Archive: Marine Wildlife

Sharks may soon receive much-needed protection from finning, a practice by which their fins are cut off while the animal is still alive. Their mutilated bodies are then thrown back into the ocean, where they endure long, painful deaths from blood loss, suffocation or predation by other species. This cruel practice kills an estimated 73 million sharks each year, and was therefore outlawed in the US in 2000. Enforcement of the law, however, has been hampered by loopholes.

Today, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) introduced S. 850, the Shark Conservation Act of 2009, which will close these loopholes and strengthen the federal ban on shark finning. “Shark finning fueled by the foreign fin trade has led to serious population decline and disruption of our waters,” the Senator said. “We need much stronger solutions to end this illicit trade and current protections haven’t gotten the job done. We need to get serious.” The House version of the bill, introduced by Representative Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU), was approved by the House of Representatives in March.

The bill requires that any fin aboard a vessel be naturally attached to the body of a shark, including fins that are transferred from one vessel to another. Enforcement officials have stated that this requirement is the only way to fully uphold a shark finning ban.

Since sharks are a top predator in the oceans, their removal damages the rest of the marine ecosystem. As animals who are slow to mature, with already small populations, sharks are extremely vulnerable to overfishing and exploitation. Unfortunately, millions of sharks are still targeted for their fins to meet the demand for shark fin soup, and millions more die annually as bycatch. Some species whose fins are highly prized include the spiny dogfish, as well as blue, hammerhead and whale sharks, which only reach sexual maturity at around 25 years of age.

“We are grateful to Senator Kerry for his leadership in seeking protection of sharks, and we look forward to the enactment of this vital law by Congress,” says Serda Ozbenian of the Animal Welfare Institute.

The Animal Welfare Institute joins The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and four other organizations today in filing a Petition for Rulemaking with the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to put a stop to the unnecessary exploitation of dolphins in amusement parks by prohibiting dolphin attractions known as “petting pools,” where members of the public can touch and feed dolphins for a nominal fee. The Petition claims that APHIS fails to adequately regulate petting pools despite the human health and animal welfare risks associated with them. WDCS requests that APHIS take action to address the dangers of these attractions in keeping with its mandate under the Animal Welfare Act to ensure the humane treatment and care of animals used in public display, while also protecting public health and safety.

In March 2003, WDCS and The Humane Society of the United States released a campaign report, Biting the Hand that Feeds, exposing the risks associated with dolphin petting pools, and the groups have been monitoring them ever since.  Meetings were held with regulatory authorities, and investigations were conducted as a result of the information outlined in this report. The report illustrated the unsafe, unsanitary and overcrowded conditions of petting pools in which many captive bottlenose dolphins are forced to live. Petting pools are often found in facilities with dolphin shows.

Currently, regulations exist for the humane handling and care of captive dolphins in public display facilities, but no special regulations exist for these unique attractions.  Specific regulations governing dolphin interactive programs, such as swim-with-the-dolphin and wading programs were suspended in April 1999. Confusion about the types of attraction they sought to regulate and resistance from captive dolphin facilities led APHIS to pull the regulations and launch a series of public comment periods and internal policy review initiated in 2002.

Although these dolphin interaction regulations are pending, APHIS has indicated that they will again exclude dolphin petting pools from the special oversight and regulation that these interactive regulations will provide.

“The regulations addressing swim-with-the-dolphin programs that were published in 1998, and that were later repealed in 1999 under controversy, specifically excluded dolphin feeding and petting pools. We see that the wealth of evidence we have provided over the past decade has done little to change APHIS’ hands-off approach on this issue.  We hope that this petition will finally document the case against petting pools, and at a minimum, the need for specific regulations addressing the risks inherent in these attractions,” stated Courtney Vail, campaigns manager for WDCS.

“Dolphins are predators. Petting pools turn them into little more than beggars,” said Dr. Naomi Rose, marine mammal biologist for The HSUS. “It’s a free for all in these attractions, which is absolutely not in the dolphins’ best interests.”

The goal of the petitioners is for APHIS to respond promptly by proposing new petting pool regulations, or to provide its justification for excluding dolphin petting pools from the other interactive programs due to be published.  WDCS and its partners believe that petting pools have fallen through the cracks of federal government regulations. APHIS has focused little attention on the facilities and consequently, all marine mammals in petting pools are left without any specific regulations to protect them.

