|
Brief Summary of Legal Implications of Dolphin and Human Interactions |
This brief summary explores some of the ethical and legal issues involved in human-dolphin interactions. |
|
Brief Summary of Whaling |
Early in the twentieth century, the technology used in whaling advanced so significantly that the global whale population became threatened. Efforts to decrease the number of whales killed grew after World War II and resulted in a major victory in the 1980s when commercial whaling was banned. However, this ban is still a major source of controversy as Japan continues to kill hundreds of whales each year in the Antarctic under what it calls a scientific whaling exception, but Australia labels as mere cover for a commercial whaling program. |
|
Brower v. Daley |
Based on the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to weaken the dolphin-safe standard, David Brower, Earth Island Institute, The Humane Society of the United States, and other individuals and organizations challenged the finding as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law. The District Court for the Northern District of California found that the Secretary’s Initial Finding was not in accordance with the law and was an abuse of discretion because the Secretary failed to properly consider these studies.
|
|
Brower v. Evans |
The district court held that the Secretary's Initial Finding, triggering a change in the dolphin-safe label standard, was not in accordance with the law and constituted an abuse of discretion because the Secretary failed to (1) obtain and consider preliminary data from the congressionally mandated stress studies and (2) apply the proper legal standard to the available scientific information. We affirm.
|
|
CA - Marine - Chapter 10.5. Marine Life Protection Act. |
In this act, the California Legislature finds and declares a need to reexamine and redesign California's marine protected area systems to increase its effectiveness at protecting the state's marine life, habitat, and ecosystems. To improve the design and management of that system, the Marine Life Protection Program was adopted. A few of the Program's goals are to protect the natural diversity and abundance of marine life, to help sustain, conserve, and protect marine life populations, and rebuild those that are depleted. |
|
Calling off the Hunt: The Morality of Supporting a Ban on Commercial Whaling |
This note examines the current deadlock in the IWC, discusses the shift from conservation towards preservation, and argues for a continuation of the moratorium based on moral and ethical concern for whales as whales. Part I traces the history of whaling and whale regulation. Part II discusses the current regulatory scheme. Part III analyzes the Preservationist position as it concerns whales. It builds from a discussion of the uncertain science concerning whale populations and stock recovery, to a discussion of the pain and suffering inflicted on whales by current whale practices, and finishes by arguing that whales, as unique and intelligent mammals, deserve protection as such.
|
|
Caring for Dolphins, Otters, and Octopuses: Speciesism in the Regulation of Zoos and Aquariums |
Current regulations for zoos and aquariums rely heavily on standards established by industry associations, and the government increasingly expects public display facilities to self-monitor. Unfortunately, the industry associations charged with policing zoos and aquariums lack the enforcement authority necessary to ensure that animals kept in these facilities receive adequate attention or resources. This article argues that marine animals kept in public display facilities, such as zoos and aquariums, should benefit from the same level of regulatory protection as their land-bound counterparts. Even though marine animals demonstrate intellectual abilities equivalent or superior to those of land-bound animals, federal regulations allow facilities to keep marine animals in smaller enclosures with less social contact. This article discusses existing regulations for the following three levels of animals in light of their physical and intellectual needs: dolphins as compared to elephants and nonhuman primates, otters as compared to dogs, and octopuses as compared to hamsters and rabbits. Finally, this article recommends several adjustments to existing regulations for marine animals. |
|
Center for Biological Diversity v. Chertoff |
Plaintiff, the Center for Biological Diversity, brought an action against Defendant, the United States Coast Guard, alleging that Defendant violated the ESA by failing to consult with the NMFS to ensure that Defendant’s activities in the Santa Barbara Channel and other shipping lanes off the California Coast would not harm the continued existence of threatened and/or endangered species after Defendant amended
Traffic Separation Schemes (“TSS”) and a number of blue whales were subsequently struck by ships and killed.
On the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, the United States District
Court
, N.D. California dismissed Plaintiff’s claims pertaining to Defendant’s implementation of or actions under the TSS in the approaches to Los Angeles – Long Beach and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Defendant’s alleged violations of the ESA arising out of Defendant’s implementation of or actions under the TSS in the Santa Barbara Channel.
|
|
Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland |
This case is a challenge to a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service") reversing its previous decision that the Pacific walrus qualified for listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (“ESA”). In 2008, the Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) petitioned the Service to list the Pacific walrus as threatened or endangered, citing the claimed effects of climate change on its habitat. In 2011, after completing a species status assessment, the Service issued a 45-page decision ("Decision") that found the listing of the Pacific walrus was warranted, but it declined to list the species because it found the need to prioritize more urgent listings. A settlement between the parties in 2017 required the Service to submit a proposed rule or a non-warranted finding. In May of 2017, the Service completed a final species assessment ("Assessment") that concluded some of the stressors to the species had "declined in magnitude" and the walruses had adjusted, which culminated in "a terse 3-page final decision that the Pacific walrus no longer qualified as a threatened species." As a result, in 2018, the Center filed this action alleging that the 2017 Decision violated the APA and ESA. The District Court granted summary judgement to the Service and this appeal followed. The Ninth Circuit first observed that, while the Assessment contains some new information, it does not explain why this new information resulted in an about-face from the Service's 2011 conclusion that the Pacific walrus met the statutory criteria for listing. The Service contends the appellate inquiry must be limited to the 3-page Decision document from 2017. However, the Court noted that a review of the reasons offered by the Service in its appellate briefing illustrates why the Court cannot conduct the required appellate review without reference to the previous Assessment. The agency's new policy contradicts its prior policy (the Decision document which was 40+ more pages longer than the Assessment and includes citations and other data). The Ninth Circuit now holds that the Service did not sufficiently explain why it changed its prior position. As a result, the Court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Service and remanded it to the District Court to direct the Service to provide a sufficient explanation of its new position. |
|
Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne |
In an action alleging multiple violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) pursuant to Defendants’ final rule designating the polar bear as threatened and promulgation of a special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA, Defendants Kempthorne and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service brought a motion to transfer the case to the
United States District
Court
for the District of Columbia, Intervenor-Defendant Arctic Slope Regional Corporation brought a separate motion to transfer the case to the District of Alaska, and Intervenor-Defendant Alaska Oil and Gas Association filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL Panel) seeking to transfer the case to the D.C. District
Court
.
The United States District Court, N.D. California denied the motion to transfer the case to the District of Alaska, and decided to take the motion to transfer to the District of Columbia into submission and rule on it once the MDL Panel has issued its decision on whether to transfer the case to the District of Columbia.
|
