|
Overview of the Legal Battle Over the Vaquita |
This overview explores the decline of the vaquita (phocoena sinus) population in the Sea of Cortez near Mexico. Vaquitas are the smallest cetacean species in the world with populations that have dwindled to near-extinction in the past twenty years. Vaquitas become entangled in gillnet fishing intended for totoaba fish, a commercially valuable species harvested for their swim bladders that are used in traditional Chinese medicine. While vaquitas receive protection under CITES, the MMPA, and gillnet bans, the lack of enforcement by the Mexican government has become an issue that resulted in several lawsuits by conservation organizations. With as few as ten vaquitas remaining in the wild, it is likely they will not be able to replace their population to outpace the deaths caused by illegal gillnet fishing. |
|
Overview of Whaling |
In 2010, Australia sued Japan at the International Court of Justice in an effort to force Japan to end its whaling program in the Antarctic. Though commercial whaling was banned in the 1980s, Japan claimed that its program was for scientific purposes and therefore legal. The ICJ sided with Australia, but its ruling left open the possibility that Japan could resume whaling in the future. |
|
Pacific Ranger, LLC v. Pritzker |
Pacific Ranger, LLC, a deep-sea commercial fishing vessel, filed suit arguing that a decision made by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) should be set aside by the court. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) filed an action against Pacific Ranger for violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) after the vessel set its fishing net on whales during five tuna-fishing expeditions. After the hearing, the ALJ determined that Pacific Ranger had violated the MMPA and was liable for $127,000 in civil penalties. Pacific Ranger argued that these penalties should be set aside because the MMPA was unconstitutionally vague about what was considered an “incidental” taking and the ALJ’s findings could not be supported by substantial evidence. Ultimately, the court reviewed the arguments made by Pacific Ranger and found them to be without merit. First, the court determined that the MMPA was not vague with regard to incidental takings. The court held that incidental takings under the MMPA were restricted to takings that occurred without any knowledge and that this provision needed to be read narrowly in order to give effect to Congress’ intent that maintaining the “healthy populations of marine animals comes first.” The court found that because Pacific Ranger had knowledge that whales were in the area at the time that they were fishing, the taking that occurred could not be considered incidental. Lastly, the court reviewed Pacific Ranger’s argument that the ALJ’s decision could not be supported by substantial evidence. The court rejected this argument, pointing to expert testimony that said that there was no possible way for the Pacific Ranger not to have seen that whales were in the area at the time the takings occurred. As a result, the court affirmed the ALJ’s decision. |
|
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Miami Seaquarium |
PETA, an animal rights organization, brought this action in July 2015 to enjoin the Miami Seaquarium. The injunction would force the marine park to relinquish possession of a killer whale, Lolita, by releasing her to a sea pen. The grounds for this injunction is an alleged violation of section 9(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act by the marine park when they confined the killer whale in such conditions that the confinement amounted to a taking of the endangered species of animal. PETA specifically alleged that the marine park took Lolita by harming and harassing her, citing thirteen different injuries that were directly caused by her confinement quarters. When Lolita’s species was recognized as an endangered species by the Act, it specifically excluded captive members of the species. Just two months prior to filing suit, PETA had successfully lobbied to have that exclusion removed from the listing, enabling the suit itself. The district court held for summary judgment in favor of the marine park, saying that to have taken an animal would require a grave threat or potential for a grave threat to the animal’s survival, and PETA did not provide evidence of conduct that met that standard. In this appeal, the court affirms the district court’s summary judgment, but disagrees with their standard for a taking of an animal. After lengthy analysis of the statutory language, this court lowers the standard to posing a threat of serious harm to the animal, rather than death of the animal. However, this court also holds that PETA did not prove that the Seaquarium’s confinement of Lolita met this standard either. Affirmed. |
|
Permitting Pluralism: The Seal Products Dispute And Why The WTO Should Accept Trade Restrictions Justified By Nonintsrumental Mo |
In response to the 2009 European Union (EU) ban on the import and export of most products made from seals, Canada and Norway, as large producers of seal products, have initiated proceedings against the EU for violating World Trade Organization (WTO) law. The authors of this law review, Robert Howse and Joanna Langille, promote the EU’s position and argue that animal welfare has long been a genuine motivation for legislation. More specifically, the authors of this law review argue that expressions of a community’s moral and spiritual belief are a legitimate basis for trade restriction.
|
|
Polar Bears |
|
|
Problems and Prospects for the Pelagic Driftnet |
A direct impact of the pelagic driftnet is the incidental taking of marine mammals. Pelagic driftnet fisheries are conducted by vessels from Japan, Taiwan and the Republic of Korea. The incidental taking of marine mammals within the Fishery Conservation Zone by the Japanese fleet is subject to regulation under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
|
|
Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. Department of Navy |
The Progressive Animal Welfare Shelter ("PAWS") and fourteen other environmental and animal rights groups brought this action for a preliminary injunction against the Navy's plan to "deploy" Atlantic bottlenose dolphins at the Bangor submarine base.
|
|
RECONCILING POLAR BEAR PROTECTION UNDER UNITED STATES LAWS AND THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSERVATION OF POLAR BEARS |
|
|
Resurrecting the International Whaling Commission: Suggestions to Strengthen the Conservation Effort |
One of the failures of the IWC is the inability to punish infractions. The United States has unilaterally enacted two pieces of legislation intended to augment the enforcement power of the IWC through import and fishing sanctions against countries who violate the regulations set
forth by the IWC. These unilateral amendments have failed in the protection of whales.
|
