Republicans try to weaken 50-year-old law protecting whales, seals and
polar bears
[October 11, 2025]
By PATRICK WHITTLE
BOOTHBAY HARBOR, Maine (AP) — Republican lawmakers are targeting one of
the U.S.'s longest standing pieces of environmental legislation,
credited with helping save rare whales from extinction.
Conservative leaders feel they now have the political will to remove key
pieces of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, enacted in 1972 to protect
whales, seals, polar bears and other sea animals. The law also places
restrictions on commercial fishermen, shippers and other marine
industries.
A GOP-led bill in the works has support from fishermen in Maine who say
the law makes lobster fishing more difficult, lobbyists for big-money
species such as tuna in Hawaii and crab in Alaska, and marine
manufacturers who see the law as antiquated.
Conservation groups adamantly oppose the changes and say weakening the
law will erase years of hard-won gains for jeopardized species such as
the vanishing North Atlantic right whale, of which there are less than
400, and is vulnerable to entanglement in fishing gear.
Here's what to know about the protection act and the proposed changes.
Why does the 1970s law still matter
“The Marine Mammal Protection Act is important because it’s one of our
bedrock laws that help us to base conservation measures on the best
available science,” said Kathleen Collins, senior marine campaign
manager with International Fund for Animal Welfare. “Species on the
brink of extinction have been brought back.”
It was enacted the year before the Endangered Species Act, at a time
when the movement to save whales from extinction was growing. Scientist
Roger Payne had discovered that whales could sing in the late 1960s, and
their voices soon appeared on record albums and throughout popular
culture.
The law protects all marine mammals, and prohibits capturing or killing
them in U.S. waters or by U.S. citizens on the high seas. It allowed for
preventative measures to stop commercial fishing ships and other
businesses from accidentally harming animals such as whales and seals.
The animals can be harmed by entanglement in fishing gear, collisions
with ships and other hazards at sea.
The law also prevents the hunting of marine mammals, including polar
bears, with exceptions for Indigenous groups. Some of those animals can
be legally hunted in other countries.
Changes to oil and gas operations — and whale safety
Republican Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska, a state with a large fishing
industry, submitted a bill draft this summer that would roll back
aspects of the law. The bill says the act has “unduly and unnecessarily
constrained government, tribes and the regulated community” since its
inception.
The proposal states that it would make changes such as lowering
population goals for marine mammals from “maximum productivity” to the
level needed to “support continued survival.” It would also ease rules
on what constitutes harm to marine mammals.
For example, the law currently prevents harassment of sea mammals such
as whales, and defines harassment as activities that have “the potential
to injure a marine mammal.” The proposed changes would limit the
definition to only activities that actually injure the animals. That
change could have major implications for industries such as oil and gas
exploration where rare whales live.
That poses an existential threat to the Rice's whale, which numbers only
in the dozens and lives in the Gulf of Mexico, conservationists said.
And the proposal takes specific aim at the North Atlantic right whale
protections with a clause that would delay rules designed to protect
that declining whale population until 2035.
Begich and his staff did not return calls for comment on the bill, and
his staff declined to provide an update about where it stands in
Congress. Begich has said he wants "a bill that protects marine mammals
and also works for the people who live and work alongside them,
especially in Alaska.”
[to top of second column]
|
A seagull flies by a Southern Right Whale calf in the El
Doradillo protected area, near Puerto Madryn, Argentina, Oct. 4,
2025. (AP Photo/Victor R. Caivano, File)
Fishing groups want restrictions loosened
A coalition of fishing groups from both coasts has come out in
support of the proposed changes. Some of the same groups lauded a
previous effort by the Trump administration to reduce regulatory
burdens on commercial fishing.
The groups said in a July letter to House members that they feel
Begich's changes reflect “a positive and necessary step" for
American fisheries' success.
Restrictions imposed on lobster fishermen of Maine are designed to
protect the right whale, but they often provide little protection
for the animals while limiting one of America's signature fisheries,
Virginia Olsen, political director of the Maine Lobstering Union,
said. The restrictions stipulate where lobstermen can fish and what
kinds of gear they can use. The whales are vulnerable to lethal
entanglement in heavy fishing rope.
Gathering more accurate data about right whales while revising the
original law would help protect the animals, Olsen said.
“We do not want to see marine mammals harmed; we need a healthy,
vibrant ocean and a plentiful marine habitat to continue Maine’s
heritage fishery,” Olsen said.
Some members of other maritime industries have also called on
Congress to update the law. The National Marine Manufacturers
Association said in a statement that the rules have not kept pace
with advancements in the marine industry, making innovation in the
business difficult.
Environmentalists fight back
Numerous environmental groups have vowed to fight to save the
protection act. They characterized the proposed changes as part of
the Trump administration's assault on environmental protections.
The act was instrumental in protecting the humpback whale, one of
the species most beloved by whale watchers, said Gib Brogan, senior
campaign director with Oceana. Along with other sea mammals,
humpbacks would be in jeopardy without it, he said.
“The Marine Mammal Protection Act is flexible. It works. It's
effective. We don't need to overhaul this law at this point,” Brogan
said.
What does this mean for seafood imports
The original law makes it illegal to import marine mammal products
without a permit, and allows the U.S. to impose import prohibitions
on seafood products from foreign fisheries that don’t meet U.S.
standards.
The import embargoes are a major sticking point because they punish
American businesses, said Gavin Gibbons, chief strategy officer of
the National Fisheries Institute, a Virginia-based seafood industry
trade group. It’s critical to source seafood globally to be able to
meet American demand for seafood, he said.
The National Fisheries Institute and a coalition of industry groups
sued the federal government Thursday over what they described as
unlawful implementation of the protection act. Gibbons said the
groups don't oppose the act, but want to see it responsibly
implemented.
“Our fisheries are well regulated and appropriately fished to their
maximum sustainable yield,” Gibbons said. “The men and women who
work our waters are iconic and responsible. They can’t be expected
to just fish more here to make up a deficit while jeopardizing the
sustainability they’ve worked so hard to maintain.”
Some environmental groups said the Republican lawmakers’ proposed
changes could weaken American seafood competitiveness by allowing
imports from poorly regulated foreign fisheries.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
