U.S. fishing groups push to postpone protections for endangered right whale to 2035
PORTLAND, Maine — A Maine congressman and several commercial fishing groups are getting behind a push to delay rules designed to protect a vanishing species of whale for 10 years.
The North Atlantic right whale numbers only about 370 and has declined over the last 15 years. They have been the subject of proposed federal fishing laws that are backed by conservation groups because the whales are threatened by lethal entanglement in commercial fishing gear.
The federal government is in the midst of a pause on federal right whale rules until 2028. Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine and a coalition of fishing organizations said in letters to congressional officials that they want to extend that moratorium out to 2035.
Golden, who played a role in the initial moratorium, said extending the pause would give the government the time it needs to craft regulations that reflect science. He also said it would protect Maine's lifesblood lobster fishing industry, which is one of the fishing sectors that would have to comply with rules intended to protect right whales.
'Maine's lobster fishery has most recently been valued at more than half a billion dollars — and that's just the value of the catch. It also supports tens of thousands of jobs. It is an iconic part of our state's economy, heritage and appeal to visitors,' Golden said in a July 22 letter to a subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee.
The extension of the moratorium was originally proposed by Alaska Republican Nick Begich. It's one of several changes to the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act proposed by Begich, who like Golden represents a state with a large commercial fishing industry.
The changes have drawn condemnation from environmental organizations and praise from commercial fishing groups. A group of fishing organizations including the Maine Lobstermen's Association said in a July 21 letter to the subcommittee that 'heavy regulation comes at a heavy cost.'
The whales were once numerous off the East Coast, but they were decimated during the era of commercial whaling and have been slow to recover. They are also threatened by collisions with large ships.
The population of the whales fell about 25% from 2010 to 2020.
Patrick Whittle, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
2 hours ago
- CBC
Corporation for Public Broadcasting plans closure after U.S. government defunds the non-profit
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a cornerstone of U.S. culture for three generations, announced Friday it's taking steps toward its own closure after Congress defunded it. It would mark the end of a nearly six-decade era of fuelling the production of renowned educational programming, cultural content and even emergency alerts. The planned closure of CPB, which was established in 1967, is said to be a direct result of U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated claims that public media spread political and cultural views contrary to what the United States should be espousing. It's expected a CPB closure would have a profound impact on the journalistic and cultural landscape, in particular, public radio and TV stations in small communities across the United States. CPB helps fund both the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR), but most of the money it receives is distributed to more than 1,500 local public radio and television stations around the U.S. The corporation also has deep ties to much of the country's most familiar programming, from NPR's All Things Considered to, historically, Sesame Street, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood and the documentaries of Ken Burns. The corporation said its end, 58 years after being signed into law by Lyndon Johnson when he was president, would come in an "orderly wind-down." In a statement, it said the decision came after Congress passed a package that clawed back its funding for the next two budget years — totalling about $1.1 billion US. The Senate appropriations committee reinforced that policy change Thursday by excluding funding for the corporation for the first time in more than 50 years as part of a broader spending bill. "Despite the extraordinary efforts of millions of Americans who called, wrote and petitioned Congress to preserve federal funding for CPB, we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations," said president and CEO Patricia Harrison. Last-ditch try at funding fails Democratic members of the appropriations committee made a last-ditch effort this week to save the CBP's funding. As part of Thursday's committee deliberations, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, authored but then withdrew an amendment to restore CPB funding for the coming budget year. She said she still believed there was a path forward "to fix this before there are devastating consequences for public radio and television stations across the country." "It's hard to believe we've ended up in the situation we're in and I'm going to continue to work with my colleagues to fix it." But Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia sounded a less optimistic tone. "I understand your concerns, but we all know we litigated this two weeks ago," Capito said. "Adopting this amendment would have been contrary to what we have already voted on." CPB said it informed employees Friday that most staff positions will end with the fiscal year on Sept. 30. It said a small transition team will stay in place until January to finish any remaining work, including "ensuring continuity for music rights and royalties that remain essential to the public media system." "Public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life, providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse and cultural connection to every corner of the country," Harrison said. "We are deeply grateful to our partners across the system for their resilience, leadership and unwavering dedication to serving the American people." Widespread fallout expected NPR stations use millions of dollars in federal funding to pay music licensing fees. Now, many will have to renegotiate these deals. That could impact, in particular, outlets that build their programming around music discovery. NPR president and CEO Katherine Maher estimated recently, for example, that some 96 per cent of all classical music broadcast in the United States is on public radio stations. Federal money for public radio and television has traditionally been appropriated to the CPB, which distributes it to NPR and PBS. Roughly 70 per cent of the money goes directly to the 330 PBS and 246 NPR stations across the country. Trump, who has called the CPB a "monstrosity," has long said that public broadcasting displays an extreme liberal bias, helped create the momentum in recent months for an anti-public broadcasting groundswell among his supporters in Congress and around the country. It is part of a larger initiative in which he has targeted institutions — particularly cultural ones — that produce content or espouse attitudes he considers "un-American."
CTV News
5 hours ago
- CTV News
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before departing on Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, July 25, 2025, in Washington. The President is traveling to Scotland. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) NEW YORK — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of U.S. President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.' Deepti Hajela And Hillel Italie, The Associated Press
CTV News
5 hours ago
- CTV News
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
People wait outside of Glass House Farms, a day after an immigration raid on the facility, Friday, July 11, 2025, in Camarillo, Calif. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File) LOS ANGELES — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. 'If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,' the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a 'victory for the rule of law' and said the city will protect residents from the 'racial profiling and other illegal tactics' used by federal agents. Jaimie Ding, The Associated Press
