An old friend of mine asked me to give the environmental perspective at a panel the other day about the infamous Makah whale hunt. It was a very interesting panel, and the audience wasn’t always very receptive to what I had to say. In the end, though, I think we were able to find more things that we agreed on than otherwise, which left me feeling pretty good.
So what exactly is this controversy all about? It’s a bit complicated. Essentially, the Makah tribe, a recognized sovereign nation located on the tip of Washington’s Olympic peninsula, signed in the 19th century a document called the Treaty of Neah Bay. It was pretty much your typical treaty between the US and a Native tribe: you can have a small strip of your former home, and we get everything else. The difference, however, in this treaty from other treaties was that the Makah were granted the right to whale without condition.
Fast forward to the 1930s. The gray whale, the whale traditionally hunted by the Makah, has been nearly wiped out by commercial whaling (which, just to be fair, some members of the Makah tribe participated in). Instead of continuing to whale, the Makah decided to voluntarily halt their whaling practices indefinitely, or at least until the gray whale population becomes healthy again.
In the meantime, the world was changing. About forty years after the Makah voluntarily stopped their whaling, the United States entered into the International Whaling Commission and at the same time passed the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), a predecessor to the Endangered Species Act (which I’ve talked about extensively in the snail darter post). When the US went to negotiations for the IWC, they represented Alaskan native tribes in the North, and were able to secure the Alaskan natives rights to hunt baleen whales (interestingly, these whales are on the endangered species list, but the Alaskan natives are still allowed to hunt them). However, because the Makah weren’t hunting at the time, the US didn’t secure whaling rights for them.
Fast forward again to the 1990s. The Makah feel that it’s time to start whaling again, after nearly seventy years without it. They have to rediscover the techniques used to whale, the rituals surrounding the whaling…essentially, reestablish and rebuild a very large part of their culture. The United States grants them the right to whale, and the Makah prepare.
Naturally, things don’t work so smoothly. Animal rightists and environmentalists catch word of a Native tribe that was granted whaling rights, and they’re infuriated. 27 environmental groups and a whole bunch of animal rights groups oppose the whaling, and begin their protests. Of course, not all environmentalists agree: both the Sierra Club and even Greenpeace remain neutral, refusing to support the activities of the groups in opposition. These groups, led by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, continue to protest the whaling, right up until May 17, 1999.
That’s the day that the Makah kill a two year old, male gray whale.
But the fight’s not quite over, yet. Animal rights groups take the Makah to court, and a judge rules that unless the Makah secure a waiver for the MMPA from NOAA, the Makah whale hunt is illegal. And so the Makah do, filing a petition for a waiver in 2005.
The story, sadly, does not even end there. In protest, five Makah members harpooned and shot a gray whale without the permission of the US government and also without the permission of their tribe. A biologist for the Makah tribe reported that the whale almost certainly died from its wounds. The crime is denounced by both the protestors and the Makah, as well as the US government.
The petition to waive the MMPA for the Makah is still being worked out; the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has actually just been published (I believe it was published May 9th), and NOAA is accepting public comment. If you’re interested in this issue, I’d strongly encourage you to write NOAA and let them know how you feel about the matter. DEIS is here.
So. Now you know, more or less, the back story of the Makah whaling controversy. It’s a whale of a tale (ho ho!), and it’s definitely not over. You can bet that when the FEIS (final Environmental Impact Statement) is published in 2009 (it should be published then, I think) that the Makah will face even more opposition than before.
The panel began with a quick overview of the Makah’s position, and the first person to talk was Dr. Ted Fortier from the anthropology department. His speech outlined how important the whaling is to the Makah tradition, how the Makah respected the whale immensely, etc. It was pretty interesting, and his comments during discussion were really insightful, and educational, particularly for someone not well studied in Native culture.
Then it was my turn. I started my talk by outlining a few ecological facts I’d found on the internet: the gray whale is not endangered or threatened, the Makah would be unable to harvest the whale commercially, and it was unlikely that any drastic environmental damage would occur on account of whaling. I briefly mentioned the Treaty of Neah Bay, and then, I went into the main problem I have with the whaling.
