The comments about the sins of Japanese whaling and their hypocrisy are sanctimonious cant. Whales, just as man is, are part of the food chain, and to excuse them because they're "sentient" defies logic. Should we only eat stupid animals? No pigs, but horses are OK? What constitutes whale sentience and how different is it to that of cows, deer, pigs or sheep? Why should it be treated differently?
The only real issue is the sustainability and husbandry of resources. It would be self-defeating to cause the extinction of any of the whale species, and there's no evidence that whaling countries are doing this. Common humanity should prevent undue pain or distress to whales when they are killed, but it is in the interests of an efficient industry to ensure that this is the case.
The current fashion for opposing whaling is, like opposition to the use of fur, groundless, emotional, and fickle. Other than sustainability and undue cruelty, there is not one rational reason to oppose either the hunting of whales, eating of their flesh (which I would unhesitatingly), and use of industry by-products. That few eat whale meat in Japan is a matter of a scarce commodity, not a scarce resource. The argument that it’s not necessary to eat whale meat because other food sources are available can be used with practically all food sources on the Greens' Dietary Laws list, till all we get left with is lentil patties. This isn’t a world I want to live in.
No argument about whaling used in today’s program was possessed of common sense or intelligence. There was a clear loss of perspective and sense of reality in raising one species to a level of reverence. Whales are subject to the vicissitudes of life, of which we are just one of many. We won’t be repeating the sins of the Maori with moas et al and hunt them to extinction, so they really don’t need our help in survival.
Note that Dawn Carr, British co-ordinator of People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, says she "would prefer people to eat whale meat rather than farmed salmon . . . It can feed hundreds, so less [sic] fish have to die." She ignores the inverse ratio between creature size and quantity. "We talk about dolphin-safe tuna, but what about the poor tuna caught in the nets? It deserves a life, too. What about the worms squirming on the end of the hook?" She has dedicated her life to stop the British catching and eating any fish at all. While not encouraging violence she "won’t rule anything out. I understand groups who smash into animal testing laboratories to liberate victims." Dominion 11/8/01. BBC’s HardTalk’s Tim Sebastian mercilessly exposed her moral vacuity.
More speculatively, concomitant with increasing sensitivity to whales and other more furry species is the wax of the feminist, imposing unexamined caution and the predominance of nurture without the balance of masculine practicality and common sense.
The Expert Drafting Group of the International Whaling Commission met recently in Auckland to finalise the regulations for the Revised Management Scheme. This will allow a limited return to commercial whaling. Kate Sanderson is a whaling adviser to the Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands, which is dependent on whaling for food. She considers that opposition to whaling comes from urban dwellers in high income countries ‘humanising’ whales.
Japan is being demonised for its attitude to whaling, and for attempting to buy votes in support of its view. It should be remembered that in the 1980s Greenpeace actively lobbied for countries opposing whaling to join the IWC to implement the moratorium on whaling, even though they were not directly affected. In many countries opposing whaling, the issues are handled not by the fishing ministries but by the ones responsible for the environment, earning cheap green points along the way.
I don't want to be seen as supporting whaling, though. I've got bigger fish to fry.
No comments:
Post a Comment