When you tick off the list of organizations that have made money from campaigns purported to be for the protection of marine mammals, the list is impressive:

Greenpeace, the Humane Society of the United States, Earth Island Institute, the World Wildlife Fund, the Center for Marine Conservation, Sierra Club, the World Society for the Protection of Animals, the Fund for Animals, Sea Shepherd Society, and I am only mentioning a few.

Part of the reason the pro-sustainable use side of the issue has been unable to rebut the onslaught of animal rights preservationist campaigns (that are usually based largely on emotion and seldom on facts) is precisely because we fight back with facts. Seldom do we respond with any compelling emotion. Perhaps one strategic correction sustainable use advocates need to consider is the benefit derived from incorporating an emotional component in pro-sustainable use arguments. In point of fact, humankind is not merely a rational creature. As the great English satirist Jonathan Swift observed so acutely in his classic work, "Gulliver's Travels," we are comprised as much or more of emotion as rationality.

People are moved by emotion. Lorenz's observations are just one of countless instances where, despite facts to the contrary, our perceptions are colored by and our actions influenced by emotional catalysts."

My partner at the Peat Institute, who spent over 20 years in the activists world, believes that in order for the principles of sustainable use to ever become popular with the public and the press we must take away their animals and make them ours. What he means is if the sustainable use positions and programmes are truly the ones that best sustain biodiversity and a healthy planet, then it would behoove its proponents to tell their story through the eyes of the creatures that their strategies impact.

Admittedly, this is not an easy task, but one that will take a great deal of creativity and ability to execute. However, once undertaken, it may well provide an epiphany long overdue.