The editor of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society Newsletter recently asked readers to write letters to Iceland, deploring that nation's decision to begin scientific whaling. The newsletter requested that readers sign their names to a letter conveniently composed for them by the WDCS, and then forward it to three Iceland government officials, whose e-mail addresses were supplied. The prime minister and the ministers of fisheries and foreign affairs were all to be targeted and of course, the WDCS requested that copies of letters sent should also be forwarded back to themselves, in order that they could confirm the magnitude of the response. A subsequent WDCS newsletter thanks those who responded in this manner to their information, and claims that the Icelandic government received many (unconfirmed #) of these letters regarding their whaling plans.

This formula for "protest" and the manner in which the response is tallied, is classic in modern animal rights and environmentalist political action campaigns. The goal is not so much to impress Iceland, as to impress the United States with the alleged magnitude of the response, a political lever with which to continue to bend US foreign policy regarding Iceland's whaling program. The ultimate goal is domestic political intimidation.

The Associated Press released an opinionated piece, by Jane Wardell, that echoes similar "fears", concerns and objections. "Scientists, eateries ready for whale hunt" (August 9, 2003), begins with information on whale cuisine and whale restaurants in Reykjavik, and continues with statements from Iceland's scientists about minke whale abundance and dietary preferences. The 43,000 minke whales in Iceland's waters will be sampled in order to determine what fish species they are consuming, and in what tonnage. Only 38 minke whales will be sampled in this first year's scientific research program, however, making it highly unlikely that the remaining animals will ever perceive that boats are something to be feared. Wardell, however, claims that the nation's whale watching industry fears it will suffer because whales will become wary of tour vessels. The article concludes with an alleged statement by a tourist to Iceland, that she was glad she could go on a whale watch there this year, because she would have "more chance of seeing a whale now than …next year."

Journalists love to do these pieces. Their formula is to present and contrast two polarized views of an issue, thereby ostensibly meeting criteria for "a fair and balanced perspective". The problem with this journalistic approach, however, is that "truth" about human perceptions of Iceland's whale research program is not necessarily the goal or the achievement of the article. Uninformed readers will conclude that Iceland should not resume whaling because those in other countries disapprove, and that public opinion, not scientifically derived data, should drive national policies on whale management.

Iceland is planning to conduct scientific research on the impact of minke and other species of whales on the fisheries in its territorial waters, and to add such data to the world collection of such information. The US, NAMMCO, the IWC, and the EU shall all receive information derived from the Icelandic whale studies, and the by-products of whale research shall be sold as human food products in Iceland. Iceland's fishing industry and Iceland's whale populations are already in a relationship that needs to be more fully understood, in order for all to "live happily ever after". It does not necessarily follow that Iceland's tourism industry would suffer any adverse effects from Iceland's moderate whaling program, now or in the years to come, regardless of the innuendoes thrown out by journalists or professional whale protectionists.