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."
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:
"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."
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.
RSS Feed
