An Exemption for Whaling
Do you agree with the Norwegian and Japanese position on permitting the hunting of non-endangered species of whales as a cultural exemption?
In 1986, The International Whaling Commission banned commercial whale hunting. Only two countries challenged this ruling - Norway and Iceland. They are the only two countries today that still practice whale hunting commercially. Japan practices whale hunting for “scientific” purposes. At this rate, there’s nothing cultural about it.
People aren’t consuming as much anymore, so Norway is exporting it and using it as feed for their fur farms. In addition to being one of three countries that continues to whale, Norway has a thriving fur industry. Last year, it exported between 258 tons of fox skins and 1,000 tons of mink skins to the European Union. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160331-norway-minke-whaling-fur-farms/) …show more content…
When they were first killed, it was most likely for meat.
Does the economic impact of whaling on the small fishing villages weigh into your decision?
Whaling doesn’t affect just the smaller fishing villages, but the entire ecosystem. Speaking of blue whales alone, one whale will consume forty million krill in one day. Dead whales also sink to the bottom of the ocean and create food for other sea life. Lastly, whale feces helps with the creation of phytoplankton, which help to eliminate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Phytoplpankton is also a main food source for many species (http://whalingecosystems.weebly.com/ecosystem.html).
How should these claims be balanced against world opinion - which is generally very supportive of the protection of whales?
It seems that much of the argument against the killing of the whales is the fact that it’s often inhumane. While it IS inhumane, the implications of the impact on the ecosystem is far more long reaching.
Word Count:
Do you agree with the Norwegian and Japanese position on permitting the hunting of non-endangered species of whales as a cultural exemption?
In 1986, The International Whaling Commission banned commercial whale hunting. Only two countries challenged this ruling - Norway and Iceland. They are the only two countries today that still practice whale hunting commercially. Japan practices whale hunting for “scientific” purposes. At this rate, there’s nothing cultural about it.
People aren’t consuming as much anymore, so Norway is exporting it and using it as feed for their fur farms. In addition to being one of three countries that continues to whale, Norway has a thriving fur industry. Last year, it exported between 258 tons of fox skins and 1,000 tons of mink skins to the European Union. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160331-norway-minke-whaling-fur-farms/) …show more content…
When they were first killed, it was most likely for meat.
Does the economic impact of whaling on the small fishing villages weigh into your decision?
Whaling doesn’t affect just the smaller fishing villages, but the entire ecosystem. Speaking of blue whales alone, one whale will consume forty million krill in one day. Dead whales also sink to the bottom of the ocean and create food for other sea life. Lastly, whale feces helps with the creation of phytoplankton, which help to eliminate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Phytoplpankton is also a main food source for many species (http://whalingecosystems.weebly.com/ecosystem.html).
How should these claims be balanced against world opinion - which is generally very supportive of the protection of whales?
It seems that much of the argument against the killing of the whales is the fact that it’s often inhumane. While it IS inhumane, the implications of the impact on the ecosystem is far more long reaching.
Word Count: