The Makah hunt is every Northwest reporter's dream story, but with every news organization in Seattle telling their version, it's easy for the issues to get oversimplified. Much of Eric Scigliano's "Wait and Switch" article (10/8) falls into this very trap, which he chastises other media for not avoiding.
The Makah tribe has followed federal and international requirements to make this hunt happen. They have agreed to issue permits with the intent of targeting migratory whales, even though scientists believe this distinction between migrants and so-called "residents" is questionable. Under their treaty, the Makahs could have unilaterally hunted gray whale since its removal from the endangered species list, but instead they chose to cooperate with the United States government by seeking and winning approval of the International Whaling Commission.
Federal and tribal laws have never required the Makah tribe to give any federal agencies 24 hours notice before permit is issued as long as a National Marine Fisheries Service observer is present on the reservation. It's expected that an observer will be on-site for the duration of the season. The Makahs have agreed that a NMFS observer will be present on a Makah chase boat to document the hunt. No "switch" here; this clause has been written in the Makahs' whaling management plan on which the hunt is based.
Mr. Scigliano criticizes The Seattle Times and other mainstream newspapers for supporting the hunt. Yet these daily newspapers have provided in-depth coverage of the whaling issue, while the Weekly coverage has been sporadic at best. In reviewing the latest Seattle Times editorial, Mr. Scigliano dredged up the same tired and fallacious arguments Sea Shepherd Society spokesman Paul Watson continues to use.
For example, Mr. Scigliano contends that the "in common" language gives the Makahs no rights to hunt whales beyond those held by other US citizens. Yet, the courts have repeatedly held that treaties provide the tribes with special hunting and fishing rights not shared by most other Americans. If the whaling clause of the treaty gave the Makahs no special rights to whale, the treaty language would be essentially meaningless. The Makahs gave up most of the Olympic Peninsula in the treaty, yet no one is suggesting that these lands be returned to the tribe.
Mr. Scigliano implies that the Makahs intend to resume commercial whaling, but the Makahs have repeatedly stated that their hunt is solely for ceremonial and subsistence purposes. Commercial whaling is illegal under federal law, and the Makahs have written it into their own management plan, making it illegal under Makah law.
Mr. Scigliano argues that the Makahs will not like gray-whale meat. Yet other protest organizations also argue that the same gray whale meat that the Makahs will find unpalatable can be traded in Japan's seafood markets for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Mr. Scigliano also says that Sea Shepherd does not intend to "sabotage" the hunt. If they only plan to play orca sounds from their submarine, why is the full armada out in Neah Bay complete with retired Coast Guard cutter and high-speed Zodiacs? Not withstanding Mr. Watson's service at Wounded Knee, Sea Shepherd is a very dangerous organization. They have been denied official observer status at the International Whaling Commission meetings since 1987 because of their terrorist activities. They've claimed credit for ramming and sinking whaling vessels from Norway and Japan and have vowed in their own press release to "directly intervene at sea to protect whales from harpoons."
Finally, Mr. Scigliano reports that the IWC did not approve the Makah tribe's whale hunt under the "aboriginal subsistence" exemption to the commercial whaling moratorium. Congressman [Jack] Metcalf made the same argument in his lawsuit challenging Makah whaling, and the argument was rejected by the federal court.
Mr. Scigliano apparently believes that Sea Shepherd and other self-appointed "whale guardians" have the right to ignore federal court decisions and take the law into their own hands. Such a philosophy threatens to take our region back to the days of the Boldt decision when opponents of treaty rights repeatedly defied court orders.
John Arum
Attorney for the Makah Tribe
Eric Scigliano replies: I've been called many things before, but never "a protest organization." John Arum makes some good points, repeats some points I made, and misrepresents some of what I wrote. I didn't say that "federal and tribal law" required 24-hour notice, rather that "the feds expected" this after their negotiations.
I wrote that the "prevailing interpretation" of the treaty is that the Makahs' whaling rights endure even if other citizens may no longer hunt whales. I didn't "argue that the Makah will not like gray-whale meat" (they say it smokes well), but said it's "not a popular 'delicacy.'" That does indeed puncture the claim that it would bring big money in Tokyo.
The Sea Shepherd press release threatening to "directly intervene" dates from 1995. The group now says it will only scare off the whales with orca sounds and the sub. Other protesters have threatened more active interference; I also noted the Makahs' "reasonable" fears on that score.
Sea Shepherd claims to have scuttled Norwegian, Icelandic, and Spanish whaling vessels in port (avowedly so as not to endanger lives at sea), to have rammed drift-net fishers, and to have been rammed by a Norwegian destroyer.
