Elizabeth Murtaugh's January 10^th piece out of Seattle reports that even though the National Marine Fisheries Service has conducted two environmental assessments on the potential environmental impact of the Makah harvest on the gray whale population, and has found that the harvest would have a negligible biological impact on the whales and their habitat, activists are suing the government again in an attempt to stop the hunt.

Arguments range from claims that the EIS were inadequate, to allegations that the hunt would be a violation of both the Environmental Policy Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which allows only Alaskans to hunt whales. However, the Makah right to hunt whales is a part of the 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay, which the government has upheld and which is the basis for the US request of the International Whaling Commission, that the Makah receive a quota of up to five animals a year. So far, only one gray whale has been taken by the Makah tribe in a resumption of their traditional hunt.

The Fund For Animals disputes that the hunt would even be traditional, since high-powered rifles are used to dispatch the animal once it is secured by the traditional harpoon. IWMC raises an interesting question - why would an animal rights group that traditionally uses claims of cruelty as one basis for objection to hunting, object to a method of killing that would ensure a rapid time to death?

The Makah tribe has promoted its resumption of the gray whale hunt, on the grounds that it was always a central part of their identity, that the gray whale is no longer endangered, and that the tribe needs both cultural renewal and the degree of food security that the hunt would return to them. No matter how many environmental assessments are made, there is no doubt that 5 animals per year out of a population of over 26,000, would have a negligible impact. This is just another attempt at a legal stall of a legitimate cultural activity.

IWMC sees this appalling situation as a tired renewal of attempts by powerful and wealthy animal rights groups to once again, deny a legitimate source of food and cultural enrichment to people whom they may believe, have less political power and financial weight than they. The villains in this case are the Fund For Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, and a few others, united in a coalition lawsuit to once again, attempt to force their foreign ideals on a poverty stricken Native American people.