Facts:

• Biting the Hand that Feeds: The case against dolphin petting pools may be found at www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/biting-the-hand-that-feeds-dolphins.pdf. Visitors to dolphin petting pools are at risk for injury. Due to their size and sheer numbers in petting pools, dolphins frequently make abrupt movements and may aggressively compete for food, placing visitors at risk for physical harm. Numerous incidents of bites, head butts and dolphins trapping visitors’ hands against the pool sides were observed in studies carried out by WDCS. Several visitors held young children out over the pool, enabling the child to better touch the dolphin, but clearly placing the child at risk of falling in or injurious contact with a dolphin.  This practice also led to one child being hit directly in the face by a dolphin interacting roughly with other dolphins. Visitors do not know of the inherent dangers because there has never been a legal requirement for petting pools to report injuries incurred by visitors, or for the facility to provide contact details for visitors to report injuries.
• Contrary to the educational claims of these programs, visitors may be learning behaviors that are putting wild dolphins at risk.  Feeding dolphins in the wild is a big problem in some areas of the US, and these captive feeding and petting programs bear some of the responsibility for promoting and encouraging the feeding and interaction with dolphins in the wild.  Not only is feeding dolphins in the wild illegal, it ultimately results in serious harm to the dolphins, and risk of injury to the human participants. WDCS believes there is a real conservation issue associated with dolphin petting pools.

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) applauds skincare company, Origins, for abandoning plans for a swim-with dolphins prize at Cabo Dolphins in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.

Initially Origins had planned a promotional give-away of an opportunity to swim with the dolphins. AWI contacted the company regarding the cruelty inherent in the captive dolphin trade. Origins promptly responded by changing the prize, part of its “Leave it all Behind” sweepstakes, stating “…Origins would never intentionally participate in any activities that do not align with our Company’s principles…we will no longer include this offer as part of the prize package.”

Many aquarium dolphins have been captured from the wild and suffer shock, stress, injury and even death because of the brutal manner in which they are seized. The dolphins at Cabo Dolphins came from Japan, renowned for its controversial dolphin hunts including Taiji, where entire pods of dolphins are regularly herded into a shallow bay. Some are sold to aquariums, including swim-with programs, for as much as $150,000 each and the fishermen kill the remainder by slashing their throats and stabbing them with spears.

Captive dolphins’ lives contrast starkly to those of their wild relatives. Highly intelligent animals with complex societies, wild dolphins travel up to 40 miles a day together and dive hundreds of feet in search of food but they are unable to do this in a small tank or sea pen. Aquarium dolphins are forced to perform tricks and interact with humans with no place to hide which can cause stress and stomach ulcers.

Since its launch in 1990, Origins has focused on providing animal and environmentally friendly plant-based cosmetic products. The company was the first major cosmetic brand to choose not to test their products on animals. “Origins has a long history of commitment to protect the planet and those who populate it,” said AWI’s President Cathy Liss, “so their compassionate decision to dissociate themselves from dolphin swim-with programs is in keeping with their philosophy.”

Following the swift and unanimous passage by the House of Representatives in March of this year, the Senate’s companion bill, S. 850, the Shark Conservation Act of 2009, moved out of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee today by voice vote. The bill now heads to the floor where it awaits consideration by the full Senate. A vote has not been scheduled.

Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who introduced the bill and is a leading proponent of marine life protection, was also a sponsor of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 signed by President Bill Clinton. Following passage of the initial bill, shark finning—whereby the fins of a living shark are routinely removed to create “delicacies” such as shark fin soup and the animal is discarded back into the sea to die an agonizing death—has been illegal in the United States since 2000 but enforcement was impeded by loopholes in the ban.

The passage of S. 850 ensures termination of the cruel and illegal act of shark finning in all US waters as Congress intended in 2000, and encourages other nations to follow suit. It also provides for clear rules for enforcement officials who, under the present system, were unable to identify shark species once fins were removed. Accurate species identification ensures endangered species are not being harvested and finning is not occurring.

Animal Welfare Institute President Cathy Liss said, “Shark finning is a cruel, frivolous and painful assault on myriad shark species facing decline on a global basis, and we are pleased that their protection from shark finning is now imminent. We look forward to the Senate taking immediate action on this responsible and bipartisan legislation.”

