Jim Eagles: Sacred status won't help save the whale

It was, if you'll forgive my saying so, a whale of a coincidence. There I was in Tokyo just as a particularly controversial session of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was about to begin and I switched on the television in my hotel to find myself watching ... Whale Rider.

I couldn't help wondering what all those Japanese clamouring for their traditional right to eat whale meat would make of this portrayal of whales as supernatural beings.

As it happens, I got the answer to that question the next day, at a briefing from the director of the Oceania division of Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Misawa Yasushi.

We were supposed to talk about tourism but he quickly moved on to wider topics, including the general relationship between our two countries, which he described as very good, and the problem areas, notably whaling.

On whaling, his message was that if New Zealand wanted to argue a case for protection of whales on conservation grounds, then, while the two countries might disagree on what constituted a sustainable harvest, there was at least room for dialogue. But if the case for protecting whales was an emotional one, based on a view of whales as sacred beings, then there was really nothing to discuss.

It's easy to understand why Japan would take that view.

After all, if whales are protected on conservation grounds then at some point the population of some species is going to reach a level at which all parties agree that it can sustain a harvest.

But if whaling is banned on some semi-religious basis, then no matter how large the whale population grows it will always be sacrilegious to consider killing them, and that's hardly a basis for negotiation.

Personally I've always had a problem with whales and dolphins being regarded as spiritual beings in a different category from other animals. They're not. They're graceful, they appear to be intelligent, they have many appealing characteristics ... but they are still animals.

I once spent most of a day standing in the water in a wetsuit cradling a distressed dolphin in my arms. It was a huge relief when a Department of Conservation launch finally arrived with a boat from Kelly Tarlton's Underwater World close behind.

However, the first thing DoC did was to send a chap with a clipboard across in a dinghy so I could fill out a form. They then instructed the Kelly Tarlton's team to put the dolphin in a sling and hoist it aboard. No sooner was it lifted from the water than the animal went into spasms and died.

I was very upset. But I was still aware that it was not the death of a sacred creature or a family member. It was the death of a beautiful animal. And an animal, by the way, that is a carnivore.

Since the dawn of time animals, including humans, have eaten other animals. It has been necessary for survival. Today's vegetarians would have a lean time of it were they not fortunate enough to live in an age of affluence and vitamin supplements.

Even Maori, not withstanding the legend of Paikea, harvested whales when they had the chance. For some races, such as Inuit and Norwegians, whale meat has historically been a crucial source of protein.

It is, therefore, understandable if they feel a little irritated when we ask them to stop harvesting whales because we believe they are special creatures.

After all, Hindus revere cows. Does that mean we're going to stop killing cows out of respect for their beliefs?

The whole idea that some animals merit absolute protection because we find them appealing - cute koalas, say, or mystical dolphins - while we can kill others without a qualm because they don't look nice - weta or white pointer sharks - is absurd and, ultimately, unsustainable.

For example, on Kangaroo Island, off the coast of South Australia, koala have reached plague proportions yet cannot be culled because they are considered cuddly. But at some stage the Aussies will have to face up to killing koalas or watch them starve to death.

Around our southern coast seal numbers are rapidly building up again. Sure, seals are cute and playful, but one day a decision is going to have to be taken to cull them or they, too, will reach plague proportions.

The kahu, or native hawk, is a protected species and farmers are not allowed to kill it. But in some sanctuaries its predations are so great that DoC officers have to shoot some to safeguard endangered species.

Similarly, the view of the anti-whaling lobby that there should be an absolute moratorium on whaling for all time, regardless of the circumstances, is unrealistic. The fact is that minke whales are not on anyone's endangered list and are now thought to number more than a million so a sustainable harvest is clearly feasible.

The result of this blinkered approach is that Norway ignores the moratorium and takes around 700 whales a year, while Japan sidesteps it by taking 400 minkes a year under the guise of scientific research, and is proposing to increase that to 900 minkes and 40-50 fin and humpback whales.

The only way to resolve that unsatisfactory situation is for the notion that whales are special creatures to be set aside.

Then more attention could be paid to the real issues, namely whether any whale populations have reached a level at which they can be harvested, what would amount to a sustainable catch, what safeguards should be put in place and whether whale killing techniques are humane.

If, for instance, the IWC was to allocate a sustainable quota of minke whales to those wanting to catch them, provided they are killed humanely, and held out the prospect of quotas for humpback and fin whales when their populations reach a sustainable level, countries such as Norway and Japan would be far more likely to participate fully in a whale conservation programme.

And that would make it much more probable that these fascinating creatures will continue to roam the seas and delight us with their behaviour.