Who is right in the whaling controversy?

"Neptune's Navy", By Raffi Khatchadourian
The New Yorker, Published November 5th, 2007

Prior to reading the article about Paul Watson and his attempt at putting an end to whale hunting, I was sure that he would be the "right" one in the situation. However, after reading about it, it's difficult to say which side is right. Watson is passionate about his effort to save whales and the Japanese have been hunting whales since the 1930s.

The article states, "Whaling is not banned, but it is not exactly permitted, either--an ambiguity resulting from political comprimise and shortsigtedness." The article then went on to introduce the International Whaling Commission and explain that whaling for science has always been allowed. However, the article also said that "The Japanese fleet is run by the government-subsized Institute for Cetacean Research, in Tokyo, but the institute has produced virtually no research of any regard, and all the whales that are purported to be under study are also butchered for the purpose of selling whale meat to the Japanese public." This makes it seem like some Japanese whalers have no intention of hunting whales for science, but rather for profit. The article by Khatchadourian mentioned two types of whales that were being hunted by Japanese fleet in the Antartic every year. I decided to research the whales and found that fin whales were a big target for whale hunters from 1904-1975, "As other whale species became over-hunted, the whaling industry turned to the still-abundant Fin Whale as a substitute. It was primarily hunted for its blubber, oil, and baleen. Approximately 704,000 Fin Whales were caught in Antarctic whaling operations alone between 1904 and 1975." (Wikipedia.com).

I think that if the whaling laws weren't so ambiguous and there were concrete laws either for it or against it, it would be easier to determine who was right and wrong in the situation. While whale hunting, especially of possibly endangered whales, is sad to me, I'm not sure Watson has the best ways of dealing with it. He has many celebrity endorsers and funding in support of his cause. However, when Watson is on his ship and out in the middle of the ocean, it seems like he forgets about laws and regulations. He once said, "No words can describe the personal liberation that heading seaward bestows on me. In this aquatic realm no man or woman is subject to the petty decrees of social bereaucracy." It seems like Watson does whatever he wants on the water, including attacking whaling boats and using his own boat as a tool to ram into theirs. Running a large boat into another large boat does not seem safe at all, especially in possible stormy, winter ocean weather. While I think whaling issues should be brought to public attention and action should be taken, I don't believe this is the right kind of action. It seems like Watson is fighing fire with fire and this has been spoken against by the enviroment minister of Austrailia, Malcom Turnbull--"Threatening to put lives at rist, or vessels at risk, is completely unacceptable. They must act safely and peacefully. They are not advancing the anti-whaling cause they espouse by threatening lives in this way."

I think the statement above is a good summation of my answer of who is right in this situation. While I admire and share the same passion for animals ans Watson, I think he takes it to an extreme level and he is endangering the lives of others. I think this relates to civil disobedience and the act of protest to make a statement. You have to answer questions like, "How far is too far?" when you intend to break the law in order to bring attention to a larger issue. I think there are other ways to change the whaling business and to go after the Japanese fleet, but I don't think ramming their boat is the best possible way.