Contributor: It's time to save the whales again
latimes.com -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 4:56:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Political Protests & Rallies, Immigration Policy & Border Issues
Diving in a kelp forest in Monterey Bay recently, I watched a tubby 200-pound harbor seal follow a fellow diver, nibbling on his flippers. The diver, a graduate student, was using sponges to collect DNA samples from the ocean floor. Curious seals, he told me, can be a nuisance. When he bags his sponges and places them in his collection net, they sometimes bite into them, puncturing the bags and spoiling his samples.
Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, coming closer than 50 yards to seals and dolphins is considered harassment, but they're free to harass you, which seems only fair given the centuries of deadly whaling and seal hunting that preceded a generational shift in how we view the world around us.
The shift took hold in 1969, the year a massive oil spill coated the Santa Barbara coastline and the Cuyahoga River, in Cleveland, caught fire. Those two events helped spark the first Earth Day, in 1970, and the shutdown of America's last whaling station in 1971. Protecting the environment from pollution and from loss of wilderness and wildlife quickly moved from a protest issue to a societal ethic as America's keystone environmental legislation was passed at around the same time, written by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, Richard Nixon.
Those laws include the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) , the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), which goes further than the Endangered Species Act (1973) in protecting all marine mammals, not just threatened ones, from harassment, killing or capture by U.S. citizens in U.S. waters and on the high seas.
All these "green" laws and more are under attack by the Trump administration, its congressional minions and longtime corporate opponents of environmental protections, including the oil and gas industry. Republicans' disingenuous argument for weakening the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act is that the legislation has worked so well in rebuilding wildlife populations that it's time to loosen regulations for a better balance between nature and human enterprise. When it comes to marine mammal populations, that premise is wrong.
On July 22, at a House Natural Resources subcommittee meeting, Republican Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska introduced draft legislation that would scale back the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Among other things, his proposal would limit the ability of the federal government to take action against "incidental take," the killing of whales, dolphins and seals by sonic blasts from oil exploration, ship and boat strikes or by drowning as accidental catch (also known as bycatch) in fishing gear. Begich complained that marine mammal protections interfere with "essential projects like energy development, port construction, and even fishery operations."
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), the ranking member on the House Resources Committee, calls the legislation a "death sentence" for marine mammals.
It's true that the marine mammal law has been a success in many ways. Since its passage, no marine mammal has gone extinct and some species have recovered dramatically. The number of northern elephant seals migrating to California beaches to mate and molt grew from 10,000 in 1972 to about 125,000 today. There were an estimated 11,000 gray whales off the West Coast when the Marine Mammal Protection Act became law; by 2016, the population peaked at 27,000.
But not all species have thrived. Historically there were about 20,000 North Atlantic right whales off the Eastern Seaboard. They got their name because they were the "right" whales to harpoon -- their bodies floated for easy recovery after they were killed. In 1972 they were down to an estimated 350 individuals. After more than half a century of federal legal protection, the population is estimated at 370. They continue to suffer high mortality rates from ship strikes, entanglement in fishing gear and other causes, including noise pollution and greater difficulty finding prey in warming seas.
Off Florida, a combination of boat strikes and algal pollution threaten some 8,000-10,000 manatees. The population's recovery (from about 1,000 in 1979) has been significant enough to move them off the endangered species list in 2017, but since the beginning of this year alone, nearly 500 have died. Scientists would like to see them relisted, but at least they're still covered by the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
A 2022 study in the Gulf of Mexico found that in areas affected by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill 12 years earlier, the dolphin population had declined 45% and that it might take 35 years to recover. In the Arctic Ocean off Alaska, loss of sea ice is threatening polar bears (they're considered marine mammals), bowhead and beluga whales, walruses, ringed seals and harp seals.
On the West Coast the number of gray whales -- a Marine Mammal Act success story and now a cautionary tale -- has crashed by more than half in the last decade to fewer than 13,000, according to a recent report by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, the nation's lead ocean agency, is an endangered species in its own right in the Trump era). Declining prey, including tiny shrimp-like amphipods, in the whales' summer feeding grounds in the Arctic probably caused by warming water are thought to be a major contributor to their starvation deaths and reduced birth rates.
The whale's diving numbers are just one signal that climate change alone makes maintaining the Marine Mammal Act urgent. Widespread marine heat waves linked to a warming ocean are contributing to the loss of kelp forests that sea otters and other marine mammals depend on. Algal blooms off California, and for the first time ever, Alaska, supercharged by warmer waters and nutrient pollution, are leading to the deaths of thousands of dolphins and sea lions.
What the Trump administration and its antiregulation, anti-environmental-protection supporters fail to recognize is that the loss of marine mammals is an indicator for the declining health of our oceans and the natural world we depend on and are a part of. This time, saving the whales will be about saving ourselves.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent resurgence of discussions around marine mammal protections, specifically the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), highlights a critical intersection of environmental policy and corporate interests that demands thorough examination. The historical context of this legislation reveals a significant paradigm shift that occurred in the late 20th century—a time when the environmental movement began to reshape American society’s relationship with nature. The legislative victories of the 1960s and 1970s, including the MMPA, were born from a collective consciousness catalyzed by environmental disasters such as the Santa Barbara oil spill and the Cuyahoga River fire. These events not only prompted public outrage but also galvanized a generation to advocate for the protection of natural resources and wildlife.
