Welcome & Introduction€¦ · Welcome & Introduction from the Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife Survey The coastal zone of the Los Angeles region is one of the most populous and culturally

Welcome & Introductionfrom the Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife Survey

The coastal zone of the Los Angeles region is one of the most populousand culturally diverse urban settings in the United States. It is also one ofCalifornia's most valuable economic and environmental resources. Peopleuse the coastal zone for a variety of purposes: recreation, wildlife andpeople watching, fishing, and tourism. The coastal zone is also increasinglythreatened by development and human encroachment into coastal habitat,as well as pollution from a variety of sources. Tremendous economicpressures to develop the few remaining parcels of open space fuelcontroversy among environmentalists, developers, and local government.As the regional population increases and becomes more diversified,conflicts over issues pertaining to human interactions with marine wildlifeare becoming more commonplace. Increasing demands on recreationalfacilities such as beaches and boardwalks and ecological attractions suchas tidepools, kelp forests, and coastal marshes are fostered by the culturalpursuits of local residents and visitors who use the coastal zone.

For example, despite regulations against the collection of tidepool animalsfrom certain Southern California beaches, lack of enforcement personnel

allows people to collect unchecked creatures like limpets, mussels, and sea stars for food. Also, controversyswirls around the negative impacts of seals and sea lions on fish catches despite widespread support of theMarine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), with pinnipeds consuming less than 10% of anglers' catches. Thepublic, however, is often horrified to learn of legal pinneped shootings and killings authorized in a 1994amendment to the MMPA when particular creatures are deemed a threat to fish catches. Humans andanimals often have conflicting needs as our paths intersect in and near the coastal zones.

To gain a better understanding of relationships between Southern California's diverse population andattitudes toward marine animals in urban settings, SeaGrant funded a random telephone survey of 850 adultLos Angeles residents. We asked respondents about their attitudes, use, interactions and experiences, andknowledge of marine wildlife and the coastal zone. Specifically, we were interested in how distinct culturalgroups differ in regard to their attitudes toward marine wildlife. The total survey sample was stratified by fourrace/ethnic groups (African-American, Asian-Pacific Islander, Latino, and White) to enable researchers to compare andcontrast attitudes of culturally diverse respondents.

Highlight: Of the 850 respondents to the survey, 35% were White, 35%Latino, 12% African American, and 10% Asian-Pacific Islander.

Highlights presents survey results and their implications for public policy and future research. These should be ofparticular interest to museums, aquariums, and educators who develop environmental education and outreach materialsfor diverse public audiences. The contents of the series will be electronically mailed periodically over a period of fourmonths, starting with this introductory issue. The complete collection is available here at the USC SeaGrant website.

HIGHLIGHTS CONTENTS

#1 - Welcome and Introduction

#2 - Beach Use and Cultural Diversity#3 - Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife#4 - Experience and Knowledge of Marine Wildlife#5 - Understanding Tolerance and Stigma Relating to Animal Practices

SEA GRANT

USC Sea Grant's mission is to fund research of the coastal regional and disseminate the results to educators, policymakers, and the public. USC Sea Grant maintains a specific thematic focus on the Urban Ocean. USC Sea Grant is partof a national network of research institutions funded through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) . The complete report on the results of this research, Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife among Residents ofSouthern California's Urban Coastal Zone (USCSG-TR-01-2001) , is available for purchase through the USC SeaGrant website.

We are excited to share these findings with you. If you have questions or would like further information, please contactus.

Beach Use and Cultural Diversity from the Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife Survey

With the second largest population in the United States, Los Angeles isstarved for park and recreational space, a fundamental feature of livablecities. The beach is among the last "natural" open spaces, unique because it isadjacent to the urban areas of Los Angeles, closer than most other open spaceresources to the densest parts of the city. Yet our beaches are increasinglythreatened by pollution and other urban pressures. Closures, warnings, andadvisories due to unsafe water conditions degrade the beach, limiting thealready short supply of open space in LA. Pollution negatively impacts boththe health of the beach ecosystem and human health.

