Who's eating whale meat? -- Doesn't seem to be selling well

Earlier in my blog, I wrote about The Institute of Cetacean [whale, dolphin, and related creatures] Research, the quasi-public organization in Japan that coordinates whale hunting expeditions in the name of "research." According to a commentary I found on a site that offers news and information for the cattle industry, The Institute of Cetacean Research has reported that "75 percent of the more than1,000 tons of meat from whales harvested as part of the country’s (alleged) deep-sea 'research mission' was passed over by buyers, despite repeated attempts to sell it off.." I was surprised that people in the beef industry in the States would be interested in following news on the consumption (or, in this case, non-consumption) of whale meat. But, I suppose they feel that one less meal of whale may mean one more potential serving of U.S. imported beef.

The commentator notes the paradox that while whale consumption has gone steadily downward, the public support for whaling in Japan remains high. He believes that to be the case because of the provocative and escalating tactics by whaling opponents such as Sea Shepherd. This is an organization that sends ships, helicopters, and inflatable speed boats to the Southern Ocean to pester whaling crews until they can't take it any more and head back to Japan earlier than planned. Although the activities of Sea Shepherd have put Japan's whaling operations in the Japanese media spotlight, Sea Shepherd is portrayed as a racist, violent band of eco-terrorists targeting innocent crews of "research ships" sent out to prove that whale stocks can support managed whaling.

So, the weird situation arises where Japanese, who don't wish to eat whale meat and who would not otherwise support such a wasteful and highly subsidized industry, come out in favor of it in the name of patriotism and in defense of a mythologized whaling "tradition." The author suggests that the "power of positive public and peer pressure" to bring pro-whaling nations (such as Japan and Norway) in line with the world consensus is more productive than provoking them to stubbornly continue killing whales for nationalistic reasons that have nothing to do with consumer demand, genuine needs, or cultural continuity (after all, Britain and the U.S. had "cultures" of whaling that are now part of their historical legacies).

I agree with the commentator up to a point, but I think that persistent interference with the whaling operations--WITHOUT the hurling of butyric acid or attempts to entangle the propellors of ships with rope--are necessary because they show that the world is watching and that whalers will not be able to quietly go about their "business as usual." As soon as the protest activities turn violent, hearts become closed to the plight of whales and defensive stances solidify into nationalistic posturing and a willful desire to defy the world.

Murphy, Dan. "Commentary: Whale of trend." Drovers CattleNetwork News. 14 June 2012: 1. Web. http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/Commentary-Whale-of-trend-159057315.html?ref=315.

Is Sea Shepherd's work productive in the long run?

Paul Watson, and the group Sea Shepherd which he represents, have become infamous in Japan due to their aggressive tactics, not only against Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean, but also against fishermen who kill huge numbers of sharks for the shark fin trade, and coastal whalers (such as those in the Faroe Islands who hunt small whales that come near their shores). When passing through Frankfort Airport in Germany recently Watson was arrested because he was wanted in Costa Rica for a 10-year-old charge against him for the alleged endangerment of the crew of a fishing boat that was doing illegal shark fishing. He claims that the whole incident was on film and the film shows that the crew of the boat that Sea Shepherd was escorting to port was never in danger. But, he may have to be sent to Costa Rica for trial. He has made many enemies over the years since he and his group have interfered with lucrative business interests. Although I question some of Sea Shepherd's methods, they are good at stirring up controversy, and they have been successful in getting Japan to end its annual whale hunt in the Southern Ocean early. What Sea Shepherd does, brings up the question of whether methods which sometimes put people in danger are justified if it means our oceans and the creatures in them are protected? We also have to ask whether their methods can lead to long term benefit for whales, dolphins, sharks, and the oceans where they live? Or, might Sea Shepherd create resentments--as they seem to have done in Japan--which make people more determined to continue doing what they are doing?

Balmer , Etienne. "Anti-whaling group leader ordered held in Germany." Yahoo News. (2012): Web. 31 May. 2012. http://news.yahoo.com/sea-shepherd-anti-whaling-founder-arrested-germany-023752253.html.

Here's a Sea Shepherd PR video in support of Paul Watson's release from house arrest in Germany:


 Sea Shepherd. (2012, June 6). Entourage’s Perrey Reeves Speaks Out for Captain Watson [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqcrFo-3LhA

The video embedded below shows the official view of the Japanese government, and unofficial view among some Japanese citizens, of the actions of Sea Shepherd:

Prowhaler. (2008, January 26). “Eco-Terrorist” Sea Shepherd and Australian Media (English) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX7GDq4FLSI