Switchboard, from NRDC › Taryn Kiekow's Blog

When it Comes to Saving Whales, Who Doesn't Love a 'Miracle'?

2012-02-14T17:56:58Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

I just saw Big Miracle. The movie -- based on the 1988 rescue effort to save gray whales trapped by ice in the Arctic -- tugged at my heartstrings. I laughed. I cried. And I was reminded of why I love my job so much.

Big Miracle is based on true events: a gripping story set in Barrow, Alaska where people set aside their differences in an attempt to save three gray whales from drowning beneath rapidly forming Arctic ice. It had a (mostly) happy ending, an inspirational storyline, and a profound message: that the love for whales can unite even the most unlikely of allies. Environmentalists, politicians, big oilmen, Inupiat whalers, the military, and the media suspended hostilities and worked together to save these three whales. Even the Cold War began to thaw, when Russia sent an icebreaker to aid the rescue efforts.

More importantly, Big Miracle highlighted why people believe whales are worth saving. As Greenpeace-activist Rachel (played by a parka-clad Drew Barrymore) said, “even though they’re strong and big and powerful, they’re vulnerable.” The movie briefly touched on a number of ways whales are vulnerable to man-made dangers:

Hunting: Although bowhead whales – not gray whales – are the usual target of native Inupiat hunters, the movie depicts whaling captains deciding whether or not to harvest the three trapped gray whales. The whalers eventually decide to try and save the whales instead. (Sidebar: Before gray whales were protected by the International Whaling Commission’s 1986 ban on commercial whaling and the United States’ Marine Mammal Protection Act, they were hunted to near extinction. Commercial whaling is currently illegal, although Japan, Norway and Iceland continue to ignore the ban. The IWC does allow limited hunting for subsistence purposes.)
Entanglement: In the movie, Rachel cuts off a net wrapped around the fluke of the littlest whale. (Sidebar: entanglement in fishing gear is one of the biggest threats facing marine mammals today. There is a touching story of a humpback whale off the coast of California, entangled by 20 crab-pot ropes [240 feet long with weights every 60 feet] and 12 crab traps [weighing 90 pounds each]. The fishing gear was digging into the whale’s flesh and made surfacing to breathe difficult. According to rescuers, when the whale was finally freed she swam to each of the rescue divers and nuzzled them in thanks.)
Ocean noise: The movie depicts the whales panicking and fleeing to avoid the loud noise generated by the icebreaker. (Sidebar: man-made noise from seismic surveys, military sonar and shipping is truly drowning the oceans in sound. Scientists have discovered that whales stop feeding, abandon habitat and cease vocalizing in response to seismic surveys. Man-made noise can also cause death.)

(Spoiler alert) But like all good Hollywood movies, Big Miracle has a happy ending. Two of the whales survive. We see them swimming away – breaching and waving their flukes – presumably en route to their calving and breeding grounds off the coast of Baja, Mexico, one of NRDC’s BioGems. (Another spoiler alert) Despite the heroic rescue, the whales were not spotted again and it’s unknown whether they survived their ordeal beneath the ice or succumbed to exhaustion.

NRDC has been working for over 10 years to protect gray whales’ Baja calving grounds at Laguna San Ignacio.

I’ll be visiting Laguna San Ignacio later this month. From what I’m told, it’s a life-changing experience. If I get the opportunity to look a gray whale in the eye, it will be my ‘Big Miracle’ and a reminder of why I and my colleagues work every day to protect these gentle giants.

Fun Fact: Ted Danson, who plays the manipulative oil industry exec in Big Miracle, is actually a founding member and on the Board of Directors for Oceana. He is a long time ocean advocate.

Photo Credit: Drew Barrymore and her fiance Will Kopelman at the Big Miracle premiere, courtesy of Oceana; playful gray whales in Baja courtesy of NRDC; and the stunning Laguna San Ignacio, courtsey of Robert Glenn Ketchum.

Whale Wars: Are the Whales Winning?

2012-01-25T22:20:29Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

The phrase “whale wars” usually evokes images of doom and gloom for the whales: Japan hunting whales in the Southern Ocean – in a designated whale sanctuary, no less – with Sea Shepherd activists waving their pseudo-pirate flag in hot pursuit. Iceland gearing up for another season of killing endangered fin whales, despite the diplomatic sanctions imposed by the United States last September. Or Norway quietly–but lethally–hunting minke whales.

But there is hope.

Last week, Norway's Directorate of Fisheries revealed that the number of Norwegian whaling vessels has shrunk from 33 in 2001 to just 19 last year. Norway still hunts whales under an objection to the moratorium on commercial whaling, but it’s not hunting all the whales it self-allocates. In 2011, for example, Norway authorized hunters to kill 1,286 minke whales, but hunters actually killed less than half of that quota (468).

Japan is also having trouble filling its self-allocated quota of whales it kills under the guise of “scientific research.” Last year, Japan caught less than a quarter of its quota in the Southern Ocean due to interference from the Sea Sheperd. This year, Japan beefed up security around its whaling fleet – using $29 million ~~billion~~ from tsunami relief funds – despite the fact that support for whaling at home is at an all time low.

