That said, the whaling ban does violate national sovereignty. Internationally imposing the ban on whaling prevents nations, such as these, from taking part in one of their historical cultural practices. It also restricts some towns from their normal source of industry, taking with it employment opportunities and sources of tax revenue that could improve the communities. In these cases, despite whaling not being ethical nor a responsible practice according to global majority opinion, it may also not be ethical and economically responsible to remove the right to these practices from communities that depend on them. It is a form of forcing our ideals on others, where their livelihood and preservation of traditions depend on their practices. …show more content…
Despite it violating their national sovereignty, I believe these concerns are ultimately of a lesser importance than the protection of these creatures as they are a very important part of the ecosystem and hunting them throws it out of balance. Whales live very long lives, take a long time to reproduce and it is difficult to sustain their populations. Because of this, we should not wait until a whale species is endangered before we decide globally to protect them. Another problem with allowing these practices to remain, is the difficulty in regulating these industries to ensure that necessary protective measures are effectively implemented. There could be many instances where certain whale species are hunted and then not landed. This leaves animals severely injured and dying in a slow painful manner.
The International Whaling Commission is an intergovernmental organization that oversees the conservation and management of whales. Membership to the organization is open to any nation. IWC is made up of scientists and researchers that determine catch limits. “These measures include catch limits (which may be zero as is the case for commercial whaling) by species and area, designating specified areas as whale sanctuaries, protection of calves and females accompanied by calves, and restrictions on hunting methods” (“History and purpose,” n.d.).
I would define cultural activity as something that is commonly practised or associated with a particular group or nation. Historically Japan and Norway have been prominent whaling nations. However the culture of these two nations are changing. Even in a nation such as Japan whale meat has lost it's popularity. “Even though prices are falling, whale meat sales remain weak, as people consume less than 30 grams on average” (Kyodo, 2014). The argument for Japan to continue whaling practices is much weaker now that consumption has shown it has become wholly unnecessary.
The only groups of people that should be allowed access to whaling are indigenous communities that use it as a food source and not commercial purposes.
Most of these communities are very poor and don't have much access to resources. In order for aboriginal people to continue hunting the methods need to improve to ensure a humane hunt. “The IWC recognises that killing methods used in ASW hunts are typically less efficient than those used in commercial whaling operations, often leading to higher struck and lost rates and longer times to death. The IWC has passed several resolutions seeking improvements in the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence whaling operations” (“Subsistence Whaling,”
n.d.).
The economic impact of whaling on small villages is not a significant enough reason to potentially endanger the whale species they hunt. Whaling, if continued needs to be heavily regulated and should only be allowed in non-commercial cases of continuing historical cultural activity, such as with the Aboriginals. World opinion on this particular matter should be headed, for the betterment of all people. Although the sovereignty of nations is important, in this ever increasingly globalized world decisions that affect the whole of the planet need to take into due consideration the weight of the voices of the masses.