The Future of Commercial Whaling
The International Whaling Commission gathered in Santiago, Chile on Monday for their week long meeting to discuss the future of commercial whaling. Some member countries are strongly opposed to whale hunting (Australia is a leader in this camp). Other nations, such as Japan, strongly support commercial whaling. In 1986, the commission imposed a worldwide moratorium on all commercial whaling. One loophole was included: A 'small' number of whales could be killed for research purposes. Japan has used this loophole liberally, sponsoring government research groups that kill over 1000 whales a year, and then sell the meat commercially for a profit. Many other countries, such as Iceland, Norway, Russia, Canada and some Caribbean nations have objected to the ban and thus ignore it entirely. On the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic, the whale hunt is a celebrated yearly event in which everyone participates. Pilot whales are herded into the harbor and then slaughtered en masse. The killing is so great that the harbor water literally turns red. Japan remains technically compliant with the ban because the United States has threatened trading sanctions with Japan if they resume full-scale whaling. However, Japan threatens to leave the IWC if the moratorium is not lifted this year. In 2006 the IWC nearly voted to remove the moratorium entirely, and some fear that this could in fact happen in 2008.
|
|
Print
E-mail
Comments
The reason why whaling countries think the whaling moratorium should be removed is simple: the moratorium was put in place to protect a few threatened species (the most hunted species were never endangered) and in many areas these threatened species are not threatened anymore rendering the moratoriums purpose obsolete. These nations are fishing nations and have a history of taking good care of their stocks. It's not likely that they are going to hunt whale to extinction.
What they see is nations like Australia, that has no tradition of whaling, blabbering on about environmental issues when the only reasons left not to lift the ban are sentimental, not scientific.
I don't support whaling because I eat whale (vegetarian actually) but because I refuse to accept the cultural imperialism directed against these nations. What makes Australia and co. fit to dictate what food other nations eat? Since when were Australians morally superior?
This is the reason Japan want to leave the IWC and the reason I think they should. There is nothing more environmental about being anti-whaling than being anti-meat.
apart from all the points made below already:
1. australia used to hunt whale and did so for many years. many small towns along our coastline were due to whaling and fishing.
2. our objection to whaling is based on scientific evidence to preserve the endangered species of whale, of which many are still endangered. made worse by the fact that the japanese are whaling in our waters.
3. That first sentence of the last paragraph does not make english sense.
And some extra information not included in the article:
The company that was tasked with capturing the whales in Japan and selling the meat got a government loan to do so. They were unable to sell much of it and as a result were unable to pay off the debt to the government. They even tried to force it on the schools. So no, the japanese dont actually eat whale.
regards,
someone more educated than esteban.
1. Australia has a history of whaling, congratulations.
2. Up to a point, I presume you don't allow scientific hunting anymore so I wonder how you actually gather any scientific evidence? I don't deny the fact some species are endangered but the question of whether to hunt them has not been raised.
3. Sorry, it was written in a pre-morning coffee stupor. What I meant was the reasons the ban was put in place are not scientifically valid anymore.
regards,
someone apparently less educated than casswp
It's entirely possible that I'm confused - really, who wouldn't be when faced with the boggling logic presented by the obviously superior esteban - but perhaps you can clarify for me:
What is scientific hunting, and why is it the only way to get scientific data regarding whales? I've never heard of scientific hunting before. I was foolishly under the impression that marine biologists study marine animals.
Regardless of the validity of the ban, the issue is more along these lines: Why are Japanese whale hunters scouring Australian waters for their prey? Likewise, if the meat isn't even being eaten or bought in Japan, what's the point? Why condone or support an industry that is rightfully dying out?
This is, of course, ignoring the ethical consideration of murdering intelligent marine animals for no other purpose than to demonstrate that while they might very well have large, intimidating penises, we can still fuck up their shit. I think the pissing contest has extended far enough, personally, but I digress.
[quote=awesome]It's entirely possible that I'm confused - really, who wouldn't be when faced with the boggling logic presented by the obviously superior esteban - but perhaps you can clarify for me:[/quote]
Excuse me for presenting a different viewpoint. I had no idea you were so sensitive and had such a stellar command of sarcasm.
[quote=awesome]What is scientific hunting, and why is it the only way to get scientific data regarding whales? I've never heard of scientific hunting before. I was foolishly under the impression that marine biologists study marine animals.
[/quote]
I never said it was the only way but trying to observe marine animals that inhabit a gigantic area is not likely to get you very far. Is that a reasonable assumption? Scientific whaling provides the only hard data about the species, everything from diet, age, size of the stock to ecosystem health. If scientific hunting could not possibly yield any meaningful results, why was it allowed after 86? Precisely to provide aforementioned data.
[quote=awesome]Regardless of the validity of the ban, the issue is more along these lines: Why are Japanese whale hunters scouring Australian waters for their prey? Likewise, if the meat isn't even being eaten or bought in Japan, what's the point? Why condone or support an industry that is rightfully dying out?[/quote]
I would have no problem with any action Australia takes regarding their own waters. Their business. However, the Japanese have the right to decide for themselves what they eat or don't and if whaling doesn't make economic sense they will stop it eventually. And you don't need to condone or support it, just mind you own business.
[quote=awesome]This is, of course, ignoring the ethical consideration of murdering intelligent marine animals for no other purpose than to demonstrate ..[/quote]
The exact same ethical considerations apply to just about every other type of (well-endowed) meat, be it pork, lamb or beef. Do you see the same level of rabid zealotry when it comes to banning the consumption of those?
Even in Japan the demand for Whale meat has gone down. Australia is involved also because the Japanese hunt, illegally, in our territorial waters and we are against whaling. If our last government would have had the guts, they could have send the navy in to make official arrests.
esteban:
"I don't support whaling because I eat whale (vegetarian actually) but because I refuse to accept the cultural imperialism directed against these nations."
a) So you eat Whale?
b) So you eat vegetarian Whale?
Cultural imperialism?
Bull....!!
Go Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd Foundation.
May they harpoon many, many more Japanese whaling ships.
I think it's time for a little sensible Norwegian logic in a comment here...
The commercial whaling in question is affecting whaling populations that are not, I repeat -not-, endangered.
The myth that whales are more intelligent than other species we hunt and eat is also ridiculous; and yes I've read the reports of them playing with children, communicating and looking mournfully into peoples eyes. All feats replicable by the common pig. So unless you're also for the abolishion of commercial exploitation of pigs then pleasego into your thinking-chairs and take on your thinking-caps and answer me this:
On what grounds do you think that whaling should be illegal?
PS! Paul Watson can foadiaf; he's a menace to honest men working on the seas and if he died tomorrow the world'd be a safer place >:(
1) So what if the demand has gone down? Demand and supply economics are not an indicator of whether a practice is unjustified or unmoral.
2) Australia is well within her rights to restrict whaling in her territorial waters but Australia is trying to influence what other countries do in their own territorial waters. If that wasn't the case, Australia wouldn't be using the IWC as a platform to voice her anti-whaling stand.
3 ) I do not eat whale but I have no problem with other people doing so.
4 ) Whether or not you care to admit it, this is a case of cultural imperialism. If Saudi Arabia launched a diplomatic campaign against pork consumption would you consider them to be imposing their morals on others? I would.