Last week, the Japan Times published a compelling editorial – Wars Over Whaling – which concluded that the “whaling subsidy provides little benefit to coastal communities and stymies efforts to reconstruct genuinely sustainable industries. That money could have been used for many other purposes.”

The editorial further addressed the issue of “tradition” – an argument often used by pro-whaling advocates in Japan:

The traditional custom of eating whale meat has considerably declined. Many reports show that whale meat from whales killed last year is piling up in refrigerated warehouses.

Whale meat was surely an important part of Japan's heritage, and a major source of protein in the lean times after World War II. However, its continued consumption, for either culinary, dietary or cultural reasons, hardly seems compelling at this point.

Continuing the whale hunts means Japan will continue to pay dearly in international diplomatic costs for its right to maintain a tradition that extends far beyond the borders of the country's culture yet is no longer central to daily life here at home.

Although the war on whaling is far from over, this shift in consciousness in Norway and Japan represents a small—but hopefully momentum-building—win for the whales.

Photo credit: EIA and NOAA, respectively.

Putting a Price Tag on Whales Won't Save Them

2012-01-12T22:32:00Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

This week American scientists proposed a market-based approach to “saving” whales: set tradable quotas for them. Establishing a “cap and trade” market for whaling – while academically interesting – is a terrible idea.

It would legalize commercial whaling, which has been banned by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) since the moratorium on commercial whaling took effect in 1986. It would reward the three nations that continue to hunt whales commercially – Japan, Norway, and Iceland – for defying or exploiting loopholes in the moratorium. And it would create an entirely new market for whalers, especially those nations that would like to hunt but nevertheless abide by the moratorium.

The authors of this “market approach” – published in the January 12, 2012 issue of Nature – propose to set a price tag on whales. They advocate for whale quotas that could be bought and sold, creating a market that would allow conservation groups to save whales by buying quotas and whalers to profit from whales (even without killing them) by selling quotas. The scientists claim this “market approach” would reduce the number of whales caught and “suitably compensate” whalers.

Who’s being saved here: the whales or the whalers?

Trading whale credits is a very different matter from capping and trading carbon – a byproduct of energy production in every country in the world today. To reduce reliance on carbon-based energy sources – in order to fight global warming – such a system is intended to encourage the difficult transition to renewable energy. By contrast, whaling is a dying industry, with no economic future, only a handful of countries engaged in it, and few consumers interested in the countless tons of frozen whale meat slowly rotting in warehouses in Iceland, Japan, and Norway. Adopting a system of tradable credits for whales would only perpetuate an industry whose time has passed – and would be a major step in the wrong direction for whale conservation.

The moratorium on commercial whaling isn’t perfect. Despite the moratorium, Japan, Norway and Iceland continue to kill whales for profit (setting self-allocated quotas of around 2,000 takes per year). But the moratorium has saved hundreds of thousands of whales since 1986. Overturning the moratorium and legalizing the slaughter of whales under the guise of a “market approach” is not the solution.

Putting a price tag on whales also raises tricky political and economic issues. Which nations would receive whaling quotas? The authors suggest dividing the majority of quotas between whaling and non-whaling nations based on historical whaling patterns. But what about those nations – like Korea – that would like to whale but don’t because of the moratorium? Shall we reward the rogue practices of Japan and Iceland while penalizing law-abiding nations?

And what is the price of a whale? The authors suggest $13,000 for a minke whale and $85,000 for an endangered fin whale. Is $85,000 really the going rate of an endangered species?

This “market approach” is just another proposal to legalize the killing of whales and should be flatly rejected. Another proposal to legitimize commercial whaling by allowing quotas was floated before the IWC several years ago. That proposal – backed by both the Bush and Obama administrations – would have suspended the ban on commercial whaling for 10 years and opened up a designated whale sanctuary to commercial whaling. Eleventh-hour action by NRDC, renowned actor and marine mammal activist Pierce Brosnan, and other conservation groups helped focus global outrage on the backroom deal and led to its defeat. Hundreds of thousands of messages were sent to the White House opposing the proposal, and the IWC ultimately shelved it. We wouldn’t welcome its return – in any guise.

Photo courtesy of NOAA

Bad News for Belugas: Cook Inlet Population Plummeted 20 Percent in 2011

2012-01-11T00:26:17Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

Today, NOAA’s Alaska Fisheries Science Center released its annual survey of endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales—and the findings don’t bode well for belugas. The 2011 population estimate is 284, almost 20 percent lower than last year’s estimate. The 2010 survey estimated 340 whales, while the 2009 survey estimated 321 whales.

Sadly, the 2011 estimate is the second-lowest since NOAA began surveying Cook Inlet beluga whales in 1993. (The lowest estimate was in 2005, when belugas numbered just six less than this year’s estimate.)

Over the past couple of decades, the number of Cook Inlet beluga whales has plummeted from 1,300 to just 284.

That’s why NRDC and other environmental groups have been fighting for years to ensure protection for this iconic species, which is both genetically distinct and geographically isolated to Cook Inlet. In April 2006, we petitioned NOAA to list Cook Inlet belugas as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The government finally listed the Cook Inlet beluga whale as endangered in April 2008 and designated more than 3,000 square miles of the Cook Inlet as critical habitat essential to the whales’ survival.