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), has filed suit against the US Navy over its plans to build a $100 million Undersea Warfare Training Range (USWTR) 50 miles east of the Jacksonville, Florida coast. The plans involve the construction of a 500 square nautical mile range and the operation of over 400 Navy war game exercises every year.

The USWTR has the potential to affect millions of marine animals including whales, dolphins, sea turtles and manatees, and the planned site lies adjacent to the only known calving grounds of the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale.

AWI is being represented by the non-profit public interest law firm Earthjustice in the suit which includes 12 other groups. The suit alleges the Navy and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which has authorized the project, did not properly analyze the environmental impacts of operating the range before deciding to construct it. The Navy acknowledges that more work is needed to assess the environmental impacts but it chose to proceed nevertheless.

“It is shocking that despite the concerns expressed by scientists, conservation and animal welfare groups, fishermen and the states of Georgia and Florida, the Navy decided to go ahead with the project without comprehensive impact assessments,” said Cathy Liss, President of AWI. “Scientists tell us that if a single female right whale is struck and killed, the species could go extinct. Extreme precaution is the only way to proceed when faced with such risks” she added.

The range will include the laying of cables on the sea bed to track the 470 war games exercises that will take place each year. Each exercise will include up to three Navy vessels, and two aircraft deploying exercise torpedoes, parachutes and sonobuoys. Debris from the exercises will be abandoned, posing entanglement and other hazards to marine animals. Active sonar will be used during the exercises and has been proven to harm and kill wildlife by disturbing essential behaviors such as nursing, feeding and breeding, causing physical injury and even causing animals to strand and die. Navy vessels—exempt from speed restrictions imposed on other vessels to avoid right whale collisions—will expose animals to the risk of being struck and maimed or killed.

“The number and severity of threats this range poses to the marine life of the lower Eastern Seaboard is incredible,” said Susan Millward, Executive Director of AWI and marine animal program manager. “The Navy has an obligation to ensure its actions do not threaten the environment and by allowing the Navy to proceed, NMFS is betraying the public’s trust in it to protect these animals.”

As the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) ends, the outcome appears disastrous for a multitude of imperiled species. While a handful of species was approved by the 175 CITES member nations for protections from international trade, all the marine species, including bluefin tuna, several shark species, 30 coral species, and the polar bear, were rejected in a meeting that may be a turning point for the future of CITES.

“While politics is inevitably inherent to the CITES process, science should predominate in determining if species require restrictions in international commercial trade,” stated Susan Millward, Executive Director of the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) who was present in Doha for the duration of the meeting. “At this meeting science took a back seat to politics with Japan and China leading anti-conservation efforts, denying several marine species desperately needed protections,” she added.

Species rejected for increased protections include hammerhead sharks which have declined by up to 98 percent in the Northwest Atlantic, the oceanic whitetip shark which has suffered enormous declines in the northwest and west central Atlantic, the porbeagle shark which has declined to less than 30 percent of historical baseline in the North and South Atlantic, and the spiny dogfish which has declined by as much as 99 percent in some populations. The porbeagle shark was initially approved for CITES protection but the decision was overturned when revisited in a plenary session. The Atlantic bluefin tuna, which continues to be massively overexploited to satisfy the demand for the sushi and sashimi markets in Japan, was a victim of intensive lobbying efforts while the polar bear lost despite being threatened by both climate change and international commercial trade.

D.J. Schubert, AWI’s wildlife biologist noted, “The corruption, vote-buying, and burgeoning pervasiveness of politics that is increasingly commonplace within CITES demonstrates that this treaty is broken and needs repair so that species requiring protection will get it based on science alone, with politics set aside for the benefit of international conservation.”

The devastation caused by the explosion and sinking of the BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico will likely unfold as the worst environmental disaster in US history. Though wildlife rescuers are hard at work, many animals are expected to die, including highly vulnerable species such as the brown pelican, manatee, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, and bluefin tuna. Financial support for clean-up efforts is not needed at this time since BP is, rightly, covering all expenses related to this tragedy. What is needed, however, is a strong public outcry against endangering the oceans in this way.

AWI joined over a hundred other groups on a letter (see below) asking the Senate to oppose all efforts to expand offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling off of our coasts.

Please send a similar message to your US Representative (House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515) and Senators (Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510). To find your Senators and Representative please visit AWI’s Compassion Index.