The problem as I see is mainly one of the manner in which the Makah are handling the situation, and the framework they’re using to advocate for their right to whale. The argument they’re using is basically this: we have a cultural right to these whales. And that’s the way the situation is being framed, and that’s ultimately going to set some bad precedents.
Let me start by saying that the Makah do not have a cultural right to these whales. I really don’t believe that anyone has a cultural right to anything whatsoever, and certainly not to a living organism that has inherent rights. If the Makah win this national debate by claiming their culture inherently possesses a right to whale, that argument can be expanded to any number of situations. Is it not true that the Israelis use the same argument to justify their occupation of some areas of Palestine? I think that basing any sort of right on culture is scary and wrong.
But on the other hand, I believe that the Makah should be allowed to whale. However, instead of using the “culture” argument, I think the Makah should focus on a different argument. That argument is simply this: we have a guarantee from the US government that states we’re allowed to whale. Period.
This debate could be refocused around the very controversial and important discussion of Native American treaty rights. And that’s really where this needs to go.
I’ll stop here, and see if anyone has any comments. Please do give me your thoughts and opinions; this is a pretty controversial issue, and I’m curious to know what people think.
I will have to disagree with your assessment and opinion that the Makah should be allowed to whale.
I agree with the truthful statement: “I really don’t believe that anyone has a cultural right to anything whatsoever, and certainly not to a living organism that has inherent rights.”
Here’s my opinion. The resources of this big blue marble have been devastated by greed. The scientific community is now admitting that animals have far greater intelligence than once believed or accepted. Even octopi are intelligent in way we cannot understand.
The Great Whales are clearly intelligent, sensitive beings. They are warm blooded, breathe air, bear live young, nurse them, keep families together (which is more than this society can do), have no crime and have language. They aren’t very different from us except they have no hands, they live in the water, and they don’t have crime.
There is no valid reason to brutally slaughter such a being. We may as well kill and eat criminals then, because at least they are guilty of crime.
It is agreed that there is no humane way to kill a whale. That alone is a reason not to cause them unmitigated agony for endless hours. But also, there is no valid reason to kill them just for some cultural reason. Cultures must change with the time, whether they were indigenous to this land or came on a ship from somewhere else.
It is an unconscionable travesty to slaughter intelligent beings who have language. Period.
The Makah have survived without eating whale for many years as you mentioned above. They do not need it now either. I am sorry to say these things, but they are truth, and truth cannot be anything but true.
It is time, now, today, this very minute that all peoples on this planet start to see life for what it is. We SHARE this world, we don’t own it, we SHARE it with other beings and in so doing we have to play nicely with others and stop using everything as if it were our right. It’s not. No one has a right to do anything. Think about it. Who gives out the rights? Certainly not the animals who are going extinct because of habitat loss, or the cod who have been overfished, or the polar bear who is at the mercy of the corporations and the people who eat dead cows whose methane gas contribute hugely to global warming.
Humans are ruining everything. They Makah have an even less humane way to kill than do the horrid Japanese who lie through their teeth and spin their commercial whaling in whatever way is needed on that particular day.
No one has rights, except to life. You have a right to life. So do the whales. They don’t belong to anyone except the seas of the earth, and they SHOULD NOT be available to die agonal deaths at the hands of the most dangerous animal on earth… humans.
It’s time to change the paradigm, to offer compassion and service instead of greed and killing and blood. It is time to evolve into the beings of compassion and intelligence which is our potential. But potential is just energy at rest. Someone has to start. Someone has to have the balls to say, enough, enough…
starbird —
I think you bring up one aspect of the argument that I neglected to talk about in my post, and that’s the animal rights position.
I generally disagree with animal rightists, and this is a typical case. I think you bring up some good points: we do share this world with each other, and we have to respect that fact. However, part of that sharing is participating in the energy cycles that exist on this planet. Predation occurred naturally, and it’s a necessary part of nearly every ecological system.
Something I often wonder about in the animal rights v. environmentalist debate is the question about the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park. Environmentalists championed this effort, and continue to support the efforts of biologists to keep the wolves safe. Yet, it would seem that an animal rightist would think such a reintroduction a crime. What about the deer being eaten by the wolves? Don’t they have a right to be protected?
