The Pros And Cons Of Whaling

I believe that for countries in which whaling is required to sustain the livelihood of the local markets, exceptions should be made for minimally adequate commercial whaling, supporting any efforts toward the goal of identifying, designing and implementing an alternate source of revenue. That is to say: for those communities which are widely dependent upon this enterprise and for whom their cultures would drastically suffer economically, an exception should be made for a specified number of non-endangered whales per year and efforts should be made to identify ways to significantly reduce or even eliminate the practice.

My belief that economically-driven exceptions should be made, however, is in no way based on a belief that cultural history should be considered a valid exemption. The common argument is that they are not hunting endangered species and therefore are not causing harm to the environment. However, as large whales grow very slowly and reproduce infrequently (Whale and Dolphin Conservation , 2014), it is easy to see how longstanding and unfettered whaling could quickly diminish the population and negatively impact overall marine life. In general, if a practice has impacts outside of the culture, then it is incumbent upon that culture to take into consideration all impacted regions.

To approach this issue from the

“Support and encourage” absolutely does not mean “economic sanctions and trade bans.” Practices such as these are punitive in nature, cause resentment and economic instability in the countries in which they occur, and amount to global economic bullying. I believe that sanctions and trade bans should be reserved for areas in which gross abuses against human rights are conducted, and not simply when a practice doesn’t meet with the approval of the western