Nature and Youth's view of whaling and sealing is one based on principles. Since 1983 we have represented the following position: "We support the sustainable harvest of marine mammals along the coast".

The minke whale is a resource that can be harvested sustainably. Norway may catch whales as long as the stock can sustain such a harvest. The North-East Atlantic minke whale stock consists of 86,700 whales. (Click here for update on estimate.) The minke whale is not an endangered species and therefore we consider a limited harvest acceptable.

There should not be anything extraordinary about an environmental organisation adopting such a position. A slightly baffled journalist from the BBC once asked me the following question about whaling: "You represent an environmental organisation that supports whaling. I thought the environmentalists loved the whale?"

Yes, we love the minke whale in the same way as we love the reindeer, the cow we keep in the barn, the pig, the roe deer and the elk. These are all animals that are not threatened with extinction and that we hunt or slaughter. The fact that we hunt certain animals does not mean that they are inferior to those we do not hunt. We love the elk just as much as we love the golden eagle.

History
In 1982 the International Whaling Commission passed a five year moratorium (complete ban) on all whaling, which came into effect in 1986. Nature and Youth supported the resolution. The reason for this was the lack of knowledge on the size of the minke whale stock. The scientist's calculations were based on the whaler's own figures from the hunt. If the whalers spent only a short length of time catching the whales, this indicated a positive development and vice versa. Such calculations involved a high degree of uncertainty.

The safety-first principle involves allowing Nature the benefit of the doubt. There was therefore no question of us supporting whaling before it was possible to document the fact that the minke whale stock could sustain a harvest. Nature and Youth therefore denounced the Norwegian government's decision to lodge a reservation against the moratorium in 1982. Nevertheless, we supported the government's resolution to stop whaling from 1987. Nature and Youth supported the scientific programme aimed at obtaining the facts about the size and fertility of the minke whale. Supporting the scientific whaling was also a matter of course.

We now have a far better scientific basis for assessing the stock and fertility of the North Atlantic minke whale. The stock is estimated at consisting of about 86,700 whales. We can say with a 95% degree of certainty tha tthe stock consists of somewhere between 61,000 and 117,000 whales. These are figures that the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) agreed upon in 1992. It was therefore not difficult for Nature and Youth to support the government's decision to resume commercial minkewhaling from 1993.

Sustainable Use vs Protection
Nature and Youth's position conflicts with the "European idea of conservation", and represents a breach between those elements within the environmental movement that give total protection higher priority than sustainable use. Our aim is life in harmony with Nature, not the protection of the symbolic value of species that are not threatened with extinction.

The Western environmental movement has withdrawn the whale from the context of its ecosystem saying that it is so intelligent, has such great symbolic value, and is so sacred that it must under no circumstances be shot. As far as the whaling issue is concerned, ecology and the interaction between human beings and Nature seem to have disappeared from the scene.

We do not have such views by chance. The eco-philosopher Sigmund Kvaløy Sætereng has attempted to define what is characteristic of the Norwegian environmental movement: "It is a question of the conservation of Man in Nature." Here, he is referring to the struggle to protect local communities, and to a movement that has understood the relationship between Nature and culture. If you deny a people its culture, Nature and the environment will also suffer.

Animal Welfare
The protection of minke whales is a matter of animal welfare and animal welfare can be a matter of conservation. The critics of minke whaling maintain that the kill takes such a long time, and that the minke whale is thereby subjected to an unnecessary high degree of suffering. In 1981 the International Whaling Commission passed a resolution banning the use of the cold harpoon, and Norway unfortunately lodged a reservation against this.

Today, the exploding harpoon and stronger lines have improved hunting methods, and figures from the scientific hunt carried out during the summer of 1992 are heartening. 50% of the whales shot died instantly. Altogether, only 10% of the minke whales caught lived for over 10 minutes after being shot.

Irrespective of new hunting technology, killing such a large mammal will always pose problems, this is true of both the slaughtering of bulls and the hunting of elks. Compared to the elk hunt, minke whaling is not that bad. In the elk hunt, 10-30% of the animals that are hit are only wounded, and in those cases it normally takes about an hour before the hunter manages to find the animal and kill it. Like elk hunters, all whalers must pass a marksman's test before the hunt begins.

In previous times hunting methods were far from so humane. The minke whale's Norwegian name "vågehval" comes from the way the whales swam after herring shoals following them into the inlets ("våg" i n Norwegian). The fishermen would then block the inlet with their nets and kill the whales with spears. This took a long time and could be extremely perilous.

It is wrong to subject animals to great suffering. And in this respect it is important to consider the entire lifespan of the animal in question. Animal welfare circles have exaggerated the importance of the actual moment of death. While the whaling debate was raging on in the summer of 1992, I visited "The Royal Agricultural Show" in Coventry, England. To a farm girl from the county of Trøndelag, it was a tough experience which put the whaling debate in a new perspective. From an animal welfare point of view, I do not have a moment of doubt I would much rather be a North Atlantic minke whale than an English battery chicken or meat-producing bull.