And just last November, we won a major victory in federal court. A federal judge did the right thing by upholding the endangered species status of Cook Inlet beluga whales under the ESA, obstructing the State of Alaska’s ongoing anti-wildlife agenda.

The fact that the population continues to decline reiterates the fragile state of their health. Ship strikes, noise pollution, and industrial development consistently threaten the health and habitat of Cook Inlet beluga whales. Oil and gas drilling activities—which use air guns to deploy some of the loudest manmade sounds—are flooding beluga whales with a cacophony of underwater noise pollution. Another proposal – the Pebble Mine – would require the construction of a new deepwater port, marine terminal, and slurry pipelines in designated critical habitat for Cook Inlet beluga whales.

Click here to take action and help protect Cook Inlet beluga whales.

Pssst. It's the Holidays. Are you ready?

2011-12-14T21:00:46Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

If you’re like me, you wait to the very last second to buy gifts. Luckily, NRDC has made it easy this year to buy environmentally friendly (and tax deductible) gifts with its Green Gifts.

The holiday season is already in full throttle. For me, it’s a whirlwind season filled with family, friends, and good cheer. The holidays are not only a time of joy, but also a time for reflection as the year ends. That’s why I write my “gratitude” list every year, which details all the things I’m thankful for throughout the year. Several marine mammal victories here at NRDC made my 2011 list:

Beluga whales. Just days before Thanksgiving, a federal judge ruled in our favor and upheld endangered species protection for Cook Inlet beluga whales. NRDC has been fighting for years to protect these magical whales – which currently number less than 400. NRDC intervened in the lawsuit last year after the State of Alaska sued the National Marine Fisheries Service for listing the whales as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The State of Alaska has until December 21st to decide whether to appeal the decision.
Commercial whaling. In September, President Obama imposed diplomatic sanctions against Iceland to encourage an end to its commercial whaling. The President’s actions are in response to a petition brought by NRDC and 18 other animal welfare and conservation groups under the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman’s Protective Act.
Navy sonar lawsuit. We recently finished summary judgment briefing in our case against the Navy challenging its plan to build a 100 million dollar permanent underwater sonar training facility off the coast of northeastern Florida – right next to the only known calving grounds for the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. There are only about 300-400 North Atlantic right whales left on the planet.
Pebble Mine. NRDC continues to oppose Pebble Mine, a giant gold and copper mine proposed at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska. We just released a poll that reveals a significant majority of Americans in the lower 48 (77%) and Alaska (68%) oppose Pebble Mine. It is a colossally bad idea that would dump 10 billion tons of mining waste at the headwaters of the greatest wild salmon fishery in the world. Salmon sustain the entire web of life in the region – from fishermen, to Alaska Natives, to grizzles, eagles, seals, and whales.

I am grateful to make a difference in the lives of marine mammals, through victories both large and small. I am grateful to find my livelihood in my passion. And I am grateful for the opportunity here at NRDC to make a difference.

If you would like to make a difference this holiday season, please consider buying a Green Gift from NRDC. There are over 50 gifts to choose from– all aimed at saving the environment.

Many of these gifts will help fund the work that I described in my gratitude list above. Here are my personal favorites. Disclaimer - family and friends, be prepared to receive one of these gifts from me this year! Simply click on the picture to follow the link:

Save the Cook Inlet Belugas

End Commercial Whaling

Defend Whales from Deadly Sonar

Stop the Pebble Mine

The holidays are a time of joy. A time for gratitude. A time to spend with family and friends. A time to give. Click here to give the gift of green.

First Poll in Lower 48 Shows Strong Majority of Americans Oppose Pebble Mine

2011-12-06T14:00:00Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

For the first time, polling has been done on the Pebble Mine in the lower 48 states – and the news isn’t good for the project.

A new poll reveals that a significant majority of Americans in the lower 48 (77%) and Alaska (68%) oppose Pebble Mine – a giant gold, copper, and molybdenum mine proposed at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska. Notably, the opposition crosses political and ideological lines.

This level of opposition is outside the norm. According to Belden Russonello Strategists, LLC (BRS), who conducted the poll, the results are “remarkable” and provide a “strong indication that this particular project is just plain unpopular.”

The BRS poll asked residents throughout the lower 48 states and Alaska for their opinion on Pebble Mine and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The results leave no room for doubt:

After hearing statements both for and against the mine, 77% of respondents in the lower 48 and 68% of Alaskans oppose Pebble Mine – 55% in both regions strongly oppose the mine. The opposition crosses ideological, political, gender, and age group lines.
Support for EPA to stop the mine is strong. The majority in the lower 48 (59%) and in Alaska (54%) believe EPA should stop Pebble Mine if studies show it will pollute the land and water.
Salmon is a strong reason to oppose Pebble Mine, both in the lower 48 and in Alaska. Concerns regarding the projected 10 billion tons of waste the mine will produce were also significant reasons for opposition.

This is just the latest confirmation of the overwhelming opposition to Pebble Mine. A survey released last month by the Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC) found that 81% of its Native shareholders strongly oppose Pebble Mine. And polling data released last August by the Alaska Conservation Foundation found that 85% of commercial fishermen in Bristol Bay oppose Pebble Mine, including 80% who oppose it strongly.

