Reflecting on my recent, rather intemperate post about whaling, I have decided that I may have been a little too hard-line on the issue. Despite the current miniscule numbers of non-Minke whales culled by Japan (only Japan hunts species other than Minkes), it would not hurt to further encourage population growth in less populous whale species.
Thus, in an imperfect world where the chances of internationally roaming whales ever being made the property of individuals is about zero, I suggest a compromise with the pro-whaling nations as a best case scenario. Make an offer to Norway, Iceland and Japan to lift the IWC moratorium, in return for all IWC members (with the obvious but unspecified target being Japan) agreeing to the following stipulations:
i) all subsidies to whaling industries must be incrementally phased out
ii) whale hunting must be limited to the two Minke whale species with abundant populations, until the population numbers of other whale species have recovered sufficiently to remove them from the upper reaches of the ‘endangered’ list
Naturally, these conditions need refining; how to decide population numbers, how quickly the subsidies will be dropped etc. Regardless, if these two stipulations are broadly accepted by all parties, Japan can take such an agreement back to its belligerent and powerful pro-whaling lobby and present it as an ostensible overwhelming victory. Truth is, by letting market forces set demand – and hence supply – stipulation one would eventually harpoon (sorry, couldn’t resist) the whaling industry in that country, and stipulation two would protect the less numerous species of whale in the process. I would not expect the perpetually emotionally overwhelmed anti-whaling lobby to accede to such a proposal, but I think it stands as the most effective way of durably cutting back the industry – if that is what consumers demand. Let the market decide the future of whaling.
James,
I applaud your recent update on this whaling issue and agree with much of your latest post.
[As an aside, Samizdata’s interaction and dialgoue with readers is why the web will bury the NYT, Newsweek, and the rest of the one way media.]
The reader’s comment that this is an ethics issue is exactly the point.
On NPR here in the US the coverage basically focused on how “Save the Whales” was a symbolic campaign that helped create the enviro movement in the US, and so the enviros have a strong emotional attachment to whales and anti-whaling.
However, if one believes whales are just like people (or apes are just like people, etc.) then sustainable yield management will not make one happy. Saving the species is not the goal, saving each individual of the species is the goal – and an impossible one at that since everything dies.
Failure to manage whales sustainably, and to give them economic value so they are worth saving to the marketplace, will doom them. Remember that it is the hunting of whales combined with the destruction and fouling of habitat and the overuse of most fish stocks, that is endagering whales.
We need to preserve large swaths of prime habitat as off limits to whalers, and relatively small, easy to patrol areas as acceptable for whaling. Whalers need to pay a tax, passed on to consumers of whale sticks, whale burgers, and whale jerky, to fund management research.
Save the oceans, save the whales, and save ourselves.
Mark – Thank you for your kind words, and I apologise if I was a little irritable in the comments thread on my previous post. I guess I just don’t see why whales deserve special protection. You can be against any sort of exploitation of animal life in the ocean – that strikes me as a consistent position. However (and I’m not asserting this is your position – although it may well be – but it’s a common enough position), I believe it inconsistent to insist on the protection of an abundant species of whale like the minke, and not oppose the exploitation of any other ocean-going critters, also part of the ecosystem, like cod or salmon or tuna or herring. And why stop at the oceans? What’s the difference between a whale and a cow? Or a chicken? Level of sentience? How do we measure that; how do we know that a pig is less sentient than a whale? And anyway, where to draw the line?
It’s the great inconsistency of the anti-whaling position that gets me. Either you eat animals that have been killed for that express purpose, like humans always have – or you don’t. A vegetarian and a vegetarian only can consistently criticise whaling, as they can the slaughter of any creature for nutritional purposes. Anyone who eats meat, yet opposes whaling, is not being consistent.
I’ve got another idea:
Auction whale hunting tags to the highest bidder. Funds raised can be split between the various whale shaving efforts, you’ll see the tree hugger groups falling all over themselves to increase whale hunting limits….
Even on a libertarian, !treehugger site, the simple fact that many fishing grounds have been sucked dry is indisputable. And what happened to the passenger pigeon? So it is certainly feasible to wipe out the whales, there is certainly precedent, and its not necessarily all enviro handwringing.
Tragedy of the commons again. I have no answer. I do think that quotas and such are not the answer, they are never enforced properly, the incompetent/corrupt enforcers are easy to fool etc. European fishing grounds have been emptied pretty effectively, quotas or not.
…I do think the point on subsidies is very valid, far as I understand it there isnt much demand for whale meat anyway, and its almost a matter of national pride for Japan to keep on whaling now, propped up with subsidy.
Jeez James, I never knew you had it in for the whales!
Cows, chickens, pigs, sheep – no different to the whales? We can and do mass produce all of those, and more, in factory conditions. Ya, wanna try factory conditions for boosting whale numbers?
Besides, the food sources of which you speak have an effect on the TOTAL animal eco-system, except to the extent that vast numbers of cows produce an awful lot of nasty gas, for example, require grain, grass, water, etc. None of these animals are part of a food chain, other than the human food chain. The damage created is human induced damage, because of the mass production aspect.