This sections focuses on LA beach use, including beach accessibility forculturally diverse residents of Los Angeles County. Data reported here arederived from the USC Sea Grant publication Attitudes toward MarineWildlife among Residents of Southern California's Coastal Zone . Overallbeach use activities, for all racial/ethnic groups, are shown in the chart below.

FOCUS: Barriers to BeachAccess

Access to coastal ocean resources wasgenerally not seen as a problem by mostsurvey respondents: only 22% felt theydid not enjoy adequate access to localbeaches. Barriers respondents cited arelisted in the adjacent figure, showing thepercent of respondents who noted eachbarrier that affected them. Resultsshowed that Latinos and Asian-PacificIslanders were twice as likely to reportbarriers to access than other respondentgroups. Approximately one quarter of allthose who faced a barrier to beach accesscited beach pollution as the primaryfactor keeping them from visiting thebeach: almost half of Latino respondentsindicated that their perceptions of beach

pollution kept them from using the coastal zone's beaches. Though the vast majority of African American respondentsfelt they had adequate beach access, 45% of those who experienced barriers had trouble with transportation to the beach.

FOCUS: Latino Immigrants

Latino immigrants comprise a significant population of Los Angeles. Almost half of LA County's population isLatino, of which 75% are immigrants. Latino immigrants, in particular, are likely to have characteristics thatcould impede access to open space for beach leisure and recreation: lower median household income,residence in dense, inland urban communities, less access to automobile transportation, and limited Englishskills. Since park space per capita in Los Angeles is most scarce in areas with the highest percentages ofLatino residents, the beach is a vital recreational resource for these communities. While several studies haveinvestigated park usage, this study is the first to focus on the beach in terms of use and access.

The survey included 223 Latino immigrant respondents; this group was characterized by relatively loweducation levels and low-to-moderate household incomes with 94% earning less than $49,999 annually. Over64% of this group listed Spanish as the primary language spoken at home, and almost half had childrenunder age 18 living at home. With respect to beach use, our findings show that:

Almost three-quarters of Latino immigrant respondents visited the beach at least once over the two-yearperiod prior to the survey.

1.

The most common activities reported by nearly 90% of both men and women were sunbathing,swimming, or walking along the beach.

2.

Regardless of age, gender, language, or duration of residence in the U.S., the most commonly citedbarrier to beach use was pollution, with over 50% in each of these subsets citing it as their reason fornot visiting the beach.

3.

Highlight: Latino respondents living in the U.S. longer than 20 years wentto the beach less and participated in fewer activities than newer (less thanfive years in the U.S.) residents. Longer-term residents respondents weremore likely to participate in water sports, perhaps reflecting superiorincome status.

Activity and use patterns did not vary drastically by duration of residence in the U.S. Most differences thatwere present, however, occurred between new arrivals (less than five years in the U.S.) and the longestduration residents (more than 20 years in the U.S.). Newly arrived immigrants were more apt to use thebeach, compared with those living in the U.S. longer than 20 years (see table below). These differences arepossibly attributable to differences in family status (such as having younger children at home), age, andsocio-economic status. Perhaps because it is a low-cost activity, those with fewer economic resources areable to visit the beach more frequently; also, newer residents tend to be younger, and younger respondentshad higher rates of beach use.

# years in U.S. 0 days 1-3 days 4-11 days 12-720 days< 5 17% 35% 29% 17%

6-20 23% 34% 30% 15%> 20 38% 30% 25% 6%

Days Spent at the Beach over 2 Years, Latino Immigrants

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Varying reports of barriers to access across racial/ethnic groups suggest differential real and/orperceived barriers related to transportation and pollution, for example. Policy makers and educatorscould address such barriers through targeted programs such as providing better transportation frominland to coastal areas or increasing public education efforts relating to beach use safety.Targeted outreach and education programs to populations living in inland urban zones that include thosemost apt to report barriers to access, could increase awareness and stimulate interest in the marineenvironment.