The clash between viewing nature as a whole made up of the sum of its parts (the animal rightist view) and the view of individuals as born out of a whole (the deep ecology view) is a contest that gets pretty heated.
Still, I have to say, I do believe that the Makah have a right to whale. They have treaty rights that need to be respected by the US government, and furthermore, it could actually be a good thing for the populations of gray whales to have a natural predator. I don’t have any solid ecological data to back that statement up, but that’s a hypothesis I have.
Anyway, love to hear more from you, starbird.
[...] Protection Act (MMPA), a predecessor to the Endangered Species Act (which Iv… source: Makah Whaling, The Third [...]
Bryson…
I have so many things to say that I don’t know where to begin. I’m going to just list them for a bit and also enclose an article.
Whales and dolphins are, thanks to human greed, full of toxicity, mercury and other toxins. Living beings should never eat it.
Toxins are cumulative.
Unless you, Bryson, personally counted each and every gray whales, you really don’t know how many there are. Neither does anyone else. Extrapolations are just that, extrapolations.
Given the condition of the globe and it’s once lovely waters, thee is no way to know the truth of the numbers of anything.
Reality is tainted by what the speaker wants to see as an outcome.
Even if the US gave rights, they didn’t have the right to give rights since the whales don’t belong to anyone, so that’s truly a moot point.
That was then and this is now.
No one needs to slaughter an intelligent, warm blooded mammal who has language (HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE) with which to communicate with one another.
It’s just plain wrong.
The Makah cannot be trusted anyway. I’m including the article below to explain that comment. If they lie as a tribe, then they cannot be trusted.
The Makah do not respect the whales, or they would have handled this opprobrious even differently.
Think about it Bryson, how can one person/group give a right? It’s not a tangible thing. No one owns a ‘right’ it doesn’t even exist.
Just because you believe that the Makah have been given a ‘right’ doesn’t mean they should be allowed to use it, or that they… in all good conscience… should use it. They shouldn’t.
It’s just not right or acceptable. The civilized world must stand by being civilized or just go back to being cave men. And I would like to mention that if the rules were made by more women than men, things like this wouldn’t happen.
I just got an email about Iceland killing whales yesterday in defiance of the global moratorium on whaling. I’ll include that after the article regarding the Makah.
And about the animals eating one another to survive. I hate it. I think it stinks as a system. I understand it, but I hate it.
Edit from Bryson: I took out the article because I think it came through better in the last post. Hope that’s okay!
I’m so sorry, the first article did not come through properly.
Here it is again:
How much is a Whale Worth?
$20 Bucks According to the Makah Tribal Court
This was the lead paragraph of the story in the Seattle Times today:
“They promised tough prosecution, but in the end the Makah Nation couldn’t put together a jury to try five whalers who were charged with illegally killing a gray whale off Neah Bay last fall.
Tribal Judge Stanley Myers on Wednesday instead granted the men one-year deferred prosecution and promised to dismiss the charges if they committed no offenses during that time. The whalers also were each ordered to pay a $20 fine.”
Twenty Dollars! These men viciously and illegally slaughtered a defenseless Gray whale. The whale took over ten hours to die, choking on its own blood, thrashing about in pain until its body finally sank to the ocean floor, never to be recovered.
Ten hours of agonizing suffering for which the unrepentant killers had to pay $2 per hour.
Last fall after Wayne Johnson and his fellow whale killers were arrested, the Makah Tribal Council held a news conference and promised a swift and just punishment if convicted.
Last September the Makah issued a statement to the media that said; “We are a law-abiding people and we will not tolerate lawless conduct by any of our members.”
Obviously the Makah tribe is not capable of rendering justice in an impartial manner.
Former Sea Shepherd Crewmember Dan Spomer wrote today:
“Let’s say that your name is Wayne Johnson, you are a Makah tribal member, and, even though barred from doing so by a Federal Court order, you had an urge to kill a gray whale, jumped into a boat and just blasted one with your rifle over and over and over again. It’s just something you HAD to do.
