backtop

Blog: Science Iceland Bans Whaling For 2008
Jason Mick (Blog) - August 30, 2007 10:45 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 31 comment(s) - last by oTAL.. on Sep 11 at 6:59 AM
Whaling demand is virtually non-existent, so Iceland has decided to take the sensible step of not issue new quotas to allow whaling for the year.

While it may be a shock to some, whaling still occurs around the world today, even in non-survivalist situations.  While certain indigenous people, such as Inuits, hunt these animals for survival, large commercial whaling still operates, mainly out of Japan.

Fortunately, whale demand is virtually non-existent, today, even in Japan.  The International Herald Tribune recent reported that Iceland made an announcement, that due to extremely low demand for whale meat, they were not going to issue new quotas, to allow the hunt for whales in 2008.

New Zealand's conservation minister, Chris Carter, a strong critic of whaling worldwide, commended the Icelandic decision, and was quoted by the article saying:
"Japan is believed to have 40,000 tones (44,000 short tons) of whale meat in storage in spite of a move to serve it in lunches in Japanese schools and using it in pet food"
This is a rather shocking allegation.  If this is truly the case, hopefully Japan will soon cut back its wasteful levels of whaling, from a merely economic standpoint, if nothing else. 

In Japan's defense, the practice has been long performed, evidenced by the ancient Japanese proverb:
"There's nothing to throw away from a whale except its voice.
"While Japan once had nothing to throw away from the whale, today they appear almost ready to throw away the entire whale--thousands of pounds of it-- due to its low economic value.  Whaling peaked in Japan in 1962, and has since declined.  Despite harsh criticism and economic collapse of the whaling industry, Japan's whaling businesses still kill many endangered and threatened whale species yearly.

Whales and dolphins show a large amount of folding in their cerebral cortex and complex behaviors, both are indicative of intelligence in humans.  Further Humpback whales and Bowhead whales create complex songs that they change and modify over time.  Killer whales also have been observed teaching their young hunting practices.

The large amount of evidence supporting whales and dolphins possessing a high level of intelligence, and the creatures' unique nature as the only mammals to spend their entire natural lives underwater makes it seem senseless to kill them, other than purely for survival.

Now that Iceland has joined the majority of the industrialized world in limiting and banning this practice, hopefully Japan, the last big whaler, will finally be inspired to follow suit.  Sometimes the idealism of environmental conservation and realism of economic common sense really can find common ground.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Pet Food?
By James Holden on 8/30/2007 12:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
Was a little surprised to see the pet food quote in there. Seems pretty pointless to me there.

I saw a PBS episode recently about whaling in some other nordic country recently. Something about mercury in the whales. Maybe people shouldn't be eating these whales anyway when there are so many alternatives.




RE: Pet Food?
By omnicronx on 8/30/2007 12:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
The quote isn't really pointless, it's telling us that there is a large supply of whale meat already in storage that is not being used, even after trying to push it on other markets, such as dog food, and selling it for food. So what is the point of the continued whaling if there is not even a market for it.

I wonder why they failed to mention how much whaling still happens just for use in makeup, that in my mind is pointless.


RE: Pet Food?
By James Holden on 8/30/2007 4:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
I should clarify, when I meant pointless I meant that it seems like a pointless use of the meat. Sorry if I was restating the obvious.


RE: Pet Food?
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/30/2007 1:10:30 PM , Rating: 3
Hi James,

I think if the allegation is true, it is worth quoting. It is significant to note the quote is referring to rumors that Japan is using entire whale carcasses for pet food, not just leftover meat, like in pigs and cows. To take such an intelligent and unique creature, kill it, and not even eat it, but feed it to your pets, is disgusting, in my opinion. There have been many reports of this happening in Japan, maybe they are false, but I find that hard to believe.

You are correct, that whale meat is very high in mercury, which is unfortunate to native peoples who need it to survive. That is one more good reason why it is nonsensical for industrialized nations to consume these animals. Their meat has a concentration of toxins thousands of times higher than tuna or other fish, because they have so much fatty tissue, which toxins are stored in, and because they eat so many contaminated fish over their lifetimes. I was trying to keep to the conservation issue, and avoid the pollution/environmental hazard debate, though.

This article was an editorial blog whose goal was to convey my criticism of whaling by industrialized nations, mention a important current event to whale conservation, and lastly to comment on my hopes that Japan will soon end its whaling. I believe I touched on all these points. My opinions are based on a number of reasons which I presented in the article.

Thanks for the criticism, though.


RE: Pet Food?
By Ringold on 8/30/2007 1:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Their meat has a concentration of toxins thousands of times higher than tuna or other fish, because they have so much fatty tissue, which toxins are stored in, and because they eat so many contaminated fish over their lifetimes.


Hmm..

I provisionally retract my desire to eat a whole sandwhich, and instead will say I'd just go for a nibble.

