Guest guest Posted July 18, 2000 Report Share Posted July 18, 2000 * SWK and List Info In Footer * ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... FROM WASHINGTON CITIZEN'S COASTAL ALLIANCE -------------- Sekiu, WA: 9:47am PDT Today's update includes a long-awaited whaling-cost piece from the Peninsula Daily News, and an article from the Christian Science Monitor that raises red flags about the impact the Makah whale hunt is REALLY starting to have on U.S. policy. As usual, please follow developments at www.stopwhalekill.org ***** HOW MUCH HAS WHALING REALLY COST? -------------- Watchdogs estimate $5 million By Austin Ramzy Peninsula Daily News (www.peninsuladailynews.com) July 17, 2000 A taxpayer watchdog group says the government has spent close to $5 million on Makah whale hunts, which it labeled a tradition that isn't worth keeping. But a close look at the Citizens Against Government Waste report on the hunt reveals just how difficult it is to calculate how much tax money has been spent on the endeavor. The report lists money spent in several areas, including for Coast Guard enforcement of a safety zone around the whalers, legal fees in a court battle over the hunt and the deployment of National Guard troops for a tribal celebration. Makah whale hunt opponents who brought the story to the 600,000 member private, non-profit group's attention, praised the article. " I was really pleased that the Citizens Against Government Waste looked at the information we sent them and actually did a report, " said Sandra Abels of U.S. Citizens Against Whaling. " We tried to get local media to follow up on how much the hunt cost taxpayers and haven't got much response. It's refreshing to have somebody actually look at this. This is wrong to spend $4.7 million in taxpayer money to kill a whale. " Anti-whaling activist Dan Spomer, who initially forwarded the story idea to the group, wrote, " It's a tough piece- far tougher than we could have imagined. " Makah Whaling Commission Chairman Keith Johnson said the costs pale in comparison wih what the tribe gave up in its treaty with the U.S. government. The Makah tribe signed a treaty in 1855 that guaranteed its right to hunt whales. In return, the tribe ceded most of its lands to the United States, including nearly all of the Olympic Peninsula. " The U.S. government has a treat with us (that) we almost paid for with our lives and our culture. Its comes at a very high price, " Johnson said. " It's been paid, it's been paid and it's been paid. It's not a waste of government money. " COAST GUARD DISCREPANCY One of the steepest hunt costs, according to the Washington, D.C.-based group's report, is the Coast Guard's enforcement of a moving exclusionary zone around the hunt canoe, which was first enacted in October 1998. According to the Citizens Against Government Waste, or CAGW, it cost $924,000 for the Coast Guard to enforce the sxclusionary zone during hunts this spring. That figure, which is based on an estimate from Abels, is more than four times what the Coast Guard reports its costs were for this spring's hunt, which didn't result in a whale kill. According to Cmdr. Ed. Kaetzel, operations officer for Coast Guard Group Port Angeles, a total of 34 hours of helicopter patrols, 65 hours of cutter patrols, 88 hours of utility boat patrols and 112 hours of small boat patrols took place during nine days of hunting this spring. Based on Coast Guard hourly standard rates of $588 an hour for cutters, $3,400 an hour for helicopters, $612 an hour for patrol boats, and $192 an hour for small boats, the actual costs this spring were $229,180. The Coast Guard costs are part of normal operating expenses, Kaetzel said. " A lot of this we would have been flying anyway, " he said. " These are not extra hours. Instead of patrolling (farther out) they were in closer to Neah Bay. There was really nothing extra that we have to go back and get additional funding for. " Kaetzel did not have figures available for previous years, but estimated the costs for last year, when the tribe killed its first whale in 70 years, were similar to this year. METCALF V. DALEY LEGAL FEES If the estimates of Coast Guard expenses are high, the count of legal expenses are likely low. In 1997 environmental groups and U.S. Rep. Jack Metcalf, R-Wash;, filed suit against Commerce Secretary William Daley to block the whale hunt. Last month a three-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the federal government's environmental studies on the hunt were inadequate. The CAGW article lists legal fees for Metcalf v. Daley at $44,800. That figure is based on a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the Department of Interior in 1998 and only lists approved legal fees for that year. Since then legal costs, based on $70-an-hour attorney fees, have likely climbed as the case worked its way through the courts. One of the most well-known costs of the whale hunt is $751,295 spent on sending National Guard troops to Neah Bay for Makah Days in 1998. Tribal officials had feared protests during the annual celebration, but none occurred. The CAGW reports lists several other Makah Days law enforcement