Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
Whaling?
![hope's picture hope's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-479.jpg)
Biology in Society Senior Seminar
Bryn Mawr College, Fall 2010
Session 8
Whaling
Questions:
Should whaling be regulated by an international body?
Should whale conservation be a priority? Should whales be managed as a resource in the same way we manage other fisheries or are whales somehow special?
Can non-human animals have culture? Do whales have culture? Should this be a factor in whaling regulation?
Some Background:
Whaling has been around for a long time. People have hunted whales for food for as long as there where whales and people. In the 17th and 18th centuries, people hunted whales for oil.
The International Whaling Convention was formed in 1946 for the purpose of managing the whale stocks.
In 1982 the IWC voted to place a moratorium on commercial whaling which was implemented in 1986.
Norway and Iceland objected to the moratorium and continue to whale. Japan continues to whale scientifically. An exception was made for aboriginal subsistence whaling.
Recently a proposal to replace the moratorium with quotas has been discussed.
Some Issues:
- Whales and the ocean are shared resources which need to be regulated to prevent a tragedy of the commons. The current moratorium is not completely effective.
1,500 whales are killed every year, 25,000 whales have been killed for commercial purposes since 1986 and 7 of the 13 species of great whales are still endangered!
-from WWF and ActNow
- No one really know how many whales there used to be and what the impact of whaling has been.
- Whales have "culture" or have demonstrated the capacity for social learning.
humpback whale song:
http://www.oceanmammalinst.org/songs/hmpback2.wav
On killer whales:
"A particular pod will have its own dialect, and that dialect will be similar to pods which are the members of the same clan, and clans will have dialects which are different from one another—just as humans from different parts of the same country may sound a bit different, but humans from different countries may be totally unintelligible to each other"
- Hal Whitehead, biology professor at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada
- Human culture and politics are also involved. Some people have very strong feelings about saving the whales.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US ZH-CN AR-SA Whale conservationist Mark Simmonds calls whaling “irredeemably inhumane.”
Sea Sheppard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIYdmM6eBQY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU
Summary of class session (kendra)
We first started talking about the background information about whaling: what whaling is and why certain countries participate in whaling. We moved forward to a discussion about whaling laws and who enforces them, especially whaling in international waters. It was decided that even though there is an international board that is supposed to be in charge of these affairs that there is no one actually in control of whaling. There was an agreement in class that the moratorium imposed on specific countries for whaling is not followed and the laws should be changed. It was also questioned whether there should be international control of whaling. Then the conservation of whales came up. Conservation is decidedly a Western way of deciding what is important and why we should keep it. Did people want to conserve whales for future whaling or because of the importance of the animal? It turns out that whales are a cultural species and can mourn the death of their whale mates, should this matter in the conservation and whaling of whales? If the whales experience “human emotions” does this mean that we should not hunt them? We were showed a clip from whale wars. The Sea Sheppards were attacking a Japanese whaling vessel; in retaliation the Japanese whaling vessel rammed the small Sea Sheppards’ boat.
In the end it was decided that there are cultural histories that lead to whale hunting and it is insensitive to try and end something that is important to another culture, but whales are also important to the current ecosystem so they should not be hunted to extinction.
Continuing discussion in on line forum below
Comments
I think the conservation of
I think the conservation of whales is extremely important for our environment. However, I’m curious to know how different the world would be if the entire species was wiped out? According to Darwin’s philosophy, survival of the fittest, those who are stronger will prevail. This philosophy has held true over numerous generations. I don’t see why it would not stop now. I’m not advocating killing off the entire species, however, I think it is possible for the environment to also re-adjust if they went extinct.
Nevertheless, I don’t think it is ok to completely kill something off. Like Crystal, I have no problem with whales being eaten however I do think that the environment we are in now with whales is working pretty well. Therefore, killing off so many could cause a shift which may not result in a positive light. As a result, I think globally people should consider reinforcing the laws in which a certain number are allotted to be killed.
Think about it...
Think about it...
Whales eat plankton, right? So if all the whales were wiped out, there would be an excess of plankton. The plankton would eat all plants etc., leaving none for any other fish. The smaller fishes that depend on plants would starve to death. Then the bigger fishes would die as well, as they depend on eating the little fish. Next to go would be the sharks and dolphins etc., until the sudden 'shift' (as you call it)would move onto land. For example, the bears that eat fish would have nothing, and die as well. Eventually, there would be nothing left for us as humans to eat, and we too would starve. The environment wouldn't really be re-adjusting to the change, it would just die.
