Another Stereotype of the Month entry:
Commentary > Opinion
from the October 04, 2004 edition
Canada's whale of a dilemma
By Rondi Adamson
TORONTO – It is said that your right to swing your arm ends where your arm meets someone else's nose. And, I might add, your right to believe your late relative has been reincarnated as a killer whale ends where you prevent that whale from being returned to his pod.
Science and animal welfare concerns are clashing with political correctness off the coast of British Columbia, where an orca named Luna is making the news. Rubbing up against boats, alternately victimized and revered, he is stuck and hapless as humans try to help—provided it doesn't offend anyone.
Luna, now five, is a Southern Resident killer whale (an endangered species) who, in July of 2001, showed up in Nootka Sound, off Vancouver Island. The youngster had lost contact with his pod, or family unit, and wandered until he found a food source. Killer whales normally stay with their pod their whole life. Marine biologists theorize that he was swimming with an uncle who died.
Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) initially decided to leave Luna be, hoping he would find his way back. He didn't. He traveled further inland toward Gold River, where he became famous. By the summer of 2003, tourists were traveling to Gold River to see him, touch him, and sadly, to abuse him. Some poked and prodded, others poured beer down his blowhole.
He's a big boy now—nearly 3,000 pounds—and some have wised up that Luna should be helped back to his pod, which, according to experts, is where he will thrive. The first (and so far only) attempt to reunite a killer whale with its pod was the case of Springer, in 2002. That relocation was successful and also took place off the coast of British Columbia. But Springer had not been away as long as Luna. Time is of the essence. Last fall, the decision was made to relocate Luna. The move was delayed until spring 2004, when Luna's pod was expected nearby.
Meanwhile, the Mowachaht-Muchalaht First Nations people, a native Canadian tribe, raised concerns about moving Luna, whom they call Tsuux-iit. Their late chief had said he would return in the form of a whale. Shortly after his death, Luna appeared.
In June, an oceanic battle took place. While scientists from the DFO and the Vancouver Aquarium tried to capture Luna, Mowachaht-Muchalaht members paddled their canoes out to stroke and scratch Luna's considerable belly, luring him away. The DFO backed off and in mid-September a joint stewardship was set up between the DFO and the Mowachaht-Muchalaht. The stewardship will focus on ways to keep humans from bothering the whale. Its downside is that no date has been set for his relocation, in spite of the fact that the next few weeks—as boating season dies down—would be opportune.
It is hard to believe any community other than a native group would be given such power. Expressions of guilt—some sincere, some not—over past injustices have created an environment, at least in Canada, where anything short of concurrence with native ideas is seen as arrogance. Killer whales may well be important in native mythology. And there are more things in heaven and earth, and all that. But Luna is not a mythological whale, he's a real one. Perhaps a simple, "We're sorry we stole your land, but the whale needs its pod" is in order.
Another factor is the prevailing belief that aboriginals cannot be incorrect about the environment. History shows them no more or less reverential of nature than the rest of us. (One scientific theory of why more than 30 species of mammals disappeared in North America between 12,000 and 13,000 years ago is that they were hunted to extinction.) Not to mention, the Mowachaht-Muchalaht are part of a larger tribal council, the Nuu-chah-nulth, which has an existing right to hunt certain species of whales. True, they cannot hunt killer whales. But if you are claiming a special relationship with wildlife, consistency is helpful.
If Luna were a child, there would be no debate. A headline this summer in a West Coast paper read, "Spiritual bond between killer whales and West Coast aboriginals runs deep." Do the whales agree? The inability of so many of us to recognize animals as beings worthy of respect is at the heart of Luna's struggle. He is not a thing. And not only is he vulnerable where he is, he is endangering the people around him. He rocks boats, he "plays" with floats. Scientists monitoring Luna—who is still using Southern Resident calls—think this is a sign of this creature's very real loneliness.
• Rondi Adamson is a Canadian writer.
Rob's reply
>> Expressions of guilt—some sincere, some not—over past injustices have created an environment, at least in Canada, where anything short of concurrence with native ideas is seen as arrogance. <<
Are people listening to the Natives' opinions because they feel guilty? Or because they're finally recognizing that the Natives may be right? Or, at least, because they can't prove the Natives are wrong? Adamson suggests the reason is the former, but what if it's the latter? That's the crux of this issue.
>> Another factor is the prevailing belief that aboriginals cannot be incorrect about the environment. <<
Is that the belief at work here? Or is it the belief that scientists may be incorrect—that they don't know everything and that Natives may know something they don't? Again, you can see how Adamson has slanted the argument. The implication is that Adamson and the scientists are dealing in the truth and the Natives aren't.
>> History shows them no more or less reverential of nature than the rest of us. <<
No, history doesn't show that. See Dennis Prager and The Ecological Indian for details.
>> (One scientific theory of why more than 30 species of mammals disappeared in North America between 12,000 and 13,000 years ago is that they were hunted to extinction.) <<
That's a theory, not a fact. It's only one theory on the subject; there are others. And even if it were true, by itself it wouldn't prove that Natives lack reverence toward nature.
>> But if you are claiming a special relationship with wildlife, consistency is helpful. <<
The idea of revering animals while killing them for food is fundamental to the Native cosmology. There's no contradiction there. Adamson implies that Natives are hypocritical on this issue, but they're not.
>> A headline this summer in a West Coast paper read, "Spiritual bond between killer whales and West Coast aboriginals runs deep." Do the whales agree? <<
Do the whales disagree? How does Adamson know one way or another? Until scientists can prove the Natives wrong, the Natives' opinion should carry as much weight as anyone else's.
That's where Adamson's problem lies. He wants to assert that the Natives are acting superstitiously and wrongly, but he can't. It's impossible to disprove an article of faith.
>> The inability of so many of us to recognize animals as beings worthy of respect is at the heart of Luna's struggle. He is not a thing. <<
Are the Natives treating Luna like a thing? How...by not treating it like any other animal?
Luna may be more than just an ordinary animal. That's the position Adamson refuses to give credence to.
Related links
"Primitive" Indian religion
. . . |
All material © copyright its original owners, except where noted.
Original text and pictures © copyright 2007 by Robert Schmidt.
Copyrighted material is posted under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act,
which allows copying for nonprofit educational uses including criticism and commentary.
Comments sent to the publisher become the property of Blue Corn Comics
and may be used in other postings without permission.