The Current Conservation Status of a Group of Marine Vertebrates - Term Paper Example

CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE CURRENT CONSERVATION STATUS OF A GROUP OF MARINE VERTEBRATES A group of marine vertebrates, which are actually mammals called whales, belonging to the order cetaceans, have since been men's inspiration to be passionate with the natural world of the deep. Most people believed that cannibalizing members of such group of marine mammals is a taboo. But, for some, catching, butchering, and selling this marine mammal is profitable at the least cost. This is despite the limitations set by the International Whaling Commission and some environmental watchers (Stoett, 1997). Body Global 'ecopolitics' on 'whaling' have intensified. This was driven not merely by negative foresights on the eventuality of the current scale of activities against cetaceans. But, this was simply underpinned by the enthusiasm of researchers on conservation attempts. Additionally, this was also to understand the ideas contained in available implementing guidelines for the limits of catching whales (Stoett, 1997). Unfortunately, numberless publication persists which turned out to be unhelpful and can be barriers and distractions towards positive endeavours. These publications contain, one, issues that depict strained relations among nations which bring about the possibilities of total destruction as there are no commonality of beliefs on conservations. Second, that there is the danger of over-population which may result to extreme increases in demands for exhausting resources as well as collective relocation. Third, that there is an incessant intensified consciousness on soil erosion and rapid deforestations. Fourth, that there is an ever increasing account of oil wastage over bodies of water because of flaws on transport system resulting to death of marine organisms. And fifth, that the whales are subjects to extinction (Stoett, 1997). Fortunately, the persistence of the issues on extinction of whales challenged and inspired many people to keep on with their studies. This is because they believed that continuity of the whales or cetaceans species generations is apparently a benchmark. This would clearly indicate the conditions of the environment. Basically, it would be of benefit to mankind considering that these cetaceans are also mammals, although, they are aquatic. So, if they have continued to live in the bodies of water, then, this is a clue that the environment is still supportive of life. And this runs counter to claims of extensive environmental degradations (Stoett, 1997). According to the author, studies revealed that the population of gray and minke whales have normalized. This is despite the extensive poaching activities simply for profit, overtly disregarding the consequences. But, the population dip of some other cetaceans like blue whales, light whales, and humpback whales are quite alarming. This is made complicated by the fact that there is very little study conducted on the physical welfare of cetaceans. And if there is any hope left for the survival of the species, then, this lies largely on the latest consensus of the concerned groups like the International Whaling Corporation (Daniels, 2007; Stoett, 1997). Apparently, the members of the International Whaling Corporation in 1982 have realized the intensity of the risk they have taken in 1946 for supporting the extinguishing activities of catching whales and its relatives for the purpose of profit, health, and purported sustenance. Consequently, the 1982 position stood firm on the suspension of all whale catching activities in the national and international seas. Although, it took some three years before the treaty was fully implemented. This was because of political dissensions on the part of those who are apt to continue profiteering. Large scale whalers like the Japanese and the Americans were all dissatisfied with the ruling on suspension of their self-centred endeavours. They argued on the basis of the interest of a few and went on mindless of the countless people who have worked out relentlessly on conservation to prevent possible extinctions of such valued species (Daniels, 2007; Stoett, 1997). Hardly did the Norwegians and the Japanese whalers paid attention to the ruling which they considered to be nave. The two nationalities were found to have persisted on their minke whales pursuit on the guise of having especial authorizations from groups in areas where they perform such internationally suspended activities. Accordingly, the Japanese whalers got their permission from the locals of Russia, Greenland, and Alaska in as much as these people also benefits by accepting some percentages of the catch for tribal consumption. On the other hand, the Norwegians appeared to have gotten small scale fishing or whaling permits (Stoett, 1997). The disappointments among the proponents on the suspension of whaling went to the extent that they have lost faith in the power of the International Whaling Corporation to implement its rules for the benefit of the majority. Additionally, there is a rising concern over abusive poaching considering that the unresolved disagreements among whalers and members of the International Whaling Corporation have resulted to the separation of memberships to the organization. Representatives to the group from Iceland have already broken its ties. Soon, the other members might also leave. And this is a calamitous indicator for the conservationists as this augurs the breakdown of the organization (Daniels, 2007; Stoett, 