A Giant Leap Backwards: Whaling Again?
By Cloe Waterfield, Twentyfifty, for Conscious Breath Adventures
June 2010
Today, nearly thirty years after a moratorium on commercial whaling was approved, we are apparently once more at the drawing board, with a proposal on the table to resume legal commercial whaling.
Since its establishment in 1946, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has been responsible for managing populations of thirteen species of great whales, whose stocks at that time were dangerously depleted by years of unregulated hunting. Some forty years later (1982), a majority of the 88 nation members voted to implement a pause or “moratorium” in commercial whaling, setting catch limits to zero (with the exception of some limited aboriginal, subsistence hunting). Cited reasons were uncertainty about what comprised safe catch limits and differing attitudes to the acceptability of whaling. Today, nearly thirty years after the moratorium and over sixty years of research and discussion, we are apparently once more at the drawing board, with a proposal on the table to resume legal commercial whaling.
The IWC argues that resuming managed whaling would mean less loss overall. Currently three countries defy the moratorium (Japan, Iceland and Norway), taking more than 1200 whales per year. Final quotas in the Revised Management Plan have yet to be set. The “new deal” would purportedly only allow these three nations to hunt commercially and control measures such as ship observers and a DNA registry would be introduced. Note that the costs of these control measures would be borne by taxpayers in all IWC countries through higher membership dues. It also allows whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary established by the IWC to protect whales in 1979 - not much of a sanctuary, in the literal sense of the word.
Even more disturbing, however, is that legalizing whaling opens the door to revisiting the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), one of the world’s oldest and most effective international environmental agreements. 172 nations adhere to CITES (compared to 88 in the IWC) and all cetaceans are listed. If hunting endangered species is allowed, why should their meat not be traded?
Evidence of their cerebral superiority includes the large size and complex structure of cetacean brains.
But is it really ethically acceptable to hunt whales at all? After all, this was a reason for the ban in the first place. Now, like it or not, the IWC was established to manage whaling not whales — i.e. to ensure they were not depleted to the detriment of the industry. But as the IWC’s scientific committee states that stock assessments are now solid enough to justify taking some whales, shouldn’t the scientific committee be considering additional knowledge about their intelligence and social systems as well?
At least one government is taking the ethical stance seriously; Australia is taking Japan to the International Court of Justice over its continued slaughter of whales in the Southern Ocean. Last month academics convened at the University of Helsinki and developed a “Bill of Rights” for cetaceans, stating that because of mounting evidence of their intelligence and sense of self, they have a right to life and liberty and as such whaling is unacceptable.
Evidence of their cerebral superiority includes the large size and complex structure of cetacean brains and the presence of spindle cells, recently discovered in humpback whales (previously only known in humans and great apes), which are thought to be involved in learning, remembering and recognition. Socially, dolphins and whales exhibit creative play, have been shown to use tools, and to form complex family and social bonds underscored by sophisticated communication. Recent research documented long term female-female friendships in humpback whales of the St. Lawrence Inlet. Baleen whales like the humpback were not previously thought of as exhibiting the strong social ties known in toothed whales like dolphins and sperm whales. Then of course there’s the mirror test - the infamous test of self awareness - seen by some to be a sign of highly-developed, abstract thinking. Dolphins have passed the mirror test; understanding that dye placed on their body was on their body, twisting and turning in a mirror to better see it.
Regardless of brain power, we ourselves hold something emotionally salient about whales. There is something otherworldly about these animals that keep so many steadfastly adamant that whaling is wrong just plain wrong. The concept of biophilia; a “love of life or living systems”, describes the connections that human beings subconsciously seek with the rest of life. Research is underway on a marine version, oceanophilia, exploring the relationship between the human mind and the oceans.
Whether whales and dolphins should be considered as non-human persons, or whether there’s a deeper emotional connection there for some of us is certainly possible, while debatable. One thing that’s fairly clear, however, is that cetaceans are not “pets.” Most species are clearly not capable of domestication or maintaining emotionally normal lives in captivity. But, as science shows us they are clearly more intelligent than dogs or cats. Shouldn’t we at least afford them the same respect, to not hunt and kill them, as we do “man’s best friend”?
Some of the organizations active in anti-whaling efforts at the 62nd meeting in Morocco are listed below, the vote is scheduled for June 21st.
|
