[Dryerase] The Alarm!--Makah Whaling pt. 3

[The Alarm!Newswire]

Troubled Waters in  Neah Bay

By Michelle Stewart
The Alarm! Newspaper Collective

The following is the last in a three part series looking at Pacific 
whaling in the US. The first installment discussed, specifically, the 
recent ruling of Judge Franklin Burgess in favor of the Makah Indian 
tribe of Washington State allowing the tribe to whale in the Olympic 
Penninsula. The second installment in the series addressed the history 
of the Pacific gray whale (California gray whale) industry 1800–1920. 
The final installment links the history of the anti-whaling movement to 
the current issues facing the Makah Indian tribe. For there are 
troubled waters when an Indian tribe evokes its historical treaty right 
to whale in the face of today’s save-the-whale mentality.

“While the court is sensitive to plaintiffs’ concern, these concerns 
are outweighed by the Makah Tribe’s rights under the Treaty of Neah 
Bay.” These were the words that concluded US District Judge Franklin 
Burgess’ judgment against the plaintiffs in their case seeking to halt 
Makah whaling, thus opening the doors once again for the Makah tribe to 
resume whaling in the Olympic Penninsula. The judge’s sharp statement 
made on August 8, 2002, may serve as the final word of support for the 
Makah Indian tribe of Washington State.

For the past seven years, the Makah whaling issue has been hotly 
debated—often taken to court, never yet truly settled—and protesters 
have illustrated that when they don’t win in the courts they’ll protest 
the hunt on the water.

 From 1946-1997: When the Endangered Recover
Commercial whaling in the late 19th century took a heavy toll on the 
Pacific gray whale. The whales were most heavily targeted in their 
breeding grounds in Baja. Estimates placed the total population size 
over 40,000 in the late 1800s. By the turn of the century, the 
population had been cut to approximately 4,000.

When the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was formed in 1946, the 
Pacific gray whale was a primary species of concern. The IWC was formed 
as, and continues to be, the primary international management agency 
for whaling, managing commercial, aboriginal (subsistence) and 
scientific hunting. In essence, the IWC is the managing group for the 
international stocks of all whales.

In 1946, the IWC banned the taking (harvesting) of eastern stock of the 
Pacific gray whales with the exception of aboriginal hunting, to which 
it allocated an annual take of 140 whales. This protection of the 
Pacific gray whale, unfortunately, put stress on other whale species 
populations. However, the protection allowed the Pacific grays to begin 
recovering from near decimation.

A second bout of protection came in 1970, when the US government listed 
the Pacific gray whale as endangered under the Endangered Species 
Conservation Act of 1969. From this listing, through the height of the 
save-the-whales movement of the 1970s and 1980s, the Pacific gray whale 
became the poster child for whale conservation.

The Pacific gray whale fed the imagination of a public that wondered 
about the intelligence of these sentient beings. Enormous, measuring in 
at 35–50 feet long and weighing 15–45 tons, this great whale also 
engages in one of the longest migrations recorded, traveling from the 
Arctic to Baja and back. These creatures began to be characterized as 
gentle leviathans by whale-watching guides, and the public imagination 
was further focused on the majesty and need for protection of the 
Pacific gray whale.

Whale-watching guides brought in their revenues by finding these 
migrating giants and having tourists “pet them” as ocean activists or 
anti-whaling activists used the images of the Pacific gray whale and 
other species to win public support to halt all whaling. From paid 
Greenpeace activists to soccer moms, the save-the-whales mindset was 
the dominant psyche—creating an attitude against whaling of any sort.

As bumper stickers and activists told people to “save the whales,” 
officials at the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the US 
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) were implementing a series of recovery 
strategies for the Pacific gray whale. Each species listed on the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) list—the law passed in 1973 that replaced 
the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969—must be monitored and 
have a drafted and implemented recovery plan that seeks to remove the 
species from the ESA via a “recovery” of the species population and 
distribution.

