Hubbry Logo
WhalingWhalingMain
Open search
Whaling
Community hub
Whaling
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Whaling
Whaling
Whaling
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
To the left, the black-hulled whaling ships. To the right, the red-hulled whale-watching ship. Iceland, 2011.
Number of whales killed since 1900

Whaling is the hunting of whales for their products such as meat and blubber, which can be turned into a type of oil that was important in the Industrial Revolution. Whaling was practiced as an organized industry as early as 875 AD. By the 16th century, it had become the principal industry in the Basque coastal regions of Spain and France. The whaling industry spread throughout the world and became very profitable in terms of trade and resources. Some regions of the world's oceans, along the animals' migration routes, had a particularly dense whale population and became targets for large concentrations of whaling ships, and the industry continued to grow well into the 20th century. The depletion of some whale species to near extinction led to the banning of whaling in many countries by 1969 and to an international cessation of whaling as an industry in the late 1980s. Archaeological evidence suggests the earliest known forms of whaling date to at least 3000 BC, practiced by the Inuit and other peoples in the North Atlantic and North Pacific.[1] Coastal communities around the world have long histories of subsistence use of cetaceans, by dolphin drive hunting and by harvesting drift whales. Widespread commercial whaling emerged with organized fleets of whaling ships in the 17th century; competitive national whaling industries in the 18th and 19th centuries; and the introduction of factory ships and explosive harpoons along with the concept of whale harvesting in the first half of the 20th century. By the late 1930s, more than 50,000 whales were killed annually.[2] In 1982, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) decided that there should be a pause on commercial whaling on all whale species from 1986 onwards because of the extreme depletion of most of the whale stocks.[3]

Contemporary whaling for whale meat is subject to intense debate. Iceland, Japan, Norway, North American indigenous peoples and the Danish dependencies of the Faroe Islands and Greenland continue to hunt in the 21st century. The IWC ban on commercial whaling has been very successful, with only Iceland, Japan and Norway still engaging in and supporting commercial hunting.[4] They also support having the IWC moratorium lifted on certain whale stocks for hunting.[5] Anti-whaling countries and environmental activists oppose lifting the ban. Under the terms of the IWC moratorium, aboriginal whaling is allowed to continue on a subsistence basis.[6] Over the past few decades, whale watching has become a significant industry in many parts of the world; in some countries it has replaced whaling, but in a few others the two business models exist in an uneasy tension. The live capture of cetaceans for display in aquaria (e.g., captive killer whales) continues.

History

[edit]
Main articles: History of whaling and Aboriginal whaling
Eighteenth-century engraving showing Dutch whalers hunting bowhead whales in the Arctic
Whaling on Danes Island, by Abraham Speeck, 1634. Skokloster Castle.
One of the oldest known whaling paintings, by Bonaventura Peeters, depicting Dutch whalers at Spitzbergen c. 1645

Whaling began in prehistoric times in coastal waters. The earliest depictions of whaling are the Neolithic Bangudae Petroglyphs in Korea, which may date back to 6000 BC.[7] These images are the earliest evidence for whaling.[8] Although prehistoric hunting and gathering is generally considered to have had little ecological impact, early whaling in the Arctic may have altered freshwater ecology.[9]

Early whaling affected the development of widely disparate cultures on different continents.[10] The Basques were the first to catch whales commercially and dominated the trade for five centuries, spreading to the far corners of the North Atlantic and even reaching the South Atlantic. The development of modern whaling techniques was spurred in the 19th century by the increase in demand for whale oil,[11] sometimes known as "train oil", and in the 20th century by a demand for margarine and later whale meat.

Native Americans Stripping Their Prey at Neah Bay – 1910

Modernity

[edit]
The Rau IX, a whaling ship built in 1939 for the German margarine company Walter Rau AG, now part of the collection of the German Maritime Museum. Whale oil was an important ingredient of margarine and the company operated its own whaling ships[12]
Whales caught 2010–2014, by country

The primary species hunted are minke whales,[13] belugas, narwhals,[14] and pilot whales, which are some of the smallest species of whales. There are also smaller numbers killed of gray whales, sei whales, fin whales, bowhead whales, Bryde's whales, sperm whales and humpback whales.

Recent scientific surveys estimate a population of 103,000 minkes in the northeast Atlantic. With respect to the populations of Antarctic minke whales, as of January 2010, the IWC states that it is "unable to provide reliable estimates at the present time" and that a "major review is underway by the Scientific Committee."[15]

Whale oil is used little today,[16] and modern whaling is primarily done for food: for pets, fur farms, sled dogs and humans, and for making carvings of tusks, teeth and vertebrae.[17] Both meat and blubber (muktuk) are eaten from narwhals, belugas and bowheads. From commercially hunted minkes, meat is eaten by humans or animals, and blubber is rendered down mostly to cheap industrial products such as animal feed or, in Iceland, as a fuel supplement for whaling ships.

International cooperation on whaling regulation began in 1931 and culminated in the signing of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) in 1946. Its aim is to:

provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.[18]

International Whaling Commission

[edit]

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was set up under the ICRW to decide hunting quotas and other relevant matters based on the findings of its Scientific Committee. Non-member countries are not bound by its regulations and conduct their own management programs. It regulates hunting of 13 species of great whales and has not reached consensus on whether it may regulate smaller species.[19]

The IWC voted on July 23, 1982, to establish a moratorium on commercial whaling of great whales beginning in the 1985–86 season. Since 1992, the IWC's Scientific Committee has requested that it be allowed to give quota proposals for some whale stocks, but this has so far been refused by the Plenary Committee.

At the 2010 meeting in Morocco, representatives of the 88 member states discussed whether to lift the 24-year ban on commercial whaling. Japan, Norway and Iceland urged the organisation to lift the ban. A coalition of anti-whaling nations offered a compromise plan that would allow these countries to continue whaling but with smaller catches and under close supervision. Their plan would also completely ban whaling in the Southern Ocean.[20] More than 200 scientists and experts have opposed the compromise proposal for lifting the ban and have also opposed allowing whaling in the Southern Ocean, which was declared a whale sanctuary in 1994.[21][22] Opponents of the compromise plan want to see an end to all commercial whaling but are willing to allow subsistence-level catches by indigenous peoples.[20]

Whaling catches by location

[edit]

These totals include great whales: counts from IWC[23] and WDC[24] and IWC Summary Catch Database version 6.1, July 2016.[25]

The IWC database is supplemented by Faroese catches of pilot whales,[26] Greenland's and Canada's catches of narwhals (data 1954–2014),[14] belugas from multiple sources shown in the Beluga whale article, Indonesia's catches of sperm whales,[27][28] and bycatch in Korea.[29][30]

Whales caught, by country and species, 2010–2014
Country Practice Total Minke Belugas Narwhals Pilot Whales Gray Sei Fin Bowhead Bryde's Sperm Humpback Orca
Total 21,008 5,663 4,831 4,548 3,699 642 486 460 323 189 108 57 2
Canada Aboriginal 4,510 1,626 2,870 15
Greenland Aboriginal 3,953 875 1,316 1,679 37 4 42
Faroe Islands Aboriginal 3,698 3,698
Norway Commercial 2,795 2,795
Japan Commercial 2,080 1,396 486 3 187 8
USA Aboriginal 1,887 1,586 301
Russia Aboriginal 948 303 642 3
Iceland Commercial 648 229 419
South Korea Commercial 376 368 1 1 2 2 2
Indonesia Aboriginal 100 100
St. Vincent + Grenadines Aboriginal 13 13

Most of the whale species in the table are not considered endangered by the IUCN ("least concern" or "data deficient"). Only the sei whale is classified as "endangered", and the fin whale is classified as "vulnerable" by the IUCN.

Ongoing debate

[edit]
Main articles: Whale conservation and Anti-whaling

Key elements of the debate over whaling include sustainability, ownership, national sovereignty, cetacean intelligence, suffering during hunting, health risks, the value of 'lethal sampling' to establish catch quotas, the value of controlling whales' impact on fish stocks and the rapidly approaching extinction of a few whale species.

Sustainability

[edit]
Main article: Cetacean bycatch
Dominoes made from whale bones
Whales caught, by year, including corrected USSR totals; source has data by species; totals are shown on a logarithmic scale

The World Wide Fund for Nature says that 90% of all northern right whales killed by human activities are from ship collisions, calling for restrictions on the movement of shipping in certain areas.[citation needed] Noise pollution threatens the existence of cetaceans. Large ships and boats make a tremendous amount of noise that falls into the same frequency range of many whales.[31] Bycatch also kills more animals than hunting.[32] Some scientists believe pollution to be a factor.[33] Moreover, since the IWC moratorium, there have been several instances of illegal whale hunting by IWC nations. In 1994, the IWC reported evidence from genetic testing[34] of whale meat and blubber for sale on the open market in Japan in 1993.[35] In addition to the legally permitted minke whale, the analyses showed that 10–25% of tissues sampled came from non-minke baleen whales. Further research in 1995 and 1996 showed a significant drop of non-minke baleen whales sampled to 2.5%.[36] In a separate paper, Baker stated that "many of these animals certainly represent a bycatch (incidental entrapment in fishing gear)" and stated that DNA monitoring of whale meat is required to adequately track whale products.[37]

It was revealed in 1994 that the Soviet Union had been systematically undercounting its catch. For example, from 1948 to 1973, the Soviet Union caught 48,477 humpback whales rather than the 2,710 it officially reported to the IWC.[38] On the basis of this new information, the IWC stated that it would have to rewrite its catch figures for the last 40 years.[39] According to Ray Gambell, then-Secretary of the IWC, the organization had raised its suspicions with the former Soviet Union, but it did not take further action because it could not interfere with national sovereignty.[40]

Health risks

[edit]
See also: Whale meat § Toxicity

Whales are long-lived predators, so their tissues build up concentrations of methylmercury from their prey. Mercury concentrations reach levels that are hazardous to humans who consume too much too often, since mercury also bioaccumulates in humans. High levels have been found in the Caribbean[41] (where people are advised not to exceed one serving every three weeks),[42] in the Faroe Islands,[43] and in Japan.[44]

Effects on global carbon cycles

[edit]

