Whale Hunting In America Case Study

The parties involved in this matter are the members of the tribe, both for and against the decision, the whales, the environmentalists, the courts that will settle the lawsuits and future generations that might be affected by any decision in regards to the impact on the whales sustainability. The decision at stake here is whether it is moral to revoke the ban and recent tradition,

The debate surrounding Makah whaling is a heated one to say the least. There are valid points on both sides of the argument, but there is one side I find to be more valid once the facts have been looked at. I will examine and present my findings regarding past and current laws and regulations related to whaling, types of whaling, other countries that take an active part in whaling (and why), as well as the Makah culture – both past and present. In this paper I will argue why the Makah should not be allowed to resume whaling, as it is unnecessary and could potentially put the grey whale species back on the endangered list.

Did you know that roughly three million whales were slaughtered in the twentieth century alone? Or that there are only around four hundred North Atlantic right whales alive today because they never fully recovered from being hunted? These whales are known as “right” whales because they are large and slow, with thick blubber that yields lots of oil plus they remain afloat after they've been killed, this simplifies the whole hunting process for everyone . Furthermore, the hunters got more money for less work. I believe that whaling is a vile and pointless thing to do to such beautiful creatures and that the International Whaling Commission should look further into the use of whales for research.

Did you know that in the last 50 years over two million whales have been killed? The United States views whaling very differently than Japan does. It is a complicated and controversial topic. Many people have opinions about whale hunting. However, everyone should know both sides of the whale hunting issues before they act on the issue. To start out I am going to tell you a little about whaling. The first whale hunters were in the prehistoric times. At first they would just kill and eat beached whales. That became such a habit that they started hunting them. Most whale hunters use harpoons, guns, lances, or bombs that blow up inside the whale. They use catcher boats, or kayaks. In 1925, whalers developed

The Japanese whaling industry has thrived and flourished since its origin. The Japanese have depended on whales such as the blue, fin, sei, and humpback whales. The issue at hand is that the demand for whale products and byproducts is so large that the numbers of these types of whales has declined to near extinction levels. Without any care to the harm being done, the Japanese whaling industry has not shown any sign of remorse towards this actions little has been done by the international community’s to put an end to the elimination of these large and peaceful creatures. There have been small groups of anti- whaling conservation. The groups have had many victories along the way by using their non- traditional methods and sometimes generating violent tension between them and the whaling ships while in international waters.

Despite the bias that exists in the article “After the Makah Whale Hunt” the article still addresses economic issues and is thus still similar to the other articles. Michael Marker’s article still talked about how whale conservation changed the Makah’s economy just as the other two articles did. The article still talked about the legal implications of the governments, and publics, action, to speak for the Makah people. Marker’s article simply used a different approach where he talked about the people while the other articles talked more about the numerical and legal

In my opinion, by doing this it would balance both whale hunting and whale watching and I do not feel people then would have any problem because they know that whale hunting cannot completely stop as so many people would lose their jobs but this would at least make it better for people who like whale watching. By limiting the amount of whale hunting, owners of fin whaling company like Kristjan Loftsson might lose some profit on the year but at least no one will be against them if they do not over hunt the whales. As Kristjan Loftsson believes “the world has wrongly turned against him”, just shows that he does think of other people’s opinions on whale hunting and if they set a quota to a reasonable number then people won’t have a problem and he would not think that the world is against him as he thinks now. People all around the world will not question the owners and they will still enjoy watching the whales for wild

I do not agree with Japan and Norway since all global agreements should be followed. Allowing these nations to continue whaling despite all other countries complying may lead to a dangerous precedent where many nations living with endangered species like Lions and elephants will also follow suit and demand exemption

They do have pertinent points and therefore will be negative economic consequences if whaling is stopped. The counter argument is that whaling has been banned since 1886 by the international whaling commission. Whaling, Wikipedia.org.

Whaling is defined as hunting and killing of whales by humans for resources, mainly meat, blubber and baleen (whalebone) obtained from whales. These resources are then sold for commercial purposes and thus, whaling has become economical important for centuries (Joanne 2007; The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia 2007). Scientific whaling is conducted by hunting whales for research purposes and further analysis to study on whale’s behaviour, characteristics and distribution (Joanne 2007). Commercial whaling is a controversial whaling practice that exploits whale products for trade and profit. Recently, Japan, Norway and Iceland are the major contributors of commercial whaling and deeply support any other whaling activities (Joanne 2007). Moratorium on commercial whaling 1986 is a global ban of hunting whales for commercial purposes, implemented by International Whaling Commission (IWC). Under Article VIII, unlimited scientific research is permitted but sufficient data and analysis are required by Science Committee set up by IWC (Papastavrou 2006).

The IWC came around to help fight whaling, but they had little effect. In 1970 the Convention of International Trade of Endangered species put a ban on all whaling. Even though there is a ban on whaling Norway, Iceland, Japan and the USSR still have whaling fleets but under the name of “scientific research”. The only people who are

Commercial whaling is a serious world issue that has always been difficult for those who are in support and those who are against it. Each group defends their side with convincing arguments. Morally, whaling is wrong, but do the reasons for whaling outweigh the reasons to cease the primitive hunts? By studying the effects of whaling,realizing how culture has changed over time, and taking note of the money that would be saved, it can clearly be seen that there is no longer a current need for whaling to continue. Efforts have been made to try to stop whaling, but with no help from any authoritative figure,nothing has been done to regulate the whaling. The famous sea shepherd, known for its strikes against whaling, can even be seen on

Aboriginal peoples have been whaling as a tradition for thousands of years with it being a significant part of their culture. They have depended on whales for food, clothing and other handicrafts. Whaling was key to survival and the Natives have honored the sacrifice of each whale through spiritual rituals and ceremonies. It gives them a purpose and discipline which benefits their whole community. This has not been a problem for many centuries, only recently have animal activists been trying to stop the hunting of whales. The Makah people have been the main subjects to the opposition of whaling on the basis that it is unnecessary for their culture or their survival. This has been an ongoing issue since 1999, when they harvested their first whale in 70 years. The violent backlash received has prevented them from gaining permission to hunt after that which led to the illegal killing of a whale in 2007. To present day, the Makah has gotten many undeserved death threats and bomb threats to schools. Many complaints have been made that the hunting method differs from how it was done traditionally so the hunting cannot be considered as one of their cultural practices. By denying the Makah cultural rights, this controversy could lead to cultural genocide. The Makah people should be allowed to harvest a total of 24 whales in 6-year period with two hunting seasons of 3 weeks each because it is the main factor in preserving their culture, it will not cause the gray whale population to

Then there should be some rules to guide all the people and bring them in common understanding. There need to be an international panel or board, which can decide and give some decisions if they did not obey the rules. The most important thing is that people should not have fear to the rules, instead of fearing to losing the species of whales, all people should believe that, these whales are the beauty of the sea and it is the responsibility of everyone to protect them from disappearing. Today because it is their culture, they are whaling, what about tomorrow when all the species are in danger, what will they do for their culture, the people of these countries need to think this. So if everybody could understand this and knows his responsibility, I am sure this will be solved in a short

I don 't believe I have a say in the matter, to be honest, and I know it 's a very emotive one for some. I haven 't even been to Norway nor Japan. And if I were to agree with their standpoint I might risk being branded a whale-hater and banished to the edge of civilization. If I disagree with their view, I would possibly find myself partly guilty of not respecting the views of other cultures; perhaps even being party to the erosion of one (or more) of their cultural values (as more clashes between their cultures and those of others may arise going forward.)