This particular survey alleged eight out of 10 Americans opposed whaling, but was in opposition to a previous survey in April 1998 showing that a majority of Americans supported sustainable use.

Is IFAW telling us that public opinion is now getting stronger against whaling at a time when its common knowledge that whale population numbers are increasing, have been increasing since the end of the so-called Industrial Whaling era, and in fact now booming since the implementation of a moratorium on whaling?

IWMC could understand these results at a time when there was little knowledge of the birth rates of whales and estimations of whale populations. But now, since Japan has been gathering such knowledge for the last 15 years or more and other work with whaling nations around the world, including Norway, Canada, Greenland and Iceland, the IWC’s newest member, it’s doubtful that such a response could come from the American people.

Unless the survey was flawed!

IWMC says it was. The survey was statistically flawed firstly because it was conducted and paid for by an organization with an agenda of non-use of natural resources. The results were not only what they expected but also what they set out to obtain.

And the IFAW survey completely ignored the April 1998 survey conducted by Responsive Management Poll on the "Knowledge of Whales, Whaling and Opinions of Minke Whale Harvest among Residents of Australia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States" where a majority of the public actually supported the consumptive use of whales under certain conditions.

IFAW presents the face of a caring, environmental organisation, but other nations and institutions have a different view. The American public should also be told the other side to the coin. IFAW was heavily criticized by British Court of Advertising for false advertising, and qualified as "sophisticated con-artist" by a Canadian Court for misleading the public, and the countries of the Caribbean take a dim view of IFAW for smearing their name.

It’s no wonder that the leading conservation group IUCN has twice rejected a bid by IFAW to become a member, and that is in spite of massive financial public relations activities.

A few years ago, together with HSUS, IFAW promoted the expansion of the national park to increase the habitat of the "endangered" elephants while promoting a misguided "contraceptive" program for elephants in Southern Africa as a means to keeping the population down. IFAW ignored all advice from local African communities that had been handed down from generation to generation on how to keep the elephant population to manageable numbers – they eat them.

IFAW’s misguided proposal severely undermined the local knowledge and was a vicious attack on the local culture. Anthropologists firmly believe that customary diet is even more important in establishing and maintaining an individual’s cultural identity than any other distinctive attribute, including even language.

The debate over sustainable whaling at the IWC is very similar to that of the Southern Africans. The IWC debate is one of culture now, especially since there is increasing evidence that whale populations are at such a level to allow for a sustainable take.

So-called scientific papers, articles, surveys … you name it. If they come from IFAW, they need to be taken with a large grain of salt. The onus should be on IFAW to prove the statistical and scientific merit of its work in front of the international scientific community … that’s the challenge from IWMC.