The crew of the oceanographic research vessel "Princesse
Alice," of Albert Grimaldi (later Prince
Albert I of Monaco) pose while flensing a
catch.
Whaling refers to the practice, history and
industries associated with the hunting and killing of
whales. In recent history (most notably during the 19th
and the earlier part of 20th centuries), total lack of
conservation management led to severe over-killing of whale
populations, and to endangerment of three whale species
(Blue, Sei, and Fin) and 3 population segment within right
and gray whale species according to IUCN.
History of whaling
It is unknown when humans began hunting whales. The
earliest archaeological record of whaling is found in South
Korea where carved drawings, dating back to 6,000 BC, show
that Stone Age people hunted whales using boats and spears.
[1] However, over time, whaling techniques have grown
more technologically sophisticated. Initially, whaling was
confined to (near) coastal water, such as the Basque fishery
targeting the Atlantic Northern right whale around 15th to
18th century and the Atlantic Arctic fishery around and in
between Spitzbergen and Greenland from around the 17th to the 20th century.
However, after the emergence of modern whaling techniques,
certain species of whale started to be seriously affected by
whaling. These techniques were spurred in the 19th century
by the increase in demand for whale oil,[2]
and later in the 20th century by a demand for whale meat.
Whaling history has affected both the development of many
cultures as well as their environment.
[3]
Monument to the whaling industry, Bergen, Norway
Dominoes made from whale bones
Iceland
Iceland has not a long tradition of subsistence whaling,
although they have a long tradition of using whale products.
Indeed, whaling of one form or another has been conducted
from the middle ages, not by the Icelanders but by other
nations such as Spain. The early reliance on whales is
reflected in the
Icelandic language - hvalreki is the word for
both "beached whale" and "gained luck" as the Icelanders
often could benefit from a stranded whale, since Iceland
became populated more than eleven hundred years ago and
throughout the middle ages.
Modern whaling in Iceland began in 1883 by the
Norwegeans. By 1915, they had taken at least 17,000 from
Icelandic waters. The Icelandic Government banned whaling in
its waters to allow time for population recovery. The law
was repealed in 1928.
By 1947, Icelanders had set up their own commercial
whaling operation for the first time. They hunted mostly
sei, fin, and minke whales. In the very early years of this
operation, a few blue, sperm, and humpback whales were also
hunted, but this was soon prohibited by the Icelandic
Government due to decimated numbers. Between 1947 and 1985,
Icelandic whalers killed around 20,000 animals in total.
Japan
Harpooning of whales by hand began in Japan in the 12th
century, but it was not until the 1670s, when a new method
of catching whales using nets was developed, that whaling
really began to spread throughout Japan. In the 1890s Japan
followed international trends, first switching to modern
harpoon whaling techniques, and eventually to factory ships
for mass whaling. In the postwar 1940s and 1950s, whale meat
became a primary source of food and protein in Japan
following the famines that came with World War II. In many
whaling nations, the discovery of petroleum products that
could replace the industrially important parts of whales,
such as the oil, resulted in a decline in the importance and
levels of whaling. This was not the case in Japan, however,
where whale meat was an important food source, and where the
whaling industry was a source of pride in a country that is
dependent on food importation to feed its populace.
United States
The whaling history of the United States can be roughly
divided into two parts: native whaling and commercial
whaling (though overlaps exist). Native whaling is a
tradition which reaches back to the early Inuit of North
America hundreds of years before the colonization by
Europeans.[1] Commercial whaling in the United States was
the center of the world whaling industry during the 18th and
19th centuries and was most responsible for extinction or
near-extinction of certain species of whales. New Bedford,
Massachusetts and Nantucket Island were the primary whaling centers in the
1800s. In 1857, New Bedford had 329 registered whaling
ships. Prior to the 1920's when commercial whaling in the
United States waned, as petroleum products began replacing
oil derived from whales, numerous fishing ports were
actually whaling ports which built whaling ships.
The primary focus of whaling in the United States was the
lamp oil made from the prodigious amount of fat contained in
whales. The whaling ships carried rendering equipment which
rendered fat from the carcasses as soon as it was raised
onto the ships. Aside from the fat and certain bones, the
majority of carcass was generally thrown back in the water,
as there was no market for whale meat. Whale oil was, at
that time, the highest quality oil for lamps.