By 1991, the Pacific gray whale was demonstrating its remarkable 
resiliency and showed substantial population recovery. At the same 
time, groups including the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission began 
petitioning the federal government to delist the whale. In January 
1993, NMFS announced its intention to support a delisting of the 
Pacific gray whale from the ESA. In June 1994, USFW followed suit and 
the whale was officially delisted with an estimated population of 23, 
000. That same year, NMFS drafted a five-year monitoring program that 
would be a check-and-balance to insure the whale was continuing to 
recover and that the delisting was a wise choice.

In 1995, the Makah Indian tribe sent a letter to NFMS stating their 
interest in resuming whaling. In recognition of their 1855 treaty 
rights, NFMS stated support for the plan and began work on a management 
agreement with the Makah; this agreement included a request by NMFS for 
the Makah seek IWC approval. The Makah agreed to go through the IWC 
process to become an internationally-sanctioned hunt.

In 1996, the Makah sent representatives to the annual IWC meeting where 
their request to whale was rejected. As the Makah continued to work 
with the federal government on a means to be approved, the Fund for 
Animals (along with other groups and individuals) petitioned NMFS to do 
an Environmental Assessment (EA) as required by the National 
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Under threat of suit, NMFS agreed 
to draft an EA. NFMS received the petition in June of 1997, and 
released a draft EA in August of 1997. After the public comment period 
ended for the draft EA, NFMS released a finding of No Significant 
Impact in October 1997 and began a new management agreement with the 
Makah one day before the annual IWC meeting. That year the IWC granted 
the Makah an aboriginal permit to take up to five whales annually. The 
combination of events and dates left the animal rights and anti-whaling 
activists livid.

Seven Years Permitted and Protested
With IWC sanction came a five-year permit that authorized the Makah to 
harvest a total of 20 whales over a period of five years with a maximum 
annual take of five whales. Being a traditional whaling society, the 
Makah took their historical tools for hunting and had them modified. 
Those associated with the hunt said that traditional tools for hunting 
could appear inhumane, and the commission of large caliber guns would 
allow for a cleaner take of the whale. To this claim, many protesters 
cried foul, claiming that if the hunt was “traditional” and classified 
as “aboriginal” the Makah must use only traditional tools.

 From the planning of the hunt (EAs) all the way to the execution of the 
hunt (the equipment), the anti-whaling faction would not see eye-to-eye 
with either federal and international managers or the Makah whalers. 
This fundamental disagreement led to a series of battles fought both in 
the courts and on the water.

In 1998, when the Makah first took to the water seeking a whale, 
protesters set up shop in Neah Bay and went out after them, causing a 
ruckus when whalers were present. The wave of protests provoked federal 
authorities to create a 500-yard “exclusionary zone” around the hunting 
vessel. Citing the possible threat of injury from either the 50-caliber 
weapon or a struck whale, authorities threatened six years and/or a 
$250,000 fine for those who violated the zone.

In 1999, NMFS concluded its five-year evaluation of the Pacific gray 
whales recovery after being delisted. The agency concluded the species 
was continuing to recover, the choice to delist was satisfactory and 
the classification of non-threatened still applied. The same year, the 
Makah took their first whale. However, this victory would be 
short-lived.

Be Careful What You Ask For
In June of 2000, an appellate court halted the hunt until NMFS 
completed a new EA, in response to a claim by anti-whaling protesters 
that NMFS acted in bad faith when it prepared management plans with the 
tribe before and/or concurrent to the preparation of an EA as required 
by NEPA.

In a moment of bitter irony for protesters, the new EA, released in 
July of 2001, actually extends the range and frequency in which the 
hunt could occur—after further consideration biologists opened up 
larger areas to the hunt and removed seasonal restrictions. The most 
recent ruling by Burgess last month was in response to a case filed by 
animal rights advocates protesting this new EA. Burgess stated that the 
case filed by whale advocates lacked “substantial likelihood” of 
success if it went to court.