The oceans on the other hand have a vast and complex natural food chain that would be destroyed just as easily by the removal of whales as it would be by the removal of the tiniest creatures (can’t think of name, but essential to the entire oceanic system).
The consistency you speak of, and your wish for it, simply doesn’t apply with the examples being used, or the topic itself.
Irrational, very, very irrational.
BTW – cod, salmon, etc – hell, LOTS of people are very aware of the rapidly dwindling stocks, and the effect on the entire eco-system. Farm bred fish are NO substitute for an entire ocean of organisms. Did you know that, despite being told to eat three serves of fish a week, because the omega-3 is really good for us, that’s ONLY true if you know the fish came from the ocean? Farm bred fish do not have high omega-3. That’s what happens when humans are arrogant enoug to believe they can easily replicate, replace, or do without natural eco-systems.
Seen the population numbers for minkes recently, Caz? You’re trying to tell me that their current cull rates aren’t sustainable?
Does 184,000 minkes sound like a lot? Compared to … cows, chooks, pigs?
Or compared to what the natural numbers would have been, if not for 116,568 minkes being killed between 1904 and 2000?
Or relative to the size of the world’s oceans, and the place of the minkes in the oceanic food chain?
A one percentage drop in females minkes (they’re the one’s that have babies) could have catastrophic consequences (in the same manner that this seeminly trivial change has in human populations), who knows – I don’t.
Do we push the envelope just for the hell of finding out how many butterflies have to flap their wings in Brazil to sink Australia (for example), ’cause these things do make for beaut scientific papers and create many great reputations. On the other hand, if we let the oceans replenish and flourish, the world would benefit forever into the future.
Recent figures suggest that there might be as many as 3000 Pandas left in the wild, rather than the long held figure of 1000. (Though neither is easily substantiated.) Wow, my gosh, they’re not endangered after all, we’re potentially awash with more Pandas than the world’s zoos could ever hold! Yippee!
Except that would be a silly reaction, since bald numbers don’t tell us anything at all. 184,000 minkes, or 3000 Pandas on my balcony would be more than the world could ever possibly need, but when we take them off my balcony, into their natural environements, their own habitats, amongst natural and man made threats, take into account their natural breeding habits, etc, the numbers suddenly look small, very small indeed.
184 000 is a very conservative figure – sounds like the one Greenpeace uses – or are you only talking about one species of minke? Oh, yes. 184 000 is the population of the northern hemisphere minkes, according to Wikipedia. Southern minkes are thought to be considerably more numerous. The population figures do vary, however nearly everyone accepts that minkes are far from endangered – except those master contortionists, Greenpeace, who will tell you just about anything as long as it fits their agenda. I discovered this when debating one of their “experts” last year.
If you’re talking about minkes, dwindling population numbers is just not a convincing argument to cease hunting them. The current rates of harvest of Iceland, Norway and Japan combined would be effortlessly outstripped by a (very) conservative replacement rate of 1%. This is hardly an unsustainable cull rate.
Consider the following facts:
Fact one. The Japanese are going to whale, whether it’s under the auspices of science or commerce, Norway has objected to the moratorium and openly takes whales on a commercial basis.
Fact two. The market for whale meat is collapsing in Japan and Norway.
Fact three. The issue has become highly politicised, with powerful pro-whaling lobbies forming in both Japan and Norway that have extracted subsidies for their industries, which allows them to continue on with their trade despite the drop off in demand.
Fact four. Most experts agree that the various species of minke whale are not even close to being endangered.
With these facts in mind, isn’t it time the anti-whaling nations considered a different and more subtle strategy – like the one I mentioned at the top of this thread – if they want to end the practice? Surely we can all agree that if ending whaling is the goal, the current course of Aus, NZ, UK etc. doesn’t look like it’ll deliver the goods – in fact, I’d go so far to say it’s counterproductive and has extended the practice for a number of years.
As I’ve said before, in principle I have no problem with harvesting an abundant species like the minke. It continues to surprise me how those opposed to anti-whaling will concede that the current strategy of the world’s anti-whaling governments isn’t working, yet still insist they should stay the course. Isn’t it time for a change of plan – stop focusing on the maintenance of evadable bans imposed by ultimately toothless multilateral bodies, and start attacking the things keeping the industry afloat. Trade an end to the moratorium for an end to subsidies and watch the industry die a natural death.
Ah, indeed, agree with your latter points.
I never said I agreed with the current political strategy, and I don’t really agree with Greenpeace about anything, or at least certainly not their logic on anything.
I just couldn’t understand (taking into account your previous post on this too) why you had it in for whales, or why you thought the situation of oceanic creatures was comparable to cows, chooks, etc. I just think that analogy doesn’t hold … um … water.
Well, I don’t see any difference between catching and eating whales and farming and eating pigs or bulls. I think hunting any whale species to extinction is a bad idea, but I have no problem with harvesting any whale species in principle. If the artificial reduction in numbers endangers the species, then that’s another matter.
James writes: Well, I don’t see any difference between catching and eating whales and farming and eating pigs or bulls.
Surely the difference is that each farmed animal would not exist, were it not bred for farming; wild animals exist and breed, irrespective of human planning and action.
