Don't Lift the International Ban on Whaling

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Like your thoughts on this, right now I'm in my school debate club so if you have any other articles or further information please contact me via email.

Max Hill of CA 2:34PM December 03, 2011

"Eat your heart out, *we* don't like *you* executing people in prison, but it's not our country, so *we* don't have any say in *your* matters. And neither do *YOU* in *OUR* matters!!! "
Next time think your thoughts out more clearly. The prisoners we imprison are our citizens. The whales you kill are in international waters. You cannot compare the two. The whales you kill are not your country's matter, they are a global matter. Stop acting like you have some legal right to global creatures and exploiting them.
Furthermore, you do not have a "sovereign right" to kill innocent animals. Where is that stated in Norwegian Law? No one has that right.

Heathewr of CA 1:53PM June 09, 2010

Sure, lets make whaling legal once again. Why not. Kill everything that moves. God created all living things, and us ( people) are much more devine and powerful than God, so we have the power to destroy and kill all that God created. WOW it feels great to be the supreme life on this planet, above and beyond all other living creatures. And just think, once all other creatures are dead, we have nothing more to kill but one another. Oh, wait, we already do that in all of the senseless murders and wars that take place everyday. Feel the love baby!

Brian Abbott of MN 1:03AM June 08, 2010

this is a disgrace!! the sea needs to be left alone until there is a balance, where species aren't endangered and coral reefs aren't dieing and so on and so forth. if we kill the sea... we kill the planet as we know it. this is just ONE of the things that needs to be dealt with and stopped to make our planet better. its not like you can mass produce whales and other types of fish... such as cattle and chickens.
the life of the sea is the most important life of all.
execution is a governmental ordeal, people know the consequences of their actions, and should not knowingly murder others, and if they do, they already know what could happen to them. whales and sea life know no better, that us HUMANS that are not even of their kind, would kill them off to the point of endangerment.

Samantha of MI 10:48PM June 03, 2010

And here we have an ignorant Norwegian peasant screaming about their rights to destroy creatures that do not belong to them, and destroy the whale populations once and for all, so some backwards Norwegian peasant can shove some money down their greedy maws. Poor Animux represents the base, uncivilized goons in countries like Norway that destroy the world for everyone. Norway shows the world its ignorant real face.
As for Mr Fisherman who wants to kill seals. He represents the low, peasant ignorance of fishermen in places like Gloucester Massachusetts, where families of fishermen have been breaking laws for years, covering and lying for each other, and wildly overfishing, and then scapegoating "the seals" and anything else their limited brains can dream up. They won't be happy until they have destroyed everything, lying and cheating every step of the way. The ignorance and corruption of these fishing industry nuts is beyond belief. They'd steal food from their children's mouths, then claim "the seals" did it.

Jess of MI 7:59PM June 03, 2010

Unfortunately, the common expression of support for whaling often appears in an almost singular and ugly form. The premise is that nations can just do whatever they please regardless of international agreements and resolutions. This premise usually comes in the form of an indignant statement of absolute autonomy without any another justification.
"You can't tell me what to do," has apparently become the foreign policy of nations like Norway, Iceland and Japan when it comes to whaling.
It begs the question of why haven't the economic sanctions and boycotts of the late 1980s been revived to deal with this type of a response?
Perhaps it's again time for action from the people of international communities who helped to halt Iceland's whaling industry for nearly 15 years through the 1989 boycott of Icelandic fish. Perhaps it's time for the United States of America to exercise its national laws including the Pelly Amendment which legally gives the US President the authority to establish an embargo of marine products from nations that diminish the effectiveness of international conservation programs.
Prior to the International Whaling Commission voting to establish a global moratorium, there was a United Nations vote in favor of the same halt to all commercial whaling. Only the remaining whaling nations ignored the results of that vote as well.

AnimuX of TX 2:48PM June 03, 2010

You are so full of nonsense, Animux.
You claim that "they've all failed to honor their international obligations", and then you write that "Norway never accepted the moratorium" legally.
In other words, if you actually knew anything about legal matters, you would understand that Norway did in fact act legally and continues to do so.
While you don't like whaling Norway can do so legally despite your nonsense. We, Norway, respect international law, however the US and you don't make [them]!
Eat your heart out, *we* don't like *you* executing people in prison, but it's not our country, so *we* don't have any say in *your* matters. And neither do *YOU* in *OUR* matters!!!
I'll go buy some whale meat at my local supermarket to support my nation's sovereign rights!

Andrew 2:21PM June 03, 2010

Even so, I personally, I dislike the idea of killing whales or dolphins, but that's just a matter of opinion - nothing moral one way or the other. Now, regarding seals, I would dearly like to bring back seal hunting. Pinniped numbers are sky rocketing and they are decimating fish populations along our coastline. However, the Marine Mammal Protection Act makes criminals out of those fisherman who try and control the seal populations by shooting a few to thin out the numbers of these voracious eaters of fish.
Hunting, fishing, oil extraction, land use, energy production and use have become moral/legal issues in State Eco-Theology. Not much will change that theology until our bellies and wallets are empty, and we sit shivering or sweltering in our "eco-correct" homes, as really ugly governments take center stage and leave us begging for a handout because we have crippled ourselves, and tied our nation in enviro-regulatory knots.
The price of these handouts will be our national identity and liberty.
"Going Green" has run amok.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 2:17PM June 03, 2010

JDamer of NY says that Japan can hunt in Sancturaries because of Article VIII.
Actually Japan does have an objection to the Southern Ocean Sanctuary but only for minke whales. Its hunt of fin whales is not legal, even when using Article VIII as an excuse. If it was, why did it feel that it needed an objection for minke whales?
As to this proposal bringing whaling under control, it does nothing about whaling under objection, whaling under Article VIII (so called scientific whaling) or Iceland's so called whaling under 'reservation, which is not recognized by many of the IWC membership as even being legal.
Both Iceland and Norway will get higher quotas than the amount of whales they have been taking on average over the last few years (neither have the home markets) and Japan is the only country that may have to take an initial reduction. The deal illegally tries to limit whaling to these three countries, but cannot in practice. South Korea has already indicated that it wishes to resume commercial whaling if the deal goes ahead.
The US is supporting this for geopolitical reasons in the Pacific, and to secure its own aboriginal subsistence quotas for ten years. Japan always tries to attack the US application on the grounds that it should get a commercial quota if the US Inuiapt get an ASW quota. This has nothing to do with protecting whales, but simply a few self interests.
Chris Butler-Stroud
WDCS

Chris Butler-Stroud of MA 12:25PM June 03, 2010

I don't understand Americans. Everytime someone gets a bug up there A$$ that they don't like something they want to use force against the people.
1. They are now banning Aluminum bats. Someone got hurt with one.
2. Cigarettes are taxed to the point they are more expensive than drugs.
3. A kid was suspended from school for pointing a chicken leg at someone.
4. They have proposed a Candy tax in Los Angeles to stem eating candy.
5. Soft drinks have been banned in school. Bad for health.
and hundreds of others too numerous to mention.
It is one thing for Americans to point guns at Americans via Laws. It is another thing to point guns at other Nations and then be surprised and shocked when they point back. We can not keep passing laws for everything that someone is offended by. Everything that exists seems to offend someone. Come on people use a little common sense.

VicM of CA 11:39AM June 03, 2010