By the late 1960s, world whale populations were suffering from over a century of nearly unfettered exploitation, and critics pointed out that the IWC had failed to stem this decline. When countries swayed by environmentalists and animal rights organizations wrested control of the IWC in 1982, the result was a complete ban on commercial whaling that went into effect in 1986. Today many of the world's whale species are thriving, but the highly-politicized IWC is, as ever, slow to react to political and scientific changes and realities.

In its effort to promote preservation over conservation, the IWC routinely ignores the findings of its own scientific committee. In 1993, the IWC scientific committee chairman, Philip Hammond, resigned in disgust. The whaling ban had "nothing to do with science," he said, and the work of the scientific committee was "held in ... disregard by the body to which it is responsible."

The case of the diminutive minke (the smallest of the baleen whales at only 30 feet long) is a good example. Some years ago the IWC scientific committee estimated the worldwide minke whale population at about one million animals -- more abundant than before commercial whaling began. Remarkably, the IWC still considers them threatened with extinction and bans any commercial harvest (Norway harvests some minkes under a formal exception to the moratorium, and Japan harvests some minkes under a legal scientific research regime).

Norway and Japan are maligned for their continued whaling, but their hunts hardly pose a threat to whale populations. In the 1997 whaling season Norwegian whalers took 503 minkes in the North Atlantic from a population estimated at 112,000 animals. In the Southern Ocean above Antarctica, the minke population is estimated at 760,000, and an extremely conservative harvest model developed by the IWC set the sustainable harvest level in this region at 2,000 minkes annually. In 1996 Japan harvested 440. Yet, at its 1996 meeting, the IWC adopted a resolution urging Japan to terminate its research and for Norway to cease commercial whaling altogether.

Countries like Japan and Norway who feel they have been adversely affected by unreasonable preservationist policies are getting fed up, and if the IWC does not begin to adapt, its days are surely numbered. Even the World Wide Fund for Nature’s (WWF) Australian outpost has called for some resumption of commercial whaling, because otherwise the IWC risks "collapsing into a total farce." Gordon Shepherd, WWF International’s director of international policy, said "The message ‘Just say no’ hasn’t worked with drugs, and it isn’t working with whales."  If the IWC is to survive, it must respond to this new reality. Moreover, to become an effective forum for whalers and environmentalists alike, it must recognize and address the reasons why it has performed so poorly to date.

"The tragedy of the commons," not commercial harvest, is to blame for the decline of many whales. When biologist and environmentalist Garrett Hardin coined that phrase in 1968, he pointed out that a lack of ownership brought "species after species of fish and whales to the brink of extinction." Any whales that whalers left behind were likely to be harpooned by someone else, making conservation impossible. Valuable species left untended may be ripe for extirpation, but valuable species in private hands will not only be protected, they will be studied and encouraged to multiply by owners seeking to increase the value of their assets. One would expect the owners to conduct scientific research, especially regarding reproductive rates and recruitment of young into the population and to constantly adjust harvest rates to a conservative sustainable level. Scientists would monitor their health, checking for disease and parasites, and inoculate and treat sick whales. Patrol boats would watch over them to rescue stranded animals, to ward off attacks by killer whales or sharks on the young, and to prevent poaching by pirate whalers. Furthermore, throughout much of the year the owners would be able to provide whale watching opportunities for the public without the harassment and overcrowding now resulting from a commons approach to such ecotourism, as well as providing scientific study opportunities for cetacean biologists.

In the Pacific Northwest of the United States and Canada, native tribes like the Makah hunted grey whales for centuries without destroying stocks. Their harvests were only a small fraction of the population and they had a sense of proprietorship that encouraged conservation and stewardship. The good steward does not over-harvest his herds.

Allowing whales to be owned by individuals, groups or communities – especially traditional coastal fishing and whaling villages, would be the surest way to ensure their continued survival. Such small villages along the Japanese coast have sustainably harvested small cetaceans for centuries with cultural traditions and enlightened self-interest preventing over-harvest. Owners could benefit from measures they took to protect their whales, whether for hunting, whale-watching or merely for the satisfaction of knowing they were protected. Markets would allow those opposed to whaling to have the opportunity of voluntarily purchasing rights from the whalers, rather than relying upon political force. Just think of the numbers of whales that Greenpeace could ensure would never be hunted if it put all of the millions of dollars it spends on its propaganda campaigns into retiring harvest rights for whales.

Privatizing whales may seem farfetched, but in fact the technological obstacles to ownership are rapidly disappearing. Back in the heyday of whaling, it was simply not feasible to exert ownership over most whales. But today’s high-tech world offers myriad possibilities. In 1993, scientists tracked a single blue whale for 43 days and 2,000 miles based solely on its individual song. Other advanced technologies such as satellites and unmanned submersibles could be even more effective.