However, I don’t see it as obvious that special protection should apply to whales that does not also apply to other wild animals that are hunted. Risk of of extinction might be something of a case, but is not special to whales.
Is there a special case for whales? Is there a special case for mammals? Is there a different case to be made for animals according to “sentience”? Is there a different case to be made for pretty-looking and ugly-looking animals? Is there a different case to be made between sea mammals and sea non-mammals? Is there a different case to be made for sea mammals and non-sea mammals? Is there a difference according to the size of the animal? Is there a difference according to how close the animal is, in evolutionary terms, to homosapiens? [Looking elsewhere, is there a different case to be made for animals that are sometimes kept as domestic pets, and for those that are not?]
I don’t know the answer to these questions, but can go on much longer asking similar ones.
[Note aside: I do kill animals (insects most commonly, though others too), but not wantonly, and only where there is gain to me that I personally judge as sufficiently balancing, and where alternatives are “not convenient”. Also, I did less well on this in my youth, but do not consider myself particularly wicked because of that, just more thoughtful now.]
Is it wrong to hunt wild animals for food? And culling (to retain the balance “of nature”)? And for sport (ie entertainment)? And for sport in combination with food/culling/etc?
Do we have any rational basis for working any of this out?
Best regards
Tigers are in far more serious danger of extinction than whales, but there are only 33 search results for tiger as opposed to 241 for whale.
And of those 33, 19 relate to Esso’s trademark.
The whale issue is about something else.
Nigel, while your sentiment is romantic, the bare fact is that all mammalian speciess still alive today have extensively evolved from species that existed prior to the evolution of man, and most of their evolution is the result of predatory selection pressure imposed on them by the number one predator, man.
As man’s shift from herbivorous gatherer into a predatory hunter was the result of technology, it is a fair conclusion to reach that all of the evolution of major wild species for the last several hundred thousand years is due to human technology. Ergo, “wild” species today are only “wild” by courtesy of the fact that we find it easier to not fence them in than otherwise.
@Mike Lorrey
“Romantic” is not the adjective I think most characteristic (or even anywhere near characteristic) of my comment of June 21, 2006 02:06 PM.
Also, though not totally lacking substance, I think you go far too far in your argument that “wild animals” don’t really exist.
Best regards
I note your note that you kill animals. So do I. I’ve hunted grouse, woodcock, geese, duck, rabbit, deer, bear, and hopefully soon, moose and caribou.
Supposedly wild game birds have evolved flushing flight patterns that can only be described as useful for avoiding anti-aircraft fire. I highly doubt they flew this way out of instinct before men invented means of intercepting flushed birds in flight.
Likewise, todays deer, due to “bucks only” hunting regs, have evolved from a population of roughly 50-50 distribution of males to females to a heavily female population, and we are even starting to see males being born without antlers as a means of avoiding being shot. Bucks that survive have evolved to live apart from females, in entirely different cover, only seeking them out during the rut. Bucks have also evolved some degree of intelligence, being able to counterstalk hunters as a means of detection and avoision.
These observed evolved behaviors reflect an ongoing “arms race” that anthropologists have previously noted in the fossil record, where the volume of the brain cases of predatory and prey species follow a frog hop pattern: predator gets smarter and more successful, prey evolves to be smarter, back and forth.
As man is the top predator, this same pattern is ongoing now. Our predation and other behaviors which are detrimental to other species is not just causing a period of mass extinction of species that cannot compete, it is causing those that can compete to evolve in new ways, and as our predatory abilities are entirely technologically based, all such species are being evolved by a pseudo-lamarckian manner as our technologies advance.
IMHO, this is an effective argument against the romantic primitivists found in the luddite movement. If all is artificial anyways, there is nothing to retrogress to.
Hi folks,
I have been covering developments at the IWC meetings on my blog for the past couple of years now.
One thing I would mention: I don’t think that demand for whale meat in Japan is as non-existant as the western media is telling us. I live in Tokyo, and just in my own neighbourhood I know at least two restaurants that serve whale products (I tried one dish actually, and became a fan).
I’ve written ore about why I think this on my blog. What I think the problem is is that supply is limited, since commercial whaling has been banned for so long. The price of whale meat still remains relatively high in comparison to other substitutes. If the demand was collapsing as the western media keeps reporting, whale meat should be as cheap as chicken, but in fact it’s actually about as expensive of upper grade tuna.
Reports of an increasing stockpile also abound in the western media. The reality here is that the peak stockpile size is only maybe 20% above the yearly supply of by-products from the JARPA and JARPN research programmes. For example, the JARPA II programme brought back 3,400 tonnes of whale meat by-product a few weeks ago, and the stockpile was simultanenously reported in the western media as having reached 6,000 tonnes. The JARPN programme produces roughly a third as much whale meat, so in fact the carry over each year is perhaps only around 1,000 – 1,500 tonnes.
And this is an increase in supply in comparison with recent years. I expect that demand will see the stockpile at approximately the same size again in June next year.
For comparison, by the way, Traffic says that the stockpile was more than 22,000 tonnes in 1980.
Anyway, for lots more on whaling, visit my site:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com