The SRKW (Southern Resident Killer Whales) are in deep trouble. Several counties in Western Washington have endorsed a policy in which the whales are recognized as having “inherent rights”
Please write your SJC council members to request that San Juan County also endorse the idea that our “Orcas” deserve to be given the inherent right to exist.
Your note to the SJC council can be short; here’s a sample email:
“I live on <insert your island name> island and I support SJC adopting a proclamation recognizing the inherent rights of the Southern Resident Orcas without delay.
What you can do:
Background:
(From Kriss Kevorkian *)
“You might have seen/heard the news that Mayor David Faber of Port Townsend read a proclamation recognizing the inherent rights of the Southern Resident Orcas!
On Monday, December 12th, Mayor Markley of Gig Harbor, acknowledged a similar proclamation.
To top off the last month of 2022, the Langley City Council and Mayor Scott Chaplin supported a similar proclamation while acknowledging the Orca Network in their city.
We are hoping that more city/county councils/commissioners will follow Mayor Faber, Mayor Markley, and Mayor Chaplin’s leadership and commitment to Nature, and as they do so, that we will finally get legislation introduced that will recognize the inherent rights of the Southern Resident Orcas.
I hope you’ll take a moment to review our toolkit that is filled with pertinent information about the rights of Nature movement, and our campaign on behalf of the Southern Resident Orcas.
As Ken Balcomb, the world’s preeminent observer of the Southern Residents, said, For us to be able to live on this planet with those amazing creatures, it’s a gift. And we’re killing the gift. “
|
It would be useful if there was an explanation of how the SRKW’s would benefit in any way by giving them the human concept of legal protections, and explain how this would differ from all the protections afforded by the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, State Legislators etc?
And why just SRKW’s? Why not Dungeness crabs, chinook salmon, harbor seals, razor clams, and the thousands of other forms of ocean life? And why stop at ocean life?
As a long time beach naturalist and environment advocate, giving legal rights to animals or even one animal species begs a lot more explanation and discussion than just sending a message to a Council member.
As Robert points out, “ giving legal rights to animals or even one animal species begs a lot more explanation and discussion than just sending a message to a Council member.”
At the risk of the dreaded TL:DR (too long, didn’t read) the following document goes into considerable depth on the concept, and describes the results from a number of countries (Ecuador, Bolivia, New Zealand, etc) where variations of Nature’s Rights have been implemented. The author examines a number of the practical aspects that must be defined and considered by such legislation.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol45/iss2/2/
CAN PERSONHOOD PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT? AFFORDING LEGAL RIGHTS TO NATURE
(FORDHAM INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL)
Robert, I might liken it to cleaning a messy house. Am I able to wash the dishes, do laundry, vacuum, mop, clean out the fridge and stop the toilet from overflowing etc all in one single action? No, I have to start somewhere. Given the state of human systems, with the particularly large task of restoring nature, it’s necessary to be strategic and do things that are attainable and can open doors to next steps. It also happens that the Southern Residents are out of time. They are in immediate need of remedy. But the initiative is also to encourage others to find their paths. Which you’ve suggested. You should absolutely seek rights for other species and that’s where it leads.
Explanations you seek are available at the website provided. There are 12 pages of FAQs there. You can also get in touch with their law expert partners who can tell you why rights are different than protections like the ESA and why that matters. There have been webinars and many recent articles written around the Puget Sound that explore these questions.
Should we not send a message to SJC council asking for a proclamation for the orcas because acknowledging their inherent rights opens the way to more questions? Well, firstly a proclamation can be done in 10 minutes, so it isn’t resource intensive. And secondly, for example it doesn’t seem to be a problem to do land acknowledgements for indigenous peoples even though we know they are non binding, and alone are not full remedy for all tribes everywhere for all harms put on them. These acknowledgments are eagerly sought and widely celebrated. They are an integral part of concrete changes happening.
Inherent rights of the orcas also aligns with and has local tribal recognition. A SJC proclamation is a furtherance of indigenous commitments and considerations this county has made.
Before embarking on doing something, do we not first define what it is and confirm to ourselves if we desire it? That’s a proclamation of acknowledgment. If we aren’t clear about what we want, it’s unlikely to happen given the trajectory we’re on, and being still muddled in the tradition of past practices. I hope you find answers and unleash your suggestions. And I hope there will be cross support for all efforts to stop the orcas imminent crossover to unstoppable extinction happening this very day, as well as all efforts to restore biodiversity and nature.
Great reference Vince. A really helpful tool to work out the snags. Aside from the masses accepting of it, acknowledging that nature has a right to exist has elicited some disbelief, even distaste, which raises the suitability of current human-contrived systems for this planet. That study is also an excellent tool to plan for our priorities. If we have those priorities straight, we can get there responsibly using such in depth exploration and other studies that take it further.