Other surveys have also documented substantial local opposition to Pebble Mine, finding that over 80% of Bristol Bay residents oppose Pebble Mine. A state-wide poll released last month by Strategies 360 Polling and BBNC revealed that a majority of Alaskans (54%) oppose Pebble Mine, with fewer than one in three (32%) supporting it.

All of these poll results – taken together with last October’s approval in the Lake and Peninsula Borough of the “Save Our Salmon” initiative, which would prohibit the mine’s development if it would destroy or degrade salmon habitat – leave no room for doubt.

The overwhelming majority of Bristol Bay residents–together with a strong majority of Americans – do not want the Pebble Mine. They do not want a mine that would dump an estimated 10 billion tons of mining waste at the headwaters of the greatest wild salmon fishery in the world. They do not want a mine that would threaten the region’s salmon, which generates thousands of jobs and $450 million in revenue each year and supports a vast ecosystem.

Take action now to stop the Pebble Mine.

Photos copyright Pool 32 and Robert Glenn Ketchum.

Cook Inlet Beluga Whales Score Major Victory

2011-11-21T20:39:00Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

The genetically unique population of Cook Inlet beluga whales breathed a collective sigh of relief today when a federal judge struck down attempts by the State of Alaska to challenge the 2008 ESA listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species. The judge’s ruling affirms that the best available science supports the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) conclusion that Cook Inlet beluga whales are in danger of extinction.

There is no question that Cook Inlet beluga whales are critically endangered—over the past 20 years, their numbers have plummeted from 1,300 to just 321. Even after subsistence whaling of the species was banned in 1999, the population continued to decline. Ship strikes, noise pollution, and industrial development consisently threaten the health and habitat of this genetically distinct and geographically isolated population of belugas—which lives only in Alaska’s Cook Inlet.

NRDC and other environmental groups have been fighting for years to ensure protection for Cook Inlet beluga whales. In April 2006, we petitioned NMFS to list Cook Inlet belugas as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS finally listed the Cook Inlet beluga whale as endangered in April 2008 and designated more than 3,000 square miles of the Cook Inlet as critical habitat essential to the whales’ survival (NRDC members and activists alone sent 118,000 petitions supporting the endangered species designation).

However, on June 4, 2010 the State of Alaska filed a lawsuit challenging the listing of Cook Inlet beluga whales as an endangered species under the federal ESA. Alaska’s lawsuit inexplicably claimed that the belugas—which are at risk of going extinct in the next 100 years—do not need protection under the ESA. The State had long opposed listing Cook Inlet beluga whales as endangered under the ESA, and even opposed designating critical habitat for the belugas as required under federal law (NRDC members and activists sent over 43,000 letters to NMFS supporting the critical habitat designation). NRDC and other conservation groups intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of the Cook Inlet beluga whales.

The judge did the right thing today in upholding the endangered status of this iconic Alaskan species, which is famous for its enchantingly melodious song. His decision is also backed by sound science. In 2006, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) placed the Cook Inlet beluga on its Red List of endangered species. And the prestigious U.S. Marine Mammal Commission repeatedly requested NMFS list the Cook Inlet beluga as endangered under the ESA.

This decision not only ensures protections for one of the most endangered species on the planet, but also demonstrates that sound science and the rule of law can triumph over a reprehensible anti-wildlife agenda. And, most importantly, Cook Inlet beluga whales may finally have a chance at recovery.

U.S. Censures Iceland for Killing Whales

2011-09-15T22:05:44Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

U.S. Imposes Diplomatic Sanctions against Iceland for Killing Whales

President Obama took important steps today to sanction Iceland for its renegade whaling but should have gone further. The President directed federal agencies to take actions to encourage Iceland to end commercial whaling, including evaluating the propriety of official visits to Iceland and authorizing the State Department to tie our cooperation in Arctic projects to the Icelandic Government changing its whaling policy. Click here to read the full list of available sanctions.

Unfortunately, President Obama failed to impose more effective measures through targeted economic sanctions. Without hard-hitting sanctions, Iceland may not feel enough pressure to stop whaling.

Last July, in response to a petition filed by NRDC and 18 other NGOs, then Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke declared that Iceland’s whaling activities diminish the effectiveness of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Today President Obama affirmed that decision, finding “Iceland's actions threaten the conservation status of an endangered species and undermine multilateral efforts to ensure greater worldwide protection for whales.”

NRDC applauds this finding and supports the use of sanctions, but thinks the President should have done more.

Over 100,000 NRDC members and activists wrote to President Obama in support of targeted sanctions against specific seafood companies with known ties to Iceland’s whaling industry.

And in a letter to President Obama, Congress encouraged the imposition of tough sanctions against Iceland: “Employing the full breadth of tools available…, including economic sanctions against Iceland’s whaling interests, will send a clear signal of the negative consequences of commercial whaling.”

President Obama’s failure to heed this advice is a missed opportunity for global leadership. We know that tough sanctions are necessary because diplomacy has failed time after time to stop the senseless slaughter of whales.

Although the U.S. censured Iceland for its rogue whaling back in 2004 – and recently led 11 nations in a joint demarche against Iceland in March 2011 – it has until now pursued only diplomatic solutions rather than economic sanctions.

Iceland has failed to respond.

