One way around such a law is to contend that no "hunting" is occuring. It would better be catagorized as a harvest. Hunting implies some difficulty in finding or tracking the hunted animal, followed by stalking to approach close enough to use your weapon. Since the whales being killed are used to boats approaching and they are a resident herd whose whereabouts are well known, no hunting is involved in the same way "hunting" is not used in reference to the round up and slaughter of beef cattle. Just so long as you stay away when the are "hunting" there should be no problem getting in close during a "harvest". Nick At 9:35 AM -0700 7/28/98, Michael Kundu wrote: >Two days ago, the US Coast Guard published a federal proposal which the >public now has 45 days to respond to before the government decides whether >to turn it into a law or not. At this point, enough opposition will >prevent this proposal from becoming a law. > >This proposed law includes sea kayakers, and is a precedent setting action >that our community should address. The proposal will create a 1500-foot >ëexclusion zoneí around any Makah tribal whaling vessel in the act of >chasing, hunting or killing a gray whale during their first annual whale >hunt this October. The Makah whale hunt is scheduled to happen this autumn >only 4-hours away from Seattle, WA. > >What this proposal will do is to make it impossible and illegal for anyone >-- animal advocates, kayakers, media, boaters, etc. -- from seeing and >effectively opposing the Makah gray whale hunt -- a hunt that might signal >the return to coastal whaling world-wide. The federal government notice >essentially states that the US Coast Guard and Justice Department -- at the >taxpayer expense -- will help the Makah kill whales by protecting their >whalers AND excluding anyone from protesting this hunt. > >It is paramount that EVERYONE who resides in the US comment against this >proposal before September 8th, 1998. We are attaching a draft 'talking >points' bulletin to use in the formation of your letter of opposition. > >Citizens must retain their constitutional rights to witness, document or >protest such a hunt at their own risk. Please inform your regional network >of activists, marine trade or recreational associations, commercial >boating/fishing and marine commerce businesses, whale-watching or anyone >you know that can respond to this notice. > >The entire text of this Federal Register notice can be found on the Sea >Shepherd website _at_ www.seashpherd.org. Please visit this site and add any >additional points to your letter. > >If you care about preventing a new era of whaling, please act today. >Please cc. your local legislator and Project SeaWolf with your response. > >Michael Kundu, Director >Project SeaWolf >*************************************** >DRAFT LETTER/TALKING POINTS > >Commander(m) >Thirteenth Coast Guard District >915 Second Avenue >Seattle, WA 98174 > >This letter is in response to Federal Register rulemaking notice >#CGD98-023, published on July 22, 1998. > >I am opposed to the proposal to establish a Mobile Exclusion Zone around >Makah whaling vessels. My objections are based on the additional taxpayer >costs associated with the establishment, enforcement and execution of this >proposed rule, as well as the constitutional infringements that such an >exclusion zone will have on the rights of individual citizens to oppose and >protest the Makah whale hunt. > >Similar exclusion zones are not in place in other areas where hunting >occurs each year, or where large caliber rifles are used in hunting >activities. Therefore I am opposed to the idea that a special law will be >implemented to facilitate a special activity conducted by a single group of >individuals involved in an exclusive hunting activity. I believe that >regulations passed under these circumstance are unwarranted and inequitable. > >My objections to the draft notice include: > >Section 1: Background and Purpose >The assertion by Departments of Justice and the Interior that ìphysical >interference with the hunt is inconsistent with federal law,î has not been >substantiated nor documented by any evidence presented in the 1855 Treaty >text, nor in any other formal US regulation or law. Hereby the >establishment of an exclusion zone can be construed as being an >unconstitutional restriction on citizenís rights. I am opposed to these >restrictions placed on my constitutional rights. > >Section 2: Discussion of Proposed Rule >a) Stray rifle fire and ricochets off the water will travel much further >than 1500-feet. All regional commercial, recreational and shore-based >travelers will be prone to danger from the use of high-caliber bullets in a >hunt. A moving exclusionary zone will make it even more difficult and cost >intensive for federal and emergency personal to implement reasonable safety >procedures. I am opposed to the physical dangers, travel restrictions and >additional expense that this activity will entail to myself and other US >taxpayers. > >b) The broadcasting of a SECURITE announcement by Makah whaler 1-half hour >prior to a hunt is inadequate notice for commercial and recreational >travelers in the area. Many travelers rounding Cape Flattery will not have >adequate time to change their course or route of travel. I feel that the >federal government should not implement such an unpredictable and >unreasonable demand on recreational travelers and others using the public >Olympic Marine Sanctuary waters. > >Section 3: Regulatory Evaluation >I feel that the public cost associated with the implementation and >enforcement of this proposal for an exclusion zone does indeed make it a >significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, >and that it thereby does require an assessment of potential costs and >benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. I am opposed to this >additional added, unanticipated expense borne by taxpayers and US citizens, >and I request that a complete budget disclosure be presented tp the public >for comment prior to any additional action. > >Section 4: Small Entities >The prospective cost to small entities, non-profit groups and other >eco-tourism related businesses and interests have not been quantifiably >estimated nor considered by any government agency, so there is no direct >evidence to support this sectionís assertions. I am opposed to the >potential taxpayer-borne costs that supervision and enforcement of this >exclusion zone will entail, particularly since these expenses have not been >presented to the public. > >Under the circumstances of the added cost of enforcing this new proposed >rule, I request that a public hearing and budgetary forecast be prepared >prior to any final implementation. Thank you for the opportunity to >express my comments. > >Sincerely..... > > > > > > > >Michael Kundu >Project SeaWolf/Arcturus Adventure Communications >"The Source for Extreme Adventuresports Photojournalism" >respond to ProjectSeaWolf_at_seanet.com > >*************************************************************************** >PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List >Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net >Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net >Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ >*************************************************************************** Nick Schade Guillemot Kayaks c/o Newfound Woodworks, 67 Danforth Brook Rd, Bristol, NH 03222 (603) 744-6872 Schade_at_guillemot-kayaks.com http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/ >>>>"It's not just Art, It's a Craft!"<<<< *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************Received on Wed Jul 29 1998 - 20:06:41 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:29:58 PDT