You’re on a boat. You’re in hot pursuit of another ship that is out on a whale hunting expedition. In the final moments standing between you and the enemy, a colossal wave pounds into your vessel, damaging it while ending your quest to save the whales. This is not a fictionalized passage from an adventure novel or from a commercial for Whale Wars. This is a real life example of what can happen in the seas where whales and whalers alike are hunted. But recently, a new system has been proposed to keep the war between whalers and conservationists as non-contact as possible.
In Nature’s article “Whales for Sale” the novel idea of setting tradable quotas in the whaling industry is reviewed (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/481114a.html). Quotas would be placed on the amount of whales that can be killed and could be met by whaling ships or purchased by anti-whaling groups. The author feels that the new scheme “would allow both sides to benefit with no loss of face” (Nature Online). The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), however, feels that the quotas would serve to advance the whaling industry. The concept of tradable quotas has proven to be quite controversial ever since it first surfaced in 1982. These articles unintentionally fall into a dialogue about the pros and cons of the proposed system with each other, with the WDCS serving a counterpoint for every point given by Nature. After realizing and considering the risks associated with such a system and that the quotas could actually lead to more whales being killed to the point of extinction, it becomes clear that the quotas are not the perfect solution they claim to be.
“Whales for Sale” is petitioning for an allowance of quotas in order to keep both sides satisfied. The author details the ongoing battle “with campaigners maintaining their high-risk pursuit and their attempts to foul the propellers of the whaling ships with ropes, and the whalers responding with water cannon” (Nature Online). Sinking ships hardly seemed like the best way to deal with this conflict, so three scientists analyzed the average profits that whaling ships make off of different whale species in order to determine the appropriate prices for quotas. Smaller whales carry a quota of 13,000 U.S. dollars while larger whales can rake in 85,000 U.S. dollars.
Many conservation and whaling groups posted or published responses to the Nature article, among them was the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (http://www.wdcs.org/news.php?select=1145). The first claim made by the WDCS is that the quotas put in place would function as political rather than scientific. This means that financial interests and potential economic profit could drive the quotas up. The fish industry is one example of this because high prices for larger species of fish has yet to bring down quotas.
The genius behind the quotas is that not only do they attempt to limit how many whales countries can kill every year, but conservationists can also purchase a quota to save a whale. However, the moral concession that comes with the plan means that “committed anti-whaling campaigners would have to put aside moral objections” and “official approval for the heavily disputed notion that whales...are a resource to be exploited” (Nature Online). The proposed quotas would technically allow whalers or anti-whaling groups to purchase lives, but the scientists claim that they are not putting “a price on the head of a whale…of course” (Nature Online). The WDCS feels that whaling altogether is simply inhumane and should not be tolerated. Many conservation groups feel that by establishing quotas, policy-makers are sending the message that whaling is acceptable and should continue. The WDCS argues that whaling is not sustainable as whales live long lives and have slow reproduction rates and “that buying the whales' lives would help prop up a dying industry and other countries could be encouraged to start or resume commercial whaling to claim their share” (WDCS). “Countries such as China and South Korea have all indicated that they would start whaling if quotas were allocated” (WDCS). The potential economic profit of whaling stands to draw new countries to the business, which conservationists see as unacceptable and counterproductive.
The article by the WDCS was more convincing due to the methodical manner in which arguments were delivered. The concept of tradable quotas may seem perfectly fair at first, but it is necessary to consider the possible outcomes of such a system before committing to it entirely. Most would agree that the potential for quotas to be driven up or for more countries to join the whaling industry is too great to be ignored.
Works Cited
"Whales for sale." Nature. N.p., 11 Jan 2012. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature /journal/v481/n7380/full/481114a.html>.
"Proposal For Quotas To Save Whales Rejected By WDCS." WDCS Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society International. N.p., 12 Jan 2012. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://www.wdcs.org/news.php?select=1145>.
No comments:
Post a Comment