The International Whaling Regime Essay

What exactly happened in the whaling industry that had such a detrimental effect on the whale populations?

Despite the bias that exists in the article “After the Makah Whale Hunt” the article still addresses economic issues and is thus still similar to the other articles. Michael Marker’s article still talked about how whale conservation changed the Makah’s economy just as the other two articles did. The article still talked about the legal implications of the governments, and publics, action, to speak for the Makah people. Marker’s article simply used a different approach where he talked about the people while the other articles talked more about the numerical and legal

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.

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.

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,

Although there are many problems, there are also many solutions to save the killer whales

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.

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.

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

Claims of ‘cultural activity’ on the level of Norwegian and Japanese whaling must be balanced against world opinion. I do believe that an international panel that has not only environmental preservation but cultural preservation at heart will generally be very supportive of the protection of whales. The preservation of the whales cannot be ignored nor can it be left up to Norway and Japan to make their own decisions where this is

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

I do not think the whaling ban constitues a violation of these nations' sovereignty because the ocean and its bountiful resources do not belong to any one country. It is the planets as a whole. It is the same principal for the oil spills and other populations and over hunting or needless killings that take place. You are not only affecting your coastline, but the entire planet in lesser degrees that will build up over time. Countries such as Norway and Japan are developed enough that they could find alternatives if they tried.

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