Good or Bad Whaling?

Some versions of whaling are accepted by IWC. The IWC sets quotas for the aboriginal hunt in several countries. This hunt is not regarded as commercial, although there are considerable commercial aspects. Furthermore, the IWC accepts in principle, catches for scientific purposes as the ICRW explicitly allows the member states to set such quotas themselves. In practice, the majority of IWC members most strongly condemn research involving the killing of whales. However, many of the protectionist countries will undoubtedly find at some stage, the results of such research both useful and interesting. They may also accept and eventually acknowledge, that scientists from their respective countries must travel to Norway to conduct lethal, yet vital research on whales that is not permitted in their own countries.

Is it true that whaling only becomes ethical, and on a superior moral plane if the IWC sets the catch quotas? If so, why is it ethically superior to hunt in one Arctic zone and not in another, when the stock situation is possibly better in the Norwegian and Barents Seas, than in the areas where the IWC presently accepts whaling? Furthermore, traditional whaling in Norway is conducted by a coastal population, who could be as easily regarded as aboriginal, considering the several centuries, or millennia, they have been living along the coast of Norway and hunting whales. In this respect, it should not be regarded as negative that whale hunting and killing methods have been continually improved and made more efficient in order to minimise suffering of the animals.