|
Reviewing The Marine Mammal Protection Act Through a Modern Lens |
This paper will focus primarily on examining the Marine Mammal Protection Act and provide a review of its major provisions that were established to protect those species who heavily rely on oceanic and freshwater ecosystems. The first section will outline the original Marine Mammal Protection Act created in 1972 and what pertinent language set the foundation for what is still in play today. The second section will look at the 1994 amendments and revisions to the 1972 Act, looking at the added and clarified language in the face of growing concerns for the Act’s enforcement. The final section frames the current situation of the MMPA. This section will also consider two species, the polar bear and manatee, and relevant MMPA rules for both terrestrial marine mammals and aquatic marine mammals. Scientific studies have explained climate change impacts marine mammals in four tiers, intertwining broad effects with species-specific ones. Over the last 50 years, the MMPA has done wonderful things to protect marine mammals especially when it comes to working in tandem with the 1973 Endangered Species Act. The MMPA has protected population stocks of some of the most important marine mammals but may not be as effective in protecting those species when faced with the rapid development of climate change and subsequent effects on habitats. |
|
Scotland - Wildlife - Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 |
|
|
Scotland - Wildlife - Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 |
|
|
Shelby PROIE; Karen Munro; Patricia Sykes; Animal Legal Defense Fund, a non-profit corporation; and People for the Ethical Treat |
This case challenges a decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service to exclude from the listing of the Southern Resident killer whale population all captive members of that population and their progeny. By excluding the captive members from the endangered species list under the Endangered Species Act, plaintiffs contend that NMFS has failed to protect these animals from being harmed, harassed, and even killed, as otherwise prohibited under the ESA, and has acted in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law, within the meaning of the APA.
|
|
State v. LeVasseur |
The trial court convicted defendant of first degree theft after he freed dolphins from a university laboratory. The court affirmed the conviction on appeal. It reasoned that the choice of evils defense was unavailable to defendant because the definition of "another" under Hawaii statute clearly did not include dolphins.
|
|
Strahan v. Linnon |
Coast Guard vessels struck and killed Northern Right whales. Plaintiffs claim that these incidents constitute takings in violation of the ESA and MMPA. Court holds that the Coast Guard could implement reasonable and prudent alternatives that would reduce the striking of whales.
|
|
Strong v. United States |
The appeal in this case does not contest the denial of a permit to conduct dolphin feedings cruises. The position of the plaintiffs-appellees is that the Secretary of Commerce has no authority to consider feeding to be a form of harassment or to regulate it. The court disagreed with the plaintiffs-appellees and found it clearly reasonable to restrict or prohibit the feeding of dolphins as a potential hazard to them.
|
|
The Marine Mammal Protection Act: Fostering Unjust Captivity Practices Since 1972 |
Despite its species management and sustainable population objective, the MMPA suffers from several inherent shortcomings that ultimately impede the policy and conservation goals. These shortcomings include the industry-set standards, fractured agency responsibility, and a lack of regulation, the combination of which leads to the questionable educational value of the display industry and the promulgation of the conservation fallacy. |
|
Tilikum ex rel. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Sea World Parks & Entertainment, Inc. |
Plaintiffs sued aquarium for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a declaration that wild-captured orcas were being held in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude. The court dismissed the action, holding that Plaintiffs had no standing because the Thirteenth Amendment only applies to humans, and therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
|
|
Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises, Plaintiffs, by their Next Friends, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc |
In this case of first impression, five wild-captured orcas named Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), seek a declaration that they are held by the Defendants in violation of Section One of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. Plaintiffs were forcibly taken from their families and natural habitats, are held captive at SeaWorld San Diego and SeaWorld Orlando, denied everything that is natural to them, subjected to artificial insemination or sperm collection to breed performers for Defendants’ shows, and forced to perform, all for Defendants’ profit. As such, Plaintiffs are held in slavery and involuntary servitude. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction freeing them from Defendants’ bondage and placing them in a habitat suited to their individual needs and best interests. |