In defiance of the international ban on commercial whaling, Iceland has ramped up its renegade whaling in recent years by killing both endangered fin and minke whales – threatening the very existence of species that are teetering on the brink of extinction. In 2010 alone, Icelandic whalers killed 148 endangered fin and 60 minke whales. And in 2009, Iceland dramatically increased its self-allocated fin whale quota to 150 animals a year – more than three times the catch limit that the IWC’s Scientific Committee (considered the world’s foremost experts on whales) considers sustainable for the species’ survival.

Unlike countries that rely on whale meat for subsistence purposes, Iceland has only a limited domestic market for minke whales, and its people have not traditionally eaten fin whales. Iceland has increased its whaling hoping to find a profitable market in Japan – whose warehouses are already glutted with thousands of tons of excess whale meat from its own suspect “scientific whaling” program and whose demand for whale meat is at an all-time low following the devastating earthquake and tsunami.

Although Iceland suspended its fin whale hunt this year – due to the earthquake and tsunami in Japan– it currently plans to resume the hunt in 2012. Moreover, as President Obama recognized, “Icelandic nationals continue to hunt minke whales commercially and Iceland’s exports of whale meat to Japan reportedly increased significantly in both March and April 2011.”

That’s why we will continue to push for targeted sanctions against specific Icelandic companies tied to the whaling industry should diplomacy fail again.

We appreciate the President’s direction that federal agencies “keep the situation under review” and report back in 6 months or “immediately upon the resumption of fin whaling by Icelandic nationals.” We believe this sends a message that the United States will immediately reconsider a stronger response should Iceland resume fin whaling.

Although we believe the President should have imposed tougher sanctions now, his actions today confirm that the United States is prepared to intensify its response if the measures directed today prove inadequate.

We strongly urge the Obama administration to respond with hard-hitting sanctions should Iceland resume its slaughter of fin whales next season.

We will stay vigilant. The whales are counting on us.

Photo credits: NOAA

Congress Weighs in Against Pebble Mine

2011-09-13T18:26:58Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) recently said that she would oppose development of Pebble Mine – one of the world’s largest mines – in Alaska’s Bristol Bay watershed should it potentially harm the world-famous salmon runs there. In a letter sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday, Senator Cantwell supported EPA’s decision to conduct a thorough scientific assessment of the effect a large-scale development project like Pebble Mine would have on the Bristol Bay watershed.

Senator Cantwell is right on the money. Developing the Pebble Mine – a two mile wide, 2,000 foot deep open pit that would generate over 10 billion tons of contaminated mining waste – at the headwaters of the world’s most productive wild salmon fishery is a colossally bad idea. As Senator Cantwell said in her letter, Bristol Bay’s salmon population is an “economic lynchpin” for commercial fishermen in both Alaska and Washington.

In fact, salmon are the lynchpin of the entire Bristol Bay ecosystem, supporting the $450 million per year commercial and sports fishing, seafood, hunting, and tourism industries in the region. In addition, Alaska Natives have depended on these salmon to feed their families for thousands of years. Salmon also support a vast array of wildlife – including bears, whales, seals, eagles, moose and caribou – all drawn by the same lure: tens of millions of thrashing salmon and the nutrient-rich environment the salmon create when they spawn and die.

Pebble Mine threatens this extraordinary resource. It is absolutely critical that we protect the Bristol Bay watershed from Pebble Mine’s potentially devastating effects.

We must stand united with the people of Bristol Bay, who overwhelmingly oppose Pebble Mine. Over 80% of local residents oppose Pebble Mine, and over 85% of commercial fishermen in Bristol Bay oppose Pebble.

The Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC), a multi-billion dollar corporation with over 9,000 Native shareholders, opposes Pebble Mine. BBNC President and CEO Jason Metrokin welcomed the letter from Senator Cantwell and said in a statement that Pebble presents an “unacceptable risk to Bristol Bay salmon, which have supported our communities for thousands of years” while providing an important commercial, food and cultural resource.

BBNC and several federally recognized Bristol Bay Alaska native tribes have asked the EPA to use its authority under the Clean Water Act to stop development of the mine. Last February, EPA announced it would conduct a scientific assessment of large scale development in the Bristol Bay watershed. EPA’s analysis is expected to be released this fall.

In her letter to EPA, Senator Cantwell supported EPA’s scientific assessment and also asked the agency to consider using the Clean Water Act to prohibit or restrict large-scale development in the Bristol Bay watershed if it would harm the water quality or salmon in the region.

“Thousands of my constituents have contacted me expressing their concerns regarding the potentially catastrophic and widespread long-term impacts of the proposed Pebble Mine, which would be the world’s largest man-made excavation,” Cantwell said in her letter.

Thank you Senator Cantwell for speaking up to protect Bristol Bay from Pebble Mine.

We all need to get involved. To make your voice heard, click here.

Photo Credit: Robert Glenn Ketchum and Pool 32 Mag, respectively.

New Poll Finds Bristol Bay Fishermen Overwhelmingly Opposed to Pebble Mine

2011-08-25T22:41:10Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

A new poll shows astonishing opposition to the Pebble Mine, with over 85% of commercial fishers in Bristol Bay opposing the mine. And the fishers are virtually unanimous – 98% – that the headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska should be protected. These kind of numbers on any issue of public importance are unprecedented, and they reflect unambiguously the intensifying opposition to the Pebble Mine.

