Over the years since 1986, I have been an observer at 14 annual IWC meetings and four CITES conferences. Once, I was even privileged to be a guest on a whale research vessel off Iceland, where I saw the take of two very large fin whales. I was invited to watch while the animals were examined by a renowned scientist and his graduate students. The whales were measured in many ways; their health was checked for disease, parasites, fertility, pollution and nutritional levels, and their stomach contents were examined and analyzed. They were clean and fat, and their meat and blubber was destined to be used as food for people. I was impressed with the efficiency of the kills, and with the professionalism of the researchers. At the time, I naively believed that anyone who knew the extent of this research would believe it was worthwhile, because it represented a significant contribution to marine science. Unfortunately, however, there has been an extensive effort by some to convince the world that whales should not be used at all.

  In many countries, people have no idea why anyone would kill whales, much less eat them, because they have no tradition of use of these animals for food. Unfortunately, most of the general public has heard only one perspective about whaling. That perspective is incorrect, and very offensive to millions of people. The incorrect information is routinely distributed by organizations that also oppose wildlife management in any form, or any commercial trade in wildlife products. These anti-use groups oppose any scientific research that involves killing even small numbers of animals in order to learn about their role in the environment, their health, or the effects of pollution.

  There is no legal or scientific basis for the anti-use groups�Eobjection to Japan’s, Norway’s or Iceland’s use of whales. These people are opposed to legal whaling on cultural grounds.

  Unfortunately, such groups have much more influence in the world today than they did even twenty years ago. I believe this is true because their messages of hate, prejudice, misinformation, and distrust are published on the Internet. Many national leaders are well aware of the power of the Internet and of the fact that millions of their own citizens have access to it. This is the new global communication medium, and it is very difficult for many people to know how to use it wisely, or how to question the materials that appear there.

  When nations are active at the International Whaling Commission, or at CITES, all of them know that they are being watched by the anti-use groups, and they know that their policies on wildlife management, scientific research, and trade in wildlife products, are all going to be discussed by such groups on their colorful Internet websites. They know that if their national policies are supportive of any hunting, or of culls of elephants in Africa, or of trade in whale meat and blubber, or in ivory, there will be calls for their ouster from public office. Anti-use groups label such leaders “anti-environment�Eand will declare that their actions could well mean the extinction of the animal being discussed.

  An old and wise saying is, “All politics is local�E Politicians know that public policies devised with the best intentions of following the rules of organizations such as the IWC and CITES, and with the best intentions of making wildlife management decisions based on science, had better be thrown out, and instead, national policies must be carefully shaped so that they do not draw damaging criticism to the leaders. Political leaders in each country worry about how many of their citizens are influenced by the Internet. They do not want to take chances, and they know that their political opposition parties will use adverse Internet information against them at every opportunity.

  "Mainstream media such as television, magazines and newspapers, are all interested in any controversy, and the Internet is a major source of information for them today. Those media that publish materials on whaling and other animal use issues are very often careless about checking their facts. Very few media present whaling fairly and accurately. They know the cultural preferences of their own viewers and readers, and they do not want to take chances with their own credibility.

  Japan is not alone in this problem. Other countries such as South Africa and Namibia have serious problems with control and management of their elephants, rhinos, and the habitat that humans share with such dangerous animals. The recent CITES meeting was a good illustration of the role of anti-use NGOs in the policies of those nations that gathered in Bangkok. The results of the recent CITES and of the July IWC meeting in Sorrento, Italy, were not encouraging for those who believe that sustainable use through science is the only moral and sensible way to live in the natural world. Japanese people may be very disappointed that a majority of the world’s nations still vote to prevent them from resumption of commercial minke whaling. However, they need to know that such behavior is not Japan’s fault, and they need to know that they are not alone in suffering such treatment.

  Japan is an outstanding world leader in investigating marine ecosystems, and the role of cetaceans in the ocean’s food chains. Japanese spokespersons at IWC and CITES have eloquently given accurate information to other nations about the need to investigate, control and harvest abundant minke whales. However, those anti-use nations that find themselves on stage and under the world spotlight at IWC and CITES, do all they can to demonstrate that they have the power to deny others the right to use their traditional resources. Some nations wield that power to settle old scores, or to demonstrate that their vote counts and that they have to be recognized as important players on the world stage. It seems to this observer that whales are not important to anti-use nations. Power is important to them, as well as political security at home, world attention, and praise by the so-called “environmental�Eorganizations and those media that are influenced by them.

  This is the new social and cultural environment that has evolved since the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was written by people who believed in a scientific basis for all management decisions. The CITES treaty was also fashioned by those who believed that there must be a biological basis for assigning species to the Appendices, and for regulating trade in them so that they shall be used sustainably.

  We must not despair about the social realities of this situation, but work to find ways in which to overcome it. Leaving the IWC arena may be one such solution. A sustainable use website, featuring a number of familiar issues, and pointing out the scientific bases for management of natural resources, may be another path worth exploring. There are many positive facts, cultural, social, and political, that should be made evident to millions of people. We live in an age of global communication, and the better we adjust to the demands of this new era, the more successful we shall be in working together with the rest of the world in ensuring that sustainable use is seen in a positive light by as many common people, and their national leaders, as possible.