Often the considerations of regulating cultural practices rests on the idea of what “public morals” are, and how they may be best upheld. Consider the case of Innuit seal markets. In the case of a purely respecting the culture norms of the nation, the outsiders must not assume that the practice is as of a “taboo” in their culture as it may be in their own. Morals are hard to separate from what is considered taboo. In this, a person or nation who has strong feelings that animals should not be harmed, will have little audience for the consideration that the practice is of significant importance to the culture norms and mores of the society hunting seals. From this perspective, it may impossible to arrive at a specific “public” moral that could be broadly applied to every circumstance. Simply, this is why there must be cultural considerations when arriving at public policy. It would be an undue burden on the Innuit population to entirely erase the practice when it holds such a significant placement in their society, not just trade considerations. Yet, if a carve-out is given to the Innuit nation, why would it not be allowed to be afforded to another nation without the same cultural considerations? Simply, if the outcome is the same and a seal product market exists from the Innuit nation, why may it not expand to other nations anyway? This opportunistic approach to considering that cultural considerations are not heavy enough to a singular focus of policy consideration make it even more difficult to be proactive in allowing cultural traditions to exist, if others can see a way to exploit the loophole it provides.