The Pros And Cons Of Makah Whaling

“ The story of the whale is so remarkable, that were there not so many witnesses, I would not venture to tell it, lest I be accused of exaggeration.”

The topic of whale conservation and the Makah people’s economy is not something that some audiences would jump at reading nor is it an easy topic to research and discuss in a formal paper. The techniques and strategies that authors use to write a paper that is worthy of a person’s time differ from author to author but the main core of a paper is similar in most aspects. When it comes to researching the Makah economy a person must do so in a way that is purposeful and targeted at a specific audience; the three articles I read do just that. With a similar purpose of sharing economic and legal issues that the Makah people face, to an audience of professionals in a similar field, these three articles are able to raise similar questions about the

The Makah tribe is a native American tribe who lived in Olympic Peninsula in Washington State for centuries. Makah people tended to descend their culture to one another and ran on their traditions through generations. Makah tribe practiced whale hunting in the past as one of their historical traditions when they were given permission after Treaty of Neah. The Makah harvested whale for provisions and countries-exporting values. But most people think it 's demoralizing to kill a pure, innocent mammal like whale. As an outsider, we can’t go to conclusion and say their tradition is inhumane and needs to be stopped. If we put ourselves in their shoes, we could probably learn the truth behind the whaling process and decipher all the

Whale hunting has been a way of life for the Makah Tribe for more than 2000 years. They have traditionally depended on the whale meat to survive as well as they have utilized the whales blubber and oil. The dependence on whale hunting has caused the whale to be an integral part of the Makah culture. The whale is in their songs, dances, designs and basketry. It has given them a disciple and pride in their tribe. Yet for the past seventy years the Makah has been prevented from hunting due to the gray whale, the whale they hunt, being on the endangered list. In 1994 the gray whale was removed form the endangered list opening the possibility of the Makah Tribe to hunt again. Yet this possibility has caused anti-whaling organizations

The Makah tribal reservation, held in Washington’s most upper northwest corner, retained tribal power throughout the past into the present. Throughout the centuries, whales have remained a key aspect of the Makah tribal nation identity through cultural values and practices, compared to the other Coast Salish nation tribes who valued fishing salmon and growing camas. The Makah in past centuries actively hunted whales, and crafted goods (such as boxes, blankets, and other items) with whales on them. Due to this, In the late 1900s, the Makah tribal nation sought to restore whaling rights lost during commercial whaling in the nineteenth century.

I believe that the Makah Indians should be granted the wavier to continue to hunt whales. Particularly, since the U.S Government signed the Neah Bay Treaty in 1855 with the Makah people, stating that it was OK for the Makah Indians to continue to hunt for fish, seals, whales, in exchange for 500 acre of their ancestral land. I feel it is only fair for the U.S government to keep their word and continue to let them hunt. In addition, the Gray Whale population has risen tremendously since 1926 and hunting 5 whales per year will not cause anymore damage. It is also very apparent that the Makah people care about the whales and don't view them as just an animal to kill because they volunteered to momentarily end their whale hunting in order to save the species when the whale species nearly went extinct. In conclusion, no part of the whale is wasted, the Makah people find uses for all parts of the whale.

For years the killer whale, also known as Orcinus orca, has been drawing the attention of the public through the entertainment industry. These marine mammals have been bringing in billions of dollars to amusement parks such as Sea World, but at what cost? An idea that these killer whales can live happily and content while in captivity may be going through the minds of the public, but this cannot be further away from the truth. To have such complex creatures in captivity is not morally correct and there are many points against it, such as their level of emotional competence, violence between the killer whales, violence of killer of whales towards trainers, shorter lifespans, physical harm, and their level of intelligence. After taking a look at how these creatures function and the conditions they are put in while in captivity, there is no question about whether or not these mammals should be kept in captivity; an experience such as this affects these marine mammals just about the same as it would affect a human because of their high highly developed emotions and complexity. Since these industries do not have a natural authority over these creatures no matter the cause, the best thing they could do for these killer whales is to stop capturing them and return those who are capable back to the wild.

