Latest on Makah whale hunt

[Guest guest]

Guaranteed to upset some...

 

********************************

 

 

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

 

FROM WASHINGTON CITIZEN'S COASTAL ALLIANCE

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

Sekiu, WA: 11:15am PDT

 

 

PAY ATTENTION, NOW!

 

Since these updates are forwarded to many individuals, groups and discussion

lists, we thought it appropriate to lead off by addressing those newcomers

who still think that it's " OK for the Makah to hunt, since... they're doing

it only for ceremonial reasons. "

 

Take heed. Read. It takes a trivial amount of effort to browse the web and

find dozens- if not hundreds- of references to Makah commercial whaling

plans. Finding this one took us three minutes:

 

" It should be emphasized, however, that we continue to strongly believe that

we have the right under the Treaty of Neah Bay to harvest whales not only

for ceremonial and subsistence but also for commercial purposes....[O]ur

decision to seek IWC approval for an INTERIM (emphasis ours) ceremonial and

subsistence harvest only should not be construed in any way as a waiver or

relinquishment of our treaty-secured whaling rights. "

 

Letter from Hubert Markishtum (Makah Tribal Council) to National Marine

Fisheries Service, May 8, 1995

*****

 

 

 

SEA SHEPHERD RESPONSE TO " CANDIDATE FOLLOWS 'LAW OF THE

LAND' " - Peninsula Daily News, August 28

-----------

 

We have a lot of sympathy for Winona LaDuke. Four days after issuing her

error-riddled position statement backing the Makah whale hunt, wherein she

scolded us for our " aggressive interference " in the hunt -- which (in an

impressive calculation that she does not back up) " cost the US Coast Guard

up to perhaps $5 million in expenditures " -- she now wishes to inform

readers of the PDN that she " support Paul Watson (of Sea Shepherd) and

the things he does with rogue whalers. " Well, thanks. " But, " she adds. " I do

not consider the Makah to be in the same camp as Japan or the Norwegians. "

The point, of course, is that the Makah have every intention of joining that

camp. News reports and government memos from 1991-95 (before the spin set

in) have made the truth abundantly clear: The hunt was to be a commercial

venture from the outset, and only temporarily transmogrified itself into a

cultural revival when the feds told the tribe they couldn't legally go

commercial right away. We note that Ms. LaDuke's defense of the hunt has now

been reduced to a single, sterile contention: That the hunt is legal. This

argument has grown progressively more absurd since 1997. Undertaken without

the necessary recognition of aboriginal subsistence need from the

International Whaling Commission, and now with the Environmental Assessment

of the hunt's impacts thrown out by a federal appeals court, it would be

hard to imagine how the hunt could be less legal. Any attempt at a hunt now

would be a violation of both the National Environmental Policy Act and

international law.

The IWC is the global authority for the regulation of whale hunting, and the

Makah tried and failed to make their case there. The clause on whale hunting

in the 1855 Makah-US treaty cuts no ice at the IWC, where, for the past

three years, the US has been dodging its obligation as a Party to the

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, maintaining that

it's okay to hand the Makah a unilateral whale hunt. (Challenge for an

intrepid reporter: Call up the National Marine Fisheries Service and ask why

former deputy commissioner Michael Tillman told U.S. allies at the IWC that

the United States did not want them to carry through on their intention to

bring up the Makah whale hunt at this year's meeting, and extracted the

promise that they would not. Get a " confirm or deny. " Report that story.)

We are informed by one of the hysterical little Internet hate groups that

has popped up over this issue (one of those who concocted the " whale hunting

= native sovereignty; opposition = racism, imperialism, terrorism " equation)

that Ms. LaDuke fell under their sway in the course of drafting her original

statement, and they are now trumpeting themselves as the source of the

" information " on which the candidate based her position, driving a stake

through the Green Party. That would explain it. The ongoing struggle over

the return to whaling is global and complex, and Winona LaDuke, Ralph Nader,

and Green Party USA reps have made it clear that they are not qualified to

comment. To say that you will not oppose the Makah hunt until the factory

ships, exploding harpoons, export permits, and briefcases full of cash show

up in Neah Bay, is to say you will not act until it is too late. To

undermine the IWC is to undermine the global protections for all whales. To

permit this " one little whale hunt " that is neither fish nor fowl - a

" subsistence " hunt that is neither necessary for nor definable as

subsistence - is to doze off on watch, let the ropes go a little more slack,

and let the tide start to pull the fragile vessel of conservation out into

the storm, where the bringers of holocaust are ready to unleash it once

again, and for the last time, against the largest and quite likely noblest

creature that ever lived.

We wish the Greens all the best in the effort to recover their moral

authority. In this election, if you know you're not likely to win, you might

as well stand for something. And it should be something greater than an

unwillingness to upset a coalition.

