Whale Hunting In America Case Study

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.

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.

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 article “Iceland Tourism Courts Controversy with Whale-Hunting Trips”, written by Tom Mackenzie and Ed Kiernan talks about how one of the richest men in Iceland, Kristjan Loftsson owns the only commercial fin whaling company in the world. I believe there is room for both whale hunting and whale watching as long as whale hunting is kept limited. There should be a tracking system where each company should be given the annual quota and if they go over, penalize them with a charge. Whale watching is important because as Masson from the article said, “I think 99 percent of the tourists who come to Iceland, they are coming here to experience wild nature at its best”. People like watching whales because of wild nature and they enjoy watching them in the water. The reason

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

The endangerment of the Blue whale has come as a result of not only direct harm such as hunting, but also indirect factors like environmental changes and boat collisions. However, none have drove the Blue whale to endangerment as much as commercial whaling, which is still practiced today by three remaining countries: Japan, Norway, and Iceland. Through various controversial studies on whether whaling should be illegal word wide, one must constantly question the importance of the Blue Whale for success of the planet’s future.

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

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

No, I do not think the whaling ban constitutes a violation of these nation’s sovereignty, because it only provides prevention to some species, so that they will not be in danger. It restricts the number of whales which may be hunted per year, and commands on which seasons of the year will whaling be open or closed. In addition

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

Do you agree with the Norwegian and Japanese position on permitting the hunting of non-endangered species of whales as a cultural exemption. Do you think the whaling ban constitutes a violation of these nations' sovereignty?

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.)