The parties involved in this matter are the members of the tribe, both for and against the decision, the whales, the environmentalists, the courts that will settle the lawsuits and future generations that might be affected by any decision in regards to the impact on the whales sustainability. The decision at stake here is whether it is moral to revoke the ban and recent tradition,

Fast forward to 1995 when the Makah culture wanted to resume the traditional whale hunting. After some intense legal battles with the government they were allowed too. In 1999 after some extremely fierce protesting they finally managed to get a whale.

A committee from an organization such as the WTO may be a good starting point for deciding who should participate in the negotiations for promoting the whale ban. Because an issue this complex and involved needs to have negotiations on who will be participating in the negotiations. The villagers are much more limited on the resources they have for such negotiations. It is fortunate that the nations of Norway and Japan appear to be aligned with the villagers so that additional resources are there to promote the values of that culture. And since the impact of the whaling ban is so large on these local cultures, the negotiating parameters should be weighted to their side in some manner to prevent a large number of people with little to lose out-weighing the small number of people who have everything to lose. But keep in mind, these weights cannot be determined without accurate (unbiased) and timely data on the impact to the environment and the

The parties involved in this case analysis are the Makah tribe, the young members of the Makah tribe, the elder members of the Makah tribe, the Makah tribal leaders, the gray whales, and the environmental community. The moral issues for this case analysis are the safeguarding of the gray whale population, which was on the decline back in the 1920’s. Another moral issue is the fact that the Makah tribal leaders want to use whale hunting as a way of re-establishing traditions, pride, and discipline with the young men of the tribe.

Holding killer whales in captivity is a harmful problem to the mammal that requires action from both the government and the public.

In 1946 the newly formed International Whaling Commission enacted a global moratorium on commercial whaling (Robbins). The IWC was formed in hopes of protecting whales and making sure that whales were spared. Without enforcement of the rules and restrictions for any nations, the problem has not gone away. Without whales the ecosystem begins to falter, the whale being one of the vital producers, and consumers of the ocean. There are countries that refused to agree to the terms of the moratorium, regardless of the damage such actions would cause. The moratorium permits whaling for scientific research, and that is the mask current whaling countries hide behind (Zelko). They argue that they are not violating any restrictions, because Article 8 of the 1946 moratorium states that whaling for scientific research is not part of the agreement (McCurry). During the 1970’s people began to care about the whales that were being killed faster than they could reproduce (Robbins). In 1986 whaling was officially banned, some nations ignored the ban, and still do. In 1993, meat DNA tested at a fish market in Japan showed that whale meat was clearly being sold, but there were no consequences. The ban made by the IWC is not

Whaling has become a global environmental issue as vast numbers of whales are killed commercially and scientifically every year. Intense debate on the necessity of whaling has been stirred but failed to be resolved due to the lacking of pragmatic measures employed by the responsible parties. Whaling nations continue to defend their whaling right for cultural and research purposes. Yet, ethical and humanity issues are among the controversial disputes raised by concerned public. In February 2010, International Whaling Commission (IWC) proposed a plan of lifting whaling ban by limiting scientific whaling activities with the intention of reducing overall number of whales killed besides solving the current impasse between pro

In so doing, this chapter is organised as follows. Section 8.1 discusses the changes from whaling to the whale watching protection in Taiwan by using the punctuated equilibrium framework. This section is subdivided into the whaling history, which base on the political system I explored in Chapter 5 and the whaling history in Chapter 6 (section 6.1). Through Section 8.1.1 to 8.1.4 I divide the whaling history base on a timeline, identifying the periods of equilibrium and the reasons that led to such periods, as well as the events that cause punctuation. Section 8.1.5 explores the turning point that made Taiwan move from whaling to whale watching protection. In addition, I point out that political learning has a significant effect on the decision