More than 4,000 years ago, Japan was one of the first countries to start whaling, Norway was

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

The Cove, directed by Louie Psihoyos, is an award winning documentary that spotlights how the Japanese hunt and kill dolphins by the tens of thousands and how a group of people try to stop and expose this to the world. The chapter about the International Whaling Commission (IWC) brings forward a few key points that need to be discussed. The IWC is a group of nations that come together and make decisions based on how they can preserve cetaceans. The smaller cetaceans, like dolphins, are not protected under the bigger umbrella. In order to bypass the rules of the IWC, a loophole is used; a nation can claim that they are killing and collecting whales for research and the IWC will not stop them. The Japanese are trying to legalize whaling worldwide.

Are times changing? Records dating back to the 1931-1932 whale-hunting season (ten years before the International Whaling Commission was put in place to protect and stop whaling), 28,325 blue whales were slaughtered. In 1946, the Whaling Commission was formed; however, even with protection, thirty years later (1963-1964) over 29,255 sperms kills were hunted for their meat and other products. Today, even with protection, it is estimated that only 5-10% of the original whale population remains (Carwardine, Hoyt, Fordyce, & Gill, 1998).

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

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

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

Japanese whaling practices have more in common with aboriginal subsistence whaling than the strict definitions of commercial whaling

Whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary (SOWS) is an ongoing issue despite laws and regulations prohibiting commercial hunting in these waters. Whaling fleets from Japan use scientific research to justify continued whaling in the Southern Ocean. Weak enforcement of the regulations set up in the SOWS has allowed countries, most notably Japan, to continue their hunts with little interference. If whaling continues in the SOWS, it may lead to irreversible effects to the ecosystem of the Southern Ocean.

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

To many, the thought of eating whale meat might seem strange, as they are not accustomed to consuming this kind of meat, while to others eating cow (beef) is a strange and cruel thing to do. Around the globe, there are different ways that individuals support themselves financially, and different foods that are consumed. Cultural practices are what sets each group of people apart and make us unique, neighboring counties should not be allowed to change century-long practices as they see fit. Per the WDC “Whaling is cruel and unnecessary and must stop. Commercial whaling is effectively banned. Trade in whale products is forbidden. Yet, every year, Japan, Norway and Iceland kill around 1,500 whales between them. They defy international bans and global opinion and they hunt whales even though there is little demand for the meat.” (WDC, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, 2017) Since the WDC, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, was founded in the US and eating whale is not a part of its culture, it comes across as cruel. The question that one needs to ask is what difference is there in catching a whale for food versus catching mackerel or consuming beef? A mackerel is a non-endangered species, but yet it is allowed. Japan and Norway should be allowed to continue their practices on a cultural exemption.

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

As mentioned earlier, nations need to come to a compromise for the sake of the whales and the economies. A possible way to settle disputes of this sort would be to initiate a cultural court, similar to what we have with the International Criminal Court. The court would need to have cultural heritage experts serving on the panel as well as other qualified people. One of the things that should be avoided when creating it, would be people with agendas favoring their country. It is a difficult thing to address, but its creation would further give equal opportunity to protected

I don 't believe I have a say in the matter, to be honest, and I know it 's a very emotive one for some. I haven 't even been to Norway nor Japan. And if I were to agree with their standpoint I might risk being branded a whale-hater and banished to the edge of civilization. If I disagree with their view, I would possibly find myself partly guilty of not respecting the views of other cultures; perhaps even being party to the erosion of one (or more) of their cultural values (as more clashes between their cultures and those of others may arise going forward.)