The discovery of
petroleum in Pennsylvania in the late 19th century was the
beginning of the end of commercial whaling in the United
States as kerosene, distilled from crude oil, replaced whale oil
in lamps. Later, electricity gradually replaced oil lamps,
and by the 1920's, the demand for whale oil had disappeared
entirely.
Today, the
New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park commemorates
the heritage of both commercial and native whaling in the
United States at its locations in New Bedford and Barrow,
Alaska.
Modern whaling
Whale oil is little used today, thus modern whaling has
primarily commercial value as a food source. The primary
species hunted is the
minke whale, the smallest of the baleen whales. Recent scientific surveys estimate a
population of 180,000 in the central and North East Atlantic
and 700,000 around Antarctica.
International cooperation on whaling regulation started
in 1931 and a number of multi-lateral agreements now exist
in this area, the International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) of 1946 being the most
important. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was founded by
the ICRW for the purpose of giving management advice to the
member nations on the basis of the work of the Scientific
Committee. Countries which are not members of IWC are not
bound by its regulation and conduct their own management
program.
The members of the IWC voted on 23 July 1982 to enter
into a moratorium on all commercial whaling beginning in the
1985-86 season. Since 1992, the IWC Scientific Committee has
requested of the IWC that it be allowed to give quota
proposals for some whale stocks, but this has so far been
refused by the IWC. Norway legitimately continues to hunt
minke whales commercially under IWC regulation, as it
has lodged an objection to the moratorium.
Canadian whaling
Canada left the IWC in 1982 and as such is not bound by
the morartorium on whaling. Canadian whaling is carried out
by various Inuit groups around the country in small numbers
and is managed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The meat obtained from these whaling are commercially sold
through shops and supermarket. There is considerable
consternation amongst conservationists about the hunt. The
Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society says "Canada has
pursued a policy of marine mammal management which appears
to be more to do with political expediency rather than
conservation."
Caribbean whaling
Some whaling is conducted from Grenada, Dominica and
Saint Lucia. Species hunted are the Short-finned Pilot
Whale, Pygmy Killer Whale and Spinner Dolphins. Throughout
the Caribbean, around 400 Pilot Whales are killed annually. The meat is sold
locally. This hunting of small cetaceans is not regulated by
the IWC.
Faroe Islands
Grindadráp is whaling in the Faroe Islands. It has
been practiced since at least the 10th century. It is
regulated by Faroese authorities but is not approved by the
International Whaling Commission. The hunts are regulated by
the division of the Faroes into 11 whaling districts, with a
total of 23 authorised whaling bays. The hunts are
opportunistic and there are no quotas set for the species
taken. Around one thousand Long-finned Pilot Whales
Globicephala melas are harvested and several hundred
white-sided dolphins Lagenorhynchus acutus throughout the
year. The grindadráp mainly takes place during the summer.
The hunt is non-commercial, and anyone can participate.
Grindadráp works by surrounding the whales with a wide
semi-circle of boats and slowly driving them into a bay or
fjord and then onto a beach.
Toothed whales and dolphins carry high levels of mercury,
PCBs and other pollutants. The sheer volume of polluted
whale and dolphin meat distributed among the 43,000 or so
population of the Faroe Islands is of concern from a human
health perspective.
Greenlandic whaling
Greenland Inuit whalers kill around 170 whales per year,
making them the third largest hunt in the world after
Norway and Japan, though their take is only about one
quarter of either Japan's or Norway's, which take 600 or
more whales each year. The IWC treats the west and east
coasts of Greenland as two separate population areas and
sets separate quotas for each coast. The far more densely
populated west coast accounts for over 90% of individuals
caught. In a typical year around 150 Minke and 10 Fin Whales
are taken from west coast waters and around
10 Minkes are from east coast waters.
Iceland
Unlike Norway, Iceland did not lodge an objection against
the IWC moratorium, which came into force in 1986. Between
1986 and 1989 around 60 animals per year were taken under a
scientific permit. However, under strong pressure from
anti-whaling countries, viewing scientific whaling as a
circumvention of the moratorium, Iceland ceased whaling
altogether in 1989. Following the 1991 refusal of the IWC to
accept its Scientific Committee's recommendation to allow
sustainable commercial whaling, Iceland left the IWC in
1992.