Scientists have analyzed the ability of the oceans to sequester atmospheric carbon before industrial whaling and in modern times, hundreds of years after the most active whaling periods. Focusing on the amount of carbon stored in baleen whales, scientists determined that large marine mammals hold over 9 million less tons of carbon in the ocean than during the pre whaling era (9.1 x 10^6 tons).[45]

Whales play an important role in the carbon cycle in life and death. Living whales cycle carbon and nitrogen throughout the water column via whale feces where it can contribute to primary productivity at the surface. In death, their carcasses can become part of a whale fall and sink to the bottom, bringing their carbon with them to help form a temporary ecosystem at the ocean floor. Despite rebounding whale numbers after the international ban on whaling, climate change and rising carbon levels continue to hinder the amount of carbon sequestered by whales.[46]

By country

[edit]
See also: Whaling in the Netherlands, Whaling in Scotland, and Whaling in Argentina

Australia

[edit]
Main article: Whaling in Australia
Catching and rendering whales, South Sea Whale Fishery, aquatint print, 1835

Whaling was a major maritime industry in Australia from 1791 until its final cessation in 1978. At least 45 whaling stations operated in Tasmania during the 19th century, and bay whaling was conducted out of other mainland centres. Modern whaling using harpoon guns and iron hulled catchers was conducted in the 20th century from shore-based stations in Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland, also in Norfolk Island. Overfishing saw the closure of some whaling stations before a government ban on the industry was introduced in 1978 after a major campaign by conservationists.[47]

Canada

[edit]
Main article: Whaling in Canada
Young butchered beluga on the beach of the Inuit village of Salluit, Quebec, July 2001

Canadians kill about 600 narwhals per year.[14] They kill 100 belugas per year in the Beaufort Sea,[48][49] 300 in northern Quebec (Nunavik),[50] and an unknown number in Nunavut. The total annual kill in Beaufort and Quebec areas varies between 300 and 400 belugas per year. Numbers are not available for Nunavut since 2003, when the Arviat area, with about half Nunavut's hunters, killed 200–300 belugas, though the authors say hunters resist giving complete numbers.[51]

Harvested meat is sold through shops and supermarkets in northern communities where whale meat is a component of the traditional diet.[52] Hunters in Hudson Bay rarely eat beluga meat. They give a little to dogs and leave the rest for wild animals.[17] Other areas may dry the meat for later consumption by humans. An average of one or two vertebrae and one or two teeth per beluga or narwhal are carved and sold.[17] One estimate of the annual gross value received from Beluga hunts in Hudson Bay in 2013 was CA$600,000 for 190 belugas, or CA$3,000 per beluga, and CA$530,000 for 81 narwhals, or CA$6,500 per narwhal. However the net income, after subtracting costs in time and equipment, was a loss of CA$60 per person for belugas and CA$7 per person for narwhals. Hunters receive subsidies, but they continue as a tradition rather than for the money, and the economic analysis noted that whale watching may be an alternate revenue source. Of the gross income, CA$550,000 was for beluga skin and meat, to replace beef, pork and chickens which would otherwise be bought, CA$50,000 was received for carved vertebrae and teeth. CA$370,000 was for narwhal skin and meat, CA$150,000 was received for tusks, and carved vertebrae and teeth of males, and CA$10,000 was received for carved vertebrae and teeth of female narwhals.[17]

The Whale and Dolphin Conservation says:[when?] "Canada has pursued a policy of marine mammal management which appears to be more to do with political expediency rather than conservation."

Canada left the IWC in 1982, and the only IWC-regulated species currently harvested by the Canadian Inuit is the bowhead whale.[53] As of 2004, the limit on bowhead whale hunting allows for the hunt of one whale every two years from the Hudson Bay-Foxe Basin population, and one whale every 13 years from the Baffin Bay-Davis Strait population.[54]

Denmark

[edit]

Faroe Islands

[edit]
Main article: Whaling in the Faroe Islands
Killed pilot whales on the beach in Hvalba, Faroe Islands

The traditional whale hunt, known as grindadráp, is regulated by Faroese authorities but not by the IWC, which does not claim jurisdiction over small cetaceans. Around 800 long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melaena) are caught each year, mainly during the summer. Other species are not hunted, though occasionally Atlantic white-sided dolphin can be found among the pilot whales. [citation needed]

Greenland

[edit]
Whales caught per year

The Inuit mastered the art of whaling around the 11 century AD in the Bering Strait. The technique consisted of spearing a whale with a spear connected to an inflated seal bladder. The bladder would float and exhaust the whale when diving, and when it surfaced the Inuit hunters would spear it again, further exhausting the animal until they were able to kill it. Vikings in Greenland also ate whale meat, but archaeologists believe they never hunted them on the sea.[55]

Greenlandic Inuit whalers catch around 175 large whales per year, mostly minke whales,[56] as well as 360 narwhals,[14] 200 belugas,[57][58] 190 pilot whales and 2,300 porpoises.[59] The government of Greenland sets limits for narwhals and belugas. There are no limits on pilot whales and porpoises.[60]

The IWC treats the west and east coasts of Greenland as two separate population areas and sets separate quotas for each coast. The far more densely populated west coast accounts for over 90% of the catch. The average per year from 2012 to 2016 was around 150 minke and 17 fin whales and humpback whales taken from west coast waters and around 10 minke from east coast waters. In April 2009 Greenland landed its first bowhead whale in nearly 40 years. It landed three bowheads each year in 2009 and 2010, one each in 2011 and 2015.

In 2021 the Sermersooq municipal council banned whaling in Nuup Kangerlua, one of the largest fjords in inhabited areas of Greenland. The council did not want hunting to kill the humpback whales seen by the local tourism industry. Before local humpback hunting resumed in 2010 there had been nine humpbacks in the fjord during summer. When hunting resumed some were killed and others left.[61][62] Sermersooq has not banned whaling elsewhere in the municipality, which is the world's largest municipality, at 200,000 square miles on both coasts. [citation needed]

Germany

[edit]

Originally one of the most successful whaling nations, German whaling vessels started from Hamburg and other smaller cities on the Elbe River, hunting for whales around Greenland and Spitsbergen. While 1770 is recorded to have been the most successful year of German whaling, German whaling went into steep decline with the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars and never really recovered. After the Napoleonic Wars, Germany tried but could never re-establish a successful whaling industry. [citation needed]

German whaling ships in the mid to late 19th century would generally not be staffed with experienced sailors but rather with members of more wealthy farming communities, going for short trips to Scandinavia during the end of spring and beginning of summer, when their labor was not required on the fields. This kind of whaling was ineffective. Many journeys would not lead to any whales caught, instead seal- and polar bear skins were brought back to shore. Communities often paid more for equipping the vessels in the first place than making money with the goods brought back to shore. Today, local historians believe that German whaling in the late 19th century was more a rite of passage for the sons of wealthy farmers from northern German islands than an action undertaken for true commercial reason. German whaling was abandoned in 1872. [citation needed]

Prior to the First World War, the newly established German Empire attempted to re-establish large scale German whaling. This was undertaken with ships either going from Germany to Iceland or from the newly established German colonies to African waters. These attempts never were commercially successful and quickly given up. Only in the 1930s could Germany—with mainly Norwegian personnel—re-establish a large and successful whaling industry. More than 15,000 whales were caught between 1930 and 1939. With the beginning of the Second World War, German whaling was abandoned completely. In the early 1950s, Germany maintained one whaling vessel for testing purpose as it considered re-establishing a German whaling fleet, but abandoned these plans in 1956. The last remaining German whalers worked for Dutch vessels in the 1950s and 1960s. [citation needed]

Iceland

[edit]
Main article: Whaling in Iceland
Hvalur hf.'s whaling station at Hvalfjörður (2023), with 2 abandoned whaling vessels. It owns 2 similar operational ships.
Minke whale meat kebabs, sold in Reykjavík, Iceland, 2009

Iceland is one of a handful of countries which still host a (privately owned) whaling fleet. One company (Hvalur hf.) concentrates on hunting fin whales, largely for export to Japan, while the only other one hunts minke whales for domestic consumption, as the meat is popular with tourists.[63] Iceland has its own whale watching sector, which exists in uneasy tension with the whaling industry.[64]

Iceland did not object to the 1986 IWC moratorium. Between 1986 and 1989 around 60 animals per year were taken under a scientific permit. However, under strong pressure from anti-whaling countries, who viewed scientific whaling as a circumvention of the moratorium,[65] Iceland ceased whaling in 1989. Following the IWC's 1991 refusal to accept its Scientific Committee's recommendation to allow sustainable commercial whaling, Iceland left the IWC in 1992.

Iceland rejoined the IWC in 2002 with a reservation to the moratorium. Iceland presented a feasibility study to the 2003 IWC meeting for catches in 2003 and 2004. The primary aim of the study was to deepen the understanding of fish–whale interactions. Amid disagreement within the IWC Scientific Committee about the value of the research and its relevance to IWC objectives,[66] no decision on the proposal was reached. However, under the terms of the convention the Icelandic government issued permits for a scientific catch. In 2003 Iceland resumed scientific whaling which continued in 2004 and 2005.

Iceland resumed commercial whaling in 2006. Its annual quota was 30 minke whales (out of an estimated 174,000 animals in the central and north-eastern North Atlantic[67]) and nine fin whales (out of an estimated 30,000 animals in the central and north-eastern North Atlantic[67][68]). For the 2012 commercial whaling season, starting in April and lasting six months, the quota was set to 216 minke whales,[69] of which 52 were caught.[70] Iceland did not hunt any whales in 2019, and it is reported that demand for whale meat decreased in that year.[71]

Indonesia

[edit]
Lamakera whale hunters in a traditional boat called paledang, c. 1900

Lamalera, on the south coast of the island of Lembata, and Lamakera on neighbouring Solor, are the two remaining Indonesian whaling communities. The hunters obey religious taboos that ensure that they use every part of the animal. About half of the catch is kept in the village; the rest is bartered in local markets.

