The effects of land based agriculture include soil erosion, wildlife habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, pollution of groundwater reserves, release of greenhouse gases, pesticide contamination and salinity. Some even argue that whaling is a more energy efficient method of food production.
Some sources report that the whale population has been steadily increasing and are now at levels that can be safely exploited. It's argued that the current suspension on commercial whaling is a major mismanagement of marine resources and is based on factors other than science. Spokespeople maintain that whaling nations seek to harvest only those species considered to be abundant like the minke whale. Species considered rare and endangered like the humpback and the right whale would remain protected if the IWC restrictions were lifted. They claim they could engage in whaling and make no impact on the whale population.
Arguments against whaling.
Every argument made in favour of continuation of commercial whaling is opposed by an equally legitimate argument. Whaling nations claim that they too should be given exemption from the IWC restrictions because communites like the Inuit are given exemption. The difference is that the Inuit rely on non-commercial level of whaling as a means of food simply for their survival. Reports show that increased hunting by the native coastal communities of Greenland has dramatically reduced the stocks of beluga whales since 1981. From these statistics it is clear that even small-scale hunting can impact whale populations and therefore must be properly controlled.
Opposite to the argument that whale stocks are increasing to exploitable levels, experts indicate the effects of past whaling are still limiting populations. The North Atlantic right whale, the most endangered species of large whale in the world, has barely recovered since the end of commercial whaling and the number of the right whale is a mere 300.
