The issue of value of life whether on dry land or in water is unquestionable. Life is precious and should be cared for at whatever cost because no one can give life, therefore, no one should take it. The debate on ocean dumping still rages. Critics and adherents alike have valid points concerning ocean dumping; nevertheless, this issue calls for serious investigations to separate facts from propaganda. Regrettably, oceans bear an almost unavoidable exposure to waste materials due to its expansive and open nature. This forms the basis of argument for those who support the issue. However, the long-term repercussions of such a shortsighted argument are far-reaching. For instance, oceans support the lives of a vast number of species, majority of which provide food for other species and human beings alike. Moreover, virtually all industries rely on ocean waters for their continued running coupled with provision of the cheapest and safest mode of transport, with people exporting and/or importing tons of goods via the water transport. If ocean dumping continues then, there would be massive obstruction of numerous activities that take place in the oceans. Therefore, based on these negative effects, ocean dumping is wrong and stern measures against the practice need to be established. Changes are ever happening, either for the better or for the worse. Policies addressing the issue of ocean dumping and the need to curb it have been in place. In fact, the establishment of strategies as ‘ocean protection,’ came into place in 1970s. Brewer and Peter (1983) posit that, “The first concerted effort to control ocean dumping began in the early 1970s, when many environmental protection laws were passed” (p. 45). However, the period thereafter was marked by a change of these laws. This change, to a greater extend, loosened the prevailing policies thus allowing ocean dumping. Several factors fueled the change; for instance, change in the information concerning the effect of ocean dumping to the ocean environment. Statisticians claimed that the effect was insignificant and for some countries like America, ocean dumping became a routine. Nevertheless, one would wonder what fueled the nullification of some policies. Policy change marks the beginning of its termination. Most of the changes render the policies useless, hence terminating their applications. These terminations vary in terms of policy redirections, program adjustments, and fiscal retrenchments among other factors. These terminations play a vital role in the study of policies for they remove obsolete policies, giving a room for the establishment of new others. However, the establishment of new policies to replace the existing ones does not always pave way fro better conditions. People have devised reasons as to why termination of a policy can pass as the only solution to a given problem. For instance, Stewart, Hedge, and Lester (2008) assert, “Political considerations, rather than evaluative elegance, are at the root of most termination decisions” (p. 158). In most cases, politics do not seek solve a problem amicably; politicians pursue personal ends and this cripples any attempt to offer a lasting solution. Economic crises also play a major part when making termination decisions. In conclusion, policy-making stands out as an unavoidable practice. Though