Latest news with #HouseResourcesCommittee
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
It's time to save the whales again
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. David Helvarg is executive director of Blue Frontier, an ocean policy group. His next book, 'Forest of the Sea: The Remarkable Life and Imperiled Future of Kelp,' is scheduled to be published in 2026.
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Alaska, one of two states without a cabinet-level agriculture department, is planning to create one
The House Resources Committee is seen Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2025, during a hearing about Gov. Mike Dunleavy's plan to create an Alaska Department of Agriculture. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon) Driven by food-shortage fears during the COVID-19 pandemic and inspired by the recommendations of a legislative task force, Alaska lawmakers are considering the creation of a cabinet-level state Department of Agriculture. In January, Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued an executive order that will automatically authorize the department unless state lawmakers specifically vote down the idea in a joint session of the state House and Senate by March 22. Without that, the new department will become official on July 1. Among the 50 states, only Alaska and Rhode Island lack a cabinet-level Department of Agriculture. Rhode Island is the only state with fewer farms than Alaska. In a pair of legislative hearings Wednesday, legislators made it clear that they're unlikely to stop the governor's plan and are willing to support the idea. In a 4-3 vote, members of the House Resources Committee declined to advance a resolution that would block the executive order. Meeting separately, members of the Senate Resources Committee heard a presentation on the governor's proposal and voiced support for the idea. Currently, Alaska regulates and supports agriculture through a division of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Speaking to legislators on Wednesday, DNR commissioner John Boyle said that agriculture can get lost among his agency's other missions. 'At times, it can be an afterthought when our state leadership gets focused on oil and gas issues,' he said. Splitting agriculture into a separate department means there would be a cabinet-level commissioner to bring attention to farms, even after Dunleavy leaves office in two years. 'This is really a way to leave that lasting legacy … we as a state are saying agriculture is important to us and food security is a priority,' he said. Sen. Shelley Hughes, R-Palmer, is a member of the Senate committee and chaired the state's food strategy task force. The task force's No. 1 recommendation is the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Agriculture. That's because a commissioner would be able to champion the task force's other recommendations for boosting Alaska agriculture. 'The No. 1 reason is so this governor and future governors will have someone at the cabinet level to keep these items in front of them,' she said in testimony to the House Resources Committee. Creating an agriculture department isn't free. The governor's office is requesting 13 new positions and a total of $10 million in funding, up $2.7 million from the current budget for the state's agriculture division. The Dunleavy administration isn't requesting a corresponding cut to the DNR budget. Speaking to the two legislative committees, Boyle said the request represents a base level. In its first stage, the Department of Agriculture wouldn't include mariculture — ocean farms for kelp, shellfish and other products — even though that's the fastest-growing sector of Alaskan agriculture. Some functions of the Department of Environmental Conservation might eventually be transferred to the new agency as well, Boyle said. 'We really just wanted to get the framework set and built,' he said. Both committees heard testimony from the Alaska Food Policy Council, Alaska Farm Bureau and FFA — formerly Future Farmers of America — in favor of the new department on Wednesday. 'I see a lot of opportunities,' said Rep. Donna Mears, D-Anchorage, later adding, 'agriculture provides a lot of opportunities for entrepreneurism and doing things for one's self.' Rep. Zack Fields, D-Anchorage, said the new department's cost is the equivalent of about $8 from each Alaskan's Permanent Fund dividend. 'I kind of think it's worth it,' he said. Boyle said the change would pay off. 'I know that there's very hard choices and tradeoffs to be made, but I believe that now is an especially appropriate time for Alaska to make the commitment that agriculture can play an important part in our state,' Boyle said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