Iceland rejoined the IWC in 2002 with a reservation to
the moratorium. This reservation is not recognized by
anti-whaling countries. In 2003 Iceland resumed scientific
whaling. Iceland presented a feasibility study to the 2003
IWC meeting to take 100 minke, 100 fin, and 50 sei in each
of 2003 and 2004. The primary aim of the study was to deepen
the understanding of fish-whale interactions - the strongest
advocates for a resumed hunt are fisherman concerned that
whales are taking too many fish. The hunt was supported by
three-quarters of the Icelandic population. Amid concern
from the IWC Scientific Committee about the value of the
research and its relevance to IWC objectives ("Recent
Icelandic Proposal" at
[4] and
[5]), no decision on the proposal was reached. However
under the terms of the convention the Icelandic government
issued permits for a scientific catch. In 2003, Iceland took
36 minke whales from a quota of 38. In 2004, it took 25
whales (the full quota). In 2005, the government issued a
permit for a third successive year - allowing whalers to
take up to 39 whales.
Iceland resumed commercial whaling in 2006. The annual
quota is set to 30 minke whales (out of an estimated 174
thousand animals in the North Atlantic)[6]
and nine fin whales (out of an estimated 30 thousand animals
in the North Atlantic).[7][8]
Iceland broke the IWC ban on commercial whaling on 22
October 2006 after Icelandic fishermen killed a sixty ton female
fin whale.[2]
Indonesian whaling
Lamalera, on the south coast of the island of Lembata, and
Lamakera on neighboring Solor are the last two remaining
Indonesian whaling communities. The hunters have religious
taboos that ensure that they use every part of the animal.
About half of the catch is kept in the village; the rest is
traded in local markets, using barter. In 1973, the UN's
Food and Agriculture Organization sent a whaling ship and a
Norwegian master whaler, to modernize the hunt. This
effort lasted three years, and was not successful. According
to the FAO report, the Lamalerans "have evolved a method of
whaling which suits their natural resources, cultural tenets
and style."
[9]
Japan
A dish of whale meat in Japan
When the commercial whaling moratorium was introduced by
the IWC in 1982, Japan lodged an official objection, but
withdrew this objection in 1987 after the United States
threatened it with sanctions. Thus, Japan became bound by
the moratorium, unlike Norway, Russia and (more disputed)
Iceland. Therefore, in 1987, Japan stopped commercial
whaling activities in Antarctic waters, but in the same year
began a controversial scientific whaling program (JARPA
- Japanese Research Program in Antarctica).
The Japanese government mainly justifies this type of
whaling on the grounds that analysis of stomach contents
provides insight into the dietary habits of whales and that
analysis of actual tissue is the only way to ascertain the
age of a whale as well as the degree of interbreeding in the
population which provides vital insight into whale
population distribution.
Japan's scientific whaling program has remained
controversial, with anti-whaling groups maintaining that the
killing of whales is unnecessary for scientific purposes and
that the real reason for the scientific kills is to provide
whale meat for Japanese restaurants and supermarkets.
Countries opposed to whaling have raised similar concerns
and passed non-binding resolutions in IWC urging Japan to
stop this program. The Japanese government points out that
hunting of whales for research purposes is specifically
sanctioned under IWC regulations and that those regulations
specifically require that whale meat be fully utilised upon
the completion of research.
In 1994, Australia attempted to stop some of the Japanese
whaling program by enforcing a 200 nautical mile
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around the Australian
Antarctic Territory. However, Antarctic territories are not
generally recognized internationally. In particular, the
Antarctic Treaty, to which Australia is a signatory,
specifically states that all claims to Antarctic territories
remain unresolved while the treaty is in force. (The treaty
was originally devised to prevent conflict between the USSR
and USA during the Cold War.) Legal advice obtained by the Australian
government indicated that attempts to stop Japanese whaling
in the Australian Antarctic Territory by resorting to
international courts may, in fact, have led to Australia
losing its claim to that territory.
In 2002, Japanese whalers took five
sperm, 39 sei, 50 Bryde's and 150 Minke whales in the
northern catch area and 440 minke whales in the southern
catch area. The catch was carried out under the IWC's
special licence for whaling research. In 2005 Japan
announced that they would significantly expand their
whaling. With the adoption of this plan, Japan’s lethal take
will include 100 sei whales, 10 sperm whales, 50 humpback
whales, 50 fin whales, and 50 Bryde’s whales, some of which are
considered endangered, along with 1,155 minke whales.
