HOW THE ICR WORKS: A Whale of a Controversy

As evidenced by the high seas face-off between the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's boats and the fleet from the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) depicted on "Whale Wars," a fierce environmental controversy surrounds the Japanese nonprofit. Point and counterpoint arguments between anti-whaling proponents and the ICR have splashed across the pages of scientific journals and across the aisles at meetings of the International Whaling Commission (IWC).

One of the primary sources of contention is whether the ICR can study whales without killing them in the process. Anti-whaling scientists maintain that nonlethal skin biopsies and fecal samples would provide the same level of information as obtained through lethal capture.

Since 1987, when JARPA began, the ICR has harpooned an estimated 8,300 whales. Granted, the ICR integrates visual and photographic surveys, acoustic surveys and nonlethal biopsies as part of their whale population studies. But the organization insists that whale carcasses are essential for precise measurement of age (ear plugs), maturation (reproductive systems), food consumption (digestive systems) and health conditions (blubber). As mentioned earlier, the ICR defends its relatively high quotas as a step to ensuring a statistically significant population.

Another major sore spot in the whaling debate is the trickledown of whale meat from the ICR to the marketplace. For instance, a study published in Science magazine found that minke whale meat on the Japanese market isn't always what it claims to be. Genetic testing of whale products from 1993 to 1999 showed that about 10 percent of the goods contained protected whale species that are illegal to catch, including fin, blue, gray and humpback. The ICR countered that it can't account for every bit of whale that ends up on the market.

The Japanese Whaling Association, which advocates for the return to commercial whaling, considers whale as an important part of Japanese food traditions. From its perspective, restricting what the Japanese can and can't eat is fundamentally wrong and culturally insensitive. It's still stocked in plenty of fish markets and served in restaurants and schools. However, consumer surveys suggest that few Japanese people regularly eat whale meat and that ICR has had trouble getting rid of its excess whale in recent years.

As the IWC gears up for its 2009 meeting, there appear to be few signs of relenting on either side of the whaling controversy. In May 2009, six member nations of the IWC, including Japan and Australia, met to broker a deal on reducing Japan's proposed Antarctic quota of 985 with no success. Depending on perspective one takes, the IWC's allowance of scientific whaling is either a disastrous slippery slope to whale slaughter or a laudable step toward sustainable management. Only time — and the future livelihood of cetacean species — will determine which side will win.

MORE: Japanese Whalers