동물 북극 곰 의 수가 줄어드는 건 사냥 때문 (배후가 그린피스)

[함창우]

=================

Greenpeace Accuses Me of Lying About Their Support for Polar Bear Hunting

Commentary by Captain Paul Watson

On May 5th, I accused Greenpeace of supporting the trophy hunting of Polar bears.

Greenpeace has responded by accusing me of lying and stating that they don’t support trophy hunting.

But what Greenpeace is doing is defining what they view trophy hunting to be. It’s like Canada redefining what a baby seal is by stating that once the seal reaches four weeks of age,it is no longer a baby seal.

Greenpeace is saying they support the indigenous (Inuit) hunting of some 600-700 Polar bears every year but that they don’t support trophy hunting.

However half of the bears that are killed are not actually shot by an Inuit hunter or used by Inuit people.

In fact a full half of the bears that are killed are either shot directly by non-Inuit hunters or the “products” i.e. bear parts are sold to non-Inuit people.

A Polar bear hunting trip may cost between $40,000 and $75,000 dollars. This is big money.

If Greenpeace were honest they would say, yes we support the killing of bears by the Inuit including the bears that the Inuit serve as guides to kill, and the selling of bear pelts commercially to the non-Inuit markets.

The problem for Greenpeace is they are trying to convince the Inuit that they support Polar Bear hunting (including the commercial market for trophy hunters) and trying to convince supporters in the rest of the world that they oppose trophy hunting.

The facts are clear however. Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund both opposed measures by the United States and Russia to list the Polar Bear in Appendix I of the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES).

The following is a text from an article by Bob Weber, The Canadian Press: “Inuit, Scientists Say Defeat on Polar Bear Trade Ban Not Final (7 Mar. 2013)

“The U.S. and Russia, with the support of groups such as Humane Society International, the Natural Resources Defence Council and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, had argued that allowing Canada to continue trading in the bears was contributing to more hunting at a time when their sea ice habitat is shrinking because of climate change. The Russians added that the Canadian trade makes it easier for poachers in Russia by allowing them to disguise their kills as legal bears from Canada.

But Canada -- along with Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, influential scientific bodies and other NGOs -- said the Canadian hunt is sustainable and that the real threat to the bears is from climate change, not trade.”
Right there Greenpeace states that the hunt is sustainable and this has been echoed in many other publications including:

MacLeans – The Canadian Weekly Newsmagazine:

http://www.macleans.ca/…/u-s-stops-trying-to-ban-trade-in-…/

And from: Canadian Manufacturing Magazine

http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/…/u-s-stops-trying-ba…/

And reported on CTV and CBC TV and Radio.

The media reports are clear that Greenpeace along with WWF view Polar bear hunting as sustainable.

This is not a new position for Greenpeace by any means. Wildlife Extra reported in 2007: Melanie Duchin, from Greenpeace, says Greenpeace is not against the hunting of polar bears. ‘If the species of certain populations against the backdrop of global warming can sustain a commercial hunt, than we're not going to oppose it,’

Link: http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/seashepherd-polar.html…

On May 5th, I did the following interview with Radio New Zealand where I stated that Greenpeace blocked the proposal to ban Polar bear parts and that they support hunting of bears both for indigenous hunts and for trophy hunting. Link to my interview.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/…/greenpeace-criticised-for-endors…

Greenpeace countered with an interview on Radio New Zealand rejecting my accusation but when anyone listens to the Greenpeace interview they can hear Russel Norman skirting the real question at every opportunity. Link to the Greenpeace interview.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/…/greenpeace-defends-against-criti…

Norman never really answers my accusation. He simply keeps deflecting, blaming climate change and the oil companies but not answering the one thing I was being critical of.

The question I would like Greenpeace to answer and which they refuse to answer is this: Does Greenpeace support Inuit hunters guiding non-Inuit trophy hunters to kill Polar Bears?

Greenpeace has already confirmed that they hold the position that polar bear hunting is sustainable. They hold the position that Inuit hunting is supported by Greenpeace. They are not denying this, although they do try and keep their position as vague as possible.

What they refuse to address is the question of supporting Inuit guides that make money from guiding trophy hunters or the selling of polar bear parts to the international commercial market.

This is a link to the position Greenpeace holds found on the FB page for Greenpeace France.

https://www.facebook.com/greenpeacefrance/posts/10151483847822458

This is the translation. My comments in brackets.

Greenpeace: Hello,

Concerning the refusal of states to include the polar bear in Appendix 1 of CITES and the position of Greenpeace on this issue, we received questions, comments. We wish to clarify certain points.

First, this question has long been debated by Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Canada.

