At 05:13 PM 8/15/97 -0700, you wrote:


>Just on my way out, but I wanted to express appreciation to Don Baccus for
>his very good and informative post which filled in a lot of blanks in my own
>knowledge regarding the relationship between the US Federal government
>policy and treaty rights, and also the background politics of the IWC. And
>the fireworks were *great*!

One caveat: I'm not an expert regarding treaty rights, in particular those
of the Makah in regard to this issue. I just know the general outline of
how the tribes fit into our scheme, schizophrenically at once less powerful
yet in some ways more powerful than the states.

And, of course, if we really went back and honored the original treaties
most of these tribes signed most of the west would be tribal lands!

A side issue: when they were listed as endangered, rather than threatened,
the ESA prevented the Makah from whaling. Did the Makah make a political
decision not to push this back then, or was there a legal ruling that
applies? Anyone know? For the most part, threatened species are given
the same protections as endangered species and the differentiation is
therefore largely symbolic, so I've been very curious about this weird
twist.

Also, I know under treaty rights regarding salmon the tribes have to accept
the limits set by various regulatory agencies. They get 50% of whatever limit
is set, but can't just ignore the limit. So, it would seem the US could set
a limit of 0 gray whales and fight the tribe on that basis if the salmon
rulings
were treated as precedent. They also get representation on various regional
bodies which effect the Columbia and its salmon.

New Scientist, over the years, has covered basic IWC politics very well, IMO.
That's where I've gotten my background information.


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