Kathryn Davis
Section AA
May 11, 2011
The Right to Whale
May 17, 1999: Eight wooden paddles dipped into the dark waters of the Pacific Ocean. Years of mental and physical preparation had finally come to fruition. The target was located; a lone and graceful female. Her spirit was thanked for her impending sacrifice, and amidst the cries of both supporters and protesters, the sea turned red. This moment represents the precise culmination of a history that radically transformed Makah culture and its relation to whaling. Whaling was originally a cornerstone of Makah identity and subsistence. Today it is representative of the struggle of native people to retain traditional cultural practices and uphold treaty rights in the face of a new cultural colonialism. This cultural colonialism subjugates native values in favor of dominant social and political values (Roberts 2010).
The Makah tribe has occupied the northern Olympic peninsula for nearly 2000years. Within their territory, which originally encompassed much of the northwestern part of the peninsula, the ancient Makah established many summer and permanent villages. Evidence suggests that the rich abundance of natural resources supported a dense population. The tribe members built large longhouses out of cedar planks and harvested plants and animals from the surrounding forests. The availability of food allowed the Makah to develop a complex social structure and fostered a unique artistic style (Makah).
Despite the important resources the forest provided, the Makah were primarily people of the sea. They were skilled seamen and navigated Pacific waters in carved cedar canoes. Different canoes were made for specialized purposes, such as war, whaling, halibut, salmon, sealing, and cargo carrying. Marine life was the staple of Makah diet. Fish was dried or smoked and stored for winter months. Porpoise and seal meat was eaten fresh and their skins were cured to make whaling floats. Thick sea otter pelts provided warm clothing. Shellfish were harvested and their shells were used for a variety of purposes (Makah).
Whaling in particular was central to Makah culture and subsistence. Whales provided food, raw materials, valuable trade goods, and a source of spiritual strength. Whalers were among the most respected community members and many ceremonies centered around honoring them. Whalers went through extensive physical and spiritual preparation in anticipation of a hunt, and the process of hunting a single whale could take weeks. The Makah primarily hunted gray and humpback whales, although they were known to take other varieties on occasion (Makah).
The Makah first made contact with non-Indian settlers in the 1700s. Settlers did not initially make a big effort to inhabit the region, thinking it inhospitable and unsuitable for resource extraction because of the tall rocky cliffs that lined the Pacific Coast. Nevertheless, non-Indian contact brought many changes to Makah culture. The explorers brought new trade items, such as guns and alcohol, to the Makah people and harvested sea otter and northern fur seal pelts at unsustainable levels. Non-Indian people also introduced new diseases, such as Smallpox, to the Makah and decimated the population in a series of outbreaks. Once settlers began to arrive in larger numbers in the 1800s, competition for resources became more pronounced. The logging industry in particular encroached on Makah lands and disrupted the natural balance of ecosystems (Renker). As urban centers expanded, native peoples were displaced to make room for industry and development.
The most significant changes to Makah culture occurred in the mid 1800s. A smallpox epidemic in 1852 killed a significant proportion of the population, causing one of the five ancient villages to be abandoned and disrupting the social structure of the community (Renker). In 1855, the Makah people signed the Treaty of Neah Bay with the Isaac Stevens, governor of the Washington Territory. Under the stipulations of the treaty, the Makah conceded the majority of their historic lands to the Washington government, but retained the “right of taking fish and of whaling or sealing at usual and accustomed grounds and stations” (Treaty of Neah Bay). In total, the Makah relinquished 300,000 acres and relocated to a smaller reservation in exchange for the right to maintain traditional access to ocean resources (Renker). The Makah Nation is comprised of about 43 square miles today (Roberts 2010).
It is important to understand the historical context in which this treaty was signed. Governor Stevens believed strongly in Manifest Destiny and Westward expansion. He, along with many others, regarded native tribes living in the Washington territory as impediments to civilization. Arrangements such as the Treaty of Neah Bay were often forced upon native people. The rhetoric of development allowed settlers to disregard native rights and fostered racism and disrespect (Roberts 2010). Although the Makah may or may not have agreed to the terms of the Treaty of Neah Bay willingly,it is also important to note that the Makah people signed this treaty as a sovereign nation, thus making it an international agreement. This distinction has implications for the assertion to reinstate whaling later in the 20th century.