The Bristol Bay fishery supplies roughly 50% of the world's wild sockeye salmon, and tens of millions of salmon return there every year to spawn. But it could all come crashing down if Pebble Mine – a colossal gold and copper mine – is built at the headwaters of Bristol Bay’s famed salmon runs. Pebble Mine would pose a huge risk to salmon, because even minute increases of copper above natural levels in water (2 to 10 parts per billion) have shown to damage the navigational ability of salmon to return to its spawning stream and complete the circle of life.

The new poll, which for the first time focused on the men and women who commercially fish in Bristol Bay, asked them their opinion on Pebble Mine and the risks it poses to salmon. The results leave no room for doubt:

85% of Bristol Bay commercial fishers oppose Pebble Mine, including 80% who oppose it strongly.
86% agree that Pebble Mine would jeopardize the existing fishing industries in Bristol Bay.
83% agree that Pebble Mine will drastically hurt fishing in Bristol Bay.
97% are concerned that mining in Alaska will result in destruction of fish habitat and water quality problems.
98% believe the headwaters of Bristol Bay should be protected for future generations.

Although proponents of Pebble Mine claim that mining and fish can “coexist,” 77% of Bristol Bay fishers disagree and think that mining and fishing in Bristol Bay are simply incompatible. Eighty percent believe that the mining industry is NOT capable of protecting salmon in Bristol Bay.

Bob Waldrop, director of the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association and our coalition partner in Alaska summed up the new poll nicely: "Alaskan fishermen simply do not want Pebble Mine. They strongly believe we must protect Bristol Bay and its abundant wild fish. The Pebble project would threaten thousands of good-paying jobs, which are essential to the regional and state economy."

This new poll confirms that the level of opposition to Pebble Mine is growing. Other surveys have documented the overwhelming local opposition to Pebble Mine, finding that over 80% of Bristol Bay residents oppose Pebble Mine and believe that Pebble Mine poses a serious threat to Bristol Bay salmon fishing.

Given the unique consensus of opposition, it’s long past time for the backers of Pebble Mine – Anglo American, Rio Tinto, and Northern Dynasty – to start listening. Anglo American CEO Cynthia Carroll promised that the company would abandon its plan for Pebble Mine if faced with continued local opposition: “We will not go where communities are against us.”

The people of Bristol Bay have spoken. The numbers are through the roof. The opposition is growing. And the message is clear: No Pebble Mine.

Click here to send a message to Anglo American and join the overwhelming majority of Bristol Bay residents and fishers opposed to Pebble Mine.

Whale Warrior at the Animal Rights Conference

2011-07-25T23:44:17Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

Last night I had the honor of speaking at the Animal Rights 2011 National Conference about all of the tremendous work NRDC is doing to protect marine mammals.

Passion filled the room – passion for animals and passion for activism. Amongst so many passionate people, I hoped my passion for the whales would shine through. Lucky for me, I have been fortunate enough to work for both a great cause and a great organization; being passionate about our issues was the least of my concerns. I was asked to be on a panel – along with Dr. Rosemarie White from the Sierra Club and Hillary Lehr from Rainforest Action Network – that explored overlap between the animal rights and environmental movements. It gave me the perfect platform to describe a couple of NRDC’s campaigns to protect whales and other marine mammals.

Like NRDC’s victory in Laguna San Ignacio, where we defeated Mitsubishi’s plans to build a colossal salt factory on the banks of the world’s last untouched gray whale nursery. And our ocean noise campaign, which targets the big three contributors to ocean noise pollution: commercial shipping, seismic surveys used by the oil and gas industry, and military sonar. And our campaign to protect Bristol Bay, Alaska from the proposed Pebble Mine – a gigantic gold and copper mine that would jeopardize the tens millions of salmon upon which all life in the region relies, including whales, seals, grizzlies, eagles, wolves, Alaska Natives and commercial and sports fishermen.

I concluded by talking about our campaign to end commercial whaling. There I had particularly good news to share: last week U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke declared Iceland in defiance of the international ban on commercial whaling (Iceland kills both endangered fin and minke whales for profit).

I needn’t have worried about being passionate enough. It amazed me the number of people that approached me afterwards to thank me—and NRDC—for all the work we do to save the whales.

What stuck with me most, though, was not the passion but the optimism among the crowd. After the panel, I spoke with a young activist. She told me about a great quote hanging on her refrigerator: something along the lines of not getting down about the things you can’t do, but instead concentrating on the things you can do. Such a powerful statement. Focus on what we can do.

Optimism is key. I truly believe we do have the power to save the whales. Even in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles, it is imperitive to remember that our collective "can" is strong indeed. We have incredible power in our everyday lives; even the most mundane of our daily choices is a manifestation of the ideals we refuse to compromise. Overall, I think the conference provided inspiration to almost all of the attendees. For me, it gave this legal whale warrior extra motivation to keep on fighting!

Join me on facebook for the latest updates on NRDC campaigns to save wildlife and wild places.

