Oh fuck, this is a really bad SC decision: Court rules for Navy in sonar use

[cali]

Wednesday, November 12th, 2008 10:11 am | Lyle Denniston | Print This
The Supreme Court, dividing deeply, upheld the Navy’s power to use sonar in military training exercises, even though the technology threatens marine life in the training zone off the Pacific Coast. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote for the majority; there were three full dissents and one partial dissent. The decision, the Court’s first ruling of the Term, came in the case of Winter (Navy Secretary) v. National Resources Defense Council, et al. (07-1239).

The Court partially overturned a federal judge’s order against the use of the active sonar at least until the Navy took additional measures to mitigate the threat to whales, dolphines and other marine mammals. Those added measures would have required the Navy to stop its sonar exercises when the threat to mammals was deemed imminent. The ruling set aside the District Court injunction to the extent challenged by the Navy.

Roberts wrote that “the Navy’s need to conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to the threat posed by enemy submarines plainly outweighs” the environmental concerns raised by advocacy groups.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-rules-for-navy-in-sonar-use/

[brendan120678]

1. I guess I partially agree...

The Navy does have a need to conduct their SONAR testing.
But they should be doing everything in their power to protect the sea life.

[glowing]

3. Why? Why do they need to conduct something that may contribute to major

ecological disaster.. Do you understand what happens if you lose just one or two organisms within the ecological web? Do you understand that the navy in "protecting us", could actually kill all of us?

[brendan120678]

10. Because SONAR capabilities are vital to National Defense. n/t

[brendan120678]

11. I'll admit, I am a bit biased in this situation...

My Grandfather, Father, and two of his brothers were all in the Navy.
It's not a career path I chose, but I still have a great respect and admiration for the USN.

[maxsolomon]

15. Defense from what, exactly?

Al Qaeda submarines? Drug smugglers?

It would be nice if the navy came up with a way to defend america with a new technology to replace sonar. We need to address ACTUAL threats - an ocean empty of life, a planet cooking us to death.

[Yukari Yakumo]

18. OK Nostrildumbass, riddle me this:

Did anyone back in the 1920's ever foresee Germany's rise?

We have a Russian President intent on remaking the Soviet Union, just with different names.
China is emerging as a power, and for the past few years, we've been more than glad to give them the manufacturing base to do it with.
Both Pakistan and India are nuclear armed and hate each other more than Fox hates the upcoming government.

There are more than enough possibilities where all hell breaks loose, and we'll be called upon to bail someone out.

[maxsolomon]

25. how about you tell me without insulting my intelligence?

i would assume someone, someone who's warning was ignored, warned about the rise of fascism in germany. the treaty of versailles was humiliating for germany.

but here in the present, our nation's MIC is never questioned or brought to heel by the mechanisms designed to do so. we spend as much as china & russia combined on defense, yet somehow we're still not safe. 9/11 aside (which sonar wouldn't have stopped), when is the last time the US mainland was threatened, i mean REALLY threatened by an attack? the war of 1812?

we are a militaristic nation, spending far too much of our GDP on defense, worrying & worrying about or safety when we're the ones threatening the rest of the planet, both environmentally & militarily. we're putting the future of the planet at peril because we can't work around a problem as simple as sonar interfering with marine life.

i can't help you if you're afraid that india will attack us via submarines.

[Indenturedebtor]

43. I heard that we could be "safer" if we killed a few hundred babies a month

Will you help me support this noble cause?

Oh and we also need to lock up some people who we are told may have terrorist connections. We can't risk giving them a trial but it's no big deal.

Oh and we need 8% of your paycheck every month.

Oh and by the way we'll need to listen to every one of your phone calls.

Oh and we may need to search your house.

Say, I don't suppose you could come stay at our fun little summer camp for a few months? Great. Just don't tell anyone where you're going ok?



National defense blah blah. How many countries have super stealth subs?

It's as though some people have been programmed to do whatever they're told at the slightest mention of "national defense". It's not "defense" anymore when you spend damn near what the entire rest of the world combined does on defense. That's called "national offense."

[Kajsa]

16. Not at the expense of killing large numbers marine mammals.

The former ruling had set boundaries as to where the testing
could take place and at what frequencies.

This has wiped that ruling off the map.

It's the sonar testing equivalent to "Drill Baby, Drill!"

:(

[MadHound]

19. The marine environment is vital to the health of our world, and to everybody's survival

Hmmm

Killing whales, dolphins and other marine life all for the sake of national defense. I don't think so.