Given the high proportion of Spanish speakers among Latino immigrants, bilingual signage throughoutthe coastal zone would improve coastal awareness for this significant share of the population.

Attitudes toward Marine Wildlifefrom the Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife Survey

To understand how different people value the marine environment, and marinewildlife in particular, the USC Sea Grant survey included 35 questions to assessrespondents' attitudes. Responses shed light on how different groups within thepopulation perceive and value various marine resources, with a focus on marinewildlife. This section of Highlights presents findings about attitudes revealed bythe survey and how attitudes differed across race/ethnic groups.

The survey's attitude questions were classified into two broad value categories:anthropocentric and biocentric. Within these designations, we identified tenspecific attitudes. Respondents could "agree/disagree" along a scale fromstrongly agree (+2) to strongly disagree (-2), with no opinion coded as zero.

Thus we could rate respondents' strength of agreement or disagreement with particular attitude positions.

Anthropocentric attitudes prioritize humans and value nature in terms of its benefits or costs to people. Specificanthropocentric attitudes are identified below, along with sample statements that illustrate the attitude.

Utilitarian-stewardship : foremost interest in the practical value of animals and the naturalenvironment"The most important reason to protect areas where fish mature and reproduce is to insure that peoplewill have enough fish to eat in the future."

Utilitarian-dominionistic: principal concern for the mastery or control of animals and nature"I think that recreational fishing is fine, regardless of whether you eat the fish you catch."

Negativistic: fundamental interest in avoidance of animals due to indifference, dislike, or fear ofanimals"When I go to the beach, I don't go in the water because there might be unpleasant animals like jellyfishor crabs there."

Aesthetic: primary interest in the physical attraction or beauty of animals and nature"If I had to choose, I'd rather snorkel than surf because snorkeling allows me to see beautiful fish."

Animal welfare: principal concern for the right and wrong treatment of animals and nature"Keeping smart animals like seals and killer whales in aquariums is cruel."

Supernatural: fundamental interest in the supernatural properties of animals and nature"I avoid some kinds of animals because they bring bad luck."

Biocentric attitudes prioritize animals and nature and value the environment for its inherent value. Specificbiocentric attitudes are identified below, along with sample statements from the survey.

Environmental-naturalistic: primary interest in direct contact with wildlife in undisturbed,natural settings"If I were to support the protection of coastal marshes or wetlands, it would be to allow

seabirds to live in their natural habitat."

Environmental-stewardship : principal concern for ecological characteristics of wildlife andnatural habitats"The most important reason to prevent oil spills is because local populations of sea birdscould be wiped out."

Animals rights: foremost concern for the rights and well-being of individual animals"We should not keep marine animals in aquariums because they have the right to be free."

Coexistence: primary interest in the harmonious coexistence between humans and animals"It's OK when pelican steal fish from commercial fishermen because pelicans have to eat,too."

Highlight: One focus of our query of attitudes was attitudinal changes fromrespondents' childhood to adulthood. Half the survey respondents indicated a changein their attitudes about animals and the environment. Of those, almost 90%recognized a shift from never thinking about protecting the environment as a child tothinking about environmental protection as an adult. Ninety-five percent ofrespondents indicated that as adults they had a better understanding of the need forhumans and animals to live together on Earth, and that they recognized howimportant animals are to our ecology. When asked why their attitudes had changedsince childhood, the number one response (50% of those who indicated an attitudinalshift) was that they know more about animals now that they are adults.

FOCUS: Overall Attitudes and Cultural Diversity

Overall, respondents expressed Environmental-stewardship and Aesthetic attitudes most strongly. Animal Welfare,Animal Rights, and Environmental-naturalistic attitudes were also moderately strong. In contrast, Utilitarian-dominionistic and Utilitarian-stewardship attitude scores were weak.