May 3, 2010

United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator:

On behalf of our organizations, and the millions of members they represent, we are writing you today to urge the United States Senate to reconsider any plans to include expanded offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling in any legislation. In light of the events surrounding the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico, our organizations urge you to oppose efforts to expand offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling off of our coasts. Expanding exploration and drilling into previously protected and remote areas is unacceptable when it is clear that we are not capable of responding to oil spills in a timely manner. The Senate faces a choice between leading America forward in a new clean energy economy or holding America back by preserving the failed energy policies of the past. This human and environmental catastrophe is proof positive that we must end our addiction to oil, enact a firm limit on carbon pollution, and ensure this type of disaster never happens again.

What began with the apparent tragic loss of 11 lives on April 21, 2010 now has the potential to be one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history. The unfolding catastrophe clearly illustrates that offshore drilling is an inherently dangerous, risky, and dirty business. Furthermore, these events raise numerous questions about the safety and environmental safeguards that are intended to protect our coastlines. If we cannot contain an oil spill in the very temperate Gulf of Mexico, how can we have any faith that a similar disaster does not await the “exploratory” drilling currently planned for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in the extreme conditions of the Arctic Ocean where we already know technology does not exist to clean up a spill in icy water.

Currently, the oil slick resulting from the Deepwater Horizon disaster continues to grow, posing hazards to marine wildlife. The slick of toxic oil has made landfall on the coastline of Louisiana and threatens the coasts of Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Exposure to the oil will likely have devastating impacts for coastal and marine wildlife and commercial and recreational fisheries.

Oil can persist in the environment long after a spill. This prolonged exposure to oil could result in major impacts on the coastal economies of the Gulf region. Gulf of Mexico fisheries are among the most productive in the world. In 2008, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the commercial fish and shellfish harvest from the five U.S. Gulf states was estimated to be 1.3 billion pounds valued at $661 million. The Gulf also contains four of the top seven fishing ports in the nation by landed weight. The Gulf of Mexico has eight of the top 20 fishing ports in the nation by dollar value of landings.

Accidents happen, and they will continue to happen in the future. Any expanded offshore exploration and drilling should be off the table. Instead, legislation should focus on emphasizing development of carbon-free energy technologies, including offshore and land-based wind power and solar power, consistent with the protection of wildlife and ecosystems, and the development of a meaningful national renewable electricity standard.

Provisions creating new incentives (such as state revenue sharing) or reduced safeguards for expanded offshore drilling are simply not acceptable. The energy bill reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA) of 2009, reverses the bipartisan agreement reached in the 2006 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA). The language would allow drilling within 10 miles of Pensacola, and shrink the current 125-mile-wide buffer elsewhere along Florida’s West Coast to 45 miles. Clearly, an accident similar to the Deepwater Horizon would devastate Florida’s coast regardless of buffers provided in the bill. We oppose inclusion of any such provisions in legislation considered by this Congress.

The numbers don’t lie. There is not enough oil off of our shores to make America energy independent or to reduce gas prices. But, clearly there is enough to damage ocean and coastal ecosystems and billion-dollar coastal economies. Instead of expanding offshore oil drilling, responsible climate legislation needs to focus on innovation and investment in clean, renewable, carbon-free energy that creates jobs and protects our coastal economies and ecosystems.

The Senate has a profound responsibility to build a clean energy future for our nation without sacrificing our oceans and coasts in the process. Now is the time for strong clean energy and climate policy. It is up to you to ensure that we put the United States on the path to economic, environmental and national security.

