Congratulations to the United States Senate for underwriting the principle and practice of the sustainable use of cetacean resources. On April 9, 2003, by a vote of 95-5, that body passed Senator Lisa Murkowski’s bill, S. 293 as an amendment to the Charitable Giving Tax Bill (CARE) of 2003. S. 293, as legislated, will allow Alaskan native whaling captains to claim up to a $10,000 per annum charitable tax deduction to offset the equipment, fuel and salary costs that they incur during the bowhead whale hunt.

The U.S. Senate is correct in recognizing that the Alaskan Inupiat who practise sustainable whaling and sustainable use fishermen merit identical treatment at the hands of the Internal Revenue Service. There is absolutely no reason why men and women who extract one set of wildlife resources from the oceans should be treated prejudicially vis a vis those who extract a different set of wildlife resources.

However, in addressing this injustice, the U.S. Senate has shown the "aboriginal" v. "commercial" whaling distinction to be a total farrago. How can the U.S., simultaneously, assert that the Alaskan whale hunt carried out by the Inupiat is devoid of all commercial character and offer its practitioners tax breaks? Tax concessions can be offered only on commercial activity and, as the amendment makes quite clear, the Alaskan bowhead hunt is awash with commercial transactions, with captains purchasing fuel, depreciating equipment and providing wages and meals, all of which require the outlay of proverbial cold hard cash. Now, courtesy of Senator Murkowski, the I.R.S. is going to take a long look at that cash and provide Alaska’s whaling captains with a rebate on their expenses – and depend upon it, that rebate will come in the form of a check payable by the U.S. Treasury, not in whale meat or other such "aboriginal" exchanges.

Nor are the profits generated by the sale of baleen or carved whale bone in Alaska’s numerous souvenir shops exempted from the taxman’s attention. As far as the I.R.S. is concerned, all profit is commercial and, therefore, subject to tax.

None of this is to suggest that the Inupiat’s taking of the bowhead is anything less than utterly admirable. This whale hunt dates back to Inupiat pre-history and the tribe must be free to continue its cultural traditions. Moreover, as the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission has demonstrated, the bowhead hunt conforms to the strictest application of the principle of sustainability.

The sin here lies not with the Inupiat but with the U.S. Government, which zealously defends the cultural claims of its own citizens while contemptuously sneering at the similarly valid cultural whaling traditions of countries such as Iceland, Japan and Norway. While it protects, and now subsidizes, its own domestic whaling activities, it threatens sanctions against other countries that follow its example. The only question is how long this nonsensical display of unilateralism will be allowed to continue.