US Naval Exercise, Cancelled to protect endangered whales Options

[celebritygooner]

A federal judge in California has ordered the US Navy to temporarily stop using sonar equipment because it might harm whales and other sea mammals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5143698.stm

I've seen many clashes between business and environmental interests, but I've never heard of environmentalists clashing with the military and actually winning. Is this a good thing?

[Seeker]

The Navy uses different types of sonars (active/LFA and passive), the active/LFA type is harmful to marine life and passive isn't.

I'm guessing that the judge banned only the use of the harmful sonar, and that's a good thing.

[celebritygooner]

I'm very nervous about civilians who aren't the President or Secretary of Defense giving orders to the military. The Congress? OK. Some district court judge? No.

Can't this precedent be applied more broadly to include other civilian-inspired weapons bans?

[Seeker]

It's not right for the U.S. Department of Defense to just issue the Navy an exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act whenever it feels like it. I'm glad someone had the balls to enforce our Nation's laws.

Secondly, since a safe alternative sonar exists I don't see the reason the Navy insists on using the high-frequency version that's harmful to marine life.

[chook]

It's not right for the U.S. Department of Defense to just issue the Navy an exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act whenever it feels like it. I'm glad someone had the balls to enforce our Nation's laws.

Secondly, since a safe alternative sonar exists I don't see the reason the Navy insists on using the high-frequency version that's harmful to marine life.

All sonar is pretty low freq. Active sonar is needed for objects that will not make a noise at the sonar freqs. I do not know too much about this, but there are some wako judges on both ends of the spectrum. I disagree with the decision based on the little knowledge i have.

[pebkac]

I'm very nervous about civilians who aren't the President or Secretary of Defense giving orders to the military. The Congress? OK. Some district court judge? No.

Of course, but if the military doesn't follow Congress's laws, who's going to correct them?

Personally, I myself don't know much about sonar either, but my view is that if the military can prove that:

1) They had a valid national security concern that required them to use that type of sonar
2) There was no way they could have held the training exercise in an area that has less marine life

then they should have gotten out of this.

[pysex]

so they don't know if the sonar actually harms whales....


just a hunch huh?


so its cool for scientists to have a hunch that whales MIGHT get hurt from sonar....their precious precious little ears...and get a district court to halt all actions of the military...







on a hunch...

[pebkac]

so they don't know if the sonar actually harms whales....


just a hunch huh?


so its cool for scientists to have a hunch that whales MIGHT get hurt from sonar....their precious precious little ears...and get a district court to halt all actions of the military...







on a hunch...

Notice that the judge didn't permanently stop the excercises. He called for a temporary moritorium until there's more info.

[celebritygooner]

a temporary moritorium until there's more info.

What if a judge would have done the same with uranium in 1943 and the Germans would have finished their bomb first? Or with the chem weapon antidote kits issued to soldiers in Desert Storm? Alot of people think "gulf war syndrome" is a reaction not to chem weapons but to the antidotes themselves ... but widespread chem-filled SCUD use against us would have been so much worse.

My point: when you're working with high tech weaponry in the interest of national defense, isn't there a moral obligation to err on the side of protecting the country? Yeah, the world would be a better place if there were no [insert horrible weapon here], but as long as [insert horrible weapon here] exists, we'd damn well better have more / better / bigger ones than our enemies. The Navy wouldn't have built this thing unless they perceived a need ... and, again, my interest isn't the merits of this need specifically, but in the precedent of judges defining ROE for the military.

[Seeker]

so they don't know if the sonar actually harms whales....


just a hunch huh?


so its cool for scientists to have a hunch that whales MIGHT get hurt from sonar....their precious precious little ears...and get a district court to halt all actions of the military...







on a hunch...

Actually there is proof, there are tons of studies published in scientific journals if you want to look them up.

[pebkac]

What if a judge would have done the same with uranium in 1943 and the Germans would have finished their bomb first? Or with the chem weapon antidote kits issued to soldiers in Desert Storm? Alot of people think "gulf war syndrome" is a reaction not to chem weapons but to the antidotes themselves ... but widespread chem-filled SCUD use against us would have been so much worse.

My point: when you're working with high tech weaponry in the interest of national defense, isn't there a moral obligation to err on the side of protecting the country? Yeah, the world would be a better place if there were no [insert horrible weapon here], but as long as [insert horrible weapon here] exists, we'd damn well better have more / better / bigger ones than our enemies. The Navy wouldn't have built this thing unless they perceived a need ... and, again, my interest isn't the merits of this need specifically, but in the precedent of judges defining ROE for the military.

There's a difference. You're talking about things happening during actual wartime. This is a peacetime training exercise. If the Navy can prove that it's neccessary to use the sonar they used and that it's also neccessary to hold the exercises in the area where there is the endangered wildlife, then I'd grant this to them. But really, I seriously doubt there was any reason to have the exercises where they did.

[Hartmann]

So if they're out in international waters they still have to heed this order still? Seems a little off to me. Active sonar has been in use for years, why was the push to ban it not made till now?

As far as proof goes everything I have found states that the evidence linking whale strandings and sonar are very strong but haven't seen anything with "proof". It's normal science, a general consensus agrees that is what is happening. Just like global warming, etc, etc.

[pebkac]

So if they're out in international waters they still have to heed this order still? Seems a little off to me.

The species are endangered whether they're in our water or if they're in international water.

[Hartmann]

The species are endangered whether they're in our water or if they're in international water.

But how can a law imposed by the U.S. government affect what happens in uncontrolled waters? I understand that they are the Navy but whose to say that others aren't using the same active sonar? Just seems like a waste of judicial time...

[pebkac]

But how can a law imposed by the U.S. government affect what happens in uncontrolled waters? I understand that they are the Navy but whose to say that others aren't using the same active sonar? Just seems like a waste of judicial time...

Well, if the US government has no authority in international waters, what is the Navy doing there?