Table 8: Response rates to selected whaling politics

Australia England Germany U.S.A. Japan Norway
Only limited harvest from abundant, non-endangered species
Disagree 7.4 9.2 11.9 6.4 13.6 9.5
Neither agree/disagree 4.1 10.4 11.2 10.4 16.8 8.7
Agree 86.1 76.0 73.6 81.1 65.9 90.1
Can't say 2.5 4.3 3.4 2.1 3.7 1.7
Mean score 4.55 4.29 4.22 4.40 4.01 4.30
Harvest level based on best scientific advice
Disagree 4.1 8.7 10.3 8.1 5.8 8.1
Neither agree/disagree 2.3 6.2 5.5 8.9 10.1 8.4
Agree 90.7 80.1 80.7 80.2 80.2 81.7
Can't say 2.9 5.0 3.6 2.7 3.9 1.8
Mean score 4.72 4.39 4.42 4.34 4.41 4.40
Distribution of product to ensure complete utilization and to minimize waste
Disagree 9.4 12.0 7.7 9.1 9.4 8.8
Neither agree/disagree 7.9 13.5 10.7 7.7 15.7 11.0
Agree 78.0 64.6 75.0 80.5 70.6 77.6
Can't say 4.6 9.9 6.7 2.7 4.5 2.6
Mean score 4.33 4.08 4.35 4.34 4.14 4.31
Use most humane killing method technologically possibly
Disagree 1.4 5.1 4.0 12.1 3.9 6.9
Neither agree/disagree 1.5 3.1 1.8 15.5 4.5 5.7
Agree 95.0 88.6 91.0 66.9 89.8 85.0
Can't say 2.1 3.3 3.5 5.4 1.9 2.5
Mean score 4.88 4.68 4.78 4.03 4.68 4.54
Whaling on a small scale to primarily benefit local communities
Disagree 12.9 8.7 10.1 20.7 25.4 21.9
Neither agree/disagree 12.4 11.0 7.5 22.6 23.3 19.2
Agree 72.2 76.8 77.0 53.2 47.2 57.1
Can't say 2.5 3.5 5.5 3.5 4.1 1.8
Mean score 4.13 4.29 4.43 3.58 3.39 3.64
All edible whale products for human consumption only
Disagree 24.0 22.8 15.6 31.9 28.0 28.1
Neither agree/disagree 19.0 18.8 15.6 24.0 17.2 23.2
Agree 52.1 46.6 62.5 39.7 49.1 46.3
Can't say 5.0 11.8 6.3 4.4 5.8 2.5
Mean score 3.57 3.51 3.97 3.18 3.41 3.54
Regular and strict international inspection of whaling to be in place
Disagree 1.5 4.5 5.5 9.6 5.3 4.7
Neither agree/disagree 1.2 3.7 3.0 11.6 10.1 6.4
Agree 95.7 89.8 88.3 77.0 82.1 87.3
Can't say 1.5 2.1 3.2 2.7 2.6 1.6
Mean score 4.89 4.66 4.66 4.26 4.47 4.57

Unit: %

_