D.C. Watch

To Whale Or Not To?

This multi-billion dollar question was being contested by those in favor of and against whaling this week at the meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in the Caribbean island nation of St Kitts and Nevis. With the nations that have banned whaling wanting to expand the zone of no-kill into the Southern hemisphere and create a South Atlantic Sanctuary, two-thirds of the delegation that economically benefit from Whaling, lead by Japan are set to vote against all conservation efforts.

In the big picture, whaling is just another trade regulated by international Whaling Commission (IWC) with the following objectives:

• to protect all whale species from overhunting
• to establishment of a system of international regulation for the whale fisheries to ensure proper conservation and development of whale stocks
• to safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by whale stocks

[Note: The term ‘fisheries’ might be misleading, Whales are not fishes, but mammals just like us.]

You don’t have to read between the lines to comprehend that IWC exists because whaling does, and now for the first time in years, IWC is in a position wherein the majority of its members are pro-whaling. Their argument has always been “if you don’t hunt whales, their population would not be regulated, possibly tipping the marine eco-system”. Right.

International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) on the other believes that since 1986 (worldwide whaling ban enforced), more than 25,000 whales have been killed, many of these because so-called “scientific whaling” is allowed under an international loophole. What they are referring to is a provision under an IWC ruling, which allows countries like Japan and Iceland catch whales for “scientific research,” which later gets devoured.

As for me, the cruelty of whaling might be the most objectionable aspect, the explosive harpoons most often do not deliver instantaneous death, and whales tend to stay alive for hours after being shot. I say this as consumer who has in the past and continue from time to time to use animal products, it would be rather hypocritical to suggest that whaling is cruel while munching on chicken popcorns!

Arguments from both sides seem rather justified, that is if you don’t care either way. But that only serves as a super-simplified solution to an issue that is out-of-sight and out-of-mind for most of us in America. Ultimately, a philosophical change directed towards sustainability is warranted in the long run as compared to the short-term economical benefits. Japan and other countries involved in whaling stand to lose just as much with depleting whale population as those against it. Our motivation might be different, but the rewards would be mutually beneficial. 

IFAW engages communities, government leaders, and like-minded organizations around the world and achieve lasting solutions to pressing animal welfare and conservation challenges-solutions that benefit both animals and people. 

IWC works for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.

Photo Courtesy: BBC

 

Tags: News, Money, Activism, Conserve, Sustainability, Economics, Politics, Whaling, IWC, IFAW, Japan, Iceland

Posted by Moderator on July 6th, 2006 filed in Activism, Conserve, Economics, IFAW, IWC, Money, News, Sustainability, Whaling, politics 1 Comment »