(from "ISANA" No. 14, 1996)

Dennis Tafe
Marine Biologist

Over the last 20 years I have witnessed the deployment of highly emotional arguments by government and non-government organisations in an attempt to sway public opinion on a variety of biological issues. Emotional arguments appear to be most successful where there is a lack of factual information. Add to this the manipulative use of racial prejudice, cultural indifference and fear of the unknown, and you have a recipe which is bound to influence a large section of the community regardless of the country in question. I have already admitted that I am not immune to the powers of emotional persuasion. In fact I remember one incident whilst working in Sydney for the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization) Division of Fisheries in the mid-1970's. A meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was scheduled to be convened within our grounds, chaired by the chief of CSIRO, Dr Kay Radway Allen. Before the meeting had even commenced a large gathering of Greenpeace supporters had congregated at the front gates with banners and placards, chanting "Save the Whale". I was moved by their ardent fervour and felt quite supportive. I didn't want to see whales disappear from the world. However as I spoke with various members of the group I found their arguments quite shallow. There was a general perception that all whales were the same. Many did not realise that there are many species and sizes of whales. Some species, such as the great blue whale, are definitely endangered and need protection. Others, such as the minke, are not only abundant, but are increasing in numbers, possibly as a result of the demise of the blue whale. They both compete for the same food resource. The tendency for us to group all whales as a single life form is simplistic to say the least. An analogy would be to group humans with mountain gorillas since we are both large, terrestrial primates. Gorillas are endangered but promoting the well being of the human species, however closely related, will do nothing to preserve the gorilla species. In fact we pose one of the major threats to their survival. This point became clear to me on a visit to the mountain regions of Rwanda. While observing a huge male silverback gorilla at close quarters I commented to the national park ranger accompanying me:

"Just as well you have that gun!"
The ranger replied apologetically:
"Oh bwana, the gun not to protect you from gorilla - it to protect gorilla from poacher."

Another argument put forward by the Greenpeace activists was that these magnificent beasts of the ocean should be protected. I agree. We should protect the survival of the species at all costs and we should make others accountable so that they do likewise. It is irresponsible to harvest any animal without due consideration to the well being of the species. But we should also bear in mind that certain laws of nature govern the health and well being of individual species. Carnivores continually trim prey populations, removing firstly the sick, old and injured animals. We, as humans, are omnivores. Our digestive systems are designed for digestion of both plant and animal nutrients. It would be unhealthy for our survival if we waited for animals to die before eating them. We choose to kill plants and animals in order to eat fresh nutrients. However this does not excuse inhumane or wasteful slaughter. As carers of the earth we are in the privileged position of keeping a check on the balance of nature, being mindful that we can dramatically influence the survival of a species.

One argument put to me suggested that we should not cull whales because they are highly intelligent like humans and have a highly developed form of communication. This argument appeared to have merit but was based more on emotion than on fact. Whales are intelligent and can be compared to dogs, pigs and chimpanzees. It is misleading to place them on a level above these terrestrial mammals. Many species, including the honey bee, have developed sophisticated forms of communication. Many of the animals we rely on for food, such as cattle, pigs, goats, deer, rabbits and antelope, are relatively intelligent mammals. Pigs in particular are thought to have a level of intelligence somewhere between rhesus monkeys and humans.

The question arises - should we only eat animals that can be cultivated and abstain from eating members of the wild population? Such a move may help the survival of endangered wild species. To answer this question we must take into account cultural differences between different countries. Is it fair to force another culture to conform to the food types you are accustomed to? Australia, New Zealand, United States, Canada and many countries in Europe are accustomed to a large meat diet, with the emphasis on farmed beef, pork and chicken. Japan and the Scandinavian countries rely much more heavily on the sea for food. Whether we choose to artificially cultivate or depend on natural cultivation is irrelevant as long as we treat the animals humanely and do not threaten the survival of the species.

Some members of the anti-whaling lobby have put forward the notion "we don't eat whale meat so why should you?" Such statements indicate total disregard for cultural differences. I should point out that there is no single species of animal that is imperative to human digestion. A Hindu follower may just as rightly ask of an Australian or American "I don't eat beef so why should you?"

In Australia we rely very heavily on beef and sheep in our diets. We also have become accustomed to eating many internal organs, such as tongue, brain, liver, kidney, stomach lining (tripe) and congealed blood (black pudding). Some other cultures would be repulsed by the mere thought of eating such food items. The Australian aborigine traditionally ate kangaroo, along with snake, goanna, yams and witchetty grubs. Initially Australians of European descent were repulsed by the thought of eating such items but now even witchetty grubs appear on the menus of certain up-market restaurants. People's views change as they become tolerant of cultural differences.