The most vocal opponents of the Japanese push for a
resumption of commercial whaling are Australia and the
United States, whose stated purpose for opposing whaling is
the need for conservation of endangered species.
Refer to
International Whaling Commission for more details on
controversy surrounding the Japanese whaling program.
Norway
Year |
Quota |
Catch |
1994 |
319 |
280 |
1995 |
232 |
218 |
1996 |
425 |
388 |
1997 |
580 |
503 |
1998 |
671 |
625 |
1999 |
753 |
591 |
2000 |
655 |
487 |
2001 |
549 |
550 |
2002 |
671 |
634 |
2003 |
711 |
646 |
2004 |
670 |
541 |
2005 |
797 |
639 |
2006 |
1052 |
546 |
Norwegian Minke Whale Quotas (blue line,
1994-2006) and Catches (red line, 1946.2005) in
Numbers (from official Norwegian statistics)
Norway has registered an objection to the International
Whaling Commission moratorium, and is thus not bound by it.
In 1993, Norway resumed a commercial catch, following a
period of five years where a small catch was made under a
scientific permit. The catch is made solely from the
Northeast Atlantic Minke whale population, which is estimated to consist of
about 110,000 animals. Norwegian Minke whale catches have
fluctuated between 503 animals in 1997 to 639 in 2005.
Prior to the moratorium, Norway caught around 2,000
Minkes per year. The North Atlantic hunt is divided into
five areas and usually lasts from early May to late August.
Norway exports a limited amount of whale meat to the Faroes
and Iceland. It has been attempting to export to Japan for
several years, though this has been hampered by legal
protests and concerns in the Japanese domestic market about
the effects of pollution in the blubber of the North
Atlantic
Minke whale.
In May 2004, the Norwegian Parliament passed a resolution
to considerably increase the number of minkes hunted each
year. The Ministry of Fisheries also proposed a satellite
tracking programme to monitor numbers of other species as
possible prelude to resuming hunting of them.
Russian whaling
Russians in
Chukotka Autonomous Okrug in the Russian Far East are
permitted under IWC regulation to take up to 140 Gray Whales from the North-East Pacific population each year.
United States whaling
In the United States whaling is carried out by Alaska
Natives from nine different communities in Alaska. The
whaling programme is managed by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission which reports to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. The hunt takes around 50 Bowhead
Whales a year from a population of about 8,000
in Alaskan waters. Conservationists fear this hunt is not
sustainable, though the IWC Scientific Committee, the same
group that provided the above population estimate, projects
a population growth of 3.2% per year. The hunt also took an
average of one or two Gray Whales each year until 1996. The
quota was reduced to zero in that year due to concerns about
sustainability. A review set to take place in the future may
result in the hunt being resumed.
The
Makah tribe in Washington State also reinstated whaling
in 1999, despite intense protests from animal rights groups.
Bycatch and illegal trade
Since the IWC moratorium, there have been several
instances of illegal whale kills by IWC nations. In 1994,
the IWC reported evidence from genetic testing[3]
of whale meat and blubber for sale on the open market in
Japan in 1993.[10]
In addition to the legally-permitted minke whale, the
analyses showed that the 10-25% tissues sample came from non
mink, baleen whales species, neither of which were then
allowed for take under the IWC rules. Further reaserch in
1995 and 1996 shows significant drop of non-minke baleen
whales sample to 2.5%.
[11] In a separate paper, Baker stated that "many of
these animals certainly represent a bycatch (incidental
entrapment in fishing gear)" and stated that DNA monitoring
of whale meat is required to adequately track whale
products.
[12]
It was revealed in 1994 that the
Soviet Union had been systematically underreporting the
number of whales it took. For example, from 1948 to 1973,
the Soviet Union killed 48,477 humpback whales rather than the 2,710 it officially
reported to the IWC.[4]
On the basis of this new information, the IWC stated that it
would have to rewrite its catch figures for the last forty
years.[5]
According to Ray Gambell, the Secretary of the IWC at the
time, the organisation had raised its suspicions of
underreporting with the former Soviet Union, but it did not
take further action because it could not interfere with
national sovereignty.[6]
In 1985, an activist organization,
Earthtrust, placed undercover employees on Korean
fishing vessels who took photographs of both fin and right
whales being hunted and processed in violation of the ban.