In 1973, the United Nations's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) sent a whaling ship and a Norwegian whaler to modernize their hunt. This effort lasted three years and was not successful. According to the FAO report, the Lamalerans "have evolved a method of whaling which suits their natural resources, cultural tenets and style."[72] Lamalerans say they returned the ship because they immediately caught five sperm whales, too many to butcher and eat without refrigeration.[73] Since these communities only hunt whales for noncommercial purposes, it is categorized as 'aboriginal subsistence hunters' by the IWC.[74]

The catch of lamakerans

The Lamalerans hunt for several species of whales but catching sperm whales are preferable, while other whales, such as baleen whales, are considered taboo to hunt.[72] They caught five sperm whales in 1973; they averaged about 40 per year from the 1960s through the mid 1990s, 13 total from 2002 to 2006, 39 in 2007,[73] an average of 20 per year 2008 through 2014, and caught 3 in 2015.[75]

Traditional Lamaleran whaling used wooden fishing boats built by a group of local craftsmen clan called ata molã, and the fishermen will mourn the "death" of their ships for two months.[72] These days, the Lamalerans use a motor engine to power their boats; however, their tradition dictates that once a whale has been caught, fishermen will have to row their boats and the whale back to the shore. The traditional practices made whaling a dangerous hunt. In one case, a boat was pulled approximately 120 km away towards Timor (see Nantucket sleighride), while in another case, the hunted whale capsized the boat and forced the fishermen to swim for 12 hours back to the shore.[74]

Japan

[edit]
Main article: Whaling in Japan
Japanese narrative screen showing a whale hunt off Wakayama

When the commercial whaling moratorium was introduced by the IWC in 1982, Japan lodged an official objection. However, in response to US threats to cut Japan's fishing quota in US territorial waters under the terms of the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment, Japan withdrew its objection in 1987. According to the BBC, the US went back on this promise, effectively destroying the deal.[76] Since Japan could not resume commercial whaling, it began whaling on a purported scientific-research basis. Australia, Greenpeace, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and other groups dispute the Japanese claim of research "as a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned."[77][78][79] The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has attempted to disrupt Japanese whaling in the Antarctic since 2003 but eventually ceased this activity in 2017 due to little achievement in creating change.[80] Other NGOs such as the Australian Marine Conservation Society and Humane Society International continued to campaign against Japan's scientific whaling program and block votes at IWC to bring back commercial whaling.

The stated purpose of the research program is to establish the size and dynamics of whale populations.[81] The Japanese government wishes to resume whaling in a sustainable manner under the oversight of the IWC, both for whale products (meat, etc.) and to help preserve fishing resources by culling whales. Anti-whaling organizations claim that the research program is a front for commercial whaling, that the sample size is needlessly large and that equivalent information can be obtained by non-lethal means, for example by studying samples of whale tissue (such as skin) or feces.[82] The Japanese government sponsored Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), which conducts the research, disagrees, stating that the information obtainable from tissue and/or feces samples is insufficient and that the sample size is necessary in order to be representative.[81]

An adult and sub-adult minke whale are dragged aboard the Nisshin Maru, a Japanese whaling vessel.

Japan's scientific whaling program is controversial in anti-whaling countries.[83] Countries opposed to whaling have passed non-binding resolutions in the IWC urging Japan to stop the program. Japan claims that whale stocks for some species are sufficiently large to sustain commercial hunting and blame filibustering by the anti-whaling side for the continuation of scientific whaling. Deputy whaling commissioner, Joji Morishita, told BBC News:

The reason for the moratorium [on commercial whaling] was scientific uncertainty about the number of whales. ... It was a moratorium for the sake of collecting data and that is why we started scientific whaling. We were asked to collect more data.[84]

This collusive relationship between the whaling industry and the Japanese government is sometimes criticized by pro-whaling activists who support local, small-scale coastal whaling such as the Taiji dolphin drive hunt.[85]

In September 2018, Japan chaired the 67th IWC meeting in Brazil and attempted to pass a motion to lift the moratorium on commercial whaling. Japan did not receive enough votes and the IWC rejected the motion.[86] Subsequently, on 26 December 2018, Japan announced that it would withdraw its membership from the IWC, because in its opinion, the IWC had failed its duty to promote sustainable hunting as the culture within the IWC moved towards an anti-whaling, pro-conservation agenda. Japanese officials also announced they will resume commercial hunting within its territorial waters and its 200-mile exclusive economic zones starting in July 2019, but it will cease whaling activities in the Antarctic Ocean, the northwest Pacific Ocean, and the Australian Whale Sanctuary.[87][88][86]

In 2019, the Australian Marine Conservation Society and International Fund for Animal Welfare commissioned legal opinion, which concluded that Japan's commercial whaling program within its territorial waters breaks international convention and law and that Japan makes itself vulnerable to potential international legal action.[89]

Norway

[edit]
Main article: Whaling in Norway
Norwegian catches (1946–2005) in red and quotas (1994–2006) in blue of minke whale, from Norwegian official statistics

Norway registered an objection to the International Whaling Commission moratorium and is thus not bound by it. Commercial whaling ceased for a five-year period to allow a small scientific catch for gauging the stock's sustainability; whaling subsequently resumed in 1993. Minke whales are the only legally hunted species. Catches have fluctuated between 487 animals in 2000 to 592 in 2007. For the year 2011 the quota is set at 1,286 minke whales.[90] The catch is made solely from the Northeast Atlantic minke whale population, which is estimated at 102,000.[91]

Philippines

[edit]
Main article: Whaling in the Philippines

Whaling in the Philippines has been illegal since 1997 since the Fisheries Administrative Order 185 of 1991 was amended. The order initially only made illegal the catching, selling, or transporting of dolphins but the 1997 amendment widened the scope of the ban to include all cetaceans including whales.[92] The calls for ban on whaling and dolphin hunting in the Philippines were raised by both domestic and international groups after local whaling and dolphin hunting traditions of residents of Pamilacan in Bohol were featured in newspapers in the 1990s. As compromise for residents of Pamilacan who were dependent on whaling and dolphin hunting, whale and dolphin watching is being promoted in the island as a source of tourism income.[93] Despite the ban, it is believed that the whaling industry in the Philippines did not cease to exist but went underground.[92]

Russia

[edit]
Main article: Whaling in the Soviet Union and Russia

The USSR had a significant whaling hunt of orcas and dolphins along with Iceland and Japan. The Soviet Union's harvest of over 534,000 whales between the 1930s and the 1980s has been called "one of the most senseless environmental crimes of the 20th century" by Charles Homans of the Pacific Standard.[94] In 1970, a study published by Bigg M.A. following photographic recognition of orcas found a significant difference in the suspected ages of whale populations and their actual ages. Following this evidence, the Soviet Union and then Russia continued a scientific whale hunt, though the verisimilitude of the intentions of the hunt over the last 40 years are questioned.[95][96]

The Soviet Union's intensive illegal whaling program from 1948 to 1973 was controlled and managed by the central government. In Soviet society, whaling was perceived to be a glamorous and well-paid job. Whalers were esteemed as well-traveled adventurers, and their return to land was often celebrated elaborately such as with fanfare and parades. In regard to economics, the Soviet Union transformed from a "rural economy into an industrial giant" by disregarding the sustainability of a resource to fill high production targets.[97] The government had controlled all industries, including fisheries, and whaling was not constrained by the need for sustainability through profits. Managers' and workers' production was incentivized with salary bonuses of 25%-60% and various other benefits, awards, and privileges. Many industries, whaling included, became a "manic numbers game".[97]

Currently, the indigenous Chukchi people in Chukotka Autonomous Okrug in the Russian Far East are permitted under IWC regulation to take up to 140 gray whales from the North-East Pacific population each year. About 40[failed verification] beluga whales are caught in the Sea of Okhotsk each year.[98] There are no recent data on catches in the Arctic Ocean or Bering Sea, where about 60 belugas per year were caught in the early 1980s.[99]

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

[edit]
Boy in Bequia in the Grenadines carrying meat of a humpback whale (2007)

Natives of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on the island of Bequia have a quota from the International Whaling Commission of up to four humpback whales per year.[100][101] Their quota allows up to four humpback whales per year using only traditional hunting methods of hand-thrown harpoons in small, open sailboats. The limit is rarely met, with no catch some years.[102] Its classification as aboriginal, and therefore permissible, is highly contested. In the 2012 meeting of the IWC, delegates from several anti-whaling countries, and environmental groups, spoke out against it, calling it "artisanal whaling out of control".[101]

The meat is sold commercially and 82% of Bequia residents consume it at least occasionally, though it is subject to high levels of methyl mercury.[42]

Residents of the town of Barrouallie hunt and sell meat from short-finned pilot whales and several dolphin species, including killer whales and false killer whales. 92% of people from the town, and high fractions from nearby towns, eat this meat at least occasionally. Sellers call this meat "black fish" without regard to species. Its levels of methyl mercury mean that consumption needs to be less than a serving every three weeks. However the mercury danger is not well known in the country. As of 2020 the government is considering banning the hunt of killer whales.[42]

South Korea

[edit]

Commercial whaling was banned in 1986 in South Korea in keeping with the IWC issued global moratorium on whale hunting.[103] In early July 2012, during IWC discussions in Panama, South Korea said it would undertake scientific whaling as allowed despite the global moratorium on whaling. Due to a loud global outcry, South Korea abandoned this plan and has not resumed any form of whaling program.[104]

There is still a loophole in South Korean laws that allows fishermen to keep any bycatch including whales. All whales caught accidentally must be reported and is then inspected for harpoon injuries. The meat from these whales can then be sold, which can be very lucrative for fishermen who can earn up to 200 million won ($150,000 US) per minke whale. This loophole has led to high numbers of whale, dolphin and other cetacean deaths. In 2023, the number was 866 recorded deaths, which is a sizable reduction from a high of 2,014 cases in 2019 and 1,066 in 2022, but is still worryingly high.[105] Fishermen who abuse this loophole have been arrested and prosecuted, but activists have spoken out against this loophole, and demanded more protections for whales and better accounting for those caught and killed.[106]

Due to their concern, and the higher than the global average numbers of bycatch cetacean deaths, 15 members of the Korean Parliament put forward a bill in 2023 to ban the consumption of whale meat and to have a more rigorous inspection of all whale carcasses by Coast Guards. Activists also want to have a database created that would help authorities spot more easily those who are using the loophole to illegally hunt whales.[105]

The Bill raises hopes for better protections for whales but it will have to face a culture with deep historical, geographical and cultural ties to whale meat, and opposition from the commercial fishing industry.[105]

United Kingdom

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Whaling in the United Kingdom.[edit]
Dangers of the Whale Fishery, 1820. One whaleboat is up-ended, and another has a taut line, showing that the whale it harpooned may take the sailors on a Nantucket sleighride.

