The Trump Administration rejected Obama-era proposals on Monday that would limit the number of endangered whales, dolphins, and sea turtles that can be killed or injured by sword-fishing nets on the West Coast.

This announcement came through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fisheries division and cited studies showing how the number of marine mammals and turtles trapped in long, drifting gill nets–fishing nets that are hung vertically so that fish get trapped in them by their gills–have decreased over the years. A spokesman added that the restriction “would have imposed a cost on the industry to solve a problem that has already been addressed.”

The Pacific Fishery Management Council, which manages fisheries in California, Oregon, and Washington introduced the cap in 2015 and it received support from both the fishing industry and environmental groups. Unsurprisingly, those who supported the bill back then were critical of the decision to reject the rules now.

“The Trump Administration has declared war on whales, dolphins and turtles off the coast of California,” Todd Steiner, director of the Turtle Island Restoration Network, told the Los Angeles Times. “This determination will only lead to more potential litigation and legislation involving this fishery. It’s not a good sign.”

Had these proposals been enacted, gill net fisheries could be closed for up to two years if too many animals belonging to nine groups of whales, sea turtles, or dolphins got caught in the nets. The rule would have applied to fewer than 20 fishing vessels.

But the NOAA Fisheries referenced its own analysis that found that the cost of enacting these protections outweighed the benefits, and the fishing industry had implemented measures that greatly reduced the deaths and injuries of protected marine mammals. These measures included better training for skippers of fishing boats, sound warnings–or pingers–attached to fishing nets to reduce the risk of by-catch, and wider openings at the top of nets that gave whales, dolphins, and turtles a better chance to escape. Also referenced was the declining number of protected animal deaths. Deaths and injuries to protected whales dropped from over 50 in 1992 to about one or two a year through 2015. Dolphin deaths and injuries went from almost 400 annually to only a few per year in that same timespan. Pacific leatherback turtles dropped from 17 in 1993 to no more than one a year by 2015.

What NOAA numbers also show, however, is that the number of overall sword-fish net vessels dropped from a high of 129 in 1994 to 20 in 2016. Steiner attributed the drop in animal deaths to this statistic, as opposed to fishermen choosing to abide by these standards.

“The numbers caught per set have not gone down,” Steiner said. “The California gill-net fishery kills more marine mammals than all other West Coast fisheries combined.”

Katherine Kilduff, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, told the AP that even if by-catch numbers are decreasing, gill nets continue to kill and injure many rare species, such as leatherback turtles, humpback whales, and sperm whales. For some species, their numbers are so few that if even one or two are caught by gill nets, the overall effect can be devastating. Because of that, these restrictions are necessary additions to existing policy, she added.

This is the second recent move by the Trump Administration to roll back Obama-era protections on endangered species. Just last week, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said that his department would review a conservation plan for the greater sage grouse with the intention of opening up more of the declining bird’s habitat to oil and gas development.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Axes Proposed Rules Meant to Protect Endangered Marine Life appeared first on Law Street.

The iconic Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen has taken on a new look this month: anti-whaling advocates vandalized the statue, coating it in red paint in an effort to draw attention to the endangered whales of the Faroe Islands.

Copenhagen’s famous Little Mermaid statue was vandalized…again https://t.co/8Aq7meZiMy pic.twitter.com/odfmW4UiON

— Condé Nast Traveler (@CNTraveler) June 7, 2017

For a thousand years, the people of the Faroe Islands have conducted an annual grindadráp, a drive hunt where a flotilla of small boats drive whales and dolphins into a small bay where they are killed by hand with knives. The organization Sea Shepherd has worked to end these hunts since the 1980s, but the inhabitants of the islands have pushed back, arguing that the “grind” is critical for both food and preserving the islanders’ sense of community. The enmity between environmental advocates and the Danish authorities has grown exponentially since crews of Sea Shepherd boats were detained by the Danish navy when they tried to block the 2014 grind. Whaling is illegal within the EU and Sea Shepherd has declared that Brussels must launch “infringement proceedings” against Denmark for allowing the grind. However, the Faroe Islands have a unique status–as an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark, they rely on Denmark for military, judicial, and foreign affairs but have control over their own domestic issues.

Carl Christian Ebbesen, head of Copenhagen’s culture and leisure committee, was outraged by the vandalism, calling it “well out of line” and “as stupid as you can possibly get.” Despite Ebbesen’s dismissal of the red paint, this is not the first time the Little Mermaid statue has been used for political purposes. In 1964, the Situationist avant-garde group sawed off the head of the statue. She has also lost limbs and been painted numerous times by various groups. In 2004, a burqa was draped over the head of the statue as part of protest against Turkey joining the EU and the statue was clothed in a headscarf in 2007 for reasons that are unclear.

