Some perceive that the protectionist NGO movement has had much influence on these anti-whaling Parties because they feel their domestic political security is threatened by them. The trend has been to forget the science, and vote to abolish whaling regardless of treaty mandates.

Somewhat later in history, CITES was formed to control trade in species that are determined to be at different levels of abundance and depletion. Species are "placed" in appendices due to recognition of the need to prevent trade, curtail trade, or declare that trade can be carefully conducted, depending on scientific assessments of stocks.

This is also a global treaty effort, but its conservation effects have similarly been blunted through a process that eerily mirrors that of the IWC. Parties that have no vested interest in certain species (because their constituents are not current or traditional users), encourage decisions to be made through votes that are based on political security concerns, rather than on the objective advice of scientists. Protectionist NGOs do all they can to add to the political insecurity of Parties that might waver, and vote according to scientific advice, as the treaty intended. In both these cases, the principles of fairness, respect for science and for traditional diplomacy, have been all but thrown out when use of charismatic species is being debated.

The main strategy in the 21^st century is rapidly becoming one of self-preservation, not one of resource conservation through encouragement of sustainable use, best management practices. Therefore, in both treaties, the practice of taking a reservation to anti-use motions passed on political bases, has become a survival strategy for Parties whose constituents wish to continue to use and sometimes, trade, their resources.

In both IWC and CITES, sustainable use through the reservation clause is being accomplished by Parties whose votes are overwhelmed by the reality of political process. In IWC, Norway clung to the right to take a reservation to the moratorium, and since that time, has conducted scientific research and commercial whaling on a robust minke population. Japan and Russia were bullied by the US and others into rescinding their reservations. Having learned the hard way, Japan has more recently kept its reservation to the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. In CITES, inappropriate listing of certain marine fish species (whale sharks, basking sharks, and some sea horses) was accomplished by the voting majority but Japan, Indonesia, Norway and Iceland each took a reservation to the sharks' inclusion, while Japan and Norway also took reservations to listing of sea horses. Other Parties may also have joined them in this reservation process. All these nations are taking a legal (under CITES) route to continue their own sustainable management practices because they believe that an inappropriate decision was made under CITES, and this is their just recourse.

The CITES Convention long ago agreed that IWC is the appropriate body to make management decisions about cetaceans, and that the FAO of the United Nations is the appropriate body to manage marine fishes. That early decision was made on the advice of experts with great knowledge in these restricted fields. FAO, IWC and CITES should keep their functions separate and efficient in order to best fulfill their original functions.

Today's concerns about appropriate science based management of resources are being addressed through new sustainable use strategies; regional management bodies such as NAMMCO, ICCAT, IOTC, and WCP, are operating on a scientific and legal basis to ensure sustainability of both traditions and resources. Getting the outsiders out of the management scheme may be the way to avoid the wrangles and impasses that have happened in IWC and CITES. Bigger is not always better.