The Humane Society of the United States believes that
commercial whaling has no place in modern society. We no longer
need the bone, blubber, meat, and oil that whales once
supplied. Today, whales are more valuable alive than dead.
Protecting whales not only helps the animals, but also provides
financial, educational, and aesthetic opportunities for people.
An End to Whaling
The ultimate solution to the current controversy over
whaling is to ban the practice entirely. A complete and
permanent ban would quell the constant battles over
interpretation of International Whaling Commission (IWC) rules
and exceptions and eliminate the looming threat of a resumption
in commercial whaling with its imprecise quota system and lack
of enforcement. Substitutes for whale products are widely
available, so there is no place for commercial whaling in
today's economy. Living whales are far more valuable.
Sanctuaries
Until commercial whaling ceases entirely, one of the best
ways to protect whales is to create sanctuaries for them—areas
that provide safe refuge for whales during critical feeding,
breeding, and calving times. Whaling nations would not be able
to hunt whales commercially in a sanctuary regardless of how
many loopholes they may find in the international whaling
regulations.
Ideally, all nations would create regional sanctuaries, and
the IWC would recognize them. So far, the IWC itself has
created two sanctuaries: one in the Southern Ocean (Antarctica)
and one in the Indian Ocean. Attempts to create additional
sanctuaries were defeated at the IWC meetings in 2000, 2001,
and 2002.
The creation of whale sanctuaries will need to follow
certain guidelines. First, the purpose of the sanctuary should
be stated broadly enough to allow it to evolve without legal
limitations. Second, the sanctuaries should have clearly
defined boundaries. Third, sanctuaries should allow surrounding
communities to have a stake in them. If community members
become stakeholders in a sanctuary, they will be more likely to
promote its success and protect it from exploitation.
Sanctuaries would not only keep whales safe from hunting but
also engage and benefit the community, particularly because
sanctuaries can promote whale watching.
Whale Watching
There once was economic gain in whaling, but today a live
whale is more profitable than a dead one. Whale watching can be
an educational and harmless way for people to profit from
whales. According to a recent study, the whale-watching
industry is currently worth $1 billion, and profits go to a
broader range of the community. Almost 500 communities in 87
countries offer whale- and dolphin-watching tours. But it isn't
just the tour operators who benefit from whale watching: Local
communities profit from tourist dollars spent on restaurants,
lodging, and other services. A return to commercial whaling
would not bring in tourists or benefit communities and
businesses.
Even in Norway and Japan—the two nations that continue to
hunt whales for commercial or "scientific" purposes—whale
watching is growing and thriving. Citizens of both countries
are beginning to recognize that, while selling whale meat might
be profitable, observing whales swimming freely in the ocean
has greater value.
Likewise, in Iceland, which hunted whales as recently as a
decade ago, whale watching is on the rise. In 1999, ten
companies took more than 35,000 people whale watching, earning
an estimated $8 million. Even though the Althing (Iceland's
parliament) is currently debating whether to rejoin the IWC and
recommence whaling, there is a strong opposition movement
primarily made up of citizens who recognize that it would be
impossible for their small country to succeed at both whaling
and whale watching.
Sanctions
While some countries continue to whale in defiance of the
IWC moratorium, trade sanctions can be a persuasive means of
getting them to stop—-at least temporarily. In late November
2000, The HSUS submitted a petition to then-Secretary of the
Interior Bruce Babbitt, urging him to formally certify Japan
under the Pelly Amendment for undermining the effectiveness of
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Pelly Amendment allows any
person or entity to petition the U.S. government to certify
that nationals of a foreign country are diminishing the
effectiveness of an international endangered or threatened
species program. If this determination is made, the president
has discretionary power to impose trade sanctions against that
country.
While then-President Bill Clinton decided not to impose
trade sanctions against Japan, he did express serious concerns
over Japan's expanded whaling and its practice of taking whales
in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary, north of Antarctica.
Clinton stated he would urge Japan to reconsider its policy,
which he believed undermines the effectiveness of the IWC.
Clinton noted that Japan's whaling is clearly out of step with
the growing international consensus for whale sanctuaries, and
is in sharp contrast to other coastal countries that have taken
steps to protect whales.
Clinton left open the door to impose sanctions at a later
date by directing the departments of State, Commerce, Interior,
and Treasury, as well as the office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, to keep this matter under active review.
President George W. Bush now has the opportunity to show the
American people that he takes seriously the plight of the
world's whales. Like presidents before him, Bush can hold
another country accountable for its actions. By imposing trade
sanctions, Bush can send a strong message to Japan that the
United States and the majority of the world's nations want an
end to commercial whaling. The HSUS is calling upon its members
and supporters to contact both the Bush administration and
Congress to encourage them to take measures to force Japan to
stop killing whales and live up to its international
obligations.
This information is also available as a print publication. For
a copy of this fact sheet, download
the PDF.
 |
Get Adobe Acrobat Reader |
