Echoes from the Deep

by Joshua Drummond

It was one of the environmental movement's most memorable catch-cries. It was printed on t-shirts and echoed through diplomatic chambers. It convinced a generation that not only did the whales need saving, but that we could do it.

In the 21st century, that rallying call has faded from the public consciousness into retro obscurity. Possibly because other, greater issues have arrived - notably that of climate change - but also because people believe that the job has been done; the whales have been saved.
It's an easy view to take, if only because there is an apparently clear international, diplomatic consensus that whaling of any kind is a bad thing, with only a couple of exceptions, notably that of Japan.
But the truth is far more sobering - that whales, especially certain species are still very much in danger. Some, such as the mighty Blue Whale, the largest animal to ever exist, anywhere, are critically endangered, with possibly only as many as 5000 left alive. Other species, such as the Western North Atlantic Right whale, may number as few as 300. And continued hunting is only one of several factors that may be pushing whales ever closer to the brink of extinction.

Whaling, on a small scale, has been around longer than New Zealand itself. The story of mass whaling is synchronous with early New Zealand history. The town of Russel (formerly Kororareka,) the nation's first proper colonial settlement and original capital, had beginnings as an important whaling re-supply port. Whaling (along with sealing) played a vital part in New Zealand's burgeoning colonial economy, as it did  in Australia's. The colonial whaling bases helped supply nations like Britain, where whale-derived products were used to drive the machines of industrialisation. Whale oil lit homes, lubricated machines. Whalebone (actually baleen, commonly taken from Right whales) was used in Victorian corsets and as sofa springs, while ambergris, derived from sperm whales, was used as a fixative in perfumes - as it still is today. Andrew Darby's book Harpoon describes the multiple uses of whale oil. "Sperm whale oil was of a finer grade - used by lighthouses and the wealthy. The lesser 'brown' oil, mainly from the Right Whale, was the everyday oil before petroleum."

Whales were an industrial boon, and there were hundreds of thousands of them. In fact, to the colonial mind, there was a limitless supply, an oceanic bonanza that would never be depleted. In hindsight, it is amazing that it took this so long to be seen for the fallacy it was. The whales - first the slower-swimming Rights, and then the faster 'fins' - were rapidly being hunted into near-extinction. The massacre was spurred on by improved methods of slaughter - the grenade harpoon and faster ships led to whales being taken in ever-larger numbers. The scale is difficult to either measure or comprehend. No-one knows exactly how many were killed in the first era of mass whaling, but International Whaling Commission scientists have made efforts at calculation, usually on a species-by-species basis. The findings were sobering. For instance, the Southern Right whale was estimated to number between 60, 000 and 120, 000, pre-whaling. In the next hundred years, according to Harpoon, "nearly 133, 000 were counted as killed. Many more were struck and lost, or just uncounted. By 1920 there were perhaps 300 [left] across the Southern Hemisphere." Roughly, the figures indicate that 98 percent of all the Southern Rights to ever have lived were killed - inside a century. Today, Antarctic whales remain at less than 10 per cent of their pre-whaling numbers. The world's most endangered whale, the West Pacific Grey, may number as few as 100 and their recovery is uncertain.
To put this number in perspective, imagine humanity depleted by 98 per cent. It's nearly impossible to comprehend. In comparison, World War Two, the deadliest ever human conflict, caused an estimated 72 million casualties - or around 3.7 percent of the total human population.

Ironically enough, World War Two would also turn out to be one of the main factors behind the continued slaughter of the world's whales, long after the need for them to supply industrial products had died. It is because of WW2 that a starving Japanese nation turned to whales as a source of meat.
Japan had a cultural history of hunting whales long before Douglas MacArthur gave the nation whaling rights in the 'Antarctic Whaling Area.' Indeed, during WW2, plenty of nations (including Britain) had been positively encouraged to eat whales, which was easier to supply than beef and consequently un-rationed. But in most nations where it was tried, especially those with no cultural investment in whaling, it didn't take. Most people just didn't like the taste.