Commercial whaling in Great Britain began late in the 16th century and continued after the 1801 formation of the United Kingdom and intermittently until the middle of the 20th century.

The trade was broadly divided into two branches. The northern fishery involved hunting the bowhead whale off the coast of Greenland and adjacent islands. The southern fishery was activity anywhere else, including in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans and off the Antarctic. The sperm whale, the southern right whale and humpback whale were the main target species in South Sea whaling. The industry went on to become a profitable national enterprise and a source of skilled mariners for the Royal Navy in times of war.

Modern whaling, using factory ships and catchers fitted with bow-mounted cannons that fired explosive harpoons, continued into the 20th century and was mainly focused on the Antarctic and nearby islands where shore stations had been established. The collapse of whale stocks in the 1960s, due to overfishing, saw the UK abandon the industry after three and a half centuries of involvement.

United States

[edit]
Main article: Whaling in the United States
A traditional whaling crew in Alaska
Whales party upon newly discovered oil in Pennsylvania in Vanity Fair magazine on April 20, 1861

In the United States, beluga whaling is widely carried out, catching about 300 belugas per year,[48] monitored by the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee. The annual catch ranges between 250 and 600 per year.

Subsistence hunting of the bowhead whale is carried out by nine different indigenous Alaskan communities, and is managed by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission which reports to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The hunt takes around 50 bowhead whales a year from a population of about 10,500 in Alaskan waters. Conservationists fear this hunt is not sustainable, though the IWC Scientific Committee, the same group that provided the above population estimate, projects a population growth of 3.2% per year. Bowhead whales weigh approximately 5–10 times as much as minke whales. The hunt also took an average of one or two gray whales each year until 1996. The quota was reduced to zero in that year due to sustainability concerns. A future review may result in the gray whale hunt being resumed.[107]

The Makah tribe in Washington state also reinstated whaling in 1999, despite protests from animal rights groups. They are currently[when?] seeking to resume whaling of the gray whale,[108] a right recognized in the Treaty of Neah Bay, within limits (Article 4 of the Treaty).

Season Catch[109]
2003 48
2004 43
2005 68
2006 39
2007 63
All catches in 2003–2007 were bowhead whales.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Whaling

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Whaling is the practice of hunting whales—large marine mammals of the order —for their (rendered into oil), , , and other products such as and bones. This activity originated in prehistoric coastal societies and indigenous groups using rudimentary methods like harpoons from small boats, but industrialized in the 17th to 20th centuries with factory ships and explosive harpoons enabling pelagic operations across oceans. Historically, whaling fueled economies through for lighting, lubrication, and margarine substitutes, for corsetry and whips, and for and animal feed, with global catches peaking at over 60,000 whales annually in the amid technological advances and expanding fleets from nations like the , , , and the . An estimated 2.9 million whales were killed in the alone, causing severe depletions in many species and prompting international regulation via the (IWC), established in to conserve stocks while permitting orderly industry development. The IWC imposed a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982 (effective 1986), yet and lodge annual objections to sustain domestic quotas—primarily —while conducted "scientific" hunts until withdrawing from the IWC in to resume commercial operations in its waters; aboriginal subsistence whaling continues for indigenous groups in , , and . Current annual catches number in the hundreds, far below historical peaks, amid debates over , population recoveries in species like , persistent ecological uncertainties, and tensions between conservation imperatives and cultural or nutritional claims to the resource.

Overview and Types

Definition and Scope

Whaling refers to the systematic , killing, and processing of whales—large marine mammals primarily from the orders Mysticeti ( whales) and select Odontoceti (toothed whales, notably whales)—for their , (rendered into ), bones, and other byproducts such as and . This practice encompasses scouting, pursuit, capture via harpoons or other means, towing to processing sites, ( and stripping), and subsequent handling or transport of carcasses and products. Historically driven by demand for whale in lighting, , and production, as well as for human consumption and animal feed, whaling has targeted species yielding high volumes of these resources, including blue, fin, sei, Bryde's, minke, humpback, North Atlantic and southern right, bowhead, gray, and whales. The scope of whaling activities is delineated by purpose and regulation, primarily under the (IWC), established in 1946 to conserve whale stocks while permitting orderly industry development. The IWC classifies whaling into three categories: aboriginal subsistence whaling, which sustains indigenous communities dependent on whales for nutrition and cultural practices (e.g., hunts of bowhead whales); commercial whaling, aimed at profit through sale of products; and scientific whaling, conducted under special permits for research, though often criticized for yielding edible byproducts. A global moratorium on commercial whaling for great whales took effect in 1985/1986, but exceptions persist for subsistence quotas and objections by nations like and , which self-allocate catches of minke whales. This framework excludes unregulated small cetacean hunts (e.g., dolphins or porpoises), which fall outside IWC jurisdiction despite similar methods. Geographically, whaling's scope spans oceans where whale populations migrate, with historical concentrations in the , , North Atlantic, and Pacific; modern regulated hunts are limited to specific stocks to avoid , informed by population assessments showing recoveries in some species post-moratorium (e.g., humpback whales exceeding pre-whaling levels in certain areas) but ongoing depletions in others like North Atlantic right whales. Empirical data from catch records indicate that whaling has cumulatively removed millions of individuals, with peaks exceeding 60,000 annually in the mid-20th century, underscoring its industrial scale prior to conservation measures.

Categories of Whaling

The (IWC), established under the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, classifies whaling into three principal categories based on purpose: aboriginal subsistence whaling, commercial whaling, and whaling conducted under special permits for scientific research. These distinctions guide regulatory frameworks, with catch limits and oversight varying by category to balance conservation, cultural rights, and research needs. The categories primarily apply to great whales ( and large toothed species); of small cetaceans, such as dolphins and porpoises, falls outside IWC jurisdiction and is managed nationally or regionally. ![Beluga whale hunt in Salluit, Nunavik, Canada][float-right] Aboriginal subsistence whaling permits indigenous communities to harvest limited numbers of whales for nutritional, cultural, and community sustenance purposes, recognizing long-standing traditional practices. Quotas, termed strike limits to account for struck but lost whales, are determined using precautionary algorithms by the IWC Scientific Committee and reviewed every six years; the current schedule, renewed in 2024, extends to 2030. Authorized allocations include up to 67 bowhead whales annually (plus carryover strikes, yielding 100 for 2024) shared between Alaskan Natives and Chukotkan communities in , 209 minke whales for Greenlanders, and smaller quotas for humpback and gray whales off St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Canada, though not an IWC member, permits similar Inuit hunts under domestic regulations. Commercial whaling entails hunting whales primarily for economic gain, yielding products like , oil, and historically used in industry and today mainly for consumption in niche markets. A global moratorium on commercial operations took effect for the 1985/86 season, intended to allow depleted stocks to recover, but and lodged timely objections, enabling continued national-regulated hunts. 's 2025 minke whale quota stands at 1,406 animals, primarily in the Northeast Atlantic, while authorized but suspended its 2025 fin whale hunt due to insufficient export demand, particularly from . exited the IWC in 2019 and recommenced commercial whaling within its , targeting species like sei and Bryde's whales, with operations resuming in 2025 alongside . Scientific whaling, governed by Article VIII of the convention, allows governments to issue special permits for lethal research to enhance understanding of whale , , and , with resulting products utilizable commercially. Proposals undergo review by the IWC Scientific Committee for methodological rigor, though issuance remains a national prerogative; data and specimens must be shared with the Commission. This category saw extensive use by from 1987 to 2019, yielding over 6,000 whales under research pretexts amid debates over necessity versus commercial circumvention, but no major programs persist as of 2025 following Japan's shift to open commercial operations.

Historical Development

Ancient and Indigenous Origins

Archaeological evidence indicates that whaling began in prehistoric coastal societies, with the earliest depictions appearing in the Bangudae petroglyphs at , , dated to 6000–5000 BCE. These rock carvings illustrate boats pursuing and tethering whales, suggesting organized rather than mere scavenging of beached carcasses, and represent the oldest known visual record of the practice. Whale bone artifacts, including tools and fragments analyzed via ZooMS, , and stable isotopes, have been recovered from Late Paleolithic sites, confirming human exploitation of cetaceans as early as the in some regions. In the North Atlantic and , indigenous groups such as the ancestors of the developed whaling techniques by at least 3000 BCE, targeting species like bowhead and beluga whales from skin boats or kayaks equipped with toggling harpoons and floats to exhaust and drown the animals. Norwegian coastal communities, among the earliest in , hunted whales around 2000 BCE using similar subsistence methods, including communal drives of pilot whales into bays for slaughter, a practice documented in sagas and corroborated by bone middens. These efforts focused on beached or nearshore whales, yielding meat, for oil and fuel, bones for tools, and sinew for cordage, integral to survival in harsh environments where whales provided high-calorie resources unavailable from terrestrial hunting. Pacific indigenous whaling emerged independently, as seen among the and other peoples of the Northwest Coast, who by 1000 CE employed cedar canoes, harpoons with stone or bone heads, and floats to hunt gray whales, often targeting migrating pods off . In Japan, communities in regions like Taiji practiced whaling from at least the 7th century CE, initially driving dolphins and small whales into nets before scaling to larger species with oar-powered boats and mass harpoons, rooted in earlier Jomon-period (circa 3000 BCE) evidence of whale bone use. The Ainu of similarly pursued stranded or nearshore whales using poisoned arrows and communal processing, emphasizing ritual distribution of the yield to reinforce social bonds. These traditions prioritized through seasonal hunts limited by technology and whale availability, contrasting later commercial scales, though overhunting risks existed locally due to dense populations and predictable migrations.