But if others want to eat mercury.. more power to 'em I suppose. We don't stop people from poisoning themselves daily with alcohol.


RE: Pet Food?
By Misty Dingos on 8/30/2007 4:34:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
which is unfortunate to native peoples who need it to survive.

Having spent eight years in Alaska it is my opinion that the natives kill whales because they can not because they need to. There isn't any starving Inuit kid out there because daddy didn't bring home the whale meat. They do it because their great great great grand daddy did it. If I took that philosophy to heart it should be my right to paint myself blue and steal my neighbor’s cattle and kidnap his daughters. When are the natives going to realize that they live on the same planet with the rest of us? I don't need to paint myself blue to preserve my heritage and they don't need to kill whales to remember who they are. Oh by the way the same argument works better for the Japanese than it does for the natives. Hey here is a radical thought, why don’t we just leave the freaking whales alone?


RE: Pet Food?
By omnicronx on 8/30/2007 4:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When are the natives going to realize that they live on the same planet with the rest of us?
When are you going to realize they were there first? We forced them off their land, who are we to tell them what they can or can not do.. the japanese are a different story as they want to have the best of both worlds. In my mind, letting them whale the land they had done for centuries before we got there in exchange for all that we took from them is not so bad ;)

Your great great great great great great great grandfather traded a few furs for all their land, i can live with a few whales.


RE: Pet Food?
By Misty Dingos on 8/31/2007 8:35:26 AM , Rating: 2
Metaphoricaly throwing down a glove.

Oh please cry me a river of tears for the poor natives shoved off their sacred land by someone else. I for one have had enough of the sacred cows that reside on the reservations. You know what. A superior civilization displaced them, a reality that has repeated itself throughout the history of man. I don’t see anyone wringing their hands over the Sythians, Mesopotamians, Romans, Gauls, or any of a thousand tribes or people that have been displaced, replaced or out and out eradicated by another group. And not to break your heart but what happened to the people that were here before the ‘natives’? Oh your sacred cows pushed them into another land or caused their extinction. And did they sing songs around the fire about the people they displaced? Were there members of the tribe that said “Hey, why don’t we just leave them a little land to live on.” I doubt it.

The days of the natives slaughtering buffalo and whale is long past and those times are not coming back. It is high time that they leave the reservations and join us in the twenty-first century.


RE: Pet Food?
By Lightning III on 8/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: Pet Food?
By Misty Dingos on 8/31/2007 10:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
Pray tell if I shut up how I am I ever to tell the Palestinians anything? But your argument proves my own. The Palestinians were displaced by the United Nations, their neighbors, and the Israelis. If they return to their ancestral lands it will be with the cooperation of the same peoples that removed them from it. If we want to argue who has greater ancestral rights to that bit of land the Israelis can make a convincing case that they need not give up any on the land they now reside on and can make and argument for greater rights to more of the surrounding land.


RE: Pet Food?
By Strunf on 8/31/2007 10:13:44 AM , Rating: 2
What you don't take into account is that it wasn't the Inuits that brought these species to an almost extinction... If it wasn’t for the “white man” many species would never be endangered or extinct.


RE: Pet Food?
By Misty Dingos on 8/31/2007 10:34:03 AM , Rating: 2
Would it be preferable to you that the last whale be killed by an Inuit? While that is a nice arbitrary view point to take. It is a false argument. The fact that the whales are endangered is the only salient issue at hand. Who is to cause for the whales plight is not in question. What is to be done is. No one should be killing whales. Not Japan to feed some anachronistic need and for the same reasons neither should the Inuit or other natives. And please don't use the term white man like it is some dirty word. I grow tired of the closeted racism against anyone whose skin tone is of European descent. We also weren't the only ones with harpoons in our hands.


RE: Pet Food?
By Strunf on 8/31/2007 11:32:11 AM , Rating: 2
“Who is to cause for the whales plight is not in question. What is to be done is.”
How is not in question ? it was your ancestors that brought these species to an almost extinction and now you ask the Inuits to stop their tradition, and before you come again painting us like some kind of saints know that many endangered species are still being killing shamelessly for the sake of prosperity, the moment there’s some financial interest at the stake who cares about the animals, be them endangered or not, and heck if you can dig oil in a natural reserve why can’t the Inuits kill a whale or two… both can be viable with out causing the extinction of any specie provided there’s studies being done about it. And I can not believe the Inuits could all by themselves exterminate species that travel all over the world… if you can prove me wrong then I would gladly join your ranks.
But to me this is like hunting, if it’s done reasonably it doesn’t bring any specie to its extinction on the contrary it can help the wildlife, around here for instance hunters take care of the hunting areas and spread food or water when it becomes short like in the summer, this more animals will survive the weather… sure they don’t it for free but a balance is maintained between the hunters and the preys.

I’m just speaking of the Inuits though, the Japanese and others that have long go past traditions shouldn’t of course keep killing them just cause they feel like it, it’s like if a Maasai instead of killing a Lion just bought a couple pounds of it in a supermarket… or other convenient store.


