he
opposition to the Norwegian whaling was based for a long time on the fact that
scientific documentation on the sustainability of the minke whale stocks in the
North Atlantic was lacking. In addition, arguments were presented to the effect
that hunting methods were insufficient to prevent unnecessary suffering and were
therefore not acceptable.
The issue concerning a lack of scientific documentation of stock estimates in
Norwegian waters has been resolved through solid work by scientists within the
framework of the Scientific Committee of the IWC. This widely- recognized
scientific work readily refutes any argument that Norwegian whalers are hunting
an endangered stock. At the same time, considerable study and improvements in
killing methods have been achieved. These improvements are also widely-
recognized and frequently praised.
What happens in a situation where the scientific and animal welfare arguments
crumble? Answer: people use arguments that they believe are beyond science to
support their point of view. Now it is suggested that ethical reasons call for
the abandonment of whaling. Furthermore, it is claimed that Norway is such a
rich country that it does not need the income from whaling. But this argument
has a hollow ring since it was first brought up when the scientific reasons to
stop whaling, which the opposition initially was based upon, became no longer
valid.
The most extreme protection organisations consistently use terms that
objectively are not rooted in reality. This usage of terms is a cunning way of
painting a reality, which does not exist. It has, for a long period of time,
been claimed that the "whale" is more intelligent and sentient than
other animals, so that many people now are convinced this is the truth.
Scientific research that draws other conclusions is rejected as improper and
political incorrect. They do not mention that there are around 75 different
species of whales. Some of them need protection; others could be sustainably
hunted under multiple species management plans for marine resources.
Furthermore, protection advocates often resort to anthropomorphic,
inflammatory terms such as "massacre" with the intention of giving
whales human attributes and to create revulsion, although it is possible that
whales killed in commercial based hunting are probably treated more gently than
livestock in a similar situation. Terminology and creative expressions are
developed by protection advocates that make it impossible for the average person
to think rationally about whaling, or for that matter, about wildlife management
in general.
In the same way as "New Speak" in George Orwell’s 1984, they are
seeking to establish a way of looking at the world and a way of thinking that
makes it impossible to think differently. This is a scary development, but it is
a fact that has found fertile soil in urban societies where knowledge of this
type of resource management is not particularly extensive.
