Whaling Should Be Allowed

Whales are a natural resource and critical aspect of the global ecosystem (Tohlen, 2009). Historically, people depended on them for food, just as historically everyone in the Bahamas, where I lived, depended on sea life for food. Therefore, hunting was part of our culture. However, we evolved and now eat much of the same food as the rest of the industrialized world, due to globalization. I completely disagree with the Norwegian and Japanese position that hunting of non-endangered species of whales should be allowed because of cultural reasons because whale is no longer a critical portion of either country’s diets, predominant religions, or the daily cultural practices of their residents (Tohlen, 2009), instead it is simply a source of revenue.

The question of cultural exemptions should be address by an international body developed by the consensus of the majority of countries in the world, since this occurs in globally owned waters. In 1948, the International Whaling Commission was developed specifically to handle all natural resource management and legal issues related to whales in international waters, thus it is only right that cultural exemptions be settled by them (Hamamota, 2016). Norway was independent and if they disputed the formation of this regulatory organization, the time to do that is long past. Similarly, Japan, was occupied at the time, and the entity’s controlling Japan did support this organization, so it is irrational to think that a change in power in a single country should exempt it from being subject to an organization that its leaders once enrolled it in (Hamamoto, 2016). Some suggest that an international panel such as a committee at the World Trade Organization (WTO) should be validating these claims. However, I disagree. The (WTO) lack the history of working with experts in climate change, ecosystems, biological systems, historical culture, and modern culture, which the International Whaling Commission has. I believe that a panel must include both researchers and experts in all world cultures, environmental scientists, and biological scientists. This is because we must first determine

Whaling should only be exempt if its absence would decimate a culture. The law is clear, it does not say exemptions are for cultural or economic reasons (Tohlen, 2009). Thus, in adhering to the spirit of the law we must not consider any economic impacts or world opinions. Modifying a regulation due to current economics or public preferences, in my opinion, would set a dangerous precedence. Considering the globalization of the world, this could open the door for other countries to take actions on other natural resources. Soon one country might mine all the gold and create unstable monopolies. Another might start a new holocaust. Imagine the additional carnage that would have resulted if people allowed the Jewish Holocaust to continue because economically the free labor generated by Jewish prisoners was beneficial. I realize that is an extreme example, but it is critical to understand that we cannot make decisions based on things, such as economics, that go beyond the scope of the written and case law for