Subject: Re: Fwd: Makah Use Military Weapons on Gray Whales
Date: Aug 15 16:50:45 1997
From: Don Baccus - dhogaza at pacifier.com



>Don, I appreciate that you support the Makah's right to make the decision.
>But if, for the sake of discussion, you were one of the people advocating
>no hunt, what would you feel to be be a fair, ethical approach to persuading
>them not to hold the hunt? How would you phrase it? What do you think might
>be the clear path here?

Damn, I just spent a half hour writing a detailed response to this and my
system crashed before I mailed it. Grrr...need to download that new
Win 95 winsock and dial-up networking upgrade someday...

In sort, my answer was "I don't know, really".

Various forms of persuasion, from discussion to legal (fight 'em in court) to
political (make it illegal to advertise gambling on TV) would seem possible
without crossing the line separating external pressure from "you're not
worthy to decide what it means to be a Makah".

Some of these external pressures may amount to "we're going to make it painful
to be a Makah", of course - much as sanctions against South Africa did in the
days of Apartheid.

Still, no one claimed that the Afrikanners had no right to decide what it
means to be an Afrikanner. We just universally said, "well, heck, then,
we don't LIKE Afrikanners!"

>Like many other people and organisations opposed to whaling, Sea Shepherd is
>advocating that the hunt not be held. Under current international regulation
>to which the US government has affixed its signature, the hunt could not
>legally be held.

Dicey. What's the legal basis for claiming that the whaling treaty supercedes
the treaty with the Makah? One of the limitations on the sovereignity of the
tribes is that they can't treat with foreign powers, and the US is the proxy
for them in any such treaty, which I suppose is one reason why the aboriginal
whaling stuff is in there in the first place. However, I do believe the US is
obligated to represent the interests of the tribes when they act as a proxy...

It will boil down to whether or not the Makah can whale under their treaty
with
the US, something the courts will undoubtably decide.

How do you propose the US stop the Makah if the courts uphold the tribe's
interpretation? The old-fashioned European way - ignore the treaty, and
invade? :)

(which, of course, the US has been guilty of many times, particularly in
regard
to tribes. We're trying to change, though, with the help of sharp lawyers
representing various tribes in suits against our government).

>It's quite interesting in view of its mythic reputation, but if you look
>clinically at the history of Sea Shepherd, you'll find it's not quite the
>raving loose cannon that popular prejudice holds it to be, however much one
>may disapprove of its methods.

The problem is that they seem more skilled at shooting themselves in the
foot than just about anything else.

>I also find it interesting that Sea Shepherd will
>garner more disapproval for confronting a non-compliant whaling nation than
>that nation will earn for flouting international law. Why the double
>standard? I've always been curious about that.

The IWC is a voluntary organization and members are free to leave. Norway and
Japan are flouting loopholes in the whaling moratorium that were put there
specifically to lure them into agreeing to it last decade (I think it was the
80s). Not very nice, but the anti-whaling nations entered into that agreement
knowing full well that Norway and Japan intended to push the limit of
tolerance
regarding "research whaling" and to some extent got what they deserved.

And so did the whales - the moratorium has helped.

Helped so well that it's led to the next step in the fight. Like it or not,
the moratorium wasn't a permanent ban. Many assumed it would be, but it is
hard to defend arguments that a sustainable fishery of minke whales couldn't
be established and Norway, in particular, argues that they've got the data to
do it and that they can now fulfill that requirement in the original
agreement.

(I happen to think that the aesthetic argument - they shouldn't whale
because most
of the world has decided that whaling should stop - is entirely defensible
from
moral and political grounds - don't misunderstand me. But, the IWC isn't
set up
to operate under those values).

And if they withdraw, they're legally entitled to do what they damn well
please
in International Waters. It is exactly for this reason that the IWC bends
over
backwards not to offend them, for at least they aren't hunting blue whales and
others that were on the absolute edge of extinction when the moratorium came
into being.

So, where's the flouting of international law? I see a flouting of
international
opinion, here, but this is hardly the same thing...

>I enquired recently what are
>law-abiding people to do when intransigence on the part of commercial or
>political vested interests freeze out the moderate middle.

It is possible to chain oneself to a tree without sending out PR statements
claiming that loggers *may* really be buying chainsaws in order to saw
protesters rather than trees.

Does this make sense?

>>The day the entire world of humanity looks, talks, thinks, and smells like
>>BC whitebread is the day I'm putting a bullet in my brain.

>Don't fret, Don, and save yourself the brain damage.

I apologize for the rhetoric, but I am offended by implications that other
cultures *must* adopt our mores, which is what many seem to be saying about
the Makah and which your statement preceeding my rant seemed to be saying
about different cultures in general.

I *wish* the Makah, Japan, and Norway would adopt our thinking in regard to
whales. Japan, which plays a nasty role in many environmental arenas, will
never see my tourist dollars, that's for sure.

However, wishing they would change is far different than demanding that they
change. A subtle difference in my certainty of the superiority of my culture,
perhaps?

>But just think if the entire world *did* turn into BC whitebread: Sockeye on
>every plate!

And large, large, clearcuts in every old-growth forest? :)

Don't tell me you're going to try to paint BC as being some sort of
wonderfully
aware place that practices extreme conservationism. Heck, even Oregon doesn't
do that! Well, some try, but not me.

BC increasingly makes it clear that money, market, and the relatively small
numbers of Canadians is the main reason why your resources aren't stripped
to the bone.

Was it you or Jack who recently lamented development in one of the premier
shorebird areas of North America in BC?

We're all sinners in the conservation arena. BC, Oregon, Norway...

Perhaps my awareness of our own sins is one reason that, though the decision
of the Makah, Norway, and Japan (and others) to whale depresses me, I
I don't claim any moral high ground in regard to the conservation ethic for my
country.

I think the US does a better job than many countries, but the difference
is marginal, and not nearly large enough to justify the kind of self-righteous
attitude towards international conservation issues certain Americans have been
known to flout.

As the President of Brazil told President Bush: when you stop liquidating your
old-growth, maybe we'll listen to you when you tell us to stop liquidating
ours...

>Reasoned debate on every corner! World stewardship of wildlife!
>And worst of all: Wearing of t-shirts with Vancouver Canucks' new logo would
>be *mandatory*! Oh, the horror, the horror--! Just look for our black
>fishing boats without identifying emblems coming to a neighborhood near you
>soon! World domination, ya gotta love it! '-)

Thanks for keeping your sense of humor, Mike. That's one reason I feel so
free to insult you :)


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net