  However, often lost in the narrative of protests and court rooms is 
the fact that the Makah are simply invoking a treaty right guaranteed 
to them. Commercial whaling stripped the sea of Pacific gray whales in 
the 1800s, the Makah—a century later—are simply picking up where they 
left off. Over the screams of animal rights advocates we must too be 
willing to hear the need for cultural respect and autonomy. For it 
can’t simply be Indian vs. whale—to reduce it to such is to be blind to 
the scope of this battle taking place in the Pacific Northwest. 
Unfortunately, the battle has often overshadowed significant events.

Protesters Hit Whale, Get Run Over
In 1999, just before the Makah took their first whale, anti-whaling 
protesters were in the water using a combination of sea vessels and 
jetskis to try and distract the whalers and/or scare away the whales. 
All of the controversy often filled the skies with camera crews in 
helicopters following the Makah and the protesters to capture the 
action. Unfortunately for the protesters, one camera crew caught the 
protesters violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) which 
makes it illegal to harass, harm, or take a marine mammal without 
federal authority. The footage caught the protesters inadvertently 
crossing the path of a whale (or as some might say, running a whale 
over). The footage prompted the US Coast Guard to seize two of the 
boats and charge the owners with violating the rights of the very 
animals the protesters claimed they wanted to protect.

In 2000, the Coast Guard contends it gave out the notice to disperse on 
megaphone, then tried to intercept a protester who was disrupting the 
hunt. As the Makah tried to hunt a whale from their hand-carved canoe, 
a protester zooming around on a jetski was struck by a Coast Guard 
vessel and had to be airlifted to a local hospital. The protester 
recovered from her injuries and was charged with violating the 
exclusionary zone.

Weathering the Storm: From Potlach to District Court
In May of 1999, the Makah took their first and only whale to date. 
Killed in less than eight minutes, the healthy, three-year old female 
was towed to shore and received by a cheering crowd. The Makah dressed 
the whale on the beach and then hosted an enormous potlach in which 
1,000 people attended to celebrate the first whale taken in nearly 70 
years.

Participants from as far way as Alaska, Fiji and Africa attended the 
event where the menu included the recently caught whale.

Manifesting the primary motivation for the hunt, the Makah brought 
forth their historical position as skilled whalers of the Northwest. 
Considering the significance of this event, it may not be such a 
shocking coincidence that the whaler who struck the first blow to the 
whale in 1999 was none other than Theron Parker, great-grandson to 
famously-photographed Makah whaler, Wilson Parker. Two generations 
separate these whalers, but a cultural bond unites them through action 
nearly 80 years later.

Considering the wealth of events, names, places and agencies, I decided 
to handle this last installment much the same way I delivered the 
second part in the series. Often lost in the discussion about Makah 
whaling is the voice of the Makah themselves, who don’t actively do as 
much “press” as protesters (nor should they be expected to). I 
purposely steered clear of quotable quotes and chose to deliver my 
understanding of the situation in the Pacific Northwest as someone who 
has been following this issue since 1994 and seen it from the side of 
the protester to the side of the someone who supports the Makah’s 
treaty right to whale. I don’t claim to represent the voices of the 
Makah any more than I claim to deliver the absolute sentiment of the 
protesters. I encourage you to visit the following sites and begin to 
navigate this issue personally, as I and others have. Information on 
the hunt: www.makah.com, www.nwifc.wa.gov/whaling, 
www.cnie.org/nae/cases/makah. Anti-whaling info:  
http://www.fund.org/library/documentViewer.asp?ID=348&table=documents, 
www.seashepherd.org, www.oceandefense.org.
 
      All content Copyleft © 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where 
noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in 
whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or 
by government agencies.

-----
The Alarm! Newspaper
a local weekly newspaper for an engaged populace

http://www.the-alarm.com/
info at the-alarm.com
P.O. Box 1205, Santa Cruz, CA 95061
(831) 429-NEWS - office
(831) 420-1498 - fax