Gray whale photo credit: Joel Reynolds; Bristol Bay photo credit: Robert Glenn Ketchum

U.S. to Iceland: "Stop Defying Global Ban Against Commercial Whaling...or Else"

2011-07-20T15:30:10Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke made a strong statement today by declaring Iceland in defiance of the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) global ban on commercial whaling. So what does this formal certification mean exactly? Well – it’s a strong stance for the United States to take and, thanks to conservation legislation known as the “Pelly Amendment,” it could eventually lead to sanctions. But that remains to be seen.

The United States has issued around a dozen certifications to countries involved in taking whales over the past 25 years. Yet it has not imposed trade sanctions. President Obama now has 60 days to decide whether to impose sanctions against Iceland, and we strongly urge him to do so.

For years, the United States and other IWC members have been trying to stop Iceland from raiding our seas of whales - many of which are endangered. But instead Iceland has ramped up its renegade whaling. Iceland has killed 280 endangered fin whales (the world’s second largest animal) and over 200 minke whales since it resumed commercial whaling in 2006. In the last two years alone, it has exported millions of dollars worth of whale meat, blubber and oil to Japan, as well as additional shipments to Belarus, the Faroe Islands, Latvia and Norway.

Then in 2009, Iceland dramatically increased its self allocated fin whale quota to 150 animals a year – more than three times the catch limit that the IWC’s Scientific Committee (the world’s foremost experts on whales) considers sustainable for the species’ survival. The fact is that Icelandic whaling activities not only flout international law, but are also depleting whale populations at an alarming rate.

In December 2010, as Iceland’s self-allocated whaling quotas and exports reached record levels, NRDC and eighteen other NGOs had had enough and took action. Representing tens of millions of U.S. citizens, we filed a petition under the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman’s Protective Act urging the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to certify and enact trade sanctions against Iceland – specifically against fisheries-related businesses linked to its whaling industry.

Today, Secretary Locke responded by certifying Iceland under the Pelly Amendment. In a letter to President Obama, he said that that “Iceland, by permitting its nationals to engage in commercial whaling and exporting endangered fin whale meat, is diminishing the effectiveness of the IWC conservation program.” Within 60 days, we’re hoping the President will impose sanctions.

A range of possible sanctions is available to the President, including trade sanctions targeting fish imports by Icelandic companies tied to whaling. Also on the table are diplomatic sanctions, including authorizing the State Department to tie our cooperation in Arctic projects to the Icelandic Government changing its whaling policy and abiding by the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling.

While imposing sanctions on Iceland for its renegade whaling would be a first for the United States, it’s clear this stronger stance needs to be taken. Negotiating has failed time and again. Iceland is not going to stop this abhorrent practice unless they’re compelled to do so.

And, frankly, the whales they’re killing aren’t theirs to kill. Whale conservation has been a global effort for decades and we cannot let one rogue country take us off track and decimate these fragile populations.

Now is the moment for President Obama to show the world that the United States remains strong a leader on protecting our oceans and ocean life. He should seize it.

Photo credits: NOAA, James Cotton and Ann Zoidis

Wailing in the International Whaling Commission

2011-07-14T19:33:41Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

After a week of consensus and cooperation at the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), today everything fell apart. The Commission was unable to decide whether to establish a whale sanctuary in the South Atlantic, after Latin American countries demanded a vote and Japan and other pro-whaling countries walked out of the meeting to obstruct the quorum required to take that vote.

The Commissioners adjourned into a private commissioners-only meeting for most of the day (and well into the night). Those closed doors apparently didn’t help consensus.

The Commissioners returned to the meeting after almost nine hours with a short statement that (1) recognized the importance of a South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary to many member governments, (2) resolved to further discuss the issue, and (3) pledged to vote on the issue at next year’s meeting if consensus could not be reached before.

This is an unfortunate end to what should – and could – have been a successful meeting.

I arrived at the IWC meeting – held this year in the Channel Isle of Jersey – hopeful for the whales. And hope sprang eternal yesterday. The IWC adopted – by consensus – a revised proposal from the United Kingdom focused on transparency and governance within the IWC. The decision included provisions to prohibit cash payments (addressing the allegations of bribery and corruption among pro-whaling countries), enhance overall decision-making processes and the transparency of decisions, and provide mechanisms for funding participation by developing nations. Although the session ran late into the night and suffered from the classic IWC tactics of delay and drama, the result was a positive step forward for the Commission.

Like-minded Commissioners and civil society celebrated (and toasted each other) last night at a conservation-themed reception sponsored by non-governmental organizations attending the IWC (including NRDC).

But apparently for everyone one step forward, there’s two steps back -- all this new-found transparency couldn’t shed light on a broken Commission. By tying up the entire day arguing about the admittedly important whale sanctuary proposed in the South Atlantic, other significant whale conservation items – like ocean noise, ship strikes, marine debris, and toxics – were left hanging.

If countries are unable to agree on basic procedural questions like what constitutes a quorum, how will they ever move forward with any meaningful conservation measures? And what will happen to the whales?

Looming in the background is next year’s meeting, which will determine the next five-year quota for aboriginal subsistence whaling. The United States has long stated that it won’t allow its aboriginal subsistence hunt (held in Alaska) to be used as a political bargaining chip in the Commission.

