The «save-the-seal» and «save-the-whale» movements have been a success. They were part of the ecological awakening in the 1970s, and their original objective was to put a stop to the over-exploitation of whale and seal stocks, and ensure that harvests were sustainable. This objective has been achieved. Today, it is hard to find any marine mammal hunt that is not sustainable.
Even so, the campaigns to halt the hunts continue. It turns out that there were other motives involved besides conservation, like animal welfare and marine mammal rights. These motives have now become the major driving force behind the campaigns.
«We know so much more now, and the more we find out, the more we are reassured about most big whales ... In many cases, such as the North Atlantic humpback and the Northeast Pacific grey whale, which were both hunted to near extinction, numbers have been restored at a healthy level.»
Dr. Tony Martin of the Sea Mammal Research Unit, Cambridge, 1997 29
To conservationists, the decisive question is whether or not the use of natural resources is sustainable. However, even with this common basis, they arrive at totally divergent standpoints when it comes to harvesting.
Norwegian environmentalist organisations, with the exception of WWF Norway and Greenpeace Norway, have no trouble accepting sealing or whaling when conducted sustainably. They point out that whaling is an extremely environment-friendly way of producing meat and consumes little energy. With regard to sealing off Newfoundland, WWF Canada has declared that «sustainable harvesting and full utilisation of wildlife is ... fully compatible with WWF’s mission».
WWF Norway concludes that «there is no doubt that Norwegian minke whaling is sustainable». But nevertheless, when it comes to whales, the WWF family is more on a level with Greenpeace, which has declared its opposition to all commercial whaling. Greenpeace claims that there are inherent mechanisms in whaling and sealing that make them unsustainable per se. It also claims that uncertainty with regard to the effects that environmental threats such as global warming and organic pollutants will have on whale and seal stocks indicate that harvesting should not take place. In doing so, it refers to the «precautionary principle». This interpretation is not, however, shared by the IWC's Scientific Committee.33 As far as seals are concerned, Greenpeace has put its campaigns on hold.
«The limited and regulated hunt of the minke whale poses no problems. Hunting the surplus that Nature provides is good for the stock. It also helps make money.»
Rune Haaland, Bellona (a Norwegian environmental NGO), 1993 30«Greenpeace is opposed to the killing of any seal done primarily for sale to national and international meat (animal and human food), fur, leather, oil or other markets.»
Greenpeace Policy Statment, 1982 31«As a natural scientist I cannot accept that Greenpeace is opposed to whaling. One must be allowed to harvest a renewable resource. To me, this is an important principle, and I have taken the consequences of it by resigning.»
Leif Ryvarden, former chairman of Greenpeace Norway and Professor of Biology, 1991 32
In the 1990s, the animal rights movement has made considerable advances in certain Western countries, particularly in the US and England. Animal rights is a clearly defined ideological concept. It is based on the idea that animals have «inherent value» as «the experiencing subject of life» and that all who have inherent value, have it equally - whether they be «human animals» or not. In view of this, there can be no difference between the ethics that apply to relationships between humans and those between humans and animals. The animal rights ideology denies man the possibility of utilizing animals no matter to what end.
«All who have inherent value have it equally, whether they be human animals or not. ( ... ) ...morality requires nothing less than the total elimination of hunting and trapping for commercial and sporting ends. ( ... ) As for commercial agricultur, the rights view takes a similar abolitionist position.»
Tom Regan, The Case for Animals Rights, 198934
So far, animal rights’ ideology has not been too visible in the campaigns against whaling and sealing. On the other hand, a narrower approach to the rights of animals has emerged; marine mammal rights. And even more widespread is the dogma of whale rights. According to whale rights, whales have a special status within - or rather outside of - the animal kingdom, and therefore have the right to live. This is explained by their intelligence, abilities to communicate, social life, etc. From a purely scientific point of view, there is little or no evidence to indicate that seals or whales deserve such status. Some of the arguments submitted to this end, for example that whales are monogamous, are myths quite removed from reality.
«Whales are different. They live in families, they play in the moonlight, they talk to one another, and they care for one another in distress. They are awesome and mysterious ... They deserve to be saved, not as potential meatballs but as a source of encouragement to mankind.»