As non-native development continued throughout Washington state and the Olympic Peninsula, commercial whaling also became a prominent industry. American and European whaling operations harvested whales at levels never before possible. One whale processing ship could wipe out an entire pod in a day (Renker).These commercial boats were quick and able to pursue whales at high speeds. Additionally, the invention of the explosive harpoon allowed hunters to kill whales quickly and from a greater distance. The compressor allowed whalers to fill a carcass up with air immediately after death, thus further reducing loss rate (Clapham & Baker 2002). By 1920, the North Pacific stock of gray whale was so depleted that the Makah voluntarily gave up their whaling practices in an effort to foster recovery (Rohan 2008).
In 1946, the international community came together to sign the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The US eagerly signed this agreement, although the Makah did not. The US effectively signed the treaty on behalf of the tribe, despite their status as a sovereign nation. The convention established the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to maintain the conservation of whale stocks and regulate the whaling industry (Rohan 2008). The IWC passed a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982. However, two important exceptions existed. Allowances were made for scientific research purposes and for aboriginal subsistence needs (International Whaling Commission 2009).
Within a short period of time, several pieces of federal legislation were passed in the United States that had further implications for gray whales. In 1969 the North Pacific stock of gray whale was listed as endangered on the US Endangered Species Conservation Act. This act was later strengthened to be become the Endangered Species Act. In 1972, the passing of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) granted whales and other marine mammals additional protection (Rohan 2008). These two legal actions were significant in that they signaled to the Makah that federal U.S. environmental legislation would take priority over previous, legal, and binding intergovernmental arrangements, i.e. the Treaty of Neah Bay.
In the 1994, over 70 years after the Makah had halted their whaling practice, two significant legal changes were made. First, a clause was added to the MMPA that recognized the government’s obligation to uphold treaty rights. Secondly, the gray whale was delisted from the ESA (Rohan 2008).
Shortly thereafter, in 1995, the Makah notified the US government of their intent to reassert their right to hunt and that they would seek approval from the IWC for an annual quota (Rohan 2008). This came at a time when the Makah cultural identity was suffering. Many people on the reservation were living below the poverty line and dependent on unhealthy government food assistance. Tribal elders feared the Makah youth had lost touch and interest in their ancestral heritage (Sullivan 2000). They appealed to the IWC to resume their treaty rights for subsistence harvesting of gray whales. Hunting gray whales, they claimed, would not only rejuvenate their cultural heritage and strengthen their community, but the meat provided by the whale would return many people to their traditional diet and improve health on the reservation (Sullivan 2000).
The appeal was criticized and put under heavy legal scrutiny by many environmental groups, but eventually, in 1997, the IWC approved a quota of gray whales for the Makah. The quota allocated the Makah no more than 20 gray whales to be harvested within the following 5 years, at a rate of 4 but no more than 5 whales each year. The whalers could not receive money for their hunting, nor could they sell whale products commercially (Rohan 2008). Regulation of the quota fell to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The Makah prepared a crew for the hunt. The crew was to hunt the whale according to traditional practices, with a few modern adaptations such as the use of a modern gun to more efficiently kill the whale and the use of plastic floats rather than sealskin floats (Sullivan 2000). Environmental groups such as the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society adamantly and violently protested the Makah efforts, claiming that their subsistence plea was illegitimate and that Makah whaling would set a dangerous precedent for other whaling exceptions (Sea Shepherd News 2005). Supporters claimed that the right to whale guaranteed by the Treaty of Neah Bay existed in perpetuity. In the midst of this controversy, on May 17, 1999, the Makah successfully hunted their first whale in over 70 years (Rohan 2008).
A lawsuit immediately followed. Washington representative Jack Metcalf claimed that the decision to allow Makah whaling violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it had granted permission before properly considering the environmental consequences of the hunt. The court ruled that a new environmental assessment would need to be prepared before the tribe could resume whaling. As such, in 2001 NOAA and the National Marine Fisheries Service released a comprehensive environmental assessment that concluded that Makah whaling would not significantly affect the gray whale population. The legal battle ensued, however, and in 2004 the court ruled that the Makah must first obtain a permit to hunt whales, and that an environmental impact statement was needed beyond the environmental assessment to satisfy NEPA (Rohan 2008).
Compiling an environmental impact statement is a lengthy process that can take several years. In 2007, out of frustration over the political delays, five Makah members shot and killed a gray whale without seeking Tribal Council permission. They were arrested and the Makah Council publicly condemned the hunt, but the tribe received some negative media attention. The environmental impact statement is yet to be released, so the Makah people are still unable to hunt whales legally (Rohan 2008).