The proclamation is simply one expression along the way. One that’s in keeping with the future health of humans as well as popular preference for the critically endangered orcas. The proclamation itself does not impose limitations on humans or lead to diminishing rights of humans. It is not designed to be restrictive. What ensues can, and I suspect will, be constructs that are significantly more beneficial to humans as well as all life forms. After all, humans are not apart from nature. The more damaged nature becomes, the more difficult, costly and time consuming it is for humans to cope. Those are very unsavory restrictions already put on us and getting worse. Let’s alleviate that.
There are seeming challenges however I think we’ll have to be willing to unpaint ourselves from the corner since there isn’t much room left in the corner. Humans have demonstrated that we’re very good at doing things once we’ve decided we want to. We’ve also shown that we tend to defer for too long on many things that unnerve us for one reason or another, resulting in the continuance of well worn but harmful practices that leave us worse off than trying something new. That behavior has a shelf life. The point comes when it is no longer an option. Another human trait is that we become brave and energized to make effort for what we love. As inapplicable as some might consider love to be, it causes people to help solve the work you alluded to and can get us out of the rut. Whether or not it’s widely believed, the proclamation will lead more people to do more work to solve problems and save the orcas.
Today’s Orcasonian thought quote says a lot about attaining what we need to materialize our priorities versus our current toolset that hasn’t been designed to do so.
“The most important discoveries will provide answers to questions that we do not yet know how to ask and will concern objects we have not yet imagined.” – John N. Bahcall
“Discoveries” isn’t to say all the tools don’t yet exist, only that we haven’t seen them yet, or looked. Thank you for sharing great material.
Vince, well written reference that generally advocates for the rights of nature, but also quite fairly discusses the legal difficulties in multiple countries implementing the concept, mostly in either lesser developed countries.
I think we could all agree the vast majority of citizens want reasonable environmental protections. But triggered by the Cuyahoga River catching fire in 1969, the National Environmental Protection Act was signed by a Republican president no less in 1970. Later that same year, the Environmental Protection Act was sign. Clean Water Act followed. Then the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Environmental protections are now required by both dozens of federal and state agencies.
Virtually every significant project planned in the United States that effects the natural environment now requires some form or multiple forms of regulatory reviews. Tribal governments, environmental organizations, and private citizens can and often do file lawsuits … hundreds of them. Litigation, costly, but that’s their existing rights.
The fundamental question is whether, in this country, should a rights of nature legal structure be constructed and added to what already exists? Would that change anything, or should the cost and effort be put into refining the EPA and Ecology framework that currently exists?
A proclamation about SRKW’s is not going to change anything. It’s a piece of paper. Tying that to setting up a legal construct that permits plants and animals and rivers and forests, etc. to have their own legal rights is the much more significant issue.
Power and rights are zero sum games- except that they aren’t games, they are human institutions. To give one entity a right is to take away the power of another entity to behave contrary to that right. The first claims directly or through advocates certain rights while the second objects to as curtailment of what they believe their right. It isn’t a question of giving nonhuman creatures rights. It’s a question of restricting the behavior of human beings.
Where “natural rights” have been given to rivers, human protective intervention (such as a trustee, or enforcement of animal cruelty laws) to prevent acts by other humans has always been required. This is a human business, not a “nature” business.
Raring back and declaring rights in natural flora, fauna and land forms must be explicit and have consequences for violators. This must be imposed by a body that has the legal capacity to impose them. Counties have some capacity, but the state has the greater power, and when it exercises that power, unless specific exemption is made in law, that subject matter has been “preempted,” that is, a county cannot, for instance, add to a state regulation on the same subject without express state permission. A real job would involve a serious review of what counties can and cannot do, and serious state lobbying in areas of concern that are blocked.
So if people want to protect particular or all wild creatures, be prepared to look to the state, not the county, for resolution. Articles advocating rights of nature provide empty emotional catharsis however strongly felt. This is attractive, but not effective. Why exhaust valuable energies in vain? Think of a steam engine: to be of any practical use, steam needs to be in the cylinder, not the whistle.
The basic question for me is, “Will we humans recognise that our well being ultimately depends on recognizing that we are not separate from Nature?” When parts of the natural world are disintegrating, we must pay attention. The alarming decline in Southern Resident orcas tells me that the cumulative effects of our business-as-usual behavior threatens not only these amazing and wonderful fellow creatures, but also threatens our own well being.
Have all the human’s rights been unenforceable “empty emotional catharsis”? They’re exercised all the time. For those who consider rights are ineffective, what would their response be to relinquishing them? On one hand Bill is saying rights have no effect but also that giving rights here takes power of rights away there. It can’t be both. But certainly, as our life support system degrades, so does what those rights can confer.
