About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

16 Ocean L. Memo 1 (1979)

handle is hein.journals/ocoaslme16 and id is 1 raw text is: Ocean Resources law Program * School of Law * University of Oregon * Eugene * OR 97403 Ocean Lw M mo THE BOWHEAD WHALE CONTROVERSY: A Crisis for U.S. Whale Policy In June, 1977, the International Whaling Com- mission (IWC) voted to delete from its Schedule of Regulations the exemption for subsistence killing of bowhead whales by native peoples. Hardest hit by this deletion were Alaskan Eskimos who have his- torically hunted these whales for subsistence. The Bowhead, whose habitat is the northern Pacific arctic and subarctic waters, is crucial to the Eskimo culture. The Eskimos' dependence on these animals and the hunt itself is far-reaching, pro- viding villages with food, social order, cultural identity and some measure of economic independence. In the words of an Inupiat Eskimo, without the whale, there is no Eskimo. Since June of 1977, the Inupiat Eskimos have attempted to resist deletion of the bowhead exemp- tion and subsequent IWC action in U.S. courts. The Eskimos' situation, and the litigation they initiated, raised a complex of issues having legal, inter- national, political and environmental significance which have yet to be fully resolved. At stake is a species threatened with extinction, and a culture totally dependent on that species for survival. THE IWC The IWC was established under the 1946 Inter- national Convention (treaty) for the Regulation of Whaling to provide for the conservation, development and optimum utilization of whale resources. The WC meets at least yearly, and currently is composed of 20 contracting governments. It establishes in its schedule of regulations proper whaling procedures and whale-take quotas which are reviewed and, de- pending on current information, amended annually. Until recent years, the 1MC has not taken a conservationist stance. By all accounts, it rather juggled conflicting economic interests to produce immediate gain for whaling nations, until many whale species were dangerously depleted. The Scien- tific Committee of the IWC, originally composed of biologists who were natural historians, became in- creasingly concerned as whale populations declined. The Committee needed more quantitative data on whale populations, specifically statistics describ- ing a species'ability to respond to the commercial harvest, and established a subcommittee of popula- tion dynamicists in 1961. A trend placing more emphasis on quantitative information continues within the Committee to the present day. The Com- mittee is composed of scientists from whaling and non-whaling nations. Although each member nation may send scientists, not all nations are represented. In recent years, the 1WC has attempted to make its decisions more objective and less susceptible to political trade-offs by relying on Scientific Committee recommendations in formulating IWC re- gulations. IWC efforts at conservation have been further weakened by the terms of the treaty itself. Any member nation objecting to an 1MC regulation is not bound by it. Hence, the IWC's only method of en- forcement is publication of objections by member nations, and of violations of its regulations by members and non-members. Until 1973, whaling nations made liberal use of the objection provision. The Controversy The IWC regulations prohibit the general taking of Bowheads but, until 1977, contained an exemption allowing hunting for subsistence use. In 1973, the Scientific Committee began requesting the U.S. to report the Eskimo kill of Bowheads, and to make the native hunt more efficient, specifically by reducing the number of whales struck by the Eskimos, but not landed. The Committee's concern centered on the small size of the Bowhead popula- tion, and the threat presented not only by the subsistence hunt, but also by the threat of poten- tial harm caused by oil development in the North American Arctic. The U.S. did not comply with the Scientific Committee's requests. The Committee repeated these requests yearly through 1976, but the government neither responded nor informed the Eskimos of the Committee's position. Finally, in June of 1977, the Scientific Committee recommended deletion of the subsistence exemption and the IWC adopted its recommendation 16-0, with only the U.S. abstaining. The IWC decision placed the government in a precarious position. The U.S. is required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) to facilitate effective conservation and protection of whales on a global scale. Within the IWC, the U.S. Distributed by: OSU Extension Service' Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program, Corvallis, OR 97331 Issue 16 Novenber 19 79

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most