Japan was different. Whaling was seen with a kind of pride, tied in to the nation's ability to independently supply itself with food after being leveled in the war. It was, in short, patriotic to eat whales. And eat them they did. Japanese consumption of whale meat, caught mostly in the Antarctic, peaked at 226, 000 tonnes in 1962. It then fell, bottoming out at 15, 000 in 1985, the year prior to the commercial ban on whale-hunting.
However, much of Japan's eating stock came from the relatively plentiful Minke whale. The Soviet Union, during the postwar years, was conducting a much more insidious, secret hunt of its own. Why? Because they could and they felt like it, apparently. Beginning in 1948 - the year the Soviet Union joined the IWC - the Soviet whaling fleet 'Slava' shot and killed all the whales they could (often in Australian territorial waters) and lied about it wholeheartedly. Not until the Soviet Union dissolved in the early 90s was the scale of the secret hunt laid bare. For example, from 1958-60, over 5000 whales were killed - 2120 more than claimed. Overall, the Soviet hunt killed roughly twice as many whales as they officially claimed. Many were members of severely endangered species like Humpbacks, Southern Rights and Blues.

Today, many nations continue to hunt whales on various scales. IWC member nations are theoretically bound by the moratorium on commercial whaling, although member nations Norway and Japan conduct their own partially-sanctioned hunts (Norway hunts Minkes under an official objection to the IWC moratorium, and Japan's take is done under the auspices of 'scientific whaling.') Canada, which left the IWC in 1982, allows mostly Inuit hunters to take whales under local regulations. Other nations indulge in mostly small-scale hunting mostly by tribal or indigenous groups. Iceland conducts commercial and scientific hunting, officially breaking the IWC moratorium in 2006 when fishermen killed a 60 tonne fin whale.

New Zealand, along with Australia, the US and many other nations, is diametrically opposed to the hunting of whales. Minister for Conservation, Chris Carter, puts it fairly bluntly.
"The New Zealand government's stance on whaling is we believe in the complete protection of the world's great whales. We're completely opposed to the hunting of whales,' he says. 'Whale stocks are severely depleted and Soviet whaling in the 70s severely depleted stocks - such as [True] Blue Whales which may now number as few as 300."
Carter says, given the endangered status of many species, even ones that are not actively being hunted by anyone, that it's far too early to say the whales have been saved. Asked if people should still be worried about them - and if they can still do anything about it - his response is immediate.
"Yes and absolutely. Whales face enormous pressure from global climate change, pollution, and other factors like boat strikes. With all this, the extra pressure from hunting will certainly push many whales further towards extinction. They are very much still in danger. "

Much of Carter's ire on the subject is reserved for Japan, who he calls 'frustrating' in their attitude towards whaling.
"I've been to five IWC sessions. It's frustrating, and the atmosphere is really quite aggressive. There's a strong sense from the Japanese delegates that we're disrespecting their culture," he says.
"The irony of it is it seems the Japanese have 4000 tonnes of whale meat in storage they don't know what to do with. They can't sell it, because there's really not that much of a market for it."
Not only is there not necessarily much of a market for whale meat, it seems that those eating it aren't getting a very nutritious meal. In fact, they may be getting a poisonous one. Whale meat has been found to be high in environmental pollutants - organochlorides such as PCBs, dioxins, and heavy metals like mercury. It raises the question: if whale meat is this toxic, how healthy are the whales?
If the meat's no good, and not many are eating it, then what other excuses are there for whaling? Well, say some, including Japanese fishery scientists, they're eating all our fish.

This is not the farcical fallacy it might immediately appear to be. Whales, it would appear, do eat a hell of a lot of seafood. Rather more than us, actually. A report commissioned by the Humane Society International, and conducted by Professor David Pauly of the University of British Columbia, found that whales and pinnipeds (seals, essentially) annually ate around 600 million tonnes of seafood, compared to around 150 million tonnes for humans. This seems extreme, but the fact is it's quality, not quantity, that matters. Whales tend to eat stuff that humans simply don't, like krill and giant squid, and the report indicated that where whales do infringe on human fishing stocks there's still not much overlap.

"The bottom line is that humans and marine mammals can co-exist," Pauly said in an interview with the BBC. "There's no need to wage war on them in order to have fish to catch. And there's certainly no cause to blame them for the collapse of the fisheries. It's really cynical and irresponsible for Japan to claim that the developing countries would benefit from a cull of marine mammals. It's the rich countries that are sucking the fish out of the poor countries' own seas."

