Anti-whaling organizations are often presented as conservationists (Nature 481, 114; 2012). But for conservation efforts to advance, we need to resolve the differences between animal welfare, which is concerned with individuals, and environmental conservation, which focuses on maintaining populations, species and ecosystems.

Anti-whaling organizations spend millions of dollars every year trying to stop the Japanese whaling fleet from hunting the common minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), which is not endangered (Nature 481, 139–140; 2012). Their use of financial resources is justifiable only from an animal-welfare perspective.

If the anti-whaling lobby were interested in whale conservation, it would use its financial power to help to assess the population ecology and dynamics of the many whale species listed as 'data deficient' by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. This would enable evidence-based quotas to be set for countries that choose to exploit this resource.

The quota-trading scheme proposed by Christopher Costello and his colleagues is a promising market-based solution for whale conservation, but is unlikely to succeed. For some countries, such as Japan, whaling is a symbol of national and cultural identity, so the economic returns may not provide sufficient incentive. Also, this is strictly a moral issue for the anti-whaling lobby, driven not by environmental conservation but by the suffering imposed on individual whales.

Over the past decade, the two sides have grown further apart. If a compromise is to be reached, environmental conservationists must inform decision-makers and public opinion in the same way that the anti-whaling lobby has used its financial muscle to push its agenda over the years.