expenses. The sums are based on Freedom of Information Act requests. The Clallam County Sheriff's Office spent $40,000 on Makah whaling-related law enforcement expenses in 1998. Following the celebration Sheriff Joe Hawe told county commissioners it cost $26,000 to have personnel standing by during the event. In 1998 the sheriff's office also received a $10,000 federal grant to be used for communications expenses. The U.S. Marshals Service spent $13,910 on personnel and travel costs during Makah Days. The hunt expenses included $335,000 allocated by National Marine Fisheries Serivce from 1996 to 1998. That money went to pay for such expenses as tribal members attending International Whaling Commission meetings and research into whale killing methods. The $335,000 doesn't encompass all of the money spent on the hunt by the Fisheries Service, said Brain Gorman, an agency spokesman. " That does not include money spent as a function of our responsibility and involvement with this issue including such things as defending the Makah lawsuit, travel to the reservation, telephone calls, " Gorman said. Also included in the figures was $10,000 from the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1997. CAGW was unalbe to produce documentation for one large item in the article: $435,000 for a " grant to teach the tribe how to eat whale meat. " According to the author of the article, Kerrie Rezac, the official documentation for that expense came from Spomer, the anti-whaling activist. According to Spomer, the only copy of an article outlining that expense was in the hands of CAGW. ***** TRIBAL RELIGION CLASHES WITH EAGLE PROTECTIONS -------------- By Todd Wilkinson Special to The Christian Science Monitor Far from the ocean waters of the Pacific Northwest, where the Makah tribe is locked in a legal battle over the right to hunt gray whales, another front, perhaps more important, is opening in the debate over wildlife versus religious freedom. Amid the mesas of northern Arizona, members of the Hopi tribe have asked the US government for permission to kill young golden eaglets taken from a nest in Wupatki National Monument for use in traditional ceremonies. The decision could radically change the protected status of wildlife inside national parks. If the Interior Department grants the Hopis' request, dozens of tribes could ask to harvest wildlife such as bison, black bears, and birds of prey from inside parks for similar reasons. The issue is so sensitive that Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has personally asked the department's leading attorney to review the case and render a ruling soon. The Monitor has learned that the lawyer, John Leshy, is considering granting a broader exemption to tribes, enabling limited harvest of nonendangered animals and plants inside parks. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether the right to practice native-American religion should take precedence over the role of parks as sanctuaries. " This is a very complicated issue and it needs to be treated extremely carefully, " says David Simon, Southwest regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association. " One of the crucial questions is: Does the government consider the Hopi request at Wupatki an isolated case, or does it intend to open the gates for other tribes at other parks? " Across the West, the US government has tried to be sensitive to the needs of native Americans, particularly in allowing the picking of plants at some parks and monuments. Congress has given Indians the right to gather pinyon nuts in New Mexico's El Mapais National Monument, for instance. Indian traditionalists say that harvesting wildlife and plants is central to their beliefs and to the continuation of their culture. With the Hopi, the ceremony involving the eaglets eventually leads to the birds' death - with the feathers used later in prayer - but tribal officials say the rite is done responsibly. " We'd be the last ones to do any harm to the larger eagle population, " says Eugene Kaye, the Hopi chief of staff. " It's not that all Hopis go out and gather eaglets, " he says. " Only certain clan members who possess the expertise can do it. It's something that's been practiced for centuries and centuries and centuries. " Unlike whales, golden eagles are not endangered, though they are protected. The Fish and Wildlife Service routinely grants tribes permission to kill golden eagles and hawks on many private and public lands, but the privilege has never been extended to national parks. Hopi Tribal Council chairman Wayne Taylor Jr. argues that the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and a recent executive order from President Clinton, show a commitment to honor tribal requests on public lands. Further, he says, preventing the collection of eaglets would be a violation of the First Amendment right to religious expression. " It's a tough issue, " Mr. Babbitt told the Monitor in explaining why he asked Leshy to review the matter. " This isn't about sport hunting. This is about a deeply religious and sustainable take of eagles that has been going on for over a thousand years. " Although Park Service