Important Update re upcoming whale hunt(s) in Washington State (US) and elsewhere

[Guest guest]

===== A message from the 'makahwhaling' discussion list =====

 

FROM WASHINGTON CITIZEN'S COASTAL ALLIANCE

----------------------

Our apologies for the length of this update, but the information provided is

vitally important. Please take the time to read these four items!

 

1) Whale hunting " a dream come true. " Makah kick open door for hunting

endangered species

2) Another reason not to hunt: Toxic whale meat damages immune systems

3) Feds grasping at straws to punish protestors

4) Politics of the Makah hunt: Michael Kundu article

 

*****

 

 

 

INUITS ASK TO STAGE WHALE HUNT

-------------------------

By BOB WEBER -- The Canadian Press

 

Sunday, Mar. 19, 2000

 

IQALUIT, Nunavut (CP) -- A third Canadian Inuit community wanting to revive

its traditions has asked for ministerial approval to hunt and kill an

endangered species of whale. " It would mean a lot to us, " said Louie Bruce

of the Coral Harbour Hunters and Trappers Association. " The last hunt was in

the 1930s, so it's been a long wait. " The association from the tiny

community on Southampton Island in Hudson Bay asked the Nunavut Wildlife

Management Board to get federal approval for them to hunt a bowhead whale.

The hunt would be held some time in mid-July, Bruce said. " It depends how

fast the ice goes, " he said.

 

Board head Ben Kovic confirmed the request has been passed on to Fisheries

Minister Herb Dhaliwal. " It's in the minister's hands right now, " said

Kovic. Dhaliwal has 60 days to decide whether or not to grant the request.

Kovic wouldn't say whether the management board supported the Coral Harbour

request.

 

In 1996, the international community protested when Canada granted a licence

for Inuit hunters in the Repulse Bay area to kill one bowhead whale.

Environmental groups protested a similar hunt conducted with an explosive

harpoon from motorized boats off the Baffin Island community of Pangnirtung

two years later. Bowheads, giant sea mammals about the size of a city bus,

were once a staple of the Inuit diet but were hunted to near extinction in

the late 1800s. They are now an endangered species.

 

Their numbers are conservatively estimated at about 650 in the Eastern

Arctic and some scientists say they should no longer be considered

endangered. In the Western Arctic, the bowhead population is about 8,000 and

aboriginal groups have been killing up to 80 a year. In the East, where the

year-old territory of Nunavut is championing a rebirth of Inuit culture, the

hunt has special significance. " There's elders here that still remember the

last hunts, " said Bruce. " They tell us quite a bit of stories and they can't

wait to get going on this one. "

 

The Coral Harbour hunters watched the Pangnirtung hunt on television, Bruce

said. Coral Harbour also got its share of the blubber -- an Inuit delicacy

called muktuk -- but that only whetted the local hunters' appetite for their

own whale. " We only got a little bit of muktuk. They gave us a little bit of

a taste but it wasn't enough. "

 

Groups such as the Canadian Marine Environment Protection Society say the

Inuit hunts and those by the Makah whalers in Washington state are the start

of a resumption of commercial whaling. The International Whaling Commission

voted 20-6 to oppose the Pangnirtung hunt. However, the World Wildlife Fund

points out that hasn't happened with the bowhead hunts in the Western

Arctic. As well, the Wildlife Fund maintains the hunt is in the best

long-term interest of the bowhead population because it ensures that local

populations have a direct, ongoing interest in maintaining its numbers.

 

Some anthropologists say eating wild food taken from the local land and

water is important and deeply meaningful to hunting cultures. " We've been

wanting to hunt whales a long time, " Bruce said. " My grandfather used to

hunt them and he's still around. Seeing this hunt come to reality would be a

dream come true. "

*****

 

 

 

BEACHED WHALE CARCASS 'CONTAMINATED WITH TOXINS'

-

 

Vancouver Sun

Monday, March 20,2000

 

A four-tonne orca that washed ashore in Tsawwassen during the weekend is so

contaminated with harmful PCBs its carcass should be treated as toxic waste,

a local environmentalist said Sunday. The department of fisheries and

oceans was planning to tow the orca, the first to wash ashore in the

Vancouver area since the 1970s, off Centennial Beach at high tide late

Sunday and tie it up somewhere in Boundary Bay, where it will sink and

decompose.

