International Marine Mammal Project
Bush administration conspired with Mexico
The International Marine Mammal Project (IMMP) recently released a
series of memos that show a pattern of deliberate abuse of science by
the Bush administration at the expense of protection for dolphins in
the Eastern Tropical Pacific tuna fishery. On December 31, 2002,
Commerce Secretary Donald Evans made a legal claim that there were “no
significant adverse impacts” on dolphins that are deliberately chased
and netted by fishermen to catch the tuna that swim beneath them. This
claim was meant to give Mexico and other tuna-fishing nations the
ability to falsely label tuna caught in this way as “Dolphin Safe” and
sell it in the US.
The Bush administration supports a weak international agreement, the
International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP), which allows the
chasing and netting of dolphins in order to catch tuna, instead of
implementing measures that truly protect dolphins. The IDCP is
administered by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, made up of
representatives of tuna fishing nations and their tuna industry
officials.
IMMP sued in federal court (Earth Island Institute v. Secretary of Commerce Evans),
and won a preliminary injunction that is still in place. IMMP’s lawsuit
contends that the Bush administration weakened the meaning of the
Dolphin Safe tuna label on the basis of trade politics rather than
science.
Further, IMMP took steps to obtain secret memos and other documents in
the Commerce Secretary’s decision record. These memos prove the US
government privately conceded that dolphin populations were not
recovering from depleted status, likely due to the tuna fishery. The
documents also show that Mexico and other tuna fishing nations put
intense political pressure on the Commerce Department to ignore its own
scientific conclusions.
Over 300 documents were withheld from the court record. Federal Judge
Thelton Henderson of San Francisco ruled October 10 that the public
interest in the case warranted releasing some of the withheld documents.
“Congress would not allow weakening the Dolphin Safe tuna label unless
the science showed no impact on dolphins,” declared David Phillips,
executive director of EII. “The Bush administration has blatantly and
illegally ignored its own scientists, caving in to the demand of Mexico
that tuna be falsely labeled “Dolphin Safe,” despite killing tens of
thousands of dolphins annually.”
The IMMP lawsuit and request for summary judgment will be heard before
Judge Thelton Henderson on April 26, 2004. Plaintiffs in this case
include IMMP/Earth Island Institute, Samuel LaBudde, Humane Society of
the United States, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, Defenders of Wildlife, International Wildlife Coalition,
Animal Welfare Institute, Society for Animal Protective Legislation,
Animal Fund, and Oceanic Society.
Navy battens hatches on sonar
IMMP and other environmental organizations fighting noise pollution in
the oceans are confronting the Navy’s deliberate attempts to misstate
the science and promote the use of whale-killing sonar regardless of
the environmental damage.
Following Congressional approval of special exemptions for the US Navy
from the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Navy has been
stonewalling further research and denying culpability in key instances
of whale and porpoise deaths due to the use of underwater sonar.
Congress approved amendments, sponsored by the Bush administration and
Congressional military committees, that effectively gut the MMPA
provisions that prevent Navy activities from harassing and killing
marine mammals. The Secretary of Defense can exempt any activity by the
military from the MMPA in the name of training, preparedness, and
national security.
A series of incidents around the world has linked the new sonar, which
emits some of the loudest noises ever produced by people, to the deaths
of beaked whales, minke whales, and harbor porpoises. Additionally,
sonar produces sublethal effects that are not fully understood.
However, the Navy has stepped up its campaign to deny any involvement
of Navy sonar in such incidents. Recently, the US National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the Department of Commerce, released
a report on several harbor porpoises that stranded during an incident
in Puget Sound’s Haro Strait. Although 70 percent of the porpoises had
deteriorated too much for scientists to find signs of acoustic trauma,
the scientists stated that acoustic injury from Navy sonar being used
at the time of the strandings could not be ruled out. The Navy
announced to newspapers that these results exonerated them, and further
characterized the panic that ensued in pods of endangered orcas during
the sonar use as “within this species’ normal range of behaviors.”
Many biologists are concerned that the Navy seems intent on continuing to use intense noise in Haro Strait, among other places.
In related news, the Navy has appealed a court case to the US Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals that restricts their use of Low Frequency
Active (LFA) Sonar. The experimental LFA Sonar is considered
particularly dangerous to marine life because of its use of very loud
sound at frequencies that carry for miles underwater. The Navy had been
sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and settled the
case with an agreement to restrict LFA Sonar experimental use and
training to the western Pacific Ocean around China and Korea. Now the
Navy wants to break the deal it originally signed. If the legal
agreement is overturned, the Navy could start using LFA Sonar in US
waters.
