International Marine Mammal Project
Congress passes conflicting military exemptions
As of this writing, the US Senate and the House of Representatives have
passed different versions of the National Defense Authorization Act,
with different versions of the Pentagon’s cherished exemptions from
environmental laws. All in all, what passed was not good, but due to
heroic efforts by environmental groups in DC and effective grassroots
activism, the Pentagon lost exemptions from major pollution and health
laws.
The House version, passed on May 23, 2002, is by far the worse bill.
The House did act to strip amendments placed in the bill by the
reactionary majority of the House Resources Committee and its new
chairman, Rep. Richard Pombo (R) of Stockton, CA. Oddly enough, the
author of the amendments to “fix” the Pombo mess was his fellow
California Republican, Rep. Duncan Hunter of the San Diego area.
But the House did leave in other bad amendments. The Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) “small take” permit process, currently limited to
small numbers of marine mammals in restricted geographic areas, would
be broadened for anyone, so there would no longer be numerical or
geographical limits to the government issuing a “small take” permit.
Also, the House version retained the provision proposed by the Pentagon
to allow Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his successors to exempt the
military from the MMPA for any reason.
The House version of the Defense Authorization Bill further exempts
military lands from consideration as critical habitat under the ESA,
and exempts the Navy and other military agencies from the MMPA in
several important ways. It does not include other exemptions sought by
the military for other environmental laws (Clean Air Act, Superfund
law, etc.), nor does it expand the exemptions to other federal agencies
and industries, as the House Resources Committee leadership wanted.
Unfortunately, the House Rules Committee, controlled by the Republican
majority, refused to allow any environmental amendments to the Defense
Authorization Bill on the floor except for Rep. Hunter’s amendment.
The Senate passed its own version of the Defense Authorization Bill on
May 22, 2002, leaving out everything except the exemption of military
lands from the critical habitat designations of the Endangered Species
Act. The original version would have replaced ESA’s critical habitat
designation with a much weaker designation for use on military lands.
Environmental groups won an amendment putting some legal teeth back
into the military’s wildlife habitat plans.
Both bills give President Bush the authority to begin developing and
testing “bunker busting” small nuclear weapons, ending a US moratorium
on development of new nuclear weapons.
Over the next few weeks, a Conference Committee consisting of House and
Senate members will reconcile the two bills. If the Conference
Committee reaches agreement, the House and Senate will take an
up-or-down vote on the Conference version of the bill. Observers
believe the Republican-controlled Congress will try to reach agreement
and send a final Defense Authorization Bill to the President for his
signature by July 4.
The Defense Authorization Bill is a fiscal bill to fund the continuing
programs of the Pentagon. As such, it is a “must pass” bill for
Congress and cannot be filibustered. As a result, Republicans have
taken advantage of the bill to attack unrelated environmental laws in
the false name of “national security.”
Court blocks Bush dolphin safe label
On December 31, 2002, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans attempted to
gut the meaning of “Dolphin Safe” by allowing Mexico and other
countries to label their canned tuna as “Dolphin Safe,” despite their
continuing practice of chasing and netting dolphins to catch the tuna
that swim beneath them. More than seven million dolphins have been
killed by this fishing technique since the use of purse seine nets was
developed in the late 1950s. Earth Island Institute, with eight other
environmental groups and one individual, immediately initiated a
lawsuit (Earth Island Institute v. Evans) to oppose Evans’s efforts.
Plaintiffs in the dolphin case are: EII, Humane Society of the United
States, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(ASPCA), Defenders of Wildlife, International Wildlife Coalition,
Animal Welfare Institute, Society for Animal Protective Legislation,
Animal Fund, Oceanic Society, and Samuel LaBudde.
The plaintiffs scored two important legal victories for dolphins when
federal Judge Thelton Henderson issued a preliminary injunction
preventing the Bush administration from weakening the strong standards
for the “Dolphin Safe” tuna label by ruling to keep Mexican and
Venezuelan tuna industries from intervening in the lawsuit.
In granting the injunction, Judge Henderson stated: “this Court
concludes that plaintiffs have (1) raised a serious question as to
whether the Secretary relied on factors which Congress did not intend
it to consider, and (2) shown that they are likely to succeed on their
claim that the final finding is contrary to the best available
scientific evidence…”
“This is a victory for dolphins, and a good start for our
lawsuit,” says David Phillips, director of IMMP. “We can now go to
trial over the next few months knowing that the integrity of the
‘Dolphin Safe’ tuna label will be protected by this injunction.”
Phillips adds: “The Administration’s own scientists have shown that the
fishing practice is a disaster for dolphins. This is no more than a
political gift to Mexico and other fishing nations that continue to
chase and harm dolphins at the expense of dolphin lives. If this
decision by the Bush administration were allowed to go into effect,
some irresponsible tuna fishing companies would deliberately target
thousands of baby dolphins each year, leading to death from starvation
and predators. We cannot allow that to occur.”