Hours later, the whale was struggling to survive, blood thick on the water. Much later, the whale died, painfully sinking into the depths of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. You’re taken into custody, you’ve dishonored your Tribe and basically demonstrated to the entire world your disregard for the rule of law. Outrage follows as the world learns of the deed.
What penalty would you expect to face in Makah Tribal Court? Imprisonment? Steep fines? A harsh sentence?
Nope.
Today, the Makah Tribal Court sentenced the five Makah tribal members involved in the outrageous, illegal September hunt.
They were fined twenty dollars each.
The whale killers have also been indicted in the federal court and face up to a year in jail and $100,000 fines. In the end, federal prosecutors offered a plea deal that meant no jail time as part of a settlement that included the tribe waiving its prosecution in tribal court.
Three of the whalers took the deal, and sentencing in federal court is set for June. Two other whalers refused to plead guilty and were found guilty by the judge in Tacoma, Washington. They are appealing the conviction but also face sentencing in June, including fines and possibly community service, but very likely no jail time.
Last month, the Makah tribal judge refused to honor the federal plea deal and instead ordered all five whalers to stand trial in Neah Bay.
Johnson said yesterday he would have gladly faced trial and would have appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend his treaty rights to kill a whale. Asked whether he’d do it any differently if he could do it over, he answered, “I’d land the whale on the beach.”
These Makah whalers have demonstrated total contempt for the law, for the whales and for many of the Elders of their own tribe. The only part of the traditional whaling they are seeking to preserve is the killing. No rituals, no sacrifices, no traditional methods – just a big .50 calibre gun, power boats, wetsuits and a redneck desire to kill sum’thin.
A public comment period is now under way on a federal draft environmental-impact statement on the tribe’s proposal to legally whale under their treaty. A public hearing is scheduled in Seattle on June 2. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society will be sending a representative to oppose the Makah application to legally slaughter whales.
“This is the 21st Century,” said Captain Paul Watson. “The barbarism of whaling by Japan, Norway, Iceland and the Makah must be ended. It’s time to celebrate life with the whales after centuries of horrific abuse. Wayne Johnson is a common thug who has contemptuously dismissed the concerns of his own Elders and who has given the finger to his own Tribal Council and for $20 he thinks he can now go back to the beach and pump lead into another defenseless whale. We need to stop him.”
Don’t have much time at the moment, but the area of the similarities and conflicts between animal rights and deep ecology are a major interest of mine and together make up most of my blog entries. I have great respect for each position and I certainly think they have far more in common with each other than either does with mainstream society.
I think the AR folks who object to wild predation are a small minority. Most are well aware of how nature works although AR is primarily an urban attitude. I also see AR (and my near veganism) as very much a product of this moment in time, just as long term unsustainable as industrialism in general. But for THIS moment, I believe it’s the more ethical diet & value system.
I’ll try to get back to this. One quick anecdote. A few years ago I saw Dave Foreman give two lectures and chatted with after each talk. He’s a hero of mine, one of EF!’s founders as well as many other groups, and also notoriously anti-animal rights. And yet in his speeches, all the examples he gave of the glory of nature involved animals—the exciting chill of hearing wolves howl, the return of lynx populations and that we should have a Lynx Day to celebrate. I firmly believe that emotional connection with other beings is needed and more powerful than just having a scientific understanding of ecology and ecosystems. Must run now.
[...] whale meat had been stolen and sold prior to government release. Early reports allege that at least a tonne of whale has been [...]
First off, sorry it’s taken so long to get back to you guys; I was kind of busy during the long weekend, and I wanted to give your posts the attention they deserve.
So…
starbird –
Again, I think you bring an important viewpoint to this table, and a viewpoint that has been extremely vocal in the past few years with regard to this issue. Animal rightists definitely have some interesting insights (one of my favorite professors here at Seattle U, Dan Dombrowski, is a famous animal rightist), but ultimately, I find their philosophic position untenable.
Why? Because it does nothing to address the true heart of environmental crises, and is entirely based on Western notions of individualism. I find that these two factors are extremely important, and neither has been addressed to my satisfaction by any animal rightist.
