic issues, rather than telling other nations what to do.

    • AnimuX

      Pro-whaling antagonists often insist that endangered fin whales are not actually endangered. However, the fact remains that the internationally recognized authority on this subject (the IUCN) has consistently evaluated fin whales to be an “endangered species”.

      According to the IUCN:

      “The analysis in this assessment estimates that the global population has declined by more than 70% over the last three generations (1929-2007)”

      Just look up fin whales at: http://www.iucnredlist.org

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Rideough/516534860 Dave Rideough

        “Pro-whaling antagonists”? Wow, talk about tortured language. Somebody needs a dictionary.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jamie-McCroskey/100001196054130 Jamie McCroskey

    The IUCN doesn’t have humpbacks listed as endangered either but the USA does. Some whales do better in some areas than others, fin happen to do better in the north than in the south. This is not a simple yes/no answer,

    An embargo on non-whale products seems to raise a number of other legal issues which quickly get confusing. In this scenario, “The technical law suggests a favourable response to Iceland, the U.S. embargo being illegal.” Of course the hesitation “to undermine the principles of CITES and impose the GATT rules” makes it interesting.

    “As a technical, formal legal issue, since Iceland is not a party to CITES, the GATT rules would apply between Iceland and the United States rather than CITES and any embargo against Iceland based upon CITES, or a “breach”of CITES, would be GATT-illegal. However, if a U.S. embargo were restricted to whale products from Iceland, in other words, the United States was adhering to its CITES obligation, it is highly unlikely that a WTO dispute settlement panel would decide that the U.S. embargo was GATT-inconsistent. If the U.S. embargo was against non-whale Icelandic products and imposed because of Icelandic whale exports to a third country, a WTO dispute settlement panel would be confronted with the difficult issue of the United States attempting to use its economic prowess to enforce CITES, a widely-accepted regime, against a non-member of CITES. While this scenario is similar to the tuna-dolphin cases, a key difference is the broad international acceptance of CITES. The sensitivity of the WTO to attack as being anti-environmentalist also plays a role. The technical law suggests a favourable response to Iceland, the U.S. embargo being illegal, however, a WTO dispute settlement panel would be very hesitant to undermine the principles of CITES and impose the GATT rules.”
    Can of worms….

    • AnimuX

      Pro-whalers often like to make their own personal assertions about what is regulated and what isn’t as well as factually incorrect statements about whether or not a species is endangered.

      Regardless, the fact remains that the fin whale is classified as a globally endangered species.

      Also, regardless of whether or not Iceland decides to “opt itself out” of CITES and other international conventions, the fact remains that several international conventions prohibit the killing of whales and the trade in products made of endangered species.

      Although this particular pro-whaler continues to make spurious legal claims about CITES, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce has specifically certified that Iceland is undermining the International Whaling Commission through its open defiance of the moratorium on commercial whaling. Of course, this certification, according to the domestic laws of the USA gives the U.S. President the power to enact sanctions against Iceland.

      From the U.S. Secretary of Commerce:

      http://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2011/07/20/us-commerce-secretary-gary-locke-certifies-icelands-whaling-undermine

      “Iceland’s disregard for the International Whaling Commission’s global moratorium on commercial whaling is unacceptable,” Locke said. “Iceland’s harvest of whales and export of fin whale meat threaten an endangered species and undermine worldwide efforts to protect whales. It’s critical that the Government of Iceland take immediate action to comply with the moratorium.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Rideough/516534860 Dave Rideough

        AnimuX likes to copy&paste talking points he gets elsewhere, which is why it constantly sounds like he’s talking over people’s heads.

      • pip

        He has posted virtually the same comment over and over, even when it has no relation to the topic. He also refuses to actually discuss the facts.

        I don’t quite know why the site allows him to continue, but I say let him keep doing it. By extension he makes all the SSCS cult members look like fools that can only parrot what they are told and cut & paste, although some of them actually have working brains and are willing and able to rationally discuss things.

        So Donald just helps drive people away from the cult of Watson before they get drawn in.

      • AnimuX

        It’s amusing when pro-whaling propagandists repeatedly publish the same exaggerations and false allegations regarding Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd and then complain about repetition in how others respond.

        It’s more amusing when pro-whalers see no way to proceed with their ongoing negative campaign other than to attack everyone else who does not agree with their intellectually devoid nonsense.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Rideough/516534860 Dave Rideough

    Iceland hunting endangered fin whales is the fault of misguided eco-crusaders like AnimuX and his idols Sea Shepherd. They attack countries even for hunting populous whales like minke. When self-professed conservationists don’t care what whales are being hunted, why should the whalers?

    • http://www.herwinsvegancafe.com herwin

      I guess the last question is a RETHORICAL question, right ?

      “misguided eco crusaders”, Cute. You picked that up from a batman movie ?

      • crumpets are yummy

        Dave Rideough you really need to get a life instead of spamming. Hows the bow and arrow hunting going?