GOP tries to weaken law protecting whales, seals and polar bears
BOOTHBAY HARBOR, Maine — Republican lawmakers are targeting one of America’s oldest environmental laws, credited with helping save rare whales from extinction.
Conservative leaders say they now have the political will to remove key elements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, enacted in 1972 to protect whales, seals, polar bears and other marine animals. The law also places restrictions on commercial fishermen, shippers and other maritime industries.
A pending Republican-led bill has support from Maine fishermen who say the law makes lobster fishing more difficult, lobbyists for highly profitable species like tuna in Hawaii and crab in Alaska, and marine product manufacturers who view the law as outdated.
Conservation groups adamantly oppose the changes and say weakening the law will erase years of hard-won gains for threatened species such as the endangered North Atlantic right whale, which numbers fewer than 400 individuals and is vulnerable to fishing gear.
Here’s what you need to know about the Protection Act and the proposed changes.
Why the 1970s law still matters
“The Marine Mammal Protection Act is important because it is one of our foundational laws that helps us base conservation actions on the best available science,” said Kathleen Collins, senior marine campaigner at the International Fund for Animal Welfare. “Species on the brink of extinction have been brought back. »
It was signed into law a year before the Endangered Species Act, at a time when the movement to save whales from extinction was gaining momentum. Scientist Roger Payne had discovered that whales could sing in the late 1960s, and their voices quickly appeared on record albums and in popular culture.
The law protects all marine mammals and prohibits their capture or killing in U.S. waters or by U.S. citizens on the high seas. It provided preventive measures to prevent commercial fishing vessels and other businesses from accidentally harming animals such as whales and seals. Animals can be injured by fishing gear, ship strikes, and other hazards at sea.
The law also prohibits the hunting of marine mammals, including polar bears, with the exception of indigenous groups. Some of these animals can be legally hunted in other countries.
Changes in oil and gas operations – and whale safety
Republican Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska, a state with a large fishing industry, submitted a bill this summer that would roll back aspects of the law. The bill asserts that the law has “unduly and unnecessarily constrained the government, the tribes, and the regulated community” since its inception.
The proposal says it would make changes such as lowering population goals for marine mammals from “maximum productivity” to the level needed to “sustain continued survival.” It would also relax the rules on what constitutes harm to marine mammals.
For example, the law currently prohibits harassment of marine mammals such as whales and defines harassment as activities “likely to cause harm to a marine mammal.” The proposed changes would limit the definition to only activities that actually harm animals. This change could have major implications for sectors such as oil and gas exploration, where rare whales live.
That poses an existential threat to Rice’s whale, which numbers only a few dozen and lives in the Gulf of Mexico, conservationists said. And the proposal specifically targets the protection of North Atlantic right whales with a clause that would delay rules intended to protect this declining whale population until 2035.
Begich and his team did not respond to calls for comment on the bill, and his team declined to provide updated information on its position in Congress. Begich said he wants “a bill that protects marine mammals and also works for the people who live and work alongside them, especially in Alaska.”
Fishing groups want restrictions eased
A coalition of fishing groups from both coasts has spoken out in favor of the proposed changes. Some of these same groups have praised the Trump administration’s previous efforts to reduce the regulatory burden on commercial fishing.
The groups said in a July letter to House members that they believed Begich’s changes reflected “a positive and necessary step” for the success of U.S. fisheries.
Restrictions on Maine lobster fishermen are designed to protect the right whale, but they often offer little protection to the animals while limiting one of America’s iconic fisheries, said Virginia Olsen, political director of the Maine Lobstering Union. The restrictions specify where lobstermen can fish and what types of gear they can use. Whales are vulnerable to fatal entanglements in heavy fishing ropes.
Gathering more accurate data on right whales while revising the original law would help protect the animals, Olsen said.
“We don’t want marine mammals harmed; we need a healthy, vibrant ocean and abundant marine habitat to continue Maine’s heritage fisheries,” Olsen said.
Some members of other maritime industries have also called on Congress to update the law. The National Marine Manufacturers Association said in a statement that the rules have not kept pace with advances in the maritime industry, making innovation in the sector difficult.
Environmentalists fight back
Many environmental groups have pledged to fight to save the protection law. They characterized the proposed changes as part of the Trump administration’s assault on environmental protections.
The law was instrumental in protecting the humpback whale, one of the most popular species among whale watchers, said Gib Brogan, senior campaign director at Oceana. Without it, like other marine mammals, humpback whales would be in danger, he said.
“The Marine Mammal Protection Act is flexible. It works. It’s effective. We don’t need to revise this law at this point,” Brogan said.
What this means for seafood imports
The original law makes it illegal to import marine mammal products without a permit and allows the United States to impose import bans on seafood products from foreign fisheries that do not meet U.S. standards.
Import embargoes are a major sticking point because they punish U.S. businesses, said Gavin Gibbons, director of strategy for the National Fisheries Institute, a Virginia-based seafood industry trade group. Sourcing seafood globally is essential to being able to meet U.S. demand for seafood, he said.
The National Fisheries Institute and a coalition of industry groups sued the federal government Thursday for what they said was illegal implementation of the protection law. Gibbons said the groups do not oppose the law, but want to see it implemented responsibly.
“Our fisheries are well regulated and fished appropriately to achieve their maximum sustainable yield,” Gibbons said. “The men and women who work in our waters are iconic and responsible. They cannot be expected to fish more here to make up a deficit while jeopardizing the sustainability they have worked so hard to achieve.”
Some environmental groups have said the changes proposed by Republican lawmakers could weaken U.S. seafood competitiveness by allowing imports from poorly regulated foreign fisheries.
This story was supported by funding from the Walton Family Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Originally published:
