Animal Rights
Animal Rights

Does One Compromise Over Whale Slaughter?

| by Animal Blawg

David Cassuto

The hoo-ha is growing over the recent proposal by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to lift the outright ban on whaling in exchange for the scofflaw nations (Japan, Norway & Iceland) ceasing their “scientific whaling” (in the case of Japan) and getting to kill more of some different kinds of whales (in the case of Norway & Iceland).   Scientific whaling is simply the slaughter of whales under the guise of research.  It’s a loophole in the IWC ban that insults the intelligence of anyone who believes that words (like science) ought to have meaning.   Last year, of the 1700 whales killed by the 3 whale-killing countries, roughly half were killed by Japan in the name of “science.”  Even the Japanese recognize the silliness of this approach.  

In any event, the attraction of new compromise floated by the IWC is that it attempts to break the logjam over the issue — a logjam that has led to an increasing number of whales killed each year despite the moratorium (which was enacted in 1986).  Unfortunately, what the compromise does not do is make any sense.  The proposal suggests quotas  that are not based on the IWC’s own  Scientific Committee’s calculations for managing sustainable cetacean populations.   According to Justin Cooke, a mathematical modeler and IWC committee member from the IUCN, “The various numbers that are currently being bandied about” emphasize “the importance of keeping to the rule that the Scientific Committee is the authority” and should be the only body calculating any such quotas.” 

I am all for creative attempts to limit whaling and to restore some of the authority of the IWC.  However, no authority is restored by this measure.  It would rather diminish whatever credibility the IWC retains, while allowing  whale-killing nations to kill with an IWC imprimatur.

Whale killing is one of the few things that most people in most nations agree is brutal and senseless barbarism.  The high ground is important here.  One should only give up that ground — if ever — for something very meaningful.  This “compromise” is not it.