BOOTHBAY HARBOR, Maine (AP) — Republican lawmakers are targeting one of America’s longest-running environmental problems. lawrecognized for contributing to savings rare whale From extinction.
Conservative leaders feel they have the political will to remove key parts 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 marine industries.
The Republican-led bill has the backing of Maine fishermen who say the law would make lobster fishing more difficult, lobbyists for big-money businesses such as Hawaiian tuna and Alaskan crab, and seafood companies who think the law is outdated.
Conservation groups are adamantly opposed to the changes, arguing that weakening the law would undo years of hard-earned gains for endangered species such as the disappearing North Atlantic. right whaletheir number is less than 400 and they are easy to get entangled in fishing gear.
Here’s what you need to know about the protection law and the proposed changes.
Why 1970s laws still matter today
“The Marine Mammal Protection Act is important because it is one of the foundational laws that helps us base conservation measures on the best available science,” said Kathleen Collins, senior oceans campaigns manager at the International Fund for Animal Welfare. “An endangered species is back.”
The law was enacted the year before the Endangered Species Act, at a time when there was a growing movement to save whales from extinction. Scientist Roger Payne discovered By the late 1960s, whales were able to sing, and their voices soon appeared on record albums and throughout popular culture.
The law protects all marine mammals and prohibits U.S. citizens from taking or killing marine mammals in U.S. waters or on the high seas. It allows for precautionary measures to prevent commercial fishing vessels and other operators from accidentally harming animals such as whales and seals. Animals can be harmed by entanglement in fishing gear, collisions with ships, and other hazards at sea.
The law also prohibits hunting of marine mammals, including polar bears, except for indigenous peoples. Some of these animals can also be legally hunted in other countries.
Changes in oil and gas operations and whale safety
Republican Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska, a fishing-rich state, introduced a draft bill this summer that would roll back parts of the law. The bill says that since its enactment, the law has “unreasonably and needlessly constrained governments, tribes, and regulated communities.”
The proposal says changes would include lowering population targets for marine mammals from “maximum productivity” to levels needed to “support their continued survival.” Rules regarding what constitutes harm to marine mammals would also be relaxed.
For example, the law currently prohibits harassment of marine mammals, such as whales, and defines harassment as any activity that “may cause harm to marine mammals.” The proposed changes would limit the definition to activities that actually cause harm to animals. This change could have major implications for industries such as oil and gas exploration, where rare whales live.
Conservationists say this poses an existential threat to rice whales, of which there are only a few dozen left in the Gulf of Mexico. And this proposal specifically focuses on the North Atlantic right whale The protections include a provision to delay rules to protect dwindling whale populations until 2035.
Begich and his staff did not respond to requests for comment on the bill and declined to provide an update on the bill’s status in Congress. Begich said he wants “a bill that protects marine mammals and also works for the people who live and work with marine mammals, especially in Alaska.”
Fisheries groups are calling for deregulation
A coalition of fishing organizations from both coasts came out in support of the proposed changes. Some in the same group praised their previous efforts. effort It was activated by the Trump administration to reduce regulatory burdens on commercial fishing.
In a July letter to members of Congress, the groups said they felt Begich’s changes reflected “a positive and necessary step” for the success of the U.S. fishing industry.
Restrictions placed on Maine lobster fishermen are intended to protect right whales, but they often do little to protect the animals by restricting one of the nation’s leading fisheries, said Virginia Olsen, political director of the Maine Lobster Association. These restrictions govern where lobstermen can fish and what equipment they can use. Entanglement of whales in heavy fishing ropes can be fatal.
Gathering more accurate data on right whales while amending the original law will help protect the animals, Olsen said.
“We don’t want to see marine mammals harmed, and maintaining Maine’s historic fisheries requires healthy, vibrant oceans and rich marine habitat,” Olsen said.
Some other members of the maritime industry are also calling on Congress to change the law. The National Marine Manufacturers Association said in a statement that regulations have not kept up with advances in the marine industry, making it difficult for businesses to innovate.
Environmentalists fight back
Many environmental groups have vowed to fight to uphold the protection law. They characterized the proposed changes as part of the Trump administration’s attack on environmental protections.
Gib Brogan, Oceana’s senior campaigns director, said the move helped protect humpback whales, one of whale watchers’ most beloved species. Like other marine mammals, humpback whales would be at risk without it, he said.
“The Marine Mammal Protection Act is flexible. It’s effective. There’s no need to overhaul the law at this time,” Brogan said.
What does this mean for seafood imports?
The original law made it illegal to import marine mammal products without a permit and allowed the United States to impose import bans on seafood from foreign fisheries that did not meet U.S. standards.
Gavin Gibbons, chief strategy officer at the National Fisheries Institute, a Virginia-based seafood industry trade group, said the import embargo is a big problem because it punishes U.S. companies. He said sourcing seafood globally is important to meeting U.S. seafood demand.
The National Fisheries Research Institute and a coalition of industry groups sued the federal government on Thursday over illegal implementation of the conservation law. Gibbons said the groups are not opposed to the law, but want it to be implemented responsibly.
“Our fisheries are well regulated and properly harvested to maximum sustainable yields,” Gibbons said. “The men and women who work our waters are iconic and responsible. We cannot expect them to fish more here to make up the deficit while jeopardizing the sustainability they have worked so hard to maintain.”
Some environmental groups said the changes proposed by Republican lawmakers could make U.S. seafood less competitive by allowing imports from poorly regulated foreign fisheries.
___
This story was supported by funding from the Walton Family Foundation. AP is solely responsible for all content.
