Are Environmental Activists Focused on Dolphins or Dollars?

For years, environmental activists have spent untold sums of donor dollars suing the federal government to compel enforcement of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA.) Groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Animal Welfare Institute have repeatedly hauled the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) into court, ostensibly in defense of some of the world’s most marketable creatures.

They demanded audits of marine mammal protection policies in thousands of fisheries across the globe—and they got them. More than 2,500 fisheries, to be exact. Rather than working with governments whose fisheries were found to be under performing, they aggressively insisted on draconian bans on products from deficient fisheries and got those too. Two hundred and forty, to be exact. Along the way, they have built a cottage industry around raising donations through a crusading persona that sees them as Flipper’s savoir, while at the same time petitioning the government to reimburse them for the costs of… suing the government.

This pattern of litigation abuse was recently investigated by the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations when it held a hearing titled “The Profit Engine Driving Environmental Nonprofits.” The hearing focused on the longstanding practice of activist organizations suing the federal government and then seeking reimbursements of their attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.

In their latest filing before the Court of International Trade, these groups argue 44 fisheries in 8 countries haven’t done enough and should immediately be barred from exporting to the United States. The legal brief is replete with clutched pearls and gnashed teeth but, at its core, could perhaps be described by some more accurately as a fund-raising pitch.

Here’s the irony: the fisheries at issue aren’t ones that failed MMPA muster. They are fisheries that passed.

That’s right. These fisheries were approved after undergoing the very marine mammal protection reviews the activist groups spent years demanding. Yet now those same groups are asking a court to overturn the results because they dislike the outcome. It is another example of well-funded environmental organizations attempting to impel on regulators, countries, and industries their view despite demonstrable evidence that they’re wrong. Once again, they are back in court this time challenging the very review system they fought for, for over a decade.

Which raises an obvious question: Is protecting marine mammals really the primary objective? Or is the real objective sustaining a litigation model that also sustains fundraising?

The cycle is familiar. In order to demonstrate that they are the proverbial tip of the spear for marine mammal protection, they target MMPA in court, win review of various fisheries, sue again when they don’t like the results, and then approach well-heeled donors with hands outstretched. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Meanwhile, this latest round of MMPA litigation threatens to divert millions of dollars away from precompetitive, industry-funded sustainability initiatives into legal defense funds. Those are resources that otherwise could be spent improving fisheries, expanding scientific research, and strengthening conservation programs—the very outcomes these organizations claim to support. Sustainability requires investment. If fisheries are tied up in court defending the already positive determinations that have been made, it’s harder to focus on and invest in the long-term health of the resource.

But maybe that’s the point. Certainly there must be some groups that would be happy to come save the day. For the right price, of course.

Perhaps this case is not about dolphins at all.

Perhaps it’s about dollars.

Gavin Gibbons is the Chief Strategy Officer with the National Fisheries Institute, the nation’s largest seafood trade association.