Michael Price writes:

>At no point does Sea Shepherd say the Makah *are* doing so, just
>that they might.

Correct and for me that is the insulting, counter-productive, part of the
press release. This is brought up in the second paragraph before the issue
is even explained. Sea Shepherd doesn't fully explain the stated reason
for the weapons, but they bring other more inflamatory ideas. They almost
make it sound like the weapons are illegal to possess. The fact the Makah
could use the weapons to intimidate, and the idea the Makah may have
subsequent illegal hunts are not relavant to allowing a limited hunt.
Binoculars can and have been used for spying. If the makah use binoculars
to spot whales, maybe sea shepard will insinuate something about that.

Enforcement is a real issue in any regulated field, particularly hunting.
It has a place but must be dealt with as an explicit issue. The fact that
the Makah have not hunted, and are bothering with a petition to the Whaling
Commission which they are not represented on, seems like ample evidence
they are law abiding. They can have an illegal hunt anytime. Enforcement
is a current issue, not an issue that comes up only in the context of a
limited hunt.

>Baccus and Kennedy would have us forego consideration of this because the
folks toting the guns are an aboriginal people? Other than a reverse
racism, I can see no sense in this position.

Racism is not the primary thing here. Using fear and distortion is. I do
not object to the informational aspects of the post. Just the crafted use
of language to convey a sense of fear and lawlessness.




Michael Kennedy <mkennedy at waypt.com>
Port Townsend, WA, USA