Blueprint For Whale Conservation: Implementing The Marine Mammal Protection Act

Over its twenty-four year history, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) has had both its successes and its failures, yet it remains one of the cornerstones of marine conservation and one of the most effective mechanisms to protect marine mammals. Marine mammals now face threats, however, that are global in scope and involve humans and our shared use of the marine environment. Diminishing marine resources and diminishing federal funds force fishers and conservationists to develop creative initiatives to conserve marine mammals, marine habitats, and species diversity, while still promoting economically viable fisheries. Marine mammals often compete with humans for the same fish, or occur in areas where fishing is conducted. As a result they are sometimes incidentally taken during commercial fishing operations. The regulation of such operations to protect marine mammals has become a critical, and often volatile, issue. Since its enactment, the MMPA has prohibited the take of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing unless authorized by an incidental take permit or a small take exemption. The problem of the incidental take of marine mammals in commercial fishing reached a climax in 1988, when it became apparent that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was unable to make the necessary determinations that would enable it to authorize takes for affected marine mammal stocks. The resulting Kokechik Fishermen\u27s Association v. Secretary of Commerce court decision uncovered the permit-issuing system\u27s inherent flaw: the fact that the information upon which permit-issuing decisions were being made was not sufficient to be certain that incidental takes would not harm marine mammal stocks. This discovery brought together representatives of the environmental community and the fishing industry in 1988 to find a way to enable fishers to fish, while minimizing the impact of their activities on marine mammals. These representatives agreed on a series of points which they subsequently presented to the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Based on these points, Congress passed the MMPA Amendments of 1988, which established an information gathering program and an Interim Exemption Program for Commercial Fisheries. After analysis of the Interim Exemption Program and after NMFS proposed a long-term regime to authorize incidental takes in commercial fisheries in 1993, the environmental community and the fishing industry met again. They developed amendments that resulted in sweeping changes to the MMPA\u27s provisions governing the incidental take of marine mammals in commercial fisheries, which were adopted by Congress in 1994. Today, representatives of the fishing industry, the conservation community, and federal and state agencies continue their work through incidental take reduction teams to develop measures reducing the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in commercial fisheries. Part II of this Article explores the history of the MMPA and explains why this type of cooperative approach promises to be effective for marine mammal conservation. Part III examines the benefits of developing conservation strategies using facilitated negotiations versus traditional adversarial tactics, and how these strategies expedite efforts to reduce or eliminate marine mammal mortality in commercial fisheries. Part IV provides an update on the status of the implementation of the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA, and Part V evaluates the effectiveness of using take reduction teams to develop management strategies to reduce marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury. Finally, this Article concludes by identifying areas of potential conflict between the fishing industry and the conservation community in the next reauthorization of the MMPA

At Point Blank Range: The Genesis And Implementation Of Lethal Removal Provisions Under The Marine Mammal Protection Act

In 1994, Congress reauthorized the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). As part of the reauthorization, a coalition of environmental organizations, animal welfare groups, commercial fishing industry representatives, and Alaska Natives, assisted by a professional facilitator, developed a negotiated proposal to govern the incidental take of marine mammals during commercial fishing operations. A subgroup of the negotiating parties also met to address the issue of pinniped predation on declining salmon stocks. This subgroup proposed to Congress a multiphased process to evaluate whether all feasible methods of nonlethal deterrence had been tried, and whether the target marine mammals were responsible for the fish declines. This proposal also called for a task force to consult with the Secretary of Commerce about seals and sea lions considered nuisance animals because of their predation of steelhead and salmon, species prized by commercial and recreational fishermen, at the Ballard Locks in Seattle and in the Columbia River. Proponents of the legislation argued that the predation had contributed to declines in several species of fish. Based on the outcome of the consultation and the evaluation by the task force, the proposal created a process whereby the Secretary of Commerce may authorize a state to lethally remove pinnipeds that prey on endangered salmonid stocks, provided the nuisance pinniped(s) is identified as habitually exhibiting dangerous or damaging behavior that could not be deterred by other means. On November 8, 1993, Senators Kerry, Stevens, and Packwood introduced Senate Bill 1636 to reauthorize the MMPA. On November 9, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee amended the bill to include this nuisance pinniped proposal. Ultimately this proposal, which provides a process whereby states and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) can address interactions between pinnipeds and declining salmonid stocks, was codified at section 120 of the IMPA. On June 30, 1994, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) requested authority under section 120 to lethally remove problem California sea lions from the Ballard Locks in Seattle, Washington. Evidence indicated that the nonlethal methods used -underwater firecrackers, chaser boats, acoustic harassment devices, taste aversion conditioning, experimental barrier nets, trapping and relocating sea lions to the outer coast of Washington and to their breeding grounds off southern California, and use of acoustic deterrence devices - were not entirely successful in eliminating sea lion predation. On January 6, 1995 (less than six months later), NMFS provided WDFW with a three-year conditioned authority to lethally remove fifteen California sea lions in order to protect steelhead salmon from sea lion predation at the Ballard Locks. The hearings to reauthorize the MMPA began in 1999, with a goal to amend the Act by the end of 2000. The 1998 stock assessments indicate that California sea lion populations on the west coast have increased at a rate of more than five percent annually since the mid-1970s; the present population is now estimated at 161,000 to 181,000. These increases foreshadow the difficult issues for this upcoming reauthorization, including pressure to weaken both the lethal and the nonlethal take provisions of the Act

Planning Framework Options for The Massachusetts Ocean Plan (DRAFT)

