Whaling: Is there a middle ground?

Categories: Whaling

 Whaling is often considered a horrible practice by conservationists, and it’s easy to see why. Killing endangered species is almost never a good thing. However, whaling is a different story. You see, conservationists can only see one option, abolishing whaling as a practice. But, there is a middle ground. One that is not so detached from reality. Whaling should be practiced only in certain regions that depend on them for food and material, as well as for science.

The aboriginals should continue whaling. Did you know that the conservationists want to stop aboriginals from whaling? Indeed, they want to destroy a practice carried out for generations by northern tribes. This argument has no basis. After all, it has been proven that the tribes use every component of the hunted whale, and they only hunt for subsistence! (WBO). In fact, the Makah tribe in Washington state has an explicit treaty, allowing the Makah to continue whaling, which was signed in 1855.


However, countries that do not need whaling or whale products should be restricted from whaling. Besides the fact that these countries simply do not need any whale products, whaling is only permitted for scientific use. At least, if the country is in the IWC (The International Whaling Commision.) (IWC.) Therefore, the only reason to partake in whaling, by any of these countries, is profit. Which, is also illegal, if the country is part of the IWC. (IWC.) These places should start moving for substitutes of whale products. Perhaps countries and companies could start moving towards another animal: the Seal.

Top Writers
Verified writer
4.8 (756)
Sweet V
Verified writer
4.9 (984)
Verified writer
4.7 (239)
hire verified writer

Seals have bones, blubber, and meat. (NATGeo) Not to mention the fact that the amount of seals in the world far outshines the amount of whales left. Seals number two to seventy five million, (LSC) whereas whales number around fifteen thousand (OI.)

Conservationists would no doubt try to make a rebuttal against the arguments portrayed here. They would argue that there isn’t enough whales left to sustain the amount of hunts from the aboriginals. But, this is wrong, as most aborignal whalers kill around forty a year, which is more than sustainable for whale populations. (IWC.) They would even claim that nations such as Iceland, Japan, and Norway should stop whaling. However, these nations, excluding Iceland, are not part of the IWC and have no obligation to stop whaling. However, Iceland should cease the practice of whaling immediately. They have an obligation to, as they are part of the IWC. (IWC.) Truly, this would be the best course of action for whaling. Not only do the aboriginal tribes stay happy, keeping their rights and traditions, the companies and countries like Iceland, could find an alternative in seals. And, of course, the countries that do not need whale products will be content. A solution that solves the problems of whaling.

Cite this page

Whaling: Is there a middle ground?. (2021, Oct 31). Retrieved from http://envrexperts.com/free-essays/essay-about-whaling-there-middle-ground

Whaling: Is there a middle ground?
Let’s chat?  We're online 24/7