The case of the Makah whalers is representative of a broader struggle of native cultures to reestablished cultural traditions in a modern context. Roberts (2010) notes that when those “cultural traditions do not resonate with the beliefs of dominant cultures, Indigenous communities are also under pressure to validate their cultures through ongoing Indigenous tribal narratives that demonstrate the importance of specific traditions and practices.” The tribe survived for over 70 years without whale meat in its diet. Accordingly, the Makah “have needed literally to recreate a culture in which whaling and whale products are tangible features” and that whaling “is less a resumption than an initiation (Reeves 1994).” Viewed in this light, whaling is not really what this debate is about. What the Makah are fundamentally trying to do is combat cultural colonialism.
The fact that the Makah have lacked such an important cultural practice for so long is an even stronger incentive to reestablish whaling. The definition of subsistence, in accordance with IWC guidelines, is not out of line with what the Makah request. The IWC lists three main objectives for aboriginal subsistence whaling. They are to “ensure risks of extinction not seriously increased (highest priority); enable harvests in perpetuity appropriate to cultural and nutritional requirements; maintain stocks at highest net recruitment level and if below that ensure they move towards it (International Whaling Commission 2009).”Of these three objectives, the first and last concern the well being of the whale population, and most scientific evidence suggests that hunting up to 5 gray whales annually from the Eastern Pacific migratory stock will not have a significant impact on the population (Rough et al. 2005). Only the second objective directly addresses cultural, human needs for whaling. Perpetuation of cultural requirements suggests that the right to whale is permissible if it maintains important cultural traditions, even if the whale meat is not vital to survival. Whaling represents a way to simultaneously reestablish the Makah identity and solve many of the problems afflicting the tribe today. It symbolizes the struggle of a culturally oppressed community to assert themselves against a suffocating hegemony.
The diction surrounding the whale hunt further reveals the cultural imperialism threatening tribal sovereignty and rights (Roberts 2010). This is particularly evident in the rhetoric of the Sea Shephard society. This animal rights group uses language that personifies whales as “gentle creatures” or as “sentient beings” (Sea Shepherd Society 2002). Likewise, they refer to Makah whaling as “murder,” a word usually reserved for the killing of humans. In this way, “the use of the word murder to describe the killing of a whale by Makah hunters reveals a shift in the word’s use that uses a form of cultural superiority to discredit the whale-hunting tradition (Roberts 2010).” The whales are personified while the Makah are dehumanized. Additionally, editorials sent to the Seattle Times frequently cited the Makah as “barbaric” or in need of “saving.” These phrases reveal the attitudes of cultural superiority that are present in much of the non-native public (Roberts 2010).
In a Seattle Times article published three days after the 1999 whale hunt, columnist Jerry Large wrote about the hypocrisy present in the modern environmental movement that allows members to champion the rights of whales over respecting the rights of their fellow human beings. He writes:
“I watched some white folks on TV the other day yelling "whale killer!" at a bunch of Indians, and I was struck by the absurdity of the scene…Members of the culture most responsible for the decline of whales and the demise of untold other species, not to mention the decimation of the Indians, chastised the Makahs for their incivility…As in most conflicts, the ones yelling the loudest were the most unreasonable. There were death threats. How civilized. One caller claimed to have planted a bomb in an Indian school (Large 1999).”
At the time of the Makah Whale hunt, the environmental movement advocated a specific vision of nature that excluded the usufruct rights of the Makah people, making this a very racialized vision. Whales, perceived as loveable, sentient animals, were given priority over cultural and legal rights. Hypocritically, the ecologically insignificant hunting of a single gray whale was used to chastise an entire group of people, while millions of livestock animals were silently raised in deplorable conditions and eaten by the very people criticizing the Makah. The environmentalist logic applied to this event makes little sense, but nevertheless, many people subscribed to this way of thinking.
The Makah people did not contribute to the historic decline of gray whales. However, today they are being used as scapegoats for the problems caused by commercial whalers. The call for an environmental impact statement is an excuse to allow larger cultural biases to play out. The values of non-Native cultures are subjugating and dismissing the values of the Makah to the same colonial effect as the historic dismissal of their treaty rights. It is important now more than ever before to respect native treaty rights and work with tribes rather than against them to achieve common objectives. There is no longer room for a racialized view of land use that excludes native rights. The modern environmental movement has achieved many successes, but its vision must be expanded to include human participation and socially just distribution of resources.
Works Cited:
Clapham, P.J. & Baker, C.S. 2002. Modern Whaling. In: Perin, W.F., Würsig, B. & Thewissen, J.G.M. (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 1328-1332. Academic Press, New York. <
International Whaling Commission. 2009. Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling. Iwcoffice.org. <
Large, Jerry. 1999. “Amid Concerns For A Whale, Logic Is Sunk.” The Seattle Times.