|
By Shawn Blore
The whaling harpoon is a 16-foot shaft of
yew wood, bound up with cedar twine
and tipped
with a blade of razor-sharp clamshell.
The
man who bears it has no more-prized
possession.
He hoists it over his head, whispers
a secret
prayer, and waits for the signal. Behind
him in the 9-metre cedar dugout sit
seven
men from his household. Each has his
assigned
task, one that he has learned from
his father
and practiced since boyhood.
Back at the stern, the steersman lays
a course
that will bring the canoe alongside
the whale.
The six other clew members paddle in
unison,
moving the heavy craft forward. The
whale
surfaces, expels a foul-smelling breath,
then inhales to begin another dive.
Its back
dips below the surface, the signal-man
calls,
and the harpooner thrusts downward,
driving
the clamshell blade deep into the dark-grey
hide.
The whale writhes in pain. Four of
the crew
back-paddle furiously to escape the
thrashing
tail, and two more attach sealskin
floats
to the sinew cord now streaking out
after
the fleeing whale. The floats slow
the whale
and show its wounded progress through
the
water.
The canoe follows, the men chanting
songs
to coax the whale toward land. Exhausted,
weak from loss of blood, it slows.
The harpooner
takes up a lance of antler bone and
leaping
onto the whale's broad head, stabs
downwards
repeatedly, killing the animal. The
second
man back dives overboard and runs a
length
of cedar twine up through the whale's
lower
jaw, forcing its mouth closed so the
cold
ocean water doesn't fill its belly
and weigh
it down.
The long tow back to shore begins.
For at
least 500 years, this hunt was a regular
occurrence on the Pacific Coast. Every
fall,
the grey whale, Eschritius robustus,
would
pass by the Juan de Fuca Strait on
its way
south from the Arctic. Every fall,
hunters
from the Makah tribe would be ready
with
their harpoons. But for most of the
20th
century, neither hunter nor prey have
been
in any condition to take part. By 1900,
several
decades of commercial whaling had reduced
the grey whale population to only a
few thousand.
Smallpox had reduced the Makah population
from about 2,000 to fewer then 500.
Hunter
and prey both hovered on the edge of
extinction.
By 1995, however, the Makah tribe had
grown
to more then 2,000 members. Grey whale
numbers
had rebounded to about 20,000, close
to or
greater than its historic population.
It
was time to resume the hunt, or so
the Makah
felt. In a May 5,1995, letter to the
U.S.
secretary of commerce, the Makah tribal
council
formally advised the U.S. government
of their
plans to take five grey whales for
subsistence
and ceremonial purposes. The hunt was
planned
for the fall of 1996, after the anticipated
formal approval was obtained from the
International
Whaling Commission.
In the year since the last commercial
hunt,
however, public perception of the grey
whale
had changed. It was no longer seen
as a source
of lamp oil but as a symbol of a fragile
natural world in need of protection.
Environmental
groups like Paul Watson's Sea Shepherd
Conservation
Society immediately announced their
opposition
to the Makah's proposed hunt. The New
York
Times and the Los Angeles Times ran
stories
describing an impending confrontation
in
the waters off the Washington state
coast,
and television stations in Seattle
sent out
camera crews for reaction on and off
the
Makah's Neah Bay reserve.
As always, the media barrage did an
excellent
job of highlighting a central conflict:
in
this corner, a tribe of whale-killing
Indians;
in the far corner, environmentalists
pledged
to stop the hunt at any cost. Unanswered
so far, though, has been the question,
"Why?".
After so long, why do the Makah feel
the
need to hunt and kill whales? Is it,
as they
claim, for subsistence? Is it a commercial
kill tarted up in cultural clothing?
Or is
it something else entirely?
The Makah Indian Reserve lies at the
very
northwest tip of Washington's Olympic
Peninsula,
more than 200 winding kilometres west
of
Seattle. The reserve's only town, Neah
Bay,
is a tiny place, two parallel streets
sandwiched
between the court and the clearcut
hills.
Commercial establishments are few.
There
are three motels, two gas pumps, one
general
store, and a café. Despite its size,
however,
the essentials of life are readily
available.
The general store sells rice, flour,
Pepsi,
pop-tarts and frozen orange juice,
and the
Bay Cafe does a roaring business in
French
fries and Makah-style chowder.
So whatever else the whale hunt is
about,
it isn't about staving off starvation.
But
then the Makah have never claimed that
subsistence
had anything to do with nutrition.
In the
tribe's letter to the secretary of
commerce,
subsistence seems to mean cultural
survival,
keeping tradition alive. On the reserve
itself,
however, cultural aspects of whaling
are
little talked about. What are mentioned
are
treaty rights.
The Makah regard the Treaty of Neah
Bay,
signed in 1855, with the same semi-fanatical
devotion other Americans reserve for
their
constitution. Just as every American
knows
that the First Amendment guarantees
the right
of free speech, so every Makah-the
waitress
at the café, the gas jockey, the guy
selling
postcards at the museum gift shop -seems
to know that Article 4 of the Treaty
of Neah
Bay guarantees "the right of taking
fish and of whaling or sealing at usual
and
accustomed grounds".
As Makah tribal councillor Marcy Parker
put
it in April, two months before the
Makah
would argue its case before the IWC,
when
asked why the Makah want to resume
whaling:
"It's our right. Like the right
to bear
arms or the right to fee speech. How'd
you
like it if someone said you couldn't
write
what you wanted?"
Dan Greene, the Makah director of fisheries
management, has been at the forefront
of
the fight for whaling rights. In the
abandoned
air-force barracks that now serves
as the
tribal fisheries centre, Greene explained
that the furor over whaling is just
another
skirmish in a drawn-out struggle. "Trying
to sustain our treaty rights has been
an
ongoing battle," said Greene.
