Why does whaling have to be stopped?

Answer 1

Most whaling campaigners believe that whaling needs to stop due to 'whales' being an endangered species, or due to believing that the majesty, and beauty of these creatures warrants them a separate fate to other animals on the food chain. However, this is mostly down to lack of education on these matters. Whaling in Japan and Norway concentrates specifically on Minke whales, which are actually the most populous whale on the planet with around 1,000,000 worldwide. Japan and Norway both believe that it is their right to preserve their culture, as it is part of their national identity and other countries messing with that is in fact very offensive to them. Both countries use Minke whale as a food source, and have done for several hundred years (several thousand in Japan's case). In Japan, Minke whale is served in school dinners due to its high Iron content. In some cases Japan also hunts humpback whales, though less often, however these are also one of the most populous whales, and are by no means in danger of extinction. In my personal opinion, as long as an animal is not in danger of extinction, then its meat is fair game. Humans eat meat, and no animal is exempt, as they're all made of it. And you need to tolerate other cultures, as we're all in this world together. Japan have their ways, and they're set in them, just as you are set in your ways. My best example would be to say, imagine if a world organisation decided that cheer leading was sexist, and as a result the US, which had no say in this decision, had to abide by this decision and halt cheer leading at American football games. Americans would be in outrage because it's part of their culture. I'm a British man, and the monarchy is a part of my culture, I'd be offended if a 'world' organisation tried to tell me that my country, after THOUSANDS of years, wasn't allowed a monarchy. Having said that, legally Norway and Japan aren't required to stop, they're not breaking any laws, but Greenpeace 'wants' those laws in place. Why? Well as my post shows, Minke whales are actually in abundance, so the only other explanation is simply that Greenpeace are 'fans' of whales, and don't like the fact they are just animals, like cows, or fish, or pigs.

Whaling and other threats have led to at least 5 of the 13 great whales becoming endangered. Commercial whaling is subject to a moratorium by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). However, at the 2006 IWC meeting, the St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration, which protests the moratorium, was adopted by a slim majority.

'Whales' are not collectively endangered as there are 57 species of whale. Remember that whale is a genus and not a species, and the whale being hunted, 'Minke whale', is the most populous. Fabrications that whales are endangered are completely untrue. Whaling is an important part of some cultures, and what is important to people in those nations should be respected. Put your prejudices aside, I know that whales are beautiful and majestic, but they are also made of meat, and in the case of Minke, they are plentiful. Therefore, why shouldn't they be food? There is absolutely no reason, and no argument against this case.

Diversity is the key to survival of living things on earth, including humans. Diversity is key because when environmental changes (I mean natural changes as much as man made ones) or diseases specific to limited species occur, the ones who may be able to survive or be resistant to them are no longer there. As species of any kind disappear one by one, that diversity slowly shrinks. The point at which a species is reduced in number, and no longer has sufficient diversity of individuals within that species is unknown. It is also necessary to have sufficient numbers to reproduce and support the young for a species to survive.

There are some that use the argument that over millions of years that thousands of species disappeared but new species evolved so it's not a "crisis" when we loose a few hundred species per year. But that ignores the crossover effect of man's interference causing the extinction of species and man's interference in nature preventing new species from surviving and evolving. As the population of earth expands, and in the not too distant future, doubles from where we are now that environmental pressures will be twice as hard on nature as it is now. What are the chances of new species being able to evolve amidst that pressure?

Now for the whales, the writer above states for example, that Minke whales are plentiful. When we know that there could be an onset of a disease or an environmental factor that can suddenly decimate that population, and other whale species are on the decline, that mentality can lead to the eventual disappearance of whales of all kinds. Whales are only an example of the unnecessary destruction of species when we know the importance of diversity of all species to the survival of life on earth. That is not to say that I agree with Greenpeace or their methods, I don't know enough about them to agree or disagree with them. What I do know, is for humans to make a positive impact on our environment and for any possibility of reversing the damage already done, enough people will have to recognize and put into practice new ways of doing things.

This is a controversial issue, and a good answer must be balanced. The second answer stipulated that 'There is absolutely no reason, and no argument against this case.'

This is incorrect, and not balanced answer. This answer, and the first one, both raise many fair and correct points, but they also are just as one-sided as the arguments you would receive from Greenpeace or Seashepherd; what is certainly obvious is that the people who gave these answers either are lying or do not know all the facts.

Yes, it is true that Minke whales are numerous and much whaling centers around them. The first two answers seem to shun the whaling of other whales however, as the third answer pointed out, diversity is key to sustaining an environment, essentially the importance of having a large population is to counter both the increasing encroachment of human activity but also in case a disease of some kind attacks the given species, there is enough resistance within the combined gene pool to allow that species to survive.

The first two answers also talk about 'cultural heritage'. Japan's commercial whaling begun around the same time as Western Europe's did, the mid 1800's, and was centered on small coastal communities. Japan's antarctic whaling did not begin until the late 1930's. This of course is personal opinion, but I do not believe citing 'cultural heritage' is an excuse.

There are of course communities in Japan, Iceland, Greenland etc. which do have a proper right to

The anti-whaling reasoning generally ties down to three reasons:

1) Environmentalism: Some whales are endangered, and since many take a long time to age and reproduce, whaling can disrupt the environment. Normally, supporters of this view will not find any issue with aboriginal whaling, as they only kill a whale once in a while for food.

2) Animal welfare: Many supporters believe that there is no humane way to kill a whale. A harpooned whale often takes many minutes to die, in contrast to the ideal slaughterhouse where the animals are stunned and die without feeling pain. Proponents of this view usually say that whaling should be outlawed, with no exceptions. Whaling communities such as the Inuit are trying to find ways to make their hunts more humane, though many anti-whalers doubt if it can succeed.

3) Sentimentality: The media tends to glorify specific animals such as the ceteacans, horses and dogs. Additionally, science has shown that whales have spindle neurons, the neurons that give us several human traits. Many people feel that it is cruel to kill whales for these reasons.

Answer 2

Whaling has to stop! People eat these creatures which are already endangered enough in their own habitat! With the way whalers are just going about, killing all they can, they will be lost. If we stop that, the species will stick around for many years to come, and not all be consumed by us humans, who kill these creatures for the joy of the flavorand taste.

Answer 3

Well there are a few reasons I am not sure if they are all right because I am doing a report on it. One is that people think it is cruel and inhumane. Two is that if they were to come extinct all of the whale watching industries would lose their jobs. Three is that there is still information about whale we have yet to look into we need whales to research to found out how smart they are to humans. If they keep killing whales to extinction none of our generations will be able to see these gentle creatures. If they are extinct their food web will be unbalanced and there will be no creatures from the web which means even less animals in the creatures. Answer by heyiknow

Answer 4

because mothers will scream because perfume is made from whales so if the whales are gone then there will be no perfume for mums.

Answer 5

Because it is profitable. Not all countries agreed to stop whaling

Answer 6

because no one listens they keep on whaling as long as theres money involved

WHALES RULE

LET THE WHALES LIVE

Answer 7

most whaling campaigners believe that whaling needs to stop due to whales being an endangered species or due to believing the majesty and beaty...