 

But Peter Hamilton, of the environmental group Lifeforce, said that could

return dangerous contaminants to the wild. ``Orcas, being near the top of

the food chain, are very highly contaminated,'' he said. ``They must be

disposed of as toxic waste . . . It would be irresponsible to dump a

contaminated orca body in Boundary Bay.''

 

Hamilton, who has conducted research on killer whales, helped identify the

orca on Saturday as a member of one of three southern-resident pods of

killer whales that travel along the Pacific coast from Georgia Strait to

northern California. The 6.5-metre long orca was a 22-year-old member of ``J

pod'', J18, nicknamed Everett. In the past four years, the number of

southern-resident orcas has declined from 98 to 82, a trend some attribute

to chemical contamination.

 

In a study to be published next month, Peter Ross, a researcher with the

DFO, found very high concentrations of PCBs in orcas off B.C.'s coast.

``They now represent some of the most contaminated marine mammals in the

world,'' Ross said in an interview Sunday.

 

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a chemical lubricant that has been

banned in North America since the 1970s. PCBs do not breakdown in animals

and are found in highest concentrations in those animals at the top of the

food chain, like orcas that feed on large quantities of salmon or smaller

marine mammals. Over the past few years, Ross and his colleagues have

collected small skin and blubber samples from 47 orcas, including six

southern residents.

 

By chance, one of those six orcas was Everett, who the DFO sampled in 1996.

That biopsy found a PCB concentration in his body of 63.2 parts per

million -- about 90 times the concentration found in humans and,

unfortunately, typical of the orcas sampled by the DFO. PCBs are believed to

suppress an animal's immune system, making it more vulnerable to infection

by viruses or bacteria.

 

Vancouver Aquarium whale expert John Ford is conducting a necropsy on

Everett to determine the exact cause of death. But while the results will

not be available for at least a week, Everett appeared to be suffering from

a bacterial infection and had a large abscess on his side. Ross said that

type of infection is ``consistent'' with a suppressed immune system. ``It's

a bit disconcerting to see a whale that should be at the prime of his life

die of something like that,'' Ross said.

 

Healthy male orcas have a life expectancy of between 45 and 50 years, and

female orcas can live to be 85 or 90. If Everett is returned to the wild,

Ross said, invertebrates will likely feed on the carcass. Those

invertebrates will in turn be eaten by small fish and ``the chemicals would

then move up the food chain.'' But Ross doubts there is any better solution

than towing Everett back out to sea. The only thing that can destroy PCBs is

incineration at about 800 degrees celsius. The closest disposal site is in

Swan Hill in northern Alberta.

 

The total amount of PCBs in Everett would be no more than 50 grams -- about

enough to fill two shot glasses, Ross said. Incinerating a 4,000-kilogram

whale at high temperatures to eliminate only 50 grams of PCBs -- plus the

cost of safely transporting the carcass to Alberta -- would probably not

make sense, Ross said. That money could be better spent on other

environmental projects, Ross said, such as cleaning up dumps in the Puget

Sound area that leech several kilograms of PCBs into the ocean every year.

 

Ed Lochbaum, Pacific marine mammal coordinator for the DFO, said

incinerating Everett isn't cost effective or practical and the department is

confident it is doing the right thing by towing him back out to sea. ``Short

of having the resources to put this thing on a flatbed and seeking

permission to incinerate it . . . we're just going to put it out there and

we will have to just live with whatever our actions are,'' he said.

*****

 

 

 

FROM SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 20, 2000

 

FEDS DESPERATE TO PUNISH WHALE ACTIVISTS

U.S. Attorney grasping at straws in Makah whale hunt cases

 

The U.S. Attorney's Office has disclosed the evidence on which it intends to

base its prosecution of whale activists charged with negligent operation of

a vessel in connection with the active resistance to the Makah whale hunt

off Washington State in May 1999.