1997). Objectively, looking at the possibilities of compromises for the sake of maintaining camaraderie among nations, the regulation may be improve to include provisions for allowances on limited whaling. Apparently, one source of disagreements among members is the seeming favouritism of the regulation's provision which is on punitive actions. While it favours some, it likewise punishes others. The rule can be improve, such that punitive actions would apply to whoever is caught going beyond the limitations regardless of size and nationality, race or culture. In other words, bias must be avoided if cooperation is the desire of the International Whaling Corporation (Stoett, 1997). However, claims against a biased provision in the International Whaling Corporation's policy have not been very strong, presumably due to lack of formal complains submitted to the group for resolutions. So that uncertainties as to abusive poaching could be considered baseless. Besides, consumers demand for whales plunged in the current decade. This is largely because of fad and transcendence of momentary preferences. Thus, the chances are high that the officials of the International Whaling Corporation can make formal representations to thresh out differences among interested nations, to ensure sustainable, yet conservation-wise acceptable levels of catching whales (Stoett, 1997). In reality, the activities that may lead to extinction of whales belonging to the order cetacean are not those of the whalers' excessive catching activities. Apparently, the culprits to most deaths are the effluents discarded abusively by big industrial companies to bodies of water. This is most likely worsened by other finishing implements that are senselessly employed to enhance productive harvest. These two factors have time and again been proven to have partly affected the normal ecosystem on the bodies of water where cetaceans dwell. And these too seem to be the real problem that the International Whaling Corporation must be able to settle first and foremost (Stoett, 1997). Nonetheless, the problem encompasses the many different nations around the world because by nature cetaceans or whales do not permanently dwell in one area. The mammals traverse the seas in search for food and breeding. In other words, the health of the ecosystem in which the organisms live is everyone else's responsibility. This particular organismic characteristic therefore makes this issue of global concern (Stoett, 1997). Practically, the issue on commonality of ownership of cetaceans, their welfare in their own habitat, as well as their prudent utilization necessitates collaborative efforts as suggested by Wilfred Beckerman according to the author. Such a global concern in nature is not only a single person or nation's responsibility. Relative to other emerging problems which are now commonly and collectively known as greenhouse effect, the degradation of the natural aquatic ecosystem has also become a global issue. Greenhouse effect is caused by the excessive emission of carbon, dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur, and other gasses plus other by-products extensively released in the atmosphere. Emitters regardless of kind utilize the atmosphere as their dumping place. Thus, dumping of those harmful gasses and particulates greatly reduce the amount of quality air available for consumption of living organisms who like to breath clean air for healthy living. In the same manner, depleting beyond the normal level of whales in the aquatic ecosystem by extensive poaching of only few consumers potentially reduces the chances of others who also consume similar reserve. Hence, control over supply and demand is reasonable. And so, because of this situation there must be mutual efforts for a decisive stand (Stoett, 1997). Apparently, the fundamental setback for the cost-effective management of the natural resources is the ability of people to practice the value and the concept that resources are limited and everyone has the right over it. But, certainly this idea may not be easily appreciated and accepted by most people. This particular human attribute clearly sets barriers to collaborative efforts beckoning argumentations and debates. On the other hand, according to Stoett in 1997, Stephen Krasner also suggest, that unless people can go beyond this drawback and resolve to employ the practical rule of supply and demand in a teamwork, then an efficient market will result. The ecological facet on the responsible utilization of the global natural resources encompasses everyone and not just the governing bodies of nations. So, a way out of the clutter is sure, but, individual differences makes achievement of a common goal difficult. There are those who supposed that distribution of ownership of territories would augur automatic interest over proper utilization of natural resources. But, again the general consensus is not certain (Stoett in 1997). In 1982, the Law of the Sea Convention specified territorial limits among nations. In this agreement, a nation has a legal claim over the natural resources of the waters within 200 nautical miles from the shoreline. This is called the Exclusive Economic Zones. Coupled to this right is the obligation for the upkeep within the territorial limits. But, just like any modern technology, the latest design carries with it the latest risk. As modern policies are crafted, modern ways of going around the policy are also 'engineered', for the sake of revenue (Stoett in 1997). Moreover, some aspects of parks and wildlife like the cetacean population which do not linger