The MMPA, enacted in 1972, was a landmark achievement of bipartisan cooperation, demonstrating that the protection of our natural world transcends partisan divides. It served not merely as a regulatory framework but as a societal commitment to safeguard marine mammals from the excesses of industrialization and capitalist exploitation. The rationale behind the Act was clear: the extinction of species is irrevocable, and as stewards of the planet, we have a moral obligation to protect these creatures and their habitats. Fast forward to today, and we find ourselves amidst a contentious political landscape, where the very principles that undergirded the MMPA are being challenged by factions that prioritize short-term economic gain over long-term ecological sustainability. This reveals a troubling regression in our societal values concerning environmental stewardship.
The recent proposal by Republican Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska to weaken the MMPA illustrates a broader trend within the current political climate, exemplified by the Trump administration's relentless assault on environmental protections. By framing the weakening of the MMPA as necessary for economic development, proponents of this legislation overlook the grave implications of such actions. The argument that successful wildlife recovery efforts justify the dismantling of protections is not only misleading but dangerous. It suggests that the needs of industry and development supersede the intrinsic value of biodiversity. In reality, a healthy ecosystem is foundational to long-term economic resilience. The collapse of marine ecosystems due to pollution, overfishing, and habitat destruction ultimately threatens industries dependent on these resources, including tourism and commercial fishing.
Furthermore, the language used by opponents of the MMPA often reflects a broader narrative that pits environmental protections against human interests. This false dichotomy obscures the complex interdependencies within our ecosystems and the potential for sustainable practices that can benefit both wildlife and human communities. For instance, the proposed exemptions for "incidental take" from oil exploration and fishing practices signify a troubling prioritization of corporate interests over ecological integrity. By minimizing the importance of marine mammal conservation in the name of economic development, we risk exacerbating the very crises—like climate change and biodiversity loss—that threaten our planet's health and humanity's future.
As advocates for social and environmental justice, it’s crucial to articulate the connections between the protection of marine life and broader social struggles. The fight to preserve marine mammals is inherently linked to the fight against environmental racism, where marginalized communities disproportionately bear the brunt of ecological degradation. The loss of marine biodiversity often means the loss of resources and livelihoods for coastal communities, particularly those that are low-income or predominantly made up of people of color. Thus, defending the MMPA is not just about saving whales and seals; it is about ensuring justice for all communities that rely on healthy oceans and a thriving ecosystem.
In conclusion, the ongoing discourse surrounding the MMPA serves as a vital reminder of the historical struggles faced by the environmental movement and the need for vigilance in the face of political and corporate interests that threaten ecological protections. As we navigate this complex landscape, it is imperative that we advocate for policies that prioritize the health of our planet and its inhabitants, recognizing that true progress lies not in the exploitation of our natural resources, but in a sustainable and equitable approach to development. The legacy of the MMPA and other environmental laws must be preserved, not only for the sake of marine mammals but for the future of our planet and all its inhabitants.
The call to "save the whales" is more than just a plea for the preservation of a charismatic marine species; it encapsulates a larger narrative concerning environmental stewardship, legislative responsibility, and the ongoing battle against corporate interests that prioritize profit over ecological balance. The backdrop of this discourse is steeped in a history of environmental exploitation and systemic neglect, particularly regarding marine mammals, whose populations have suffered dramatically due to human activities. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), enacted in 1972, was a landmark piece of legislation that emerged in response to a growing awareness of the need to protect these animals from the consequences of industrial expansion. However, as recent political maneuvers threaten to unravel these protections, it is essential to reflect on the historical context and understand the implications of such actions for both marine ecosystems and wider environmental policy.
The environmental movement in the United States gained momentum in the late 1960s, spurred by catastrophic events such as the Santa Barbara oil spill and the ignominious fire on the Cuyahoga River. These incidents galvanized public consciousness and illustrated the dire consequences of unregulated industrial practices. The bipartisan efforts that followed led to the establishment of crucial environmental legislation, showcasing that the quest for ecological preservation transcended political boundaries. This historical collaboration is now at risk as contemporary political narratives have shifted towards an ideology that seeks to prioritize economic development over environmental protection. The recent proposal by Republican Rep. Nick Begich to amend the MMPA reflects a broader trend in which environmental regulations are increasingly framed as obstacles to economic growth rather than necessary safeguards for the planet's health.
The disingenuous rationale presented by proponents of scaling back the MMPA is particularly troubling. They argue that the legislation has been successful in rebuilding wildlife populations and therefore should be relaxed to achieve a "better balance" between nature and human enterprise. However, this perspective fails to recognize that the current recovery of some marine mammal populations does not negate the ongoing threats they face from industrial activities. The notion that incidental take—stemming from practices like oil exploration and bycatch—is a necessary sacrifice for progress is fundamentally flawed. It overlooks the interconnectedness of ecosystems, where the loss of one species can have cascading effects on others. Moreover, such arguments often ignore the long-term environmental costs associated with prioritizing short-term economic gains.