The Super Whale
The Western environmental organisations have spun the myth of the Super Whale. Social anthropologist Arne Kalland of the Danish Institute of Asian Studies has analyzed how the characteristics from various different types of whale have been used to create a picture of a Super Whale that does not exist. He writes: "We are told that the whale is the world's largest mammal (the blue whale), that the whale has the biggest brain (sperm whale), that the whale has a big brain in relation to its body weight (bottlenose dolphin), that the whale sings pleasant, varied songs (humpback whale), that the whales have kindergartens and look after each other's offspring (dolphins), and that the whale is endangered (blue whale and right whale)."

All of these characteristics are attributed to the Super Whale, but such a whale does not exist. It is a mythical being. The Super Whale emerges as almost human, and sometimes even surpasses human beings. The whale is just as intelligent, it thinks like us, dreams like us and it has strong family ties. As Greenpeace Denmark's leader writes: "It is the human of the seas."

When we claim equality between human beings and whales, killing whales becomes murder, and the whalers become murderers. A trade that people have been carrying out for centuries is branded unethical. This has nothing to do with environmentalism or ecology.

While the whalers are depicted as murderers, the opponents of whaling characterise themselves as agents of what is good. "We urge for peace not pain, for caring and love not cutting down and killing, for good not evil, "wrote the leader of the International Fund for Animal Welfare on their fundraising Christmas cards.

In October last year, Greenpeace Austria placed a large obituary in the major newspapers saying "It is with great sorrow that we announce that our friend and brother MINKE WHALE, has passed away after being brutally murdered. Instead of wreaths and flowers, please send money to the environmental organisation Greenpeace's Whale Rights Campaign".

This is neither animal welfare nor environmentalism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with an overall concept of ecology. Nature and Youth is interested in the preservation of harmony between species in a natural context, and in protecting endangered species. We are not interested in removing a species from the context of its ecosystem in order to say that it is sacred, that it has great symbol ic value and that it is so intelligent that it must under no circumstances be shot.

Symbols and Ethnic Hunting
The Norwegian social anthropologist Hylland Eriksen thinks that the Norwegian government has behaved in a ridiculous manner regarding the whaling issue. He says that we must respect other people's symbols and emotions, and that the Norwegians are the world champions in moral condemnation and self-idolisation. We demand that poor Malaysians shall refrain from cutting down the rain forest, while we ourselves go whaling, which we could quite easily manage without.

Of course Norway can manage without whaling, so why make such a lot of noise about so little money? This is turning the issue upside down. Why shouldn't we catch whales as long as the species is not endangered? Is the whale such an important urban totem animal that we should abandon an old tradition? It would be tempting to ask the social anthropologist if we should refrain f rom eating beef because the cow is a sacred animal in India.

The American authorities and the Western environmental movement claim that whaling is unethical. Even so, the aboriginal people's whaling in Greenland is condoned. What kind of an opinion do they have of Inuit culture when they say that whaling is unethical, yet allow ethnic whaling because it is a part of their culture? To civilized countries like us it is unethical to catch whales, but these aboriginal people can kill a whale or two if they can prove that it is important in helping them obtain enough food.

International Environmentalism
The IWC meeting in the spring of 1992 did not permit the resumption of minke whaling. This provided the environmental movement with the following dilemma: "Would Norway lose international credibility if the decision to resume whaling in 1993 was maintained? Is it right to oppose an agreement on the environment, when the environmental arguments are on your side?"

Nature and Youth believe that we need an International Whaling Commission. But when the Whaling Commission moves towards being a commission for total protection instead of a management commission, it is undermining international environmentalism.

We must be much more on the alert in years to come. Is everything that calls itself "international" and "environmentalist" really beneficial to Nature and the environment ? It is important to ensure that the scientific and environmental arguments and the safety-first principle really are present. But we must also examine what we are protecting and for whom. International environmentalism must not become a way of depriving people of democratic control over their resources.

The Whaling Debate - a Diversion
The whaling debate is a diversion both nationally and internationally. In Norway, the government is trying to gain support in North Norway after the unpopular decision made regarding the agreement on the European Economic Area and Norway's application for EU membership. The whaling issue is being used to manoeuvre attention away from the government's decision. It has now become a question of external threats. For the time being, the government has not gained much ground in North Norway as a result of the whaling decision.

The whaling issue is also a diversion as regards the really critical environmental issues. While the media are full to the brim with the Norwegian whale war, Norsk Hydro and Statoil are drilling for oil in the Barents Sea, despite all the environmental and scientific recommendations to the contrary. The Barents Sea is a vulnerable ecosystem where even small oil spills can cause great damage.

Even though climatic issues, acid rain and toxic waste are scientifically documented hazards and represent a far greater threat to the environment than Norwegian whaling, these are not as marketable as the whale war. The whale war constitutes no danger to the major spoilers of the environment, but it does constitute a threat to local communities in Norway.

Environmentalism therefore loses all proportion when Greenpeace gives the British Minister of Agriculture, John Gummer a green stamp because he says no to whaling. The same Minister of Agriculture who represents one of the most environmentally antagonistic agricultural policies in Europe, and who represents a government that takes a back seat on the question of a reduction of CO2 discharges and the limitation of acid rain is concerned. When this happens, the whaling issue provides the rich, major polluters with a cheap way of buying a green alibi. And the worst thing about it is, that a no to whaling is not costing Britain a penny.