In recent years, as Japan has increased its intake of beef, Australia has increased its intake of seafood, particularly prawns, crabs, lobsters and squid. While working in East Africa I noticed that the local Tanzanians could not afford to eat much meat and many wouldn't eat crab meat, even if given to them. The reason is cultural. Crabs resemble spiders and, as such, are not considered edible. Likewise slipper lobsters are not included in the local diet. Needless to say I ate very well while on fisheries research cruises. On the other hand I had some difficulty becoming accustomed to eating fried locust abdomens. There is nutrient value in most animal foods. The point is not which of them we choose to eat but how much we take relative to the size and growth of the prey population. In other words - is it a sustainable yield?

A very recent change in dietary intake was noted in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Since the release of the Australian movie "Babe", featuring the escapades of a talking piglet, sales of pork have decreased in these countries. While the slump in sales is predicted to be no more than a short term fluctuation its timing with the movie release is thought to be more than mere coincidence. An even more recent change in dietary intake occurred in Great Britain, with the massive outbreak of "mad-cow disease". Beef sales in that region have temporarily plummeted, the reason for the outbreak being attributed to contaminated feed grain.

Livestock farming definitely has its hazards. Because the livestock is managed in groups, herds or flocks there is always the danger of an outbreak of a contagious disease. Add to this the development of hormone injections to increase yield or reduce fat content and you have a situation which requires continual monitoring in order to avoid undesired side effects in livestock or in man. Such hazards lend weight to the view that some dietary intake direct from the sea is desirable so long as we keep the oceans relatively free of contaminants which have the potential to build up in the food chain.

Two of the major problems we will face worldwide in the future are pollution of our environment and overpopulation. A by-product of overpopulation is managing food resources. Since the oceans cover approximately 70% of the earth's surface, their food resources cannot be ignored. However we cannot afford to mismanage them either. Past events show beyond doubt that there have been major blunders in both fishing and whaling industries. The world's whaling countries, including Australia and United States, have in the past had a poor record with regard to sustainable yield. The great blue whale is now at the brink of extinction and there is little doubt that the unrestrained whaling efforts of a number of countries contributed to its demise. A recent estimate for the blue whale population is between 200 and 1,100 individuals worldwide (*Nagasaki,1989). If the number remaining is at the lower end of this range then passive optimism will probably not be enough to save the species. We seem to have taken a "head in the sand approach" by assuming that if we do not touch any whale species the endangered species will rectify themselves. Unfortunately past experience has demonstrated that this is not the case. When the numbers of a species, especially a slowly propagating species, are significantly reduced, other species increase in numbers to occupy the vacant niche. It is not only possible but highly probable that the blue whale is suffering from relative food shortage due to an increase in the populations of competitor species. What I would like to see happen is a concerted research effort to establish which species have increased disproportionately in numbers due to increased food availability - food resources common to themselves and the blue whale. It may be necessary to cull numbers of one or more species in order for the blue whale to survive as a species. It may also be necessary to avoid the direct harvesting of krill in the region occupied by the blue whale. If excess numbers of certain species are to be culled, they should not be left to scavengers, as this in itself may create a food chain imbalance. If culled individuals can be utilised for human consumption, then they should be used provided that culling guidelines are strictly adhered to. All culling procedures can be monitored by an independent scientific team.

In Australia we have a number of species of kangaroos, some of which have become endangered while others have increased in numbers to plague proportions. Scientific surveys have shown that some abundant species can outcompete with sheep for limited food resources in arid areas. Sheep farmers are permitted to shoot an allotted number of certain kangaroo species each year. Trimming the numbers of abundant species is not only beneficial for the survival of endangered kangaroo species but also for sheep which cannot jump fences into new pastures. Culled kangaroos are now used for human consumption and have become a delicacy in some city restaurants. The Head of the Zoology Department at Queensland University, Professor Cordon Grigg, has shown that kangaroos are more efficient than sheep at utilising pastoral land. He has suggested that farming of kangaroos for human consumption be used as an alternative to sheep farming in arid areas. This proposal has met with some emotional opposition because, as we all know, kangaroos are beautiful, furry mammals. However emotions must be tempered by facts and the facts are these: "When a species of plant or animal, whether it be beautiful or ugly, furry or scaly, increases dramatically in numbers it successfully competes with other species for available food resources and/or habitat."

The laws of nature dictate "survival of the fittest" and occasionally the end result is extinction of a species. This poses a dilemma for us as the controlling species on earth: "If the imbalance in nature is brought about by anthropogenic activities do we have a responsibility to correct it?"

_