\n<\/p>\n
The Law That Saved the Whales Is Under Attack<\/p>\n
Proposed amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act would cut down protections to whales, dolphins, polar bears and other species<\/p>\n
By Ryan Green edited by Andrea Gawrylewski<\/span><\/p>\n Aaron Doughty finishes securing a dead humpback whale that was hauled out of Portland Harbor on to his trailer on Thursday, June 6, 2024.<\/p>\n Brianna Soukup\/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images<\/p>\n A landmark law passed more than 50 years ago to protect whales, dolphins and other marine mammals in U.S. waters could be upended by amendments proposed on July 22 during a legislative hearing of the House Committee on Natural Resources\u2019 Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries.<\/p>\n Republican representative Nicholas Begich of Alaska proposed changes to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) that some scientists say would eviscerate it. For instance, the amendments would roll back current definitions of harm or disturbance to marine mammals while also requiring \u201cimpossibly high hurdles for conservation action,\u201d according to a fact sheet from the Natural Resources Defense Council and other organizations that was issued earlier in July. These hurdles include a much higher burden of proof to justify even simple conservation actions.<\/p>\n The Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed in 1972 with bipartisan support and was implemented following 150 years of industrial whaling, where some whale populations had fallen to 5 percent or less of their historical estimates.<\/p>\n If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.<\/p>\n Since its passing, not a single marine mammal species in U.S. waters has gone extinct, even as use of the ocean has increased. The act has overseen astonishing recoveries of species such as humpback whales\u2014according to a 2006 study, North Pacific humpback whale abundance was estimated at 21,063 individuals, recovered from what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates could have been only a few thousand individuals in the 1970s.<\/p>\n \u201cSome of the most compelling conservation success stories in recent history\u201d have the MMPA to thank, says Lauren Eckert, a postdoctoral fellow researching conservation science at the University of British Columbia.<\/p>\n Some marine mammals have yet to fully recover, and in these cases, the act plays a crucial role as the last line of defense against extinction. Take the North Atlantic right whale; if even one of these critically endangered animals is lost, \u201cthat could be the difference between them being here 100 years from now and them being gone,\u201d says John Hildebrand, a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who studies sound used by marine mammals. \u201cWithout the MMPA, these groups would have very little chance of going forward,\u201d he says. \u201cWith the MMPA, they\u2019ve got a fighting chance.\u201d These mammals are vital to not only ocean ecosystems but also economies; according to a 2020 study from NOAA, Alaska\u2019s whale watching industry brings in more than $100 million annually.<\/p>\n The amendments hamstring scientific processes that have proven successful for decades, experts say. They would require scientists to obtain \u201csystematic and complete abundance survey data,\u201d or exact accountings of animal numbers, to establish any limit on marine mammal loss. \u201cIt is disturbing because systematic, long-term surveys of these populations are already extremely difficult and are going to become more so,\u201d Eckert says.<\/p>\n Further, the draft downgrades requirements to sustain healthy populations of marine mammals to a \u201cminimum survivability of populations.\u201d Instead of necessitating sustainable, genetically diverse populations, it would require a much lower bar for the number of individuals in the wild.<\/p>\n Scientists contacted by Scientific American are also concerned about the proposed changes to how protections are granted; under these amendments, the U.S. would only recognize protections for marine mammals where there has been a direct effect rather than including the indirect effects that are currently in the MMPA. \u201cThe deaths of marine mammals that aren\u2019t directly observed and documented are excluded from any takes [animal capture allowances] or regulatory action,\u201d Eckert says. Although military sonar or offshore drilling can have profound consequences for marine mammals, it would become near impossible to regulate these activities in the name of protecting animals, she adds.<\/p>\n The amendments would also undermine the process known as \u201ctake reduction planning,\u201d which protects marine mammals that are accidentally caught or entangled in fishing gear, called \u201cincidental take,\u201d by eliminating a key safeguard that limits marine mammal deaths. This is especially dangerous for the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, for which entanglements are a primary threat.<\/p>\n The draft amendments contradict Republican rhetoric about protecting ocean life. President Donald Trump and other Republicans have actively blocked offshore wind projects that follow environmental regulations, claiming they endanger whales (ship strikes and net entanglements are greater dangers). Additionally, this draft is taking shape in tandem with another extreme proposal that would repeal much of the Endangered Species Act, which has historically worked harmoniously with the MMPA.<\/p>\n In the coming months, the stakeholders pushing this draft could decide to drop it, resolve certain aspects or move it forward as is. If the bill is passed, it would move through the standard legislative process, possibly even making it to the Senate floor for a vote.<\/p>\n Regardless of what happens, \u201cthis is an extreme bill. This is essentially a rewrite of the entire Marine Mammal Protection Act,\u201d says Jane Davenport, an attorney at the conservation organization Defenders of Wildlife, one of the groups that issued the July fact sheet. \u201cThe overall thrust is going to essentially put a stake through the heart of the statute.\u201d<\/p>\n Many of the animals that would lose protection from changes to the MMPA are already vulnerable to climate change, says Jeff Boehm, former executive director of the Marine Mammal Center. \u201cThey\u2019re an embodiment of so much about the oceans,\u201d he says, \u201cand a more serious assault on how this nation manages and conserves marine mammals, I can\u2019t imagine.\u201d<\/p>\n Before you close the page, we need to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and we think right now is the most critical moment in that two-century history.<\/p>\n We\u2019re not asking for charity. If you become a Digital, Print or Unlimited subscriber to Scientific American, you can help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both future and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself often goes unrecognized. Click here to subscribe.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Law That Saved the Whales Is Under Attack Proposed amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act would cut down protections to whales, dolphins, polar bears and other species By Ryan Green edited by Andrea Gawrylewski Aaron Doughty finishes securing a dead humpback whale that was hauled out of Portland Harbor on to his trailer<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":14345,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[58],"tags":[4308,142,4039,7997,671,7996,1785,1679,3033,7995,902],"class_list":{"0":"post-14344","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-science","8":"tag-act","9":"tag-bill","10":"tag-dolphins","11":"tag-endangering","12":"tag-house","13":"tag-mammal","14":"tag-marine","15":"tag-proposed","16":"tag-protection","17":"tag-weaken","18":"tag-whales"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14344","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14344"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14344\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/14345"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14344"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14344"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14344"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}On supporting science journalism<\/h2>\n
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science<\/h2>\n