Article

2007-08-15 Fifth Column

Judges and Eco-Nuts To U.S. Navy: Training is Icky!

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by charger 2007-08-15 11:50|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top

#1 Anybody know who the ~~idiot~~ judge was who issued the injunction? Any bets on which president appointed him/her to the bench?

Posted by Rambler">Rambler 2007-08-15 14:16|| 2007-08-15 14:16|| Front Page Top

#2 My advice to the Navy: ignore him.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2007-08-15 15:32|| 2007-08-15 15:32|| Front Page Top

#3 A federal judge in Los Angeles barred the Navy on Monday from using powerful underwater sonar blasts for anti-submarine tests off California's Channel Islands, and warned that the sonar could cause widespread harm to nearly 30 species of marine mammals, including five species of endangered whales.

The preliminary injunction from U.S. District Judge Florence Marie Cooper was issued while environmental organizations, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, are suing both the Navy and the National Marine Fisheries Service to prevent the sonar experiments.

Active sonar pulses at certain mid-frequency ranges beneath the sea act very much like radar signals do through space, bouncing back from targets - such as spacecraft, planes or even features on the moon, for example - and identifying them.

Scientists contend that in the water, sonar pulses damage the hearing organs of whales, disrupt their lives and have caused many whale species to strand themselves on shores.

The Natural Resources Defense Council and five other environmental organizations sued the Navy in March to halt a series of 14 anti-submarine exercises planned for the next two years, claiming the sonar pulses would severely threaten the lives and health of marine mammals and would violate four federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

When the suit was filed, the Defense Department exempted the Navy from complying with the laws because of overriding national security needs.

On Monday, Cooper sent preliminary copies of the language she planned to use in her final ruling, noting there was a near certainty that marine mammals would be endangered by the sonar blasts. She called a series of mitigations proposed by the Navy to protect the whales "woefully inadequate and ineffectual."

In an e-mail Monday, a Navy spokesman cited the Navy's response to the lawsuit, which claimed that in 30 years of similar sonar experiments no whales have ever been stranded, nor have any marine mammals suffered "injuries or behavioral disturbances ... or even temporary hearing loss."

The Navy's "extensive mitigation measures" to protect the whales include using trained lookouts, night-vision goggles, passive sonar to monitor marine mammals underwater, aerial surveillance and a 1,000-yard safety zone around its sonar transmitters, said the response document.

A spokeswoman for the National Marine Fisheries Service said her agency's officials would respond to the judge's ruling when they receive the final language in the injunction.

Both agencies are expected to appeal Cooper's ruling.

The court order "confirms that during sonar testing and training, the Navy can and must protect whales and other marine life in the extraordinarily rich waters off our Southern California coast," said Joel Reynolds, lead attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The Navy's rejection of common sense protective measures ... is illegal, unacceptable and completely unnecessary."

The environmental groups fighting to protect the whales from the powerful sonar signals contend that scientists have long known that marine mammals use their own sounds to find food, locate mates, avoid predators and communicate with each other. Man-made high-intensity sounds like powerful sonar can seriously disrupt the lives of these animals, researchers have maintained.

Posted by tu3031 2007-08-15 16:06|| 2007-08-15 16:06|| Front Page Top

#4 Aha! I knew it: a Clintoon appointee, naturally. I googled Judge Florence Marie Cooper and found this.

Posted by Rambler">Rambler 2007-08-15 17:14|| 2007-08-15 17:14|| Front Page Top

#5 Ah yes the NRDC - sponsors of the imfamous Alar Scare which decimated the Washington Apples Growers.

From This page on the NRDC ---

The Wall Street Journal printed one of David Fentons internal memos, after the Alar-on-apples scandal was publicly debunked. Heres Fenton in his own words: We designed [the Alar Campaign] so that revenue would flow back to the Natural Resources Defense Council from the public, and we sold this book about pesticides through a 900 number and the Donahue show. And to date there has been $700,000 in net revenue from it.

And then Swordfish:

NRDC joined forces again with Fenton Communications in 1998 to promote a food-scare campaign called Give Swordfish a Break! which was operated by SeaWeb, an organization created by Fenton specifically for this campaign. Nearly all of the funding for this effort came from pass-through grants solicited by NRDC on behalf of SeaWeb. Two years later the anti-swordfish campaign folded, with both groups claiming victory. The whole promotion was based on the myth that Atlantic swordfish were being over-fished to the point of extinction. But according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, that simply wasnt true.

Posted by CrazyFool 2007-08-15 17:22|| 2007-08-15 17:22|| Front Page Top

#6 Thanks for the pointers, CrazyFool. It sounds like MRDC has tapped into scams similar to Ralph Nader's PIRG gravy trains. I'm simply amazed that I used to believe that NGOs have higher ethical standards than eeeevil corporations and the DoD.

Posted by xbalanke 2007-08-15 17:39|| 2007-08-15 17:39|| Front Page Top

#7 Er - make that the NDRC.

Posted by xbalanke 2007-08-15 17:39|| 2007-08-15 17:39|| Front Page Top

#8 NDRC? Geez - I'm home going...

Posted by xbalanke 2007-08-15 17:40|| 2007-08-15 17:40|| Front Page Top

#9 It is very important that the Navy not make any loud disturbing noises because the whale is a large, barnacle-like creature and, being firmly attached to the sea floor, is unable to move away.

Posted by SteveS 2007-08-15 20:08|| 2007-08-15 20:08|| Front Page Top

#10 Easy solution. Move the exercises out past the U.S. Federal Waters limit (I think it's 12 miles). Of course, then we'd have to face the U.N. on this issue (international waters), but who doesn't like to rib them every once in a while, especially the Navy.

Posted by BA 2007-08-15 22:47|| 2007-08-15 22:47|| Front Page Top

#11 I agree with Mojo. Simple solution: Ignore the lady. If and when the US Navy is held in contempt of her "order" it will swiftly be dismissed due to a host of constitutional reasons, not the least of which is lack of jurisdiction.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2007-08-15 23:28|| 2007-08-15 23:28|| Front Page Top

23:59 ed
23:59 ryuge
23:49 ed
23:30 mcsegeek1
23:28 mcsegeek1
23:27 twobyfour
23:24 mcsegeek1
23:18 ed
23:18 tu3031
23:16 Zenster
23:12 twobyfour
23:06 BA
23:05 twobyfour
23:04 B. Hussein Obama
22:58 BA
22:57 BA
22:50 trailing wife
22:47 BA
22:42 Pappy
22:37 BA
22:36 GK
22:36 BA
22:31 ed
22:29 ed