'The Resumption of Killing Whales\r'

'The following subject is about the resumption of whaling by Norway with a localize on the American attitude towards whaling in general. Whaling is a very sensitive issue for m any(prenominal) population, including myself. on that point argon many battalion who witness that runs are highly intelligent mammals, akin to humanity in many ways. They cite the fact that heavyweights mate for life, the coat of the average whales brain, and the proof that whales communicate with one former(a) ; all of these traits they share with us.\r\nThe anti-whaling people opinion that to devour whales for their meat or oil, would be like cleaning people for their meat or oil. The pro whaling people dont buy any of their reasoning. The pro whaling people feel that it is their right to use their re references any way that they want, and no one can tell them what to do. These people dont feel that whales are intelligent or that the size of their brains has any thing to do with it. The people of Norway dont see a problem with whaling because they were raised w ith it.\r\nThe anti-whali An international write up by Milton Freeman and Stephen Kellert, published in 1992, surveyed people in 6 major countries including Australia, Germany, Japan, Norway, The linked acres and The United States about their attitudes towards whales and whaling. 57% of the US respondents affirm that they â€Å"opposed the hunting of whales under any fate” and 55% felt that â€Å"even graveld whaling essential be abandoned” (Skare 1994). Although none of the respondent groups showed a high level of knowledge on the subject, all seemed to agree on the following points.\r\n1. The protection of whale habitats from pollution and disturbance. 2. Maintaining an â€Å"ecosystem” perspective in whale management. 3. Basing collect levels on the most sound scientific advice available. In Norway where whale hunting was once a fully grget industry the proponents of whaling scoff a t the prospect of a world without whaling. Norway claims that whaling in their country dates back more than ten gee years (Skare 1994) and that history, they claim, gives them the right to exploit the resources that they maintain available to them; what they dont say is that those â€Å"resources” arent really their own to exploit.\r\nEric Doyle, a member of Greenpeace, an environmental watchdog group, explained to me (over the telephone) that the boundaries that countries bring forth up dont mean anything to whales or even to whaling boats in some(prenominal) instances. Doyle, explained that because Norway is one of the very few countries that have resumed whaling ,their boats arent closely watched, and are often overlooked because there arent many of them out there (Doyle 1995). Norwegians who are bear on in whaling, hunt Minke whales in the northeast Atlantic, where the whale stock is estimated to consist of approximately eighty-six thousand seven hundred minke wha les (Donovan 1994).\r\nIn the late eighties Norway imposed a ban on itself that cease whaling, commercially, whaling for the purpose of scientific research, however continued with no end in visual sensation. The History of The Regulated Whaling industry… Whaling has always been a source of income and, whales an endless source of useful products. The meat for our diets, the oil to lubricate our cars and bicycles, the avoirdupois to make shampoo, soap, and many other products too numerous to mention (Skare 1994). However with the invention of synthetic oils and the whimsey of healthy living on our minds; the average American has little interaction with whale products.\r\nThis fact has naturalized the main body of the anti-whaling argument, as if to say, if the Americans can anticipate without whaling then everyone else can too. In nineteen-twenty six, the League of Nations created a subcommittee to oversee and regulate the growing whaling industry; further it was not unt il nineteen forty-six that a functional regulatory committee was established. At the initiative of the United States, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was adopted by the League of Nations.\r\nThe ICRW called for such a working committee, and then the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was created. ICRW was intended to safeguard and regulate whale stocks for future generations, and also to ensure the tasteful development of the growing whaling industry. The only lift up (pardon the pun) is that the ICWR make it possible for any country to exempt itself from the IWCs rules by simply filing a formal disagree and abstaining from voting on referendums brought up at the every year meetings of the IWC.\r\nTo no ones surprise, after approving the ICRW, Norway immediately filed a formal complaint and abstained from every vote the IWC held; thereby exempti â€Å"But the matter of substance is, what is the point of having a scientific committee if it s unanimous recommendations on a matter of primary importance are set with such contempt? ” Hammond was expressing his frustration and anger with Norway for exempting themselves from the ICRW, and with the IWC for be powerless to enforce any of its own rulings. Norway went forwards with its plan to whale that year and took 226 whales and an additional 69 for research.\r\nIn 1993 the catch totaled 369 animals with an unknown make sense (either additional or included) taken for research, and the 94′ duration saw 411 animals with an additional 178 for ,you guessed it, research. Norway continues to whale against the recommendations of the IWC, Greenpeace and every other organization that tracks Cetacean population levels. At the term this paper was created there were no totals for the 1995 season, but if the total follow the trend of the past three seasons, the catch is guaranteed to be higher than that of the 1994 season.\r\nThat could mean the deaths of over 600 mink e whales. heedless of the side one takes, it is becoming evident that some thing must be done earlier this problem becomes too large to handle. Possible Solutions This give has gone on for many years and in all likelihood will go on for many more, with no end in sight some solutions must be found in order to reach some kind of answer or compromise. Some of these solutions might include.\r\n'