[fujiyama]

41. Hasn't anyone seen Star Trek IV?

Just had to bring it up after your post.

But I agree, this is an unfortunate ruling. Dolphins are amazing creatures and are incredibly intelligent.

[glowing]

48. Like I said, in "protecting us", they may kill us.

[LSK]

52. the Al Queda Navy???????????

From who??? The world doesn't want war anymore, they want to make money.

[LeftyMom]

2. Douchebags.

:grr:

[T Wolf]

4. It is going to take two Obama terms and more than two replacements to fix the Court.

Lawrence Tribe has to be his first nominee. If he goes with a "moderate" to replace the moderates who will retire, we gain nothing.

There are no real libs on the court - Dem presidents have only nominated "safe" candidates. For Christ sakes - put someone to balance the far-right assholes that the pukes put in charge of the judiciary.

[cali]

7. no way should Tribe be nominated. He's waaay too old.

and putting in people who you consider to real libs will not balance the far right assholes; it's a numbers game. I'd much rather have someone like (a young) Breyer or Ginsberg replace Kennedy than have someone who's "a real lib" replace Stevens.

[T Wolf]

21. Why are you against having liberals on the court? Does it only have to be wingers and center-right

assholes?

But then, you probably think that Obama is too liberal, right?

[cali]

22. huh? I'm against having 65+ year old liberals appointed.

trying learning to read for comprehension, wolfie. I'd love to see Tribe appointed- if he were 25 years younger. And if you can't grasp what I wrote about replacing Kennedy, well, try putting on your wittle thinking cap.

sheesh.

And no sorry, wolfiekins, Obama is not too liberal for me. And I tend to think in more complexity than your simple black and white construct.

[KamaAina]

26. Roger that. Does anyone actually believe Roberts was the most qualified conservatroid?

Or Thomas?! Of course not -- but he's the youngest, so we're stuck with decisions like this that he finds at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box for a full generation. :grr: That is their explicit strategy, and we have to start countering it.

[T Wolf]

34. Insult much? There are ways to remove even "young" justices. Having a young right-winger like

the "liberals" currently squatting on the bench gets us nothing.

I am for putting a real liberal on the court, for as long as they last. Then replace them with another. And 15 years of a Lawrence Tribe would do wonders for the court. Of course, if you are planning on losing in 2012 or 2016, then I can see your fear inhibiting your ambition.

Did we vote for baby steps (if that) or do we want real change? That is what it comes down to.

If we do not use the power that the election brought, we might as well turn everything back over to the pukes. The time for timidity is long past.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. What threat from enemy submarines? Does the Army...

get to drop defoliants on the Everglades to practice jungle warfare?

This bullshit about how "defense" trumps everything has got to stop.

[Desertrose]

8. "Defense"- just an excuse to do what they damn well please

This is really awful. I am sick of those bastids acting like every living & non-living thing on this planet is under their jurisdiction.

:banghead:

[spanone]

6. 'plainly outweighs environmental concerns' everything bu$h* does outweighs the environment

[MiniMe]

9. Shall we guess who the dissents were?

Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer and Souter?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Four of the oldest justices.

The ages of the Supreme Court justices do not tell an encouraging story.

[MiniMe]

14. It's more encouraging now that Obama has been elected.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Less discouraging, at any rate.

Even if he's president for eight years, the chances are that all he'll be able to do is stop the court getting more conservative, not make it any more liberal (although there's an outside chance of replacing one conservative with a liberal).

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

50. ..and then all of the justices are relatively young, but the conservatives less so.

I say that's good.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Four of the oldest justices.

The ages of the Supreme Court justices do not tell an encouraging story.

[Kajsa]

17. Crap!

Yes indeed, " National Security" trumps any living species on Earth, eh?

Jesus, they had guidelines to follow from a former ruling , but NO!
They can't perform adequate testing unless they blast the shit out
of the whales, dolphins and other marine life.

Their testing is blowing out their eardrums, rendering them deaf!!
When eco location is the only way you can get around- that's a death sentence.

I've been fighting this for years.

What in the hell do we do now?

[kristopher]

20. Would you mind providing citations?

Since you've been following this, would you mid providing citations that verify the nature and extent of the damage being done?

I'd prefer academic peer reviewed material instead of information that originates from interest groups.

[Kajsa]

24. If you reject the findings of the NRDC,

Greenpeace, Ocean Alliance,Oceans Futures Society, and Oceana, etc.

then you'll have to find your own, " peer reviewed material".


