that they are ethnically different to the commercial whalers. Second, the hunt
conducted by these peoples must strictly be non-commercial, i.e. for subsistence
purposes. This means that the spheres of exchange of goods stemming from these
hunts are not to generate profit and must not be market-oriented. It is thus the
communities themselves which make use of the goods stemming from these hunts.
While theoretically this approach provides an avenue for aboriginal communities
to have their needs recognised, in practice the story looks quite different. First of all,
the idea of a purely community-based sphere of exchange is an idea which stems
from the late nineteenth century when the first ‘aboriginal exemptions’ were
introduced into seal management regimes (see Chap. 6). The idea was, of course,
to differentiate between large-scale and small-scale hunts. Since small-scale hunters
were colonised native communities, the ethnic dimension inevitably was an important marker. Particularly since other settlements in regions of whaling (and sealing),
even though they might have conducted small-scale marine mammal hunts, were in
all likelihood in one way or another attached to commercial hunting operations.
Consequently, the focus was put on aboriginal subsistence hunting. However, as
regards subsistence hunting, the perception was that these hunts were fundamentally
different, and indeed separate, from the commercial hunts. Trade pathways, market
considerations and other characteristics that dictated the numbers of animals that
were taken were perceived as not playing a role in aboriginal subsistence hunts.
Consequently, any regulatory regimes, including whaling regulations, should
exempt these hunts from any restrictions.
While in the early days of colonisation, especially in the Arctic, this was certainly
true, over time the two types of hunt began to intertwine increasingly. The more
native communities became dependent on goods from their colonisers—both in
good and bad ways—the more monetary considerations started to play a role.
Hence, the idea of a ‘noble savage’ that does not engage in commercial hunting
activities eroded. John Bockstoce treatise on the fur trade in the Western Arctic is a
testament of this development.
16
This meant in practice that aboriginal whalers increasingly resorted to the use of
‘non-traditional’ technology such as motorised boats or rifles, the purchase of which
inevitably required money. Therefore, since the main sources for these goods were
commercial marine mammal hunters, aboriginal whalers inevitably became attached
to the commercial marine mammal hunt, while, additionally, also dietary habits and
practices changed: canned and other commercial food products were introduced,
effectively replacing—or at least diminishing—the consumption of ‘traditional’
foods such as whale or seal meat. The question thus arose whether aboriginal
whalers would still have a need for whaling.
While until the adoption of the moratorium aboriginal needs did not play a major
role in IWC deliberations, this changed dramatically when all commercial whaling
was prohibited. While rather consensually the Commission agreed that aboriginal
whalers should not be affected by the moratorium due to the small numbers of
16 Bockstoce (2018).
5.3 The International Whaling Commission, Whaling and Whales
105
conducted by these peoples must strictly be non-commercial, i.e. for subsistence
purposes. This means that the spheres of exchange of goods stemming from these
hunts are not to generate profit and must not be market-oriented. It is thus the
communities themselves which make use of the goods stemming from these hunts.
While theoretically this approach provides an avenue for aboriginal communities
to have their needs recognised, in practice the story looks quite different. First of all,
the idea of a purely community-based sphere of exchange is an idea which stems
from the late nineteenth century when the first ‘aboriginal exemptions’ were
introduced into seal management regimes (see Chap. 6). The idea was, of course,
to differentiate between large-scale and small-scale hunts. Since small-scale hunters
were colonised native communities, the ethnic dimension inevitably was an important marker. Particularly since other settlements in regions of whaling (and sealing),
even though they might have conducted small-scale marine mammal hunts, were in
all likelihood in one way or another attached to commercial hunting operations.
Consequently, the focus was put on aboriginal subsistence hunting. However, as
regards subsistence hunting, the perception was that these hunts were fundamentally
different, and indeed separate, from the commercial hunts. Trade pathways, market
considerations and other characteristics that dictated the numbers of animals that
were taken were perceived as not playing a role in aboriginal subsistence hunts.
Consequently, any regulatory regimes, including whaling regulations, should
exempt these hunts from any restrictions.
While in the early days of colonisation, especially in the Arctic, this was certainly
true, over time the two types of hunt began to intertwine increasingly. The more
native communities became dependent on goods from their colonisers—both in
good and bad ways—the more monetary considerations started to play a role.
Hence, the idea of a ‘noble savage’ that does not engage in commercial hunting
activities eroded. John Bockstoce treatise on the fur trade in the Western Arctic is a
testament of this development.
16
This meant in practice that aboriginal whalers increasingly resorted to the use of
‘non-traditional’ technology such as motorised boats or rifles, the purchase of which
inevitably required money. Therefore, since the main sources for these goods were
commercial marine mammal hunters, aboriginal whalers inevitably became attached
to the commercial marine mammal hunt, while, additionally, also dietary habits and
practices changed: canned and other commercial food products were introduced,
effectively replacing—or at least diminishing—the consumption of ‘traditional’
foods such as whale or seal meat. The question thus arose whether aboriginal
whalers would still have a need for whaling.
While until the adoption of the moratorium aboriginal needs did not play a major
role in IWC deliberations, this changed dramatically when all commercial whaling
was prohibited. While rather consensually the Commission agreed that aboriginal
whalers should not be affected by the moratorium due to the small numbers of
16 Bockstoce (2018).
5.3 The International Whaling Commission, Whaling and Whales
105