|
COURT
FINDS CALIFORNIA LONGLINE
FISHERY VIOLATES ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT, INTENT
OF INTERNATIONAL FISHING
AGREEMENT
On
8-21-03, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals set
the stage for the closure
of an unsustainable longline
fishing industry responsible
for the bycatch killing
of of thousands of sharks,
sea turtles, and seabirds
on the high seas. The court's
ruling came in response
to a 2001 lawsuit filed
by the Center for Biological
Diversity and Turtle Island
Restoration Network.
The pelagic longline fishing
industry laces the high
seas with monofilament lines
up to 30 miles long, carrying
thousands of hooks. In addition
to targeted tuna and
swordfish, it routinely ensnares
and kills tens of
thousands of sharks and seabirds,
endangered leatherback,
loggerhead, olive ridley,
and green sea turtles, and
the endangered short-tailed
albatross. When unloading
its catch in Hawaii, the
industry was subject to the
Hawaii Fishery Management
Plan. But in 1999 the plan
was revised to prohibit longlining
due to court rulings
and a finding by the National
Marine Fisheries Service
that the industry was jeopardizing
endangered sea turtles.
Rather than stop its unsustainable
practices, much
of the industry simply unloaded
its catch in California
where it was no longer governed
by the Hawaii plan.
It thus continued to mine
the high seas under a legal
loophole knowing full well
it was driving endangered
species to extinction. This
is in accord with a long-standing
fishing industry practice
of switching registration
from state to state and country
to country to avoid
environmental laws.
Incredibly, the National Marine
Fisheries Service
allowed the evasion to occur
by declaring that the
fishery was exempt from the
Endangered Species Act
when unloading in California.
To get to this remarkable
conclusion, the Fisheries
Service also ran roughshod
over the 1993 United Nations-brokered
Agreement to
Promote Compliance With International
Conservation
and Management Measures by
Fishing Vessels on the High
Seas and the U.S. High Seas
Fishing Compliance Act.
The international Agreement
was designed to stymie
fishing industry efforts
to avoid environmental laws
by switching registration.
The Compliance Act was designed
to implement the international
Agreement for boats
registered in the United
States. Flying in the face
of the intent of these laws
and agreements, the Fisheries
Service argued that the Compliance
Act forbids attachment
of conservation restrictions
to fishing permits, and
that it trumps the Endangered
Species Act. The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals,
however, agreed with the
Center that the Compliance
Act was designed to reign
in unsustainable fisheries,
that it allows fishing
restrictions, and that the
issuance of fishing permits
under the Compliance Act
is fully subject to the Endangered
Species Act.
The court ordered the Fisheries
Service to issue an
Endangered Species Act ruling
on the California-based
fishery just at it did when
the industry unloaded in
California. We expect the
agency will have no choice
but to shut down the fishery,
as it did in Hawaii.
A new ruling will soon be
issued that may shut down
the fishery during the interim.
The case was argued by Brendan
Cummings of the Center
for Biological Diversity and
Debbie Sivas of EarthJustice.
More
Information: Press
Release, Court
Ruling
FIRST
CONDOR BIRTH IN ARIZONA IN
OVER A HUNDRED YEARS
The seven year old federal program
to reintroduce
condors to Arizona is showing
early signs of success.
A pair of birds nesting in
the Grand Canyon hatched
the first condor chick born
in the state in over a
hundred years. The 18-26
week old chick appears to
healthy, happy, and blissfully
unaware of its fame.
SANTA
BARBARA CALIFORNIA TIGER
SALAMANDER TO GET HABITAT
PROTECTION
In response to a lawsuit filed
by the Center for Biological
Diversity and the Environmental
Defense Center, a federal
judge has ordered the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service
to map out and protect critical
habitat areas for the
endangered Santa Barbara
tiger salamander. A proposal
must be completed by January
15, 2004 and final decision
issued by November 15, 2004.
Reports by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service show
that species with critical
habitat are recovering twice
as fast as those without
it.
The court flatly rejected the
Bush Administration's
argument that a lack of funding
justified lengthy delays
in habitat protection. The
Bush Administration has
purposefully refused to request
sufficient funds from
Congress, refused to take
up Congress's offer to consider
supplemental funding requests,
and has instead tried
to use the self-inflicted
budget limitation to get
around legal mandates and
court orders.
The case was argued by Kassie
Siegel (Center for Biological
Diversity) and Karen Krause
(Environmental Defense
Center)
More
Information: Press
Release
Click
now and become a member of
the Center for Biological
Diversity, and ensure a future
for wildlife and habitat.
This message was sent to [email]. Visit your subscription management page to modify your email communication preferences or update your personal profile. To stop ALL email from Center for Biological Diversity - Biodiversity Activist, click to remove yourself from our lists (or reply via email with "remove or unsubscribe" in the subject line).
|