Otherwise, here's a few links.

http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/sonar.asp

http://www.cdnn.info/news/eco/e060121b.html

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000619.html

http://www.lfas.net/sonarkillswhales.htm

http://losangeles.broowaha.com/article.php?id=644

[kristopher]

36. I don't "reject" their "findings"...

I just recognize them for what they are - advocacy organizations. I didn't want to read the argument of a lawyer, I wanted to read the data of a scientist.

You really should recognize the difference.

[Kajsa]

37. Why are you assuming I don't know the

difference? That's an arrogant assumption.

Not all spokespersons for environmental groups
are lawyers, btw.

[kristopher]

38. It isn't an assumption

Your post proved my statement. You certainly aren't alone, many (most) people make the same leap. Science is used by advocates and unless someone thinks about it specifically, it is easy to lose sight of the difference.

I didn't say that spokesmen for environmental organizations are lawyers - I illustrated the difference between those advocacy groups by referring to someone easily recognizable as an advocate.

Thank you for the links, btw.

[Kajsa]

39. You're welcome.

n/t

[Zodiak]

29. And here is your peer-reviewed stuff

Title: Navy sonar and cetaceans: Just how much does the gun need to smoke before we act?

Author: Parsons, E. C. M.; Dolman, Sarah J.; Wright, Andrew J.; Rose, Naomi A.; Burns, W. C. G.

Author Address: George Mason Univ, Dept Environm Sci and Policy, 4400 Univ Dr, Fairfax, VA 22030 USA.

Appears In: Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(7) JUL 2008. 1248-1257.




Title: Implications for marine mammals of large-scale changes in the marine acoustic environment

Author: Tyack, Peter L.

Author Address: Woods Hole Oceanog Inst, Dept Biol, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA.

Appears In: Journal of Mammalogy 89(3) JUN 2008. 549-558.



Title: The impacts of anthropogenic ocean noise on cetaceans and implications for management

Author: Weilgart, L. S.

Author Address: Dalhousie Univ, Dept Biol, Halifax, NS B3H 4J1, Canada.

Appears In: Canadian Journal of Zoology 85(11) NOV 2007. 1091-1116.



Title: Mitigating, monitoring and assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on beaked whales

Author: Barlow, Jay; Gisiner, Robert

Author Address: NOAA, SW Fisheries Sci Ctr, 8604 La Jolla Shores Dr, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA.

Appears In: Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 7(3) WIN 2005- 2005-2006. 239-249.



Title: Properties of the underwater sound fields during some well documented beaked whale mass stranding events

Author: D'Spain, Gerald L.; D'Amico, Angela; Fromm, David M.

Author Address: Scripps Inst Oceanog, Marine Phys Lab, 291 Rosecrans St, San Diego, CA 92106 USA.

Appears In: Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 7(3) WIN 2005- 2005-2006. 223-238.




Title: Understanding the impacts of anthropogenic sound on beaked whales

Author: Cox, T. M.; Ragen, T. J.; Read, A. J.; Vos, E.; Baird, R. W.; Balcomb, K.; Barlow, J.; Caldwell, J.; Cranford, T.; Crum, L.; D'Amico, A.; D'Spain, G.; Fernandez, A.; Finneran, J.; Gentry, R.; Gerth, W.; Gulland, F.; Hildebrand, J.; Houser, D.; Hullar, T.; Jepson, P. D.; Ketten, D.; MacLeod, C. D.; Miller, P.; Moore, S.; Mountain, D. C.; Palka, D.; Ponganis, P.; Rommel, S.; Rowles, T.; Taylor, B.; Tyack, P.; Wartzok, D.; Gisiner, R.; Mead, J.; Benner, L.

Author Address: Duke Univ, Marine Lab, 135 Duke Marine Lab Rd, Beaufort, NC 28516 USA.

Appears In: Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 7(3) WIN 2005- 2005-2006. 177-187.





-----------------------------------------------------------------------

There. Now you have your peer-reviewed articles (just some of them), which of course no one will bother to read because that is not what you were really asking for is it? you were just looking to shut someone up.

So yeah, it is the Navy versus advocacy groups, the environment, and the scientific consensus. In Europe they have decent policies concerning this issue, but in the US, we don't give a flying fuck. We like living in ignorance and in perpetual trust of the military and perpetual skepticism to anyone seen as "leftie".

Which is why we are one fucked up country hated by most of the world.