officials have been ordered not to talk publicly about the decision, personnel say there is deep concern. One worry is that the decision could start a slippery slope for future wildlife protection. " There are a good number of the big parks that already have tribes requesting the right to hunt animals, " says Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which last week completed a survey of national parks. " Parks are unaware and completely unprepared for a policy change. " Others say plenty of public land is available to tribes - places where the US government has made it clear that limited, controlled harvest of natural resources is welcome. Parks, they argue, should be off limits. " I am sympathetic to tribal needs, but those needs can be fulfilled without having to go into parks and take live animals, " says Frank Buono, a retired Park Service manager who spent a quarter century with the agency. Mr. Buono says that in many regions, national parks represent " refuges " free of human hunting and, in turn, those populations serve an important function in bolstering the numbers of animals in adjacent wildlands. In the Makah case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a scathing opinion in overturning the National Marine Fisheries Service decision to allow the tribe to harvest gray whales near Neah Bay, Wash. The court called the environmental review - suggesting there would be no impact on the whale population - " demonstrably suspect. " ***** WHERE DOES JAPAN'S WHALE MEAT REALLY COME FROM? -------- >From the New Scientist JAPAN'S annual scientific catch of whales is disguising an undocumented trade in meat from accidentally caught and possibly poached whales, claim researchers. According to a new analysis of whale meat in the country, if the trade continues it could drive a unique subgroup of minke whales in the Sea of Japan to extinction. Sale of whale meat is legal in Japan if it comes from frozen stockpiles, from the annual catch of around 500 minke whales which the government is allowed to kill for scientific study, or from " bycatch " --whales killed accidentally by fishing gear or ship strikes. Most of the scientific catch are Antarctic minke whales, but around 100 a year belong to a subgroup of North Pacific minkes called the O stock. Neither is considered to be endangered. However, another subgroup of North Pacific minkes that live in the Sea of Japan, the J stock, number fewer than 2000. Of the 25 whales killed as bycatch by Japan each year, 15 come from the Sea of Japan. Therefore, no more than 15 per cent of the North Pacific minke whales on the Japanese market should be from the J stock. But the new report claims the proportion is double this. From 1993 to 1999, a team of marine biologists led by Scott Baker of the University of Auckland and Stephen Palumbi of Harvard University enlisted local collaborators to buy whale meat in Japanese markets and restaurants. After analysing the mitochondrial DNA of 574 samples, the researchers conclude that nearly a third of the North Pacific minke whales on the market came from the J stock. They estimate that these unreported catches could tip the balance for the J stock, driving the number of mature females beneath critical levels in less than a century (see Graph). " The population is in serious trouble, " Palumbi says. Japanese and Korean scientists who heard the report at the International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee meeting in Adelaide last week remained unconvinced. Joji Morishita, a Japanese delegate to the IWC, told New Scientist that similar studies by the Japanese government have failed to find any unreported catches. " All the so-called suspicious whale meat is accounted for by stockpiles or bycatch, " he says. " It would be fair to say that the conclusions [of the new analysis] are not wholeheartedly accepted, " says IWC secretary Ray Gamble. But Frank Cipriano, one of the report's co-authors who attended the meeting, points out that the Japanese surveys always send fisheries agents who are likely to be recognised by sellers and who themselves may be biased. " It's in their interest to find nothing, " says Cipriano. Morishita says the Japanese Fisheries Agency is developing a stricter system of bycatch monitoring that will include DNA testing and should eliminate any real or perceived reporting problems. Under the new system, sellers of unregistered meat would be prosecuted. Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society B (vol 267, p 1191) ***** QUOTE DU JOUR --------------------- " We are disappointed that the 9th Circuit didn't uphold what the District Court said. Our commitment to Makah treaty rights and treaty rights of all tribes is undiminished. We've got to think about whether we want to recommend an appeal to that decision or redo the environmental work to meet the standards of the court. " Kevin Gover, Bureau of Indian Affairs ***** To change list options, or , go to http://www.topica.com. Or send e-mail to swk-, swk-. Visit our site: http://www.stopwhalekill.org .... Ask a friend today to join our list! ... _________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.