If you’d have asked me two weeks ago what I thought of whaling, you would’ve been hit with a tirade of anti-whaling sentiment. Since then, I’ve been forced to rethink some of my anti-whaling arguments. Although I still disagree with the indiscriminate killing of whales, I’ve come to realise that both sides of the debate are riddled with hypocrisy.

Previously, my view was that other than indigenous subsistence whaling, all killing of whales should be stopped. The question I’ve since been forced to address is ‘If whaling is sustainable, do I disagree with the practice?’ The easy answer that they’re magnificent creatures that deserve to be saved. But this is where the double standards creep in. If not for their striking appearance and mystique, would we even care? And if the industry is indeed sustainable, then what makes it any different from other sources of meat and oil?

The extraordinary intelligence of whales is often used as an argument against harvesting them. The question of whale intelligence is one which remains in contention, as although it is widely accepted by the layperson that whales possess higher intelligence than other animals, there is little conclusive evidence supporting this supposition.

The belief in whale intelligence is often based on current scientific understanding of a particular region of the brain, the neo cortex. According to the Cambridge University paper, Brains, Behaviour and Intelligence in Cetaceans, the neo cortex is the area of the brain which sets mammals apart from other animals. Growth of the neo cortex is thought to be responsible for the evolution of intelligence.

For some, the presence of a developed neo cortex is enough to confirm intelligence in animals, and therefore provide just cause for a ban on whaling. But if you’re like me and enjoy your bacon and eggs then think again before using this argument; pigs have a developed neo cortex too.

Japan’s whaling research body, The Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), claims it currently uses the most humane methods possible; death is instantaneous or within 2 minutes of impact. The devices used are explosive harpoons which pierce the skin before exploding inside the whale. This might sound barbaric, but pro-whaling group High North Alliance (HNA) raises an interesting point:

In response to calls from UK officials for whaling to conform to abattoir standards, the HNA draws attention to the English tradition of deer hunting. Although the practice is met with anger from animal rights activists, resistance is marginal compared with the global scale of opposition to whaling. The commercial venison trade is the result of hunting just as whaling is. Therefore it is hypocritical of the western world to impose these rules onto Japan while activities like deer hunting continue.

However, the argument to stop whaling on the grounds of conservation would appear to be the most controversial of all. According to the International Whaling Commission (IWC), some species have shown a recovery in numbers since the end of industrial whaling in 1972. Establishing population numbers is a difficult process though so depending on where you get your info, the figures vary greatly.

Many estimates by the IWC have been found to be inaccurate and research on certain species is underway to rectify this. Among those being reviewed are Minke, Humpback and Fin whales all of which were to be targeted in Japan’s February ‘research’ mission. Not surprisingly, Japanese stock estimates on these species are very optimistic claiming that Antarctic numbers have rapidly increased. The World Conservation Union classifies Humpback and Fin whales as vulnerable and Minke whales as “conservation dependent”.

However, cynicism is an excusable response on first contact with a Japanese whaling vessel with “RESEARCH” proudly emblazoned up its side. It harks back to disguises worn by Bugs Bunny to confuse his pursuers. Put on a wig and spectacles and suddenly no one notices the bunny ears.

The research program JARPA, set up in 1987, has since been expanded. Its purpose is to “ensure that when commercial whaling is resumed it will be sustainable.” From 1987 to 2006, 182 scientific documents were published and the information gathered provided information on “population and ecosystem modelling.”

According the ABC program Catalyst aired in 2006, of the papers published, less than 55 were peer reviewed, just 14 were relevant to goals of the JARPA program and 4 necessitated lethal sampling. 

Pro-whaling nations claim that the economic loss of bringing an end to the industry validates its continuation. The Japanese Government cites significant economic, social and cultural losses to whaling communities as a result of current IWC regulation.

According to Greenpeace, there is growing opposition to whaling from the Whale Watching and tourism industries who say that “a whale can only be killed once, but can be watched several times.”

To counter this argument, the High North Alliance claims that studies have shown excessive attention from whale watching has caused Whales to alter migratory paths and that this makes the practice environmentally damaging.

Eyes will again be on the industry in June this year, when the 60^th annual meeting of the IWC is held in Chile. At the end of the day my opinion is far more complicated than I’d thought; I oppose full scale commercial whaling; support regulated sustainable commercial whaling; find current Japanese conduct on the issue dubious at best and Western positions often hypocritical. What do you think?

 Image, which shows a Japanese whale restaurant, Courtesy of loremipsum

Licensed Under Creative Commons