Category: Euthanasia

Why Commercial Whaling was never really banned.

Post updated July 2020

whales, whale hunting, whaling ban, whaling moratorium

On the  1st. July, 2019 Japan announced it was beginning commercial whaling again causing worldwide outrage and accusations of illegality. But tragically they had every right to do so as they had formally withdrawn from the international agreement not to hunt. The so called moratorium was only ever a gentleman’s agreement and a trade bargain. In June 2020 the whaling fleet returned from its first hunt with the frozen meat of 237 whales and plans to increase hunting in the future. So how is this possible?

Agreement only intended to preserve stock for future hunting

Most large species of whale were nearly hunted to extinction during the first half of the 20th. Century which resulted in 1946 with the signing of the  Convention for the Regulation of Whaling by the major whaling nations, not for the rights of the whales but to “provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry“. Whaling has continued since the ban under a quota system “confined to those species best able to sustain exploitation to give an interval for recovery”. Their ideal has always been to properly regulate whale stocks to maintain enough to capture without endangering them as a natural resource.

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was set up under the  Convention and the members meet every two years to decide which species can be hunted, how many and by who and various other policy issues. Any country can join regardless of whether they want to hunt whales or not and each member has voting rights.

This system did not work very well and countries continued to whale pretty much unhindered which resulted in organisations like Greenpeace literally putting themselves between the whales and whaling ships while hundreds of campaigners devoted years during the 1970’s and early 80’s attempting to bring whaling to a complete halt by lobbying and pressuring various countries to vote for a total halt on commercial whaling.

This was extremely difficult because the whaling nations were not agreeable to interference in their traditional and lucrative industry, but finally a vote taken in 1986 placed a moratorium on commercial whaling of vulnerable species like Humpback, but still allowed hunting of smaller species. Iceland and Norway objected to the moratorium and Norway withdrew in 1993, while Japan and Iceland continue hunting whales under the guise of “scientific research”, and many nations still try to over turn the ban.

Whaling, illegal whaling, IWC,Commercial whaling ban,whaling moratorium

The ban was greeted as a great  victory by campaigners which it was, as instead of tens of thousands being killed each year the number is now a few thousand per year. Unfortunately the moratorium was never a complete ban as hidden in the Convention is a “get out” clause which states that any country could  begin commercial whaling by just withdrawing from the IWC Convention. And this is exactly what Japan did.

Any member country of the Convention can just opt out

Article XI of the Convention allows any member Government to withdraw from the agreement on the 30th. June of any year by giving notice before the 1st. January of the same year. Although not morally responsible it is legal. There was a worry that other countries would follow Japan’s lead and pull out, but this does not appear to be happening.

Astrid Fuchs of Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC) stated that Japan’s action may “encourage other countries to quit IWC”. There were rumours that South Korea had an increasing taste for whale meat and officials were worried they will soon follow.

Many countries claim an exemption and receive a quota for their “aboriginal” inhabitants to hunt small numbers of small whales for their own needs, but many of these now want to increase their hunting to sell the by-products. Countries which presently hunt whales in one form or another are Japan, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Russia, USA, St. Vincent and Grenadines, South Korea and Greenland.

Japan has never agreed with the moratorium

Why has Japan done it? Well they have tried every trick in the book to continue whaling since the moratorium came into force including using the loophole all countries have of catching whales for “scientific purposes”. Japan has also allegedly been catching more than its allowed quota of Minke whales for years and trying to persuade member countries to support a vote on their proposal of “small type commercial whaling” (STCW) using small whaling ships in territorial waters.

At one point they were involved in a scandal when they were accused of allegedly bribing countries (mainly African and other poor countries none of which whale hunt) with aid and resources if they joined the IWC and voted with them to overturn the ban on commercial whaling permanently. They almost succeeded in doing so. The decision to leave the IWC wass no doubt a result of their frustration at all their efforts being thwarted.

I have been lucky enough to have had many close encounters with whales in many parts of the world and they truly justify being described by the overused term awesome. If you have never been whale watching make it the top of your bucket list and I defy anyone not to be emotionally affected by the experience. We need these unassuming, helpless and magnificent creatures in our world and they still need our support.

Organisations which campaign against whaling and try to protect whales include:

Whale and Dolphin Conservation

Sea Shepherd Organisation

Greenpeace

World Wildlife Fund

Japanese Whaling Fleet Returns in Triumph With 223 Whales
Big Game trophy hunting in the headlines yet again.

Top 5 fund-raising tactics of animal charities.

Top eight UK animal welfare charities raised £500,000,000 in 2016

The “saving animals” industry has become a cut-throat commercial enterprise, and there is much rivalry and disunity between the charities manifesting itself in astute advertising and fund-raising. It is a continual game of one upmanship where they each try to outshine each other in the caring stakes or come up with creative ideas that will appeal to prospective benefactors and get a larger cut of the funds available. They operate just like large commercial conglomerates fighting it out for business with advertising agencies being employed to stay one step ahead. They have truly become big business with the top eight UK animal welfare charities raising £500,000,000 in 2016.

Animal charities are quick to disparage their competitors if they perceive a rival has been inefficient or become unpopular through its philosophies and activities. It seems that it is mainly the so-called animal welfare charities that involve themselves in these antics, while animal rights and international organisations tend to focus more on their aims.

There are hundreds of animal charities operating in the UK all with their own agendas, aims and policies filling their own niche in the animal rescue and protection market, so many in fact that opportunities for fund-raising have become increasingly oversubscribed. Fund-raising tactics have become more and more competitive as each charity attempts to keep its head above water and snatch money from their rivals by looking more caring. I sometimes wonder if they have lost sight of their ideals in their attempts to make money and they spend large sums in their quest for funds.