Industrial Expansion (17th-19th Centuries)


The industrial expansion of whaling began in the early when Dutch and English explorers established commercial operations in the waters off , targeting abundant populations. The Dutch Noordsche Compagnie, chartered in 1614 as a monopoly by several cities, dispatched fleets of up to 20 ships annually, initially harvesting around 300 whales per season through cooperative from shore stations and blubber-processing facilities. English whalers from Hull and , organized under the , competed fiercely, leading to armed conflicts such as the 1618-1630 "" that resulted in a 1614 dividing hunting grounds. Innovations like on-board try-pots for rendering into oil enabled longer voyages and reduced reliance on land-based boiling, marking a shift from medieval shore whaling to seaborne industry. By the mid-17th century, overexploitation depleted stocks, with Dutch operations alone killing an estimated 30,000 bowhead whales between 1612 and 1690, prompting a migration of fleets to the less accessible . British dominance emerged in the , sustaining hunts with improved ships and crews, though annual catches fell to tens of whales per vessel due to scarcity. Concurrently, colonial American whaling took root in ports like and around 1715, initially focusing on coastal right and humpback whales using small sloops for near-shore hunts. Quaker communities in pioneered offshore techniques, venturing into the Atlantic for sperm whales by the 1760s, drawn by the superior quality of oil for candles and lubricants. The 19th century witnessed explosive growth in American whaling, fueled by rising demand for whale oil to light homes and lubricate Industrial Revolution machinery, with the U.S. fleet expanding from 50 ships in 1800 to over 700 by the 1840s, primarily from New Bedford, Massachusetts. Voyages extended to the Pacific, Indian, and Southern Oceans, targeting sperm whales whose oil and ambergris commanded premium prices; a single successful three-year cruise could yield 2,000-3,000 barrels of oil worth tens of thousands of dollars. Peak production occurred between 1846 and 1852, when American whalers supplied nearly half the world's oil, though stocks began declining as catches shifted from accessible grounds to remote areas like the Antarctic. Technological refinements, including larger barks (100-150 feet) and toggle-head harpoons, improved efficiency but intensified pressure on populations, with tens of thousands of whales killed annually across species by mid-century.

20th Century Commercialization and Moratorium

The marked the peak of commercial whaling through technological advancements, particularly the development of that enabled large-scale pelagic operations. In 1903, Norwegian whaler Christen Christensen launched the first , the wooden Telegraf, which processed whales at sea off , revolutionizing the industry by reducing reliance on shore stations and allowing hunts in remote areas like the . These vessels, equipped with winches, flensing decks, and rendering facilities, were supported by fleets of smaller catcher boats using explosive harpoons, dramatically increasing catch efficiency. By 1930, expeditions involved 41 and 232 catchers, shifting focus to high-value species such as , and humpback whales. Global whaling catches escalated rapidly, reaching a historical peak in the 1960s with approximately 703,000 whales killed annually, driven by post-World War II demand for in margarine, soaps, and other products, as well as meat in countries like and . Over the entire century, industrial whaling harvested an estimated 2.9 million whales, with fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) comprising 874,068 and sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) over 700,000, primarily in the where 1950s catches alone exceeded 469,000. This exploitation, concentrated among nations including , , the , and the , caused precipitous declines in whale populations, with many species reduced to 1-10% of pre-whaling abundances due to the inability of slow-reproducing cetaceans to sustain such removals. Concerns over stock collapses prompted regulatory efforts, culminating in the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) 1982 decision to impose a moratorium on commercial whaling, effective January 1, 1986, as a precautionary measure to halt and allow population recovery. The IWC, founded in 1946 to manage whaling sustainably, had previously set quotas but proved ineffective against escalating catches; the moratorium represented a shift toward conservation amid evidence of depleted stocks, though it applied only to commercial hunting and permitted limited aboriginal subsistence takes. Several nations, including , , , and the , lodged formal objections, enabling them to continue whaling under national quotas until the objections lapsed or were withdrawn, such as Japan's persistence via "scientific" permits until 2019. This pause contributed to recoveries in some populations, like humpbacks, but debates persist over the moratorium's indefinite nature and the balance between conservation and traditional practices.

Technological and Operational Aspects

Hunting Methods Evolution

Indigenous and ancient whaling practices, dating back to at least 4000 BCE in regions like and , employed rudimentary methods such as hand-thrown harpoons, poisoned spears, and nets to hunt smaller coastal whales from shorelines or canoes. These techniques targeted species like gray whales and belugas, often involving communal drives to strand whales on beaches for killing with lances. By the , Basque whalers in the advanced to using rowed shallops launched from larger ships to pursue slow-swimming right whales, embedding multiple toggle harpoons to slow the animal before dispatching it with lances. This method spread to bowhead hunting by the , with European fleets employing lookout posts (vigias) and oared whaleboats from mother vessels, requiring crews of six to eight men per boat for pursuits lasting hours. The saw incremental improvements, including shoulder-fired guns like the Greener gun developed in , which propelled non-explosive toggles to embed in the whale's before lancing. American whalemen dominated open-ocean from dedicated barks, using similar oared boats and onboard tryworks for rendering oil. A pivotal shift occurred in the when Norwegian innovator Svend Foyn introduced the steam-powered whale catcher boat, such as the Spes et Spes launched in 1863, combined with his grenade harpoon cannon patented around 1864–1870, which exploded inside the whale to ensure a quicker kill and towing. This bow-mounted gun, fired from faster, mechanized vessels, enabled targeting of faster like and whales previously uneconomical to hunt. In the , diesel engines replaced by the early 1900s, while breech-loading guns appeared in 1924, enhancing reload speed and accuracy. Factory ships with spotter aircraft and catcher fleets dominated from onward, processing whales at sea; by the 1960s, electric harpoons delivered shocks for near-instantaneous death, though adoption varied. These advancements dramatically increased catch efficiency, peaking at over 66,000 whales annually in 1961, before regulatory declines.

Processing, Products, and Byproducts

Whale processing begins with , the removal of from the carcass using specialized knives to make incisions and peel away layers in strips for easier handling. On factory ships, the whale is hauled alongside or onto a via winches attached to the tail, where teams cut the , , and other parts for separate . is rendered into by cooking in onboard digesters, while and bones are boiled to produce for fertilizers or . Historically, the primary product from was , used for illumination in lamps, lubrication of machinery, and manufacturing soaps and varnishes. , a waxy substance from heads, served as a superior and candle material due to its bright, odorless flame. plates from mysticete whales were fashioned into flexible items like stays, umbrella ribs, and whips before plastics supplanted them in the mid-20th century. Ambergris, a rare intestinal from sperm whales, was valued as a fixative in perfumes for stabilizing scents. bones found uses in tools and, later, as ground meal for agricultural . In contemporary whaling by , , and , the focus has shifted to meat for human consumption, with byproducts like oil and meal secondary due to synthetic alternatives. Annual catches, such as 's quota of minke whales, yield meat exported or sold domestically, though demand remains low relative to historical scales.

Socioeconomic and Cultural Roles

Economic Contributions and Markets

Historically, whaling constituted a vital economic sector, particularly in the when the dominated global operations, with the industry ranking ninth in national economic value by the mid-1840s due to demand for in , , and production, as well as for corsets and other goods. By the early , whaling generated multi-million-dollar revenues annually, fueling industrial expansion before alternatives diminished its prominence. Post-World War II, whale oil remained essential for European fat rations, while meat supported Japan's food supply, underscoring its role in postwar recovery economies. In contemporary markets, commercial whaling persists primarily in , , and , though its economic footprint has contracted amid declining demand and international moratoriums. 's minke whale hunts, with a 2025 quota of 1,406 animals, yield meat and largely exported to , yet domestic consumption has flatlined, rendering the sector a minor contributor to local supply rather than a major economic driver. maintains a niche market valued as part of a global industry estimated at USD 406 million in 2024, featuring high auction prices such as over $1,300 per kilogram for meat in late 2024, though sales rely on government subsidies exceeding $10 million annually to offset low consumer interest. 's operations, focused on and minke whales, export predominantly to but generate negligible economic impact, with recent reports indicating years of losses and the 2025 cancellation of fin whaling due to insufficient demand. Overall, modern whaling markets emphasize for human consumption in these nations, supplemented by limited byproducts like , but face challenges from shrinking buyer bases and competition from alternatives, contrasting sharply with historical profitability. Exports from and to dominate trade flows, yet the sector's viability hinges on state support amid broader shifts toward whale-watching , which yields higher returns in regions like Iceland.

Cultural Significance and Subsistence Uses

Whaling holds profound cultural and nutritional importance for certain indigenous Arctic communities, where it provides essential high-fat proteins and vitamins necessary for survival in environments with limited alternative food sources. In societies across , , , and , species such as bowhead, beluga, and are hunted using traditional methods, supporting community cohesion through shared harvests and rituals that reinforce social bonds and transmit knowledge across generations. The (IWC) recognizes these practices as aboriginal subsistence whaling, distinct from commercial operations, allocating quotas to communities in the United States (Inupiat and for bowhead whales, averaging 67 strikes over five-year blocks from 2019-2023), Greenland (for minke, fin, and bowhead), and (for gray and bowhead). In the , the Tribe of , maintains whaling as a cornerstone of cultural identity, with practices dating back at least 1,500 years involving communal hunts that historically supplied food, tools, and ceremonial items while elevating hunters' status within the community. The 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay explicitly reserved the Makah's right to whale, yet commercial overhunting depleted populations, leading to a halt in the 1920s; a single ceremonial hunt occurred in 1999, and in June 2024, the U.S. granted a allowing resumption of limited subsistence hunts averaging four gray whales annually. These hunts integrate spiritual elements, including prayers and feasts, underscoring whaling's role in revitalizing traditions suppressed by historical restrictions. Beyond Arctic and North American contexts, small-scale subsistence whaling persists in isolated communities like Lamalera on Lembata Island, , where villagers have hunted and other whales using bamboo harpoons from oar-powered canoes since at least the , with a single successful catch sustaining the village's 2,000 residents for over a month through meat distribution and barter. This practice, exempt from broader moratoriums due to its non-commercial nature, intertwines with local cosmology—viewing whales as gifts from ancestors—and economic necessity in a resource-scarce region, though yields have declined with modern pressures. Similarly, in the , the Bequia community of St. Vincent and the Grenadines hunts humpbacks under IWC quotas (four per season), preserving Carib Indian traditions where whale products historically fed families and supported trade. Across these groups, whaling fosters intergenerational transmission of skills and values, with meat sharing reinforcing reciprocity and resilience, though proponents note that such practices remain minimal in scale—total IWC subsistence catches represent under 1% of historical commercial levels—prioritizing community sustenance over profit. Critics from conservation perspectives argue for scrutiny of sustainability claims, but empirical monitoring by bodies like the IWC's Scientific Committee supports regulated continuance where populations permit.