The whaling
was just another one of those issues
hanging
out there."
The problem, according to Greene, is
that
the Makah's treaty right to kill whales,
seals and sea lions runs counter to
federal
laws designed to protect these same
species,
laws such as the Marine Mammal Protection
Act and the Endangered Species Act.
For the
past 10 years, at least, the Makah
and the
feds have been engaged in what looks
to an
outsider like a long game of rock-paper-scissors,
with each trying constantly to redefine
what
beats what.
Up until the early 198Os, federal law
beat
Makah treaty. Natives caught killing
seals
or sea lions were changed just like
any other
American citizen. Even possessing parts
from
a marine mammal was against the law.
According
to Greene, agents from the National
Marine
Fisheries Service raided the home of
a Makah
hunter in 1982 and his entire stock
of seal
and sea lion meat.
"That's when the tribe first confronted
NMFS," said Greene. "We said,
'Look,
I guess we're gonna go to court' ".
Faced with a real possibility of an
unfavourable
court ruling, the federal government
backed
down. Seal and sea lion hunts were
unofficially
tolerated. In 1994, a clause exempting
treaty
Natives was added to the Marine Mammal
Protection
Art. Treaty beat law.
Seats and sea lions secured, the tribe
moved
on to bigger game. "In 1987, two
elders
went to the council and said, 'We want
you
to get back our harvest of whales,'
"
explained Greene. The council was willing,
bet the feds weren't weak, at least
not this
time. Grey whales were listed as an
endangered
species. If the Makah tried to harpoon
one,
they could expect to be charged under
the
Endangered Species Act. They could
fight
it in court if they wanted, but there's
be
no exemptions. At least as far as whales
were concerned, law still smothered
treaty.
The Makah decided to switch tactics.
Rather
than try and force the courts to declare
them exempt from the ESA, they opted
to work
around the system by having the grey
whale
removed from the endangered species
list.
David Sones, the assistant director
of fisheries
management, lead the Makah push for
delisting.
"The Endangered Species Act did
what
it was intended to do, " said
Sones,
"It protected that species, got
it back
up to historic populations. But it
has to
be a two-way street." Sones argued
that
the grey whale had made such a successful
recovery that it no longer required
protection.
Government biologists agreed, and in
1994
the grey whale was officially taken
off the
list.
But before the Makah could so much
as scrape
the rust off their harpoons, their
treaty
rights ran up against another legal
shoal,
in the form of the International Whaling
Commission. The IWC has a mandate from
its
member countries to regulate whaling
worldwide,
and in 1986 its members voted to ban
all
commercial whaling. Bona fide aboriginal
groups were exempted from the ban,
but only
if they were whaling for subsistence
purposes
and only if the IWC allocated them
a quota
at its annual meeting.
The Makah began preparing a proposal
for
the IWC's June 1996 meeting in Aberdeen,
Scotland. Alerted to the Makah plan,
the
many opponents of the plan began to
mobilize.
The Makah's chief ally was the U.S.
government,
which believed it had an obligation
under
the treaty to secure a whaling quota
for
the Makah. In fact, because the Makah
Nation
is not a member of the IWC, it was
the U.S.
government that submitted the whaling
proposal
- and lobbied heavily - on the Makah's
behalf.
Pro-whaling nations such as Japan and
Norway
also came out in favor of the Makah
plan,
mostly because they hoped a whaling
quota
for the Makah would help ease the passage
of their own whaling proposals. For
nearly
a decade, Japan has been pushing a
proposal
called "small-scale coastal whaling",
which would allow coastal communities
with
a long tradition of whaling to take
a limited
number of non-endangered whales. Japan
argues
that whaling has been the cultural
and economic
mainstay of these communities since
the 15th
century.
The Norwegian whaling tradition gets back
even farther. Artifacts from the time of
the Vikings show men in small boats with
long lances chasing after whales. Norway's
leading whaling lobbyist, George Blichfeldt,
has pointed out repeatedly that it's hypocritical
for the U.S. government to be pushing for
a whaling quota for one group of (dark-skinned)
traditional whalers while threatening sanctions
against another group of (light-skinned)
whalers simply for practicing their age-old
craft. If it's okay for the Makah, Blichfeldt
argues, it must be okay for the Norwegians.
Believing that this logic is both correct
and inescapable, and that the Makah
thus
represent the thin edge of the harpoon,
Britain,
Holland, Australia, and New Zealand
-the
so-called like-minded nations -came
out against
a quota far the Makah.
Even more vocal opposition, however,
came
from animal rights activists such as
Paul
Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation
Society.
Watson and others like him believe
that each
individual whale has the right to the
fullest
life possible, free from the fear of
Indian
harpoons, Norwegian whaleboats, or
aquarium
curators. In a March telephone interview
from Sea Shepherd's Marina del Rey,
California,
headquarters, Watson explained his
opposition
to the hunt. "These are incredibly
intelligent
creature," said Watson. "One
day
I believe we will develop the ability
to
communicate with them. They're incredibly
sensitive creatures; they've get strong
family
bonds. Who are human beings to go interfering
with these bond ?"
David Sones finds this line of reasoning
a little puzzling. "If it was
based
on good scientific environmental-resource
protection, then I could see it,"
he
said, "but the way it's getting
pushed
out there to the world is that whales
shouldn't
be killed because they're almost human."
Between environmentalists and Makah
there
has been little dialogue; Sones fisheries-manager
vocabulary seems to cause distaste.
"People
get offended in the environmental community
when I refer to whales as a resource,"
said Sones, adding in a voice heavy
with
contempt: "They say, 'They're
not a
resource; they're a spiritual thing.'
He
clearly finds the idea a little ridiculous.
<< Back to Magazine Features
|