Unfortunately, political bargaining chips appear to be a specialty of this Commission.

NRDC came to the IWC this year seeking significant conservation gains for the whales. . While we did get one significant gain, the Commission many more regrettable setbacks. That's unfortunate for the IWC, and unfortunate for the whales.

In the words of the U.S. Commissioner to the IWC, “the world’s whales deserve better.” Hopefully the IWC will indeed do better at next year's meeting. The world's whales depend upon it.

Bruce Babbitt Weighs In to Protect Bristol Bay

2011-06-10T17:57:41Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt recognized the grandeur and importance of Bristol Bay in a speech yesterday at the National Press Club, where he eloquently described Bristol Bay as “the passageway for the myriad salmon runs that travel through the rivers system of Alaska” and the “greatest and most productive fishery on the planet.” He then implored President Obama to “use the Antiquities Act to designate the federal waters of Bristol Bay, as a National Monument, permanently off limits to oil and gas.”

Last year current Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar agreed, describing Bristol Bay as a “national treasure that we must protect for future generations.” In protecting the area from current oil and gas exploration and development, he described Bristol Bay as “too special to drill.”

But Bristol Bay is threatened by more than just oil and gas drilling. The foreboding shadow of Pebble Mine – which would be one of the world’s largest gold, copper and molybdenum mines – looms heavily in the headwaters of Bristol Bay’s incomparable watershed. The environmental footprint of the mine is almost unimaginable: an open pit 2 miles wide and 2,000 feet deep and underground mining 5,000 feet deep. Pebble Mine would produce an estimated 10 billion tons of toxic mining waste, which would then be stored behind giant earthen dams up to 740 feet high (taller than the Three Gorges Dam in China). Forever. In an active earthquake zone. At the headwaters of the most productive wild salmon fishery in the world.

As both former Secretary Babbitt and Secretary Salazar have recognized, Bristol Bay’s real value is its unparalleled salmon runs. Record sockeye salmon runs have exceeded 50 million fish annually. Fish are the backbone of the economy – generating more than $445 million in revenue annually, including commercial and sports fishing, hunting, tourism and subsistence. Wild salmon have sustained native communities that rely on subsistence fishing and hunting for thousands of years. And the salmon also support a vase array of wildlife – from brown (grizzly) bears, to whales, to eagles.

Yet these unequaled salmon runs could come crashing down if the area is opened to mining. Even minute increases of copper above natural levels in water (2 to 10 parts per billion) can damage the navigational ability of salmon to return to its spawning stream.

Given the risk that mining poses to salmon – and the way of life in Bristol Bay – it’s no wonder that over 80 percent of the region’s residents oppose Pebble Mine.

But foreign mining companies – including Anglo American and Rio Tinto – aren’t listening. Bristol Bay richly deserves the protections for which Secretaries Babbitt and Salazar have advocated. Please add your voice. Click here to protect Bristol Bay.

Feds Agree to Protect Beluga Habitat in Alaska

2011-04-08T23:00:00Z

Taryn Kiekow, Staff Attorney, Marine Mammal Protection Project, Santa Monica, California

Today, the National Marine Fisheries Service announced that Alaska’s Cook Inlet beluga whale habitat will be federally protected. The final rule designates more than 3,000 square miles of the Cook Inlet as critical habitat for the highly endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale – a genetically unique and geographically isolated population of belugas in southwest Alaska.

Over the past 20 years, the population of Cook Inlet beluga whales has plummeted from 1,300 to around 340.

Photo Credit: NOAA

Cook Inlet belugas live in one of the most populated and industrialized regions in Alaska, where their health and habitat is continuously threatened by the devastating effects of development and pollution. Ship strikes, noise pollution and industrialization infringing on their habitat are all factors in their dwindling numbers.

Key threats to their habitat include the Port of Anchorage expansion, oil and gas exploration and production, and the discharge of partially treated sewage from Anchorage's sewage treatment plant. Other proposals for development - such as a port for Pebble Mine in Iniskin Bay - also threaten these endangered whales.

NRDC and other environmental groups have been fighting for years to ensure protection for Cook Inlet beluga whales. In April 2006, we petitioned the National Marine Fisheries Service to list Cook Inlet beluga whales as endangered under the Endangered Species Act due to continuing population declines.

After much delay (and legal prompting), the Fisheries Service finally listed the Cook Inlet beluga whale as endangered in April 2008. (NRDC members and activists alone sent over 118,000 letters to NMFS supporting the endangered species designation.) After more delay (and legal prompting), today the Fisheries Service issued critical habitat designation. (Again, tens of thousands of NRDC members and activists sent petitions asking to protect this critical habitat.)

Photo Credit: NMFS

Protecting the Cook Inlet beluga's habitat is crucial to their survival. Under the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies are prohibited from taking any actions that may "adversely modify" critical habitat.

And critical habitat protection gives the highly imperiled Cook Inlet beluga a fighting chance for recovery. This is a victory for belugas.

Unfortunately, the battle is far from over. Cook Inlet beluga whales are the latest casualty in the State of Alaska’s war against wildlife. Last year, the State of Alaska filed a lawsuit challenging their endangered status. NRDC and other groups intervened in the lawsuit and are currently fighting to protect these endangered belugas.