 

The government's evidence consists of paint chips from one whale activist's

jet ski, found embedded in the side of a zodiac-type inflatable that was

being piloted by a second activist.

 

" The government is calling scraped paint evidence of reckless operation, "

noted Sea Shepherd Conservation Society President Paul Watson. " Two vessels

came alongside in rough seas so the pilots could communicate with each

other. If it was a violation whenever two vessels lost paint when they came

alongside or docked at a port facility, every sea captain in the world would

be in jail. "

 

No charges have been filed in connection with violation of the Coast Guard's

100-yard " exclusion zone " that was declared around the whale hunting

vessels.

 

" The U.S. Attorney was unable to bring charges against us for anything we

did to the whale hunters, and has wisely elected not to put the blatantly

unconstitutional exclusion zone on trial, " said Watson; " this is the best

they can do. Trumped-up charges like this are a sign of strings being pulled

higher up. The green light for the Makah whale hunt came straight from the

White House, and we have every reason to believe that this is from the same

source. "

 

In further evidence of political tampering, Lt. Commander Michael J. Lodge,

Principal Assistant Legal Officer for the U.S. Coast Guard's 13th District,

has been appointed the Special Assistant U.S. Attorney to prosecute the

cases. " The Coast Guard has committed itself to win at any cost - even if

U.S. citizens' rights are trampled in the process, " said Watson. " They

arrested these people, and now they're prosecuting them in court. What's

next? A Coast Guard judge and jury? "

 

The two activists -- Cheryl Rorabeck-Siler of Nehalem, Oregon, and Alison

Lance, a Sea Shepherd volunteer -- will be tried in federal court in Tacoma,

Washington, this spring. Similar charges laid against Brett Siler stemming

from the protest against the November 1998 Makah whale hunt were dismissed

in February when an internal agency review concluded that the U.S. Coast

Guard commander's testimony consisted of " little factual account, " and was

" merely conjecture and, in fact, somewhat contradictory. "

*****

 

 

 

POLITICS OF THE MAKAH GRAY WHALE HUNT

------------------------------

by Michael Kundu

March 2000

 

The gray whale migration has started on the Washington coast. Researchers

have documented the first of the larger males passing Gray's Harbor toward

Cape Flattery and Neah Bay, and soon, slower females with calves will be

again be passing the killing grounds off Neah Bay. This introspective and

account of events is presented to offer some perspective on the political

process which has driven this tragic blow against whale preservation efforts

worldwide.

 

The Makah whale hunt occurred due to one fundamental reason -- the Makah

government, pushed and prodded by activists and regional politicians,

serendipitously managed to turn the entire event into a battle over the

principle of indigenous sovereignty in a country where the First Nations

people have become, at best, second class citizens. This polarisation of

cultures represents the crux of why the Makah whale hunt has become so

difficult to prevent.

 

SPRING 1999: THE KILLING SEASON

Last spring, the Makah Whale hunt held the media's attention for many weeks

while the hunters postured and manipulated both activists and journalists

with false starts and failed diversions. Shielded by Coast Guard and

government enforcement vessels, anti-whaling activists were methodically

removed from the scene, leaving the Makah whalers to sit patiently and watch

for breaching whales.

 

The tension ended when a Makah harpooner, in a canoe towed by powerboats and

outfitted with modern seagoing equipment, managed to strike and kill a

migratory gray whale calf as she surfaced close to the hunter's boat. The

canoe veered off, while powerboats with Makah riflemen quickly approached to

kill the calf.

 

The Makah hunters were lucky that their .50-caliber rifle killed this

unsuspecting calf in a relatively short period, but little, if any,

tradition was followed in the process. Before the first bullet was fired,

the Makah hunters unilaterally sacrificed the traditional purpose of the

hunt, and embraced instead the principal of native sovereignty above all,

playing into the very controversy that may ultimately end in a 'vox populi'

showdown across the entire United States.