Vandalizing the statue may seem like a petty or juvenile act, but it has served its purpose–getting the grinds of the Faroe Island back in the headlines in the wake of Sea Shepherd officially requesting the European Commission punish Denmark for the grinds (Sea Shepherd has claimed no responsibility for the vandalism). Tourists visiting Copenhagen and dozens of media outlets picking up images of the statue have made the red paint stunt go viral, bringing attention to a debate that relatively few outside of Denmark have been following. By next week, the red paint will have been removed from the statue and it will return to its role as a charming backdrop in Instagram snaps for visitors from around the globe–but for the moment, it is a powerful political statement.

In the past, we’ve discussed Greenpeace’s symbolic activism as effective at drumming up sympathy and finding new allies but activism does not always have to take place on such a grandiose scale. The painting of the statue is an effective, albeit temporary, protest–the anonymous painters should consider it a job well done.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Vandalism as Activism: Protesting Whaling on the Faroe Islands appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine the military visiting your hometown for special training exercises. Their activities wipe out your cell signal and keep your car from starting. Their exercises make so much dust and noise, you can’t hear, see, or think straight for days.

That’s okay right?

Probably not. Yet marine mammals have suffered equivalent disruptions to their daily lives during naval exercises for decades. The active sonar used in training exercises interferes with their primary guiding sense of hearing and causes them to flounder during simple tasks like feeding or navigation. As the exercises grow in size and sophistication, so does the extent of the damage they cause. Since marine mammals can’t defend themselves, several environmental organizations stood up to the government agency that’s supposed to defend them. Here’s what happened when environmentalists took on the government to save the whales, dolphins, sea turtles, and other marine animals.

Naval War Games Aren’t Games For Marine Mammals

The Navy strives to “maintain, train, and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas.” The Navy makes sure it is capable of winning wars through training exercises, often called “war games.” Last year, the Navy planned a series of trainings classified as “military readiness activities” to occur over the next five years in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) study area. A major downside of the trainings? They use active sonar that could potentially kill and injure the marine mammals living in the HSTT region.

Using active sonar just means you’re shooting sounds, called pings, into the water to listen for echoes. Sonar stands for “sound navigation and ranging” because the echoes returned from the pings help people and animals find and navigate around objects in their path. You can’t control the path of a ping; under water they spread out in ripples, touching everything in a given radius. This can get really noisy, really fast, as illustrated by this abstract rendition of sonar below.

If the ping hits a pile of rocks, no harm done. If the ping hits a marine mammal with ultra-sensitive hearing, it can interfere with their basic survival functions.

Marine mammals have evolved with an attuned sense of hearing that enables them to navigate through the murky undersea world, communicate with other animals, and even find food. Hearing is a marine mammal’s primary survival tool. So when military sonar pings rocket through the waves every few seconds, marine mammals can’t perform the most basic functions of life. Ships with sonar cause whales to stop eating and migrating like they should. If the animals get too close, sudden sounds can damage their life-giving hearing permanently and they could be perpetually disoriented forever. For humans, this would be like trying to walk, talk, and drive with continuously fogged-up glasses.

Even the vibrations from the sounds can cause damage under water. You know how the sound of many live drums can make it seem like your whole body is vibrating? Now imagine that times ten. When you hear on land, only your eardrums vibrate. Under water, sound waves rattle and penetrate your entire body. Intense noises–like those used in the naval trainings–can cause deadly hemorrhaging in marine mammals as powerful sounds penetrate their bodies.

This video shows how whales react to the screeching sounds of Navy sonar. They cluster closer to shore, stop diving for food, and change their swimming directions erratically. Some whales even beach themselves in an effort to escape the piercing sounds.

The Navy has been using active sonar in its trainings for years and environmental groups have fought it for almost as long. Past court rulings weighed the need to protect the public over the life of marine mammals. However, the Navy’s latest planned trainings in the HSTT area pushed the marine mammal death toll past levels evaluated in the past. The new exercise plan would include 500,000 hours of sonar, in other words, 500,000 hours of possible damage to marine mammals. According to this Washington Post article, the Navy’s own damage estimate stated 155 animals would die, 2,000 would be permanently injured, and 10 million would have their lives disrupted by the exercises. The Natural Resources Defense Council says this marks an 1,100 perecent increase when compared to other trainings from the past five years.

Armed with new facts and figures, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Cetacean Society International, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and the Pacific Environment and Resources Center* brought forward a new lawsuit they hoped would succeed where similar efforts had failed in the past. Their case was named Conservation Council for Hawai‘i et al. v. National Marine Fisheries Service et al.

