As a National Geographic author who has studied whales for decades, I must tell the story of the interspecies trust we will lose if the Obama administration continues to support a repeal of the 1986 ban on commercial whale hunting. Right now, President Obama is agreeing to a deal to be proposed at the June 21-25th meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). It will allow the resumption of some commercial whaling, even of endangered species.
For many years, I've witnessed an interspecies kinship between gray whales seeking human interaction in Baja birthing lagoons -- what scientists call "The Friendly Whale Syndrome." Why do gray whales in lagoons of this Mexican Biosphere, seek to be touched by the same species that has twice brought them near extinction? A species that now wants to sanction a return to commercial whale hunting?
In the nineteenth century, in these very lagoons, Yankee whaling ships slaughtered the North Pacific Gray Whales, just a few thousand short of extinction. (The North Atlantic Gray Whale population was hunted to extinction in the 1800s.) Since the whaling moratorium, the gray whales have rebounded, becoming one of the 20th century's most vital conservation successes.
Now, in these protected lagoons the cry again goes out -- "Thar she bloooooows!" But we are not here to harpoon. We are here to reach out with our hopeful hands in friendship.
"Coming up!" shouts our expedition leader, Doug Thompson, author of Whales: Touching the Mystery. He has been studying gray whales in these lagoons since the 1970s.
The newborn rises up first, her baleen gleaming, her silver snout speckled with baby whiskers, her brown eye wide. We may be the very first humans this baby has ever seen. She lets out a whoosh of air and the blast from her double blowholes sends a geyser of salt and mist over us like a baptism. We reach way out and touch the calf's snout; it feels like smooth rubber.
"They trust us," explains Lupita Murillo, a naturalist and resident of San Ignacio lagoon.
Then the mother whale submerges slightly, and with a deep inhalation, she turns over underwater and the calf rolls atop her belly. Stretching a pectoral fin out like a wide wing, the mother lifts her newborn way up to us, at eye-level, in the boat. This belly-up cradling of her calf is usually only done when the mother is trying to save her calf from predators like orcas. With her last breath, the mother will lift her calf up and away from all harm.
"Trina is giving her baby to us," Lupita says. She recognizes this whale because of three, distinct white markings on the whale's right side. "Maybe Trina knows we are the only ones who can keep her baby safe."
We are all stunned by the offering, the gift.
"Las ballenas . . . the whales," Lupita says softly, "I think maybe God put them here to teach us humans to forgive -- to open our eyes and see."
Before the 1986 moratorium, tens-of-thousands of whales were killed each year. Since the moratorium, the rogue whaling nations of Japan, Iceland, and Norway have continued to slaughter about 1,900 whales annually, in contempt of international law. Why would the U.S. agree to allow these hunts by sanctioning commercial whaling? Why, when whale watching brings in billions of dollars annually to coastal economies around the world -- far more income than whale hunting -- would the U.S. support a return to whaling?
"It does not make good "eco-nomic" sense, says Doug. "Bottom-line, whales are worth more alive than dead. The economic advantages weigh firmly on the side of whale watching, not whale hunting."
Why betray two decades of interspecies good will, as well as the trust of U.S. citizens who voted for candidate Obama and his promise to protect the whales during his campaign?
Please, President Obama, think of the future. You lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling and now we're suffering the worst environmental tragedy in U.S. history. You haven't stopped the oil from spilling in the Gulf; but you can uphold the moratorium against whale hunting.
In his first press conference on the catastrophic Gulf oil spill, Obama concluded, "I grew up in Hawaii, where the ocean is sacred." When our oceans are sacred, why bloody them with whale hunts?
The U.S. still has time to decide to uphold the moratorium on whale hunting, along with the European Union and other nations. Are we willing to stand up for a future ocean that is bountiful and healthy for future generations of humans and whales? Could we, like that mother whale, keep lifting up our children to gaze eye-to-eye in interspecies trust?
Brenda Peterson is the author of Sightings: The Gray Whale's Mysterious Journey (National Geographic Books) and the recent memoir I Want To Be Left Behind: Finding Rapture Here on Earth. For more, visit www.IWantToBeLeftBehind.com
Watch wonderful video of human-whale encounters in Baja and check out this YouTube link.
For further reading:
National Geographic Books: Sightings: The Gray Whale's Mysterious Journey.
Whales: Touching the Mystery (NewSage Press)
Get Involved:
National Resources Defense Council.
More Research:
New York Times Magazine "Whales Watching Us," Charles Siebert, cover story.
New York Times: Is Whaling a Dying Industry?
Follow Brenda Peterson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BrendaSPeterson
It's incoherent to stand up against the *resumption* of whaling, because it never stopped.
The question we should be asking is how to save whales. If lowering the quotas and increasing the enforcement will work better than keeping the status quo, we should all be for it. If the status quo will mean fewer whales killed, we should be for the status quo.
Exactly like the BP hell disaster.
Drug war ? NO COMPROMISE there.
Slaughter whales - sure go ahead.
Obama has lost my vote, as if that even matters.
"The moratorium was supposed to be kept in place at least until studies determined that populations had recovered from two centuries of ruthless exploitation. They haven't, and the proposal to re-start commercial whaling discards that idea. Instead, a "compromise" has been proposed. Consensus is being sought. The new, improved commercial whaling will be strictly controlled. There will be quotas. Strict record-keeping. On-board observers. They say they really mean it this time."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/05-2
"The Ogre philosopher Gnerdel believed the purpose of life was to live as high on the food chain as possible. She refused to eat vegetarians, preferring to live entirely on creatures that preyed on sentient beings."
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gray%20Ogre
It would seem that, in order to fulfill the purpose of life as implicitly asserted by the Japanese, the right thing for us to do is to eat not the whales, but the whale-eaters.
that can be taken, CLOSES THE LOOPHOLE of Scientific Permit Whaling, allows close monitoring by the IWC and puts control back into the hands of the IWC. Without which whales are doomed. Those who oppose the IWC proposal are not thinking of numbers and they are only reacting emotionally. To reject simply means more whales will be killed.
The IWC proposal is aimed to close those loopholdes, ie; stop the cheating.
But statements of principle are not what's important here. The whales are.
The moratorium hasn't stopped whaling, but has decreased it. Much of the decrease has been because there are so few whales left to kill, rather than because of the moratorium, but not all. The question is whether the package of measures in the proposal (whale DNA registry, market sampling, vessel monitoring, and international observers) would do better than the moratorium has.
I don't know whether it would or not. My inclination is to suspect that it would.
I favor legalizing and regulating recreational drugs, even the most harmful ones, because I think that undesirable activities generally tend to be reduced more effectively by bringing them into the open. It would be incongruous, to say the least, to hold that position on drugs while insisting on ineffectively prohibiting whaling.
I also have the impression that defying world opinion on whaling is a matter of national pride in Japanese politics. No effort to get Japan to stop whaling can succeed unless it lets them save face politically.
Here's a link to a draft of the agreement:
http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC62docs/62-7.pdf
I don't think we can shame Japan into giving up whaling. I think the more we push shame at them, the more entrenched their denial will become. It's (expletive) obvious that whaling is wrong. No one needs to be told that. Instead they need to get to a point where they can admit it, first to themselves and then to others.
still after many decades unproven. The scince behind whaling is suppose to be dictated by the IWC Scientific Committee, the head of which resigned, and Canada ledft the IWC, because the
anti-whaling faction used bribes to vote in the 1986 Moratorium with disregard for the Scientific Commitee's recommendations. Personally, I'm far more angfry over pats of China and Korea eating dogs, probably because I've had pet dogs as a kid. I never had a pet whale so I can't share in your sentiments.