 

GABRIEL'S TRUMPET

The killing of this first gray whale has become an international signal that

has already jeopardized whale conservation and protection efforts worldwide.

Japan, Norway, many Caribbean nations and an ad-hoc alliance of whale

hunters worldwide have used the Makah whale kill as a rallying cry for a new

form of 'traditional' whaling - a tradition absent of any subsistence need

or anthropological precedent.

 

The notion of a revitalised Makah whale hunt originated within the tribe

after years of secretly harvesting of seals and sea lions off the Cape

Flattery coast. Frequent clashes with the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) enforcement agents encouraged the tribe to talk about the problem

among their brethren informally. Somewhere during the early discussions

with other tribal councils and business interests in the Pacific Northwest,

input came from foreign fisheries merchants with whom the Makah had already

established a lucrative sea urchin and sea cucumber trade. Whale harvesting

was discussed, and commercial trade and exports were speculated upon.

 

Certain members of the Makah council were inspired by the prospect; the

problem was overcoming public opposition and circumventing federal laws.

Someone in the tribe raised the issue of 'cultural tradition' and associated

Treaty protections. A strategy emerged -- this appeared to be a good test

case of 'native sovereignty.' Ultimately, the Makah tribal leadership went

to seek consultation with tribal lawyers about the best way to begin the

process.

 

At this point, informal consultation with pro-whaling forces began.

Strengthened and bolstered by groups like the North Atlantic Marine Mammal

Commission (NAMMCO), the High North Alliance (HNA) and regionally in recent

years, the World Council of Whalers (WCW), the Makah executive asserted

their rights under the Isaac Steven's Treaty of 1855 - this started the

pendulum swinging, and the sovereign 'right' of traditional cultures to kill

whales for ceremonial, commercial or any other purpose is now being argued

more forcefully in the IWC (International Whaling Commission) and in other

international forums.

 

But beyond the Makah circumstance, the definition of 'traditional whaling

culture' far exceeds that of just aboriginal people. According to arguments

now being raised by many of the previously listed groups, this new

definition includes small modernized villages, far northern communities,

Caribbean nations, coastal cities and even native-run commercial business

ventures. This summer, Japan and Norway have already accelerated their

killing of Minke whales in response to the Makah hunt, which they

rationalise as a 'litmus test' for this new definition of whaling as a

'culturally justified' concept. The harvest of cetaceans is seen as a way to

'reclaim ancient traditions and strengthen the identity' of subsistence

cultures, while simultaneously progressing the notion that native people

should be allowed to profit from the harvest and selling of

marine mammals worldwide.

 

Since the killing of the female calf off Cape Flattery, Canadian Inuit have

sold 27,000 ringed seals to Japan for consumption, Russia has captured and

sold beluga whales to Japanese aquariums, and Iceland has considered the

importation of minke whale meat from Norwegian whalers. The traffic in

marine mammals has been boosted worldwide, but in Neah Bay however, there

has been no visible benefit from the killing of the young female whale last

spring. Drugs, alcohol and poverty still prevail. The tribal executive is

still divided over family rights, and, not surprisingly, persecution and

resentment by US citizens living outside the reservation has increased,

along with the political tension.

 

HOW THE SYSTEM FAILED

Many people wonder how US political leaders could have allowed this whale

hunt to have happened. Few politicians would have supported the killing of a

whale in the contiguous United States. Yet the proponents of this

particular hunt were native Americans - a powerful and growing lobbying

force that holds a level influence with many Members of Congress, equal to

that of multi-national corporations.

 

It is well established that Democrats are more often the recipients of

tribal campaign contributions and financial support than are Republicans,

yet even on the political stage, few WA Republicans (with exception to WA

Senator Slade Gorton) would voluntarily alienate the tribes by opposing them

on a matter that has been strategically reduced to the level of native

sovereignty and treaty rights. Congressman Jack Metcalf, the most outspoken

congressional critic of the Makah hunt, voluntarily announced his retirement

from politics after his last congressional campaign. Having never received

any significant tribal support politically, Metcalf had no reason to be

concerned about alienating the tribes, and instead took on the matter almost

entirely as an issue of principle -- subsequently, he became the most

forthright opponent to the new Makah whale hunt.

