Commercial Whaling Research Paper

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.

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 the 1800s the Northern Right Whales were killed mainly because their bodies have oily fat, which was used as a fuel at the time, they were also killed to make umbrellas, and whips (Endangered wildlife of the world). Other reasons for the Northern Right Whale being endangered is due to habitat pollution, Toxins, Climate and ecosystem change, Ruckus from whale-watching activities and noise from industrial activities. Also the death of the whales now is due to ship collisions and entanglement in fishing gear has limited the population’s recovery

Whale hunting is a very controversial issue. Some argue that it is morally wrong to hunt an animal with such a high level of intelligence, some argue that whales shouldn’t be hunting due to their dwindling numbers and their risk for extinction, and others argue that it is the only means of food for some indigenous people who have been hunting whales for centuries. I personally, am against commercial whaling, but do understand the IWC’s (International Whaling Commission) catch limits for aboriginal subsistence whaling.

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

According to Greenpeace, “up to 80% of [Japanese] respondents disagreed with whaling on the high seas. And 85% said they did not know endangered species were being hunted by Japanese ships in the Antarctic Ocean”(Ganderton, 2014). More than that, both Japan and Norway have significantly declining sales of whale meat. The impact of whaling on small fishing villages might impact my opinion on this issue, but I don’t think the impact is significant enough to warrant whaling, especially when, for example in Norway, the government has to subsidize the whaling industry because they can’t sell enough meat to

This does not apply, however, in case of the so-called moratorium on whaling for commercial purposes, contained in paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule not being lifted within a reasonable time after the completion of the RMS. Under no circumstances will whaling for commercial purposes be authorised without a sound scientific basis and an effective management and enforcement scheme”

Despite claiming the slaughter is needed to learn more about whales, Japan has not offered any new worthwhile information about whales, with the exception that they eat large quantities of krill (Zelko, 2013, p. A. 13) . Japan has been using this excuse, among many others, since 1986. In the decades Japan has used this excuse, it seems almost ridiculous that Japan has not learned anything new about the mammals’ breeding, migratory, or any other habits. When Australia took Japan to the International Court of Justice to challenge the validity of Japan’s scientific whaling industry, Australia’s agent to the court, Bill Campbell, stated, “Japan seeks to cloak its ongoing commercial whaling in the lab coat of science.” He later told journalists: “You don’t kill 935 whales a year to conduct scientific research. You don’t even need to kill one whale to conduct scientific research” (McCurry, 2013) .

The increase in the fishing industry could be due to any number of things such as the weather, the time of year, or even the lack of a whale’s presence. It does not suggest that the whales are consuming the fish or that they are depleting important fish populations. Also, it has been proven that commercial whaling does impact the whaling industries in pro whaling countries. If money is the end goal for some of these countries they could just adopt the whale watching industry rather than commercial whaling because in the end, due to conservation movements, it will probably be making more money. If Japan wants to continue whaling under scientific research pretenses, then I’m sure they can find more humane and less invasive ways to collect data such as studying beached or already dead whales rather than killing them, as well as taking samples from live whales using minimally invasive techniques. Furthermore, in countries such as Norway who commercially whale specifically for the meat for human consumption, well they should be required to put warning labels on whale meat detailing how the animal was killed as well as how much mercury the meat

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.

Brian Handwerk4 discusses the Southern Sanctuary which was established as a “compromise effort during this week's meeting.” The Southern Sanctuary was developed in 1994 and presumed, “that 19 million square miles (50 million square kilometers) of waters surrounding Antarctica—as a critical space safe from commercial whaling. Most of the world's whales feed in these waters.”4 People should care about whales because they are being hunted, which is illegal. The whales’ population is damage due to hunting. The people who eat sushi with whale meat in it. The people are a part of the problem because they are demanding an animal that is near extinction. The ecosystem is affected because whales are a part of it. Whales are a part of the ocean. In the ocean is revolving cycle, such as planktons being eating by fish, which are eaten by whales. In order for the ocean to function, a cycle has to happen, Jeremy Jackson5. A solution could be finding another meat to use to substitute whale meat, or having a numerous amount of customer that stop demanding sushi. By lower demand the Japanese will have no reason to kill the Minke whale because it is not a request.

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

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

One reason why whaling should be banned is the resources from whales are no longer needed in

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