As concerned citizens, we must take a stand against these regressive policies. One effective action is to advocate for the preservation of environmental laws like the MMPA through grassroots campaigns and community engagement. Mobilizing public support can influence lawmakers to prioritize sustainable practices over corporate interests. Educational initiatives that raise awareness about the importance of marine ecosystems and the role they play in global biodiversity can also empower individuals to make informed choices that align with conservation efforts. Engaging in local environmental advocacy groups, participating in clean-up drives, and supporting legislation that protects marine habitats can foster a collective sense of responsibility towards our oceans.
Additionally, challenging the narrative presented by those who seek to dismantle environmental protections is crucial. By equipping ourselves with data and historical context, we can effectively counter arguments that dismiss the value of regulations. Highlighting the success stories of recovered marine populations under the MMPA can serve as powerful examples of the positive impact of conservation efforts. Furthermore, encouraging dialogue about the economic benefits of sustainable practices, such as eco-tourism and responsible fisheries, can shift the conversation from a binary view of development versus conservation to a more nuanced understanding of how both can coexist.
In conclusion, the call to save the whales is emblematic of a broader struggle for environmental justice and the protection of our planet's precious resources. As we face mounting challenges from political entities that seek to undermine decades of progress, it is imperative that we remain vigilant and proactive. By engaging in advocacy, education, and dialogue, we can contribute to a movement that prioritizes the health of our oceans and the diverse life they sustain. The battle for environmental protection is far from over, and it is our collective responsibility to ensure that the hard-earned victories of the past are not lost in the name of misguided economic expansion.
To address the urgent need for marine mammal protection highlighted in the article, individuals can engage in various actions that advocate for the preservation of whale and seal populations, as well as broader environmental protections. Here is a detailed list of ideas and specific actions that can be taken:
### 1. **Sign and Share Petitions** - **Action**: Sign petitions that advocate for the protection of marine mammals and against the weakening of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. - **Example Petition**: Visit websites like Change.org or Care2.org to find petitions specifically targeting the Marine Mammal Protection Act or related environmental protections. - **What to Say**: In your comments or shares, emphasize the importance of protecting marine ecosystems and the dire consequences of diminishing regulations.
### 2. **Write to Elected Officials** - **Action**: Engage with your elected officials to express your concerns about proposed legislation that threatens marine mammals. - **Who to Write**: - **Rep. Jared Huffman** (D-San Rafael) - **Email**: [Contact via website](https://huffman.house.gov/contact) - **USPS Address**: 1001 4th Street, Suite 101, San Rafael, CA 94901 - **Rep. Nick Begich** (R-Alaska) - **Email**: [Contact via website](https://begich.house.gov/contact) - **USPS Address**: 2104 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 - **What to Say**: - Urge them to protect the Marine Mammal Protection Act and oppose any legislation that would harm marine wildlife. - Express your belief in the importance of preserving our oceans and the species that inhabit them.
### 3. **Participate in Local Environmental Groups** - **Action**: Join or support local organizations that advocate for marine conservation. - **Example Organizations**: - **Ocean Conservancy**: Participate in beach clean-ups or awareness campaigns. - **The Marine Mammal Center**: Volunteer or donate to support rescue and rehabilitation efforts for marine mammals. - **What to Say**: Network with fellow activists about the importance of marine mammals and share information about current threats from legislation.
### 4. **Raise Awareness on Social Media** - **Action**: Use your social media platforms to raise awareness about the challenges faced by marine mammals and promote conservation efforts. - **What to Post**: Share articles, infographics, and personal stories about marine life impacts. Use hashtags like #SaveTheWhales and #ProtectMarineMammals to reach a broader audience.
### 5. **Contact Local Media** - **Action**: Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper or contact local news stations to raise awareness about marine mammal protections. - **What to Say**: Discuss the implications of weakening environmental protections and encourage readers to take action by contacting their representatives.
### 6. **Attend Public Meetings and Hearings** - **Action**: Attend town hall meetings, congressional hearings, or other public forums to voice your concerns directly. - **What to Say**: Prepare a statement on the importance of marine mammal protections and the potential dangers of proposed legislative changes.
### 7. **Support Sustainable Practices** - **Action**: Advocate for and practice sustainable fishing and energy practices in your community. - **What to Do**: Promote businesses that use sustainable methods and educate others about the impact of unsustainable practices on marine life.
### 8. **Educate Yourself and Others** - **Action**: Research marine conservation issues and share your knowledge with friends, family, and community members. - **What to Share**: Books, documentaries, and articles that discuss marine ecosystems, the impact of pollution on wildlife, and the importance of conservation laws.
### Conclusion By taking these actions, individuals can contribute significantly to the protection of marine mammals and advocate for environmental integrity. Each step, whether signing a petition, contacting representatives, or raising awareness, plays a critical role in the broader movement for conservation and sustainable practices.