Anti Whaling Research Paper

Japanese fisherman have been hunting whales for over 1,000 years (facts about Japan). In that time, the cultures have learn to revere the animals as sustenance and a form of commerce. From the worlds view, whales should not be hunted, although I'm not sure that the fate of those who depend on this industry to survive has been taken into account. If the species are not endangered and are a form of sustenance to the Norwegian and Japanese fisherman then an amendment to the moratorium on whaling should be made for these cultures. As a factor, there should be strict regulations made that allow only for those who are able to demonstrate a long lineage of whale hunting in addition to being able to prove that it is how they feed themselves and their family. The meat and whale products should not be exported and an area of sea should be mapped to describe the fishing grounds in which their boats can operate. I believe that if these restrictions were to be made and the population of the species of whales being hunted could be accurately determined, then a middle ground could be reached and that both sides of the argument could be

The debate surrounding Makah whaling is a heated one to say the least. There are valid points on both sides of the argument, but there is one side I find to be more valid once the facts have been looked at. I will examine and present my findings regarding past and current laws and regulations related to whaling, types of whaling, other countries that take an active part in whaling (and why), as well as the Makah culture – both past and present. In this paper I will argue why the Makah should not be allowed to resume whaling, as it is unnecessary and could potentially put the grey whale species back on the endangered list.

The parties involved in this matter are the members of the tribe, both for and against the decision, the whales, the environmentalists, the courts that will settle the lawsuits and future generations that might be affected by any decision in regards to the impact on the whales sustainability. The decision at stake here is whether it is moral to revoke the ban and recent tradition,

A committee from an organization such as the WTO may be a good starting point for deciding who should participate in the negotiations for promoting the whale ban. Because an issue this complex and involved needs to have negotiations on who will be participating in the negotiations. The villagers are much more limited on the resources they have for such negotiations. It is fortunate that the nations of Norway and Japan appear to be aligned with the villagers so that additional resources are there to promote the values of that culture. And since the impact of the whaling ban is so large on these local cultures, the negotiating parameters should be weighted to their side in some manner to prevent a large number of people with little to lose out-weighing the small number of people who have everything to lose. But keep in mind, these weights cannot be determined without accurate (unbiased) and timely data on the impact to the environment and the

Did you know that in the last 50 years over two million whales have been killed? The United States views whaling very differently than Japan does. It is a complicated and controversial topic. Many people have opinions about whale hunting. However, everyone should know both sides of the whale hunting issues before they act on the issue. To start out I am going to tell you a little about whaling. The first whale hunters were in the prehistoric times. At first they would just kill and eat beached whales. That became such a habit that they started hunting them. Most whale hunters use harpoons, guns, lances, or bombs that blow up inside the whale. They use catcher boats, or kayaks. In 1925, whalers developed

In my opinion, by doing this it would balance both whale hunting and whale watching and I do not feel people then would have any problem because they know that whale hunting cannot completely stop as so many people would lose their jobs but this would at least make it better for people who like whale watching. By limiting the amount of whale hunting, owners of fin whaling company like Kristjan Loftsson might lose some profit on the year but at least no one will be against them if they do not over hunt the whales. As Kristjan Loftsson believes “the world has wrongly turned against him”, just shows that he does think of other people’s opinions on whale hunting and if they set a quota to a reasonable number then people won’t have a problem and he would not think that the world is against him as he thinks now. People all around the world will not question the owners and they will still enjoy watching the whales for wild

What has become of our world? Look at the murder and violence in our streets and the brutal sport of death bluntly referred to as ‘Whaling’. I’m sure you’re all fairly familiar with the Japanese whaling vessels and those activists calling for legal action against those savages. But, that isn’t what concerns me today. What concerns me, is the ordinary citizens who are currently unaware of this assault of whales by their voracious Norwegian enemies. The Norwegian whale quota for this current year is 880 whales. 880 mighty masses flailing around hopelessly with a javelin fixed in their side. Let’s imagine for a second that our roles were reversed. That we were one of these 880 whales being dragged away from our home, our