[kristopher]

32. You are a bit presumptuous, aren't you?

I asked a reasonable question of someone I believed to be informed. I haven't followed the issue except at a distance and wanted to gain a ACCURATE understanding of the nature and severity of the problem BEFORE forming an opinion about the issue. My inclination is that training exercises seem to be a weak justification for doing harm. However, if the opposition to the training is actually based on opposition to the military (a valid possibility to consider) and that opposition is grossly exaggerating the consequenses of the sonar use, that would change the picture.

You should know that it is fairly common for people with an unrelated agenda to hide their machinations behind the banner of environmentalism. (Psychological parameters to understand and manage the NIMBY effect, E. Pol etal., Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 56 (2006) 43–51)

Anyway, thank you for the references.

[Zodiak]

42. Asking for someone to get you a reference list of peer-reviewed articles is a bit much

If you truly are interested in that sort of thing, then you should access them yourself and conduct your own research rather than demand that someone be your research monkey. I am a researcher by trade, and so it is easier for me than most, but it irritates me when people make these sorts of demands on a message board primarily occupied by laymen.

Those who place value on such things should have their own access to research databases and know what to look for. I find the demand of such things to be over-the-top and a subtle form of intimidation in this context.

Zodiak Ironfist (pers. comm) 2008

[kristopher]

47. So am I.

And rather than wasting my time stumbling around in areas I'm not familiar with, I find it easier to simply ask someone knowledgeable to point me in the right direction. I'd say try it sometime, but if you are a researcher you probably do it all the time in a slightly different context. I've found that this board has better educated people than you seem to give it credit for.

BTW I demanded nothing, I asked politely. If anyone lacks civility...

[kristopher]

35. From first citation - an excellent summary

It certainly does appear that there is cause for concern and action should be taken. However, after reading the paper, I'm at a loss as to what action would be both effective and possible within the context of a world that exists to arm itself to the teeth. It strikes me that the restrictions that were struck down were more show than substance, while the ones proposed in the paper have little more than a snowball's chance in hell of being adopted.
My opinion is that the best hope is one where the tensions on the world stage are diminished through better leadership (Obama). And given the history of international cooperation even preShrub, we all know that hope only ranks a thin whisker above that of the snowball.

For the benefit of others, I'm posting the conclusion to the article.


Conclusion:
Investigating the true extent of sonar-related strandings and mortality is difficult. Information is lacking about the activities; position in the water column and location of the animals; the number and level of sound exposures; and other environmental variables. Often there is uncertainty surrounding naval maneuvers. In 2004, the International Whaling Commission noted the urgent need for data on the pathology of strandings, the extent of military activities, and possible high-intensity noise-emitting natural phenomenon that might cause strandings (International Whaling Commission, 2005b) and urged the provision of data that could allow an analysis of the impacts of sonar and other activities that produce high-intensity sound. It has reiterated these requests every year subsequently (, and International Whaling Commission, in press International Whaling Commission, in press. Report of the standing working group on environmental concerns. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 10 (Suppl.).). Without such data, our understanding of these phenomena will be limited. Consequently, with so much unknown and so much uncertainty, fully qualified results may be years, or even decades, away.

However, it should be emphasized that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Given absence of evidence, the precautionary concepts that are imbedded in environmental agreements, laws and regulations around the world (including the United States) should be implemented as soon as possible. Currently environmental impact assessment methods largely rely on assessment of physical damage to cetaceans to predict the potential impact of noise producing activities such as military sonar. At the very least these methods should be abandoned or substantially modified, in the face of mounting data and expert opinion that such assumptions are erroneous and that behavioral responses at much lower sound levels have the potential to produce a range of detrimental effects (e.g., , and ), including those that may result in injury or death, and given the likelihood that population level impacts can arise from non-lethal exposures.

Also the introduction of new types of military sonar, such as low frequency systems (SURTASS LFA in the United States and SONAR 20878 in the United Kingdom), should proceed with caution. The low frequency sounds produced by these systems will travel much farther than the mid-frequency sonar sounds currently causing concern. Moreover, the potential effects of masking may be more complicated than previously thought (, and ). At the very least the NATO navies should work with scientists and conservationists to conduct a thorough and open assessment of the potential impacts of these sonar systems, both on paper and in the field, postponing the mass deployment of these systems until such an assessment is done to the satisfaction of the marine science and policy community at large. Given that on-board and localized mitigation measures are unlikely to be effective at the lower received levels discussed in this paper, important cetacean habitats should be avoided by naval vessels during training and exercises involving either mid- or low-frequency sonar systems.