Regulatory Framework

International Agreements and IWC

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was signed on December 2, 1946, in , by 15 nations, entering into force on November 10, 1948, and establishing the (IWC) as the primary international body for managing whaling activities. The ICRW aimed to conserve whale stocks through sustainable rather than , authorizing the IWC to set catch quotas based on scientific advice, designate whale sanctuaries, and oversee factory ship operations while permitting commercial, scientific, and aboriginal subsistence whaling under specified limits. The IWC, headquartered in , , comprises 88 member states as of 2024, operating via annual or biennial meetings where decisions require a three-quarters majority for amendments to the schedule of regulations. In 1982, the IWC adopted a moratorium on commercial whaling, implemented from the 1985/86 pelagic season and formalized in the ICRW Schedule, citing concerns over depleted populations despite evidence of varying recovery rates across species. lodged a formal objection in 1982, exempting it from the moratorium and allowing continued harvests in the Northeast Atlantic under national quotas. initially adhered but withdrew in 1992, rejoining in 2002 with a reservation before phasing out commercial operations by 2024 amid domestic policy shifts. conducted lethal scientific research under Article VIII of the ICRW until its withdrawal on June 30, 2019, after which it resumed commercial whaling within its , harvesting species like sei and for domestic markets. The IWC distinguishes aboriginal subsistence whaling (ASW), granting quotas to indigenous communities dependent on whales for nutritional, cultural, and subsistence needs, subject to health assessments by the Scientific Committee. Current ASW schedules include bowhead whales for Alaskan Inuit and Chukotkan natives (67 strikes plus carryover, up to 100 for 2024), humpback and minke for (19 fin, 56 minke annually through 2025), and gray whales for Siberian communities (up to 20 strikes yearly through 2025). At the 69th IWC meeting in , , from September 23-27, 2024, members extended these quotas for another six-year block (2026-2031) by consensus, alongside approving a increase to address inflation and enhancing focus on non-lethal research amid ongoing debates over commercial resumption. Preceding the ICRW, bilateral and multilateral efforts included the 1931 Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which failed due to non-ratification, and the 1937 International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling, imposing seasonal and size limits but lacking enforcement. The IWC's framework remains the dominant regime, intersecting with treaties like the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (), which lists some whale species for trade restrictions, though the IWC retains primacy over harvest . As of October 2025, the moratorium persists without revision, with pro-whaling nations advocating science-based quotas based on recovered populations (e.g., minke whales exceeding pre-exploitation levels in some areas), while anti-whaling majorities prioritize conservation amid critiques of the body's politicization.

National Policies and Quota Systems

Norway objected to the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling and sets annual quotas for common minke whales ( acutorostrata) in the and adjacent areas, based on national stock assessments deeming the population sustainable at approximately 100,000 individuals. The 2025 quota was raised to 1,406 minke whales, a 21% increase from 1,157 in 2024, incorporating unused allocations from prior years to utilize perceived surplus harvest potential. Despite the quota expansion, actual catches have remained below 600 whales annually in recent years, constrained by declining domestic demand for . Iceland, as an IWC member with a reservation to the moratorium for Northeast Atlantic stocks, permits commercial whaling on fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) and common minke whales under national licenses issued by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. In December 2024, permits were granted for the 2025-2029 period, authorizing up to 209 fin whales and 217 minke whales per year, determined via Iceland's population models estimating fin whale stocks at over 30,000 in the Central-Eastern North Atlantic. However, Iceland's sole fin whaling operator, Hvalur hf., suspended operations for summer 2025 citing insufficient export markets, though minke whaling by smaller operators remains possible under the quota framework. Japan withdrew from the IWC in 2019 to resume commercial whaling within its (EEZ) and sets total allowable catches (TACs) annually through the Fisheries Agency, guided by Revised Management Procedure stock assessments for including Antarctic minke, sei (Balaenoptera borealis), Bryde's (Balaenoptera edeni), and whales. For 2025, TACs were revised upward for minke whales (coastal quota of 127, plus North Pacific allocations) while lowering Bryde's limits, with overall coastal and offshore targets totaling around 400 whales across , reflecting updated abundance from vessel-based surveys. Actual 2024 catches fell short of quotas, with emphasis on domestic consumption and byproducts like oil. Most other nations enforce outright bans on commercial whaling, aligning with the IWC moratorium via domestic legislation, such as the ' of 1972, which prohibits whaling except for limited Native American subsistence harvests under IWC-approved quotas. These policies prioritize conservation amid historical overexploitation, though pro-whaling nations cite recovered populations and economic rationales for their quota systems.

Current Practices by Key Actors

Commercial Operations in Japan, Norway, and Iceland

Japan resumed commercial whaling operations within its exclusive economic zone following its withdrawal from the International Whaling Commission in 2019, targeting species including minke, Bryde's, sei, and, as of 2024, fin whales. The Japanese government sets annual quotas based on domestic stock assessments, with the 2024 quota allowing up to 59 fin whales, 187 Bryde's whales, 142 minke whales, and 25 sei whales. Actual catches have typically fallen below quotas due to market demand constraints, with approximately 300 whales harvested in 2023. In 2025, operations commenced on April 1 using the new factory ship Kangei Maru, targeting up to 413 whales primarily off Hokkaido, focusing on processing for meat and byproducts sold domestically. Norway maintains commercial whaling under its objection to the IWC's 1986 moratorium, primarily harvesting using cold-harpoon methods from small vessels. The Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries sets quotas informed by scientific advice from the North Atlantic Commission, increasing the 2025 quota to 1,406 minke whales from 1,157 in 2024 to account for underutilized previous allocations. Despite elevated quotas, annual catches have averaged around 500 whales in recent years, reflecting declining domestic consumption and export challenges, with 575 minke whales killed in 2021. is marketed locally and to , though industry reports indicate flatlining demand. Iceland conducts limited commercial whaling under self-imposed quotas outside the IWC framework, focusing on fin and minke whales in its coastal waters. The government issued five-year licenses in December 2024 permitting up to 209 fin whales and 217 minke whales annually through 2029, though the primary operator, Hvalur hf., suspended fin whale hunting in 2024 and canceled plans for 2025 citing economic unviability and low demand. No fin whales were harvested in 2024, marking a continuation of pauses since 2020 except for isolated kills, while minke whaling remains minimal, with only one reported in 2021. Exports of whale products, mainly to Japan, have declined sharply, prompting scrutiny of the practice's viability amid animal welfare concerns raised in a 2023 government report.

Aboriginal and Community-Based Whaling

![Inuit beluga whale hunt in Salluit][float-right] Aboriginal subsistence whaling refers to the hunting of whales by indigenous communities primarily for nutritional, cultural, and subsistence purposes, distinct from commercial operations, and is regulated through specific quotas under the (IWC). These quotas, termed strike limits, account for whales struck whether landed or lost, applying a precautionary approach to management. Currently, IWC-recognized aboriginal subsistence whaling occurs in regions including the (by groups in the United States, Russia, and ), and smaller-scale operations in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. In the Arctic, Inuit communities in Alaska, Greenland, and Chukotka (Russia) hunt bowhead and beluga whales using traditional methods supplemented by modern equipment for safety and efficiency. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) manages a 2025 quota of 93 bowhead whales struck for U.S. communities, part of a combined IWC limit of 100 shared with Russian natives. Greenlandic Inuit target multiple species, including minke, fin, humpback, and bowhead whales, with quotas set to sustain cultural practices; for instance, West Greenland's minke whale hunt supports food security in remote areas. Beluga hunts, such as those in Canadian Inuit communities like Salluit, provide essential protein and are conducted seasonally with small vessel pursuits and harpoons. The Makah Tribe in Washington State, USA, seeks to resume ceremonial and subsistence gray whale hunting after a hiatus since 1927, citing treaty rights and cultural revitalization. In March 2025, the tribe submitted a permit application to NOAA Fisheries for hunts targeting up to two to three eastern North Pacific gray whales annually on average over a 10-year period, using traditional methods until the final kill by rifle. This follows a 2024 MMPA waiver allowing limited takes, pending IWC quota extension beyond 2025 and domestic approvals. In St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Bequia community conducts a small-scale humpback whale hunt, introduced in 1876 and recognized by the IWC with an annual quota of four whales. Whalers use open boats and harpoons, landing typically two to three animals yearly, with the 2025 season's first female humpback caught in May. The meat and blubber provide local food, though some export occurs, emphasizing the hunt's role in community identity despite its artisanal nature. Beyond IWC frameworks, community-based whaling persists in places like Lamalera, , where villagers have hunted whales since at least the using wooden boats, harpoons, and prayers, viewing the practice as integral to and cosmology. Annual catches, around 30-50 large cetaceans including whales and rays, are shared communally for food and trade, with self-imposed through seasonal bans and taboos. These operations highlight indigenous knowledge in managing local stocks, though they face pressures from modernization and external conservation critiques.

Sustainability Assessments

Whale Population Dynamics and Recovery Evidence

Whale populations experienced severe declines due to industrial whaling from the late 19th to mid-20th centuries, with many species reduced by over 90% from pre-exploitation levels through targeted hunting of large baleen whales. Population dynamics follow principles of logistic growth, where recovery post-harvest depends on intrinsic growth rates (typically 4-12% annually for cetaceans), carrying capacity limited by prey availability and environmental factors, and minimal human-induced mortality. Empirical surveys using line-transect methods, photo-identification, and acoustic monitoring provide abundance estimates, revealing heterogeneous recovery trajectories influenced by historical catch levels and subsequent protections like the 1986 International Whaling Commission moratorium on commercial hunting. Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) exemplify robust recovery, with global populations estimated at approximately 84,000 individuals as of recent assessments, representing a rebound from lows of under 5,000 in some stocks during the 1950s-1960s. populations have increased at rates of 7-12% per year since the , approaching or exceeding pre-whaling abundances in surveyed areas, supported by high calf production and migration sighting data. This recovery correlates directly with whaling cessation, as evidenced by stable isotope and genetic analyses confirming reduced exploitation pressure. In contrast, blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus), the most heavily exploited species with historical catches exceeding 300,000, remain at 10,000-25,000 globally, or 3-10% of pre-whaling estimates of 200,000-300,000. Southern Hemisphere stocks show modest increases of about 8% annually from 1978 to 2003, but overall trends indicate stalled or slow recovery due to low reproductive rates and persistent low densities affecting mating success. Acoustic monitoring suggests stabilizing call frequencies, hinting at potential population stabilization without further hunting threats. Other species display varied dynamics: sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) number around 360,000, down from historical peaks but with evidence of demographic recovery in non- stocks via historical trajectory modeling from catch records. Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in the North Atlantic exceed 100,000, recovering at 3-5% annually post-moratorium. Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in the remain abundant at over 500,000, showing little depletion from whaling due to smaller size and later targeting. These patterns underscore that whaling mortality was the primary driver of past declines, with protections enabling rebounds where and habitat factors are secondary.
SpeciesPre-Whaling EstimateCurrent Estimate (2020s)Recovery Rate (where applicable)
~240,000~84,0007-12% annually ()
200,000-300,00010,000-25,000~8% annually (1978-2003, )
>1,000,000~360,000Stabilizing in key stocks
(N. Atlantic)~150,000>100,0003-5% annually
Not all populations recover uniformly; North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis), for instance, number under 350 and face ongoing declines from entanglements rather than whaling, highlighting non-harvest threats' role in dynamics. Overall, data affirm that major great whale stocks depleted by whaling exhibit positive growth trajectories under reduced mortality, supporting assessments of potential at low harvest levels for resilient .