Sincerely,

Oceana
1 Sky
350.org
Alaska Wilderness League
Alaska’s Big Village Network
Animal Welfare Institute
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Water Advocacy
Clean Ocean Action
Climate Solutions
Conservation Law Foundation
Cook Inletkeeper
Credo Action
Defenders of Wildlife
Earthjustice
Endangered Species Coalition
Environment America
Environment Arizona
Environment California
Environment Colorado
Environment Connecticut
Environment Florida
Environment Georgia
Environment Illinois
Environment Iowa
Environment Maine
Environment Maryland
Environment Massachusetts
Environment Michigan
Environment Minnesota
Environment Montana
Environment Nevada
Environment New Jersey
Environment New Mexico
Environment New York
Environment North Carolina
Environment Ohio
Environment Oregon
Penn Environment
Environment Rhode Island
Environment Texas
Environment Virginia
Environment Washington
Wisconsin Environment
Environment and Energy Study Institute
Environmental Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace USA
Green For All
Gulf Coast Environmental Defense
International Fund for Animal Welfare
International Forum on Globalization
League of Conservation Voters
Alaska Conservation Voters
Conservation Alabama
Arizona League of Conservation Voters
California League of Conservation Voters
Colorado Conservation Voters
Connecticut League of Conservation Voters
Florida Conservation Alliance
Georgia Conservation Voters
Conservation Voters for Idaho
Maine League of Conservation Voters
Maryland League of Conservation Voters
Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters
Michigan League of Conservation Voters
Conservation Minnesota
Missouri Votes Conservation
Montana Conservation Voters
Nevada Conservation League
Oregon League of Conservation Voters
Conservation Voters New Mexico
Conservation Council of North Carolina
Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania
Conservation Voters of South Carolina
Tennessee Conservation Voters
Texas League of Conservation Voters
Vermont League of Conservation Voters
Virginia League of Conservation Voters
Washington Conservation Voters
Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters
Wyoming Conservation Voters
League of Women Voters
Marine Fish Conservation Network
MoveOn.org
Montana Audubon
Natural Resources Defense Council
National Audubon Society
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
Ocean Champions
Ocean Conservation Research
Oil Change International
Pacific Environment
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Planning and Conservation League
Progress Florida
Redoil
Safe Climate Campaign
Sierra Club
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
Southern Environmental Law Center
Spirit of the Sage Council
Sport Fishing Magazine
Surfrider Foundation
The Habitat Trust for Wildlife
The Wilderness Society
Waterkeeper Alliance
Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society
Western Nebraska Resources Council.
World Wildlife Fund

With less than two weeks to go before representatives from more than 80 governments meet in Agadir, Morocco, to decide on a proposal to lift the 24-year ban on commercial whaling, conservation groups have released a range of simple on-line, independent statistics that clearly demonstrate not only how the current International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) ban has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of whales, but also the inconsistencies behind claims that the new proposal will actually save the lives of whales.

The on-line animated graphs published today by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), Humane Society International (HSI), and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), use figures from whaling nations and the IWC to provide the user with a clear overview of the numbers of whales killed from when the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling was signed in 1946 to the present day. The real facts and figures illustrate how effective the current ban has been and sweep away claims by those who advocate lifting the current ban on the grounds that it has not been successful.

“This set of animated graphics is a simple reminder that it is important to stick to the real facts before calling for an end to what has proved to be one of the biggest successes in conservation history,” says Sue Fisher, Policy Director, WDCS North America.

Fisher adds: “Many governments are either being misled or are trying to mislead others by referring to ‘catch quotas’ when talking about actual whales being killed—the two are not the same. These graphs display not just the actual numbers of whales killed within the various categories—commercial, scientific and aboriginal subsistence whaling —but also clearly document the difference between the catch quotas self-allocated by the whaling nations and the actual numbers of whales killed.”

Susan Millward, Executive Director of the Animal Welfare Institute, explains: “By increasing the self-allocated catch quotas, whaling nations have been playing mind games with the figures and pressuring the rest of the international community into legalizing commercial whaling so that it does not get out of control. In fact, in some countries like Norway the actual number of whales killed decreased in the past years due to lack of demand for whale meat.”

According to Humane Society International Vice President, Kitty Block, “What we should be concentrating on is not lifting the successful ban that we currently have, but working harder on ways to force the three remaining industrial whaling nations to stop this cruel and unnecessary practice once and for all.”

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and other animal protection and conservation organizations have filed suit in federal court today against British Petroleum America, Inc., British Petroleum Exploration & Production and British Petroleum PLC (“BP”) for burning critically endangered sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico, in violation of the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws.

“It is horrifying that these innocent creatures whose habitat has already been devastated by the oil spill are now being burned alive,” said AWI President, Cathy Liss. “They are critically endangered and must be protected.”

As part of BP’s efforts to contain the massive oil spill that continues to devastate the Gulf of Mexico, BP is using “controlled burns” whereby oil is corralled by fire resistant booms dragged through the water by shrimp boats and then lit on fire. Endangered sea turtles, including the Kemp’s ridley, one of the rarest sea turtles on Earth, are caught in the gathered oil and unable to escape when the oil is set ablaze.

