Subscription Center
Nov 12, 2008 03:02 PM | 16
The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision today ruled that the Navy does not have to consider the effect of sonar on whales when training with sonar off the coast of California. "The Court does not question the importance of plaintiffs' ecological, scientific and recreational interests, but it concludes that the balance of equities and consideration of the overall public interest tip strongly in favor of the Navy," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "The determination of where the public interest lies in this case does not strike the Court as a close question."
Environmentalists, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, which sued to stop the sonar exercises, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) charged that the high-intensity mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar blankets vast areas of the ocean with noise pollution, causing whales, including endangered beak whales, to beach and/or die. The Navy does not dispute the potential danger to the mammals, acknowledging in its own environmental assessments that the sonar may permanently damage as many as 500 whales and temporarily deafen at least 8,000 whales.
A lower court had imposed six injunctions on the Navy when using such sonar, including shutting it down when marine mammals are within 2,200 yards or when on the surface, a 12-mile no-sonar buffer zone off the coast of California and routine monitoring for marine mammals. NRDC senior attorney Joel Reynolds notes that the decision only obviates the need for the Navy to shut down such sonar but left in place the other protections.
The Navy also reached an agreement in September 2007 with a host of environmental groups to confine even more damaging low-frequency active (LFA) sonar—which remain strong for at least 300 miles and can be detected across entire oceans—to certain regions of the North Pacific.
"It does not need to be an either/or scenario when it comes to ensuring our country is secure and our marine wildlife is protected," says IFAW lawyer Nathaniel Wechsler "Our military can protect endangered species and meet our nation's security needs at the same time."
Credit: © Klaus Larsen/istockphoto.com
Tags:
navy,
supreme court,
sonar,
nrdc,
whales
More News Blog:
Next: Heart attack death gap narrowing between men and women
Previous: RFID in the hospital: Not so private eyes are watching you
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
16 Comments
Add CommentWhat about PLANETARY security?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just a different version of Cats Cradle.
Shame on the supreme court.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just dis-gust-ing. We are putting fear in place of compassion. This is on a par with the navy using dolphins as part of the war efforts. Thankfully Obama may have some input into these conservative, pro-war "supreme" court curmudgeons. Whales are the most magnificent animals on this whole planet--and that includes humans.
This is worse than a shame--it is a SIN.
The current administration and the supreme court have gone mad. All this craziness is going to destroy what's left of humanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is atrocious, and makes me hope for equally violent retaliation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can we chastise Japan for their "scientific" exploitation of cetateans when we destroy them in the interest of "national Security". We are either for saving the species or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 Is this really an appropriate question for the Supreme Court? 2 Are the members of the Supreme Court adequately trained as scientists and specialists in security? 3 When will we learn to protect our planet, and look for better ways to provide security? 4 Perhaps it's time to improve our international image. 5 And finally, I, also, am disappointed in the decision!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI went to the supreme court website and read the official documents pertaining to this outrage, then decided to write a letter to the secretary of navy, Winter; it is as follows:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Secretary Winter,
I simply can't believe the supreme courts decision on Winter v. NRDC inc. No one should be considered more important than the environment. It's asinine, and you should be as ashamed of yourself as I am. If you selfishly disregard the safety and preservation of the environment, you are ALSO disregarding the safety and preservation of our homeland. There are few threats to our way of life greater than the destruction of our environment. I am truly insulted for the sanctity of the environment and our great nation. There are ways of accomplishing safety for life on this planet as well as securing our defenses. Just make it known that we need to problem solve a way that will make everyone happy, while respecting all forms of life on earth. There are many scientists, engineers,and environmentalists who would proudly dedicate their lives to the conservation of the environment in terms of preserving national security. It's 2008, get with the program. Why think in black and white while we live in such a vibrant world of possibilities. It's those obsolete principles that got us in the crisis we're in. I hope the whales win in the end, but sadly I know that avarice always prevails. I realize we're American, but Just because they were here first doesn't mean we must pillage their home.
I like whales, but from these comments the publication should change it's name from "Scientific American" to "Romantic American". When people become less important than plants animals etc., it is the eco-romantics who have value issue problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJudges don't need to be scientists, they need to be judges. And so they are.
Just...Disappointing...thats all...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think it is actually anywhere near necessary to use this technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"When people become less important than plants animals etc., it is the eco-romantics who have value issue problems."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Value issue problems"? According to whom? You? And who are you? Ah, the one who sees humans importance as separate from plants and animals. Well, there's the root of your value issue problem. It's not an issue of more or less important. In case you've not been paying attention to the last 40 years of discovery, plants and animals (including marine animals and humans) are equally important, more so than ever before, since at 7 billion people, and healthy populations of everything else at all time critically low levels, we're locked more tightly in synergetic dependency with them. What's good for them is good for us, but what's good for us may be bad for us, if it's bad for them in between.
Or you could just not be an anthropocentric bigot.
Did anyone else try to read the casebook? the link is set right in the article yet no one mentions the fact that the Navy DID disupte the idea that they're sonar was deafening whales while the article said they didn't. There is no evidence saying the navy's sonar is injuring mammals or any other living thing in any way. might be a good idea to find out the facts before u start grabbing ur pitchforks and torches
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdid anyone care to read the casebook? the article states that the Navy didn't dispute the idea that they're deafening whales while in all actuality they did. There are no reports or evidence stating that the Navy's use of sonar is at all endangering animals. Best to find out the facts before grabbing your pitchforks and torches.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans are a virus to our host organism, the earth. There's no 'romanticism' involved in that understanding, Shoshin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree, Just more american style warmongering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of you people are idiots! What kind of backward logic tells you that whales are more important than members of your own species? This is not "an outrage." What's outrageous is that the our navy had restrictions on their training at all. I don't make my decisions based on fear. I make them based on intelligence. Do you really think whales would take the "compassionate" road were they in our position? Don't give them credit for that- I happen to know that none of you have ever heard a whales opinion on interspecies politics. In nature it's always been survival of the fittest, and if we choose to sacrifice our status as fittest because you eco-hippies got your way then we deserve to die.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven worse than all of this ridiculous nonsense about how wonderful whales are is the fact that all of you are overlooking what will happen when security is trumped by your feel-good crap. Sure it'd be nice to be guilt free about hurting whales, but I think I'd rather protect my family (I'm sure none of you PETA people care about other human beings, but I do.)