|
Detailed Discussion: The Global Protection of Whales |
This discussion of whales focuses on the global protection of whales, beginning with the International Whaling Commission and the problems arising from legally permitted whaling. The second section involves the United States and International laws protecting whales, beginning with the Marine Mammal Protection Act,the Endangered Species Act and Treaty of CITES. The third section involves additional threats to whales, focusing on the problems of fishing nets, pollution, ship collisions, and whale watching and how human actions can have an effect on whale populations.
|
|
Did United States v. Hayashi Fail to Provide a Safe Harbor for Marine Mammals Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act? |
This article examines the holding in United States v. Hayashi and concludes that by narrowly defining what constitutes "harm" under the MMPA, the Ninth Circuit ignored the plain meaning of the term, the legislative history of the MMPA and the regulations interpreting the MMPA. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit's holding in Hayashi allows fishermen to harass marine mammals as long as the action does not seriously disrupt normal marine mammal behavior.
|
|
Dolphin Protection and the Marine Mammal Protection Act Have Met Their Match: The General Agreements of Tariffs and Trade |
This article explores the conflict between conservation and the policy of free trade. The author concludes that the Tuna/Dolphin cases represented the inevitable clash between two laudable goals- environmental protection and free-trade. Resolution of this conflict and future conflicts can only come from the incorporation of both of these objectives into one global regime.
|
|
DOLPHIN-SAFE TUNA: THE TIDE IS CHANGING |
|
|
Dolphins |
|
|
Earth Island Inst. v. Evans |
Plaintiff, groups seeking to protect animals, sought to enjoin implementation of a final finding of defendant, the Secretary of Commerce and his Assistant Administrator of Fisheries, that the encirclement of dolphins with purse seine nets was not having an adverse impact on dolphin stocks as arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.
The court granted the groups' motion for preliminary injunction, enjoined the Secretary from taking any action to allow any tuna product to be labeled as "dolphin safe" that was harvested using purse seine nets, pending final disposition of the groups' action, and defined what "dolphin safe" would continue to mean.
|
|
Earth Island Institute v. Brown |
Plaintiffs sought to prevent the Secretary of Commerce from allowing the American Tunaboat Association ("ATA") to continue killing northeastern offshore spotted dolphins that had been listed as depleted. Defendants argued that such killings were permissible under the ATA's permit, and that the MMPA provisions relied on by the plaintiffs were irrelevant to the dispute. The court concluded that Congress did not intend to allow the continued taking of dolphin species or stock, once the Secretary had determined that their population level was depleted.
|
|
Earth Island Institute v. Evans |
The Secretary of Commerce made a final finding that the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins using purse seine nets did not have a significant adverse effect on any depleted dolphin stock in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. Several organizations challenged that finding under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the matter came before this Court along with simultaneous motions for summary judgment from both the plaintiff and defendant. The Court concluded that Plaintiff's met their burden of demonstrating that they are entitled to judgment, and the finding of the Secretary is set aside.
|
|
Earth Island Institute v. Hogarth |
This case concerns the practice of catching yellowfin tuna by encircling dolphins with purse-seine nets. The dispute centers over whether tuna sellers may label tuna as dolphin-safe if caught with such nets. An environmental group brought suit against the Secretary of Commerce after he concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that tuna purse seine fishing harmed depleted dolphin stocks in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision that the action by the Secretary was arbitrary and capricious where the agency's decision-making process was influenced to some degree by foreign policy considerations rather than science alone. Further, the finding of no significant impact (FONSI) was not rationally connected to the best available scientific evidence.
|
|
Eco-Terrorism in the Southern Ocean: A Dangerous Byproduct of the Tangled Web of International Whaling Conventions and Treaties |
Utilizing a research exception granted under the international moratorium on commercial whaling imposed by the International Whaling Commission, Japanese whalers have been harvesting endangered whales in the Southern Ocean. The anti-whaling activist group, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, also operates in the Southern Ocean by locating Japanese whaling vessels in order to bring an immediate halt to all whaling activities, often employing violent tactics designed to injure whaling vessels and property. Sea Shepherd operates under an apparent mandate of the United Nations World Charter for Nature allowing individuals to “[i]mplement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment.” The multitude of vague international conventions and treaties governing the Southern Ocean have therefore created a tangled and confusing web of authority where both Japanese whalers and Sea Shepherd have arguable claims of operating under legitimate legal mandates. In this note, Alana Preston argues that individual countries should enforce their domestic laws to prevent the Japanese from whaling, so private entities, like Sea Shepherd, will not. |