The arguments for and against
whaling
Conservation status
The sharpest point of debate over whaling today concerns
the conservation status of hunted species. Today there is
widespread agreement around the world that it is morally
wrong to exterminate a species of animal. The unregulated
whaling before IWC introduced regulation and ban has
depeleted the overall whale population to a significant
extent and several whales species were severely endangered.
Past ban on these species of whales which were implemented
around 1960s has helped some of these species to recover.
According to IUCN's Cetacean Specialist Group (CSG)
"Several populations of southern right whales, humpbacks
in many areas, grey whales in the eastern North Pacific, and
blue whales in both the eastern North Pacific and central
North Atlantic have begun to show signs of recovery."
[13]
Other species, however, in particular the minke whale,
have never been considered endangered and still other
species or certain population group within particular whales
species have shown signs of recovery.
Still, those opposed to whaling argue that a return to
full-scale commercial whaling will lead to economic concerns
overriding those of conservation, and there is a continuing
battle between each side as to how to describe the current
state of each species. For instance, conservationists are
pleased that the sei whale continues to be listed as
endangered but Japan says that the species has swelled in
number from 9,000 in 1978 to about 28,000 in 2002 and so its
catch of 50 sei whales per year is safe, and that the
classification of endangered should be reconsidered for the
north Pacific population.
Some North Atlantic states have argued that fin whales
should not be listed as endangered anymore and criticize the
list for being inaccurate.[14]
IUCN has recorded studies showing that more than 40,000
individuals are present in the North Atlantic Ocean around
Greenland, Iceland, and Norway.[15]
As there is no information about fin whales in areas outside
of the Northern Atlantic they still hold the status of being
endangered.
A complete list of whale conservation statuses as listed
by The World Conservation Union (IUCN)
is given below. Note that, in the case of the blue and gray
whales, the IUCN distinguishes the statuses of various
populations. These populations, while not regarded as
separate species, are considered sufficiently important in
term of conservation.
Extinct |
Critically Endangered |
Endangered |
Vulnerable |
Lower Risk
(Conservation Dependent) |
Lower Risk
(Near Threatened) |
Lower Risk
(Least Concern) |
None
[16] |
Gray Whale
Northwest Pacific population
(cf. Northeast Pacific population)
[17] |
Blue Whale (ANTARCTIC)[18]
Fin Whale[19]
North Pacific Right Whale[20]
North Atlantic Right Whale[21]
Sei Whale[22]
|
Beluga[23]
Blue Whale musculus subspecies - Atlantic population[24]
Humpback Whale[25]
Sperm Whale[26]
|
Antarctic Minke Whale
Arnoux's Beaked Whale
Baird's Beaked Whale
Blue Whale(North Pacific)[27]
Bowhead Whale[28]
Gray Whale Northeast Pacific population
[29]
Northern Bottlenose Whale
Southern Bottlenose Whale
Short-finned Pilot Whale
Southern Right Whale[30]
|
Minke Whale
|
Dwarf Sperm Whale[31]
Pygmy Right Whale
Long-finned Pilot Whale
Pygmy Sperm Whale[32]
Melon-headed Whale
|
Additionally, the IUCN notes that the Atlantic population
of gray whales was made extinct around the turn of the
eighteenth century.[33]
Method of killing
Whaling harpoon
Farming whales in captivity has never been attempted and
would almost certainly be logistically impossible. Instead,
whales are killed at sea often using
explosive harpoons, which puncture the skin of the whale and
then explode inside the body. Anti-whaling groups say this
method of killing is cruel, particularly if carried out by
inexperienced gunners, because the whale can take several
minutes or even hours to die. In March 2003, Whalewatch, an
umbrella group of 140 conservation and animal welfare groups
from 55 countries published a report, Troubled Waters, whose
main conclusion was that whales cannot be guaranteed to be
killed humanely and that all whaling should be stopped. They
quoted figures that said 20% of Norwegian and 60% of
Japanese-killed whales failed to die as soon as they had
been harpooned. John Opdahl of the Norwegian embassy in
London responded by saying that Norwegian authorities worked
with the IWC to develop the most humane killing methods. He
said that the average time taken for a whale to die after
being shot was the same as or less than that of animals
killed by big game hunters on safari. Whalers also say that the
free-roaming lifestyle of whales followed by a quick death
is less cruel than the long-term suffering of factory-farmed
animals.