The Massachusetts Ocean Partnership (MOP) Planning Frameworks Team, in consultation with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), and based on collective experience and a review of ocean, coastal and resource management programs from the US and other countries, suggests that nine elements are essential components of the framework for the Massachusetts Ocean Plan and its implementation. While management plans and programs generally have these elements in common, there are a range of options for carrying out each program component. These options were presented to structure and inform the development of the Massachusetts Ocean Plan. For the most part, the range of options represents those that were considered to be appropriate under the Commonwealth’s existing legal and administrative structure and responsive to the requirements of the Massachusetts Ocean Act. However, the general concepts these options represent are likely to be transferable to other jurisdictions (especially in the United States) and can inform future ocean management and planning in Massachusetts. Additionally, options or their core elements can be combined to create additional alternatives within one of the nine planning components

Fish, markets, and fishermen : the economics of overfishing

XIV+192hlm.;23c

At Point Blank Range: The Genesis And Implementation Of Lethal Removal Provisions Under The Marine Mammal Protection Act

In 1994, Congress reauthorized the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). As part of the reauthorization, a coalition of environmental organizations, animal welfare groups, commercial fishing industry representatives, and Alaska Natives, assisted by a professional facilitator, developed a negotiated proposal to govern the incidental take of marine mammals during commercial fishing operations. A subgroup of the negotiating parties also met to address the issue of pinniped predation on declining salmon stocks. This subgroup proposed to Congress a multiphased process to evaluate whether all feasible methods of nonlethal deterrence had been tried, and whether the target marine mammals were responsible for the fish declines. This proposal also called for a task force to consult with the Secretary of Commerce about seals and sea lions considered nuisance animals because of their predation of steelhead and salmon, species prized by commercial and recreational fishermen, at the Ballard Locks in Seattle and in the Columbia River. Proponents of the legislation argued that the predation had contributed to declines in several species of fish. Based on the outcome of the consultation and the evaluation by the task force, the proposal created a process whereby the Secretary of Commerce may authorize a state to lethally remove pinnipeds that prey on endangered salmonid stocks, provided the nuisance pinniped(s) is identified as habitually exhibiting dangerous or damaging behavior that could not be deterred by other means. On November 8, 1993, Senators Kerry, Stevens, and Packwood introduced Senate Bill 1636 to reauthorize the MMPA. On November 9, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee amended the bill to include this nuisance pinniped proposal. Ultimately this proposal, which provides a process whereby states and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) can address interactions between pinnipeds and declining salmonid stocks, was codified at section 120 of the IMPA. On June 30, 1994, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) requested authority under section 120 to lethally remove problem California sea lions from the Ballard Locks in Seattle, Washington. Evidence indicated that the nonlethal methods used -underwater firecrackers, chaser boats, acoustic harassment devices, taste aversion conditioning, experimental barrier nets, trapping and relocating sea lions to the outer coast of Washington and to their breeding grounds off southern California, and use of acoustic deterrence devices - were not entirely successful in eliminating sea lion predation. On January 6, 1995 (less than six months later), NMFS provided WDFW with a three-year conditioned authority to lethally remove fifteen California sea lions in order to protect steelhead salmon from sea lion predation at the Ballard Locks. The hearings to reauthorize the MMPA began in 1999, with a goal to amend the Act by the end of 2000. The 1998 stock assessments indicate that California sea lion populations on the west coast have increased at a rate of more than five percent annually since the mid-1970s; the present population is now estimated at 161,000 to 181,000. These increases foreshadow the difficult issues for this upcoming reauthorization, including pressure to weaken both the lethal and the nonlethal take provisions of the Act

Fish, markets, and fishermen : the economics of overfishing

xiv, 192 p. : ill., map ; 24 cm

Planning Framework Options for The Massachusetts Ocean Plan (DRAFT)

The Massachusetts Ocean Partnership (MOP) Planning Frameworks Team, in consultation with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), and based on collective experience and a review of ocean, coastal and resource management programs from the US and other countries, suggests that nine elements are essential components of the framework for the Massachusetts Ocean Plan and its implementation. While management plans and programs generally have these elements in common, there are a range of options for carrying out each program component. These options were presented to structure and inform the development of the Massachusetts Ocean Plan. For the most part, the range of options represents those that were considered to be appropriate under the Commonwealth’s existing legal and administrative structure and responsive to the requirements of the Massachusetts Ocean Act. However, the general concepts these options represent are likely to be transferable to other jurisdictions (especially in the United States) and can inform future ocean management and planning in Massachusetts. Additionally, options or their core elements can be combined to create additional alternatives within one of the nine planning components

Planning Framework Options for The Massachusetts Ocean Plan (DRAFT)

The Massachusetts Ocean Partnership (MOP) Planning Frameworks Team, in consultation with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), and based on collective experience and a review of ocean, coastal and resource management programs from the US and other countries, suggests that nine elements are essential components of the framework for the Massachusetts Ocean Plan and its implementation. While management plans and programs generally have these elements in common, there are a range of options for carrying out each program component. These options were presented to structure and inform the development of the Massachusetts Ocean Plan. For the most part, the range of options represents those that were considered to be appropriate under the Commonwealth’s existing legal and administrative structure and responsive to the requirements of the Massachusetts Ocean Act. However, the general concepts these options represent are likely to be transferable to other jurisdictions (especially in the United States) and can inform future ocean management and planning in Massachusetts. Additionally, options or their core elements can be combined to create additional alternatives within one of the nine planning components