Source: Editorial Page of the Wall Street Journal, September 9, 1997.
Author: William Aron, a former U.S. commissioner of the International Whaling Commission and a former member of its Scientific Committee.

SAVE THE WHALERS

By WILLIAM ARON

The campaign to "save the whales," perhaps the most successful animal-protection movement ever, had its origin in a problem described in Garrett Hardin's classic 1968 essay "The Tragedy of the Commons": Like many natural resources, whales aren't owned by anyone but are held in common by all. In such situations, resources can be exploited by a few individuals, harming all other current and future users. This can lead to truly tragic consequences, and indeed most natural-resource managers are aware, through experience, of the accuracy of Mr. Hardin's analysis.

We are even more painfully aware, however, of the problems associated with attempting to avoid such tragedies. This is especially true with whales. Relatively few people have any direct involvement with these marine mammals, whether directly in the whaling industry or indirectly as fishermen competing for fish in the same waters. These professionals, however, must contend with policies determined by the rest of the world — which knows little about whales, but which can be awfully emotional about these majestic animals.

The U.S. delegation to the International Whaling Commission — which gathers today to plot strategy for next month's IWC meeting in Monaco — has a chance to help right some of the wrongs of international whaling regulation. Perhaps most importantly, it can defend Japan's and Norway's annual harvest of several hundred minke whales each against claims by Sea Shepherd, Greenpeace, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and other environmental extremists who would end whaling altogether. And the U.S. can also press the claims of the Makah Indian tribe to resume traditional whale hunts off the coast of Washington state.

The U.S. commissioner to the IWC, D. James Baker, has a responsibility to act decisively, for it was the U.S. that took the lead in calling for a moratorium on whaling at the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. The IWC, which began in 1947 as a whalers' cartel, at first refused to implement the moratorium. But environmentalists and animal-rights activists exerted immense pressure on the IWC and its member nations, and by 1983 the IWC had adopted a "moratorium" on commercial whaling: In order to hunt whales, member countries must receive specific exemptions from the commission.

This extreme policy was supported by the U.S., whose politicians had discovered that by supporting whale protection efforts, they could demonstrate their environmentalist credentials without losing the support of labor unions, property developers or other constituents. Animal-protection activists had persuaded the public that all whales are endangered, that whales are uniquely intelligent, and that more attractive alternatives are readily available to those businesses arid communities that derive their livelihoods from whaling.

The problem is that none of these widely held beliefs is true.

First, it is true that some whale species are endangered. But besides the bowhead whale, which is harvested by indigenous peoples of the U.S., Canada and perhaps Russia, and some fin whales that may be taken by the indigenous people of Greenland, no IWC members are proposing to harvest any endangered whales.

The minke whale, which has never been endangered, has a world population of more than one million, according to the IWC's Scientific Committee. It is this species that whalers of Japan, Greenland and Norway are harvesting. The gray whale, which was removed from the endangered species list in 1994, has a population of more than 20,000. The sperm whale is on the U.S. endangered species list, but its exploitable world-wide population (all males older than 13 years and females older than 10) is more than one million, according to the IWC and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The total sperm whale population is probably twice that number. Endangered? Hardly.

Second, whales are unquestionably extraordinary animals. While they possess a certain intelligence, however, there are no data to support the belief that they are at or even near the top of the animal intelligence scale. Bees, wasps, ants, birds, mammals and many other animal groups also demonstrate complex social behavior, communicate with one another and exhibit learning skills, yet no one seriously proposes that we protect them from any and all human activities.

Third, the people in Japan, Greenland, Norway and Iceland who make their livings from whaling have no ready, cost-effective alternatives. Given the abundant world-wide whale populations, there is no reason to penalize the many in these countries who choose to toil — skillfully and at high risk — to hunt a few thousand whales per year.

Closer to home, the Makah tribe is seeking to resume its harvest of gray whales, using traditional methods, now that the species is no longer endangered. The tribe pledges to take only five whales per year, and not to sell any of the whale meat or blubber. Yet many environmental activist groups are opposed even to this level of whaling — even though the IWC allows Russia's aboriginal peoples to hunt 169 gray whales each year.

There's another important aspect of environmental management that whale-protection activists overlook: Selective protection of one element of an ecosystem inevitably changes the entire system. In recent years evidence has appeared that even though the endangered blue whale has not been hunted for many decades, its populations haven't recovered in the Antarctic. Rather, it seems likely that seals, minke whales and other species have filled the biological niche that the blue whales once occupied. Some harvesting of the blue whales' competitors may well be needed if that endangered species is to recover. Similarly significant unintended consequences can follow any attempt to "protect" an ecosystem.

Officials from the State, Commerce and Interior departments, the Marine Mammal Commission and other agencies planning U.S. policy ahead of next month's IWC meeting need to remember that whales and whalers can coexist — and indeed they must.