The pro-whaling
High North Alliance points to apparent inconsistencies in
the policies of some anti-whaling nations. For instance, the
United Kingdom allows the commercial shooting of deer
without these shoots adhering to the standards of British
slaughterhouses, but says that whalers must meet these
standards as a pre-condition before they would support
whaling. Moreover, fox hunting, in which foxes are mauled by dogs, is legal
in many anti-whaling countries including Ireland, the United
States, Australia, Portugal, Italy and France according to
UK Government's Burns Inquiry (2000). This inconsistency is
used to argue that whales are the equivalents of cows in
India and the cruelty argument is a mere expression of
cultural bigotry, similar to the Western attitude towards
the eating of dog meat in several East Asian countries.
[34]
The economic argument
The anti-whaling side of the argument often argues that
the killed whales are those that are most curious about
boats and thus the easiest to approach and kill. However,
these individuals are also the most valuable to the
whale-watching industry in coastal areas, as these
"friendly" whales represent the easiest means of providing
an experience to their customers. The argument over whether
whales are worth more dead than alive is complex and
unresolved. The whale-watching industry, and those opposed
to whaling on moral grounds, claim that once all benefits to
local economies such as hotels, restaurants and other
tourist amenities are factored in, and the fact that a whale
can only be killed once but watched many times, the economic
balance weighs firmly down on the side of not hunting
whales. This economic argument is a particular bone of
contention in Iceland, which has amongst the most-developed
whale-watching operations in the world and where hunting of
minke whales began again in August 2003. The argument is
less applicable to the Antarctic waters as minke whales are
more abundant there, and there are far fewer whale-watching
cruises. Many developing countries such as Brazil, Argentina
and South Africa argue that whalewatching, a growing
billion-dollar industry, provides more revenue and more
equitable distribution of profits than the possible
resumption of commercial whaling by pelagic fleets from
far-away developed countries. These countries are defending
their right to the non-lethal use of whale resources and
refuse to bow down to the pressures of the whaling industry
to allow the resumption of commercial whaling in their
regions. Aside from Indonesia, no country in the Southern
Hemisphere is currently whaling or intends to, and proposals
to permanently forbid whaling South of the Equator are
defended by the abovementioned developing countries plus
Peru, Uruguay, Australia, and New Zealand, which strongly object to the continuation
of Japanese whaling in the Antarctic.
The pro-whaling side claims that the debate is moot. They
point out that anti whaling argument implies that hunt is
done on unsustainable basis and the context of the debate
itself is slanted toward anti-whaling rhetoric. Whalers
argue that if whales are hunted on a sustainable basis, the
argument that the whale-watching industry and whaling
industry is in competition is invalid. Whales are the
largest animals in the world, a single whale kill provides
more meat in absolute terms than any other animal. Whaling
and its associated activities continue to provide employment
and economic stimulant for fishery, logistic, restaurant and
other related industries. Whales are an excellent source of
protein and animal fat. Whale blubber can be converted into
valuable
oleochemicals while the unused portions of the whale carcass
can be rendered into meat and bone meal.
Whaling side has no objection to use of whales as tourist
attraction which is another way to utilise whales as a
resource. Moreover, for poorer whaling nation, the need for
resumption of whaling are more pressing. Horace Walters,
from the Eastern Caribbean Cetacean Commission stated, "We
have islands which may want to start whaling again - it's
expensive to import food from the developed world, and we
believe there's a deliberate attempt to keep us away from
our resources so we continue to develop those countries'
economies by importing from them."
[35] Anti-whaling groups claim that developing countries
which support pro-whaling stance may hurt their tourism
industry. In reference to pro whaling Caribbean islands,
Joth Singh, director of wildlife and habitat for the
International Fund for Animal Welfare, stated "Individuals
for whom whaling is abhorrent will think twice about going
to a destination where their values are not shared." This
position are echoed by governments opposed to whaling.
Britain's environment minster, Ben Bradshaw stated "There
can be a backlash by British consumers,". Danielle Grabiel,
American observer of IWC from the Environmental
Investigation Agency, also stated "Americans feel very
strongly about their love for the whales, and I wouldn't be
surprised if they decided not to see their money go to
countries that support a return to commercial whaling,"
Saint Lucia's fisheries chief, Ignatius Jean, in
response stated "We have heard these threats before, but we
will not cower,". Still, The Dominica Hotel and Tourism
Association called for "Caribbean governments to abandon
pro-whaling positions and to propose a new regional whale
sanctuary to promote the fast-growing pastime of whale
watching."
