What boundary? What whale? Whose responsibility? - Governing Transboundary Waters: Canada, the United States, and Indigenous Communities - page 176

than those found in the southern waters of the L pod into which he was born,
and he found company with which to socialize.
However, the increased pressures from local boat-owners who worried that the
whale's “friendly” behavior would cause expensive property damage, the (perceived)
public safety concerns, coupled with the endangered status of the Southern Resident
orcas, pressured the Canadian government to remove the “problem” whale from
Nootka Sound. This is when the DFO stepped in. Thus, the original decision to
move Tsu-xiit had less to do with the whale itself, and rather more with the political
pressures from boaters and international environmental groups (McClure, 2005).
The international nature of the situation brought added media attention as the
decision-making required coordination between government officials.
By looking at the whale as an individual - a fleshy being - the justifications for
“rescuing him” become less clear. The opaqueness is evident when examining the
rationales to protect Luna. As one DFO official commented in a public interview,
“We knew that the more Luna socialized with boats, the more in danger he was
putting himself. We felt that the best thing to do was to first stop the socialization
and then to help him relocate with his pod in the southern waters”. However,
the rationale did not carry throughout the entire plan.
For example, James (2010) outlined several reasons why Tsu-xiit should not be
moved, beyond the belief that the whale was their chief incarnate. For one, the
plan did not respect Tsu-xiit's decision to reside in his chosen territory - a choice
worthy of both respect and consideration. Second, the plan to transfer Luna did
not assure the whale's safety, nor did it solve the “boat problem”. In fact, the
southern waters were much more congested with boats - and far more polluted
- than the relatively quiet Nootka Sound. Third, and most striking, was that there
were no funds allocated for a return trip if the reunification failed. Rather, the
standing plan was for Luna to go to an aquarium.
The failure to consult with First Nations highlights ongoing power-dynamics
that resurface throughout processes of environmental management. As James (2010)
reflected, “They had their own agenda . . . they didn't consult with us and we
found it was a disrespect not only to our cultural beliefs but also just to the animal
itself ”. Mike Maquinna, Grand Chief of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation,
further explained that capturing the whale would be disrespectful:
What we've been saying all along is that nature must be allowed to take its
course, but nature has been lost in all of the process. We're standing with the
whale, and will do everything we can to ensure its safety.
(Wiwchar, 2004)
The sentiments identified above support the idea of “letting be” or “letting go”,
which is largely missing in much of the environmental management and animal
geography work on ethics (Collard, 2012), and is ripe for further analysis.
Thus, for the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation, transferring Tsu-xiit was
viewed as a violent affront to his well-being that did not respect his choice to
reside by his people. By way of compromise, Chief Maquinna offered to lead a
reunification plan that was seen as less harmful to Tsu-xiit and still respected his