The Endangered Species Act 4(d) rule "take" prohibitions could provide a legal precedent to protect Lolita from harmful conditions at the Miami Seaquarium and the local, state and federal governments which fail to prevent such harm.
"Liability for a take may not always rest with the entity directly responsible for the action. A series of recent cases demonstrates that governmental entities (federal, state, or local) that license or regulate conduct that results in harm to listed species can be indirectly liable for take." http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=907
As the government is not providing protection for which Lolita is legally entitled, the government itself should be held liable.
Let's hope that attorney Steven Wise will choose Lolita as the subject of his case for recognizing the legal status and rights of cetaceans as "persons."
There are far too many compelling reasons Lolita needs protection and legal rights:
- Lolita has been held captive in the smallest facility for the longest time
- She is the only living, captive, endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale
- The market demand created by the Miami Seaquarium for the capture of wild orcas was a primary contributor to her species becoming endangered
- The government has failed to protect Lolita under the Endangered Species Act for half a decade.
Although it's clear to a large constituency that keeping social, highly intelligent, communicative and intensely physical beings captive in tiny pools and subjected to operant conditioning in every aspect of their lives is immoral and unconscionable, the corporate constituency doesn't recognize morality or ethical decision making. So these two well thought out legal approaches are a good hope for making progress in freeing Lolita and other cetacean captives.
ReplyDeleteFor more than half a decade Lolita's legal rights under the Endangered Species Act have been effectively abrogated by the federal government.
ReplyDeleteIt exempted her from the protection she has always deserved by granting "grandfather" rights to the Miami Seaquarium.
This exemption violates the intent of the act and subjects Lolita to further endangerment.
What public purpose was served by the exemption?
Thanks for contributing, Free... sorry it took so long to publish your comment.