[36]
Intelligence
The issue of the extent of
whale intelligence has also been debated, primarily by
those opposed to commercial whaling. The idea is that it is
unethical to eat intelligent animals, as they are closer to
humankind than other animals. Some advocates believe that
whales' intelligence levels are on par with those of humans,
but current level of scienctic research does not
substantiate such claim though some research has shown that
whales are highly "social" animals. How to classify animals
by intelligence is a different issue, but this issue has
been overshading the question related to if it is unethical
to eat intelligent animals or not.
Most of the research on cetacean intelligence has
consisted of behavioral inference tests carried out on
dolphins. Bottlenose dolphins, for example, are able to
recognize their own images in a mirror. However, in other
research, they scored lower than ferrets in a test of
learning set formation. Generally, both dolphin and pig
intelligence is rated as higher than that of dogs and lower
than human. On the other hand, it is nearly impossible to
duplicate these types of tests for whales.
Regardless, many anti-whaling campaigners claim that
cetaceans are still among the most intelligent of all
nonhumans, and it is therefore morally wrong to kill them
for food. However, those in favor of whaling point out that
pigs are also amongst the most intelligent of animals with
no definitive study indicating that whales are more
intelligent than pig. Then it is inconsistent to claim that
pigs can be used for food, and whales not, all other
considerations notwithstanding. Thus, in the view of
pro-whalers, if the slaughter and consumption of another
"intelligent" land animal is a non-issue, then similarly,
protestations against the slaughter and consumption of
whales cannot logically be ground on the basis of
intelligence. Moreover, this apparent inconsistency is seen
as another indication that anti whaling argument is rooted
in cultural prejudice.
Further, it is philosophically questionable as to whether
the intelligence of an animal is a valid measure of the
ethical acceptability of killing it. A logical extension of
this belief would be to suggest that within a species,
individuals who are more intelligent have more right to
life. This would be considered entirely immoral in a human
society. According to this argument, the intelligence of an
animal should not be considered when deciding whether or not
it is ethical to kill it for food. It is important, however,
to discriminate between 'intelligence' and other factors
that may affect the ability of the animal to experience pain
and suffering, such as the possession of a complex central
nervous system which almost all mammals possess.
Safety of eating whale meat
Studies of several species have shown that whale meat
products often contain pollutants such as PCBs, mercury, and
dioxins.
[37].
[38] An analysis of commercially sold whale meat in
Japan found similar results. Studies on the red meat and
blubber of long finned pilot whales in the Faroe islands
show high toxin levels and studies have shown that this has
had a detrimental effect on those who eat the red meat and
blubber.
However, studies of minke whales hunted in both the North
Atlantic and the southern ocean have shown that the red meat
of some minke whale individuals have levels of toxicity
below recommended limits, with the Antarctic minke having
the lowest levels of contamination.[39]
In general, studies have shown that levels of some
pollutants in toothed whale products are higher than
corresponding levels in baleen whales
,
reflecting the fact that toothed whales feed at a higher
trophic level than baleen whales in the food chain. However,
other contaminants such as the organochloride pesticides HCH
and HCB have comparable levels in both toothed and baleen
species, including minke whales .
In Norway, another whaling nation, only the red meat of
minke whales is eaten and studies indicate that average
toxicity levels conform to national limits for toxicity
[40]( P224)
[41]
Fishing
Whalers say that whaling is an essential condition for
the successful operation of commercial fisheries, and thus
the plentiful availability of food from the sea that
consumers have become accustomed to. This argument is made
particularly forcefully in Atlantic fisheries, for example
the
cod-capelin system in the Barents Sea. A minke whale's annual diet consists of 10 kilograms of
fish per kilogram of body mass (Sigurjonsson and Vikingsson,
1997), which puts a heavy predatory pressure on commercial
species of fish. Thus, whalers say that an annual cull of
whales is needed in order for adequate amounts of fish to be
available for humans. Anti-whaling campaigners say that the
pro-whaling argument is inconsistent: If the catch of whales
is small enough not to negatively affect whale stocks, it is
also too small to positively affect fish stocks. To make
more fish available, they say, more whales will have to be
killed, putting populations at risk. Additionally, often
whale feeding grounds and commercial fisheries do not
overlap.
