How much would you be willing to pay for a whale's life?

Deep waters, a thrilling chase, and a life at stake...sounds like a horror story, am I right? However, that life at stake doesn’t have two arms and two legs, but rather fins and a body that weighs 14 tons.

In the Southern Ocean, Japanese whalers set out to hunt whales despite strong anti-whaling opposition. The two sides desperately need a resolution as deadly pro- and anti-whaling encounters continue to occur at sea. So, can money solve this whaling conflict?

Three environmental scientists proposed a tradable whale quota to end the pro- and anti-whalers’ dispute, aiming to reduce the whale population hunted and killed each year ("Whales for Sale"). This idea would allow both whalers and anti-whalers to purchase or trade quotas to their own side’s advantage. Using money to essentially “buy” the whales, these people could decide if a whale is saved or killed. However, the ethical issues, such as legitimizing whaling and pricing a whale’s life, will prevent this tradable quota from working.

So, what exactly is whaling? Whaling is the hunting and killing of...you guessed it, whales. If you’ve ever seen the show “Whale Wars,” you may know something about whaling. Hunters go out to catch whales in order to make profit. Anti-whaling campaign organizations, like Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, then go out to sea to try to stop these fleets in order to reduce the number of whale deaths each year. More times than not, this leads to a confrontation where ships are destroyed and people are injured.

Whaling has led to many dangerous anti-whaler and whaler confrontations on the seas. http://www.flickr.com/photos/guano/3258629555/

Three environmental scientists, Christopher Costello, Steven Gaines, and Leah R. Gerber proposed an idea to make the whaling industry a market. Whale quotas, or the number of whales hunters are supposedly “allowed” to hunt each year, would be auctioned off, sold or traded. Either whale harvesters would purchase the shares and harvest the whales at the stated quotas, or animal rights activists would purchase the shares so no whales could be harvested. This allows pro-whalers the chance to still control the seas or anti-whalers the chance to stop the whaling. It would depend on who had the money and just how much they’d be willing to spend to pay for a whale’s life, offering an immediate end to whale hunting (“Conservation Science”). However, the idea of paying for a whale’s life and legitimizing whaling will prevent this quota from working.

Advocates for this quota system argue that introducing a tradable quota for whales could create an industry that could lower the costs associated with whaling as well as reduce the number of whales killed each year. The author in “Whales for Sale” claims that if anti-whalers put aside their moral objections of whaling being legitimized as an enterprise and whalers understand how this idea could benefit them, the quota scheme could be effective. It should be considered as an immediate “middle ground” to the issue that triumphs the “moral high ground,” where buying a whale’s life is better than losing a whale’s life. Anti-whalers, though, will not be able to put aside those moral objections, and this quota system is not probable.

Putting the quota system into effect would thus create a whaling industry, forcing those involved to put a price on a whale’s life. The industry would revolve around money and quotas, both of which humans would have control over. For animal rights advocates, this idea of “owning” a whale’s life by the means of money is morally unjust (Matera). Those who wish to enforce this quota system would face animosity from these advocates, as well as dissent from the Japanese who see whaling as a proud and cultural tradition (“Whales for Sale). How is anyone going to tell a country that it now has to pay up if it wants any chance to continue a cultural tradition? The system has a low probability of actually working considering it faces ethical and cultural dissent.

The idea of a quota system originated in 1982, but it failed to work because some environmentalists said it was “too early a time” and that whalers would not find logic in paying for something they had always done for free (“Conservation Science”). By implementing a market system, whales will be subject to the demands of an inhumane industry, one that would justify paying to kill a helpless marine creature in order to gain profit. This would allow money in a greedy whaling market to determine whether a whale lives or dies. This is an ethical dilemma that will stand in the way of whaling industry advocates; no whales’ rights supporter will be okay money controlling an innocent, helpless life.

The quota trading system also revolves around a moral issue rather than an environmental conservationist concern. The morally wrong idea of putting a price on a whale’s life seems just as important to the anti-whaling campaigners as the idea of actually saving the whale. Anti-whaling campaigners spend millions of dollars trying to stop fleets from whaling; however, this is only justifiable from an animal welfare viewpoint, meaning that the concern solely revolves around the animal itself (Metcalfe). If anti-whaling groups were really interested in whale conservation, like maintaining populations and preventing ecosystem disruptions, then the money should be used to help the ecology and dynamics of decreasing whale populations--not solely on the minke whales that the Japanese hunt. This would provide evidence-based quotas to be set for countries that actually exploit the whale populations that create a need for quota systems. Environmental conservationists are the ones who should be stepping up to inform others on this issue, promoting the conservation of whale’s habitats and ecosystems rather than having opposing sides cause violence and disrupt the seas. This in turn would offer an alternative solution to the quota system and promote a way to actually save the whales’ lives and ecosystems, not just attempt to protect them from hunters.

Anti-whalers fight to prevent whaling, not pay to legitimize the industry or purchase the life of a whale. I find it hard to believe that animal rights activists like the anti-whalers, who risk their lives and safety to go out on to the seas and fight for whales, would be okay with a compromise to simply just pay for the whales. Rather, any money that is actually spent should go to the environmentalist conservationist groups who dedicate their time to actually saving the whales by protecting their habitats and maintaining their ecosystems. True anti-whalers have a mission to stop any and all abuse of animals, not legitimize it through money. For this reason, the ethical issue of legitimizing the whaling industry and and justifying putting a price on a whale’s life will prevent this tradable quota system from working.

A clip from "Whale Wars" shows the real-life whaling drama that can occur on the waters.

Works Cited

“Conservation Science: A market approach to saving the whales.” Nature 481.7380 (2012): 139-140. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/481139a.html>

Costello, Christopher. Steven Gaines. Leah R. Gerber. “Conservation Science: A market approach to saving the whales.” Nature 481.7380 (2012): 139-140. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/481139a.html>

Matera, Anthony. “Whale Quotas: A Market-Based Solution to the Whaling Controversy.”
Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 13.1 (2000): 23-46. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/gintenlr13&div=10&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults>

Metcalfe, Kristian and Diego Verissimo. “Whaling: Quota trading won’t work.” Nature 482.7384 (2012): 162. Web. 12 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7384/full/482162a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120209>

“Whales for Sale.” Nature 481.7380 (2012): 114. Web. 6 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/481114a.html>