HJM 4004
In CommitteeHouse
Marine mammal protection act
Requesting Congress to modify the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This joint memorial asks Congress to change federal law so that Washington state and tribes can more easily use lethal removal of pinnipeds (like sea lions and seals) to protect endangered salmon populations, especially in Puget Sound and along the coast—not just on a small stretch of the Columbia River where it’s currently allowed. It is based on scientific findings that pinnipeds are harming salmon recovery efforts.
- Asks Congress to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to expand authority for states and tribes to use adaptive management tools—including lethal removal—of pinnipeds beyond the current Columbia River zone.
- Seeks to allow lethal removal of pinnipeds (e.g., sea lions and seals) that prey on endangered salmon across all marine shorelines and Puget Sound, not just a limited segment of the Columbia River.
- Cites scientific evidence—including a 2022 study by the Washington State Academy of Sciences—that pinniped populations are contributing to salmon declines and supports using targeted predator management as part of salmon recovery efforts.
- Requests that Congress provide new flexibility for state and tribal agencies to implement strategic, science-based, and appropriately scaled predator management programs.
Who is affected
- State and tribal resource managers — May be allowed to use lethal removal of pinnipeds (e.g., sea lions and seals) as a tool to protect endangered salmon populations, under updated federal authority.
- Salmon populations (especially endangered species like Puget Sound chinook) — May benefit from reduced predation on juvenile and adult salmon by pinnipeds, supporting recovery of threatened and endangered salmon runs.
- Coastal communities and fishing industry stakeholders — May see changes in pinniped populations near key salmon migration areas, potentially affecting fishing, tourism, and ecosystem dynamics.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
Targeted lethal removal of pinnipeds in key salmon migration areas (e.g., Puget Sound) could significantly reduce predation pressure on endangered Puget Sound chinook and other salmon runs, directly supporting biological recovery targets set under the Endangered Species Act.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Section 1 (WHEREAS clauses), final resolutionSalmon recovery—especially for culturally and economically vital runs—would benefit tribal and commercial fisheries, supporting jobs, tribal treaty rights, and regional economies dependent on salmon harvest and related industries.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Section 1 (WHEREAS clauses), final resolutionReducing pinniped predation on juvenile and adult salmon may help stabilize fish runs that are critical for food security in rural and tribal communities, especially where subsistence and ceremonial salmon harvests are primary protein sources.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Section 1 (WHEREAS clauses), final resolutionEmpowering tribes to implement science-based predator management aligns with tribal sovereignty and treaty-reserved fishing rights, strengthening tribal authority over natural resource stewardship in ceded territories.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Section 1 (WHEREAS clauses), final resolution
Potential Concerns (4)
Lethal removal of pinnipeds could disrupt marine food webs and reduce biodiversity, with uncertain ecological ripple effects—including declines in orca populations that rely on salmon—and potential unintended consequences for ecosystem resilience.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Section 1 (WHEREAS clauses), final resolutionLethal predator management may increase public risk if misapplied—e.g., if trained personnel are unavailable or if removals occur near recreation zones, raising concerns about public safety and animal welfare enforcement inconsistencies across jurisdictions.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Section 1 (WHEREAS clauses), final resolutionImplementation of lethal pinniped removal programs would require new state/tribal staffing, monitoring, and enforcement capacity, potentially diverting limited local resources from other marine conservation priorities.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Section 1 (WHEREAS clauses), final resolutionWhile salmon recovery may benefit some commercial and tribal fisheries long-term, short-term disruptions from public controversy, tourism backlash, or federal compliance burdens could harm coastal businesses reliant on marine wildlife viewing or ecosystem-based tourism.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Section 1 (WHEREAS clauses), final resolution
Who Is Most Affected
Tribal governments and resource departments gain explicit authority to act on salmon predation within treaty-reserved waters, supporting cultural and subsistence needs and reinforcing self-governance in natural resource management.
Endangered salmon populations—especially Puget Sound chinook—face reduced predation pressure in key habitats, potentially improving survival rates of juvenile and adult fish and aiding legal compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
Coastal communities reliant on salmon-dependent industries (commercial fishing, processing, tourism) may benefit from long-term stock recovery, though short-term backlash or tourism shifts could create uncertainty.
State biologists and wildlife managers gain new tools to address a scientifically documented threat to salmon recovery, but must develop protocols, training, and monitoring to ensure humane, effective, and legally compliant implementation.
Environmental advocacy groups and marine mammal welfare organizations may oppose lethal methods on ethical grounds and could challenge implementation in court, potentially delaying or limiting program scope.