Victory for Mexican dolphins
The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has won another
victory for marine mammals in Mexico. A branch of the federal
government announced administrative actions against former officials
who authorized the illegal importation of 28 dolphins from the Solomon
Islands.
Last July, the dolphins were placed in a private amusement park in
Quintana Roo. IFAW launched a thorough investigation and found that the
operation constituted a violation of national and international law,
including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES). These violations occurred on the watch of former Deputy
Environment Minister Raul Arriaga.
IFAW presented the results of its investigation to the authorities in
November, demanding a formal inquiry and charges against those
responsible for the importation of the dolphins. The Ministry of Public
Office (the equivalent of a federal comptroller in Mexico) admitted
that both the dolphin importation and the permits were illegal,
announcing actions against Arriaga and 27 other current and former
Environment Ministry officials.
“This is an important step in the much-needed battle against impunity,”
said Bettina Bugeda, director of IFAW Latin America. “It shows the
potential of the productive partnership that can be established between
civil society and the authorities.”
While welcoming the actions of the Ministry of Public Office, Bugeda
added that the Mexican government still has much to do in both cases.
Authorities still need to file charges with the Attorney General,
investigate financial gains from illegal hunting permits, and revoke
these permits and any issued to import the dolphins. “And perhaps more
importantly,” said Bugeda, “the dolphins have to be rescued from the
illegal commercial exploitation they are suffering.”
IMMP goes to Spain
In mid-February, as a representative of Asociación Para la Defensa de
los Derechos del Animal (ADDA), Spain’s oldest animal welfare
organization, I had the pleasure of accompanying Mark Berman and Paolo
Bray, coordinators of IMMP’s Dolphin-Safe program, on their visit to
tuna canneries in Spain.
More than 90 percent of the world’s tuna industry participates in IMMP’s Dolphin-Safe program.
Most of Spain’s tuna canning is located in the northern region of
Galicia. During our visit to this area, we met with representatives
from several of the Spanish companies involved in the Dolphin-Safe
program. They were all very proud of their participation.
There is only one Spanish tuna canning company that does not fulfill
IMMP’s requirements for the Dolphin Safe Program, and sets nets on
dolphins. We hope that collaboration between ADDA, a locally and
nationally known organization, and IMMP will encourage it to adopt more
humane practices.
During IMMP’s visit to Spain, ADDA helped organize a conference in the
city of Barcelona to talk about the problems of cetacean captivity,
dolphin swim programs, and dolphin-assisted therapies. These are
particularly urgent issues in Spain due to the number of dolphinaria
being set up there.
Many issues affecting captive cetaceans were discussed, including
capture methods and negative effects on wild populations. This
conference also served to launch the Spanish version of IMMP’s “A Fall
from Freedom” video, which will be offered to schools around the
country.
Flaws of dolphin-assisted therapy (DAT) were discussed at the
conference as well. Parents of disabled children pay great amounts of
money believing that swimming with dolphins will cure their children.
There is no evidence that DAT is more effective than any other method,
and other methods of therapy don’t involve the suffering of wild
animals.
DAT and swim-with-dolphins programs are risky to humans because
dolphins are unpredictable in the artificial, stressful, and
frustrating conditions that accompany captivity. Many human swimmers
have been injured during these programs.
Memos obtained by IMMP include these statements that contradict
the Secretary’s finding on December 31, 2002, of “no significant
adverse impacts” of the tuna fishery on dolphins, and show the Bush
administration’s intent to strike down dolphin protections:
The Government of the United States strongly regrets that the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court ruling striking down
the Secretary of Commerce’s finding concerning the effects of purse
seine fishing on depleted dolphin populations… The United States can
understand the strong disappointment of the government of Mexico and
the Mexican industry… We are committed to implementing the Agreement
on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP), consistent
with US law and the intention of the parties to the AIDCP to open
markets to tuna caught in accordance with the agreement… The United
States believes that it has fulfilled its commitments under the AIDCP
and the Declaration of Panama; however, because of the court decision
the definition of ‘dolphin-safe’ cannot be changed at this moment.
—Secretary of State Colin Powell to US Ambassador
to Mexico Jeffrey Davidow, in a cable asking Davidow to convey the
message to the Government of Mexico, August 15, 2001.
A determination of ‘no significant adverse impact’ is not supported by the science.
We’ve all seen the science. We know that dolphins aren’t recovering. Now, let’s take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
We don’t have a paywall because, as a nonprofit publication, our mission is to inform, educate and inspire action to protect our living world. Which is why we rely on readers like you for support. If you believe in the work we do, please consider making a tax-deductible year-end donation to our Green Journalism Fund.
DonateGet four issues of the magazine at the discounted rate of $20.