Negative Impact of Whaling in Japan

In the documentary “Blackfish”, directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite, she discussed the harmful events that have occurred when keeping killer whales contained for show and entertainment purposes. Cowperthwaite argued the fact that the killer whales become aggressive when held captive in an area too small for them and separated from their families. Throughout the documentary there were many horrifying stories about the attacks told by people who had saw the tragedies first-hand.

“ The story of the whale is so remarkable, that were there not so many witnesses, I would not venture to tell it, lest I be accused of exaggeration.”

these whales. It they make money off of whales for bad reasons, and it isn't morally correct to

In 1946 a group of 15 nations gathered together to sign a treaty aimed at conserving the whale population following their strong concern regarding the over-hunting of whales. The treaty led to the creation of an oversight body known as the International Whaling Commission (IWC) that was created under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The Convention is intended to allow for the proper conservation of whale stocks and make the established development of the whaling

For years the killer whale, also known as Orcinus orca, has been drawing the attention of the public through the entertainment industry. These marine mammals have been bringing in billions of dollars to amusement parks such as Sea World, but at what cost? An idea that these killer whales can live happily and content while in captivity may be going through the minds of the public, but this cannot be further away from the truth. To have such complex creatures in captivity is not morally correct and there are many points against it, such as their level of emotional competence, violence between the killer whales, violence of killer of whales towards trainers, shorter lifespans, physical harm, and their level of intelligence. After taking a look at how these creatures function and the conditions they are put in while in captivity, there is no question about whether or not these mammals should be kept in captivity; an experience such as this affects these marine mammals just about the same as it would affect a human because of their high highly developed emotions and complexity. Since these industries do not have a natural authority over these creatures no matter the cause, the best thing they could do for these killer whales is to stop capturing them and return those who are capable back to the wild.

Whales in captivity are accessible to safer standards and care. SeaWorld trainers are well trained and are fit to help killer whales stay in shape. As told by Sea World, “The killer whales in our facilities benefit whales in the wild. We provide scientific research and data that would be difficult or impossible to get in the wild (Killer Whales). “SeaWorld provides “positive reinforcement training techniques and compassionate care with all of the animals (SeaWorld Cares)”. Sea World remains and world’s most respected marine zoological institution.

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.

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

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

They do have pertinent points and therefore will be negative economic consequences if whaling is stopped. The counter argument is that whaling has been banned since 1886 by the international whaling commission. Whaling, Wikipedia.org.

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.)

Many countries have been killing whales calling it “research”. Many believe that commercial whaling is not okay and is killing whales off. The international community has to make the choice whether we want to risk killing them. We should continue killing the whales at certain guidelines as to how many each year. It is a part of some cultures and we should not harm that.

Therefore, a combination of social, economic, and environmental factors together play an important role. One pillar alone cannot be the answer to solving the loss of biodiversity issue. A battle fought on all fronts is a battle won.

Franck and Brownstone define biological diversity as 'the variety and variability of living organisms and the biological communities in which they live' (36). Decades of progress in both the scientific and political arenas have advanced environmental legislation to protect biodiversity at not only the ecosystem level, but for specific species and genetic material as well. Research has shown the importance of every organism and their role in the global ecosystem, and legislation has gradually matured to protect not only species which may become endangered, but the habitats they need to survive as well. Growing consciousness surrounding environmental issues has enabled these protections to be