Kommetjie whales: Did emotion trump logic?

I was deeply moved as much as the next animal lover by the recent whale beaching in Kommetjie. As a diver, general marine enthusiast and sort of person who frequently daydreams about swimming with dolphins, seeing those graceful giants of the ocean dying in agony in such large numbers is certainly not my idea of fun. But what has saddened me equally as much, is the way their loss has been turned into yet another painful exercise.

The manner in which unfounded emotive rhetoric sweeps through the public was probably best illustrated by a local comedian shortly after the event. The comedian shall remain nameless, as I believe him to be a relatively decent chap, much like most of the people that flocked to the scene of the beaching on Saturday to try and offer some assistance, and this is no personal attack on him. But here the comedian was, quite readily incorporating a joke of the following gist into his routine: If this beaching had happened in the UK the authorities wouldn’t have shot the whales but made some other effort considering how little wildlife is to be found in England these days and thus all animals, including the lowly field mouse with a slight hobble, would be treasured there. As opposed to here in SA where animal life is not valued as highly and our authorities are happy to shoot whales.

Delivered with seasoned comic timing and intonation, the joke was well-received. More importantly though, the message itself was received with a quiet murmur of agreement. Which I found worrying, especially after having just read a remarkably relevant article on the Guardian. In this article, which I need mention was a respectable example of neutral and informative journalism, it was pointed out that the newest policy in the UK is to euthanize all beached whales on site, unless for some reason they could be immediately saved. This policy was developed in close consultation between the Marine Animal Rescue Coalition (which includes the RSPCA) and scientists from the Zoological Society of London, and the reasons as to why this is considered the most humane approach were laid out in the article.

What I found most relevant in the article though was a quote by Adam Grogan of the RSPCA, in which he said that, at the time, “the lack of recent strandings made it a good time to announce the change in policy because emotions tended to run high when the whales were in trouble”. That is exactly what happened on Saturday at Kommetjie and in the ensuing coverage of what happened: emotions ran high. Which is understandable, but not acceptable as an excuse when it translates into fostering unfair and grossly over-generalised attitudes towards the authorities concerned.

Discussion of the tragic event in both the social and media contexts turned quite often towards conjuring up images of merciless state “gunmen” infringing on civil liberties and shamelessly standing in the way of the whales’ right to life. Conflicting interests between law enforcement and concerned volunteers was highlighted in a way that quite clearly made the former out to be some sort of bully. However, the fact that many people decided themselves to be above the law and also ignored official requests such as those by the NSRI requesting them to keep out of the way as they were doing more harm than good, was for the most part ignored.

Healthy criticism of the authorities and their conduct is obviously a good thing when it comes to factual instances such as corruption and unreasonable inefficiency. And anybody worth their salt in the relevant authorities (of which there are many) would agree with that, welcoming healthy criticism that furthers the goal of serving society. If the mechanisms in place for dealing with a disaster are not what they should be, then by all means they should be criticised, and harshly so. But when volunteers allow pure emotion without factual backing to lead them into conflict with authorities who are in the unenviable position of having to make pressured decisions regarding nature conservation and public safety, society as a whole gets hurt.

People insinuating unfairness at police officers wanting to remove volunteers from the water who weren’t wearing wetsuits or just getting in the way lean remarkably towards the side of unfairness themselves. Perhaps a lot more injuries, hypothermia cases and a human death or two would have changed that slant. Or perhaps the authorities would just have been blamed further for that too.

There are more than enough legitimate concerns regarding the authorities in SA on a daily basis which discredit the system as a whole. Adding uneducated mass hysteria and accusations into the mix, thereby further demonising the authorities is completely uncalled for. Allowing themselves to be governed emotionally and have their judgement clouded accordingly is something the authorities are trained not to do, and the public should respect that, even if they’re not always capable of it themselves.