Hi Mark: The Marine Mammals Potection Act was made in 1972, and ammended in 1988 and 1994. The definitions section to which I referred, 16 USC Sec 1362, is at http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t13t16+6504+0++16%3Acite%20w%2F3%201362 You can find all US federal statutes at http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm If you are new to finding your way through US statutes, a good tutorial can be found at Brandeis Unversity at http://www.brandeis.edu/departments/legal_studies/research/home.html It is usually difficult to find a pinpoint within the US Code unless you know what you are looking for ahead of time. Cornell University has a very handy searchable index at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ Ideally, though, a topical annotated index is usually the best place to start. For US enviromental issues, try the US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Wildlife Laws Handbook at http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/index_statute.htm If all else fails, the mother of all legal research web sites is Hieros Gamos http://www.hg.org/hgfr.html For a solid overview of the history of the MMPA and how it has been interpreted in the courts (particularly how the term "harassment" has been judicially defined), check out the report at the University of California at Davis http://ps.ucdavis.edu/classes/161-99/students/AH/statutoryevolution1.html Cases to look at include Strong v. United States -- feeding a dolphin disturbs its regular feeding pattern and makes it less likely to catch its own food; this distrbance constitutes harassment, so feeding a dolphin is illegal. Another interesting case is Tepley v. United States -- following whales with a power boat and then hopping into the water and extensively touching was originally deemed harassment, but was overturned on appeal -- what is interesting is the original trial court's non-binding obiter in recommending a distance between whales and watchers. The higher court shot down the lower court judge's strong stand by finding that the behavioural pattern was not disturbed (thus my position that bobbing and incidental touching is not a violation of the MMPA). BTW, it is worth seeing what Dr. Tepley has been doing recently to promote legislation to protect whales from low frequency active sonar. The case that really frustrates me is United States v. Hayashi, in which the Court of Appeal correctly found that no criminal penalty can be attached for negligent conduct concerning the MMPA -- in this one a fellow got off after trying to scare dolphins away from his fishing line by shoot toward them -- once again a bubba with a gun finds protection in his own stupidity. A solid decision, but one which I personally dislike. What I suggest these cases lead to is that harassment can be just about anything that causes or may cause harm, and harm includes a change in the basic behavioural pattern, but if there is no forseeable harm, then passive interaction is not prohibited. Cheers, Richard Culpeper *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Wed Oct 25 2000 - 19:30:19 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:30:33 PDT