 

WASHINGTON STATE POLITICS

Over the partisan line, things were different. Local Democratic politicians

like Gary Locke, Norm Dicks and Jim McDermott initially expressed alarm at

the prospect of a whale being killed in Washington State, the environmental

community and other economic interests related to marine recreation and

tourism did not compare with the economic influence wielded by the west

coast tribes - particularly through the gambling and co-managed fisheries

industries they control. The Makah tribal executive, through the political

influence of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC), made it

clear that their whale hunt was a political statement of sovereignty,

reminding local politicians of the legal precedent set by the infamous Boldt

decision that gives Northwest tribes the right to harvest shellfish from

private beds owned by non-natives.

 

Washington Democrats and moderate Republicans realised that they would have

to placate the whale-loving environmental segment, while still definitively

supporting native rights. Senator Patty Murray and Governor Gary Locke

chose the path of least resistance, claiming to be saddened by the killing

of whales but acknowledging that the Stevens Treaty, which permitted the

hunt, was the undisputed law of the land. This was politically strategic -

they retained the support from many environmentalists who appreciated the

empathy, and they still reaffirmed their support of Treaty laws. Some

politicians (like Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn) simply dodged the bullet by

remaining largely silent on the matter.

 

NATIONAL LEVEL POLITICS

On a national level, ranking Democrats had no real reason to be concerned.

Vice President Al Gore, who shares a close personal relationship with

Norway's Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundlandt, supported the Commerce

Department's obligation to sanction the hunt. Preparing for his presidential

campaign in 2000, Gore had absolutely no desire to jeopardise the political

support he would hope to receive from native America - the last thing Gore

would do was to argue against such a prominent Treaty issue as the Makah

whale hunt.

 

Gore has played an active role in ensuring that Commerce Secretary James

Baker use the full force of the law to let this hunt proceed. And while

there was initially some concern by the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) which falls under the Commerce Department's jurisdiction, that the

Makah tribal executive planned to harvest other small cetaceans, minke

whales and other protected wildlife like sea otters, Baker intervened

slightly. Receiving assurances that the harvest of additional marine

species' would be 'removed from consideration indefinitely', Baker ensured

the Makah that they would not be pursued legally for their ongoing harvest

of harbor seals and California sea lions around Cape Flattery. Baker also

assured the Makah that they would receive full guardianship from NMFS and

the US Coast Guard during the final Makah hunt.

 

THE INEVITABLE CONLCUSION

During October 1998, the presence of fresh activists and an uncertain

migration of gray whales caused the Commerce Department to 'encourage' the

Makah to withhold their real hunting efforts. At this point, flaring

incidents, many promulgated by the Makah tribal members themselves,

effectively polarised the issue as one of 'native sovereignty' against

colonial rule. Activist confrontations, as peaceful and well-intended as

they were, heightened the desire of other First Nation people to show

solidarity with the Makah people - on the principle of protecting Treaty

rights mainly. Even internal dissent and disagreement did nothing to shift

the tide - in waiting, the resolve and solidarity of the Coast Salish people

became altogether stronger.

 

The Commerce Department also resolved to end the tension. Politically, the

issue was making the agency weary, and they inevitably advised that tribe

that federal subsidies for funding meetings and 'whaling practices' would

soon run out, unless the hunters would complete the hunt. Commerce assured

the Makah that, when the northward migration began, there would not be a

question about whether the whale selected would be a 'resident' or

'migratory' whale.

 

At this point, Commerce informed the interagency enforcement group that

anti-whaling activists should be removed sequentially to allow for the hunt

to be completed. With the requisite amount of posturing, the Coast Guard

started detaining and seizing vessels, based on various marine enforcement

laws. This allowed the activists to be given an impression that they had

partially succeeded in delaying the hunt, while in reality, Commerce

assisted the Makah in finding the 'optimum sea and weather conditions' to

complete their kill.