Professor
Daniel Pauly ([42]),
Director of the Fisheries Center at the University of
British Columbia weighed into the debate in July 2004 when
he presented a paper to the 2004 meeting of the IWC in
Sorrento. Pauly's primary research is the decline of fish
stocks in the Atlantic, under the auspices of the Sea Around
Us Project. This report was commissioned by Humane Society
International, an active anti-whaling
lobby. The report stated that although cetaceans and pinnipeds are estimated to eat 600 million tonnes of food
per year, compared with just 150 million tonnes eaten by
humans (These are Pauly's figures. Researchers at the
Institute for Cetacean Research gave figures of 90m tonnes
for humans and 249-436m tonnes for cetaceans. Reference
[43]), the type of much of the food that cetaceans eat
(in particular, deep sea squid and krill) is not consumed by
humans. Moreover, the reports says, the locations where
whales and humans catch fish only overlap to a small degree.
In an interview with the BBC, Pauly stated that "The bottom
line is that humans and marine mammals can co-exist. There's
no need to wage war on them in order to have fish to catch.
And there's certainly no cause to blame them for the
collapse of the fisheries. It's really cynical and
irresponsible for Japan to claim that the developing
countries would benefit from a cull of marine mammals. It's
the rich countries that are sucking the fish out of the poor
countries' own seas." In the report Pauly also considers
more indirect effects of whales' diet on the availability of
fish for fisheries. He continues to conclude that whales are
not a significant reason for diminished fish stocks.
However, the dietary behaviour of whales differ among
species as well as season, location and availability of
prey. For example, sperm whales' prey primarily consists of
mesopelagic squid. However, in Iceland, they are reported to
consume mainly fish (Sigurjónsson, et al 1998). Minke whales
are known to eat a wide range of fish species including
krill, capeline, herring, sand lance, mackerel, gadoids,
cod, saithe and haddock (Haug et al, 1996). Minke whales are estimated
to consume 633,000 tons of Atlantic herring per year in part
of Northeast Atlantic (Folkow et al, 1997). In the Barents
Sea, it is estimated that a net economic loss of five tons
of cod and herring per fishery results from every additional
Minke Whale in the population due the fish consumption of
the single whale (Schweder, et al, 2000).
References
- ^
Huntington, Henry.
Alaska Eskimo Whaling. Inuit Circumpolar
Conference (June 1992).
- ^
"Iceland 'breaks ban on whaling'",
BBC News, 21 October 2006
- ^
Baker, Scott. Report to the International Whaling
Commission (1994).
- ^
Natalie Angier, "DNA Tests Find Meat of Endangered
Whales for Sale in Japan", New York Times,
Sept. 13, 1994, at C4.
- ^
David Hearst, "Soviet Files Hid Systematic Slaughter
of World Whale Herds", Gazette (Montreal),
Feb. 12, 1994, at D9.
- ^
David Williams, "We Didn't Know About the Whale
Slaughter", Agence Fr. Presse, Feb. 23, 1994.
General references
Books
-
Melville, H., The Whale. London: Richard Bentley,
1851 3 vols. (viii, 312; iv, 303; iv, 328 pp.)
Published October 18, 1851. (later re-published in
New York as Moby-Dick)
- Kieran Mulvaney (2003). The Whaling Season:
An Inside Account of the Struggle to Stop Commercial
Whaling. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
- Haug, T., Lindstrřm, U., Nilssen, K.T.,
Rřttingen, I. And Skaug, H.J. 1996. Diet and food
availability for northeast Atalantic minke whales,
Balaenoptera acutorostrata. Rep. int. Whal. Commn
- Folkow LP, Haug T, Nilsen KT, Nordřy ES (1997)
Estimated prey consumption of minke whales
Balaenoptera acutorostrata in Northeast Atlantic
waters in 1992-1995. Document ICES CM 1997/GG:01.
- Schweder, T., Hagen, G.S. and Hatlebakk, E.
2000. Direct and indirect effects of minke whale
abundance on cod and herring fisheries: A scenario
experiment for the Greater Barents Sea. NAMMCO
Scientific publications
Websites
News articles
External links