Differences in attitudes across racial/ethnic groups were notable, however (see figure below). The strongest contrastswere between Latinos and Asian-Pacific Islanders. Latinos were the most biocentric group overall, while Asian-PacificIslanders were the most anthropocentric. Latinos had the highest overall Environmental-stewardship scores and alsowere more supportive of statements in favor of human-animal Coexistence. Asian-Pacific Islander respondents exhibitedstronger Utilitarian attitudes than the other groups and were much less likely to support Animal Welfare statements.African Americans and Whites fell in the middle range of responses.

Highlight: Asian-Pacific Islanders were the only group thatexpressed strong Utilitarian-dominionistic attitudes. Forexample, 70% of Asian-Pacific Islander respondentsstrongly agreed with the statement that recreationalfishing is acceptable regardless of whether one ate thecatch, compared to 51% of African Americans, 42% ofWhites, and 35% of Latinos who agreed with the samestatement.

Mean Attitude Comparison - All Ethnic Groups

FOCUS: Latinos and Biocentrism

More than other groups, Latinos expressed biocentric attitudes. With respect to Animal Rights sentiments, forexample, over three quarters of Latinos strongly agreed that the fate of individual animals mattered to them.Latinos were also far more likely to feel that marine animals should not be kept in aquariums because theyhave the right to be free (almost two thirds compared to only 22% of Whites, 32% of Asian-Pacific Islanders,and 40% of African Americans). Environmental-naturalistic attitudes were more mixed. While 30 percent ofLatinos moderately or strongly disagreed with the statement that it was nature's way for whales to becomebeached, however unfortunate, this was higher than for the other race/ethnic groups. Over three fourths ofLatinos strongly agreed that we should protect wetlands to allow seabirds their natural habitat, and two thirdsstrongly agreed that it was never okay to interfere with wild animals (compared to a fifth of whites, a third ofAsian-Pacific Islanders, and just over two-fifths of African Americans).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Policy makers need to be aware of cultural differences in attitudes toward marine wildlife whendesigning new policy initiatives. Efforts should be made to conduct group-specific analysis of attitudestoward prospective policy goals and implementation tools. Outreach efforts should be geared not to ageneral public but instead to subgroups within the population whose members can be expected to havesubstantially different attitudes toward, knowledge of, and experiences with marine wildlife and coastalissues.Attitudinal change from childhood to adulthood appears to be extensive and varies by culturalbackground, suggesting the need for ongoing monitoring. Our results suggest that policy makers,marine educators, and coastal resource managers need ongoing assessments of attitudes amongsouthern California's dynamic population.Marine educational programs need to directly assess the cultural backgrounds of their client base anddevelop culturally sensitive programming, as well as programs to enhance cross-cultural knowledge andunderstanding. The fact that attitudes differ across race/ethnic groups in LA County suggests theimportance of considering cultural difference in the activities of aquariums, museums of natural history,state and local recreation and parks departments, universities, and nonprofit organizations. Knowledgeof demographic composition of current program users and participants is key to attracting diversepeople as well as in designing exhibits and programming that more closely relates to the experiences,perceptions, and practices of different cultural groups.

Experience & Knowledge of Marine Wildlife

from the Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife Survey

In this section, we examine results from oursurvey that pertain both to respondents'interactions with marine wildlife and the coastalzone as well as their knowledge of local marinewildlife ecology. Survey questions relateddirectly to people's individual experience andpersonal knowledge . Knowledge is typicallyrelated to attitudes and behavior and is known tovary according to educational attainment, as wellas experience or interaction with wildlife. Thebaseline information we collected is valuable foreducators interested in developing outreachmaterials for diverse clientele.