I think the conservation of
I think the conservation of whales is extremely important for our environment. However, I’m curious to know how different the world would be if the entire species was wiped out? According to Darwin’s philosophy, survival of the fittest, those who are stronger will prevail. This philosophy has held true over numerous generations. I don’t see why it would not stop now. I’m not advocating killing off the entire species, however, I think it is possible for the environment to also re-adjust if they went extinct.
Maintaining the natural balance
As I said in class, I have no problem with the hunting of whales in general. The thing that I have a problem is with the unregulated, and oftentimes selfish, hunting of whales for no purpose other than to make money. Hunting has, and always will be, a large part of society, and there is no denying that. While humans have perfected the art better than any other species, we must not forget that every other species hunts in it's own way. In my opinion, a mustang grazing is no different than a lion hunting, and then consuming, an gazelle. Both animals are just doing what instinct and hunger has driven them to do. However, there is a big difference between an animals hunting in order to feed themselves and others, and not hunting again until required, and whalers hunting, regardless of how much whale meat they already have aboard their ship, and how much is required to feed those they are hunting for. I think the key to conservation is keeping an eye on the natural balance of things, and making sure that nothing is hunted too much, or too little. If international regulation is the only way to achieve this, than I think that is our best option. Past experience has shown that some countries can not be trusted to regulate themselves, when greed is such an influential factor.
"Conversation and Implications to Date"
"What is the rationale underlying conservation efforts for whales? in general? Why some organisms and not others? Are we interested in human motivations/tastes/well-being, or something more general?"
-Paul Grobstein
"I get the impression that whaling issues are related to Western imperialism to some degree... The idea that whales are special and have culture comes from the West. The idea that whales are a source of food is from Japan. We shouldn't try to make other counties adopt our way of thinking. I think it is important to consider how our culture has impacted the way we think about animal conservation "
-lbonnell
"While I accept the fact that eating whale is a part of certain cultures in places other than America, I can't help but hear Naa's voice from class, saying that, just because something is part of a culture, does not mean that it is OK for it to be...she very correctly pointed out the example of female genital mutilation. Should we excuse behaviors/attitudes on the premise that they have already been established in certain cultures?"
-adowton
"But what confused me is when she brought up female genital mutilation. If we should respect other cultures and allow whaling to continue, then shouldn't we respect other cultures and allow female genital mutilation to continue? I'm not saying I'm in favor of female genital mutilation, I'm just wondering what makes humans more special than whales. A policy of moral relativism that applies to whaling should apply to other concerns."
-Riki
"I believed (and might still believe) that we could keep killing animals up to the point where our lack of conservation would irreversibly impact the ecosystem by causing another animal to die out...While NZ does ultimately hope to benefit humankind by preserving interesting and in some cases, aesthetically pleasing animals, it hopes to do so in a less tangible way. Before going to NZ, I only believed in conservation for necessity’s sake however I now recognize that we should not resort to conservation practices only when our way of life is threatened."
-dfishervan
"Conservation makes sense in any settlement or in any age."
-visitor
"Personally, I do believe that whales have culture and would never personally eat a whale if there were other food sources available. That being said, I recognize that some human cultures use whale meat as a food source, and I'm ok with that. However, I am not ok with humans disregarding the effects that commercial whaling, like commercial fishing, has on marine ecosystems. It is not ok to allow another species to go extinct because we wanted it's meat. There is an ecologically responsible way to approach whaling... Until some kind of regulatory agency with real authority is created, regardless of what countries "agree" to, there's going to be no change in behavior."
-Crystal Leonard
Western imperialism?
I get the impression that whaling issues are related to Western imperialism to some degree. I think it is significant to that the Sea Sheppards we talked about are American and European but the people who are whaling are mostly Japanese. The idea that whales are special and have culture comes from the West. The idea that whales are a source of food is from Japan. We shouldn't try to make other counties adopt our way of thinking. Whaling shouldn't be banned internationally. However, I think whaling should should be regulated somehow, maybe the same way that fishing is regulated.
I watched a documentary about dolphins called "The Cove" awhile ago. It talked about the same issues but in relation to dolphins. One thing I remembered from the documentary is that the movement to protect dolphins sprang from the TV show Flipper. People connected with Flipper on TV and then thought it was unfair to kill dolphins. Based on this example, I think it is important to consider how our culture has impacted the way we think about animal conservation.
whaling issues
Lots of interesting issues got laid on the table. Among the ones that struck me:
I too, I think, would have
I too, I think, would have difficulty eating whale meat. I can't say that i've ever actually been presented with the option, but it doesn't sound like an opportunity i'd jump at.