This paper reviews some of the cases where military sonar has been associated with cetacean strandings. Furthermore, the probability of these associations occurring by chance is prohibitively low, while the likelihood of undiscovered casualties is very high. There will undoubtedly be other events in the future, which must continue to be documented, in as much detail as possible. However, we contend that there is already enough evidence to know that the current efforts to protect cetaceans from the consequences of exposure to sonar and undoubtedly other intense anthropogenic sound are inadequate and that additional protection measures are therefore required.

We thus assert that the issue of cetacean strandings and mortalities arising from military exercises and sonar use has progressed well beyond the point of finding a smoking gun. Despite this, some senior government officials, particularly in the United States, are deliberately obstructing progress in mitigation and making the protection of cetaceans and their environment from sonar more difficult through deliberate and calculated measures, such as legislative changes. The question is no longer: can we find the smoking gun? It is: how can the governments of the world find the political will to act?

From:
Title: Navy sonar and cetaceans: Just how much does the gun need to smoke before we act?

Author: Parsons, E. C. M.; Dolman, Sarah J.; Wright, Andrew J.; Rose, Naomi A.; Burns, W. C. G.

Author Address: George Mason Univ, Dept Environm Sci and Policy, 4400 Univ Dr, Fairfax, VA 22030 USA.

Appears In: Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(7) JUL 2008. 1248-1257.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. Poor whales :^(

[KamaAina]

27. Isn't there somewhere the Navy could blast its horns that isn't whale habitat?

Aw shucks, it might be less convenient for them. :nopity: And more expensive, too. How ever would they do that on the shoestring military budgets of the past generation? :sarcasm:

[JuniperLea]

30. This makes me sick

Idiots! They have no sense! They are clueless about the delicate balance in our oceans... those rat bastards are going to kill us all yet. And in the name of defense, no less. The cure that kills. Cretins!

[The2ndWheel]

31. It certainly does suck, but

our primary weapon against the rest of life, economic growth, is still wanted, and we don't even need a SC decision for that. So this sonar stuff is just a byproduct of the real issue.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[PinkyisBlue]

40. A "deeply dividing" Supreme Court decision.

It's not hard to tell who voted how. The Repubs always vote against life (unless it has to do with unborn human life).
This decision is disheartening but not surprising.

[Cetacea]

44. This is no way to treat our troops

The Navy OWES dolphins and whales, big time. Most Navy folk have incredible respect and admiration for Cetacean intelligence and sonar capabilities, and they have been doing overt and covert missions for our miltary since the Vietnam war.

I am very surprised by this.

[Lionel Mandrake]

45. We have the dumbest supreme court in history.

Killing whales because of a hypothetical danger from a non-existent enemy. What could be dumber?

[Thothmes]

51. Dred Scott vs. Sandford comes to mind

as does Plessey vs. Fergurson, or maybe Kelo vs New London. The court makes mistakes, overtime they seem to get corrected.

[Lionel Mandrake]

53. Okay, I exaggerated.

The prize for Worst Supreme Court Decision is up for grabs. Your examples are good candidates.

[G_j]

46. bad karma, bad everything

more torture and cruelty.

[Kajsa]

49. Statement from the NRDC.

After the shock of this deplorable ruling,


http://www.nrdc.org/media/2008/081112.asp

Supreme Court Limits Protection for Whales from Navy Sonar

Four measures to safeguard marine mammals remain in place

WASHINGTON, DC (November 12, 2008) – Today, the nation’s highest court issued its decision regarding the Navy’s use of mid-frequency active sonar during training exercises in southern California.

"The Supreme Court held that the lower courts did not properly balance the competing interests at stake, and struck down two significant safeguards that reduce harm to whales from high-intensity sonar training,” said Joel Reynolds, senior attorney and director of NRDC’s marine mammal program. “The decision places marine mammals at greater risk of serious and needless harm. However it is a narrow ruling that leaves in place four of the injunction’s six safeguards. It is significant that the court did not overturn the underlying determination that the Navy likely violated the law by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement.”
"It is gratifying that the court did not accept the Navy’s expansive claims of executive power, and that two thirds of the injunction remains intact,” said Richard Kendall, NRDC co-counsel.
The Navy acknowledges that sonar can be deadly to marine mammals, and that the exercises at issue would “take” an estimated 170,000 marine mammals, including causing permanent injury to more than 500 whales and temporary deafness to at least 8,000 whales.