Pros And Cons Of Whaling Controversy In Norway And Japan

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

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

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

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

“I've been diving for about 30 years, and I can honestly say that I've had some amazing encounters with sharks, squids, and other whales. But the encounter with the right whales in the Auckland Islands was probably the best thing I've ever done. It was just that amazing.”

Since the dawn of civilization, humans ruled earth, taking what they pleased without worrying about the consequences. Modern society has evolved to understand the fundamental flaw in consuming the world’s resources with abandon. As with the hunting of many other species, whaling was an unregulated activity. However, in 1986, the world community shifted its stance on whaling and passed international legislation banning commercial whaling. Dangerously close to being snuffed out, the whales have begun to claw their way back from extinction. Despite the positive strides taken on the behalf of whales, the murder of thousands of whales each year is sanctioned by a number of countries under the guise of scientific research. Moreover, in many

Supposedly, in Japan, the whales are killed for their meat for science however they were instead being sold in food markets or even given away for free to hospitals and schools. This encourages the consumption of whale meat. The Japanese kill many different types of whales for example, 200 minke whales, 100 sei whales, 50 bryde’s and 10 sperm whales under scientific research. There is also Norway, which didn’t respect the IWC ban until 1993 as they continued hunting for minke whales. Norway has a fixed number of whalers its whalers are permitted to kill for commercial reasons.

The Japanese would continue to be reluctant to give up whaling tradition and they will keep fighting for their cultural tradition(Rupert). On the other hand, Countries like the United States are kept exerting pressure on Japan to stop their Whaling industry. “A deeper understanding of the Japanese whaling history and culture is important to collaborate and compromise with them”(Joshua). The anti-whaling countries, including Australia and the United States, are facing a challenge since they don’t have the right to intervene on the right of the Japanese to live as they choose (Adrian). In order to solve this problem, the world needs to cooperate together to come up with a plan that will save the Japanese tradition while saving the whale population at the same

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

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

In so doing, this chapter is organised as follows. Section 8.1 discusses the changes from whaling to the whale watching protection in Taiwan by using the punctuated equilibrium framework. This section is subdivided into the whaling history, which base on the political system I explored in Chapter 5 and the whaling history in Chapter 6 (section 6.1). Through Section 8.1.1 to 8.1.4 I divide the whaling history base on a timeline, identifying the periods of equilibrium and the reasons that led to such periods, as well as the events that cause punctuation. Section 8.1.5 explores the turning point that made Taiwan move from whaling to whale watching protection. In addition, I point out that political learning has a significant effect on the decision