Anti-whalers are fond of referring to a "loophole" that allows whales to be hunted for scientific research. Of course, a Convention article specifically permitting an activity is anything but a "loophole". It might be "inconvenient", at least for those determined to utilize the IWC to prohibit all whaling, but Article 8 of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), by definition, can hardly be characterized as a "loophole". After all, as everybody knows, "loopholes" are gaps in regulations, they are not specific rights to undertake an activity.

Now anyone who still doubts this logic can observe the attempt by New Zealand and Australia to "delete" Article 8. Again, by definition, a "loophole" cannot be deleted because a hole is something that doesn't exist. So by their action, New Zealand and Australia are, again, demonstrating that the right to undertake scientific research whaling is not a "loophole" at all. "Loopholes" can only be closed, by adding or amending regulations; they cannot be deleted.

Are these the political meanderings of the type made famous by the pedantic Bernard Woolley in the British comedy "Yes Minister"? Is this just an issue of semantics? The reason why it is important is that research whaling was included in the ICRW as a safeguard to ensure catch quotas could be based on science. As with other fisheries, it is important to understand the composition and structure of whale stocks so that they are not overexploited. Responsible fisheries around the world is science-based.

Of course, New Zealand and Australia do not really want whales to be accidentally over-harvested in the future, but that is exactly what they would be making possible if commercial whaling were to resume. Worse still, while whaling nations were not encouraged to base harvests on stock estimates prior to the 1946 Convention, at least they weren't actually prohibited from doing so.

Unfortunately, this new risk is being promoted by individuals who justify their proposal on the grounds that they are deleting a "loophole". If they faced up to what Article 8 really is - a safeguard - instead of playing games with misnomers, the last thing they would want to do is remove the right of countries to undertake scientific research whaling.