FOCUS: Experiences with marine wildlife

Most respondents had noticed marine animals,sea birds, or other types of marine animals whilevisiting the beach. In fact, only eight percent saidthey had not noticed any animals. Birds were themost common animal seen, primarily gulls andpelicans. Of those noticing animals over a third

saw marine mammals, especially dolphins, seals and sea lions. About a fifth observed other marine animals, mostlycrabs, lobsters, clams, or mussels. The figure below lists the percentages of people who saw particular marine animalsduring visits to the beach.

Highlight: People received information about the coastal environment from a widevariety of sources, and the information sources varied across racial/ethnic groups. Forexample, 70% of Latinos listed TV as one source of information about the beach orocean-related issues compared to only 42% of Whites.

FOCUS: Knowledge of threatened or endangered species

Overall, respondents were moderately knowledgeable about threatened and endangered species. Whenasked which animals were either threatened with extinction or endangered, only a third identified the WhiteAbalone, and even less (15%) identified the Least Tern. Forty-three percent incorrectly selected theWhite-sided Dolphin, and almost 18% incorrectly chose the Pacific Cormorant as threatened or endangered.The chart below shows successful idenitification of threatened or endangered species by respondents'race/ethnic subgroup. The results demonstrate a wide disparity in knowledge among different cultural groups.

Highlight: An overwhelming majority of respondents, regardless of race/ethnicity, hadlittle knowledge of the safety of eating certain local fish. In fact, almost three fourths ofrespondents had no knowledge that some local fish are unsafe to eat.

Although African Americans were the group mostly likely to fish when visiting thebeach (over 30% engaged in fishing), they had the least awareness of the safety ofeating local fish. Over 85% were unaware that some fish are unsafe and no AfricanAmerican respondents correctly identified the specific types of fish that were unsafe toeat. While majorities of other racial/ethnic groups were also unaware of the safety of

eating local fish (with 73% White, 70% Asian Pacific Islander, and 68% Latino),African Americans are at particular risk because they are more apt to be fishers.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Knowledge of marine/coastal wildlife is uneven. Despite some knowledge about endangerment, manyrespondents were uninformed about the status of specific marine species. For example, popular,charismatic species like White-sided Dolphin were widely mistaken as endangered. This findingsuggests the need for further efforts to educate coastal residents about the ecology and status of marinewildlife.Public health officials should intensify efforts to inform the public about fish pollution problems. ThoughAfrican Americans were the most likely to fish and least likely to know of hazards of consuming locallycaught fish, a majority of all respondents were unaware that some fish were unsafe to eat due tobioaccumulation of toxic pollutants.Sources of information about marine wildlife varied across groups according to cultural background.Respondents of different backgrounds rely on distinctive mixes of information sources. For example,Latinos were much more apt to get coastal/marine information from television than are other groups.Designers of public education campaigns need to understand how race/ethnic subgroups within thegeneral public obtain information and create media-specific programs.

Understanding Tolerance and StigmaRelating to Animal Practices

from the Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife Survey

As the population of the Los Angeles region continues to become moreculturally diverse, the ways different people make use of beaches andcoastal resources will continue to expand. Often cultural practices ofone group relating to marine animals or the coastal resource in generalmay be at odds with another group's beliefs and values. As part of theAttitudes toward Marine Wildlife survey, we queried people about boththeir tolerance of particular animal practices (such as whale hunting,eating turtle meat) and their perceptions of feeling looked down uponor stigmatized because of their own animal practices, for example,

eating particular animals, or believing that animals have rights.

[Photo courtesy US FWS]

This section focuses on our results concerning the tolerance and feelings of stigma reported by surveyrespondents, related to animal practices. Though 18 questions in total were asked on these topices, not allrelated to marine animals. Here, we focus on the marine animal related questions and how the results link tooverall attitudes toward marine wildlife.

Highlight: Tolerance toward controversial animal practices varies bycultural background. The least tolerant group was Latinos, while Whiteswere the most tolerant. Asian-Pacific Islanders and African Americans,though in general less tolerant than Whites, were more tolerant of certainpractices, primarily pertaining to food.

