COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 36 Number 8
April 2009
Two fishermen charged with whale “takes”
BOSTON, MA - The US Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts has filed charges against two commercial fishermen for interacting with endangered whales.
The exact circumstances that led to the filing of the charges had not been disclosed at press time, but each of the men involved had been notified that, if found guilty, he could face significant fines and possibly probation.
The first case was filed on March 9 in US District Court in Boston against Robert J. Eldridge Jr. of Chatham, MA. According to court documents, Eldridge is alleged to have “knowingly and unlawfully” engaged in the “take” of a humpback whale on or about July 10, 2008 while aboard the fishing vessel Unicorn.
The second case was filed on March 11 in US District Court in Boston against Christopher Jacques of Gloucester. According to the complaint, Jacques is being charged with “taking” two humpback whales within the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary on or about July 23, 2008 while aboard the fishing vessel Lisa Rose.
Both complaints include lengthy narratives of how the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) painstakingly define the term “take.”
In the complaint against Jacques, the emphasis is on the meaning of “take” under the MMPA, which states that “take” means “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.”
The complaint further notes that the term “harassment” means “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.”
It also includes any such act that “has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”
In the complaint against Eldridge, both the ESA and MMPA are cited.
In addition to the prohibitions under the MMPA listed above, the Eldridge complaint notes that the ESA defines the term “take” to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in such conduct.” It further makes it unlawful to “possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship by any means any (endangered) species.”
Permit required
The complaint against Eldridge consists of three counts. Count one alleges that the defendant did “take” a humpback. Count two alleges the defendant did “knowing and unlawfully possess” a humpback. And count three alleges the defendant did “take” a humpback “by acts of pursuit, torment, and annoyance, which had the potential to injure” the marine mammal in the wild.
Several sources, including an interview with another local fisherman that was published in the Cape Cod Times, suggested that Eldridge was carrying an observer aboard his vessel when he found a whale entangled in his fishing gear and that he spent time attempting to free the animal and eventually succeeded.
While some who were tracking the case suggested that Eldridge was more hero than villain for this alleged response to the situation, the law requires anyone interacting with a large whale or any other endangered species to have a federal permit that allows “taking” of such an animal.
Disentanglement teams, like the one from the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies (PCCS), have this kind of permit. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issues these permits, and individuals who are officially part of the NMFS Disentanglement Network are required to have very specific training.
Many commercial fishermen have gone through the training required to become certified at various levels and are legally cleared to participate in disentanglement efforts.
Whale strikes
The complaint against Jacques appears to allege that he hit two whales with his boat.
This complaint, too, consists of three counts. Count one alleges that the defendant did “take” a humpback, “designated herein as humpback #1 by acts of pursuit, torment, and annoyance … including, but not limited to, striking humpback whale #1 with a boat.”
Count two is similarly worded, designating the humpback involved as “humpback #2.” Count three alleges that the defendant did “take a marine mammal,” meaning humpbacks #1 and #2, “by acts of pursuit, torment, and annoyance” in a way that caused “disruption of behavioral patterns.”
Precedents?
The three charges against each defendant were all categorized as misdemeanors. But the complaints, which lacked any detail about what really happened during the alleged offenses, raised plenty of questions, including whether they signaled the start of a new enforcement offensive against fishermen who accidentally encountered large whales.
Christina Sterling, spokesman for the US Attorney’s Office, noted that, in the charges filed against Eldridge, “We did not confirm entanglement.”
She added, “We have not released the exact cause for the charge.”
Andy Cohen, special agent in charge of the NMFS Office for Law Enforcement Northeast Region, also was not inclined to give additional information about the circumstances of the charges.
He did, though, follow up to explain that, while NMFS enforcement investigates all violations of the MMPA and ESA, it does not forward “de minimis” cases for prosecution. De minimis is a Latin term used in legal circles to describe offenses “of minimum importance.”
“However,” Cohen added, “cases involving intentional or reckless takings or takings that result from negligence may be forwarded for criminal or civil prosecution.”
Convictions of such violations can result in a year in prison, followed by a year of probation and a $100,000 fine, he said.
Cohen concluded by saying that the Eldridge and Jacques cases were unrelated to each other.
“The timing is coincidental,” he said.
Lorelei Stevens
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