They feel that the IWC has become a conservation organization, where it was originally meant to be a regulatory agency for whaling (Schweder 2001). There have been accusations of the commission being purposely “uncertain” of the status of whales to keep the moratorium in effect, when in reality we know enough to open a sustainable fishery (Schweder 2001). There have been studies on both fin and minke whales indicating that a fishery would be sustainable. Fin whales populations off Iceland appear to be increasing at 4% per year, and minke populations off both Iceland and Norway appear to be stable, though it should be noted that the IWC indicates that fin whale populations in the northeast Atlantic haven’t been thoroughly assessed (Borchers et al. 2009, Vikingsson et al. 2009). The Marine Research Institute of Iceland has calculated that up to 150 fin whales and 400 minke whales can be sustainably harvested per year (Icelandic Fisheries 2014). Because fin whale populations are stable around Iceland, the government does not consider their IUCN listing as “endangered” relevant to their hunting status. A 1998 modeling study on minke whales in Norway showed potential population growth from 63,033 in 1995 to 70,733 in 2010 if 600 whales were taken every year (Bjorndal and Conrad 1998). Though Norway has increased their quota to 1,286, the number of minkes killed in a given year has not exceeded 600 individuals (IWC 2014). These potential harvest numbers are considered conservative, since the sighting methods used to estimate abundance were also conservative in nature. Neither Iceland nor Norway has exceeded their self imposed annual quotas since the quotas’ inception (IWC

I do not agree with Japan and Norway since all global agreements should be followed. Allowing these nations to continue whaling despite all other countries complying may lead to a dangerous precedent where many nations living with endangered species like Lions and elephants will also follow suit and demand exemption

Since 1966, commercial hunting of whales has been prohibited by the International Whaling Commission (iwc.int). However, some countries still hunt them, such as Japan, Norway and Iceland, for instance, killing of these mammals is permitted for scientific research and a few more are killed by Japanese in the Southern Ocean for blubber and their meat.

U.S. policies are hypocritical because of allowing such groups as Alaskan natives to hunt whales.

Do you agree with the Norwegian and Japanese position on permitting the hunting of non-endangered species of whales as a cultural exemption?

Commercial whaling is a serious world issue that has always been difficult for those who are in support and those who are against it. Each group defends their side with convincing arguments. Morally, whaling is wrong, but do the reasons for whaling outweigh the reasons to cease the primitive hunts? By studying the effects of whaling,realizing how culture has changed over time, and taking note of the money that would be saved, it can clearly be seen that there is no longer a current need for whaling to continue. Efforts have been made to try to stop whaling, but with no help from any authoritative figure,nothing has been done to regulate the whaling. The famous sea shepherd, known for its strikes against whaling, can even be seen on

Japan is one of the few countries that support the practice whaling. For decades, the country has continued to maintain its right to whale and shown aggressively lobbying with the International Whaling Commission (IWC) for reconsideration of commercial whaling. Commercial whaling is a practice that involves the hunting and killing whales for their oil meat, or whalebone. With their pro-stance on whaling, Japan has faced strong international criticism especially from environmentalists and Western governments, which view Japan as obstructing international efforts to protect these mammals. This paper will argue that Japan should not be forced to remove the practice of commercial whaling in order to satisfy the international views. This is because

Whaling has become a global environmental issue as vast numbers of whales are killed commercially and scientifically every year. Intense debate on the necessity of whaling has been stirred but failed to be resolved due to the lacking of pragmatic measures employed by the responsible parties. Whaling nations continue to defend their whaling right for cultural and research purposes. Yet, ethical and humanity issues are among the controversial disputes raised by concerned public. In February 2010, International Whaling Commission (IWC) proposed a plan of lifting whaling ban by limiting scientific whaling activities with the intention of reducing overall number of whales killed besides solving the current impasse between pro