It has come to my attention in recent months that things are not always all that they seem, and also that there are two sides to any argument. And so it was with this attitiude I approached that most . . . conraversial of subjects.
For over 30 years now conservationists have shouted to anyone who will hear of the atrocious killing of whales and the greed of those that hunt them. In ribs and boats they have harried whaling fleets, and the fleets have in turn retalliated with concussion grenades and worse. The International Whaling Council have both issued decrees and detracted them since its inception in 1946. Countries have chopped and changed in their stance on whaling, and sometimes seeming on the verge of blows. And yet in all this time - more than a hundred and fifty years since the boom caused by the invention of the exploding harpoon - it seems no firm decision has been reached over the management of whaling activities.
This observation highlights a major flaw in environmental management. The startling lack of compromise. Conservationist heavyweights like greenpeace and WWF draw a hard line, but for all their education and 'research' offer no alternative for career whalers -no alternative to the commercial demand for whale meat in places like Norway and Japan. Governments too seem suck in their antiquated mentalities - refusing any notion of management or call for sustainability. And rightly so, as whaling is in many instances integrated in national heritage. But is simply withdrawing for discussion, taking a huff like a skelped child, a constructive approach?
The answer seems obvious.
As a person who has no moral objection to the well managed and efficient killing whales (just another resource being exploited) I invite both discussion and different perspectives, in the hope of solidifying some kind of view on this fascinating subject.