Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Positive And Negative Impacts Of Whaling
international whaling commission
Positive And Negative Impacts Of Whaling
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Positive And Negative Impacts Of Whaling
Introduction
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 and anti-whaling nations (Yamaguchi 2010). Statistics has revealed that 31,000 whales have been killed for commercial purposes while 12, 000 whales hunted lethally under scientific research since 1986. This leads to a critical extinction faced by Antarctic blue whales and Pacific gray whales (Tinch 2009). After series of negotiations, Japanese government finally decides to compromise by reducing the whale catch quota for annual research hunts with the condition of resuming commercial whaling (Yamaguchi 2010). However, one of the anti-whaling nations, Australia, has voiced out a strong disagreement and planned to take international legal action to cease whaling research (Yamaguchi 2010). Consequently, all the arguments above eventually lead to the investigation question:
“Should whaling ban be lifted?”
The three basic areas of investigation include
• Background of whaling
• Arguments for the lifting of whaling ban
• Arguments against the lifting of whaling ban
Sources in this inves...
... middle of paper ...
...re well preserved in future.
(1996 words)
Works Cited
Morishita J, 2006, Multiple Analysis of the Whaling Issue: Understanding the Dispute by A Matrix, Marine Policy, 30:802-808.
Gales N., 2007, Is Japan’s Whaling Humane?, Marine Policy, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2007.08.004.
Papastavrou V., 2006, In the Name of Science? A Review of Scientific Whaling, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Bristol, UK, pp1-16.
Tinch R., 2009, Sink or Swim: The Economics of Whaling Today, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), viewed 30 April 2010 .
World Wildlife Fund – International, 2006, Japanese Scientific Whaling: Irresponsible Science, Irresponsible Whaling, World Wildlife Fund – International, Switzerland, viewed 1 June 2010, .
Robert L. Pitman. "Whalewatcher: Killer Whale: The top, top Predator ." Journal of the American Cetacean Society (2011): 2. Journal.
The most effective piece of this documentary, however, was neither the structure of the film nor the specific questions that one is forced to answer regarding the ethical treatment of these killer whales, but the overall questions of whether or not these corporations should be allowed to continue their cycle of abuse toward the animals and whether or not we, as patrons, should encourage their behavior by giving them a monetary profit every day, every month, and every year. Ignorance is forgivable, but with the knowledge given in this documentary: the final two questions raised should be able to answer themselves.
I agree with the Norwegian and Japanese positions on permitting the hunting of non-endangered species of whales as a cultural exemption. Both of these cultures have been whaling for thousands of years. One stipulation that I would add in order to qualify for a cultural exemption is that the hunting should take place in a historically accurate manner. For the Japanese, this would mean using nets to catch the whales.
The quest to gain international agreement on ethical and legal norms for regulation of whaling has had a long and troubled history. The modern phase of global concern over whaling ethics and conservationist management originated in 1946, when the International Convention on Regulation of Whaling was signed. Thus the International Whaling Commission was created. The International Whaling Commission was designed to control and mandate the whaling industry. From it’s beginning as simply a whalers club with scientific guidance, to the current day conservationist body; the IWC has undergone many revisions and transformations since the start. In 1982 the IWC voted to implement a “pause” on commercial whaling (which is still in effect today). Which major whaling nations, Japan, Norway, Peru, and the Soviet Union (later replaced by Russia) lodged formal objections, due to the fact that the moratorium was not based on advice from the Scientific Committee. One major disappointment of this regulation was due the fact that the moratorium only applies to commercial whaling. Thus, whaling under scientific-research and aboriginal-subsistence is still allowed. Japan and other countries have continued their hunt in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary under the “scientific research” loophole. However, environmental activist groups openly dispute the claims and continue their rally to end the whaling industry for good.
Shukovsky, Paul. "Public hearing on Makah whale hunt brings out opposition." Seattle Post- Intelligencer 02 Online. Internet. 3 Febuary 2003. Available www:seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/maka021.shtml.
In Japan, although the government appears to operate under international law, it is often found to use the "scientific research" loophole. This includes whaling in Antarctica. There are also government subsidies in place to promote this "scientific research". I understand a little about subsidies, in America we have subsidies on milk so prices are kept low enough for people with low incomes to buy milk. I am starting to see why the anti-whale people are a bit put out by Japan. If this is so important to their culture, why does this industry need subsidies to survive?
Francis, David R. “Communities of Killer Whales.” The Christian Science Monitor. National Newspapers Core, 15
In this research report I will discuss the Killer Whales unique characteristics; complex migratory patterns, how and why it is endangered, and most importantly how we can help them.
The Cove is a film of activism, a film meant to move the hearts of individuals who love and support the rights of mammalian sea-dwellers like that of whales, porpoises, and most importantly dolphins. Produced in 2009 by the Oceanic Preservation Society it offers a unique perspective, when compared with other activist documentaries. In The Cove the producer and co-founder of the Oceanic Preservation Society was actually personally involved in the filming efforts and worked directly with dolphin trainer Richard O’Barry in drawing light on the events occurring in a private cove in the city of Taiji, Japan. The documentary is, of course, very biased towards the topic, with obvious pro-animal rights leanings supported indirectly with a strong utilitarian basis. When analyzing documentaries such as this it is vitally important to take as objective a perspective as possible, though humanity tends to be innately prone to bias, and scrutinize through perspectives that have established ethical guidelines.
In conclusion, education, research and conservation is a very important role that we can make to improve the lives of Orca whales, but at what cost? When you have to take an animal out of its natural habitat and deprive it of all its natural instincts, cause unnecessary emotional and physical problems, and put the lives of the whales and their trainers at risk, what are we learning? That it’s okay to possess them merely for our entertainment and profit? A wild animal’s life remains destroyed and many lives have ended, all for dangerous entertainment.
Imagine being at home enjoying quality time with your family when all of a sudden someone comes into your home and takes you to prison for the rest of your life. No explanation, no warning, and no communication with your family, ever again. In a single moment you have lost your family, your home, and your freedom. That is a very scary thought, yet that is exactly what is happening to killer whales. We, as a society, are going to the ocean, and taking killer whales away from their home, and their families for the sole purpose entertaining us. These beautiful, majestic animals are suffering physically, mentally, emotionally, and they are dying prematurely because of our selfish actions. Mahatma Gandhi said “The greatness of a society
“An open letter to the public from the President of the Makah Whaling Commission.” www.Conbio.rice.edu/nae/docs/makaheditorial.html
Shirihai, H. and B. Jarrett (2006). Whales, Dolphins and Other Marine Mammals of the World. Princeton, Princeton University Press. p.185-188.
For almost 400 years, whales have been chased to near extinction. Vessels have travelled the globe to find and extract precious oil and gather whale meat to eat. This has resulted in over 10,000 whales being executed since the moratorium in 1986. A moratorium is a delay or suspension of an activity or a law and in this case a suspension of whaling. Also a ...
Riley, M. J., A. Harman., and R. G. Rees. 2009. Evidence of continued hunting of whale sharks Rhincodon typus in the Maldives. Environ. Biol. Fish. 86:371-374. (DOI:10.1007/s10641-009-9541-0).