in Taiji. There, only 20 whalers constitute the group of people hunting the whales.
While this might indicate that whaling only benefits these few, in this case whale
meat provides an important food source for the entire community. Most enlightening
were my interviews with dolphin trainers in the aquarium associated with the Taiji
Whale Museum. The predominantly young trainers feel an immense pride to be able
to work with dolphins and whales as being of such importance for the Japanese
people. The question of captivity did not occur to them in the same way as it would
occur to people in, say, European societies. The approach to the environment,
animals and animal welfare appears to be philosophically different than in the
West.
17 It seems that it is the contribution of whaling and captive whales to Japanese
society en gros which is the main source for the immense pride the trainers feel.
Once again, the line between commercial and subsistence appears somewhat
blurry. Commercial aspects, such as the sale of live dolphins to aquariums, certainly
plays a major role in the motivation. But to say it is only about the money
oversimplifies the long history of whaling, the cultural aspects associated with it
and, quite simply, the food that it provides for the people of Taij. The use of small
cetaceans is therefore not merely driven by monetary considerations, but has a
component which runs deeper.
The question that always arises in the context of marine mammal use is whether
there is a need for their utilisation. In other words: can people live without it? From
my own perspective I would claim that, for instance, Newfoundlanders or the people
of Taiji could live without sealing or the dolphin drive. But why would they? The
answer to that question can probably best be found in George Orwell’s Animal
Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
18 This
is to say that for some animal species, certain ethical and moral rules appear to apply.
This is so in the case of marine mammals which are discursively removed from any
considerations as a food source. In a recent report by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on microplastics in fisheries and aquaculture this was best exemplified: in a diagram showcasing the pathways of
microplastics from marine animals to the human, the depicted whale is not connected
to the human.
19 In other words, whales are not considered within contexts of food
and microplastics. But as we see, in some regions of this world, marine mammals are
still sources of food. There is therefore a nutritional need for them, at least from the
perspective of the locals. Once again, I refrain from making a judgement on whether
this perspective is justified or not. For it is my conviction that a ‘need’ cannot be
determined by outsiders, but should be considered from a vantage point of local
history, culture and socio-economic circumstances.
17 Kagawa-Fox (2012).
18 Orwell (1945/1951), p. 90.
19 FAO (2017), p. 45.
54
3 Marine Mammals and Humans
While this might indicate that whaling only benefits these few, in this case whale
meat provides an important food source for the entire community. Most enlightening
were my interviews with dolphin trainers in the aquarium associated with the Taiji
Whale Museum. The predominantly young trainers feel an immense pride to be able
to work with dolphins and whales as being of such importance for the Japanese
people. The question of captivity did not occur to them in the same way as it would
occur to people in, say, European societies. The approach to the environment,
animals and animal welfare appears to be philosophically different than in the
West.
17 It seems that it is the contribution of whaling and captive whales to Japanese
society en gros which is the main source for the immense pride the trainers feel.
Once again, the line between commercial and subsistence appears somewhat
blurry. Commercial aspects, such as the sale of live dolphins to aquariums, certainly
plays a major role in the motivation. But to say it is only about the money
oversimplifies the long history of whaling, the cultural aspects associated with it
and, quite simply, the food that it provides for the people of Taij. The use of small
cetaceans is therefore not merely driven by monetary considerations, but has a
component which runs deeper.
The question that always arises in the context of marine mammal use is whether
there is a need for their utilisation. In other words: can people live without it? From
my own perspective I would claim that, for instance, Newfoundlanders or the people
of Taiji could live without sealing or the dolphin drive. But why would they? The
answer to that question can probably best be found in George Orwell’s Animal
Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
18 This
is to say that for some animal species, certain ethical and moral rules appear to apply.
This is so in the case of marine mammals which are discursively removed from any
considerations as a food source. In a recent report by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on microplastics in fisheries and aquaculture this was best exemplified: in a diagram showcasing the pathways of
microplastics from marine animals to the human, the depicted whale is not connected
to the human.
19 In other words, whales are not considered within contexts of food
and microplastics. But as we see, in some regions of this world, marine mammals are
still sources of food. There is therefore a nutritional need for them, at least from the
perspective of the locals. Once again, I refrain from making a judgement on whether
this perspective is justified or not. For it is my conviction that a ‘need’ cannot be
determined by outsiders, but should be considered from a vantage point of local
history, culture and socio-economic circumstances.
17 Kagawa-Fox (2012).
18 Orwell (1945/1951), p. 90.
19 FAO (2017), p. 45.
54
3 Marine Mammals and Humans