Once a year I belly up to the gurgling, emotional caldron of the whaling issue, hoping to offer 2 cents worth of common sense to the mix. To be up front, I like whales -- that is, I like them sliced up and rare as many Japanese do.
People of the Scandinavian whaling nations may not share the Japanese taste (opting for well done). Their whaling operations certainly don't generate the degree of contempt around the world that Japan's activities do.
Japan bears the brunt of ill will perhaps because many people view Japan's claims that it is conducting scientific research during whaling operations as a ruse to continue whaling. Japan should work harder to publicize the knowledge that it and others have acquired from whaling research.
Whales can be hunted for what they are -- a renewable marine resource. To manage them, science provides tools. Through data population studies, appropriate harvest limits are established as well as bans on the capture and killing of whales whose numbers are found to be insufficient to ensure the survival of their species. However, once the population has reached levels deemed by majorities on world commissions as honest evidence of recovery -- as in the case of minke whales -- where is the rationale to continue bans on whaling?
When the populations of other whale species, such as humpbacks, make comebacks, what argument against whaling can nonwhaling/anti-whaling nations present? Lately their leading politicians sound like animal rights cultists and Green Peace extremists. Their reasoning is fraught with childlike fancy.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.