A new analysis raises the question: did anti-whaling strategy backfire and push Japan into their current "scientific whaling" charade?
This is an interesting question on strategy, when is it smart to push for conservation, and when is it smart to settle for a compromise or partial solution? There is no definitive answer, but the author of this article makes an interesting case that anti-whaling activists pushed too hard on Japan to stop whaling.
When does strong conservation advocacy become counter-productive?
Of course, there is the opposite question, when is it good to stay strong, push hard, and hold out for a principle or a high goal?
To me, this is the toughtest question in conservation, and I wonder if readers can suggest useful case studies like this whaling analysis.