FOCUS: Tolerance toward controversial animal practices

Of the 18 questions asked about tolerance toward controversial animals practices, five specifically related tomarine animals. Noting that people from other cultural backgrounds treat animals differently, respondentswere asked if "it was OK" if other people engaged in:

littering the beach;hunting and killing whales;eating sea turtles;collecting tidepool animals for food; andkeeping animals, such as fish and seafood, alive until they are ready to be eaten.

Overall, as can be seen in the table below, Whites were the most tolerant of these practices, and Latinoswere least tolerant. Most respondents in all groups, however, were intolerant of whale hunting and eatingturtles, and virtually no one tolerated littering on the beach. Further analysis showed that for all groups,women were far less tolerant than men. Also, those people who were more strongly in favor of dolphinprotection, and to a lesser extent, tidepool protection, were less tolerant across race/ethnic groups.

We found that higher levels of tolerance toward controversial animal practices was linked to being male,having higher educational attainment and income, being a beach-goer, having more environmentalknowledge, and favoring marine wildlife protection. Results also indicated that gender and race weresignificantly related to tolerance, with women and non-Whites being less tolerant. But what is most interestingis that Latino respondents were uniformly less tolerant of the range of controversial animals practices,including those often associated with Latino culture, such as bullfights, dog and cockfighting, and horsetripping (a staple of traditional Mexican-style rodeo).

FOCUS: Feelings of perceived stigma relating to animal practices

Over 40% of those surveyed felt stigmatized - in other words, they felt that at some point in the past thatothers looked down on them or thought they were strange because of their interactions with animals.However, levels of perceived stigma associated with pet-keeping and training practices and animal foodpreferences were relatively low across the groups. Overall, Asian-Pacific Islanders were least apt to feelstigmatized, whereas African Americans were most likely. Modeling of the survey results confirm thatimmigrants may feel stigmatized because their practices, such as eating certain animals, may differ from theU.S. cultural norm.

Highlight: Almost 30% of African Americans who reported feelings ofstigma felt they had been looked down upon because they believed thatanimals have rights like people. Just over 20% of the Latinos and Whitesreporting some stigma also felt looked down upon because they feltanimals had rights, while only 7% of Asian-Pacific Islanders reportingsome feelings of stigma felt this way due to animal rights beliefs.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Because tolerance toward controversial practices varies by cultural background, policy makers, marineeducators, and advocacy groups must be aware of these cultural differences when developing marinewildlife (and other animal-related) policies for a diverse citizenry.Marine educational programs need to directly assess the cultural backgrounds of their client base anddevelop culturally sensitive programming and programs that enhance cross-cultural knowledge andunderstanding, thus reducing feelings of stigma. Knowing the demographic composition of current andpotential program users could be vital in designing exhibits and programming that more closely relatesto the experiences, perceptions, and practices of different groups in the Los Angeles region.Environmental and animal welfare organizations as well as concerned policy-makers and marineeducators may usefully target subpopulations for education and outreach efforts since certain groupsremain tolerant of undesireable marine animal practices like collecting tidepool animals for food and

eating sea turtles.

BackgroundAttitudes toward Marine Wildlife Survey

Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife among Residents of Southern California's Urban Coastal Zone, USC SeaGrant publication USCSG-TR-01-2001, was written by Dr. Jennifer Wolch, University of Southern California,Los Angeles, CA.

A grant from the US Sea Grant Program supported the research, for which we are most grateful. Otherparticipants in the research project included Marcie Griffith, Unna Lassiter, and Jin Zhang. Chris Kahle wroteand edited the on-line Highlights series. We appreciate the assistance of USC Sea Grant Program personnelin planning this on-line series, especially Phyllis Grifman, Associate Director, and Lyndell Whitley,Educational Program Coordinator.

