| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front: Culture Wars | ||
| Update: Appeals court says need for sonar in Navy drills outweighs threat | ||
| 2007-09-01 | ||
| and a big FU to those groups who use Enviro suits for political purposes The U.S. Navy can use high-power sonar during exercises off the Southern California coast, despite the technology's threat to whales and other marine mammals, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. National security interests outweigh the possible harm to marine life, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined in overturning a judge's order banning the practice. “The public does indeed have a very considerable interest in preserving our natural environment and especially relatively scarce whales,” Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote for the majority. “But it also has an interest in national defense. We are currently engaged in war, in two countries.” Judge Milan Smith Jr. disagreed, saying he would have kept the ban in place in part because the Natural Resources Defense Council is likely to win its lawsuit to stop the use of sonar.
Cara Horowitz, an attorney for the Santa Monica-based resources defense council, said she was “somewhat disappointed” by the ruling Friday, but remained confident the lawsuit would quickly succeed in shutting down the sonar program off the Southern California coast. The appeals court said in its Friday ruling that it wanted to resolve the lawsuit quickly and Horowitz was hopeful that the Navy will be able to undertake most of the 11 planned exercises. She said the next planned exercise is in September. The council's lawsuit alleges that the Navy's sonar causes whales to beach themselves among other environmental harms. The Navy maintains it already minimizes risks to marine life. It has monitored the ocean off Southern California for the 40 years it has employed sonar without seeing any whale injuries.
| ||
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #12 I'm in the middle of creating a single crust pie some 9" diameter with an underlayer of peeled nectarine plus slices of peach and suspended in a fresh raspberry, blood orange juice and spice slanted preserve just for jollies before I then apply the brown-sugar, butter, vanilla crumb betty that covers the inner half of this she-devil pie-pan lovechild. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-01 23:51 |
| #11 Hammit all to Dell, it's me Frank. Thenk, ewe. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-01 23:42 |
| #10 would that be you, Zen? Lurking? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-09-01 23:06 |
| #9 This is an example of opponents of the Naval military force using environmental suits to achieve a political effect. They also want to be reimbursed at a 3:1 ratio for their legal costs. To the first, I say "no", to the second, I say "FUCK NO". A couple losses at great internal legal cost, will stop this shit. Frank, I was already aware of most all of the above save the bullshit 3:1 reimbursement demand. I'm also aware that there is no conclusive evidence that the massive sonar blasts actually disorient or damage marine wildlife sensoria. My only wish was to respond to those who wrote off the importance of our cetacean creatures. Mammalian deep-diving is an ability we are only now beginning to understand. Comprehending it could play a pivotal role in suspended animation for interstellar travel or long-term cryogenic suspension to preserve near-extinct lifeforms. Any of us who watched the "How Modern Liberals Think" video posted yesterday knows damn well that the liberals refused to be confused by facts. My only point was to interject some points of interest for those who are concerned about documented environmental impact. |
| Posted by: Whinemp Black1880 2007-09-01 22:21 |
| #8 I have certainly no ill will to the marine life - hell, I live in San Diego, and our economy depends on: a) tourists b) the military c) other it's just that I've dealt with similar (smaller-scale) assholes. They have an agenda (usually anti-American/Anti-development/Anti-something) and they use environmental regulations to create opposition and achieve delays. They lie about issues, always with the goal (stopping the Mil/Industrial/Developer complex) justifying the means. To date, there is a overgrowth of Pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, et al) on the California Coast. There is stability of the California Grey Whale. These facts are not disputed. There have been no major beaching of animals in So Cal, so the lawsuit is BUNK. If you fight these assholes and refuse to pay their legal costs (the usual extortion) a couple times, they will find no lawyers willing to take their cases. Go to the mat and F*CK em. It's in the nation's and societies' interests |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-09-01 19:59 |
| #7 If I could do just one great thing with my life, it would be to find a cheap an efficient way to drill oil offshore which also kills whales. And Sea Otters, mustn't forget them. |
| Posted by: Natural Law 2007-09-01 19:46 |
| #6 the whales in question, Zen, would likely be California Gray Whales, which are at their natural population. This is an example of opponents of the Naval military force using environmental suits to achieve a political effect. They also want to be reimbursed at a 3:1 ratio for their legal costs. To the first, I say "no", to the second, I say "FUCK NO". A couple losses at great internal legal cost, will stop this shit. These are your nutroots, operating at a legal level above their head. Ultimately, national security trumps all, til the Donks can get a majority of their useful idiots on the SCOTUS |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-09-01 19:04 |
| #5 Just so that you're aware; The near extinction of whales had a tremendously negative impact upon the marine biosphere. Unhealthy juveniles and baby calf whales represent a critical component in the diet of orcas, or killer whales. During most of the 20th century, America's Pacific coast cetacean herds were so depleted that orcas turned elsewhere for sustenance. Sea lions and seals took a massive hit and the repercussions traveled down the entire food chain to include otter populations and the like. Otters control sea urchin numbers who otherwise strip out the kelp forests rather quickly. Absence of the orcas' preferred nutrition source may yet cause some serious collapses in the marine food chain. To wit (the article is from 2001, but you can be sure things have only gotten worse): Throughout the Gulf of Alaska and probably the Bering Sea, too, the balance of prey and predator has been upended, a transformation so extreme that it's being called a "regime shift." Waters once brimming with seals, otters and king crab are now dominated by sharks, pollock and urchins. Virtually no creature remains untouched. Only time will tell if recovering whale populations can help reverse this massive collapse. It has taken almost 25 years—one quarter of a century—for the Monterey Bay otter population to climb from 1,000 to 3,000 individuals. Imagine how long it will take for some 90,000 otters to repopulate in the Aelutians. Meanwhile, the vital kelp forests are being clear cut by over-populating sea urchins. I doubt all the sushi bars can keep up with such an over-supply. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-01 18:42 |
| #4 Japanese eat whales, more power to them. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-09-01 14:25 |
| #3 Cut to the chase - bring back whale oil lamps... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2007-09-01 01:09 |
| #2 If I could do just one great thing with my life, it would be to find a cheap an efficient way to drill oil offshore which also kills whales. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2007-09-01 00:35 |
| #1 The 9th ruled this way on this? Here or in Bizarro World? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-09-01 00:25 |