The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana by AWI along with the Center for Biological Diversity, Turtle Island Restoration Network and Animal Legal Defense Fund, after notice was given to BP on Monday of its ongoing violations of federal law and the groups’ intent to sue.

Under the suit, the plaintiffs have charged BP with violating the federal Endangered Species Act and the terms of its lease with the United States government for the Deepwater Horizon facility, which lease requires BP to comply with all federal environmental laws. The plaintiffs have asked the court to prevent BP from continuing to engage in burning activities in the Gulf of Mexico which kill or injure endangered sea turtles. The plaintiffs have also filed a Temporary Restraining Order seeking an immediate halt to the burning until, at a minimum, mechanisms are implemented that will prevent any additional sea turtles from being burned alive.

“While cleaning up the catastrophic oil spill is critically important, so too is doing it in a way which doesn’t destroy wildlife in a flagrantly unlawful manner,” said Liss.” We hope that our legal efforts will serve to protect the endangered sea turtles whose very existence hangs in the balance.”

BP and the United States Coast Guard, defendants in a lawsuit filed by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and other animal protection and conservation groups, agreed today to measures designed to prevent the burning of endangered sea turtles during efforts to remove oil from  the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

“We are pleased that BP and the Coast Guard have agreed to take a variety of actions to prevent the horrific burning alive of endangered sea turtles,” says AWI President Cathy Liss.

As part of efforts to contain the oil spill that continues to devastate the Gulf, BP has been using “controlled burns” whereby oil is corralled by fire resistant booms dragged through the water by “igniter” boats and then lit on fire. Endangered sea turtles, including the Kemp’s ridley, one of the rarest sea turtles on Earth, are caught in the gathered oil and are unable to escape when the oil is set ablaze.

The law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, acting on behalf of the plaintiffs, negotiated the interim agreement with BP and the US Coast Guard. The agreement was presented in federal court today to the Honorable Carl Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, who is presiding over the case.

By the terms of the agreement, BP and the Coast Guard stipulate that they will be ceasing burns until next week because of the weather. When the burns resume, the plaintiffs will be notified if there is a qualified biologist present for the purpose of locating and removing any turtles.

BP and the Coast Guard have further agreed to establish a standard operating protocol for the burns, and to convene a group of scientists to determine the necessary elements of the protocol to ensure the safety of the turtles.

In exchange for these measures, AWI and the other plaintiffs in the suit have agreed to withdraw their request for a Temporary Restraining Order calling for an immediate halt to the burns. The underlying suit, however, will remain in place.

“This agreement represents a critical stop-gap measure and a lifeline for these endangered turtles,” says Liss. “We hope this is the first step in the development of clear operating procedures that allow BP to remove oil without inflicting further harm on the turtles.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the Animal Welfare Institute, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Center for Biological Diversity and the Turtle Island Restoration Network.

UPDATE (July 8, 2010):

As a result of our lawsuit, the Coast Guard held an emergency technical meeting this past Saturday, July 3, in which the plaintiffs’ attorneys and a group of biologists specializing in turtle rescue participated to discuss the most effective protocols for protecting sea turtles for the remainder of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. Based on input from plaintiffs and independent biologists, the Coast Guard provided plaintiffs with a draft of proposed best management practices that will be implemented for the remainder of the BP oil spill response.

According to the draft plan, BP and the Coast Guard will now follow standardized protocols for turtle search, rescue, and rehabilitation with the assistance of qualified third-party biologists, who will accompany all burn teams involved in controlled burns of oil, as soon as the burns resume (burns have been temporarily suspended at this time due to weather).  Crews of biologists are currently standing by in the Gulf, ready to begin implementing the new turtle protection plan when burns resume.

The animal and environmental protection groups who filed suit to stop the burning of sea turtles are still working with BP and the Coast Guard to iron out details for a final protocol, and currently are providing comments and input on the draft protocol to ensure that the risk to turtles is minimized or eliminated.

After receiving comments from plaintiffs and independent biologists on the draft, the Coast Guard will issue its final practices and protocols for in-situ burns. Until that time, plaintiffs’ lawsuit will remain active before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in order to ensure that the final protocols follow the best available science in protecting sea turtles during any in-situ burns that occur in the Gulf.