Judge Henderson also issued a second ruling preventing Mexican and
Venezuelan tuna industry millionaires from intervening in the “Dolphin
Safe” tuna label lawsuit. In an extensive opinion, Judge Henderson
determined that the economic interest of Mexican and Venezuelan tuna
industries in selling tuna in the US was not sufficient to allow their
entering the case, and that the Bush administration was adequately
representing their interests in weakening the “Dolphin Safe” tuna label
standards.
“We believe the Mexican and Venezuelan tuna industry have already had
too much political influence on the Bush administration,” says
Phillips. “Their only interest is in selling tuna in the US, and they
know they cannot sell it here unless they falsely claim it is ‘Dolphin
Safe.’ Judge Henderson rightly has kept them out of the case due to
their lack of any scientific or environmental interest.”
“This decision means that the case will proceed to trial more quickly,”
says Josh Floum of San Francisco’s Holme Roberts & Owen, lead
counsel for the plaintiffs. “Judge Henderson properly recognized that
economic interests alone do not allow Mexican and Venezuelan fishing
companies to intervene in this case. The statute at issue is about
protecting dolphins and providing truth in labeling for the American
consumer. It is not about advancing commercial fishing interests,”
Floum adds. “This is particularly true because the United States fleet
is truly ‘Dolphin Safe,’ and our foreign counterparts should be held to
the same standard.”
Six Flags fails to get orca
After a long and intense evaluation, the government of Argentina has
finally agreed to oppose transfer of Kshamenk, an Argentinian juvenile
male orca, to an amusement park in Aurora, Ohio.
The Wild Earth Foundation (WEF), the Patagonia company, IMMP, and
several other organizations worldwide have been working to block
Kshamenk’s transfer since November 2001, when Six Flags Funtime Inc.
applied to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for permission
to import him. NMFS issued the import permit in May 2002.
Eminent marine mammal scientists from the Argentinian Museum of Natural
Science (Buenos Aires) and from the National Patagonic Research Center
(Puerto Madryn) told the Secretary of Environment that they found no
scientific value in the breeding loan agreement between Six Flags and
Mundo Marino.
Kshamenk was reportedly “rescued” from a stranding by Mundo Marino, the
facility that has custody of the animal. After attempts at
rehabilitation, Kshamenk was enlisted to perform shows, and as the bull
in a reproductive program—which failed when his mate died after a
miscarriage.
The circumstances surrounding the “rescue” remained unclear until the
organizations collected evidence strong enough to make the Argentinian
authorities doubt the legality of Kshamenk’s collection. An Argentinian
regulation, in effect since 1986, forbids the export of wild indigenous
fauna, and wild animals are considered by the National Constitution to
be commonweal, belonging to the State and to all Argentinian people.
Thus, as a whale not born in captivity, Kshamenk cannot be privately
owned nor be used for profit.
“I’m proud of the decision adopted by CITES Argentina and the
Secretariat of Environment that supports Argentina’s policies of
protecting whales, dolphins, and other marine species,” says Gabriela
Bellazzi, WEF’s president. The environmental authorities of my country
are efficient, responsible and open-minded, and took into account the
arguments of scientists and organizations while NMFS ignored us all.”
Now that the Argentinian government has denied the export permit for
the second time, the organizations expect to help Kshamenk’s
reintroduction into his native Argentinian waters.
“This insidious trade in orcas is finally coming close to its end.
These magnificent marine mammals deserve only freedom with their
families, not suffering as circus clowns. We now have hope that
Kshamenk’s fate will follow that of Keiko,” says Mark Berman, IMMP’s
assistant director.
Maui bans captive cetacean displays
The County Council of Maui recently made the Hawai’ian county the 17th
city or county in the United States to ban displays of captive
cetaceans.
“The Council finds that cetaceans (dolphins and whales) are highly
intelligent—and highly sensitive—marine mammals,” the legislation
prohibiting the displays states. “The Council further finds the
presence of cetaceans in the Pacific Ocean surrounding Maui County
provides many cultural, spiritual, and economic benefits to the
County’s residents. The Council also finds that the exhibition of
captive cetaceans leads to distressed living conditions for these
animals. Therefore, the purpose of this ordinance is to prohibit the
exhibition of captive cetaceans.”
Violators are subject to imprisonment for not more than one year and fines of as much as $1,000.
Hundreds of letters and a petition signed by more than 15,000
individuals calling for the ban had been received by the members of the
Council.
“This matter received more public support than any other matter in the
history of Maui County,” said Council member Jo Anne Johnson.
“Maui will now be recognized as a place where whales and dolphins will
all live free and in the wild,” said Council member Alan Arakawa. “This
decision proves we can do what is right.”
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.