Some whale species were hunted nearly to extinction nearly a century ago. Over time, policymakers established some protections; the big one was the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972. Now, tens of thousands of whales migrate to and around Alaska’s waters every year.
But on July 22, Rep. Nick Begich III (R-AK) pitched the House Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries on rolling back parts of the act, claiming it has delayed energy development and port construction projects.
“As the decades have passed, we’ve also seen how its implementation, particularly in the use of vague or overly precautionary standards, has led to confusion, delay, and unintended harm,” Begich told the subcommittee. “In Alaska, we see this dynamic more than almost anywhere else.”
The representative called the legislation a “discussion draft” in an attempt to "modernize" the law. He said he’s committed to working across party lines and to hear directly from all stakeholders.
“My goal is simple,” Begich said. “I want a bill that protects marine mammals and also works for the people who live and work alongside them, especially in Alaska.”
Begich’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Forrest Burkholder, the president and CEO of SAExploration, a Texas-based geoscience and imaging company, told the subcommittee the way the Marine Mammal Protection Act has been interpreted has gone too far.
“Decades of regulation and litigation have caused the MMPA to be interpreted far more expansively than Congress intended, and exposed significant flaws in the plain language of the act,” the CEO said.
He claimed the initial goal of the act had “largely been realized.” Burkholder said Begich’s changes would continue to protect marine mammals, while making permitting more efficient and lead to more geoscience investment.
But some biologists are concerned what this means for Alaska’s marine mammals.
Lauren Eckert, the board president of the Alaska Whale Foundation, a Petersburg-based nonprofit, said the permitting process is deliberately slow. Streamlining it could lead to irreparable damage.
“Large projects may be approved because there’s no ability to regulate them under this incidental harm concern only for us to find out and provide evidence 10 years later that a project has caused considerable harm to a species, at which point, it may be too late,” Eckert told KMXT.
She said the MMPA has been critical for populations growing again, but those animals could be facing major struggles again soon.
“Despite major recoveries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, we recognized through our research that whales – humpbacks and gray whales – are once again at risk due to climate change,” Eckert said. “We’ve seen declines across health metrics for whales in our study area in Southeast Alaska over the last 10 years.”
One major change Begich is proposing lowers population goals for marine mammals to mere survival from its current line, encouraging “maximum productivity.” The proposed changes also soften language defining harm and harassment to marine mammals.
Eckert said the act is a major reason for why no marine mammals have gone extinct since it was implemented.
“It’s been lauded as a real success in terms of stabilizing marine mammal populations, including here in Alaska,” she said.
But some whale species are still facing major struggles.
Nearly a third of Eastern North Pacific gray whales, which migrate between Alaska and Mexico, died from 2018 to 2023 in what scientists called an unusual mortality event. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found the animals largely died from starvation, with others killed by orcas, entanglements and ship strikes.
Matt Van Daele, the natural resources director of the Sun’aq Tribe, said at least 10 dead gray whales and another 10 humpbacks were reported in the area just this summer, including three that washed up near Kodiak’s road system. All three were likely killed by orcas.
“This isn't even, historically, the busy season yet,” Van Daele said. “It’s later in the season that we see this uptick.”
Both Van Daele and Eckert agree that Begich’s proposed legislation could add further stressors to the already struggling populations.
The next step for the bill is to be heard by the House Natural Resources Committee.