The proposal to list the polar bear in Appendix 1 of CITES was carried by the US and Russian governments. i.e. those States that refuse to act against climate change and or reinforce the protection of the Arctic Circle.

Captain Paul Watson: (They deflect the good intentions of the USA and Russia to list the Polar bear by attacking them on Climate Change as the reason to not support the listing.)

Greenpeace: But the real threat today on the North Pole is that of climate change. The sea ice could completely disappear in summer in 15 to 20 years and in doing so destroy the habitat and source of survival of polar bears.

Captain Paul Watson: (No one argues that Climate Change is a threat. The proposal was to stop the trade in Polar bear parts. Again Greenpeace deflects the proposal)

Greenpeace: It is inconsistent to bring such a proposal to CITES and refuse to address the fundamental problem of the north pole and the polar bear. If one was cynical one might believe political greenwashing.

Captain Paul Watson: (CITES was not the place to address Climate Change. This proposal was about the trade in endangered species. It is called the Convention on the International TRADE in Endangered species. This was not a climate change conference)

Greenpeace: Furthermore, it is estimated that between 600 and 800 bears are killed each year and only half are used as livelihoods of indigenous peoples. The other half is actually sold internationally by those people who claim that hunting as an essential means of survival. Beyond the disagreement we can feel on this practice, it is difficult to go to lecture peoples who hunt bears for millennia when it is our industrial culture in our country that is responsible for the first the loss of habitat and biodiversity.

Captain Paul Watson: (Here they are stating that they do support the guiding by Inuit hunters of trophy hunters by stating that this trade is an essential means of survival. There is certainly no tradition of guiding trophy hunters or selling animal parts to non-Inuit communities by the Inuit. This position can be used to justify the bush meat trade or Africans guiding trophy hunters to kill elephants and rhinos.)

Greenpeace: We must combat the main cause of the disappearance of polar bears, we strive to find solutions on a global level. We want a decision of responsibility to live up to the challenge.

Captain Paul Watson: (It is great to combat the main causes but we should also be addressing secondary causes and the killing of some 700 Polar bears a year with half going to supply trophies and body parts to non-Inuit people is a serious cause for diminishment.)

The Sea Shepherd position on Polar Bear hunting is very clear. Sea Shepherd does not support the killing of Polar bears by any person for any reason. The Polar bears are facing formidable obstacles with loss of ice, diminishment of food and pollution and they are facing the threat of being killed by rifles. Traditional Inuit hunting did not include snow-mobiles, high powered rifles nor did it include guiding trophy hunters. Inuit people participate in modern society and use modern technology. Using modern weaponry and participating in modern economic transactions is not traditional nor is it in any way part of Inuit culture.

Sea Shepherd France was part of a coalition of 13 NGO’s to convince France to support the Polar bear listing with CITES. France did not support the listing citing the support of Greenpeace and WWF as evidence of disagreement on the part of environmental NGO’s

And for that we are justified in being angry at Greenpeace for blocking this listing along with WWF.

Greenpeace and WWF both use the Polar bear as a symbol of their campaign against climate change but it appears that in the interest of political correctness, that symbol is expendable.

Greenpeace will continue to deny that they support trophy hunting and they will continue to accuse me of lying about this but the facts are clear and I have stated the sources and Greenpeace has not answered the direct question. Does Greenpeace support Inuit Guides taking non-Inuit hunters out to kill Polar bears and does Greenpeace support the sale of Polar bear parts on the International commercial market?

If Greenpeace states that they absolutely do not support Inuit guides taking non-Inuit hunters out and that they absolutely oppose the selling of Polar bear parts to non-Inuit people I will apologize to them.

And if they do make this clear I will ask them why they opposed the listing of the Polar bear in CITES Appendix I because the only reason they would oppose it is because they support the hunting of the Polar bear which they have publicly expressed as a “sustainable hunt.”

Picture ‪#‎1Trophies‬ for commercial sale

Picture #2: Inuit Sport outfitter Damien Qaunaq of Maniituk Outfitting, with a tourist and the polar bear they killed.

Following pictures: White hunters guided by Inuit Guides. Greenpeace will not admit that they support trophy hunting yet they state they support “sustainable” hunting the these bears were killed in accordance with regulations that defined them as sustainable and this was the proposal to list the Polar bear as sustainable that Greenpeace and WWF blocked.

http://cafe.daum.net/yoonsangwon

[레프트사이드]

대박 귀중한 정보 감사합니다..! 근데 한글 요약 좀 해주시지..

[독수리]

그린피스의 정체~ 글번호 382번 참조하세요.^^

[리얼 해피니스]

불쌍한 북극곰.ㅜㅜ
그린피스는 망해라!!!

[지오]

북극 곰이 사라지는군요`~