Carter likewise rubbishes Japans claims that its whaling is 'scientific' and that whale culls are necessary for fisheries.
"We dispute that. There is significant controversy over actual whale numbers, with scientists from different nations giving different numbers of whales," Carter says. He adds that what Japan does - hunting whales under the veil of 'science' and then on-selling the meat - isn't really science at all. "I've labeled it 'pseudo-science.' Scientists all the world over study whales through thoroughly non-lethal means. You just don't need to kill whales to study them."
Then there's the fact that the actual process of killing a whale at sea is far from nice. Others, unwilling to mince words, call it barbaric.

The process is simple, on paper; a whale is located and shot with a grenade-tipped harpoon. In a best-case scenario, this kills the whale and it is then dragged on to the deck of a factory ship - a floating killing floor. - for butchering. The reality is usually far different, according to anti-whaling activists. The whale often has to be shot more than once, and a non-killing shot may result in an exhausting and unbelievably painful reeling-in for the injured whale. Many others are harpooned only to be lost at sea, perhaps to live for a while, but usually to die. It is indisputably an agonising process for a creature, as far as science can tell, of considerable intelligence and a complex family structure that bears some resemblance to that of humans. Every whale shot is one less that can be studied alive - to find out more about animals that after over a century of hunting, still remain mysterious.

Much comes down to numbers. Essentially, Japanese scientists say there are plenty of whales, whereas scientists from anti-whaling nations say there are far less. Carter cites an example of Japanese industry scientists estimating that there were many thousands more Minke whales in the Antarctic than the most optimistic, independent estimates.
It is, he explains, the difference between sustainability and depletion. So where were the missing whales?
"At the IWC session where this claim was made, the Japanese proposed that the missing whales were hiding behind icebergs," Carter says. But surely they can't actually believe that? He chuckles wryly. "I hope they don't really believe that," he says.
In a peculiar kind of reciprocity, Japan has tacitly been bolstering support for whaling through a programme of offering small Pacific nations aid - in return for votes at the IWC.
"Japan uses development aid to encourage support for whaling," explains Carter. 'New Zealand doesn't do that - we're restricted by law from offering aid in exchange for diplomatic favours.
Five pacific island nations [besides New Zealand] are currently members of the IWC. Japan has been courting Tuvalu, Kirribati and the Solomon Islands with promises of aid in return for supporting their whaling activities. New Zealand, on the other hand, is encouraging them to look at the eco-tourism options that activities like whale watching give for sustainable employment. Tonga, for example, has a well-developed eco-tourism structure.'
Carter says the New Zealand and other anti-whaling nations at the IWC are doing everything they can to halt whaling for good.

New Zealand is one of the loudest voices at the International Whaling Commission. We also recently orchestrated a 'demarche' - an NZ-led joint letter of protest at Japan's whaling activities signed by 22 nations.
"We organise diplomatic pressure through the IWC, partly by organising for other, conservation-minded nations to join - Israel and Greece have recently joined," he says.
But Carter stressed that the only way whaling will be halted would be through grass-roots as well as diplomatic action. Asked what ordinary New Zealanders can do, he said there are more than a few ways to help.
"Kiwis can write letters to the Japanese embassy, use letters to send messages to the Japanese fisheries that hunt whales," he says and mentions an initiative where city councils with 'sister city' relationships in Japan were asked to write to the sister councils, explaining New Zealand's stance on whaling. Rotary clubs with similar relationships were asked to do the same - "respectfully explaining why New Zealanders find whaling so reprehensible," Carter says.

The job is far from done. Whales are doing much better than in the recent past; many populations are recovering even while others continue to struggle. But this recovery is only spurring the calls of some to resume whaling. Even without the debate over whether harpooning whales at sea - which is inevitably followed by a protracted death struggle - is ethical or not, it is clear that care needs to be taken of the great sea mammals who are in danger from no-one but us. Whaling is only part of the picture. Whether it is possible to save the whales might indicate whether, in the longer run, we are able to save ourselves.