We hunt cows and deer and all other sorts of animals, and I think these other animals can have culture too. I know that quotas exist for that kind of hunting, and they exist so we can get what we need, without drastically effecting the ecosystem. Something similar should be in place for hunting whales. The need for a governing agency of some sort is clear. There needs to be an entity that regulates the amount of whales being killed in certain regions (if the killing of whales is to be allowed at all).
While I accept the fact that eating whale is a part of certain cultures in places other than America, I can't help but hear Naa's voice from class, saying that, just because something is part of a culture, does not mean that it is OK for it to be...she very correctly pointed out the example of female genital mutilation. Should we excuse behaviors/attitudes on the premise that they have already been established in certain cultures?
moral relativism?
Maybe I misinterpreted/don't remember what Naa said, but I thought she meant that we (Americans) are being selfish in wanting to conserve whales because they are not part of our culture so of course it won't affect us if we want to place more stringent laws on whaling, and that we should recognize that eating whale is integral to other cultures before we make international laws based on our non-whale-eating perspective. And therefore Naa does not support whale conservation laws (Naa, correct me if I'm wrong!). But what confused me is when she brought up female genital mutilation. If we should respect other cultures and allow whaling to continue, then shouldn't we respect other cultures and allow female genital mutilation to continue? I'm not saying I'm in favor of female genital mutilation, I'm just wondering what makes humans more special than whales. A policy of moral relativism that applies to whaling should apply to other concerns.
Motivation Behind Conservation
In the past, I never really paid much attention to conservation practices. Of course, somewhere in my high school biology education, I held up a piece of yarn and represented a fly or a frog in my science teacher’s attempt to introduce the food web and convey the importance of every animal. Since I obviously did not want any student to drop their piece of yarn, I adopted the policy that we could continue swatting flies as long as we didn’t completely deplete the frogs’ food source. I believed (and might still believe) that we could keep killing animals up to the point where our lack of conservation would irreversibly impact the ecosystem by causing another animal to die out.
While I still am in favor of establishing this necessary ecosystem balance, I have recently become slightly more concerned about conservation. When abroad last year, I redeveloped a fascination with certain animals as I fell in love with a whole new set of animals unique to New Zealand. I debated about the relevancy of including this in my post since unlike whales, I doubt that most of society is aware of and concerned with the existence of these wonderful animals since they are endemic to NZ. However, I realized that my fascination with NZed’s unique set of flora and fauna speaks to one side of the debate on our motivation for conservation. Most of these incredible animals endemic to NZ are endangered and I would be devastated if due to our lack of conservation practices, we lost the cute kiwi bird or tuatara. Since every other country has been getting along fine without the kiwi bird, it is clear that this bird is not necessary for human existence. People do not advocate for the conservation of the kiwi because of its utility, but rather because of its uniqueness (sidenote: its one of the few birds that has a well developed olfactory system) and its beyond adorable appearance. While NZ does ultimately hope to benefit humankind by preserving interesting and in some cases, aesthetically pleasing animals, it hopes to do so in a less tangible way. Before going to NZ, I only believed in conservation for necessity’s sake however I now recognize that we should not resort to conservation practices only when our way of life is threatened.
my judgment of conservation
However one comes to practice conservation of our planet makes no difference as long as we actually practice conservation. It is imperative that we enforce our best intentions upon ourselves to practice earth saving lifestyles. Conservation makes sense in any settlement or in any age.
Personally, I do believe that
Personally, I do believe that whales have culture and would never personally eat a whale if there were other food sources available. That being said, I recognize that some human cultures use whale meat as a food source, and I'm ok with that. However, I am not ok with humans disregarding the effects that commercial whaling, like commercial fishing, has on marine ecosystems. It is not ok to allow another species to go extinct because we wanted it's meat. There is an ecologically responsible way to approach whaling. I do not have all the solutions, but at the moment I am inclined to favor a quota system for whaling. However, there's a big problem with this system: there's currently no way to regulate it. Until some kind of regulatory agency with real authority is created, regardless of what countries "agree" to, there's going to be no change in behavior. So, this problem goes from ecological to political very quickly. Since whaling occurs in international waters, is it appropriate to have an agency that punishes whaling "infractions"? Who would make up this agency? How would the agency be run? As a scientist, I have no answers to these questions.
Post new comment