 

In the end, tradition, spiritual preparation, cultural training and rituals

had nothing to do with the Makah whale hunt. Conversely, government

politics, agency choreography, international agendas by pro-whaling

agencies, domestic proponents of treaty-rights and principles of indigenous

self-determination were the driving forces behind this hunt.

 

THE FUTURE OF WHALING IN NORTH AMERICA

Primarily due to the ongoing harvest of bowhead whales by Alaskan Eskimos,

and the strident support of these hunts by Alaskan Members of Congress, it

is unlikely that he United States government will ever voluntarily outlaw

whaling in US waters. While many environmental groups are increasing their

outraged cries against whaling worldwide, the United States government has

made it far more difficult for these groups to take any concrete action

against whalers, without being arrested, losing their organisational

charitable status, or having boats, cameras, acoustic deterrent or other

equipment seized. Correspondingly, the pro-whaling groups are becoming far

more organised and building international alliances that may effectively

lead to strategies to circumvent marine wildlife protection laws the world

over.

 

And in the spirit of international 'compromise', the United States

delegation to the IWC is also actively engaged in seeking the implementation

of a 'revised management plan' (RMP) which will allow whaling nations to

conduct limited harvests off non-endangered whale species according to a

mathematical formula. The United States can no longer claim to be an

anti-whaling nation - and since domestic policy is often considered (or

pointed out) during instances when international policies are evaluated, the

US resolve to end whaling has been significantly diminished on the

international stage.

 

In Neah Bay, internal tribal conflicts and political indecision make it

unlikely that a coordinated whale hunt will be conducted by the current

whaling crew. It is far more likely that the next hunt will be a badly

organized, effort lead by maverick whaling Captain Wayne Johnson, and since

international politics are now at stake, it is suspected that the next hunt

will include tacit involvement by Nootka tribal member Tom Mexsis Happynook

and other representatives of Canada's WCW members and other traditional

whaling tribes.

 

And since the precedent has been established, there will be less coverage by

the media and even less 'delicate handling' by federal enforcement agencies.

With the political precedent set, police agencies, Coast Guard personnel and

NMFS enforcement agents will act swiftly and decisively in immediately

removing all protestors from the scene. The case is clear -- federal laws

have upheld the Makah's right to conduct this hunt, and for the most part,

have dismissed all attempts at legal intervention by anti-whaling

protestors. There will be no posturing or indecision by enforcement agencies

during the next round.

 

The most tragic element about this prognosis is that the Makah have managed

to 'bend' federal laws with impunity - violating federal agreements,

exporting whale meat to their Canadian counterparts and assaulting

non-violent anti-whaling activists without penalty. With the current

alliance the Makah and other west coast tribes have built with the Commerce

department - and since it is very likely that the Clinton/ Gore

administration will succeed with the likely election of our current Vice

President to the oval office -- it is unlikely that this fact will change

when the next hunt occurs.

 

The scenario is grim, but it betrays the evidence that political influence

has over emotional issues such as whaling. The argument of native

sovereignty, as fundamental as it may seem in some instances, may now have

evolved to become the catalyst behind the accelerated reduction of

Biodiversity the world over. The irony is bitter - but the lesson remains

clear. The protection of indigenous rights cannot be seen as an excuse to

violate federal laws, to create divisions among neighboring cultures, or to

engender precedents that will ultimately diminish our ability to protect

Biodiversity on a global level.

 

Michael Kundu, Executive Director

 

Project SeaWolf

P.O. Box 987

Marysville, WA 98270

 

" A federally-registered 501c3 non-profit organisation "

ProjSeaWolf

*****

 

 

 

QUOTE DU JOUR

------------------------

" Locke hasn't done much as governor, but that just means he hasn't offended

anybody. "

(Seattle Weekly, March 16, 2000, in reference to Washington governor Gary

Locke)

 

 

 

 

_______________

The simple way to read all your emails at ThatWeb

http://www.thatweb.com