Dr. Victor Scheffer, former chairman of the US Marine Mammal Commission, 1989 35«We oppose commercial whaling because whales have an intrinsic value as mammals of great intelligence, whose behaviour and language set them apart.»
Kathryn Fuller, President of WWF USA, 1995 36«Parallels between a whale’s life and that of our own make whale deaths even more disturbing. Whales live in family groups. As an unquestionably intelligent creature, the whale has a gentle nature and is known to sing, play, even to cry. Each whale has a distinct personality ... Maturity. The whale finally chose a partner for life. Old age. At around 50 or 70 years old, depending on species, the whale dies after a full and active life. Don’t wait to save a whale. Join Greenpeace this minute.»
Greenpeace Australia brochure, 1993.«The question the seal hunt posed was not just how seals were killed, but whether they should be killed at all.»
Brian Davis, founder of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, in an IFAW brochure, 1993.
Unlike animal rights advocates, animal welfarists accept that man uses animals for various purposes, concerning themselves instead with the animals' welfare and ensuring that the suffering they experience is minimised. However, they also take it upon themselves to assess whether the gain to be made from using an animal justifies the suffering to which it is subjected.
Certain animal welfarists contend that, with the technology currently available, it is impossible to kill a whale humanely, and are therefore opposed to all whaling. Often they will call for standards comparable to those found in livestock abattoirs Whalers and sealers find it more relevant to compare their hunt with land-based hunts. In general, there is all reason to believe that the quality of the kill is on a par with that which occurs when terrestrial mammals are hunted.
If one insists on comparing whaling with livestock farming, one should also take the animal's entire life span into account. Whalers and sealers claim that once one has accepted that animals can be used for food, their hunt is completely justifiable in the light of the ethical norms that apply in countries opposed to commercial whaling, such as the US, Australia and England.
«IFAW continues to hold the view that commercial whaling is incurably inhumane and must therefore cease.»
IFAW opening statement to the IWC, 1995 37«It is, of course, extremely difficult to compare the whale's relatively short-lasting but intense pain, with the less intense forms of unpleasantness that occur in animal husbandry, Personally, I have no problem in carrying out such a comparison. My conclusion ... is that I would rather be a minke whale, living in freedom until the final few minutes of pain, than I would be a pig or a hen ...»
Peter Sandøe, philosopher and leader of the Danish Ethical Council concerning Animals, 1993 38CONCEPTS IN CONFLICT
The four concepts mentioned above are not only different, they are also in conflict with one another. The conflict between animal (or «whale») rights and environmentalism is intractable, rooted as it is in fundamental principles, while the conflict between animal welfare and environmentalism can often be solved by compromise, taking both views into account.
Perhaps the clearest illustrations of the conflict between animal rights and environmentalists arise when introduced species, such as rabbits in Australia, threaten native species. In such cases, environmentalists will generally endorse culling of the introduced species, a solution that animal rightists will not accept under any circumstances.
From an ecological standpoint, it is surely better that the Faroese, Greenlanders and Norwegians hunt whales rather than import meat from the factory farms of Europe. The sustainable, energy-efficient and non-polluting use of local renewable resources is an ecological ideal. To the whale rightist, however, the killing and eating of whales is, as we have seen, quite out of the question. They would rather recommend importing beef or pork. As for animal rightists, their ideal of vegetarianism is hardly a practical option given the climatic conditions of Greenland, the Faroes and northern Norway.
IMPACTING THE INUIT
So far, aboriginal hunting has, almost without exception, avoided becoming the target of campaigns against hunting. The campaigns to bring down the sealskin trade, for instance, have been directed against sealing in Norway and Newfoundland.
However, the Inuit of Canada and Greenland are dependent on the same markets for the sale of their sealskins. Among Canadian hunting communities, a direct connection could be traced between the collapse of the sealskin markets in the eighties, and an increase in social security payments. The unemployment rate rocketed. Sealing represented one of the few real opportunities left to the Inuit to sustain their cultural values and fulfill their social obligations. During this same period, when the campaigns led to the collapse of the sealskin markets, there was a drastic increase in the suicide rate in the hunting communities of both Canada and Greenland - particularly among young men. In less than 15 years, the suicide rate was to become five times higher. We cannot single out one solitary factor as the cause. However, it is clear that the increase in the suicide rate must be seen in context with the massive cultural and social upheavals that took place at the time, with resulting identity crises and a tendency towards social disintegration. And it is beyond any shadow of it doubt that the collapse of the sealskin market made a strong contribution to this negative process.