The impression I’m getting Robert, is a view that any undertaking meant to help the orcas that isn’t legally binding will not “change anything”. Which means not to educate, inspire people to make changes and get involved, not to lead to next steps. But I can’t think of any concrete change that has occurred, law or not, that wasn’t preceded by a multitude of non-binding actions that built crucial support and a platform to get there. Same for change in law, many steps and affirmations precede binding law. Laws are built and defined on practices and behavior. There are material (non-binding) things between point A and B.
Regarding your fundamental question, first ask what existing laws do. They give “protections” constrained by certain parameters and other priorities up to a point that is a very low bar for what a species, especially like the Southern Residents actually need. ESA only protects when in crisis mode. Protection is gone long before recovery.
SRKWs needs are too far out of range for what refining is capable of, which begs the question of putting “the” cost and effort into refining them. Who’s? There’s more manpower than can fit in the statute space of protections for the orcas. There’s plenty of manpower to take up the realm of rights without causing a deficit to the protection zone even if more are sent in to work with existing law.
To be clear, go full force to enforce what exists and raise that bar. I don’t see an “either or” situation. But to expect improving the existing legal framework up to a metric that in the climate of the PNW allows the orcas to reach recovery and thrive seems like trying to put a gallon of water in a teaspoon. It conjures visions of Mr. Bean skits. Rights are designed with those metrics. The point is to take SRKW out of the degraded landscape of dueling with other wants that are far from existential and in many cases frivolous.
Looking at another issue that posed seemingly insurmountable logistics for the status quo, it wasn’t convenient for powers at the time to free slaves and bind their rights, but it was the only way to stop the harm put on them.
In the meantime, strictly on the level of logistical responsibility, the orca proclamation itself doesn’t impose on SJC headquarters. It’s a reflection of the universally proclaimed desire for orca recovery. If we’re finding hesitation to simply write it down then we may need to take another look at that desire.
Bla bla bla… Short of teaching the SRKWs to eat more than only salmon, the only help for them is restoring the rivers and streams that the salmon use to propagate. Stop all rural development and remove all the dams. But let’s get real. That probably won’t happen.
Should we be recognizing the “inherent rights” of the harbor seals and sea lions, also?
A declaration of ephemeral rights may encourage activists, and from the activist side, such an action is commendable. I understand the catharsis of shared energies. Nevertheless, I would invite supporters of the proposed declaration to look at another side.
The Puget Sound whale watch industry is a 216 million dollar industry.
The Puget Sound salmon industry was in 2017 a 100 million dollar industry preying upon a shrinking number of salmon.
Together, these industries support tens of thousands of jobs in the Puget Sound area alone.
Now imagine yourself as a whale watch operator. An unpleasant thought for some, perhaps, but necessary to understand the reality of “enforcement or nothing:”
You are an enlightened whale watch operator. Your tour boat is wind-powered, almost perfectly silent in Puget Sound waters. Orcas hear only your wake. But your competition! … VROOOOOM! They speed past you to catch a pod. You sail to a discrete distance from where the pod was discovered, and find it no longer there, your competition streaking off a legal distance from the pod, effectively herding it into salmon-free waters. What do you do? Your competition is operating entirely legally. And you are getting no customers. This is the reality.
Considering the enormous economic forces involved, it will take far more than declaring rights in Orcas (which is dangerously close to saying, “People should be nice to orcas”) , and as Marcia points out, why not seals and sea lions- they ALL eat salmon which are also becoming endangered.
We are stripping the planet while learning the consequences only as they happen, but are unwilling to alter the lifestyles to which we feel entitled and to which we are accustomed. Espousing natural rights while waiting for someone else to give up or lose their livelihood or substantial income without considering alternatives reasonably satisfactory and fair is only half the political equation. Can anyone come up with feasible alternatives?
Bill, you are a lawyer. Help me understand what legal effect such proclamations have. We spend SO much time and energy on what seem to be, ultimately, purely performative action.
Well, in light of the fact that nothing else seems to be happening… what’s wrong with others putting their energy into what may amount to nothing more than further recognition of our local whale population?
Like most things in politics, if you’re not doing anything positive about it… then perhaps getting out of the way of those who are might be the best thing that you could do.
“I can’t think of any concrete change that has occurred, law or not, that wasn’t preceded by a multitude of non-binding actions that built crucial support and a platform to get there.” Heather Nicholson
Peg, these efforts have no legal effect. They create no enforceable restraint on human behavior , so whatever went on before the declaration continues after the declaration.
Senator Lovelett and others have sponsored a bill in the current legislative session to increase the whale watching distance to 1000 yards. I suggest that this is where supporters of the proposed declaration might more fruitfully focus their efforts.