Andrew Christie

Information Director

Sea Shepherd International

PO Box 2616

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

360-370-5500

*****

ANOTHER RESPONSE SUBMITTED TO PDN

-------

Dear Peninsula Daily News:

The Green Party can be counted upon to support the vulnerable against the

rapacity and self interest of the more powerful, right? Sadly, not the Green

Party-USA , whose Vice Presidential candidate Winona LaDuke supports the

indefensible slaughter of whales by the Makah (who treated those honorable

Makah who oppose the slaughter, to a taste of the violence they have visited

upon the whales). The Greens have turned their backs on the whales and on

one of their strongest allies, animal advocates. As reported in the

Peninsula Daily News, Keith Johnson, head of the Makah Whaling Commission,

had never heard of the Greens, but welcomes their support of Makah violence.

For those of us who do not share Johnson's ignorance of the party that was

supposed to be a true alternative to government by and for the exploiters,

witnessing the Green Party support the greed, lies, and cruelty of this hunt

is a sad spectacle.

The Makah have attempted to justify this slaughter because Native Americans

were historically victims of genocidal crimes by Europeans, who stole their

homes, decimated their culture, and took their lives without remorse. This

is, indeed, a shameful part of our history and needs to be addressed and

atoned for, but not by repeating these crimes against those entirely

innocent of any complicity, the whales. The Makah Whaling Commission are a

gang of bullies. Instead of aiming their justified rage at those who have

exploited their people and learning a lesson in compassion from having been

victims, they follow the example of their exploiters - exploit and kill

those who cannot defend themselves. To deflect criticism of this hypocrisy,

they label those dedicated to stopping the circle of violence as racists.

Are the Makah so blinded by their plundering that they cannot see that if we

were all transported back in time, the present animal advocates would have

been the ones risking their lives to save, not just animals, but Native

Americans, while the Makah Whaling Commission would have been Custer's

allies, committing violence in the name of tradition? What does it matter if

tradition is killing indigenous people in the name of white culture or

killing whales in the name of Makah culture? The mind-set is the same, only

the victims differ.

Winona LaDuke has disgraced everything for which the Greens are supposed to

stand. The Green presidential ticket is no longer a viable alternative to

Gore/Bush. While LaDuke makes a distinction between commercial and ''

traditional'' slaughter of whales, to the whales it does not matter if it is

a Makah or a Japanese/Norwegian/Icelander who mercilessly kills her or her

family. LaDuke also conveniently ignores the commercial whale killers

backing of the Makah, as they know this will lead to a resumption of

commercial killing of whales. LaDuke has stooped to lies (such as that the

slaughter is IWC approved), despite the fact she is in possession of the

facts, to support an action that cannot be defended.

For whale killing to even be a topic of debate (let alone considered

desirable) by ANY people in the 21st Century, let alone the Green Party,

demonstrates how little humans have evolved.

Since LaDuke supports tradition, ethics be damned, I can assume she also

supports female circumcision, the killing of women for the crime of having

been raped, the caste system in India, and the multitude of other atrocities

committed in the name of tradition. To continue to cause suffering and death

because it has always been done or, in the case of the Makah, to revive long

dead moral crimes which we had hoped most humans had evolved beyond, cannot

be justified on any grounds. Another LaDuke attempt at justification is that

the whale killing is the ''law of the land''. Thank goodness for people with

the intelligence and morals to distinguish between legal and ethical or we

would still have slavery and child labor in this country.

LaDuke said that Greens must tolerate diverse views or their numbers will

not grow (apparently tolerating the views of those opposed to mindlessly

causing suffering and death are not included here). Brent McMillan,

facilitator of the Washington State Greens, stated there is no way he was

going to let a little thing like massive cruelty against whales split up the

unholy coalition between Greens and whale killing tribes. May I suggest that

he also not let minor matters like racism, sexism, or corporate greed stand

between the Greens and conservative Republicans. If the Greens choose to

appeal to the lowest common denominator to assure support of their party,

they should, logically, go all the way.

To give higher value to a ''tradition'' (one not needed for survival) of one

culture over the very lives of individuals of another maintains the present

hierarchy responsible for all of our preventable woes: white men at the top,

animals at the bottom, with the top and everyone in between victimizing the

animals. By supporting the hunt, the Greens are propping up the unjust power

pyramid, instead of using their energy and supposed intelligence and ethics

to topple it. Maintaining that animals exist only to support the greed of

those above the animals on the pyramid keeps the pyramid strong and assures

the continuation of all the other power inequalities within the pyramid.

Shame on Winona LaDuke and the Green Party for their complicity in politics

as usual.