Perhaps in the near future I’ll make a post explaining why I feel the way I do about animal rights, but for now, I’ll hold my tongue and let you reply with anything additional you may have to say.
greentangle –
I think the relationship between humans and animals is pretty important. But I think that relationship needs to be taken within the context of the land. You know? For instance, zoos are fascinating to me, because I’m able to see animals that I’d otherwise never see in my lifetime. On the other hand, I find them slightly distasteful. What are we really seeing when we go to the zoo? A real animal, or a being in a confined space with no recourse to truly fulfill any sort of species role they would normally play?
I think somewhere in this blog, I mentioned the idea of organisms as embodied history and embodied relationships. The way I see things, evolution brought us to where we are today, and our DNA is simply the recorded interactions of our ancestors with other beings, who in turn, were the recorded being of their ancestors, and so forth. What we really are is a story, and that story is inexplicably (I mean that word in its most literal sense) intertwined with all other biotic stories. Even the nonbiotic land is a part of that story.
So when we talk about our relationships with animals, I don’t think we should talk about it in the manner that an animal rightist would: as two mutually existing, yet separate, entities that have moral patiency. Instead, I think that we should look at animals as part of ourselves. Yes, separate, but more fundamentally connected both in an internal sense, perhaps spiritual sense, but even more so in a radically physical sense, as well.
So…not exactly sure what I’m trying to say, but that’s sort of what I thought of when I read your post. Haha! Anyway, thanks for posting, and I’d love to hear back.
Hi! I’m currently working on a debate assignment on Makah whaling. I’m not here to argue or anything, I was just wondering about a few things…I wasn’t really able to chose my position on this topic, but I’m against whale hunting in this debate. But really, I’m both for and against it…It’s pretty complicated. I was just wondering if the Makah really use all the whale parts like they used to, and what they do with the parts. Thank you very much for writing this, it helped me out SO much! It was just the information I was searching for, and reading the different opinions on the comments really helped. Thank you very much!
Hmm…good question, Alex.
Given the fact that the Makah did not whale for seventy years, and thus, there’s a huge generation gap between those who knew how to use the whole whale and those who don’t, my guess (and this is pure speculation) is that they would not use the whale in an exactly similar fashion as they used to.
Also, I found this quote from an article in Mother Jones concnerning whether or not the Makah would sell whale meat or whale parts:
Hmm…so, given the fact that the Makah were at least considering selling the whale, I doubt that they’d be using the entire whale’s body like they once did. But, again, that’s speculation. Informed speculation, but speculation nonetheless. If any readers out there know a better answer to Alex’s question, I’d really love to hear it!
Thanks for the question, Alex!
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation
Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Kettle!
The above quote “Selling the whale was a thought,” concedes McCarty. “And I’ll be honest with you. Selling the whale could be very, very advantageous to the tribe.” Thompson says the whale hunt was Greene’s idea: “He decided that we should go whaling because there would be money in it.” Greene did not return phone calls for this story” is completely ignoring one whole side. The Makah admitted that they had tossed around the idea of selling the meat in court. They have also specifically stated in court and have posted on their own website for all to see as well that they would not sell any of the whale. It’s also illegal to whale for commercial purposes under their own law, and they have no intent to change that. This quote is an example of using words to shape a one sided reality I’m afraid.
The only part of the whale that they plan to use for any sort of profit (which is also right on their website… why you’d search for THEIR intent from sources that are anything BUT they themselves is rather mysterious to me) is jewelry made from the whale bone. Should also be noted as stated that the Makah voluntarily ceased whale hunting due to the low population, and his meant no clauses were secured on their behalf. IWC is NOT even an authoritative organization. No nations who are not part of it’s charter are held to it. Any nation that IS can simply object, and they are not held to the issue they object to! You can find this at the IWC’s website. Despite all this, the Makah Nation of their own volition approached the US government in an attempt to go through the “proper channels” to resume whaling… they started this process in 1995. As a sovereign nation, THEY DID NOT EVEN HAVE TO BOTHER. They could have not bothered with ANY of it and they’d still be whaling today perfectly legally. They did it out of concern and sensitivity, which (my opinion) is most clearly NOT being returned.
