Norwegian Whaling

My opponent's first argument makes little sense, I must say. He says it is unethical to kill an animal without infringing on its rights. So is it ethical to kill an animal as long as you violate its rights? No matter what rights you believe we should impose on animals, humans, as predators, have a right to take the lives of those animals to sustain ourselves, but as intelligent beings, that comes with the responsibility to do so in a respectful and sustainable manner. Whaling in norway involves exclusively the North Atlantic common Minke whale, which is not at all endangered. And your source on hunting methods is false in almost every respect. Whales have not been hunted by "spear drifting" for hundreds of years. You need to do your research. They are currently hunted by fishing boats, crewed by 4-6 men. They are shot with either a 50 or 60mm gun that fires a harpoon at the whale, tipped with an exploding penthrite grenade. NAMMCO reports that 80% of the whales are dead or unconscious instantly or within 10 seconds. This makes sense, because if a grenade explodes in your nerves or heart, you don't have much keeping you alive. If the whale is not dead within this time, it is shot in the head with a large hunting rifle. Once the whale is dead, it is hoisted onto the boat, the blubber is cut off, the meat is cut off, all tissue is frozen for transport, and the unusable carcass is dumped back into the ocean to feed other animals. They do not net whales, they do not bring it back to land while it is alive, they do not intentionally inflict pain upon it. I find this disgusting assumption insulting to Norwegian fishermen. If they simply did not care about the whale's pain, they would simply save $1000 on a harpoon grenade and use a plain steel harpoon tip. Whaling is NOT a dominant and lucrative industry in Norway. It is a small scale business, conducted by fishermen during the summer, when the fishing is not as good for cod. No one becomes very wealthy by whaling. It is just another job to earn a living. Also, distribution of meat and blubber is NOT illicit. It is perfectly legal under norwegian law, and international law because the whale meat traded is not endangered. You have a very distorted idea of the whaling industry. It is not the international organized crime syndicate you believe it to be. There are requirements for whalers, but they all have to do with knowledge of the use of weapons and safety, and animal welfare. Humans could survive without plenty of things. We could survive without the computer you are looking at right now, but since it improves your life, and its benefits outweigh its problems, we see ti as a good thing. Whaling improves the lives of people it feeds, and the people who make their living off of it. Without whaling, fishing communities in the North of Norway would be crippled financially. And there is no lasting damage from whaling, because the whales hunted are not endangered. No whale has ever become extinct because of whaling. Also, good weather is necessary for hunting the small minke whale. This puts the hunters at a disadvantage to the whales. You claim that whales are a critical link in the food chain, but what do the whales support? Any non-human animal that eats them can get by on something else, so if a whale dies, it does nothing but increase the numbers of its prey. This means increased fish stocks for people to harvest. With whales, the fish populations are not being destroyed, but whaling in theory increases the stocks. Plankton are the real critical link in the food chain. Lastly, Norway takes about 600 whales a year from a population of about 800,000. I don't think such a small take is going to crush the species. Again, this statement makes no sense. Has it been objected to? Or received strong public support? Ok, firstly, the whaling ban was brought in in the late 19th century because the fishermen thought the whales would push the fish to shore and were essential to their fishing. In 1986, the IWC established a moratorium (not legally a ban) on all commercial whaling, because in the 20th century people were killing huge numbers of whales. Whales are significantly more difficult to catch than fish. Especially in the 1800's, when we only had rowboats and hand spears. Whale meat was hardly a part of the market back in the day. Whaling was conducted almost entirely for blubber, which could be rendered into whale oil. The meat was not widely eaten by people. While Sea Shepherd, Greenpeace, and other western groups don't like whaling, it doesn't mean Norway is obligated to stop. They have the right to whale if they choose to. One reason they choose to continue is that while whaling does not support very much the economy as a whole, it is very significant to smaller, local communities which the Norwegians acknowledge as mattering, while the rest of the world believes they shouldn't matter because they hunt animals that are too cute to eat. If Norway can't force the United States to abolish the death penalty, the United States can't force Norway to give up whaling. Summary: Minke whales are not endangered, the hunt is sustainable, and we have the right to harvest them if it benefits us. The hunt is conducted with harpoon guns and exploding grenades that provide a quick and low-pain death. Whaling is not illegal, only disliked by the IWC. Whaling contributes significantly to local economies. The rights of other entities to oppose do not override Norway's right to continue.