The study consisted of a random telephone survey of 850 Los Angeles County residents over 18 years ofage. The sample was designed to emulate the racial/ethnic composition of the county. The survey wastranslated into Spanish, Chinese, and Korean, and was administered by bilingual interviewers whennecessary. Interviews were conducted Monday-Friday from 9:00am to 9:00pm and Saturday from 10:00am to4:00pm. Respondents were each asked a series of 100 questions to probe attitudes, use, stance on policyissues, interactions and experiences, and knowledge involving marine wildlife and the coastal zone.

The group was 35% White, 35% Latino, 12% African American, and 10% Asian-Pacific Islander. Almost 60%were born in the U.S., with the largest share of immigrants being from Mexico (18%). Almost 40% of allrespondents reported speaking a language other than English at home. Respondents were nearly equallydivided in terms of sex, most were under age 45 (54%), and over 60% did not have children living at home.

The survey sample was somewhat split regarding socio-economic status. Although over half had completedat least some college, over 15% lacked a high school diploma and almost a quarter held only a high schooldegree. Not surprisingly, about 30% had household incomes over $50,000/year, while almost 20% hadhousehold incomes below $20,000/year.

Fisheries Home

About Us

Programs

Regions

Science Centers

Partners

Congress

Fisheries Resources

Educators and Students

News & Multimedia

Get Involved

Celebrating over 40 years ofprotecting marine mammals!

Get the Facts

MMPA Fact Sheet

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

Overview

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted on October 21, 1972.

All marine mammals are protected under the MMPA.

The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S.citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S.

Congress passed the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 based on the following findings and policies:

Some marine mammal species or stocks may be in danger of extinction or depletion as a result ofhuman activities;These species or stocks must not be permitted to fall below their optimum sustainable population level("depleted");Measures should be taken to replenish these species or stocks;There is inadequate knowledge of the ecology and population dynamics; andMarine mammals have proven to be resources of great international significance.

The MMPA was amended substantially in 1994 to provide:

Certain exceptions to the take prohibitions, including for small takes incidental to specified activities,when access by Alaska Natives to marine mammal subsistence resources can be preserved, andpermits and authorizations for scientific research;A program to authorize and control the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishingoperations;Preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters under U.S. jurisdiction;andStudies of pinniped-fishery interactions.

How We Implement the MMPA

Incidental Harrassment/Take Authorizations (Sec. 101)Permits (Sec. 104)Enforcement (Sec. 107)International Affairs (Sec. 108)Status Reviews (Sec. 115)Conservation Plans (Sec. 115)Stock Assessment Reports (by Region and by Species) (Sec. 117)Taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations (Sec. 118)

Marine Mammal Authorization Program (MMAP)List of Fisheries (LOF)Take Reduction Program

Co-Management with Alaska Native organizations (Sec. 119)Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program (MMHSRP) (Title IV)

Stranding Networks and Stranding Coordinators (Sec. 403)Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs) (Sec. 404)Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Event Fund (Sec. 405)National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank (NMMTB) (Sec. 407)Prescott Grant Program (Sec. 408)

Policies, Guidance, and Regulations

MMPA Policies, Guidance, and Regulations

More Information

Full Text of the MMPAMMPA Annual Report ArchiveMarine Mammals Listed Under the Endangered Species ActMarine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports

Fisheries Home » Protected Species » Laws & Policies

NOAA HOME WEATHER OCEANS FISHERIES CHARTING SATELLITES CLIMATE RESEARCH COASTS CAREERSSearch NMFS Site . . .

Sign up forFishNewsand other email updates

OPR Home Species Health & Stranding Permits Laws & Policies Conservation & Recovery Publications About OPR

Updated: June 14, 2013

Fisheries Service

HomeInformation QualityPrivacy Policy

FeedbackDisclaimerSearch

About UsFormsNewsroom

Inside NOAA Fisheries

MissionStrategic PlanFrequently Asked Questions

Contact UsEEO & DiversityWork for NOAA Fisheries