Republican lawmakers are targeting one of the nation’s longest-standing environmental laws, credited with helping save rare whales from extinction.
Republican leaders believe they now 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lobbyists for big-money companies such as Hawaiian tuna and Alaskan crab, and seafood companies who think the law is outdated.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 erase years of hard-won gains for endangered species, such as the endangered North Atlantic right whale, which is prone to getting entangled in fishing gear. There are fewer than 400 right whales left.
Here’s what you need to know about the protection law and the proposed changes.
Why the 1972 Act remains important
“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 was enacted, at a time when there was a growing movement to save whales from extinction. Scientist Roger Payne discovered that whales could sing in the late 1960s, and whale voices soon appeared on record albums and throughout popular culture.
The law protects all marine mammals and prohibits U.S. citizens from capturing or killing them 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
Republican Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska, a fishing-rich state, introduced a draft 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 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 harm 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 the proposal focuses specifically on protecting North Atlantic right whales, including a provision that would extend 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 organizations are calling for deregulation
A coalition of fishing organizations from both coasts came out in support of the proposed changes. Some of the same groups praised the Trump administration’s previous efforts to reduce regulatory burdens on commercial fishing.
In a July letter to members of Congress, the groups said they believe Begich’s changes reflect “a positive and necessary step” for the success of U.S. fisheries.
Restrictions placed on Maine lobster fishermen are intended to protect right whales, but they often do little to protect the animals while restricting one of America’s signature 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 the rules have not kept up with advances in the marine industry and make 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 meet 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.
Whittle writes for The Associated Press.