Do you think LaDuke and McMillan would have had the audacity to tell Green

supporters that even though the rights of women or blacks were excluded from

the Green platform that we should be happy to agree on ''75 percent of the

issues''? While the excluded group, the animals, don't vote, those of who

are committed to justice DO vote, and the Greens have, with the support of

this slaughter, lost all claim to being a morally superior alternative to

politics as usual. John Hagelin, anybody?

Susan Gordon

New Jersey

*****

NOW, THE WORLD'S HAVING A WHALE OF A TIME

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

Whale-watching business going strong

Wednesday, August 23, 2000

By THEO EMERY

The Associated Press

BOSTON - Whale watching has grown into a $1 billion-a-year industry,

bringing a new, and ecologically sound, form of income to cash-starved parts

of the world, according to a report released yesterday.

The study from the Cape Cod-based International Fund for Animal Welfare

reports that the money whale watching brought in doubled between 1994 and

1998. In 1998 the industry was flourishing in some 500 communities in at

least 87 countries - including some with long histories of hunting whales -

up from only 31 in 1991.

" This is beginning to have a dramatic impact on communities around the

world, " said study author Erich Hoyt, who has done two previous studies on

whale watching. " We see this as a very positive development in terms of

communities finding ways of supporting themselves. "

Taiwan had the world's largest growth in the industry. In 1994, not a single

person went whale watching in Taiwan. In 1998, 30,000 hit the seas, spending

some $4.3 million to crane their necks for the huge cetaceans.

Among the 22 countries that only recently began offering whale watching are

Namibia, St. Lucia, Oman, Fiji and the Solomon Islands. Among continents,

Africa had the single largest jump, from 46,000 whale watchers in 1991 to

more than 1.5 million in 1998.

The United States is still the world leader in whale watching, accounting

for almost half of the 9 million people who crowded decks to watch whales

and dolphins in 1998.

The growth of whale watching, said IFAW program director Karen Steuer, is

because of the lure of " charismatic mega-fauna " : elephants, whales, giraffes

and the like.

But the growth is also due to a growing awareness worldwide of the potential

economic windfall of " ecotourism, " she said.

" Countries worldwide are starting to recognize the value of animal tourism,

if you will, " Steuer said.

And what caught researchers' attention in the study was that whale watching

is on the rise in countries that historically have not shied away from

killing whales, which is still practiced in Japan and Norway despite an

international ban.

Iceland, a country that stopped hunting whales only in the late 1980s, had

among the largest explosion of whale watching - a leap from 200 people in

1994 to 30,300 in 1998.

The reason, according to Steuer, is a matter of simple math: " Whales are

worth a lot more live than they are dead. "

Similarly, Japan has also seen its whale watching industry double, from some

55,000 in 1994 to more than 102,000 in 1998. Japan is still one of the few

nations that allows whaling, hunting about 500 whales each year, according

to the IFAW.

While whale watching is considered ecologically sound, the rise does have

some marine biologists watching to make sure that industry growth doesn't

put marine mammals at risk.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act protect all

marine mammals from injury and harassment from whale watching expeditions.

Just last month, the U.S. Marine Fisheries Service proposed guidelines for

protecting humpback whales in Alaska from whale watchers, and laws are in

place in Hawaii, the whale's summer breeding ground. Yet stricter

restrictions protect right whales in New England.

But most other countries have no such legal protections, said Douglas Beach

of the U.S. Marine Fisheries Service in Gloucester.

" The trouble is, most countries see whales in a different way. Some eat

them, some ignore them, some protect them as much as they can. It's up to

the country to do what they can, " Beach said.

Bobbi Zorn, 56, of Long Island, N.Y., disembarked at Rowes Wharf Monday from

an afternoon whale watching expedition. She said she was mesmerized watching

about a dozen minke and humpback whales frolic in the Massachusetts Bay.

As she reached dry land, the fourth grade teacher said there's no mystery to

the rise in whale watching's popularity is growth.

" They are exquisite, " she said. " You want to preserve and protect the

wildlife on this earth. We can't keep destroying things and polluting

things. These are beautiful creatures. "

© Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Patriot

*****

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A YEAR MAKES, EH, BEN?

-------

" The federal government is mixed up in everything that ever happens in the

world today. The government controls everything. I don't know anybody who

likes the government. "

(Ben Johnson - October 15, 1998)

" Makah Tribal Chairman [ben] Johnson publicly thanked the U.S. government...

and the crowd gave the U.S. Coast Guard a roaring, standing ovation for

backing that promise at gunpoint, policing the hunt on the open Pacific.

" It's a great day, " said Bob Coster, commander of the Coast Guard station

here... "

(Seattle Times - May 23, 1999)

*****