The result of this concerned attempt was lawsuits filed by several environmental groups based on the language of the treaty, which states that they have the right to whale “in common with all citizens of the United States”. This has been interpreted as “they must be bound like citizens of the US”, however that is a somewhat colored interpretation. Strictly it means that they have been distinguished FROM “citizens of the US”, else it would say “all OTHER citizens”. Of course, now it’s up to the courts to determine what a treaty “actually says”, which is pretty unfortunate.
The species is no longer endangered, they are already limited to 20 over 5 years, and they plan to use all traditional weapons other than a 50 caliber rifle, which is what has been suggested to them as the most “humane” way to kill a whale. They started this whole thing by simply trying to be as kosher about it as possible. I’m a huge environmentalist, and I’m not the type who thinks we are “imperialist” for sneezing in a foreign country… but this is absolutely eco-colonialism. Unfortunately, how intelligent whales are or are not has nothing to do with it… nothing at all. They are a soverign nation with an explicit right to whale… and simply by trying to do it in a sensitive way, they have incurred the wrath of misguided environmentalists. The PROPER way to approach this SHOULD have been the same way as protesting whaling in a foreign country (Japan for example), not by trying to strong arm in court, distorting their intent, wordsmithing their culture to presume that THEY do not even know what is proper tradition (just as one example). Pure travesty and eco-colonialism.
I agree with Bryson, the Makah should be allowed to whale. Here in the Makah Treaty of 1855 – The Treaty of Neah Bay it states that it is their constitutional right to hunt whales. In article four of the treaty in clearly states:
“…The right of taking fish and of whaling or sealing at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said [Makah] Indians in common with all citizens of the United States…”
You can see the whole treaty at: http://explorenorth.com/library/weekly/more/bl-MakahTreaty.htm
The specific part I am looking at is in Article 4 of the treaty.
They do have the right, the constitutional right, though it may not be moral it is legal.
I tend to agree with the general ecologist view. There are really 5 parts one could take in this argument:
There is the side of I don’t honestly care and I am completely uninvolved in this argument.
There is the side of I am undecided and impartial, I just study the facts.
There is the extremist Animal Rights group.
There is the Ecologist view.
And finally there is the Makah (pro-whaling) view.
In the view of the ecologist which is what I believe in, they simply deliever the facts: if the Makah hunted whales, only a few of them each year, it would not hurt the whale population or damage the environment.
Being semi-anthropologist I believe that protecting the Makah culture and revitalizing their beliefs is important. Studies show that from catching the whale they greatly improved the Makah society. So yes, in a way they may have a “cultural right” but thats not the right argument to fight. Fight with the law, use the treaty.
I can’t agree with Starbird because though they must evolve their culture, they can’t give it up. Further more, they have evolved their culture, they use modern day buildings and if you walked into one of their schools it would seem not that different from one of the many schools through out the US and Canada.
Whaling is part of their religion, it would be like telling a Christian to give up god because he is 2000 years old and that they need a new way of life and a new culture/religion. Some may argue that it is just such and old tradition that you can’t abolish it, well guess what….. the Makah tradition of hunting whales is 2000 years old too, if not older. Though they may not need to whale anymore, they do because of religion and tradition, just like how many don’t need to go to church, but they do go anyways.
So you see, it is only logical that the Makah can whale. They have the right, and the reason. And its not hurting another human being and its not causing extreme damage to the whale population. It was the comercial whalers that took out the population, not just the Makah. Over the 2000 years when the Makah hunted whale the whale population was fine. As long as they don’t take to many it isn’t going to be a problem.
Of course, this may just be my feelings: Who the hell cares? Its a frickin whale. It ain’t gonna wipe out the population. Seriously, 2 or 3 whales a year isn’t a problem.
I was very much involved in the whaling debate in the late ’90s. I live near Seattle, WA – about 3 1/2 hours from Neah Bay. I am an outspoken supporter of the Makah and their treaty right to hunt the gray whale.
I am all too familiar with the emotional ‘whale hugger’ attitude and the attitude that I cannot love whales if I endorse the killing of a whale.
Well I do, and I do.
The Makah love the whale. The whale is part of their cultural and heritage. Anti-whaling types just cannot see or believe that.
One of the posts above says: “The Makah cannot be trusted anyway. If they lie as a tribe, then they cannot be trusted.”