RE: Pet Food?
By Misty Dingos on 8/31/2007 1:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
Despite my efforts I feel my point will not persuade you that the condition of the whales is indeed the issue at hand and not who to blame. This tiresome blame game will solve nothing and only drive those groups that can affect change farther apart. If we are to restore the species of whales that are endangered or threatened we will have to make decisions that some parties will not like or agree with.

Further it there are many that make strong arguments that whales should not be hunted at all. That they are a group of species that are close in intelligence to our own. This would bolster the demand for an unequivocal ban on whaling in any form.

Whether the Inuits kill a few whales or the Nez Perce destroy the northern Idaho steelhead (salmon) run is a question. Excessive and unreasonable exercise of treaty rights by natives is an issue. Which is why I stand by my original statement. Which was. When are the natives going to realize they live on the same planet with the rest of us.


RE: Pet Food?
By afkrotch on 9/2/2007 4:19:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Having spent eight years in Alaska it is my opinion that the natives kill whales because they can not because they need to. There isn't any starving Inuit kid out there because daddy didn't bring home the whale meat. They do it because their great great great grand daddy did it. If I took that philosophy to heart it should be my right to paint myself blue and steal my neighbor’s cattle and kidnap his daughters. When are the natives going to realize that they live on the same planet with the rest of us? I don't need to paint myself blue to preserve my heritage and they don't need to kill whales to remember who they are. Oh by the way the same argument works better for the Japanese than it does for the natives. Hey here is a radical thought, why don’t we just leave the freaking whales alone?


You do know that if the industrialized world didn't come into play, the Inuits could easily kill whales without so much as denting it's population.

Instead countries around the world pollute the oceans, lands, and skies, causing the multiple animals around the world (including whales) to become endangered. It's not the Inuits fault that whales are becoming endangered species.

Course in a non-modernized world, they'd need to whale to gain food. They couldn't simply couldn't cruise down a paved highway in their gas-powered Ford F-150 through the partially deforested woods running along an oil pipeline, to their local concrete and steel Walmart and pick up 10 pounds of hormone injected beef that came from a cattle ranch with high methane production from waste byproducts fed by alfalfa grown on thousands of acres of land all across the US, which has been sprayed with all forms of known pesticides and herbicides.

But hey. Might as well get mad at them for doing what they've been doing for hundreds of years, which never ever made a dent in their local environment, until the white man appeared on their shores.


Pretty subjective
By mindless1 on 8/30/2007 6:01:15 PM , Rating: 3
Some people think we shouldn't eat cows, it's pretty subjective.

I completely agree it is senseless to keep killing whales when there is such a surplus, but have to disagree with theh idea that their intelligence matters.

Do you or I really have the ability to decide which animal is just dumb enough that it's ok to kill it? Is it really important to let whales alone becaues they're mammals? To prevent extinction is a very good reason to limit it, but muddying the issue with too many subjective reasons is not a good stance to take.

Ultimately greed and population growth will deplete many of our planet's natural /resources/. The former can effect the latter through trade sanctions, but we have to always keep in mind this idea we have about freedom. We want a free world, but only so much as it suits "us", not "them". Freedom is not free, there is always a price to pay when one refrains from imposing upon others their own beliefs no matter how valid each side feels their position is.

Ideally I do think humans should stop killing whales, but I also feel there is much wrong in this world and by diffusing focus on whales, as well as so many other things not directly impacting OUR species, we are missing the bigger picture. Humans just can't continue to multiply without it having an impact. we can either look at the problem instead of the result now, or we can wait until there are so many negative results that the whales can't survive either, even if we didn't kill any. This might not happen in the next few hundred years, but to a planet, that's not very long.




RE: Pretty subjective
By oTAL (blog) on 8/31/2007 6:29:27 AM , Rating: 1
I believe that whales being an endangered species should be reason enough to protect them from harm or, at very least, not harm them ourselves.

If that's not reason enough then the fact that they are an endangered mammal may help, since humans tend to relate specially well to other mammals.

If that's not reason enough then maybe the fact that they are a highly intelligent, socially complex, endangered mammal. A highly evolved animal that may have so much we can learn without butchering them...

My feelings about this:
*I wouldn't thoughtlessly kill a bug if it was endangered.
*I would get out of my way not to kill a mammal if it was not needed OR if it was endangered (so there would have to be both a need AND be non-endangered).

I find no compelling reasons to kill whales. None. Not a single one. There are a few compelling reasons not to.


RE: Pretty subjective
By masher2 (blog) on 8/31/2007 7:42:37 AM , Rating: 5
> "I believe that whales being an endangered species.. "

There are at least 47 different whale species. Only 5 are on the IUCN list as endangered.

Japanese whaling is almost entirely among the Minke whale, which is not an endangered species.