If the photographer did not stage the shoot and he simply photographed a man reacting to nature in the way that he did, I don't think the photographer did anything wrong. The photographer is only a messenger. As we all know, you should never shoot the messenger.

If the photographer staged the photograph, I can see where the outrage comes from. If he didn't, and he simply captured a moment of how some people react to nature, then the photographer should not return the prize at all. Why be angry at the messenger of bad news (if you want to call it that because, let's face it, the whale was not killed specifically for the shoot but washed up on the shore dead already) as if he created the news? So if a photographer wins a prize for a photograph of a city covered in smog, is it the photographer's fault that the city's air is so dirty?

What is stranger to me is that the photograph does not look particularly artistic and amazing, but that may be because it's all pixellated on the computer screen and I can't see it properly.

Although I have to wonder if the whaling issue in japan made this a more sensitive subject than it might be elsewhere.

Even if staged, it appears to be a commentary on an aspect of humankind's relationship with nature, as if it is some sort of battle to be won.

glad they took it away.

Poor composition, drab colors, nothing particularly interesting about it other than a guy standing on a dead whale. It looks like some tourist's snap shot.

My son took better pictures with his Fisher-Price camera by accident when he was 4.