The ends animal welfare charities will go to get your money.

1. Name changing

Many charities particularly the old institutional ones find that changing their names to re-invent and raise their profiles is a good ploy. It increases the awareness of their good work and campaigns and in turn increases their funding as well. In the UK the Cats Protection League (CPL) dropped the “League”and became plain Cats Protection declaring that people didn’t know what the word meant and it made them seem old-fashioned.

In 2003 the National Canine Defence League (NCDL) changed to the Dogs Trust to purvey a more up to date image and show more accurately their work, as they felt the public were not that aware of their existence even though they were the largest dog orientated charity in the UK. By cleverly using the word ‘trust’ they felt the public would have more belief in them, give more money and would make their name easier to remember. They are most famous for their campaign slogan of ‘a dog is for life, not just for Christmas’ which they have successfully used since 1978, although the sentiment is of little relevance today as abandonment is a persistent problem, but it remains a wonderful marketing ploy during that season.

The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) changed to simple World Animal Protection (WAP) to be ‘clearer, more distinct and more memorable’ and the British Union for Anti- Vivisection (BUAV), founded in 1898, has become Cruelty Free International, ‘a clearer, simpler and more positive’ title in order‘to help achieve more for animals in laboratories’. They believed the public didn’t understand what their old name meant thus preventing people supporting them and by having a ‘British’ name hindered them in their work internationally.

2. Sound bites

Charities introduce new sound bites from time to time to make them seem more caring which is another little subconscious trick, as in the case of the term ‘forever home’ which appeared from nowhere, an incredibly twee but effective catch-phrase, which suddenly became prominent and was quickly taken up by every charity finding new homes for animals, becoming part of everyone’s vocabulary. It is a rather disingenuous use of the term as there is no guarantee that any new home will be ‘forever, but our sentimental side allows us to be taken in by it.

Even the word ‘rescue’ has become somewhat high-jacked by charities as a fund-raising ploy and is much over-used. Although defined as to save ‘somebody or something from a dangerous or harmful situation‘, it is now used somewhat out of context to label any animal taken from a charity homing centre when in reality most of the animals have not been rescued but are unwanted brought in by owners to be re-cycled. Regardless of background they all become “rescue” animals, although in some cases being rescued from months of confinement and boredom might be the right connotation.

3. When you have gone

Guaranteeing to find a new home for a pet once ‘you have gone’ is a relatively new idea for fund-raising although it is marketed as a service to the community. The idea was quickly copied by most major charities, resulting in the RSPCA ‘Home for Life’, the Blue Cross ‘Pets into Care’, Cats Protection ‘Cat Guarantee Card’ and the Dogs Trust ‘Canine Care Card’ all offering to take on your pet regardless of its age or health once you have died.

Cynics might claim that this is obviously a fund-raising tactic to encourage more legacies from the owners before they die and at least one, the Cats Protection, are open about this by stating ‘the service is free, but people may wish to leave us a gift in their will as a thank you’. The Dogs Trust under their scheme state that ‘we will find your dog/s new owners whose lifestyle and experience match their needs. But if for any reason your dog/s cannot be rehomed we will look after them for the rest of their lives’.

Whether these schemes are the best use of facilities and funds and in the best interests of the animals is arguable. Most humane organisations insist they are constantly overrun, have long waiting lists and need extra funding so guaranteeing space in these circumstances is questionable. Keeping an animal ‘for the rest of its life’ in long-term confinement just like zoo animals, many professionals believe can prove harmful to their mental state because with the best will in the world you cannot give all the care and attention of a proper home. In some cases, euthanasia might be proper if the animal is too old and infirm, but of course this goes against the principle of the organisations and their necessity for raising funds.

One well-known UK charity, boasted in its annual report that it kept a dog for 1,108 days before finding it a home, which equates to 30% of the poor dog’s life. Although a great achievement it conjures up the ethical question of whether it is fair to keep a dog or cat incarcerated for that long.

4. Rivalry in being seen as more caring.

Animal welfare charities are always looking for new opportunities to look more caring than their rivals and will jump on an issue that is topical or in favour. This has happened recently when one charity came up with the idea of helping street pets of the homeless. All the dog charities quickly waded in with schemes and new charities established which has attracted news coverage and publicity, but in this case it could be viewed that they are aiding and abetting animals being kept in unsuitable and unstable conditions and even construed as aiding unnecessary suffering.

5. The no-kill tactic of we never put a healthy animal to sleep

The unambiguous term “no-kill” is widely used in the USA to differentiate an animal charity with such a policy from that of one who supposedly does kill animals. In the UK we tend to use a more benign phrase “we never put a healthy animal to sleep” although no-kill is gradually creeping into usage here. Nearly all charities make this rather cynical claim as they cannot afford to do otherwise in these modern times if they want to survive. It becomes cynical because some charities use the terms as a ploy to raise funds by inferring that their rivals do. It is something donors should not be taken in by.

The use of the term is somewhat misleading as it comes with a proviso that most caring charities do kill animals that are assessed too ill, unsafe or unsuitable for re-homing. No animal rescue charity can truly call itself no-kill  unless they refuse to take in animals which are beyond help and perhaps allow them to suffer by doing so. Many do turn their backs on certain animals or operate a ‘selective intake policy’ which is becoming more common and can in some circumstances be harmful to those animals which are in most need of help.

When donating money to animal rescue charities we must be very careful not to be mislead by some of their fund-raising antics and literature as they are very astute when it comes to grabbing our donations, but do not necessarily put it to the best use.