Illegal Commercial Whaling

Whaling is an old and inhumane practice that should be stopped. In fact the act of commercial whaling is illegal under international law. Japan still continues this practice today, despite orders to stop given to the Japanese government by the UN’s International Court of Justice in March of 2014 (WDC). Even before that ruling Japan has been asked by the international community to stop whaling, but they continued to do so through a loop hole in the International Whaling Commission or IWC. That hole about the size of a loop, says that whaling for scientific research is legal. The Japanese government should stop illegal practice of whaling because it is inhumane, these whales will go extinct if this continues, and we the international community have already asked for this to stop.

In the article “Save the Whales vs. Save the Makah” by Dr. William Bradford there is mush research and discussion about the legal and economic implications of whale conservation and Native American ignorance. The paper discusses many legal cases that were both supportive and harmful to the Makah people and what these actions did to their economy. For example the article mentioned a treaty in the 1800s that gave the Makah people the right to practice whaling because it was important to their life. However, when the Makah people saw that the whale numbers were decreasing they were the first to stop whaling, now that the whales numbers are increasing the Makah populations want to continue with their right the practice whaling but they are being met with legal and cultural road blocks (Bradford). All three of my articles addressed these issues and possible solutions that could allow for the Makah people to continue living in a way that is both economically sustainable and in harmony with their

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,

Did you know that roughly three million whales were slaughtered in the twentieth century alone? Or that there are only around four hundred North Atlantic right whales alive today because they never fully recovered from being hunted? These whales are known as “right” whales because they are large and slow, with thick blubber that yields lots of oil plus they remain afloat after they've been killed, this simplifies the whole hunting process for everyone . Furthermore, the hunters got more money for less work. I believe that whaling is a vile and pointless thing to do to such beautiful creatures and that the International Whaling Commission should look further into the use of whales for research.

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

Holding killer whales in captivity is a harmful problem to the mammal that requires action from both the government and the public.

Despite the name given to these intelligent animals, killer whales don 't seem to be killer... in the wild anyways. Yet, places like SeaWorld seem to have shown people unintentionally that keeping whales in captivity and such small areas leads them to be aggressive, and essentially living up to their name. SeaWorld is an attraction that has been in the United States for many years, and although it provides great entertainment for individuals and their families, it also is a place where whales are treated poorly and held in captivity. While people enjoy the tricks the intelligent mammals are commanded to do, they don 't realize the poor conditions that they have once the show is over. Between whale fighting, poor feeding, and small areas; it is clear that keeping whales in captivity provides is both physically and mentally harmful to these animals. Many debates and arguments revolve around keeping whales in captivity, but keeping them in such small areas seems to cause them to lash out and hurt others. However, after learning about whales both in captivity as well as the wild, the realization that they should not be captive is starting to become noted by animal activists, the media and even the public. As the recent controversy of the poor conditions of killer whales in captivity is becoming more publicly noticed, animals activists are working towards the rights of killer whales.

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

When the commercial whaling was prohibited in 1986, Australia has formed a major anti-whaling campaign, which is well known as the sea shepherd. Sea shepherd’s job was going out to the sea and use action to defend the whales from getting hunted by the Japanese. Australia’s anti-whaling action tells people around the world of the serious situation about whaling. Our action leads people to start paying attention to the consequences of not stop the whaling. In 2010 Australia has been initiated legal action to proceeding against the Japanese, intention to end the scientific whaling in the southern ocean.

Holding animals such as killer whales in captivity goes against their natural functions entirely. The facilities humans build provide unnatural living habitats that don’t cater to the enormous size of the animal. They also separate families, something unnatural to how a killer whale lives in the wild. These factors lead the animals to sometimes show aggression against their trainers. Once we question Sea World’s role, it leads to broader implications about the role of humans in the environment. Just because we have the power to hold animals such as these captive, should we? It is vital that the human race learns not to overstep our roles in the natural environment. Even though we have the power, it doesn’t mean we should always use it.

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

In 1946 the newly formed International Whaling Commission enacted a global moratorium on commercial whaling (Robbins). The IWC was formed in hopes of protecting whales and making sure that whales were spared. Without enforcement of the rules and restrictions for any nations, the problem has not gone away. Without whales the ecosystem begins to falter, the whale being one of the vital producers, and consumers of the ocean. There are countries that refused to agree to the terms of the moratorium, regardless of the damage such actions would cause. The moratorium permits whaling for scientific research, and that is the mask current whaling countries hide behind (Zelko). They argue that they are not violating any restrictions, because Article 8 of the 1946 moratorium states that whaling for scientific research is not part of the agreement (McCurry). During the 1970’s people began to care about the whales that were being killed faster than they could reproduce (Robbins). In 1986 whaling was officially banned, some nations ignored the ban, and still do. In 1993, meat DNA tested at a fish market in Japan showed that whale meat was clearly being sold, but there were no consequences. The ban made by the IWC is not

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