Save the Whale - Again!

This week more than seventy nations have gathered in Anchorage, Alaska for the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to determine the fate of whales.
The meeting is expected to end with the continuation of a 21-year moratorium on commercial whaling, but Japan and other pro-whaling nations are hoping to overturn this ban much to the horror of environmentalists and anti-whaling nations such as the U.S., Britain, New Zealand and Australia.

Norway and Iceland ignored the moratorium, enacted in 1986 to protect several vulnerable species, and still hunt whales for commercial reasons, whereas Japan kills more than 1,000 whales a year, they say, in the name of science - although whale meat is openly sold as a delicacy in shops and restaurants all over the country.

After millions of years inhabiting the planet, this Leviathan of the sea, with no natural predator except for man, has already suffered greatly - about 95 per cent of the species has been killed off in just the past few centuries.
In addition, according to Greenpeace, tens of thousands more drown each year after getting caught in fishing nets and countless others may suffer from the effects of pollution, ship strikes and the impacts of sonar or climate change.

One can safely presume that the majority of the world's population would like to give this species of cetacean (a warm-blooded, air-breathing marine mammal) a break in the 21st century and beyond.

Japan is one country vehemently fighting to overturn the ban and resume commercial whaling, along with Norway and Iceland, who claim it is no longer needed because whale populations have rebounded.
However Japan's arguments are usually blatantly transparent, weak, unfounded and quite unscientific. A few years ago Japanese scientists had the audacity to claim that whales were the ones responsible for the depletion of fish in the oceans and had become a 'threat to man and our fish stocks' and a 'threat to world food security'. Now to anyone with any sense at all, this is a preposterous claim mainly due to the fact that we know who's been over-fishing the world's oceans and seas - taking too much and not giving anything back - and that would be us of course. Furthermore, most whales eat plankton and krill - not a usual item on any restaurant menu, and those who do consume fish are known to favor deep-sea and polar fish either inaccessible or inedible to us. The only 'human' food-source some whale species do consume, are squid and anchovies - not a very high priority on the average person's grocery list.

It may have been a necessity for some of the world's population at one time to hunt whales to survive but that is no longer the case - even for indigenous cultures it seems.
Matthew Scully, a former special assistant and senior speechwriter to President George W. Bush, lays out a well researched and articulated argument against whale hunting in a chapter titled "Riches of the Sea" in his book "Dominion".
Drawing on research, science, data, personal accounts and interviews with those involved in the whaling industry itself, Scully easily exposes the truth behind the pro-whaling lobby 'excuses' for hunting these magnificent and intelligent creatures.

One rather sensitive and often highly emotionalized argument used to justify whale hunting is that it is a 'cultural right' a necessity for indigenous cultures, a 'sacred accomplishment' and a 'way of life.'
Senator Ted Stevens, an Alaskan Republican, told delegates at this year's IWC meeting that renewing a five-year bowhead whale quota for Alaska Native communities that rely on subsistence whaling is crucial. He said that it was 'more than a right' and that it is an "absolute necessity which affects every facet of their well-being" and he adds, "to deny this history would jeopardize their way of life". One wonders how the Senator would have protested against the advent of the oil industry in Alaska and its possible adverse affect on the way of life, history and traditions of the native peoples.

Fellow Republican, Matthew Scully, however reminds us that even the Eskimo in Alaska who hunt whales today are not "primitives struggling to subsist in the harsh fringes of civilization." They are apparently young men passionate about whaling, hunting the whales not because they must but because they want to, and after the hunt return to their quite civilized lives in heated houses, driving cars, trucks and snowmobiles, working on oil-rigs, in stores, factories and in offices. Apparently whaling was dying off in these communities until, according to Scully it was revived by the Alaskan pipeline in the early 70's, which brought wealth and free time for recreation.
Matthew Scully even recalls an Eskimo, one of the 'aboriginal subsistence' whalers, giving him a business card and e-mail address, and gently points out, "I doubt the computer is set up in an igloo".
He also compares whaling in this sense to trophy hunting and the 'self-conscious acting-out of primitive passions' the same 'parody of heroic exploit' and 'selective reverence for custom'. He concludes that 'sacred tradition is somehow silent' where the use of speedboats, chainsaws, spotter planes, and sixteen-wheel rigs a typical "aboriginal" whaler uses to drag carcasses from the water, are concerned.
Therefore we're not talking about Eskimos going out in their home made canoes hunting for survival and the only food source available being whale blubber!

Maybe whale hunting proponents worldwide who want this 'sacred tradition' not only continuing but expanding, are passionate, not about the 'old ways', scientific research, necessity and their people's well-being but rather the taste of whale meat and the commercial value it brings and nothing more.

A 75 percent majority vote is needed to end the moratorium on commercial whale hunting and this is what Japan and a few other countries are hoping for.

Japan has been accused of trying to coerce Caribbean nations to vote with them on whaling issues through the lure of millions of dollars in new boats, fisheries and public works projects. St. Vincent, Grenada, Dominica, St. Kitts, Antigua and St. Lucia voted for the 1982 moratorium but now are more likely to vote against it fuelling the validity of this claim. Each of these tiny nations holds the same weight as the U.S, Britain, New Zealand, Spain, Brazil and Australia. Therefore six countries representing about half a million people in effect cancel out the votes of six anti-whaling nations representing a billion people.

If there comes a day when there is a total ban on whale hunting tourists will inevitably pick up the tab where any revenue is lost for the comparably few employed worldwide in the whaling industry. People pay big money to see whales alive, enjoying their natural habitat, and not being blown up by explosive harpoons and unceremoniously lugged onboard a ship (often while still alive) and then butchered.

The question to ask is why are we backtracking on this issue right now? Surely we've all seen enough Discovery Channel and Animal Planet programs to know that whales are highly intelligent, inquisitive creatures, who communicate with each other and who nurture their young for at least a year.
They obviously suffer when they are harpooned and it often takes a long time for them to die. At the end of the day they cause no damage or harm to anyone. They have a right to some dignity and to be left alone to exist in harmony within the ocean eco-system. We no longer have a valid reason to hunt and kill them for food or oil as there are many alternatives that people can use, and this 'product' is no longer a necessity.
But mostly we have a duty as human beings to protect and revere this great and legendary Leviathan of the sea.

Sir Anthony Hopkins is speaking out on behalf of whales urging us in his very famous deep voice and melodic Welsh accent that 'For 30 years Greenpeace has been on the front lines defending whales - now it's your turn." It certainly is. We can no longer just assume there's people 'out there' who will 'do something' if the cruelty of any situation, adversely affects and upsets us.

Whales are not here to provide us with a commercially viable product, and they don't exist just for our use and pleasure. Mankind's violence to whales and other cetaceans must cease and be replaced by curiosity and the thirst for more knowledge about this mysterious and gracious creature.
We'd be hard pressed to find a child who wants this slaughter to continue - so let's try and learn some compassion from them.
To conclude, in an Old Testament passage mankind is granted "Dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and over all the earth..." But as Matthew Scully reminds us in his book "Dominion" this privilege brings with it the responsibility to respect life and to treat animals with simple dignity and compassion. Let's take it a little further and ask the question that we hear very often in this society: "What would Jesus Do?"
Enough said.