Iceland Makes it Official – Whaling Will End 

The Icelandic government has announced that it will not renew whaling quotas when the current ones end in 2024, effectively ending whaling in that country.  What I want all of you to take note of is the reasoning behind their decision.  At least, the reasons that they’ve elected to provide to the world in support of that decision.  They’re very revealing, and there’s an important lesson here for all of us who advocate against this contemptible and archaic industry.  

First, let me say that I suppose we’ll never know with 100% certainty what really motivates Iceland’s current lawmakers on this issue.  They do, after all, have a much better record than most on environmental issues.  But in any event, just think of these as what they decided were the ‘politically safe’ responses.  Remember – we’re talking about murdering highly intelligent beings, using methods that inflict enormous pain and suffering.  And incidentally,  beings upon whom we are dependent in our battle against climate change.  I don’t use the term ‘murder’ lightly either.  It’s CCA’s position that all the evidence accumulated thus far about the nature of whales and dolphins supports the contention that they deserve consideration for the granting of personhood rights.

So, in that context, why did Icelandic officials make the decision that whaling quotas will not be renewed?

“There are few justifications to authorize whale hunting beyond 2024” concluded Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture Svandís Svavarsdóttir in a recent op ed.  She pointed out that whaling has had “very little economic significance” to the nation in recent years, with only a single large whale killed in the last three years.  “Japan has been the largest buyer of [Icelandic] whale meat, but its consumption is declining year by year.  Why should Iceland take the risk of continuing fishing that has not yielded economic benefits, in order to sell a product that is in low demand?”.  Finally, Svavarsdóttir pointed out whaling has been “controversial”, and cited the example of the US chain Whole Foods temporarily halting the sale of Icelandic products in response.   

Why such a softened position on this issue?  (And why the offensive use of the term ‘fishing’ to apply to the slaughter of whales?)  Svavarsdóttir, herself a member of the Green Movement in Iceland, could have presented a number of convincing moral justifications for ending whaling in her country.  Instead, she chose to hold onto purely practical ones.

Let’s take her words at face value.  What do they mean, really, and why is whaling coming to an end in Iceland?  It’s sad to think that no-one in authority wants to say that whaling is morally reprehensible, in addition to being environmentally devastating.  If they’ve simply decided to pull the plug on an industry for which there is no longer any economic justification, they leave the door open to all manner of activities we’d be much better off without.  Are we to not question the continued existence of an industry when the case can still be made that it will provide jobs or contribute to economic growth?  The fact that economic benefits will accrue is not a reason to do awful things.  And let’s remember that there will always be people willing to do awful things when there is money in it – such people aren’t going anywhere.

But there is great news in this story, and it is this… What brought demand for whale meat to what it is now, in Iceland, in Japan and elsewhere, is that many of us have spoken up for years.  The controversy she alluded to includes international fury over Iceland’s resumption of commercial whaling in 2006, with  “many countries angry at what they regarded as Iceland’s attempt to bypass international regulations”, as noted by Whale and Dolphin Conservation. 

As well, the reason that Iceland has effectively stopped whaling over the last three years is that too few people want the meat to make the hunting cost effective.   That’s public awareness and evolving consumer choices at work.  In Iceland to a degree sufficient to end the hunting entirely.  In Japan not to that extent yet, but the people of that country deserve some credit too.  A reduction in demand there means that the export market is no longer an option for Iceland’s whaling companies.  

Instead of adapting an archaic, and often immoral, business model through innovation and change, many companies (and sometimes entire industries) will instead opt to preserve short-term profits by doling out misinformation.  It’s what Rachel Carson (the author of Silent Spring, published in 1962) aptly described as handing out “little tranquilizing pills of half truth”.  Whalers will sell us on the idea that “we all gotta eat, and if you eat any meat, you’re a hypocrite for criticizing us”.  What they don’t want you to notice is that whales and dolphins are highly intelligent beings with an enormous capacity for suffering when hunted and killed.  (Or worse, wrestled from waters filled with the blood of their slaughtered relatives, and themselves sent away for a lifetime of captivity in a concrete tank.)

Make no mistake about this, whaling, and all other forms of profit-by-exploitation of cetaceans, are industries that deserve to fail for reasons much more compelling than mere economic viability.

So, bottom line in this case, we’ll take the win.  Maybe one day our government representatives will feel safe to say that they oppose whaling because it’s immoral to kill a species that may well prove to be as smart as you are.  Or that any animal, regardless of your estimation of its intelligence, is deserving of considerably better treatment than whalers currently give them.  But that day is still a little way off.  For now, we can at least expect our elected reps to acknowledge the enormous impact that whales have on the climate and on ocean health.  Without them, we will not have a reasonable prospect of achieving healthy ocean ecosystems.  Killing them is acting in pursuit of our own self-destruction.

The main take away from this story – we need to keep doing precisely what we’ve been doing.  By raising awareness among the public, we remove the demand that drives the whole process.  Whether or not the moral courage required to stand up to cruelty and exploitation exists in our elected representatives, we can nevertheless continue to drain the lifeblood from industries like whaling.   

For The Orca’s Voice, 

Phil, Canadian Cetacean Alliance