Empirical Data on Sustainable Harvest Levels

The Northeast Atlantic stock of common minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), primarily targeted by , has been estimated at approximately 200,000 individuals based on surveys conducted between 2014 and 2019, indicating a healthy population status. Norway's Institute of Marine Research conducts annual assessments using sighting surveys and population modeling, determining that the stock supports sustainable harvests well above current levels, with replacement yields exceeding observed catches. For 2025, Norway set a quota of 1,406 minke whales, representing less than 1% of the estimated population, though actual catches have typically ranged from 500 to 600 animals in recent years due to market factors. In the , the population (B. bonaerensis) exceeds 500,000 individuals south of 60°S, according to 1998 estimates, with ongoing analyses suggesting stability or potential declines but no evidence of depletion to levels precluding recovery. The International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee has not established commercial catch limits due to the 1982 moratorium, but historical modeling under the Revised Management Procedure indicated potential sustainable yields in the thousands for Antarctic minke stocks prior to the ban. Japan's former Antarctic hunts under special permit, averaging around 300-400 minke whales annually until 2018, were justified by the Institute of Cetacean Research as maintaining stocks above levels, though IWC critiques highlighted uncertainties in age-structured models. For North Pacific minke whales, stocks are smaller, with western estimates around 23,000 and eastern partial estimates near 4,000, supporting Japan's current commercial takes of approximately 120 minke whales per year from 2017-2021 without exceeding precautionary limits per national assessments. Iceland's hunts include minke whales alongside s, with quotas derived from joint assessments estimating sustainable removals for minke at levels comparable to Norway's per capita stock size, though fin whale s show signs of decline prompting quota reductions in 2024. Overall, empirical assessments from national agencies like Norway's and Japan's indicate that current harvest levels for abundant minke stocks remain below estimated sustainable yields, contrasting with IWC's zero commercial limit policy which prioritizes caution amid modeling debates.

Controversies and Balanced Perspectives

Animal Welfare and Ethical Claims

Modern commercial whaling employs explosive designed to detonate within the whale's body, aiming for rapid incapacitation through brain or vital organ disruption, followed by secondary shots if necessary. In , data from hunts indicate an average time to death of approximately 6 minutes for non-instantaneous kills, with some cases extending to 20 minutes despite additional firing. Icelandic government veterinary reports from the 2022 season reveal that over 40% of fin whales experienced prolonged deaths exceeding 15 minutes, with extremes reaching two hours, often involving multiple harpoon strikes and evident signs of distress such as thrashing and vocalization. These outcomes stem from challenges in precise targeting at sea, including whale movement, diving behavior, and environmental factors, which hinder consistent achievement of immediate insensibility. Scientific evidence supports whales' capacity for perception, with cetaceans possessing nociceptors and somatosensory systems analogous to those in terrestrial mammals, enabling detection of noxious stimuli. Molecular analyses of pain-related genes indicate heightened sensitivity in marine environments, exacerbated by saltwater contact with wounds. Neuroanatomical studies further document complex brain structures in odontocetes associated with , sociability, and potential , informing claims of elevated . Critics, including organizations, argue that such capacities render whaling inherently unethical, as prolonged agony—evidenced by behavioral indicators like escape attempts and physiological stress responses—violates principles of minimizing suffering in sentient beings. Proponents of whaling counter that ethical concerns are anthropocentric and selectively applied, noting that slaughter in abattoirs frequently involves non-instantaneous deaths, yet faces less global opposition despite comparable or higher annual scales. They emphasize ongoing refinements, such as improved calibers and aiming protocols monitored by the International Whaling Commission's welfare guidelines, which prioritize rapid loss of over absolute painlessness. In cultural contexts, such as Norwegian or Japanese practices, whaling is framed as a respectful of abundant , akin to regulated of other , where human benefit from protein and outweighs mitigated welfare costs under sustainable quotas. However, independent reviews highlight that at-sea conditions inherently limit welfare standards achievable in controlled land-based slaughter, with variability in kill efficiency underscoring the need for empirical validation beyond self-reported data from whaling nations.

Environmental and Health Impact Scrutiny

Whales contribute to functioning through cycling and , with historical commercial whaling estimated to have reduced global by over 90% for many , leading to a loss of approximately 9.1 million tonnes of carbon storage in whale bodies and altered ocean carbon dynamics via decreased sinking of -rich carcasses to the . Rebuilding populations could enhance annual carbon removal by 1.6 × 10^5 tons through this mechanism, alongside improved that boosts primary in oligotrophic regions. However, scrutiny of current whaling's environmental footprint reveals minimal disruption, as annual harvests by , , and total under 1,000 large whales against recovering populations exceeding thresholds for most , with no peer-reviewed evidence linking modern quotas to measurable declines in or cycling at scale. Contemporary whaling operations produce limited or disturbance compared to industrial or shipping, and claims of broad engineering loss overlook that pre-whaling abundances may have been inflated by unreliable historical estimates, while current practices align with assessments showing stable or increasing stocks for harvested like minke whales. Pollutants from whaling vessels are negligible relative to global shipping emissions, and no causal data substantiates assertions that resuming or maintaining small-scale whaling exacerbates climate-driven threats like prey scarcity, which dominate population stressors. Health risks from whale meat consumption stem primarily from bioaccumulation of persistent pollutants in long-lived cetaceans, with total mercury concentrations in red muscle often exceeding 50 μg/g wet weight in species like false killer whales and striped dolphins, surpassing FAO/WHO tolerable daily intake thresholds even at moderate ingestion rates. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxin-like compounds accumulate in blubber at levels up to 30 μg/g, linked to neurodevelopmental deficits, endocrine disruption, and immune suppression in high-consumption populations such as Faroe Islanders relying on pilot whales. Norwegian minke whale meat samples have revealed PCBs, heavy metals, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) prompting official advisories to limit adult intake to one 250-gram meal monthly, with elevated risks for pregnant women and children due to methylmercury neurotoxicity. Empirical scrutiny tempers alarmism: while contaminants pose genuine hazards—exacerbated by whales' apex position in polluted marine food webs—some cohort studies in high-exposure groups like Taiji residents find no significant neurological correlations with hair mercury levels, suggesting mitigating factors such as co-occurrence or adaptive tolerances, though broader evidence favors precautionary consumption limits over dismissal of in controlled diets. Indigenous communities face amplified vulnerabilities from combined mercury and organochlorine exposures via traditional harvests, yet regulatory monitoring in nations like has reduced average intakes below acute risk thresholds for most consumers. Overall, impacts hinge on frequency and portion size, with verifiable data underscoring the need for screening rather than outright bans, as pollutant burdens reflect anthropogenic ocean contamination more than whaling itself.

Cultural Rights Versus Global Conservation Narratives

The tension between cultural rights to traditional whaling practices and global conservation narratives centers on indigenous communities' claims to hunt whales for subsistence, cultural continuity, and spiritual purposes against international efforts to impose comprehensive moratoriums. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) accommodates this through its Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) scheme, which permits limited harvests by specific indigenous groups provided they demonstrate nutritional, subsistence, or cultural needs and ensure whale stocks remain at healthy levels. This framework recognizes that small-scale, community-based hunts differ fundamentally from historical commercial operations, with empirical evidence showing ASW catches—typically numbering in the low hundreds annually across approved communities—pose negligible risks to recovering populations. In the case of the Makah Tribe in Washington State, United States, whaling rights stem from the 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay, which explicitly reserved their right to hunt whales, a practice central to their cultural identity and conducted sustainably for millennia prior to European contact. After a 1999 hunt led to legal challenges, the tribe secured federal approval in June 2024 for limited gray whale harvests, capped at one to three animals over five years from the non-endangered eastern North Pacific stock, which has rebounded to approximately 20,000 individuals. Anti-whaling non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as the Animal Welfare Institute, have contested this, arguing the hunt lacks genuine subsistence necessity in modern contexts and serves more as cultural symbolism, potentially undermining broader conservation goals. Such positions reflect a global narrative prioritizing animal welfare and zero-tolerance policies, often advanced by NGOs that have raised substantial funds through anti-whaling campaigns, sometimes extending opposition to indigenous practices despite IWC provisions. Greenlandic Inuit communities exemplify ongoing ASW under Danish representation at the IWC, with quotas for species including minke, fin, and humpback whales; for instance, the 2019–2025 schedule allows up to 20 strikes annually for certain stocks, with carry-over provisions to manage variability. These hunts provide essential nutrition in remote regions where alternatives are limited and costly, while also reinforcing social and ceremonial roles, as documented in ethnographic studies emphasizing whaling's role in identity. However, conservation advocates criticize expansions in quota requests or inclusions of commercial sales, claiming they blur subsistence lines and violate the spirit of the 1986 moratorium, leading to diplomatic standoffs at IWC meetings. Peer-reviewed analyses highlight that such critiques often overlook causal factors like nutritional dependencies and sustainable harvest data, instead favoring deontological animal rights frameworks that marginalize human cultural claims. Broader global narratives, propagated by environmental NGOs and some states, frame all whaling as inherently cruel and ecologically destructive, invoking moral imperatives that eclipse enshrined in instruments like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of , which affirms traditional livelihoods. This perspective has been accused of , as opposition to ASW disregards evidence of stock recoveries—such as bowhead whales increasing from near-extinction lows—and the minimal of regulated indigenous hunts compared to bycatch or ship strikes. In truth-seeking assessments, the IWC's needs-based evaluation process balances these interests by requiring verifiable data on cultural requirements and population viability, countering unsubstantiated calls for absolute bans that fail to account for localized sustainability.

