Makah Whaling Assessment

Summer 2001
Exam # 5650

1. Adequacy of the alternatives, discussion from a procedural and biological

perspective.

In the Draft Environmental assessment on Issuing a Quota in the Makah Indian Tribe for

a Subsistence Hunt on Gray Whales for the Years 2001 and 2002, we the Citizens to Protect all

Sentient Life Forms, find the Environmental Assessment to be inadequate, and hereby make

comments available to the Department of Commerce for consideration.

Firstly, the draft environmental assessment is the product of an ongoing process, which

from the beginning, has been plagued by procedural flaw on the part of NMFS. NMFS’s

has actively sought the allocation of Grey Whale stocks to the Macaw Indian tribe prior

to making any determination on whether or not this is an environmentally sound

judgment based on an unprejudiced EA. Currently evidence regarding the discreteness of

the Pacific coast feeding aggregation suggests that an unbiased EA would most likely

result in further analysis via the EIS and a consequent finding of a discrete population

segment. Instead, NMFS negotiated a deal with the Macaw to acquire allocation of their

requested whale stock without first performing the required EA. Thus, NMFS has acted

in bad faith with the power that has been invested in it to make sound environmental

determinations about this species of concern.

In Alternative 5.3- Grant Makah Tribe the IWC Quota Without Time/Area Restrictions,

there arises a potentially disastrous outcome for the Pacific coast feeding aggregation, the

Makah, the Coast Guard, and environmentally concerned citizens. This option would

undoubtedly lead to a potential take that would exceed the annual average PBR range of
 2.08 to 6.78 for the Pacific coast feeding aggregation. The option of granting the Makah

a quota without restrictions of time or space would likely result in the taking of whales

from the Pacific coast feeding aggregation, there-by resulting in detriment to this

population. Not only would this provoke public outrage, but it would require increased

Coast Guard intervention to prevent interference with Makah hunting excursions by

concerned animal rights activists, there-by increasing risks to all parties concerned.

The reasoning in Alternative 5.4 –No Action- Do Not Grant Makah Tribe The IWC

Quota, has essential flaws in the analysis it makes regarding the statement that: “There is

no conservation-based rationale for denying a quota.” It is obvious that the NMFS has its

own agenda in fulfilling its promises to the Makah and seeks to fulfill its contract with

the Makah in order to avoid valid litigation by the Makah for breech of contract. NMFS

has repeatedly shown its incompetence in adhering to the procedural components of the

ESA and MMPA and shows bad faith in managing the public’s environmental interests.

The costs that could potentially be incurred by taxpayers in dealing with train-wreck that

has occurred due to NMFS incompetent procedural activities could be offset by the

avoidance legal challenges by animal protection groups.

2. Is the Pacific coast feeding aggregation a distinct population segment (DPS)

or stock, or what information is needed to determine whether the Pacific coast

feeding aggregation is a DPS or stock?

At this time, there is insufficient data to make a determination on whether or not the Pacific

coast feeding aggregation is a DPS or stock. While the evidence available to date

suggests that there is a Grey Whale population that spend their summer months off the
 coast of Oregon and have for the last 6 years, more data is needed to determine if in-fact

this group represents a distinct population segment. Under the joint NMFS/FWS policy,

a population segment of a vertebrate species is considered discrete if it satisfies either of

the following conditions:

1. It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of

physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of

genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.

2. It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in

control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory

mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

In order to determine if the Pacific Coast Feeding aggregation is in fact a distinct

population segment further study will be required in its genetic and morphological

discontinuity specifically. Further, its ecological, physiological, and physical features all

require further study to make a determination at this time as to whether this population

does in fact represent a distinct population segment. Until this information is acquired

through further study, there is insufficient data to make an adequate Environmental

Assessment and consequential Finding Of No Significant Environment Impact by the

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

At this time, there is some evidence that a group of 200 whales spends its summer

months off the coast of Oregon and may represent a distinct population segment. One of

the problems inherent in NMFS analysis is that they contend that this group of whales

does not stay in the same area, if a distance of 120km separates it. However, according to

the ___________ this population represents a stock if it has a common geographic and
demographic segment. The 3-prong test under ESA for determining a distinct population

segment is currently used to determine how many individuals may be used to calculate

the recovery model. However, the data currently used to calculate this model relies on

the premise that the Grey Whale population is one cohesive unit and not a geographically

and demographically distinct population segment. If the Makah were to take 5 whales a

year for the next 5 years from this proposed population segment, it would represent a

significant impact on this population segment.

3. The implications of potentially harvesting from a small population/stock of

Gray Whales. What if any amendments to ESA and MMPA would you make to

protect small populations?

If in fact, it is the goal of the ESA and the MMPA to sustain existing populations of biota

for the purpose of sustained bio-diversity, the implications of harvesting from a small

population of Gray Whales could be devastating to the yet to be quantified distinct

population segment.