The Case

The plaintiffs didn’t go after the Navy itself, but the regulatory agency that approved the Navy’s training plan, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Here’s a snippet from their mission page:

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, NOAA Fisheries works to recover protected marine species while allowing economic and recreational opportunities.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits the “take” (defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill) of marine mammals. When the Navy planned its new training exercises, it had to apply for an exception to this rule through NMFS. Their application outlined the potential death and injury counts, but the NMFS deemed those losses negligible. The attorneys on the case countered that the NMFS evaluation of the marine life damage neglected to grasp and acknowledge the full extent of potential damage caused by the Navy trainings.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) calls for the government to protect endangered and threatened species. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the “ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out, will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species, or destroy or adversely modify any critical habitat for those species.” Attorneys said the NMFS clearly neglected their duties under the ESA as many of the marine mammals found in the Navy’s massive HSTT study area are endangered.

The Verdict

U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway ruled the NMFS had fallen short of its legal obligations to marine mammals by approving the Navy’s proposed training plan. She called the NMFS decision to refer to marine mammal damages from the naval exercises negligible, “arbitrary and capricious” and in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. She also confirmed NMFS’s violation of the ESA, as eight of the thirty-nine marine mammal species living in the HSTT study area are endangered.

While the ruling affirmed the charges brought against the NMFS, specific remedies won’t be decided for the next few months. The decision marks a battle won, but it’s not quite the end of the war.

A Compromise?

The Natural Resources Defense Council released a statement from case attorney Zak Smith, summarizing what it hopes to get from the case:

The Navy has solutions at its disposal to ensure it limits the harm to these animals during its exercises.  It’s time to stop making excuses and embrace those safety measures.

Environmental groups aren’t asking for a complete cease and desist of all naval trainings involving active sonar. They’re just demanding the military use some of its extensive resources to develop safety measures to mitigate marine mammal damage. One option would be decreasing the test area size. Right now, the HSTT test area covers about 2.7 million square nautical miles, an area about the size of the entire United States. Another option is taking particular care to avoid areas where animals might be mating, giving birth, or feeding.

In the video above, Ken Balcomb from the Center for Whale Research says the Navy just needs to learn when and where to practice. He says just as the government would not test nuclear weapons in a crowded downtown area, they should not test active sonar in oceans teeming with delicate and endangered wildlife. For now, environmental groups remain optimistic that trainings and marine mammals can coexist safely.

Resources

Primary

Federal Register: Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area

Environmental Protection Agency: Endangered Species Protection Program

Additional

Washington Post: Navy War Games Face Suit Cver Impact on Whales, Dolphins

One Earth: A Silent Victory

Smithsonian Ocean Portal: Keeping An Ear Out For Whale Evolution

Los Angeles Times: Judge Rules Navy Underestimated Threat to Marine Mammals from Sonar

Natural Resources Defense Council: Court Rules Navy War Games Violate Law Protecting Whales and Dolphins

Natural Resources Defense Council: Groups Sue Feds for Putting Whales and Dolphins in Crosshairs throughout Southern California and Hawaiian Waters

Natural Resources Defense Council: Lethal Sounds

Law 360: Navy Loses Training Authorization Over Animal Concerns

Earthjustice: Sonar Complaint

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Government vs. Environmentalists: Who is Protecting Marine Wildlife? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome, readers, to a new series focused solely on sharing the most ridiculous laws that actually exist in our country. From banning women from parachuting on Sundays to making swearing loudly unlawful, the 50 United States are chock full of laws that really make you wonder how they ever came to be.

To kick start this series I will focus on one of the largest states, which has no shortage of bizarre laws on the books.

As you all know, California is home to Hollywood and major film and television production companies. If you are a parent wishing to take advantage of this to live vicariously through your child’s film career, beware. In the Golden State, film producers must have permission from a pediatrician before filming a child younger than one month.

Also, if you wish to include a scene with a dog pursuing a bear or bobcat in your film, you will have to change the plot. In California, it is unlawful to allow a dog to pursue either of the two aforementioned animals at any time.

Speaking of animals, while it is illegal to shoot at them from a moving vehicle, there is an exception for anyone wishing to play out a Moby Dick scenario: shooting at a whale from a moving vehicle is completely fine. So go ahead and release your inner Ishmael!

I’m sure you are all aware that some cities nationwide charge customers for plastic bags. San Jose and Sunnyvale, California take this to the next level, however; in those two cities, it is illegal for grocery stores to provide plastic bags at all.

Horny animals better control their natural instincts in Cali. Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship. This law in particular is a major head-scratcher for me. How is it enforced? Who would be arrested in such a case? Would two dogs getting it on next to a church be sent to the pound? Oh, the confusion of it all… I have so many hilarious visuals playing out in my mind of cops leading handcuffed dogs to the holding cell.

The final law worth mentioning is one specific to the city of Fresno, where it is illegal to sell permanent markers within city limits.

Thus concludes this week’s edition in the series “The Dumbest Laws in the United States.” Tune in next week when we will explore the illogical laws throughout the rest of the West Coast.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: California Edition appeared first on Law Street.