How many times have I seen outragious statements like this against a nation of people – just because they killed a whale. Sheesh.
I think it is really sad that people buy anti-whaling propaganda and manifest such hatred as we have seen.
I have had my life threatened and have been stalked by the anti-whaling faction – merely because I actively support the Makah. One really good thing is that I have made many lifetime friends as a result of all this!!
Hi! I am a Student from EAS in seattle. I am working on a persuasive essay on the debate on the Makah Whale Hunt.
I needed to get some info about the debate and some opinions from both sides.
That would be really helpfull.
I also have some questions about the subject.
I was reading a book about the Makah Hunt and i am wondering if that the Makah hunt 4 whales per year would impact the grey whale population that bad?
And How about keeping their culture alive?
I have to admitt, I am with the group of people who want to allow the Makah to continue hunting whale.
If you can answer back to this comment please Email me back at [removed email address]
Hi, Bryson,
Thank you for sending this info, it really helps a lot.
I wanted to ask you about whether you can forward my questions to Starbird so he can Email me back on his opinion.
I will make sure that I will send you and him a copy of my Persuasive Essay on the Makah Whale Hunt.
If you find some more info that will be helpful too.
If you can answer back to this comment please Email me back at seanwee@verizon.net
Hello Bryson, I am also a student from EAS working on a persuasive essay and I have a couple questions about some of the Makah Whaling Rights. I am part of the group that is against Whaling. I was wondering if you could forward to Starbird this letter and I would like to know about some of his opinions about whaling. Would you think that Whaling is more of a cultural beliefs situation, or just because they want to make some money off of whales?
Thank you for answering my questions if possible!
I support the Makah’s Right to whale. Just to point it out though, the treaty, just like laws, can be overuled to fit modern times and standards. However, honoring the treaty is good and I think it will be good to let the Makah Whale.
To answer your question, Arman, Its a cultural and legal right/belief. The makah aren’t using this to make money.
Though I believe the Makah should be allowed to whale “TheDude” brings up a good point about things being changed.
Finally, one thing we shouldn’t do is get violent. Its a freaking whale, not a reason to stalk and/or hurt/kill someone over. A debate is ok but taking physical action is a big “no no”. One of the big reasons I am with the Makah is because I don’t like the otherside, the SeaSheperds or who ever they are seem to be blowing this ordeal way out of proportion. Not something worth losing blood over.
If it wasn’t for the fact that I hate the opponets to the Makah and their tactics used against the Makah I might be against whaling.
For now I am convinced whaling is the way to go.
Hi, I’ve recently been interested in this issue, and its interesting to see the array of viewpoints in this argument. I hope you all have room for a little more.
I have done a good bit of research on this topic myself, am currently studying Native American history and am majoring in natural resource ecology. I am certainly not an expert, but I have been schooled on many subjects of both wildlife conservation and the histories of American Indians, so I would simply like to share what information I have acquired, as objectively as possible. Some good points have already been made, so some of this is just reinforcement.
Here is a PhD’s full report on Makah whaling: Take the time to at least pick out some of the main points here, and it should clear up some of the questions out there.
No, the Makah are not in any way selling any part of the whales (except in the case of crafts made from whale bone). As far as utilizing every part of the whale, traditionally every part was used- even the sinew was used to fashion the harpoons used to catch the whales.
Yes, whaling is a very deeply rooted cultural practice of the Makah. In fact, one could argue that their very existence is shaped around whaling. Starbird, I find it dissappointing that you claim the Makah do not respect the whales. Please, consider your ‘opponents’ perspective before you make such claims.
No, the quota of 20 whales over a 5 year period with up to 5 whales in any given year should have no noticeable impact on whale populations (a full report is given if you check out the website I gave above).
Like Aaron points out, check out the Makah’s own website, where you can find their views, un-regurgitated, as well as heaps of info on trad. and contemporary whaling practices, spiritual and cultural significance, etc.
Personally, it saddens me to see how our western society still has not been able to accept the views of the Native Americans, even after over 400 years of conflict, and at such an expense for these peoples. Are we no different than the Israelis and Palestinians? Well anyway I hope Ive left some food for thought.
cheers!