References

  1. https://iwc.int/about-whales
  2. https://ourworldindata.org/whaling
  3. https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/maritime/whaling.html
  4. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/3347
  5. https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/pdf-content/MFR/mfr764/mfr7643.pdf
  6. https://www.statista.com/chart/9835/whaling_-no-end-in-sight/
  7. https://iwc.int/commission/history-and-purpose
  8. https://iwc.int/management-and-conservation/whaling/commercial
  9. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/whaling-countries
  10. https://iwc.int/management-and-conservation/whaling/aboriginal
  11. https://iwc.int/management-and-conservation/whaling
  12. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/916
  13. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/international-affairs/international-whaling-commission
  14. https://iwc.int/
  15. https://awionline.org/content/whaling
  16. https://us.whales.org/our-goals/stop-whaling/aboriginal-subsistence-whaling/
  17. https://awionline.org/press-releases/iceland-calls-fin-whale-slaughter-japan-and-norway-launch-cruel-unsustainable-whale
  18. https://worldanimalnews.com/2025/04/30/japan-and-norway-resume-commercial-whaling-as-iceland-pulls-back/
  19. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1236
  20. https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/history-whaling
  21. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59486-8
  22. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/big-fish-history-whaling/
  23. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/ancient-whale-exploitation-in-the-mediterranean-the-archaeological-record/1668AEA4F1F7F680850B0999B65697C8
  24. https://iwc.int/management-and-conservation/whaling/aboriginal/usa/makah-tribe
  25. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.230741
  26. https://www.the-low-countries.com/article/to-spitsbergen-and-back-four-centuries-of-dutch-whaling/
  27. https://www.spitsbergen-svalbard.com/spitsbergen-information/history/17th-century-whaling.html
  28. https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/preserving/2015/04/16/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-dutch-whaling-empire/
  29. https://www.environmentandsociety.org/sites/default/files/key_docs/hacquebord-7-2.pdf
  30. https://www.whalingmuseum.org/research/research-resources/whaling-history/whales-and-hunting/
  31. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/whaling/
  32. https://www.britannica.com/topic/whaling/Early-commercial-whaling
  33. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/3-million-whales-were-killed-20th-century-report-n322961
  34. https://faunalytics.org/emptying-the-oceans-a-summary-of-industrial-whaling-catches-in-the-20th-century/
  35. https://iwc.int/management-and-conservation/rmp/the-revised-management-scheme
  36. https://us.whales.org/our-goals/stop-whaling/whaling-in-japan/
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X22001361
  38. https://doriccolumns.wordpress.com/industry/whaling-industry/flensing/
  39. https://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol08/nm_8_1_21-37.pdf
  40. https://www.nps.gov/nebe/learn/historyculture/whaleproducts.htm
  41. https://us.whales.org/our-goals/stop-whaling/whaling-in-norway/
  42. https://whalinghistory.org/
  43. https://www.karmactive.com/norways-2025-minke-whale-quota-increased-to-1406-despite-global-criticism/
  44. https://us.whales.org/2023/05/04/norway-ups-whale-kill-numbers-and-removes-whale-welfare-protections/
  45. https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/reports/global-whale-meat-market
  46. https://www.newsweek.com/japan-sells-first-fin-whale-meat-50-years-1999741
  47. https://www.icelandreview.com/news/nature-travel/whaling-has-little-economic-impact-on-iceland/
  48. https://savedolphins.eii.org/news/good-news-iceland-company-cancels-fin-whaling-for-2025
  49. https://www.zionmarketresearch.com/report/whale-meat-market
  50. https://uk.whales.org/our-goals/stop-whaling/whaling-in-iceland/
  51. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/commercial-whaling-101
  52. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/marine-mammal-protection/makah-tribal-whale-hunt
  53. https://ais.washington.edu/research/publications/spirits-our-whaling-ancestors
  54. https://www.npr.org/2024/06/13/nx-s1-5004700/indigenous-makah-tribe-in-washington-allowed-to-resume-whaling-tradition
  55. https://civileats.com/2022/02/08/revival-indigenous-subsistence-whaling-inupiaq-makah-wampanoag/
  56. https://magazine.atavist.com/2018/the-whalers-odyssey-lamalera-indonesia-ocean-adventure
  57. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/a-shamans-fight-to-save-indonesias-last-subsistence-whale-hunters
  58. https://awionline.org/content/subsistence-whaling
  59. https://www.rom.on.ca/media-centre/blog-post/when-whaling-your-tradition
  60. https://iwc.int/resources/news/review-of-69th-meeting-aboriginal-subsistence-whaling
  61. https://iwc.int/commission
  62. https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fishery/whales/japan.html
  63. https://iwc.int/management-and-conservation/whaling/aboriginal/html_76
  64. https://enb.iisd.org/international-whaling-commission-iwc69
  65. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/conservation/issues/whaling4.htm
  66. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/international-whaling_en
  67. https://iwc.int/events-and-workshops/iwc69-2024
  68. https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/increased-norwegian-quota-minke-whale
  69. https://www.oceancare.org/en/stories_and_news/norway-threatens-to-expand-whaling/
  70. https://uk.whales.org/2025/03/19/how-to-end-whaling-in-norway/
  71. https://arcticportal.org/ap-library/news/3744-iceland-issues-whaling-licenses-but-no-fin-whale-hunt-planned-for-summer-2025
  72. https://www.ifaw.org/news/fin-whales-safe-2025-iceland
  73. https://www.icelandreview.com/news/icelands-only-whaling-company-set-to-cancel-2025-hunt/
  74. https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2024/11/26/japan-revises-2025-whaling-quotas-with-higher-minke-limit-lower-brydes-allowance/
  75. https://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/e/whale/
  76. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/30/asia/japan-whaling-mothership-kangei-maru-intl-hnk
  77. https://www.ifaw.org/journal/are-fin-whales-finished-japan-resumes-commercial-hunt
  78. https://news.mongabay.com/short-article/japanese-ship-hunts-massive-fin-whale-countrys-first-in-50-years/
  79. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1438524067028265/posts/1724308305116505/
  80. https://uk.whales.org/2021/09/27/over-570-whales-killed-during-2021-season-in-norway/
  81. https://oceanographicmagazine.com/news/norway-increases-whaling-quota-despite-flatlining-meat-industry/
  82. https://news.mongabay.com/short-article/icelandic-whaling-company-calls-off-fin-whale-hunt-this-summer/
  83. https://www.humaneworld.org/en/campaign/iceland-and-whaling
  84. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/14/2025-00554/whaling-provisions-aboriginal-subsistence-whaling-quotas
  85. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/19/2025-04634/notice-of-receipt-of-the-makah-tribes-permit-request-for-a-ceremonial-and-subsistence-hunt-of
  86. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/marine-mammal-protection/makah-tribal-whale-hunt-permitting
  87. https://iwc.int/management-and-conservation/whaling/aboriginal/bequia
  88. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.668597/full
  89. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/world/asia/whaling-lamalera-indonesia.html
  90. https://seasia.co/2025/07/17/the-sustainable-whale-hunting-of-lamalera-indonesia
  91. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381514332_Evolution_of_Whaling_Practices_among_Lamalera_Fishermen_in_Indonesia
  92. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/humpback-whale
  93. https://iwc.int/about-whales/estimate
  94. https://iwc.int/about-whales/whale-species/humpback-whale
  95. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.190368
  96. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/blue-whale-population-by-country
  97. https://curious.earth/blog/blue-whale-population-recovery/
  98. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-24107-7
  99. https://iwc.int/about-whales/population-status
  100. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale
  101. https://nammco.no/common-minke-whale/
  102. https://www.icrwhale.org/TEREP-ICR.html
  103. https://us.whales.org/our-goals/stop-whaling/whaling-in-iceland/
  104. https://www.icrwhale.org/QandA3.html
  105. https://www.divessi.com/en/blog/norwegian-whaling-report-confirms-whales-die-in-agony-3997.html
  106. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/08/whales-take-up-to-two-hours-to-die-after-being-harpooned-icelandic-report-finds
  107. https://eia-international.org/blog/two-long-hours-to-die-report-reveals-the-cruel-suffering-of-fin-whales-harpooned-off-iceland/
  108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308597X0700098X
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9774174/
  110. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10778493/
  111. https://brill.com/view/journals/jaae/5/1/article-p109_7.xml
  112. https://uk.whales.org/2025/03/14/is-whaling-cruel/
  113. https://nammco.no/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/fi02_oen_animal-welfare-whaling_review-dev-improv_welfare-minke-wahling-191-2005_mmwws-2025.pdf
  114. https://iwc.int/management-and-conservation/welfare
  115. https://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/TEREP00277-78.pdf
  116. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/welfare-aspects-of-the-commercial-slaughter-of-whales/437A3DD2E1E80A20EB8A40F11A8FEF07
  117. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8048120_A_review_of_the_criteria_used_to_assess_insensibility_and_death_in_hunted_whales_compared_to_other_species
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2928761/
  119. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adv8031
  120. https://iwc.int/management-and-conservation/environment
  121. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12854705/
  122. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0048969796050942
  123. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3417701/
  124. https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Norwegian-Whale-Meat-Contaminants.pdf
  125. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160412014000750
  126. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12167206/
  127. https://www.opb.org/article/2024/06/13/federal-approval-makah-whale-hunt/
  128. https://nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-74-6-Gupta.pdf
  129. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1913&context=djilp
  130. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239360737_Aboriginal_Subsistence_Whaling_and_the_Right_to_Practice_and_Revitalize_Cultural_Traditions_and_Customs
  131. https://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/article289367736.html
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11895709/
  133. https://iwc.int/commission/commission-sub-groups/aboriginal-subsistence-whaling-sub-committee
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.