CULTURAL PREFERENCES
Seeking to find the motives of the «save-the-whale» and «save-the-seal» movements within the framework of rational ideological systems may not prove to be all adequate approach. There is much evidence to suggest that one of the major driving forces behind the movements is, quite simply cultural preferences.
In England, just 16% of the population have qualms about plunging their fork into a leg of lamb, but 84% would not dream of eating horse meat. And even more have no stomach for marine mammal meat - 91 % in the case of seals and fully 92.8% for whales.39
In Norway, more people have misgivings about eating kangaroo meat than whale meat, while in Australia, the opposite is the case. In all the countries mentioned here, an overwhelming majority of the population have a good appetite when it comes to chicken. It is difficult to associate these attitudes with ethics or rational thinking; they are rather an expression of cultural preferences.
«On the face of it, Greenpeace’s campaign was directed at gaining and enforcing a moratorium. It argued long and hard that a moratorium was essential to allow stocks to recover. But it had no intention of ever announcing, ‘OK, the whales have returned, let whaling recommence’.»
Fred Pearce, in his book Green Warriors, 199140«We have destroyed the markets for sealskin - this is true, but as I said before, if we’d understood your problems seven years ago you could probably still sell your furs now. You are correct to criticise us and perhaps be angry with us ...»
Alan Pickaver of Greenpeace, at a meeting in Greenland in 198541«When seals got boycotted ... There was absolutely no hope. I could see my dad preparing to go out, but for what? It just took away the value that my ancestors had for such a long, long time ... away from me, away from him, from him to pass on.»
Inuit from Canadian Arctic, BBC TV, 199442«Ironically, and tragically, Inuit were the least targeted by the anti-sealing campaigns, yet became its biggest victims.»
Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Report, 199643«There seems to be a conceit in Maori and Pakeha to think we can just eat anything.»
Comment from leading New Zealand environmentalist and former member of the IUCN Council, Cath Wallace, on the Maori and Pakeha people eating the meat from stranded whales, 199644Notes:
29. Quoted in Robin McKie, Saved, in The Observer (London, Feb. 2, 1997).
30. Quoted in Dagens Næringsliv, Oslo, July 2, 1993.
31. Greenpeace International, Greenpeace Policy Statement, 1982.
32. Quoted in Dagbladet, Oslo, Aug. 2, 1991.
33. The IWC Scientific Commitee 1994 Report concludes that the Catch Limit Algorithm (the core of the Revised Management Procedure) «is robust to a wide range of uncertainty» and that «there would be little advantage in modifying the Catch Limit Algorithm further to incorporate adjustments to account for environmental change.»
34. Tom Regan, The Case for Animals Rights, in Animal Rights and Human Obligations eds. Regan and Singer, 1989.
35. See note 6.
36. Kathryn Fuller, President's note, in Conservation Issues (World Wildlife Fund US, April 1995)
37. International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Opening Statement, Meeting Document of the International Whaling Commission IWC/47/OS IFAW, 1995.
38. Quoted in Dyrevennen (Animal Lover), No 5, 1993.
39. See note 3.
40. Fred Pearce, Green Warriors: The People and Politics Behind the Environmental Revolution, London: Bodley Head, 1991.
41. Alan Pickaver, Report on the Greenpeace Meeting with the Indigenous Survival International, Greenland, August 30th - September 2nd (internal Greenpeace report from 1985, unpublished) (http://www.highnorth.no/gr-da-c.htm)
42. «Bishop of the Arctic», BBC Video Production, 1994.
43. Inuit Circumpolar Conference, The Arctic Sealing Industry; A Retrospective Analysis of its Collapse and Options for Sustainable Development, Part 1, 1996.
44. Quoted in The Evening Post, New Zealand, Dec. 21, 1996.