permanently in one specific area, or are migratory in nature, can not be exclusive to one territory at the expense of others. So, the reasons are not merely differences of ideas. In connection with this barrier, some experts like Norman Myer supposed a policy that will have to be internationally agreed upon and implemented, empowering the United Nations as the sole manager of the international parks and wildlife. As the governing institution it can be employing such tools as permit to catch whale at a specific prevailing cost. So, the market cost would provide the benchmark for pricing. In other words, the strategy on issuance of permits at a cost would have to follow the economic rule where, when the supply is high and the demand is high, prices are also high and vice-versa. This rule will have to be imposed fairly, such that regardless of reasons, whether for consumption or conservation, the proponents must purchase a permit from the United Nations (Stoett in 1997). Pricing will not be an easy task. Resistance can be encountered especially among those whose sole source of revenue is catching and selling whales and whale products. And the idea may even be a financial disaster to some. The idea also has the presumption that oppositionist to whaling activities have much more financial resources than the whalers, such that they can outbid and pursue conservation projects. In another respect, the idea lacks provisions for consequences of violation. These are only few of the shortfalls of the idea presented above. But, aggressive, proactive efforts can be exerted by the greater majority who do not patronize consumption of whale and whale products, much like the major American population that do not relish any whale dish (Stoett in 1997). Although, the United Nation's acceptance of additional work load is not certain. So, the question on setting the limits of the role is still in the air. From the point of view of the author, the strategy per se adds challenges on the skills of the proponent of conservation of natural resources. This challenge includes the ability to impose equal chances on prudent utilization, which gives approximate worth to resources in the wildlife. In turn this gives importance on the natural world in a quantifiable manner. Uncovering this facet gives a rationale which clarify pros and cons which may be use to justify creation of policies by the International Whaling Corporation. However, despite the lengthy discussions on mutually beneficial ideas, this does not guarantee a hundred percent cooperation among the members (Stoett, 1997). Some academicians entertain the issue of sovereignty among nations which is embodied in the United Nations treaty in addition to Principle II of the Rio Declaration. As such, the treaty can be invoked on ruling individual responsibilities within individual territories to face-up to of some tragic eventualities resulting from sloppy human activities. This is because in principle, the two agreements are underpinned by territorial rights and privileges in the responsible utilization of wildlife. But, the imposition of any international limitations or permits may inadvertently cause glitches on sovereignties considering the nomadic nature of some organisms like the cetacean mammals or whales (Stoett, 1997). All the same different countries that have been in the business of whaling have varied appreciation on the two international policies. Japan for example is in observance of the policies with the exception of some hard-line black-marketers. On the other hand, Norway defied and pursued their activities of hunting minke whales. And Canada defied too by severing membership with the International Whaling Corporation. This is largely because the Canadian government did not cede its rights to the United Nations as the international overseer of wildlife (Stoett, 1997). Some subsisting companies that pursued defiance to the rule of Whaling resorted to the creation their own organization. These companies belong to different countries. They formed the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. This new organization competes with the International Whaling Corporation. In some ways, the policies of the two organizations are in conflict. In fact, this now made sizeable complexity on the implementation of the International Whaling Corporation's policies. Despite its coexistence, it seems that these developments do not settle the problem. Emerging trends apparently influence the perspectives of the latest generations which further complicate the issue clearly placing conservationist at an edgy position (Daniels 2007). Conclusion The current conservation status of a group of marine organisms, the cetaceans or the whales is sometimes frustrating, realizing that people diverge in ideology such that they exhibit differences of opinions and interest which usually prevail over commonalities. After all, collaborative management, and teamwork has been proven to be effective in most commercial undertaking. Apart from this certainly, if conservationist has the determination to achieve its set goals it must resolve to exhibit leadership prowess in the area of controlled harvesting of any members of the cetacean order besides collaborative management of effluents which have been lately found to cause changes in the natural ecosystem of the marine waters. Reference Daniels, Brigham. 2007. Emerging Commons and Tragic Institutions. Environmental Law 37, no. 3: 515+. Stoett, Peter J. 1997. The International Politics of Whaling. Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Press. Read More