WDC Blog - From the Front Line

As Team Russia get their ‘land legs’ in South Africa, I am reminded of the contrast between the approach of the people of South Africa and Iceland when it comes to tourism.

It seems that Iceland is still hoping to convert the world to whale eating as evident at Observe the Banana, whilst Laurice Taitz writing from South Africa is championing its whale watching. It’s all a bit mad really, as Iceland has some of the best whale watching in the northern hemisphere. Might be even better if they were not trying to kill the same animals that people want to spend valuable foreign currency on watching ☺

Why does conservation take so long to be enacted? Sometimes its because it takes a considerable time to gather the baseline information that’s necessary to make a management decisions; sometimes its because we, and other researchers, just don’t have the resources to carry out the work we would like; but sometimes it’s the ineptitude of our political ‘masters’. This political failure is no more evident in the fate of the Cook Inlet Belugas of Alaska, USA.

I was looking at a story we posted in November 2008 it which it was noted that ‘biologists reported that beluga numbers had dropped in the last five years from 1,000 to fewer than 800. Now, after scrutinizing the census and recalculating previous counts, they are saying there may be as few as 500 belugas left in the Inlet with no sign that the toll hunting is taking on the population is letting up.’

It was only a few weeks ago (but ten years later) that vice-presidential nominee Governor Sarah Palin was still trying to prevent protective measures from being put in place for this population of Belugas which has now diminished to some 375 animals. And why was the senior legislator for Alaska opposed to the listing? It couldn’t have anything to do with the speculation that there are $1.38 billion worth of oil resources in the region could it?

So maybe we should add money (and not the lack of it this time) to the list of why conservation sometimes takes so long to happen.

Ok, maybe not the first thing you think of when you think of marine mammal conservation, but its seems ‘astroturfing’ is actually a PR technique. I learn something everyday - as I thought it was something you played football on.

This weeks New Scientist magazine reports that commercial interests are creating groups that purport to be the genuine "grassroots" and that 'the creation of such fake groups "astroturfing" - named after the plastic grass used on some sports fields and defined in New Scientist as "the practice of disguising an orchestrated campaign as a spontaneous upwelling of public opinion"’

New Scientist says that it ‘recently stumbled upon the website of a public relations firm called "Policy Communications", which boldly boasts of delivering "some extraordinary successes for our clients".

One of these successes is a "Grassroots Power Network", of which Policy Communications says: "We developed and now manage one of the nation's most sophisticated electronic grassroots advocacy networks..."

Another success is "Partnership for the West", described as "one of the West's largest and most active pro-growth grassroots advocacy networks". ‘

New Scientist goes onto say, ‘An illustration of the kind of common-sense policies favoured is a national "grassroots" campaign to "save" the polar bear from being put in the "regulatory 'jail'" of the Endangered Species Act. It's possible that the only link with Policy Communications here may be Sims himself, but we're in little doubt that the oil and gas exploration and production companies mentioned in the "Our clients" section of the Policy Communications website are delighted that the CEO is involved in this particular "grassroots" campaign.’

Now don't get me wrong. Plurality of views is always a reality and often welcome in informed debate, but when it comes to passing yourself off as a 'grassroots' campaign does this not imply that there is a public desire to see that particular objective achieved? Shouldn't  commercial interest groups simply represent themselves rather than as something else?

Otherwise one might think that they are a little unsure of their arguments in light of real public scrutiny