Back to news article list

U.S. Political Lobbying Group For Protection Of Oceansff

24 October 2005 United States

A local scientist has formed an unusual political action group: it’s bipartisan and focused exclusively on the oceans and marine life.

This group, which may be the first of its kind, is working to cultivate influence in Washington by supporting politicians who back ocean protection measures.

”Ocean Champions has the potential to be one of the most transformative things we’ve ever done in the whole conservation movement,” said Michael Sutton, vice president of the Monterey Bay Aquarium and director of the Center for the Future of the Oceans.

Since neither Democrats nor Republicans have supported ocean conservation measures in the past, Ocean Champions is seeking to educate lawmakers in both parties.

The group is even supporting what might seem like a surprising choice, an ultra-conservative Republican from Florida. Rep. Connie Mack has been an early co-sponsor of the Management and Science Enhancement Act of 2005 and has been a leader in resisting offshore oil drilling.

”Either do it with Republicans or don't waste your time,” David Wilmot, president of Ocean Champions, said last week during a talk sponsored by the Seymour Long Marine Lab. “Republicans run the government. If you do not work with them, you will not be successful.”

Before co-founding Ocean Champions in 2003 with Jack Sterne, an environmental lawyer, Wilmot had been a scientist and advocate for 20 years. He had worked to save the Atlantic bluefin tuna, among other species, as executive director of the Audubon Society's Living Oceans program and as executive director of the Ocean Wildlife Campaign.

But despite the efforts of conservation groups, the population of large fish such as the bluefin tuna fell steadily throughout the ‘80s and ‘90s. By 2002, the population of Atlantic bluefin tuna had dropped 87 percent from its 1975 level, according to the International Council for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, the body responsible for tuna regulation globally. And populations of other large fish species have dropped similarly.

”We didn’t do a very good job. But we did it all right,” Wilmot said. “The science was all right. We even advocated well. But at the end of the day, a political decision was made that we simply could not influence.”

One of the reasons that ocean conservation groups have so little influence, Wilmot said, is that “ocean issues are not generally perceived as environmental issues.” Politicians who are really strong on the environment often vote consistently against ocean conservation measures.

That is partly because the big environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, don't include ocean issues as part of their agenda, he said.

But the biggest reason ocean conservationists have had so little sway, Wilmot said, is that they haven't had anything to offer politicians. ”Politicians care about three things: money, voters and benefits to constituents,” he said. “No conservation group could provide these things.”

So he set out to change that and formed Ocean Champions. The group raises money for candidates with good positions on ocean issues -- or at least “potentially good” positions, Wilmot said. Because so few politicians currently have a strong ocean agenda, “we have to be quite flexible,” he said.

They then help them get elected and educate them about the policy needs of the oceans.

In the 2004 election, the group supported 14 candidates -- nine Democrats and five Republicans, including Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, and California Sen. Barbara Boxer -- and 11 got elected.

Ocean Champions, together with the Ocean Champions Voter Fund, contributed $500,000 to the candidates.

”We are remaining exclusively focused on the oceans,” Wilmot said. “We do not get into social issues; we do not even get into environmental records.”

This means that the group doesn’t always agree with many positions their chosen candidates take. For instance, Connie Mack, the Republican from Florida, supported a bill to weaken the Endangered Species Act.

”Is that the type of vote that we would like to see? No,” Wilmot said. “Do we understand that vote? Yes, we do. Property rights are a very big issue for him. These are trade-offs that are difficult, but they are the trade-offs that exist today.” The rewards, he said, are worth it. “Come in every time you're in D.C. and teach me about the oceans,” Wilmot said his Champions say to him now. “They didn’t do that when I was a scientist in Washington. It’s different now. All of a sudden, they’ve realized that there’s more in this for them.”